(beeping) - Welcome back to Ask the Compound, where every week I'm unpleasantly surprised because we get new questions that we haven't thought of before. Got a few this week. Our email here is askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. Today's show is sponsored by Bird Dogs. Bird Dogs, some of the most comfortable clothes that I have.

I started with the shorts. I have a bunch of those. A couple weeks ago doing the laundry, my wife said, "Did you really wear "all these Bird Dog shorts this weekend?" I said, "Yes, I was active." I was outside, I was running around, working out, playing with the kids.

I used a lot of them. Now we're going to fall. We have the sweatpants, the khaki pants that are stretch. You have the polo shirts. It's great. And if you go to birddogs.com/atc, Ask the Compound, of course, you get a free white tech dad hat, which I think I wore on the show a couple weeks ago.

- You did. You looked like a tennis player. - Yeah, I wore a promo coat. Yeah, I look like I'd be in the U.S. Open. It's ATC. You get one of these really spiffy white hats. Duncan, I still got one for you. I have to bring it to Future Proof for you.

- Oh, awesome, cool. Yeah, I'm expecting to see a ton of Bird Dogs gear at Future Proof, so looking forward to it. - Yes, yes. All right, let's do first question. - Okay. Up first today, we have, "My job is to run a concentrated 20-company portfolio, "all listed companies, buy and hold, "long-term horizon, et cetera.

"I get a base salary and a bonus for performance, "so a good amount of my annual earnings "are tied to the performance of the companies I pick. "I also have a small personal investment account. "My question is about how I should think "about investing this. "Should I use the fact that I spend all day "or all my time researching companies "and invest in those companies for myself, "or should I avoid the concentration risk "and go for a passive strategy?" - I love questions like this because-- - This is cool, I like this, yeah.

- There's a compelling argument either way. So on the one hand, yes, it makes sense for you to practice what you preach or have skin in the game or you cook or whatever. Like, why should your clients have faith in your strategy if you don't have some money invested alongside of them?

On the other hand, if you do have all of your money invested in this one strategy, you're doubling down on concentration risk. It's where you get your paycheck from, your bonus, all this stuff. So it's like not only a career and earning potential tied up in it, but if the strategy does bad, then it's double whammy.

So I actually decided to look at what this was like. So I talked to Morningstar's Jeff Patak, who ran the numbers for me. And he says there's 10,300-ish mutual funds and ETFs in the United States that are listed. More than 5,900 have portfolio managers that have no shares in the funds that they manage, okay?

So that's the other 4,300 have at least one portfolio manager who's listed, has some shares that they own. What this means is that close to 60% of all funds, the portfolio managers who are managing the funds have not one cent invested in their own fund. Now, I guess you could make an argument, well, they could be money market funds or bond funds or other kinds of funds that they just don't.

But I mean, I'm not saying you have to have your entire net worth invested in your own strategy, but I mean, it'd be nice if you had some skin in the game. Right? I heard this story about a quant manager one time who runs a well-known quant hedge fund.

And he keeps his entire portfolio in like the Jack Bogle Total Stock Market Index Fund. And the reasoning was his whole livelihood is tied up in quantitative funds, and he has an ownership stake in the investment firm he's part of, so he was diversifying. And I think that makes sense from a careerist perspective, but I think it's also a little hypocritical if you're not investing right alongside your clients.

There are ways that this could go wrong, of course. There was a long, short hedge fund manager that my old endowment fund was invested in during the 2008 crisis, and I think they did okay. Okay at that time was like, you basically matched a 60/40 portfolio in the downturn.

But he was talking about how he's seeing like generational opportunities to buy stocks based on his discounted whatever models. And, but he couldn't really get himself to go all in and just go crazy with these stocks because he wanted to be more defensive in case the financial system really did implode.

And one of the reasons he gave for this is because he said he had his entire liquid net worth invested right alongside his clients. So it was almost like he was more preserving his own personal capital than worrying about how to invest on behalf of the clients. And so I think this can also go wrong as a careerist on steroids there.

So do I think you have to have all your money invested in this concentrated portfolio of stocks that also pays your salary and bonus? No, but do I think you should have some of your money invested in this strategy? Definitely, right? And I think if you're recommending clients put most of their net worth in it, then you probably should have a lot of money too.

But if you're recommending, listen, this is a nice sleeve of a portfolio that can diversify you, then why don't you have the same stance, obviously, right? So obviously everyone has different risk profile and time horizon, but I like the idea of practicing what you preach. Personally, I invest the majority of my liquid net worth in the same funds and strategies that our clients invest in.

I do have some other investments for justification purposes, but the majority of that money is invested right alongside how clients would invest it if I was in their shoes. Obviously, we have a bigger focus on financial planning and asset allocation here than a concentrated stock portfolio, but yeah, if I was one of your clients, I would want you to have some money in the strategy.

You can diversify, of course, but I want some of that money invested in there right alongside me. - Yeah, it kind of reminds me of seeing insider ownership in public companies. It's kind of nice, yeah. Nice to see that there's some alignment there. - Yeah, you want some, put some skin in the game.

And I just want to, if we hear some banging in the background, there was a huge flood in my building. - I was going to ask you to explain, yeah. - Like a week ago. I was Forrest Gump and Bubba with the shrimp boat. All the other shrimp boats around me got destroyed.

My office was like the only one that was untouched. So they're demolishing the whole rest of the floor around me and fixing it and tearing out stuff. And I'm sitting here just in my office, just pretending like nothing's going on. - Do people in the building resent you? - Probably.

I mean, there's no one else. On this wing, I'm the only one left. So I made it. All right, next question. Yep. - Okay, up next, we have a question from Timothy. With the rise in bond yields, when does it make sense to sell out of long-term, at a long-term, out of a long-term bond fund at a loss and buy short bonds?

For example, something like a short-term treasury fund. - All right, we've been talking for a while now about losses in bond funds, especially at the long end of the curve. TLT is the 20 plus year treasury fund. That's 40% off the highs. Even if you weren't that long, they don't really specify here how long they are.

IEF is like the seven to 10 year treasury fund. That's down 20%. We're still in a bear market in bonds, which not a lot of people talk about. If there's a bear market in stocks, people are talking about it. The bond market doesn't get as much attention. So I don't know how long-term you went, but let's say you were in like a very long-term bond fund.

TLT, the average yield of maturity now is 4.5%. So if we're doing a back of the envelope, how long is it gonna take you to make up for that 40% loss? We're talking, I don't know, nine years or so based on current interest rate levels. IEF has an average yield of maturity of 4.3%.

So we're talking at least four to five years to break even on that 20% loss. The good news is at least you can sell for tax purposes right now, right? You can tax loss harvest any of those losses if it's in a taxable account. Start with a clean slate.

But I do think that there's a huge conundrum if you are sitting in these massive losses in long-term bonds, because what if we go into recession or the Fed pulls off a soft landing and rates fall and the Fed cuts rates, right? So the effective duration on TLT is 17 years.

That's one of the reasons it got killed so bad. So what this means is that a 1% move in interest rates would effectively mean a 17% move in prices. So rates rise 1%, TLT falls 17% in price. You could net that out a little bit with the yield if you wanted to.

- Like a meme stock. - It is, that's why it's down 40%, right? But if rates fall 1%, guess what? You're missing out on a 17% gain. So I think this is one of the reasons, and this is of course one of the reasons that a lot of investors have loved long-term bonds for so long, is because anytime the stock market fell and the Fed cut rates, these things were a wonderful hedge against the stock market, but they are very volatile.

Like coming out of 2009, they lost a ton of money. So I think you're in a tough position. I did write a piece this week about what would happen if you simply swapped out bonds, intermediate term or long-term for just T-bills and held cash. So John pulled the first chart.

The results were actually closer than I expected. So this is an 80/20 portfolio, one with a 10-year treasury and one with a three-month T-bill. So it's 80/20 in bonds versus 80/20 in cash. And these are rolling 10-year returns since 1928. You can see they're pretty close. John, do the next one.

This is 60/40 portfolio using five-year treasuries or one-month T-bills. And the bond portfolios do better, but it's closer than you would think. So if you wanna make that switch, now is the time to do it with a clean slate. Especially in a taxable account, you can harvest some losses.

But my biggest worry here would be psychological. If like, I think you have to ask yourself, if rates rose 1% and long-term bonds got killed again, man, I'd be kicking myself. But if rates fell and long-term bonds took off and they were up 15 or 20%, how mad would you be at yourself?

So I think this is kind of a tricky situation. And so I think, yes, harvesting some of those losses is like the easy thing to do, but I don't know about locking in the losses. So I'm almost gonna punt in this question and say, it's really difficult to know what to do because the long-term bond thing is you're locking in some huge losses here.

Any thoughts, Duncan? - No, I mean, you know, I don't mess around with bonds very much. - I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this. I've personally never liked investing in long-term bonds because of that duration. They're so volatile that I would rather accept my volatility in the stock market because you're actually getting paid to accept it there.

Whereas in long-term bonds with these high duration levels and high maturity levels, it just never made sense to me. Why would I wanna take that much risk in the bond fund? I prefer the barbell approach where you're taking way less risk in bonds and taking the volatility out of there as much as you can and accepting the volatility in stock.

So I think you have to ask yourself, you know, am I really okay accepting this much volatility? That's the question you have to ask because you could be giving up in some gains, but you just have to be prepared for more losses as well. - I know a lot of young and new investors were as confused as me back when the market started getting super volatile and dropping and gapping down and bonds were also going down.

'Cause yeah, like everything you always read historically, or at least what I had always heard was, oh, it's a hedge basically. So when stocks go down, bonds at least maintain or don't go down as much. - Yeah, this time bonds caused it. - Yeah, yeah, it was different. All right, let's do another one.

- Okay, up next we have a question from Steve. The state of the US economy seems very unclear at the moment. It seems like you could twist the data to show anything from a hard landing to a soft landing to overheating or some other narrative. I know these things are impossible to predict, but what kind of framework do you use to think through the probabilities here?

- This is like the Charlie Munger quote where if you're not confused, you're not paying attention. I'm confused as well about the potential path forward. So let's bring on one of the people who actually taught me to think in terms of probabilities, Mr. Barry Ritholtz. - Hey, Barry. - Hey, guys.

- Barry, I've heard you kind of go through the different potential paths here where a soft landing or a hard landing or a no landing, whatever it is. It does seem like every couple of weeks the narrative changes between like, oh, the economy's too hot or the job market is slowing down now or rates are going too high or rates are falling again.

How do you try to think through this in terms of where we are and what the trends are showing? - So first, I love this question. And I want to just tilt it slightly. I want to just change the framing ever so slightly. The economy seems uncertain now, unclear, but when is it ever crystal clear?

Most of the time, someone's on the other side of your trade. If you're a seller, someone's a buyer. So there's always two sides to the conversation. Think back to these like major turning points where there was no uncertainty. There was a consensus. I remember, I'm a little older than you guys.

I remember late 1999, trees grew to the sky. Everything is great. We're all going to make a ton of money. And that was just before the next quarter when we started an 81% crash in the NASDAQ stocks. Even when things should be obvious, it's still missed. I remember the debate in the middle of 2008, right?

History tells us we're in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. People still didn't think we were in a recession. They were arguing it is a recession and isn't a recession. So if you can't see the worst recession in real time, how can you see like this sort of, well, the Fed's tightened a lot, but the job market is good and people still have some cash left in their savings account.

Well, the funny thing is that last year, people thought it was clear. And the clarity then was, well, sure, 2023 is going to be a recession. It's almost a lock. And of course it didn't happen. So even when you think things are, you know it's going to happen, we really, we don't.

That's right. And here's the, I like to say economists suffer from physics envy. You know, astronomers can land a craft on an asteroid going 50,000 miles an hour, a hundred million miles away, but economists can't predict a recession six months out. In fact, it was next month, next month, next quarter, next quarter.

It was going on for three years. So the first question is, the first part of the answer is simply, we don't know, we almost never know in real time. It was obvious during the pandemic when we shut everything down that it was a recession. Other than that, you don't know.

That may be the only obvious recession that we've ever lived through really. Right. But more importantly, and I know Ben, you've done a bunch of really interesting blog posts on this, even if you knew it was a recession, so what? The market tends to roll over before the recession starts.

It starts to recover before we declare the end of the recession. You've talked about the lead and lag. Even if someone could whisper in your ear, here's the date the recession begins. Here's the date it ends. Would that even help you as a trader? Right, yeah, you could get those news headlines and you wouldn't know.

John, throw my next table up here. One of my favorite things is, so this is every US recession going back to the Great Depression. And what I found was that like 84% of the time we are not in a recession, meaning 16% of the time we have been over this past 100 years-ish.

And so I think your baseline is, guess what? Most of the time we're not going to be in a contraction. So if you're predicting one every year, it's not going to happen. It's kind of like the stock market is that most of the time it goes up, but sometimes it stuff hits the fan.

Think about that sweet reward when you get it right, when you get that call right, Ben. But to Barry's point, the timing is really the key here. Like we could be in a recession and if it's a mild one, you might not know it until six months after the fact when they actually say, hey, by the way, we looked at all these indicators and we actually were in a recession.

Sometimes you just don't know. And for most people, the only time it really matters is are you losing your job or is your income impacted? And Ben, you've shown some charts that markets have gone up through mild recessions. They never even slowed down. They haven't gone down. You're probably the guy that does the most with taking the data around recessions and market performance and putting it into really good context.

Yeah, so the answer here probably is you're probably not going to be able to use the economic indicators to predict the market unless it's a really bad situation. It's one of these 2008-type calamities. That's probably the only time that can actually help you. And Barry, to your credit, you were one of the people who were kind of pounding the table on that one, but most people at the time missed that one, which is, I think, one of the reasons so many people have been predicting a recession every year since then, 'cause they missed it the first time.

You know, the thing that was so fascinating about the run-up to '08, '09 is that if you looked at all the traditional indicators of recession, things like the yield curve or job creation or what have you, it wasn't there. You had to take a 30,000-foot view, look at what was going on in the post-dot-com collapse and say what normally follows the end of that sort of recession, and recognize it wasn't the traditional recovery.

It was free money, it was low rates, and it was a backwards housing-driven recovery. And if you looked in the right place, it was like those 3D posters. If you looked in the right place, you could see the dolphin jumping out of the water. - I can never see those.

I've never been able to see that. - Same, I could never do the magic. - Cross your eyes or back up, I can never do it. - That's why you missed the '08, '09 recession, if you had that ability and you could look at housing. But by the way, I love when you see these long charts of here's a relationship between cost of ownership and cost of renting, and then suddenly it spikes, or median income to median home price.

And when you see these two and three sigma events where things are just orders of magnitude out of the ordinary, that's when you have to say, "Hey, something unusual is going on here." - Right, all right, Duncan, next question. - One other thought, just from my perspective on that, being a non-financial professional, I thought that there was a potential that everyone just saying, "Oh, recession's imminent," was gonna actually kind of cause a recession, right?

Because everyone was gonna cut back and get scared, and it didn't really seem like it worked out that way. - It's like a watch what they do, not what they say kind of thing. People were saying that, but no one was acting like it. - You can't jawbone the American consumer down.

If they wanna go out and spend, they don't care, they're gonna go out and spend. - Everyone says, "My neighbor's broke, but I'm fine." - Right. - And they keep spending. - That's the difference between a recession and a depression. A recession is when your neighbor loses a job, a depression is when you lose your job.

- There you go. - Sounds right. Okay, up next we have a question from Elliot. - Hi, I'm a younger listener who loves following the channel and wanted to ask a common man question on behalf of those in their 20s and 30s. Outside of regular 401(k) contributions, what if I can only afford to add 25 to $100 to my Roth IRA every paycheck via direct deposit, and I want to go super long with my buys?

Can you share some advice around long-term investing for those who can barely contribute, but still want to maintain regular contribution behavior? Is this where invest-in-what-you-know/see-around-you comes into play? I'll just say, I've been burned on investing in what I know with my early. - Well, I think the idea here is that like, I don't have a lot of money yet, I'm still young, I'm building up my savings.

Should I do this super long thing where I take more risk to try to get to that point? And I think the idea of trying to get rich overnight, especially when you're young and you, you know, if you're saving a couple hundred bucks a month or something, it takes a while for that compounding to build up and show a big, you know, show a huge change in your balance.

And so you think, well, I have to get there much faster. And I think that's probably the problem that most people come to where, and that's where you get some mistakes, I think. I think you have to, I would take the super out of the equation. Sure, go long, but I don't think you need to do something out of the ordinary and try to hit the cover off the ball just because you're not where you want to be yet.

And I would add, I love the idea of developing very good investment behaviors early. It's like eating healthy food, going to the gym, running every day. It doesn't matter how far you go or how much money you put into the market, but the habit of thinking long-term and saying, I'm gonna pull just even a little bit of cash and put it to work every paycheck, that'll compound over time, not so much $25 at a time, but when you're in your 30s and 40s, and it's so habitual, and you are making 500 or $5,000 contributions, that's when it really begins to add up.

But the behavior, the good habits, that's really a sharp insight from a young investor. - Well, and that's the thing, at that age, in your 20s and 30s, the biggest thing is your saving behavior, not your investing behavior. Right, the percentage gain on $10,000 is obviously a lot different dollar value than percentage gain in a million.

My favorite one, there was a interview with Bezos one time, and he said, he actually got some investing advice from Warren Buffett, and Bezos effectively said, "You've been so successful in your career "being a long-term investor, what's the secret? "How come people just don't copy what you do?" And he said, "No one wants to get rich slow." And that's the idea, is when you're young, especially, just keep saving and investing and slowly work up and save more as your career progresses and you make more money, but don't try to get there in a hurry because that's probably when you're gonna make mistakes and you're gonna get in your own way.

And the flip side of that is, if you're engaging in that saving behavior, it also means you're living within your means. You're not overspending, you're not buying flashy whatever just to show off, whatever you're doing, if you're putting money into a savings or an investing account, it means that you have a pretty well-balanced budget and you're managing your money well.

Right, and if you wanna have a speculative account that's 5% or 10% of your portfolio, knock yourself out and go after penny stocks or whatever you wanna speculate on, but then leave the other stuff alone and keep putting money in on a regular basis. - Do you think people typically get more risk-averse as they grow their wealth?

Is that like a thing that they switch more to preserving what they have instead of trying to grow it? - Most people. - I'm gonna give you a weird answer to this, which was a blog post I did a couple of months ago. In the early part of my career, when my 401k was tiny and I had very little money at risk, every market crash was like the every pullback, every 20% was a freakout.

And it seemed like it mattered a lot when the impact on my assets didn't make much of a difference because there was too little money for 20% of very little is still very little. Later in life, as my 401k grew and my assets grew and my portfolios grew, hey, I've now lived through the dot-com implosion, the financial crisis, COVID, and where it actually has a genuine impact on your assets, it matters much less because after you've seen this movie enough times, it's like, yeah, this too shall pass.

It's cyclical, it's a buying opportunity when you're down 20, 30, 40%, and it'll come back, it always does. So it's kind of odd when it matters so little, it really feels like it's the end of the world. And when it's real money at work, it's kind of like, eh, it's not that you're not risk averse, it's just, hey, I know how this movie ends.

- Well, Barry, you've posted a lot about the death of equity story in 1979. If you read the actual story, it says, and they're kind of making fun of them, it says the only people who are still investing in stocks and putting money in are people who are like 60 and over.

And it was like everyone under 60 is giving up on stocks except for them. And it was kind of poking fun at them. But guess what? It's because they'd been through a number of cycles and they realized like, okay, this is a good thing to be putting money in when the markets are bad and everyone else has given up that's younger.

And that was the problem. - Who has the last laugh? You know, you've mentioned the book "The Money Game" by Adam Smith in the past. And he tells a story in that book about a fund manager who hires all these young hotshots to run, run and gun. And Smith asked the guy, why are you hiring these young guys?

He goes, 'cause they have the nerve to buy all the crap that I won't touch, but then I'll fire them after it crashes and then I'll go in and buy it cheap. 'Cause he's seen the cycle. Listen, it never changes. The names change, but you go back and you read about telegraphs and railroad and steel and cars and televisions and radio.

It's the same story as crypto and fiber and AI. Human nature doesn't change. So the cycles are always the same. It's just what the specific object of desire is. Maybe it's ETH or maybe it's radio. It doesn't matter. It's the people around it, that's the same. - Yep, I'll do another one.

I'll do another one that's kind of similar actually. - Yeah, okay. Up next, we have a question from Kevin. Aside from my retirement accounts, the vast majority of which is in index funds, I have a brokerage account that's invested in individual stocks. Not to brag, but what began as a garden variety percentage of my portfolio, about 5%, has now grown to 16%.

As a little aside here, I'm just gonna say, I really appreciate all these inside jokes that we have a huge viewership and listenership that gets these and makes this a lot more fun. Two stocks account for almost 45% of this account, Spotify and Nvidia. I've heard differing opinions about what I should do.

Cut the weeds and water the grass or trim profits so I'm not so overly concentrated. In the first case, I'd only be getting more overweight in these two positions. And in the second, I might lower my exposure to these winners in order to buy under performers. I won't need this money anytime soon and plan to keep it invested.

Should I trim the large positions and buy a broad market index fund to bring the 16% down to a more manageable number? What would you do? - The psychology going on here is like, we know gains can be fleeting in individual stocks, but I also don't wanna sell the next Amazon or Apple too early and miss out on further gains.

So John, throw up a chart here I got of Nvidia. This is Nvidia, so I'm guessing this is part of the reason that it's growing to be such a big part of your portfolio 'cause Nvidia has just knocked the cover off the ball. But Nvidia has experienced in the last five years alone, a 36% correction in 2020, it was down 56% in 2018, which a lot of people forget about.

Last year alone, it was in a 66% drawdown. So same with Spotify, in the last three years have been drawdowns of 40%, 36% and 80%. So I think the simplest thing to, I can't tell you like, you should sell this stock or buy this stock because who knows with these things.

But I think you basically create a threshold on this account where this is what we told the last person is like, you want a speculative account, that's fine. Figure out a number that you want because these stocks are gonna go way above and way below. So if it's 10% or 15% or whatever, figure out, let's see, when it gets to 12 and a half percent, I'm gonna trim a little bit.

When it gets to seven and a half percent, I'm gonna buy some more. So I would just put some sort of bands around it. So you give yourself some rebalancing and occasionally you take those gains off the table yourself and you balance, pre-balance back into the pain as well.

- I had a buddy from grad school, I may have told this story before on the show, but it's perfectly fits the scenario. He started at a new firm, they eventually get bought by Yahoo in the mid 90s and by the time his stock vests, it's just immense and oversized, way over 45% of his portfolio.

And when he asked me, what the hell do I do, rather than talk about performance or alpha or how much gains there were to be had, I gave him the regret minimization framework, which is simply, hey, if you sell this here and it keeps going, how do you feel?

And then the flip side is if you don't sell either of those here and they collapse, how do you feel? Sometimes it's really clear, with Yahoo it was clear, he 35% of his stock vested. If he sold and it kept going, he didn't care, so he still had 65% of his options.

So he had the easy decision. Sometimes it's a toss-up and when you have a toss-up situation, occasionally the right answer is split the baby, sell half. If it keeps going, hey, you still participate, but you've locked in some real gains, especially, we're talking percentages, but we don't know if this is a $100,000 account or a $10 million account.

There have been occasions where you see these one or two stocks. We just met with a prospect the other night where their Apple and Amazon from 2000 is 98% of their individual stock portfolio. That's a lot of individual stock risk. So if you're not sure which way to go, if either way the stocks go don't give you a decision, sell half, take a little off the table.

If it collapses, hey, thank goodness, you took something off the table. If it keeps going, you still participate. Remember, as an investor, your goal is never to, you're not generating alpha, you're not writing a shareholder letter explaining why you sold the big winner. You wanna be able to sleep at night and own stocks towards a goal, which is a comfortable retirement or whatever it happens to be.

- That's the point, no one's gonna dock you any points if you sold 50% too early, right? There's no points for complexity or degree of difficulty or whatever it is. If you locked in some profits on a huge winner, like you won the game kind of, that's good for you.

You should pat yourself on the back. No one times these things perfectly and sells right at the top. - Especially if it's enough money that it can change your standard of living. If it pays off your student loans, if it pays for your house, if it pays for your kid's college, hey, that's a huge win.

The idea is not to die with the most money. The idea is to enjoy life and not be stressing constantly about what's going on with Nvidia or Apple or whatever the stock of the day happens to be. - That's the other thing. These stocks, if they get to a big enough piece of your portfolio, that's great, you won, but the stress level it could have on you, we're watching on a tick-by-tick basis and living or dying by it, that's no way to live either.

- Yeah, it goes back to the guy who's an investment professional. I've heard this from so many people, people who manage billions and billions of dollars and their personal account is $100,000 of play money and they check the personal account three times a day and they check in on their portfolio, the billion dollar portfolio once a week 'cause they're not gonna make changes every day in the billion dollar portfolio and the tick-by-tick $100,000 account, it's just fun for them.

And sometimes we kinda forget what's what. - Yeah, well said. Okay, I think that's it for today. Thanks to Barry. Thanks to everyone who hopped on the live chat, we always appreciate it. I don't know if you have a comment or a question, email us, askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. If you're at Future Proof next week, come say hi to us, we'll all be there, can't wait.

- Gonna be fun. - Leave us a comment on YouTube, be sure to subscribe, hit the like button, all that good stuff and we will see you next week. - See you, everyone. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)