#85 – Rising Productivity, Stock Buybacks, and Economic Shifts For Investors To Know

Wes Moss [00:00:57]:
You know what else is back? Football. Football is back. The fall is back isn’t, thank goodness, fighting between the White House and the Fed back. And the cracker barrel logo, the old logo, that’s back. A lot of boomerangs this week lasted about a week.

Connor Miller [00:01:16]:
The new one did it.

Wes Moss [00:01:17]:
Did I. I don’t know if I can ever remember company from a branding perspective doing that quick of a turnaround. It’s incredible.

Connor Miller [00:01:25]:
Look, I guess you got to give them credit. At least they’re listening to the audience. There was enough backlash for them to go back to tradition.

Wes Moss [00:01:32]:
You know, in all the time I took to study the logos this week, I really do like the old logo. Really is good. And maybe it’s just because it’s been imprinted in our brains for so long. On every road trip you’ve ever taken, you’ve seen a hundred of them. When you look at them side by side, you think that the old logo has got a lot of, just a lot of nostalgia. But it’s also a good logo. It certainly helped the stock this week. But it’s amazing, the turnaround.

Wes Moss [00:01:58]:
So we’re gonna get right to markets and the economy. Nvidia earnings this week again, largest company the s and P500 reported. And we’ll talk about those numbers and how they did and just how big, how hard to fathom how large that company is. Gross domestic product, we get another GDP kind of revision this week. 3.3% growth in the third quarter. That’s up from what the original estimate was. So that’s pretty serious growth here in the US and then I think in the spirit of Labor Day weekend, I want to talk a little bit about and tomorrow is Labor Day. Talk about the army of American productivity, which is just a constant theme here on the show.

Wes Moss [00:02:40]:
But the actual economic term productivity is something we measure and we measure output per hour. And we know that we’ve had a huge loss of manufacturing jobs since 1950 to 20 million plus, down to 12.7 million today. But it’s really interesting that we still produce dramatically more than we did with when we had 20 million workers, even though now we only have 12.7. So there’s a lot to be said about productivity. And I’m looking back at the productivity charts, we’re back in a pretty favorable zone. And I want to go through some of that data because I think that it’s the unspoken fuel to the engine, it’s the unspoken fuel to GDP over time. And it does all sorts of positive things like grow the economy, grow the wage base. And key, it actually can keep inflation down as well because we have new technology producing more for less.

Wes Moss [00:03:39]:
And it’s showing up not necessarily just in Silicon Valley. And that’s what I think is interesting. And maybe the heartland of the United States, the good old fashioned Midwest. And the story that stands out this week for me is, and I’m not talking about the headline, but the economic story. In reading one of my favorite economists who was talking about the Jetsons, most people listening probably at least remember the Jetsons. If you’re maybe under the age of 30, maybe you don’t, but you still know the Jetsons. George Jetson, it was, it was a show when I was a little kid in the 80s would watch it. But you said that it came out.

Wes Moss [00:04:17]:
Well, when did actually come out?

Connor Miller [00:04:20]:
I don’t know when it actually came out. I just remember watching it as a kid. I don’t know if it was the reruns. I mean, I remember in the 90s, I remember it being.

Wes Moss [00:04:27]:
But you know, the age of George Jetson wasn’t there a year that he was born?

Connor Miller [00:04:31]:
Oh yeah, well, George Jetson was born. I actually saw this, I came across this last week. He was born, supposed to be born in 2022.

Wes Moss [00:04:39]:
The fictitious character. Yeah, so that was so far into the future.

Connor Miller [00:04:43]:
The show took place I think in like the 2000s. So he was born three years ago according to our timeline. And look, I view that in a very optimistic light because I think we all watch the Jetsons and we’re like, oh, this is going to be the future is going to be amazing. So we still have 35, 40 years to see if the Jetsons world actually comes true.

Wes Moss [00:05:05]:
The show was projecting the 2000s. Yes, the year 2060+ so it ran in, it looks like the original run was in 1962. And then new episodes produced in the 80s. So that makes sense. Okay. That’s why I saw it as a kid. So it was 1985, 1987. It was on for a little while.

Wes Moss [00:05:26]:
But what I remember, and this goes back to productivity, manufacturing. George Jetson, who’s the dad, his job was to go to a factory. And his job, and this is what they were predicting back in the 60s and the 80s for the year 2060. And it may still be right. His job was to push a button. That was it. He pushed a button. And he came home from work one day and it had been a really bad day at the office or at the plant, and his kids were rallying.

Wes Moss [00:05:58]:
My boss was so rough on me today, he made me push the button eight times today. And that’s what they thought in the 1960s, the 2000 and 60s, I guess 100 years, 100 years later would end up being. And only time will tell. We have certainly gotten a lot more efficient, but we’re certainly not just sitting around pushing one button once to eight times a day. But we’re going to talk more about that. And then, of course, the fight with the Federal Reserve, which is obviously a. The Federal Reserve is the engine of the United States economy. It controls what the hell, the car moves down the road, it controls the fuel line.

Wes Moss [00:06:38]:
And there’s a question about Fed independence. And if the White House is trying to essentially say, look, we want these people out and put these people in so we can get lower rates, then there’s certainly, there’s some concern about that. However, the markets seem to not worry about it all that much. And I don’t know exactly why the market brushed it off so much, but it just, right now, I think it’s just too complicated and there’s too many people at the Fed. One person out at the Fed, and we already know Jerome Powell is going to be gone in May anyway. I think the market already knows there’s change happening in the Fed. And I think that a lot of that’s priced in well.

Connor Miller [00:07:15]:
And really the kind of the ironic thing about this was really the news came down that President Trump was firing Lisa Cook from her Fed position. Ironically, if you read into it, she was actually probably leaning into the yes camp for she was raised.

Wes Moss [00:07:33]:
She was pretty dovish.

Connor Miller [00:07:34]:
Yeah. So she was probably going to be a yes vote anyway. And so I don’t think it does much to change the trajectory or at least the market’s anticipation of the trajectory of Fed rate cuts later this year.

Wes Moss [00:07:47]:
Is it fair to say that it’s almost, it’s not nothing is a foregone conclusion when it comes to the movement of interest rates. It’s just as hard to predict where rates go as it is where the stock market will go up or down, up or down in any given small short period of time. I think it’s fair to say that the trajectory of the Fed funds rate, that’s the super short term rate that they can control, is likely lower over the Next, call it 6 to 12 months. However, it doesn’t mean that 10 year interest rates are longer, doesn’t mean that they’ll necessarily be lower. In fact they could even be a little bit higher.

Connor Miller [00:08:23]:
Well, and look no further than what we saw last year. Remember The Fed cut three times at the end of 2024. The 10 year treasury kind of the benchmark treasury rate actually went up after the fact. And so just because the Fed’s cutting doesn’t mean that that controls the entire curve of interest rates.

Wes Moss [00:08:43]:
Right. And the Fed cuts rates from where they are today down to like, let’s say it cuts them in half, down to two. It doesn’t mean that mortgage rates which are more predicated off of the ten year treasury, it doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily go down, down. So we’ll see. I, I know that the, the whole world is somewhat rooting for a better housing market and more housing mobility and people being able to put their house on the market because they have lower rates to go to another house and first time home buyers being able to let in. There was a chart this week. I don’t know if we talked about this Connor, but it was, we’re at the lowest share in recorded history of first time home buyers being a part of the mix. It’s down to one in four.

Wes Moss [00:09:23]:
Used to be two and four, it used to be half of all home purchases were first timers in housing transactions and that’s all the way down to 24%. And of course lower mortgage rates would help boost that. Now you could also argue that lower rates would also boost housing prices even more.

Connor Miller [00:09:39]:
Yeah, I mean we really don’t know. I mean, because when interest rates started rising we all thought you’d see a slowdown in housing and I think we’ve seen it the last couple of years. But for those first, that first year or two you actually continue to see an acceleration in housing. So who knows?

Wes Moss [00:09:53]:
We also got this super bowl of earnings and we get it now every quarter and it’s because it’s Nvidia and they’re the Largest company in the world. And again, we’re not. This is not a buy, sell or hold recommendation on the stock, but it’s really goes back to just the comparative market size of just how big Nvidia as a company has gotten. First of all, their revenue that they just reported this week, $46.7 billion. And that is for the quarter that is not for a year. It’s $47.6 billion for the quarter. From the size perspective, it’s the market cap of Nvidia today is about $4.3 trillion. You look at the S&P 500 and take essentially the bottom half of of the S&P 500.

Wes Moss [00:10:37]:
It takes a long winding road to be able to be an S&P 500 company. It’s a big deal. And you take the bottom 225 companies from 5 billion to 30 billion, put them all together, and that is still about the size of one company at the top.

Connor Miller [00:10:54]:
Nvidia, which by the way is the biggest company in the history of the world at this point. We’ve never seen a $4.3 trillion company.

Wes Moss [00:11:02]:
Well, and then the revenue too is again, I don’t know if we’ve ever seen anything quite like this. $46 billion in a quarter. That revenue number alone, the amount of money they’re bringing in as a company selling their chips and their GPUs, really fueling the adoption and the advent of artificial intelligence. And really the backbone of that, that revenue alone is bigger than the market caps of another 280 companies in the S&P 500, bigger than Ford, Target, Kroger, ebay, Hershey, Humana. And that’s just revenue for one quarter. So and the numbers were obviously pretty strong. The stock didn’t do great all that well after the report. But the company itself continues to grow at really pretty remarkable rates.

Wes Moss [00:11:54]:
Now, they’re also getting to the size where that the rate of growth is almost has to slow down to some extent, but it doesn’t mean they still don’t have tremendous growth. And they’re buying back a lot of stock. Why would companies do that? Well, first of all, before you answer that, let’s do a couple of the big ones. Since we were just talking about Nvidia, we’ll start with JP Morgan Chase buying back. And this is just this year so far, JP Morgan has bought back $50 billion of their own stock in video 60 billion, Alphabet 70 and Apple $100 billion stock repurchase plan. Now that was. Yeah, that’s so far this year. It’s really an incredible number and I think we were already at $1 trillion in buybacks so far as of last week or so.

Wes Moss [00:12:46]:
Trillion dollars of companies buying back their own stock. Why would you do that, Connor Miller?

Connor Miller [00:12:53]:
Well, really there’s a couple reasons why and we know with companies returning capital to shareholders, they can do so in a couple ways. They can pay a dividend or they can also buy back shares. And so really the main reason or really the main output of what you get from buying back shares is first and foremost you get a boost to bottom line earnings per share.

Wes Moss [00:13:15]:
Right. If you’re so you’re so they’re retiring the share. So there’s a million shares and you buy 100,000 shares. Now there’s 900,000.

Connor Miller [00:13:23]:
Yeah. So even earnings can stay the same. If the share count goes down, your earnings per share goes up. That ultimately in theory should boost the value of the stock.

Wes Moss [00:13:32]:
And so which is also, I’ve always thought of it as very, it’s a fair thing to do because you’re pulling money in and you’re taking your profits anyway. So that it’s usually a profitability metrics that’s then continuing the trajectory of earnings going higher per share.

Connor Miller [00:13:49]:
Well, just like dividends, it’s a way for investors to reap the benefits of the profits of the company directly from profits that they’re generating as opposed to.

Wes Moss [00:13:59]:
Just getting cash as a dividend. What would you prefer?

Connor Miller [00:14:01]:
Well, I honestly I think it depends and that’s really where you want to have good management teams is sometimes they’ll pay you a dividend, sometimes they’ll buy back shares if management feels like their stock is a little bit undervalued. And so sometimes you’ll see the decision being made that if shares have moved quite a bit lower, then instead of increasing their dividend, they’ll just increase their share buybacks because they feel like shares are.

Wes Moss [00:14:26]:
And then of course that can obviously support the stock as well. Yeah, yeah.

Connor Miller [00:14:30]:
And then the other reason why you would do it in, you know, as an alternative to dividends is usually when you pay a dividend that’s that’s more of a set in stone number. It’s less flexible, the market assumes or investors assume. If you pay a dividend, you get.

Wes Moss [00:14:42]:
Real, you get punished. If you retract, you don’t want to.

Connor Miller [00:14:46]:
Have to cut it. Whereas with buybacks can be a little bit more of a flexible lever that you pull, you can increase it, you can pull back depending on what your profitability looks like.

Wes Moss [00:14:54]:
And then really it’s so it’s more flexible and then, and then to some extent you could look at it as is tax efficient too. So if it’s a return to the shareholder in one way, and I still love dividends, you’re getting cash and you’re having to pay taxes on it. Not in a retirement account but in an after tax account. But if a buyback, if it’s a return, it’s a proxy for returning capital to you, it should in turn over time just boost the price. So technically you’re only realizing taxes once you sell. So technically you could look at is also more tax efficient as well. When we get back, we’ll talk about productivity and we’ll talk about dividends. Some of our favorite topics here, More money matters straight ahead.

Wes Moss [00:15:39]:
Our research shows the number one fear for retirees, uncontrollable economic and market swings. And after the last five years that’s totally understandable. But here’s the good news. Happy retirees are twice as likely versus unhappy to have a financial plan. A plan can calm those worries. My team at Capital Investment Advisors would love to help your family build a plan you can feel confident about. Just pick a time that works for you@your wealth.com that’s y o u r wealth.com I had a really interesting question recently and it was just, hey Wes, the US money supply has grown at 7% compounded long term rate of return. Bonds never keep up with this devaluation, AKA inflation.

Wes Moss [00:16:26]:
Why bother investing in these losers? That’s a question. I thought it was a great one. It’s just boom right out of the gate. And I think if you were to look at just the final result of how stocks did and how bonds did over, call it a 45 year period of time. And we go back to 1980 and we’ve run these studies over and over and over again for the last at least five years about income investing and the amount of income you’re getting from just the s and P500 versus the aggregate bond index. And the answer is, well, we know that stocks win, but bonds are probably not a loser. They’re just a relative loser. And it’s not even a contest when it comes to publicly traded stocks or at least the s and P500 over that long period of time, the stocks win by a tremendous amount.

Wes Moss [00:17:20]:
It is an interesting topic to talk about for a minute because if you go back and you look at the numbers and we look at this typically from an income perspective and we said you this is the way we look at this. 10,000 in 1980 in stocks or bonds. And if you take all of your income, you take the interest you get from the bond portfolio every year and you spend it and you take the dividends you get from the stock portfolio every year and you spend it and you only look at price appreciation. As you would expect, there’s not a whole lot of appreciation in the bond price over that whole 45 year period. 10,000 turned into less than 14k. But the price only return without reinvesting dividends for the s and P500 was pretty tremendous from 10,000 to over call it 574,000. So of course stocks went of course to do bonds even keep up when you think about that very small rate of return over a long period of time. But if you were to reinvest, and I don’t think we’ve talked about it, we always talk about reinvesting stock dividends.

Wes Moss [00:18:24]:
If you don’t need them, you reinvest, you don’t need them, you reinvest. And the numbers are much more staggering. 10,000 actually if you’re, if you reinvested all of your dividends during that whole period of time turns into about 1.8 million. So you had 181x your money. 181, I’m sorry, $1.8 million. That’s reinvesting all the dividends you got from 1980 all the way through June of this year. But in fairness, if you were to have done the same thing and reinvested all your interest in a, let’s call it the aggregate bond index, your 10,000 would’ve turned into about 185,000. So you had an 18x return, 18 times your money.

Wes Moss [00:19:08]:
So it’s not again, it’s not as though bonds, they weren’t stellar, it wasn’t fantastic, but it was 18 times your investment over that long 45 year period of time. Now over that same period of time, inflation was up four times. So $10,000 then you’d need $42,000 today to buy the same amount just because of inflation. So inflation’s up. Call it 320% and a reinvested interest total return bond account 1750%. So it’s still so bonds. If you were looking at it as a just more conservative investment over time, do the numbers and it still outpaced inflation bonds. The total return of that fixed income example we’re using still outpaced inflation by 4x.

Wes Moss [00:19:56]:
Nowhere close to what stocks did. But it’s still well beyond inflation. So I Think I just wanted to make that point today. And I would sum it up by saying, look, we’re still in love with dividends and the growth of dividends, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for all investors to just ditch bonds. So I’m not ditching them.

Connor Miller [00:20:16]:
Yeah. And I would look at it from this way as well, that you have bonds in your portfolio. Generally you’re going to have more bonds in your portfolio as you age. But what bonds allow you to do is actually take advantage of those stocks returns. It’s really the ballast of the portfolio. Really. You buy bonds for two reasons, income and being the balance of the portfolio that allow those stocks so they really do work well hand in hand together and compliment each other very nicely.

Wes Moss [00:20:44]:
If stocks are apples, bonds are oranges. The oranges allow you to eat more apples. Is the reality, I think that they allow you to be a better equity investor because you have some stability now. Not everybody needs it, but that’s how I’ve seen most people. Not everyone really, I think does better over time with some different asset classes that don’t exactly move in lockstep. And when stocks are down 25%, it’s nice to look at your fixed income portfolio and say, oh well, it’s nice that that’s up and still paying me interest. Now speaking of the productivity of dividends and the productivity of long term investing, we’re going to talk about productivity in America, which continues to march. And at the beginning of the show, Connor, you brought up the Jetsons.

Wes Moss [00:21:31]:
We talked about your favorite cartoon, George. It’s amazing how just branded in my mind, I can still hum that theme song and probably sing half of it. And I haven’t seen the Jetsons since 1985. It’s an amazing piece of America, if you will. And now it makes sense that you bring up that really. The first episode was back in 62 and it was talking about the year 2062. It was a hundred years of the future. And George Jetson just pushed one button.

Wes Moss [00:22:01]:
That was his job. That’s what the world in 1960 thought was going to be 100 years later. And then we look at productivity. Well, we haven’t gotten there yet. So we’re not just pushing one button a day, maybe in another where we have 30 more years to go, 35 years to see if that prediction comes true. But what is so interesting about manufacturing and the manufacturing economy is that if you go back to the 50s and you go back past, we come back from World War II and we started just being ultra productive here in the United States, and we were growing productivity. We were increasing productivity by 2, 3, and sometimes 4% a year over and over and over again. And we did that for a really long period of time.

Wes Moss [00:22:44]:
You really take that all the way into the mid-1980s. So I would call that that long stretch was kind of the manufacturing productivity green zone. Then around 1985, productivity seemed to drop to some extent, and we had less and less of those 3 and 4% years. And it was still good. Productivity still grew, but it was more in the 1 to 2% range more often. And then we dropped down to the red zone range after about 2010, where I’d put it in the 0 to 1%, very little productivity growth. Economists were scratching their heads. It was several years of really low productivity growth.

Wes Moss [00:23:26]:
Then if you look at the productivity growth chart, there’s kind of this EKG tremor for Covid. So I’d almost throw that away because we had a huge spike up and down. And that was due to shutting the economy down and then turning it back on. Then the last couple of years, we’ve kind of gotten back into that 1 to 2, and then more recently, we’re back into the 2 to 3, meaning 2 to 3% growth of output. And if you look at the 20 million jobs that were in manufacturing we had in the 1950s, today is all the way down to 12.7. Yet output has gone from a manufacturing index of about 40 to about 100. We’ve reduced the number of jobs from 20 million to 12.7, and we’ve tripled almost the amount we’re producing as a country. And it’s because of innovation.

Wes Moss [00:24:14]:
And we may be, if we stay in this new productivity boom zone, still, time will tell, but it may be the culmination of not just the Web, but now artificial intelligence, and then actually being able to use that for a little more output for the same amount of time.

Connor Miller [00:24:32]:
And I would just add some context here, because you could ask the question, well, why is this so important to the future of the country? Really? There’s two ways to grow the economy. You can add more people, or you can get more productive. So you can add more people to make more goods and services, or you can use the same number of people to make more goods and services. And that’s where the productivity comes from.

Wes Moss [00:24:54]:
And the reality is we’re not adding a whole lot of people. And it’s just a very small amount of new population through birth. It’s birth minus death, birth minus Death that gets us at least a little tiny bit of growth in the United States, population wise. And then immigration has slowed down really dramatically. So we don’t have a ton of immigration. But where are you going to get the growth? It’s really got to be through innovation, it’s got to be through productivity growth. And we’re starting to see it. What’s interesting and our, one of our favorite economists wrote about this is that it may be not in Silicon Valley, it may not be on Wall street, it may be just in the good old fashioned Midwest, it may be in South Dakota, it may be Michigan, it may be Des Moines.

Wes Moss [00:25:43]:
And I guess my example I would look to and he’s making the point that the middle of the United States has a lot of what the German economy calls middle stand, which are small companies that are highly specialized and are really good and really innovative. And one little thing, they’re usually privately held, but they really own that area and they may ship to everywhere in the world. And there are several of these middle stand type companies that are really the backbone of the German economy and a lot of Europe to some extent we have that too. And I’d say I look no further. I talk a lot about General Motors. Look at a good old fashioned American SUV and I don’t think anybody does SUVs better than GM. I think they’re far and away the leader. But look at Ataho from 10 years ago, a Tahoe from 10 years ago.

Wes Moss [00:26:39]:
It’s still a great car and I love it. Looks like it was built in Cuba. Look at a new Tahoe today or a new GMC or a new Escalade. Looks like it was built at NASA. Just in the last decade. What’s coming out of Detroit has grown tremendously. It’s not just how they look and how they function. Everything in those cars has had an absolute Jetson like leap.

Wes Moss [00:27:04]:
And we’ll see if we continue to see more innovation in the middle land. The heartland is the Midwest.

Connor Miller [00:27:11]:
To your point on Germany, I mean those cars now made in America look a lot more like the German cars that we had become accustomed to.

Wes Moss [00:27:20]:
Maybe I’m a little partial to the Midwest. I spent time in Michigan. But look, Intel’s building a plant in Ohio. We’ve got semiconductors happening in Indiana. Robotic adoption now is the highest in the Midwest states, especially metal, plastics, automotive manufacturing. So maybe, maybe the new frontier is, is the old frontier of the Midwest in the US And I think it’s a good thing if it plays out for investors. There are now more ETFs, those exchange traded funds, than there are stocks. Connor Miller, how could that possibly be? There’s more baskets of stocks than there are actual stocks.

Connor Miller [00:28:02]:
We’ve seen an explosion of ETFs which are not new. But the last couple years, for whatever reason, really over the last five to 10 years, the number of ETFs has almost doubled to now we have more than 4,000 ETFs baskets of stocks, which is actually more than the 4,000 or so individual companies that make up those ETFs.

Wes Moss [00:28:32]:
This is a relatively inexact chart I’m looking at here. But it looks to be, looks like There are about 4, 100 stocks according to this chart. Source is Morningstar. And there’s about 4, 200 ETFs I guess that could also be bought. Oh, these are stock ETFs or this could be stock and bond US listed ETFs could be anything. What’s also remarkable about this chart is that there are only a little over 4,000 U.S. listed companies. There used to be over 8,000.

Wes Moss [00:29:02]:
So we’ve, I remember many years ago doing shows about the shrinking stock market. Is that not the size of the overall market, but of course the number of companies and that number has not changed since at least this chart goes back to 2010. And we had about 4,100 stocks back then. We have about 4,100 stocks today.

Connor Miller [00:29:21]:
I think what we’ve really seen in the ETF space is this rise of thematic ETFs. Now there’s an ETF for everything. Whether you want to play AI or you want to play wind energy or solar energy. There’s really essentially there’s a new ETF that comes out every day to play the latest theme and I believe, and.

Wes Moss [00:29:42]:
I’ve never used these, but there also, there aren’t there ETFs that have a single stock in them or maybe just a highly concentrated. Just a handful there are that have.

Connor Miller [00:29:52]:
Like some leverage to them. So you can buy the double leverage or triple leverage Nvidia etf, which is going to give you three times the.

Wes Moss [00:30:00]:
Exposure to the price of the single. And there’s leverage on them. And as I look at this, I think, all right, well, ETFs have made investing arguably easier and much less expensive. And that’s why there’s been such a boon for the ETF industry and why so much money is flowed from mutual funds. Good old fashioned mutual funds which are very good. They’re a great invention, a great vehicle ETFs just figured out to do something similar much less expensively. And you look at this, you think, well, this is a good thing, right? There’s lots of choice. But it also is this conundrum that we’re in in the new world that there’s just so much more of everything.

Wes Moss [00:30:42]:
More information, more choice. So it doesn’t necessarily make anything. It makes things. It gives, it gives you less friction. But it also makes everything just that much harder because it’s the decisions. Now you have to be filtering out even more to narrow down your decisions. It’s not necessarily making investing easier.

Connor Miller [00:31:02]:
Yeah, in the past there may have been three ETFs to choose from. Now there’s 10. I guess the good news in any.

Wes Moss [00:31:07]:
Given the good space, the good news.

Connor Miller [00:31:09]:
For investors is there’s some competition now. So ETF providers are cutting cost.

Wes Moss [00:31:13]:
Just makes it even more complicated. Connor Miller, you make things a lot less complicated for us, so I appreciate that. And you can find Connor Miller and you can find me easy to do. So you can find us@your wealth.com that’s why o u r your wealth.com we’d love to hear from you. Have a wonderful rest of your day.

Speaker C [00:31:38]:
This is provided as a resource for informational purposes and is not to be viewed as investment advice or recommendations. This information is being presented without consideration of the investment objectives, risk tolerance, or financial circumstances of any specific investor and might not be suitable for all investors. The mention of any company is provided to you for informational purposes and as an example only, and is not to be considered investment advice or recommendation or an endorsement of any particular company. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. There is no guarantee offered that investment return, yield or performance will be achieved. The information provided is strictly an opinion and for informational purposes only, and it is not known whether the strategies will be successful. There are many aspects and criteria that must be examined and considered before investing.

Speaker C [00:32:26]:
This information is not intended to and should not form a primary basis for any investment decision that you may make. Always consult your own legal tax or investment advisor before making any investment tax, estate or financial planning considerations or decisions. Investment decisions should not be made solely based on information contained herein.

Call in with your financial questions for our team to answer: 800-805-6301

Join other happy retirees on our Retire Sooner Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/retiresoonerpodcast

This information is provided to you as a resource for educational purposes and as an example only and is not to be considered investment advice or recommendation or an endorsement of any particular security.  Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. There is no guarantee offered that investment return, yield, or performance will be achieved.  There will be periods of performance fluctuations, including periods of negative returns and periods where dividends will not be paid.  Past performance is not indicative of future results when considering any investment vehicle. The mention of any specific security should not be inferred as having been successful or responsible for any investor achieving their investment goals.  Additionally, the mention of any specific security is not to infer investment success of the security or of any portfolio.  A reader may request a list of all recommendations made by Capital Investment Advisors within the immediately preceding period of one year upon written request to Capital Investment Advisors.  It is not known whether any investor holding the mentioned securities have achieved their investment goals or experienced appreciation of their portfolio.  This information is being presented without consideration of the investment objectives, risk tolerance, or financial circumstances of any specific investor and might not be suitable for all investors. This information is not intended to, and should not, form a primary basis for any investment decision that you may make. Always consult your own legal, tax, or investment advisor before making any investment/tax/estate/financial planning considerations or decisions.