July 2, 2026 • 38 mins
Don and Tom take apart a clickbait Kiplinger piece touting the “five top buy-and-hold investments to manage market volatility,” arguing that the list is a random grab-bag of recent winners rather than a coherent portfolio. They explain why the suggested mix—VOO, VXUS, a healthcare sector ETF, Apple stock, and gold—does little to reduce volatility and instead layers on concentration risk, sector bets, and performance chasing. From there, they broaden the discussion into a more useful question: where should investors actually go for trustworthy information, how should listeners think about evaluating a financial advisor, and what really matters when judging portfolio design. The back half of the episode features a thoughtful call about investing a spendthrift trust for two sons over a 12-year horizon, plus a warning that advisor performance can’t be measured by returns alone without understanding risk, asset allocation, and the planning services being delivered.
0:05 Cold open, podcast intros, and Tom’s ever-growing aircraft museum
1:40 Don tees up a Kiplinger clickbait article on the “five top buy-and-hold investments” for market volatility
2:14 Why the article’s opening about political uncertainty and inflation could apply to almost any year
3:36 The one part they agree with: long-term wealth is built by disciplined exposure to quality assets, not reacting to headlines
4:53 The rise of numbered clickbait headlines and whether numbers in titles actually matter
5:53 Why “stability” and “stock picks” don’t belong in the same sentence
6:27 Kiplinger pick #1: VOO — fine as a broad U.S. stock fund, but hardly a volatility solution
7:06 Kiplinger pick #2: VXUS — the one recommendation they think mostly holds up
8:21 Kiplinger pick #3: XLV healthcare ETF — a sector bet masquerading as a defensive holding
9:33 Why a healthcare sector fund lags a total-world approach while adding unnecessary concentration
10:28 Kiplinger pick #4: Apple stock — and why adding a single stock you already own inside the S&P 500 makes little sense
10:59 The problem with betting on one company instead of owning the economy through broad diversification
12:20 Kiplinger pick #5: gold — and why recent gains don’t make it a volatility manager
12:48 Gold’s long-term history, lack of fundamentals, and why its recent performance actually illustrates volatility rather than reducing it
14:12 The bigger issue: how do you decide which financial publications or sources are worth trusting?
15:26 Why Vanguard and Dimensional research tend to be more reliable than headline-driven finance content
16:35 The real reason people click these articles: fear, underperformance anxiety, and the urge to “improve” a portfolio
17:23 Why the Kiplinger portfolio is missing the one thing you’d expect in a true volatility-management portfolio: bonds
18:51 Don and Tom’s plea to listeners: follow evidence-based advice rather than clickbait lists
19:30 Listener call from Brian in Bremerton about investing spendthrift trusts for his sons over a 12-year horizon
20:55 The challenge: balancing growth with the possibility of distributions for education, cars, weddings, or a house
23:08 Don’s suggested framework: keep a cash/fixed-income reserve for near-term needs and invest the rest aggressively for growth
24:48 Why a target-date fund may not be the best fit for this kind of trust structure
25:37 A practical allocation idea: roughly 80/20 with a global equity fund plus a broad bond fund
26:51 Brian explains that Roth IRA funding is already part of the family’s gifting and estate strategy
27:32 A listener from Seoul praises the show and begs them not to turn into a “humblebrag retirement call-in show”
29:49 Listener question: how do you measure whether your financial advisor is performing well?
30:42 Why advisor performance should not be judged by returns alone
32:11 The importance of understanding what services you’re actually paying for: planning, rebalancing, tax guidance, income strategy, and more
33:11 What to examine in a portfolio besides returns: risk level, asset allocation, and whether key asset classes are missing
34:11 Why even benchmark comparisons can be misleading if the portfolio isn’t properly diversified
35:18 The better question: is your advisor delivering the services and portfolio design you actually need?
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_02 (00:05):
You're gonna do a really great financial future.
Tom and Don are talking realmoney.
SPEAKER_04 (00:12):
Oh, hate clickbait.
I hate clickbait.
And yet I still read the stupidstuff.
I do.
It sucks me in because I go,come on, give me a break.
What am I talking about?
Well, we'll tell you in a minutebecause first I have to tell you
what you're listening to, eventhough, you know, it's funny,
it's not like radio.
(00:32):
When you listen to a podcast,you've pretty much already
chosen the show you're going tolisten to.
So it would I don't even knowwhy we do an introduction.
Really, we don't have to saythis is talking real money
because you see it on yourscreen on your device.
Oh, oh, I'm listening to TalkingReal Money.
Yes, you are.
I'm Don.
You probably knew that too.
That's Tom.
(00:53):
Unless you're a first-timelistener, you probably didn't
know that.
He, of course, hangs out in themodel military aircraft museum
of the R.
SPEAKER_03 (01:00):
Which is growing daily.
I'm still.
Yeah, but it's smaller than itused to be.
Yeah, that's true.
So the room is not growing, butthe number of planes.
I'm trying to finish the HE Oh,that's right.
We got criticized for mentioningit.
So we can't.
HE 177, trying to get it done.
It's a big project.
SPEAKER_04 (01:15):
Dude's obsessed with trees and World War II aircraft,
really.
Mainly World War II aircraft.
SPEAKER_03 (01:21):
What about soccer?
We're just the World Cup andsoccer.
SPEAKER_04 (01:24):
Okay, there you go.
SPEAKER_03 (01:25):
Now you got it covered.
SPEAKER_04 (01:26):
Do you have anything else you're interested?
No, nothing.
Well, that's about it.
So that's about it.
Welcome to the show.
Don here, Tom there.
Thank you for being there,wherever the heck you are, doing
your dog walk or your car driveor whatever it is you're doing.
What do you think of articleslike this?
Here's a headline from a recentarticle from the goofy.
(01:48):
It's lost its mojo.
It's really over and they don'tknow it yet.
Kiplinger personal financething.
Which is too bad because it usedto be a really great
publication.
Yeah, but they lost their touch.
I think they lost their soul,actually.
And you know, not just them.
Money magazine lost its soul.
Right.
Barron.
Well, no, Barron's had alwayslost its soul.
(02:10):
They were always evil.
They were always weird.
Here's the headline.
You're gonna you're gonna hearthis and you're gonna go, oh, I
gotta know what those are.
The five top buy and holdinvestments to manage market
volatility from Jeff Reeves, ajournalist in air quotes.
Financial journalist.
(02:31):
I mean his bio is hystericalbecause it really does.
It says nothing.
It it's a it's a bio that saysreally absolutely nothing.
Jeff Reeves writes about equitymarkets and exchange traded
funds.
A veteran journalist withextensive capital markets
experience.
(02:52):
Jeff is a good idea.
SPEAKER_03 (02:53):
Which we all have capital markets experience if
you're an investor.
Yeah.
Covered.
SPEAKER_04 (02:57):
His work has appeared in respected outlets,
including CNBC, Fox Business,Wall Street Journal, Digital
Network, which it's differentfrom the Wall Street Journal, by
the way, USA Today and CNNMoney.
That just means that there'ssome sort of a, you know, here,
write us 500 words, we'll giveyou a dollar a word or
something.
SPEAKER_03 (03:15):
Yeah.
But let's listen to this open.
It's powerful.
It's uh it it really reaches inand grabs you because it's so
unusual.
Market volatility, he writes, isthe norm in 2026 with political
uncertainty and inflationarypressures defining price moves
in the first half of the year.
SPEAKER_04 (03:33):
Okay, that paragraph, that paragraph, you
could you could substitute anyyear for 2026, and that
paragraph would be just asapplicable, no matter how far
back or forward you go.
You know, I could say marketvolatility will be the norm in
2027, with political uncertaintyand inflationary pressures
(03:54):
defining price moves.
I I could say that.
Yes, you could.
SPEAKER_03 (03:57):
But could you say the following?
Where actually I kind of agreewith them here.
History shows that long-termwealth is not built by reacting
to these short-term headlines.
Rather, it's built bymaintaining disciplined exposure
to high-quality assets that growyour nest egg over time.
SPEAKER_04 (04:14):
And that is where the article should have ended.
The logic there becauseeverything that follows, well,
not everything that follows, um,because he does say, you know,
if you're picking assets basedon predictions, that's a
mistake.
So you need to do a mix ofstocks and exchange traded
funds.
So we've got three paragraphsthat kind of work.
(04:35):
And then he gets to his fiverecommendations.
And by the way, this dude lovesnumbers.
I looked up some of his otherarticles, and and I and they are
voluminous.
Uh they're not.
So if he's only getting a dollara word, he's probably okay then
if he's writing a lot of it.
(04:56):
Here are some of his recentarticles.
Ten can't miss dividend growthstocks to buy.
Seven consumer ETFs to play thenext big tax return spending
spree.
Five lesser-known energy ETFs toplay oil, best ETFs for 2018,
best gold ETFs and preciousmetals ETFs, and they all have a
number in the title.
All of them.
(05:17):
By the way, there was an therewas this is a debunked belief
that numbers in titles helpattract readers.
I thought that was PaulMerriman's thing, too.
That's what it was.
Well, it was based on anarticle.
It was based on an article Paulread about attention spans and
that human beings didn't have uhmore that goldfish had longer
attention spans than we did.
(05:38):
It turned out it was a debunkedarticle.
There's been massive amounts ofuh academic research done into
headlines.
They actually researchheadlines.
SPEAKER_03 (05:46):
There's three studies that were done?
SPEAKER_04 (05:48):
Yeah, and they found that this that uh putting
numbers in makes no difference.
Oh, okay.
I always thought it was a ruleof three anyway, but okay.
Ten, fine, whatever.
So what are his suggestions,Tom, for stability in a volatile
market?
SPEAKER_03 (06:03):
First of all, any stock or stock fund is not
bought for stability.
No, but he says low volatility.
Yeah, well, okay.
Number one, and this is ashocker, frankly, uh, because
it's probably a fund you'venever heard of, even though it
just passed a trillion dollarsunder management.
First ETF to do that.
That would be VOO, the VanguardS P 500.
(06:27):
Oh, or as I call it, Voodoo.
Voodoo.
Um it's inexpensive, it has agreat 10-year return.
It's the S P 500.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's really not that good.
SPEAKER_04 (06:39):
It's 500 stocks.
And, you know, like a third ofit is just a few big companies.
SPEAKER_03 (06:47):
Yeah, a third is uh, I think 10 or maybe 11 companies
total.
And that'll get worse now withuh although I just read, I think
I read this correctly today.
The the SP 500 is now decidedthe SP has decided not to add
SpaceX for a year to the SP 500.
SPEAKER_04 (07:04):
They didn't pander.
SPEAKER_03 (07:05):
Yeah, that's good.
But here's the thing.
SPEAKER_04 (07:07):
So his first he do he comes out with a domestic
equity fund, which I'm okay withthat in concept.
That's a good place to start,but it should have been VT or
something similar, somethingbroader, because he goes with a
broader index for his nextchoice.
SPEAKER_03 (07:24):
Yeah, VXUS, the Vanguard Total International
ETF.
So here you're getting 88companies with the SP 500,
you're only getting 500 in theUnited States.
It's kind of an odd option.
SPEAKER_04 (07:36):
Not 8,800.
SPEAKER_03 (07:37):
Says 8800, VXUS.
You said 88.
Oh, 88.
Well, my mind's stuck on 88.
Uh 8800.
Thank you for correcting me.
See, that's a lot of stocks.
That's made that makes moresense to me.
It does.
Um, and by the way, when you dobuy invest in there, 15% of the
money goes to Japan, which I didnot know, and uh UK and Canada
(08:01):
get about 8% each, which is morethan I would have thought.
So, but any rate, that's awell-diversified fund.
Again, it's inexpensive, and youbasically get most of the
international market buying acompany, buying those companies
out there.
SPEAKER_04 (08:13):
By the way, to me, that is the only good suggestion
he makes in the whole article.
I don't think the rest of themare any good, but go ahead.
Tell us the rest of them.
SPEAKER_03 (08:24):
Next one is the XLV Healthcare Select Sector Spider
Fund.
Um, this is tied to the it'sgonna surprise you, the
healthcare sector in the UnitedStates.
60 really 60 healthcare stocks.
Uh big pharma, of course, EliLilly, Johnson and Johnson, etc.
(08:46):
Um, 10-year return isoutstanding.
Uh part pardon me, not uh10-year return is great.
I'm looking at the next one.
I was gonna say not very good.
In fact, I just looked that upthat fund up and it was not very
impressive.
But you're getting exposure tothe sector that just gonna it
has to be great, Don, in thefuture because we all need
healthcare, right?
SPEAKER_04 (09:07):
It doesn't have to be great in the future.
And I I I gotta tell you, andthat just because you mentioned
the performance, I I went andlooked because I wanted to see
just how bad it was.
And the at 10 years it lookspretty good.
Um but if you look at VT, theVanguard Total World Index, it
(09:29):
did 13% over the period ofdiversification and you had
lower cost.
SPEAKER_03 (09:36):
Nine and a half, lower standard deviation.
So anyway, it doesn't makesense.
But the next choice really, yougotta wonder uh This one
bothered you how because thisapparently came from the
Department of RedundancyDepartment.
Now remember, in the S P fivehundred, you own a Wait a
minute, isn't it the redundantDepartment of Redundancy
Department?
Whatever it is, they'reredundantly passing out.
(09:58):
Here's the thing with the SP500, you have about almost 7% of
your money in Apple stock.
Pretty significant allocation toone company, frankly.
SPEAKER_04 (10:09):
Uh well, although if I look around me, I have I think
that's true.
You are the bulk of my studio isApple Tech number.
That's true.
SPEAKER_03 (10:16):
So you are you are the spokesman for Apple, but he
recommends Apple stock.
That's one of the five.
That's one of the five.
Crazy.
SPEAKER_04 (10:28):
And I think he's only doing it because the
10-year average annual returnwas 30%.
That's got to be the onlyreason.
That doesn't sound likestability with a 30% 10-year
average annual return.
But it has unmatched brandloyalty.
SPEAKER_03 (10:41):
Well, I I can attest to that.
And it has a huge amount of cashon its balance sheet.
Okay, fine.
And he says it's it seems to beone of the best stocks to buy
for the long run.
SPEAKER_04 (10:54):
Until uh something else usurps its position?
Exactly.
I mean, that's the way businessworks.
That's why we don't bet onindividual companies.
Because it's not the individualcompanies individually that make
the market a good place toinvest long term.
It's the economy, it's the it'sthe the sum of all of these
(11:14):
individual companies.
Because one rises and one falls,and we see it over and over
again.
Over regularly.
I mean, like, you know, fiftyyears ago, IBM was the apple of
the world, was the apple of oureye.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (11:27):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_04 (11:28):
And it ain't no more.
Apple's the apple of our eye.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (11:31):
But did you say 30 percent a year for the last 10
years?
Yes.
Yeah.
That alone would make me nervousbecause that's a pretty steep
hill they're climbing.
They're shh, can you keep it?
SPEAKER_04 (11:41):
Plus, they've lost their very, very, very
successful CEO has uh is beingreplaced.
And while John Turnus could be agreat one, we don't know.
We don't know.
Have they gotten into the spacemarket yet?
SPEAKER_03 (11:55):
That's whatever.
SPEAKER_04 (11:56):
No, they're not they're not going the Bezos must
who has the bigger rocket race.
SPEAKER_03 (12:03):
We're not talking about that on this show.
SPEAKER_04 (12:05):
Well, uh No, they're going the new Glenn versus the
never mind.
I'm just Zuckerberg's.
SPEAKER_03 (12:11):
And they're all blowing up.
His big boat just showed up inSeattle.
Boat can even call it 347 footboat.
Somebody's asking me what itwould look like on our lake.
I said it'd fill it.
SPEAKER_04 (12:21):
Totally from one end to the other.
SPEAKER_03 (12:22):
Couldn't turn around.
Uh okay.
If that was a bit troubling, uhhow about something like that?
Yeah, we're still waiting fornumber five.
Yeah, how about something that'sa little more shiny and a little
more exciting because it's had agreat run, especially over the
last year and a half.
That would be iShare's GoldTrust.
Um, talk about buying somethingafter a great, I mean, it's gold
(12:44):
has done very well recently, notas well this year.
Um and he admits commoditiesdon't have any fundamentals, but
what they bring is a real-worldvalue that cannot be disputed.
I don't know what that disputed.
I don't know what that becausegold is only worth as much as
the next guy says it's worth.
SPEAKER_04 (13:02):
Right.
And the other thing about goldis I got I've got 2,000 years of
history on gold.
It's the only asset that I canreally pull up 2,000 years of
history, what it's been worth.
And what gold was worth 2,000years ago is almost exactly what
gold is worth today.
And here's the other thing aboutgold.
This article is all aboutstability, right?
Right?
(13:23):
Wasn't that in the headline?
Um, there was a mention ofstability, yes.
Yeah, he said these areinvestments to manage market
volatility.
Well, hmm, let's look back.
In 2021, gold lost four percent.
In 2022, gold lost a half apercent.
(13:44):
Then in 2025, gold gainedsixty-four percent.
Yeah.
That does not sound likemanaging volatility.
That sounds like enhancingvolatility to me.
SPEAKER_03 (13:56):
I think you're right.
And I think this is a very sillyportfolio, frankly.
I I don't know.
It doesn't feel like there's anyanything other than rando picks.
Um, and I gotta say, if theacademics were to look at this,
they would just be there'd be alot of red ink.
SPEAKER_04 (14:11):
Like what I think You know, I I really when I read
this, I I wasn't sure if we weregoing to talk about it or not.
And then I went, yeah, it's thatclickbait thing.
We should talk about it becausethere's lots of it out there.
And the reason I chose this wasbecause at first glance, to me,
it seemed totally random.
(14:32):
It didn't seem well thought out,and it seemed to come from
someone who really did not haveany background in financial
planning or investment research.
Although he claims the contrary.
SPEAKER_03 (14:47):
Yeah, he does.
Been around capital markets fora long time.
Oh, okay, but leaving thatportfolio aside, which I think
we should hug up.
SPEAKER_04 (14:54):
I have hung out in Apple stores.
SPEAKER_03 (14:56):
That's I think it should be different.
Does that make me a computerexpert?
Pretty much.
But here's the question at hand.
It comes up, people ask me on aregular basis, okay, this is
from Kiplinger, they've jumpedthe shark, they're not who they
used to be, and we have historywith Nike Kiplinger, all that
kind of stuff, and I like him.
But the publication is not,again, a great place to go look
(15:17):
for really good advice.
But where is then?
Yeah.
What do you who do you trust?
Can you trust, for example, theWall Street Journal?
SPEAKER_04 (15:26):
Sometimes.
SPEAKER_03 (15:27):
That's what that's the tricky part, right?
There's some very good stuffthere.
Jason Swag is good.
SPEAKER_04 (15:32):
Not very often.
SPEAKER_03 (15:33):
Nope.
Market Watch, rarely.
What about information from fundfamilies like um Vanguard or
DSP?
SPEAKER_04 (15:40):
I think you can trust I because uh again, once
again, consider the source.
Vanguard has been known for verygood academically vetted uh
papers and information.
Uh Dimensional, uh uh all theinformation that Dimensional
puts out is really well vettedand uh gr uh tremendously
(16:01):
research.
SPEAKER_03 (16:02):
And it's not pornography, right?
It's not meant to excite.
SPEAKER_04 (16:05):
No, as a matter of fact, it's meant to do exactly
the opposite.
If you read if you readDimensional's papers, you'll go,
wait, I think I need to readthat again, because they're
definitely not written at theseclickbait articles are actually
I I did a lot of research onthis.
The advice is to write them at athird grade level.
SPEAKER_03 (16:25):
They accomplished it here.
SPEAKER_04 (16:26):
Yeah.
I mean, no, that's really what,and I gotta tell you, there's no
way a third grader is gonna getmost of what dimensional talks
about.
SPEAKER_03 (16:35):
No, I think that's fair.
Okay, but let's set that asidefor just a moment then, too.
But let me ask you thisquestion, then, because at the
end of the day, why would you bereading this article?
The reason you'd be reading thisarticle, and most people will
admit it if you really pressthem, is the portfolio I'm in,
I'm not sure it's the right onebecause it hasn't made enough
money in the last 15, 20 years,or five years, or one year,
(16:56):
whatever it is, and I may needto change.
SPEAKER_04 (16:59):
Well, and also the fact that people uh have been
lately a little bit more scaredthan usual.
We're always a little scaredabout something.
And so they're looking aroundand they see that volatility
portion of the headline, andthey think, oh, great, five easy
investments, I can just buy themand hold on to them, and my
volatility will go down.
(17:19):
And the funny thing is, is thisthe the the the opposite is true
of most of this portfolio.
There's very little stability inthese ETFs.
They're not built to be stable.
SPEAKER_03 (17:31):
There's not a bond fund here.
No, nothing nothing gonna holdvalue in a really bad time in
any way.
Well, I mean, no reduction ofvolatility.
SPEAKER_04 (17:40):
Yeah, I mean, the incredible.
We already said Apple at 30% ayear, gold at 60 plus percent in
one year after following acouple of years of negative
returns.
Uh uh the S P 500, which is notthe market, it is a portion of
the market.
And then healthcare.
There's nothing low volatilityabout most of this.
(18:02):
It feels like a dartboard, likesort of throwing oh, I hit that.
SPEAKER_03 (18:05):
Oh, oh, and that may be that, sure.
SPEAKER_04 (18:07):
That may be.
It maybe he has a template andhe just fills in the blanks.
SPEAKER_03 (18:11):
So going back to the question I just asked, how do
you then decide?
Because if you're out looking,how do you decide on what would
be a better portfolio?
If I'm trying to find a betterportfolio, how do you think
that's what I'm saying?
SPEAKER_04 (18:21):
I wish it was easy.
All all I can say is pleaselisten to us.
I I'm serious.
Don't you don't ever need tobecome our client or anything,
but please listen to us.
Because what we're talking aboutis truly based on lots and lots
of research.
Now, is it r always right?
(18:42):
No.
We've never claimed to be alwaysright, but at least we don't
pander, and our shows don't haveany clickbait in them.
No.
I tell you what it does have tobe.
We're not trying to titillate.
What does it do?
Yeah, no, and let by the way,when you do questions, um you
(19:02):
you can send them in.
You two ways to do it.
You go to talkingrealmoney.comand you speak them.
I'll do them on the Fridaypodcast, and I need a couple of
those.
Or you can type them, and thenTom will occasionally call you
and have a conversation withyou, or he'll um read them.
Do you want to go with thereading?
SPEAKER_03 (19:20):
Is that what you're saying?
I well, yeah, I saw you had themready.
Okay.
I'm ready.
SPEAKER_04 (19:24):
Hold on, let's not do that.
Let's let's go to I've got itbecause I've got your call.
SPEAKER_03 (19:28):
I wasn't sure.
SPEAKER_04 (19:30):
I'm gonna do this all over again.
And Tom can uh either read themfrom his pieces of paper, which
he loves to do, but he likeswhat he likes even more is to
have a conversation with you.
SPEAKER_03 (19:42):
We're gonna go across Puget Sound to Bremerton,
Washington, where we are gonnachat with uh Brian.
Brian, thank you for uh beingpart of Talking Real Money.
How can we help you today?
SPEAKER_01 (19:53):
Well, thanks for speaking with me.
I you know enjoyed listening tothe show.
Just uh, you know, listen a lot.
We guys would say you talked somuch about different uh
strategies, and I had perhaps alittle bit of unique, although
you've kind of touched on thisbefore, but given I've got a
little bit of a unique timehorizon, I wanted to see how
best he approached it and seewhat your thought was.
So I've got uh you know a veryuh charitable mother-in-law who
(20:16):
was wanting to uh to gift um achunk of her estate to her to my
sons, um, her grandsons, andit's part of her estate plan.
And so my wife and I will becometrustees, a spendthrift trust
for each of them.
And so the trust will are to uhterminate by design in about 12
years when each of them turn 35,and and it's specifically the
(20:40):
intent or the that uh the trustand therefore our uh fiduciary
responsibility is to use themoney now as we see fit for
their support and um maintenanceand um education and so forth.
Um, and so I kind of struck withokay, how do I, you know,
approach this and how do Iinvest it in a in a fiduciarily
(21:03):
responsible manner, knowing thatthere's there are kind of two
goals.
One is to anticipate anunrealized need that may come up
for school, or perhaps, youknow, as they're in their young
20s and you know, in their late20s, early 30s, getting married
and wanting to buy a house.
So that'd be a substantialwithdrawal.
And then the other one is thatokay, it it expire it terminates
(21:24):
it in 12 years, and it's notquite the same as retirement um
like for a target date or orheading into off to college like
at 529, but there's still thatthought that it's got this dual
objective for for investing, youknow.
So you invest for now and keepit stable, or do you invest for
the future, or what is the righthybrid?
(21:45):
So, as I you know, I think aboutwhat would be the bucket
approach if I was to apply thatkind of strategy.
So I was kind of thinking whatyou all would think about that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:53):
Yeah, but well, first I think does your mother
in law need any more friends?
Because you know, I'm alwayslooking for a couple friends and
half a million dollars.
Goes a long way.
I think this is amazing.
I think it's awesome.
Makes me feel guilty about mygrandkids.
So I hope they're not listening.
Um, so this is this is reallygreat.
So, you know, half a milliondollars, and and that could have
substantial growth in 12 years,right?
(22:13):
I mean, you could get a doublein that time.
It could be a million dollarsyou're handing somebody at 35.
What an advantage that would be.
So yeah, your your question iskind of so with that in mind,
you know, how should that beinvested?
And the the trust will be payingout something the next few years
is what you're saying.
It's but you're sort of standingbetween the kids and the money,
(22:35):
basically, as trustee, to say,yes, the trust will pay this or
no, it will not, correct?
SPEAKER_01 (22:40):
Correct.
And and my thought is, you know,either both listening to you all
and some other education I'vedone with myself, is it to, you
know, not as as you all wouldsay, not to let the tax dog tax
tail weight the dog.
You know, I intend to distributesome of the some or most, or if
not all the income.
I want to invest it, you know,in ETFs on the equity side so
(23:03):
that, you know, whatever thatmay be, so that you know, we
keep the taxable income on thetrust down, distribute um
dividends and whatnot to keepthe taxes down, but still, and
I'm you know, anticipatingsubstantial growth and whatever
equities I would invest in.
Yeah.
And so, yeah, it's but therestill may be a need if they need
a new car or if they're gone offto graduate school or something
(23:23):
that we would make largercontribu or distributions.
SPEAKER_03 (23:26):
Yeah, so those things will come up and you'll
need to create the cash forthat.
So that gets back to kind ofyour your the big picture, like
so how much should be insomething that doesn't have much
volatility, like fixed income.
Right.
And how much is free growth?
SPEAKER_01 (23:41):
It strikes me a little bit as someone would
approach it when they're inretirement, but I didn't know if
that was the right way ofthinking about it.
And then, you know, well, youknow, because that in so if you
think about it that way, is it amore like a traditional 6040
split?
Or it's an interesting conceptor an interesting idea.
SPEAKER_03 (23:58):
Yeah, it's a it's a bit of a conundrum.
But here's the way I would Imean, so if it's a half a
million dollars, my take wouldbe that if you if a hundred
thousand of that was in fixedincome, that would probably be
enough to pay out anything thatlet's say a car or a house or
something like that in the next10 years or so, because you said
(24:18):
it's 12 years.
So that that would and thatwould be set aside that way.
Then the rest of it would beaggressive because you want that
to grow.
Man, when you're 22, you're justhoping for you know great
markets um, you know, for forthose periods, that period of
time.
And by the way, it doesn't endat 35.
You hope that at 35 they don'tpull it all out and you know go
to Las Vegas or somethingeither.
SPEAKER_01 (24:38):
Um that's the spend trip part while they're in their
20s, but you know, yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (24:43):
Yeah, so so I probably would be pretty
aggressive with that.
Maybe 80.
I don't love a target date fundin this circumstance because
they usually the assetallocation is somewhat limited.
Um I don't know that you need togo on a glide path really per
se, because if you're gonnacreate a little bit of income
off of it and pay that out,maybe pay out the dividends,
(25:04):
that kind of thing, there's alittle bit of there's a little
bit of fun money there for themin their 20s.
You want to have people thatwant to have a little fun.
Um but if you had, you know, 20%of it as I say in fixed income,
like a BND, and then you had 80%of it if you wanted to keep it
really simple, like an AVGE orDFAW, you know, the global funds
from Avantis or fromDimensional, that would give you
(25:27):
the growth side.
You'd hope for that would be 10,11% a year.
The fixed income, not gonna makemuch, but it's the balance and
it's the money that's there ifsomething were to come up.
Um, and you certainly hope notmany things would in your 20s,
but they do, right?
I mean, your life changes a lotin your 20s.
Um, so that would give you thebalance.
I'd probably want to be thataggressive though, unless I
(25:48):
really knew my kids well andsaid, look, they're gonna need X
for a wedding or they're gonnaneed blank for a car or a house,
then maybe you could you couldshade that a little bit more and
go, you know, 75% stock, 25%bond.
But I really think like an80-20, keep it simple.
If you want a one fund stocksolution, one fund bond
solution, and you're kind of allset for the short and the longer
(26:11):
term.
SPEAKER_00 (26:12):
Okay.
That's kind of what I wasthinking too, but there's just,
you know, just good to get asecond opinion, I guess.
SPEAKER_03 (26:18):
Yeah, no, and I think this is wow, what a what a
wonderful, wonderful gift uh fora young person, too, to get them
going at that age.
I mean, the only other thinghere that I'd love to see is
some sort of regular financingof their, you know, uh tax-free
interest.
For example, Roth IRAs.
I mean, if you're taking alittle bit of that out, plug it
into a Roth IRA for each one ofthem over time, that I think
(26:40):
would be what a huge advantageif they could fully fund that
for the next 10 years.
Because then even if they didnothing after that, you're
probably probably looking atmillionaires there as well.
SPEAKER_01 (26:51):
Well, yeah, thankfully she's already started
that.
This is this is phase two ofestate planning.
So that already started lastyear with those annual uh contra
or gifts, and then that wouldyou know, or most of it went
straight into five or pardon me,Roth IRAs that they each opened
last year.
SPEAKER_03 (27:06):
So I love it.
This is really great stuff.
Um, man, I think that I I thinkyour thinking is good here.
Diversify, have some in fixedincome, hope for great growth
and hope for great marketsduring that period of time.
And then man, what a what agreat future for them.
Super, super idea.
SPEAKER_01 (27:22):
Okay, well, good.
Thanks for that information.
SPEAKER_03 (27:24):
Thank you for being part of the show.
Appreciate you listening andhope we get to chat again
sometime.
All right, you have a great day.
Thanks, Brian.
SPEAKER_04 (27:31):
And see, wasn't that a lovely conversation?
Enjoyed it very much.
See, he enjoyed it, but he stilllikes reading the questions to
me, particularly ones that Ihave not heard before, so he
thinks he's gonna cut me.
SPEAKER_03 (27:42):
That's fair.
And this one comes from Jay Moin Seoul, South Korea.
unknown (27:48):
Okay.
SPEAKER_03 (27:49):
I'm gonna read this in the Seoul, Soul.
Wait, from South Korea.
Yeah, I'm gonna read this in theoriginal Korean, so you may need
to translate a little bit.
I need Chat GPT, hold on.
Yes, something.
Um, no, I'm not.
Um, gentlemen, you are the lastvestige of trustable call-in
financial advice that I canreliably and entertainingly
listen to.
(28:09):
As you move into your new new,more produced and procured call
format.
Please take care to not become aclone of the now useless
podcasts such as Jill on Money,where neurotic, delusional
multimillionaires call intohumble brag about their
financial situations as if theyhave any real problems.
(28:30):
Your show can't devol.
I did not write this.
Your show, I'm not, I'm not thiscreative.
Your show can't devolve into aconstant, can I retire?
How am I doing?
format.
Please stay topic focused as youalready are.
Stay golden.
Listeners all around the worldare counting on you.
I've called in before, and youhave great advice about an
actual problem I was having.
SPEAKER_04 (28:50):
Okay.
One.
It's not highly produced.
No, it's not high.
What you hear generally Unlessthere's a big glaring boo-boo on
our parts.
And that's a scientific term foruh mess up mistake.
Then it just goes what you hearwhat we give what we do is what
(29:13):
you hear.
What do you hear?
I don't you know, I I've had uhadvice from some in the industry
who don't supposedly know moreabout what they're doing for me
to clean up all the ums and ahsand pauses and stumbles and but
you know what?
No.
That if you give a show itspersonality.
SPEAKER_03 (29:33):
If you do that, it'll be about a 45-second
podcast, too.
And that's the other thing.
SPEAKER_04 (29:38):
It'd be so darn short.
If we were just we just did thetopic and no asides, uh uh no
rambling.
Yeah.
So all right.
You want a real question now?
No, I'm sorry.
That was too much fun.
I don't want any more.
SPEAKER_03 (29:50):
That was a great question.
Thank you.
Or comment.
Steve from Henderson, Nevada, alittle closer to home.
Financial advisor performance isthe subject.
Now remember what we just talkedabout?
We did.
How do I measure my financialadvisor's performance?
I'm with Schwab WealthManagement and I'm charged 0.56
of the portfolio value.
SPEAKER_04 (30:08):
Pretty cheap.
That's really cheap.
SPEAKER_03 (30:12):
Well, depending on the size of the portfolio.
SPEAKER_04 (30:14):
But again, it depends on the level of advice
you're getting, too.
SPEAKER_03 (30:17):
Ah, thank you.
SPEAKER_04 (30:18):
But how is Are you just getting portfolio?
SPEAKER_03 (30:21):
This happens on a regular basis.
People call me up and they saymy money's at fill in the blank,
and I've only made, you know,eight percent a year for the
last ten years.
SPEAKER_04 (30:31):
Here's the thing.
I think we're trying to measureby the wrong yardstick or meter
stick if we're metric.
It's not about what they makeyou, it's about what they do for
you.
Because everybody's returnshould be different, because
everybody's portfolio should bepersonalized.
(30:54):
So it can't, you can't ret youcan't just compare return to
return to return to return,because if I have a very
conservative bent and a veryconservative portfolio, and
really little or no need to takerisk, I should have a very low
returning portfolio, even if I'mpaying my advisor 1%.
Because it's the right portfoliofor me.
It's the right and wait, whatelse are you getting from that
(31:18):
advisor?
SPEAKER_03 (31:18):
Ah, that's a good idea.
SPEAKER_04 (31:19):
Did you get a financial plan and ongoing help
with planning?
Did do you get regularrebalancing and hand holding?
Do you get uh help with creatingthe income and managing it into
retirement?
Do you get direction on estateand tax planning and those kinds
of things?
If you're just getting portfoliomanagement, then you don't want
(31:43):
to pay much for that.
No, no, no.
But if you're getting life moneymanagement, pay more.
SPEAKER_03 (31:47):
What?
If you're just getting that,right?
If you're just getting theportfolio management, what would
you what portfolio should theycompare it to to say this is a
good return or not a goodreturn?
SPEAKER_04 (31:58):
You can't.
I I'm s I I know this is a copout answer, but you can't.
I I can't say that uh a30-year-old's 80-20 portfolio
should should be at the samelevel as a 70-year-old's 40-60
portfolio.
They're gonna be different.
So you can't make that simplecomparison.
(32:20):
I think that's what most of uswant to do.
We want to be able to say, Iwant to compare this to this
benchmark.
Well, there is really nobenchmark.
It's got to be individualized.
So here's the thing.
If your portfolio is full ofhigh expense, complex
investments, then it's likely tobe a more dangerous, more
(32:42):
volatile at times higheryielding, at other times much
lower yielding portfolio.
If your portfolio is inlow-cost, match the market kinds
of products, that's what youshould expect.
To match, here's what you shouldexpect.
To match the underlying market.
If you're a 40-60 investor andyour portfolio is doing
somewhere around what thehistoric average for a 40-60
(33:04):
portfolio is, then you're doingpretty well if you're getting
all of those added services.
SPEAKER_03 (33:09):
Yeah, I think that's right.
My takeaway always is numberone, every return is
idiosyncratic.
Don't return is different thanmine because money's been
invested at different times, etcetera.
It's not going to be the same.
Number two, what you should knowis the portfolio design and why
it is.
In other words, if it's a 6040,as you just mentioned, why is it
(33:30):
a 6040?
What am I trying to achieve interms of return?
How much risk volatility am Iwilling to accept?
Number three, does theportfolio?
This is the part that I thinkmost people overlook.
Does it include all the assetsthat you should own?
Most of you own mostly bigcompanies, growth kind of
oriented portfolio.
Big U.S.
SPEAKER_04 (33:49):
companies.
Big U.S.
companies.
SPEAKER_03 (33:51):
You do not have U.S.
small cap value.
You do not have emergingmarkets.
You don't have emerging marketsvalue.
There's places that your moneyshould be distributed and it's
not being.
That's the port that I wouldlook at from the portfolio.
When we analyze when we tellyou, you really have to do that.
SPEAKER_04 (34:08):
I can adjust my my answer just a smidge.
If you are in a portfolio andyou've been with that advisor
for a very long time, and it hasdone as well or slightly better
than the index of thatportfolio, a 6040, a balanced
index, for example, versus a6040 managed portfolio.
(34:29):
If you're doing as well orbetter, then you're do uh your
advisor is probably doing whatyour advisor should be doing.
SPEAKER_03 (34:37):
Yeah.
Well, except again, I'm stillgoing to want to look at those
asset classes and make surethey're represented because
there could be periods, by theway, probably like the last 10
years, where certain assets dobetter than others.
So you could look like you'redoing really well and then it
wouldn't do very well becauseyou're not properly diversified.
So I'd say that's the samething.
SPEAKER_04 (34:53):
Yeah, maybe the an even better answer is to look
back at what that advisor'sportfolio might have done or
would have done over the last 50years.
SPEAKER_03 (35:00):
Yeah, long periods of time.
Yeah, I agree.
SPEAKER_04 (35:03):
So But look everybody wants an easy
benchmark.
Is my advisor doing worse orbetter?
No, is your advisor giving youthe services you need?
That's what the answer is.
Is your advisor giving you theservices you need?
You can't compare it.
It's like saying, is my taxadvisor getting me bigger
refunds?
Every good tax advisor shouldgift you the exact same refund.
(35:26):
I actually stuck on the good taxadvisor would try to figure out
a way to keep you from gettingrefunds.
Yeah, uh exactly.
SPEAKER_03 (35:34):
Pay what you owe as you go.
I I think the bigger issue,frankly, is one you mentioned a
couple minutes minutes ago,whose rocket is bigger.
That's what at the end of theday you really want to know
who's got the bigger rocket.
And then after that, it's allconversation.
Are you saying size matters?
SPEAKER_04 (35:50):
Just putting it out there.
What does that have to do withadvice?
You know, I you made that jokeunrelated to the current topic.
A real non-sequitur there?
Uh it's it's a redundantlyredundant non-sequitorial
sequitur.
SPEAKER_03 (36:09):
Kind of fits, though, I think.
SPEAKER_04 (36:10):
Right.
Kind of well, with your the wayyour brain works, yeah.
Kind of total fits.
Totally fits.
Well, look at that.
We went way over time today,didn't we?
SPEAKER_03 (36:19):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (36:19):
We're way over time.
SPEAKER_03 (36:23):
Big time.
SPEAKER_04 (36:24):
All right.
What's you want to check stuffout?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
You want to ask us a question?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
You want to meet with one of ouradvisors for free for nothing
with no obligation or no highpressure sales pitch?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
Just go to talking real money.
If you're not listening to us,the rest of your life, you
should be ontalkingrealmoney.com.
There's only two things youshould be doing in your life
(36:44):
anymore.
Listening to Talking Real Moneyor visiting TalkingReal
Money.com because we're TalkingReal Money.
SPEAKER_02 (36:51):
The opinions that you've expressed on this podcast
were current on the daterecorded.
Opinions, estimates, forecasts,and statements of financial
market trends that are based oncurrent market conditions
constitute our judgment and aresubject to change without
notice, including anyforward-looking estimates or
statements which are based oncertain expectations and
assumptions.
Although information andopinions given have been
obtained from or based onsources believed to be reliable,
no warranty or representation ismade as to their correctness,
(37:12):
completeness, or accuracy.
Information presented on thepodcast is not personalized
investment advice from OphelloWealth.
The views and strategiesdescribed may not be suitable
for everyone.
This podcast does not identifyall the risks, direct or
indirect or other considerationswhich might be material to you
when entering any financialtransaction.
Past performance does notguarantee feature results, and
profitable results cannot beguaranteed.
We hope you realize that theinformation provided on Talking
(37:34):
Real Money is for informational,educational, and hopefully
enjoyable purposes only.
The podcast is not trying to getyou to buy or sell any financial
products or securities.
Instead, the program is providedas a public service by Apello
Wealth, a fee-only registeredinvestment advisor.
See Appello Wealth's ADB Part 2Aon our website for information
regarding Appello's fees andservices.
Apollo Capital, LLC DBA AppelloWealth, is an investment
(37:55):
advisory firm registered withthe Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The firm only transacts businessin the states where it is
properly registered or excludedor exempt from registration
requirements.
Registration with the SEC or anystate securities authority does
not imply a certain level ofskill or training.
Apello does not provide tax orlegal advice, and nothing either
stated or implied here should beinferred as providing such
advice.
Thanks for listening, and pleasevisit talkingrealmoney.com for
(38:17):
more information and importantdisclosure related to
performance of any specificindex or fund quoted in this
podcast.
And the lawyers get richer.
You're gonna do a really great financial future.
Tom and Don are talking realmoney.
SPEAKER_04 (00:12):
Oh, hate clickbait.
I hate clickbait.
And yet I still read the stupidstuff.
I do.
It sucks me in because I go,come on, give me a break.
What am I talking about?
Well, we'll tell you in a minutebecause first I have to tell you
what you're listening to, eventhough, you know, it's funny,
it's not like radio.
(00:32):
When you listen to a podcast,you've pretty much already
chosen the show you're going tolisten to.
So it would I don't even knowwhy we do an introduction.
Really, we don't have to saythis is talking real money
because you see it on yourscreen on your device.
Oh, oh, I'm listening to TalkingReal Money.
Yes, you are.
I'm Don.
You probably knew that too.
That's Tom.
(00:53):
Unless you're a first-timelistener, you probably didn't
know that.
He, of course, hangs out in themodel military aircraft museum
of the R.
SPEAKER_03 (01:00):
Which is growing daily.
I'm still.
Yeah, but it's smaller than itused to be.
Yeah, that's true.
So the room is not growing, butthe number of planes.
I'm trying to finish the HE Oh,that's right.
We got criticized for mentioningit.
So we can't.
HE 177, trying to get it done.
It's a big project.
SPEAKER_04 (01:15):
Dude's obsessed with trees and World War II aircraft,
really.
Mainly World War II aircraft.
SPEAKER_03 (01:21):
What about soccer?
We're just the World Cup andsoccer.
SPEAKER_04 (01:24):
Okay, there you go.
SPEAKER_03 (01:25):
Now you got it covered.
SPEAKER_04 (01:26):
Do you have anything else you're interested?
No, nothing.
Well, that's about it.
So that's about it.
Welcome to the show.
Don here, Tom there.
Thank you for being there,wherever the heck you are, doing
your dog walk or your car driveor whatever it is you're doing.
What do you think of articleslike this?
Here's a headline from a recentarticle from the goofy.
(01:48):
It's lost its mojo.
It's really over and they don'tknow it yet.
Kiplinger personal financething.
Which is too bad because it usedto be a really great
publication.
Yeah, but they lost their touch.
I think they lost their soul,actually.
And you know, not just them.
Money magazine lost its soul.
Right.
Barron.
Well, no, Barron's had alwayslost its soul.
(02:10):
They were always evil.
They were always weird.
Here's the headline.
You're gonna you're gonna hearthis and you're gonna go, oh, I
gotta know what those are.
The five top buy and holdinvestments to manage market
volatility from Jeff Reeves, ajournalist in air quotes.
Financial journalist.
(02:31):
I mean his bio is hystericalbecause it really does.
It says nothing.
It it's a it's a bio that saysreally absolutely nothing.
Jeff Reeves writes about equitymarkets and exchange traded
funds.
A veteran journalist withextensive capital markets
experience.
(02:52):
Jeff is a good idea.
SPEAKER_03 (02:53):
Which we all have capital markets experience if
you're an investor.
Yeah.
Covered.
SPEAKER_04 (02:57):
His work has appeared in respected outlets,
including CNBC, Fox Business,Wall Street Journal, Digital
Network, which it's differentfrom the Wall Street Journal, by
the way, USA Today and CNNMoney.
That just means that there'ssome sort of a, you know, here,
write us 500 words, we'll giveyou a dollar a word or
something.
SPEAKER_03 (03:15):
Yeah.
But let's listen to this open.
It's powerful.
It's uh it it really reaches inand grabs you because it's so
unusual.
Market volatility, he writes, isthe norm in 2026 with political
uncertainty and inflationarypressures defining price moves
in the first half of the year.
SPEAKER_04 (03:33):
Okay, that paragraph, that paragraph, you
could you could substitute anyyear for 2026, and that
paragraph would be just asapplicable, no matter how far
back or forward you go.
You know, I could say marketvolatility will be the norm in
2027, with political uncertaintyand inflationary pressures
(03:54):
defining price moves.
I I could say that.
Yes, you could.
SPEAKER_03 (03:57):
But could you say the following?
Where actually I kind of agreewith them here.
History shows that long-termwealth is not built by reacting
to these short-term headlines.
Rather, it's built bymaintaining disciplined exposure
to high-quality assets that growyour nest egg over time.
SPEAKER_04 (04:14):
And that is where the article should have ended.
The logic there becauseeverything that follows, well,
not everything that follows, um,because he does say, you know,
if you're picking assets basedon predictions, that's a
mistake.
So you need to do a mix ofstocks and exchange traded
funds.
So we've got three paragraphsthat kind of work.
(04:35):
And then he gets to his fiverecommendations.
And by the way, this dude lovesnumbers.
I looked up some of his otherarticles, and and I and they are
voluminous.
Uh they're not.
So if he's only getting a dollara word, he's probably okay then
if he's writing a lot of it.
(04:56):
Here are some of his recentarticles.
Ten can't miss dividend growthstocks to buy.
Seven consumer ETFs to play thenext big tax return spending
spree.
Five lesser-known energy ETFs toplay oil, best ETFs for 2018,
best gold ETFs and preciousmetals ETFs, and they all have a
number in the title.
All of them.
(05:17):
By the way, there was an therewas this is a debunked belief
that numbers in titles helpattract readers.
I thought that was PaulMerriman's thing, too.
That's what it was.
Well, it was based on anarticle.
It was based on an article Paulread about attention spans and
that human beings didn't have uhmore that goldfish had longer
attention spans than we did.
(05:38):
It turned out it was a debunkedarticle.
There's been massive amounts ofuh academic research done into
headlines.
They actually researchheadlines.
SPEAKER_03 (05:46):
There's three studies that were done?
SPEAKER_04 (05:48):
Yeah, and they found that this that uh putting
numbers in makes no difference.
Oh, okay.
I always thought it was a ruleof three anyway, but okay.
Ten, fine, whatever.
So what are his suggestions,Tom, for stability in a volatile
market?
SPEAKER_03 (06:03):
First of all, any stock or stock fund is not
bought for stability.
No, but he says low volatility.
Yeah, well, okay.
Number one, and this is ashocker, frankly, uh, because
it's probably a fund you'venever heard of, even though it
just passed a trillion dollarsunder management.
First ETF to do that.
That would be VOO, the VanguardS P 500.
(06:27):
Oh, or as I call it, Voodoo.
Voodoo.
Um it's inexpensive, it has agreat 10-year return.
It's the S P 500.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's really not that good.
SPEAKER_04 (06:39):
It's 500 stocks.
And, you know, like a third ofit is just a few big companies.
SPEAKER_03 (06:47):
Yeah, a third is uh, I think 10 or maybe 11 companies
total.
And that'll get worse now withuh although I just read, I think
I read this correctly today.
The the SP 500 is now decidedthe SP has decided not to add
SpaceX for a year to the SP 500.
SPEAKER_04 (07:04):
They didn't pander.
SPEAKER_03 (07:05):
Yeah, that's good.
But here's the thing.
SPEAKER_04 (07:07):
So his first he do he comes out with a domestic
equity fund, which I'm okay withthat in concept.
That's a good place to start,but it should have been VT or
something similar, somethingbroader, because he goes with a
broader index for his nextchoice.
SPEAKER_03 (07:24):
Yeah, VXUS, the Vanguard Total International
ETF.
So here you're getting 88companies with the SP 500,
you're only getting 500 in theUnited States.
It's kind of an odd option.
SPEAKER_04 (07:36):
Not 8,800.
SPEAKER_03 (07:37):
Says 8800, VXUS.
You said 88.
Oh, 88.
Well, my mind's stuck on 88.
Uh 8800.
Thank you for correcting me.
See, that's a lot of stocks.
That's made that makes moresense to me.
It does.
Um, and by the way, when you dobuy invest in there, 15% of the
money goes to Japan, which I didnot know, and uh UK and Canada
(08:01):
get about 8% each, which is morethan I would have thought.
So, but any rate, that's awell-diversified fund.
Again, it's inexpensive, and youbasically get most of the
international market buying acompany, buying those companies
out there.
SPEAKER_04 (08:13):
By the way, to me, that is the only good suggestion
he makes in the whole article.
I don't think the rest of themare any good, but go ahead.
Tell us the rest of them.
SPEAKER_03 (08:24):
Next one is the XLV Healthcare Select Sector Spider
Fund.
Um, this is tied to the it'sgonna surprise you, the
healthcare sector in the UnitedStates.
60 really 60 healthcare stocks.
Uh big pharma, of course, EliLilly, Johnson and Johnson, etc.
(08:46):
Um, 10-year return isoutstanding.
Uh part pardon me, not uh10-year return is great.
I'm looking at the next one.
I was gonna say not very good.
In fact, I just looked that upthat fund up and it was not very
impressive.
But you're getting exposure tothe sector that just gonna it
has to be great, Don, in thefuture because we all need
healthcare, right?
SPEAKER_04 (09:07):
It doesn't have to be great in the future.
And I I I gotta tell you, andthat just because you mentioned
the performance, I I went andlooked because I wanted to see
just how bad it was.
And the at 10 years it lookspretty good.
Um but if you look at VT, theVanguard Total World Index, it
(09:29):
did 13% over the period ofdiversification and you had
lower cost.
SPEAKER_03 (09:36):
Nine and a half, lower standard deviation.
So anyway, it doesn't makesense.
But the next choice really, yougotta wonder uh This one
bothered you how because thisapparently came from the
Department of RedundancyDepartment.
Now remember, in the S P fivehundred, you own a Wait a
minute, isn't it the redundantDepartment of Redundancy
Department?
Whatever it is, they'reredundantly passing out.
(09:58):
Here's the thing with the SP500, you have about almost 7% of
your money in Apple stock.
Pretty significant allocation toone company, frankly.
SPEAKER_04 (10:09):
Uh well, although if I look around me, I have I think
that's true.
You are the bulk of my studio isApple Tech number.
That's true.
SPEAKER_03 (10:16):
So you are you are the spokesman for Apple, but he
recommends Apple stock.
That's one of the five.
That's one of the five.
Crazy.
SPEAKER_04 (10:28):
And I think he's only doing it because the
10-year average annual returnwas 30%.
That's got to be the onlyreason.
That doesn't sound likestability with a 30% 10-year
average annual return.
But it has unmatched brandloyalty.
SPEAKER_03 (10:41):
Well, I I can attest to that.
And it has a huge amount of cashon its balance sheet.
Okay, fine.
And he says it's it seems to beone of the best stocks to buy
for the long run.
SPEAKER_04 (10:54):
Until uh something else usurps its position?
Exactly.
I mean, that's the way businessworks.
That's why we don't bet onindividual companies.
Because it's not the individualcompanies individually that make
the market a good place toinvest long term.
It's the economy, it's the it'sthe the sum of all of these
(11:14):
individual companies.
Because one rises and one falls,and we see it over and over
again.
Over regularly.
I mean, like, you know, fiftyyears ago, IBM was the apple of
the world, was the apple of oureye.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (11:27):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_04 (11:28):
And it ain't no more.
Apple's the apple of our eye.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (11:31):
But did you say 30 percent a year for the last 10
years?
Yes.
Yeah.
That alone would make me nervousbecause that's a pretty steep
hill they're climbing.
They're shh, can you keep it?
SPEAKER_04 (11:41):
Plus, they've lost their very, very, very
successful CEO has uh is beingreplaced.
And while John Turnus could be agreat one, we don't know.
We don't know.
Have they gotten into the spacemarket yet?
SPEAKER_03 (11:55):
That's whatever.
SPEAKER_04 (11:56):
No, they're not they're not going the Bezos must
who has the bigger rocket race.
SPEAKER_03 (12:03):
We're not talking about that on this show.
SPEAKER_04 (12:05):
Well, uh No, they're going the new Glenn versus the
never mind.
I'm just Zuckerberg's.
SPEAKER_03 (12:11):
And they're all blowing up.
His big boat just showed up inSeattle.
Boat can even call it 347 footboat.
Somebody's asking me what itwould look like on our lake.
I said it'd fill it.
SPEAKER_04 (12:21):
Totally from one end to the other.
SPEAKER_03 (12:22):
Couldn't turn around.
Uh okay.
If that was a bit troubling, uhhow about something like that?
Yeah, we're still waiting fornumber five.
Yeah, how about something that'sa little more shiny and a little
more exciting because it's had agreat run, especially over the
last year and a half.
That would be iShare's GoldTrust.
Um, talk about buying somethingafter a great, I mean, it's gold
(12:44):
has done very well recently, notas well this year.
Um and he admits commoditiesdon't have any fundamentals, but
what they bring is a real-worldvalue that cannot be disputed.
I don't know what that disputed.
I don't know what that becausegold is only worth as much as
the next guy says it's worth.
SPEAKER_04 (13:02):
Right.
And the other thing about goldis I got I've got 2,000 years of
history on gold.
It's the only asset that I canreally pull up 2,000 years of
history, what it's been worth.
And what gold was worth 2,000years ago is almost exactly what
gold is worth today.
And here's the other thing aboutgold.
This article is all aboutstability, right?
Right?
(13:23):
Wasn't that in the headline?
Um, there was a mention ofstability, yes.
Yeah, he said these areinvestments to manage market
volatility.
Well, hmm, let's look back.
In 2021, gold lost four percent.
In 2022, gold lost a half apercent.
(13:44):
Then in 2025, gold gainedsixty-four percent.
Yeah.
That does not sound likemanaging volatility.
That sounds like enhancingvolatility to me.
SPEAKER_03 (13:56):
I think you're right.
And I think this is a very sillyportfolio, frankly.
I I don't know.
It doesn't feel like there's anyanything other than rando picks.
Um, and I gotta say, if theacademics were to look at this,
they would just be there'd be alot of red ink.
SPEAKER_04 (14:11):
Like what I think You know, I I really when I read
this, I I wasn't sure if we weregoing to talk about it or not.
And then I went, yeah, it's thatclickbait thing.
We should talk about it becausethere's lots of it out there.
And the reason I chose this wasbecause at first glance, to me,
it seemed totally random.
(14:32):
It didn't seem well thought out,and it seemed to come from
someone who really did not haveany background in financial
planning or investment research.
Although he claims the contrary.
SPEAKER_03 (14:47):
Yeah, he does.
Been around capital markets fora long time.
Oh, okay, but leaving thatportfolio aside, which I think
we should hug up.
SPEAKER_04 (14:54):
I have hung out in Apple stores.
SPEAKER_03 (14:56):
That's I think it should be different.
Does that make me a computerexpert?
Pretty much.
But here's the question at hand.
It comes up, people ask me on aregular basis, okay, this is
from Kiplinger, they've jumpedthe shark, they're not who they
used to be, and we have historywith Nike Kiplinger, all that
kind of stuff, and I like him.
But the publication is not,again, a great place to go look
(15:17):
for really good advice.
But where is then?
Yeah.
What do you who do you trust?
Can you trust, for example, theWall Street Journal?
SPEAKER_04 (15:26):
Sometimes.
SPEAKER_03 (15:27):
That's what that's the tricky part, right?
There's some very good stuffthere.
Jason Swag is good.
SPEAKER_04 (15:32):
Not very often.
SPEAKER_03 (15:33):
Nope.
Market Watch, rarely.
What about information from fundfamilies like um Vanguard or
DSP?
SPEAKER_04 (15:40):
I think you can trust I because uh again, once
again, consider the source.
Vanguard has been known for verygood academically vetted uh
papers and information.
Uh Dimensional, uh uh all theinformation that Dimensional
puts out is really well vettedand uh gr uh tremendously
(16:01):
research.
SPEAKER_03 (16:02):
And it's not pornography, right?
It's not meant to excite.
SPEAKER_04 (16:05):
No, as a matter of fact, it's meant to do exactly
the opposite.
If you read if you readDimensional's papers, you'll go,
wait, I think I need to readthat again, because they're
definitely not written at theseclickbait articles are actually
I I did a lot of research onthis.
The advice is to write them at athird grade level.
SPEAKER_03 (16:25):
They accomplished it here.
SPEAKER_04 (16:26):
Yeah.
I mean, no, that's really what,and I gotta tell you, there's no
way a third grader is gonna getmost of what dimensional talks
about.
SPEAKER_03 (16:35):
No, I think that's fair.
Okay, but let's set that asidefor just a moment then, too.
But let me ask you thisquestion, then, because at the
end of the day, why would you bereading this article?
The reason you'd be reading thisarticle, and most people will
admit it if you really pressthem, is the portfolio I'm in,
I'm not sure it's the right onebecause it hasn't made enough
money in the last 15, 20 years,or five years, or one year,
(16:56):
whatever it is, and I may needto change.
SPEAKER_04 (16:59):
Well, and also the fact that people uh have been
lately a little bit more scaredthan usual.
We're always a little scaredabout something.
And so they're looking aroundand they see that volatility
portion of the headline, andthey think, oh, great, five easy
investments, I can just buy themand hold on to them, and my
volatility will go down.
(17:19):
And the funny thing is, is thisthe the the the opposite is true
of most of this portfolio.
There's very little stability inthese ETFs.
They're not built to be stable.
SPEAKER_03 (17:31):
There's not a bond fund here.
No, nothing nothing gonna holdvalue in a really bad time in
any way.
Well, I mean, no reduction ofvolatility.
SPEAKER_04 (17:40):
Yeah, I mean, the incredible.
We already said Apple at 30% ayear, gold at 60 plus percent in
one year after following acouple of years of negative
returns.
Uh uh the S P 500, which is notthe market, it is a portion of
the market.
And then healthcare.
There's nothing low volatilityabout most of this.
(18:02):
It feels like a dartboard, likesort of throwing oh, I hit that.
SPEAKER_03 (18:05):
Oh, oh, and that may be that, sure.
SPEAKER_04 (18:07):
That may be.
It maybe he has a template andhe just fills in the blanks.
SPEAKER_03 (18:11):
So going back to the question I just asked, how do
you then decide?
Because if you're out looking,how do you decide on what would
be a better portfolio?
If I'm trying to find a betterportfolio, how do you think
that's what I'm saying?
SPEAKER_04 (18:21):
I wish it was easy.
All all I can say is pleaselisten to us.
I I'm serious.
Don't you don't ever need tobecome our client or anything,
but please listen to us.
Because what we're talking aboutis truly based on lots and lots
of research.
Now, is it r always right?
(18:42):
No.
We've never claimed to be alwaysright, but at least we don't
pander, and our shows don't haveany clickbait in them.
No.
I tell you what it does have tobe.
We're not trying to titillate.
What does it do?
Yeah, no, and let by the way,when you do questions, um you
(19:02):
you can send them in.
You two ways to do it.
You go to talkingrealmoney.comand you speak them.
I'll do them on the Fridaypodcast, and I need a couple of
those.
Or you can type them, and thenTom will occasionally call you
and have a conversation withyou, or he'll um read them.
Do you want to go with thereading?
SPEAKER_03 (19:20):
Is that what you're saying?
I well, yeah, I saw you had themready.
Okay.
I'm ready.
SPEAKER_04 (19:24):
Hold on, let's not do that.
Let's let's go to I've got itbecause I've got your call.
SPEAKER_03 (19:28):
I wasn't sure.
SPEAKER_04 (19:30):
I'm gonna do this all over again.
And Tom can uh either read themfrom his pieces of paper, which
he loves to do, but he likeswhat he likes even more is to
have a conversation with you.
SPEAKER_03 (19:42):
We're gonna go across Puget Sound to Bremerton,
Washington, where we are gonnachat with uh Brian.
Brian, thank you for uh beingpart of Talking Real Money.
How can we help you today?
SPEAKER_01 (19:53):
Well, thanks for speaking with me.
I you know enjoyed listening tothe show.
Just uh, you know, listen a lot.
We guys would say you talked somuch about different uh
strategies, and I had perhaps alittle bit of unique, although
you've kind of touched on thisbefore, but given I've got a
little bit of a unique timehorizon, I wanted to see how
best he approached it and seewhat your thought was.
So I've got uh you know a veryuh charitable mother-in-law who
(20:16):
was wanting to uh to gift um achunk of her estate to her to my
sons, um, her grandsons, andit's part of her estate plan.
And so my wife and I will becometrustees, a spendthrift trust
for each of them.
And so the trust will are to uhterminate by design in about 12
years when each of them turn 35,and and it's specifically the
(20:40):
intent or the that uh the trustand therefore our uh fiduciary
responsibility is to use themoney now as we see fit for
their support and um maintenanceand um education and so forth.
Um, and so I kind of struck withokay, how do I, you know,
approach this and how do Iinvest it in a in a fiduciarily
(21:03):
responsible manner, knowing thatthere's there are kind of two
goals.
One is to anticipate anunrealized need that may come up
for school, or perhaps, youknow, as they're in their young
20s and you know, in their late20s, early 30s, getting married
and wanting to buy a house.
So that'd be a substantialwithdrawal.
And then the other one is thatokay, it it expire it terminates
(21:24):
it in 12 years, and it's notquite the same as retirement um
like for a target date or orheading into off to college like
at 529, but there's still thatthought that it's got this dual
objective for for investing, youknow.
So you invest for now and keepit stable, or do you invest for
the future, or what is the righthybrid?
(21:45):
So, as I you know, I think aboutwhat would be the bucket
approach if I was to apply thatkind of strategy.
So I was kind of thinking whatyou all would think about that.
SPEAKER_03 (21:53):
Yeah, but well, first I think does your mother
in law need any more friends?
Because you know, I'm alwayslooking for a couple friends and
half a million dollars.
Goes a long way.
I think this is amazing.
I think it's awesome.
Makes me feel guilty about mygrandkids.
So I hope they're not listening.
Um, so this is this is reallygreat.
So, you know, half a milliondollars, and and that could have
substantial growth in 12 years,right?
(22:13):
I mean, you could get a doublein that time.
It could be a million dollarsyou're handing somebody at 35.
What an advantage that would be.
So yeah, your your question iskind of so with that in mind,
you know, how should that beinvested?
And the the trust will be payingout something the next few years
is what you're saying.
It's but you're sort of standingbetween the kids and the money,
(22:35):
basically, as trustee, to say,yes, the trust will pay this or
no, it will not, correct?
SPEAKER_01 (22:40):
Correct.
And and my thought is, you know,either both listening to you all
and some other education I'vedone with myself, is it to, you
know, not as as you all wouldsay, not to let the tax dog tax
tail weight the dog.
You know, I intend to distributesome of the some or most, or if
not all the income.
I want to invest it, you know,in ETFs on the equity side so
(23:03):
that, you know, whatever thatmay be, so that you know, we
keep the taxable income on thetrust down, distribute um
dividends and whatnot to keepthe taxes down, but still, and
I'm you know, anticipatingsubstantial growth and whatever
equities I would invest in.
Yeah.
And so, yeah, it's but therestill may be a need if they need
a new car or if they're gone offto graduate school or something
(23:23):
that we would make largercontribu or distributions.
SPEAKER_03 (23:26):
Yeah, so those things will come up and you'll
need to create the cash forthat.
So that gets back to kind ofyour your the big picture, like
so how much should be insomething that doesn't have much
volatility, like fixed income.
Right.
And how much is free growth?
SPEAKER_01 (23:41):
It strikes me a little bit as someone would
approach it when they're inretirement, but I didn't know if
that was the right way ofthinking about it.
And then, you know, well, youknow, because that in so if you
think about it that way, is it amore like a traditional 6040
split?
Or it's an interesting conceptor an interesting idea.
SPEAKER_03 (23:58):
Yeah, it's a it's a bit of a conundrum.
But here's the way I would Imean, so if it's a half a
million dollars, my take wouldbe that if you if a hundred
thousand of that was in fixedincome, that would probably be
enough to pay out anything thatlet's say a car or a house or
something like that in the next10 years or so, because you said
(24:18):
it's 12 years.
So that that would and thatwould be set aside that way.
Then the rest of it would beaggressive because you want that
to grow.
Man, when you're 22, you're justhoping for you know great
markets um, you know, for forthose periods, that period of
time.
And by the way, it doesn't endat 35.
You hope that at 35 they don'tpull it all out and you know go
to Las Vegas or somethingeither.
SPEAKER_01 (24:38):
Um that's the spend trip part while they're in their
20s, but you know, yeah.
SPEAKER_03 (24:43):
Yeah, so so I probably would be pretty
aggressive with that.
Maybe 80.
I don't love a target date fundin this circumstance because
they usually the assetallocation is somewhat limited.
Um I don't know that you need togo on a glide path really per
se, because if you're gonnacreate a little bit of income
off of it and pay that out,maybe pay out the dividends,
(25:04):
that kind of thing, there's alittle bit of there's a little
bit of fun money there for themin their 20s.
You want to have people thatwant to have a little fun.
Um but if you had, you know, 20%of it as I say in fixed income,
like a BND, and then you had 80%of it if you wanted to keep it
really simple, like an AVGE orDFAW, you know, the global funds
from Avantis or fromDimensional, that would give you
(25:27):
the growth side.
You'd hope for that would be 10,11% a year.
The fixed income, not gonna makemuch, but it's the balance and
it's the money that's there ifsomething were to come up.
Um, and you certainly hope notmany things would in your 20s,
but they do, right?
I mean, your life changes a lotin your 20s.
Um, so that would give you thebalance.
I'd probably want to be thataggressive though, unless I
(25:48):
really knew my kids well andsaid, look, they're gonna need X
for a wedding or they're gonnaneed blank for a car or a house,
then maybe you could you couldshade that a little bit more and
go, you know, 75% stock, 25%bond.
But I really think like an80-20, keep it simple.
If you want a one fund stocksolution, one fund bond
solution, and you're kind of allset for the short and the longer
(26:11):
term.
SPEAKER_00 (26:12):
Okay.
That's kind of what I wasthinking too, but there's just,
you know, just good to get asecond opinion, I guess.
SPEAKER_03 (26:18):
Yeah, no, and I think this is wow, what a what a
wonderful, wonderful gift uh fora young person, too, to get them
going at that age.
I mean, the only other thinghere that I'd love to see is
some sort of regular financingof their, you know, uh tax-free
interest.
For example, Roth IRAs.
I mean, if you're taking alittle bit of that out, plug it
into a Roth IRA for each one ofthem over time, that I think
(26:40):
would be what a huge advantageif they could fully fund that
for the next 10 years.
Because then even if they didnothing after that, you're
probably probably looking atmillionaires there as well.
SPEAKER_01 (26:51):
Well, yeah, thankfully she's already started
that.
This is this is phase two ofestate planning.
So that already started lastyear with those annual uh contra
or gifts, and then that wouldyou know, or most of it went
straight into five or pardon me,Roth IRAs that they each opened
last year.
SPEAKER_03 (27:06):
So I love it.
This is really great stuff.
Um, man, I think that I I thinkyour thinking is good here.
Diversify, have some in fixedincome, hope for great growth
and hope for great marketsduring that period of time.
And then man, what a what agreat future for them.
Super, super idea.
SPEAKER_01 (27:22):
Okay, well, good.
Thanks for that information.
SPEAKER_03 (27:24):
Thank you for being part of the show.
Appreciate you listening andhope we get to chat again
sometime.
All right, you have a great day.
Thanks, Brian.
SPEAKER_04 (27:31):
And see, wasn't that a lovely conversation?
Enjoyed it very much.
See, he enjoyed it, but he stilllikes reading the questions to
me, particularly ones that Ihave not heard before, so he
thinks he's gonna cut me.
SPEAKER_03 (27:42):
That's fair.
And this one comes from Jay Moin Seoul, South Korea.
unknown (27:48):
Okay.
SPEAKER_03 (27:49):
I'm gonna read this in the Seoul, Soul.
Wait, from South Korea.
Yeah, I'm gonna read this in theoriginal Korean, so you may need
to translate a little bit.
I need Chat GPT, hold on.
Yes, something.
Um, no, I'm not.
Um, gentlemen, you are the lastvestige of trustable call-in
financial advice that I canreliably and entertainingly
listen to.
(28:09):
As you move into your new new,more produced and procured call
format.
Please take care to not become aclone of the now useless
podcasts such as Jill on Money,where neurotic, delusional
multimillionaires call intohumble brag about their
financial situations as if theyhave any real problems.
(28:30):
Your show can't devol.
I did not write this.
Your show, I'm not, I'm not thiscreative.
Your show can't devolve into aconstant, can I retire?
How am I doing?
format.
Please stay topic focused as youalready are.
Stay golden.
Listeners all around the worldare counting on you.
I've called in before, and youhave great advice about an
actual problem I was having.
SPEAKER_04 (28:50):
Okay.
One.
It's not highly produced.
No, it's not high.
What you hear generally Unlessthere's a big glaring boo-boo on
our parts.
And that's a scientific term foruh mess up mistake.
Then it just goes what you hearwhat we give what we do is what
(29:13):
you hear.
What do you hear?
I don't you know, I I've had uhadvice from some in the industry
who don't supposedly know moreabout what they're doing for me
to clean up all the ums and ahsand pauses and stumbles and but
you know what?
No.
That if you give a show itspersonality.
SPEAKER_03 (29:33):
If you do that, it'll be about a 45-second
podcast, too.
And that's the other thing.
SPEAKER_04 (29:38):
It'd be so darn short.
If we were just we just did thetopic and no asides, uh uh no
rambling.
Yeah.
So all right.
You want a real question now?
No, I'm sorry.
That was too much fun.
I don't want any more.
SPEAKER_03 (29:50):
That was a great question.
Thank you.
Or comment.
Steve from Henderson, Nevada, alittle closer to home.
Financial advisor performance isthe subject.
Now remember what we just talkedabout?
We did.
How do I measure my financialadvisor's performance?
I'm with Schwab WealthManagement and I'm charged 0.56
of the portfolio value.
SPEAKER_04 (30:08):
Pretty cheap.
That's really cheap.
SPEAKER_03 (30:12):
Well, depending on the size of the portfolio.
SPEAKER_04 (30:14):
But again, it depends on the level of advice
you're getting, too.
SPEAKER_03 (30:17):
Ah, thank you.
SPEAKER_04 (30:18):
But how is Are you just getting portfolio?
SPEAKER_03 (30:21):
This happens on a regular basis.
People call me up and they saymy money's at fill in the blank,
and I've only made, you know,eight percent a year for the
last ten years.
SPEAKER_04 (30:31):
Here's the thing.
I think we're trying to measureby the wrong yardstick or meter
stick if we're metric.
It's not about what they makeyou, it's about what they do for
you.
Because everybody's returnshould be different, because
everybody's portfolio should bepersonalized.
(30:54):
So it can't, you can't ret youcan't just compare return to
return to return to return,because if I have a very
conservative bent and a veryconservative portfolio, and
really little or no need to takerisk, I should have a very low
returning portfolio, even if I'mpaying my advisor 1%.
Because it's the right portfoliofor me.
It's the right and wait, whatelse are you getting from that
(31:18):
advisor?
SPEAKER_03 (31:18):
Ah, that's a good idea.
SPEAKER_04 (31:19):
Did you get a financial plan and ongoing help
with planning?
Did do you get regularrebalancing and hand holding?
Do you get uh help with creatingthe income and managing it into
retirement?
Do you get direction on estateand tax planning and those kinds
of things?
If you're just getting portfoliomanagement, then you don't want
(31:43):
to pay much for that.
No, no, no.
But if you're getting life moneymanagement, pay more.
SPEAKER_03 (31:47):
What?
If you're just getting that,right?
If you're just getting theportfolio management, what would
you what portfolio should theycompare it to to say this is a
good return or not a goodreturn?
SPEAKER_04 (31:58):
You can't.
I I'm s I I know this is a copout answer, but you can't.
I I can't say that uh a30-year-old's 80-20 portfolio
should should be at the samelevel as a 70-year-old's 40-60
portfolio.
They're gonna be different.
So you can't make that simplecomparison.
(32:20):
I think that's what most of uswant to do.
We want to be able to say, Iwant to compare this to this
benchmark.
Well, there is really nobenchmark.
It's got to be individualized.
So here's the thing.
If your portfolio is full ofhigh expense, complex
investments, then it's likely tobe a more dangerous, more
(32:42):
volatile at times higheryielding, at other times much
lower yielding portfolio.
If your portfolio is inlow-cost, match the market kinds
of products, that's what youshould expect.
To match, here's what you shouldexpect.
To match the underlying market.
If you're a 40-60 investor andyour portfolio is doing
somewhere around what thehistoric average for a 40-60
(33:04):
portfolio is, then you're doingpretty well if you're getting
all of those added services.
SPEAKER_03 (33:09):
Yeah, I think that's right.
My takeaway always is numberone, every return is
idiosyncratic.
Don't return is different thanmine because money's been
invested at different times, etcetera.
It's not going to be the same.
Number two, what you should knowis the portfolio design and why
it is.
In other words, if it's a 6040,as you just mentioned, why is it
(33:30):
a 6040?
What am I trying to achieve interms of return?
How much risk volatility am Iwilling to accept?
Number three, does theportfolio?
This is the part that I thinkmost people overlook.
Does it include all the assetsthat you should own?
Most of you own mostly bigcompanies, growth kind of
oriented portfolio.
Big U.S.
SPEAKER_04 (33:49):
companies.
Big U.S.
companies.
SPEAKER_03 (33:51):
You do not have U.S.
small cap value.
You do not have emergingmarkets.
You don't have emerging marketsvalue.
There's places that your moneyshould be distributed and it's
not being.
That's the port that I wouldlook at from the portfolio.
When we analyze when we tellyou, you really have to do that.
SPEAKER_04 (34:08):
I can adjust my my answer just a smidge.
If you are in a portfolio andyou've been with that advisor
for a very long time, and it hasdone as well or slightly better
than the index of thatportfolio, a 6040, a balanced
index, for example, versus a6040 managed portfolio.
(34:29):
If you're doing as well orbetter, then you're do uh your
advisor is probably doing whatyour advisor should be doing.
SPEAKER_03 (34:37):
Yeah.
Well, except again, I'm stillgoing to want to look at those
asset classes and make surethey're represented because
there could be periods, by theway, probably like the last 10
years, where certain assets dobetter than others.
So you could look like you'redoing really well and then it
wouldn't do very well becauseyou're not properly diversified.
So I'd say that's the samething.
SPEAKER_04 (34:53):
Yeah, maybe the an even better answer is to look
back at what that advisor'sportfolio might have done or
would have done over the last 50years.
SPEAKER_03 (35:00):
Yeah, long periods of time.
Yeah, I agree.
SPEAKER_04 (35:03):
So But look everybody wants an easy
benchmark.
Is my advisor doing worse orbetter?
No, is your advisor giving youthe services you need?
That's what the answer is.
Is your advisor giving you theservices you need?
You can't compare it.
It's like saying, is my taxadvisor getting me bigger
refunds?
Every good tax advisor shouldgift you the exact same refund.
(35:26):
I actually stuck on the good taxadvisor would try to figure out
a way to keep you from gettingrefunds.
Yeah, uh exactly.
SPEAKER_03 (35:34):
Pay what you owe as you go.
I I think the bigger issue,frankly, is one you mentioned a
couple minutes minutes ago,whose rocket is bigger.
That's what at the end of theday you really want to know
who's got the bigger rocket.
And then after that, it's allconversation.
Are you saying size matters?
SPEAKER_04 (35:50):
Just putting it out there.
What does that have to do withadvice?
You know, I you made that jokeunrelated to the current topic.
A real non-sequitur there?
Uh it's it's a redundantlyredundant non-sequitorial
sequitur.
SPEAKER_03 (36:09):
Kind of fits, though, I think.
SPEAKER_04 (36:10):
Right.
Kind of well, with your the wayyour brain works, yeah.
Kind of total fits.
Totally fits.
Well, look at that.
We went way over time today,didn't we?
SPEAKER_03 (36:19):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_04 (36:19):
We're way over time.
SPEAKER_03 (36:23):
Big time.
SPEAKER_04 (36:24):
All right.
What's you want to check stuffout?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
You want to ask us a question?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
You want to meet with one of ouradvisors for free for nothing
with no obligation or no highpressure sales pitch?
Go to talkingrealmoney.com.
Just go to talking real money.
If you're not listening to us,the rest of your life, you
should be ontalkingrealmoney.com.
There's only two things youshould be doing in your life
(36:44):
anymore.
Listening to Talking Real Moneyor visiting TalkingReal
Money.com because we're TalkingReal Money.
SPEAKER_02 (36:51):
The opinions that you've expressed on this podcast
were current on the daterecorded.
Opinions, estimates, forecasts,and statements of financial
market trends that are based oncurrent market conditions
constitute our judgment and aresubject to change without
notice, including anyforward-looking estimates or
statements which are based oncertain expectations and
assumptions.
Although information andopinions given have been
obtained from or based onsources believed to be reliable,
no warranty or representation ismade as to their correctness,
(37:12):
completeness, or accuracy.
Information presented on thepodcast is not personalized
investment advice from OphelloWealth.
The views and strategiesdescribed may not be suitable
for everyone.
This podcast does not identifyall the risks, direct or
indirect or other considerationswhich might be material to you
when entering any financialtransaction.
Past performance does notguarantee feature results, and
profitable results cannot beguaranteed.
We hope you realize that theinformation provided on Talking
(37:34):
Real Money is for informational,educational, and hopefully
enjoyable purposes only.
The podcast is not trying to getyou to buy or sell any financial
products or securities.
Instead, the program is providedas a public service by Apello
Wealth, a fee-only registeredinvestment advisor.
See Appello Wealth's ADB Part 2Aon our website for information
regarding Appello's fees andservices.
Apollo Capital, LLC DBA AppelloWealth, is an investment
(37:55):
advisory firm registered withthe Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The firm only transacts businessin the states where it is
properly registered or excludedor exempt from registration
requirements.
Registration with the SEC or anystate securities authority does
not imply a certain level ofskill or training.
Apello does not provide tax orlegal advice, and nothing either
stated or implied here should beinferred as providing such
advice.
Thanks for listening, and pleasevisit talkingrealmoney.com for
(38:17):
more information and importantdisclosure related to
performance of any specificindex or fund quoted in this
podcast.
And the lawyers get richer.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.