The #1 Investment Mistake: Confusing Risk & Volatility | Ep. 10
Watch the Episode
Episode Summary
In this episode, Gideon Drucker and Jordan Haines explain why many investors are invested too conservatively for their actual time horizon.
They break down why traditional risk questionnaires can be misleading, especially when they base long-term investment decisions on short-term emotions.
The conversation explores the difference between risk tolerance and risk capacity, showing why the real question is not just how risk feels, but when the money will actually be needed.
They also discuss stocks, bonds, volatility, retirement timelines, and why long-term investing should be built around a financial plan instead of a questionnaire score.
Topics Covered
Why Your Portfolio Might Not Match Your Timeline [01:41]
The Problem With Risk Questionnaires [02:54]
Risk Tolerance vs. Risk Capacity [09:59]
Why Stocks May Be Less Risky Than They Feel [14:26]
Why Retirement Doesn’t Mean You Need All Your Money at Once [20:26]
When Bonds Actually Make Sense [23:57]
Resources & Links
Transcript
Below is the full transcript for Episode 10 of Beyond the First Million.
Introduction [00:00]
Gideon: Welcome to Beyond the First Million. I'm your host, Gideon Drucker. The taller gentleman to my left is Jordan Haines. I hope he is to my left. Yes, we're right. How are you doing today?
Jordan: Good. I don't know how it works with cameras. Are we backwards?
Gideon: When it's our left, it's their right. We're good. This is the podcast about how the Knicks just won the NBA championship for the first time in 53 years.
No, that is not what this podcast is about, but I had to mention it. I actually don't know when this is going to be airing. The Knicks are NBA champions for at least another 12 months. We didn't actually talk about this. I know you're a Utah Jazz fan. Were you rooting for the Knicks?
Jordan: Yeah, I was rooting for the Knicks. I didn't really have a horse in the race. I just enjoyed it.
Gideon: Other than that, Wemby just seems pretty lame.
Jordan: Yeah, he's great.
Gideon: This podcast is now a pro-Knicks, anti-Wemby podcast, and we'll leave it at that.
Jordan: How many hours of Knicks content have you listened to? You told me this.
Gideon: A dangerous amount. When your team wins, and again, I am a Knicks fan. I won't say I'm the most diehard, but my family has always been Knicks fans. It's been a fun few days. See, this was maybe not the best strategy, because everybody who's not from New York has already turned off the podcast.
Why Your Portfolio Might Not Match Your Timeline [01:41]
Gideon: It's one of the most common things that you and I both experience when we're meeting a prospective client. Most of them are in their late 30s, 40s, maybe early 50s. They're making good money, they're saving aggressively, they're organized, and they know the direction they want to be going.
Then, when we look under the hood of their investment accounts, a lot of times they're 20 to 25 years away from retirement, but they're invested like they're five years away. Their actual investment plan really doesn't match their time horizon or where they're going. By that, we mean they have a relatively high amount in cash, stable income funds, fixed income, or bonds, and most of them really don't have any idea how they got there.
It wasn't a planned strategy. Nobody ever sat them down and said, “Hey, you're 40, but let's invest like you're 60 or 65 years old.” It just kind of happened. What's the number one reason you think, knowing how people tend to invest, for how they got there?
Jordan: I used to do this too, and we've talked about this. I'm always the guy who comes back to this, but I just don't think a lot of people know what they're investing for in order to decide how they're going to invest. It's almost like, “I heard I should invest, so I'm going to open an account, put money in it, and invest. What I actually invest in, I'm just going to pick whatever they tell me to.”
The Problem With Risk Questionnaires [02:54]
Gideon: And so, let's talk about the "they". This is not about advisors, but it's about risk questionnaires. Most people, if you've invested your 401(k), you have an advisor, or you're even just on a brokerage platform, it doesn't have to be a one-on-one person, you've done one of these risk questionnaires.
Basically, it's software. It's an algorithm where you start answering questions like, “If there was a 50% chance that you could go up 20%, or a 50% chance that you lose 50%, would you do that?” And it just continues to ask questions. “If there's a chance you can go up this much,” and it changes the numbers to arrive at how you feel, your emotional makeup when investing, and what level of loss you are emotionally comfortable with.
Then you answer a bunch of these questions. Every platform I've ever seen has this kind of risk questionnaire makeup, and then it spits out: Are you aggressive? Are you conservative? Are you moderate? Sometimes it actually assigns you a risk number, 1 to 100, and then from that point forward, your investment strategy is largely determined. “Oh, Jordan, you're a 65. That's moderate. You're going to have a 70/30 portfolio. Gideon, you're aggressive, a 94.” And these numbers are meaningless. I'm just throwing them out there. “You should be in a 90/10 portfolio.”
I think most of that, and I try to stay away from absolutes, but I think most risk questionnaires are nonsense. I think they actually, not intentionally, and we'll talk about what their purpose is, mislead investors into underperforming how they need to be set up for the long term. It's not because they're evil. Maybe we should just get this out of the way: they're not bad, they're not evil, and they're not trying to do anything wrong. But they misunderstand what risk is when investing, and if you misunderstand risk, it's literally impossible to devise an investment program to maximize return. We'll start by being fair that these risk questionnaires weren't invented by idiots.
Jordan: No.
Gideon: There's a purpose to them. We don't really use them. We can maybe come back to how we think about them, but if they start a conversation about how you think about investing, about how you think about money and risk, great. But that's not often what happens. What usually happens is you answer the questions, you're assigned a number, you're set up in an allocation, and you never think about it again.
Jordan: Yeah, a couple of thoughts I have on this. I think, as a financial advisor who works with people and helps them invest their money, it is actually useful context for me to understand how you actually feel about risk, and when you are going to be concerned. When do we need to have these conversations? That is helpful.
Gideon: It starts conversations that might otherwise be difficult to have.
Jordan: Yeah, but it would be like if I were to go to a personal trainer and say, “Hey, help me be healthy,” and they're like, “What makes you feel happy when you eat?” And I'm like, “I eat Whoppers because they're good, and I like me some Chick-fil-A because it's good, so that's what I'm going to have for my meals.” No personal trainer is going to be like, “Yeah, that's what you should just do. I'm just going to say we're going to do what feels good to you right now.” And that's kind of what the risk questionnaire does for a lot of people.
Gideon: From the advisor's perspective, or just the platform's part of it, there's a CYA, a cover your ass, in there: “If we have people answer these questions and it spits out their investment, we're just doing what they answered.” Well, no. How about we educate? We talk about how that all comes together.
Let's actually talk about what risk questionnaires actually do, what they are telling you, and then we'll talk about why, to your point, feeling good or how you feel in the moment isn't really accurate. At the simplest level, you answer a risk questionnaire, and if it says you're more aggressive, you're going to invest more in stocks. If you're more conservative, it'll say you should own more bonds. It's that binary in terms of how these questionnaires are focused.
There are two reasons why these questionnaires are wrong. The first one is what you were alluding to. It's saying how you should be invested for 30 years based on how you feel emotionally in the moment. There are literally studies on this. If you take a questionnaire and you just got a big bonus, you just got a big promotion, you're in a good mood, and you're feeling confident, you are going to think you can take on more risk at that moment because you are more confident in your life.
By the way, it doesn't even have to be about finances. You had a really good date, your kid scored the winning goal at a soccer game, and you're going to be a little more optimistic and on the balls of your feet. How you answer a risk questionnaire about how much risk you're comfortable taking on is going to be higher. But it's human nature. We answer questions about long-term risk based on how we're feeling in the moment.
Jordan: The general principle I'm hearing from you is that these questionnaires tend to encourage us to make long-term decisions based off of short-term feelings. And I think that, to me, goes back to, well, you need to know what you're investing for. The vast majority of people, especially people that we work with, are investing for the long term, and they're investing for something very far in the future. Knowing that, why would we now make a long-term decision based off of how we feel?
Gideon: Something that can literally change by next Tuesday. And for our role as advisors, the personal trainer analogy is spot on here. You hire a financial planner to educate, to help you understand what you're invested in, how the plan comes together, and to get you out of your own way.
If our job is just, “All right, you filled out a questionnaire, and now let's go put you in the model that matches,” literally, what are you paying us for? Why are we here? How you think emotionally about money and about investing matters. We're not trying to say you should totally ignore whether you think you're a conservative person or you're aggressive. But I've absolutely had people on our initial right-fit call say, “Hey, I want you to know, I'm conservative when it comes to investing. I don't like a lot of risk.”
Then we have five or six meetings. We build out their financial plan. By the time we get to the investing, we lay out, “Here's how we think about short-term money. We want your short-term money to be in cash because you might need that in the next one to three years, and we do not want money that you might need to be invested in something that can fluctuate. So we want that money set aside.”
Then they say, “Oh yeah, that's what I meant by being conservative. With my bank account, I like having my money there because I'm planning on putting in a pool.” We'll say, “Well, yes, of course, but that doesn't make you conservative. That means you have a financial plan that's matched to when you need to spend your money.”
If somebody had just taken that comment at face value, “Hey, this person's conservative, let's invest like she's conservative,” it would have totally thrown off the returns she would earn long term. It's not diving deep enough. Our job is to ask questions like, “Why do you think you're conservative? What leads you to that? Are you conservative with all of your money or with this part?” And then educate.
This is what we'll get to. The second reason that questionnaires are not helpful is that they misunderstand risk and volatility. A lot of people, when they say, “Hey, I'm conservative,” that's what they're doing. But sometimes when somebody says, “I don't want to be aggressive,” in their mind, they think aggressive means day trading or owning seven individual tech stocks. These words have different meanings to different people, and if you're not educating and unpacking, we could be driving in totally different directions here.
Jordan: Yeah, what I'm hearing from you through all this is that I think it helps to have someone to talk to about this. In our relationship with our clients, it is nice to be able to challenge their notions and assumptions and to educate. We can take what they're feeling, and then we can challenge them a little bit and educate them. A questionnaire in and of itself, if we were just to take that at face value, wouldn't do that. So having your advisor, or someone that you trust, listen and challenge your thinking is really helpful.
Risk Tolerance vs. Risk Capacity [09:59]
Gideon: We're saying that the real issue is making long-term decisions based on emotion. So how should we be measuring how we invest? What are the right ways of thinking about it? This is where we like talking about what we call risk capacity, as opposed to risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is an emotional reaction. Risk capacity measures, for lack of a better word, the data. It looks at how much market decline, which is really what we're talking about when you invest, you can actually afford.
Not how you feel about it or how you'll emotionally react, but based on your living expenses, your cash flow, your other investments, and your cash needs over the next three years, how much could the market lose before it actually affects your financial plan? That's based on your actual financial situation. So let's set the stage.
Imagine you're 40 years old and you just received a large bonus, something that doesn't come in every month. There might be periods where your bank account is smaller, and then there are times where you think, “Oh my God, I have $500,000 sitting in my bank account right now.” Let's say you're at that point. You have $500,000 sitting in cash, and let's say six months of living expenses for you is $100,000. That's how much it costs you to live, around $8,000 to $10,000 a month. Let's also say you're planning to put in a pool for $125,000 next year, and you're saving $10,000 a month through cash flow, your 401(k), and investments.
That person might say, “Oh, I'm pretty conservative. Markets freak me out.” But their risk capacity, if we actually measure what they can afford to lose in the short term and how that would impact them, is pretty high. Why? Because they have $500,000 in the bank. They need $100,000 for six months of living expenses. We need to set aside another $125,000 for the pool because any money you might need in the short term, we do not want invested.
I keep saying short term, but once it's a year away, it's no longer really short term. It's in the moment. If a year from now the market is down 20% and your $125,000 is now worth less than $100,000, but you still need the full amount to build the pool, that's a problem. So that money gets set aside.
Meanwhile, you're saving and investing $10,000 every month. Your risk capacity is pretty darn high. You have $200,000 to $300,000, plus that ongoing $10,000 a month that you can invest. If the market went down 20% next month or 40% a year from now, it would have absolutely no impact on your financial plan, your investment needs, or your family's lifestyle. Nothing would change in your family's financial circumstances because the market went down. That's what we mean by risk capacity.
Jordan: Yeah, I think one is very subjective, your tolerance, how you feel about things. The other is very objective, what's actually happening in your life.
Something that stood out to me as you were talking is that you relate capacity a lot to time. To my point earlier, we need to know what we're investing for. A lot of times, we also need to know when we're investing for it. Is it something happening in the next two years? Then yes, we need to have money set aside for that. I have a young family, we're growing, and there's always random things happening. Normally I might be comfortable with three months in the bank. Right now, I really want six.
Sometimes I'll have a client who says, “I need a full year.” I had a client who was unemployed for six months last year, and they're doing fine. Objectively, everything looks okay, but they still feel uncomfortable. So we said, “Let's keep about nine months of living expenses in cash.” That makes them comfortable enough to say, “Okay, I'm fine investing the rest of this for the long term.”
Gideon: Yeah. Perfect is the enemy of good, and I'm glad you brought that up because when I said six months, it was just an example. It could be three months, six months, or more. Everybody is different.
To your point, not everything needs to be optimized. In fact, not optimizing one thing sometimes allows you to do better with everything else. Maybe you keep a little more in cash because it helps you sleep at night. The return on getting a good night's sleep and not worrying about your money is huge. If that's only 10% of your net worth, and it allows us to invest the other 90% better, even from a math standpoint, that ends up working out well.
Jordan: Something that will be really useful, and I'm not usually the promotional one, but as we go through this, you're using a lot of terms like risk, volatility, tolerance, capacity, stocks, and bonds. Your book has specific chapters that really dive into what those differences are. So if anyone wants to really nerd out...
Gideon: Look at that. I mess up my computer, and he gives a pitch for my book.
Jordan: That's why I'm here. As a note to our audience, I think our intro should be him messing up the intro two or three times and doing that "blah, blah" thing. That would be so great. We should always start with that. Everyone would be like, "This is great."
Why Stocks May Be Less Risky Than They Feel [14:26]
Gideon: But just as I said, we don't edit. This time, it took me three times to get it right.
We're burying the lead a little bit in this entire conversation of when we talk about risk and volatility. Why do risk questionnaires get it wrong? Here's the fundamental thing: risk questionnaires are inherently saying that stocks are risky and bonds are safe or conservative. That is their operating assumption. Everything follows from that. If you have a risk tolerance, that's what you're effectively answering. I think that is entirely flipped.
All right, but let's just start with what risk is. Most people would answer quickly, “Well, risk, when it comes to investing, is the chance that I could lose money.” I don't think that's what we're talking about here. When we're talking about long-term money, what I would define as risk is the possibility that you will not have enough money in your accounts when you actually need it, that it will not grow enough, and that you will not end up at a point where you have enough to support your living expenses and your life goals at the point that you need it.
And I keep emphasizing that, saying “at the point you need it” multiple times, because that changes the entire conversation. If we look at stocks versus bonds over the long term, stocks have earned 10% annualized returns going back to 1928. So, basically, over the last 100 years, bonds have earned more like 5% to 6%. It's actually gone down a little bit since a lot of these studies, but that further supports our point.
But 10% versus, let's say, 6% for bonds or fixed income. If we subtract inflation, which has historically been about 3%, the difference is actually even greater. That's why I like giving the nominal numbers first, because it actually becomes a bigger difference investing in stocks and bonds after inflation: a 7% return versus a 3% return.
So, if we define risk as the chance that you will not have enough money 10, 20, or 30 years from now, when you need to take the money out to support your living expenses, what's the riskier asset? The investment that's historically earned 7% or 3%? I would argue the riskier asset is the one that is barely outpacing inflation to the tune of 2% to 3% a year.
Now, taking that one level further, the stock market over every 20-year period in history has had positive returns. Stocks are absolutely risky in the short term, and we'll touch on that in a minute. This is not “stocks are always good.” No, there is a real reason people think they're risky. It's because of how they operate in the short term, which we'll get to.
But if you extend your time horizon long enough to 20 years, that's what it will take. I think 15 years is 97%, 10 years is 83% of positive returns over these time frames. And if you're curious, for one day, it's about 54%. So one day investing in the stock market is basically a coin flip of whether you're going to make money or not. But I would say, who gives a shit? We would never be investing for one day, one month, one year, or three years.
So if we're looking at 10, 15, or 20 years, and we get to a point where every 20-year period has had positive returns, again, we come back to, in what sense are stocks a risky investment for the long-term investor?
Now, all of this is with the massive disclaimer that these are historical returns. They are not guaranteed. Everybody knows that, and that is to save our back-office compliance team. But history is the only thing we can go on, and short of anything else, that is exactly what we want to operate on over a long enough time period.
The last year of market returns tells me absolutely nothing about how we want to invest for the next year. The last 100 years, the last 50 years, and multiple cycles over and over again do.
Volatility is a real thing. When we say volatility, what we're describing is the price fluctuation you can expect investing over a short period of time. Literally, the gyrations of price that happen back and forth. So let's talk about that for a second, because I'm not trying to paint too rosy of a picture and have thousands of angry people saying, “You don't need to invest in stocks, and the market went down 20% because of X, Y, and Z.”
That is going to happen. The stock market goes down one out of every four years on average. There's a 20% to 30% decline every five to six years or so. And even if we look back at recent history, in 2022, the stock market lost 20% of its value. Last April Tariff Day, or Freedom Day, whatever you want to call it, the stock market lost over 30% over a one-month period. Thirty percent in a month.
We're going to do another episode that gets a little bit more into the history. From 2007 to 2009, the market lost 57% of its value. If you had a million dollars at the start of that, over 18 months, you're down to $430,000. So the markets can tank, and that is why, even as I'm saying that, our producer is giving an “oh shit” reaction, because that doesn't sound good.
So there is a real reason why, when investing in stocks, you need to be able to emotionally handle it, to bring us back. But again, if we are investing for the long term, and our job is to help clients maximize the return on their money 20 years out and 30 years out, we want to pick the asset that has historically done that, not the asset that maybe won't fluctuate as much in the short term, but also is not going to outpace inflation over the long term.
Jordan: My summary of this is that risk is relative to when you need your money.
Gideon: Well said. It took me 17 minutes to get there.
Jordan: Yeah, I'm the summary guy. One of the points I was going to make was that I think a lot of these are for people who have a lot of wealth already, and they're now ready to live off of that wealth. They feel like, “I need this all at once.” We're going to talk about that.
But the point I'm making here is, because risk is tied to when we need it, I think sometimes we just assume we need all the money right away, right now. When really, if we need this money in 20 years, and we look at history, stocks grow, and we want that to be there. So the real risk is not having what we need when we need it.
Gideon: It's not being invested when all those gains happen. The market went down 20% here and 30% there. From 2000 to 2002, the market lost 37% of its value over three years. And we're going to talk about that in our next investing episode.
But you can say, “Well, how are those things possible, and the market has had positive returns over every 20-year period in history?” It's because on those days when shit hits the fan, it can go up just as quickly after that. You don't know which is which, so you need to be invested the entire time in order to focus on the 20 years, not the one days.
Why Retirement Doesn’t Mean You Need All Your Money at Once [20:26]
Gideon: Yeah, you brought up that sometimes people think they're investing for a point in life when they're going to need all their money at once. Every study has shown that the more you look at your investments, the worse you do. Think about it. If every day there is a coin flip of the market going up or down, and you look every day, half the time you're getting bad news. If you look once every 20 years, historically, you are literally only getting good news every 20 years or so.
Even for retirees, because there are definitely people listening to this. In the beginning, we said only our wives and our mothers are listening to this. Now I'm confident that we at least have five or seven other people listening, including all my dad's Brazilian jiu-jitsu buddies who bullied me into having LD on the last episode.
But people are probably listening to this who are a little bit older, and they're saying, “All right, well, Gideon and Jordan, everything you guys are saying, sure, if you're 30, if you're 40, all that's true. But what if I'm 50, I'm 55, or I'm 60?”
This is where I think sometimes people who are closer to retirement actually make bigger mistakes than people who are in their 40s. I think a lot of people have this idea that when they're 62 or 65 and they're retired, or 60 or 55, pick your number, they're going to get to this point where they retire on Monday, and on Tuesday, all of their money needs to be available now that they are retired.
That's not really how retirement works. If you're the average healthy 62-year-old couple, statistically, somebody is going to be alive at 88. Somebody will be alive in their late 80s. So what we're saying is that you have 25-plus years that you need your money to last, and not only last, but outpace inflation.
The other key is that inflation costs us about 3% of our money every single year. Over a 30-year period, that means you are effectively losing 60% of your money to inflation. So if you start with $1,000,000, and 30 years from now you still have $1,000,000 on paper, you can only buy 40% of the things you could have bought 30 years ago.
So if you are keeping your money in cash, and if you're retired and saying, “Now that I'm retired, I need this money in my pocket,” metaphorically, you're actually losing that money. We need 25 years of investing and outpacing inflation to handle the costs later in life. Again, how to invest for retirement is an entirely different conversation.
The point here is, yes, if you're 65, you should be invested differently than if you're 55 or 45, but not that differently. I think people overrate how different their investment strategy should be if they're 65 instead of 45.
The other piece, and then I'll end this part of it, is yes, you should be invested differently if you're 65 versus 45, broadly speaking. But if you've gotten to a point where you're financially independent and you're no longer really investing for yourself, and I'll speak, my parents have done a great job. My dad talked about last time being financially independent. He's 63.
If you're 63 and financially independent, and you're saying, “I'm never actually going to spend all of my money,” then you're investing for decades. It's literally how universities invest. Universities have an untold amount of money, and frankly, it's ridiculous how much people have to take out debt to pay for college while these colleges have billion-dollar endowments. It's absolutely outrageous.
But how are they able to support their endowments? Universities invest for hundreds of years. But I'm really off the point. We're way past the point I thought we were making.
Jordan: I was excited to see where this was going.
Gideon: I could have ended up with the Knicks championship again. We just did a full circle, and I didn't know where I was going.
The point is, even in your 60s, you want to be intentional with how you're investing and not operate based on rules of thumb or questionnaires. I think those are the craziest. It's based on where you're at, your risk capacity, and what else you have going on in your financial life that would allow you to support investing in a certain way.
When Bonds Actually Make Sense [23:57]
Interview Question: It sounds like stocks are the best thing to invest in, so why invest in bonds at all?
Gideon: Good question. I think the best answer for somebody in their 40s is that it is an emotional hedge more than anything else.
I like describing investing in bonds or fixed income like this: imagine you're on a boat and you're 20 miles from shore, and you put your anchor down to slow you down and make sure you don't capsize, that you're going at the appropriate speed. Then I would ask you, “Yeah, but we have 20 miles until we hit shore, so why would we put our anchor down now? We have a ways to go.”
I think most of the time, investing in bonds or fixed income as a high-income-earning 45-year-old who has other assets, money in the bank, and other resources, is really about letting you sleep at night. You invest a little bit in bonds to protect how much you can lose if that is going to materially freak you out.
But the way we like to think about investing is that I want my short-term money to be short-term, and I want my long-term money to be long-term. Meaning, we want money in cash if you are going to need it in the short term. And when I say cash, I mean high-yield savings, money markets, and things like that. I don't mean literally a checking account.
We actually help clients maximize the cash they have on hand. Sometimes we have clients, and I think of last week, who exercised stock options and had $600,000 in the bank. Part of it, they're going to have to pay taxes on over the next six months, so we don't want to invest it. But in high-yield savings, they can earn thousands of dollars. So we want it in cash.
Then we want their long-term money, broadly speaking, in globally diversified equities, the stock market. So the answer is, should we own bonds? If it allows us to sleep at night, if it makes us feel better, yes. But for the long-term young investor, I'll say it like this: I don't own bonds in any part of my individual portfolios, especially my retirement accounts.
Jordan: My take on this is that if you have the emotional resilience to invest in stocks, it's a great investment because it's going to grow long term. History is on our side and shows that. To his point, when maybe we just need to feel a little bit better or feel a little less volatile, sometimes bonds make a lot of sense there. That's usually when we're putting them in someone's account.
Gideon: When I say stocks or the stock market, let's define that for a second. We mean the entire stock market, a globally diversified portfolio where you own thousands of businesses. And I'll take it one step further, and we can end on this. What are we actually doing when we invest in the stock market? We are buying shares of the largest, most well-run, profit-seeking companies in the world.
By being a stock market investor, you get to share in the profits of large, profit-seeking companies without having to do any of the work. You're owning companies. Investing in stocks means you are a shareholder in businesses. The beauty of that is you don't have to pick the businesses. The businesses that do the best end up making their way into index funds like the S&P 500, which is the largest 500 companies in America.
So you don't need to worry about, “What are going to be the best stocks in 30 years?” You can say, “If I own a broad, diversified bucket of index funds and ETFs, I'm going to own all the stocks as they make their way in.”
That is a little bit too much in the weeds of stock investing, but I did want to level set that when we talk about stocks and stock portfolios, that is what we mean.
With that, if you are still with us after 30-plus minutes of stock market risk questionnaires and thinking about your emotional makeup, without at least side-by-side, understanding your risk capacity, your financial standing, what your actual plan looks like, and the most important investing question that exists, “When will I need this money?” Everything follows that.
With that, we wish you a great day. We are looking forward to speaking with you next week, and more to come. Thank you.
