Is the Fed Driving Us Into Recession?

Andrew Brill 0:00
Is there any way to tell that we’re headed in the wrong direction?

Chris Casey 0:03
Well, I think there’s a lot of writing’s on the wall, whether you look at the reduction of my supply, year over year growth, which has been negative for historically, unheard of levels and amount of time, if you look at the inverted yield curve, which I’m sure some of your guests have talked about, that’s very long in the tooth, as far as how long it’s been inverted, arguing for pretty large recession, or at least economic weakness fairly soon. So there are some tools out there.

Andrew Brill 0:31
Hello, and welcome to Wealthion. I’m your host, Andrew brill, with all the talk about the Fed and the decisions they make about interest rates, we thought it would be a good idea to figure out who the Fed really is and how it works. And we’ll do that right now.

Like to welcome in Chris Casey, who is the founder and managing director of one of our partner RIAs, Wind,Rock Wealth Management, if you request a complimentary portfolio review, it’s Chris, you’ll be talked to Chris, welcome back.

Chris Casey 1:04
Thanks for having me, Andrew. So,

Andrew Brill 1:06
you know, we thought it would be a good idea with all this talk about the Fed is and what they do and how they come up with a policy to tighten or lengthen our economy. So it’d be a good idea to, you know, talk to one of the masters and I know that education was one of the things on your bucket list. Or if you weren’t doing this, you’d probably be a teacher. So we might ask you a bunch of questions about the Fed and that sort of thing. But you know, Chris, we know that the Banking Act of 1935 sort of brought all the regional Federal banks into under one umbrella in Washington, what was going on at the time? Or what did they what did the government I know, Roosevelt signed that it started under Hoover, what? What did they look to accomplish by doing that?

Chris Casey 1:52
Sure, it may maybe I should just start off with saying it’s kind of silly that we’re even talking about the Federal Reserve, right, because it’s such a monolithic entity that everyone’s focused on. And to the point where we have investors, you know, poring over transcripts of minutes looking for minute word changes, we have, you know, people charting, or listening to every speech that fed governors may give or board members. And literally, you know, there’s some that are considered to be the ones that are kind of leaking information. So they’re following those so it’s, it almost reminds me You’re, you’re too young for this, but it kind of reminds me of back in the Soviet Union days, where people would look at the Mayday Parade and who’s standing closest to Brezhnev is it is a girl, Miko is a Ustinov, you know who’s got the more power. So it’s, it’s kind of silly in that sense. The origin of the Federal Reserve, I guess, you could go back and say there’s, you know, several banking crises in the 1800s, you know, so called Wildcat banking, etc. And finally, finally, what they did is they created a cartel banking cartel, under the suppose would reason that this is gonna prevent bank failures, and which would on an individual basis, right, because they all inflate together, because if one inflates by itself, then it’s going to go under. So that was the that was the behind the scenes reason for it was to create a banking cartel, with a call inflate together. As far as later acts. You know, there’s a lot of consolidation in the banking industry. Most of these are not free market problems. These are government problems. In the Great Depression, you had, banks are restricted by state, right. They couldn’t they couldn’t invest. And so you had geographic, real geographic risk, whether it was farming or what have you. So that was the supposed origin of it. And by any standards, I’d say, given what their mission has been, it’s been a failure, when

Andrew Brill 3:49
you think about the Fed and what they do, and look, we, these days, all we hear about is the Fed because we’re we’re waiting for interest rates to come down. And we’ll get into the heart of the historical significance of where interest rates really are at this particular time. But what are the tools that they have? We know that, look, if they want to tighten the economy, they raise interest rates, but what what are the tools? They look at so many different numbers, Chris, CPI, PPI unemployment, and I know there’s like 100 of them that we never ever hear about that go into the mix that they they look at on a monthly basis. I know they meet about eight times a year, but it seems like it’s almost monthly that we’re waiting, okay, here’s the news. What are we doing? What what are those things that go into and what are the tools that they have to really dictate monetary policy?

Chris Casey 4:38
Ultimately, you could boil it down into really one tool. It’s the ability to increase the money supply or decreased by supply. Now, there’s a lot of different in their toolkit, a lot of different tools that will do that. So for instance, the three primary ones to influence the money supply, are open market operations, that’s where they’re literally going out and buying In treasury bills or Treasury bonds, they’re increasing the supply of money by doing that, they’re buying an asset with money created out of thin air. That’s, that’s tool number one to number number two. And probably the one that’s most frequently reported on and focused on, although it’s probably the weakest would be their ability to influence or set certain interest rates on the short end. So they set the federal funds rate, they set the discount rate, where they’re lending directly to bank state, the federal funds rate is the overnight rate essentially, for banks to lend to themselves, that influences interest rates across the board to some degree. That’s tool number two. Tool number three is gone, actually, but tool number three, historically, was they’re able to set the reserve requirements for banks that were on a fractional reserve banking system, unfortunately, which means that demand deposits are loaned out. So your checking deposits actually sitting there, it’s already been lent lent out. And previously, the reserve requirement was 10%. So banks could lend out 90 cents on $1, that you had given them in your checking account. Now, after March of 2020, it was like line item nine out of this huge memo they published at that time. So they tried to kind of hide it and diminish the importance they did away with it, there’s no a 0% reserve requirement for banks, which means they grossly increased, the my supplier had the ability for banks to increase my supply at that point in time. It’s no coincidence that 18 months later, inflation is at 9%. But those are the three primary tools that they use. And there’s a whole host of other things they can do, because they are in charge of regulating banks, so they can set banking regulations. A lot of it is just their influence. Like we talked about people paying attention to their speeches or minutes, what have you, they’re dot plots. So they’re, they’re constantly what we call jawboning the financial industry as well trying to get what they want.

Andrew Brill 6:58
So those reserve numbers that you talked about banks lending out more than more, or not having to keep any money basically in the bank. So you deposit whatever you deposit, they can lend out that money. It’s really what created some of the bank failures is that there was a run on those banks, people wanted their money, and they didn’t have the cash reserves to give it out. Is that isn’t that right? Yeah.

Chris Casey 7:19
Well, fractional reserve banking is inherently I claim it was inherently fraudulent, but it’s also inherently unstable. And so you’re right, that is a big part of it. And then you compound that with the catalyst of rising interest rates, where banks were underwater with all their treasury holdings. And that’s ultimately what doomed a lot of banks in the spring of last year. So

Andrew Brill 7:40
looking at the numbers, you know, they look at certain numbers to see if that goes up and down. And, you know, some of the I know the tools they have, or you just discussed, but when you look at things like a CPI, and that seems to be the one the you know, the Consumer Price Index, how much money are people spending out there? And this is the one that they look at, and they say, okay, that’s coming down a little bit. But with so much money that they’ve poured into the economy, it’s taking a really long time for that to come down. Why is it that they look at that number? And that’s the number that the media seems to hinge on. And the market seems to hinge on that. Number two is like whenever that CPI number comes in, and it ticks down, oh, yeah, inflation is coming down. Great, you know, but you know, why is it that number that they sort of fixate on,

Chris Casey 8:29
they fixate on right now, the CPI and the Fed looks at other measures, too, like the PCE for inflation, what have you, but they are, the market is looking at that because the market believes or they’re waiting for the Federal Reserve and hoping that the Federal Reserve reduces rates and kind of restart the boom period. That’s what they’ve been hoping for. They they predicted at the beginning of this year, there will be seven rate cuts, what we run out of time, we haven’t had any I would suspect we’re not going to have any, because we basically have two meetings before. We’re really into campaign season post conventions. It’s very difficult politically for the Fed to do anything at that point in time. So they’re focused on that merely because they think it will give the fed the green light to go ahead and cut rates at some point in time. That’s why the markets focused on that. It should be and it’s also the Federal Reserve. I mean, it’s one of the three missions, right? People talk about a dual standard that they have, but reality it’s three things. It’s moderate long term interest rates, it’s stable prices, and it is low unemployment. So that’s why people are focused on the CPI including the Fed and we

Andrew Brill 9:41
still have relatively low unemployment. People are worried about stagflation versus inflation. And if I in please correct me if I’m wrong Stagflation is high interest rates with high unemployment. So the you know, these employment numbers or unemployment numbers keep coming in the right around where they want them, or maybe slightly higher, but it’s nowhere near what we seen in the, in the past with, you know, a stagflation it is certainly, from my perspective, and I’m not as big an expert and I don’t claim to be an expert like you are. Stagflation is something we need to worry about at this point. Yes. And

Chris Casey 10:21
I do think that’s where we’re headed. I mean, 1970s, I’ve always said is a pretty good indicator of what we may be in store down the road. There, you had high inflation for multiple years, in a very weak economy. The investment scene was horrible, right? Bonds probably lost two thirds of their value. Stocks lost their value in real terms. So I do think Stagflation is a real concern, as far as it being concerned of the Federal Reserve. I’m not sure what their concerns are. They’re extremely reactionary. They’re not transparent. Frankly, I don’t think because they really don’t have a good philosophical grounding as far as these economic phenomena were talking about. I don’t think they really know what to do. And I think they’re scared. I think you see that right now. In their policy decisions, yeah, I

Andrew Brill 11:08
just I just interviewed someone who said, what would be worse if the Fed cut rates and then had to raise them? Or if the Fed left rates the way they are, and had to lower them? already? Yeah, raise them and then had to lower them. So what would be worse? And I think if they lowered them and had to raise them, that would probably be worse. At this point, don’t you think?

Chris Casey 11:29
It would signal that they were completely confused by the direction, the economy and other economic factors and then it wouldn’t be the first time let me just comment real briefly on the Federal Reserve’s ability to predict something because there’s different levels of prediction. Right? So for instance, if Chairman Powell came out and said, Who’s gonna win the Super Bowl next year? Well, he has no control over that, or influence, right? So we wouldn’t expect a very good answer. If he came out and said, which they do their projections of, say GDP for next year, well, historically, not only are they wrong, but they tend to be outside the range, they predict. So right there, you show that they have a huge influence on something, and they’re unable to predict it, the next level would be something they’re directly able to control. And they’re still wrong. And we see this with the dot plots. It’s amazing. But you could chart out the dot plots, every three months, they come out dot plots are their expectation of short term interest rates, which they primarily control to a large degree. And they’re consistently wrong, right. It’s almost like me saying, predicting what I’m gonna have for breakfast tomorrow, and then not being able to do it, right. Like I predict my vote may want to end up having eggs and bacon, right. So it’s, it’s just sort of comical, but they are horrible at predicting things. And so if they did have that fact pattern, where the lower rates are willing to raise them quickly, I think that would just kind of, you know, unveil their in competency in that regard.

Andrew Brill 13:00
And I almost equate them to the weatherman, I don’t know what your weather people like are like in Chicago, but here in New York, they’re not right? A lot. It’s almost like a baseball player who’s successful when he gets he’s only, you know, hits the ball 30% of the time, they call that successful. And I feel like that’s the weatherman. And that seems like the Fed at this point to is, uh, you know, maybe they’re right 30% of the time. But what, in terms of interest rates? Are we looking at down the road? I mean, historically, we’re not in a place with interest rates where they’re abnormally high, but everybody’s looking at interest rates, and oh, my god, five and a quarter. That’s that’s way high. But when you look at it, you know, we endured a period of probably 24 years, where we’re right around the average.

Chris Casey 13:51
That’s true. Now, the average is a little skewed. Because if you look at it, it looks like a giant pyramid over the last like 50 years, right? They slowly went up and then slowly went down, and then now they’re creeping back up. So it’s a little bit misleading. However, you’re right. Most investors, let’s say if they’re 35, or younger, have no experience with what normal rates really are, which I would argue we kind of do have right now. But it also kind of underscores the dangers in the system, right? We have normal rates, and things are already blowing up in the banking industry. And I can see that happening again, down the road. And I think the Feds concerned about that, too. And I think some of the recent moves indicate that

Andrew Brill 14:32
so let’s talk about the history a little bit and where rates have been I mean, I went back to 1980 and the beginning of 1980 was 17%. In December of 80 was, you know 19% I bought my first house in 1990 rates were just under eight. And then we endured a period and yes, I’m looking at my list because I can’t remember all these rates, you know, there was a period from 95 to 2000. was in that fight right where we are now is in that five to 6% range. And then it started to really drop down where we had 0% interest rate for a pretty extended period of time. And now we’re back up to that 5% It seems that the low cycle was was lengthy, and the high cycle they’re trying to get back down five and a half percent interest rates, Chris, really not that big of a problem, is it? It

Chris Casey 15:29
is right now. It shouldn’t be to answer your question. It should not be by by any standards. However, it obviously is. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had Silicon Valley Bank last year, we would have had these banking failures. And we’re not out of the woods in that regard, either. So they are normal rates. But when you have such malinvestment over the last 10 plus years because of low interest rates, right, where people are making economic decisions, investing in things they shouldn’t be investing in, that once you have recession, once you have higher rates, all those miscalculations that malinvestments can be revealed.

Andrew Brill 16:06
And we go back to the Fed’s decision to, you know, keep rates or how often they’re not correct. When you talk about recession, it doesn’t take much to really tip that scale. Right? It, you know, when they’re looking at it. And it’s strange, we never know if we’re in a recession until we’re out of it. Is the old saying and how to, is there any way to tell that we’re headed in the wrong direction?

Chris Casey 16:32
Well, I think there’s a lot of writing’s on the wall, whether you look at the reduction of my supply, year over year growth, which has been negative for historically, unheard of levels and amount of time, if you look at the inverted yield curve, which I’m sure some of your guests have talked about, that’s very long in the tooth, as far as how long it’s been inverted, arguing for pretty large recession, or at least economic weakness fairly soon. So there are some tools out there, the Federal Reserve has probably got about 500, PhD economists, you know, on staff. In fact, if you look at their minutes for the release after every FOMC meeting, it’s amazing how many people are in the room, so to speak, I don’t know what this room looks like, it must be a stadium, there’s like two pages of you know, prestigious sounding people in there. So they monitor an awful lot of things. But ultimately, I think it comes down to what causes them recessions to begin with, and that is artificially low rates, because they’re propping up the money supply there, increase the money supply. And when you take that away, when you take the Punchbowl away, interest rates rise, recession happens malinvestments are revealed.

Andrew Brill 17:44
Now, look, I know these guys are very, very smart, a lot smarter than I am. PhDs, economics, all this stuff. I just, I can’t help but wonder if and I know there’s hundreds of things that go into all the numbers that they look at. Are they looking at the analytics the right way? Is there is there is it a possibility that and you know, at heart, I’m a little bit of a sports guy and I you know, analytics is huge in sports. Now. Is there some analytic that we’re not, it hasn’t been invented yet, that we could be looking at and saying, hey, you know what, no, this is this is going to fix everything, or this is going to change a lot of things.

Chris Casey 18:29
There could be nothing comes to mind. However, they are looking at some tools, and they have them in their hands, and they’re just not paying attention to them. So for instance, I mentioned the inverted yield curve. You know, they’ve done a number of studies showed demonstrating that that’s probably the best predictive measure of an recession. They’ve acknowledged that they’ve said it the New York, New York Fed has papers on this where they say it, and yet they kind of ignore it, right? Because if they believed it, we wouldn’t have yelling, yelling, Janet Yellen walking around saying, Well, I don’t think we’re ever gonna have a financial crisis again, right, which was before last spring of the financial crisis, right. So they have a lot of these tools, they have what you call gross output, which is a different form of looking at GDP. They, they measure this, they’ve been tracking it for, I think, 10 years now. And it’s a really good reliable indicator of a contracting economy when it’s slowing relative to the nominal GDP. So they have a lot of tools at their disposal, or information at their disposal. If anything, maybe they have too much. I remember the days when it was widely reported in Wall Street Journal that you know, Bernanke woods are not predicting, I’m sorry. The Fed chairman would sit in his bathtub and just kind of, you know, read all the likes latest steel production, trying to get a sense of the economy, and then they probably have information overload if anything without again a clear underlying philosophy or school of thought is to what causes recessions. So

Andrew Brill 19:57
the yield curve Chris, and I just, I’m gonna Ask him to educate me a little bit is about is the, the the bond price over time and you want to see it kind of go up at a, you know, a nice rate. And when it’s inverted, it means the longer bonds are actually lower in price. Is that correct? So you actually see a downward sloping angle. Yeah,

Chris Casey 20:20
it’s a graphical representation of the yields on the bonds. So what they’re paying off pain, and you’re correct to short term bonds when they have higher yields in the long term. And typically, a measurement would be what they call the 10s over the twos the 10 year bond over the two year bond. If you did that math right now, you’re probably at around 25 basis points negative. And so that’s simply how they look at it. Traditionally, you would have an upward sloping yield curve, or perhaps even flat, but inverted is it’s been a dangerous sign for years.

Andrew Brill 20:53
So to two year bonds might be a good investment at this point, because the yield seems to be high Is that Is that fair to say?

Chris Casey 21:01
Well, in an era of uncertainty, right, which was certainly in, in an era where you could expect to make a good argument, there’s gonna be higher rates, I think people should be very concerned about the long end of the bond curve, because that’s what gets hit hardest. And that’s exactly what caused the banking crisis last year. That’s what did in Silicon Valley, they loaded up on long term treasuries. And when interest rates rose, they’re impacted the most that three months, six months, nine months, year to year, through impact of maybe a little bit, but nothing like long term bonds.

Andrew Brill 21:33
So the government and the amount of debt that we have now and one of the one of the, you know, this isn’t really a Fed thing, but the government because of a 34 and a half trillion dollar debt. They’re pumping bonds, and they’ve slowed down with the with the, you know, the last night this President meeting, the last meeting, they said that we’re going to stop, you know, we’re going to instead of 65 trillion bonds, we’re going to 25 trillion in bonds, but they’re pumping bonds into the system, so to speak, at a pretty high clip, is that why the yield curve is coming down? Well,

Chris Casey 22:06
you’re right, the Treasury has to issue a lot of bonds to finance. The government for a couple of reasons. One is interest rates alone. So we’ve seen interest rates for fiscal year 2023. So October of last year, I believe they were around, let’s say 700 billion for the federal government. Right now, as it stands today, over the last 12 months, you’re at a trillion dollars, right? There’s spending on interest alone, this time, or it’s projected that for fiscal year 2024. So by the end of this year, October of this year, you’re looking at 1.7 trillion in interest that far exceeds the defense budget, numerous other programs. So for that reason, alone, you know, expenditures are going through the roof, it’s a big difference, you know, extra trillion dollars. So you do have to issue quite a number of bonds. On the flip side, we’ve had what’s called the runoff, literally to the month when we had 9% inflation in June of 2022, the Fed came in says, Okay, we’ve got this massive amount of bonds on our balance sheet. As we receive cash, as they mature, we receive cash, we’re not going to redeploy all the cash in the bonds. It’s called the runoff. So they were doing, like you mentioned, the program they were doing about, they would withhold around 65 billion and treasuries and 35 billion and mortgage backed securities, they just recently reduced that. So they’re, they’re lowering their rates of negative monetary growth by about, let’s say, 40%. From what they were doing. That’s absolutely true.

Andrew Brill 23:43
So I want to get into a little bit the dilemma that we’re facing now. And it’s, you know, raised rates, cut rates, and thankfully, the inflation number came down. I mean, a couple of months ago, started to tick up a little bit and everybody I know, with the last fed meetings, oh, you know, they could raise rates. And Chairman Powell Sana, threw some cold water on that talk right away and said, No, no, no. It’s under control. We’re getting it to where it’s just going to take some time. So what is the dilemma that they’re they’re looking at right now with leaving the rates or cutting the rates? They have

Chris Casey 24:18
a very hard choice here. I mean, first of all, you’re right, Chairman Powell said, you know, they’re going to be restrictive until they see this play out a little bit. And they really don’t have a reason to cut rates right now. I mean, inflation at 3.6% Yes, it’s higher. It’s higher than they want and so that leads them to think that we don’t want to cut rates. On the other hand, unemployment doesn’t really argue for cutting rates either because it’s at a normal level right now. Around for in so it’s not really a problem. There’s no real catalyst forcing them to cut rates other than the markets, you know, almost demanding it. Here’s their dilemma. On the one hand, they had they lose credibility. If inflation gets out of control. That’s another hand. Everyone else loses if you have higher interest rates, so the federal government loses, they can’t afford higher rates, right? The investors, financial markets can’t afford higher rates, the banks can’t afford higher rates, all these different entities and interest special interests really don’t want higher rates, which is why everyone’s clamoring for low rates. But to do that, I think the Fed gives up a lot of their credibility, because I do think inflation is going to go higher. So

Andrew Brill 25:35
what are the let’s say, you know, things can keep trending, albeit slowly, in the right direction. And the Fed, either the end of this year, beginning of next year says, Alright, you know, what, we’re going to, we’re going to cut 25 basis points, or, you know, whatever it is that they decide to cut, what trigger points are they going to look for? And what should we look for, in saying, okay, you know, that’s enough for now, or we need to go lower?

Chris Casey 26:02
Well, that’s hard to say, I guess, I would really rely on exactly what they’re telling us. Right? Like, I mean, he’s already said, they’re going to try to be restrictive. So I would interpret that as holding off, you know, meeting by meeting and see how that kind of verbiage changes. That’s probably the clearest or best indicator, what’s going to happen. So I want to ask you, or that one thing, or the economy, or the markets fall out of bed, if that happens, all bets are off, because they can instantly come in. Right, right? Because then we don’t know how to do one thing, print money, ultimately. And so if the markets fall to bed, geopolitical issue, if there’s economy takes a downturn, they go right back through same playbook. So

Andrew Brill 26:43
it the beginning, Chris, we talked about the federal Banking Act of 1935. And Roosevelt, and one of the things that they did with that act was take the the fed the Open Market Committee, and sort of separate it from the three other branches of government, they almost made it autonomous. And I would assume that’s a good thing, because you don’t want anybody having power over, you know, interest rates and the economy, especially now that we’re coming into an election season. And we talked about, and you mentioned that they don’t want to look at, you know, what, affecting the race at all. So is it a good thing that the Fed is sort of separated at this point? That’s

Chris Casey 27:30
what everyone’s always said historically, that they they love the idea of the so called autonomous fed, the German central bank was always lauded for the same reason. I’m not sure that’s actually the case. I mean, we’re talking about government appointees, right. It’s not independent. That sense. Yes, they have long terms. Yes, they may be from a prior administration, but they’re very attune to political intrigue. I mean, they they know very well, what they’re doing and how it may influence elections based on what they do to the economy. In fact, Greenspan said as much I blew about a year ago, he said, of course, we’re politically influenced. So of course, we’re political creatures. Of course, we have to fund the deficit when no one else is willing to step up. And therefore, you know, manipulate interest rates. Yes, they absolutely. Although they appear autonomous. I have my doubts about that. But

Andrew Brill 28:23
there is one candidate who’s talking about sort of being a lot more in control of that. Do you see that as a huge problem?

Chris Casey 28:32
Well, yes, and no, I mean, think about this. I remember. Thomas Paine, when he wrote common sense, when was great lines was that the great one of the few attributes of a monarchy is that when things go bad, you know exactly who’s responsible, right? Same thing here. If there’s no, there’s no longer if there’s a presidential influence, strong presidential influence on Fed policy, well, then we know exactly who’s to blame as to what happens.

Andrew Brill 29:01
It worries me a little bit that someone you know, wielding a big axe comes in says, we’re gonna do it this way. And if things go bad, yeah, we know who to blame, but things could get ugly in a hurry. So it seems like that could be the case to where if there’s not a lot of checks and balances as our system is supposed to have, you know, things could get ugly quickly.

Chris Casey 29:25
Well, from a big picture standpoint, I think things getting ugly is inevitable. Outside of really dramatic and drastic measures. I mean, this playbook is gonna play out no matter who’s in charge, right? There’s a massive amount of debt 34 trillion. You’re taking in, let’s say 5 trillion in revenues. You’re already spending of that 5 trillion, you’re gonna spend literally 20% of it. Five sorry, 40% almost on interest, and there’s really the fiscal situation is so out of control. All that we will be talking about solvency issue in the not too distant future regarding the US. And it doesn’t matter who’s in charge. In we saw this already, for instance, before the Biden administration, the Biden administration’s Fed policy wasn’t very different than the Trump administration’s Fed policy. Right. They both massively increase the Fed’s balance sheet while in office. So you could argue, Well, it’s because of lock downs and COVID. But they both did the exact same thing.

Andrew Brill 30:29
Yeah. So it’s, you think there’s very, very tough times ahead, is what you’re saying? Well,

Chris Casey 30:36
more importantly, maybe, is that there’s really no good solutions. I mean, it would take a man, you’d have to take a cleaver, to the budget. And we don’t even have a budget anymore, right? They’re just rolling appropriation measures. But if there was a budget, you’d have to take a cleaver to it. And you have to tackle what will never be tackled, because politically they can’t. entitlements. That’s exactly what needs to be tackled. All right, Chris. Thanks

Andrew Brill 30:59
so much. I know we can find you at WindRockWealth.com You have a bunch of articles there. I know you post our videos there. You can also head over to Wealthion.com If you want to speak to Chris and fill out the form and Chris is more than willing to help you out go through your portfolio and make sure you’re protected and heading in the right direction. Thanks so much, Chris. Really appreciate it. That’s a wrap on another discussion here on Wealthion and thank you for joining us if you need help being financially resilient, please head over to Wealthion.com. Sign up for a free no obligation portfolio review with one of our registered investment advisors. And remember to follow us on social media for the latest news and information to help you invest wisely. And if you could like and subscribe to the channel, we’d greatly appreciate it. Don’t forget to hit the notification bell so you can find out when we post new videos to the channel. Thanks again for watching. Until next time, stay informed, be empowered and may your investments flourish. And if you enjoyed this interview, please check out this one next