Controlling my money outweighs maximizing my money. This episode is all about savings. How much do you need? When can you "stop" saving and start investing. And what types of accounts are best for saving and investing. This episode is great for both beginning and more advanced investors.
Click here to find all the resources from The Biblical Wealth Podcast.
Ep 38 What's a self-directed IRA?
Want to hear your question answered on the show? Visit www.biblicalwealthsolutions.com/askjared to submit a question.
Get my free video course, First Step to Financial Freedom. In it I'm going to show you a simple, profound strategy that can make a massive difference in your financial future.
Submit your questions to www.biblicalwealthsolutions.com/askjared
Welcome to the biblical wealth podcast. This is the place for Christian families learn to achieve financial freedom for God's glory. I'm your host, Jared Williams, founder of biblical wealth solutions. And I'm here to answer your questions, introduce you to leading experts. And to help you transform how you think about stewarding your money. I'm going to teach you how you can create freedom of time, and then how to use that freedom impacting the lives of others, for the glory of God. Did you know that the ideas I share on this show are things we actually specialize in helping you implement? If you want to better protect your family, have more control over your money, and invest for cash flow now? Then I want to invite you to sign up for a free biblical wealth coaching call with myself or someone on my team by visiting biblical wealth solutions.com/call. Again, that's biblical wealth. solutions.com/call. We look forward to talking with you soon. Hi, welcome to today's episode of the biblical wealth Podcast. I'm very excited to be talking with you today. And today, we're gonna be answering three questions. How much savings do I need? What's the difference between a self directed IRA and a solo 401k? And I know I want to avoid tax deferral, does it make more sense to invest in a Roth IRA, or an non qualified investments? Non qualified investments is probably not a great term for that. I'll explain that a little bit more when we get there. But let's go ahead and just dive into how much savings do I need? Now? I'll be honest, I don't really like this question. I get asked this a lot. But I don't think it's a fully thought out question. Not saying anything as people who asked me that. But there's more to this question than what this what this implies? I guess. So. I think the first question we need to ask what's really being asked most of the time, when someone asked me this is how much savings do I need? Before I invest? Or they might be asking, How much do I need to have a, you know, quote, unquote, fully funded emergency fund? How much should I have in emergency savings? So? So that's a good question. And of course, the answer is, it depends. But we'll talk through that son. So good rules of thumb, you know, are six months, you'll often hear a six month emergency fund, I don't think that's a bad thing to shoot for. But really, it does depend on your circumstance. So if if you are, you know, the only income producer in your home, you know, let's say, you know, that's working, and mom is homeschooling, or caring for kids, or whatever the case is, there's a single income family, then I would say the six months is probably not enough. You know, you never know how long it might take to get a new job or to start a business or something, if something were to happen, or, you know, if there is a sickness or illness or something that's causing the lack of income for a while, then you just never know how long it's going to take. And so if there's only a single income, I would tend to go longer than six months and say 12 months is probably a good, a good rule of thumb, a good idea target to shoot for, if you have, you know, two income earners in a family, and they're both earning, you know, a similar amount of money and both incomes are needed, then I would say six months is probably a good idea. And I think that describes, you know, a majority of families out there today. And I think that's why the six month not rule. But you know, Target has often been said, however, if if, you know if if both in both income earners are earning a pretty high income and one income could sustain the family, and then the in the event of a loss of another wouldn't be so devastating, you could probably get by with, you know, less than six months, maybe a three month emergency fund or something like that. And of course, emergency funds aren't just for the loss of income or the loss of a job temporarily or something like that they're there to handle, you know, other expenses that may pop up and things like that. But in general, six months of income or something is going to be more than most, you know, home repairs or auto repairs or something like that, that wouldn't be covered by insurance. And so generally, when you're getting beyond the three month mark, you're looking at, you know, a job loss and income loss for having that amount. And so that's why I think three minutes could be enough. If you have, you know, two incomes that are enough in you know, individually enough to sustain the family. So it just depends, but that's how I typically think about it. It really is asking the question, How long could you you know, go without income before it would really be a problem or how long do you think it would take you to replace this income, depending on what the circumstances are. If you're in a, you know, a job where it's easy to move from one to the other, there's a high demand for what you do, then, you know, maybe finding a new job would be easy in the event that you were laid off or your company closed down or whatever. If it's something that might take some time, then you definitely want to account for that in how much you're saving. So I think those are, that's a simple question. That question of how much savings do I need before I invest? Now, this question of how much savings do I need brings up? You know, another interesting question for me that I wanted to talk through? And that question is, Should I stop saving, and start investing? Once I have a, you know, quote, fully funded emergency fund. And I think this is what most people have in mind, you know, typical financial approach, typical financial education out there, would teach that, once you have a fully funded emergency fund, then now it's time to begin contributing to a 401k, or an IRA or Roth IRA, or whatever. And frankly, I think this is a big mistake. I think that the much better approach is to keep saving for the rest of your life, or at least throughout the rest of your working years. Now, hear me out on this. The reality is that cash or you know, better yet, even cash value, either one gives you much greater freedom, and flexibility. And so I don't think it makes sense to only have a three month or six month or 12 month emergency fund, and then to stop saving, and begin investing somewhere completely separate. I don't think that approach makes sense at all. You know, think about this, if you're focused on achieving financial freedom for God's glory. And to me, that means that you're, you're, you're achieving financial freedom, so that you have the means to, you know, use your money, and use your freedom to impact the lives of others, you have to be able to control your money, it doesn't make sense to have it all locked up in a retirement account, where you can't use it, or you have to pay significant taxes or maybe significant penalties on top of taxes, you know, just to have access to it. Or maybe you can access the money. Maybe you have more control over how you invest it, which we'll actually talk about in a moment. But there are still some significant limitations in in how you can use it. So here's one example that came to mind as I was thinking about this question. So a few months ago, someone was referred to me and I forget who referred who referred her. But a mother was referred to me whose daughter had a successful funeral home business. And she was looking to expand and build a crematory, or crematorium, I'm not sure what that term is, on the property. So as it was, they weren't, she was having to have that outsourced, essentially. And so there was, you know, a lot of loss of profit in doing so. And it just would make a lot better sense business sense and make it more profitable to provide that particular service on site. And based on the history of the funeral home, how long had been around how business was going, you know, the amount of the service they were on your body, there was a very good likelihood that this would be a you know, successful, profitable investment. And it was a situation was the daughter who owned the business, she didn't really need her mother's money to do it, she she could get access to other capital to make this investment. But she, you know, wanted to help her mother out, she knew that, hey, this, I'm going to borrow the money or I'm going to take an investment from somewhere to do this, she wasn't going to cashflow, she was going to get the capital from someone. And she just had other sources, but she wanted to offer the opportunity to her mom, and you know, let her mom get the pretty significant cash flow that was going to come with this investment. And mom was, you know, nearing retirement age. The problem was that all mom's assets were in retirement accounts. And, and by the time she got to me, she was already knowledgeable about self directed IRA, she'd been looking into things like that she knew there were ways of having more control over her investments. But again, the problem was that investing in her daughter's business was considered a prohibited transaction. And so if she had been investing in a stranger's funeral home and helping do the exact same thing, that would have been fine. She could have done it inside of her solo 401k Or a self directed IRA or, you know, any number of these types of self directed accounts. But since it was her daughter, she wasn't allowed. It was it's against the it's against IRS rules, there would have been very significant tax consequences of doing that. And so her, you know, I was able to show her a strategy where she could have at least gotten access to $50,000 without paying any significant taxes or anything today, but she was looking to make a pretty a much larger investment than just $50,000. So her only options at that point were to either not make the investment at all, you know, make a much smaller one and daughter says to go find you and investment elsewhere, or pay a significant amount of taxes, you know, the next year by taking money out of those retirement accounts. And none of those are really great options, honestly. So she was a little bit just stuck, you know, other things that could come up, you may want to help your kids with college or, you know, buy a rental property for them during their college years. The truth is, there are just limitless reasons why you may want to have access to cash that exceeds your fully funded emergency fund. And frankly, you're not supposed to, you know, spend that anyway, not supposed to spend that on non emergency things anyway. So a better approach is to never stop saving, and then strategically use your savings or your cash value, or whatever it is for making well chosen investments. I think this idea of, I need to save up X dollars, and then I need to, you know, go, then I need to begin investing elsewhere. just doesn't make sense. Another thing that I'd like to mention to this question is, the reason that people think that the reason is that they think, oh, I need to save kind of a minimum, you know, save the minimum that I need, and then I can go invest just because they don't have a productive place to save. And so if you understood how to save your money somewhere more productive. And again, if you're a longtime listener, that, you know, I'm a big fan of, of building cash value and a properly designed whole life insurance policy. And again, we are not going to go into detail on the why with this particular episode. But that allows you to not be losing the opportunity cost that most people attribute to savings. So now I do think you should still have some, you know, just normal bank savings or cash out of the mattress, you know, whatever savings, before you begin making long term, you know, contributions to a whole life policy. But for for long term savings for significant savings for what I would call an opportunity fund, definitely the best place to do that is using a whole life insurance policy for health allows. And if not, you can always, you know, utilize them, purchase them for someone else. But that allows you to have productive cash while still having liquid cash for both emergencies and opportunities. And so that allows you to much more easily, much more predictably, predictably, continue to, you know, save your entire life. And then again, use that cash or use that cash value to strategically make well chosen investments and grow that way, it does not have to be separated, we don't have to think of our savings and our investments as completely separate than they are to some degree. But we can have that productivity applied even to our savings, while then being able to go out and invest in really good investments that are going to most likely, you know, exceed the long term performance of the types of investments most of us would be looking at in a typical 401k or IRA or something. Anyway. So I think that more than thoroughly answers the question of how much savings do I need? Anything beyond that is a conversation to have on a one on one type basis. So moving on question number two, what's the difference between a self directed IRA and a 401k. And I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about self directed I did in a recent episode on just what is a self directed IRA. So you can find that I'll put a link to that in the show notes. I don't remember the episode number. But I'll make sure there's a link to that in the show notes that talks about that in a little bit more detail. But just to quickly give some definitions, and then we'll talk about the differences. A self directed IRA is an IRA, but it's an IRA that you have some more control over. So self directed IRAs generally still require a custodian that's not always the case. There's some other more advanced strategies where you don't have to have a custodian. But essentially, they are still IRAs, they are still, you know, individual retirement accounts. same tax treatment as an IRA, that would be you know, anywhere else. But you can invest in, you know, nearly anything, not everything. Obviously, we just saw an example of prohibited transactions. And depending on the custodian you're using, or the things there may be certain assets that you couldn't invest in, but it allows you to invest in real estate or cryptocurrencies or, you know, promissory notes or private equity or all sorts of things outside of the stock market exchanges. So, otherwise, it is an IRA in every other form, you just have a lot more access to different investments. That's essentially what a self directed IRA is. A solo 401k On the other hand, is a 401k but it's a special 401k and only available to sell them to people who are self employed. Now they don't have to be full time self employed, you can be a full time employee elsewhere and have some type of self employment income was that's the rules today could be different in the future if you're listening to this in the future. But as of now you just have to have some type of self employment income or, you know, cell phone business. And you can qualify to have a solo 401k. There's some more rules about, you know, how many employees can have any full time employees, I think there's some, you know, our definitions and things like that. We don't need to get into that for this one. But it is essentially a 401k for people who are self employed. So why would someone want a solo 401k versus a self directed IRA or vice versa. Obviously, if you don't qualify to have a solo 401k, then a self directed IRA might make more sense if you already have retirement money. The tax treatment for both of these are the same, just FYI. Some other key differences are that the IRA still have the normal Ira contribution limits. So you can't put you know more than what the normal Ira contribution limits are into self directed IRAs. And you can roll over money from 401k or other IRA. So you can roll in as much money as you have. But in terms of continued contributions, they act the same as an IRA, whereas a solo 401k has much larger contribution limits, I mean, so 10s of 1000s of dollars course they vary. And there's some other boundaries, limitations on what you can put in, not which bit into how much there you go, how much you can put into them. But essentially, you can put in far more money into a solo 401k Each year, if you wanted to, then you can into a any kind of IRA, whether it's a Roth or not. And it actually you can have Roth solo 401k. So the Roth component doesn't really come into play here, you could have a Roth self directed IRA or Roth solo 401k. So that really isn't a factor to consider when comparing these two things, because it is the same there. A solo 401k is more self administered, you don't work with a custodian, you essentially have someone help create 401k plan documents for you. And then you are the custodian, you are the administrator, you run it, and you are able to invest in again, virtually anything, not everything, there are still prohibited transaction rules, same as a self directed IRA, right. But you can invest into a whole lot more, you can put a lot more money into them. Those are two of the big reasons why people who qualify for them would tend to use them. And frankly, they can cost a lot less money to open and maintain than working with a custodian for a self directed IRA. Now, the big thing for me, the big difference, and this was this was when I learned somewhat the hard way is that there are there's one key tax difference between a self directed IRA and a solo 401k. And that is that investments that use debt for leverage, such as you know, multifamily syndications, which we've talked about quite a bit on this show, and there are certainly others. But investments and specifically real estate that uses debt for leverage within an IRA within a self directed IRA, right, have a special tax that applies to them. So the IRA does defer income tax. In fact, it doesn't capital gains are no longer relevant because it's either tax or ordinary income, regardless of whether it was a capital gain or not, or, you know, if it's a Roth, then it's post tax anyway. And there's no no taxes on it. From an income standpoint, but there is still a tax called unrelated business income tax, or, and a part of that, or a category of that tax is what's called unrelated debt financed income. And so that comes from using leverage. And so this is just a law, this is just something that's written into the the tax code that says that if you have an investment that uses leverage within a a tax exempt entity, and an IRA qualifies as one of those, then you have to pay a special tax on the portion of gains that came from leverage. Now, essentially, in a multifamily syndication, or something like that, the way those typically work out, and this is very broad, but that may be a that may be, you know, a 20 to 30% tax on the capital gain from a property. And so it can be pretty significant, depending on how much debt was used, and things like that. So, and those are always going to, you know, vary based on a specific investment. But even if you defer the taxes or even if you've avoid the taxes using a Roth, you would still have this pretty significant tax to pay. When a debt leveraged property is sold. The solo 401k does not have this rule. The only explanation I've ever heard, I've talked with multiple people about this. No one knows exactly why this is the case. It's suspected that there were just some lobbyist at large 401k places at some point in time, who, when this rule was written in the IRA side of the tax code was not written into the 401k side of the tax cuts. So they are, there are different sections of code in the in the in the tax code, and so they have different rules. And so it just is the case at this point in time that the solo 401k does not have this tax. And so, I had some investors recently who invested into multifamily syndications using a self directed IRA, right. And at the time, that they made those investments, I was not aware of this tax, I was not aware of solo 401k, so that this was going to be an issue. And while they were invested, I had this discovery. And thankfully, it's not doesn't matter when you make an investment, it matters, who owns the asset when the property is sold. And so we were able to help them make some changes. Now, they didn't know go the solo 401k route, but we were able to help them make changes based on each person's unique situation, to avoid this tax, which is fine. I mean, there's rules, there's, you know, ways of doing it, I'm all for, you know, legally minimizing taxes. And so we were able to help them avoid, avoid this tax. But if you are someone who is planning to make real estate and especially if you're going to be using, you know, a mortgage, that of some nature, in that real estate, investment, then this is something you will want to understand better on the front end, it can be done later on. But it will be important to understand the tax consequences and certainly the differences between holding those properties, you know, as non qualified, meaning you just control them yourself, you are the owner, versus an IRA being the owner of the asset or a 401k Being the owner of the asset. And so that brings us to this next question of I know, I want to avoid tax deferral, does it make more sense to invest in a Roth or to invest non qualified, so let me quickly explain the differences. Here, I had this conversation just really recently with a client, I was trying to help him understand some some, some complex moves that he was considering making. And basically, it came down to who owned this asset. So he owned a share of a multifamily syndication. And, two, he was one of the people I was just mentioning. So in order to avoid this additional tax, we were looking at, was there a place that made sense for him to move this asset out of the IRA, and in this case, the money wasn't going to come back to him. In fact, the the sponsor, the investment was going to do a 1031 exchange, and reinvest his original investment plus all the capital gains from it. And so he was going to see a large increase in his cash flow, but not actually take possession of the the money itself, which worked out good for him. But since money was coming back, it was I was having to explain how this was going to work. And essentially, it came down to who is going to own this investment. So, you know, the day we were speaking that I was speaking with him, his IRA, oh, this on paper, it was, you know, the name of the custodian for the benefit of, you know, this person, Ira, this account number, so, you know, it wasn't him, he himself that owned the investment, it was his IRA, that owned the investment, or it could have been a solo 401k that owned the investment. Or it could be him as an individual him as a person, you know, under his own social security number, that would own it, and that is what would be a non qualified investment. So when I say that, that's what I mean, you, you've taken cash out of your bank account, it's not in a custodian, it's not part of an IRA or Roth IRA or 401k, you own it yourself, you make the investment yourself, that you know, the returns in investment come to you, they don't go into some other account that's owned by somebody else or with a brokerage. That is what it means to be non qualified. And there's no special tax advantages like there are with IRAs, or 401k. There's no tax deferral or tax free growth, like in a Roth. So just to explain what those things mean. So this question of I know, I want to avoid tax deferral, does it make more sense to invest in a Roth or into, you know, with non qualified investments? Well, first, this kind of begs the question of, you know, why would someone want to avoid tax deferral? And I guess what is tax deferral? So if you don't know tax deferral is when that's what 401 ks and IRAs do that the non Roth versions, the traditional versions, they defer taxes. And so that just simply means that as your investment makes money, you don't pay taxes on the gains from those investments. It is deferred, until whenever time you start taking money out of the IRA that typically happens at retirement, or when someone passes away. What it doesn't mean is that the the tax is ever, you know is ever avoided or ever gone, you know that the taxes are going to be paid, they're either going to be paid by you by your in or by whomever inherits the account. But at some point or another, the IRS is going to get that tax, they did not let it go away. And so why would someone want to avoid tax deferral? I'll explain this by sharing a really common conversation that I have with people. So it's very common for people to come and talk with me and we're, you know, helping build their financial model or, or whatever we're working on, they may say, you don't have a million dollars in my 401k. Okay. And so I have to ask the question, I want them to understand what they really have. And so ask the question, you know, how much of that money is yours? And I generally stop for a second because it feels like a trick question. And they say, you know, all of it is mine. And I'll say, okay, really, you know, I mean, this, is it not the case that the IRS has some claim has a claim on some amount of this money. And, you know, think about that, yes, they do have a claim on some of this money. But how much? Well, that depends. It depends on, you know, who's who's in office, and you know, what the tax brackets are at the time? It depends on what your, you know, tax brackets gonna be how much income you have. So you know, the answer to that question. But you know, let's say 20 to 30%, might sometimes less, sometimes more, of that money actually belongs to the IRS, it's money that has never been taxed ever income, and all the gains have never been taxed. So whenever you begin using that money, it comes out as ordinary income, and you pay taxes on it. And so someone may come to me and say, Hey, I've got a million dollars in a 401k. And now they're doing math on like, how much income can have half a million dollars. But really, they have, let's say, the 25% tax bracket, they actually have $750,000, the IRS has 20 $50,000, that they've been investing on their behalf on the IRS behalf, you know, for all these years. And so it's helpful to understand that. And so the reason that I tend to want to avoid tax deferral is because it makes it, it's more realistic. When you go to plan income, when you're looking at retirement or looking at even financial freedom, it's more realistic to not have to pull, think about separating or segregating a large chunk of this money that doesn't belong to you, mathematically speaking, if you were in the same tax bracket, all of your life, a traditional tax deferred IRA and a Roth IRA would end up exactly the same in terms of how much income you can get out of them. Mathematically, they end up being the same, you either pay taxes now and don't invest the IRS future tax money, or you don't pay taxes today, and along with your money, you invest the IRS future tax money, and it grows at the same rate of your money. And when that you, you know, pay it all back to them, assuming everyone's at the same tax rate, then mathematically that came out the same. So anyway, that's this is just a pre question. So I need to I need to move on from it. But most people would want to avoid tax deferral, because they don't want to force themselves into a very high tax bracket in the future, if you've done a good job investing, and you are going to be taking a good amount of income out of your retirement account, then you're going to be forced into higher tax brackets. And then a lot of your money is going to taxes so that that's the much shorter answer of why you would want to avoid tax deferral. So comparing the Roth to a non qualified, so let's say we understand why we would want to avoid tax deferral. So should I invest in a Roth where I'll pay the taxes today, and then you know, my money can grow tax free? Or should I consider just investing privately in investing non qualified and not having it in any kind of retirement account, and there certainly are pros and cons to both. So without, you know, investing in a Roth, if you have excellent investment performance over a long period of time, you don't pay taxes on those gains, that that can be a huge benefit. With a non qualified account, if you are investing in, you know, certain investments that have built in tax advantages, and you know, real estate is certainly a good example of those, you can pay a lot less in tax than you would if you invested in things that didn't have these built in tax advantages, or even in an IRA, where everything becomes ordinary income, which is the highest tax bracket and you pay all the taxes without any, you know, those advantages. You're just that's that's where you're really getting to the highest taxes has just come down the road. So I think Roth and non qualified both can make more sense than a traditional tax deferred type of investment, but they do have their pros and cons. So again, a Roth could allow you to maximize the growth potential of the investment because you aren't having to, you know, Pay for taxes along the way, even if they are reduced taxes due to tax benefit tax advantages built into the investment. So if you're able to minimize or, you know, significantly decrease the taxes of a real estate investment, and a non qualified type of account, that's great, but it's not as good as having no taxes, which could be the case and a Roth. On the on the other hand, I Roth, as we've seen, you know, already earlier in this episode, a Roth any type of retirement account comes with it some loss of control, you can maintain, you can maintain some control over what you're investing in, by using self directed, or IRAs, or solo 401k, or something of that nature. But there are still some significant limitations. There are still limitations on when you can access the money without having to pay penalties. Ross do allow some additional access, like you can use Roth to pay for educational expenses, which you can't do with traditional IRAs. I may be wrong with this, I believe you can use Roth for like first time, you know, down payment on a home. So that that's a possibility. So there are some times when you can get access to Roth money without paying the penalties. But in general, that money is, you know, set aside, and it must only be used for retirement. And again, for me, and for I think most of the listeners of my podcast, I'm not thinking about retirement, I'm thinking about financial freedom, I'm thinking about being able to use that freedom to impact others for the glory of God. And so I'm not planning on just waiting until some retirement age and then taking income, I'm wanting to create income today, I'm wanting to begin creating passive income now, building that up over time, being able to put that to use. And so for me, for me, controlling my money outweighs maximizing my money. And I think that's the way to look at this question. And of course, you can do both, you can have Roth investments that are going to have no taxes, and be able to grow larger, and use them only for the future. And you can simultaneously have non qualified investments that have less taxes, but not none. But you maintain control of today. So it's not doesn't have to be an either, or, depending on how much you can save. So that's something to think about. But nonetheless, for me, controlling my money, you know, what I invest in, when I use it, whether I want to give it away or spend it or, you know, invest it into, you know, something with my parents or investing in something with my children down the road, you know, I want to have control of how I use the money that God has entrusted to me, I don't want someone telling me that I can't do it, or having to lose significant amounts of it, because I've put it into this, you know, retirement account. And so that's really what you have to think through when we're talking about control. We're talking about, you know, control versus taxes. That's what this comes down to. And there's a lot of complexity, there's a lot of things to learn, ultimately, that's the question. And so how you would answer this question depends on your goals, it depends on your age now and what you're trying to accomplish. And so for you, it might make way more sense to invest in a Roth type account, than it would to just be non qualified. Or it may make sense to completely do away with, you know, retirement accounts altogether, and only invest on qualifying because you want to have maximum control, you know, or some type of hybrid approach might make sense for you. It really just depends. But that's, that's my answer to this question. It makes more sense for me to control my money now. And that outweighs maximizing my money. And so I would invest on the non qualified side of things and just avoid IRAs, and Roth and solo 401k, and everything all together. But again, people sometimes come already having significant money in those types of accounts. And so we need to understand how to work within those rules, how to use use those, and what kind of strategies can help them make the most of what they have, whether they have full control over that or not. So I hope this is helpful. If this is the type of stuff you want to hear, you know, let me know, send me a message. Send me an email at Hello at biblical wealth. solutions.com. If you have a question you'd like to submit to the podcast, you can go to biblical wealth solutions.com/ask Jared J. R. Ed, submit a question there. And hopefully you can hear it here. If I do answer your question. You know, I'll send an email, we'll let you know. Hey, your questions coming up. And this episode, be on the lookout, we're going to talk about it. And I'd love to hear from you and hear what you think of this new format. Thank you. People often ask me, what's the first step to becoming financially free. And if that's you, or someone you know, you've come to the right place, because I've put together for you a short, free video course to help you get started. Just visit biblical wealth solutions.com/course. In it, I'm going to show you a simple, profound strategy that can make a massive difference in your financial future. So go ahead and visit Biblical wealth solutions.com/course To start, and we'll see you there. That's all we've got for this episode of the biblical wealth podcast. One thing that would really help the show and other new potential listeners is for you to rate the show and leave a comment in iTunes or wherever you listen. Also, make sure to link up with us at biblical wealth solutions.com/blog or on social media. And please just Share, share, share this podcast with anyone who you think might enjoy it. Until next time, remember, you can achieve financial freedom, and then use that freedom for God's glory. This podcast is for informational purposes only no securities or non security investments are being offered by this podcast. Any opinions expressed are subject to change any individual results or accomplishments described herein are not necessarily indicative of your personal financial situation or potential future results. types of investments discussed in this podcast may not be suitable for certain investors and each individual's financial situation is unique and you should consult with us your advisor or accountant before making an investment