Most investors never buy a second property.

Not because the market is bad. Not because they can’t get financing.

Because buyers and sellers can’t agree on what the property is worth.

A seller wants $1.2M. Your financial model says $900k makes sense. The gap is unbridgeable. The property sits on the market for months. Both parties walk away. The investor’s portfolio never scales.

I’ve looked at dozens of deals. I’ve said “no” to almost all of them. The discipline to walk away is what separates the single-property landlord from the one building a portfolio.

Here’s how I think about rental property pricing, and the tax infrastructure that actually holds it together.

The DCF is Your Anchor

Rental property is an investment, not a home. It needs to cash flow and appreciate.

The way to know if it will is a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis.

Project the property’s net rental income for 20 years. Estimate what it’s worth at year 20. Discount both back to today’s dollars. That number is what the property is actually worth to you.

If it’s less than the asking price, the deal doesn’t work. If it’s higher, you might have found something.

The math matters because emotions don’t scale portfolios.

Then run sensitivity analysis. Test the deal against three scenarios: optimistic (rent growth 4% annually), base case (2%), pessimistic (0.5%). If the deal only works in the optimistic scenario, walk away.

This discipline sounds ruthless. It’s what builds wealth over time.

The Property Tax Shock

Most investors factor in the purchase price, mortgage, and operating costs. Then the property tax bill arrives and everything breaks.

When you purchase a rental property, the municipality reassesses it—usually at or near the sale price. In Nova Scotia, there’s no cap on commercial property tax increases.

Real example:

• Previous owner bought: 5 years ago for $500,000

• You buy: Today for $1,000,000

• New assessment: ~$1,000,000

• Your annual property tax: Nearly double

Most buyers don’t factor this into the deal. They assume the tax is static. Then the first bill arrives and the monthly cash flow they modeled evaporates.

The fix: factor in the property tax increase as an operating cost before you commit. If the deal still works after the tax shock, you’ve got something.

The Tax Infrastructure

If the building is commercial (or mixed-use), HST may be owing on the sale. Here’s the actual play:

You don’t write a cheque at closing. Instead, you register for HST. The tax remits directly to CRA, offset by an input tax credit. Zero cash out at closing.

But on an ongoing basis, every commercial rent cheque has 14% HST on it. You set it aside—separate savings account—and remit once a year to CRA.

Miss a deadline? CRA penalties compound fast. Suddenly your monthly cash flow is $500 lower than projected.

This is the unglamorous part. No one talks about it. But the investors who scale are the ones who build the infrastructure correctly.

Using Debt Strategically

Once you own one property, you have equity. That equity is your leverage for property #2.

A home equity line of credit (HELOC) against your primary residence is one of the lowest-cost sources of debt available. Interest you pay is generally not tax-deductible for personal use.

But here’s the catch:

If you use that HELOC as a down payment on a rental property that generates income, the interest on that HELOC becomes tax-deductible.

Example:

• Your home is worth $600k. Mortgage is $300k. You have $300k equity.

• You open a HELOC for $100k at 6% interest.

• You use that $100k as a down payment on a rental property.

• The $6,000/year in HELOC interest is now tax-deductible.

• At a 43% marginal tax rate, that $6,000 deduction saves you $2,580/year.

You’re taking on more debt. But you’re compounding returns while using the tax system to reduce the cost of that leverage.

The Wealth-Building Flywheel

1. Buy property #1 with disciplined pricing (DCF analysis)

2. Build equity through principal paydown + appreciation

3. Refinance into that equity

4. Use a HELOC (with tax-deductible interest) as down payment on property #2

5. Repeat

The bank’s money does the work. Time does the work. You just have to make the first deal make sense.

The Full Breakdown

I published a complete deep dive on how to price deals, navigate tax infrastructure, and scale strategically—with DCF models, property tax calculations, HST mechanics, and closing-cost checklists.

→ Read the full article: Rental Property Pricing for Financial Planning: A DCF Guide Canada

Why This Matters for Your Financial Picture

If you’re managing rental property alongside a salaried income, the tax layering gets complex fast. Active income + rental income + capital gains = a picture that needs modeling.

That’s exactly what I built YouGotThis to do—show you the full financial picture without anyone selling you anything. Model the real numbers, see the tax impact, understand where the leverage is.

→ Explore the app

The same discipline that works for rental deals works for the rest of your money.

Subscribe now

Sent from Halifax. Every Thursday to your inbox.

It’s late 2025, and I’m at a playground watching my son on the monkey bars. I’m there with two friends — both physicians, with kids about the same age. It’s the usual Saturday afternoon in October, leaves falling, and while the kids run around we get to talking. It usually starts as small talk, but because I work in investments, it usually ends with me being asked for financial advice. This one’s familiar — these two ask me all the time, because everything to do with their personal finances feels daunting. It’s tough for me too: I’m not a financial advisor, so there’s a real limit to what I can say and do. And it’s different for each of them. One has a good bit of cash saved but no clue where to start. The other has an advisor he’s satisfied with, but knows the guy isn’t doing everything he could. Both are strong earners — and neither knows what their net worth is, when they can retire, or what to do when the mortgage comes up for renewal.

This is a pattern. It’s not just them — it’s everyone. I see the same confusion again and again, across my personal network and my non-financial professional one. Smart people. Good jobs. They’re not bad with money, exactly — they’re underserved. And it breeds a quiet sense of being lost. No one has a clear picture. After enough of these conversations, I started to see three clusters: people who have an advisor but, more than half the time, aren’t satisfied with the arrangement; people using tools built for 22-year-olds just starting out or living paycheque-to-paycheque; and people doing nothing at all, because nothing ever felt right, so they opted out. That’s a massive share of the population.

Even as an investment professional, I feel this from personal experience. My wife is a physician. We combined our finances about six years ago, when she finished fellowship, we were expecting our son, and we were buying a house. Until then I’d been doing my own thing, but I felt there needed to be a professional in the equation who wasn’t me. So we did the tour — a bunch of advisors. It’s not my first rodeo with advisors, planners, retail brokers, whatever you want to call them; I’ve been on the institutional side of this business a long time. It was still eye-opening. Where it got strange: we were referred to a small firm through a close personal relationship, and it was treated as though they were doing us a big favour (they weren’t — it was a favour for them). I went to the meeting anyway, and the red flags started going off immediately. The longer I listened, the worse it got. It was clear these guys were dishonest and incompetent. There was no way we’d go with them — and now I was in an awkward spot personally. I didn’t need that.

So I looked at what tech and innovation could do for us. Trust me, I looked at everything. There are budgeting apps that are great for beginners. There are robo-advisors that are competent and easy on your time — but the moment life gets even a little more complicated than a bit of money in a couple of accounts, they’re not enough. There are advisors, and a good one is worth the fee, but you can’t tell who those are; it’s opaque, siloed, and expensive. And the “just Google it” approach produces noise, not clarity. For a 38-year-old couple looking at a new baby, a mortgage, no pensions, and a little money starting to build across various investment accounts — there simply wasn’t a tool that fit.

For my family, I pieced it together myself. I went with an investment management firm for the portfolio (at least then there’s a person to call), and a tax accountant. Then I handled the rest of the picture on my own — which turned out to be a ton of work. The most strenuous part was putting together a financial plan. I modelled it myself, and it took me every night for six weeks. When I finished, I was happy with it, and I felt a huge relief seeing the whole roadmap laid out. But I also sat there in my basement thinking: there’s got to be an easier way.

That’s why I created YouGotThis. It puts your whole financial picture in one place, built on three pillars: find out where you are now; figure out where you’re going; and show you how to get there. I wanted it easy to use without being useless — complex enough to make real decisions, simple enough to actually understand. It’s built for mass-affluent professionals who’ve outgrown the simple tools and maybe don’t want, or aren’t ready for, an advisor. And if you do want a professional at some point, that’s there too. It covers net worth, investments, retirement, debt, education savings, and estate planning — all in one place, with clarity and without gatekeeping. It walks through where to start and what to do next. The goal is simple: financial clarity, and a bit of peace of mind.

If you’re that doctor, that lawyer, that engineer — or if you advise them — I’d love to talk. We’re building this for you.

See your full financial picture — free, and built for Canadians.

Get started free →

A version of this first appeared on the YouGotThis blog.

Years ago, right after I finished my MBA, admittedly a little older than most of my classmates, my wife and I were merging our finances and starting to look at houses. For the first time in ages, I sat down and looked at the whole picture: savings, investments, the number at the bottom.

My honest reaction was: that’s it?

I’d spent most of my 20s and half my 30s working around the clock in capital markets. Good resume, the credentials to match. And it just hadn’t turned into the big dollars I’d assumed all that effort was finally going to produce.

For a while I told myself it was bad luck: a couple of mass layoffs, an expensive degree I didn’t strictly need. Some of that’s true, but blaming luck, timing or other people doesn’t help me learn anything. The honest answer is harder: I’d never actually decided what I was working toward. I was just trying to make as much as possible and move up. And when you have no target, you have no way to know whether you’re winning.

That’s the thing almost no “how to build wealth in your 30s” article will tell you. They all assume the problem is that you’re not doing enough: save more, earn more, hustle harder. But for a lot of people already doing the things, effort was never the gap. Two other things were: they were watching the wrong number (a balance, when the one that matters is a rate), and they’d never defined what the money was actually for.

I wrote the whole thing up this week — the “that’s it?” moment, why your 30s balance is almost built to look small, and the boring shift that actually changed things for me. It’s the most personal piece I’ve published.

→ Read it here: How to Build Wealth in Your 30s in Canada — Honestly

It’s also, more or less, the thinking behind the startup I’m building. No pitch today — just the story.

— Andrew

Subscribe now

I try not to fixate on what other people have. But it’s normal to feel the grass is greener sometimes, or feel that old “keeping up with the Joneses” pull, and today it’s probably stronger than ever. The bar for “doing well” has drifted somewhere unrecognizable. A garage and a second bathroom used to mean you’d made it. Now it can feel like unless you’ve founded a tech unicorn, you’re behind. Even people with MBAs and great jobs can’t buy a house in half the markets in the country.

So how do you actually measure where you stand? The usual answer is net worth. It’s worth understanding what that number is really telling you, and what it quietly hides.

First, the benchmark. Statistics Canada’s most recent Survey of Financial Security (2023) puts the median net worth of a household in its late thirties to early forties at $409,300, climbing with age from there:

Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Financial Security, 2023. Median net worth, families grouped by age of major income recipient, constant 2023 dollars. Overall median across all Canadian households: $519,700. These are the latest available figures — the next Survey of Financial Security cycle is expected in early 2027.

One thing before you measure yourself against it: use the median, not the average. The average is always higher, because a handful of very wealthy families drag the mean upward. If you’ve ever seen an “average net worth” figure and felt behind, you were probably comparing yourself to a number inflated by the richest few per cent.

Here’s the part nobody talks about. Your net worth is one number, but it’s built from dollars that behave nothing alike. The arithmetic treats them as identical. Real life doesn’t.

A dollar in your TFSA is the only truly clean dollar you own. It’s already taxed, grows tax-free, comes out whenever you want, in full. It’s the one line where the number on the screen is the number you keep.

A dollar in your RRSP is a dollar you co-own with the CRA. You got a deduction going in, it grows untaxed, and every dollar comes out taxed as income. So a $500,000 RRSP is not $500,000 of spendable money. That’s a meaningful slice belongs to a silent partner who collects at the end.

And a dollar of home equity is real wealth you can’t actually spend without selling the roof over your head or borrowing against it.

Which raises the question I find most interesting: should your home even count?

Most people include it (it has value, you own it). The financial-independence crowd excludes it (you can’t eat a house). But there’s a third view worth sitting with: a home behaves a lot like a liability. It’s illiquid. You never really liberate the money, because you always need somewhere to live. Functionally, it’s an inheritance your kids will one day realize, not money you’ll ever spend. And even fully paid off, it runs a negative cash flow every year: tax, insurance and maintenance. An asset that costs you money to hold and that you can never spend is doing a pretty good impression of a liability.

(For what it’s worth: in our app, your home is in your net worth at full value but out of your retirement projections. It’s part of the honest snapshot of what you own - but you can’t draw 4% a year from a kitchen.)

Put it together with two households, each at exactly $800,000.

Household A holds it as TFSA, non-registered investments, cash, and modest home equity. Most of it is accessible and lightly taxed. If life demanded it, they could put their hands on most of it quickly.

Household B holds $400,000 in an RRSP, $350,000 in home equity, and $50,000 in cash. Same headline number. But the RRSP is taxed on the way out, the home equity can’t be touched without selling, and the genuinely liquid, already-theirs figure is the $50,000.

Same number. Completely different lives. One has options this year; the other has a strong balance sheet they mostly can’t reach. A net worth comparison would rank them identically. This is exactly why the single number, on its own, tells you so little.

None of this means your number is wrong. The gross figure is the honest starting point. But a snapshot isn’t the same as understanding it. The number only becomes useful the moment you can see what it’s actually made of: how much is liquid, how much the CRA still has a claim on, how much is just keeping a roof over your head.

The full breakdown - every line on the balance sheet, read for what kind of dollar it really is (including the corporate account, the pension you have to go looking for, and the education fund that was never really yours) - is on the site:

👉 Read the full piece →

Or if you’d rather just see your own number broken down this way, you can do that here.

Subscribe now

If someone forwarded you this, subscribe to The YouGotThis Brief — clear, Canadian, no jargon, no sales pitch.

Leave a comment

Educational only, not individual financial advice. Figures are 2023 Statistics Canada medians; tax treatment and asset values vary.

Years ago I decided interest rates were probably heading lower, so I took a variable-rate mortgage. For about two years I looked clever. Then rates climbed, and I found out I was wrong.

The painful part wasn’t just that my borrowing got more expensive. My fixed-income investments were falling at the same time. Rising rates hit both sides of the balance sheet at once. That experience is the whole reason I think “should I pay off debt or invest?” deserves more than the one-line answer the internet keeps giving.

The standard Canadian answer goes: compare your interest rate to your expected return, invest if you can beat the rate, and factor in your peace of mind. That’s not wrong. It’s just written for a kind of debt most of the people asking don’t actually have, and it skips the part that quietly costs the most.

First, what kind of debt is it? Because two very different things get called “student debt.” A federal Canada Student Loan has been interest-free since April 2023 — no new interest accrues. Against a zero-percent cost, any positive return wins, so the math rarely argues for rushing to repay. But most high earners asking this question aren’t carrying that. A doctor, dentist, or lawyer typically has a professional student line of credit — a revolving bank loan, often well into six figures, priced at or near the prime rate. The rate floats, and the interest generally isn’t tax-deductible. The internet’s “student loan” advice wasn’t written for it.

Paying down isn’t a return. It’s a cost you remove. If a line of credit costs 4.5%, every dollar you put against it is a dollar that’s no longer costing 4.5% a year, guaranteed. Keep the balance and invest instead, and you’re making a bet: that your portfolio out-earns the loan. The gap between the two is the only part you actually pocket. And that gap is thinner than it looks because the comparison that counts is after tax. The line-of-credit interest usually isn’t deductible, while gains inside a TFSA are tax-free and an RRSP contribution throws off a refund. So it’s after-tax return versus after-tax cost, not headline versus headline.

Here’s the trap. “Invest if you can beat your rate” holds up, but only if “beat your rate” means your long-run expected return, not whatever the market did this month. Apply it to the present moment and it inverts: in a correction your portfolio is down, so the rule whispers “stop investing”, which is exactly when future returns tend to be highest. Near a peak it says “pile in”, when returns tend to be lowest. Followed literally, a moment-by-moment check nudges you to buy high and skip the dips. The one number worth reacting to is your rate, because it’s a known figure you can observe…not a market you’re trying to time. (That’s the lose-lose from my mortgage: rates and prices move together, so reacting to the moment can hurt on both sides at once.)

And then there’s the part the math can’t settle. The spread is arithmetic. How you sleep isn’t. Carrying a big balance to chase a slim edge is a real weight for some people, and clearing it anyway isn’t irrational — it’s buying certainty, and certainty has a price worth naming. There’s also an asymmetry the spreadsheet misses: a paid-down balance can’t be sold in a panic, but an invested dollar can. For anyone who’d bail in a downturn, simply repaying the debt can beat a spread they’d have earned on paper and then handed back at the bottom.

So the real answer is that “pay down or invest” is the wrong first question. Start with the kind of debt. Run the comparison after tax. Anchor it to the long run, not this month’s headlines. Then decide what you can live with. The arithmetic narrows the choices; the last call is yours.

Share

I wrote the full version — with the FP Canada return assumptions, the actual bank line-of-credit rates, and the tax mechanics laid out step by step — on the site: Pay Off Student Loans or Invest in Canada? The Real Math →

And the reason any of this is easy to see for your own numbers — the balance, the rate, the accounts, and the spread in one view — is the thing I built. Take a look at YouGotThis →

Leave a comment

There’s a version of the retirement conversation that plays out on the personal finance forums every week. Someone hits their number, announces they’re quitting their career job to pour lattes or some other pejoratively described job. The opinions on this are split down the middle — half call it the dream, half say it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

I think both camps are missing the point.

“Barista FIRE” treats the decision as binary: grind at the career until 65, or step all the way down to low-skill work because it looks less stressful from the outside. I don’t weigh in on that part, but between those poles is an enormous middle almost nobody mentions or runs the numbers on: consulting at a fraction of the hours, a board seat, a small local business, teaching, or caregiving. None of it is retirement in the gold-watch sense, but all of it produces a little income.

And income, it turns out, is the part the math cares about.

At the returns we’ve used through this series, every reliable dollar of lasting annual income is worth about $19.60 of portfolio you don’t have to build. That’s not a rounding error, that multiplier is fundamental to the whole game. And it’s especially the game in Canada, because CPP and OAS are a lasting, inflation-linked income stream. Between them, roughly $24,000 a year in government support quietly does the work of about $473,000 of savings. The American rules of thumb don’t account for that, because Americans don’t have our benefits.

For the household we’ve followed all series: funding every dollar yourself would take about $2.2 million; CPP and OAS bring it to about $1.73 million; and $40,000 a year of work you’d happily do anyway, for the first ten years, brings it to about $1.39 million.

So the financial independence number isn’t the price of stopping. It’s the price of one specific choice: never earning another dollar. Lower that bar even slightly, by staying engaged in something you’d choose regardless, and the number comes down to meet you.

What that something is, of course, is the part no spreadsheet answers. Mine involves coffee, capital markets, a golf course, and maybe a surfboard. Yours will look nothing like it. But that’s the luxury the number buys…it can be never working again if you want to, but really it’s the freedom to be choosy about it.

That’s the last piece of the series. Same math as the earlier parts, pointed at a better question.

See what your own number looks like → app.yougotthiswealth.com

See the full blog here → https://www.yougotthiswealth.com/blog/part-5-what-to-do-after-fire/

I was driving through Montreal a couple weeks ago with a buddy who sold his company last year. He’s in that good, restless headspace where he’s finally had a win after years of grinding and figuring out what’s next. Somewhere near the bridge where we were backed up because of the Grand Prix, he asked me the question I see online about four hundred times a day:

“What’s your retirement number?”

He had one in his head. A real, specific number. So I asked him the only thing that matters before you trust a number like that:

“Is that in today’s dollars?”

Pause. Then — “…oh.”

That little “oh” is the whole reason I wrote this one.

Your number today is not your number in the future

Here’s the thing nobody puts on the rule-of-thumb lists. A retirement number is almost always quoted in today’s money (what your life costs right now). It’s a clean way to think about it. But you’re not retiring today.

Earlier in this series, we worked out that a certain household needs about $1.73 million to fund the retirement they want. In today’s dollars.

Inflate that forward to the day they actually retire, let’s say…thirty years out, and the same exact life (same groceries, same vacation and the same utility bills) costs about $3.14 million.

Nothing got fancier. They didn’t add a boat. That extra million-and-change is just inflation wearing a Halloween costume. But if you saved toward the $1.73 million and called it a day, you’d quietly aim about a 50% low and not find out for decades.

That’s the trap. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

The good news is the boring news

So the future number is bigger.

Take a deep breath. It’s ok…

Because the way you get there is more in your control than the number itself.

You don’t need heroic investment returns unless it’s hail mary time. You just need time. And time in in the investment world is non-linear, in a way that’s either great news or a kick in the teeth depending on when you start.

Check out the same target as before, but start at 25. Then it takes roughly $1,900 a month. Start the same plan at 45, and it takes about $5,400 a month to land in the exact same place.

Same finish line. Nearly triple the monthly cheque. The only thing that changed was twenty years.

That gap isn’t a willpower problem. It’s compounding. The dollars you put in early are the only ones that get to sit and grow for decades — and in that example, about 40% of the final pile is growth the household never actually deposited. Money the money made, mostly off the early contributions.

Investment returns are important, but it’s not the ‘be all, end all’

Everyone wants to argue about returns. 6% or 7%? What’s the sexy new investment? Quantum computing or go 100% XEQT because it’s going to have another 30% year? It’s the most fun part to obsess over and the least important lever you’ve got. You don’t control the market anyway.

You do control when you start and how much you put away. Those two beat fund-picking, every time. Starting beats optimizing. Boring, true, and weirdly freeing.

The part the math can’t do

You’ve now got the number and the path to it. Which leaves the only question that was ever actually interesting, and the one Part 5 is about: what’s all of it for?

The spreadsheet can tell you the number. It cannot tell you what the money is for. That part’s yours.

I wrote the full version — with the actual formulas, the CPP and OAS piece, and a table of what waiting costs you decade by decade — on the site:

→ Read the full breakdown on YouGotThis

And if you’d rather just see your own numbers instead of mine — current savings, what you’re putting away, the inflation-adjusted target for the year you’ll actually retire — that’s literally the thing I built:

→ Run your numbers (free)

— Andrew

Andrew Gannon, CFA, is the founder of YouGotThis. Educational illustration only — not financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. The figures use simplifying assumptions and are there to build intuition, not to size anyone’s strategy.

Most people treat their retirement number like a finish line…the one figure to hit, then stop. I used to think of it like that too, until I built the model behind YouGotThis. The part that surprised me most wasn’t the number itself. It was which inputs actually move it.

Here’s the setup…take a single 35 -year-old, $150,000 earner, retiring at 65, planning to 95, drawing roughly $24,000 a year from CPP and OAS. Run the Canadian present-value math and you land around $1.73 million in today’s dollars.

Nice, clean number. Easy to remember. Just buy XEQT and go...

But that number is the output of four inputs: how much you spend, what you get from government benefits, what your portfolio returns, and how long you live. The thing nobody tells you is that they don’t matter equally. Not even close.

When I flexed each one across a realistic range and held the others steady, here’s the order of impact that fell out:

1. Spending — moves the number by about $882,000

2. Government benefits (CPP + OAS) — about $588,000

3. Investment return — about $451,000

4. Longevity — about $360,000

Sit with that for a second, because it inverts how almost every retirement article is written.

Spending (the input you have the most say over) dominates. The gap between living on 60% of your salary and 90% is nearly a million dollars of required portfolio. Meanwhile investment return, the thing the entire financial-media machine obsesses over, sits third. And it’s the one input you don’t control.

The CPP and OAS finding surprised me most. For a dual income couple where both partners qualify near the maximum, government benefits quietly carry hundreds of thousands of dollars of the load. This is a structural feature of the Canadian system that the imported American “save 10x your salary” rules completely miss.

And longevity - the fear that drives a lot of over-saving - turns out to be the gentlest lever of the four. Planning to 100 instead of 95 only adds about $167,000, because a dollar spent 35 years out is discounted heavily in today’s terms.

What the math shows is that a retirement number isn’t a verdict you compute once. It’s a surface, and once you can see its shape, “am I saving enough?” stops being a free-floating anxiety and becomes a question with structure.

I wrote up the full breakdown — all four sensitivity tables, the worked example, the sources — over on the blog on my website.

And if you’d rather skip the spreadsheet and just see your own number, that’s what we built: free tool. No signup wall — it’s the fastest way to find your own coordinate on that surface.

— Andrew

They can also be expensive, conflicted, variable in quality, and unnecessary for someone who is informed and disciplined enough to handle their own finances with the right structure.

The answer to “should I hire a financial advisor” is genuinely: it depends. But it depends on specific things you can actually assess — your complexity, your temperament, your stage of life, and whether the math works given what they’d charge.

You don’t need to hire one passively — because your parents had one, because someone from the bank called, because it felt like the responsible thing to do — and never actually evaluate whether the relationship is delivering value.

Whatever you decide, make it a deliberate choice.

https://www.yougotthiswealth.com/blog/blog-should-i-hire-financial-advisor/

https://www.yougotthiswealth.com/blog/residency-trained-except-your-money-part2/

This is that post. A plain-language breakdown of every option available to Canadian physicians (full-service advisors, fee-only planners, robo-advisors, DIY and combinations of those) what each does well, where each falls short, and how I ended up building something new after trying most of them myself. Read the full blog here: https://www.yougotthiswealth.com/blog/residency-trained-except-your-money/.