Listen Now:
The Smart Take:
Gone are the days of 6% commissions when selling a home!? Well, sort of. In this episode, we unpack the $418 million proposed settlement that will likely reshape the real estate industry. While change creates winners and losers, consumers will generally be winners as the industry wheat will further separate from the chaff.
Hear Tyler Emrick, CFA®, CFP®, reflect on similarities to the financial planning industry’s evolution from stock traders to advisors, from selling products to providing advice. The changes have been positive for consumers, and there’s still plenty of chaff to remove. To help you better identify the chaff, Tyler discusses advisory services that stand out and deliver more value to you for the dollars you pay.
Here’s some of what we discuss in this episode:
- Background on the lawsuit and subsequent agreement for the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
- The argument being made against real estate agents.
- How this compares to past legislation in the financial planning industry.
- The details of the agreement and how it might change fees and services.
- The similarities to the financial planning industry and why there’s been a move towards a holistic approach.
Learn more about the Retire Smarter Solution ™: https://www.truewealthdesign.com/ep-45-retire-smarter-solution/
Sign up for our newsletter on our podcast page: https://www.truewealthdesign.com/podcast/
Have questions?
Need help making sure your investments and retirement plan are on track? Click to schedule a free 15-minute call with one of True Wealth’s CFP® Professionals.
Subscribe:
Click the below links to subscribe to the podcast with your favorite service. If you don’t see your podcast listed with your favorite service, then let us know, and we’ll add it!
The Hosts:
Kevin Kroskey, CFP®, MBA – About – Contact
Tyler Emrick, CFA®, CFP® – About – Contact
Episode Transcript:
Tyler Emrick:
Gone are the days of 6% commissions when selling a home. Is that really true? Find out today, as we unpack the recently proposed National Association of Realtors settlement, exploring the potential impact on home buyers and sellers, and expanding on that conversation to draw on similar changes in the financial planning industry, to help you identify if your financial advisor has advanced their services and offerings, to keep up and stay ahead of the larger industry. All coming up today on Retire Smarter.
Walter Storholt:
Another episode of Retire Smarter is here. I’m Walter Storholt, alongside Tyler Emrick, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER, and a chartered financial analyst, a Wealth Advisor at True Wealth Design, serving you throughout Northeast Ohio, Southwest Florida, and the greater Pittsburgh area. Find us online at True Wealth Design dot com. Tyler, looking forward to this episode today as we get to dabble a little bit in the world of real estate and kind of some big news that’s been there for the last couple of weeks on a lot of changes to that industry and some settlements and the fallout of that and some good lessons and parallels to apply to the financial world today. So that should be fun. But first of all, how’s life? What’s going on? You ready for spring? I think we’re turning that corner finally.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah, we’re getting there. Ready for spring, but today I’m just kind of recapping and thinking about how yesterday went. I don’t know if it came through your area, but we experienced, or at least I experienced my first total eclipse.
Walter Storholt:
Nice.
Tyler Emrick:
Yesterday.
Walter Storholt:
Oh, were you in the 100, the path of totality?
Tyler Emrick:
We were in the path of totality.
Walter Storholt:
How was it?
Tyler Emrick:
So yesterday afternoon around three o’clock, it got dark for about four minutes and I guess it was a little more dramatic than that. It was a sight to behold. We had our oldest out in the backyard and my wife and I were a little paranoid saying, “Don’t look up yet. Don’t look up yet. Put on the glasses.” You hear all the safety concerns. But for that three, four minutes that we got, it was pretty neat and a sight to behold.
Walter Storholt:
That’s pretty cool.
Tyler Emrick:
Have you ever caught one or?
Walter Storholt:
So I was in the annular eclipse last year where the sun doesn’t completely get blocked out, but the moon covers it up so that it’s a perfect circle for a few moments. So you just have this ring of the sun so it doesn’t get completely dark in that way, but it casts some really interesting light and shapes when the sun gets covered up and it’s just that circle. Basically, all the shadows are circles, so it kind of creates this really interesting, I don’t know, it’s very interesting to look all around you and all the shadows look very bizarre in an annular eclipse, but I haven’t been in a total eclipse where it gets dark. And did the bugs start making noise and the birds all get real quiet for those couple of minutes?
Tyler Emrick:
I didn’t notice that, but I did realize how many people were off in the afternoon because our neighborhood, you could hear people yelling and clapping and screaming, actually had some fireworks go off. It was pretty wild.
Walter Storholt:
Don’t you people work?
Tyler Emrick:
I was like, “Wow, this was a bigger event than what I thought.” There weren’t too many people working in my neighborhood.
Walter Storholt:
Oh, that is too funny. I was eating lunch and I was not in the path of totality, so it wasn’t all that exciting, I don’t think. I just was looking outside and it looked like the sun must’ve gone behind the cloud for a few moments and then it got lighter again. So was I don’t think it’s as exciting unless you’re in that path of totality.
Tyler Emrick:
No, probably not. Yeah, the three minutes of totality was definitely the star of the show, no doubt about it.
Walter Storholt:
Pretty cool to experience that. It’s just not something that comes along very often and then even when they do, you’re not necessarily going to be under that path. So I think that’s what gets people so excited about it, I would think.
Tyler Emrick:
Yep. So pretty cool, just recovering from that and really excited to talk about the topic today, and I think it’s been on the news quite a bit. I know when we were talking a little bit before the show, you had done some podcasts and ran across the topic before and it’s been, we’re just really closely followed. And for those listeners that maybe aren’t as familiar, what we’re talking about is last year there was a class of home sellers who sued the powerful real estate industry trade group, the National Association of Realtors, arguing that the way buyers agents were paid were keeping commissions artificially high.
And here in mid-March, I think the actual date was on March, the NAR, National Association of Realtors, kind of came back and proposed an agreement or settlement, which was pretty astonishing. I mean, the dollar value that has been thrown around is $418 million, and a few other proposals that were in that settlement. Now, of course, I think it’s very important to realize that this is just a proposed agreement, that still needs further approval. So we’ll see how it kind of shakes out, but there is a lot of question marks, especially in the real estate industry and for upcoming home buyers and sellers on how is this going to impact or how could this potentially impact the way that we sell our home?
And as I was kind of thinking about that, I figured it would be helpful for us to maybe outline a little bit about what’s in the proposal, but also draw some similarities between what could be happening in the real estate world to something a little closer to home that we talk about on the podcast every day, which is the financial planning industry. There’s no doubt, Walt, that our industry has had a litany of litigations and reforms and I think back to what 2008 was Dodd-Frank, we got Secure Act, Secure Act 2.0. I mean, it seems like every year or two, there’s something that comes out with our industry on regulations and trying to make sure that families and consumers are protected when working in the financial industry. And that is really-
Walter Storholt:
I’m remembering the fiduciary, all the talk about fiduciaries and things like that too.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Well, and that shapes the way that we do business and it shapes the way advisors help their families. And I figured it was a good time for us to maybe reflect on that a little bit and show how those changes impacted our world and maybe draw some conclusions about what might happen in the real estate agent industry. Because as of right now, as we mentioned earlier, before we jumped on the podcast here, that there’s a lot of gray area here and we don’t really know exactly how it’s going to all shake out in the end.
Walter Storholt:
That’s a great point. Well, you mentioned gray area and I’ve always thought it a bit of a gray area or a bit odd in the real estate landscape, just to start there, maybe Tyler as a good point for you to launch off. There’s gray area because technically you hire an agent to work for you, but you’re not paying that person. The person who’s selling the house typically has covered your agent’s pay, and that’s always just kind of sat… I mean, I’m happy to not pay that money, but it has always sat a little bit odd for me that the person you’re sort of competing against to find the best price and negotiate with is the one actually funding and paying your realtor. So right there is always kind of an odd jumping point, I think.
Tyler Emrick:
Well, in any case, it seems logical. And anytime it seems logical, I think you got to kind of think back and be like, “Well, how did we get to this point?” And you look back over many, many years, I mean, the structure of how these real estate agents and deals have been put in place have been remarkably steady. I mean, home sellers have traditionally paid between 5 and 6% of the sale price in commissions, and that is split in various ways between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent. And just as you had mentioned that buyer’s agent split is determined by the home seller, not necessarily the family actually purchasing the house. And that’s, I think, the crux of where this kind of came up and where we find ourselves today is because do the buyer’s agents, or do the buyers actually have a say in what that commission looks like and what that fee is to make sure that their value that they’re getting from that agent is reflective of the fee that they’re paying.
And too with sellers, well, hey, if you have your seller’s agent telling you, “Hey, we got to pay the buyer’s agent here or the buyer’s not going to show your house or wouldn’t have the buyers as apt to walk through or put in an offer,” well then, you’re going to try to artificially keep those buyers’ commissions higher and thus your price of your home a little bit higher. And that’s really where their argument comes into play. When I look back through the data on history and how many individuals and professionals in the real estate industry think this is going to all shake out, there’s a pretty common theme that comes up that this structure of the commissions being baked into the home price and split between the buyer and seller agent has really contributed to pretty high commissions and relatively speaking, some of the highest in the world.
You look at commissions in Germany, I think they average in the mid-four percent range. UK, they’re under 2%. And when you start looking at percentages, that might not seem like much of a difference, but I mean for perspective, I think the national average home price now is around $400,000, which is pretty wild in itself to say, but you take 6% of that, what are we looking at here? Almost 20, $24,000 in commissions to sell your house and really brings into question.
For some families, they might go, “Hey, that is tremendously worth it. I got my home sold, the agents were great.” And some individuals when they sold their home might look at that price tag and say, “Boy, that’s pretty steep.” And we kind of look at this idea of, “Well, hey, this is the way we’ve always done it. This is a structure that’s been worked under for a number of years.” That’s very similar to the financial planning industry. You think back in the seventies, eighties, nineties, we went from our industry was full of stock traders and brokers. I always think of the movie Trading Places with Dan Aykroyd.
Walter Storholt:
Oh yeah.
Tyler Emrick:
You’ve seen that? And Eddie Murphy. And if folks that have not seen that movie, it’s quite funny. But at the end, they’re on the New York Stock Exchange trading floor and they’re trading pork belly futures and it’s all the guys in there saying, “Buy, buy, buy. Sell, sell, sell,” in just a pretty wild environment. But that is not what I think of when I think of financial advisors and financial plannings in today’s aspect. We’ve really gone from trying to sell a particular product, whether that product is stock trading or a life insurance product or an annuity or an investment, whatever the case may be. We’ve really gone from that selling mindset to selling more of advice and taking a more holistic planning approach.
So if you’re going in and you’re meeting with an investment professional to make sure your portfolio is in place, you’re meeting with your life insurance agent to make sure your life insurance is in place, you’re talking to an accountant for any tax questions that you have, you’re maybe talking to your benefits group at your employer for healthcare. I mean, these are all very siloed and segmented. The industry has gone to much, much more of a holistic approach, and there’s quite a bit of value and understanding of how all of these decisions impact one another. So that way you’re making sure you’re making the best decision for you and your family, but that has been decades-long of a transition and to getting to where we are today. And frankly, not every financial advisor is taking that holistic approach too. So you’re still seeing pockets of this still today in our industry where you’re just going to your insurance agent or CPA or the case may be.
Walter Storholt:
Definitely see this boiling down to that argument of value, and I see it in the real estate side of, I think your illustration was great, let’s say on the $400,000 house. And you’re like, “All right, well, I’m spending 20, $24,000 in commissions, but what if I try to do it on my own and ended up with a $20,000 difference in that sales price and now I did all the work and that actually didn’t make any difference in the end of what I actually netted. So did that value actually squeeze more out of what I would’ve been able to experience?”
Obviously, we never really know the answer to that question. It’s one of those kinds of things that you can’t know the answer to how it would’ve worked out the other way. But I see that parallel to the financial side too, of just, “Hey, I could do this on my own and save maybe commissions on X, Y and Z accounts, but would I be making as wise of financial decisions if I did that? And I’d probably end up with a lower amount anyway.” So an interesting argument and thought experiment, I guess.
Tyler Emrick:
Oh, absolutely. We hit the nail on the head. The question is where’s the value at for you and your family and what are you getting out of this, working with this individual and really making sure it fits in? Because that’s going to be different for everybody. And absolutely, I think that the crux of where this stems from, I mean, you look at the agreement that NAR proposed, it’s fascinating, the dollar values I mentioned. $418 million settlement. I mean, if that comes through and gets approved by the federal court, there’s estimated that some 50 million home sellers might get a piece of that settlement. It’s going to vary widely across regions and across markets. So I think there’s a lot to still be firmed up here, but you start talking about a dollar value like that, I think it grabs the attention and really says, “Hey, maybe we should reevaluate and start thinking through the process and the clarity and how that’s conveyed to families when they’re buying and selling a home.”
Now that settlement, the dollar amount isn’t the only thing that was included in there. Well, there were a couple other things that I think probably deserve some attention for us to just bring up because they could absolutely impact the way that we do business when we buy and sell a home, and the first of which is starting as early as mid-July. Again, none of this is set in stone, but possibly by mid-summer listing of homes for sale in most parts of the country would no longer include upfront buyers-agent commissions. So said another way seller paid buyers agent commissions would no longer be included in the home listing. So that’s that part you had mentioned earlier where, hey, if typical commissions are 6%, well, half of that traditionally would go to the buyer’s agent, that 3% would no longer be the case. So you’d be looking at potentially almost a 3% savings on selling your house depending on how everything kind of shakes out here.
So that’s the first thing. The other thing would be that the NAR agreed to create a new rule requiring MLS participants working with buyers to enter into written agreements with their buyers before the buyer tours a home. So this would allow of course buyers to negotiate that compensation for their agents up front before they put offers in on homes. Now, I think most people will know what the MLS is, but for those listeners that might not be familiar, we got to stay away from our acronyms and we would definitely want to stay away from the egghead alert. So MLS…
Walter Storholt:
I can queue it up if you think we’re going to need it today.
Tyler Emrick:
No, no, no, it’s good. But MLS is just a private database that is created and maintained and paid for by real estate professionals to help their clients buy and sell property. Getting access or getting your home on that MLS, essentially the idea is that’s going to get your home promoted and out there so people can see it. That’s where Zillow picks up from and realtor.com and all these ways that we find when we start looking for a new home.
Walter Storholt:
And that one’s actually kind of interesting, because I think about some of the ways that I’ve started my home search, and it’s often meeting a realtor at a showing or having a realtor show you the home, and then after you’ve looked at a home or two, you say, “Yeah, do you want to work together?” “Yeah, I guess so we’ve already gone on a few dates, right?”
Tyler Emrick:
Yes.
Walter Storholt:
“Let’s go ahead.” But this is saying-
Tyler Emrick:
You seem nice.
Walter Storholt:
You’re going to have to have already made that decision before you even really get that in-person interaction at a home site. You’ve got to already have that agreement in place. So that I think is going to be what maybe changes a lot for realtors because they’re going to have to be much more present and upfront and able to, I don’t know, sell themselves before they can get into that more natural environment of being in the home.
Tyler Emrick:
Absolutely. So you think about this from a real estate professional standpoint. I mean, you’re looking at your world saying, “Hey, how is this going to impact my day-to-day? How am I going to work with clients going forward and what needs to be in place and how do we communicate these fees?” And a lot of question marks going along in the industry right now, but as we kind of think about what I’d like to move to next, I guess would be just how the industry might look or how those changes might trickle down to the end consumer, you and I, when we go to buy a home. And the first thing that comes to mind and the first thing that I’ve seen in our industry when changes started to happen was fee compression. In its most simple form, we’ve talked about it a couple of times already, but the seller’s not having to pay that buyer’s agent.
I mean, for the average home price, remember, $400,000 a year is pretty close to the average home price. I mean, that means that about $12,000 is cut off of that commission charge right off the get-go. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be put back in or somewhere else in the agreement or whatever the case is, but we’re looking at a pretty substantial savings and selling a home if this thing shakes out the way that they think it will. Now, you look at our industry and the financial planning industry. Boy, we’ve had so much fee compression over the last 20 to 30 years, and maybe even going back a little bit further, I had mentioned in the nineties you called your stockbroker and you made a trade, “Hey, I want to buy into Microsoft,” or, “I want to buy Sears,” or whatever the case is.
There was a commission that was tied to those trades when you wanted to sell investments. We’ve seen, for the most part, those commissions almost dissipate to nothing. They are still there, but we would be looking at pretty sizable amounts prior, whereas now today, there’s platforms where you can do no commission trading with ETFs and stocks and so on and so forth. Now, you look at some of the other vehicles that you can invest in, like a mutual fund, for example. Mutual funds are simply put just a place where you hand a company your money and they go and invest it for you. And there are thousands of these mutual funds out there that you can invest in all with different objectives and risks and fee structures. The vast majority of them, or all of them, have what’s called an expense ratio, which is basically a yearly fee for investing in that particular mutual fund.
And these can range wildly. There’s mutual funds out there, probably two, 2.5% per year in fees. Now, over time, these expense ratios have gone down substantially. There are mutual funds now and ETFs now that are offered through some of the big discount brokers that have no expense ratio. Now, there’s other ways that they get their fees, but that expense ratio, for example, has drastically changed over the last 20 to 25 years. Another thing, if you look at your account statement and you look at those investments that you have and you happen to hold a few of those mutual funds and you start seeing class A shares or class C shares after the name, this is a way that investment professionals would get paid commissions on either the front end in the case of a class A share, where you would buy into that mutual fund and there would be a fee off the top that would go to the advisor, or in the case of maybe a C share, where on the back end when you sold out of that investment, you would have a fee.
And those fees can range all the way up to five, five and a half percent off the top. Those were extremely common in the early 2000s. Nowadays, it’s very rare that we run into them. There are still a handful of mutual fund companies that charge those loads, but if you’re looking at your statement, that’s a tell-tale sign. If you see, hey, class A shares or something like that to where you maybe want to look and have a conversation with your advisor on, “Hey, how are you getting paid? How are we utilizing these? Should we be going to a more cost-effective investment strategy going forward?”
And then finally, I think about this idea of fee compression. I mean, we’ve seen it in the industry and the life insurance side of the business as well and in the annuity side. I mean, some of the highest-expense products that we have in our industry are annuity products and whole life insurance policies or universal life insurance policies. And just like with mutual funds, over the years, those commissions and fees have started to decline and go down. I mean, we even have now commission-free annuity products where that commission has gone altogether. So I could see the real estate industry moving in a similar direction and really trying to evaluate and saying, “Hey, what are our list of products? What are we doing? What’s our services? Where’s our value add?” And let’s make sure we’re being thoughtful on what is the true cost or that is reflective of the value that we’re adding depending on the service or depending on the relationship that you’re entering into with these agents.
Walter Storholt:
That’s a great point.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah. Oh no, absolutely. And the fee compression is just one side of the coin. I mean, the other thing is just really taking a step back and what I think is going to probably be more fascinating in the coming years is how does the structure of services in the real estate industry change? So essentially, how are buyers and sellers and their agents going to work together going forward. Certainly, it seems like buyers are going to now have more room to negotiate their commissions with their agents up front.
But when I think about a first-time home buyer, I put myself in the shoes when I bought our first home, we didn’t have a whole lot to put down on a down payment on the loan. So the question is, if we wanted to have an agent help us, would we have to have more money coming out of our pocket up front to kind of help those services? Or is it baked into the mortgage? It’s going to be fascinating to kind of how that changes because hey, a first-time home buyer, that might be a problem. But if you’re a retiree and you’re purchasing your second home or moving to another, you might have plenty of cash. And paying a buyer’s agent upfront might be really good in your situation.
Walter Storholt:
I just view this as competition is never a bad thing. And I think we’ve seen that in the financial world where it helps people get more options and the free market decides where the value is and what’s important. And it’s kind of a good lesson of that. And I don’t know, I think maybe a lot of the concern on the real estate side’s just going to get worked out on its own naturally. If we just open it up to more competition and more options for people, we’re going to see what that path of least resistance ends up being, and that’ll be what kind shapes the industry going forward. So I don’t know, maybe it’s a good little hiccup and change in that industry just to kind of shake it up a little bit, see what happens and where the dust settles.
Tyler Emrick:
Well, I think it’s always good. Competition is always, always good. And in the case of the real estate industry doing things the same way for a number of years, I agree with you. I think the shake-up could certainly be good. I think it’s even fascinating to me that over the last 15 years how technology has changed. You got Zillow now where you can find homes and search and set up a showing right there. You can list your house on the MLS and for a flat fee. I mean, there’s all these technological advances that you didn’t have previously that makes selling your home, I don’t want to say easier, but certainly more efficient. So taking a good hard look at the fee structure, I think can only be a good thing. I mean, I had a family last year before all of this, this was in the springtime, actually sell their home, and they actually worked with an agent that worked on a flat fee structure.
They didn’t have the percentage commission, and that individual would basically put the house on the MLS. Again, that’s really where you want to get your house if you’re selling it to make sure it gets eyes on it. And then that agent did the paperwork for them. They used an app to set up showings and put a key on the front door in a lock box, and that’s how they ran it, and it really worked for them. But I look at some families that I’ve worked with over the years and gone through that process of selling a home where they look at all that and go, “Whoo, that seems like a lot. I don’t want to have to deal with showings. I don’t want to have to work the negotiation piece of it. I want to have that help and I want to have some of that expertise.”
And that’s where those types of individuals and families that want that level of depth of knowledge and expertise, they might work under that more traditional structure. So I don’t know if we want to call it like that a la cart service and how that might work out, but certainly, I could see the industry going into a direction of, “Hey, no matter where you’re at and what you need, you’re going to be able to, there’s going to be an agent out there that’s going to be able to meet you where you are and do it for a fee that is reasonable and similar to what you would expect the value that you’re getting out of it.”
Walter Storholt:
Yeah, rather than just an assumed way of doing things, you’ll have a couple of choices that will match up to what your specifications are in your preference.
Tyler Emrick:
That’s right.
Walter Storholt:
It’s a good lesson.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah. Well, if I look at it from our industry too, right? I mean, I think we see quite a bit of similarities here as well. I mean, if you’ve listened to the podcast before, I mean, you’ve heard the term holistic financial planning, having a financial plan in place and just how important that is. I might sound like a broken record when I bring that up. You look at that type of approach and where it fits in and how it’s changed over the years where I’d mentioned, hey, a lot of times you made your decisions in silos and you talk to your trader, you talk to your investment professional, you talk to your insurance agent, and you made all these decisions, your tax or your CPA individual, you made these decisions in a silo. Gone are those days. And I think there’s certainly, from True Wealth’s perspective, we’ve fit in and done it in a little bit different manner and a different approach.
And really, I think that the families that ended up working with us see value in that holistic approach and making sure that those decisions are all integrated together. Now, as we look at our industry over the last, say, five to seven years, I think that the fee structure has remained relatively constant and pretty stable. But what really has changed in the way that we do business over the years or the last, say five to seven years has been, hey, when I first got in the industry in, say, 2008, 2009, you could really differentiate yourself as a financial advisor saying, “Hey, I’m going to take a holistic approach and I’m going to look at your taxes, your investments, and your life insurance needs, and make sure those decisions are all working together well.”
Over the last, again, say five to seven years, what we’ve seen is a big shift to say, “Hey, fees haven’t gone up, fees haven’t gone down. But that breadth of services provided has expanded tremendously.” Now I have families and we have conversations around healthcare planning. “Hey, what are you choosing at your employer? What are you doing from an estate plan standpoint? You need those estate documents completed? We’ll take care of that for you and help you make sure you get those estate documents put in place. Hey, not only will we give you the tax advice, but we’ll also file your return.”
So as an industry, financial planners now more than ever, have needed to really open up their advice offering to be able to meet the needs of the families. And as those needs have changed and we’ve gotten access to more technology and what families are trying to accomplish have changed, we too have kind of had to change and fit that advice in to harmonize it all and just really make sure that really any decision that you make that has a dollar sign in front of it, your financial advisor should be a resource there to help you navigate that. And if they’re not, get you to the right professional that they communicate with, and that’s on the same page of what you’re trying to accomplish to make sure that you put yourself in the best situation going forward for the most positive outcomes that you can get.
Walter Storholt:
Positive outcomes, that’s what we want. And if you want to walk through that journey with Tyler Emrick, Kevin Kroskey, and the great team at True Wealth Design, it’s very easy to set up your initial conversation to see if you might be a good fit to work with the team. All you have to do is go to TrueWealthDesign.com and click the “Are We Right for You” button, and that’ll let you schedule a 15-minute call with an experienced advisor on the team. Again, TrueWealthDesign.com, or you can call 855-TWD-Plan, 855-893-7526. All that contact info is in the description of today’s show, so you can find it easily. And Tyler, really appreciate your perspective on a unique topic today and something that’s definitely been in the news, and I know it’s going to continue to morph and shape over the coming months and maybe years. These things tend to sometimes develop into a battle that might take a while to really see how the dust settles.
Tyler Emrick:
Oh, absolutely. No doubt. I mean, hey, the financial industry, we’ve been changing over the last 30, 40 years.
Walter Storholt:
That’s right.
Tyler Emrick:
So they got a long way ahead.
Walter Storholt:
There’s a Secure Act and then a Secure Act 2.0 right after that.
Tyler Emrick:
Absolutely. We’ll see if there’s a 3.0, I don’t know.
Walter Storholt:
Yeah, I’m sure at some point, or we’ll just call it something different. Good stuff. Well, thanks for your help and get those, it sounds like your eyes are in still good shape despite looking at the sun yesterday. So you must’ve had the non-knockoff approved glasses to see the sun yesterday, so that’s good news.
Tyler Emrick:
We did, although I was worried. I asked my wife, “Hey, where did we get these from?” She’s like, “Amazon.” I was like, “Uh-oh.”
Walter Storholt:
Uh-oh.
Tyler Emrick:
She’s like… But no, they were good.
Walter Storholt:
No, you’re not seeing circles today, so that’s good. Very good news. All right, my friend. Well, I appreciate your advice and guidance on the show today and great perspective, and come back and join us next time everybody. We’ll see you on another edition of Retire Smart. Information provided is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, tax or legal advice. Information is obtained from sources that are deemed to be reliable, but their accurateness and completeness cannot be guaranteed. All performance reference is historical and not an indication of future results. Benchmark indices are hypothetical and do not include any investment fees.
