Welcome back to Portfolio Rescue. Each week, you send us a bunch of questions. We don't always have all the answers, because sometimes finance questions don't have black or white answers. So our goal here is to provide some context, analysis, data, maybe a little perspective to help you make better decisions.

Remember, our email here is AskTheCompoundShow@gmail.com. Today's sponsor, Portfolio Rescue, is sponsored by Craneshares. Craneshares is an investment company that allows you to invest in China. Now, I'm going to have to admit, I don't have a great read on the Chinese economy, and the entire way that country operates is kind of confusing to me.

I really didn't know who to trust or who to believe for a lot of things. That's why I read Brendan Ahern's "China Last Night" newsletter. Brendan's a CIO there. We've had him on "Animal Spirits" before. I think he's been on "Compounded Friends" before. He created this great newsletter. You can choose to get it on a daily or a weekly basis.

Just about the Chinese economy, the companies, the news, all that stuff in one place. He summarizes it. Makes your life easier to be an investor in the know about China. If you want to subscribe, go to Chinalastnight.com. And to learn more about investing in their funds, go to Craneshares.com to learn more about the risks.

Also, ni hao to any Chinese viewers right now. Okay, we do have an international audience. We've got some questions today from international viewers. So we're getting creamed again today in the stock market. Apparently Jerome Powell doesn't like Santa Claus. He just ended the Santa Claus rally. It's interesting how much back and forth we've had.

I looked at just the date, because we're down 2.8% or something in the S&P last time I checked. This, including today, would be the 23rd 2% or worse day this year. So at 8x, we've been down 3% or worse. Alternatively, we've been up 2% or more 23x, and we've been up 3% or more 4x.

So I just think with the constant back and forth like this where you think everything is up and it feels great, okay, late at the end of the tunnel, and then, oh wait, we're down again, getting crushed, okay, now we're going to get creamed again. It's constant back and forth.

And I think just, I just want to give everyone out there, if you just survived this year without making a huge mistake or blowing yourself up, I think you can give yourself a pat on the back. Right? That's my Christmas gift to everyone here. I can't. I can't give myself a pat on the back.

No pat on the back for you? All right. Sorry. You've got a nice sweater though. All right, let's do a question. Okay. Up first today, we have a question from Jay. I'm 36 and based in the UK. I own my own home with no mortgage, max out my pension contributions, have 93,000 in cash and a tax advantage savings account with Vanguard called an ISA here.

You can only contribute $20,000 or 20,000, I guess, pounds a year, and 55,000 cash in a non-tax advantage savings account earning minimal interest. I was looking for advice on how to best invest the cash I have in these accounts. It seems like the market has fallen a lot, although less so in the UK than in the US and Europe, not to brag.

My words, not theirs. And I've read that it's best to invest lump sum balances all at once rather than slowly over time. But that is quite a scary proposition in this environment. What would you suggest as the best approach? Should I just put it all in Vanguard index funds all at once?

If not, what advice would you give for how much and how often to invest? Like I said, this is a global show. We get a lot of questions from international investors and viewers. Many U.S. investors might not know that the UK stock market is whipping the U.S. stock market this year.

John, throw that up. This is just the iShares. I think this is as of yesterday, so it doesn't include today's losses. It was basically flat on the year in the UK, and the S&P down 14% or so. I think from the perspective of a UK investor not taking into account the moves in the dollar, you're probably doing even better.

Obviously, the lump sum dollar cost averaging question is one we get a lot and we've touched on before. It's one of those things that there's no easy answer because it's a spreadsheets versus emotions question. The spreadsheet tells you lump sum is a higher probability event. The stock market is up three out of every four years on average.

That's a pretty good ... If you had a 75% winning percentage at the casino, you'd take that every day, right? Unfortunately, those long-term market averages include a wide range of results. Personally, I use the lump sum if I get something. I don't want to invest. I know if I'm investing in stocks, it's going to be for 10+ years, call it.

More in most cases. But I understand why so many people prefer dollar cost averaging. There's a higher probability of regret if you put that lump sum in and you're wrong. I recently helped someone this year implement a dollar cost averaging strategy. So, we decided, "Alright, I'm going to take this lump sum and break it into six parts.

We're going to make one investment of those six parts every 15th of the month, come hell or high water." It actually worked out better than a lump sum this year because the stock market was so volatile. So, they were able to invest a bunch of points that were much lower than when we started the year.

And then, we came to the last time that they could invest. So, they made their first five investments. They're pretty happy. The sixth one comes and they say, "Well, we've had a little bit of a bear market rally here. What if we just pulled back and waited on this last one?" And I personally was against this strategy.

I think the whole point of creating a plan in advance, especially with something like this, is that you don't know what's going to happen in the future. There's this great story from The Making of an American Capitalist, which is the Roger Lowenstein book about Buffett, where I think in 1966, the market fell like 22%, a pretty decent bear market.

And a bunch of Buffett's investors called him after that bear market already happened and said, "Hey, the stock market is going lower. Don't put your cash to work yet." And Buffett responded with something like, "If you didn't know in February that the Dow was going to get crushed, then why didn't you let me in then?

And if you didn't know what was going to happen back then, how do you know anymore now?" So, the point is, the future is never clear, even when it feels like it is. So, I told my dollar-cost averaging friend, "Stick with the strategy you chose six months prior," because that was the plan at the time.

So, I don't think there's any amount or interval that... There's no right or wrong answer there. It's horseshoes and hand grenades, close enough, basically. So, I just think you pick an amount, you pick an interval, and you follow it hell or high water. And I think that's the simplest strategy, if obviously you can't handle that lump sum, which it sounds like this person can't.

Right. And Nick Majulie has written a lot about this. We have kind of a legendary video of him and Josh that, if you haven't seen, you should check out on our channel, where they're talking about this very thing of dollar-cost averaging. Yeah, Nick's kind of definitively proven the lump sum makes more sense.

But I think if you realize, "I can't handle a lump sum," then just pick a strategy you can stick with. Right. Alright, let's do another one. Okay, up next we have a question from Sharon. "When my husband and I bought our first home in 1998, our mortgage rate with a 20% down payment and excellent credit was about 8.5%, and that was lower than rates had been.

We would have loved to get a 7% interest rate, which you think of as high. The opposite point of view, which you didn't talk about, is that we don't want 6% to 8% inflation getting entrenched. You're talking about the bad things from high interest rates, but what about the bad things from persistently high inflation?

It really lowers the value of your savings. Taking a pause and seeing what happens, as Ben suggested, is what the Fed did in the '70s, isn't it? Inflation just kept going higher. Didn't Volcker have to cause a recession before inflation slowed down?" They sound like they're talking about a very specific comment, I guess, by you on Animal Spirits or something, maybe?

I think a lot of times -- and Twitter, it's called a subtweet. This is like a sub-question, where they're taking some shots at me, which is fine. I was thinking, does this person like Ben or hate Ben, as a reading reviewer? I've been hearing from a lot of people who lived through the '70s, who keep saying that I'm nuts to think that the Fed should slow down a little bit with their rate hikes.

No one wants a repeat of the '70s, when I think inflation averaged more than 7% for the entire decade. That's what the Fed official was saying, too, in the Treasury. Janet Yellen said, "I came of age and studied economics in the '70s. I remember what that terrible period was like.

No one wants to see that happen again." That's the Fed's whole line of thinking right now. I understand that sentiment, that people who dealt with high inflation in the past don't want to see that again. Let me offer some counterpoints first. In 1998, the median single-family home price was around $130,000.

I circled it right there. Assuming 20% down, that would be a monthly mortgage payment of around $800, even with those 8.5% interest rates. Today, the median price of a single-family existing home is like $385,000. Do the same 20% down payment at 8.5%, and we're talking a $2,500 a month payment.

Even if you adjust that for inflation, that 1998 number is more like $1,400, so housing is way more expensive today. The way the housing market is today, we can't really handle higher interest rates like they had back then. Housing was just cheaper back then. I don't think you could get a parking spot in Brooklyn today for $800 a month.

That sounds about right. There are some similarities for the '70s analogy. Both periods saw this massive increase in government spending. Obviously, for different reasons. There was no pandemic back then. There was this commodity shock, especially in energy and food prices back then. And then, we both periods saw above-trend wage growth.

John, throw out my wage growth here. This is wage growth versus inflation by decade. In the '70s, you had massive wage growth, but that's because inflation was high. '80s, same thing. It's high and high. 2000s, we had slow inflation, slow wage growth. 2010s, same thing. Through the end of September, when I have my wage data through, wages were up 17% this decade already, which is almost as much as the whole previous decade.

We're two years in, three years in. CPI was up just 16% then. That relationship is holding. This is why the Fed is worried about inflation, and why people who are concerned about the '70s, same thing. Here's the thing. The money supply was rising throughout the '70s. The Fed didn't step in as aggressively as they are now.

It's currently crashing. John, throw out my M2 chart here. M2 money supply. This is the year-over-year change. You can see it's crashing. The government is not spending anymore. This is already back on trend or below it. Also, in the 1970s, oil prices went from $2 a barrel to $34 a barrel by 1981.

It was a 17-fold increase. Oil started this decade at like $60 a barrel. To match that gain, it would have to go to $1,000 a barrel. Anything is possible. That seems highly unlikely to me. Workers also had way more bargaining power back then, because unions were more prevalent. There's no more unions these days, right?

Also, things that we have today that didn't happen in the '70s, like technology, this huge deflationary force. Baby boomers were in the prime years back then, just like the millennials today. But they didn't have the offsetting demographic like the baby boomers now, that are kind of an offset. I just think that the Fed is so much further along.

I'm just saying, chill out for a while. Plus, the thing is, the New York Fed puts this out every month, I think. Inflation expectations are coming down. The New York Fed said inflation expectations are like 3% for next year, for the next year and the next three years. The '70s was about those inflation expectations becoming entrenched.

That's not happening right now. I still think it could be a while until we get 2% to 3% inflation, but I don't see a repeat of the '70s. I don't see the need to crash the economy if you don't have to. That's my whole stance here. Good pushback, though.

Yeah, that sounds like a pretty solid, fair point. I think your time as a full-fledged apologist for the Fed, though, has probably hurt your take on this, in some people's eyes. I've changed course this year. Yeah, you've been critical. John Cain's quote? Yes. All right, let's do another one.

Okay. Up next, we have a question from Charles. Josh Brown mentioned on a recent show that he is not a fan of non-traded REITs. Can you explain the difference between publicly traded and non-traded REITs? I'm considering an investment in the real estate space and trying to figure out the biggest risk for each option.

Talking about risk. Yeah, let's ask the man himself. Let's bring Josh in. Josh Brown, downtown. Am I on? I can't see. Oh, there I am. Okay. I was watching for some reason on regular YouTube instead of watching from behind the scenes. I don't know why. All right. Hey, guys.

Great to be with you, Duncan. I love your sweater. Ben, can I make one announcement? I know it's your show. You got it. Okay. Listen to me. This is the best personal finance show on all of YouTube. I'm saying that. And I have looked at the other shows that are covering topics like this, and they're just not good.

They're very un-good. This is the best one. So you guys have grown this audience all year. It's only going to get bigger. And at a certain point, I don't even know how you're going to walk in public, because people are going to be like, "That's my personal finance, guys." So I just wanted to say it's the end of the year.

I watch every episode. Early Christmas present from Josh. What a guy. I'm a huge fan of what you guys are doing every week, bringing on really smart people besides me, actual experts on topics, and it's awesome. Well, I think the first time I ever heard about non-traded REITs was your book came out in what, 2011, 2012?

Yeah. Backstage. And you called it a murder hole. Is that right? They still are. Don't buy non-traded REITs. All right. So just let's invert. What is the advantage of a non-traded REIT over a public REIT? Historically, you may have been able to make the argument that, "Well, I can invest in niche real estate that doesn't have a publicly traded version." That's no longer true.

In fact, there are so many REITs, they have their own sector in the S&P today. I think that's a change that happened five or six years ago. There used to be 10 S&P sectors and they threw the REITs under financials. Now there's actually a real estate sector. So throw that out.

You got plenty of choices. The second argument is, "Well, private real estate is cheaper. You're getting better valuations." That's also completely false. The only way it can be true is if they are late to mark the actual values of the property to match with what reality is saying. And I think if you ever have to choose between who's right, the public markets or the private markets, like 99 times out of 100, trust the public markets.

They'll be more volatile, but they're going to get to the truth faster because they can, because there are transactions. So do the people who create the non-traded REITs just not want to go through the process of going public? Is that the whole deal? No, no, no. They want to create something that's exclusive.

So when they sell it to wealth management clients or they sell it to family offices, it's got this mystique to it. Like, "Oh, no one else can get in on this." Or, "I'm bringing this to you today and you can't access it somewhere away from me." It's like developing a group at a nice club kind of thing.

Yeah. And then there's really high fees. There's very little transparency. And it's not that they're all bad. There are obviously good versions of it, but how would you know? And there have been so many scandals with non-traded REITs. There have been so many frauds, so many situations of people getting income distributions that are actually just the person getting their own money back.

It's almost like a crime wave over the last 20 years. It's all I've ever seen is every time real estate comes down, yeah, the public REITs go down in price, but the private ones go to zero and they end up in court. So it's no disrespect. If you're in the private REIT space, I'm not saying everything you're doing is bad or it can't ever be good.

I'm saying from an investor's perspective, if you're not getting a discount on the real estate, which we know now private markets if anything are more frothy than public markets. Just look at tech. You could buy publicly traded technology companies now at 25 times earnings. What people were paying for startups over the last five years is outrageous.

So I think that the same dynamic exists in private real estate. There's not discounts. So I think there's a lot of reasons not to do it. I can't think of any to do it. So I would always be biased toward publicly traded, liquid, New York Stock Exchange listed REITs.

And I've heard you talk in the past about thinking about making private transactions yourself and you thought like, "It's not worth the headache. I'm just going to buy REITs." Talk a little about that, why you think that way. So I was talking to a friend of mine who buys property.

He builds million dollar, multi-million dollar homes. He doesn't renovate houses. This is all he does. He knocks down 50-year-old homes and builds brand new, really beautiful homes. And he got involved with strip malls and he's a real estate guy. His father was a real estate guy. This is all they do.

And I was like, "I have some money. I have a lot of exposure to the stock market and the bond market because of my job. Most of my net worth is tied up in Ritholtz Wealth. And I don't need more stocks. I'm good on stocks. I want to do real estate." And he's just like, "I don't think that's a good idea." I'm like, "No, I just want to give you money and you do what you do and I share the returns with you.

I just want to be the capital." He's like, "I don't need your money and it's a bad idea." Because real estate, you're either doing it or you're not doing it. It should not be a side hustle. Right. It's a full-time thing. If you're doing it well. And especially for me, my side hustles have side hustles.

So I'm not going to pay any attention to it. So I love publicly traded REITs. I own them in my IRA. I try to own them in a tax-deferred account because the income on a REIT is not like an equity dividend. You're paying ordinary income taxes, REIT for your taxes.

So you want to own REITs in an IRA. And the second thing that I think you want to do, don't take the money. Reinvest. You want those distributions to go right back into buying more shares if you're not taking the money anyway. So those are the two things that I tend to do with publicly traded REITs.

It makes sense. All right, Duncan, let's do another one. Okay. The one thing, that's called qualified versus non-qualified dividend, right? That's the terminology? I don't know. It's your show. What do you think? I've just heard that thrown around a lot. That's why I was... It sounded smart, Duncan. Okay.

I think that's what it is. I have no idea. Are you challenging me? I was just wondering if that's what that means. I hear people talk about qualified versus non-qualified dividends. Yes. Okay. Got you. Got you. All right. So up next, we have a question from Eric. "What industries or sectors will perform best coming out of this market downturn?

My best guess is that risk assets, tech stocks with smaller market caps, will perform the strongest. I'm wondering if I should start buying these risk assets given the current economic environment. I'm young and I don't mind catching a falling knife." Famous last words. "I want to position myself best to capture the most return on the eventual upswing in our future.

Do you think I should wait for the Fed to stop raising rates before I start buying?" So it sounds like they already have in mind what they want to do, right? I have thoughts on the Fed thing here, but let's start with the winners coming out of a crisis.

My only rule of thumb here is that the winners going into it are basically never the winners coming out of it, right? I think a recession is like a pivot point. You saw this from the pandemic. Tech stocks going in, anything long duration, and then coming out of it after that whole transition period, we have value stocks and cash flow producers, and it wasn't the same stocks.

It was energy stocks that were getting crushed before. So that's my only rule of thumb, is that if you think the thing that was doing well going into it is going to be the same coming out of it, you're probably going to be wrong. 100%. And the classic example is to look at the leaders of the '90s.

And some of them, it took 15 years. The companies are still relevant today. It took until 2017 before they were eclipsing those year 2000 highs. Microsoft was like 14 years to go back to peak. And here's what's important about that. Let's separate the stock from the business. A lot of people don't understand this.

Microsoft actually grew earnings all that time. Steve Ballmer gets ridiculed. He's a billionaire. People are laughing at him. OK, fine. But he gets ridiculed. It's because of his dance moves. Sure. He is hilarious. A lot of aspects of him are hilarious. But think about the worst timing in history to become the CEO of Microsoft.

I think Bill Gates handed him the reins in the year 2000. So then he runs this company, and he does dumb stuff, of course, like everybody. The Zune is an obvious example. He mocks the iPhone. OK, fine. But still, I think Microsoft's earnings doubled or tripled under his leadership.

But it was time for a change, and it made sense. But it's not like he didn't run the business well. He might have missed some opportunities. But Microsoft's fundamentals were fine. It's the stock price, the valuation. That was the problem. Another example is Cisco. The valuation that you were paying for Cisco in 2000 was so outrageous that the company actually has grown in size substantially since then, and it's been steady, and they buy back stock, and it pays a dividend, and like everything you would want a company to do, and it still hasn't retaken that old valuation.

It's 22 years ago we're talking about. That is a big reason why the leaders of the prior bull market aren't usually—because the fact that they were leaders led to this huge valuation overhang that almost no matter what these companies do, they're going to underperform. I'm giving you one example, but there's 50 examples of this documented.

So I don't love the idea of let me buy some small market cap tech. The other thing with that is like 70% of all companies that have ever been publicly traded disappeared. Is that the number? You know this information, right? That's a terrifying stat. It's 60, 70%? I don't know.

It's a lot. So get out of here. What are you doing here? The other thing, this is a young person. I don't like the idea of using the Fed to time your purchases as a young person. You're buying in a down market. That's a whole other thing. In 30 or 40 years, you're not going to be mad at yourself for buying a little early.

If markets keep going down from here and you bought now and then you buy again later, you're not going to kick yourself for buying in a bear market. So trying to time in the market, guess what? The market is not going to wait around for the Fed. The market is going to move before the Fed does and it's already been trying to.

So I think using the Fed to try, I know it seems like the Fed has their tentacles and everything these days and they kind of do, but using them to time your purchases just makes no sense to me. Last thing on this, I highly recommend going to Verdad Capital and finding, I know they've written about this a bunch of times, but there was something they did specifically six months ago about where to be into the next recovery, like the first sectors to react and the biggest reaction on the way out and it's small cap value.

And actually I think they just raised a fund that they're planning to hold in cash and they're waiting for like high yield bonds to blow up and they're going to start looking at either the equities of those issuers or the bonds themselves. But that is where you get the most bang for your buck if you're playing for a recovery historically.

It may not work this time. Things that have never happened before happen all the time, but that mentality, like what's going to lead us out or what's going to give you the best chance to optimize a portfolio coming out of a recession, it's almost never going to be small cap speculative stocks.

It's just not what people are looking for in that moment. - And my biggest advice to people that are trying to do this, just don't do it with your whole portfolio. If you want to take a piece and try to time the next winner, that's fine, but don't do it with your whole portfolio, because if you're wrong, you're going to kick yourself, because the whole market's going to take off without you potentially.

- John Carlo is asking, he always thought that this TV set was my house. It is not my house. It is one of my many offices, shout to John Carlo. Tom Lowry said I'm taking over the show, I apologize, I'm going to talk less. - We've got another question anyway, let's do it, Duncan.

- Okay, so last but not least we have a question from Jeff. Collective wisdom is that markets go up over the long term. While this may have been the case in the past, it's the baby boomers who control the vast majority of the equity market on a generational basis, and they are in the process of selling out in mass due to financing retirement over the next decade.

Is there a real cause for concern that could trigger endless selling pressure and keep returns down for decades to come? I'm coming at this question as a 30-something, thanks. I like this question, it's like philosophical. - I was at a holiday party last week, and my dad is still known as the finance guy in the family beyond me.

People go to him with finance questions before they come to me, and one of the like younger Gen Z- - What did your dad do for a living? - He was a CFO at a hospital, so he's still like the tax finance guy. - Makes sense. - But one of the Gen Z cousins' husbands kind of said, "Is Social Security actually going to be here for me when I get older, or are the baby boomers just going to take it all?" I think there is, and we tried to set him straight on that, but there is this idea that the cupboards are going to be left bare by the baby boomers, and I think there's a few reasons that this is wrong.

First, the biggest thing is just that 10% of the households own 90% of the stocks. Most of these people are going to pass the money down and not going to have to sell it. It's not like there's this huge cohort of people that are going to be force sellers in the next 10 years, and I think most of it's just going to go to the Millennials and Gen X and Gen Z anyway, right?

John, throw up the chart here on the demographics. Gen Z and Millennials are going to be there to step in and buy those shares from the baby boomers. Look at, I mean, the biggest demographic right now is 20 to 34, 35 to 49 is just as large as 50 to 64.

There's plenty of young people coming up to step in and Millennials are, I know people complain the Millennials say we don't have any money, but they went to college more than any other demographic. They're going to be making money eventually. They're going to be in their primary years to buy the stocks from the baby boomers.

Josh, are you going to talk about your own witless bid? No. I'm going to try to remain calm. I was going to bring that up to him. We'll throw that out. I'm going to remain calm, but when I hear this demographic cliff stuff, this is when I wrap barbed wire around a baseball bat and start busting heads like this has been the stupidest argument to not be invested that has persisted the longest that like of any of the arguments I can think of, this is the worst, most persistent one is so dumb.

First of all, people were worried about this in the nineties. Okay. Like second of all, Harry Dent, who is a level three charlatan, he has been, he's been using this as a reason to scare people into buying his books or investing in his piece of shit ETF. This has been something that he, and it's been wrong all the time because it's, it doesn't reflect real life.

I've been in the wealth management industry for 20 years. I have never once seen a baby boomer or older. What do we call them? The greatest generation. I have never in the wild actually seen somebody spend down their portfolio and die. I don't think any, it's true. If there's a financial advice, if there's a financial advisor in the chat who would like to share an anecdote of actually watching a client, a wealth management client spend down their money, sell all their stocks and then die, please inform me.

I've never seen it. I've never seen it. And I know thousands of financial advisors. Like for middle class people who are going to have to sell down their financial assets, they have more of their money in their house than they do in the stock market. So you could probably make the case that it's going to impact the housing market more.

But even then those houses are going to get passed on to the next generation. This is just what happens. My whole block, my whole block where I live turned over. It's all people with babies. It's amazing. It's awesome. I'm like the old parent on the block. Now I moved in with a two year old daughter in a stroller and my wife pregnant.

And now my kids are babysitting and it's all because life goes on. And by the way, Generation X was smaller than the baby boomers. And this is where this nonsense all got started. Generation X is like there's like 66 million of us and the boomers I think at their peak were like 78 million.

So that's where all this stuff really started. The thing is though the millennials are 73 million. There are more millennials now alive than there are baby boomers. That's the circle of life Simba, right? So that's who's buying the stocks. There's no cliff. And Gen Y, Gen Z is in the workforce.

They all work at Facebook. They're making TikToks about the coffee bar at Meta. Wake up. That's not an issue. And the housing thing I could see. But that's going to be regional. That's not going to be national. And the other thing is you made the point before that people's retirement plans in the past where they just died.

Yes, it's not relevant. They're going to live so much longer than people did in the past that their retirements are going to last so much longer. It's not like it's this end date that we have a cliff coming where everyone's going to sell in one day. They're going to live for 20, 30 years in retirement.

Listen to me. Listen to me. Not only do they not sell down their stocks en masse all at once, the newest innovation in wealth management, and it hasn't blown up yet, maybe it never will, is securities based loans. So now they get to live the lifestyle as though they were liquidating their equity portfolio without even selling anything.

I think they get a 50% borrow against their bonds, treasuries, and munis, and like a 30% borrow against their stocks. So like the market has to really collapse for any of those loans to require a capital call. So now, thanks to innovations on Wall Street, and this has been going on for a long time.

It's not last year. Now you've got people living a retirement lifestyle and then dying and then passing on an entire portfolio of equities to the next generation. So if that's your reason to be worried about the markets, all you have to do is think one step beyond demographics, which I'm not an expert in demographics.

I know the numbers. You know the numbers. You just have to think, how do people actually live? They don't live that way. They don't say, "Oh, I'm 70, better sell my stocks." That's just not, life expectancy, there's a whole other thing we could go into. So it's, please, don't pay attention to that stuff.

- The other thing is, literally everyone who pays attention to this stuff knows this is coming. It's not like the market couldn't get ahead of this and see it coming, right? It's pretty easy to look at the census data and know what the demographics are going to be. If this is that big of a threat, don't you think on some level, the equity market has priced in the potential impact of it?

- Okay, so the stock market is not going to die from the baby boomers dying off. You know what's going to die? I've used this joke before, I'm sorry. Woody tighties with the blue and yellow waistband, when the baby boomers die, those are never coming back. - What a classic.

- That's the last generation to wear those. - I don't even understand how that hasn't happened already. Oh, you know what else is going to die? Locker rooms at fitness clubs. It's enough already. It's enough. That's the last generation. - Wait, you're not a fan of aggressive nudity? - Just wandering around naked with a chest full of gray hair.

- Towel on the shoulder. Towel on the shoulder. Use the towel. - So my generation doesn't do that shit and there's no way yours and Duncan. That's never coming back. We're all never nudes. From my age on down, we're in jean shorts under the towel. We're not doing group showers.

So that's another thing that will die with the boomers. - Oh God. - Thank God. - All right. New Compound and Friends tomorrow, correct? - New Compound and Friends, yeah, tomorrow night. - It's dropping Saturday. - The audio will go up Saturday because we're doing it live. - Oh, it's a live show.

That's right. It's a live show. - Yeah. By the way, Duncan and John and Nicole, they're all going to be working on this stuff on a Saturday. That's how much we love our audience. And it's going to be great. And I want to reiterate, you guys have done an amazing job on the show all year.

Radio Rescue is the bomb. If you haven't told your friends about it, that's all I would ask you to do today. Shoot this link out. Let them know what we're doing here. - Much appreciated. We got one more next year. We got Bill Sweet answering your end of the year tax questions.

Get those in. Send us an email. Askthecompoundshow@gmail.com. We will see you then. - One other quick thing. - Nah, that's it. - If you listen on Spotify, do the Spotify wrapped. We like seeing how much you've been listening to us. It's fun to see. - Show us on there.

- Yeah. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. (gentle music) you