Cestia Wealth Management

Week Ending July 10, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 18:16:57 +0000

Hot Topic: What Nvidia’s Valuation Multiple Is Really Telling Us

Nvidia’s forward price-to-earnings ratio — a measure comparing its share price to expected earnings over the next twelve months — currently stands at 19.9x. That’s near the low end of its range since 2019, and a steep drop from the roughly 65x peak reached in late 2021.

The key detail: this decline hasn’t come from a falling stock price. Nvidia shares have continued to climb. Instead, earnings estimates have grown even faster than the share price, which has steadily compressed the multiple over time.

A shrinking valuation multiple alongside a rising stock price has historically pointed to earnings growth outpacing price appreciation — not speculative excess. For clients who are uneasy about AI-related valuations, this is a useful data point for shifting the conversation from headlines back to fundamentals.

Oil Market is Attempting a System Reboot

Bank Earnings Bonanza Offers Top-to-Bottom Review of US Economy

Oil Jumps After Battle for Hormuz Control Escalates

Why Risk Tolerance and Risk Capacity Aren’t the Same Thing

When we build an investment strategy, two questions matter: how much risk are you willing to take, and how much risk can you afford to take. These sound similar, but they’re distinct — and treating them as one number can lead to the wrong portfolio.

Risk tolerance is about temperament — your comfort with market swings and your ability to stay invested through a downturn without losing sleep or abandoning the plan.

Risk capacity is about circumstance — your time horizon, income needs, and financial resources, which determine whether your goals could withstand a market setback.

Many traditional questionnaires blend these into a single score, which can create mismatches. A client with substantial assets and decades until retirement might score as having high capacity for risk — but if that same client has genuinely low tolerance for volatility, a blended score can still steer them toward a portfolio they can’t emotionally sustain through a downturn. The reverse is also true: a client eager to take on risk but with limited savings and near-term cash needs could be pushed into a portfolio their situation simply can’t support.

Our approach: rather than averaging tolerance and capacity together, we evaluate them separately. Each one acts as a check on the other — low tolerance or low capacity serves as a constraint on the portfolio we recommend, rather than being offset by a stronger score elsewhere. For clients with a comprehensive financial plan, the plan’s own projections (including probability-of-success modeling) offer a direct read on risk capacity, which we pair with a separate conversation about comfort and attitudes toward market risk.

The client benefit: a portfolio that reflects both what you can afford and what you’re comfortable with — not just a number that averages the two and quietly overlooks the more limiting one.

SOURCE: Kitces.com

Equities

U.S. equity markets posted mixed but resilient results this week, as renewed geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and Iran drove volatility across oil prices, Treasury yields, and semiconductor stocks.
The S&P 500 rose 1.26% and the Nasdaq advanced 1.74%, with growth outpacing value amid continued enthusiasm for artificial intelligence.
Large-cap companies outperformed small- and mid-cap peers, as economically sensitive segments underperformed due to rising oil prices and geopolitical uncertainty weighing on industrial and value-oriented names.
Information Technology led all sectors (+3.4%), while Materials, Health Care, and Industrials lagged.
Energy rebounded meaningfully as oil prices recovered much of their recent decline.
International markets underperformed U.S. large caps, with developed markets down 1.37% and emerging markets down 1.74%.

Bonds

Fixed income markets declined as Treasury yields rose meaningfully, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions and related inflation concerns.
The 10-year Treasury yield climbed to 4.56%, while the 2-year yield rose seven basis points to 4.21%, holding the 2–10 year spread steady at 0.35%.
Longer-duration bonds bore the brunt of the move, with long-term investment-grade corporates down 1.3% and long-term government bonds down over 1.0%.
High-yield bonds were the relative bright spot, with short- and intermediate-duration issues gaining 0.4% as improving risk sentiment and tighter credit spreads helped offset rising yields.

Macroeconomic Data

Economic data was limited this week as markets focused on the Federal Reserve’s meeting minutes.
ISM Services PMI eased slightly to 54.0 in June from 54.5 in May, in line with expectations and marking 24 consecutive months of expansion; employment improved, though new orders and business activity softened.
Existing home sales fell 2.4% in June to an annualized rate of 4.09 million, as elevated prices and mortgage rates continued to pressure affordability.
The Fed held interest rates steady at its June meeting, with unanimous support, though a few members had initially considered a hike.
Looking ahead, the committee remains divided: one group anticipates rates holding flat or declining, while another expects further increases may be necessary before year-end.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	0.42%	0.50%	1.01%	1.01%	10.66%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	0.29%	-0.79%	0.61%	0.61%	9.52%
NASDAQ	0.29%	0.61%	0.26%	0.26%	13.08%
NASDAQ 100	0.33%	0.43%	-1.49%	-1.49%	18.12%
Russell 1000	0.36%	1.07%	0.88%	0.88%	11.12%
Russell 2000	-0.42%	-0.53%	-1.48%	-1.48%	20.74%
Russell 3000	0.27%	1.01%	0.74%	0.74%	11.52%
ACWI	0.42%	0.98%	0.45%	0.45%	12.17%

Global Client Survey

We’re inviting you to take part in a quick, anonymous client survey. Your feedback helps us fine-tune our process, elevate your experience, and ensure we’re delivering what matters most to you. This isn’t just about checking a box—it’s about shaping the future of how we serve you. Your voice helps guide our next steps. We’re listening. We’re learning. And we’re grateful for your trust.

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending July 10, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending July 3, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 18:12:21 +0000

Small Caps Take the Lead in a Historic Reversal

Each year, we track the first-half performance spread between U.S. small-cap and large-cap stocks, a comparison that has spanned market cycles since 2005. Over that period, small caps have lagged their large-cap counterparts in 14 of the past 21 first halves, with particularly steep underperformance in 2020 (-10.0%) and again in 2024 (-13.5%). This year broke sharply from that pattern: through the first half of 2026, small caps outperformed large caps by 12.3%, one of the most decisive reversals in the dataset’s history.

A shift of this magnitude, following years of small-cap underperformance, may point to a broader change in market leadership. That said, a single strong half does not confirm a durable trend, and history has shown that leadership rotations can be short-lived. For investors, the takeaway is less about predicting the next rotation and more about being positioned for it: those maintaining diversified exposure across market capitalizations are better equipped to benefit from shifts like this one, without needing to time them precisely.

OpenAI, Anthropic Speed Toward IPOs Amid Growing Scrutiny of Token Payments

America’s first bubble

OPEC+ Decides to Boost Production Further in August

What Issues Should I Consider When Reviewing Cash Flow?

Sound cash flow planning is the foundation on which every effective financial plan is built. Most clients understand, at least in principle, the importance of tracking and managing their spending. Yet even well-intentioned individuals often struggle to take the basic steps required to turn that understanding into practice. A clear view of where money comes from and where it goes creates the discipline and accountability that support every other planning decision that follows.

A thoughtful review of cash flow considers several core areas: income sources, essential versus discretionary spending, outstanding debt and tax obligations, funding for near- and long-term goals, and the ongoing monitoring needed to keep a plan on track. Addressing these areas with intention, rather than assumption, gives clients a stronger foundation for the decisions ahead and can have a meaningful, lasting impact on their long-term financial well-being.

Download Our Check List

Equities

U.S. large-cap stocks advanced 1.8% during the holiday-shortened week, as a softer June employment report eased concerns over near-term Fed rate hikes
Growth outpaced value, and larger companies outperformed their small- and mid-cap peers
Communication services (+5.0%) and financials (+3.7%) led sector performance, while real estate, utilities, and energy declined
Developed international markets rose 2.8%, outperforming U.S. large caps, while emerging markets gained 1.0%
Oil settled near $69 per barrel as U.S.-Iran peace efforts continued, even as Strait of Hormuz shipping activity remained below prewar levels

Bonds

Bonds declined as Treasury yields rose over the week, despite a brief pullback following the weaker employment report
The 10-year Treasury yield rose to 4.49%, while the 2-year yield increased seven basis points to 4.14%, steepening the 2–10 year curve to 0.35%
Longer-duration bonds saw the sharpest losses, with long-term government bonds down 1.6% and long-term investment-grade corporates down 1.1%
High-yield bonds bucked the trend, advancing across the maturity spectrum, including a 1.2% gain among longer-duration issues, as improving risk sentiment and tighter credit spreads offset rising Treasury yields

Macroeconomic Data

June nonfarm payrolls rose by just 57,000 while the unemployment rate declined to 4.2%, pointing to a labor market that is cooling but still resilient
April and May payroll gains were revised down by a combined 74,000; average hourly earnings rose 0.3% for the month and 3.5% year over year
JOLTS data showed job openings holding steady at 7.6 million in May, with hires unchanged at 5.2 million
Initial unemployment claims edged down to 215,000
The ISM Manufacturing PMI eased to 53.3 from 54.0, marking a sixth consecutive month of expansion, with new orders holding strong and input-price pressures moderating
Consumer confidence ticked up to 91.2 in June, while May construction spending rose 0.1% but remained 1.5% below year-earlier levels

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return ( MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return ( YTD)
S&P 500	0.00%	0.58%	-0.21%	-0.21%	9.32%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	1.14%	1.37%	1.11%	1.11%	10.06%
NASDAQ	-0.80%	0.05%	-1.45%	-1.45%	11.15%
NASDAQ 100	-1.61%	-1.50%	-3.13%	-3.13%	16.16%
Russell 1000	-0.03%	1.83%	-0.18%	-0.18%	9.94%
Russell 2000	-0.58%	-0.44%	-0.96%	-0.96%	21.39%
Russell 3000	-0.08%	1.70%	-0.27%	-0.27%	10.40%
ACWI	0.02%	0.94%	-0.52%	-0.52%	11.08%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending July 3, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending June 26, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:41:02 +0000

The Big Picture: Short-Term Noise, Long-Term Optimism

Over the next couple of weeks, the market is expected to be driven more by technical mechanics than by economic news or corporate fundamentals. Think of it like traffic getting rerouted — the destination hasn’t changed, just the short-term path.

Why the Next Two Weeks May Feel Bumpy

Three big “housekeeping” events are happening simultaneously:

A Historic Options Expiration — The market is absorbing what Citadel describes as the largest options expiration on record, valued at approximately $8.3 trillion. Options are essentially contracts that expire on a set date — when a massive number expire at once, it can cause unusual short-term price swings as traders adjust their positions.
Quarter-End & Half-Year Rebalancing — Pension funds and other large institutional investors are repositioning their portfolios at quarter-end and half-year, which adds additional buying and selling pressure. This is routine — like a big spring cleaning of investment portfolios — but the sheer size of it matters right now.
Positioning Reset — Many large investors are essentially “resetting” their bets heading into the second half of the year. Any short-term market weakness tied to these events is largely mechanical, not a sign of economic trouble.

The Good News: July and Beyond Look Strong

Once this technical noise passes, the outlook becomes quite positive:

Everyday investors are all-in. Retail demand is at record highs, and households are sitting on record cash balances, ready to deploy on any market dip — a “buy the dip” behavior Citadel observes on most down trading days.
ETF inflows are surging. ETFs have attracted over $1 trillion in inflows year-to-date, running 45% ahead of the record set in 2025. This means money keeps flowing steadily into the market through index funds.
Companies are buying back their own stock — aggressively. Corporate buyback authorizations have surpassed $925 billion year-to-date through mid-2026. Technology and financial companies alone account for roughly 57% of all announced buybacks, reinforcing demand in the same sectors already benefiting from strong investor interest. When companies buy back their own shares, it tends to support stock prices.
July is historically one of the best months of the year. Seasonal patterns show that fresh capital tends to get deployed in July as investors start the second half of the year with renewed energy.

The Bottom Line

Citadel believes the path of least resistance for markets is higher as we transition into the second half of the year. In other words: expect some short-term choppiness tied to calendar mechanics, but the underlying forces — strong investor demand, corporate buying, and seasonal tailwinds — all point in a positive direction.

SOURCE: Citadel Securities

Quantum Strategy Helps IBM Steer Around Tech Wreck

World Cup visitors are going viral for their reactions to everyday American life

Trump Admin Teams with Startup on ‘Noah’s Ark’ of Endangered Species DNA

Oil Price Bubble Has Burst

Where Should I Withdraw My Next Dollar From For Retirement Expenses?

Making tax-efficient retirement withdrawals can significantly impact a client’s long-term financial success. Whether the need is for income, healthcare, education, or charitable giving, each withdrawal decision comes with implications that can affect portfolio longevity and taxation.

This flowchart helps you walk through the decision of where to make their next retirement withdrawal. It covers:

Common retirement expenses such as income needs, medical costs, education, and charitable giving
Tax treatment of accounts like IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, and 529s
How to avoid penalties and be cognizant of AGI thresholds and tax bracket shifts
Strategic use of QCDs and capital gains harvesting
How to minimize taxes while meeting short- and long-term goals

Download Our Guide

Equities

U.S. large-cap stocks declined last week, pressured by sharp losses in technology and communication services sectors
Mid- and small-cap stocks bucked the trend, posting modest gains for the week
Value continued to outperform growth across all market cap segments, extending a trend that has defined much of the year
Technology sold off despite a blockbuster quarterly report from Micron, which posted record revenue and profit driven by surging AI-related memory chip demand
Health care was the top-performing sector, gaining nearly 8%, as investors rotated out of technology and into more defensive areas of the market
U.S.-Iran tensions continued to ease, with the ceasefire holding and tanker traffic returning to the Strait of Hormuz — helping oil prices extend their retreat from spring highs
Developed international markets modestly outperformed U.S. large caps; emerging markets underperformed

Bonds

Bonds gained broadly last week as Treasury yields declined across the curve
Government bonds led the rally, with longer-duration issues outperforming shorter-term maturities
The 10-year Treasury yield closed the week at 4.38%; the 2-year yield finished at 4.07%
The larger decline in the 2-year yield modestly steepened the 2-10 year slope to 0.31%
Investment-grade corporate bonds advanced but trailed government debt, particularly on the long end
High-yield bonds lagged across the curve
Credit spreads widened only marginally — a brief pause following steady tightening for most of the quarter
Investment-grade corporates ended the week yielding 5.14%; high-yield bonds closed at 7.49%

Macroeconomic Data

Core PCE — the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure — rose 0.3% for the month and 3.4% year-over-year, the highest annual reading since October 2023
Headline PCE rose 4.1% year-over-year, the highest level since April 2023
Personal income increased 0.7% for the month, boosted in part by one-time farm proprietors’ income tied to American Relief Act and USDA disaster relief payments
Consumer spending also rose 0.7%; the personal saving rate held steady at 3.0%
First-quarter GDP was revised upward to 2.1% from an initial estimate of 1.6%, primarily reflecting a downward revision to imports
The S&P Global flash Manufacturing PMI climbed to 55.7 in June, its strongest reading since May 2022, though manufacturing employment fell at its sharpest pace since the pandemic
The final June University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment reading came in at 49.5 — up from May’s record low but still near historic lows; long-run inflation expectations eased slightly to 3.3%

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return ( 1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	0.94%	-0.66%	-2.07%	13.71%	8.44%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	0.70%	1.02%	2.36%	12.72%	8.69%
NASDAQ	1.47%	-1.90%	-4.83%	18.89%	10.45%
NASDAQ 100	1.39%	-2.71%	-2.67%	24.36%	16.92%
Russell 1000	1.32%	-0.72%	-1.60%	13.95%	9.06%
Russell 2000	-0.62%	0.81%	2.84%	20.44%	21.56%
Russell 3000	1.17%	-0.65%	-1.34%	14.14%	9.58%
ACWI	0.65%	-1.56%	-1.42%	12.95%	10.46%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending June 26, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending June 19, 2026

Jason Foster — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:03:48 +0000

The Retirement Math Most People Get Wrong

There is a concept in longevity planning called conditional life expectancy, and it changes the retirement conversation entirely. Unlike the life expectancy figures most people reference — those assigned at birth — conditional life expectancy tells you how long you are statistically expected to live based on the age you have already reached. The implication is counterintuitive but important: the older you get, the longer you are likely to live.

The data makes this concrete. A 50-year-old man today can expect to live to approximately 80; a woman of the same age, to 83. But reaching 80 is not the finish line — it is a recalibration point. A man who reaches 80 now carries a life expectancy of 89. If he reaches 90, that number climbs to 94. Women live longer than men at every age along this curve, though the gap narrows — from roughly three years at age 50 to approximately one year by age 90. In other words, making it to 80 does not mean a person is near the end of their statistical runway. It means the odds of reaching their 90s just increased considerably.

The planning implication is direct. A 30-year retirement — from 65 to 95 — was once an outlier. It is now a realistic planning horizon for a meaningful portion of the population. The harder problem, then, is not running out of time. It is the risk of outliving financial resources. That requires income strategies built to hold up well into a client’s 90s, a spending pace calibrated to go the distance, and coverage solutions designed around a longer life than most people instinctively plan for. Longevity is no longer a tail risk. For many clients, it is the baseline.

Memory Crunch Prompts Bets on Micron Earnings Blowout

Uranium Deal Powers Up Nuclear Fission Firm Oklo

Bitcoin Bulls Grope Around for the Floor

Foundation in Digital Assets, Part 5: How Investors Gain Exposure

In the first four parts of this series, we explored the technology behind digital assets, the distinction between digital currency and cryptocurrency, the regulatory framework stablecoins now operate within, and how decentralized finance is reshaping traditional lending and borrowing. In this final installment, we turn to a practical question: if a client wants exposure to digital assets, how do they actually get it?

There are three primary pathways, each carrying a distinct set of trade-offs.

Exchange-Traded Products (ETPs). The most significant development in this space has been the arrival of spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs in the U.S. market. Approved by the SEC in January 2024 for Bitcoin and July 2024 for Ethereum, these products eliminated the need for direct cryptocurrency custody while providing regulated exposure to digital assets. The ETP market has since expanded to include products tracking XRP, Solana, and multi-asset crypto indices. Major wealth management platforms — including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Vanguard — have opened access to Bitcoin ETFs for their clients, a shift that marks a meaningful transition from early-adopter territory toward mainstream distribution. ETPs offer accessibility and familiarity; they trade on regulated exchanges and sit inside existing brokerage accounts. Their limitation is that they track the price of an underlying asset — investors do not hold the asset itself. XT.comDL News

Direct Ownership. Investors may also purchase digital assets directly through regulated exchanges and hold them in a digital wallet. This approach provides full ownership of the asset but introduces a layer of responsibility that traditional investing does not: custody. Unlike a brokerage account, where an established institution holds assets on your behalf, direct ownership requires a deliberate decision about how and where to store private keys. Losses from lost credentials or exchange failures are generally not recoverable.

Custody Considerations. Whether an investor chooses an ETP or direct ownership, custody deserves careful attention. Self-custody — storing assets in a personal hardware wallet — provides maximum control but also maximum responsibility. Institutional custody through regulated providers offers infrastructure and insurance, but introduces counterparty exposure. Neither approach is inherently superior; the right choice depends on the investor’s technical comfort, risk tolerance, and overall portfolio context.

Digital asset exposure has become more accessible than at any prior point in the asset class’s history. That accessibility does not change the underlying risk profile. Volatility remains elevated relative to most traditional asset classes, and the appropriate role — if any — for digital assets in a given client’s portfolio is a conversation best held within the context of their broader financial plan.

This concludes the Foundation in Digital Assets series. We hope this five-part framework has provided a clearer vocabulary for evaluating digital assets with discipline and perspective.

Source: Educational framework adapted from materials published by the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals (DACFP), an independent educational organization recognized by the CFP Board of Standards, CFA Institute, and listed in FINRA’s database of professional designations.

Equities

Equity markets advanced on easing Middle East tensions and falling oil prices, with gains broad enough to overcome a hawkish pivot from the Federal Reserve
Small-cap stocks led the way, outpacing large- and mid-caps; growth outperformed value across the board, with the widest gap in small-caps
Seven of eleven S&P 500 sectors finished higher, led by Information Technology and Industrials
Utilities was a notable exception among defensives, posting solid gains; Consumer Staples and Health Care were the week’s laggards
Energy was the worst-performing sector as oil prices fell on optimism surrounding Iran peace talks
International equities outperformed domestic markets; emerging markets surged more than 7%, buoyed by the oil price pullback

Bonds

Bond markets were mixed — long-duration issues rallied while short and intermediate maturities slipped into negative territory
Long government bonds led fixed income performance; high-yield outperformed Treasuries and investment-grade corporates at the short and intermediate segments
The 2-year Treasury yield rose to 4.19%, driven by a sharp Wednesday move as the FOMC’s hawkish tone repriced rate-hike expectations; the 10-year held near flat at 4.46%, narrowing the 2-10 spread to just 0.27%
The U.S. Aggregate Index ended the week yielding 4.74%; the U.S. Corporate Index closed at 5.20%

Macroeconomic Data

The FOMC held the federal funds rate steady at 3.50%–3.75% in a unanimous vote — widely expected — but the updated Summary of Economic Projections delivered a hawkish surprise, with the median dot now pointing to a rate hike by year-end, reversing March’s projection for a cut
In his first press conference as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh declined to submit his own dot or offer forward guidance, and announced five internal task forces to review Fed communications, balance sheet policy, data sources, productivity and jobs, and the inflation framework — with most work targeted for completion by year-end
Retail sales rose 0.9% in May, beating expectations; even stripping out the boost from higher gasoline prices, the control group topped forecasts
Industrial production edged up just 0.1%, below expectations, with manufacturing output flat and capacity utilization holding modestly below its long-term average

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	-0.37%	-0.51%	-1.42%	14.46%	9.16%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	0.29%	-0.55%	1.33%	11.59%	7.59%
NASDAQ	-1.32%	-0.80%	-2.99%	21.19%	12.58%
NASDAQ 100	-0.19%	1.26%	0.05%	27.83%	20.19%
Russell 1000	-0.36%	-1.16%	-1.24%	14.37%	9.46%
Russell 2000	0.88%	1.20%	2.91%	20.52%	21.64%
Russell 3000	-0.27%	-0.95%	-0.96%	14.58%	10.01%
ACWI	-0.10%	-0.28%	0.05%	14.63%	12.10%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending June 19, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending June 12, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 21:00:36 +0000

Tech Today vs. The Dotcom Bubble

This is worth repeating!

A chart circulating in market commentary circles has drawn renewed attention to a familiar question: Is the current technology sector rally following the same path as the Dotcom boom of the late 1990s? The comparison overlays the technology sector’s return trajectory from October 1998 through October 2001 against the current period beginning in June 2024 — a side-by-side view designed to test whether history is repeating itself.

The short answer, based on the data, is that it is not. When the two periods are examined together, the return patterns diverge in meaningful ways. Rather than tracking a similar trajectory, each timeframe reflects its own distinct set of market conditions, economic dynamics, and investor behavior. The visual alignment of starting points does not translate into alignment of outcomes.

This distinction matters for investors. Historical comparisons can offer useful context — they remind us that elevated valuations and sector enthusiasm are not new phenomena — but they carry an important limitation: past market episodes are not predictive of future results. The purpose of this comparison is not to forecast a repeat of the Dotcom correction, nor to suggest that current conditions are immune from volatility. It is simply to provide context. The current return path has not mirrored the movements observed during the Dotcom period, and drawing direct parallels between the two would require ignoring the very different fundamental, monetary, and structural backdrops at play today.

Hormuz to Reopen as Iran, US Agree to Pause War

The SpaceX IPO Is About Way More Than Just Rocket Ships

How Much Will SpaceX Actually Cost Your Index Fund?

JPMorgan, Citi and Big Banks Plan New Tokenized Deposit System to Answer Crypto

Labor Department Reports Inflation at 4.2% in May

Foundation in Digital Assets | Part 4: What Is Decentralized Finance (DeFi)?

For most of modern history, accessing financial services has required a middleman — a bank to hold your deposits, a broker to execute your trades, a lender to approve your loan. Decentralized Finance, commonly referred to as DeFi, is a rapidly growing segment of the digital asset ecosystem built on a simple premise: what if those services could run on software instead?

DeFi refers to a collection of financial applications built on blockchain networks — most commonly Ethereum — that allow users to lend, borrow, trade, and earn yield without relying on a traditional financial institution. These applications operate through self-executing contracts called smart contracts: coded agreements that automatically carry out the terms of a transaction when predetermined conditions are met, with no bank, broker, or clearinghouse required.

The appeal of this model is its accessibility. DeFi protocols are open to anyone with an internet connection and a digital wallet, operating around the clock without the business hours, account minimums, or geographic restrictions of conventional finance. Transactions settle in minutes rather than days.

The risks, however, are equally distinctive. DeFi operates largely outside the regulatory perimeter — there is no FDIC insurance, no investor protection fund, and no compliance framework governing most protocols today. Smart contract code, while transparent, can contain vulnerabilities that bad actors exploit. And the assets involved remain highly volatile.

DeFi does not represent a replacement for the regulated financial system. What it does represent is a shift in how financial infrastructure can be designed — one that institutions, regulators, and long-term investors are watching closely.

Next in the series — Part 5: How Investors Gain Exposure. We examine the practical ways investors access digital assets today — from exchange-traded products and direct ownership to custody considerations and portfolio sizing.

Source: Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals (DACFP), an independent educational organization recognized by the CFP Board of Standards, CFA Institute, and listed in FINRA’s database of professional designations.

Equities

Stocks rebounded last week despite inflation data and geopolitical uncertainty, with sentiment improving as Middle East tensions eased and U.S.-Iran negotiations progressed
Small-cap stocks led the advance; mid-caps also posted strong weekly gains
Value outperformed growth across all market capitalizations, extending its year-to-date leadership as investor interest broadened beyond mega-cap technology
Sector rotation continued, with Materials, Consumer Staples, Financials, Real Estate, and Industrials leading; Energy and Communication Services lagged
International developed markets finished higher, outperforming emerging markets, which were essentially flat on the week

Bonds

The Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index gained 0.52% for the week as Treasury prices stabilized
The 2-year Treasury yield closed at 4.09%; the 10-year finished at 4.48%, leaving the 2-10 spread at 0.39%
Markets largely looked past inflation data, focusing on easing geopolitical risk and the upcoming Fed meeting, where rates are widely expected to remain unchanged
Investment-grade corporate yields ended the week at 5.19%; high-yield at 7.40%, with both posting positive weekly returns reflecting continued credit market resilience

Macroeconomic Data

May CPI rose 0.5% for the month and 4.2% year-over-year — the fastest annual pace in roughly three years — though core CPI remained more contained at 0.2% monthly and 2.9% annually
Producer prices surprised to the upside, with PPI climbing 1.1% in May
Initial jobless claims edged up to 229,000, signaling modest labor market moderation while remaining at historically healthy levels
The preliminary University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index improved to 48.9 from a record low of 44.8 in May, supported by lower gasoline prices and easing inflation expectations

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	1.73%	2.08%	-0.26%	15.80%	10.44%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	1.26%	2.09%	1.60%	11.88%	7.87%
NASDAQ	2.68%	2.52%	-1.44%	23.13%	14.38%
NASDAQ 100	2.77%	3.54%	0.41%	28.29%	20.62%
Russell 1000	1.53%	2.19%	-0.26%	15.50%	10.54%
Russell 2000	0.77%	4.81%	1.64%	19.03%	20.13%
Russell 3000	1.49%	2.29%	-0.13%	15.54%	10.93%
ACWI	1.07%	2.43%	-0.25%	14.29%	11.77%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending June 12, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Order from Chaos: What a Nail Board Can Teach Diligent Investors About Markets

Jason Foster — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:29:00 +0000

There is a device, deceptively simple in its construction, that has fascinated mathematicians and scientists for over a century. The Galton board — named after the Victorian polymath Sir Francis Galton — is little more than a triangular array of pegs mounted above a row of collection bins. Steel bearings are dropped from the top one by one, each striking the first peg and deflecting left or right in what appears to be a perfectly random choice. The bearing falls to the next row, bounces again, and again, all the way to the bottom.

Watch a thousand bearings fall and something remarkable appears. No single bearing follows a predictable path. Yet the collection of all of them — those thousands of individual random journeys — assembles itself into a smooth, symmetrical bell curve. The centre bins are always full. The edge bins are always nearly empty. Chaos, repeated at sufficient scale, produces order.

This is not a trick. It is mathematics, and it has meaningful implications for anyone committed to building wealth with intention and consistency.

Why the middle wins

The logic of the Galton board is combinatorial. A bearing that ends up in the far-left bin must have deflected left at virtually every single peg it encountered. A bearing in the far-right bin must have gone consistently right. Both outcomes are possible — but both require a long, unbroken streak of the same result. The middle, by contrast, is reachable by an enormous variety of paths: left-right-left-right, right-left-right-left, and countless other combinations all converge there. The centre bins fill not because they are “correct” but because there are simply more routes leading to them.

The probability of extreme outcomes is real. It is also, by the structure of the board itself, geometrically rare.

Louis Bachelier and the random walk of prices

In 1900, a young French mathematician named Louis Bachelier submitted a doctoral thesis that his examiners found elegant but commercially peculiar. Its title was Théorie de la Spéculation, and its central argument was startling for its time: the future price of a financial asset is not knowable. It is governed by a distribution. Bachelier proposed that price movements follow a “random walk” — each step independent of the last, shaped by the continuous arrival of new information that no participant can fully anticipate. He derived the same mathematical structure that underlies the Galton board: the probability of a price being at any given level after some interval follows a normal, bell-shaped distribution centred on the present price. His work predated Einstein’s paper on Brownian motion by five years and laid the foundations for everything that would later become modern financial theory.

The insight was not that markets are irrational. It was that they are so efficient at absorbing information that the residual — the part that actually moves prices — behaves like pure noise. In Bachelier’s model, the expected future price of a stock is simply its present price. All the skill, all the analysis, all the forecasting, combines to define the centre of the distribution. What actually happens is the bearing finding its own path through the pegs.

What this means for the diligent investor

At Cestia, we believe that wealth is a verb, not a noun. It is built ring by ring — each one shaped by adversity, good fortune, conquered challenges, and the decisions made with clear eyes and a long horizon. The Galton board offers a useful lens for understanding why consistency and structure matter more than trying to predict where any single bearing will land.

A few implications follow from this directly.

First, extreme outcomes — the far bins on the board — do happen. They are genuinely rare, but rare is not the same as impossible. Markets crash. They also surge well beyond what fundamentals would justify. An investor who treats the tails of the distribution as purely theoretical is making the same error as an engineer who designs a bridge only for average weather. A panoramic understanding of markets requires acknowledging that the full width of the board is always in play.

Second, because there are so many paths to middling outcomes and so few to extreme ones, the overwhelming majority of short-term price movements will be modest. This is why volatility that feels dramatic in the moment tends to mean-revert over time. Individual bearings are erratic. The pile beneath the board is smooth. Quick gains can be exhilarating — but our clients know that building true wealth requires a consistent, long-term strategy, not a wager on which bin the next bearing will find.

Third, and perhaps most important, adding more independent bearings — more diversified positions — does not change the shape of the distribution. It sharpens it. A portfolio of uncorrelated assets concentrates outcomes more tightly around the centre. The law of large numbers, Galton’s own observation, is among the oldest and most reliable tools available to any investor building rings of wealth with a meticulous focus on the granular details of their financial life.

The paradox of the visible pattern

There is a quiet paradox at the heart of the Galton board. The pattern — the bell curve — is perfectly predictable. The path of any individual bearing is not. Markets offer the same paradox to those who pursue their long-term goals with mindful sensibility. In aggregate, over time, returns cluster around economic fundamentals. In the short run, any individual stock, sector, or index can find itself anywhere in the distribution.

Bachelier understood this over a century ago. The market, he argued, yields no systematic profit to either buyer or seller — not because it is passive or irrational, but because every piece of information that could predict the next move is already embedded in the current price. The peg at the top of the board is always the same. It is everything that happens after the bearing leaves your hand that cannot be controlled.

The Galton board asks investors to make peace with that reality — not with passivity, but with the kind of calm confidence that comes from a well-engineered financial strategy. You choose which board to play on, how many bearings to drop, and how long to wait for the pile to take its shape. Throughout the changes, challenges, and goals that define your financial journey, the distribution remains your most dependable guide.

That is, more or less, what markets have always rewarded.

Sources

On Louis Bachelier and the random walk of prices

Bachelier, L. (1900). Théorie de la Spéculation. Annales Scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, 17, 21–88. Reprinted in: Cootner, P. H. (ed.) (1964). The Random Character of Stock Market Prices. MIT Press.

Davis, M. & Etheridge, A. (2006). Louis Bachelier’s Theory of Speculation: The Origins of Modern Finance. Princeton University Press.

Courtault, J-M. et al. (2000). “Louis Bachelier: On the Centenary of Théorie de la Spéculation.” Mathematical Finance, 10(3), 341–353.

On the Galton board

Galton, F. (1889). Natural Inheritance. Macmillan. pp. 63–70. Facsimile available at galton.org.

Schneider, I. (2001). “The Quincunx: History and Mathematics.” Statistical Papers, 42, 143–169.

On the efficient market hypothesis

Fama, E. F. (1965). “Random Walks in Stock Market Prices.” Financial Analysts Journal, 21, 55–59.

Fama, E. F. (1970). “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” Journal of Finance, 25, 383–417.

Disclosures

Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.
Citations to Internal Revenue Code sections, Treasury regulations, IRS notices and revenue procedures, and Tax Court decisions reflect guidance and case law in effect as of the date of publication and are subject to change.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
This material was prepared with the assistance of AI. All content has been reviewed, edited, and approved by Cestia Wealth Management prior to use.

The post Order from Chaos: What a Nail Board Can Teach Diligent Investors About Markets appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending June 5, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:30:03 +0000

Navigating volatility around Fed leadership transitions

A change at the helm of the Federal Reserve often stirs uncertainty in financial markets — but history suggests that short-term turbulence has rarely defined the outcome. With Kevin Warsh assuming the Chair role on May 22, 2025, we examined how markets have performed in the first year following each new Chair since 1970.

SpaceX not the behemoth everyone thought

Analyst Flags Conflicting USA-Iran War Statements

Oil Rebounds on Fresh Middle East Supply Risk Pricing

Trump finds an AI policy he can live with

As Anthropic Files for IPO, AI Savings Disappoint America’s C-Suites

Foundation in Digital Assets | Part 3 of 5

Stablecoins and the GENIUS Act: Bringing Order to the Middle Ground

In Part 2, we drew a clear line between digital currency and cryptocurrency — centralized versus decentralized, institution-controlled versus protocol-governed. Stablecoins occupy the interesting middle ground between those two worlds, which is precisely what makes them interesting to understand.

What Is a Stablecoin?

A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency engineered to hold a steady value. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum — whose prices can move sharply in a matter of hours — a stablecoin is designed to maintain a consistent price, typically pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency such as the U.S. dollar.

The stability is achieved through reserves. The most common structure is straightforward: for every stablecoin in circulation, the issuer holds one dollar (or its equivalent in short-term U.S. Treasury securities) in reserve. When a holder redeems their stablecoin, the issuer returns the corresponding dollar. Think of it as a digital dollar token that moves on blockchain rails — settling in seconds, crossing borders without a correspondent bank, and operating around the clock.

The two most widely used stablecoins today are USDT (Tether), the largest by market capitalization, and USDC (USD Coin), issued by Circle and known for its regular independent reserve audits. Together, fiat-backed stablecoins represent the vast majority of a market now valued at approximately $320 billion.

Why Stablecoins Matter

Stablecoins solve one of the most practical limitations of cryptocurrency: volatility. They allow participants to move value quickly and inexpensively across the digital asset ecosystem without converting back to traditional currency at every step. For this reason, they have become the primary medium of exchange within decentralized finance — a topic we will address in Part 4.

They also serve a growing role in payments, cross-border transfers, and, increasingly, mainstream financial services. Visa, PayPal, and several major banks have begun integrating stablecoin infrastructure into their settlement systems.

The GENIUS Act: A Regulatory Milestone

For years, stablecoins operated in a regulatory gray area — widely used, but without a clear federal framework governing how they should be backed, audited, or supervised. That changed on July 18, 2025, when President Trump signed the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins) into law.

The GENIUS Act is the first federal law to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for payment stablecoins — digital tokens pegged to monetary value and intended for payments. Passed with strong bipartisan support (308–122 in the House, 68–30 in the Senate), the law establishes who may legally issue a stablecoin in the United States, how reserves must be held and disclosed, and which federal or state regulator is responsible for oversight. It replaces a patchwork of state and federal guidance with enforceable standards for reserve assets, redemption rights, disclosures, and custody — and clarifies that compliant stablecoins are neither securities nor commodities.

Implementing regulations are being finalized by the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA, with the Act set to take effect no later than January 18, 2027.

What This Means for Clients

The GENIUS Act does not make stablecoins an investment recommendation. What it does is bring a major segment of the digital asset market into a regulated framework — one with reserve requirements, redemption protections, and federal supervision that did not previously exist. For clients seeking to understand how the digital asset landscape is evolving, this is a meaningful development worth tracking.

Next in the series — Part 4: Decentralized Finance (DeFi). We examine how blockchain-based financial services are being built outside the traditional banking system — and what that means for the future of lending, borrowing, and yield.

EQUITIES

Broad equity markets pulled back from recent highs, as a pronounced decline in technology shares weighed on overall performance.
Value stocks outperformed growth stocks across market capitalizations, extending year-to-date leads for large-cap and mid-cap value.
Mid-cap equities demonstrated the greatest resilience during the week’s downturn; small-caps bore the steepest losses, with the Russell 2000 declining approximately 3%.
Seven of eleven S&P 500 sectors closed higher despite the risk-off environment — Energy led all sectors, supported by rising crude oil prices.
Defensive and cyclical sectors including Health Care, Real Estate, and Financials each posted solid advances for the week.
Information Technology was the weakest sector, as momentum behind artificial intelligence names paused meaningfully.
International equities also declined but outperformed domestic markets on a relative basis.

BONDS

Fixed income markets sold off as yields rose broadly across the Treasury curve, adding to what has already been a challenging year for bonds.
The 2-year Treasury yield climbed 19 basis points to 4.17%, up from 3.98% at the close of May; the 10-year Treasury yield rose 10 basis points to 4.55%.
The 2s/10s slope flattened from 0.47% to 0.38%, reflecting the steeper move at the front end of the curve.
The Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index fell 0.54% for the week, pushing its year-to-date return into negative territory at -0.17%.
Investment-grade corporate yields closed the week at 5.26%, while high-yield corporate yields ended at 7.43%.

MACROECONOMIC DATA

U.S. economic data continued to reflect an economy with notable underlying resilience, reinforcing expectations that the Federal Reserve will sustain a restrictive policy stance for an extended period.
The May nonfarm payrolls report was the week’s headline release — 172,000 jobs were added, meaningfully exceeding consensus estimates, while the unemployment rate held at 4.3%.
Prior months’ job gains were revised upward, suggesting the labor market remains more durable than many economists had projected.
Wage growth moderated to 3.4% year-over-year, a development that may temper concerns around a wage-price inflation spiral.
April JOLTS job openings surged to 7.618 million — a substantial surprise relative to the consensus estimate of approximately 6.866 million — underscoring continued tightness in the labor market.
The U.S. services sector remained in expansion in May, though readings diverged across surveys: ISM’s Services PMI rose to 54.5, signaling solid activity, while S&P Global’s Services PMI registered a more modest 50.7, indicating slower demand growth.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	0.81%	-2.06%	-1.80%	14.01%	8.73%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	0.30%	-0.12%	-0.03%	10.09%	6.15%
NASDAQ	1.39%	-3.76%	-3.35%	20.74%	12.16%
NASDAQ 100	1.94%	-3.26%	-2.68%	24.34%	16.91%
Russell 1000	0.80%	-1.62%	-1.62%	13.93%	9.04%
Russell 2000	1.49%	-1.58%	-1.58%	15.26%	16.33%
Russell 3000	0.84%	-1.54%	-1.54%	13.91%	9.36%
ACWI	0.81%	-1.83%	-1.83%	12.48%	10.00%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending June 5, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending May 29, 2026

Jason Foster — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:47:06 +0000

A Historical Perspective of Mega IPOs

With speculation mounting around potential blockbuster offerings — most notably SpaceX — the IPO market is generating significant investor enthusiasm. Yet a careful review of historical data offers an important counterpoint to that excitement. Among the ten largest U.S. initial public offerings since 1999, measured by deal size, every single one produced a negative return over the twelve months that followed their market debut.

The pattern is striking: an average one-year forward return of -26.8% across the ten largest offerings since 1999 suggests that mega-IPOs tend to arrive overpriced, riding the crest of maximum market enthusiasm. For investors, the lesson is clear — the size of an offering and the volume of media attention surrounding it are not reliable predictors of near-term performance. As always, disciplined valuation and a long-term perspective remain essential, even when the headlines make a new listing feel like a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Key Takeaway: History suggests that the most celebrated IPOs carry the highest expectations — and those expectations are rarely met within the first year of trading. Proceed with measured caution.

SpaceX not the behemoth everyone thought

What is a Long-Short strategy, and how does it help with Tax-Loss Harvesting

Digitalization, AI in Upstream Oil, Gas is ‘$500B Opportunity’

A Foundation in Digital Assets Part 2: What Is the Difference Between Digital Currency and Cryptocurrency?

In our last installment, we established that blockchain is the technology layer underpinning the digital asset universe — a distributed ledger that records transactions transparently and permanently, without relying on a central authority. With that foundation in place, we can address one of the most common points of confusion among clients: the difference between digital currency and cryptocurrency.

These terms are frequently used as if they were interchangeable. They are not.

Digital Currency: The Broader Category

Digital currency is an umbrella term for any form of money that exists exclusively in electronic form. By this definition, the balance in your checking account is a form of digital currency — it is a number in a database, not a stack of paper bills. So is the dollar amount on a prepaid gift card, or funds transferred through a wire.

The defining characteristic of digital currency is what it is not: physical. Beyond that, digital currencies are typically centralized, meaning a single institution — a bank, a government, a payment platform — controls the record and governs the rules.

The most discussed form of government-issued digital currency today is the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) — essentially a digital version of a nation’s fiat currency, issued and backed by its central bank. More than 130 countries have explored or piloted CBDCs, though adoption varies significantly by region. In the United States, the legislative environment has moved in the opposite direction: Congress has advanced measures that would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC, reflecting concerns about government oversight of individual financial activity. As of this writing, no U.S. digital dollar exists.

Cryptocurrency: A Specific Subset

Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency — but one defined by two additional properties: cryptographic security and decentralization.

Cryptography refers to the mathematical techniques used to secure transactions and control the creation of new units. Rather than a bank verifying that you have sufficient funds before a transfer clears, a cryptocurrency network uses cryptographic proofs — confirmed by a distributed network of computers — to validate every transaction.

Decentralization means there is no central institution in control. Bitcoin, for example, is maintained by thousands of independent participants worldwide. No government can freeze it, no bank can reverse a transaction, and no single entity sets the rules. The protocol itself — a set of open-source code — governs how the system operates.

This produces the logical relationship worth committing to memory: all cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, but not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. The digital balance in your savings account is the former. Bitcoin is both.

Why the Distinction Matters

When clients encounter headlines about a “digital dollar” or read that a country is “launching its own cryptocurrency,” the distinction above is essential context. A government-issued digital currency preserves centralized control — and with it, the familiar protections and risks of government monetary policy. A decentralized cryptocurrency, by contrast, operates outside that system entirely.

Neither is inherently superior. They represent different design philosophies with different trade-offs around control, privacy, stability, and access. Understanding those trade-offs is a prerequisite for evaluating the asset class with clarity — which is precisely the goal of this series.

Next in the series — Part 3: Stablecoins. We examine a hybrid category that attempts to combine the decentralized architecture of cryptocurrency with the price stability of traditional currency, and address the GENIUS Act, the landmark U.S. legislation that established the first federal regulatory framework for stablecoins.

Equities

Equity indices reached new highs last week, driven by optimism surrounding a prospective Iran-U.S. peace agreement, declining oil prices, and sustained AI momentum.
Growth stocks continued to outpace value stocks, narrowing value’s year-to-date lead across large-, mid-, and small-cap segments.
Small caps edged ahead of mid- and large-caps, extending their year-to-date advantage.
Only four of eleven S&P 500 sectors finished the week in positive territory. Technology led all sectors, with notable contributions from Snowflake, Dell, and Micron.
Energy was the week’s worst performer, pressured by a sharp decline in WTI crude. Defensive sectors — Consumer Staples and Utilities — were also notable laggards, reflecting a continued risk-on tone among investors.
International equities were mixed: MSCI EAFE posted a modest gain but trailed domestic markets, while emerging markets surged on AI enthusiasm and retreating energy prices.

Bonds

Bonds rallied as yields declined across the curve, with the front end leading the move lower.
Long-duration bonds outperformed, with government bonds narrowly edging corporate bonds at the long end.
The 2-year Treasury yield fell 15 basis points to 3.98%; the 10-year declined 11 basis points to 4.45%, steepening the 2s/10s spread to 0.47%.
Credit spreads continued to tighten. Investment-grade corporates ended the week yielding 5.13%; high-yield bonds settled at 7.29%.
Despite last week’s rally, bonds remain broadly muted on the year — the Bloomberg Aggregate is up less than 0.5% year-to-date, with high yield the standout at a 1.68% return.

Macroeconomic Data

Inflation remained the dominant theme. April PCE rose 0.4%, in line with expectations. Core PCE — the Fed’s preferred gauge — climbed 0.2% for the month, bringing the year-over-year rate to 3.3%, well above the 2.0% target.
Personal income was flat in April while consumer spending rose 0.5%, pushing the personal savings rate down to 2.6%.
Q1 GDP was revised 0.4 percentage points lower to 1.6%, with the reduction driven primarily by an inventory drawdown.
Elevated inflation paired with softer growth has added meaningful uncertainty to the Fed’s rate path for the remainder of the year.
Consumer confidence slipped to 93.1 in May per the Conference Board, weighed down by persistent inflation concerns.
Core capital goods orders fell 1.1% in April, missing expectations — a cautionary signal for business investment.
Labor market data remained resilient: weekly jobless claims came in at 215,000, near historically low levels, while ADP reported private employers added 109,000 jobs in April, beating estimates. Gains were heavily concentrated in education and health services.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	0.47%	1.91%	0.47%	16.66%	11.25%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	0.06%	0.96%	0.06%	10.19%	6.25%
NASDAQ	0.68%	3.08%	0.68%	25.78%	16.84%
NASDAQ 100	0.72%	3.63%	0.72%	28.70%	21.00%
Russell 1000	0.41%	1.96%	5.55%	16.28%	11.29%
Russell 2000	-0.12%	1.74%	4.35%	16.96%	18.05%
Russell 3000	0.45%	1.96%	5.54%	16.22%	11.58%
ACWI	0.57%	2.21%	5.21%	15.23%	12.69%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending May 29, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Week Ending May 22, 2026

Jason Foster — Tue, 26 May 2026 18:27:58 +0000

Bond Yields are Historically Linked with Forward Returns

One of the more enduring relationships in fixed income markets is the link between the U.S. 10-Year Treasury’s starting yield and its forward 10-year annualized return. Plotting this relationship back to 1999 reveals a consistent pattern: the yield at which an investor begins their holding period has historically been a meaningful indicator of the return they can expect to earn over the subsequent decade.

Applying that historical relationship to today’s market, the current 10-Year Treasury yield of approximately 4.6% implies a forward 10-year annualized return of roughly 5.6%. It is worth emphasizing that this figure is a single point estimate drawn from past data — it is not a forecast, and it does not account for the path of rates, inflation, or credit conditions that will ultimately shape realized returns.

The broader takeaway is one of context rather than prediction. Higher starting yields have historically been associated with stronger forward returns for bondholders, which is why the level of rates today may serve as a reasonable anchor for setting return expectations within a diversified portfolio. As always, the historical relationship may not persist, and actual future returns may differ materially from what past data suggests. Still, for clients evaluating the role of fixed income in their long-term plan, today’s yield environment offers a more constructive starting point than has been available in much of the past fifteen years.

Why Is Oil Moving Lower Today?

What Happens to Oil if Iran Permanently Taxes Hormuz Traffic?

SpaceX IPO Sets Stage for Clash of Wall Street Titans

Quantum stocks explode after Uncle Sam wants in

A Foundation in Digital Assets, Part 1: What Is Blockchain?

Before clients can meaningfully evaluate cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, or decentralized finance, it helps to begin with the underlying technology that makes all of them possible: blockchain.

At its simplest, a blockchain is a shared digital record of transactions. Rather than being stored on a single company’s server — the way a bank maintains your account balance — the record is distributed across a network of computers that each hold an identical copy. When a new transaction occurs, the network collectively verifies it, and once added to the record, the entry cannot be altered without the consensus of the network.

Two features make this design notable. The first is transparency: every participant can see the same ledger, which reduces the need to trust any single intermediary. The second is immutability: once recorded, entries are extremely difficult to change, which creates a permanent, auditable history.

Blockchain is the technology layer. It is not, by itself, an investment. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the broader universe of digital assets are applications built on blockchain — much in the way that email and online banking are applications built on the internet. Understanding this distinction is the first step in evaluating the asset class with clarity.

In the next installment, we will examine the difference between digital currency and cryptocurrency — terms that are often used interchangeably but describe meaningfully different things.

Equities

S&P 500 rose 0.91%, marking its eighth consecutive weekly gain — the longest streak since 2023
Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed to an all-time high of 50,579
Small-cap and value stocks outperformed; equal-weighted S&P 500 beat the cap-weighted index, signaling broader market participation
Health care led S&P 500 sectors, gaining over 3.3% as investors diversified exposure
NVIDIA’s stronger-than-expected earnings lifted technology and semiconductor shares amid continued AI enthusiasm
International markets posted broad gains on Middle East de-escalation hopes and robust memory chip demand

Bonds

30-year Treasury yield spiked to 5.19% on Tuesday — its highest level since 2007 — before retreating
10-year Treasury yield ended the week lower at 4.56%; 2-year yield rose to 4.13% (2–10 spread of ~43 bps)
April FOMC minutes struck a hawkish tone, with most participants citing greater risk that inflation will take longer to reach the 2% target
Market expectations have shifted away from near-term rate cuts, with some pricing in a possible rate hike by January
Investment-grade corporate yields ended at 5.26%; high-yield corporate yields at 7.40%

Macroeconomic Data

S&P Global May Flash Manufacturing PMI surged to 55.3, a four-year high; Services PMI eased slightly to 50.9
Inflation pressures intensified — input costs rose at the fastest pace since late 2022; selling prices hit their highest since August 2022
University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment fell for a third straight month to a record low of 44.8; year-ahead inflation expectations climbed to 4.8%
Housing market remained soft — housing starts fell 2.8% and 30-year mortgage rates rose to 6.51%, the highest since August
Initial jobless claims fell to 209,000, indicating labor market stability despite slower broader hiring

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

	Total Return (1D)	Total Return (1W)	Total Return (MTD)	Total Return (QTD)	Total Return (YTD)
S&P 500	0.49%	2.13%	4.18%	15.04%	9.71%
Dow Jones Industrial Average	-0.24%	2.22%	1.62%	8.88%	4.98%
NASDAQ	0.88%	2.73%	6.77%	23.09%	14.35%
NASDAQ 100	1.00%	3.32%	8.47%	25.42%	17.93%
Russell 1000	0.52%	1.55%	4.05%	14.63%	9.71%
Russell 2000	1.31%	4.05%	3.92%	16.47%	17.55%
Russell 3000	0.58%	1.66%	4.11%	14.64%	10.07%
ACWI	0.88%	2.13%	3.85%	13.73%	11.22%

Global Client Survey

Take Our Survey Now (click here)

Disclosures

Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Information about annuities are not to be considered a recommendation. The information provided should not considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

The post Week Ending May 22, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

Rethinking the Glide Path: What Research Tells Us About Social Security and Your Retirement Portfolio

Jason Foster — Thu, 21 May 2026 14:25:38 +0000

A summary of academic findings — and what they mean for the conversations worth having with your advisor.

Among the most consequential decisions a retiree faces, few receive the careful attention they deserve. How a portfolio balances stocks and bonds over time — and how that balance coordinates with guaranteed income sources such as Social Security — can be the difference between a retirement that sustains itself comfortably and one that comes up short when it matters most.

A 2024 study published in the Journal of Financial Planning examined these questions with rigorous depth, exploring how guaranteed income, risk tolerance, bequest objectives, and asset allocation strategies interact across thousands of simulated retirement scenarios. The findings are, in several respects, counterintuitive — and for that reason, they deserve the attention of anyone who is planning for or already living in retirement.

“One of the biggest threats to a portfolio’s success at providing lifetime income is a big loss in value early, rather than later, in retirement.”

Waggle and Agrrawal, June 2024

A glide path describes how a portfolio’s allocation between stocks and bonds is designed to evolve over time. The conventional approach — reflected in most target-date retirement funds — calls for holding a higher proportion of equities during working years, then gradually shifting toward bonds as retirement approaches and progresses. The rationale is grounded in sound logic: bonds offer more stability, and a retiree who experiences a significant market loss does not have the time or future income to recover from it.

The researchers examined five distinct glide path strategies, each representing a different trajectory for equity allocation across a 30-year retirement horizon:

Decreasing Fast — equity allocation falls by 40% over 30 years
Decreasing Slow — equity allocation falls by 20% over 30 years
Constant — equity allocation is rebalanced to its starting level each year
Slow — equity allocation rises by 20% over 30 years
Increasing Fast — equity allocation rises by 40% over 30 years

Starting equity allocations from 0% to 100% were tested across each glide path — a total of 43 unique portfolio strategies — and each was evaluated across 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations using long-term return and inflation assumptions for large-cap equities and 10-year Treasury bonds.

The Role of Social Security

The study’s most practically significant finding centers on Social Security — and on the cost of ignoring it. Many portfolio analyses treat the investable portfolio in isolation, as though guaranteed income streams do not exist. The researchers found that this approach leads to meaningfully different, and often suboptimal, portfolio recommendations.

For retirees with moderate or high risk aversion, factoring Social Security into the analysis typically points toward a higher initial equity allocation than an analysis that excludes it would suggest. At first glance, this may seem to work against conventional wisdom. But the underlying logic is sound: guaranteed income functions as a floor. When a meaningful portion of living expenses is covered regardless of market conditions, the investable portfolio can take on more measured risk in pursuit of long-term growth — particularly for those with goals around legacy and wealth transfer.

The study expressed wealth in terms of the ratio of investable assets to the present value of Social Security, examining scenarios in which Social Security represented 75%, 33%, and 17% of overall wealth. As Social Security’s proportional share increased, the case for higher initial equity allocations in the remaining portfolio strengthened accordingly.

Portfolio success rates

The first lens through which the research evaluated these strategies was straightforward: could a given portfolio sustain inflation-adjusted withdrawals for the full retirement period without being exhausted? Three withdrawal rates were examined — 3%, 4%, and 5% of initial portfolio value — across retirement horizons ranging from 20 to 40 years.

The results illustrate a familiar tension. At a 3% withdrawal rate, a wide range of glide paths succeeded across most time horizons, providing planners and clients with meaningful flexibility. At 4%, outcomes began to diverge meaningfully depending on starting equity levels and glide path direction. At 5%, the picture becomes considerably more challenging, particularly for retirement horizons extending 35 to 40 years — where even the best-performing strategies fell well short of certainty.

The tables below are reproduced directly from the original research. The top three performing glide paths for each scenario are ranked 1 through 3

Table 2 — Portfolio Success Rates

Table 3 — Portfolio Success Rates: 3% Withdrawal Rate

Table 4 — Portfolio Success Rates: 4% Withdrawal Rate

Table 5 — Portfolio Success Rates: 5% Withdrawal Rate

Beyond success rates: the utility framework

A binary success-or-failure measure, while useful, has inherent limitations. A portfolio that provides income for 30 years and leaves one dollar in the account is technically “successful” — yet it tells a fundamentally different story than one that sustains withdrawals and leaves a meaningful inheritance for heirs. Likewise, for a retiree whose Social Security covers the majority of living expenses, a portfolio shortfall carries far less consequence than for someone whose portfolio bears the full weight of retirement income.

To capture this complexity, the researchers applied a constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utility framework that evaluates outcomes across three dimensions simultaneously: the percentage of desired income actually received each year, the retiree’s level of risk aversion, and the strength of their preference for leaving a financial legacy. The result is a ranking of all 43 glide path strategies from most to least optimal — not merely by survival, but by the quality of the retirement experience as the individual retiree would realistically value it.

Key findings and their implications

Several conclusions from this research stand apart as especially relevant for clients approaching or navigating retirement.First, ignoring Social Security distorts the analysis. When the research compared optimal portfolios with and without Social Security factored in, the recommended strategies diverged substantially — particularly for retirees with moderate or high risk aversion. In some cases, the optimal starting equity allocation shifted by 20 to 30 percentage points depending on whether guaranteed income was included. Financial plans that treat the investable portfolio in isolation are, by definition, working with an incomplete picture.

Second, rising glide paths merit serious consideration. Conventional guidance directs retirees to reduce equity exposure over time. The research found that for a broad range of investor profiles — especially those with bequest goals — increasing equity allocations throughout retirement frequently produced superior utility outcomes. The logic is intuitive once examined: beginning with a more conservative allocation reduces vulnerability to the sequence-of-returns risk that most threatens early retirees, while the gradual increase in equity exposure supports long-term growth as the portfolio establishes its footing.

Third, the optimal path is deeply personal. Risk aversion, bequest preferences, withdrawal rates, and the size of Social Security relative to total wealth all interact to produce different optimal outcomes. There is no universal answer — only an answer that is right for a given individual, in a given set of circumstances, with a given set of goals.

What this means for you

Retirement planning, at its best, is an act of precision. The research summarized here affirms what we at Cestia have long believed: the decisions that shape retirement outcomes should be engineered around the full reality of your financial life — your income sources, your risk profile, your time horizon, and what you want your wealth to accomplish for the people and causes you care about.

Social Security is a genuine and material asset. Its guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income stream fundamentally changes the construction of an optimal retirement portfolio. A rising glide path, starting conservatively and building equity exposure as the portfolio matures through the critical early retirement years, may deliver meaningfully better outcomes for many retirees — not despite their caution, but because of it.

References

Doug Waggle, Ph.D., and Pankaj Agrrawal, Ph.D. (2024). Guaranteed Income and Optimal Retirement Glide Paths.Journal of Financial Planning, 37(6), 74–94,

Disclosures

Cestia Wealth Management is not a legal tax professional. We offer tax gap analysis for clients who desire to have a comprehensive financial plan, which requires in-depth tax strategy and planning as a distinct part of the overall customized solution. Please consult your tax professional on all matters addressed in this report.
Wealth Mechanics™ is a registered trademark of Cestia Wealth Management. Unauthorized use of the trademark, including but not limited to commercial use, reproduction, or imitation without explicit written permission from Cestia Wealth Management, is strictly prohibited.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, the information presented here should only be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.
Citations to Internal Revenue Code sections, Treasury regulations, IRS notices and revenue procedures, and Tax Court decisions reflect guidance and case law in effect as of the date of publication and are subject to change.
Advisory services offered through NewEdge Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser. Securities offered through NewEdge Securities, LLC. Member FINRA/SIPC. NewEdge Advisors, LLC and NewEdge Securities, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries of NewEdge Capital Group, LLC.
This material was prepared with the assistance of AI. All content has been reviewed, edited, and approved by Cestia Wealth Management prior to use.

The post Rethinking the Glide Path: What Research Tells Us About Social Security and Your Retirement Portfolio appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.