Before we begin, just a heads up that I’ll be missing next week’s post but will be back at it the following week.

Staying with the retirement theme from last week, let’s review the annual update to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s Retirement Confidence Survey. Many of the sponsors of this survey are insurance companies or those engaged in selling annuities so there’s that bent to the research if you dig into it, but the report is still a good temperature check on how Americans are planning for and living in retirement.

I’m providing a link to the EBRI site below and to another industry-related site that summarizes the findings. This way you can dive into the details if you’re interested. Otherwise, here are some notes and charts that I think are most relevant.

When People Plan to Retire

You’ll see in the chart below that workers younger than age 55 most often report a target retirement age of 65. This has to be arbitrary and more or less tied to that age being the original Social Security full retirement age. Work until 65 and then retire – it’s baked into our cultural perspective. Why else would so many younger workers peg that age versus retiring between 66 and 69? What’s ironic is how the Social Security baseline age is now 67 and will likely be closer to 70 when younger people retire anyway. Interestingly, there’s a sizeable contingent of those over 55 who say they plan to work until at least age 70 or may never retire. I couldn’t tell from the report if this latter group skewed heavily to those with less savings, but it dovetails with our recent discussion of high labor force participation rates for older people.

Income During Retirement

The report compares current workers and retirees. Both plan to and actually rely on Social Security as an income source. However, more workers plan to leverage their workplace plan while retirees say they use more personal retirement savings and investments for retirement income. I’m not sure if that means retirees have the old workplace plan and aren’t using it as much or if they’ve moved the money into an IRA and that makes it “personal” in the context of the report. Whichever it is, some form of personal savings is obviously necessary to enable retirement because Social Security isn’t meant for full income replacement.

Some of the expectations versus actual results were interesting, such as with “Work for Pay”. Almost three quarters of workers report planning to work during retirement versus 25% of current retirees who actually work. Perhaps during mid-career it’s easier to think of a working retirement in the hypothetical sense but actually doing it after a full career is something else entirely. Otherwise, using annuities (or “a product that guarantees monthly income” – they do whatever they can to avoid saying annuity) is popular for planning but not necessarily for doing. Also in that camp were relying on disability benefits and a personal support network in retirement. These latter two didn’t show up in the chart below but I thought it interesting that they were included in the survey at all.

Other notes –

Almost two-thirds of workers feel confident or very confident about their ability to live comfortably in retirement. But nearly as many say preparing for retirement stresses them out!

Maybe this stress is due to nearly two-thirds of workers reporting having less than $250,000 saved, and a sizeable chunk of these folks having less than $25,000. How can so many of these workers report being so confident?

More than half of respondents said they are working with a professional advisor or at least plan to. That’s good so long as they get high quality objective advice from a “professional”, but I do worry about that. Obviously my opinion is biased, but how can workers receive the good advice they expect when the country’s “advisor” population is primarily comprised of salespeople? Otherwise, it’s a grab bag of information sources including family and friends (the most popular option for financial advice, by the way), employer-provided education, financial gurus, and even ChatGPT.

Debt, and large amounts of it, was reported as a major hindrance to confidence levels for workers and retirees. Debt can be a helpful tool, think of Archimedes and his lever. But overusing debt is one of those problems that only shows up after the fact and can be incredibly damaging to your financial health. Make paying down/paying off debt part of your retirement planning strategy and you’ll have a head start on being happier than two-thirds of people who respond to surveys like this.

Here are the links that I mentioned above.

https://www.ebri.org/retirement/retirement-confidence-survey

https://www.financialadvisoriq.com/c/4491534/588013/retirement_confidence_survey_charts?referrer_module=emailReminder&module_order=0&login=1&code=YW5WemRHbHVRR0psYzNCdmEyVnBiblpsYzNRdVkyOXRMQ0F4TURFM016Z3lNeXdnTlRBeE1UVTNPRFV6

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.

In recent weeks we’ve talked about how investor expectations around the Fed and interest rates have helped disturb markets this quarter. Just last week the “Magnificent Seven”, large and popular tech stocks including Nvidia and Microsoft, collectively dropped almost a trillion dollars in market value, a record dollar amount for that timeframe. The dollar decline is that high because those companies have grown so much lately and even a relatively benign percentage drop comes off a larger number, but it’s still a noteworthy chunk of money.

Beyond news like that, consternation has been growing for some investors as we get deeper into election year politics and questions about the Fed and potential ulterior motives for its rate decisions get thrown into the mix. The Fed itself, as explained numerous times by none other than its chairperson, Jerome Powell, is an apolitical organization. They have two jobs given to them by Congress – keep inflation manageable and foster a strong labor market. Dabbling in politics isn’t their third responsibility. This has been reiterated countless times over the years but questions still remain.

Does the Fed play politics? Do they raise rates to punish or reduce rates to play favor? Do voting members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee put their collective thumb on the scale for specific candidates, political parties, or their personal agendas?

These are valid questions but, as with the politicization of seemingly everything these days, answers seem open to wide interpretation. For the Fed it’s absolutely a case that anything they do, even doing nothing at all, will be second-guessed and derided by many. So instead of getting overly political, which is something I wholeheartedly try to avoid in these posts, let’s look at some data and analysis on this topic compiled by my research partners at Bespoke Investment Group.

From Bespoke…

In looking at Fed policy actions since 1994 during election and nonelection years, on a net basis, the Fed was more likely than normal in an election year to keep rates on hold, less likely to hike, and more likely to cut rates.

The only election year that the Federal Reserve cut rates in the period from May through November was in October 2008 when the financial system was on the brink of collapse and neither candidate was an incumbent.

It’s hard to imagine any aspect of society as not having a political view these days, especially in Washington DC. If there’s one institution that has mostly managed to stay out of the political fray, though, it’s the Federal Reserve. Individual members have their political biases and some former members even find their way to serve in the administration of the President, but in formal communications and in their official capacities, they tend to stay out of politics.

With 2024 being a Presidential election year, the subject of rate cuts and their timing takes on an added political twist. If the FOMC cuts rates too close to the election, they could be seen as trying to put their hands on the scale in favor of the incumbent while a rate cut right after the election could be seen as rewarding the winner and trying to give them a ‘head start’. Currently, some Democrats have already expressed concern that keeping rates too high for too long has hurt the economy and threatened President Biden’s re-election. Supporters of former President Trump argue instead that by just talking about and telegraphing rate cuts, the Fed is goosing the economy to get President Biden re-elected. Being Fed Chair sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

There are plenty of examples in the past of different administrations either jawboning or blaming the Federal Reserve for certain outcomes. In 1998, former President George H.W, Bush said in an interview that Fed Chair Greenspan’s reluctance to more forcefully lower rates during the recession of 1990-1991 resulted in the weak recovery that cost him re-election. Bush recalled “I reappointed him, and he disappointed me.”

There are always going to be stories and anecdotes to suggest whether the Fed plays politics, but the best way to look at it is through the data itself. Going back to 1994 when the Federal Reserve started announcing its rate decisions in real-time, we compared their actions (at scheduled and unscheduled meetings) in Presidential election years versus non-election years to see if there were any differences or similarities. All else equal, you would expect to see the frequency of rate hikes and cuts be the same in election and nonelection years.

The first chart below compares the frequency that the FOMC has held, hiked, and cut rates during Presidential election and non-election years. In years when there was a Presidential election, the Fed held rates unchanged at 71.2% of its meetings, hiked rates 15.3% of the time, and cut rates 13.6% of the time. While the differences were small, on a net basis, the Fed was more likely than normal to keep rates on hold, less likely to hike, and more likely to cut rates. The Fed may be independent, but historically there has been a slight bias of moving towards easier than tighter policy during an election year.

Looking more specifically, the chart below compares policy actions in May through November in election and non-election years. Here there is an even wider disparity with a bias towards sitting on their hands. At the 22 meetings during these months of Presidential election years since 1994, the Fed stayed on hold just over 80% of the time, hiked rates 16.1%, and only cut rates once (3.2%). Based on these prior actions, as the election gets closer, the Fed looks like it has historically attempted to avoid cutting rates at all costs.

The table below shows the different times that the Fed cut and hiked rates during election years since 1994. Of the eight different rate cuts, only one occurred in the months spanning May through September, and that was a 100- bps cut on 10/29/08 when the financial system was on the brink of collapse. Not only that, but it was also an election where neither candidate was the incumbent, so politics played zero role in that example.

With regards to rate hikes during election years, five of the nine hikes occurred in 2004 when George W. Bush was running for re-election (an election he ultimately won). Besides the hikes leading up to and just after Bush II’s election in 2004, the other three hikes that occurred during election years were when neither candidate for election was an incumbent. Again, outside of that one period in 2004, the Fed appears like it prefers to stay put during election years, and as the pages of the calendar turn, it raises the question, will the rate cuts that keep getting pushed further out on the horizon ever arrive?

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.

Good morning and Happy Tuesday. We’re less than a week out from Tax Day so here’s a grab bag of things to remember if you’re like me and your completed return has been ready and waiting for signature and mailing longer than I care to admit.

Funding an IRA for last year –

You can fund an IRA up until close of business this coming Monday, the 15^th.

The practical deadline for electronic funding from an outside bank is this Thursday but midday Friday, the 12^th would be the last day since an overnight transfer is required.

If you have to wait until the 15^th to fund your IRA, a good option is to walk a paper check into a Schwab branch (assuming that’s where your account is) and have them deposit it for you. Get a receipt showing the deposit date just in case there’s a question later.

However, Schwab will let you do a mobile deposit up until 4pm local time on the 15^th, so that’s a great option if you can leverage technology.

Technically you can put a check in the mail and have it postmarked by the 15^th and be fine but let that be your last resort. Make the check payable to the custodian and write “2023 IRA Contribution” on the memo line. You could also add in “FBO (your name)” just to make it crystal clear.

Clients often ask about Form 5498. This form shows deposits into an IRA and shows up after tax season. 5498’s are typically sent late-April through mid-May and, consequently, aren’t required to file your tax return. Just keep it for your records or, more likely, let the custodian keep it for you until needed. Also, 5498’s aren’t generated for employer sponsored plans since custodians don’t keep track of deposit timing like they do for IRAs. The assumption is that you and/or your tax person are doing so related to your business tax return.

Paying your taxes –

I think most people mail in paper checks to pay their taxes. This is how I do it and it’s more out of habit than anything, especially since I pay electronically for almost everything else. Your tax person or your tax software should provide a slip with the relevant information to include with your check to the Feds and the State.

That said, you can pay your federal taxes via the IRS’s Electronic Federal Tax Payment Service or DirectPay for free and processing time is about one day.

You can also pay federal taxes via credit or debit card, but fees apply. Here’s an IRS link to see the different vendors and their fees.

https://www.irs.gov/payments/pay-your-taxes-by-debit-or-credit-card

And you can pay via wire transfer. Schwab has an electronic tool for setting up domestic wires and it’s free. Otherwise, banks typically charge around $25 for a wire transfer. Timing on this could be same-day if the wire request is received in good order by maybe 1-2pm EST. Still, I would plan to send a wire by this Friday just to be safe. The IRS has a worksheet with the wire details that you can find on irs.gov. 

Wires are straightforward so long as you slow down a bit and check everything multiple times. I say this because wire instructions are easy to get wrong and the exchange of this information, often via email, makes wires susceptible to fraud. Someone could gain access to your email and insert their own wire instructions without you knowing. It’s primarily for this reason that a bank’s wire department asks if you personally verbally verified the wire instructions prior to submitting the wire. Please don’t ignore or be overly casual about this step. Wires are great for sending money but are almost impossible to get back if something goes haywire.

Along these lines, tax-time is a golden opportunity for fraudsters or even just shady companies looking to take advantage of people. One of the ways they get you is by creating fake, or “spoofed”, websites and emails that look legitimate. However, there are some ways to spot fake or otherwise shady sites.

Look at the URL at the top of your web browser screen. Are there misspellings in the company name or anything else that seems out of place. Does the website look okay but you notice spelling or grammatical errors? If so, don’t click on anything, close your web browser, and start over.

It’s also a good practice not to search for websites via Google. Instead, bookmark your bank’s website, for example, to limit your exposure to potential fakes that bubble up in a web search.

The same basic gist applies to emails. Look at the sender’s address. You may have to hover your curser over it or tap the name if you’re on your phone. Is it spelled correctly? Does it look accurate? If anything looks strange, stop, don’t click anything, and reach out to the sender to ask if the email is legitimate.

Also beware of any website or email pushing you to act quickly. Granted, tax filing comes with deadlines but your personal fraud radar should ping anytime you’re feeling pressured to click a link or provide your personal and account information to a third party.

Remember: When in doubt about this sort of stuff it’s best to slow down or stop entirely. Call your bank to verify using information derived from another source, such as a bank’s customer service number obtained from Google. If it’s from Schwab or from me, call me and ask. By the way, I’m not suggesting that you fear everything, just be more aware, especially during tax-time. These days a little paranoia goes along way.

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.

Deciding when to retire is one of the biggest decisions you’ll make. And it’s hard! Understandably, most people first look to their finances: Can I afford to retire? What’s my target number and am I there yet, as if it were a destination. Don’t get me wrong, your financial situation is a huge part of the answer about retirement readiness but perhaps more important is the personal side of the question. Are you actually ready to retire?

This is a moving-target sort of question because our assumptions about what retirement means are often based on a past that no longer exists. For example and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1950 you’d likely work well into your 60’s but had a life expectancy of maybe early-70’s, so it was work, work, work, followed by a gold watch and a relatively short retirement. That’s a paradigm that many still focus on today. Manufacturing made up almost a third of our economy back then, so a good rest was often needed. You had some personal savings and often a pension since at least a quarter (and half by 1970, according to the BLS) of the working population had one. And Social Security had only begun sending payments ten years before, so that was a relatively new phenomenon that provided extra security.

Fast-forward to the present and we’re working and living longer. At least on average in the US our life expectancy is now in the late-70s, although I usually stress-test plans for people out to early-90s and beyond. I actually can’t recall the last time someone wanted me to use a late-70’s life expectancy. This means we’re planning on typical retirement timeframes of 20 to 30 years, not the five years or so of the past.

But do we want to “retire” that long? Do we need to? We’re better off financially than our parents and grandparents were. We have more assets and our higher incomes go farther, even adjusted for inflation. For example, according to the American Enterprise Institute, it took nearly 100 hours of work earning average wages to a buy a washing machine in 1959 and nearly 168 to buy a fridge – today it’s a small fraction of that. However, one could argue that we feel less financially secure. DIY 401(k) plans have supplanted pensions as a retirement mainstay (less than 15% of working Americans have a pension now) and the Social Security system is a nailbiter. Whatever the combination of reasons, we’ve reversed a decades-long trend persisting into the 90’s showing the labor force participation rate declining steadily as people aged past their mid-fifties. According to the BLS, those age 55 and older increased their participation rate from 2002 through 2022, and this is projected to continue through 2032.

Even though there are movements extolling the virtues of retiring earlier, people still have a drive to work. Our work gets into our blood and this helps make it challenging to contemplate swapping decades of muscle memory for… what exactly? Some people rush into retirement only to find they never answered that question for themselves while others keep working for the same reason. Could we somehow work better for longer, instead of working until burnout? It’s tough to know the right answer because, in many ways, we don’t have a framework for figuring out what is, and should be, a very personal question.

Okay, let me get back to my point this morning before digressing too much farther. Here are some questions that might help.

What does retirement mean to you?

Have you ever practiced retirement with a sabbatical, or even an extended vacation? Long enough for the “vacation” to start wearing off.

If you had all the time in the world, how would you spend it?

How would you have answered these questions five years ago and how does that differ from today? What about five years from now? How would Future You answer?

Here’s a trio of stories from the Wall Street Journal that make me think of how we’re all redefining what it means to work and to retire as our economy and workplace evolves. The Journal has a paywall, so let me know if you’d like any of these and can’t access them and I’ll send them to you from my own account.

The first article deals with impressions of a WSJ journalist following her sabbatical.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/my-dream-break-from-work-wasnt-what-i-expected-81bc5841?mod=series_worklife

The second talks about retirement readiness from a personal perspective.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/how-to-know-when-its-time-to-retire-b01cb741?mod=series_worklife

And the third article covers how focus work, or what’s referred to as “slow productivity”, is probably better for everybody compared with the frantic nature of multitasking that we’ve been trained to love and hate. Personally, I think if more of us could do this we’d get more enjoyment from our work, and probably be able to work longer because it would be less of a grind. And this type of work is likely to be valued more in the economy with the emergence of AI that will likely absorb rote tasks in favor of higher value work being done by highly-skilled and experienced workers. It also lends itself to project work, or other forms of consulting services that quite a few retirees end up doing (and enjoying!) for their former employers.

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/less-is-more-the-case-for-slow-productivity-at-work-ddbd7720?mod=wknd_pos1

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.

Are you getting a little tired of me mentioning how interest rates and the Fed have been influencing the stock and bond markets? Well, I sometimes tire of it because it’s been on the radar for years now and that doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon. Of course I’m kidding around a bit because I do love this stuff – it just sometimes feels like a feedback loop.

What does change, however, are the assumptions made by investors about the path of rates. Are they headed higher? That’s usually bad for stocks and bonds, depending on the context. Are they headed lower, which could be good for markets? But are they headed lower for the right reasons, which could be good or bad, again depending on the context? The details of this get finicky really fast but the bottom line is that interest rates and uncertainty around what the Fed might do with them is constantly impacting markets, just sometimes more than others.

For example, markets dropped last week following a higher-than-expected inflation report showing the CPI rising at a 3.5% annual rate in March (well over the Fed’s 2% objective for average inflation). This continued a string of upside surprises over the last four months. Inflation is down from its post-Covid peak of 9+%, but cumulatively prices are still a lot higher than in 2019. Maybe we were all (including the Fed) a little presumptuous when it came to rate expectations for this year?

I most recently mentioned this lingering inflation/Fed policy dynamic in my last Quarterly Update. Investors had been expecting 1-3 rate cuts this year assuming that inflation continued to fall and cuts in this context helped push markets higher during the first quarter. These hopes were if not dashed, at least reset to maybe 1 cut this year as inflation remained stubbornly high. I mean, how could the Fed cut rates with inflation rising?

So here we are yet again focusing on the Fed, what voting members of the rate-setting committee are saying, how they’re saying it, and so forth, while investors pick through it all for clues. This uncertainty and second-guessing stimulate an environment of heightened anxiety. As a group, investors have a habit of overshooting with their market assumptions during periods like this and the quick change in outlook over the last couple of weeks may prove no different.

You’ve probably seen this play out in your portfolio balances so far this month. We began the year with a string of mostly positive weeks but the last two have been down maybe a percent or so each. Yesterday the trading day began positive before turning sour as the session wore on with the S&P 500 and NASDAQ indexes each down over 1%. Today as I write the market is set to open positive, so fingers crossed for what’s become known as Turnaround Tuesday.

We’re only down a few percent from our recent high and well away from 10+% correction territory. Still, that negative bias doesn’t feel very good but there are a several things to remember as we go forward:

We just finished a solid quarter and 2023 was a good year for investors. Many institutional money managers were prepped to rebalance in the new quarter anyway, so that also helps explain why some investors sold stocks as the second quarter began.

Bond prices will likely be volatile for a while because of what we’ve just discussed. But this helps us when investing new money into bonds or when rebalancing from stocks since bond yields have been rising. The benchmark 10yr Treasury now yields over 4.6% and Treasuries of various maturities pay more in interest than nearly all companies in the S&P 500 individually pay in dividends: from 4-5% on bonds versus about 1.4% average dividend yield across the S&P 500.

Most stock sectors are no longer “overbought”, as they had been for an extended period, so lower prices can present good opportunities to start putting longer-term cash to work. This is especially true when considered over a longer timeframe. Dollar cost averaging new money into stocks can help here, too.

Interestingly, according to my research partners at Bespoke Investment Group, early-April has often been poor for stocks when the first quarter of the year was positive. There’s speculation that this is due to Tax Day as investors sell from their investment portfolios to pay taxes, but that could be coincidental. However, the performance dip during the first part of April has often coincided with the rest of the year being positive. This could also be mere coincidence but let’s take good news where we can find it, right?

Otherwise and as we’ve discussed before, these spikes in volatility and price drops could get worse before they get better but are nothing to be overly concerned about. Ultimately dips in the market, even market corrections, are part of a healthy long-term investing cycle.

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.

The first quarter (Q1) of 2024 seemed to go by fast while yielding good performance from the stock market. Positive returns were broader based compared with recent quarters, and that was good to see. The Fed, interest rates, and economic projections played a role again during the quarter but, as with stock performance, the surprises were generally positive.

Here’s a roundup of how major markets have performed so far this year:

• US Large Cap Stocks: up 10.6%
• US Small Cap Stocks: up 5%
• US Core Bonds: down 0.7%
• Developed Foreign Markets: up 6%
• Emerging Markets: up 2.2%

As I just mentioned, solid performance was more prevalent during the quarter than has been typical lately. Popular stocks like Nvidia, Meta (Facebook), and Netflix had another banner quarter, up 82%, 37%, and 25%, respectively, but almost all other sectors performed well. Only Real Estate was negative, down by less than 1%. Energy, Communication Services, and Financial Services led the way, returning 13.5%, 12.7%, and 12.4%, respectively. Looking at stock styles, “Growth” again beat “Value” by returning nearly 13% during Q1 to the latter’s 8%. Overseas, European indices were up around 5% or so while Japan doubled that.

Core bonds were flat or down less than 1% depending on the index, while longer-term bonds were down more, perhaps 5% again depending on the index. Riskier types of fixed income like preferred stocks were up around 5% and high yield (or “junk”) bonds were up 1-2%. Cash performed well compared to bonds, up 1% or so. As has been the case for a while now, this lagging performance from bonds was caused largely by the shifting sands of market expectations about the economy and when and how much the Federal Reserve may lower interest rates.

We began 2024 with most investors anticipating the Fed would lower rates three times this year, perhaps beginning this Spring but definitely by Summer. The thinking was that inflation would continue to fall and slowing economic growth would force the Fed’s hand. Lower rates help stock and bond prices, so these expectations provided a tailwind for both as we entered Q1. However, inflation remained elevated during the quarter and the economy continued to surprise to the upside. By March even the Fed had raised its growth projections and this added fuel to stock prices while putting a damper on bond prices. The 10yr Treasury rate, a key benchmark, ended the quarter at 4.2% (and is nearly 4.4% as of this writing), up from about 3.9% as the quarter began. Taken together, higher bond yields responding to a strong economy is a good problem to have since it helps stock prices, at least for a while, but it’s not what the bond market wants to see.

Continuing the run of upside surprises during the quarter was when the list of Leading Economic Indicators from the Conference Board turned positive after 23 straight months of negative readings. The LEI is a composite of ten indicators and that many months negative had always coincided with a formally declared recession. That the LEI finally showed a positive reading as Q1 ended and without us falling into a technical recession was noteworthy. Only time will tell if we continue the positive trend, but news like this certainly helped stocks during the quarter.

However, some news reported as positive can also have a negative side. For example, the University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index section related to expectations for stock prices shows that typical investors are more bullish then they’ve been in nearly three years. It’s great to see consumers expressing more optimism than a year ago because that bodes well for the economy. The problem for stocks is that prices can rise in the short-term as investing gets popular again, especially given the interest in AI, but the rush of new money into the system sets up more volatility. This also perpetuates a cycle that often leaves late arrivals feeling left out of the party. That won’t be us because we’re more disciplined and deliberate, and we respect the long-term nature of investing, but it will be others.

Along these lines, all major stock indices ended Q1 in “overbought” territory, indicating that prices are at least one standard deviation higher than their 50-day and 200-day moving averages. The S&P 500, the index most commonly used to represent the US stock market, ended the quarter on a run of over 50 days overbought. Stock prices can and often do remain higher like this for a while, but the longer they do the larger any pullback could be. Remember that corrections can happen in the context of a longer-term bull market – they reset expectations and clean house a bit, so it’s best to be prepared for that in the weeks and months ahead. I’m not trying to be a downer after a quarter of otherwise good news, just realistic.

Planning for volatility is mental but also practical. You can rebalance your portfolio by selling portions of what’s been doing well and buying others that are still good quality and appropriate to own but have been lagging. I’m doing this for you if I’m managing your portfolio, of course, but rebalancing is important and often counterintuitive because doing so usually means selling amid otherwise good market conditions. Rebalancing can also help generate cash for near-term spending needs, so let me know of anything that might require dipping into your investment portfolio.

Have questions? Ask us. We can help.