Touching the Third Rail of Politics - 7 ways to save Social Security

0:00 Welcome to Something More with Chris Boyd. Chris Boyd is a certified financial planner, practitioner, and senior vice president and financial advisor at Wealth Enhancement Group, one of the nation's largest registered investment advisors. We call it Something More because we'd like to talk not only about those important dollar and cents issues, but also the quality of life issues that make the money matters matter. Here he is, your fulfillment facilitator, your partner in prosperity, advising clients on Cape Cod and across the country. Here's your host, Jay Christopher Boyd. Welcome to another edition of Something More with Chris Boyd. I'm Jeff Perry. I'm sitting in for Chris, who is in Tennessee, the volunteer state at a conference for Wealth Enhancement.

0:44 And I'm happy to have with me my co-host today, Russ Ball, part of the AMR team at Wealth Enhancement. Thanks for joining us, Russ. Of course. Happy to be joining you, Jeff. I am live from Florida. I hope I'm alive in Florida. And you are in? Hyannis, Cape Cod. So our team is spread out all over the place. Brian's up in Boston today. And Chris and Kristen are in Tennessee. So we are covering the East Coast. Yeah. We've got it locked down. Anywhere you are along the East Coast, you can find one of us. Hopefully, they're having a good conference. And I was glad to see that they were able to fly down there. There's so many things with this government shutdown that are like, is that going to be affected by the government shutdown?

1:31 I was watching CNBC this morning. We're recording on the 16th of November here and waiting for the CPI report to come out this week. And oh, yeah, we're not going to get a report this week because the government is shut down. I saw on the news this morning, they had a News Nation, which is a news station that I prefer, had a town hall meeting last night with Democrats and Republicans talking about the shutdown, maybe how they can get it resolved. There was an air traffic controller who came up to the podium and asked the question, like, when do you think this will be over? I am not getting paid. I have to work. I'm not getting paid. And I have to I'm doing DoorDash now because my bills aren't waiting, right?

2:16 The grocery bill still needs to be paid. The rent still needs to be paid. And if it doesn't affect you, if you're not a federal employee or you're not impacted by a federal employee, which is, I would say, a lot of most people like it doesn't directly impact them every day. But if you are somehow connected to a federal employee, if your job's related to it or your business is related to some approval from the federal government, or, you know, we even saw the stories earlier this week, which appear to be resolved about the military not getting paid. There's so many tentacles to this. And it's very frustrating.

2:57 And at some point, you know, it hasn't affected the markets yet. But at some point, you think it would. Yeah, absolutely. And the longer this stretches out, the more people get nervous and the more, you know, government workers aren't getting paid. And it starts off as like, Oh, okay, I have like, a, you know, a week of downtime. And then it starts stretching more and more. I have friends who work in the government. And, you know, they've been through it before some of them. But this one, it feels like it's no real telling when it's going to be wrapping up. And there's seems to be a huge gap there that needs to be reached. So thought it would be a good time to bring up an article that you wrote recently, Jeff, talking a little bit about the concerns with the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government and a lot of frustration these days that the government shut down, I thought it would be timely to bring up this article you wrote recently called touching the third rail of politics.

3:51 I think most of our listeners know, because we talk about social security frequently. And even if we didn't, they get it from all the various news sources that social security as we know it, the benefits that are being paid now are related to the money that comes in from workers and the money that goes out to retirees, there is a demographic change, the country's getting older, we have less people contributing than we used to, we're living longer. That's good. That's the good news. We're living longer. So Social Security's paying out more than they, you know, initially projected. And so the Social Security Administration predicts that it by 2023, I'm sorry, 2033 2034 ish, it changes, you know, once in a while, maybe 2032.

4:41 The funds available will not be enough to pay the current benefit levels. Sometimes the headlight headlines say Social Security is going bankrupt in 2032. That's not accurate. The accurate threat is that benefits with if there's no reforms, if there's nothing done by the federal government to sure up or change the structure of Social Security, benefits would reduce be reduced to probably 70 to 76 somewhere in that range percent it's it changes, you know, with each report. I think I noted 77% in my article that is so if you get $100 from Social Security, you would only be getting 77.

5:24 Now, most people including myself don't think that'll happen. I mean, which political party wants to be the party in power to reduce benefits on Social Security? Yeah, not a popular move. We know that this is a big issue for voting. And we know that people who collect Social Security, meaning older folks, not that far away, so I should watch my terms, but people available to collect Social Security vote in a high percentage. So I think it would be almost a revolt at the ballot box if either party was in office and didn't do something to change this potential decline.

6:06 Yeah. So I thought, well, yeah, before before President Trump took office, I think my general feeling was they'll fix it. They'll fix it like three minutes after it would happen, you know, just like the government shutdown. So I think your comparison is great. You know, like the government shut down because they can't agree. Right. So the same things I thought would happen, the same thing would happen with Social Security. They can't reform it because they can't agree on what reforms. Therefore, they won't fix it until they absolutely have to. Right. But when President Trump and the Republicans were able to pass the one big, beautiful bill successfully and they did some very controversial things in that bill, keeping the tax rates where they were and now are wasn't the most controversial thing by any means.

6:58 And now we're seeing some of the things like the cuts to health care programs, the cuts to Medicaid that were done in that bill are part of the debate about the government shutdown. And so they passed this very substantial bill that had a lot of new policies in it and a big reform, good or bad, you like it or don't. There's some big things in there, big changes. And they were able to get it done. So that got me wondering, would President Trump and this Congress have the political courage, I guess we'll call it, to take on a reform of Social Security eight years, nine years, whatever it is, before they need to?

7:39 Because obviously, when you reform something, you know, this is like a big ship sailing across the ocean, right? This Social Security thing. And if you get to the shore and you're about to crash, it takes a lot of energy, a lot of change to maneuver that ship so it doesn't crash if you're about two minutes from the shore. Yeah, that's a good analogy. Yeah. But we're eight or nine years away. So wouldn't it be prudent to make some of these reforms that we'll talk about now and be able to take this issue off the table and have those extra eight or nine years to generate more income, reduce benefits, whatever the agreed upon solution is, and so that people don't have to worry about this for the next eight or nine years?

8:22 Absolutely. And you mentioned in the article, too, that the longer period of time you have, the more options you have available to you. And as that window closes, the options become fewer and fewer. So the last thing we'd want is to be at that final hour and really have one or maybe two maximum of these options that you laid out for us available. But yeah. It's like someone who's thinking about retirement. Two people think about retirement. One of them is a 35-year-old couple and they come in and say, you know, we'd like to retire in 30 years. How can we get there? And we've got a lot of solutions for them, right? We've got a great opportunity to have a robust plan and make them, help them become super wealthy and live the retirement that they want.

9:05 Or you've got the 60-year-old couple that comes in and say, yes, we think we're retiring next year. We don't have any money yet and we have a lot of debt, but what do you think we can do? It's the options, just like with Social Security, with eight years planning time and time to raise additional revenue, cut benefits, things we'll talk about. It's just so much easier than facing that, what do we do? You can't make small changes if it's a crisis. Absolutely. Maybe we can jump into some of these solutions that you were thinking about, Jeff. So I have seven. I'm sure there's more, but I like the number seven. I have seven.

9:46 And so, you know, being a former political figure, I have to put out a disclaimer. I don't like all these ideas. These are not all Jeff Perry endorsed ideas. So don't tweet about it. Don't say, Jeff Perry wants to reduce your Social Security benefits. That's how it works in politics. You talk about something and then you get a video clip of you. I'll put the link to the article in the show notes if people want to read. And these are in no order of importance to me. Number one is something that George W. Bush talked about when he was president. And that was adding a bit of an investment component, investment diversification into the funds that Social Security holds.

10:29 Right now, all of the Social Security trust fund, quote unquote, is held in U.S. treasuries. So super safe, right? I mean, if somebody wants to lock some money up, get maybe a rate of inflation, maybe a little bit better, a point better, guaranteed by the U.S. government, there you go, right? So locking in a 4% return for 10 years may be safe, but it may not be the best use of that money for 10 years, depending on if you're an individual, lots of things that we talk about with our clients. But President Bush talked about and others have talked about, and I'm including it here, why not add an element of risk to it, S&P 500 fund or whatever they could agree upon, the whole market, maybe the whole stock and bond market, maybe it's a 50 -50 mix of that 25%.

11:22 I don't know, it doesn't matter. But we know from the last time we've reviewed it, since the beginning of the stock market, it's a roller coaster ride. But over long periods of times, it is the best place to get a return for your money. And this Social Security is obviously a long term investment in the workers and citizens of the United States. So I'm suggesting, for example, but take 25 % of the new Social Security contributions that are coming in and diversify them in a super broad base index. If it was up to me, I'd buy an S&P fund. Maybe that's too narrow, maybe it's not diversified enough, but whatever, some type of equity exposure, so that over time, getting a better return, which leads to some additional funds to reduce the Social Security deficit.

12:14 Yeah, I mean, I think that makes a lot of sense. And it's not saying we're taking the entire pool of money and investing it. We're just saying there's the 75% in what we've been doing in the Treasury bonds and Treasury notes. And then the 25% could be, it might not even be all stock, per se. It might be a mix, but basically generating a higher rate of return for that 25%. I mean, yeah, I think doing the math, I'm sure you could get the benefits up to where you need them to be. I don't know if within that timeframe, maybe. But yeah, I think that's definitely, it would have to take a lot of work, I think, on the people agreeing to things in Washington.

13:03 But I think that would definitely increase the probability of the long term solvency of Social Security. Now, there's people a lot smarter than me that could figure out what that number, I said 25%, which should be. For example, perhaps they would agree to hold five years of money in Treasuries for the next five years. And funds above that five year lockbox, we'll call it, could be invested. So maybe it's higher or maybe it's lower. I'm just saying, let's add some diversification with the proven equity exposure that could boost up this return rather than just thinking 4% is the best that we can do.

13:49 It's not advice we'd give clients. It's not advice. I would suspect that the representatives and senators don't have 100% in US Treasuries and no investment to more equity exposed mutual funds, ETFs, whatever they have. Yeah. It would be sort of like how we would work with the client who's extremely conservative. We'd want to preserve the capital that they've built up, the wealth that they've created, but get some level of return as well. It's not crazy to think that way. Pension funds do it.

14:30 It's not like it's unheard of. And Social Security is not a pension. I understand that. But it's the same theory. We're taking pools of money to pay out the recipients over long periods of time. Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. Number two, that's number one. Number two is probably my most dangerous one to talk about because I'm a Republican and I'm talking about raising taxes. But to really reform Social Security, it's going to have to be a combination of these seven things, maybe others, and not just increasing the return or reducing benefits. There needs to be more money coming into the system because of the change in our demographics.

15:13 You have less people paying in. And so, as I say, this is the quickest and most direct, or probably the least popular. And that's the increase. And they did this during the last period of Social Security reform. They raised the payroll tax. I'm just talking about a small increase. I'm not talking about a significant increase. But I think as part of the solution, the payroll tax rate is going to have to go up a little bit to add a little bit more revenue to this pool of money. Yeah. I mean, you could definitely see that as a likely outcome or likely possibility. If there's not enough people working to cover the people who are retiring, then something's got to give there, right?

15:55 So, marginally increasing, no one's going to be happy about it, but it is an option that might make sense. Especially, like you said, that would be the option that becomes more and more, as the window becomes more and more narrow, that's probably going to be where most people are looking. Right. If we're up against this, if it's six months out, you're not going to get extra funds by diversification or reducing fraud or other things we're going to talk about. This is really the most easiest and direct way to do it. And I think it's going to have to be part of the solution. And maybe it's typically something the Democrats would offer. So, this is going to have to be a compromise.

16:37 So, maybe this is one of the things that the compromise can happen because of it. And the other piece, I don't think you mentioned in this article, but it's not just Social Security, but it's also Medicare that's running low on funding. Around the same time, I think it's going to be in trouble. Yeah, it's a few years behind, but it's coming. And I hesitated. I thought about writing it together, but I didn't want to confuse the issues because some of these solutions are not relevant to Medicare. So, I made it separate. The next one, number three, is raising or eliminating the taxable earnings cap.

17:19 So, right now, you pay taxes, payroll taxes, and the employee pays them, the employer pays them. If you're self-employed, the owner pays both of them. But your Social Security taxes only apply up to $176,100. So, you're paying your Social Security payroll tax up to that when your earnings over it are not taxed to Social Security. Well, this is another non-popular option probably, but it does add additional revenue if that cap was raised a lot a bit or eliminated altogether.

18:01 I mean, it's ripe for debate. Certainly, we hear about it all the time, the rich wealth gaps. It's really ripe for debate of should there be a limit on how much we pay into Social Security. Now, the argument from the conservative side of the issue, I guess, would be, well, there's a limit on what you can collect on Social Security. There's a maximum. Yeah. Right? So, it's not like, oh, well, I'll contribute more because I'm going to get more later, which is kind of the promise of Social Security to everyone. But there is a max benefit, no matter how much you pay into Social Security. Yeah. So, that would be the pushback.

18:42 But I think if we're looking for additional revenue, in addition to savings that we're going to talk about, this one is probably easier or more likely to happen than just raising the payroll tax on every American who works. Right. I mean, one way to think of it, and I will touch on this later as well, but if you're a high income earner, there's a good chance if you're saving for retirement and you're planning well, there's a good chance you're not going to rely on that Social Security later in life as much as other people in lower tax brackets would. So, yeah, definitely something to consider about raising that limit or just eliminating it altogether, where everyone, no matter the income, is contributing a certain percentage to Social Security.

19:33 That's right. You know, none of these seven, we've talked about three, none of these seven is going to get me elected, by the way, because they're all, or get anyone elected. That's why I call it the third rail of politics. None of these, you know, exception of maybe the last two, but none of these, if you're talking about them as a political candidate, you're going to get a lot of applause. You're going to get a lot of people looking at you worried, right? Yep. And this is one that's probably the most controversial. Number four is reducing benefits for future retirees. And so when I'm talking about reducing benefits, I'm not per se suggesting by any means that if grandma's getting $1,000 a month, that she should get 900.

20:16 That's what's going to happen if they don't do anything. What I'm talking about is, you know, in 1935, when Social Security started, the life expectancy was 61. So all the math was done with very few, not everyone getting Social Security because you retired at 65, if you retired at 65. Now, the average life expectancy is around 76, 77. So the math is different. And so maybe the retirement age should be different. Now, the last time they did Social Security reform, they bumped up the full retirement age. Now it's 66 or 67, depending when you were born.

20:59 I suspect that that number is probably going to move up again. Right? Because, you know, every year you delay paying benefits, it's a little bit more that Social Security gets to retain. Maybe the 62 number disappears, you know, when you're first eligible, maybe. I was going to ask, yeah, if everything gets pushed back, like, instead of it being 62, 70, we're talking about 63 to 71, or something like that. Something like that. Yeah. I could definitely see that happening. And that's a significant, you know, not only are you delaying, it's not just the delaying, if someone was going to live between 65, say 66, and they were going to pass at 90, you take a year out, you're saving that entire year of paying, right?

21:50 It's not just delaying, you're actually saving for the total cost that you pay out. So I think that, you know, that would be probably one of the things they did before, they'll probably do it again. Raising that full retirement age number. I think so. And, you know, I'm not suggesting that anyone in or near retirement is affected. And that's typically the way they do it. They're not going to say if somebody's, you know, 65, when this bill passed, if it passes, they're not going to say, well, the new age is 67. They're going to say, all right, anybody 50 and younger, here's the rules, right? So this is one of those longer term things that, in theory, could save Social Security from having to reduce their benefits for everyone.

22:40 And those, you know, while those 50 year olds might not be thrilled about it, they have time to get used to it, as you mentioned in the article. And, you know, there might be initial frustration and anger, but there's still a pretty big window for them. Yeah. Nobody thinks about the last time they did retirement reform, Social Security reform. Nobody's saying, oh, man, I could have retired now at 65, full retirement age. It's 66 now. Yeah. Yeah. And in theory, if that person doesn't retire for the next year, I don't think I mentioned this yet. If I did, I'll hear it again. But not only do they not pay out, Social Security doesn't pay out for that extra year, that person likely contributes for that extra year.

23:23 At least statistically, most people, right? Yeah. I think people will see this or hear this and say, you know, I don't want to be working at 71, 72. That's crazy. I don't want to be working all that time. I get it. I get it. At the same time, you know, people often think, well, I can only take Social Security when I retire. Like, they put them together as one thing. When I retire, I take Social Security, whether that means 62 or 65 or 70. That's not necessarily the case, you know, for some people it is. But for others, you know, you might retire and then wait to take Social Security and build that benefit up. So, yeah, a lot of people do that. And, you know, we have countless clients who think they're retiring, they're retired and they go like, I am going back to work.

24:12 Right. So sometimes it's prudent if your cash flow can handle it. If you retire, stopping your full time job, sometimes it's prudent not to take Social Security until you're sure you're not going to go back to work. Yeah. Yeah. Another thing that's, you know, more coming from the left than the right on Social Security reform is doing some type of means testing. And so they love to use Warren Buffett and other, you know, super wealthy people. But is there a, you know, is there an appetite to say if you're making, you know, if you have a certain level of net worth, if you have a certain level of income, pension income, whatever it is, should you get your $3,000 a month of Social Security?

24:56 Right. Should you get a benefit? Now, this is where the debate really gets, really gets emotional and about what Social Security is. It's, if you use the word entitlement around some seniors I know, they'll argue quite strongly that it's not an entitlement. They have paid for this. It's not like a, it's not a handout, right? It's not something they paid in. This is a contract, a social contract that we paid in. This is how much we get. So this one, I think, is a lot less likely, but it comes from the left about why should Warren Buffett get Social Security, right?

25:39 Why should, they like to say it about President Trump or whoever the leader of a party is, why should Donald Trump get Social Security when he's ultra wealthy, right? It's a legitimate question. I don't favor this because I believe it is a social contract. I think if there was means testing, it would change the whole way the country looks at Social Security and feels about Social Security that, you know, that we're all in this together, you know, us and them would just expand on this issue because then people would be paying and never getting the benefit, even if they don't need it financially. But this is something, I think, that will be part of the debate because it's something the left, the ideological position of the left is about us versus them, wealth versus non -wealth.

26:29 And so people getting Social Security, taking the benefit, who have, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars is a part of the debate that I think we'll see. Yeah, I think basically what it would be is, you know, you've paid into Social Security, you've made your wealth in other ways, and when you hit that age 70 or whatever it is, instead of receiving the benefit, you're essentially ceding it, giving it to those who might need it more, right? Because your funding, your payments have been funding Social Security. At the same time, I think, you know, I listened to Howard Marks at Oaktree, he's a, you know, economist and a commentator and a longtime investor, and he had a recent, you know, memo about this where he was talking about Social Security, he's like, you know, I've got millions and millions of dollars, like, $4,000 a month from Social Security, like, it's not like I could even opt to not take it, but I don't really, like, I think it's not something I need.

27:37 So I think there are arguments for, you know, is that really even, like, is that going to move the needle for people who have a certain level of wealth? It's not, you know, financially it's not. But it's part of that. But it's part of the social contract, right? I see this issue, means testing, and the raising or eliminating the taxable earnings gap of coming together and that being the compromise. Interesting, yeah. And like, okay, we'll pay more in, but we're still getting something, you know, everybody needs to be in this pool, right? You know, it's the same, which I agree, I agree with this type of philosophy that everyone should pay a minimum federal tax.

28:23 You know, like half the people in the country don't pay any federal income taxes because of their income. And you say, well, you know, they can't afford it. But I think everyone, I'm not talking thousands of dollars, I'm talking like a floor of $500 or something like that. I think everyone should be in the game, everybody should contribute something to the operation of the federal government. I don't think there should be people who pay no federal taxes. You know, we can be de minimis and say, people made $10,000 or less, whatever. But you get my point, everybody should be in this game, everybody should be contributing for the greater good of the country. Yeah, a buy-in to the bigger picture, right? That's right.

29:04 The last two, which are probably my favorite two, are number six is reducing fraud and improving government efficiency. I got some statistics in the article about overpayments and fraud involved in this. The level of fraud in Social Security, especially SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance, it's been pretty well documented and discussed. I think many of us know, I've heard individual stories of SSDI and some of the things that it covers and some of the lack of follow-ups when people qualify for SSDI. And then there's just no real meaningful reevaluation of it.

29:44 And, you know, the only time they get caught is because they're working full time, you know, breaking up rocks or something and they get a bad back, you know. So there's all these stories out there. Some of them exaggerated, certainly. But I think a real effort about Social Security SSI and SSDI would certainly be well worth it and should be included in any type of reform so that we know that we're using the dollars correctly and that people aren't taking advantage of the system. I don't know if there's however many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that President Trump said are dead and still collecting Social Security.

30:24 I don't know that. But we're smart enough as a nation to be able to have systems involved with this. We see certainly with technology, AI and all these ways to verify things today, we can use this technology to do a better job at improving efficiency, which is, you know, the stewards of taxpayer dollars and contributors dollars in the case of Social Security. I think government has a responsibility to be doing a better job with fraud, waste and abuse. So any bill, any compromise should definitely include a real effort to tackle that. And maybe, like you said, leaning into that technology to increase capacity to verify and make sure everything is working as it should.

31:12 Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a, I don't know who would disagree with that. And the last one is maybe one we didn't expect to see here, and that's immigration reform. So, you know, we're in the middle, so we're November 16th here recording. So we're in the middle of the summer of President Trump sending National Guard troops in, federal authorities into various cities for, I don't know, I don't think this is a wrong term, immigration sweeps, right, to try to root out illegal immigration. Certainly the goal of taking people who are committing crimes, who are dangerous to the community, who are here illegally is one that most people agree on.

31:54 The polling is really strong. You know, why should we have people who are harming Americans taking advantage of us in our country? And certainly that's happening. Along with this immigration sweep, we're starting to see stories of farmers having trouble, certain industries having trouble with getting workers and so forth. So touching the third rail politics, right? I think that it's appropriate for President Trump and the administration to be talking about immigration reform and not just kicking out the people who shouldn't be here, which I support, but also about developing a real, not a fake, which we've done before in this country, a real worker program, a real system that allows people to work in the United States.

32:48 I mean, we have to be real about this. There are jobs that Americans just aren't going to do anymore, either because they don't live where those jobs are, you know, the middle of the country, the breadbasket of the country, a lot of farms. And, you know, I don't know too many people are willing to live on a farm and work, right? And, you know, some of the other jobs that we have, it sounds terrible, but it's truth. Like a lot of the jobs that immigrants are doing, just like, you know, throughout the history of the country, immigrants came here to work really hard to make a better life for their family and have the opportunities of being in the United States. That's not different now. In most cases, the gang stuff is separate, right?

33:33 So it was really a real immigration reform that would allow a path to legally work in the United States, pay federal taxes, pay into Social Security, some type of use tax. They shouldn't be able to collect Social Security unless they are later become a citizen, you know, the permanent residency or some form. But even I think anyone who is working in that state should pay at least a use tax because you are replacing a worker that could be working. So having an above board system of taking some of this work that is underground, putting it above ground, I think would add to the strength of our tax system, our Social Security system, and allow American companies who want to follow the rules, who should follow the rules, to be able to do so.

34:26 Yeah, I think it goes back to your point about everyone working towards a common good in a way, you know, and everyone chipping into the future of themselves and others. So definitely a lot of interesting ideas that hopefully are being considered in Washington, hopefully are being discussed. As you said, it could be a combination of one or more of these options. And maybe there are things that you didn't even include in here, Jeff, that might come up in the future. I'm sure they have some great ideas and probably a lot of bad ideas too. And like I said, I don't agree with it. If I was forming the solution, you know, if you and I said we're given the task of fixing Social Security, I think after a day or two after going through these and having the math worked out, we could figure it out.

35:15 But it's, you know, you can be an ideologue, you can be right or left, you can be whatever you want to be. But this is going to happen. It's just math, people, like Christmas. Christmas isn't math, but Christmas is coming in December. So be prepared. This is coming in eight years or whatever it is. So we have the opportunity. We have a bold president who seems to be willing to take on tough things. So let's hope that he decides to touch this third rail politics and can have some responsible members of Congress go along with it from both parties. And knowing that no single solution is going to fix this and that it's going to take some compromise.

36:00 And this isn't something they should kick down the road, kick the can down the road, because it's going to be a lot more difficult and devastating if they decide to wait until the next one's in office. Absolutely. I totally agree. And if you'd like to check out Jeff's article, we're going to put the link in the show notes so you can read more on these things that we discussed. I thought it was a really insightful article. And some of these things you mentioned weren't really even on my radar. So good to be able to talk about it with you, Jeff. Great. Thanks for us for the conversation. And thank you for listening. We appreciate it. Please follow us on your favorite podcast venue. Subscribe to us, follow us, give us a rating, comments.

36:43 Tell us what you'd like to hear in a future episode. And we're getting some traction on YouTube, too. So I hope you might, if you want to see us and not just listen to us, you can follow us on YouTube as well. We have a playlist under Wealth Enhancement. We appreciate you listening. Until next time, keep striving for something more. Thank you for listening to Something More with Chris Boyd. Call us for help, whether it's for financial planning or portfolio management, insurance concerns, or those quality of life issues that make the money matters matter. Whatever's on your mind, visit us at somethingmorewithchrisboyd .com or call us toll free at 866 -771-8901.

37:26 Or send us your questions to amr-info at wealthenhancement.com. You're listening to Something More with Chris Boyd Financial Talk Show. Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services and Jay Christopher Boyd provide investment advice on an individual basis to clients only. Proper advice depends on a complete analysis of all facts and circumstances. The information given on this program is general financial comments and cannot be relied upon as pertaining to your specific situation. Wealth Enhancement Group cannot guarantee that using the information from this show will generate profits or ensure freedom from loss. Listeners should consult their own financial advisors or conduct their own due diligence before making any financial decisions.