transcript
Speech-to-text transcription can look a little quirky. Please excuse any grammar or spelling errors.
Episode #550 - Roth 401K or Not, When Should I Switch?
Roger: The show is a proud member of the Retirement Podcast Network.
Welcome to the show dedicated to helping you not just survive retirement, but to have confidence because you're doing the right work to really lean in and rock it.
My name is Roger Whitney. By day, I'm a practicing retirement planner with over 30 years’ experience. Oh man, that's a lot. A lot of time. Man, I just shocked myself. Founder of Agile. Retirement management, and over the last 10 years or so, I've used this podcast for two things. One is to improve my craft as a retirement planner, been a great journey there, but also to empower you to plan for retirement in such a way and to manage your retirement. So, you can get on to creating a great life and not make this a new job. That's the whole point of the exercise.
Today on the show, we're going to answer Nolan's question about whether he should switch from a traditional to Roth contribution for his 401k. We're going to answer a number of your questions, and then lastly, we're going to share some perspectives of people that are currently retired so you can get a glimpse of the other side and their perspective on what's important and what's not important.
Now, if you enjoy the show, you're going to love our 6-Shot Saturday email, It's our weekly email where we share a recap of the show links to resources that we mention, and also you get to hit reply if you want and say hi to me or ask me a question or I don't know Tell me how you're doing so you can sign up for that at rogerwhitney.com or sixshotsaturday.com.
With that said let's get on with the show
DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SWITCH TO A ROTH 401K?
Our title question comes from Nolan related to 401k contributions.
Nolan: Hi, Roger. I've been a listener for the last few years. I want to, first of all, thank you for what you do. It's always educational and definitely inspirational and always provides great reminders for me.
Just a little bit of background information. I'm 53 years old. I plan to retire at age 60. I feel I'm on track financially. I currently have about 700, 000 in taxable accounts, about 1. 2 million in traditional IRA or 401k about 300,000 in a Roth IRA. I've always contributed to a traditional 401k at work. I try to max it out, but usually get a refund after our compliance testing. We now have an option for a Roth 401k, and I'm wondering if it makes sense to switch to a Roth 401k for the next seven years to possibly avoid RMDs in the future.
Thanks again for all of your advice. I love the show.
Roger: Thanks for providing a very clear fact set there, Nolan, about your current situation.
This is definitely an optimization question. None of this is going to make a material difference in the trajectory of your retirement, but it could enhance it in some way. If you can make a good judgment, call here, and that's exactly what this is, Nolan, this is a judgment call. There is no crystal-clear answer to this. Just like there isn't for most. Decisions. That's why you want to be very organized. So, whether you should or not, I don't actually have the answer because there isn't one, but let's think through it in an organized way so you can get to a judgment that you're comfortable with.
All right, so has a seven-year time frame before retirement, 700 and after tax, 1. 2 million in pretax, 300 in Roth. So, we are observing your current situation. Let's observe a few more things here, Nolan.
Number one is, what tax bracket do you expect to be in over the next seven years? Is it the 24 percent bracket, which if you're single, is just over 100, 500 in 2024? If it's joint, It's just over 201, 000. What tax bracket do you expect to be in over these next seven years? Because that's the way you can calculate the tax that you're going to be paying on these Roth contributions if you were to change.
So, if we assume, Nolan, let's put the means testing aside for simplicity sake, let's assume you're able to contribute the maximum. So, in 2024, that's 30, 500 in contributions to the 401k. If you switch to Roth contributions, and if we assume that you're in the 24 percent tax bracket, just on the federal, that's going to be an extra 7, 320 more per year in taxes that you're going to have to pay. You're either going to lower your contributions, which sort of defeats the point, to improve cash flow, or you're going to have to pay for that from monies that you're receiving from your income, or perhaps selling some money from your after-tax assets. You're going to have a tax bill every single year. We want to observe that.
Next thing we want to observe is what does your income in retirement look like? Are you going to go from a high earner to zero, and then you can manage how you realize taxes? Or are you going to have maybe deferred compensation come in at age 60 or pensions start that are going to move your tax bracket around later in life? You'll want to have a read on that and maybe just do a very simple spreadsheet. to map out your expected income during retirement, because that's going to impact where you pull money to fund your life after you leave work.
The last thing you want to observe is given your 1. 2 million in pretax assets, what does it look like from a required minimum distribution when you have to take that? That'd be at age 75. So, if we just take the 1. 2 million, Nolan, we apply a 5 percent growth rate, let's just assume no contributions or withdrawals, that would grow to 5, 316, 000 at age 75, which is the current rules of when you would be required to take distributions, assuming a 5 percent growth rate, you can change that growth rate. So, no more contributions, 5 percent growth rate. Your first year RMD using the current your table of life expectancy, and that changes all the time, would be just over 216, 000. Now we have an idea of what potential RMDs are, and if you continue to fund pretax assets, that will increase those required minimum distribution estimates, right?
What's not factored in here, Nolan, is that perhaps at age 60 you start doing either strategic withdrawal from your pretax assets to maybe manage your tax rates or do Roth conversions when you're not in such a high tax bracket. So, you want to have a scaffolding of seeing this stuff so you can get an idea to the decision that you're pondering here.
There's definitely a lot of benefits to having Roth assets. Obviously, they're tax free forever. They don't have required minimum distributions. Qualified distributions don't apply to modified adjusted gross income for ACA tax credits or IRMAA surcharge calculations. So, there's some benefits to having Roth assets in terms of flexibility.
Okay, now let's orient a little bit. Let's just do some basic math here. So, let's approach it from a different angle now, now that you've categorized all of those just on a, say, a spreadsheet or even a pad of paper. If, Nolan, you contribute 30, 500 per year for the next seven years, and we apply a 5 percent growth rate, that's going to grow to 291, 247. With these assumptions, it doesn't matter whether you do that pretax or post tax, right? It'll either be pretax 291, 000 or post tax meaning Roth, but then that would be taxable whenever you drew it out and have the issues that you brought up. But if you make Roth contributions, then that would grow to about 291, 247 because the math still works the same, but the other thing you might factor in there, Nolan, is you're going to have an additional expense each year of 7, 320. Well, over seven years is 58, 560. If we apply a 5 percent growth rate, assuming that is money that you're investing in after-tax, that would grow to just shy of 70, 000. So, if you switch to a Roth, you're going to have your 291, 000 tax free forever, and that's going to add to your Roth contribution. If you maintain your pretax contributions, you'd still have the 921, 000, but it would be taxed, and you would have required minimum distributions, and if you took withdrawals, that could impact ACA tax credits and or IRMAA. But you would also have an extra 70, 000 in after-tax assets because you would be able to invest that money on an annual basis rather than pay the tax. So that comes down to 361, 000. Not quite as clear as we thought, assuming you're paying the tax out of hand.
The key question here is, do you prefer to pay the tax now at a known rate or defer to unknown future rates in the future because you'll be taxed in the future. There's a lot of advantages to Roth. If you value flexibility and optionality, and paying the tax now, then Roth makes the most sense. If you say, wow, I'm in a really high tax bracket right now, and my RMD estimate isn't too extreme, maybe I will continue on this path and I can do qualified withdrawals and or Roth conversions when I'm a much lower tax bracket later.
I don't know what the answer is, Nolan. You're not going to know what the answer is. But if you think through it in, okay, let me orient. What is more important to me, building up these tax-free buckets via Roth? Great. Do that. Or man, I'm in a high tax bracket. It's going to be pretty onerous to pay those taxes. I'll just keep deferring for a period of time. Now we can get more complicated in this with the calculations. We can talk about if you're married, that one of you will be in a single bracket at some point. It's very easy to go down the rabbit hole of precision here, but I think in your case, you're on a good path. If you observe these things, just make a judgment call. The good thing about this judgment call, Nolan, is literally this is a two-way decision, so I think that makes it a lot easier to not overthink this, especially because you're on track, but I would start to think through it in an organized way and just trust yourself knowing you can change it later on.
One last thing to think about before switching it to a 401k contribution, Nolan, is can you do Roth contributions? If you make too much money to be able to do Roth contributions, can you do nondeductible contributions to an IRA and then convert them to a Roth and get more money in that way first that way you can maintain the tax savings on your pretax. Now that's going to probably require that you don't have a lot of individual retirement accounts and they're all in qualified plans in order to deal with them, the factor rule. But that's something to consider.
Second thing to consider is could you switch to a health savings account or a high deductible medical policy, if you don't want to have one already and be able to save tax deduction on the way into a health savings account and for qualified medical expenses tax free on the way out, that would be another way of moving some money to a bucket where you actually get a deduction. on your taxes and it can be tax free for qualified medical expenses before you go down the route of switching your 401k to a Roth option.
Some things to think about, Nolan. Hopefully this helps you get to a better place to decide.
With that, let's get to some of your questions.
LISTENER QUESTIONS
Now it's time to answer your questions. If you have a question for the show, go to askroger.me and you can type in that question and even audio question and we'll do our best to help you on the show.
AN IRMAA SURCHARGE QUESTION
Our first question comes from Charles related to IRMAA surcharge calculations. We talked a lot about this just the other week.
So Charles situation, he and his wife are 62 Charles, you retired in 2024, you said, and you're going to be 63 this year, same year that you're retiring, and you have a large concentrated stock that you're going to sell in a reallocation plan, which is going to create a large capital gain that you calculate will put you to the second, to the top of the IRMAA surcharge brackets and IRMAA surcharges are on Medicare.
He said,
"I heard on the show that the tax returns for the year that you turned 63 will drive the IRMAA evaluation for Medicare when I turned 65. and that there are times you can submit for reconsideration. I would appreciate your help navigating this."
So, you're correct, Charles. Let's talk through this.
The year you turn 63, that's the tax return they're going to use for the first year that you qualify for Medicare at age 65, because they're always going to look at the tax return two years prior. So, this year's return is going to drive that IRMAA calculation for when you're 65 in 2026, and because of this large capital gain, when you look at the IRMAA surcharge brackets, this is going to put you second to highest so it's going to cost you thousands of dollars in surcharges for Medicare Part B and Part D. A couple of things to think about here.
Number one is, That it's a year-by-year calculation so in 2026, if you get an IRMAA surcharge in the second to the highest bracket, that's only going to last for that year. And then the following year, 2027, they're going to look at your 2025 tax return, which you said will be much more normal. and then they'll recalculate and take away the entire IRMAA or put it wherever it needs to be. It's not an always and forever calculation. I think you had intimated that.
Two, especially when you're 65, some of the severity of it depends on your birthday, right? I was born in January. So, if you were born in January and you turned 65 in 2024, you have 11, 12 months of these IRMAA surcharges, whereas if you're born in November or December of this year, you may only have a month or two of this really high IRMAA surcharge.
Third thing you want to think about is you're using the IRMAA surcharges shown in the 2024 important numbers, this year's IRMAA surcharges. Those income brackets will get indexed by inflation in whatever calculation they do. So perhaps you won't be quite as high as you think you're going to be. So, there's some things to consider there.
Now, you are correct. There are eight life changing events where you can petition, essentially, the Social Security Administration to say, hey, can you reconsider this and give me an exemption on this because I've had these big life changing events. Work stoppage is one of them, and it sounds like you retired this year as well.
So, in 2026, when you're turning 65, you can submit to the social security administration and say, hey, I qualify under these, one of these life changing events, work stoppage, I retired. Can you give me some relief here? The form you're going to use for that is SSA/44, we will put a link to that in 6-Shot Saturday so you can inspect that form. You don't need to file it now because you're a year or two out, but you can show that, hey, I had this life changing event. Perhaps that will give you total relief or partial relief from moving up the brackets due to this large capital gain because capital gain is not a consideration for getting an exemption.
Whatever they calculate for you while you're going through this process, it's important to pay whatever the social security says you're supposed to pay because this can take a while and ultimately when they do make their judgment, they will refund you and true that up. So, you're correct. You will be able to qualify for a life changing event, the work stoppage or retirement this year. How that works with long term capital gains, you'll have to work through that form so I definitely would download that form from our 6-Shot Saturday email. So, you can start to understand and strategize for getting some relief.
CAN YOU USE THE RULE OF 55 FOR A SOLO 401K?
Our next question comes from Tim.
It's actually related to an answer I gave some weeks ago to a business owner with a solo 401k plan, wanting to know that if they're over 55, and they retire, can they use the rule of 55 for their solo 401k? We'd answer, that's pretty problematic because if you're a sole proprietor, you have a 401k, you retire, the business closes. The business doesn't maintain a 401k if there's no business, so using the rule of 55 in order to be able to access 401k assets prior to age. 59 and a half can be a little bit problematic.
Tim's offered a suggestion.
"I was wondering if he separated his employment, could he just roll his solo 401k into an IRA and then use the 72T method for calculation?"
Well, Tim, you're exactly right. So, let's talk about what Tim's referring to here. There is a provision in the tax code called 72T, that's the section, that allows for someone to access their IRA assets prior to age 59 and a half without penalty, and really anybody can do this if you follow the rules, what's called the 72T.
This is based on three IRS approved methods, required minimum distribution, fixed amortization, and fixed annuitization, and these will allow anybody actually to be able to access money from their IRA. The problem with this is that they can be very restrictive. Once you start it, you have to continue it and you're not able to take more than what the calculation allows for. There are three different methods of calculation. We'll put a link to a Fidelity 72T calculator in 6-Shot Saturday for those of you that want to learn more about this. But that is an option. I have never used this in my practice because it tends to be too restrictive to be very productive.
A BACKDOOR ROTH QUESTION
Our next question is an audio question from Jessica related to backdoor Roth contributions.
Jessica: Hi, Roger. This is Jessica from Portland, Oregon. I'm a new listener and I really appreciate your podcast and resources. They're just great.
So, I have a Roth question. I have a Roth IRA and an after-tax traditional IRA within the same fund. The traditional was opened because a few years ago I exceeded the allowable income level and had to re characterize that year's Roth contributions. into a traditional IRA. In addition, there was a year when I deposited funds into my traditional IRA and requested the backdoor transfer, but the company never did it and I didn't catch it in time to fix it before the end of that year.
Are any of those traditional IRA funds eligible for me to use as my backdoor Roth money in future years? If so, I'm guessing I'd only be able to use my contributions as backdoor funds as earnings in that traditional IRA would not have been taxed yet. Is that correct?
Thanks so much. I appreciate everything and look forward to hearing from you.
Roger: It's a great question, Jessica, that really hits on a couple different issues when we're talking about backdoor Roth contributions.
First, backdoor Roth contributions are not anything that is in the IRS code. It is just a name practitioners have for a loophole in the tax code in order to get money into a Roth IRA if you're over the income limits. That is, you do an after-tax contribution to an IRA, and then you do a Roth conversion of that contribution to a Roth account. Put together, we use the term backdoor Roth contribution to describe that structure of an after-tax contribution and then a Roth conversion. There's nothing else to it than that.
In your case, you did an after-tax contribution to an IRA, but failed to convert it in that year and then you had a re characterization that is still an after-tax contribution in a traditional IRA that just sort of sat there and all of this money has been invested and you want to know how you clean this up. This can actually impact if you were to make an after-tax contribution this year or next year and then try to move that money over.
For you and I, you see the thread of these after tax contributions with your intent to move it to a Roth via a conversion. The IRS doesn't look at it that way, Jessica. Here is how you would go about cleaning this up to make sure that you report this correctly. I'm going to use some assumptions on some numbers here.
Let's assume your recharacterization and your after-tax contribution equaled 14, 000. So those were nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA, and this has gone on for a little bit. You had that money invested and it's grown. So, let's assume that it grew to 16, 000. So, you have a 16, 000 IRA with 14, 000 of it being already taxed and then 2, 000 not taxed. Now you want to move this to a Roth via a Roth conversion. In your mind, you're thinking backdoor Roth, but it doesn't work that way.
Let's assume you went and did your 14, 000 that you know is after tax money and you just move that to your Roth thinking that you were cleaning up these backdoor Roth contributions that you're going to make.
Here's what the IRS is going to look at. They're going to say, wait a second, you have a 16, 000 IRA, and you move 14, 000. So, they're going to say, well, what part of that 16, 000 is taxable and what part isn't? So, you would take the 14, 000 that was already taxed divided by the total amount of the entire IRA and it's going to say oh 87. 5 percent of that 14, 000 contribution Jessica shouldn't be taxed on, so it's going to take 87. 5 multiplied by your conversion, which is your 14, 000 in this example, and say, well, 12, 250 of that conversion is not taxable, and it's also going to say, well, then the rest of it, is taxable, which is 12 and a half percent of that 14, 000 contribution, which works out to 1, 750. The IRS is going to use what's called the pro rata rule, going through these calculations of taking an IRA, the total amount of the nontaxable portion, divided by the total amount of the traditional IRA to get to a pro rata percentage of what amount is taxable and what amount isn't because it's not following the thread that you followed in your question. It doesn't mean that you can't do it.
So, if you move that 14, 000 in this example, then you would owe tax on about 1, 750 of the conversion. This is one reason why people that do backdoor Roths don't want to have any at least not a lot in IRA assets because the IRS is going to look at all the IRAs, doesn't matter whether at different firms or not, they just see the IRA assets that are pre-tax. They do not look at 401k assets.
So, you'd want to apply the Pro Rata rule, and we'll put a link to that in our 6-Shot Saturday email, so you can follow along with the math and do that calculation for yourself.
A FIVE-YEAR RULE ROTH IRA QUESTION
We have a question from Al related to the infamous five-year rule for Roth IRAs.
Al says,
"I know you've covered this every which way from Sunday, but I must have missed one aspect.
Does the five-year rule for Roth IRAs apply to each individual account or once you've opened a Roth IRA, it covers all subsequent Roth IRAs? Case in point, we have Roth IRAs that have been open for 15 plus years. We're both in our 60s. As I understand it, we've met the two requirements for those IRAs so that all withdrawals, earnings, and contributions are tax free.
My question is, if I open up a new Roth IRA, say at another investment firm, do the earnings from that account have to wait five years to be tax free?"
Al, no, it doesn't. The IRS, similar to Jessica's question of the pro rata rule, the IRS just looks at the first Roth IRA that you ever opened and that is going to drive that five-year rule for all subsequent Roth IRAs related to contribution so hopefully that clears it up.
AN ORGANIZED SOCIAL SECURITY QUESTION
Our final question today comes from Scott related to his Social security decision with him and his spouse wanting to just make sure he's not making a mistake here.
Scott: Hi Roger.
My name is Scott and I am 67 years old and I will retire at the end of this year.
My wife is three months younger than I am, so she is also 67. My Social Security full retirement age, because of my age, is 66 and a half. So is my wife's, but she chose to stay home and raise our kids, and so she is not eligible for Social Security on her own record. She will have to take advantage of the half share of my benefit. I could have waited until age 70 to start social security, but when I started calculating the breakeven point between going ahead and taking it at full retirement age and waiting until the max at age 70, I had to take into account the fact that my wife would also have to wait until I'm 70 years old before she could start taking her spousal half share and that half share benefit would be based on my full retirement age amount not increasing like mine would at my age, 70 max. Because we would be leaving 3 years of benefits on the table for her. I decided to go ahead and start both our benefits at full retirement age.
Now, I realized that at some point in my mid to late 80s, waiting would have resulted in me collecting more social security benefits. But I thought the risks of not living that long of Social security benefits being reduced because of the funds shortage and a means test possibly being imposed on me at some point in the future.
All those risks would offset the risk of missing out on collecting more social security money down the road.
Am I wrong?
Roger: Love that simple question.
Scott, first off, was very impressed with how organized your question was and how specific you were on the fact set, the logic behind it, how you oriented to different possibilities to get to your decision. That is really key in your comments was that you thought through this in a very organized way to get to your judgment call.
The answer to your question, are you wrong? No, you're not.
Given the facts that you gave me, that sounds totally reasonable. This is more of an optimization question around benefit maximization, and my guess is that this isn't going to have a significant impact in the trajectory of your life or your retirement. So no, Scott, you're not wrong. The fact that both of you are the same age, she doesn't qualify at all. You would have to wait three more years for her benefit and your benefit.
Mathematically, whether you wait or not, if you live to normal life expectancy, it all works out to be equal. It's only when you start living longer. I like your decision. If you had told me you had decided to wait, I might have brought up the points that she couldn't start Social Security because she doesn't have a record, and that it's not going to be based on you at age 70, but that still would have been an acceptable decision if you thought through it logically.
That's the key thing I want to say here is bravo on that.
With that, let's move to some perspectives from people that have retired before you.
WISDOM FROM THOSE ON THE JOURNEY
Our first perspective is from Elaine.
WHAT I WISH I HAD KNOWN
Elaine says,
"I am not quite 70. However, I feel like I can provide perspective to listeners on what it's like to be retired. Love this question.
First question was, what do I wish I would have known in the last two decades?
From my view, it being roughly age 70. I wish I had retired earlier is my short answer.
My second answer is not work so hard. I worked pretty much 24/7 being on call and making sure systems were running and fixing them when they weren't. I did love to solve problems. The problem is it came at a high cost to me and my spouse. My spouse unfortunately passed away early and never got to retire.
The long answer, I would have taken more vacations and spent more moments not always rushing for the golden ring. I would have still been smart with my money, so I could retire. I think I would have taken more risks like maybe buying real estate for the residual income later on. I would have enjoyed time instead of rushing to the next project.
I would have made more close friends and taken risks trying to make new friends.
What do I wish I would have known? Time is short on the planet. Spend it on the people and the moments that you value. not work."
That's a beautiful perspective, Elaine. I want to thank you for sharing that. Work has this built-in reward structure that can become addictive, especially when we're trying to move up the corporate ladder. We get to solve problems. We get to be the one that solves everything. So easy to miss this and Elaine has shared her story with me and other venues and I know that she's Still building a great life, but this perspective time is short.
I appreciate you sharing that Let's share one more perspective from an anonymous listener.
WHAT A 70-YEAR-OLD HAS LEARNED FROM RETIREMENT
"What's it like to be retired at age 70? I've been retired for around six years and hit the 70 mark in 2023. So, 71.
My wife retired a couple of years ago. We have been in a 30 plus percent marginal tax bracket most of our careers so we loaded up on 401ks as much as possible while working. We were better at saving than investing during our working years. Once I retired, I did a deep dive into everything I could find on retirement and investing, and I knew we had enough, but wanted to be a good steward of our resources and optimize our assets.
After retiring, we pulled investments from an actively managed account with obscene but obscure management fees. We consolidated our balances, pursued balanced index funds and our balances have doubled. Great markets.
I was very focused on reducing taxes during my working years. I had no interest in Roth accounts since I was pursuing annual tax reduction and cash flowing college expenses. I knew absolutely nothing about backdoor Roth contributions. We had a very narrow window between my wife's retirement and the arrival of my pension income as well as social security. So, we missed the boat on Roth conversions during our brief low-income period. Our plan has kept IRMAA surcharges low, but we do face substantial taxes throughout retirement with pension income, Social Security, and hefty RMD income.
In retrospect, we probably should have done Roth conversions when we had a brief window, but it would not have had a huge impact on our IRA balances anyway. Plus. I would have struggled mentally with paying taxes on Roth conversions during that time. We were self-funding our lifestyles from our brokerage account.
The other factor I considered was that upon our passing, the remaining IRA balances will dramatically reduce as it is split among multiple adult children. The taxation can be offset by additional asset growth for each inherited IRA.
I do wish that I had discovered new retirement software earlier than I did. It could have saved me many spreadsheet hours. They are also great at analyzing alternate scenarios.
By the way, I love retirement, flexible schedule, time to pursue topics of interest, daily running and reading, visiting family members, catching up with grandkids. If you stay curious, you'll never be bored."
That's a great perspective on our vintage of human on tax deferral, which I wouldn't have been so focused on tax deferral and missing opportunities to at least consider doing Roth conversions in this instance. So, thanks for sharing.
With that, let's move on to our smart sprint.
TODAY’S SMART SPRINT SEGMENT
On your marks, get set,
and we're off to take a baby step you can take in the next seven days to not just rock retirement, but rock life.
In the next seven days. I want you to not worry so much about retirement.
It's the end of July. It's August. It's the heat of summer. Yeah, I did this before I'm doing it again. I'm going on vacation next week.
We did some work mid-year to challenge ourselves to update our network statement. We don't have to create work for ourselves. We want to be intentional, but we can be intentional about doing nothing as well and we get a few weeks to do that so, let's do that.
For those of you interested, in Forbes last week, we published an article. Thank you. Nichole "Rockstar" Mills for shepherding that, describing some of the lessons of my journey towards my Colorado property that got a lot of feedback and encouragement from everybody. I want to thank you for that. Even Elaine, I think sent me a note encouraging me. Can't wait for stuff like this, take some calculated risks, so I want to thank everybody for that great feedback.
Also, you can check out that article on Forbes if you're so inspired to hear some lessons from my personal journey.
As always, love hanging out with you. I hope you have a wonderful week.
The opinions voiced in this podcast are for general information only and not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. All performance references are historical and do not guarantee future results. All indices are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Make sure you consult your legal, tax, or financial advisor before making any decisions.