Case Study Part 2: How Two 30-Somethings Can Create $200k+/Year Tax-Free in Retirement

by |

When we left our intrepid couple in my last post, they were ready to execute the real estate portion of their purposeful plan. They’re going to take about $100,000 (maybe less) and put 25% down on a brand new duplex in another state. They’ll borrow the rest at somewhere under 5% on a 30-year, fixed-rate loan. That’s the current interest rate as I write this. Since their combined marital income easily exceeds $150,000 per year, using leftover depreciation after sheltering the property’s cash flow is banned by the tax code. They’ll turn those lemons into lemonade by using what I’ve come to call the cost segregation strategy. Here’s how it works.

Normal depreciation is calculated by first subtracting the land value from the purchase price of the property. The remainder is then divided by 27.5 years. This results in the annual depreciation the investor then uses to shelter both cash flow and ordinary income (if he makes under $100,000/year; if he makes $100,000 to $150,000, they’ll keep taking away more depreciation available to shelter ordinary (job) income until it’s simply unusable).

Cost segregation is exactly what it sounds like. Each and every component used to construct the property is segregated and assigned it’s own lifespan. A stove might get assigned a five-year life, whereas a roof might get far more time. The end result is simple: When it comes to small residential rentals, say one to four units, cost segregation tends to double the dollar amount of depreciation available annually. But then that begs the question, doesn’t it? Why on earth would someone do that if they can’t use the leftover depreciation to offset their job income?

Even though the unusable depreciation is shunted to the sidelines to gather dust and mold, it doesn’t disappear forever.

Related: Case Study: How Two 30-Somethings Can Create $200k+/Year Tax-Free in Retirement

The Strategy

The investor then has a couple lines on a chart, both with fiveyear lives. The first line represents how long the maximum dollar amount of depreciation lasts using the cost segregation method. After five years, all the five-year-lived components have been depreciated down to zero. The result is that the next year’s depreciation dollar amount is way lower. The second line represents how long Doyle and Marian have to completely pay off their loan. They’ll need to add $3,550/month to the loan payment to make this happen; $5,000/year of that will come from cash flow. They’ll use their own money for the restaround $3,133/month.

Then What?

They sell the property, timing it to close escrow as near to the end of the five-year period as possible. For this example, we’re going to assume the property only rose in value enough to pay selling costs during the five-year holding period. This results in an annual rise in value of 1.68%. Could it be less? Or even lose value? Of course it could. What I’m trying to demonstrate here is that they would, in this example, only sell at a price high enough to result in net proceeds of what they paid for the property. More simply put, they paid $350,000 and netted the same in five years.

Why on Earth Would They Do That on Purpose?!

Remember the tax law forbidding them to use any leftover depreciation against their job income?

With an annual cash flow of roughly $5,000, and $20,000/year in depreciation, they were putting $15,000/year, every year, on the sidelines. The thing is, now that they’ve sold that property, the IRS doesn’t have a hook to hang its hat on any more. It can’t stop them from bringing all that unused depreciation into their personal income-tax return for the tax year the property was sold. Here’s how that looks:

The normal annual depreciation would have been about $10,000/year. Using the cost segregation method brought it up to about $20,000/year. This resulted in roughly $15,000/year being shunted to the sidelines, unusable due to the tax code. After five years, the unused depreciation grew to roughly $75,000 (5 x $15,000/year = $75,000). If their gross pretax income was roughly the same as when they bought the property, then in the year of sale it decreases to about $155,000 ($230,000 – $75,000 =$155,000).

That year, in state and federal income taxes (based on current tax rates) they will save a couple of cheeseburgers less than $29,900.

On the Other Hand…

You didn’t think they sold that property and weren’t liable for some sort of taxes, did you? They’re actually on the hook for a couple different tax liabilities: capital gains tax and depreciation recapture tax. We can pretty much nail the tax on excess depreciation, because we know the tax rate and the amount being taxed. Since the $20,000/year depreciation they took was about $10,000/year over and above the normal $10,000/year, they’ll owe a tax rate of 25% on all those dollars. In this case, it was $50,000 at 25%, which comes out to a tax liability of $12,500. Then there’s the cap gains taxes owed. Roughly speaking that should be approximately $18,000, maybe a bit less.

Total tax liabilities incurred from sale: $30,500.

Total taxes saved in year of sale due to that sale: $29,900.

Total taxes due net/net? $600. 

Boiling it down, that means they banked $350,000 in cash in just five years, and only paid a lousy $600 in taxes, total. 

But wait just a dang minute, Buster! What about their down payment and all that extra money they plowed into that loan in order to get all that cash? I’m so glad you asked!

It was $90,000 to close the escrow purchase. They used $37,596/year of their own money for five years to help free ‘n clear the property. There was $349,400 net proceeds after tax from the sale of the property, resulting in a tax-free annual return of 7.675%.

But that’s not even the best news — not by a long shot.

Doyle and Marian now have a tad less than $350,000 — after tax dollars — in the bank, that they can invest in whatever they wish. Let’s pause to reflect on this a few minutes.

What are Their Options?

  1. They could replace the duplex with two duplexes and still have roughly $150,000 left over for whatever.
  2. That ‘whatever’ might well be a whole bunch of discounted first position notes, secured by real estate yielding at least 10–??% yearly cash-on-cash on the payments alone. That doesn’t count the profits built in by the discount they got on the price, which is realized when they begin paying off early. The vast majority of notes do pay off before agreed.
  3. They might decide to join a note investment group, as some prefer the more hands-off approach to notes.

Captain Obvious tells us that there are endless options and combinations on their menu at this point. Why might they opt for acquiring a couple duplexes to replace the one they sold? Again, it’s simple. They’re still relatively young. If they used the remaining $150,000 to acquire, say, $15,000/year in pretax note income, they could use the after-tax dollars from the payments to assist them in repeating the cost segregation strategy on one of ’em. This would result in a significant decrease in the amount of cash needed from their job income to execute the loan payoff.

In this scenario it would likely go down to $17,846/year (give or take) from $37,596/year. (We simply subtracted cash flow from two duplexes and the after-tax monthly cash flow from the discounted notes.) At BiggerPockets we call that OPM — other people’s money. 

It’s my contention that they’d be able to execute one cost segregation strategy every five years — thrice — ’til Doyle’s 52 years old. By that time they would’ve built up their privately owned discounted note portfolio to more than $500,000 in original purchase price value, possibly more. At that point, their pretax note income would likely be close to $60,000/year. Give or take, that’d allow them to apply after-tax note income of $3,500/month (plus or minus) to their remaining income-property debt. Their income property cash flow plus spendable note income plus their own disposable income would easily pay off any remaining investment-property debt by the time they reach 60 years old.

Let’s say they end up with just four duplexes, all free ‘n clear as Marian approaches 60. That’s 25 years from now, so let’s be ultra conservative and say the NOI (net operating income) of each duplex has risen from $20,000+/year to just $25,000. That’s an annual average increase of just .9%. (I’ve not yet seen anywhere where that’s not happened over that period of  time.) That means the cash flow from real estate will be around $100,000 yearly, though likely more. Maybe 40% of that will remain sheltered by normal depreciation, but not for too many years.

Neither of them will even be 30 years old at the time they retire. But cash flow from real estate, at least in many of my purposeful plans, is designed as mere spending cash for various sojourns around the world.

Really, Jeff? That’s all it is? Well, no; it’s just that most investors view real estate as the be-all, end-all for retirement income. Between discounted notes in a Roth wrapper and EIUL(s), they’ll already be enjoying over $250,000/year—wait for it—tax free.

Related: Yes, it IS Possible to Retire a Millionaire with a 30K Starting Salary

But Then, Why Even Own All That Free-‘N-Clear Real Estate, You Ask?

First off, who’s gonna turn down six figures a year in cash flow? Right; none of us. It’s simple, really. Those free-‘n-clear income properties represent roughly $1.5–2 million in net worth, likely more. What if at retirement, Doyle and Marian decide they love the surrounding hill country of Boise so much that they’d love to own a second home there? They learn $400,000 is needed. They make a call to their lender, and in four to six weeks their bank receives a wire for that amount. Oh, did I forget to mention it’s not even a taxable event? Yep, it’s all tax free. All they gave up was their lowest-yielding cash flow for the amount it takes to service that new debt. They didn’t give up a dime of their net worth, either. They just redirected some of it to Idaho. That real estate allowed them to buy the home for cash, without messin’ with either their EIUL or note income.

In other words, properly viewed, their debt-free income property is the Bank of Doyle and Marian.

With What Income Will They Retire?

•Marian’s EIUL: $70,000/year minimum, likely 10–20% higher.

•Marian’s Solo 401k: $200,000/year.

•Their real estate cash flow: $100,000, though likely somewhat higher.

•Their personal discounted note portfolio: Based upon their consistent discounted note purchases over the long haul, the conservative estimate is that they’ll have roughly $600,000 invested in that vehicle. The before-tax income on that will likely be at least $60,000/year.

•Total Retirement Income: $430,000. Just a bit over  62% of that will be tax free. Three of the four sources, pillars if you will, tend to increase over time. EIUL income is pretty much set, though it can be unilaterally altered by policy holder choice.

Bottom Line Takeaway

Nothing in their purposeful plan was anything but mind-numbingly boring. Every single executed strategy was done on purpose, and with a built-in Plan B. Heck, notes actually have a built-in Plan C. To one extent or another, what Doyle and Marian accomplished here is doable on much lower economic levels.

Think about it for a minute. What if your financial reality dictates you can only do 25% of what they did in this two-part case study? I’ll go out on a limb here and assume you wouldn’t be upset with $107,500 in retirement income. This is especially true since over $65,000 of that income would be tax free.

None of this is rocket science. You want proof? I’ll quote my dad, who never tired of tellin’ me how he couldn’t remember MIT ever recruiting me.

Here’s the fly in the retirement ointment for this couple. Sans a huge jump in the technology of physics, they won’t be able to enjoy Paris and the Virgin Islands at the same time. But now we’re just quibbling.

Questions or comments about this case study?

Leave them below!

About Author

Jeff Brown

Licensed since 1969, broker/owner since 1977. Extensively trained and experienced in tax deferred exchanges, and long term retirement planning.


  1. Jeff Krauss

    I really could not follow your logic on much of this. Depreciation of $20k/yr on a $350k property? How did you manage to find enough 5-year depreciables to get at that number? Only $5k/yr cashflow? Sounds like an aweful investment. I see this article doesn’t discuss the money lost by not investing the $90k down payment in a 8-10% REIT instead of this crappy deal you are proposing. Adding $3,550/mo to the mortgage payment? That’s basically savings, not having anything to do with investing. “Banking” $350k and only paying $600 in tax? They didn’t bank anything from this investment except very minor principle payments. $213k was savings from added principle paid against the loan. I’d be surprised if the principle from the mortgage totaled $25k. That’s the only “banking” that happened. You said the additional principle paid was $3,550/mo, but that’s $42,000/yr, not $37,596. So, $213k + $90k initial deposit = $303k in principle payments outside of the mortgage payments. Let’s just assume they really did accrue $47k in mortgage payment principle. Well then $47k is what they banked, less payment of taxes. It seems to me that there could be some tax savings between the arbitrage of using accelerated depreciation against some of the couples’ W2 income, but only if their tax rate is greater than 25%, which I doubt. It’s really mostly a wash between the accelerated depreciation and the recapture. And don’t even get me started with the terrible idea of having properties that are paid for. Anybody who’s goal is to have “free and clear” properties simply doesn’t have a clue about the value of leverage.

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Jeff — Read the post again, please. The 42k is the total amount, but the $37,596 is what they contributed from their own W-2 income. It’s an easy fact to miss.

      As far as the amount of the first 5 years depreciation, you’d have to ask the Cost Segregation Study Expert about that. He’s been reliable, and his studies have withstood IRS audit.

      Now, you tell me how you’d put $349,400 in the bank after tax using the same scenario. With CDs under 1%, the 10 year treasury bond under 2.5%, that would be a pretty good trick. Again, please show us all how you’d do it, credibly and plausibly.

      As far as owning free ‘n clear properties in retirement. Surveys show most retired folks prefer free ‘n clear cash flow in retirement vs what usually amounts to 70-80% less with encumbered properties. But I guess to each their own.

      To expand on your leverage comment, it’s wise to be able to assess the value of leverage when couple with the time of life. Leverage while actively growing capital is priceless. Leverage when cash flow is of primary importance is what one might refer to as misinformed.

  2. Crystal Stranger

    Hmmmm I don’t know many people in that income bracket that can realistically invest $75,596 per year. Or that would have the time to manage all that. My husband and I are in a similar situation to your fantasy couple and we have bought three properties this year, and I am in the doghouse now because of the time that goes into them. Granted we have two kids, but even without that when you have the professional jobs that earn well, or a job and side business like Marian had (and I do as well), there is little time left over for juggling investments and life. I agree it is possible, and our life is living proof, but I just don’t think most people would make the time or financial sacrifices to make this happen.

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Chrystal — Your observations are indeed both practical and cogent. Maybe a minor detail, but still, the couple is not fantasy. Other than changing their names, I have many clients in their general position who will end up with much the same income in retirement, and who’re currently executing the same multiple strategies synergistically. They’re all in their 30s and early 40s. I have one couple who’ll retire in their very early 50s with far more than Doyle and Marian.

      None of these clients manage their own properties, their insurance policies, or God forbid their two discounted note portfolios. My team makes it so all investor clients need do is deal with professional manage firms a couple hours monthly to keep track of their rentals. Their note portfolios are serviced by experienced pros who provide monthly statements and annual K-1 statements for investors’ accountants. In case of foreclosure my team jumps in to shield them from the process more or less by coupling them with foreclosure experts who take care of all the mechanics.

      I have many, many clients with 2-5 kids, Chrystal, and they do fine. The key is their reliance on top drawer pros to take care of the often time consuming mechanics and details. Heck, even investor couples who’re childless have time problems. Half the time one client calls me, he’s in an airport waiting to board. He travels roughly 100 days yearly. He owns 10 duplexes, a few hundred grand in notes in his own name, another quarter million about to be added. When there’s the occasional hiccup, my team jumps in to make sure the temporary problem remains temporary. 🙂

      His wife is a full time teacher who also has precious little time to personally deal with all in which they’ve invested. It’s ALL about having a professional team with much experience, Chrystal. Doing all that managing yourselves would be a nearly impossible task, and likely reduce the quality of your life.

  3. Jon Tudor

    I like the strategy of cost segregation but what about the cost to to complete a study? To me it has always seemed that the cost to do a cost segregation makes it not a valuable approach unless the property has significant value (say $1 million).

    I do love the ideas of tax free options for investment and retirement income and have a growing Roth 401K/IRA portfolio and rental properties built around this but have always seen cost segregation as prohibitive because of the costs to substantiate it. In my case I find townhome properties without land tend to have higher standard depreciation rates that help remove tax burden.

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Jon — 90% of the time you’d be spot on with your observation about the high cost of the cost segregation studies. They’re generally pretty expensive. Since I have solid relationships with the builder(s) of most of the properties in which I put my clients, the process is streamlined, big time. The way they help is to give the CS study pro the plans and all the costs, all of which are broken down in minute detail per component. Also, both the real estate tax experts on my team do so many of these for my clients, their time is cut almost in half by pure repetition helped along by having all the required data handed to them on a silver platter. The usual cost for these 2-4 unit studies is actually, wait for it, under $1,000!

      Your comment about townhouses sans land is spot on.

  4. Jeff Krauss

    Jeff B., you’ve got to be kidding me. You don’t see that all of the $350k is principle paid into it over 5 years, with $47k of that paid for by the rental income, assuming it is actually that much? The entire $350k is not profit!! Ok, so you get the $5k/yr cashflow on the $350k investment and MAYBE a few thousand in arbitrage tax savings assuming the couples’ personal tax rate is higher than the recapture rate. If their rate is less than 25%, then they lost money there. So I’ll ignore that. So you end up making basically $25k cashflow + $47k mortgage payment principle = $72k on $303k in principle invested into the house ($90k down payment + $213k in additional principle added to it). That is a TOTAL profit of 24% made over a 5 year period. Now if the couple had invested just the original $90k down payment in a REIT safely earning 7% annually and added $213k to it over the next 5 years in monthly increments as you suggested, they would have ended up with $77k, a total return of 25%. They would have done no borrowing, paid no closing fees on the purchase, dealt with no tenants over the 5 year period, and would not have paid to freshen up a house to get ready for sale, conveniently excluded from your calculations, and would have been diversified across lots of properties. Frankly, you can find REITs paying much mor than 7%. My REITs average about 9.5%, which would have increased the total return to $108k. Frankly all of this is irrelevant because these folks should instead be using leverage to increase their returns. 30-year fixed investment loans for between 4-5% is too good to pass up. If the home is owned free and clear, it should be refinanced at fixed at these low rates and 75% of the equity should be withdrawn from the property to invest at higher rates, like a REIT. There is also the question of protection from lawsuits from tenants. Take that cash and set up an irrevocable trust to put it in to protect it. Invest in REITs within the trust. Nobody will ever be able to attack that money in a lawsuit.

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Jeff — Please explain in simple detail how you get $350k after tax in your bank acct using the same initial investment and W-2 money used in the blog. You can’t. You’ve never done that in your life, other than a freak appreciation gift.

      Most folks follow the buy/hold/trade strategy, OR they do what you recommend which is buy hold, refinance over ‘n over. The later generally makes more sense than the former, most of the time.

      But in the CS strategy the investor doesn’t have to hope for appreciation. Or wait years and years to be able to intelligently refinance. In 5 short years this investor can replace his only duplex with 2 of ’em, while simultaneously producing $15-20,000 a year in discounted note income. Over time the investor capable of executing the CS strategy can run circles around the old strategies, at least most of the time.

      As far as refinancing at low rates in order to invest in higher yields? We do that almost daily. But only when it makes the most sense when compared to the other available options.

      Finally, given the income/savings assumptions of the post, BiggerPockets readers would love how you’d propose in Doyle ‘n Marian ending up with the fabulous income of nearly $36,000 a month. Please, show us. No rush, take your time. We’ll wait.

  5. Jonathan Roberts

    Excuse me, sir. I am very new to the real estate industry, and am soaking up as much knowledge as I possibly can. Would you mind pointing me toward a few resources that explain discount note investing such as that mentioned in the article. That avenue of investing sounds just to good to pass up. Thanks for such a great article!

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Jonathan — There are no books on note investing I’d recommend. However, my good friend Dave Van Horn used to have some excellent courses on the subject over at PPR Note Co. What you really need is an experienced expert. There are lots of ’em around, you just have to search. Also, experience has taught me discounted notes are far more reliant on accurate analysis and state to state law than real estate.

        • Jeff Brown

          Generally speaking the lowest capital requirement I’ve seen in my note searches, at least lately, has been $20k. I’ll add that is for a first position note, as you’d be able to find second position notes for less. Get in contact with me via my website, Jonathan, and I’ll see what’s what, if you’re interested.

          If you’ve found a local pro, even better.

  6. Jeff Krauss

    Jeff B., I didn’t read Part 1 of your article and I don’t need to. My whole argument is that if you use W2 income to pay $303k in principle toward the house over 5 years, then you don’t have a profit of $350k when you sell the house and net $350k in proceeds. How on earth are you not understanding that? And I showed you the math on how the total return you made would be less than investing that W2 income into an average REIT. Regarding the $36k/yr you referenced, that must be from some other investing activity unrelated to the house, so whatever that is is irrelevant.

    • Jeff Brown

      I typed 36k/yr when I meant 36k/mo. My mistake. The question remains, Jeff. Please, can you show readers here how you’d produce that result using the data in the post re: income, savings, and beginning investable capital? We’re waiting.

      • Alex McDermott on

        Hi Jeff,

        Along the lines of above, I cannot get to $350k tax free, but I get close with W2 income (if my math is correct).

        $100,000 x 6% return x 70% (to account for taxes) = $123,000 in 5 years.

        $3,133/mo x 12 = $37.5k/year x 6% x 70% = $205k in 5 years.

        That totals just north of $325k tax free. My 6% return is probably light and in truth I assumed income tax rates, rather than capital gains. Also, I’m not sure what your analysis assumed in terms of vacancy/repair/etc. on the town home. You clearly know your stuff, I’m just wondering where I’m off in my analysis.

        • Jeff Brown

          Hey Alex — Great question!! You’re a little off. Here’s what I got, using your numbers.

          5 years X $37,500/yr @6% = $211,390 X 70% = $147,974

          5 years one time investment of $100,000 @ 6% X 70% = $93,675.79.

          $147,974 + $93,675. = $241,649

          So you’re over $100,000 short each 5 years. Here’s the question: In today’s world in what are you putting your W-2 income to get 6%, when CDs are less than 1%, and the safest bonds aren’t doing 3%? Yet you’re still shortchanged by quite a bit.

          One thing you can do to improve your take in this scenario is to invest that money into discounted notes secured by real estate and in first position. You’ll do at least 10%/yr just on the payments, more as they randomly pay off.

          The difference is that at the end of the 5 years, you’re not at all sure to have the $350,000 in after tax cash in the bank. We never know when they pay off, which is a slight scheduling problem. 🙂 If they did pay off though such that you’d be sure to have the cash, here’s how that might go.

          $112,735 at the end of 5 years, using the $100,000 at just 10%, then after the 70% after tax net.

          $160,258 at the end of 5 years, using $37,500/yr at 10%, and then apply the 70% after tax net. That’s roughly $273,000 after tax, still short of the $350,000 in the post.

          But here’s the real takeaway, Alex. With notes we simply can’t ‘schedule’ them for 5 years. Sometimes there’s a hiccup in the payments, and sometimes there’s a foreclosure. That doesn’t even begin to factor in the 5 year deadline on returning all note investment capital into cash in the bank. In other words, we do this without anywhere near the control we have using the CS strategy.

          Let’s take it another step. What if our notes got us 15% annual return? We’ll further assume we have a way to guarantee all of the notes pay off by the end of the 5 year period. We’d still end up, after tax, with just $317,000.

          The CS strategy is the champ in my experience when compared to other approaches. Especially when viewed as an after tax result, all factors included. This advantage compounds on itself over time, which turns out incredibly well for the investor.

          Always remember: If our numbers aren’t after tax, they pretty much have no meaning in the real world. The elimination of most, and sometimes all cap gains/depreciation recapture taxes using the CS strategy is what makes the winning difference.

          Does this make sense to you, Alex? Again, great question.

  7. Jeff, sorry but your numbers are a bit off. You took 30% off for taxes on the entire amount invested (rather than the profit). To make the math simpler, assume you invested $37,500 on the first day off each year for 5 years, earning 6% a year. This comes out to $224,075. THEN apply 30% tax to profit of $36,575 equaling a $25,602 tax liability netting $198,473.

    Applying similar calculations to a one-time $100,000 earning 6% per year gives you a taxable gain of $33,823 netting $123,676 after tax hit. At the end of 5 years you will have $198,473 plus $123,676 totaling $322,149.

    Certainly this is not a perfect example as it assumes you can safely earn 6%, you are not taxed until the end of year 5 and you are investing $37,500 at the start of each year rather than a few thousand monthly.

    On the flip side, it is also possible the duplex may be worth less in 5 years or have higher than anticipated vacancy/ maintenance/ repairs, etc… Not saying your strategy is wrong, just pointing out some accounting errors.

    • Alex McDermott on

      Tom is right. The 70% should be applied to just the earnings.

      The 6% a year is the biggest variable, but if one were to assume 10% a year with Notes (and they all paid in 5 years) then you would actually get to just over $350k after tax.

      If you assume 3% a year return then you still get around $310k in 5 years. Not the $350k, you also don’t have some of the hassles/risks/repairs of the real estate.

    • Jeff Brown

      Hey Tom — You ‘n Alex are dead on right. I should never do numbers when I’m low on caffeine. 🙂 Thing is, I kept lookin’ as I had the ‘feeling’, but couldn’t catch it. Nice catch!

      Thanks for gettin’ my back.

  8. Um… If an S & P 500 index fund does an average performance with the numbers you posted they would equal to about what you got for an after tax return. That seems a lot easier then going through all those hoops and having all those variables go right.

    • Jeff Brown

      Um, if that approach was so successful, Nicholas, I wouldn’t be gettin’ most of my clients from failed Wall St. strategies. 🙂 If one had executed that strategy beginning in, um, 2005, they’d of been doin’ the happy dance ’til the fourth year, 2008. Plan B, anyone?

      • Real Estate took a dive in 2008 too. Also index funds that track the market have expense ratios below 0.20% because you are not giving your money to wall st. Your point would be valid if it were an actively managed mutual fund but index funds simply gets what the market gets. It is disingenuous to say index funds are a wall st strategy. I will say in the short term there can be a lot of volatility but as a path to wealth its been as sure as a bet as anything.

        • Jeff Brown

          Fair enough, Nicholas. I’ll assume you’ve been killin’ it like the couple in the post, right? Those indexes create low-mid six figure retirement incomes all the time. This falls under a simple personal preference, I guess. Different strokes.

Leave A Reply

Pair a profile with your post!

Create a Free Account


Log In Here