(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

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.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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.

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.

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.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

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 <em>Journal of Financial Planning</em> 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</strong> — equity allocation falls by 40% over 30 years
• Decreasing Slow</strong> — equity allocation falls by 20% over 30 years
• Constant</strong> — equity allocation is rebalanced to its starting level each year
• Slow</strong> — equity allocation rises by 20% over 30 years
• Increasing Fast</strong> — 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

Fidelity’s 2026 midyear outlook: Preparing for what’s to come in the economy

Key takeaways

Will I Avoid IRMAA Surcharges On Medicare Part B & Part D?

Planning around Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (“IRMAA”) surcharges has become more important as the Medicare premium increase amount has grown in recent years. While on the surface the concept is pretty straightforward, there are a few issues that can cause an unexpected wrinkle for your clients. It can be difficult to avoid pitfalls, and to recognize when a client may be able to request an exception from the IRMAA surcharge.

To help make this easier, we have created the “Will I Avoid IRMAA Surcharges On Medicare Part B & Part D” flowchart. It addresses some of the most common issues that arise for a client on Medicare, including:

• IRMAA surcharges for Part B and Part D based on MAGI ranges
• Situations to request an exception and the form to complete
• Relevant tax year for the surcharge calculation

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 15, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

The Pitch You May Have Heard

A micro-captive insurance arrangement is a powerful tax-and-risk planning structure where a profitable business creates—or participates in—a small insurance company that elects under Internal Revenue Code §831(b) to be taxed only on its investment income. In concept, the structure allows a business to insure its own risks, deduct the premiums it pays, and accumulate reserves tax-efficiently. In practice, the version most often pitched to mid-market business owners has become one of the most heavily scrutinized arrangements in federal tax law.

If you own a profitable business, chances are someone has already presented this strategy to you. The promise typically sounds compelling:

• A six- or seven-figure annual deduction against operating income
• Tax-advantaged reserve buildup that grows outside the operating business
• Coverage for risks that are difficult to insure commercially—loss of key person, loss of key customers, brand rehabilitation, cyber liability, regulatory actions
• An eventual exit at long-term capital gains rates, or with no federal tax at all if the rights are placed inside a trust, retirement plan, or private placement life insurance policy

The pitches are sophisticated and often delivered by polished promoters with persuasive case studies. They deserve a careful, fact-based response. At Cestia Wealth Management, we believe wealth is a verb, not a noun—and that distinction matters most in moments like these. A real wealth-building tool earns its place by what it does in real life, not by what it promises on a slide deck. The honest answer is that captive insurance can be a legitimate planning strategy, but the version most commonly marketed to mid-market business owners deserves the same rigor you would bring to any consequential financial decision.

How Captive Insurance Actually Works

A captive is an insurance company owned by, or affiliated with, the business it insures. Large corporations have used captives for decades to manage genuine risks the commercial market either will not cover or prices punitively. Under §831(b), a small captive earning $2.85 million or less in annual premiums (the 2025 threshold) can elect to pay tax only on investment income.

The statute was enacted to give legitimate small captives a workable tax framework—not to create a tax-deferral vehicle for operating income. When structured thoughtfully, a captive can replace or supplement commercial coverage with policies tailored to your business’s actual exposures, build a reserve that supports a true claims function, and provide leverage in negotiations with commercial insurers. These are real, meaningful benefits. The challenge is that they are often not the benefits being sold in promoter pitches.

What the IRS Has Said—Repeatedly

Since 2015, the IRS has included micro-captive arrangements on its annual “Dirty Dozen” list of abusive tax schemes nearly every year. Puerto Rico–domiciled and other foreign captive arrangements have been called out specifically.

The pattern the IRS has challenged repeatedly tends to follow a recognizable shape:

1. An operating business deducts large premiums paid to a related captive insurer
2. The insured risks are exotic, remote, duplicative of existing coverage, or otherwise unlikely to produce claims
3. Premiums are not actuarially determined — they are sized to a desired tax outcome
4. The captive pays few or no claims, year after year
5. Reserves accumulate inside the captive, taxed favorably
6. Funds eventually return to the owner through dividends, loans, transfers, or structured “exit” mechanisms at preferential rates

In the IRS’s view, this is not insurance. It is a tax shelter wearing an insurance costume. The Service has had remarkable success defending that view in court.

The Track Record in Court

The IRS has prevailed in nearly every contested micro-captive case to reach the Tax Court since 2017. The leading decisions include:

• Avrahami v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 144 (2017) — the first major taxpayer loss. The court found the arrangement lacked genuine risk distribution and did not constitute insurance in the commonly accepted sense.
• Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-86, affirmed 34 F.4th 881 (10th Cir. 2022) — similar findings against an offshore captive in Anguilla.
• Syzygy Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-34 — premiums far in excess of actuarial support; coverages that duplicated existing commercial policies.
• Caylor Land & Development, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-30 — circular flow of funds; the captive was not operated as a bona fide insurer. Notably, this was the first micro-captive case in which the Tax Court sustained accuracy-related penalties.

Across these cases, courts have applied a consistent four-part framework derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531 (1941). A true insurance arrangement must involve (1) insurance risk, (2) risk shifting, (3) risk distribution, and (4) the commonly accepted meaning of insurance. Promotional structures repeatedly fail one or more of these tests.

The January 2025 Final Regulations

On January 14, 2025, the Treasury Department and IRS finalized regulations (T.D. 10029, 90 Fed. Reg. 3534), codified at Treasury Regulations §§1.6011-10 and 1.6011-11, classifying certain micro-captive arrangements as listed transactions—the most serious category of reportable transaction—and others as transactions of interest. For business owners participating in these arrangements, the implications are significant.

Both classifications carry meaningful consequences:

• Participants must file Form 8886 (Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement); material advisors must file Form 8918
• Penalties for failure to disclose are separate from any tax adjustment. Listed-transaction non-disclosure penalties under §6707A can run as high as $200,000 per failure for entities
• Accuracy-related penalties can range from 20% to 40%, with up to 75% available for gross valuation misstatements, plus interest
• Disclosure obligations reach back to any tax year still open under the statute of limitations
• The IRS concurrently issued Revenue Procedure 2025-13, providing a streamlined method to revoke a §831(b) election for taxpayers who wish to exit

A first wave of disclosures was due in April 2025, with relief extended through July 31, 2025 under Notice 2025-24. The regulations are facing legal challenges from industry participants, and those cases may eventually modify the regulations’ reach. They will not, however, retroactively protect taxpayers whose underlying arrangements fail the four-part insurance test the courts have already articulated.

Red Flags in the Pitch

If you have been pitched a captive insurance proposal—or you are an advisor whose client has been—the following signals warrant serious scrutiny. Each represents a pattern the IRS and the Tax Court have specifically identified in arrangements they have rejected.

1. Tax benefits are the headline.

Real insurance is purchased for risk management; favorable tax treatment is a secondary effect. When a presentation devotes more time to “income tax arbitrage,” “exit at long-term capital gains,” or “assets manufactured with pre-tax dollars” than to claims handling and underwriting, the priority is being made explicit.

2. The coverages duplicate existing policies or insure improbable risks.

Loss of key person, loss of key supplier, and brand rehabilitation are real exposures. In many marketed structures, however, they overlap with coverage the business already carries, or are written so narrowly that claims are unlikely to occur.

3. Premiums are not based on an independent actuarial study.

Legitimate captives engage qualified actuaries to price coverage based on the insured’s loss experience and exposure. Reverse-engineering premiums from a desired deduction is a hallmark of the structures the IRS has challenged successfully.

4. The captive pays few or no claims.

A loss ratio under 30% over time is, by the IRS’s own threshold, a signal of a listed transaction. A captive that “never has claims” is not functioning as insurance.

5. The exit strategy is more developed than the risk-management strategy.

Promotional materials that detail PPLI wrappers, IRA placements, dynasty trust structures, and option-based cash settlements before they describe the underwriting process are telling on themselves.

6. The captive is offshore without a business reason.

Puerto Rico, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and similar jurisdictions can host legitimate captives. The choice of jurisdiction should be driven by regulatory and economic factors, not solely by tax. The IRS has specifically flagged Puerto Rican captive arrangements in its Dirty Dozen guidance and has an active compliance campaign on Puerto Rico Act 22/60 investor structures.

7. The promoter discourages independent legal review.

No legitimate planner should object to independent counsel — chosen by the client, not by the promoter — reviewing the structure before implementation.

What a Legitimate Captive Looks Like

This is not an argument that every captive is abusive. Captive insurance is a real and useful risk-management tool when the structure is built around the four pillars of insurance:

• Real risks your business actually faces and that are not already adequately addressed
• Premiums supported by independent actuarial analysis tied to those risks
• Genuine claims activity processed through documented procedures
• Operation as a real insurer—adequate capitalization, regulatory compliance in the domicile, true underwriting discipline

When those conditions hold, a captive can both manage risk efficiently and produce tax-favorable outcomes that are a legitimate consequence of insurance economics—not the primary purpose of the structure.

Michael Kitces, Head of Planning Strategy at Focus Partners Wealth and publisher of the Nerd’s Eye View blog, has written thoughtfully about §831(b) captives from a planner’s perspective. While acknowledging the concept as a legitimate strategy historically used by larger businesses, he observes that the tax savings are ultimately a form of tax deferral with some rate arbitrage, and that the setup and ongoing administrative costs of operating a real insurance company rarely justify the structure unless the business is already paying substantial commercial premiums and has many millions in revenue. His broader caution—echoed across the planning profession—is that most arrangements pitched primarily on tax savings “don’t hold up at all once the math is really scrutinized.”

Key Considerations Before You Sign On

If a captive arrangement is on your desk, a measured due-diligence path looks like this:

1. Identify the real risk-management problem the captive is meant to solve, documented independently of the promoter’s framing.
2. Engage independent tax counsel—not selected or paid by the promoter—with specific litigation experience in micro-captive cases.
3. Obtain an independent actuarial study sized to your actual exposures.
4. Review the four-pillar insurance tests against the proposed structure with the CPA who will sign the return that takes the deduction.
5. Understand the disclosure obligations under T.D. 10029 in advance. Determine whether the arrangement will require Form 8886 reporting.
6. Read the actual policies. Coverages, exclusions, claims procedures, and definitions must be specific and meaningful.
7. Verify the captive’s operations. Capitalization, claims history, underwriting standards, and regulatory standing in the domicile should all withstand scrutiny.

Key Considerations If You Are Already Participating

If you are currently part of a micro-captive arrangement, the appropriate response depends on the structure’s substance—not on the promoter’s reassurances:

• Determine your disclosure obligations under T.D. 10029 immediately. The deadlines are not optional.
• Have the arrangement independently audited for insurance substance—by an advisor who is not the promoter.
• Consider Revenue Procedure 2025-13 for streamlined §831(b) revocation if the captive cannot be made compliant.
• Consult independent tax counsel about amended returns, voluntary disclosure options, and accuracy-related penalty exposure.
• Do not rely on assurances from material advisors who themselves have disclosure and penalty exposure tied to the transaction.

Conclusion

By thoughtfully evaluating these factors with independent counsel and a clear-eyed view of the substance underneath the structure, you can determine whether a captive insurance arrangement genuinely supports your business and your wealth strategy—or simply puts both at risk. The math, the marketing, and the regulatory landscape all deserve the same scrutiny you would bring to any consequential financial decision.

At Cestia Wealth Management, we believe wealth is a verb, not a noun. The decisions you make under pressure—including which strategies you say yes to, and which you decline—are part of the story your wealth tells. Captive insurance, used thoughtfully, can be a meaningful part of that story. Used incautiously, it can become a costly chapter you would rather not write.

This is precisely the kind of decision where Advice Alpha—the excess return generated by thoughtful, independent guidance—is built. When the math is complex, the marketing is polished, and the stakes are high, our role is to bring clarity.

We are not anti-captive. We are pro-substance. A legitimate captive insurance arrangement can be a powerful planning tool for the right business in the right circumstances. The version most frequently marketed to mid-market business owners, however, deserves rigorous review before you participate—and an honest reassessment if you already do.

References

Avrahami v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 144 (2017).

Bloomberg Tax. (2023, April 14). Microcaptives to find one tax penalty tougher to beat.

Caylor Land & Development, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-30 (U.S. Tax Court 2021).

Cherry Bekaert. (2025, February 20). Micro-captive insurance: IRS final regulations. 

CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 3:17-cv-110 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2022).

Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531 (1941).

Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 162, 831(b), 6662, 6707A (2024).

Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). Abusive tax shelters and transactions. 

Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). Dirty Dozen tax scams.

Internal Revenue Service. (2025). About Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement. 

Internal Revenue Service. (2025). About Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement.

IRS Notice 2025-24 (extending initial micro-captive disclosure deadline to July 31, 2025).

Kitces, M. (2019). 831(b) captive insurance companies: A legit tax strategy? Nerd’s Eye View.

KPMG. (2025, January 10). Final regulations: Micro-captive listed transactions and micro-captive transactions of interest. 

Plante Moran. (2025, March 10). Final regulations on micro-captive insurance transactions. 

Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-86 (U.S. Tax Court 2018), aff’d, 34 F.4th 881 (10th Cir. 2022).

Rev. Proc. 2025-13 (streamlined process for revoking a § 831(b) election).

RSM US LLP. (2025, March 24). Final regulations make micro-captive insurance arrangements listed transactions. 

Syzygy Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-34 (U.S. Tax Court 2019).

The Tax Adviser. (2025, June). Microcaptive insurance arrangements subject to new rules. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 

Winston & Strawn LLP. (2025, February 4). Micro-captive reportable transactions regulations finalized; challenged. 

Disclosures

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 Evaluating Micro-Captive Insurance: A Mindful Review of a Marketed Tax Strategy appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.

April Market & Economic Summary

If you did not read the email last week, here’s your chance. In short — earnings growth has accelerated to 24.8% on a forward basis, the U.S. economy is tracking 3.7% real GDP growth for Q2, the labor market remains firm, and energy now consumes a far smaller share of household budgets than in prior cycles. The report also includes historical data on forward returns from all-time highs that I think provides useful context for the months ahead.

Download Our April Market & Economic Update

The SEC and CFTC’s latest crypto guidance

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a joint interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and crypto transactions. After more than a decade of regulatory ambiguity regarding digital assets, the guidance delivered a major step toward what the crypto industry has long awaited: a clear framework defining how specific digital assets are treated by federal law.

Let’s explore some of the specifics of this pivotal guidance, and what it might mean for investors.

Equities

• U.S. equity markets rose for the sixth consecutive week as stronger-than-expected corporate earnings and hopes of a peace deal kept investors in a jovial mood.
• The S&P 500 ended the week up 2.4%, while the Nasdaq finished up 4.5%.
• As we enter the final innings of earnings season, earnings continue to improve, with first-quarter earnings now expected to rise 27.7% — the strongest growth rate since the fourth quarter of 2021.
• Large-cap growth stocks resumed their leadership role, outperforming their value counterparts by a wide margin for the fifth of the past six weeks.
• Information technology surged over 7% last week, led by semiconductor companies, as another wave of AI enthusiasm and strong earnings growth lifted the sector higher.
• The energy sector hit the bottom of the S&P 500 leaderboard, sliding 5.3% on the back of declining oil prices.
• Utilities and financials followed suit as investors shifted capital away from defensive areas and into high-beta tech and growth stocks.
• International markets were up last week, led by Emerging Markets, which returned nearly 7%, driven by strength out of South Korea and Taiwan stocks.

Bonds

• Yields remained roughly in line with where they finished the prior week, trading in tandem with oil prices as the market repriced inflation expectations.
• The 10-year Treasury yield finished the week a basis point lower at 4.38%, while the 2-year Treasury yield rose slightly to 3.90%, resulting in a 2–10 spread of 48 basis points.
• The Bloomberg US Aggregate Index rose 0.26% for the week, while high-yield bonds gained 0.05%.
• Performance was positive across the quality and duration spectrum, especially on the longer end of the curve.
• Long-term corporate bonds were the best-performing segment, returning 0.69%.
• Investment-grade and high-yield corporate yields ended the week at 5.10% and 7.26%, respectively.

Macroeconomic Data

• U.S. economic data for the week was light and did its best to draw little attention away from the surging AI optimism.
• U.S. factory orders in March rose 1.5%, well ahead of estimates and last month’s 0.3% gain, as new orders for goods rose for the fourth month out of the last five.
• The April ISM services index fell to 53.6 from 54.0, a slight dip as businesses still grew amid a more cautious backdrop.
• The ADP employment report showed the U.S. created 109,000 new jobs in April, well ahead of estimates and marking the biggest increase in 15 months.
• Nonfarm payrolls added 115,000 new jobs in April, topping consensus estimates and capping the strongest two-month period for nonfarm payroll increases since 2024.
• The unemployment rate remained at 4.3%; however, average hourly earnings growth was weaker than expected, the labor force participation rate dipped, and the U-6 unemployment rate (which accounts for unemployed and underemployed workers) increased.
• The University of Michigan’s preliminary consumer sentiment index fell to 48.2 in May — its lowest reading on record — as higher gasoline prices and tariffs weighed on responses.

(as of Monday’s Market Opening)

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

1. 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.
2. Market commentary provided by NewEdge Advisors
3. Charts concerning market data are provided by Exhibit A.
4. Guides and other downloadable firm material respective to financial planning processes and data are provided and powered by fpPathfinder.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 8, 2026 appeared first on Cestia Wealth Management.