Kevin Garrett - Integrated Financial Group

04/29/2026

12.5% of U.S. households earn $200,000 or more — but that number swings dramatically depending on where you live.

In Washington, D.C., more than one in four households reaches that threshold. Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Maryland are all above 20%. Meanwhile, in West Virginia and Mississippi, fewer than one in fifteen households earns at that level — and seven of the ten lowest-ranked states are in the South.

This matters for financial planning in ways that often go unnoticed. A $200K household income puts a family in very different financial circumstances depending on their zip code — local tax burdens, housing costs, and cost of living vary enormously. The number alone doesn’t tell you much about actual purchasing power or wealth-building capacity. Geography shapes what income actually means.

If you’re advising clients or managing your own finances, the question worth asking isn’t just what you earn — it’s what that income actually buys where you live.

04/28/2026

LIV Golf is reportedly losing its funding.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to stop backing the league after 2026. The CEO confirmed the season continues as planned — but didn’t say much about what comes after.

The numbers are hard to ignore. Over $5 billion invested since 2022, broadcast rights generating just $2.7 million in reported income, and total losses exceeding $1.1 billion since launch. This is what a business looks like when capital is doing the work that revenue is supposed to do.

It’s a pattern that shows up in other sovereign-backed ventures — from the SoftBank Vision Fund to state-sponsored soccer clubs — where patient capital reshapes an industry before the economics are tested. At some point the funding becomes more measured, and what was built has to stand on its own.

LIV did change professional golf. Purses went up, players gained real leverage, and the sport’s economics shifted. That part is probably lasting.

But there’s a difference between changing an industry and building a sustainable business inside it. When the capital picture shifts, that distinction is what gets tested.

04/27/2026

The NFL is under DOJ investigation — and it says more about the media business than it does about football.

A 1961 law gave the NFL the right to bundle and sell broadcast rights collectively. That structure helped build the most valuable media engine in professional sports.

The problem: it was designed for free, over-the-air television.

Today, NFL games are spread across 10 different platforms — Amazon, YouTube, Netflix, Peacock, ESPN, and others. The FCC estimates a fan could spend over $1,500 a year to watch every game. The DOJ’s stated focus is straightforward: affordability for consumers and a level playing field for providers.

It’s not just regulators. Fox and Sinclair have raised similar concerns with the FCC, arguing games shouldn’t sit behind paywalls. Media companies paying billions for rights are pushing back on rising costs. Congressional pressure has been building for months.

The Sports Broadcasting Act hasn’t been seriously tested in the streaming era. That’s about to change.

If regulators move, the ripple effects go well beyond football — touching how every major league packages content, and what consumers ultimately pay for access.

Worth watching closely.

04/24/2026

The IPO market is showing signs of life—and the names being discussed aren’t small.

When a company valued near $1.5–$2 trillion goes public, it reshapes indexes. Funds tied to major benchmarks have no choice but to buy, and they buy in size. That creates forced demand, potential price distortions, and real concentration questions for anyone who owns an index fund. But for investors considering direct ownership, the structure deserves as much attention as the valuation.

The proposed dual-class share structure would give Elon Musk 10 votes per share, permanently concentrating voting control while public shareholders hold the economic exposure. Executive compensation is tied to milestones that include a Mars colony and space-based data centers—targets with no clear timeline or financial basis for evaluation. The prospectus also includes a mandatory arbitration clause that would eliminate the right to bring class-action lawsuits, a first for a major IPO under recent SEC rule changes.

Then there’s the Cursor acquisition. SpaceX has an option to buy the AI coding company for $60 billion—structured to avoid disrupting the IPO timeline. The deal isn’t complete. It won’t appear in the prospectus. But it will almost certainly feature in the roadshow. That means prospective shareholders are being asked to factor in a $60 billion strategic bet with no audited financials, no disclosed risk factors, and no formal basis for evaluation.

That gap between what’s being promised and what’s actually disclosed is worth understanding before you buy.

04/23/2026

Alabama just guaranteed Kalen DeBoer $92 million through 2033 — a $2 million raise per year, despite a 38-3 Rose Bowl exit to close last season.

The football story is interesting. The contract structure is more interesting.

His agent, Jimmy Sexton, built a deal where Alabama owes DeBoer 90% of his remaining salary if they fire him — with no obligation for DeBoer to find another job to offset those payments. Firing him right now costs $67.5 million.

What's easy to miss in the coverage is that the leverage wasn't really about DeBoer's record. It was structural. When Michigan came calling, Alabama's cost to keep him was low — a $5 million departure fee under the original deal. Sexton used that window to reprice the entire relationship. By the time the item hit the Board of Trustees agenda — added at the last minute — DeBoer was locked in at $12.5 million annually, tying him with Ohio State's Ryan Day for fourth among known coaching salaries. Curt Cignetti leads the list at $13.2 million after winning the national title; Smart and Kiffin sit just behind him at $13 million.

A few things worth noting for anyone advising athletes or high-earning clients as I do:

— Long-term guarantees matter more than headline salary. The no-mitigation clause is where the real security lives.
— Leverage windows close. Sexton moved when Alabama was exposed, not after.
— Public statements don't reflect private negotiations. DeBoer was saying all the right things publicly about staying — that's not a contradiction, it's positioning.

02/23/2026

When an American skater like Alysia Liu wins Olympic gold, the assumption is instant wealth, but the numbers tell a more complicated story.

Gold currently pays $37,500 from the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee. That’s small relative to the cost of getting there. Senior-level figure skating often runs $120,000–$200,000 per year when you factor in coaching, ice time, choreography, travel, sports psychology, strength training, and elite competition expenses. Over a decade, total family investment can exceed $1–2 million.

The financial opportunity comes afterward. A gold medal can unlock seven figures in endorsements and touring income over a short window. The planning challenge is that income is concentrated, highly taxed, and dependent on staying relevant.

This is where financial planning structure matters. Coordinated tax strategy, liquidity reserves, diversified investing, and long-term cash-flow planning determine whether that moment of glory funds decades of security.

Elite sports resemble venture capital, with significant upfront capital investments with a compressed payout window. Discipline, planning and diversification usually determines the outcome.

02/20/2026

Today’s Supreme Court ruling limiting the administration’s tariff authority wasn’t a big surprise to me. I’ve been saying in my meetings for months that the rationale for the tariffs was on thin legal ice. The question I had was whether the Supreme Court, which has consistently sided with the administration, would support them or push back. When sweeping economic policy leans on expansive executive interpretation, the judiciary often pushes back.

I don’t expect this to be the end of trade policy debates. Legal challenges may continue for years under different statutes. The administration has signaled that there are alternative ways to maintain the tariff policies that they want, including the House modifying the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trade policy will remain a political tool, and further legal challenges are likely to unfold over time. There is also the question of the government paying back the taxes that have been collected, which I think ultimately will be tied up in court for years to come.

Markets responded constructively on Friday morning because uncertainty declined. Tariffs function as a consumer tax on imported goods. Even the federal government acknowledged this week that 90% of tariffs are absorbed by the consumer. This follows other studies by independent sources that have the number between 91-96%. Limiting them eases pressure on supply chains and input costs. That’s incrementally supportive for corporate margins.

But it’s important to separate narratives from data.

Tariffs primarily affect goods. Goods are not the dominant driver of inflation today. Services account for roughly 60% of the CPI basket, and over the past year, services inflation — housing, healthcare, insurance, wage-intensive sectors — has contributed more to headline inflation than goods. Goods disinflation has already been occurring in many areas. That helps explain why bond markets did not price tariff policy as a structural inflation spiral.

On the Treasury side, another common concern is foreign demand. The foreign share of U.S. debt ownership has declined over the past decade, largely because total federal debt has expanded significantly. In absolute terms, foreign investors still hold more than $9 trillion in Treasuries — near record levels.

There’s also a quieter dynamic worth noting. If reduced tariffs modestly lower consumer prices, disposable income improves at the margin. Even a small lift in household savings expands the domestic pool of capital available to purchase government debt. That supports bond market resilience over time.

None of this changes the fiscal math. Deficits are still elevated. Debt-to-GDP remains historically high. Over time, those numbers matter.

What Friday’s ruling does reinforce is something more foundational. Institutional guardrails are functioning, and the separation of powers is intact. Major economic policy can be tested and reviewed. Markets operate within a framework of rules, not impulses.

For investors, that framework carries more weight than any single headline. When institutions are credible, risk premiums tend to stay contained. When rules are predictable, capital is deployed more confidently. That stability supports long-term returns far more than short-term political wins or losses.

NOTE:: I often post more real-time comments on the markets, investing, financial planning as well as some lifestyle posts that I find interesting and want to share on my LinkedIn page: www.linkedin.com/in/KevinGarrettifg.

Financial Strategist for Business Owners, Women in Transition & Professional Athletes | Exit & Liquidity Planning | Stock Options | Legacy Wealth Architect

02/14/2026

When clients ask me about cars, they expect a performance answer. I usually give them a financial one.

Consumer Reports’ 2026 predicted reliability rankings are out, and the gap between brands is wider than many realize. Toyota (66) leads the list, followed by Subaru (63), Lexus (60), and Honda (59). BMW rounds out the top five at 58. At the lower end, Jeep (28), Ram (26), and Rivian (24) bring up the rear.

One notable mover: Tesla (50) jumped eight spots, driven by stronger reliability in the Model 3 and Model Y.

Why does this matter financially?

Reliability flows directly into total cost of ownership. Fewer problems mean lower repair bills, less downtime, stronger resale values, and often lower insurance and warranty costs. Over five to ten years, that difference can easily run into the thousands. Depreciation alone can swing dramatically based on brand reputation for durability.

A car is not an investment. It is a depreciating asset. But choosing a more reliable one protects cash flow and preserves optionality.

Smart financial planning is often about avoiding preventable friction. This is one of those places.

02/14/2026

Just because income numbers have ticked up over the last few years doesn’t mean every state’s economy is moving at the same pace — or even in the same direction. Visual Capitalist lays out median household income growth from 2019–2024, and the patterns are telling: opportunity isn’t evenly distributed. https://lnkd.in/enY537Di

📊 Fastest Rising Incomes:
• Colorado: +46.9%
• Georgia: +43.4%
• Maine: +36.3%
• Montana: +36.1%
• Tennessee: +34.0%

These aren’t just numbers — they reflect job markets, demographic shifts, and local economic momentum. For professionals thinking about relocation, businesses eyeing expansion, or planners assessing risk and opportunity, geographic income trends matter.

Growth that’s above average signals competitive advantage — and states outperforming the national median deserve a closer look.

02/11/2026

I’ve been around long enough to know markets don’t wait for disruption to show up in earnings. They price the fear of it first.

Here’s the thought experiment making the rounds: build an AI tool for a specific industry, announce it with just enough ambiguity about “post-AGI economics,” and watch the incumbents drop 7–10% in a day. In theory, you short the industry, roll out the product, and let volatility do the rest.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But look at what just happened. A tax-strategy tool from a relatively unknown startup sparked a sharp selloff in firms like Schwab, Raymond James, and LPL. No collapse in revenue. No guidance cuts. Just perceived disruption.

This is the new reflex in markets: sell first, analyze later.

As a financial professional, I see two realities. First, AI will reshape margins, pricing power, and labor models across sectors. Second, markets can over-discount uncertain futures and fear gets capitalized quickly.

The real takeaway isn’t to trade the panic. It’s to understand how narrative risk now moves trillions before fundamentals ever change. That’s the environment we’re investing in.