The Optometry Money Podcast Ep 163: The Biggest IPOs in History Are Here – Should Optometrists Invest?

Transcript for The Optometry Money Podcast Ep. 163: The Biggest IPOs in History Are Here – Should Optometrists Invest?

[00:00:00] Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the Optometry Money Podcast, where we’re helping ODs all over the country make better and better decisions around their money, their careers, and their practices. I am your host, Evon Mendrin, Certified Financial Plannerpractitioner and owner of Optometry Wealth Advisors, an independent financial planning firm just for optometrists nationwide.

Evon: And thank you so much for listening. Really appreciate it today. We are gonna dive into IPOs,

Why? Because tomorrow morning, SpaceX becomes the largest IPO in history, and three of the most hyped companies on the planet are going public this year. And in optometry forums I’m in and online communities I’m in, there are plenty of people asking the same question.

How do I get in? Should I get in? Today, I wanna show you 45 years of data on what happens to investors who do get in

So what is an IPO, an initial public offering? That is where a private company goes public, lists [00:01:00] their shares on public exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, so that the general public can trade them,

And so that these companies can raise capital from the general public. And there are three massive companies going public in 2026, or at least have announced they’re going public in 2026. SpaceX, which is planning to go publicly this week, June 12th, 2026.

and based on its initial listing price, it’s expected to be a total value, a total market capitalization, a total value of a whopping $1.77 trillion,which would be the largest IPO on record. Anthropic and OpenAI, both AI labs, AI companies which have created Claude and ChatGPT, both of which announced plans to go public this year and are expecting to have total values of somewhere around one trillion dollars, again, with a T.

[00:02:00] Massive companies. These are large companies coming to market. They would be among, I think, the largest 20 companies in the United States if their full values were included in, in that list. We’ll talk about why that’s important, that– and why that wouldn’t be the case. But these are massive companies, and super exciting companies too.

these are… We’re talking about space exploration and AI, like the most exciting technology right now, the technology of the future, something everyone’s talking about right now. Together, mixed together with an IPO event, which is always hyped up already. Everyone’s excited to be able to buy shares of companies like this.

So this is a two extremely hyped up waves of events coming together here. And so it’s hard not to get wrapped up in the excitement. there’s a lot of excitement happening right now about these companies, about the things that they may or may not do in the future and being able to now invest in them publicly.

And so in [00:03:00] today’s episode, I wanna take a look through history at the data that’s available to us, at research, and tackle a few questions.

I wanna talk about, should optometrists invest in these companies once they IPO? Are IPOs good investments? And secondly, how do index funds and similar passive funds include these IPOs in their funds? Which I think is probably the more applicable question to most of the listeners here.

I hope so. But we’re gonna dive into both.

Should Optometrists Invest in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)? What Research Tells Us.

Evon: So let’s talk about question number one. Should ODs invest in IPOs in these companies after they go public? Now, the short answer to that is that investing in IPOs right after going public tends to be a pretty poor investment strategy. as a whole, these companies tend to perform worse than the market, especially in the short term and intermediate term.

And when you look at the individual companies, most tend to lose money in the first few years after IPO. Now, let’s unpack that a little bit.

What Are the Historical Returns of IPO Stocks vs. the Overall US Stock Market?

Evon: firstly, there does tend to be a [00:04:00] first-day pop. That means that the first-day trading price tends to jump relative to the initial starting offering price.

So there is this first-day pop. However, you and I aren’t benefiting from that. we’re not benefiting from that first-day performance unless we are either insiders of the company, like employees or our spouses are, or we are highly valued clients of the investment banks handling the IPO, which we’re not, most likely.

so we’re probably not benefiting from that first-day pop, and very often, even insiders, employees, have trading restrictions on when they can actually sell the stock, so they perhaps may not be even benefiting from that either. After that first day, the results are pretty disappointing from a historical perspective, from the historical data we have.

So let’s dive into some research here.

So Jay Ritter, he’s done a ton of research on IPOs. he has a nineteen ninety-five paper co-authored with a man named Tim Loughran called The New Issue Puzzle. And they looked at [00:05:00] companies issuing stock from 1970 – 1990, both IPOs and something called seasoned equity offerings.

And in this paper, they found that investors in IPOs receive on average returns only 5% per year, while similar listed stocks return about 12% over the same period. And the authors note that to build the same wealth five years later, an investor would have to had put 44% percent more money into the IPOs in that sample,to get the same amount of wealth versus established companies of the same size.

So you would have had to dump almost 50% more money into those IPOs , to get the same amount of end result wealth five years later on average. Which is pretty crazy. Now, that’s an older study, right?

Dimensional Fund Advisors has a 2019 study which picks up basically from that ending point. They look at the performance of more than 6,000 IPOs in the [00:06:00] US from 1991 through 2018. And they find that a portfolio of IPOs right after they go public, generally underperforms the US broad market and the US small cap index by about 2% per year.

And they’re looking at the Russell 3000 for the US broad market and the Russell 2000 for US small companies. And in a 2025 video they did, which I’m gonna link in the show notes as well, they show that they extended that out to 2024 rather than just 2018, and that gap actually gets a little bit worse with IPOs trailing the broad US market a little bit worse.

So I’ll link to that in the show notes as well. You can, watch that and see the graphics in that video. And there is one exception, and that’s 1992 to 2000, and that’s a period when IPOs actually outperformed that small cap index, small companies, by about 1.1% annually. Now, [00:07:00] 1992 to 2000, what was that?

we know that was primarily due to tech stocks during the tech boom. their prices took off during the dot-com boom, but we all know what happened after that, right? So we saw the bump initially during those years. After that period, it wasn’t so great. Now, if you sold out at the top, you were looking pretty good.

If you rode it through, unfortunately it wasn’t the same case. so Dimensional Fund Advisors basically picks it up from, from that prior research and finds similar results. IPOs generally underperform the broad market. And, what Dimensional finds is that the characteristics of these companies tend to explain their performance quite a bit.

so what they find is that these IPO companies tend to look like companies that are small and expensive relative to some measure of their financials, and unprofitable and are aggressively building up assets on their balance sheet. Think of a fairly early stage optometry practice, recent cold start with very little profitability, but buying a ton of equipment.[00:08:00]

It’s, that’s what these companies are like. And those characteristics together have empirically been shown, to be among the worst performers relative to the market as a whole, and the jargon we’d use is they have lower expected returns. it’s not surprising based on the type of companies that show up.

Sometimes, if you look at some of the research here in, in our profession, sometimes they are called junk stocks. their characteristics are quote unquote junky. And, I’ll link to, of course, both of those studies in the show notes. But performance of IPOs relative to the market, historically not very good.

How IPOs Perform in their First Year After Going Public

Evon: Now Jay Ritter has a phenomenal data set on IPO for, performance over the years. And looking back even further, some really interesting takeaways there.

From 1980 through 2024 in their first year of trading, IPOs, he confirms obviously what we talked about before is, in that first year or two of trading, IPOs trail the broad market IPOs in their first year of trading averaged about five point six [00:09:00] percent, over that time period, while established companies of the same size averaged about eleven point four percent over the same period.

and there’s particularly poor returns for IPOs in the second half of that first year going into the second year, which is kinda interesting. it seems that’s about when those insiders can start to trade freely. So we see them sorta dump their shares onto the market a little bit.

How IPOs Perform 3- and 5-Years After Going Public

Evon: So there’s these early 12 months, early couple years blues for those IPOs. and we’ve been talking about IPOs as a group, as a bundle, a cohort. But when you look at the range of outcomes for these individual companies, the distribution of outcomes i- is not in your favor. one of the things he looked at is assuming you buy after that first day, so you’re not getting that first pop, that first day pop.

Assuming you buy after that first day, he looked at how these companies did three years after the IPO. and s- from 1975 through 2021, there’s about 9,000 companies going public, so [00:10:00] about 9,000 IPOs. And when you look at three years later, roughly 38% of them lost half of their value or more over that three-year period.

and about 60% of them lost money overall. However,about 1.8% of them gained 500% or more through that three-year period, which is, that’s the lottery ticket, right? The majority of them actually tend to lose money over those first three years, but there’s that tiny sliver that tend to do really well.

And the median IPO, so right in the middle of all, of the range of all these companies, the median IPO lost about 26% of its value. for five years out, it’s not much better. It actually gets a little bit worse. again, the same sample size, 9,000 companies going public. 42%, almost 43% of them lost half or more than half of their value over the first five years.

And again, like about 60% lost [00:11:00] value. Now, going back to the lottery ticket, about 3% of them gained about 500% or more. So the distributions are pretty poor over these first five years,relative to the market as a whole when you look at these individual companies, but there’s a sliver of them that tend to do very well.

And that’s pretty similar to what we see with individual companies as a whole over the long term. We find when we look at individual stocks that are listed over the long term,the research we have shows that most of them tend to do poorly. but there is a small group of them that tend to lift the average overall, that tend to do exceptionally well.

And so IPOs are no different here. Now, not all IPOs are equal. and remember what we talked about earlier, what Dimensional found is that the, is that as a whole, on average, they tend to look like quote unquote, “junk companies.”

Small companies, unprofitable, but buying up a lot of assets, building up a lot of assets. And what, what Jay Ritter found was similar in that [00:12:00] larger, more established companies did tend to do better, but overall, just about half of them still lost money over five years. So even in those larger companies, even though more of them did tend to do better,it’s still a little bit of a coin flip.

How Timing Matters – When There is the Most Hype and More IPOs, Worse Returns Tend to Follow

Evon: Now how IPOs have changed over the years is interesting too, from his research. Going back to 2000 and later, there have been less IPOs, less companies going public. More companies appear to be staying private longer, and we see, as an example of that, these huge companies, coming to market rather than smaller companies.

But that comparison’s a little skewed too, because it’s comparing it to the early, it, it’s comparing it to the late ’90s, early 2000, which is the tech bubble, right? So we had a huge wave of IPOs happening at that time. So the comparison’s even a little bit skewed. maybe we don’t wanna use that time period as an example of what’s normal.

but what we also find in terms of timing is that [00:13:00] whenever there is the most hype, that tends to be where IPOs tend to do the worst, meaning that when a bunch of IPOs are happening at once, when there’s a big wave of IPOs, when the craze is highest, that tends to show worse trailing returns after those period.

they also tend to show the l- the largest first-day pops too, which is kinda interesting. But when the hype is highest, the returns tend to be a little bit worse

And there’s a quote from Jeff Ptak, who is the managing director for Morningstar Research Services that says, “The more you covet something, the more you probably should question your desire to own it in the first place.”

And there’s a lot of wisdom there, And we do see that quite clearly here when it comes to these initial public offerings.

so to summarize, focusing on IPOs has not been a great investment strategy. And from the evidence we have, being broadly diversified long-term investors and not following after the hype or these shiny objects continues to be a prudent investment approach. Of [00:14:00] course, I can’t provide direct investment advice here to you, unless you’re my client, and you shouldn’t take action on what some guy on a podcast says, but I think the evidence gives us pretty good sense of direction here.

Now, if you’re not looking for a prudent investment approach, and you are instead just looking for a lottery ticket, there you go. but at least let’s be honest about exactly what we’re looking for and size that bet accordingly to the rest of our investments and the rest of our wealth.

And I can hear the arguments right now. “But what about this company? What about that company? What about Google? What about Facebook? What about Amazon?” So on and so forth. And yes, those companies exist and did very well, eventually, over time. But remember, these are lottery-like outcomes. We only remember the big companies that do really, really well.

We forget the heaps and piles of companies that lost value for investors. We forget them. There’s a lot of survivorship bias here, and so we have to remember, we have to [00:15:00] guess which of these companies will not only keep pace with the broad market as a whole, but do as well as the hype says they will.

And those guesses, just from the history we have, are lottery tickets

keep in mind also that if you are broadly invested in the entire market, you will eventually own these companies. They will eventually be included in these, in, in things like index funds and other similar funds, just like we’re gonna talk about in a little bit.

And also keep in mind that currently public companies that are already part of the broad market have ownership shares in these private companies already.

And so indirectly you have some minimum exposure, but eventually they will be a part of the market and you’ll own them while you’re still continuing to be broadly diversified

So that touches on question number one, should we invest in IPOs?

How Do Index Funds Add IPOs to Their Funds?

Evon: Now let’s talk about how index funds and similar passive funds are gonna incorporate some of these. And I think this is probably what I hope is most applicable to the listeners here, I think may be more interesting to the listeners [00:16:00] here.

and let’s remember index funds are, are companies that try to replicate and track an index. An index is a list created by companies like S&P, Standard and Poor’s, FTSE Russell, which is like the Russell 3000, and so these companies create an index, a list of companies, with a specific set of rules of who gets on the list, and ultimately, their primary goal for broad market funds is just to replicate the market as a whole, right?

The goal of broad market-based index funds is to represent the entire investable market as much as possible. and they’re going to be market cap weighted, meaning they’re going to be, owning more of the larger companies and less of the smaller companies, and they’re just trying to invest in the broad investable market as a whole, whether it’s the US stock market, international stock market, other country stock markets, or the entire global stock market, right?

That’s the goal. Let’s remember that. That’s what an index fund is trying to do. [00:17:00] That’s what a broad market index fund is trying to do. And it’s also an interesting time because in the last 90 days, nearly every major index provider, so the companies that create and manage who’s on the index, has changed or is considered changing its rules to buy these mega huge companies, these huge IPOs faster, right as the biggest IPOs in history are arriving.

Now,and maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe rules should adjust as markets change, and we’ve never seen IPOs this large. But it is an interesting time.

As we talk to this, there’s two things to consider. Number one is the timing of when an IPO is eligible to be included in the index, and the rules for how much of that stock will actually be included in the index.

So for example, s- most of the indexes we’re gonna talk about today will include them at some point, but they may be, quote unquote, “float adjusted.”

What that means is that, a certain amount of that [00:18:00] company’s shares actually need to be trading in the open market rather than just held by insiders. And they’re only gonna be counted and included in the index based on how much of those shares are available to trade.

for example, if a company’s stock is ninety percent owned by the founder and only ten percent of that company’s stock is actually trading in the market based on the amount of shares available, only ten percent of that company’s value may be counted as a part of the index, which is a really important distinction here.

And lockups generally don’t count as well. So if employees can’t trade them, if the people that own the shares can’t actually trade them in the open market, those generally wouldn’t be included either. Keeping those things in mind, this is gonna look different from one index to another.

S&P, CRSP, which is Center for Research and Security Pricing, MSCI, Russell, like all of these index companies will have different rules.

And, for example, the S&P 500 specifically, which is aiming to own [00:19:00] the ul- among the largest five hundred companies in the United States.

It’s not a total market fund, but because of the size of these companies, it does actually tend to track pretty closely with the US market as a whole. so the S&P 500 has rules for the index, but it also does have a human committee. So there’s some human discretion there of who gets in.

the S&P 500 currently has a twelve-month seasoning period, so that a stock has to be trading for twelve months, and positive earnings, so there’s an earnings requirement. And there has to be a minimum of a ten percent float actually trading. So at least ten percent of the company’s shares have to actually be trading in the open market before it’s even included in the index.

so these companies actually probably won’t be included in the S&P 500 for their first twelve months. And they recently considered changing these rules to have a fast-track process, but as of this month, June, they kept the rules the same.

And, and they are float-adjusted, right? So they are only included in the index [00:20:00] based on the amount of shares included. And let’s talk about why that’s important. So for example, one of the,one of the estimates that I’ll share in the show notes, SpaceX again is expected to be about $1.77 trillion total value.

That would put it among the top, I think, 10 companies in the US. But only 3% to 5% of those shares are actually gonna be trading in the open market. So from the perspective of the index, that amounts to a company size of only 55 to 90 billion, which is a huge difference. That is a substantial difference.

And when you take that into account, if it were included today in the, in the S&P 500, it would only account for about 0.10% to about 0.15 of a percent in the whole index. it would be a tiny sliver of the index. So it would re- in reality have a pretty small impact on that index fund.[00:21:00]

OpenAI and Anthropic, again, they’re expected to be about one trillion, but the estimated amount of shares that are actually gonna be traded publicly on the open market is expected to be in the low single digits. So from that perspective, the actual value trading would be about 30 to 60 billion or so.

Again, a pretty big difference, and that would put them about 0.05 to 0.10 or so,of the index. So they would be a tiny sliver i, in the index fund. so when you account for those adjustments, like these IPOs, even if they are included in these indexes that we’re gonna talk about, they’re only gonna account for a pretty small percentage of that index

now that’s the S&P 500. S&P obviously has other indexes like, the total market index. So those rules have changed, but for the S&P 500 that most people are familiar with, things are staying the same.

Now, the other broad market indexes, FTSE Russell, who runs the Russell [00:22:00] 3000 and the small cap Russell 2000, CRSP, which is what Vanguard’s total market funds like VTI follow, and MSCI. I’m gonna take all these three together because they all work basically the same way. They’re just driving at slightly different speeds.

All three have what I’d call an express lane and a regular lane. the express lane is for really big IPOs. In fact, FTSE Russell just added, an express lane. If a newly public company is large enough to clear each index’s size bar, Russell and CRSP can add it after just five days of trading. MSCI takes 10.

So a mega IPO like this can be sitting inside your total market index fund within about a week or two of going public. Everything that’s not big enough, which is most other IPOs, takes the regular lane and waits for the next quarterly update. So anywhere from a few weeks to about three months.

And here’s the part to remember. All three are float [00:23:00] adjusted, and all three require that a minimum amount of shares actually trading before a company can get in at all. So yes, this express lane is fast, but the company comes into the index small, weighted only by that thin slice of shares that are actually available to trade, just like we talked about through the SpaceX numbers, fast entry but small portion.

And again, some of these providers are adding these new rules to account for these huge IPOs. MSCI’s had this since about 2017 So not entirely a new invention, but it’s more that it seems like the rest of the industry just caught up at a very interesting moment

How is the Nasdaq-100 Different Than Other Broad-Market Indexes?

Evon: The Nasdaq 100, which I don’t consider a broad market index fund. I don’t generally consider the Nasdaq 100 in the same conversation as what we talked about above. but I’m gonna mention them because a lot of people talk about them in these online groups, Facebook groups and forums.

First, what it is. The Nasdaq one hundred is the one hundred largest non-financial companies listed on only [00:24:00] the Nasdaq exchange. So right away, two things make it different from the broad indexes we just covered. It’s only one hundred companies, and a company actually has to be listed on the Nasdaq to be eligible.

The traditional path in for the Nasdaq is once a year in December, they re-rank everything by market cap, by the size of the companies and so- and swap companies in and out.

Historically, a new IPO also needed about three months of trading history before it could even be considered. What changed this year, as of May 2026, now there’s a fast lane. A newly public company gets ranked after just seven days of trading.

And if it’s big enough, meaning its total value, its market cap, would put it inside the top forty companies already in the index, it gets added after about fifteen traded days. About three weeks from the IPO to index. Now, here’s where the Nasdaq one hundred really breaks from the pack. Remember how every other index we covered is float adjusted? Like they’re only going to count the shares [00:25:00] actually available to trade.

The Nasdaq one hundred is not. It weighs companies by their full market value, locked up founder shares and all, which is much different and really important. there is one guardrail. They added a guardrail for those companies with very small amounts actually trading on the market.

It does add a bit of a cap on how much of the company is included, but putting it all together, it allows more of that company into the index. No profitability requirement, no minimum amounts trading on the open market, and weighing based on that total company value rather than the actual tradable shares. So for every index we’ve talked about today, the Nasdaq-100 has the most aggressive posture toward new IPOs.

And it’s talked about and very often recommended in a lot of these forums we talked about. Now, a cynical view would point out that this is good for the stock. More dollars flowing into these funds, buying shares does lift the price, and that there may be an incentive here by Nasdaq to [00:26:00] attract big companies to list on the Nasdaq exchange rather than New York Stock Exchange or another.

You can make of that what you will. Reasonable minds can interpret that however you’d like. To be fair, there are some questions that apply to every fast track rule passed this year across all these different providers. But what this index invests in and the risk profile of this index is very different than these broad market index. It isn’t a broad market index fund.

In my view, it’s gonna act effectively like a mostly tech industry bet for all intents and purposes

So keep that in mind. Do your due diligence, invest appropriately

Are Index Inclusion Rules for IPOs Good or Bad for Optometrists?

Evon: So are these rules good, bad, indifferent? What do we make of how these index funds include IPOs? for the investor in the short term, including IPOs shortly after they go public does create a small expected drag on returns.

And I wanna emphasize small, it’s on the losing end of the research we covered earlier, particularly that weak first year, or first two year performance. But again, a new IPO enters a total market fund at a [00:27:00] potentially small weight, right?

It’s going to be a small sliver of that whole index and o- often at a fraction of a percent. So it is a small impact even if these IPOs perform badly, which we don’t know for sure, right? The future is uncertain.

the impact on the index as a whole isn’t necessarily as bad as you might think. another thing to consider is that index funds can be front-run. index rules are public, so when the stock is scheduled to be added to the index, active managers can buy it ahead of when these index funds rebalance, which can push the price up and then effectively sell it to these index funds at a markup.

researchers at Harvard actually measured this for IPOs entering the CRSP indexes, which is the ones that Vanguard Total Market Funds track. When you look at the demand for these IPOs, index fund demand averages about 7% of new IPOs’ available shares.

and this tended to push prices up about [00:28:00] 5% right before they’re included in the index, with that bump fading over the following weeks. so that increase in price is something that index fund investors are having to absorb.

Now, this isn’t necessarily an IPO issue. This is a feature of any stock that’s being included or removed from the index. That’s simply how index funds work. And these index providers know about this, and they’ve spent years trying to engineer around it, trying to spread rebalancing trades over multiple days, adding buffer rules, and things like that.

So this is a transparency tax, so to speak, on index funds, but it has been shrinking. Now, again, let’s remember what the purpose of an index fund is. An index fund is trying to mimic a broad investable market or category as well as it possibly can and still be investable by the funds tracking it.

So to the extent we want these funds to be able to represent that entire investable market as a whole, then we should want to see these companies included in the [00:29:00] index. of course, if we want them to make changes to try to avoid some of these short-term issues, then they’re drifting away from their primary goal, right?

And so everything’s about trade-offs. No approach is gonna be perfect in all areas. And even carrying these trade-offs, which they have as long as these index funds have existed, index funds historically still beat the vast majority of active managers. So Yes, it’s a small drag on returns at the margins, but it shouldn’t really change anything if you’re a long-term index fund investor.

the costs are small, but they’re the price of transparency and the product working as designed.

How Do Factor-Based Funds Handle IPOs?

Evon: Now, that’s index funds. What about factor-based funds, which are passive style funds that, like index funds, invest very broadly with relatively low costs, trying to manage tax costs as well as they can.

But rather than the rules saying they track an index, they have rules that, that tilt [00:30:00] towards certain characteristics that academic research has shown to have higher expected returns. for example, like smaller companies, cheaper companies relative to their financials and more profitable companies, and avoiding those characteristics like small and unprofitable and buying a bunch of assets. We had a whole episode that talk about factor investing and why our firm with this approach rather than index funds. so how do these funds manage it?

it really is gonna depend on the fund company. each is gonna have their own rules, but They’re gonna have more discretion to take advantage of some of that research we talked about. one fund manager that’s commonly used, Dimensional Fund Advisors, they have up to a 12-month seasoning before they consider adding these companies in their funds.

And the logic behind that is directly connected to the research we talked about earlier. And even then, they’re only going to include companies up to the extent they meet these characteristics that they’re tilting towards. for example, if these companies tend to be smaller, expensive, low profitability companies that are aggressively growing [00:31:00] their balance sheets, they’re going to want to avoid or exclude those companies anyways, right?

so it really depends on what these companies look like. Now, that’s not a recommendation to buy or not buy Dimensional Fund Advisors funds. but that’s just a common example of funds that are commonly used.

Other examples like Avantis or other companies, they’re all gonna have their different timing and rules, so ultimately it’s gonna depend on the company. But they’re gonna have more discretion, again, to take advantage of some of those, some of that research we talked about earlier

Conclusions for Optometrists – Research Tells Us Focusing on IPOs Tends Not to Be a Good Investment Approach

Evon: So what are the conclusions here? if you’re considering buying these IPOs after they go public, just know that what research has shown us is that IPOs as a whole tend to do poorly, especially in the short term, relative to the broad market.

Evon: it hasn’t been a very good investment approach.

And we talked about how index funds and other passive style funds are planning to include these IPOs in their funds. but ultimately, this shouldn’t change our approach. If we believe what research has shown us about being disciplined long-term, broadly diversified [00:32:00] investors trying to keep our costs as low as possible, ultimately, this doesn’t change our approach.

we’re still keeping our focus on the long term, having a mix of different investments that are appropriate based on your goals, your time horizon, your family needs, and staying invested and not getting wrapped up in the hype or the noise or all of this excitement that’s going on around us.

So hopefully that’s helpful and is interesting to you. hopefully that’s not too much inside baseball, so to speak, too much jargon and research, but,but when you go to your next optometry meeting or your next association meeting, you can now talk to your peers about what’s going on a little bit more.

if you have any questions, if you’re wondering whether your investment approach makes sense, if you like a more holistic, comprehensive view of the health of your finances, both in the practice and in the personal household, reach out. We’d love to have a conversation with you.

We can talk about what you’re thinking about in terms of your finances and how we help optometrists all over the country navigate those same [00:33:00] decisions and more. and with that, really appreciate your time.

We’ll catch you on the next episode. In the meantime, take care.

meantime, take care.