00:00
Speaker A
There's been some criticisms of the rule changes in terms of the stock donations that can be donated that perhaps it could tie a child's long time long-term financial security to one individual company or stock or that billionaire donors could theoretically dump millions of dollars of stock into kids' portfolios, manipulate asset prices or secure tax write-offs. What do you say to those concerns?
00:41
Speaker B
You know, these these seem like unlikely corner cases to me. I mean if you take uh so first of all, our gift it goes in the S&P 500, right? And that's also true of the government's gift and Ray, Barbara Dalio and Brad Gerstner. In the case of Gwen Shotwell, she's giving two million shares of SpaceX to uh you know, to to to two million children. It's kind of hard for me to believe that's a a bad thing, right? That that these children are going to somehow be negatively influenced because they now have one share of of SpaceX that they didn't have before, right? I mean the the alternative is they they didn't have it, right? So, it seems unlikely that that is some kind of devious plot to somehow influence these two million children. If anything, they're going to be interested in space and capitalism and how capital markets work and compounding and investing and it will spark an interest in them that hopefully, uh, you know, helps them as they become adults.
02:01
Speaker A
That's a good point. I mean, you'd have to give a lot of stock to have that amount of concentration, right, in any child's portfolio. Would you like to see the government take a bigger role in ensuring that this nation's youth has the financial know-how to invest and to budget properly?
02:22
Speaker B
I think one of the challenges is you have 38% of family households who had no stock at all. Right? And so there's really no reason to learn about capitalism or capital if you don't have any, right? And well, actually now we have 37 states where there is financial education that's already started.
