Once upon a time people would roam about, communicating with nothing more than the power of their own vocal cords. They would even look each other in the eye a means of affirming shared attention. It was a more civilized time.

My personal resume is replete with obsolete experience acquired during this period of human history. Experience such as ‘drove across the USA using nothing but a paper atlas and cash’. Boasts like this now only arouse ageist suspicions and ridicule, one reason I deleted my Facebook profile.

Anyone born after 2000 is a different kind of person. One could say they are inexperienced in the ways of classic communication. Interpreting body language, tonal inference and first impression instincts are becoming like Sanskrit, a dying language.

From the grave of these dying skills arose a malicious spirit, one capable of obfuscating human intentions. Loyalties have become more difficult to assign without these important communication signals. We trust people and organizations we shouldn’t and vice versa.

When it comes to people the fix is simple: put away the phone and spend more time face to face. You will generally spot the morons within the first 15 seconds.

Organizations are trickier. Let’s break them into two categories:

Category 1: Those that treat people like people

Category 2: Those that treat people like livestock

A good litmus test for category 1 organizations is whether any employee/member knows you by name. It’s a good sign if they do, demonstrating a culture that promotes human flourishing over profit optimization. Loyalty here feels natural.

Category 2 organizations are the opposite. To them you are just an inconvenient obstacle to a bank account. Absent competition, they do little to promote vitality.

All major cell phone carriers fit into category 2. Proof? There’s more consistency in missing persons reports than their retail store employee rosters. A new face greets every visit, but they all have the same look:

“Please, upgrade your plan so I can get my manager off my back and survive another month.”

No one remembers your name in this environment.

I have a history with Verizon that I will not get into. Suffice it to say I was charged a fee that was contractually accurate, but spiritually, it invoked the pride of Lucifer. I swore off Verizon for the next 20 years.

Yes, 20 years. Not today, Satan.

What felt like exacted revenge was actually just stupidity. I foolhardily courted AT&T, a company that has triggered just as many fickle consumers, like a rebound date at an expensive steak house.

Nobody at Verizon even noticed.

My plan at AT&T was attractive at first, but I developed a false sense of loyalty which resulted in complacency. Fast forward to 2026 – I have a teenager who needs a cell phone. (Loaded up with parental restrictions, of course)

I looked at my bill for the first time in an embarrassingly long time, and it was sobering. My 20-year rebound relationship with AT&T came into full focus as I tabulated the growing cost.

This time she was ordering caviar at the same moment I realized we were never in love. Check please.

My long overdue epiphany, that all cell phone carriers should be treated with the apathy a Category 2 organization deserves, sparked an impartial investigation into the alternatives.

The following is the result of my 2-week long search for…

The Best Mobile Plan Deal in 2026

Criteria

• Unlimited talk, text and data for 3 phone lines

• 2 new iPhone 17 Pros

• No service deprioritization

• Mobile hotspot

Automatically, the discount carriers are eliminated due to deprioritization issues (e.g. Boost, Tello, etc.). While these mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are about 40% less per month, an entire year of savings could be eliminated by one untimely throttling issue.

Reliability is worth the premium. This leaves us with the major three carriers in the US: T-Mobile, AT&T and the ex I’m still a little salty about, Verizon.

Parsing through all the promotional material to get to the bottom line is a frustrating process. I refused to believe that an $1,100 iPhone could be “free”. Sure enough, I was right.

While Verizon offered a compelling promotional offer bordering on sensible, the gimmick still existed. Effectively, all carriers finance the phone at cost to lock you in from shopping the plan again, usually for 36 months.

Indefinitely, if you are juggling multiple upgrades at a time like most families.

While it costs more money up front to pay for the phones outright, it also buys you flexibility and leverage. They will be unlocked, which means you can switch to any carrier at any time.

T-Mobile and Verizon both offer BYOP (bring your own phone) billing credits which can partially offset the phone cost.

Microcenter had a great price on a refurbished iPhone 16 Pro for $670. The Apple Store will even accept trade-ins for newer models, albeit at a lower buyback price than a carrier would advertise on locked trade-in (~$330 for an iPhone 14 Pro). Deals are out there so don’t settle at the carrier store.

Once you eliminate all the promotional noise, the cost for service is clearer.

Service Cost Winner - AT&T

A Quick Side Note on Data

All cell phone carriers advertise “unlimited” data plans but all throttle data speeds after a certain threshold is reached.

For example, AT&T will reduce speeds to 128 Kbps after 100GB of ‘premium’ data are used.

It’s important to choose the right data plan to prevent nasty withdrawal symptoms from prolonged exposure to nature.

But what about the new iPhone Pros? How does this change the value equation?

On total plan value, Verizon pulled ahead to seem like the obvious winner when considering the aggressive promotion on iPhone 17 Pros for new activations. In fact, they were the only carrier to offer a promotion on the Pro lineup.

T-Mobile does advertise a ‘free’ iPhone 17 with a new line activation, but serious people require three camera lenses.

Service + Phone Cost Winner - Verizon

And the winner is…

Not so fast. Before checking out, I tabbed over to the business plans. As a business owner, I’m accustomed to getting fleeced by service providers.

We seem to pay extra for everything because of ‘Service Level Agreements’ or some nonsense like that. Regardless, I was ready to ignore this category of service altogether.

Surprisingly, the most competitively priced plans seem to be reserved for businesses. There didn’t seem to be any real verification process to validate my business as real, curiously. Pokémon trading might even qualify, another reason to collect them all!

The Winner - T-Mobile Business

Over a three-year cost projection, the clear winner is T-Mobile’s SuperMobile business plan with BYOD promotional pricing. According to my sales guy, the promotional discounts are indefinite. What’s not, are the service plan prices.

Either way I’ll be watching.

My Advice

Treat your cell provider like the Bachelorette treats contestants. Don’t lock in and make them compete. Hand out the rose to a worthier suitor the moment your current carrier gets too frisky. They only want one thing, and it’s disgusting.

And maybe open a business.

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC. The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

Cell phone plan pricing, promotions, and terms change frequently and vary by location, credit, and eligibility. Taxes & Fees were calculated using publicly available information and were not provided directly by the carriers.

Always verify current offers directly with carriers. Past performance or promotional history is no guarantee of future savings.

Subscribe now

Vacātiō.

That’s the Latin root of our word “vacation.” Its literal meaning? Freedom from obligations. Release. Emptiness. Wide-open calendar space with nothing demanding your attention.

The ancients clearly never heard of Disney World.

What was supposed to be a reprieve from professional life has quietly morphed into a second, unpaid job. One we happily pay thousands of dollars to perform.

I started thinking about this while staring at a $15,000 quote for a beach house on the Florida panhandle this summer for thirteen people. Two of those seven days would be spent frantically packing, hunting for missing swim trunks, and settling the inevitable marital spats over who forgot the sunscreen.

That got me wondering: Is it actually worth it?

Being the eternal pragmatist, I ran the numbers for a more realistic scenario, a family of six, the kind many of my Midwest and Southeast clients actually have.

Here’s the sober tally for one modest Gulf-coast week in June:

House rental: $7,800

Booking tax: $424

Cleaning fee: $250

Flights: $2,322

Car rental: $600

Groceries: $850

Dining out: $750

Activities + shopping: ~$1,000 (and yes, it’s always higher)

Grand total: $13,996

For a median Midwest household, that’s more than 12% of their entire annual budget for seven days of supposed rest. Even at double the median income, it’s still a 6% bite. And that’s before we talk about the silent killer: opportunity cost. For business owners and high-producing professionals, there is no such thing as “paid vacation.” Time away is money left on the table.

We all know we need to decompress. That’s why the five-day work week and the ancient concept of a day of rest survived for millennia. The Soviets tried a continuous seven-day work week starting in 1929 to supercharge industrialization. Eleven years later they quietly abandoned it. Absenteeism, fatigue, and illness tanked productivity instead of boosting it.

Actual Soviet propaganda poster reads, “Behind the shock brigades — shock workshops, Behind the shock workshops — shock factories!”. English text added for comic effect.

Yet here we are in 2026, somehow managing to turn vacation itself into its own form of exhaustion.

If you come back from “time off” feeling dread and scrambling to catch up, that’s your nervous system telling you something important: you didn’t actually rest. Or maybe you just hate your job, but that’s a different issue altogether.

The real culprit? Instagram-fueled highlight reels and subtle peer pressure from friends posting their own perfectly curated escapes. Keeping up with the Joneses was never meant to be an aspirational strategy. (Trust me, I’m a Jones).

In 2023 I learned this lesson the expensive way when I dragged the family to the Bahamas chasing turquoise waters and reggae vibes. By day three we were all counting the hours until the flight home. The accommodations had zero communal space, everything was priced to encourage theft, and the “relaxed island pace” felt more like organized chaos.

Coming back to a high-stakes practice where thousands of clients and an entire organization depend on me performing at full capacity, I realized I couldn’t afford another vacation that required its own vacation. So, I created a simple set of rules that actually work for me.

Ben’s 5 Vacation Rules (The Ones That Actually Replenish)

1. Acknowledge that time off is non-negotiable. Burnout doesn’t make you more productive but the opposite.

2. Cap the budget at 7% of household income per year. And never, ever finance travel with debt or by raiding retirement accounts. That’s just transferring stress to your future self.

3. Take one to two full weeks with zero work in between. Plan the handoff like a military operation. Half-measures create the worst of both worlds.

4. Design the schedule to be at least 80% blank. If your itinerary looks like a spreadsheet, you’re doing it wrong. White space is where actual restoration happens.

5. Minimize crowds and maximize time with the people you love. Some people thrive on energy from strangers. I find it soul-draining. Know which camp you’re in and plan accordingly.

Season these rules to your own taste, of course. The point isn’t rigid dogma, it’s protecting the original Latin promise of vacātiō: genuine release.

The economics of modern vacations are a messy stew of subjective desires, social signaling, financial reality, and basic human physiology. Getting the balance right is hard. But when you do, when you come home genuinely restored instead of just tan and drained, the return on investment is enormous.

Just don’t confuse motion with restoration. The ancients were not wrong. Sometimes the most beneficial thing you can buy with your money and your time… is emptiness.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC. The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Consult with your own qualified advisor before making any financial decisions. All opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

Subscribe now

Few professionals think more highly of themselves than financial advisors.

“Changing peoples’ lives”, they whisper to one another as fee schedules for the coming year are adjusted for ‘inflation’. This systemic pride is a consequence of a brutally discerning consumer who favors confidence over accuracy.

The application of Darwin’s law favors the self-assured individual, often harboring an ego with its own gravitational pull. Some of the most charismatic people I’ve met are in the money business, a powerful force in a delicate profession.

There are even hierarchies of purity within the advice circles. At the top, the self-proclaimed ‘paragons of objective advice’, are the fee-only advisors. They joust around the tiltyard armed with circular arguments, debating the perfect business model that removes all conflicts of interest.

The debate is interminable because the core conflict can never be eliminated:

The debate rages ever onward. Consumer would be amused if they were aware.

And at the bottom we have the lowly life insurance brokers. Universally disliked in all financial planning circles, they serve dutifully as punching bags for the alpha professionals requiring superiority bias confirmation. Whether the anathematic reputation is deserved is truly subjective, but secretly, the fiduciaries are glad they exist.

It is entertaining to disconnect from this industry and surveil it from afar, from the perspective of someone that has no dog in the fight. This examination helps me ground my own ego but also forces me to address the question of whether I would hire a financial advisor knowing what I know.

Truthfully, it’s not an easy question to answer.

Like the sausage industry, consumption of product becomes more challenging the more that is known. The process itself is less frightening than the awareness of how easily nasty bits get thrown in without the end consumer knowing it.

I’ve read the disclosure documents. While I legally must tell you that these are important documents that inform your decisions – technically true – I also know that they provide as much epistemic value as C-SPAN. Real people operate mostly on trust, not disclosure text. In fact, the more disclosure text, the lower the trust.

Trust is either earned directly (rare) or it is outsourced through a friend or some other resource like online reviews or videos, which is not very reliable. Most people are overconfident in their ability to judge character, and online reviews are largely curated these days.

To add to the problem, recall that successful financial advisors have been naturally selected for their confidence. You see the issue here. It’s like accidentally acknowledging the AT&T salesman at Costco thinking you can just perform a friendly walk by.

It may be better to sidestep the whole minefield and avoid hiring an advisor altogether, an attractive option based on surface level issues. It is very possible that an AI + DIY method is the way to go. Let’s ask ourselves,

1. Does your spouse know what you know or more about your money situation?

2. Do you understand what your investments are and how they work for your situation?

3. Do you know how much you should be investing and where?

4. Do you usually accomplish money related goals you set for yourself?

5. Do you know everything you should be doing now to secure your future?

6. Are you familiar with your tax situation and how it impacts your investment plan?

A ‘no’ to any one of them may mean an advisor can add value, which also means the lazy route is no bueno. Personally, I can answer ‘yes’ to all but the first one, which makes this a question of how much I love my wife.

As it turns out, enough to hire a financial advisor. A good one at least, preferably with a slight overconfidence bias. While my situation is a bit different given my own designated advisor doubles as my succession plan, anyone can apply the method I used to qualify this person.

Value for Fee

The prima facie assessment every person naturally makes is cost. And for good reason, it’s literally money out of your pocket. Consumers are accustomed to intuitive pricing with standardized goods and services. A Pepsi is roughly equal to a Coke, but this is not the case with financial services.

Not all firms are equal even if the fees are. Some advisors won’t even look at your 401(k) plan for fear that it might assign them unwanted liability. Attempting to standardize the most common services in a progressive order, I put together two charts to help us map value for cost.

The way to read the charts is to look at the fee in the X axis and match it with the cumulative service list in the Y axis (each service is a natural add-on from the one above). The two charts are meant to be independent from one another, representing its own fee structure.

If the box is red, that means the fee is too high relative to the cumulative services being offered. Suspiciously cheap is also problematic and could imply a less informed service. The sweet spot is the Goldilocks zone.

Value is subjective, but this is where I draw the line for my household. The higher the fee, the more that needs to be offered. Simple, really.

Personal Judgment

Now that we have that formality out of the way, I want to propose seven unconventional but very real questions you should ask when shopping financial professionals.

1. Imagine this person with a bullhorn, would you suffer hearing loss by the end of the meeting?

2. Would you allow this person to watch your pet over the weekend?

3. Does their office space look like it was furnished by Goodwill? Do they even have an office?

4. Did you feel compelled to terminate conversation at any point out of boredom or discomfort? Whether you acted on this compulsion doesn’t matter.

5. Are they competent enough to publish their methodology online and, if not, why the secrecy?

6. If this person was your college finance professor, how often would you skip class?

7. Does this person motivate you and improve your outlook on life?

These questions could reassure your gut-check, something that should not be ignored. A perfect score isn’t required but anything short of five favorable responses is a swipe left in my app.

Lastly, Standard of Care

The f-word gets thrown around a lot, so much so that its meaning has lost potency. A fiduciary standard of care is the highest available and should be the only choice for investors who want their advisors to put their money where their mouth is.

This entails working with a fee-only advisor. It’s possible to work with a fiduciary that also earns commissions in certain capacities, known as fee-based, so it’s important to ask when and where the fiduciary standard applies. Generally, it will be detailed in an advisory agreement signed by both client and advisor.

The following ‘financial advisors’ are not fiduciaries:

• Subscription newsletter authors (sorry readers, you need to hire me first)

• Brokers (i.e. insurance, mutual fund, stocks sold on commission)

• Bolt-on free planners provided by your employer plan

• Financial entertainers consumed via video or podcast

• Advice from friends

Generally, if you are not explicitly paying a pre-defined fee clearly deducted from an account you control, you are not working with a fiduciary. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.

The battle for pinnacle purity among fee-only advisors may never end, but they rightfully wage war at the top of the hierarchy of the Advice industry. Consumers can only benefit from this competition and it’s the only place I would shop for a financial advisor.

Sorry brokers, but there’s nothing stopping you from joining those ranks. Time to step up.

So, I conclude my disembodied review of the industry I call home reassured that my self-confidence in what we do is not misplaced. Yes, financial advisors tend to think highly of themselves, but a good one deserves to. Hopefully this article will help you find them.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Consulting with a qualified financial advisor who understands your unique situation is recommended before making any investment decisions. Fee structures, fiduciary standards, and services vary by advisor and firm. Always review agreements carefully.

Subscribe now

These feelings inevitably evolve into fantasies of fortune as ‘imagine if’ scenarios propagate in our thoughts. I’m reminded of the scene in Back to the Future Part II where the antagonist, Biff Tannen, finds the 1955-2000 Gray Sports Almanac in the future timeline and gives it to his 1950 self.

Using the foresight within, Biff skews the betting odds to be 100% in his favor and accumulates a massive amount of wealth. So much so that he changes the entire course of humanity’s future, a slight problem considering he’s a meathead.

The fantasy centers around the motif ‘what if I had perfect information about the future?’. Sometimes I think about which stock I would buy as a college freshman, with my meager income as a weight-room attendant, if I could just transfer the knowledge I have today to my younger self.

The answer? Monster Beverage Corp (MNST).

This is not a recommendation to buy Monster Energy Corp.

It boggles my mind that Monster Beverage Corporation has done as well as it has, with a 25-year return of ~218,058%. Personally, I’d rather drink out of my cats’ water bowl, but this is beside the point.

The real question is, would buying the stock be the best way to play the trade if I could pull off this fantasy? A $10,000 investment would yield roughly $22 Million from March 2001 through the end of last February (2026).

What is this, a return for ants? We need to pump these numbers up and tighten the timeframe big time. In the spirit and style of political insider trading. It’s for a good cause; my private foundation would depend on it.

We’ve all heard about levered trading and the use of options to ‘enhance’ returns, but the references are rarely accompanied by any explanations. We’re always left wondering, exactly how does this work?

It’s almost as if the people discussing these things don’t understand themselves. But you are subscribed to The KaratStick where we don’t bury the leads like some finfluencer hack.

First, let me draw up the footnote disclosure here because I know none of you read that jargon. This is NOT a recommendation and should not be construed as financial advice. It is for your edification only. The strategy discussed below is extremely high risk. Even I don’t do this.

Do with it what you will. Hopefully, something sensible.

The first thing an investor would do if they had a very high degree of conviction (certainty in my fantasy), would be to sell uncovered (naked) puts to investors who want to protect themselves in the event of the position going down. Other investors that do not know what you know, colloquially referred to as suckers.

(I know this is what you had in mind.)

Uncovered (naked) – simply means that I do not hold the underlying position to cover a potential exercise (e.g. shares of MNST). It’s a very risky position to take.

Put – is an options contract that guarantees a stock will be bought by a contra party (i.e. the investor taking the other side of the trade) at a pre-determined price. You sell puts if you think the stock will move higher and buy if you think the stock will move lower.

Not so fast, however. You can’t just willy-nilly sell naked puts all over the place expecting unlimited income. You first need to be approved by a broker, such as Charles Schwab, for a margin account and Level 3 or higher options trading for uncovered strategies. You will generally need to prove you are good for the money before a broker will let you wreck yourself.

Margin trading could be a topic for an entire newsletter by itself. Suffice it to say here that it’s like a home equity line of credit for a non-IRA brokerage account. It allows you to borrow cash from a broker using existing positions as collateral. As you might expect, interest fees apply.

There are policies, such as Regulation T, that limit the broker’s exposure to investor stupidity, but these are not perfect. Ultimately, it’s the broker’s discretion whether you are approved, and remain approved, for options trading.

Ok, so we have the margin with Level 3 options approval. Time to sell some puts as close-to-the-money (close to the option strike price) as possible without triggering the exercise. These will typically fetch the highest premiums. And since we know for certain what the stock price will be in this fantasy scenario, we can easily find the contract that will fetch the highest premium.

Close-to-the-Money – describes a situation where the options contract is close to exercising.

Websites like Yahoo Finance, Barchart and NASDAQ.com provide options chain data in real time, as do brokers as part of their investor services. This is where the right contracts could be identified.

Again, using MNST as an example, the 2026-04-17 (m) Put at a $135 strike price on MNST (expires April 17, 2026) is trading at a $9.48 per share as of the time of this writing. That means I can agree to buy the stock at a price of $135 between now and April 17, regardless of what the stock price is. Even if it is worthless, which would be a maximum loss scenario.

If it’s higher, I pocket the premium and move on. $948 per contract sold in this case, the maximum potential gain. The standard options contract sold in the US are in increments of 100 shares. If a naked put triggers, well, let’s just hope the seller already paid the utility bill for the month. Good thing we are certain in fantasy land.

You might think ‘$948 doesn’t seem like a lot’ and you would be right. That’s why I wouldn’t stop there. First, know that I can sell as many puts as the broker will permit under the margin agreement, multiplying this premium. Second, I wouldn’t just going to sit on that cash.

I then take the premium income and apply it by buying call options with a strike price under our predicted price on the expiration date. Again, let’s use the monthly April contract expiring on April 17^th, 2026. Using the options chain, I can see the contract with the $150 strike price is trading at $5.28 per share, mid-price. That’s $528 per contract.

Call – is an options contract that will guarantee a stock can be purchased from a contra-party at a pre-determined price. You will sell calls1 if you think the stock is going down or will be flat and buy if you believe it will go up.

Now, I should buy as many calls as I afford and wait for April 17. Let’s say I knew that MNST would trade for $170 per share by this date (I don’t, and shouldn’t have to say this), it should result in a net profit of $1,472 per contract once accounting for the call premium.

Theoretically, in this fantasy, the options trade could be performed monthly in progressively larger amounts as my margin buying power increases. The compounding effect would be ridiculous. Explosive even.

Most people should avoid explosives, and this is equivalent to playing with thermite naked with a lit cigar. Nobody in their right mind would adopt such an investment policy unless they had a near perfect ability to predict market prices.

I’ve come across a few traders with public profiles espousing such a superpower. Perhaps they do, but luck certainly has a role in any precision-based trade strategy.

Unless you are one of the few privy to the information shared in congressional special committees and licensed for insider trading, a diversified approach based on fundamentals is much more reliable. It’s far less exciting but no one recommends an F1 car for basic commuting.

As I’ve said before, markets and economies are dynamic like shifting winds on a Spring day. This makes events notoriously difficult to predict. We discuss this very notion in the most recent episode of The Money Alchemist in relation to the Iran conflict.

This isn’t to suggest you shouldn’t have some fun entertaining fantasies and learning how you can use options to your advantage. Just don’t bet the farm on it.

Options trading, especially uncovered (naked) puts and margin strategies, involves a substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. You may lose more than your initial investment—potentially far more.

To learn more about the risks and characteristics of options, refer to the Options Clearing Corp’s Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options (PDF)

Margin trading amplifies both gains and losses, and brokers can issue margin calls with little notice. There is no guarantee of profit.

This discussion is for educational and illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation, advice, or solicitation to buy or sell any security or engage in any strategy. The performance was calculated without fees or trading expenses and with dividends reinvested. No actual client of National Wealth Management Group, LLC invested in this hypothetical portfolio.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Always consult a qualified financial professional and review your risk tolerance before trading options. Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

Subscribe now

Buzz words no longer vibrate our consciousness like they used to. In an endurance race against narrative, spectacular imagery is measured by dubious eyes scanning for telltale signs of AI interference.

The American mind stews in a pot of acidic broth served up to hungry data farms. The economy of attention may be smothering itself.

The past two weeks we learned, as I predicted, that the Trump Administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was unconstitutional. One short week later on a Saturday morning, we also woke up to news that U.S. and Israeli war planes penetrated Iranian airspace with unprecedented force, destroying key IRGC targets with frightening veracity.

The only thing more surprising than the aptly named Operation Epic Fury is the fact that I received zero calls to discuss either topic the following Monday. Whether it be apathy or maturing investment behavior, most of America responded to the news with little concern.

The most likely explanation is as old as the theme of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’. The sentiment of our culture can be wrapped up in one simple memetic: nothing ever happens. Major things happen all the time, we just began discounting their significance because

A) we don’t know what to do about them, or

B) we can’t afford to do anything about them

The lingering question remains: is there actually a wolf hidden over the horizon and what should be done if so?

These are both major events that will have long-term socio-economic consequences. Like wolves in the distance, their presence does not determine fate, but they should be respected, acknowledged and factored into your investment plans.

Tarifs

Money Alchemist EP 51 | What’s Next for U.S. Tariff Policy

In a 6 - 3 decision The Supreme Court effectively took away the President’s scariest looking stick and threw it into the burn pile. The remaining options, twigs by comparison, remove the Chief Executive’s ability to unilaterally, and unpredictably, negotiate tariffs on an indefinite basis.

In other words, President Trump’s wild-card approach to trade negotiations is now off the table. This explains how the White House can hold two contradicting positions at the same time:

A) Using the IEEPA as the first-choice option for tariff policy, and

B) Suggesting the alternative options provide an improved framework for tariff implementation that could result in MORE tariffs

Let’s talk about those alternative options.

Section 122 - Trade Act of 1974 gives “balance of payments” authority for 15% tariffs for 150 days - requires Congress to extend. This is what’s being used to bridge the gap until Section 301 or Section 232 tariff policies can be implemented.

Section 301 - Trade Act of 1974 - Expanded via Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 - Office of the US Trade Representative must investigate and determine unfair trade practice which could result in tariffs to balance trade.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security - investigation must uncover risk to national security - tariffs can be used as retaliation measure if a threat is determined.

Both Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs take time to implement (60 – 180 days), requiring comprehensive coordinated investigations and telegraphed implementation. They cannot be changed on a whim and do not fit nicely into an aggressive real-time negotiating tactic.

This is bad news for the Trump Administration, which relies on shock and awe muscle flexing to progress its America First agenda, aiming to boost domestic manufacturing. While the plan is to move forward with the limited tool set, this is a decisive win for globalization.

What this means for you:

• Lower tax-drag on cost of goods sold (i.e. potentially lower prices)

• Favors global corporate profits

• Reduced potential market volatility due to tariff shocks

• Lower incentives to reshore could soften U.S. jobs growth

Iran

We’ve been hearing for more decades that Iran is on the verge of attaining a nuclear weapon. While a legitimate ongoing fear, eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities feels more like a plausible cover for the extreme measures taken than a primary mission objective.

More likely, the opaque objectives are the calculated result of a complex set of datapoints synthesized by an advanced wargames apparatus. Pentagon doctrine integrates the most advanced artificial intelligence systems money can buy into operational planning, courtesy of $1 Trillion of your tax dollars (the 2026 US Defense budget).

(I wonder how they came to define “intelligence” this way? 🤔)

Many, who are not ‘read in’ at the prerequisite TS clearance levels, espouse their highly inflated 2 cents on the evolving situation. I am no such person and offer only speculation and my predictions for economic consequence.

Though many are disheartened that yet more military involvement has been deemed necessary in the Middle East, it appears to be motivated by opportunistic geostrategic realignment and alliance incentives rather than pure defensive necessity.

Remember that just one month prior, Nicolás Maduro was ‘extradited’ by U.S. special forces in Operation Absolute Resolve. Venezuela happens to be a major U.S. oil exporter as with Iran. Approximately 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, largely controlled by what was the Iranian Navy now diminished to small fishing boats operating drones.

The flow of this oil disproportionately benefits China, much of it trading outside of the US dollar. A theme emerges…

We do not know to what extent the conflict will be contained to the region, whether the mission objectives will be achieved or how China will react to the event. But the odds are high that all these risks were ‘intelligently’ measured prior to the strikes, and more than one person acknowledged the light was green.

What it means for you:

• Temporarily higher oil-based product prices – likely through the summer

• Stronger dollar – headwind for unhedged international positions, but good for U.S. imports

• Heightened readiness status for active military families

• Supports longer-term oil price stability and dollar hegemony

• Globally increased defense spending

Bottom Line

Both headline events impact markets in different ways with a few clear takeaways.

The U.S. dollar, thus far, has strengthened in response to the events which tracks with logic. If continued, this should help moderate domestic inflation on imported goods.

International stocks have sold off sharply with the iShares MSCI Total International Stock Fund down -7.3% since its February 25^th all-time-high. This could present a good opportunity for investors looking to add international exposure who may have missed the earlier run.

Oil, the most affected commodity and the bedrock of the modern economy, is the obvious concern. April 26 crude futures trading on the NY Mercantile have risen sharply and are up +56.5% year-to-date at over $90 per barrel.

A reasonable expectation is for this to be a temporary situation and should be ignored by long-term investors disinterested in speculative trading. Otherwise, now may not be a bad time to buy gasoline futures for your July 4^th road trip.

The industrials component of the S&P 500, dominated by Aerospace & Defense, are up +11.02% so far in 2026. Given the state of current global affairs, industrials look particularly compelling to investors.

Modest adjustments to a diversified portfolio should be considered in light of recent developments, but not much more. Undiversified (i.e. concentrated) investments should be reviewed with discernment. Diversification becomes even more important as uncertainty mounts.

It might be a good time to shake off that feeling of apathy and consult with a financial professional. There’s a lot to unpack here.

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Please consult with a qualified financial, tax, or legal advisor before making any decisions based on this information.

Subscribe now

There are two types of people who file tax returns, those who don’t understand what a ‘refund’ is and those who do. The informed cohort acknowledge the tax reporting and filing process for the anathema that it is. Dreaded, painstaking, irredeemable, and callous.

Learning the tax code is like watching educational videos demonstrating where meat comes from. No thanks. I’ll just outsource that little detail.

Most of us are uninformed because we just don’t want to look. It’s either too complex, too boring or both. It strains the brain in unnatural ways, so we create shortcuts to avoid the difficult work of reviewing the source code. We create myths and share them with enthusiasm like messages of hope.

Myths, like getting a refund is money from the government, spread at the spread of social contagion. Sorry to disappoint, but that is your tax overpayment being refunded to you – hence the term Tax Return. If you gave $100 to a friend to buy your lunch, would you also think they were being generous when they give you back your change?

Who am I kidding, no one uses cash these days but I’m out of analogies so it will have to do. Let’s move on to review a few other common myths we advisors encounter from time to time. They may be useful to know going into the April 15 tax filing deadline, but mostly for some 2026 tax planning.

Myth # 1 | Tax Deferral is Always Good

The problem with kicking the can down the road is the risk of developing back pain along the way grows with the weight of the can, making it more difficult to pick up. Sometimes, it’s best to not procrastinate and do the unpleasant work. Taxpayers cannot retroactively go back in time to fill up unused low-income bracket space. Letting that go unused by failing to realize gains or process conversions is inefficient.

Myth # 2 | You Must File a Return

There is only a requirement to pay taxes, not to file. So, if confidence is high that you paid enough in Federal income tax withholding to cover the tax bill, April 15^th is just like any other day. Now, a tax return should be filed regardless because this starts the clock on the IRS 3-year statute of limitations and provides official income documentation that can be used elsewhere.

Myth # 3 | The Tax Forms Tell the Whole Story

Neither your accountant nor the IRS know what you did last year. The 1099s, W-2s and other tax forms do not provide the whole picture and should be trusted no more than a teenager left home alone for the weekend. They will not inform if you made IRA/Roth contributions, processed qualified charitable distributions, or accurately recorded cost basis. Details like these must be communicated by you or someone that knows your financial situation well.

Myth # 4 | Filing an Extension Is Bad

The only requirement is that you have fully paid your tax bill by April 15. If you need more time to iron out the details of your refund, such as waiting for a corrected 1099 or a delayed K1, it’s better to file for an extension rather than an amended return. Form 4868 permits individuals an extra six months (October 15 deadline), which improves the accuracy of your submission. This may be one reason why some accountants claim extensions reduce the chance for audit.

Myth # 5 | Being in a Higher Bracket Means All Income Is Taxed Higher

Brackets are progressive, which means the only the income that breaks into the next bracket is applied to the higher rate. This does not mean all your income is now taxed at the higher rate. You should never say “no” to an increase in pay because it nearly always means you will take home more.

Myth # 6 | Bonus Are Taxed More

You get a large bonus and spend the money in your head. Then the net direct deposit lands like a personal offense, crushing your aspirations. What gives? The bonus paycheck is withheld at the same effective tax rate as if your compensation was that size every pay period. Congratulations, you’re a 1%er for a pay period. If the bonus is enough to creep into the higher brackets, your effective rate could be substantially higher than usual.

Myth # 7 | Charitable Giving Always Lowers Taxes

Many taxpayers claim the standard deduction, which is $15,750 per individual for the 2025 tax year. Taking the standard deduction means you are electing not to itemize, and charitable donations are itemized deductions. There is a minor change to this rule starting in 2026 that permits taxpayers a $1,000 above-the-line deduction for cash donations to qualifying 501(c)(3) organizations. A welcome change.

Myth # 8 | Itemization is Not Worth It

The easy button way to go is to ignore all strategy, toss your receipts and claim the standard deduction. In reality, you could be throwing away thousands doing this. Put that new 6% APR mortgage interest expense to use! Itemization bunching can be used in alternating years to potentially boost deductible expenses beyond the standard deduction. Strategies like pre-paying next year’s property tax and multi-year donations to Donar Advised Funds can be combined with great effect. Also, the State and Local Income Tax (SALT) deduction is temporary lifted to $40,000 until 2028.

Myth # 9 | No Tax on Social Security

This one really grinds my gears because it is a myth propagated by high-level politicians too embarrassed to admit to a failed promise. Social Security is not only still taxable, but recipients were also rewarded with a more complex tax return with the addition of a temporary enhanced senior deduction that includes income phase-outs.

Oh, and your Social Security deferrals are taxed twice. Once as you pay income tax on your FICA payments, and a second time when you claim your benefit. Social Security is the world’s most tax-inefficient retirement plan and the OBBBA did little to correct this.

Myth # 10 | Real Estate Automatically Offsets W-2 Income

Technically, it can offset W-2 income but there are significant caveats many taxpayers completely ignore. For one, you must be qualified as a real estate professional. Second, there are detailed distinctions between long-term and short-term rentals that must be carefully considered and integrated into a strategy. Lastly, know that this is a kick-the-can type of move. Real estate is subject to capital gains and recapture taxes once sold. Unless you plan on dying with the properties, the Piper will eventually have be paid.

As you approach your tax filing date, keep in mind there are limited things you can do to adjust for 2025 tax strategy sins. It’s better to focus on the things you can do in 2026 to streamline your lifetime tax liability.

If formalizing tax strategy feels like it might induce a migraine, connecting with a planner like me could be worth it. Unafraid to look, I have spent years learning how the sausage is made and leverage specialized software to integrate tax plans for clients.

Scheduling a brief strategy call before the end of summer to run a mid-year projection would be a great step toward a headache-free April the following year.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as tax, legal, investment, or specific advice.

Tax laws are complex and subject to change; always consult your qualified tax advisor, CPA, or financial planner for advice tailored to your individual situation. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

So, you think you’re a central bank expert? Name all the central bankers. Make sure to revisit the list in May to add Kevin Warsh as he relieves Jerome Powell as Fed Chair. He’s back in the game after a fourteen-year interim career that could only be described as sinecure-laden interlude.

It pays to go to the right schools. The sequential combo of Princeton to Harvard Law is like a railgun for success. In Kevin’s case, it was pointed directly at Wall Street, launching his career trajectory to land him in the front lines of America’s Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

His enlistment company: Morgan Stanley, where he worked his way up to VP status back when “Vice President” meant something in the banking world. He ends his 7-year stint in investment banking as executive director in mergers and acquisitions in 2002 to serve under President Bush’s administration. A few years of shaking the right hands as Special Assistant for Economic Policy and Executive Secretary of the National Economic Council and he is anointed.

At age 35, Kevin becomes the youngest appointee ever to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Apparently, the guy is something of a political savant. Ben Bernanke, Fed Chair presiding over the Financial Crisis, frequently mentions his ‘political savvy’ in his memoir, The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath.

“Don Kohn, my vice chairman, with his long experience at the Fed, and Kevin Warsh, with his many Wall Street and political contacts and his knowledge of practical finance, were my most frequent companions on the endless conference calls through which we shaped our crisis-fighting strategy.”

During the GFC, Kevin did what all good Ivy League boys do: save his former employer and their friends from self-inflicted financial ruin with massive quantities of publicly sourced easy money. He did this while maintaining a stiff finger in the air pointed at the Fed, vigorously wagging in full view of the Wall Street occupiers. Just in case anyone got the wrong impression.

To be fair, Kevin Warsh has been consistent in his stance on monetary policy, skewing to favor more hawkish positions (i.e. favoring higher rates).

• 2006–2011 (Fed tenure): Inflation hawk; backed crisis interventions but wary of prolonged QE, citing risks of inflation, capital misallocation, and balance sheet expansion.

• 2011–2024: Consistently hawkish; criticized extended low rates, QE, and forward guidance for distorting markets; pushed for rules-based policy, faster normalization, and smaller balance sheet.

• 2025–2026: More dovish shift; advocated quicker rate cuts, flexible policy emphasizing growth (e.g., via supply-side/AI gains) without inflation, while retaining calls for balance sheet discipline and “regime change.”

That is, until last year when President Trump began seriously sniffing around for a new Fed Chair. Looking for someone more...compliant. Strange. Is he exercising his political savvy or his practical finance here? Someone should call Bernanke to ask.

There’s been lots of fuss about the Fed Chair announcement. Gold reacted violently with COMEX Futures falling from $5,318.40 on January 29 to a bottom close of $4,622.50 on February 2^nd. That’s a drop of more than -13% for those of you still doing the math in your heads. Let’s not even talk about Bitcoin. Life is better when we ignore the ugly things.

The commotion also bled into the NASDAQ and SPY; however, both indexes began their current pullbacks on the 28^th and 27^th of January, respectively. This implies that the January 30^th announcement of Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair appointee isn’t the only thing weighing on stocks. More on that in a later installment.

Treasury Bonds, the market that the Fed actually conducts operations in, slightly rallied with the yield on the 10-year note dropping to 4.2% from 4.23% since the date of the announcement. Snore.

Seems to me all this ‘hawk’ fear mongering is just noise. It’s precisely the kind of noise an assassin would want to mask a hit, which makes one wonder. How does gold lose approximately $5.5T in global supply valuation in just two trading days? That, my friends, is a question with a valuable answer and I’m afraid I can only offer speculation.

What I do know is that, despite Kevin’s hawkish past commentary, this announcement doesn’t change the harsh reality that easy money policy seems inevitable. We have a significant funding problem with Social Security, a rapidly growing net interest expense, calls to increase military spending and a frightening unwillingness to balance spending with revenue. Call me dubious.

The Fed Chair is powerless to change national spending and therefore is unlikely to effect change that could reverse the negative effects of ballooning deficits. They can ease or tighten financial conditions through open market operations. This, in the simplest of terms, means buying debt to reduce interest rates or selling it to increase rates.

What this means for you, keeping in mind President Trump’s preferences for an ‘independent’ Fed Chair, is that lower short-term rates are coming. This does not mean lower mortgage rates, which are mostly priced off the 10-year Treasury.

While the job ahead of the Fed Chair is as challenging as ever, Mr. Warsh has announced some interesting shifts for the key central bank.

• Limit the scope of the Fed to just monetary policy and return to statutory remit

• Abandon socially charged topics like climate change, inclusion agendas and demographic targeting

• Return legitimacy through successful price stabilization

• Operate with true independence (sure Kevin, we believe you)

A Fed operating with true independence is going to be a difficult sell to the public. The perception is that the club is small and the only thing the Fed operating independently from is you. His political debts and long-term marriage to billionaire heiress Jane Lauder will be conflicts of interest difficult to ignore.

The hope is that a return to the basics will permit markets the space it needs to accurately price risk and set prices. Intuition demands we should then forecast higher long-term rates, something that will be difficult to allow when political pressures mount. It’s a nice thought, but thoughts don’t move matter.

What this means for your portfolio is more of the same. The mantra “don’t fight the Fed” is still just as alive today as ever. Kevin Warsh will be a voice to listen to over the next four years as the policy he endorses will have the power to move entire economies.

Meet the new Fed Chair, same as the last. Until proven otherwise.

Share

Questions or comments? Email us at planning@nwmgadvisors.com

The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Wealth Management Group, LLC or any affiliated entities.

Certain statements contain forward-looking speculation or hypothetical scenarios that involve significant risks and uncertainties and should not be taken as predictions or guarantees of future events or market outcomes. Market data referenced (including prices, yields, and index levels) is based on publicly available information as of early February 2026 and is subject to revision. Past or recent market movements are not indicative of future results.

This material is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell any security, or an offer of investment advisory services. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal.

Investment advice is offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

Subscribe now

Few things function like the stock market. The term ‘market’ doesn’t even do the mechanism justice, implying a simple forum slightly evolved from its farming roots. Sure, if the forum is also open to purpose-built algorithms, arbitrates who controls critical global institutions and conjures capital out of thin air.

Last I checked the best my farmers market could do was $2 off a dozen eggs.

The stock market uniquely enables a person to exchange dollars for ownership in property and profits, then exchange it back in nanoseconds. Further, it is one of few markets where what is being sold is likely to appreciate. It’s one of the main points.

Capital

Gains

Those two words by themselves are good, but together they ring in the ears like chemically enhanced bass drops at Coachella. They are the reason we risk our money in uncertain ventures. What we dream of when buying assets priced as low as their promise. The main reason we invest. We like them big and loud.

And for the prudent investor, it usually works out. Unfortunately, the sweet sound of coins stacking higher also attracts the tax collector. The devil demands his due and your only escape outside of an IRA plan is deferment.

Some deferment strategies are better than others. Individual stocks and exchange traded funds (ETFS), especially those with low or no dividend yields, are among the best in terms of tax efficiency. In his 2024 annual shareholder letter, Warren Buffet wrote:

“On January 3, 1967, we disbursed our sole payment – $101,755 or 10¢ per A share. (I can’t remember why I suggested this action to Berkshire’s board of directors. Now it seems like a bad dream.)”

One dividend payment since 1967, now that’s some serious tax optimization. A well thought out strategy from one of America’s most successful business managers. This is not to suggest investors should avoid dividends, mind you, only that they do not serve to defer taxation.

But buying Berkshire Hathaway and calling it a day is not a tax solution without problems. Accumulating gains in either an individual stock or an ETF both present their respective issues.

Individual Stock ownership concentrates your capital into the hands of a single management unit, subjecting it to the desultory nature of idiosyncrasies. A classic eggs in one basket dilemma.

ETFs offer a solution to the concentration problem; however, they do not permit tax lot selection for withdrawal needs nor do they permit loss harvesting when the total position is positive.

In comes the tax managed Separately Managed Account, or SMA for short. Think of an SMA as a purpose-built fund managed just for you by a professional fund manager. SMAs have been around for some time, but now they’ve discovered a reason why you may want to invest in one instead of one of the many popular index funds – tax alpha.

Using personalized indexes, investors can pile existing positions and cash into a non-IRA (non-qualified) investment account and have a manager target your favorite index. With much higher minimums (often $100,000 or more), they drive down costs substantially into the low double digit basis point range.

Let’s say on a whim you bought NVIDIA ten years ago and now have an impressive gain of 1,200%, is there any hope of diversifying this position without triggering a taxable event? Why yes, this is one of the exact scenarios in which personalized indexes shine.

Robots, Energy Orbs & Tax-Loss Harvesting

Imagine there was a discovery of energy orbs floating 10,000 feet above your house. In an unbelievable Disney-like fortuitous coincidence, you also have a genius teenager living in your house capable of capitalizing on the discovery.

Immediately, she gets to work designing a robot that can harvest the energy orbs. Through a montage of trial and error, a solution is found and is immediately put to work. The first harvest of energy orbs hits the stores, and everyone raves.

You can eat them, power your car with them, energize robotics, and they even wash your unsuspecting cat. As with all innovation, the miracle attracts government regulators who quickly set up systems of control to foster order. Buzzkills.

All this overhead comes at a cost: a harvest tax. Your robot must now give 20% of its energy orb bounty to the regulator each time it descends with the harvest. To encourage long-term farming, this amount is reduced to 15% if the robot can sustain operation for 12-months or longer.

As things progress, it becomes apparent that your genius teenager made a few design flaws. Probably the result of consulting ChatGTP to fill in the blanks. In any case, the robots are not consistent in their quality and performance.

Some of them massively outperform and harvest ten times the average. Others just spin around in circles and do nothing. Others still are so terrible that they crash to the ground, losing their entire bounty and damaging your house.

You bring this matter to the attention of the regulator, asking if a bargain can be struck. You tell him that this year alone you’ve lost ten robots, and a few are on the fritz. “Is it possible that my good robots can get a break they bring down energy orbs equal to my losses?”, you plea.

“Yes, but there are some rules”, he says. “First, you can only harvest energy orbs free of tax equal to the amount of damages you sustain. There’s no benefit for the energy orbs lost when your robots crash. Second, when you die, I’ll waive the entire tax on the full harvest amount as of the date of your death.”

“Thanks”, you say with modest apprehension. That last rule confounds you and may even have been a threat.

With this blessing, you call down your highest performing robot to offload a portion of its harvest. It’s been operating for nearly five years now flawlessly, but you never know. The extracted energy orbs are then used to create more robots, and you send them on their way, hoping one could be your next banger.

That is tax-loss harvesting in a sci-fi nutshell, a process used in most personalized index programs. Its purpose is to diffuse capital gains into other positions for the sake of diversification by using loss-harvesting as an offset mechanic. This requires losses, mind you. There are no freebies.

This strategy can be programed into an algorithm and automated to harvest losses and gains using a defined rule set. Such a ruleset could be designed to approximate an index and harvest a specified range of gains/losses per year. It can be tailored to your particular tax profile, a potentially attractive value worth real money.

Ultimately, deferment is only just that: deferment. Eventually taxes must be paid when the can hits a wall. If that wall happens to be your death, then the Grim Reaper makes a deal with the tax man. The current market value of your assets becomes your cost basis on the date of your death. Strange fiction becomes an even stranger fact.

The only catch is you will not live to benefit from it. I hope you love your family. They certainly will appreciate your assets even more unencumbered by capital gains tax.

Share

Questions or comments? Email us at planning@nwmgadvisors.com

Investment advice is offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information in this newsletter is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, tax, legal, or personalized financial advice, nor is it a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy or sell any security, product, or service. References to specific securities (including NVIDIA and Berkshire Hathaway) or strategies are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent actual client holdings or recommendations.

All investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Tax rules are complex and subject to change; tax-loss harvesting and other strategies discussed may not be suitable for all investors and can produce unintended tax consequences. Opinions expressed are those of the author as of the publication date and are subject to change without notice.

Readers should consult qualified tax, legal, and financial professionals regarding their individual circumstances before implementing any strategy.

Let’s take a moment to contemplate how much life has changed in just ten years. 2015 may seem too recent a number for history, but much as transpired.

• TikTok launched

• Social media became the primary source for news1

• Streaming replaced cable/satellite as dominant TV service

• Doorbell cameras & facial recognition are commonplace

• Donald Trump entered political office

• Gen Z became first generation raised from adolescence with smartphones

• US Federal debt climbs from $19T to $38.5T2

• 30-year conventional mortgage rates moved from low 3% range to nearly 7%

• COVID-19 transformed culture & global government policy (e.g. work from home)

• Meme coin & NFT boom came and went

• Baby Boomers went from 30% of the workforce to about 15% in 20253

• Sports gambling is legalized and prediction markets are now mainstream

• Self-driving cars debut and EVs proliferate

• Breakthrough in transformer architecture paved way for advanced generative AI

There are major changes I neglected to include, it’s tough to keep track of them all. Thankfully, building a comprehensive list isn’t required to drive home the point: change is constant and compounds over successive years.

It could be argued that the rate of change has been accelerating, something that is difficult to measure but feels correct. As a human, this is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. What if we are blind-sided or fail to pivot in some advantageous way?

The latest disruption threatening a significant alteration to our lives is the application of AI as a replacement for human work. The consequences of which should be commiserate with its capabilities, yet not fully understood. Scenarios range from ‘AI as a productivity enabler’ to ‘AI will replace humans entirely’. The jury is still out.

Currently, few organizations have been able to broadly implement AI projects profitably. At least, not in any way that can fully replace labor costs as humans are needed to address tasks that require intuition and agency. This has not discouraged industry leaders from making bold proclamations, however.

“AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs — and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years.” – Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic

“My controversial take would be that [AI replacing humans in workforce] this is going to be like a punctuated equilibria moment where a lot of that will happen in a short period of time.” – Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI

“My prediction is that work will be optional.” – Elon Musk, as CEO of xAI

The talk on main street has assumed a dubious yet curious tone, with most working Americans settling into apathy or denial. There’s no way my fellow humans will trust a robot more than me, right?

Right... although, we all drive in cars welded by robots. I’m sure employers will value the humanitarian plea over shareholder interests.

It is appropriate to pull one’s head out of the sand to conduct a thought experiment with the question: what happens if my labor becomes obsolete? The possibility is not zero and some of the brightest minds in the technology industry predicting this very outcome.

Of course, this could simply be a sales pitch. Successful visionary founders often think highly of the projects they initiate. The difference here is that there are more than one, several in fact, all suggesting the same thing. And they have trillions of dollars in capital investment to back up their claims.

We tend to overestimate the degree of change in the near-term but underestimate it, substantially so, over the long-term. I suspect that many of these tech leaders are falling into the short-term overestimation trap, but this doesn’t mean they are wrong.

I’m not convinced the ‘equilibria moment’ Sam is talking about is just around the corner. For most employers, it is still far too expensive and risky to roll out a major AI initiative that can substantially offset labor costs.

As Chase Dillingham of Train My Agent, a Cincinnati-based AI consultant, puts it, “it [AI] is not a magic bullet”. The cost/competency trade off still favors humans as AI software is cost additive, for now.

High magnitude change appears like an ocean wave on the horizon. Barely noticeable but harboring massive energy. Only when it crashes ashore do we respect its power to alter our universe. Think of your life before your first smart phone then after. Did you appreciate the change before it happened? I was clueless and my Blackberry offered little insight at the time.

AI, like the smartphone, like the internet, and like airplanes before that, is a formidable force of change. Labor markets will be impacted in unpredictable ways. Many assume it will be catastrophic. It is human nature to be cautious and perceive risks before opportunity, something to factor into the equation.

The Dystopian Scenario

Perhaps the neo-Luddites are right this time. Doubts deserve no benefit when the stakes are this high. For readers looking for a deep dive on the potential economic consequences of complete human labor displacement, I recommend checking out the recent Substack by Philip Trammell and Dwarkesh Patel titled Capital in the 22^nd Century.

The authors conclude, rightfully, that a scenario in which labor markets are completely displaced by advanced AI and robotics (i.e. capital transitions from a labor complement into replacement) will lead to unprecedented wealth concentration. Further, it may calcify class mobility, freezing societal strata in its place.

In this scenario, tomorrow’s aristocracy is determined by the discriminating economic system of today. Those fortunate enough to be on the top of the heap during the historic transition will reap the rewards for themselves and their progeny. Hardly fair, but a better deal than the dinosaurs got.

Even so, only those individuals with a thoughtful and patient approach to capital management with a multi-generational mindset could cement their influence. The remaining population is effectively reduced to the value of its contributions to the aristocracy, a frightening prospect given historical precedent.

Optimism & Hope

We do not quite know to what degree AI can supplant human competence. It has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, even replicating cognition once thought to be uniquely human. Generating novel solutions to complex problems, our inherited competitive advantage, can now be partially outsourced to a synthetic process.

What this means for homo sapiens, economically and existentially, is profound. Let us assume for a moment that the heads of the AI industry are correct in their forecast. Where does this put most of the global population? Slightly below cattle, in terms of value offered if economic contributions are the only consideration.

Robbed of productive hegemony, the role the working class is diminished like an outdated relic of the past. We would join Neanderthal as the next entry in the annals of the Homo genus.

This does not mean life becomes purposeless. Rather, knowing human resilience, it is more likely to catalyze a renaissance of discovery and conscious exploration. We might finally have time to address the question, ‘why are we here’.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs doesn’t stand upside-down, however. The optimistic tone embedded in Elon’s above statement is only justified in an egalitarian framework. Something humans have yet to achieve. Basic needs are satisfied through trade. In other words, “will work for food”.

What happens when work can no longer be bartered and capital is the only currency? This issue must be addressed before we can assume optimism as our default. It is not beyond the pale that such a thing is possible if access to talent and labor were as abundant as water.

The hurdle to overcome is an engrained scarcity mindset that forces us to hold onto outdated concepts of resource management. This usually devolves into power games and hierarchies. ‘Old habits die hard’ is not just an idiom, it is an axiom.

Big change is on the horizon. It was also on the horizon in 2015 and yet here we are, alive and… surviving. I imagine ten years from now the world will look substantially different. AI integrated with advanced robotics will be commonplace, changing the economic formula for everyone.

Downstream effects will include a need to overhaul the financial system to correct crippling imbalances. This mid-term season, we will be electing Senators responsible for addressing Social Security funding, a challenging reform that is desperately needed before 2032. Payroll taxes are the lifeblood of the program.

As an investor, the sensible response to this disruption is to stay invested. There are no escape hatches or bunkers that can insulate you from the future. Cynicism is a toxic mindset that will poison your outcomes.

Save and invest what you can and strengthen your relationships. This is a timeless prescription for the ails inflicted by uncertainty. And if things pan out for the better, as I believe they will, such an approach will only strengthen your position in life.

Share

The views, opinions, predictions, and commentary expressed in this newsletter are those of the author solely and are provided for general informational and entertainment purposes only. They do not constitute investment, financial, tax, legal, or other professional advice, nor are they a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any securities, assets, or investments.

Past performance or prior prediction accuracy is not indicative of future results. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principal, and market conditions can change rapidly.

Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult with qualified professional advisors before making any investment or financial decisions. The author and KaratStick or National Wealth Management Group, LLC assume no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the content of this newsletter or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies herein.

Advisory services offered by National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The trick to accuracy is forecasting the obvious with just the right amount of vagueness, like ‘rain in the Amazon sometime next week’. Surprisingly, some are still surprised, which makes this all the more interesting.

Here’s how 2025 tallied up:

✅ Gov’t spending does NOT decrease

✅ AI human counter-revolution begins

✅ Crypto assets suffer a bear market

❌ The Fed raises rates

✅ US Equities correct before moving higher

Taking the time to look at the world as it is while attempting to remove as much conscious bias as possible is useful. It helps us manage expectations and avoid group-think traps that can cost us money.

Admittedly, I fell into one such trap last year by dismissing international equities as less attractive than domestic. I had my reasons; they were just the wrong reasons.

But hey, one wrong call shouldn’t ruin all the fun! We still have a winning track record and I’m hoping to extend that into 2026 with some more bold yet imprecise predictions. Please know, these should in no way serve to influence trade or investment decisions.

They are merely a collection of potential outcomes that would not surprise me if they come to pass.

1. Supreme Court Torpedoes Tariff Policy

The Trump Administration's creative invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad reciprocal tariffs is looking shaky. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson firmly oppose the administration's position, while Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Gorsuch, and Barrett voiced doubts about interpreting IEEPA's authority to "regulate" imports as encompassing tariffs in their November oral arguments.

Only Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh appear supportive. Historically, no president has used IEEPA for tariffs. Upholding this would establish a legal precedent for delegating Congress's tariff powers further strengthening the Executive office. However, the opposite results in potential refunds of up to $90 billion in collected duties, forcing the administration to pursue narrower, congressionally limited alternatives.

2. AI Trade Fractures into Broader Rally

Going into 2026, the jobs data is signaling weakness which isn’t great news for investors. Perhaps employers are outsourcing to AI, perhaps they are waiting for strategic direction related to tariff policy. Probably both. Meanwhile, AI hyperscalers are going to eventually reach a ‘put up or shut up’ moment when the music of circular financing stops.

Weakening employment data could easily catalyze investor skepticism. Capital burn cannot continue indefinitely as meaningful payoffs are the expectation, which leads us to consider who all this AI tech development aims to serve.

Ultimately, that’s us either directly or indirectly through the businesses we patronize. If you buy the argument that AI is a landmark innovation, it stands to reason most businesses will benefit from it long-term. The jobs market will go through an adjustment period, but innovation typically translates to economic growth.

3. China Rebound (Continues)

After a punishing stretch of underperformance, 2025 delivered a solid rebound, with the MSCI China and Hang Seng indices posting gains north of 30%. Beijing's pivot to a "moderately loose" stance for the first time in over a decade, combined with proactive fiscal measures targeting domestic demand, sets the stage for earnings growth in 2026 as well.

Still-attractive valuations relative U.S. peers leave room for multiple expansion if corporate profits in tech, EVs, and manufacturing continue accelerating. Furthermore, wrenches thrown into the Trump Administration’s tariff policy could improve exports, although China has become increasingly less reliant on them. External risks linger, but the policy is there for another positive leg up.

4. House Swings Blue

My track record on election predictions is, shall we say, spotty. Thankfully, one of the tenets of proper asset allocation is to ignore politics. It’s an emotional minefield that’s best respected and walked around. Wondering through only triggers stress responses with twitch reactions that have a high potential for harm.

Nonetheless, just for funsies, let’s look at the state of affairs. Well over half of Americans are not pleased with the cost-of-living situation or their job prospects. They want the impossible: better jobs and wages, decreasing costs for goods and services, and asset prices that move higher for them but nobody else.

No politician alive can deliver on this which is why whiplash elections are the norm rather than the exception these days. Unless Republicans can come up with an actual solution to the impossible problem or convince enough people that they’ll get it right next time, it’s difficult to see a different outcome.

5. Not QE (QE) with a Steepening Yield Curve

The U.S. Treasury faces ongoing refinancing challenges, with significant maturing debt rolling over annually. Elevated levels of around $9–10T have rolled over in recent years, largely short-term, mostly originating from the aggressive 2020 – 2021 COVID19 response.

FY2026 deficit projections are ~$1.9T, requiring net new borrowing of similar magnitude. Gross issuance, including rollovers, has exceeded $10–15T annually in recent years and we can expect much of the same in 2026. As Fed Chair Powell steps aside in May, possibly to make way for one of “the Kevins”, the Fed's shift to Reserve Management Purchases (RMP), the not ‘QE’ QE, provides indirect liquidity support through short-term Treasury buys to maintain ample reserves.

Continuing trends favor heavier T-Bill issuance (52 weeks or less), keeping the Fed’s focus on short-term rates/money markets, while long-term rates primarily reflect inflation and growth expectations. A boring prediction that excites no one, least of which Dave Ramsey.

EP 47 | The Money Alchemist Podcast - 2026 Predictions

It’s captivating how our culture revels in near-term predictions. We are utterly obsessed with our approximate futures while discarding any plans with maturities five years or beyond. I suspect this is rooted in our amygdala programming, biasing our attention to the present.

Truthfully, it matters little to me if any of the above predictions prove accurate. My asset allocation will remain tied to my goals and my appetite for risk, as will my savings rate and my career path. I will recommend the same for you. Think long term regardless of your age.

The best prediction market you can engage in is in your own head, consisting of event contracts representative of your available decisions. You can easily predict your success down to every micro-decision. Will you cloth yourself today? Hopefully. Will you learn something useful? Less likely, but still up to you.

Concern yourself less with the things out of your control. When possible, relegate them to fun pontifications that have no bearing on your emotional wellbeing. Bad things, and good things, out of your control will certainly happen, but their potential should not possess you.

Let’s see were 2026 takes us. I maintain my optimism because this is something I control.

Share

The views, opinions, predictions, and commentary expressed in this newsletter are those of the author solely and are provided for general informational and entertainment purposes only. They do not constitute investment, financial, tax, legal, or other professional advice, nor are they a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold any securities, assets, or investments.

Past performance or prior prediction accuracy is not indicative of future results.
All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principal, and
market conditions can change rapidly.

Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult with qualified professional advisors before making any investment or financial decisions. The author and KaratStick or National Wealth Management Group, LLC assume no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the content of this newsletter or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies herein.

Advisory services offered by National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

Subscribe now

Earning a salary of $100,000 used to be a remarkable achievement. The phrase “six figure income” is still revered as something special but it merely survives as a remnant from an aging culture coming to grips with the crushing reality of a debased currency.

What used to earn you a seat at the table of American high society is now barely enough to fund general obligations to government and a comprehensive healthcare plan. The line between rich and poor has been creeping up the income bracket.

People desperate to clear the bar are contorting themselves in unnatural ways for that extra edge. Expedient gimmicks like online betting are surging in popularity with self-harm as the highest probability outcome. Most are just predatory monetary extraction schemes.

It’s uncomfortable to admit, but the hurdle is only going higher. At some point, it will be impossible to hurtle into the middle class if jumping from the ground. You can thank intractable deficit spending and money supply growth for that, yet I repeat myself.

Wealth feels achieved once financial independence is attained. It’s the equivalent of reaching escape velocity in aeronautics, a point at which a pilot can decide with ease whether to ascend or descend. It is a position of option.

The required fuel for such a feat is income. Steady and sustained is better than explosive, in most cases, but more is always useful. How much does it take to have a chance at reaching escape velocity in 2025?

For the average American household of 2 adults and 2 kids, it’s somewhere between $130,000 and $150,000 per year.

The reaction to this figure is usually one of two:

a) No way, stop complaining and buckle down like I did, or

b) Finally, someone admits it. I feel heard.

In a world where nearly every American can earn a wage higher than the global average, the common retort is to “just be thankful”. But forced perspective, often preached by those outside of the grind, feels so…unhelpful.

The message fails to consider that inflation is geographically variable. Your $100 bill stretches much further in Hanoi than it does in Manhattan. It also disregards humanity’s nature to assess and compare within local groups, otherwise known as the frog pond effect.

To live a middle-class life in an average Midwestern US city, it takes around $150,000 per year. To make things even more real, the tax estimates above assume household incomes of $140,000 per year which means this household is in a spending deficit.

That’s accounting speak for ‘six-figure poor’. There are numerous ways I could fire pain-seeking missiles into this rickety budget for maximum devastation. Fox 1 – pregnancy. Fox 2 – employer reduces health coverage subsidy. Fox 3 – HVAC dies mid-winter. Target neutralized.

Notice there is no room for savings, which should be another $28,000 per year. Sure looks like $250,000 per year is the new coveted six-figure income.

No wonder the birthrate is at a record low. It’s also not surprising why there’s so much generational hostility. “Ok, Boomer” is code for, “just die and put the money back where you found it.”

This not to suggest abject poverty is as bad in the US as it is globally, because this is not true. Not even close. It’s just not a helpful perspective to a working-class family struggling to juggle relevancy and solvency living in the richest nation on earth.

Reminding a person in this situation that they don’t have dirt floors is failure to read the room. Especially if the critique is leveled by someone that walks on marble. In fact, it is a great way to invite a punch to the throat and a vote for wealth redistribution.

Studies, and my own lived experience, suggest happiness is partially derived from where you stand among your peers1. As we’ve expanded our connections through social networks and infrastructure, we have broadened our cohorts and inadvertently entered competition with professional consumption athletes.

In our pursuit of happiness, an American constitutional right, we have remained steadfast in our refusal to accept less than our friends. Accepting less than our parents is unfathomable. We only move up and to the right. This is the way. Consult the charts!

As Mark Twain once wrote,

The up and to the right chart may look correct, but it sure doesn’t feel that way. Maybe, a variable or two have been ‘miscalculated’.

The high-school graduate wage has increased 2.97% per year since 1979. If true, how is it that my grandfather was able to sustain a household of six working for $10 per hour ($38/hour today, adjusted for inflation) at a steel mill, retire with comfort and die a millionaire?

Something seems to be missing in the data. That 3% inflation rate we’ve been programed to believe seems suspiciously stable with blow-out deficit spending. Figures like the CPI, GDP, the Poverty Line and unemployment are ambiguously calculated yet held up by officials as heralds of economic truth.

The statistical information seems to exist for one purpose: messaging. And the officials crunching the numbers are not immune to self-flattery. Suspect the charts because they never tell the whole story. A higher number does not necessarily translate to higher quality.

Incomes may have moved steadily higher; however, the household budget profile has changed drastically in ways unaccounted for. For example, how do the charts factor in a loss of 40-50 hours per week in household productivity because of an extra full-time job?

Has the CPI been adjusted to account for the loss of pension savings and the modern requirement to defer income into financial assets? No. Are financial assets themselves included into the inflation data? Of course not, though they are necessary.

My grandparents were able to pull their family out of poverty’s gravity well, but it is much more difficult to do it today. Here are just a few reasons off the top of my head.

1. A full-time house manager: tragically, the most undervalued resource in our modern culture is the homemaker. I wince using this term because it is so hated. The messaging has been effective. ‘Home Manager’ is a more precise, modern term. Schedules must be orchestrated, food must be prepared, laundry must be done, children monitored, and doctors consulted. This does not happen by itself. Unfortunately, dual incomes are a requirement for most households leaving less time available for the fundamentals.

2. Lower value for unskilled labor: years of globalization has shifted unskilled labor demand overseas where wages are far lower and worker rights are minimized. Inhumane, yes, but we still buy Nikes and iPhones. In response, America’s youth flooded university campuses to stay economically relevant. Not everyone was intellectually prepared so the loan rules had to be ‘adjusted’ to prevent widespread defaults. The strategy worked for some, and they are now in the top 30%.

3. Credentialing & education burden: it was possible at one time to pay for a quality education with the income from a summer job. Today, if the job earns you enough to pay for a degree, why are you even getting a degree since you already have the job? Education has never been more accessible but credentialing, critical to most employers, has never been more costly.

4. Healthcare costs: As I wrote two weeks ago, the average healthcare premium for a family of four is $26,993 per year. This is up nearly 6,851%, which might as well be infinity percent, from the $394 per year insurance premiums in 19802. Time-constrained workers with never-off-the-clock jobs struggle to maintain health, which only exacerbates the cost issue.

1. Elective 401(k) took place of pension: Most Americans are poor money managers. Even the ones that seem like they know what they’re doing, especially the traders. Pension plans, ethically managed and funded, used to serve as a forced savings mechanic for the ill-informed. Because the 401(k) requires an opt-in discipline, many disregard its importance to their own dismay.

But don’t worry, there’s a robust social safety net. A family just need to move down to around $45,000 to $50,000 in household income, depending on state of residence. Make it to this level and a household may qualify for Medicaid, SNAP, childcare subsidies, among other programs.

For the astute observer, you can see and issue with this picture. On one hand, I’ve demonstrated how it is quite possible for a family to struggle with an income of $140,000. On the other, it’s not altogether unattractive to just adopt a welfare dependent lifestyle.

The space in between is a mud pit, a slog of an obstacle guarding the rewards of middle-class life or better. Here, we find the battleground of today’s culture war replete with all the hallmarks of conflict. Indiscriminate misfortune, asymmetric advantage and dehumanization of the other. The conscripts do not know why they fight, only that they must so they pick their preferred banner and ignore what’s beyond the battlefield.

The picture is not likely to get better soon. Wealth dispersion will increase commiserate with government deficit spending, which channels inflation into financial assets. Deflation, the ultimate wealth redistribution tool, is still widely viewed as an economic crime. The only way to win is to own, and the only way to own is if you’re winning.

Fortunately, winning is still possible for anyone. It just may not be worthy of an Instagram chronicle. For me, it meant working door to door sales for a year and a half while I took the leap to start my business. Fortunately, it worked out but it was never and still is not easy.

Nearly every day I have the honor of working with regular people who have decided to make the same decision I did over a decade ago. They recognize that the world is lopsided to favor the wealthy and look for direction to remedy this within their own households.

They seek us out to help them make the tough decisions required and hold them accountable to their mission. And for most of them, it works but only over time and through application of discipline and sacrifice. Yes, it’s a tough trade to swallow in the face of unfairness. But such is life. At least you don’t have dirt floors.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC (NWMG).

The information presented in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

National Wealth Management Group, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.

Subscribe now

Commiserate with the growing number on a statement, visions of grandeur invade our thoughts as we anticipate endless weekends with our favorite people. Any notion of dread is as far away from our imagination as Saturday is from Monday morning.

Just as the sword of Damocles is real for kings, so too is retirement anxiety. It doesn’t begin to settle in until you truly begin to sell yourself on the idea of tendering your retirement resignation. The person in the mirror will look back at you with a noticeably older complexion and beg you to reconsider.

Mistaking a few grey hairs for wisdom, it’s easy to assume this subconscious advice which opens the door for strong anxieties not felt since puberty. They manifest in strange ways, clouding your future like storm clouds on excursion day.

I have compiled the most common retirement anxiety behaviors, all stemming from the same deep-rooted concern: purpose. If any of these personalities feel familiar to you, this could be a signal that you or someone you know are experiencing golden years without the Midas touch.

The Rich Popper

It is not uncommon for retirees to hold two contradictory positions at the same time. On one hand, they want to spend their last dollar on their death bed. On the other they don’t want to spend anything and assume immortality. Defaulting to the later, they imagine some potentially calamitous event on the horizon. Perhaps they will have a costly health event, although they cannot fathom it. Perhaps they will need to raise an army. Whatever the specter, it is imperative maximum solvency is maintained. Even at the cost of quality of life and familial health.

The Never Retiree

“I’ll retire in 2 -3 years” they’ve been saying for the past eight. It’s not about the money but about the unknown. What does it even mean to be retired? What’s after that? On second thought, it’s best not to ask that question. The thing to do is the thing you know how to do and that’s show up from 9 – 5 and follow orders. Besides, health insurance is a nice perk. A rude awakening awaits the moment they are forced into retirement.

Obligating Gadfly

Restless for change, some cannot wait to give their career the slip. They squirrel away in their 401(k)s with a finger hovering over the eject button. Finally, the anticipation reaches a climax and announcements are made, perhaps prematurely. After several months with a few too many quite moments alone, an internal crisis settles in. Family members are the first to suffer as they often take on the burden of distracting the gadfly while also performing full-time job duties. Spouses are especially susceptible to this obligation. 40+ year marriages have ended over this very issue.

Party Animal

Farer yet most dangerous of all is the individual that launches into retirement like a frat boy on the eve of spring break. Lavish desires turn into substantial withdrawals with an unhealthy disregard for planning. Not limited to material objects, this person may adopt entrepreneurial delusions thinking themselves the next hot restaurantor or angel investor. It is the aggressive pursuit of the present as a means of distraction.

The Bean Counter

Never quite satisfied with their menu of available pursuits, some turn to monetary accumulation as their primary purpose. Similar to the Popper, but different in motivations, the Bean Counter just wants to see the number go higher. Simply for the sake of itself, a higher number should translate to higher meaning. Only it doesn’t, which is why the chase never ends. There is no more meaning found in a drug addiction. They are one in the same.

The world of personalities is as varied as the number of people on earth. This by no means is a comprehensive list, only consisting of the most common retiree anxiety behaviors we encounter within our practice. It is safe to say that most retirees engage in one of the behaviors above at some point in their life.

This does beg the bigger question: what is the right way to live in retirement? Answering this is likely to address most harmful anxieties plaguing retirees, thus improving quality of life. The key to addressing this is to acknowledge that your reward centers have not changed since you were a child.

We think that reaching retirement is a pivotal life moment where we cease development and go on cruise control. I partially blame the financial planning industry for this impression with its ‘feet in the sand’ style advertising. It’s a false message.

To pursue meaning in retirement is no different than it was in your 20s, 30s, and every other decade of your life. It requires us to identify an interesting challenge, something slightly outside of our current skill range, and to tackle it. Until the universe ceases to exist, there is no limit to available challenges.

No magic line exists at age 65. You are the same mind, albeit with more aches and pains. The challenges you take on will certainly be different, adjusted for your shifting biology, but rewarding nonetheless.

So, in a way, the people that figure out retirement are those who never really ‘retire’. At least not in the commonly understood sense of the word. They are more engaged in relationships, less concerned about running out of money, reconciled with mortality, and more thoughtful with their time and finances.

Strangely, the cure to retirement anxiety is work. But it is work on your terms and not an employers’. You are the only person that can orient your actions with your passions, adjusting to the ideal level of difficulty. That is a retirement to look forward to.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC (NWMG).

The information presented in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

National Wealth Management Group, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.

Subscribe now

So imparts the general spirit of the American healthcare industry: bureaucratic, impersonal, opaque, and brutal. Front-line workers occupy the unenviable position of fulfilling both their Hippocratic oaths and appeasing a management increasingly concerned with profits and efficiency.

It’s never been tougher to be the face of one of America’s most dreaded industries. Patients are losing patience, and many much more than that. The average health insurance premium in the US for a family in 2025 is nearly $27,000 per year. And that’s before coinsurance and deductibles!

Some point the finger as insurance providers, others at government, and others at the healthcare providers themselves. As with most things, blame is never as simple as pointing a finger. What we do know for certain is that it’s not working for many Americans and you may be one of them.

Twenty-seven grand per year for coverage for a healthy family is just bananas. Perceptive Americans recognize this and chose to exit stage left, not sure where to go next but sure that their part in the show is over. They’re done being the spectacle and thumb their noses at the onlookers that once benefited from their financial circus performance.

Large employers in the US have mostly insulated their rank and file from untenable healthcare premium hikes over the past two and a half decades. A situation that is likely to be sustained so long as employers are incentivized to provide healthcare. If employees are healthy enough to work, they likely comprise a much healthier risk pool for insurers. This results in lower premiums for large group plans.

For small employers, the self-employed and the unemployed things are a little more real. When no employer or government subsidy is involved, the choice to disregard traditional health insurance is getting tough to ignore. If you’re healthy.

This trend has triggered a cascade effect degrading into an ailing risk pool available to insurers. Left unchecked, eventually the only ones left in the small employer and individually purchased marketplace plans will be the sick. Voila, there’s the recipe for a bodily fluid colored snowball effect on premiums. Nasty.

Uninsured explorers navigating the complex medical coding, billing and referral system are discovering that distorted risk pools are not the only problem. They are shocked to find most medical providers do not maintain a simple price menu.

If you want to make your physician receptionist’s head explode, ask them what something they do costs next visit. One of the most un-American things a business can do is not explicitly disclose prices to end consumers beforehand. The healthcare industry, to my knowledge, is the only one that gets away with it.

Why do you think they do this? It’s not by accident. In an unholy alliance bound by profits, insurers and healthcare providers have managed to completely disconnect the end consumer from pricing signals, short circuiting our instinct to shop for services. The result: a bunch of quasi-monopolies and runaway costs.

As more consumers abandon the traditional insurance marketplace and move to non-traditional options (more on that below), healthcare providers are being forced to adapt. Now it is possible, albeit still difficult, to negotiate effectively at the consumer level.

Unfortunately, these non-traditional options are mostly unworkable for individuals with significant health problems. Securing insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, a partner with access to employer sponsored health coverage, or your own employer’s health plan are your best options.

If you’re lucky, you made it to 65 and qualify for Medicare or are a veteran with access to the VA. If not, and your income is not substantial, you may qualify for a subsidy or possibly Medicaid benefits.

Websites like healthcare.gov and healthsherpa.com are useful for shopping marketplace plans.

For everyone else, here are some ideas to consider before committing to an ACA plan this open enrollment season:

Cost-Sharing Networks (HCSMs)

Originally known as health care sharing ministries, these organizations pool member contributions to cover medical expenses among the community. They are typically a fraction of the cost of ACA plans and provide access to broad health networks. They function almost like a ‘black market’ for health insurance without government regulation. This means no guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, prescription drugs, or critical services you might rely on. Lifetime benefit caps may also apply so do your homework. The largest and oldest include Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries, and Christian Healthcare Ministries (CHM). Popular demand has also made way for secular-leaning options like OneShare Health, Crowdhealth and Altrua HealthShare.

Direct Primary Care (DPC)

One of the new options gaining traction is the doctor by subscription model. The idea is to pay your primary care physician a fixed fee directly, cutting out the grubby insurance middleman. It is not something you could rely on for all health emergencies but could make a lot of sense for the vigorous individual looking for a maintenance plan. Consumers love the predictability of the expense, and the physicians can rely less on transaction volume leaving more time for quality patient connections.

Indemnity Plan with Critical Illness Coverage

These provide a flat dollar benefit, usually daily, for services received. Anything over that benefit is up to you to pay. These plans can work well, however are susceptible to surprise diagnoses with massively expensive treatment regimens such as cancer. This is why you should couple the indemnity plan with a critical illness plan. As with most non-ACA plans, pre-existing conditions could be excluded, and you are not guaranteed policy issuance. Otherwise, they’re a great option at about 1/3^rd the cost.

Catastrophic Plan with HSA

These more traditional style plans comply with the ACA and are available on the marketplace, but only if you qualify. Unfortunately, they can only be purchased by households that meet one of three specific criteria. The most common being if the lowest cost silver plan available is more than 9.02% (2025) of gross household income. They are typically 30 - 40% less expensive and can be coupled with HSAs with great effect. It’s a shame qualification guidelines are complex and stringent because this could be a great option for anyone.

Nuclear Option

No insurance is an option but so is going to work naked. Under specific conditions, it might play in your favor. However, the risk is great. The consequences of not paying medical bills can include late fees, collections agency involvement, credit report damage, refusal of non-critical care and legal escalation. In many states, it is possible to have up to 25% of disposable income garnished, or bank account levies and property lien judgements issued against you. Some of your assets are protected but not all.

There are a lot of problems with the way Americans pay for healthcare. Premiums and service costs have gotten out of control while profits in the industry have soared. Anger is justified.

Fortunately, we are seeing innovation in the industry as providers are motivated to serve those patients the insurers have priced out. Advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics promise to drive down costs by increasing the availability and quality of care.

While we cannot celebrate just yet, signs of improvement are peaking through. A brighter future is ahead. And as always, contact me if you would like to discuss your situation personally. We do advise on healthcare plans and can offer solutions.

Share

Check out our recent EP 44 of The Money Alchemist Podcast

What To Do About Healthcare

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC (NWMG).

The information presented in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. All investments carry risks, including the potential loss of principal.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investors should consult with a qualified financial advisor to determine the suitability of any investment strategy based on their individual financial situation, goals, and risk tolerance.

Alternative health insurance options involve various risks, complexities, and considerations, such as coverage limitations, eligibility requirements, costs, and potential tax implications, which may vary significantly by individual situation, location, and market conditions. Experiences or general outcomes discussed are not indicative of future results, and NWMG makes no representations or warranties regarding the suitability, performance, or availability of any insurance products or strategies mentioned.

National Wealth Management Group, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.

Subscribe now

“Do I buy Treasuries when the government owes $38 trillion, corporate bonds with spreads at 20-year lows, stocks trading on a 40x CAPE, or gold that’s just gone vertical? Tricky.”

Michel Hartnett, Bank of America Chief Investment Officer, writes in an October note to investors. Mr. Hartnett isn’t the only one spooked by frothy markets and the prospect of making a catastrophically wrong investment allocation.

Those old enough to remember 00’ – 03’ and 08’ – 09’ know that slashers aren’t just a movie genre. In the September Y Charts Fund Flows report, investors are hungry for stability as money market and bond funds draw in $357B year-to date to absorb some of the -$510B in equity fund outflows.

Mutual fund investing is the territory of the retail investor, specifically within retirement plans such as 401(k)s. The numbers imply main street America is bracing for impact. This jives with many of the conversations I’ve been having, usually coupled with the question: “should I buy gold?”. More on that later.

Every Halloween we roll out the macabre décor and flirt with horror to entertain that primal side that is fascinated by terror. It may keep us sharp, but it can also camouflage opportunity. It’s important to look through the temporary facades to see reality for what it is.

One of the scary masks used today to dissuade equity investors is the CAPE ratio (Shiller PE ratio), which currently sits at a near historic high of 40. CAPE ratios above 30 have traditionally implied that stocks are too expensive and should therefore be curtailed. The long-term average for the U.S. stock market is around 16 – 17.

Frightening indeed. But the devil is in the details. An important variable for calculating the CAPE ratio is inflation. Can you guess what measure is commonly used? That’s right, the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The same index that completely ignores asset price inflation, favoring manipulated goods and service cost inputs instead.

Financial assets, such as equities, play a critical role in the economy as we rely on them to store wealth and finance major objectives such as education and retirement. It is difficult for households to function without them. So why are they not included in the CPI?

While I cannot answer that question, I can offer one partial argument why CAPE ratios have been drifting higher over the past four decades: incomplete inflation assumptions. Narrowly defining it as CPI artificially discounts inflation-adjusted earnings, resulting in a higher calculated number.

If instead of using CPI (3.1% as of the most recent reading) let’s use 7% to factor the more comprehensive cost of the American Dream. This is not unreasonable considering the US M2 money supply has grown from $12,195B to $22,195B this past decade, a compound growth rate of 6.17%. This would give us a CAPE ratio of around 28 on the S&P 500 vs 40.

Hardly a cheap market, relatively speaking, but let’s consider the context. The top 9 constituents of the S&P 500 are technology companies investing massively in AI, a major cost drag. These nine companies represent 37% of the index. Like it or not, AI is a game changer and America’s best companies are making informed decisions to allocate capital to develop it further.

Alternative assets, such as gold, have historically preserved purchasing power but with major short-term price movements. The driving force behind much of the recent runup in gold is central bank demand followed by a retail investor fueled by FOMO.

The long-term case remains as solid as fiat currencies can be diluted. However, it wouldn’t surprise me to see imminent price disruptions as trade and monetary policy politics play out at the global scale. I certainly wouldn’t feel great about subjecting my sailboat to the winds of that sea. Spanish galleons have sunk in calmer waters.

I view the flight to gold as being reactionary and discourage concentrated trades into the asset. Instead, investors with at least a five-year view should maintain an optimistic stance towards equities and maintain allocations sensible for their liquidity needs.

Dare I suggest we will have a positive 2026? I cannot say but my optimism is high. Despite all the scares, more treats are distributed on Halloween than tricks. Treats are only given to those that knock at the door.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific investment advice. All investments carry risks, including the potential loss of principal.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investors should consult with a qualified financial advisor to determine the suitability of any investment strategy based on their individual financial situation, goals, and risk tolerance.

National Wealth Management Group, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.

Subscribe now

Nothing puts time into perspective more than observing the growth of children. Suddenly, they develop a taste for caffeine, sprout Red Bull wings and move on to reshape a world that was once yours. The subtle yet nagging awareness that your timelines are in sync yet not equal only accentuates the slippage.

The reaction is to squeeze every minute for what its worth. We optimize. Every dollar represents a finite minute, and to waste even one is a travesty. A desperate search for maximization can lead down many paths, each promising fulfillment of one kind or another.

The high-time preference person will seek experiences offering sublime stimulation to crowd out negativity from the menu of possibilities. Suffering is suboptimal. Curating such an in-the-moment lifestyle can lead to obvious long-term consequences, both health and financial, yet seems logical to a mind living in the present. “YOLO” isn’t just a saying but a call to action.

Most of us are hyper-aware of our hedonistic tendencies with guilt complexes that act as a behavioral immune system. This has sparked recent counter-culture movements such as FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early), minimalism and a “sober curious” generation, all changes new to us but not to humanity. While generally healthier forms of ‘optimization’ than indulgence, they strike a lopsided bargain with the present.

Both lifestyles, the extreme hedonist and the extreme self-preservationist, are flawed solutions to the same insolvable problem: optimizing life with limited data. At first, it may seem the problem is too much data. We live in the information age within layers of dense networks. But too much information isn’t the problem, which I will illustrate with one hypothetical:

If you knew with precision in one year the complete state of financial markets, how would you conduct yourself? With this one data set, you could ignore all economic data as it would be utterly useless.

Much of the data swarming around our heads like gnats around a frog serve as errant variables to be consumed for cognitive guesswork. Some believe if enough is consumed, clairvoyance may be achieved. More data is needed. This is the theory underpinning the very notion of determinism. I happen to believe in free will which means the future is unknowable.

If we just understood the entirety of the tax code, financial markets, body chemistry, network effects and other important science, we could have the optimal life. Then again, chasing the comprehensive data set for a complete life would ultimately lead to suboptimization. At what point does the cost of the data processing exceed the value?

Something we’ll soon discover in the AI race.

Perfection is impossible, a paradox in and of itself. It is the state at which further improvement is impossible, not dissimilar to oblivion. That doesn’t seem like a vibrant condition, let alone an achievable goal.

At this point, you may be wondering, “ok, what does this have to do with money”? I’ll get to the point.

As we round out the year, you will receive messaging to max your retirement and health savings account, harvest your gains and losses and fill up the lower tax brackets. You’ll review what investments did well and which did not and strategize what you’re going to do different to find the winners moving forward. Lofty promises will be made with 2026 deadlines.

You will feel pressure to analyze the data and contort yourself in uncomfortable ways to optimize. Resist this and remember to never let perfection be the enemy of the good. Extreme positions are best left for games of Twister and revolutionaries.

The quest for optimization shouldn’t be a pursuit of perfection but a modest movement toward better. This requires balance and balance requires a constant but small shifts of individual muscle fibers and an awareness of the present.

Financial wellness is just one component of a balanced life. Trying to micromanage every second and every dollar does not bring you more in life. It brings you stress and anxiety. I think this is why more and more successful people are using financial planners today.

It’s never been easier to outsource sound money strategy to free up valuable time to discover your path to a more fulfilled life. It would at least be one less gnat buzzing around your head.

If you are in the search for such a financial planner, check out our recent episode on 401(k) plans for a sneak peek, now on YouTube and all major podcast platforms. Hopefully you’ll pick up some useful pointers on how to “easy button” your retirement savings. Our DMs are open.

Share

The Money Alchemist Podcast | EP 42 Making the Most of Your 401(k)

Ben Jones, CFP®

Managing Director, National Wealth Management Group

www.nwmgadvisors.com 

Follow him on X @thekaratstick

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-nwmg/

Matt Heitman, CFA, CFP®, ChFC®

Wealth Advisor, National Wealth Management Group

www.nwmgadvisors.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-e-heitman/

Comments or questions? Call or text us at 513-438-0095!

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. Consult with your financial professional for advice specific to your situation.

Subscribe now

As Americans, we like to entertain the notion that this is the land of the free with equal opportunity and consistent application of law. It sure sounds nice, but as George Orwell once wrote,

The line dividing who gets to be more equal and who pays retail price is epistemically defined. The informed get the best treatment under the law, regardless how convoluted the rules are. And the policy that affects us all with economically painful consequence is the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

With full compilation weighing in at more than 70,000 pages, you are not going to understand its full implications using TurboTax. Even hiring an accountant to calculate your bill and file your return isn’t going to elucidate your strategy. Keep in mind the volume of clients the average CPA firm takes on to remain profitable.

At $750 a return, it takes 330 clients just to earn a gross profit of $250,000, not nearly enough for a complete staff. Many bill below $750 per return, making it a brutal business model. It’s not reasonable to expect such a tax professional to painstakingly profile a household’s personal and professional financials to create plans that interweave complex tax strategies.

In other words, you get what you pay for.

So, who should pay for such tax planning advice and how much does it cost? Generally, households with annual incomes above $300,000 need to investigate the benefits of a professional tax planner.

Additionally, self-employed individuals with gross revenues exceeding $100,000 and all real estate investors/professionals should benefit. And by “benefit”, I mean save more money than they would pay in professional fees. Sometimes substantially more.

Planning fees range but you can expect at least $6,000 per year for a serious professional. While this may seem high relative to a discount filing service, keep in mind the value in exchange and the time required to build a thoughtful analysis and application. You’re not shopping for indentured servants here.

Case in point: depreciation. This is one of the most powerful, yet tricky, tools available to individuals looking to reduce their taxable income. It applies to most tangible assets used in a trade of business. Think rental property or equipment, even vehicles you buy to support business operations.

Depreciation is a non-cash expense that can be used to directly offset earned income, even W-2 or self-employment income. The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill brought back bonus depreciation which permits front-loaded depreciation to be taken in one year. This creates unique planning opportunities once unavailable.

Real estate investors can combine bonus depreciation with cost segregation studies to deliver huge up-front deductions on their taxable income for any given year. The cost segregation study is used to define short-term components of real property eligible for the bonus depreciation. Ideal for when a property is being sold at a large gain or for when income is unusually high.

Even without a spike in taxable income, it is still better to defer taxes into the future given the time value of money. Real estate depreciation is rather unique as it is the one asset that tends to appreciate while the IRS assumes it does not. Idiots. This can result in depreciation recapture taxes if you’re not careful.

Depreciation isn’t just a tool for real estate investors, but useful for any business owner, current or aspiring. Let’s say you’re planning a retirement but do not want to slow down. You may be in your peak earning years with enough financially security to start that wood working shop you’ve always wanted to.

Now is the time to establish your articles of incorporation and invest in property and equipment. Such an investment could leverage Sections 168 and 179 of the IRC to tactically offset active income as the business gets ramped up in preparation for the transition.

It should be noted, however, that the IRS does expect the business to turn a profit at least three out of five years to prevent any disallowance. Not a suitable strategy for hobbyists.

Nor is the use of depreciation suitable for the DIY investor. Sure, you can avoid professional fees and try to do this all on your own. Just know that professionals also hire other professionals. Some things, like performing your own surgery, should not be treated like a single player activity.

As you look over your 1040, painfully eyeballing that line 37, you are likely to wonder what can be done. EZ filing isn’t without its costs. Depreciation may be one answer. Perhaps it’s something else. Perhaps death is the only answer to taxes. You’ll never know unless you are informed.

It’s in moments like these you should think to yourself, “I should give that Karat Stick guy a call”. While we cannot raise the dead, we can analyze taxes.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. Consult with your professional tax advisor for tax guidance specific to your situation.

Subscribe now

How does it happen? How can a single person amass such wealth in so short a time? Earning $250 per hour, it takes 1,923 years just to earn a billion dollars. And $250 per hour is a fantastic wage for most people.

The answer is fortuitous timing combined with concentration of money and skill. For decades, financial advisors have told us to be diversified with the idiom “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” becoming the common investor Pledge of Allegiance.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates drops out of Harvard and invests every waking hour and available dollar into a new wild idea: the personal computer. The rest is history.

And it’s not just traditional business billionaires that have used this elixir of prosperity. Wherever we find extreme levels of success, we usually find undiversified investment of both time and money. Taylor Swift, Mr. Beast, Joe Rogan, the list could go on.

Sure, there are a some that inherited their wealth but that’s not useful information. We need to reverse engineer the process so we can apply it ourselves. Could it be so easy as to simply put all your chips on a single bet? Some think so. We call them gamblers.

Successful deployment demands us to be intentional, persistent, and practical but not so practical that we become over-cautious. The first step is to focus your time, tuning a marketable expertise that can serve as your financial engine.

In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell suggests that it takes 10,000 hours to become truly proficient at something. Perhaps it’s less for you. The lucky are born with talents that serve their interests. For most, it’s a battle of perseverance waged against Father Time.

Second, work your financial engine at maximum load. This could mean breaking away from an employer to start a competing firm, climbing the corporate ladder, or launching a fresh new venture. It requires breaking outside the rut of ordinary performance into the realm of the uncomfortable.

IF executed properly, you should begin to realize abnormal levels of cash-flow. This is where things can get interesting.

The sane thing to do is stay here, harvesting the cash flow to reallocate into traditional investments such as a diversified portfolio. Content with ‘normal people’ returns, this is where most high-net-worth Americans plateau. A safe, and frankly great way to live.

Most billionaires harbor a degree of insanity, however. They continue their concentration strategy, investing time and capital to expand existing and new ventures, risking massive setbacks along the way. Success builds on success, compounding into insane levels of wealth. Outliers indeed.

In one meeting with Jimmy John, the outspoken billionaire owner of Jimmy Johns sandwich franchise, a wealth advisor attempted to pitch a traditional asset allocation strategy. Jimmy John stopped him mid-sentence and asked the advisor if he knew how he made is money. The advisor looked at him blankly and Jimmy John said, “I made a lot of #$&*%@! sandwiches”.

That was the end of that conversation.

This is as good a place as any to insert some ground rules for concentration:

1. Never risk what you cannot afford to lose, time or money.

2. Do not lever high-risk assets to buy more high-risk assets.

3. Be an expert in what you’re doing.

10,000 hours invested in some marketable skill is simply not enough to make anyone a billionaire. Unfortunately for us all, it also requires good timing and placement. It is quite possible to have a grand idea with flawless execution and no outsized payoff.

But as the saying goes, you can’t win the game if you don’t play. And the earlier you start fine-tuning your financial engine, the more weight it can pull over time. Warren Buffet started his first business at the age of 6, which is an intimidating point of fact.

Modern diversification is a plea for mediocrity. The Jack of all trades is earning below market wages, and your 401(k) pie-chart looks like a glutton’s plate at your local buffet - bloated and confused. A clear vision of your future can enlighten a more focused strategy.

Excellence requires us to lean into our strengths with conviction. To become the best at something we can be that is useful to others. This excellence can be harvested for financial security, or it can be exponentialized into a palimpsest of accomplishment.

The true prize in this effort isn’t money, though it is the most tangible thing we can measure. It is our purpose and sense of self-worth. While financial success isn’t guaranteed, you will find out what you are made of. And that is worth something.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice. Consult with your financial professional for advice specific to your situation.

Subscribe now

Oxygen levels in the death zone plummet to 39% that at sea level, so low that cellular function begins to deteriorate. During the May climbing season, temperatures peak at a balmy 14°F with biting winds that can reach 179 mph. Frostbite can occur within seconds to exposed skin.

Thirteen ill-fated expeditions to conquer the highest peak on earth took place prior to the first successful summit in 1953. One such attempt in 1924 was led by famous British explorer George Mallory who died in the infamous death zone along with his climbing partner Andrew Irvine. Evidence suggests that Irvine fell first, violently snapping the tandem rope tied between he and Mallory. In the hostile climate, the margin for error is too thin to forgive such a mishap.

Records show that at least 340 other people have shared the same fate as Mallory and Irvine, many of whom are still superficially entombed by snow and frost on the mountainside. Some are visible to climbers today actively seeking to summit. A harsh presage for the unprepared.

As of 2025, estimates suggest 7,585 individuals have successfully climbed Mt. Everest, most of whom within the past two decades. Virgin ground with wonderous potential has been replaced with a trodden path pocked by landmarks and experienced sherpas pointing the way.

Once a place few dared to go, the base camps at Everest now demonstrate what humanity looks like without waste disposal and decay to erase our environmental sins. Everyone’s trash, even the chewing gum spit into the snow, is preserved indefinitely until it becomes someone else’s problem.

Still, climbing Mt. Everest is far from a trivial thing, requiring a motivated individual to invest 60 – 75 days for the journey and acclimatization process. The 4.5% fatality rate is highly discriminating, targeting the most unprepared.

Upon reaching the death zone, conventional morality gives way to ‘better you than me’ ethics as it becomes impossible to carry the smallest additional weight, let alone another body.

It takes eight experienced climbers to rescue an unconscious person with a window so narrow that most are not alive by the time the effort is organized. Many who succumb are left where they inhaled their last breath of insufficient air. Any who protest are asked to carry a coworker up a few flights of stairs while breathing through a straw. We all know someone who thinks they can do it.

Over committed climbers become so fixated on reaching the summit they ignore opportunities to save a life. Not even the pleas of a dying kindred spirit can divert the ravenous ego.

This indifference to life and sanctity of nature have contaminated the majesty of the mountain, changing how we perceive the goal of summiting Everest and those who pursue it.

Such it is with scaling a mountain of money. A few who clamor to the peak do so with an amoral compass, ignoring opportunities to serve along the way. Others attempt to short-circuit the process through gimmickry and scheme, polluting commonly held values and the hard work of others.

High profile abuses, like preserved trash, give the appearance that this is the exception rather than the norm. We are tempted to discredit all high achievement as grift, or worse, dull our own ambitions to discourage scrutiny.

The reality even harsher than the climate of the Everest is most will never step foot at its base. Many want the view, but few take the arduous steps required to see it. And if we do, and if we make it to the top, will this bring us any purpose? Perhaps. But we all can’t fit at the same time.

The melancholiest of stories belong to those who attempt to summit, ignorant to their incompetence but desperate to reach the sun. Valuable lives thrown to the frozen winds with little to gain and everything to lose. A parlay gamble on volatile conditions and questionable skill with unlimited downside.

There are too many people today making levered economic bets with their lives on bad information. Know thy self and know thy risks. Recognize that survival of the fittest is merely survival. There’s more to life than peak performance.

I imagine the most successful expeditions to any summit are those that foster the closest bonds and long-term relationships. It’s certainly difficult to do that when stepping over companions in need.

Climbing your Everest is a worthwhile goal, admirable even. Just don’t be surprised when you realize how cold and hostile it can be at the top. It’s not something that should be endeavored alone.

Share

Advisory services offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC. Nothing in this newsletter should be construed as investment or financial advice specific to any one individual. Seek professional guidance for advice specific to your situation.

Subscribe now

So begins the famous novel Tale of Two Cities written in 1858. Written by Charles Dickens, the motif of duality can easily be applied to our modern economy. Throughout history, the state of mankind can generally be described as fitting someplace between bad and good.

The economy is either terrible or great, depending on who you ask. It’s a subjective sentiment check more based on feelings colored by bias rather than material facts. The Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey illustrates that respondents feel worse about our present-day economic state as they did in the doldrums of the 2008-09 Great Financial Crisis.

The perplexing disparity requires us to unpack layers of independent variables feeding data points like the Consumer Sentiment Index to better understand what is going on. First, it’s important to acknowledge that winners and losers exist concurrently. There is no economic condition in which all market participants are doing well, or all are doing poorly. We function as independent cogs in the machine.

Some cogs receive more lubrication than others depending on their positioning in the mechanism. It is undeniable that inflation is the rust deteriorating the function of smaller economic ‘inputs’. Inflation exacerbates wealth disparity as asset prices accrete monetary premiums whilst prices for necessary goods and services devour greater portions of free cash flow. A one-two punch for the middle and lower classes.

A big differentiator in 2008-09 is that most felt some degree of pain, even the wealthy. For the first time in many generations, housing prices fell. Stock and fixed income markets fell substantially more than a typical recession. It was a great opportunity for those who played it safe, although many didn’t change their appetite for risk when the time was ripe.

Today, the situation is grossly asymmetric. Anyone who has achieved a financial escape velocity, a definition that is subjective but not representative of the majority, is doing quite well. Those living paycheck to paycheck, not so much.

In fact, they may be doing worse than ever, relatively speaking. Delinquencies are picking up across the board, with most of the increase concentrated in higher risk loans such as credit card and auto loans. Recent revisions to the BLS establishment survey suggest that lower income earners may not be as well off as initially reported.

We tried to contact an external analyst to inform on the matter, however the department was recently sacked as part of a strategic efficiency initiative. I assure you this is an isolated incident that has nothing to do with AI (it is most certainly AI).

Yet there has not been any meaningful deterioration in financial markets. It has been quite the opposite with the S&P 500 kissing the 10%+ performance marker so far in 2025. Housing prices have broadly moved higher with Zillow reporting a 0.4% YoY increase. One could conclude that the economy is quite strong when looking solely at asset prices.

This then begs the question: does it matter? To financial markets, no. What matters is total spending, not the symmetry of value exchange. To a stockholder, margins matter more than the quantity of widgets the customer receives. It does matter for political and economic stability.

Resentment is building with an unknowable tolerance threshold and outcome potential. Do the wealthy usher in a new age of economic dominance, dragging a disgruntled class of serfs like detritus? Or can we expect an upheaval or even a renaissance of egalitarianism?

Ben and Brent discuss this matter further and offer their insights on what could be going on, but more importantly, what to do about it. Listen to Episode 38 of The Money Alchemist Podcast to join in on the conversation!

Share

About your Hosts

Ben Jones, CFP®

Managing Director, National Wealth Management Group

www.nwmgadvisors.com 

@thekaratstick

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-nwmg/

Brent Gargano, CFP®

Founder & Advisor, Infinite Wealth Planning 

www.infinitewealthplanning.com

linkedin.com/in/brent-gargano-cfp®-2067b573

Comments or questions? Email us at comments@moneyalchemistshow.com

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results. All indices are unmanaged and may not be invested into directly.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

Subscribe now

It’s almost as if the scrap eaters are not getting the whole story. Why exactly does President Trump want the Fed to cut interest rates? Publicly, the reasons given are to reduce borrowing costs for individuals and the Federal government. The problem with this narrative is that most debit is issued under longer-term contracts.

With decades of experience investing in real estate, he must know that short-term rates do not directly influence long-term rates, which are used to price mortgages. In fact, the last time the Fed cut rates by 50 bps, the rate on 30-year mortgages, which were heading south of 6%, shot up 80 bps!

So, a call for the Federal Reserve to cut rates might push rates higher on longer-term debt. To understand why this could happen requires a deeper understanding for what the Federal Funds Rate is and how it works.

The Fed, and various regulators such as the FDIC, require banks to maintain sufficient capital to meet solvency requirements. To facilitate this, the Fed uses various ‘tools’ to influence the rate banks charge one another for overnight loans used to meet capital requirement thresholds. These tools include open market operations, Reverse Repurchase Agreement Facility, and interest of reserve balances.

The key takeaway is that this is simply a rate that banks charge each other for overnight loans. It is not a fixed rate on dollars deposited or borrowed from the Fed. Lowering this rate encourages banks to expand credit as it becomes less profitable to hold the reserves. At least, that’s the theory.

In practice, lowering this rate is about as predictable as adopting a feral cat. I should know, my family just adopted two.

Banks could expand credit to increase margin; however, this would come at the cost of liquidity risk. Large banks have largely been allergic to anything but slam dunk lending opportunities. I seriously doubt we’ll see JPMorgan issuing start-up funds anytime soon, even at a zero Fed Funds rate.

On the other side of the equation are savers currently benefiting from higher short-term rates. Anyone old enough to have a bank account remembers the ZIRP years from 2009 – 2021. Negative real returns on cash were expected like an undeserved whipping from your stepfather.

What happens to this money when rates fall below the increasingly cryptic rate of inflation? I’ll clue you in from experience: nothing. Savers just earn less interest which makes them feel less wealthy and then they spend less at Costco.

The net effect is something akin to one of those bicycle bars in Nashville: a little bit of healthy meets short-term and irrational tomfoolery. Nobody knows where this thing ends up and who gets sick along the way.

But we can see who would benefit if short-term rates where to go down, which is evident in how markets reacted to the last 50 bps rate cut. Asset holders. A reduction in the Federal Funds rate would boost demand for T-Bills (US Treasuries maturing in 12 months or less), which would in turn lower T-Bill rates permitting a temporarily higher debt load.

Additional Treasury issuance means, you guessed it, more government spending. Everyone’s favorite! Who benefits most from this? Mostly large enterprise and the owners and payees of said enterprise.

Suffice it to say, most of this spending floats to the top, exacerbating an already expansive wealth gap. The wealthy divert a large portion of excess cash flows into financial assets. Much more than the average person. There’s only so many luxury cars that can be driven in one lifetime.

Everyone likes the “number go higher” game, especially the rapacious. It’s how the unenlightened measure their self-worth. We all suffer this despair to varying degrees. At scale, the flows of capital carve durable grooves in the bedrock of our economy, channeling liquidity into any asset that is presently desirable.

It seems little thought is being given as to whether this is good, productive or even sustainable. Should his reasons be political, principled or spiteful, Jerome Powell seems unafraid to draw attention to the dangers of asset price inflation. This matters more than any unpredictable consequence of lowers the Fed Funds rate.

But, with his term up in May 2026, it’s likely we see a lower Federal Funds rate over the next 12 months. Baring a major deflationary event, it’s difficult to see how this does not widen the river of liquidity into popular assets.

Share

Investment advice offered through National Wealth Management Group, LLC.

The information presented is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as a recommendation or specific advice.

Subscribe now