Listen Now:
The Smart Take:
Is diversification dead? Over the last decade, putting all your eggs in the S&P 500 basket has outperformed diversified strategies.
In this episode, hear Tyler Emrick, CFA®, CFP®, explore why the U.S. market has been on an unprecedented run, why the global market portfolio hasn’t kept up, and whether diversification is really the best move for long-term investors. We dive into the rise of ETFs, global market trends, and why the “SPY or die” mentality might not hold up in the future. Learn why diversification should still be a priority despite the recent performance gap.
Here’s some of what we discuss in this episode:
- Taught diversification is fundamental to the investing process.
- Why diversification has been a bad idea for the last decade.
- The reasons why people would want to move beyond the S&P 500.
- The changes globally that have impacted investing.
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:
For over a decade, the S&P 500 has been on an unprecedented tear, leaving many to question if diversification is still a smart strategy. Today, we explore the reasons behind the U.S. market’s historic run, and whether sticking with a diversified portfolio should still be a priority. All coming up today on Retire Smarter.
Walter Storholt:
Hey, we have another great show on the way today. Walter Storholt here with you once again, alongside Tyler Emrick. And we’ve got a great show because it’s got its own little Halloween theme here as we release on the Halloween holiday. If you happen to be listening to this one shortly after its release, you might be, I don’t know, Tyler, we might even have folks dressed up listening to this show. You dressed up for today, right? What’s your costume?
Tyler Emrick:
Business casual?
Walter Storholt:
Business casual.
Tyler Emrick:
How’s that sound, huh?
Walter Storholt:
I like that a lot. That’s really good.
Tyler Emrick:
Now, granted, we did get our trick-or-treating actually done. We were ahead of the game. The two neighborhoods that we go to, yes, I did say two neighborhoods, we’ve got a trick-or-treat on this past Saturday and on Sunday. So we’ve got enough candy to last us the next three years in the household, so we’ll see how we end up getting rid of it.
Walter Storholt:
Nice. If you’re an Office fan, you’re basically Jim Halpert when he just wore a name tag that said Dave and he said, “I’m Dave.” That’s you today. You could just say, “I’m Tyler”, “I’m Kevin,” “I’m whoever.”
Tyler Emrick:
Well, my oldest was a little disappointed when she found out that I wasn’t going as Raph from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Walter Storholt:
Oh.
Tyler Emrick:
To go along. But I did have a little bit of a red bandana on to make up for it. But yeah, she did call me out on it.
Walter Storholt:
Oh, that’s great. My go-to costume as a kid was Batman and Robin. So my best friend was always Batman and I loved being Robin and we’ve just got great shots of us throughout the years. I don’t know why, but we never seemed to do anything on the bottom half of the costumes. So all the pictures we have from when we’re kids is the top half is Batman and Robin and the bottom half is just whitey tighties.
Tyler Emrick:
That’s awesome.
Walter Storholt:
I’m guessing that was after the trick-or-treating was done and we were off to celebrating the candy and sugar.
Tyler Emrick:
I don’t know what gave that away, the chocolate stains on your mouth or what.
Walter Storholt:
It was just funny to look back at pictures. There was a good four or five year run of just the same costumes and then that same picture recreated every year.
Tyler Emrick:
No, that’s good. Well, here in Ohio, you never know what you’re going to get. I mean, Halloween last year we got a little bit of snow. And then this year the weather was great. Sun was shining. A little chilly, but not too bad, all things considered. So we’ll take it as a win for sure.
Walter Storholt:
Yeah, we did the whole sit outside and visit, sit in the driveway to greet all the trick-or-treaters last year. I don’t think we’ll be doing that this year. I think it’s going to be on them to just grab candy from the bowl.
Tyler Emrick:
All you’re doing, the old set the bowl outside on the front, huh?
Walter Storholt:
Just set the bowl outside. We can’t deal with the doorbell ringing. It just drives the dog too crazy.
Tyler Emrick:
Yes, dog will do that.
Walter Storholt:
We’ll just stick the bowl out there and see what happens.
Tyler Emrick:
Good deal.
Walter Storholt:
Yeah. Should be fun.
Tyler Emrick:
We ready to talk about what diversification today?
Walter Storholt:
Let’s do it. Yeah, so the title of this one is what got me in the Halloween Spirit, I got to say, Tyler, S&P 500 or Die. I thought you were trying to tie it into Halloween, but it was unintentional apparently in your preparation for today. So, yeah, diversification. I mean, it’s one of the most popular buzzwords of the financial realm, right?
Tyler Emrick:
It is. Well, and I mean, I look back and just going back to the mid 2010s, people were talking a ton about international investing and stocks and emerging markets, and China. Europe was coming out of the Eurozone crisis. So as it turns out, looking back over the last decade or so, that diversification play was a pretty bad idea.
Now granted, I’ll get into that here today, but obviously we probably should have just invested in QQQ or the SPY, which is one of the most famous tickers for the S&P 500 indexed ETF. So that’s what we’re going to I think get into today and unpack a little bit and just look back over the last 10, 15 years and really paint the picture on why has the S&P 500 and the U.S. stocks outperformed so much, and this idea of diversification, if it’s really something that individuals and families need to be paying attention to and continuing to do as they look at their own portfolios and investing.
You’re right. I mean, to your comment, going back to diversification, I kind of think of it as a fundamental to investing. Certainly one of the first things that I’ve learned when I got into learning about portfolio construction and managing assets. In preparation for the podcast today, I did a little bit of research and I was trying to figure out and go back, well, how far, when did this idea of diversification come into play? And to my surprise, they were actually, the first thing that popped up was from the 17th and 18th century, the idea of not putting all your eggs in one basket was brought up. I don’t know how they tie it back that far, but certainly I was like, well-
Walter Storholt:
That’s pretty interesting. I would not have guessed that to be the origin timeframe.
Tyler Emrick:
Sure. Well, I was like, “Well, I guess that makes sense.” Was definitely outside of what I was originally thinking, because when I did that search, what I was expecting to find was Harry Markowitz, which was back in the 1950s where he wrote that famous paper Portfolio Selection, where it laid the foundation for what I would consider to be, or not me, but certainly what many consider to be modern portfolio theory and the idea of diversification and why we want to construct portfolios that do that. But hey, the old adage of not putting all your eggs in one basket’s good too.
Walter Storholt:
Yeah. They were probably talking about actual eggs, I6 would imagine back then. “Bob, why do you have all of your duck eggs mixed with your chicken eggs and your ostrich eggs? They’re all in one basket. That’s not wise.”
Tyler Emrick:
They were talking about shipping and some of those things as well, I think is the comment that came up. But you think about being a diversified investor, I mean now really it’s never been an easier time to create a actual diversified portfolio. I mean, you have exchange traded funds and mutual funds that are very, very low cost. Some are no fee. Certainly there’s almost a limitless amount of actual investment options to put in there. Many listeners in their retirement plans, they might use those infamous target date mutual funds, which the whole premise of those target date mutual funds are to be a one fund solution that is diversified and managed based off of your age and expected retirement date.
So we are hit with this concept and idea of diversification and constructing portfolios around that all the time. So this idea that, well, diversification for the last decade or so has been not came out on top. I wanted to explore why is that? I mean, why are we being punished for being prudent? And should you look at just putting all your money in an S&P 500 index fund? And unpack that a little bit and help individuals kind of think through and make sure that they’re set up for the next decade and using sound judgment and decisions as they kind of think about what’s their portfolio going to look like?
Walter Storholt:
Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Interesting to track the history, a little bit of that. I mean, talk about how easy it is to diversify. Depending on what trading platform or investing suite you might be using, I mean, we’re literally talking about checking a box, right? Do you want to diversify this portfolio or automatic diversification? Yes, please.
Tyler Emrick:
Right.
Walter Storholt:
I don’t know what that actually means, but sounds good.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah, no, absolutely. And when I think about diversification and portfolio construction, I mean the first place that my mind goes is called the Global Market Portfolio.
Walter Storholt:
Okay.
Tyler Emrick:
And a lot of times I think of that as our starting point. And for, I would assume the vast majority of listeners, probably have never heard of the Global Market portfolio. And essentially what it is, it’s just a theoretical investment portfolio that encompasses all investable assets worldwide, weighted according to their market capitalizations. So it’s essentially saying, “Hey, if you wanted to invest in every single investment that you possibly could, what would that portfolio look like?”
And I’m going to give you some round estimates here to kind of paint the picture of what that portfolio might look like. But it would be about half your money in stocks, half your money in bonds, and about half your money in U.S. investments and about half your money in foreign investments. You can kind of think of that as the starting point.
So I mean, you break that down a little further. I mean, what, the U.S. is almost two-thirds of the global market cap today? So even if you invested in the Global Market Portfolio and use that as your starting point, I think you’re putting somewhere around 10 times more in U.S. investments than you are any other country. So it’s not like we’re forgetting about the U.S. economy or investments when we kind of start looking at it through this particular lens.
Now, the good news is, of course, when you start thinking about the Global Market Portfolio, having that amount of U.S. exposure has been great because the U.S. market has certainly been on a roll. Since 2009, the U.S. stock market, now go back, let’s set the framework here a little bit. Well, in 2009, we’re coming off the financial crisis.
Walter Storholt:
We’re starting at a nice low point.
Tyler Emrick:
Yes. Yes. 2008, 2009, if we’ve had any retirees from back then that are listening or individuals that were maybe in the real estate market, they’re still intimately familiar with what happened in 2008 and 2009. But since that period of time, the S&P 500 has 10 X-ed. I actually looked up the definition of that. It’s called a decuple? Now, I might be mispronouncing that with my small town verbiage, so don’t hold me to that, but a decuple. So what that means is that if you would’ve had like $100,000 invested in the S&P 500 in 2009, now you’d have about a million bucks sitting inside your account. Another way to maybe think about that, it’s about a 15% annualized return, give or take. So starting with $100,000, hey, in 2009, now you’re up to about a million bucks just by investing in the U.S. stock market. Not a bad investment.
Walter Storholt:
No, not at all. And we’re not talking like decoupled or uncoupled, or no, this is D-E-C-U-P-L-E, decuple.
Tyler Emrick:
Decuple, yep. 10X, 10 times more. You’re absolutely right.
Walter Storholt:
That’s a new word. You taught us something new. I’m not even going to egghead alert you. I’m appreciating the learning opportunity here.
Tyler Emrick:
Nice. Yeah, I went down in a little bit of a rabbit hole like eight times, nine times, and there’s some words I’m not even going to try to pronounce in there.
Walter Storholt:
That we might’ve eggheaded you on.
Tyler Emrick:
But historically, you think about that type of concentration, Walt, it really hasn’t been rewarded for investors to take that type of just investment concentration, investing in one particular type of investment or one particular company. I mean, just look at it from a framework if you’re not a U.S. citizen. I mean you would’ve been in Europe, Japan, or whatever, and been an investor, and you would’ve just invested in your home country? Well, for them, that would’ve been a terrible idea since 2009. They would’ve missed out on all that U.S. market performance. So diversifying globally has really saved those investors. And you kind of pick apart-
Walter Storholt:
Tyler, I’m sorry, I have to interrupt you. I did research while you were continuing there. It is not decuple.
Tyler Emrick:
It’s not?
Walter Storholt:
No.
Tyler Emrick:
Oh, calling me out.
Walter Storholt:
It’s not what you would think. It’s like decuple.
Tyler Emrick:
Decuple. Okay, there. That’s how we’re pronouncing it. Okay.
Walter Storholt:
Yeah.
Tyler Emrick:
Nice save, Walt. Nice save. See? I headlined it.
Walter Storholt:
It’s fancier than you would imagine.
Tyler Emrick:
I headlined it. But if we were to go back over the last, say 20 years or so and try to, or excuse me, not the last 20 years, the last 120 years and said, “Hey, pick the best performing country.” Maybe you pick the U.S. And the U.S. certainly has been one of the top performers. But I mean, you randomly flip back and Australia’s actually been the top performing country since over the last 120 years. I think even South Africa from some of the numbers that I mentioned, researched before, have been maybe even slightly ahead of the U.S. market as well.
So when you look at this Global Market Portfolio in its return over a long time horizon, it’s really, really been tough to beat. Even over the last say 50 years, that Global Market portfolio on an annualized return basis is only about two and a half percent less than the S&P 500. And it is much, much more diversified. So very, very hard to beat. And it’s been a very, very good investment over the long term.
And we kind of get down into that nitty-gritty of, “Well, why not just the S&P 500? Why not just, ‘Hey, pick and stay U.S. and be very specific and very concentrated?'” And going back to, oh, John Bogle through Vanguard and the creation of low-cost ETFs, I mean, I think most investors listening to the podcast, they would know the S&P 500 and indexed mutual funds or ETFs that are very low cost that invest in the S&P 500. It’s probably one of the more popular, if not the most popular investment, that we have.
But the idea behind that is that these flows that are running into these ETF and mutual fund investments that are in the S&P 500 are really dictated by the index construction itself. And of course, as we all know, flows really drive performance, certainly magnified in smaller asset classes or concentrated strategies, but even if we take a look at the S&P 500, it is what’s called a market cap weighted index. Walt, I’m sure you’ve ran into that before, which is essentially just where the larger companies make up more of the actual index itself.
Walter Storholt:
So there may be 500 in there, but others are pulling more weight than the ones at the bottom of the list.
Tyler Emrick:
You nailed it. Right? And this can be the Achilles heel of the S&P 500 because there’s really no tether to value at all. It’s truly just, “Hey, stock price times shares outstanding.” And the bigger you are, the more weighting you have in the S&P 500 Index. So this can be good because most of the time you’re guaranteed to own the winners as they continue to grow up, and as they continue to grow as a company, they’re going to become a bigger and bigger piece of the S&P 500. But it can also be very bad when things don’t go as well. So it can set up to where the expensive stuff can get that higher weight. We see this kind of magnified in the bond market, or in bond ETFs.
When I was doing some of my research and certainly studying in school, we talked about this idea of called the bums problem or the bums theory, and it’s when you use a similar style of investing in the bond market that’s market capped weighted. What that does is that means that you actually get more exposure to the biggest, the ugliest, and the most indebted companies in your index. Because as those companies take on more debt, they become a bigger piece of the actual investment itself. So in the bond market, they actually have a name for it and certainly something that we need to be aware of. But in the stock market or the S&P 500, we don’t exactly think of it that way.
But the S&P 500, I think the top 10 stocks make up about 36% or so of the overall weighting of the index itself.
Walter Storholt:
Wow.
Tyler Emrick:
So if I say that maybe another way, many people probably have heard of the Mag 7, which are the seven big tech companies that are in the S&P 500. If I just take a look at 2023, they represented, those seven companies represented, just over 60% of the returns of the S&P 500 in 2023. Said another way, about one and a half percent of the companies in the S&P 500 accounted for over 60% of the return. It’s a small set of companies really driving performance there.
Walter Storholt:
So even if it’s called the S&P 500, it feels more like you’re investing in the S&P 10.
Tyler Emrick:
Yes, absolutely. So diversification, as we kind of talked about with the Global Market Portfolio, has been a good way to invest, and being diversified has paid huge dividends. And here recently, and I’m just trying to paint the picture here how the S&P 500 really kind of beg into question, is that really a diversified index to be able to put your money into? Certainly it’s all U.S. And then certainly these Mag 7 or the top 10 holdings are really significantly driving a lot of the performance in the S&P 500.
So if I can maybe take a step back too, and maybe just kind of peel back the onion a bit and say, “Well, what did happen globally? Why has the U.S. outperformed so much in the last decade or so?” And there are various reasons for this, but this concept of these regimes and how they play out over a long period of time, I think is something that’s very important to not lose sight of. Really not that long ago, Walt, in the 2000s, I mean, we experienced a great financial crisis in the U.S. and we refer to that ten-year period in the 2000s through 2009 as essentially the lost decade of investing in U.S. stocks. So it’s not uncommon for countries or asset classes to have their time in the sun, and then of course, maybe back in their day in the shade too. The way we kind of think about this or look at it is we have what’s called a CAPE ratio. It’s called Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings Ratio or CAPE ratio.
Walter Storholt:
Say that five times fast.
Tyler Emrick:
I know, right?
Walter Storholt:
That’s one of those ones where a nice shortened acronym came in handy. CAPE ratio.
Tyler Emrick:
Came in handy. You’re right. Well, a famous economist, Robert Shiller, actually came up with the concept. And really the idea of the CAPE ratio is just to provide some insight into valuations of the U.S. stock market and it compares current prices to the average earning over a ten-year period. So essentially the higher this ratio is, or this number is, the more expensive it is, the lower this ratio is, the more cheap it is to invest in stocks. So could you give me a period of time where you think the U.S. stock market maybe peaked and was its most expensive?
Walter Storholt:
I’m thinking bubbles, so maybe heading into the stock market crash of the early 200s the dot-com crash.
Tyler Emrick:
You got it.
Walter Storholt:
Somewhere in there.
Tyler Emrick:
The dot-com crash. Yes. CAPE ratio’s peaked at just over 44.
Walter Storholt:
Oh, okay.
Tyler Emrick:
Now we’ve seen them actually as low as five.
Walter Storholt:
Okay.
Tyler Emrick:
But on average-
Walter Storholt:
Pretty good range there, yeah.
Tyler Emrick:
Yeah, big range. And on average, we’re probably in the low 20s. Right now the S&P 500 is actually at 37 of a CAPE ratio. So CAPE ratio peaked in ’99 at around 44, and we’re at about 37 right now. Historically, we stay at around 20. So the classic example is Japan in the 1980s where their CAPE ratio got close to 100 and literally an entire generation made no money in the Japan market. And we’re not talking, Japan’s not small, I mean, I think in the ’80s, Japan was a top three economy at the time. So I mean, this was a very, very big deal. And I’m sure individuals listening have maybe come across Japan and their inflationary troubles and kind of what happened in the ’80s with them.
But you look at this CAPE ratio and you kind of pare it back and say, “Well, again, why haven’t international companies done well?” Well, U.S. has really had great earnings growth, so they’ve really led the charge there. And the U.S. Has also had this tailwind of multiple expansion. So the reason why I brought up CAPE ratios before is that this idea of your CAPE ratio expanding or getting bigger. We’re sitting at about 37 right now of a CAPE ratio. Well, it was about 12 back in 2009. So when we see the CAPE ratio increase like that, what happens is we have to get an idea of what’s driving that. And basically it’s stock prices rising without corresponding increase in earnings. So in a very simple term, it’s just like when stock valuations grow, but the underlying earnings don’t necessarily increase at the same rate.
Now, I just said earlier that, “Hey, the U.S. has had great earnings growth,” but it hasn’t been enough to offset the valuation increase and that’s why we see CAPE ratios as high as we do right now. I mean, there’s a number of factors that go into these valuations. Investor sentiment, monetary policy, economic and inflation expectation, a whole whirlwind that’s kind of baked into these prices. But the rest of the world has not seen that multiple expansion. They haven’t seen their prices increase to the way that the U.S. market has. So the U.S. market has really benefited from that to a pretty substantial amount per year. It’s really added some recent performance. But that just really hasn’t been the case internationally.
To maybe set some perspective here, Med Faber, who is one of the co-founders of Cambria Investments, they do a lot of research on valuations and stock market. They took a look back. Since 2009, again, the US averaged about 15% return per year since 2009. And they wanted to get an idea of where that stood historically. And on a ten-year rolling basis, that has only happened four times, Walt, four.
Walter Storholt:
Wow.
Tyler Emrick:
So certainly a handful. And every single time it’s got some type of name associated with it. So we got the roaring ’20s.
Walter Storholt:
Okay.
Tyler Emrick:
The nifty 50, which was in the ’60s and ’70s. And then of course the internet bubble, which we had mentioned before. So that’s three. And then we’ve got whatever that we’re in now. You want to call it the AI craze, you want to call it COVID, whatever you might allude to it. But again, only four times in our entire history has a market returned 15% return per year from a U.S. standpoint. So on the backside of that time period, they’ve all got names too. So the roaring ’20s, the backside of that was the Great Depression.
Walter Storholt:
Okay. Little juxtaposition on that one.
Tyler Emrick:
The nifty 50, it was the inflationary ’70s. It’s where interest rates got all the way up and peaked into the early ’80s. And then of course the dot-com bubble burst.
So we want to be very, very mindful of these valuations and setting some context on what we’ve just experienced and what might be leading ahead to us here. This period over the last 10, 15 years has been the worst period ever for a Global Market Portfolio and diversification. I mean, I think the only time period that comes to mind that might even be close would be post-World War II.
Walter Storholt:
Wow.
Tyler Emrick:
But what’s really bad about it is, is that really about 13 over the last 15 years the S&P 500 has outperformed. So you come off something like that, we don’t want to lose sight of our longer time periods and the idea that these regimes can have extended periods of time where they outperform, but in every other period, and when we look back, diversification has won out. Starting with that Global Market Portfolio has over time proven to be what we would consider to be the best way to approach it as opposed to trying to catch one of these crazes.
So I wanted to share some of that historical context, a lot of historical context I guess in today’s episode?
Walter Storholt:
Yeah.
Tyler Emrick:
But really wanted to kind of paint that picture of what we’ve experienced and really try to make that case for why diversification should really still be a priority. When I think about diversification I use the Global Market Portfolio, but normally I talk about my mom baking cookies. My mom, I love chocolate chip cookies, I don’t know if she was great at making them, but boy, I would scoop them up and eat them. And my mom never really used a recipe. It was always by feel and taste. And so as long as she was close, they always came out pretty darn close and delicious. But, Walt, if she would’ve missed putting in the chocolate chip cookies, I would’ve caught that, right?
Walter Storholt:
Like the chocolate chips.
Tyler Emrick:
That would not have gone over well if I would’ve been, “Hey, I got these chocolate chip cookies. Where are my chocolate chips?”
Walter Storholt:
Right.
Tyler Emrick:
I think of diversification and portfolio construction the same way. Hey, you have all these options to actually invest in, and you can make some tweaks to those actual percentages and over and under weight, but if you forget something or just invest in one particular thing and forget about everything else? That’s going to be suboptimal in most cases.
There’s a great visual where if you do a search for the periodic table of investment returns, don’t use your favorite language model to do that search because I did and it actually came up with the old school periodic table and kind of fit it in and it was very, very odd. Just do a typical Google search, a periodic table of investment returns, and it’ll give a little bit of framework and stack ranks what investments have done well in a particular year. And it’s all over the chart with no patterns or no discernible, like, “Hey, you always want to be in here or not.” And I think it just kind of goes back to that whole idea of why do we want to be invested and take a more diversified approach. So instead of trying to catch that next historic run, focus on what really, really matters. Focus on the structure of the investments you use. Focus on the fees that you’re being charged in those investments, expenses, certainly the tax efficiency. And then of course, as we kind of talked about today, make sure you don’t lose sight of that diversification.
Walter Storholt:
It is a great outline. Actually loved all of the historical references and information today, Tyler. Really helpful. Sometimes we got to really take a close look at where we’ve been to figure out where we should go. It doesn’t mean that that past performance, as there’s always those disclaimers, doesn’t indicate future results and what’s going to happen. But it can, I think, help inform us so we can make those better decisions as we move into the future. And so if you haven’t done this kind of planning, if you haven’t gone into this kind of depth with your financial plan, especially if you’re getting closer to retirement and time’s no longer on your side to recover from mistakes and the decisions you make, the importance of planning, just increases every single passing month and year the closer you get to retirement. So if you haven’t gone into this kind of depth and worked with a planner before that does this kind of planning, I think it’d be a great idea to at least have a conversation with Tyler, Kevin, and the great team at True Wealth Design.
All you have to do to set that up is go to truewealthdesign.com, click the Are We Right For You Button, and you can schedule a 15 minute call with an experienced advisor on the team and see if you’d be a good fit to work with one another. It’s a pretty easy way to start. No cost or obligation obviously, to have that conversation. Just go to truewealthdesign.com. We’ve got that linked in the description of today’s show. And if you like to call and do the old-fashioned phone method, you can do that too. 855-TWD-PLAN, 855-TWD-PLAN, is the number to schedule that time to chat as well. Take a look at your portfolio, your financial situation, and see where some gaps in the planning might be and how Tyler and the team can help you out.
Well, Tyler, great Halloween episode today and really appreciate that and hope you have a fun evening with the kids tonight, and we’ll look forward to chatting on our next episode. I’m not going to ask you to break down the election on our next episode necessarily, but we should have some answers in terms of that new direction by the time we tape our next episode. So we’ll look forward to hearing that information from you, and it’ll be setting you up for all new things to talk about in 2025, that’s for sure.
Tyler Emrick:
You got it. No, it’s a pleasure, Walt. Appreciate the help with my pronunciation and making sure that we get it on the right page. But yeah, teamwork, all good and I look forward to the next one.
Walter Storholt:
It’s one of those words we could just make it up as we go along, however you want to say that, Tyler.
Tyler Emrick:
Better not do that.
Walter Storholt:
Decuple.
Tyler Emrick:
I don’t think we’ll make it on that.
Walter Storholt:
Maybe we go decuple and we’ll just come up with our own. I like that approach as well. No, you did great. I appreciate it, Tyler. Thank you so much. We’ll talk to you soon. Thanks for listening everybody. We’ll see you again on Retire Smarter. Come back and join us.
Tyler Emrick:
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.