I have a general question for folks who have long-term experience with financial advisors. I have been with my advisor for a very long time. More than 20 years. Up until the last few years I was extremely busy, and mentally fully occupied, with a demanding career. I left things to the advisor, although I met with him annually. His approach has been very conservative for an extremely conservative throughout that time, way before retirement was on the horizon, and returns have been muted even though the market has shown a long-term uptrend. In a nutshell, it is his practice not to own any individual stocks in a portfolio, in deference to various bond/money market and mutual fund investments. Think 60/40 scenario. A substantial amount of the portfolio has been devoted to foreign stocks, also held in mutual funds, that for many years were essentially flat or declined to some extent compared to US equities. In the last year or so, those have done much better as we all know. These investments have shifted and been adjusted over the years, but very slowly, and with little responsivity to large changes in market conditions. My question is essentially is this a common approach for financial advisors? Of course, it’s clear that such an approach makes managing client’s accounts much less labor intensive, and if one’s clientele is especially sensitive to volatility, it minimizes that factor and probably calms nerves. So it’s easier for an advisor to approach things this way. But is that typical?