Last time, we talked about general asset location principles, plus best practices for major asset classes like stocks, bonds, and real estate.
But what about non-traditional asset classes?
Also, if you’re planning to early retire, should your asset location considerations change at all…given that you generally cannot touch your tax-advantaged accounts until you’re nearly 60?
This week, we continue our discussion (part 2 of 2) with Jonathan Duong, CFA, about both these topics as they relate to tax-efficient asset location.
- Commodities (gold, oil)
- Illiquid investments like LPs, private equity, private loans, etc
- Speculative holdings like Bitcoin, art, collectibles
- How asset location considerations might change for early retirees
If you’re thinking about early retirement, what is your asset location plan? What are you holding in your taxable vs. tax-advantaged accounts? Let me know by leaving a comment.
Don’t miss an episode, hit that subscribe button…
If you liked this episode, be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss any upcoming episodes!
I need your help, please leave a listener review 🙂
If you liked this episode, would you please leave a quick review on Apple Podcasts? It’d mean the world to me and your review also helps others find my podcast, too!
Links mentioned in this episode:
- Wealth Engineers
- Financial planning software: eMoney, Advyzon, Covisum
- Asset location: What assets should you hold in each account to minimize taxes? (HYW062)
- How to set your target asset allocation and rebalance your portfolio efficiently (HYW058)
- Schedule a private 1:1 consultation with me
- HYW private Facebook community
Read this episode as a post:
Andrew Chen 01:23
We were talking about the distinction between taxable and tax-advantaged. But when you double-click on tax-advantaged, are there any rules of thumb that you think about for when to put it in a tax-deferred versus a tax-free account?
Jonathan Duong 01:37
We talked about it a little bit earlier. I may not have called it out directly, but I referenced where if you’ve got a significant amount of Roth IRA space, then that can be an opportunity to invest in assets that are going to have the highest potential for capital appreciation.
All else equal, I would prefer for my Roth IRA to be my single largest account and my IRA to be a smaller account for me, simply because of the fact that that IRA is eventually going to pay income tax on withdrawals, whereas that Roth IRA is tax-exempt. So, that is definitely a significant consideration for a lot of investors.
If they’ve got a smaller Roth IRA, sure, you want to be able to make that differentiation, but it’s not as big of a deal. But if you’ve got a really large Roth IRA, you’ve got a long runway of time horizon in front of you, then absolutely, that can be a significant difference.
So, in general, I think if you’re making comparison between a tax-exempt account, like a Roth IRA, and a tax-deferred account, like a traditional IRA, the higher-returning, higher-growth assets can be better held in a Roth IRA as far as what that’s going to mean for your lifetime taxation.
Andrew Chen 02:49
How do you tend to think about the balance between a high-growth more advantageously going into a tax-free account versus the notion that there’s no free lunch: with a higher return, there’s going to be a higher risk and often higher volatility?
Typically, if those assets are placed in your tax-free account, you also lose the ability to tax loss harvest. And a loss in a tax-free account is far more painful than a loss in a taxable account.
For sure, when you equalize it all out, risk-adjusted return, the higher asset, other things equal, should go into the tax-free account. That makes total sense. But those two things are often inversely correlated.
So, how do you advise clients about how to strike that right balance?
Jonathan Duong 03:40
I think there is a lot of nuance and a lot of detail that needs to be considered there. In general, I still think holding high-appreciating assets, like stock index funds, in a taxable account is a better answer for a lot of our clients in particular. And the primary differentiation or consideration there is, obviously, you’re still getting the opportunity for a step up in basis.
For a lot of our clients, they’re not going to spend all of their assets. They’re going to end up passing assets on to the next generation, and that step up in basis can be really valuable.
What that means, just for our listeners who haven’t looked at that concept before, let’s say you buy a stock or a stock index fund for $100,000, and later on, you pass away and it’s worth $1 million, and you pass it on to your son or daughter or something like that. That investment, when that child inherits it or a person inherits it, the new basis at the time you pass away is no longer $100,000. It becomes $1 million.
All $900,000 of that growth is now completely tax-free, and no income tax is ever paid on that amount, which is hugely powerful. So, for clients who are thinking about multigenerational planning, then that’s where a step up in basis can be valuable above all else.
As far as additional considerations, when you’re thinking about the fact that you’re still getting that qualified dividend and the benefit of that, when we have clients who are in a low-income tax bracket because they’re retired, then it can still be really valuable.
Even if they aren’t planning on holding these assets indefinitely, they’re not necessarily planning on the next generation, it can still be valuable to take advantage of the 0% dividend and long-term capital gains rate by holding stocks in taxable, and then preserving Roth IRA space, say, exclusively for REITs.
So, there’s a lot of ways that you can optimize this, and there’s no single right answer between one investor versus the other.
Andrew Chen 05:49
I guess also, if you do charitable giving in a taxable account, you can use that a lot more strategically. You harvest out your losses and you donate out your highest-depreciated assets because the charity will get an immediate step up in stock basis. You get to write off the value of the donation, which might make holding a high return or a stock investment in a taxable account also make a lot of sense.
Jonathan Duong 06:18
Yeah. And that’s really a third reason for charitable giving, for exactly that: the opportunity to be able to donate low-basis assets and not ever need to sell them. So, it can be much more efficient to donate that low-basis asset.
You get to have the full positive impact of that charitable gift and the opportunity to get rid of all of that from your potential capital gains exposure. That can be a much more efficient approach than saying “I’m going to sell the asset, and I’m going to give you the cash.”
So, that’s another consideration, for sure, when you’re thinking about holding stock assets, for example, in a taxable account.
Andrew Chen 06:54
Let’s move to a few of the more niched type of asset classes, but people do hold them. And especially, the bigger your portfolio is, the more likely it is that you might consider investing or holding some of these types of asset classes, if nothing else than strictly diversification reasons.
When it comes to things like commodities (gold, oil, etc.) holding a fund, or a fund that invests in currencies, what’s the right way to think about asset location for this type of asset class?
Jonathan Duong 07:34
These asset classes, as a general rule, are very administratively burdensome when it comes to dealing with the taxes.
You can have a situation, for example, where you hold a commodities fund, whether it’s a collateralized commodities futures fund or whether it’s a fund that’s investing in precious metals or something like that where the burden that’s created from the way that the fund has to sell assets to cover expenses.
And what that ultimately means for you, when you have to go file your tax return, whether you do it yourself or whether you have a CPA or an enrolled agent do it, in my opinion, in a lot of cases, it completely outweighs the benefit of diversification that you would get.
There can be a lot of situations where just the data entry and the effort that’s required, I think investors really have to take a lot of thought to consider whether it’s worth that effort or not. That’s probably a big consideration.
In general, beyond that, I think there can be some beneficial taxation. For example, if you’re getting the benefit of being treated as a Section 1256 for a futures contract or something like that, for foreign exchange options or whatever, that can be beneficial because you’re getting a tax treatment where 60% of the gain is treated as long term, 40% is treated as short term.
That can be pretty beneficial for certain taxpayers where they’re able to inherently reduce the effect of tax rate of what they would otherwise pay. So, there can be some underlying benefits, but in a lot of cases, the administrative burden from a lot of these asset classes, in my opinion, just outweighs any potential benefit that you’re getting from a diversification or portfolio perspective.
Andrew Chen 09:25
Do you consider that also to be true for commodities like gold and oil, which typically people will hold as an inflation hedge, right? They don’t pay a dividend. It’s all driven based on what people’s expectations are, both regarding inflation as well as regarding safety of other asset classes.
Gold right now, as we speak, is spiking pretty hard. At least it has during the pandemic.
Do you believe the administrative burden also to be often outweighed in the case of commodities relative to their benefits?
Jonathan Duong 10:04
I think it’s all going to depend on how is it actually structured? You can have, for example, a collateralized commodities futures ETF. They can be actually taxed very differently, depending on the structure.
And it’s way more detailed and nuanced than we can necessarily get into right now, but there are different CCF funds. Some are more burdensome when it comes to tax filing; some are less burdensome. Some actually alleviate a lot of that burden.
So, when that differentiation is made and you’re aware of that, then you can find some benefits, depending on the particular security that you’re investing in.
As far as gold being an inflation hedge, that’s a much longer conversation. I think, broadly, what I would say is if you look at history and you look at data, gold, over very long periods of time, incredibly long investment time horizons by most people’s perspectives, can tend to correlate fairly reasonably with inflation, depending on how you’re measuring inflation.
But the challenge is it doesn’t tend to correlate nearly as well in short-term periods. Because of that reality, I think some investors who are really hoping for a hedge from a short-term unexpected spike in inflation, they’re going to be sorely disappointed if they’re relying on gold for that purpose.
They may be better served by looking at something like TIPS (treasury inflation-protected security). While we can agree or disagree about the definition of CPI as a metric for inflation, it’s specifically designed to track that.
So, that’s a longwinded way of saying it’s highly facts and circumstances-driven. What is the actual product or investment that you’re making? How is it structured?
Are you holding it directly or as part of a fund? And then, within that, where then are you placing it as far as taxable account versus tax-advantaged?
Andrew Chen 12:06
Just to make it more concrete, somebody is not doing exotic stuff in this regard. They’re just holding a plain vanilla GLD fund, which is just trying to provide a passive index for gold.
Just as an example, 40s- to 50-year-old investor who is not quite yet on the cusp of retirement but definitely approaching it. Would an investment like that be better held in a Roth, a tax-deferred, or a taxable?
Jonathan Duong 12:45
I think something like GLD, I’ll admit, I have not looked into it as of late. But my recollection is that the way that GLD is actually structured is such that it does create some problems from a tax perspective for a taxable investor.
I believe the history of the fund is that the fund actually has to sell assets on a monthly basis, in order to cover expenses. So you end up with a lot of transactions that are taking place that are all hitting that the investor. Even though people would think this is an ETF, it’s actually not structured the same way as a typical stock ETF.
So, it can absolutely be problematic. And in that respect, it may be less preferable. It may not be very advantageous from a burden perspective and the actual income tax impact to be holding that in a taxable account because of that reality.
But I’ll just say for clarity, I have not looked at the structure of GLD in a little while. It’s possible that they’ve rectified that issue recently.
Andrew Chen 12:45
What about illiquid investments, things like LP partnership interests, private equity share interests, venture capital, private loans, private lending, things like that? I wouldn’t call these exotic, but they’re definitely more niched, but they are popular for people who have especially a bit larger portfolios and they want to pursue alpha and get some diversification, hopefully.
We sure can have an argument about the merits of the abilities of these things to actually accomplish those. But where would you recommend people hold these things?
Jonathan Duong 14:26
I’ll just get on my diversification soapbox for one second and say: I don’t believe that any of these asset classes we’re talking about here are necessary as far as diversification goes.
We can talk about and have a discussion of “Is there a diversification benefit?” but I don’t think, for most investors, that it’s a necessary requirement that you have to include any of these asset classes at all. I don’t accept that as a foundation, even though it can seem attractive on the surface.
That said, in terms of tax issues here, it’s an area you have to be very careful of. When it comes to, say, MLPs (master limited partnerships), which can have some attractive characteristics to them for certain investors, this is an area you have to be particularly careful of. And it’s an area, because of some of the challenges, we don’t typically include MLPs in our asset allocation because of something known as unrelated business taxable income.
This is something that can come about when you hold this type of asset in an IRA, and it can have income, and when it’s sufficient enough that it needs a threshold (I think the IRA’s threshold is $1000), you then have a reporting obligation that creates a whole administrative burden that comes about with it. So, that’s an area you do have to be really careful of.
For a lot of the other asset classes that we’re thinking about, it’s really going to come back to: what are the characteristics of the asset class? Is it going to tend to generate more ordinary income or more qualified dividends and capital gains? Is there going to be any income that’s going to be taxed differently, let’s say collectibles where you’re going to have a maximum tax rate of 28%?
You’re going to have to evaluate all of those things, understand the actual specifics of that asset class, and then make a determination about where that particular asset goes.
But even some asset classes, for example, like MLPs, where you might be inclined to want to hold it in IRA, you have to be careful of that UBTI issue, and making sure that you understand it, and making sure that if you are in a situation where you’re exceeding that threshold in the IRS requirements, that you file appropriately for that particular year.
Andrew Chen 16:45
Let me ask three concrete examples related to this to flesh this out a little bit more. One is, let’s say, I was able to invest in Airbnb. Now it’s going public, but I was able to invest in Airbnb early on.
Airbnb never paid a dividend, obviously, because they were high-growth and they were reinvesting in the business. That’s one example.
The second example is investing, say, in a private equity fund that goes to invest in multifamily real estate, where they would pay a quarterly dividend which is based on rental income, and at the exit of the fund, they would ideally return capitals back to shareholders, maybe even appreciation. That’s example two.
And the third is somebody who does private lending, hard money lending. I guess it looks like a bond.
Just to get your take, other things being equal, where would you advise a client to think about potentially placing these three example assets?
Jonathan Duong 17:49
I think the single stock example creates a whole host of challenges. First, when you originally made the investment, we can talk about Airbnb after the fact. You had no idea when you invested in Airbnb whether that was going to be a bust or whether it was going to go to the moon.
So the challenge, of course, is that, all else equal, you’d probably rather make that investment in a taxable account, so that if it goes under, you can harvest that loss and then move on. But the simultaneous challenge is if you make that investment and it goes to the moon, you now have this ridiculous capital gain that you’re probably going to be very reluctant to incur, even though the most logical answer is you need to diversify.
Let’s say you went from being worth $50,000, and now you’re worth $5 million, all because of a single stock. The smart thing to do at that point will be to diversify, but you’re going to have to pay a pretty substantial capital gain.
And if you drag that out, let’s say you say, “I’m only going to recognize that capital gain in 10% chunks over a decade,” who knows what’s going to happen to Airbnb over the next decade? Nobody knows.
So, that creates a pretty challenging situation where I could make arguments either for doing it in a Roth IRA or doing it in a taxable account. I could certainly make arguments both ways.
And it’s easy to look after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight. It’s much more difficult to look at it in advance.
Andrew Chen 19:15
I guess one input might be if that $50,000 in dollar investment meant nothing to you, if it went to zero, you literally would not lose an ounce of sleep, then put it in a tax-free account.
Jonathan Duong 19:26
Andrew Chen 19:27
And if it would be very meaningful to you, then maybe put it in a taxable account precisely for the reason that you mentioned: because you can harvest the losses, etc.
Jonathan Duong 19:36
Yeah, although at the same time, I want every dollar I can possibly get in my Roth, and I don’t want to waste that and see it go to zero, because now I don’t have $50,000 that may be worth $500,000 or $1 million down the road.
Andrew Chen 19:53
Jonathan Duong 19:54
We can make devil’s advocate arguments on both sides, and it’s challenging.
Andrew Chen 19:57
It’s a good point. What about the private equity example?
Jonathan Duong 20:03
Particularly when you’re getting into private equity with real estate, and if there’s going to be the potential for there to be income that’s coming in that’s going to be treated as ordinary, as opposed to capital gains, depending on how they’re treating carry and a lot of other things like that, your role as a limited partner, all that type of stuff, it can make this fairly complicated.
I think the first question is whether or not the fund is even going to allow a retirement account to invest. In a lot of cases, depending on the particular fund manager, depending on their size and scope, and so on, they may not allow a retirement account to make an investment.
They may have a minimum that’s so large you couldn’t make that investment in your retirement account anyways even if you wanted to, just because so many funds, while there are exceptions, in a lot of the “leading” private equity funds, if you have $50,000, it’s not worth their time.
It’s really not worth their effort, their administrative burden, to go and solicit $50,000 investments. That’s why they’re going to multifamily offices, high net worth families: because they’re looking for $1 million, $5 million commitments, and so on. So, it may not even be an option for you to consider putting it in an IRA or Roth IRA, even if you wanted to.
Andrew Chen 21:17
What about the private lending example?
Jonathan Duong 21:20
I’ll be honest. I’ve never really looked at or thought about making hard money loans for real estate development or something like that out of a retirement account.
So I’m going to defer to you on that one. I don’t even know whether that’s actually possible.
Obviously, hard money lending, the yields are outrageous. The money is extremely expensive. So, given the fact that the loan itself may have a yield in excess of 10%, 15%, 20%, hard money is really expensive.
And most folks who are doing “fix-and-flips” and so on, they only want to borrow hard money for as short a period of time as they can because it’s so dang expensive. But I’ve never actually thought about the prospects of making that from an IRA. I don’t know the legality of that.
If you could, that would be great because that’s all going to be shielded from ordinary income tax. But I’ll defer to you on that. I actually don’t know whether you’re allowed to do that or not.
Andrew Chen 22:19
I’m not an expert on this, but as an aside, I’m aware you are able to do this using a self-directed fund.
I actually had a guest a while back who talked a little bit about the mechanics of how to do this. Feel free to check that out if you’re interested.
Jonathan Duong 22:35
Yeah. I would certainly say, if you have the ability to do it, there may be plenty of hoops to jump through and plenty of i’s to dot and t’s to cross, but all else equal, if you can get a yield like that and not pay ordinary income tax on it, that’s a pretty good thing. Obviously, part of the reason hard money is so expensive is because it’s very speculative and very risky.
Andrew Chen 22:55
Speaking of speculative, just to round this out, this obviously should not be the dominant strategy in anybody’s portfolio, but for play money, some people will invest in exotic investments that are pure speculation: things like Bitcoin or art or whatever. Any thoughts on how these kinds of things should be treated?
Jonathan Duong 23:17
Collectibles, in general, when there’s a physical asset, you’re going to have typically a 28% maximum rate that’s going to be applied there. It can be lower if you’re in a lower tax bracket, but typically a 28% maximum rate.
That can be beneficial not from whether this is a good investment or whether this is appropriate for an individual investor, but just simply from a tax perspective, it can be beneficial for certain higher-income investors. That’s generally going to be the consideration there.
As far as Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, that sort of thing, because there’s been so much confusion in this space since Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have become more commonplace, I’m just going to venture a guess to say that prior to the last 12-24 months, the majority of cryptocurrency investors have not been filing their taxes correctly and probably have not been paying the appropriate tax on those gains.
So, I think the IRS has released some clarifying guidance there.
In general, when it comes to an asset that’s considered a capital asset, cryptocurrency is generally considered a capital asset. It’s going to be treated like any other capital asset, like a stock or a bond.
That certainly helps to clarify that. You know what it is that you’re actually looking at (paying capital gains tax rates in this case). So, I think that helps a lot.
As far as its applicability and so on, it generally is going to be a speculative decision here. You can read about tulips in Holland or anything else throughout history to better understand how speculative assets should be considered. But from a tax perspective, thankfully, the IRS have provided some clarifying guidance there.
Andrew Chen 24:56
Thanks for sharing the different thoughts about various asset classes.
I wanted to get your thoughts on whether asset location considerations might appropriately change at all if you’re an early retiree, say, retiring at 40, versus a traditional retiree retiring at 65. Because as an early retiree, you can’t touch your tax-advantaged accounts generally before 59 and a half, in some cases 65, without incurring a penalty.
So you’re going to be primarily dependent on your taxable accounts during the first part of retirement. There are some exceptions to this, but that’s a general rule.
That means, by extension, you’re going to be dependent on the asset classes that you hold in your taxable accounts. And if you knew that this was the plan, say in your 20s and 30s, that you’re working toward an early retirement, would you alter your asset location advice for these type of investors?
Jonathan Duong 25:56
If we table something like substantially equal periodic payments for an early retiree, we table that and we’re just thinking through the considerations, if you’re in a situation where you’re independently wealthy and you’re 40, and yet you’ve got quite a ways in front of you…
You’ve got 59 and a half before you can start taking withdrawals without penalties. You’ve got Medicare on the horizon at 65. You’ve got Social Security theoretically at 70 for someone like that, or maybe earlier.
You’ve got RMDs at 72. You’ve got a lot of milestones on the horizon that need to be taken into account. And if you’re primarily relying on your taxable assets at that point, you’re probably going to run into a series of considerations.
If you’re drawing down your taxable account, and for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re going to fully draw it down over the next 10-20 years, a few things are going to happen. One, you’re primarily going to be focused on capital gains and dividends at that point in time. But second, your asset allocation is going to change.
Ignore asset location for a second. Your asset allocation is going to change if you’re not also making tweaks to what’s held in your IRA or Roth IRA, because you’re spending down whatever is in your taxable account. And if you’re not making other changes, then that could have an impact as well.
So, in terms of considerations, I think that window, usually what it’s providing the opportunity to do is to take advantage of either Roth conversions or 0% capital gains tax harvesting, some combination of those two.
The implication of that can mean that you might have a growing Roth balance giving you the opportunity to put high-growth assets in there. You might also be able to take and harvest some low-basis assets at lower rates, and take advantage of 0% capital gains, or even 15%, depending on your situation.
As all of this goes, I don’t like to cop out and say, “it depends,” but it does depend. It’s really going to depend on the circumstances and the situation, what income level that person needs, their level of wealth, and so on.
But certainly, if you retire at 40 and you’ve got a large taxable account and you’ve got a lot of money in IRA, that presents a really nice window of time to be able to move assets strategically in an asset location framework so that you pay the least amount of tax as possible over time.
Andrew Chen 28:18
One thing that you mentioned earlier was, other things being equal, stocks in taxable account, very tax-efficient; bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, they tend to be less tax-efficient.
I’m just thinking, if you’re an early retiree and you’re trying to mitigate sequence of returns risk, where you want the first portion of your retirement, say the first third of your retirement, to allow your stock holdings to grow as uninterrupted as possible, then one line of reasoning that you might have is “Let me draw down my bond holdings during that time on the theory that they’re less volatile because they’ll pay current income, etc.”
“And maybe the asset allocation drifts intentionally, or maybe I’ll rebalance along the way. Anyway, if I rebalance, in my tax-advantaged accounts, I won’t incur immediate tax consequences while doing so. I’ll either never incur them, or I’ll incur them only when I withdraw.”
Under what circumstances would it make sense to potentially change, or even invert, the asset location strategies that we talked about where maybe it might actually make more sense to hold your bond holdings in a taxable account if you’re anticipating to withdraw from your taxable account for a decade or more while you’re trying to also mitigate sequence risk by not having to draw down from your stock?
Does that make sense? I’m just wondering if these considerations come into play, and under what circumstances it might actually alter the asset location decision significantly.
Jonathan Duong 29:57
Yeah, certainly, it can absolutely play a role. The first thing I would say is if you are an investor who is comfortable working within a range of asset allocations and allowing yourself to take a bit more risk at times and a bit less risk at times, in the name of optimally drawing down your portfolio, then something like that can make a lot of sense…
Particularly with the idea of saying, “If we’ve had a really bad year (let’s say this year, stocks were down 30%),” then saying, “I’m not only going to rebalance, but I’m also just simply going to make sure I’m not selling stocks from my withdrawal. I’m going to keep and maintain the number of shares that I own, even add to the number of shares that I own, regardless of the fact that I need to take a withdrawal.”
So, that’s certainly a consideration.
The second thing I’ll say, however, as much as we are creating scenarios here that are interesting to explore, one of the challenges is very few people start with a situation where they have a blank slate and they can do whatever they want.
Typically, as an advisor, what we’re dealing with, and most investors are dealing with, is they already have assets that they own, and a wholesale change of all of that can create a huge set of tax consequences that they don’t want to deal with.
While we might say, “Here is the perfect answer,” that perfect answer may not even be achievable because, otherwise, we’ve got to go and generate a massive amount of capital gains in order to, say for the sake of argument, move our taxable account entirely from stocks to entirely to bonds, or vice-versa. That just may not be feasible or realistic, depending on the actual holdings that they have.
The last two things I would say is there is some very interesting research that Michael Kitces has done along with Wade Pfau and a few others, which is challenging the historic thought process around the asset allocation glidepath which says, “You start much more aggressive, and then you get more and more conservative into retirement and even through retirement,” as a lot of target date funds tend to pursue.
However, what they’ve really looked at is at a given sequence of returns risk, which is one consideration, given the fact that the most critical component of that asset allocation when it comes to retirement is right around that time when you start taking distributions, then it can actually make sense to take a U-based approach where you get more conservative and you get very cognizantly conservative 5-10 years out from retirement.
You tend to maintain that until you normalize your retirement and things tend to be fairly, I don’t want to say, “rinse, wash, and repeat,” but you know your budget, you’re keeping stability, and so on. And then you actually get more aggressive, where you increase your stock allocation, let’s say, as you’re 5-10 years past your initial retirement date.
So, long story short, there can be a lot of considerations that are worth discussing here, but it also needs to be applied in the world of reality. And for a lot of investors, while there may be a situation they really would love to apply, it just may not be feasible given some of the things that they have going on.
Whether it’s the size of their accounts, how much tax-advantaged space they have, what are the unrealized capital gains, all of those different types of things can be limiting factors that prevent somebody from applying a perfect situation.
Andrew Chen 33:19
All right, Jonathan, this has been a real treat and insightful. I really appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with us. I think it will be really helpful for the audience as well.
Where can listeners find out more about you, your work, your services, all that jazz?
Jonathan Duong 33:36
Our website is the best place. It’s wealthengineersllc.com.
Certainly, if there are folks who have questions or are looking for a fee-only financial planning, wealth management firm, that’s what we do. We’d be happy to have a conversation with you.
I certainly enjoyed our discussion today. This stuff is pretty technical, but it also can be, at least in my opinion, as nerdy as it is, pretty fun just to think through a lot of these examples, a lot of these situations.
So, I hope that your listeners learned something here today, and hopefully, people can take some time to look at their portfolios and their investments and determine whether or not any changes are appropriate.
Andrew Chen 34:16
All right. Thanks, Jonathan, so much. We’ll definitely link to all the resources that you talked about in the show notes, and best of luck with everything!
Jonathan Duong 34:26
Yeah. Thank you. Good discussion.
Andrew Chen 34:28
Take care. Bye!
Leave a Reply