Asset locations

[vnatale]

I know that is has been discussed prior. And, I know I can go back to read those discussion (many of which I have). However, I'd like an up-to-date discussion in which I can participate as opposed to only reading prior ones.

My latest goal is to (FINALLY!) go 100% classic Permanent Portfolio in the first week of January. And, me saying this in public puts the good form of pressure on me so as to make it a priority to accomplish that goal by that time.

I know exactly what I'll be doing for the stock / equity purchase. I know exactly what I'll be doing for the cash purchase and what I will, hopefully, soon be transforming that to. I know what I'll be doing with the long term bonds purchase while still having some questions as to how I'll be making that investment more pure. I have the most questions regarding the gold purchase.

But the absolute FIRST decision I need to make is where of three locations each of these investments should go: 1) taxable 2) traditional retirement 3) Roth retirement.

A few months ago someone (Thank You!) here recommended this excellent book: The Overtaxed Investor: Slash Your Tax Bill & Be a Tax Alpha Dog https://www.amazon.com/Overtaxed-Invest ... l_huc_item

I immediately acquired it and quickly read it.

Now I am reading it in a studying fashion and will be putting portions of it here to get counter views to the author's thoughts.

Over the last several months I've been struck by the overall astuteness of the members of this forum. It feels like a privilege to be here. And, I highly value many of the opinions that I read in this forum. There is generally a high level of thought and logic behind them.

Vinny

While I have a lot of money in the pp at this stage I still believe rising rates as a longer term trend is kryptonite to the pp if gold and treasuries stay joined at the hip ...

In my opinion I see nothing wrong with say 2/3’s of ones money in it . But I believe in hedging my bets by not doing 100% ....

I still keep 1/3 in a very conservative portfolio which is still 25% equities but is far less interest rate sensitive ...it uses bond funds that are far less sensitive , like floating rate bond funds , short duration high yield , some corporate bonds , etc .

Just in case 3 out of 4 pp components get to fixated on rising rates

I follow what you are saying. However, unlike you, I have zero intuition regarding where any markets are going. I subscribe to the belief that they are fairly random and that no one can predict. Plus, I am highly logical and formulaic. Therefore there is a strong draw for me to the Permanent Portfolio because it is clear and black and white and requires NO judgements or forecasts on my part.

I have a ton of investing inertia. Once I set upon a plan, it stays that way for decades because of how intensively I'll study something before moving on to something else. I'm now at the point where I am about to fully embrace the classic Permanent Portfolio 100%. Not looking for any enhancements (except maybe possibly broadening it to a Golden Butterfly). But THE issue for me right now with my current mindset of going fully Permanent Portfolio is in which of the three asset locations I put each of the four Permanent Portfolio investments.

Last month was the last time I analyzed my investable portfolio.

21% of it was in taxable accounts while 79% was in retirement accounts.

And, of those retirement accounts, 42% of it is traditional while 58% of it is Roth.

Vinny

[mathjak107]

Another look by kitces at asset location

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In an environment where generating portfolio alpha is difficult, strategies like managing assets on a household basis to take advantage of asset location opportunities to generate “tax alpha” are becoming more and more popular. The caveat, however, is that making effective asset location decisions is not easy, either.

For instance, while the traditional asset location strategy “rule of thumb” is that tax-inefficient bonds go into an IRA, while equities eligible for preferential tax rates go into a brokerage account, the reality is that for investors with long time horizons the optimal solution may be the opposite. Once stock dividends and portfolio turnover are considered, the ongoing “tax drag” of the portfolio can be so damaging to long-term returns that placing equities into an IRA may be more efficient, even though they are ultimately taxed at higher rates!

In fact, it turns out that almost any level of portfolio turnover will eventually tilt equities towards being held in IRAs given a long enough time horizon (and especially while today’s low interest rates result in almost no benefit for bonds to gain tax-deferred growth inside of retirement accounts). Which means in the end, good asset location decisions depend not only on returns and tax efficiency, but an investor’s time horizon as well!

https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-locat ... e-horizon/

[mathjak107]

I know that is has been discussed prior. And, I know I can go back to read those discussion (many of which I have). However, I'd like an up-to-date discussion in which I can participate as opposed to only reading prior ones.

My latest goal is to (FINALLY!) go 100% classic Permanent Portfolio in the first week of January. And, me saying this in public puts the good form of pressure on me so as to make it a priority to accomplish that goal by that time.

I know exactly what I'll be doing for the stock / equity purchase. I know exactly what I'll be doing for the cash purchase and what I will, hopefully, soon be transforming that to. I know what I'll be doing with the long term bonds purchase while still having some questions as to how I'll be making that investment more pure. I have the most questions regarding the gold purchase.

But the absolute FIRST decision I need to make is where of three locations each of these investments should go: 1) taxable 2) traditional retirement 3) Roth retirement.

A few months ago someone (Thank You!) here recommended this excellent book: The Overtaxed Investor: Slash Your Tax Bill & Be a Tax Alpha Dog https://www.amazon.com/Overtaxed-Invest ... l_huc_item

I immediately acquired it and quickly read it.

Now I am reading it in a studying fashion and will be putting portions of it here to get counter views to the author's thoughts.

Over the last several months I've been struck by the overall astuteness of the members of this forum. It feels like a privilege to be here. And, I highly value many of the opinions that I read in this forum. There is generally a high level of thought and logic behind them.

Vinny

While I have a lot of money in the pp at this stage I still believe rising rates as a longer term trend is kryptonite to the pp if gold and treasuries stay joined at the hip ...

In my opinion I see nothing wrong with say 2/3’s of ones money in it . But I believe in hedging my bets by not doing 100% ....

I still keep 1/3 in a very conservative portfolio which is still 25% equities but is far less interest rate sensitive ...it uses bond funds that are far less sensitive , like floating rate bond funds , short duration high yield , some corporate bonds , etc .

Just in case 3 out of 4 pp components get to fixated on rising rates

I follow what you are saying. However, unlike you, I have zero intuition regarding where any markets are going. I subscribe to the belief that they are fairly random and that no one can predict. Plus, I am highly logical and formulaic. Therefore there is a strong draw for me to the Permanent Portfolio because it is clear and black and white and requires NO judgements or forecasts on my part.

I have a ton of investing inertia. Once I set upon a plan, it stays that way for decades because of how intensively I'll study something before moving on to something else. I'm now at the point where I am about to fully embrace the classic Permanent Portfolio 100%. Not looking for any enhancements (except maybe possibly broadening it to a Golden Butterfly). But THE issue for me right now with my current mindset of going fully Permanent Portfolio is in which of the three asset locations I put each of the four Permanent Portfolio investments.

Last month was the last time I analyzed my investable portfolio.

21% of it was in taxable accounts while 79% was in retirement accounts.

And, of those retirement accounts, 42% of it is traditional while 58% of it is Roth.

Vinny

I have been an investor since 1987 .. I have never seen a major bear market in bonds ..in fact we have not seen one in 40 years . We have had some speed bumps but no major trend back up ....

To be honest I think betting the ranch on the pp. is trying to rule out long term treasuries and gold being joined at the hip as we see, and that makes me uncomfortable about it . So to me not hedging that risk by betting everything on the pp is trying to rule it out.

Historically rates are in the 5% range as an average so there can be potential for lots of portfolio damage while we hope rising rates chokes the economy eventually . But for the most part the pp really is untested in this area in the modern day world so I would not use the pp for all my assets

[vnatale]

I know that is has been discussed prior. And, I know I can go back to read those discussion (many of which I have). However, I'd like an up-to-date discussion in which I can participate as opposed to only reading prior ones.

My latest goal is to (FINALLY!) go 100% classic Permanent Portfolio in the first week of January. And, me saying this in public puts the good form of pressure on me so as to make it a priority to accomplish that goal by that time.

I know exactly what I'll be doing for the stock / equity purchase. I know exactly what I'll be doing for the cash purchase and what I will, hopefully, soon be transforming that to. I know what I'll be doing with the long term bonds purchase while still having some questions as to how I'll be making that investment more pure. I have the most questions regarding the gold purchase.

But the absolute FIRST decision I need to make is where of three locations each of these investments should go: 1) taxable 2) traditional retirement 3) Roth retirement.

A few months ago someone (Thank You!) here recommended this excellent book: The Overtaxed Investor: Slash Your Tax Bill & Be a Tax Alpha Dog https://www.amazon.com/Overtaxed-Invest ... l_huc_item

I immediately acquired it and quickly read it.

Now I am reading it in a studying fashion and will be putting portions of it here to get counter views to the author's thoughts.

Over the last several months I've been struck by the overall astuteness of the members of this forum. It feels like a privilege to be here. And, I highly value many of the opinions that I read in this forum. There is generally a high level of thought and logic behind them.

Vinny

While I have a lot of money in the pp at this stage I still believe rising rates as a longer term trend is kryptonite to the pp if gold and treasuries stay joined at the hip ...

In my opinion I see nothing wrong with say 2/3’s of ones money in it . But I believe in hedging my bets by not doing 100% ....

I still keep 1/3 in a very conservative portfolio which is still 25% equities but is far less interest rate sensitive ...it uses bond funds that are far less sensitive , like floating rate bond funds , short duration high yield , some corporate bonds , etc .

Just in case 3 out of 4 pp components get to fixated on rising rates

I follow what you are saying. However, unlike you, I have zero intuition regarding where any markets are going. I subscribe to the belief that they are fairly random and that no one can predict. Plus, I am highly logical and formulaic. Therefore there is a strong draw for me to the Permanent Portfolio because it is clear and black and white and requires NO judgements or forecasts on my part.

I have a ton of investing inertia. Once I set upon a plan, it stays that way for decades because of how intensively I'll study something before moving on to something else. I'm now at the point where I am about to fully embrace the classic Permanent Portfolio 100%. Not looking for any enhancements (except maybe possibly broadening it to a Golden Butterfly). But THE issue for me right now with my current mindset of going fully Permanent Portfolio is in which of the three asset locations I put each of the four Permanent Portfolio investments.

Last month was the last time I analyzed my investable portfolio.

21% of it was in taxable accounts while 79% was in retirement accounts.

And, of those retirement accounts, 42% of it is traditional while 58% of it is Roth.

Vinny

I have been an investor since 1987 .. I have never seen a major bear market in bonds ..in fact we have not seen one in 40 years . We have had some speed bumps but no major trend back up ....

To be honest I think betting the ranch on the pp. is trying to rule out long term treasuries and gold being joined at the hip. As we see and that makes me uncomfortable about it . So to me not hedging that risk by betting everything on the pp is trying to rule it out

Again, I fully understand what you are saying. And, all you say may turn out to be 100% correct. But I don't want to be a market timer, trying to fathom when and which markets I should be in. That's far too nebulous for a black & white / binary personality such as mine. Hence why I will going 100% classic Permanent Portfolio. It's got a lot of good theoretical arguments behind it, good 40 year history, and is formulaic. No judgment required!

I've been an investor since 1981. I remember doing my first IRA ($2,000 maximum back then). I also remember it quite quickly only being worth $1,500 and then me telling myself, "So this is investing??!!"

Vinny

[mathjak107]

Anyway getting back to location . I think kitces is correct and as long term investors we should avoid putting equities in taxable accounts ... sometimes it is not possible to avoid doing it .. I have an s&p 500 fund I bought a long time ago .... it was bought from real estate proceeds so it is in the taxable account ...it has such large 6 figure gains I doubt I will ever sell it ....

It would trip all kinds of nasty stuff like Medicare premium surcharges even if I sold a piece at a time off. So much is linked to retirement income you can get in to trouble here with taxable dividends you can’t control the flow of.

The dividends in my taxable account killed off any chances I had of an aca subsidy when I first retired ....that ended up costing me thousands more for insurance from 62 to 65

[vnatale]

Anyway getting back to location . I think kitces is correct and as long term investors we should avoid putting equities in taxable accounts ... sometimes it is not possible to avoid doing it .. I have an s&p 500 fund I bought a long time ago .... it was bought from real estate proceeds so it is in the taxable account ...it has such large 6 figure gains I doubt I will ever sell it ....

It would trip all kinds of nasty stuff like Medicare premium surcharges even if I sold a piece at a time off. So much is linked to retirement income you can get in to trouble here with taxable dividends you can’t control the flow of.

The dividends in my taxable account killed off any chances I had of an aca subsidy when I first retired ....that ended up costing me thousands more for insurance from 62 to 65

As a side note, I am actively managing my Schedule C income so as to NOT incur those Medicare premium surcharges you reference above.

Vinny

[vnatale]

From the book's footnotes:


For Asset Location, see Michael Kitces:

https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-locat ... io-design/

https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-locat ... e-horizon/

Also see Reichenstein, Horan, and Jennings: http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v71.n1.10

And, of course, the Bogleheads: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Principl ... _placement

Vinny

[Pet Hog]

Somehow the section from the book on Tax Deferred Accounts that I put here did not show up?

"Tax-Deferred Accounts

(Speaking of gold, bullion is taxed as a “collectible” at a special high 28% capital gains rate, so there is an advantage to holding it inside an IRA.)

I believe this line from the book is incorrect. A common misconception. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure collectibles are taxed at your marginal tax rate, and no higher than 28%. Not at a flat 28%. So it might be prudent to have some or all in taxable.

[ochotona]

Somehow the section from the book on Tax Deferred Accounts that I put here did not show up?

"Tax-Deferred Accounts

(Speaking of gold, bullion is taxed as a “collectible” at a special high 28% capital gains rate, so there is an advantage to holding it inside an IRA.)

I believe this line from the book is incorrect. A common misconception. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure collectibles are taxed at your marginal tax rate, and no higher than 28%. Not at a flat 28%. So it might be prudent to have some or all in taxable.

Definitely gold cap gains are taxed as ordinary income with a maximum rate of 28%... so it's better than a Traditional IRA, where you don't have a 28% cap.

Mathjak, the Medicare IRMAA surcharge is re-evaluated every year, and if your taxable income falls below the limit, the Medicare premium goes back to normal again, correct? It's not a lifetime medicare premium increase based on what happens in your early 60s, is it?

[mathjak107]

yes , your income is reviewed every year .. remember it is based on income 2 years prior . as an example your rate is set in january but it is bnased on 2018 since 2019 taxes are not filed .

[ochotona]

yes , your income is reviewed every year .. remember it is based on income 2 years prior . as an example your rate is set in january but it is bnased on 2018 since 2019 taxes are not filed .

Well that's good. At least you don't screw yourself for a lifetime.

[mathjak107]

let me say this as it is so important .

there are unwritten rules so to speak the first year you retire .

so you could have sold assets 2 years before and now that you are retired and on medicare that very high income tripped the surcharges ....

as we learned , if you appeal it and it is your first year retired . they will classify the retirement as a life changing event and roll you back .

my buddy happened to tell me he got surcharged starting in january because he took a pension buy out ....

he had no idea he could appeal and they likely will roll him back .. he called today to set up a hearing ...

[Xan]

Definitely gold cap gains are taxed as ordinary income with a maximum rate of 28%... so it's better than a Traditional IRA, where you don't have a 28% cap.

Except you bought it with post-tax money instead of pre-tax money.

[mathjak107]

also the price of admission to a roth is the same as a taxable account . only one is taxed up front and then never taxed while the other is taxed up front too and forever taxed.

people don't realize the power of these retirement accounts , as well as how the lower capital gains rates in a taxable account get eroded with even the smallest distributions over time

[Kbg]

also the price of admission to a roth is the same as a taxable account . only one is taxed up front and then never taxed while the other is taxed up front too and forever taxed.

people don't realize the power of these retirement accounts , as well as how the lower capital gains rates in a taxable account get eroded with even the smallest distributions over time

If one has the money I have no idea why they wouldn't max out a backdoor Roth every year.

[sophie]

vnatale, could you maybe be a bit more succinct with your questions? I have no idea what you're asking and no interest in wading through all the rapid-fire posts.

If you're asking about optimal asset placement, that's been discussed many times here although the threads may not be easy to find. You might start with Harry Browne's advice in Fail Safe Investing:

A pension plan can reinvest 100% of its earnings without losing anything to
taxes. It’s important not to waste this benefit by using the plan for Permanent
Portfolio investments (such as gold) that generate little or no current income,
while paying tax each year on income-producing investments sitting outside the
plan.
To make the best use of a pension plan, fill it with investments for the
Permanent Portfolio in the following order:
1. Treasury bills or money market funds
2. Treasury bonds
3. Stock-market mutual funds
4. Gold

Bogleheads has something on this in their wiki page, too:

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-eff ... _placement

Also we had a discussion on this in another thread recently.

[gaston]

To make the best use of a pension plan, fill it with investments for the
Permanent Portfolio in the following order:
1. Treasury bills or money market funds
2. Treasury bonds
3. Stock-market mutual funds
4. Gold

Does anyone know why Harry's advice was to shelter T-Bills in priority over Bonds? Interest on long term bonds tends to be higher than on short term debt, and they may produce capital gains on top of that. In his book Craig actually recommends putting bonds first, and cash second.

The only reason I can think of for having T-Bills first is that if bond prices drop (which is looking more and more likely these days), you would lose valuable room in you tax sheltered accounts...

[mathjak107]

harry's advice was wrong for today ....

you don't waste space in tax sheltered accounts with instruments that pay little to no interest. back in the day interest rates were worth sheltering but it has not been that way for a long long time.

plus no one actually bothered to do the long term tax math .

it was believed equities would do better in a taxable account because of lower tax rates .

well that proved false , as little as a 2% dividend or distribution wipes out the tax savings over the long term .

that plus the fact it compounds tax free in a tax advantaged account makes that the place for holding equities ..

so lots of old wives tales were disproved once high speed numbers crunching was able to be done .

old school thinking tended never to look under the hood at lots of other parameters at other stages in time .....

so much today has been shown to be incorrect thinking once things are looked at further down the road .

[mathjak107]

while the ranking and numbers has changed over time , this is an example of how even index funds can vary in tax consequences ....

this is an s&p 500 fund compared ..... it does not include the dividends either in the tax cost ratio . the tax cost ratio is the fund expenses and fund turnover . it also is caused by funds loaning assets or selling calls .

[pmward]

harry's advice was wrong for today ....

you don't waste space in tax sheltered accounts with instruments that pay little to no interest. back in the day interest rates were worth sheltering but it has not been that way for a long long time.

plus no one actually bothered to do the long term tax math .

it was believed equities would do better in a taxable account because of lower tax rates .

well that proved false , as little as a 2% dividend or distribution wipes out the tax savings over the long term .

that plus the fact it compounds tax free in a tax advantaged account makes that the place for holding equities ..

so lots of old wives tales were disproved once high speed numbers crunching was able to be done .

old school thinking tended never to look under the hood at lots of other parameters at other stages in time .....

so much today has been shown to be incorrect thinking once things are looked at further down the road .

Yeah I've come around to this thinking as well. Maybe if someday we get back to a point where bonds are yielding 5% again it might make sense to move my bonds back to tax sheltered. But these days I have been putting all of my cash and as much of my bonds as I can fit in my taxable account in order to keep as many stocks as possible in tax sheltered.

RE: your comment about mutual funds... ETF's completely eliminate this issue. The stocks I do hold in taxable are all ETF's. The only tax hit ETF's have is the dividend yield, and of course the capital gains tax when you sell.

Interesting chart here, SPX dividend yield difference vs 10 year treasury yield (anything above the blue line means stocks yielding more than treasuries, currently SPX yields 1.34% more than the 10 year):

sc-9.png (81.23 KiB) Viewed 5558 times

[mathjak107]

harry's advice was wrong for today ....

you don't waste space in tax sheltered accounts with instruments that pay little to no interest. back in the day interest rates were worth sheltering but it has not been that way for a long long time.

plus no one actually bothered to do the long term tax math .

it was believed equities would do better in a taxable account because of lower tax rates .

well that proved false , as little as a 2% dividend or distribution wipes out the tax savings over the long term .

that plus the fact it compounds tax free in a tax advantaged account makes that the place for holding equities ..

so lots of old wives tales were disproved once high speed numbers crunching was able to be done .

old school thinking tended never to look under the hood at lots of other parameters at other stages in time .....

so much today has been shown to be incorrect thinking once things are looked at further down the road .

Yeah I've come around to this thinking as well. Maybe if someday we get back to a point where bonds are yielding 5% again it might make sense to move my bonds back to tax sheltered. But these days I have been putting all of my cash and as much of my bonds as I can fit in my taxable account in order to keep as many stocks as possible in tax sheltered.

RE: your comment about mutual funds... ETF's completely eliminate this issue. The stocks I do hold in taxable are all ETF's. The only tax hit ETF's have is the dividend yield, and of course the capital gains tax when you sell... even a 2% taxable dividend takes it toll long term in a taxable account and etf's do have quarterly dividends if index funds .

NOT TRUE ABOUT ETF'S .. as little as a 2% dividend wipes out any tax savings over the long term in a taxable account .... kitces did a whole study on this .. plus there is turnover in index's as stocks get bounced and sold off , that can create distributions....


https://www.kitces.com/blog/asset-locat ... e-horizon/

[pmward]

NOT TRUE ABOUT ETF'S .. as little as a 2% dividend wipes out any tax savings over the long term in a taxable account .... kitces did a whole study on this .. plus there is turnover in index's as stocks get bounced and sold off , that can create distributions....

You did not disagree with me at all. I said the only thing that ETF give is the dividend yield, no forced cap gains distributions. But for those like me that do not have the tax deferred space to house all their equities, ETF's are more tax efficient than the mutual funds you listed in your chart. We are in agreement, I think you misread what I wrote.

[mathjak107]

NOT TRUE ABOUT ETF'S .. as little as a 2% dividend wipes out any tax savings over the long term in a taxable account .... kitces did a whole study on this .. plus there is turnover in index's as stocks get bounced and sold off , that can create distributions....

You did not disagree with me at all. I said the only thing that ETF give is the dividend yield, no forced cap gains distributions. But for those like me that do not have the tax deferred space to house all their equities, ETF's are more tax efficient than the mutual funds you listed in your chart. We are in agreement, I think you misread what I wrote.

exactly my problem , half our assets are in a taxable account because they don't fit in our retirement account ....

poor planning early on really hurt me though ...when i retired i needed insurance from 62-65 ...the dividend stream in the taxable account along with distributions ended up killing any hope i had for an aca subsidy ... some years that income stream hit 69k from the stuff outside the retirement money .

planning early is importand because so much hinges on taxable retirement income .. everything from aca subsidy to getting ss taxed to what you pay for medicare to even being able to utilize the zero percent capital gain brackets revolve around your ability to control taxable income

[mathjak107]

one other caution about etf's .....

they can be a bad tax torpedo down the line .....

i mean , what i wanted to use as a portfolio in retirement was totally different then my pedal to the metal growth model i used for for decades .

so a lot had to be changed ... luckily all my funds were managed funds so i paid taxes all along .. but having 30-40 years of pent up gains and trying to make changes at retirement can kill you tax wise .

i was lucky and just finished my changes in 2007 when 2008 hit . but had i had 30 years of gains to deal with i would have had to split it over a few years . i would have walked right in to 2008.....

so taxes can be a double edge sword as well as mutual funds and etf's .... to much in taxes can be bad and not paying enough along the way can be bad ....


most of us dont understand retirement planning until we get there and hit all the things we didnt know about ..... i did great as an investor so i never
thought i needed professional advice .... boy was i wrong because to fix decades of structure was like telling the guy who built the brooklyn bridge , it's nice but can you move it 2" left .

[pmward]

one other caution about etf's .....

they can be a bad tax torpedo down the line .....

i mean , what i wanted to use as a portfolio in retirement was totally different then my pedal to the metal growth model i used for for decades .

so a lot had to be changed ... luckily all my funds were managed funds so i paid taxes all along .. but having 30-40 years of pent up gains and trying to make changes at retirement can kill you tax wise .

i was lucky and just finished my changes in 2007 when 2008 hit . but had i had 30 years of gains to deal with i would have had to split it over a few years . i would have walked right in to 2008.....

so taxes can be a double edge sword as well as mutual funds and etf's .... to much in taxes can be bad and not paying enough along the way can be bad ....


most of us dont understand retirement planning until we get there and hit all the things we didnt know about ..... i did great as an investor so i never
thought i needed professional advice .... boy was i wrong because to fix decades of structure was like telling the guy who built the brooklyn bridge , it's nice but can you move it 2" left .

Yeah, my accountant has me periodically do "tax gain harvesting" of long-term capital gains. Also, since I just moved most of my equities into a quant strategy they will go to cash every so often, so that will give me some opportunity to pay some taxes and help contain the tax time bomb.

What are your thoughts on gold in taxable vs tax sheltered?