Have to unsubscribe since WSJ let Francesca go.

Whalen was the best. Snappy and informative. New hosts are floundering.

Good show, Oyin Adedoyin, not where she needs to be, too slow, too young, not enough economic depth. There are better choices.

Wonderful information!

I’ve been a daily listener for years. JR Whalen was a great host. The new people hosting the show are clearly just reading a script, very robotic and uninteresting.

I just found the reporting on the episode really uninteresting. It didn’t really say anything new. I felt like the Harvard name was used as a clickbait. Kinda disappointed.

The only intelligible thing that the host and guest said was that you should read the small print.

Embarrassed for WSJ’s sake that they talk about finance and election but forget to mention debt and deficits- (soon to be) the single most important national financial issue.

I like the short format to quickly learn about something, but there are some things that could be improved. My biggest pet peeve is that the most helpful information is all given away in the teaser. The rest of the episode feels repetitive and boring after that. Strange that such a short podcast can feel so long and drawn out. I like that it features a lot of younger reporters but the host often sounds patronizing or asks them obvious questions that seem beneath their intelligence. The information often ends up being very basic. And it can often be kind of tone deaf. The solution to catching up on retirement was “save more money.” … I think most people are aware they need more money…

Short but very informative. Great variety of interesting topics. My go to “daily”.

Your recent episode on “coordination tax” was poorly researched. It lacked evidence and specific examples. Then the reporter recommended consumers buy a product to solve this non-existing problem. This commercialization trend in your podcast is disappointing.

Love most of the WSJ podcasts, The Journal being my favorite, but this one really misses the mark. Info is too obvious, granular, and is not insightful. The content is something I would expect from a money segment on a KTLA morning news show, not WSJ.

If you can make it through ad nauseam ads, you’ll be dodging gen z reporters and their weird cadence when they speak. The half alert delivery and vapid content is getting way off its original content that drew me to this show 10 years ago. Someone introduce the 24 year old reporters to black coffee, reduce the ad to content ratio to anywhere less than 1:1, and report on anything that actually deals with the economy instead of this garbage sociology podcast.

The various topics are quick and informative. Some of the podcasts don’t apply to me, but knowing it never hurts.

Really not a lot of solid contents. When they casually pick a random topic every morning, they stretch it out as long as they can, repeating the same information over and over. My wife and I really listen to it for comedic value.

I enjoy the information presented in this podcast but at time I just have to stop listening because of the way the people speak with their voces shaking in a monotone way. I believe it’s called vocal fry and has become more and more rampant in speech today. Sad for me because I have a really hard time listening to it!

Pretty wild to listen to a WSJ financial advice podcast that regularly promotes being irresponsible with your money

Almost as much time devoted to ads as to content. The stories are ok, but I enjoy other WSJ shows that have more content for the same amount or less ads.

I expected a bit more from WSJ…this podcast is generally trite and pedantic ….which may be in fact the direction our US culture is headed….

No

Sometimes, the episode feels like it is aimed at kindergarten children in how basic the explanation is rather than adults.

I learn something new with Your Money Briefing every week. Informative and just plan fun to listen to.

Why no mention of the contract that the student entered into to repay? They spent the money and have a responsibility to pay it back.

At least there was transparency from the guest as he points out how the paused student loan payments could go toward his future rather than his past and the pause was liberating enabling him to "quit his job" and "buy a car". Well yes, that is a loan. You transfer future earnings to the present. You make a decision to borrow money that you agree to repay in the future and, of course, there are consequences. I'm stunned that the WSJ would platform a viewpoint that seems to imply student loans should have been forgiven and it is somehow negative that they must be repaid. "Forgiveness" of student loans would really mean socializing the cost. Not only unconstitutional, but would also create moral hazard.

It tackle a daily problem and explain it. Pretty informative on a daily basis.

The guest you had on this episode comes across as a person who thinks the world revolves around her and everyone should adjust. Most of what she thinks would be good for work from homers already takes place…in the office and around it. This guest was one of the most annoying individuals you have ever had on this podcast.

It is distracting and interferes with the actual intent of the podcast.

Get rid of the incessant ads for the Future of Everything podcast. Too much, particularly for paying WSJ subscribers.

Thanks for your home buying series. So interesting and helpful

This in the only podcast I’ve ever listened to that has a commercial less than a minute into the episode.

Did I (and Fidelity and Vanguard) sleep through some important info? They and I were under the impression that 2021 was the only year RMDs could be avoided.

Please stop spreading misinformation. The accurate name is “Inflation Act” with no “Reduction” in there. Spending more doesn’t reduce inflation.

The show on the IRS hiring 87,000 agents. If I want the government narrative I would listen to MSNBC. I want analysis of what will actually happen not the narrative.

Because it is so short, about 1/3 of the episode ends up being an ad. The info is also really just a briefing and only covers a headline with a little more information.

I really appreciate the piece on IRA to Roth IRA conversion. I will do exactly as advised and convert gradually. Thank you so much.

Timely, useful financial info delivered efficiently. I love it!

Can we seriously cut down C3 AI adds? or maybe make it more fun, interesting?

What is that terrible screeching sound at the beginning of each podcast?? It started appearing maybe around late December ‘21. WSJ has a tough task on hand because a lot of young folks are entering the financial world these days, and so WSJ has been releasing some podcasts that offer tips and guidelines for rookies who are learning the ropes of personal finance. That makes some episodes too skippable for those who have been at it financially for years. Sometimes I still listen to those episodes geared towards young folks but I’d prefer each episode to be more deeply informative.

IScreeching sound at the start of the podcast must be fixed

Ok- 5 stars because I love the content and JR is great to listen to. Fantastic content. With that said, since the start of 2022 there is this glitchy high pitch intro on the sound track that is loud and KILLS your ears. What happened and please fix it - a concerned and avid WSJ listener

I love podcasts and app.

Good content, but the audio is terrible. There is some kind of screechy sound at the start and the mic levels are unbalanced. Catching up on several episodes after the holidays and really annoying to have the podcast screech at me then can’t hear the interviews.

Since the people being interviewed know the questions in advance, why do their answers almost always refer to generalities rather than specifics? And how can your interviewees and hosts ignore obvious and in your face true answers? Example- just listened to a podcast that stated Americans have $1.6 Trillion in “excess” savings. How could neither the host nor the interviewee not mention the trillions of dollars the government has thrown into the economy over the past year? One of the biggest answers to why “excess” savings is obviously that most Americans received a ton of money from the federal government over the past year, and the majority of those Americans never lost any income and therefore didn’t need those “relief” funds. When you miss such an obvious point, it hurts your credibility.

J.R.’s audio is outputting very low and base-y. The audio team needs to address this.

You hear a commercial and then not even 45 seconds to a minute into the show you have to listen to it again. Bad enough to stop me from listening

…which was the car lease v. buy episode. The personal finance reporter’s description of car acquisition was biased towards leasing (a complex and typically more expensive way to acquire a car), lacked nuance and was unsophisticated. I heard too many things wrong with the reporter’s description to list here. My advice: don’t do anything based on what you hear in this podcast. We should expect more savvy and detail from the reporter for a financial publication.

Good podcast!!

I listen to what’s news, money, and tech news. The same commercial is played at the beginning and end of the podcast. Do you understand how irritating that is? I don’t mind ads but you need to vary them up. I will never support companies that you repetitively advertise.

This has the best briefing on Social Security (SS). I have had the same beliefs in SS. I have always approached SS as an annuity to maximize.

JR Whalen’s voice is consistently quieter than all the guests on the show. Please make sure that the volumes are the same. Also, stop asking cookie cutter questions!!