Get Your Plane Ticket First
I had an interesting conversation this week with someone who has two young kids. He'd heard about a new account type launching this summer—Trump accounts—and wanted to know if he should open one for each child.
The accounts would be available directly through the Treasury Department starting in July. There's a potential $1,000 deposit per child if certain requirements are met, but the money stays locked until they turn 18.
It's a legitimate question. And like anything new in the financial space, I told him I'd do my due diligence on how these accounts work and whether they'd be a fit for his family.
That's standard practice. When a new financial tool becomes available, my job is to understand it, evaluate it against what already exists, and see if it makes sense for the people I work with.
But when we started talking, something didn't add up.
The Shiny New Toy Problem
He was chasing a new wrapper before he'd started doing the work.
And I get the appeal. A new account type feels concrete. It feels like you're taking action. It feels urgent—like something you need to figure out now or you'll miss your window.
But the wrapper doesn't get you to your goal. Moving money consistently does.
If you haven't proven to yourself that you can move money toward this goal using what's already available, adding a new wrapper doesn't solve anything. It just gives you another empty account to think about.
And in this case? He was focused on a potential $1,000 deposit locked for 18 years while leaving more than $1,000 per year on the table in employer match, HSA contributions, and other benefits he already had access to.
Same goal. Same amount of money. But one requires waiting six months for a new product, and the other just requires using what's already there.
The wrapper 's downstream. The behavior comes first.
This Isn't Just About Trump Accounts
I see this pattern constantly, and it's not limited to one account type.
People ask about backdoor Roth conversions when they're not maxing their standard contributions.
They research real estate syndications when they don't have six months of expenses saved.
They want to know about crypto wallets when they haven't opened a basic savings account.
It's not that these tools are bad. Some of them might be exactly right—eventually.
But the sequence matters.
Novel doesn't mean necessary. And it definitely doesn't mean "skip the foundation and start here."
The issue isn't that people are drawn to new things. That's completely normal. New tools get attention. They get marketed. They feel special.
The issue is that the attention on the new thing creates a blind spot for what's already available, or what's already working if you'd just use it.
You're Planning the Wrong Trip
Here's how I explained it to him:
Imagine you're planning a trip overseas. You're spending all your time deciding between booking a hotel or an Airbnb.
You're reading reviews, comparing prices, optimizing for location.
But you don't have your visa yet. You haven't booked your plane ticket. And there's a real possibility that travel to that country isn't even allowed right now.
The hotel decision matters—eventually. But it's not the decision that unlocks the trip.
Financial planning works the same way. You can't skip the foundational steps just because something downstream feels more interesting.
The sequence matters.
The Sequence You Can't Skip
This comes back to something I talk about with every client: the Money Modes.
Stabilize: Do you know where you stand? Do you have breathing room if something goes wrong? Are you capturing the low-hanging fruit—employer match, tax-advantaged accounts you already have access to?
Sync: Are your current actions connected to your actual goals? If you want to save for your kids' future, is money moving toward that goal every month in a concrete way?
Shift: Once you're stable and your actions are aligned, then you optimize. You look at whether a 529 is better than a custodial account. You evaluate new account types. You fine-tune.
You don't start at Shift. You can't.
It's not about the account being good or bad. It's about whether you have the foundation in place to make that account useful.
What People Miss
A dollar saved is a dollar saved, regardless of the wrapper it lives in.
But the emotional pull of something special—a new account type, a unique structure, something that feels exclusive—overrides the logic of building stability first.
People chase the optimization before they've locked in the basics.
They want to know about backdoor Roth conversions when they're not maxing their standard contributions. They ask about real estate syndications when they don't have six months of expenses saved. They research Trump accounts when they're leaving their employer match on the table.
It's not that those advanced strategies are wrong. It's that the sequence is backward.
And when the sequence is backward, you're spending energy on a decision that doesn't move you forward.
How I Approach This With Clients
As a CFP®, I operate under a fiduciary standard. That means I have a legal duty to act in your best interest—not just offer information, but provide advice that actually fits your situation.
This isn't marketing language. It's a binding obligation with real consequences. When I make a recommendation, I'm personally accountable for whether it serves you or not.
That duty of care shapes how I evaluate new financial products.
When Trump accounts launch in July, I'll read the full details. I'll understand the structure, the tax treatment, the eligibility requirements. I'll compare them to existing tools like 529s, custodial accounts, and savings vehicles. That's baseline due diligence. I have to know what's available and how it works before I can evaluate whether it fits.
But knowing about a product isn't the same as knowing whether you should use it.
The fiduciary question isn't "is this account good?" It's "is this account right for you, right now, given everything else in your financial picture?"
And in this case, the answer was no.
Not because Trump accounts are inherently bad. But because recommending that this client prioritize a $1,000 deposit locked for 18 years—while leaving more than that on the table annually in employer match and tax-advantaged benefits he already has access to—would be a failure of my duty to him.
It would be advice that prioritizes novelty over outcome. And that's not something I can ethically do, no matter how interesting the new tool is.
My obligation is to help you build the strongest financial structure possible with what's actually available to you. Sometimes that includes new products. But only after the foundation is in place.
That's not just good practice. It's the standard I'm held to.
The Practical Question
Before you chase the next new account type—Trump accounts, or whatever comes next—ask yourself:
- Am I capturing my full employer 401(k) match?
- Do I have at least one month of expenses saved?
- If I have a goal to save for my kids, is money actually moving toward that goal every month?
If the answer to any of those is no, that's your starting point. Not the new thing. Not the shiny wrapper.
The sequence matters.
Get your plane ticket first. Then worry about the hotel.
This month's small step:
If you're not sure whether your foundation is in place, start here. Three questions that tell you where you stand:
- What hit your bank account last month (after taxes)?
- What expenses would you pay no matter what?
- What's left to work with?
That's your baseline. Everything else—including evaluating new account types when they become available—builds from there.
Content in this material is for general information only and not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.