The Link Between Dementia and Financial Mistakes

Plus, the future of estate planning 

Ric Edelman: It's Friday, August 2nd. On today's show, if you think dementia might be in your future, well, your problems will start long before you're ever diagnosed. Plus, the latest trends and opportunities in estate planning, featuring an interview with Chris Morgan, Senior VP of The Sanibel Captiva Trust Company. We recorded this at my Wealth Management Convergence conference this past March. You're going to get all the latest opportunities and developments in estate planning on today's show.  

But first, dementia. If that's in your future, your problems are going to start long before you're diagnosed. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Georgetown University just released a study where they looked at Medicare records and data from Equifax. And here's what they found. Long before you are ever diagnosed as having an issue with your mental health, with your mental capacity, dementia, Alzheimer's, et cetera – long before you ever realize anything's wrong, you're going to start forgetting to pay your bills, like your mortgage or your auto insurance or your credit cards. For people diagnosed with dementia, their credit scores begin to fall before they're diagnosed. A year prior, people are 17% more likely to be delinquent on their mortgage, 34% more likely to be delinquent on their credit cards. Overall, people started falling behind on their debts five years before they were diagnosed, and these people are also more vulnerable to scams and frauds. 

So this is a warning for all older Americans and your families, right? You need to pay attention to this. If your parents are starting to fall behind on their bills, that could be a precursor, an early indication that they may be suffering from mild cognitive impairment that could be on the road to full blown Alzheimer's. 

This could mean you need to get involved with your parents finances right now. Next time you visit them, ask them to show you their checkbook. Look around and see if there are unpaid bills lying around, unopened envelopes. See who their financial institutions are that they work with. Who's their bank? Who's their mortgage company? Where do they have credit cards? See if your parents can get you to agree to let you contact those companies on their behalf. Look at their statements. See if they're current on their bills. This is something that gives us the potential for an early clue. And the sooner we find out that there might be an issue, the sooner you can begin to deal with it. 

Coming up next on the show, the latest trends and opportunities in estate planning. Stay with us for more here on The Truth About Your Future. 

----- 

Ric Edelman: Welcome back to The Truth About Your Future continues. I'm Ric Edelman. The following interview is from my Wealth Management Convergence back in March. I had a conversation with Chris Morgan. Chris is an SVP and Portfolio Manager for Sanibel Captiva Island Trust Company. 

Ric Edelman: So welcome to the stage Chris Morgan and we'll get into this conversation. Chris is SVP and Portfolio Manager for Sanibel Captiva Island Trust Company. And we were chatting about this earlier. It's kind of hard to find someone who's both knowledgeable about estate planning and also able to talk about it. Those are two very different skill sets. And so Chris, I'm really glad that you could join us here today. In your experience, would you say that most advisors are comfortable, not capable or even doing it or not doing it, but are they comfortable talking about estate planning with their clients? 

Chris Morgan: Great question, Ric. I appreciate it. Thanks everyone for your time today. I would say no. And the reason I would say no is because I feel like most advisors sense that the clients often are not comfortable talking about estate planning. I personally haven't had a client walk in my door and say, I'm excited to talk about what's going to happen when I die, right? It's not the most natural or enjoyable thing to think about, perhaps, but it's something that we're all going to face. And of course, the two most common solutions or outcomes would be kids or charity are the two most common places that money can go when people pass away. But I think it's important for advisors to find kind and gentle and sensitive ways to nudge clients into that conversation because it matters for pretty much everyone, right? If you only want to work with clients who have $500,000, then maybe estate planning is not quite as important, but most advisors I interact with at least want to work with clients who have two or three million dollars or more. And for those clients, estate planning is highly relevant. I can think of a number of clients off hand who have many millions of dollars to their name and don't have any estate plans in place. And if they were to get hit by a bus tomorrow, their child could inherit $10 million or $20 million. But if I talk about gift tax exclusion amounts of even $18,000 and maybe thinking about getting the ball rolling on some of those, they might say, oh, I don't know if my child's ready for $18,000, right? But that just shows how, you know, the $18,000 is scary because it's the here and now, whereas $10 million or $20 million is not scary because it's later. 

Ric Edelman: So, if the conversation, obviously, is all caught up in connotations of death, which is uncomfortable, how does the advisor get comfortable and help the client feel comfortable engaging in the conversation? 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, I think that's another great question. The method I use is rather than focusing on the unpleasant component of a client passing away at some point, I try to focus the conversation on the kids are the charity, which is the positive side of it, not the fact that we're individually not gonna be here forever, but more so, hey, let's talk about the planning to set things up so that you can bring the most joy to your children, or the charity or the area of interest that's exciting to you. That's a more positive way to frame the conversation. And rather than using the scare tactic of the negative of, hey, if you get hit by a bus, your kid's going to get $20 million tomorrow. How do you feel about that? Hopefully you don't have to go there, but if you frame the conversation instead of, how about coaching your children? In many cases, most people are giving money to children, even if they are charitable, rather than just throwing them in the deep end and having them inherit money that they didn't expect, a large amount all at once. Why not dribble small amounts over time, coach and train them, see how they do with the first $5,000 or $10,000. And if they don't use the money as you would have envisioned or liked it, that's an opportunity to coach and train. Then hopefully by the time, when the time comes, they'll be in a position to inherit significantly more money and use it in a way that you would want them to, or be proud of that. 

Ric Edelman: Let's talk about some of the tangible applications of estate planning. The lifetime exemption keeps going up. What are the planning opportunities you see regarding that? 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, exactly. Great question. So with the lifetime exemption amount right now, it's around $13 million for a single person or $26 million for married spouses jointly. If no action is taken by Congress, that's essentially going to be cut in half starting in 2026. And you might think initially, oh, well, that's not going to apply for the vast majority of my clients. But just to put things in perspective, if someone has even $10 million now at a very modest return assumption of 5% a year. That's going to be over $26 million, 20 years from now. So if a client is 65 or 70, they could easily live 20 more years. So I think that a lot of clients... 

Ric Edelman: Or more if they buy bitcoin... 

Chris Morgan: Exactly. Hopefully more than 5%, right? A lot more, great point, Ric. And so I feel like a lot of advisors are thinking, hey, this doesn't apply to 90% of my clients, but in reality it does. And there's all sorts of tools you can use for that. For one, I touched on the annual gift tax exclusion of $18,000 for this year per recipient. And that may not sound like it moves the needle, but if you have 4 or 5 kids, and you do that $18,000 to each of them each year for the next 10 or 20 years, and those amounts likely continue rising over time in line with inflation. That's one way to get assets out of your taxable estate without any taxes. And again, provide another coaching opportunity to children with smaller amounts of money before they get a larger amount potentially down the road. Another tool for largeer amounts that we've been utilizing frequently for our clients is called a SLAT, which is a spousal lifetime access trust. And basically what that does, it's similar to what you may have heard of a credit shelter trust or a bypass trust or a family trust. These are all synonyms, but one thing that's different about the spousal lifetime access trust or the SLAT is not only can you shield the ultimate amount from estate taxes, but you also can protect the growth of those assets from estate taxes. And part of the reason we also do a lot of them or work on a lot of them as trustee is because if you have a third party trustee, in addition to HEMS, which is health, education, maintenance, and support for a beneficiary spouse, you can also do up to $5,000 or 5% of the trust value. So if someone has $10 million in a SLAT, your spouse while alive can get all of their basic necessities covered each year out of this trust. Plus 5% on $10,000,000 is $500,000 a year. Hopefully that's enough for your spouse to live off of until they pass away. And then the amount you put in plus all the growth is completely exempt from estate taxes and passes to the children upon the death of the spouse. And a lot of people will actually do a dual SLAT, where they create a SLAT for one another. And the IRS rules say you can't have two substantially similar, identical trusts for one another, so you just have to work with an estate planning attorney to make sure those documents differ in certain ways in terms of the timing and amount, just so that they don't run afoul of those rules. But those are a couple common tactics that we see our clients using today.  

Ric Edelman: Elaborate on the differences that those two dual SLATs need to have when you say timing and amount. 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, there's a few things you can do to make them substantially different. We always encourage clients to consult an estate planning attorney to make sure the differences are substantial enough, because the IRS doesn't specify exactly what needs to be different. But some of the things that are more commonly done to make sure that they're different enough would be having slightly different beneficiaries on the SLATs. So if you had four kids, maybe one of them could have two children as beneficiary of one of them and then the other SLAT could have the other two kids as the beneficiary of the other SLAT. That's one thing that can help make them. You can also put different amounts in there. You can also have different trustees on the SLATs. If you have two different trustees on the SLATs, then that's another factor that seems to make them substantially different in the eyes of the IRS.   

Ric Edelman: Do the assets within each need to be different as well? Or can they own identical assets? 

Chris Morgan: They potentially could and the IRS looks at it in its entirety and says, is this different enough? And I'm personally not enough of an expert to say this would be different enough or that would be different enough. But to your point, if you had different assets between the SLATs, that would be another criteria that could go in your favor. 

Ric Edelman: Would you use a SLAT in addition to a bypass trust or instead of it? 

Chris Morgan: They're similar in nature and they're designed for a similar purpose. The reason that we see more of our clients using SLATs is because I suppose if you had a client who was in their 90s and terminally ill, perhaps a credit shelter trust or a bypass trust would be sufficient because you wouldn't anticipate significant growth over the next year or two. But if you have a client who's 65 or 70 and reasonably healthy, we just see advantages associated with getting those assets into the trust while both spouses are still alive. Bypass trust is after one of the spouse passes and protect that future growth as well, right? So even if you put $10 million in my very conservative 5% return example, you could end up protecting $26 million.  

Ric Edelman: What's the minimum net worth, you would say a client should have to consider a SLAT? 

Chris Morgan: It's a great question. I would say broadly with trust, if you're doing a trust document, $250,000 or more at the very low end because there's costs associated with having an attorney draft a trust document. With a SLAT, I would say at least three, probably more like five million dollars would be a range where that would be something more commonly to consider. Again, even if three million or five million doesn't come close to the estate tax exemption amounts, they might get cut in half. And even if they don't, especially if bitcoin does really well, a lot of people in this room might be above those limits.  

Ric Edelman: We should all have such problems. Let's talk about the RMD rules. They're in flux right now. What do advisors need to be looking out for? 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, so, great point. It's a hot topic. The age for RMDs keeps increasing. It's at 73 right now. Another hot topic has been for beneficiaries that are facing the 10 year rule, which many of you have heard of. A lot of clients have been delaying RMDs and planning to take it at the end of the 10 years, and the IRS keeps delaying or waiving a decision on that due to confusion. We will find out most likely later this year if it's going to be waived again for 2024. So a couple of things we're watching. One, thankfully the elections are in November and not December. So similar to the estate tax exemption limits, I feel like we're gonna have more information in November. 

Ric Edelman: I'm thinking simply by who wins. So I'm thinking, talking about the White House or also Congress? 

Chris Morgan: Both. So I'm thinking back to 2020 elections when there was a democratic sweep, right? Biden won and there was a sweep in Congress. And at the time, a lot of clients were taking big gains because they thought large tax rate increases were imminent. It wasn't just clients, all of those who had the closest pulse on Washington saying that tax rates were going to rise substantially and with the benefit of hindsight, it was probably a mistake to make big changes in advance of more information or in advance of those changes occurring. And I would say the same thing here. That, whether we're discussing the estate tax exemption amounts or potential changes and whether you have to take an annual RMD or you can wait to the end of the 10 years, I don't think now's the time to make those big irreversible decisions, especially when we have an election coming up and that could potentially change the trajectory of some of these rules and laws. If it really came down to it, we'll have more information even in December of this year. And on the RMD topic, a common conversation I'm having with clients is about whether to do things pre tax or post tax with contributions, if they're still working, or whether to do Roth conversions. And I've seen a number of cases where Roth makes sense, and it's the right thing for clients. I've also seen cases where, because Roths are widely spoken about in the media, I've seen clients do Roth conversions or after tax contributions, where it doesn't make sense if they're only a couple years away from retirement and their tax rate's likely to drop, right? Reminding clients that, in my humble opinion, at least, the Roths tend to make more sense only if you expect your tax rate to be significantly higher in the future for some reason. And, again, back to the less comfortable conversation to have with clients is the fact that, for most of us, medical expenses rise as we age, right? So that's another thing that, clients may not think about or want to think about, but I've seen clients do Roth conversions, worried about tax rates going up because of what's going on in Washington, and then unfortunately medical expenses rise to a point where they have minimal taxable income later in life. And so with the benefit of hindsight, I've seen those cases too where it would have been better for clients to not do the Roth conversion. 

Ric Edelman: So based on what you've said, is the advice therefore that you should tell your clients to put their RMD decisions on hold until after the election? 

Chris Morgan: Potentially, if they're thinking about taking a large amount out now versus doing a smaller annual amount, I would say hold off on big changes or big decisions before the election. And we don't want to wait to the very last second in December, but I feel like we will have more information then. And so that's what I'm looking at this point in time. For sure. 

Ric Edelman: Another big law is the relatively new Corporate Transparency Act. And we just had a court ruling that declared it unconstitutional. What do advisors need to know about this law? And what do you see is going to ultimately happen? I got to assume we're going to see more court rulings all the way up to the Supreme Court before this is over. 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, and I think it may have been a Wall Street Journal article that pointed out that this is targeting smaller businesses, right? And most politicians publicly at least wouldn't have that intention, but that seems to be the potential impact of it. Basically what advisors in my view should think about with regards to the corporate transparency act for their clients is if you know a client is a small business owner, or if you're not sure, maybe it's not a bad time to just confirm that they don't have a small business that you're unaware of. If the business has at least 20 employees, if it has a physical office in the US, and if it has at least $5 million a year of revenues, it's probably exempt from the Corporate Transparency Act, which is set potentially to take effect on the first of next year of 2025. But you don't want to be wrong about that, because if you're wrong about that, the penalties could be up to $10,000, which isn't the bad part, but it could be potentially up to two years of imprisonment. So if you tell the client, hey, don't worry about it. And then they go to prison for two years, you'll probably lose that business. 

Ric Edelman: Even if you don't, you're going to lose the money to legal fees.  

Chris Morgan: Right, right. So that's why you have these factoids in the back of your mind as to which clients may be impacted by the Corporate Transparency Act. But still, at the end, I would always encourage clients to consult an attorney just to confirm if this is something that's going to impact them or not. 

Ric Edelman: Talk about the ruling that just came down, ruled it unconstitutional. Do you think that this law is essentially in the long run going to be dead? 

Chris Morgan: I hope so. I think so. And we'll see. I wouldn't want to not take action for the remainder of the year in the hopes that it won't happen. Cause again, the penalties come the first of 2025 or extremely severe. So I would still, even if we end up getting lucky and the whole act gets derailed, I wouldn't just take no action for clients that might be impacted. 

Ric Edelman: So, advisors should start now talking to clients to confirm whether or not they're going to be subject to this law. 

Chris Morgan: Right. Especially clients that you think might. If you know for certain the client has nothing to do with any small business, you probably don't need to tell every client to consult an attorney. 

Ric Edelman: And is it strictly businesses that this is applying to? Is it applying to other entities such as trusts or LLCs? 

Chris Morgan: Yeah, it remains to be seen. And I know it's in flux. It certainly could. I think the focus of the act has been on businesses, but to your point, Ric, there is a chance that those other entities could be dragged in as well. 

Ric Edelman: So we clearly need to be paying attention to this. Talk about what advisors can be doing creatively to build their business. And meaning in terms of attracting new clients. I think most here would agree that they either serve the high net worth of the ultra high net worth market or they want to do more in that area. How do you stand out as an advisor? How do you win business from those kinds of households? 

Chris Morgan: Excellent question. And you touched on this earlier. A lot of advisors aren't comfortable speaking about estate planning. So if you get to that point, you're already ahead of most other advisors. I feel like specifically within estate planning, one area to really differentiate yourself would be with charitable planning. Because especially once you get above $2 million or $3 million or more, most clients have some degree of charitable intent, even if they donate $5,000 a year to their church, right? Even that is a planning opportunity. If they're taking RMDs, that's a planning opportunity. With QCDs, qualified charitable distributions, you can actually, it's $105,000 right now for this year and about half of that can actually go into a charitable remainder trust, which is a whole other conversation. I can clarify if desired. But basically, if you're able to discuss charitable planning, you'll stand apart in my view, because the CFP, the certified financial planner materials cover pretty much every key element of financial planning and some elements of estate planning at a high level, but it leaves out charitable planning. And in my view, I've done personally charitable planning seminars where I walk clients through what I view as the three stages of charitable planning, which is one, figure out how much you want to give to charity. And usually again, the trade off would be kids, right? So how much is enough, but not too much for kids. And certainly that's a very philosophical question that clients are going to have to come to. It's a very personal decision, but as an advisor, if you're able to guide them through that conversation, you can really differentiate yourself from other advisors who won't even mention it. And then once you, especially in the client, figure out how much to give to charity. In my view, the second step is, within a particular area of interest, usually a client is going to have a cause or area of interest that they like. You don't typically have to help them with that part. But once they identify a particular area of interest, how do you assess a charity? What are some good charities within that particular area of interest? And personally, I've found GuideStar and Charity Navigator to be a couple of good nonprofit independent resources that kind of assess charities. And so if you can guide clients through that, I doubt many other advisors are doing the same. And then the third step, in my view, once you figure out how much they want to give to charity and when during life or at death or both, and you identify here are some good charities within that particular area of interest, the third step is how do you execute on that? What types of tools or strategies do you use to honor the client's intention with regards to charity in the most tax efficient way possible? And some of those tools could be things we already discussed, like a qualified charitable distribution, it could be a charitable remainder trust where the client gets income for their personal use, non-charitable during their life, and then whatever is left goes to charity at their passing that can address a client's concern of what if I accidentally give too much away and the market doesn't do well and I run out of money, right? So that's another example of a tool. It could be as simple as, what is a relatively simple tool, putting appreciated stock or bitcoin into a donor advised fund. Those donor advised funds can be utilized with much smaller amounts than we discussed earlier. Even $10,000 could be used in a donor advised fund. And so these are some ways that advisors can find some low hanging fruit in terms of tools they can use with their clients that other advisors are highly unlikely to be talking about. And then if clients are more on the ultra high net worth side, that's where charitable remainder trust become more prominent. And I know this part isn't charitable in nature, but the SLATs. And so I've seen a trend of RIAs with ultra high net worth clients partnering with a corporate trustee through a directed trust relationship. And oftentimes they might have two or three different relationships with corporate trustees to employ those ultra high net worth planning strategies. 

Ric Edelman: Any questions for Chris?  

Audience: I have a quick question. Actually, Ric, for you as well. From an advisor's stance, when should they be knowledgeable across the board and when should they integrate with specialists like estate planning attorneys or accountants? What's the depth of knowledge as an advisor? And then when should we collaborate, in your opinion? 

Chris Morgan: I'll go first to answer that question. So we were discussing this before. I feel like a perfect example would be on the Corporate Transparency Act, where you should know a few things at a high level, but don't try to be the attorney. Right? Cause I don't think any of us, I certainly don't want to become a legal expert and analyze every fine detail and risk my client going to prison for two years, right? So that would be an area where you want to know a few facts at a high level, and then no one to refer to a specialist or an expert. If it's something relatively simple, like they give $10,000 a year to the church, I feel like advisors should really be ready to provide that kind of advice to their clients. What's your deal? 

Ric Edelman: I would agree. You're not an attorney. You don't want to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. And you're not an accountant. You don't want to be liable for errors that they make on their returns. But at the same time, you need to be knowledgeable to a degree where you have a working knowledge of the fundamentals. You always want to know more than your client, and you always want to be able to demonstrate to your client that you are able to raise issues that they may not have contemplated. There's people who don't know and people who don't know they don't know. You want to be in the don't know camp, meaning there's stuff I know that I don't know. But I know enough to raise the issue with you so that I can prod you to talk to your attorney or accountant, or better yet, you interface with them because that is where you develop the professional relationships. By talking to your client's attorney and accountant, you now develop that relationship with them, which can lead to more referrals because if your client's wealthy enough to have that attorney, that attorney has other wealthy clients. And if they can talk shop with you, and get a sense that you kind of know what you're talking about, and you know where the boundaries are that you're not going to cross over. The two of you can work together in cross referencing and referring clients to each other and building each other's practices, all serving the client at the same time. So, you should not abdicate. And what I've seen in many firms structures these days, they're using a quarterback model where the advisor is the central point of contact for the advisor, but they're farming out within the firm to an insurance specialist or a legal specialist or a mortgage brokerage specialist or what have you, and the result is that the advisor themselves really doesn't know much of anything. I've seen cases where the advisor has presented a financial plan to the client. And the client asks a question about the plan and the advisor's response is, I don't know, someone else built this, I'm just sharing it with you. That doesn't do anybody any good. So you need to know enough to demonstrate to the client that your competency justifies their hiring you as an advisor. You can't have too much knowledge, but you can share too much with the client. So you do want to strike a good balance there. 

Chris Morgan: Those are some good points, Ric. I'll add one more thing to that. If you do become the trusted advisor, the quarterback of the relationship, and you utilize specialists with estate planning attorneys, for example, if you're sending high quality clients to them to draft trust documents for your clients, I've seen many advisors receive quality referrals from those estate planning attorneys as well. So, that's not the only reason to do it, but just know that's another opportunity as well with working with specialists.  

Ric Edelman: My thanks to Chris Morgan of Sanibel Captiva Island Trust Company. 

Ric Edelman: Coming up next on the show, a question that I got from one of our listeners. 

----- 

Ric Edelman: Thanks for sticking around with us here on The Truth About Your Future. Got a question from Daniel. And here's what Daniel wrote to me: 

“I know you favor ETFs over mutual funds. However, there is a significant disadvantage for an ETF over a mutual fund. An ETF cannot close. This isn't a problem for passively managed ETFs, but it could be a problem for actively managed ETFs.” 

Daniel, you're clearly well versed in the asset management industry. I even suspect you might be a financial advisor. You're familiar with active versus passive management. You're familiar with the construct that is the underlying basis on how mutual funds operate versus that of ETFs, good for you. Let me bring other folks up to speed. So everybody knows what we're talking about, but in the end, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong on everything you've said. So let me give it a shot here. First, most mutual funds are actively managed, meaning they are run by a fund manager who's trying to pick the best stocks in order to beat the market. On the other hand, ETFs are mostly passively managed, meaning they're not trying to beat the market, they're trying to be the market. They are simply trying to deliver returns that are the same as the market. They are far lower in cost. Many would also argue far lower in risk because they're the tortoise among the hares. What you're suggesting is that, an ETF cannot close, mutual funds can. And then what does all that mean for everybody listening?  

Mutual funds are generally available to everybody all the time. You want to buy mutual fund shares? You can, just invest no big deal. But sometimes mutual fund managers, because they are actively managed, they close their doors. They close, they don't allow new investments. And the reason they close their doors is that they are using a strategy that they know works with the limited amount of money they have to invest, but they don't want to receive more money from investors because that'll give them too much money to invest and they won't be able to effectively execute their strategy. Their returns will suffer. Everybody will lose. So they close their doors to protect the quality of their fund and to protect their current investors. It's a rather noble act if you think about it, because mutual fund companies make money, the more money they're managing, the more money they're making. By closing their doors to new investments, they are shutting off the potential for making a lot more money. So it's a noble act to close their fund, to close it to new investors. But it happens from time to time.  

ETFs, because of the rules they operate under which are different from mutual funds, ETFs cannot ever close. Which means, that fund manager may be suffering from an influx of capital undermining their ability to perform as well as they had in the past. And they suffer this problem that a mutual fund doesn't incur because the mutual fund can close the ETF cannot. Daniel, sounds logical, but it's not a problem. For number one, most ETFs are not actively managed. They're passively managed. So it's not an issue. Second, even for those rare ETFs that are actively managed, well, you as the investor should know this before you buy the fund, you should be aware of how much money the fund is managing, relative to the amount of money it has been managing over the past several years, to be able to identify if they are now suddenly managing too much. 

In other words, you can make the choice to simply not invest in the fund, or if you own the fund, to sell your shares because they now have gotten too big. In other words, this isn't a problem for ETFs compared to mutual funds. This is simply the responsible job of a diligent investor or, more frankly, their investment advisor. So, yeah, technically, you're right about this, but quite frankly, I think you're worrying about something that is not something to worry about. 

You can send me your question as well, just send it to AskRic@TheTruthAYF.com. The link is in the show notes.   

----- 

Ric Edelman: You've only got a few days left to save 25% when you enroll in my CBDA online course. The Certified in Blockchain and Digital Assets program gives you the knowledge you need so you can give your clients the advice they need – go to DACFP.com. The link is in the show notes and use discount code ETH25 to save 25%.  

----- 

Ric Edelman: On Monday’s show, actually I have no idea what I'm going to talk with you about on Monday. Let's see what's in the news over the weekend. I'll see you Monday with something hot. 

----- 

Ric Edelman: I’m glad you’re with me here on The Truth About Your Future. If you like what you're hearing, be sure to follow and subscribe to the show, wherever you get your podcasts, Apple, Spotify, YouTube – and remember leave a review on Apple podcasts. I read them all! Never miss an episode of The Truth About Your Future. Follow and subscribe on your favorite podcast app. 

----- 

Subscribe to podcast updates: https://form.jotform.com/223614751580152 

Ask Ric: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/ask-ric 

----- 

Links from today’s show: 

Become Certified in Blockchain and Digital Assets (use discount code ETH25 to save 25%): https://dacfp.com/certification/ 

Wealth Management Convergence (March 2024): https://www.thetayf.com/pages/convergence 

The Financial Consequences of Undiagnosed Memory Disorders (Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Georgetown University study): https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr1106.html  

The Sanibel Captiva Island Trust Company: https://www.sancaptrustco.com/  

----- 

Follow Ric on social media: 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RicEdelman 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ric_edelman/ 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricedelman/ 

X: https://twitter.com/ricedelman 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RicEdelman 

----- 

Brought to you by: 

Invesco QQQ: https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html 

State Street Global Advisors: https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary/etfs/capabilities/spdr-core-equity-etfs/spy-sp-500/cornerstones  

Schwab: https://www.schwab.com/ 

Disclosure page: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/sponsorship-disclosure-fee 

-----