Welcome back. Portfolio Rescue. We're answering questions from the viewers. Duncan, one of the reasons I love our audience so much is because we get such a wide range of questions from a wide range of people. Last week, there were people with $3 million writing in. Sometimes, you need to help people with the basics.

Sometimes, it's more of a really detailed question. Sometimes, people are just starting out. Sometimes, they're close to the finish line, and they just need a little bit of help. But I think no matter where you are in your financial life cycle, someone can get something out of all of these questions.

It's really more about the decision-making process than knowing what goes into this stuff and finding the perfect answer. Most of the time, the answer is, there is no perfect answer. We get a lot of the same questions, and you can think about it from ten different directions every time.

Anyway, that was just patting ourselves on the back there. Or the audience. Yeah, we're doing a great job. Credit to the audience. Remember, if you have a question, askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. I think we have a good range of questions today, so let's get to it. We do. Okay. Up first, we have a question from Rosie.

"Need help with dad. He's never been much of an investor, but was always a saver. After a fairly successful sales management career, he lost his job right before the pandemic. Since then, he's been slowly spending his nest egg while delivering DoorDash for some income to stay afloat while he's looking for a job.

He's 61, single, and doesn't spend money frivolously. He recently started investing small amounts weekly, but he thinks he should cut that to compensate for a recent rent increase. He doesn't see much growth in such a small portfolio and feels like his weekly deposits are being flushed down the drain given recent market volatility.

Any words of wisdom to convince him to weather the storm? He's very healthy and should have another good decade or two of a healthy life. What would you guys suggest?" Unfortunately, I think giving financial advice to family and friends, that's some of the hardest people to talk to. There's just so much that goes into that.

You could have your own feelings about it in trying to portray what you feel into them. It's really tough. I think the good news is, dad has his spending under control. He's a good saver. That's the hardest first step for a lot of people. That's a good thing. You're right that your dad could have plenty of time ahead of him.

If you look at the average life expectancy, there's actually a social security calculator you can do this on. You can type in "social security life expectancy calculator." For a 61-year-old male, it's around 84 years old. That's average, so it could be much longer than that. I actually wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, Everything You Need to Know About Saving for Retirement.

Shameless plug. I wrote a book about what to do if you get a late start on retirement savings. I've had a lot of questions on this over the years. I share this example -- John, throw up the table here -- of this couple who's trying to figure out, "We're 50 years old.

We don't have much save for retirement. What do we do?" I looked at the baseline of, let's say we save 10%, and you get a 6% investment return on a diversified portfolio. What does it look like after 10, 15, and 20 years? Then I said, "Okay, what if we supercharge our savings?

The kids are out of the house. We have these catch-up provisions for our IRAs and our 401(k)s, and we save 20% and still earn that same 6%. What does that do?" Then I thought, "Well, what if you're really Warren Buffett, and you double up that return on the market, and instead of 6%, you're in 12%, but you still save that same 10%?" The interesting finding here is that doubling your savings rate to 20% from 10% leads to more money than doubling your investment return from 6% to 12% over 10, 15, 20 years.

That's interesting, because for a lot of people, obviously, doubling your savings rate is not easy, but it's much, much easier than doubling your investment return. Doubling up the market and getting double the returns in the financial system, that is really tough. The good thing is, saving is the most important step here, for someone who's this late in life.

People have control over their savings rate, so your dad's on the right track if he's still saving money. But he still needs to earn a return on his capital. If we look at an inflation rate of 3%, 3% over the next 20 years would turn $1 into $0.54. That's a half-life of 20 years at a 3% inflation rate.

You still need to invest something to keep up your standard of living, even if you're spending now. I do think it's not going to be easy to convince someone at your father's age to simply accept stock market volatility, even if you've already figured that out. It's the old dog, new tricks kind of thing.

So, here's what I'm going to do. By the way, someone, Cliff, in the comments here called this. He said, "I think Ben's going to talk about the bucketing approach today." You know what, Cliff? I'm going to talk about the bucketing approach, because I think it helps. Let's look at three different buckets for your dad.

Short-term, which is just cash, money, market funds, online savings account, maybe a CD. Intermediate-term, which could be bonds and other income-producing assets. And I put bonds in intermediate-term, because as we've seen this year, bonds can lose money. They can go down if interest rates rise. And then long-term, which is risk assets, like stocks or real estate.

So, let's assume that long-term bucket your dad's not going to touch for, call it, 5+ years. 5, 7, 10 years, something, right? Intermediate-term bucket could be more like, I don't know, 3-5 years, maybe. And then the short-term bucket would be, call it, 2 years or less. Help him figure out what mix of those buckets makes sense for his spending needs.

How much he needs to pull out of the portfolio. Figure out how many years worth he needs in that short-term bucket to make him feel safe. Is it 2, 3, 4, 5? Some people could have 7 years worth of safe assets if you're approaching retirement. And then, maybe that helps him know that he has this long-term bucket that's 5, 7, 10 years in the future that he's not going to touch for that point.

And he can feel safe putting more money in his sleeping sounder at night, knowing that's there. I think there are some other levers you can pull. Your dad's 61. He could always just delay retirement. So, like, the average monthly payment right now for a retiree in Social Security is about $1,600 a month.

And that's actually one of the few annuities that is indexed to inflation. So, it's actually gone up over the last year or so. If your dad waits until he's 70 to claim, he gets 8% per year. So, that's 70% more in his payout. Retiring later also means you can let your nest egg compound for longer.

It gives you more human capital to save, and it means you don't have as long for your portfolio to last, right? Of course, not everyone wants to work until they're 70 and delay retirement. But maybe, if you want to hedge a little bit and just keep working part-time, if he hasn't saved enough, even that could help really put things off, so he's not just completely living off the portfolio.

But I think the main point here is approaching this from a retirement planning perspective and not just portfolio management. I think you have to just figure out a way to make it psychologically easier on him. Trying to figure out stock market volatility this late in life, I think, is going to be really difficult to teach.

So, I think you have to approach this from a few different angles and make it easier on him. Wathen: One thing, I would say, as a non-finance professional, it seems like now is probably the preferable time for him to be putting money into the market, as opposed to if he'd been putting it in for years and was seeing it cut back significantly right now.

It seems like, psychologically, that's probably a little better for him. Lewis: And that's the thing to tell him. This is the reason that you do diversify, especially when you're retired. You don't want to be tapping stocks. And especially since he's still working and saving, you're right. He's buying stocks that are down and they're on sale.

So, yeah, that has to go in the equation, too. Good call. Let's do another one. Wathen: Okay. Up next, we have a question from Samuel. "I'm 25 years old, no dependents, with a little over $4,000 in my HSA. I'm lucky to be in good health, knock on wood, and have great employee health, vision, and dental insurance.

So, my out-of-pocket HSA eligible expenses are $300-$500 a year. My bi-weekly contribution to my HSA totals $500 a year, and along with a matching employer contribution, more than covers my yearly expenses. Does it make sense to invest 50-75% of my HSA in a low-cost healthcare ETF as a quasi-hedge against rising healthcare costs, or am I overthinking things and should just put it in an S&P 500 index fund?

I'd like to do something with my cash since it is currently losing value, but don't want to invest more than 3/4 of it in case of unforeseen healthcare expenses." All right. See, Samuel's bucketing in his own head here. I understand the thinking here. There's 70 million-plus baby boomers who are going to be -- we've never had a generation that's this big that's going to live this long.

So, the whole idea that -- like, if you work in healthcare, your job is set for years and years until the robots come, I guess. But it's hard to see the demand for healthcare going down in years ahead, right? So, from a macro perspective, this thesis sounds right. But I do think you have to look at the risky side of betting on any one sector.

So, first of all, John, let's do the number of holdings first, this S&P sector ETF holdings. Let's look at this chart. So, this is all the 11 sectors in the S&P 500 broken out by the number of holdings. You can see it's way more concentrated than you would think.

So, more than half of these sector ETFs have fewer than 32 names in them. XLV is actually the healthcare one. So, that one's not quite as bad, but it's still 65 names. But let's look at the performance next. So, this is my sector performance quilt. Now, I have a bone to pick with Standard & Poor's, because in 2016, they added the real estate sector.

In 2019, they added the communications sector. It totally screwed up my quilt. Look at this. It's like a quilt that's hanging over on the side. They just totally messed it up for me. So, I'm a little angry with them. But this just shows sector performance by year, and it's ranked from best to worst, right?

Best up top, worst in the bottom. And you can see, it's all over the map. It's all over the place. So, this goes back to 2009. If we took the best performer and the worst performer each year, in terms of sectors, and we did that every year since 2009, and again, I did 2022 through yesterday, the average spread between best and worst is 40%.

So, you pick the best and you pick the worst. It's a huge spread. This year is a perfect example of how wide this can get. Energy is up 67%. You can see from that chart, energy is one of the worst performers for a long time, since the last two years.

You can see energy in the tan there. Look, from basically 2014 to 2020, it was at the bottom of the barrel for most of those years. But this year, energy is up 67% through yesterday. Consumer discretionary stocks are the worst, down around 25%. That's a spread of more than 90% between the best and the worst.

So, the S&P is obviously always going to be somewhere in the middle. But you could own a sector that does awful, even when the whole market is going up. So, energy stocks from 2014 to 2020, I already mentioned, they were down 44% while the S&P was up 130%+. 2006 to 2016 financials were down 4% in total.

The S&P was up 100%. So, I guess you'd have to think, what's the risk to healthcare here, though? Energy and financials are cyclical industries. I guess you could think more regulations, maybe Amazon gets in in some way, and that bumps down the rest of the universe. You could have some sort of expanded universal healthcare.

I'm not holding my breath there, to assume the government can come in and fix the healthcare system. But I guess you have to understand the idea is, it could work out spectacularly, and you put in your money in healthcare and you do way better. But I think there are risks here, so I would put a cap on it.

I think 50-75% is probably a little too much for my taste in terms of, because I want to still have some diversification. So, maybe you put a cap of, I don't know, 20-25% on this, if you want to stray a little bit and make a sector bet. But there are risks here, even if the market itself does fine.

Wathen: Yeah. Like you've talked about before, how many companies don't make it over X number of years. Just because healthcare costs go up doesn't mean that healthcare companies are all going to be doing really well, right? I mean, some, I guess in theory, would be doing well, but not all of them.

Lewis: John, put that quilt up one more time. I just want to say, as someone who's been blogging for about 10 years now, the quilt plays. People love the quilts. Wathen: I was just saying in the chat, I've got to be honest, every time I see these, it's just pretty colors.

I can't focus and figure out what exactly I'm looking at. It takes me like 5 minutes. Lewis: The whole point is that there's no discernible pattern, right? The only pattern really is that the S&P is kind of in the middle somewhere. But that's the beauty of these charts, is that you never know from one year to the next what's going to be the best and worst performer.

People love a good visual, and the quilt plays because it tells a good story. Alright, let's do another one. "My wife and I max out our Roth 401(k)s, and I also max out my 457(b), so I don't blow us up financially. I only contribute to two funds in these accounts, 75% in VTI, total U.S., and 25% in VT, total world.

Given the uncertainty in Europe, should I increase the U.S. allocation? On what are your thoughts, it's been referenced that Europe will feel greater economic impacts from Ukraine/Russia than the U.S. I realize the contrarian play could be to increase Europe, but complete history of both charts says otherwise. In reality, could a total world fund be a drag on a portfolio?

We are early 30s, $300,000 household income, and $600,000 net worth." Alright. 457, Duncan, is just another type of, think about it like a 401(k) plan. That's probably the easiest way to think about it. I understand the sentiment here. The U.S. has been crushing the rest of the world for some time now.

Since 2009, Vanguard total U.S. stock market index is up like 280%, call it. Total international stock market index fund is up 57%. Alright, this is since 2009. Owning foreign stocks has been a drag for a while now. But it's not always like this. Each year, Credit Suisse puts out this Global Investment Returns Yearbook.

You've probably heard me talk about this before. John, throw up the return chart here. This is the very, very long term. So, this is real annualized returns on stocks, and it shows bonds here, too, from 1900 to 2020. And this is, again, real after inflation. You can see the U.S.

is up there at the top. It's 6.6% per year. It's one of the best ones, of course. Which makes sense, because we have the biggest stock market in the world by a healthy margin, right? But Canada, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, and the U.K. are pretty comparable over the very, very long term, right?

You can see some of the ones at the bottom. Austria had their stock market decimated by World War II. I think it basically shut down. Yeah, that's crazy. There are some bad ones. So, obviously, again, the point of diversification here. If you have all your money in Austrian equities in 1940, good luck.

So, here's one of my favorite examples about how cyclical things are, though. If you look at the returns of European stocks versus U.S. stocks from 1970 to 2009, they had identical returns. I'll throw up the chart here. This is the growth of the wealth since 1970. Identical returns of 9.9% through 2009.

These SCI country indexes, they go back to 1970. So, that's how far we have back. Since 2010, however, again, the S&P has been crushing it. S&P is up 13.4% per year. European stocks are up 5% annually. So, now the 1970 to today is like 10.7% for the U.S., 8.7% for Europe.

Now, you're probably saying to yourself, "Okay, fine. Let's assume the returns of stocks in Europe and the U.S. are going to be, or other countries on the globe, are going to be similar from here. Even if the U.S. doesn't continue this, it's going to be similar. Why would I need to diversify internationally if returns are going to be close in the future?" Good point.

Right? I think the whole point is risk management. So, MSCI Japan, 1970 to 1989, it was up, so two decades, 5,600% in total, 22.4% per year. Just an amazing run. Like, the 1980s and '90s for the U.S., Japan in the '70s and '80s blew it out of the water.

Not even close. By 1989, Japan was 45% of the global stock market. The U.S. today is 55%, so it was pretty close, actually. Everyone thought Japan was going to take over the world, right? Didn't happen. 1990 to present, Japan is up 20% in total, 0.6% per year. Lewis: Not great.

Lewis: Again, that's before inflate. Not great. Interestingly enough, though, if you go 1970 to present, the MSCI Japan index is up 8.4% per year. So, it's actually, since then, it's actually not bad. So, here's my line of thinking. You don't want to miss out on a Japan-like boom from the '70s and '80s, just like you don't want to take part totally and be over-concentrated in a Japan-like bust from 1990 to today.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but from 2000 to 2009, the S&P had a total return of -9%. Put up the lost decade chart here. I've used this one many times over the years. S&P 500, over a decade, the first decade of the century, down 9%. Emerging markets were up 160% and change.

Small-cap stocks, REITs, all these other things. So, would you probably be fine with a U.S.-only portfolio, if you could stick with it? Yeah, I think so. It's by far the biggest, most diverse stock market in the world. But the winners write the history books. And I don't know for sure if the U.S.

will dominate like it's dominated in the past. Diversification, in my line of thinking, is it's a hedge against the unknowable future. I personally own stocks outside of the U.S. because I don't know if the stock market will be able to repeat what it's done over the past 100 years or so.

There's just no way to know it, right? And so, that's the line of thinking. Like, yeah, Japan is a very extreme example. We talked about this in the past, Duncan. When someone says, "Now do Japan." What about Japan? Yeah. Yeah. They get blocked. But it's still a really good example to show, like, the thing is, everyone talks about it since 1990, but people fail to talk about what it did in the two decades before that, where it just went crazy.

And that's one of the reasons it was so bad in 1990. So, that's -- again, Jack Bogle totally disagrees with me. He said, "International stocks don't make sense. The S&P 500 is global companies. You're fine." I still think, by diversifying further, it's a risk management strategy, and that's why I do it.

Yeah. I mean, would you say, looking at this chart here, is the idea to buy calls on REITs and then short the S&P? Is that what you're saying? In the last decade? Yeah. As long as there's a real estate bubble, you're going to be fine. Okay. All right. We got another one?

Yeah. So, up next -- and also, I need to give a little shout out to John here. We've been having a technical difficulty in the background, but he's been managing to get Bill, our guest, up and ready. So, yeah. In the background, there's been a lot happening this episode.

All right. I can kind of tell, just by the look in your eyes, Duncan, your eyes get a little wider when something's going wrong. And so, way to pull it together. Keep it together. Okay. So, up next, we have, "If an investor wants to add some real estate exposure to their portfolio, what are the benefits of REITs versus directly owning real estate rentals?

Many people seem passionate about directly owning real estate and enjoy the leverage of a mortgage. When looking at total return after taxes, maintenance, vacancies, and realtor commissions, direct ownership seems to make REITs look very compelling. Are there some tax advantages of owning real estate directly that make direct real estate ownership better?" All right.

It's funny because just this week, I had a personal real estate tax question that I needed some answers on. I didn't know what I was doing. And I have a 1A and 1B when it comes to taxes. And my 1A, Bill Sweet, was out of town. Can you believe it?

He didn't pick up my call because he was out of town on vacation. Jeez, can you believe him in the summer? So, my 1B is Bill Artsaronian, who heads up our tax practice at RWM. So, let's bring Bill in. Bill's helping with my text. Bill, it looks like you are muted.

Just like a Zoom call. Good to go. Yeah. Very good. All right. Bill, I've heard a lot of renters over the years complain that the government favors home ownership. Maybe walk us through how they do this and some of the benefits of actually owning a home and then we can talk about the differences between that and just owning a bunch of REITs.

Yeah. There's no doubt there are tax advantages to real estate, rental real estate, home ownership. No doubt. Taxes, there's large incentive there. But it's not as simple as some dude on TikTok telling you that real estate investing is the only way to go. Not that cut and dry. Wait, are you saying that we shouldn't get all our financial edition from TikTok?

Just half of it. Half from the compound, half from TikTok. That's the allocation there. It's diversification. That's right. That's right. So, let's talk about three benefits to investing in, say, rental real estate. Number one is you get a deduction for depreciation. You can take a deduction for depreciation. This is an expense that you can write off on your tax return, but it's just to account for wear and tear on the asset.

So, it's powerful because it's a tax expense, but it's not actually a cash expense. You're never going to write a check. This does seem like one of those things that, like, because houses appreciate over time, generally, but you get to take a write off for depreciation. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

So, you're getting leverage. You're not paying. You're not writing a check for depreciation, but you get to write it off in your tax return. It's very, very, very powerful. So, number two in terms of real estate is all the other expenses that you can use. So, we're talking mortgage interest, real estate taxes, repairs, maintenance, even CPA fees.

They're deductible against your rental income. So, that can essentially create the best of both worlds where you have positive cash flow, but you have a tax loss on paper. So, number two, very, very powerful. Number three is potentially capital gain deferral through the 1031 exchange, which is kind of a hot button issue.

But if done correctly, a gain on the rental property or other investment properties can be deferred when you sell the property if you purchase a replacement property of greater or equal value. So, that gain can be deferred until you sell the replacement property or if the replacement property is replaced, then you can just keep deferring that gain.

So, you have a rental property right now. There's a ton of equity in it. You go, "I'm going to trade up to a place that has even more units or something that I can rent out." You take the equity you have in that and you roll it into the new place, defer those taxes until you sell the other place basically.

Yeah. I mean, longest term, I mean, if we're thinking generationally, you can die with that asset and you can get a step-up basis for your errors. So, it's possible you never pay tax on that gain. But that's super, super long-term thinking. Okay. So, how much should taxes even factor into an investment decision like this?

Because this person points out, you can write a lot of this stuff off, but you have the headaches, the maintenance, the taxes, all this stuff that goes into it, the realtor commissions if you're going to sell it, the closing costs, all this stuff. Should people ever make this decision strictly based on taxes?

Or is that just for a very select group of people who know what they're doing in this stuff? So, short answer, no. Taxes should not drive the decision-making here. For all three of those benefits I just gave you, I could take the total opposite side. So, with depreciation, yes, you get a short-term deduction.

Longer term though is if you have that depreciation accumulates over time, that's recaptured when you sell the property. And that's recaptured at higher rates than your 20% long-term gain rate. The depreciation portion of the gain can be taxed up to 25%. So, there's one. Number two is all these other expenses, you may be creating losses, but if you're not a rental real estate investor and you make over $150,000, you can't use these losses on your tax return.

They're considered passive losses, and they just flow forward year over year. So, you're creating losses, but you might not even benefit from them in the short term. And then number three on that 1031 exchange is it's really complicated. Yes, you can defer gains, but the time it takes, you need to hire an intermediary so you don't actually accept cash.

It can be really complicated. And to get that longest term benefit I mentioned of a step-up in basis means you have to hold a rental property until you die. Personally, I don't want to hold a rental property in my 80s and 90s and try to manage that. It just doesn't sound like fun.

And plus, if you own one place, you're not diversified at all, right? You have one place versus owning a fund of different holdings in a REIT or something where you have plenty of different places around the country potentially. Yeah, and this doesn't even take into account the time involvement it takes to own and operate a rental.

Yeah, you can hire a property manager, but there's just another cost. What REITs do is REITs give you exposure to real estate across rentals, across commercial real estate, all types of real estate, typically at low costs and pretty liquid. Yeah. I think, yeah, owning rentals for people who can do it, it's probably a pretty good strategy.

If you've never done it before, the dream of it sounds way better than the actual reality. It's not an easy job to have. Do another one, Duncan. Last one. Yeah, Bill Sweet always talks about how much work being a landlord does. Okay, so up next we have, "I'm 35, married, and live in a high-cost-of-living city with two dogs." And if you say you have dogs, you have to include a picture, you know, but whatever.

Ah, that's right. "Make about $225,000 gross and have a net worth of about $800,000. I currently max out my 401(k), backdoor Roth, family HSA and have contributed about $80,000 to taxable accounts. Only debt I have is my mortgage, $380,000 at 2.75%. My company just started offering what is known as a mega-backdoor Roth that would allow me to contribute $61,000 minus my pre-tax contributions and any matching.

The plan is to shore up retirement savings before transitioning to a career that would likely pay less but address important issues like climate change and homelessness. Should I try to max out the mega-backdoor option or balance it a bit more between the mega-backdoor and regular taxable accounts?" Kudos to the audience today because we had a lot of people in the questions maxing out their retirement accounts.

So first of all, way to go. And kudos to them for, you know, going on to do a job that sounds like it's gonna be really fulfilling. Mm-hmm, credit to them. Yeah, not to brag. All right, Bill, I've heard of the backdoor Roth IRA. Bill, so we just talked about that.

Explain to me what the mega-backdoor is and how does that work through a workplace retirement plan? Yeah, so this is another topic that's become very popular with clients, with friends, family, all types of people I talk to. So a quick primer on the backdoor Roth 401(k). So your traditional 401(k) is tax-deductible.

You make a contribution, it lowers your income. What the backdoor Roth is, is it's a non-deductible, an after-tax contribution separate from Roth to a 401(k). Then it could be eligible to be converted tax-free to Roth. This is above and beyond those traditional 401(k) contributions. So this is used typically by higher-income taxpayers that are already maxing out their 401(k), and they want to do a little bit more.

Once converted to the Roth account, the assets grow tax-free just like any other Roth account. So the logistics of this all is max out that 401(k) first, and then make the non-deductible 401(k) contributions. Most plans allow an in-plan conversion from after-tax to Roth. Some make you do it yourself, but it's important in the downtime between that contribution and the conversion, don't invest the money because if you invest the money, it grows, then you owe tax partially on that conversion.

In terms of contribution rates, so the most you can do to any employer plan in 2022 is going to be $61,000. If you're over 50, you get a $6,500. It sounds to me like this is almost like a SEP IRA or a solo 401(k) kind of deal. It's pretty similar, it sounds like.

It's above and beyond the normal 401(k) limit. It gives you more opportunity to invest long-term for retirement. Our emailer here, he's already maxing out at $20,500. Let's say he's got a $5,500 employer match, that gives him another $35,000, give or take, that he could do to this after-tax bucket.

Obviously, if you're planning on retiring and you want to defer as many taxes as possible, why wouldn't you do this? Is that the idea? Yeah. There's pros and cons. Our emailer asked, "Should he be contributing to the brokerage account versus the after-tax option?" The pros of the brokerage account are flexibility and liquidity.

There's also basically unlimited investment options, stocks, bonds, crypto, NFTs, masterworks, whatever it is. The cons on the brokerage account are taxes. You pay taxes on your portfolio income, your capital gains. With the after-tax and the Roth, you could potentially have decades of tax-free compounding, and that is super powerful.

Longer term, there's no RMDs. Required distributions do at $70. The cons of that Roth are that if it's in a 401(k), you may have limited investment options. You may have only a few funds to choose from, and you could have taxed penalties if these are not distributed according to the very specific rules.

In my conclusion, I'm like, "Give me all the tax-free growth I can get in that Roth bucket." Our emailer here sounds like a super diligent saver, so chances are he's going to continue to have excess cash flow, especially because he's 35. His income will probably increase over time. If he's already contributing $80,000 to his brokerage account, he can do the first $35,000 to the after-tax bucket and still have $45,000 left over for his brokerage to invest in whatever he wants.

The thing that I like to remind people is this is a problem, but a good problem to have. If you're getting down to the nitty-gritty of these details, you've kind of already won in a lot of ways. You're ahead of the game from what most people are in. That doesn't mean you don't need advice, and you don't have to think through these things, but he's way ahead of the game.

Thanks to Bill for hopping on for his tax stuff. I have a request from the audience. Duncan, this is maybe you, too. At the end of this month, we are going to have an expert in all things credit cards, travel, and rewards points. If you have a question on any of these topics, the best cards for airfare, hotels, how to maximize points, Duncan, I think you mentioned a card that you could use to pay your rent and get rewards points for it.

Best deals, best credit cards for certain rewards. Don't ask. Askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. It's going to be the end of this month. It's going to be Chris Hutchins from AllTheHacks who's going to answer all these questions. I've used him for my own personal advice on this stuff, because I like to dabble here and there for credit card rewards points.

I've used all of them over time, I think. Remember, askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. Keep those questions and comments coming. We'd like to thank everyone in the chat today. Again, some people even predicted what I was going to talk about today. Am I getting predictable? Next week, I'm going to throw a change up.

I think our listeners are that good. Yes, that's a good spin, Duncan. Thanks, everyone, for listening. Dave Wilson asked when we're going to have a portfolio brag segment as a regular segment. I think we have one question every week that's just a little bit of a brag. I have a lot of money.

I save a lot. Sorry. Remember, askthecompoundshow@gmail.com, and we'll see you next time. Thanks, everyone.