Podcasts about endowments

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. A $1.1 million endowment established by the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation is creating lasting opportunities for graduate students in Virginia Tech's School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, strengthening cutting-edge turfgrass research while advancing sustainable solutions for the turfgrass industry. Decades in the making, the endowment represents a milestone in the longstanding partnership between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. Established in 1988, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation promotes the benefits of natural grass and works exclusively with the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Team in funding research that provides homeowners and industry professionals with strategies and tools to achieve the highest possible quality turfgrass with the fewest required management inputs. While the foundation has supported turfgrass research at the university for nearly 30 years, leaders from both organizations came together in 2017 with a renewed vision: to build a permanent, impactful funding model that could meaningfully support graduate education. “While we always appreciate the support on smaller, short-term projects that meet immediate industry needs, our goal was to move the needle — to truly support graduate students, their research, and the future of the turfgrass industry,” said David McCall, associate professor and Extension turfgrass pathologist. From vision to endowment That vision led the foundation's leaders and Virginia Tech faculty members to explore how to maximize donor dollars for long-term impact. With guidance from alumni and industry partners, the foundation focused on building a true endowment — a permanent fund designed to generate annual support rather than provide short-term funding. A significant portion of this funding came from the Virginia Tech Turfgrass Research Classic Golf Tournament, which has raised more than $500,000 for the foundation. Additional contributions from industry partners and supporters also helped grow the fund, which is held in an endowment and brokerage account and drawn from annually. “This wasn't about a one-time gift,” said Brandyn Baty, executive director of the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation. “We wanted something sustainable that would support students year after year, long after any one event or campaign.” Key foundation leaders involved in re-envisioning how the endowment supported Virginia Tech research included alumni Eric Frazier ‘00 and Dean Whitehead ‘99, along with Jim Wilson and Jeff Everhart, two honorary Hokies whose longstanding support has helped strengthen the partnership. Full support for graduate students Unlike many funding sources that support a portion of a student's education through sponsoring specific projects, the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation endowment is designed to fully fund a graduate research assistantship. The foundation has committed to supporting at least one new graduate student annually, with the potential to support multiple students as the endowment continues to grow. “Giving students the opportunity to pursue graduate education without financial uncertainty changes everything,” McCall said. “It allows them to focus on innovation, discovery, and impact.” The first student supported by the foundation was Elisabeth Kitchin M.S. ‘25, whose master's degree research set the standard for what the endowment could accomplish. Now a doctoral student, Kitchin also manages the university's turfgrass research facility at Independence Golf Club in Midlothian. “Beyond just the financial support, the foundation and the broader Virginia turfgrass industry have provided me with an abundance of mentorship, encouragement, and guidance throughout my time as a graduate student,” Kitchin said. “As a young professional entering the turfgrass industry, I have felt genuinely supported by the researchers, educators, superintendents, and industry professionals around me.” Precision, technology, and sustainability Kitchin's research focuses on precision turfgrass management, including the use of machine learning models to identify turfgrass diseases such as dollar spot, a common fungal disease that plagues the turfgrass industry. By improving the accuracy of disease identification and treatment, her work helps reduce unnecessary pesticide applications, saving costs and minimizing environmental impacts. She and endowment-supported student Sam Kreinberg, the first official graduate research assistant funded under the new long-term endowment structure, both focus on precision irrigation management — studying when, where, and how much water is needed across golf courses, sod farms, and home lawns. Kreinberg joined the turfgrass program in fall 2025 after completing his master's degree at the University of Arkansas. His research integrates advanced technology and data-driven tools to help turfgrass managers make more informed decisions, improving water efficiency while maintaining high-quality playing surfaces. “These students are using technology to solve real-world problems,” said Mike Goatley, professor and Extension turfgrass specialist. “Their work directly benefits the turfgrass industry while supporting sustainability and environmental stewardship.” The endowment also enhances Virginia Tech's close collaboration with the Independence Golf Club, where both Kitchin and Kreinberg conduct extensive research. This on-course research opens the doors for additional collaborations with the United States Golf Association, Syngenta Professional Solutions, and numerous other industry partners. Lasting Impact For the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation, the endowment reflects not just financial support, but a long-term commitment to students and the land-grant mission of Virginia Tech. “This is about investing in people,” McCall said. “When you invest in graduate students, you invest in research, sustainability, and the future of an entire industry.” As the endowment continues to grow, foundation leaders hope to expand the number of students supported — ensuring that the partnership between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Turfgrass Foundation continues to thrive for generations of students to come. “The endowment allows us to attract great young women and men equipped with the knowledge, work ethic, and personality to succeed,” Goatley said. “The students serve as our program's bridge to the future of turfgrass science.” This article was written by Tyler Baugrass and was featured in Virginia Turfgrass Journal. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. The post $1.1 million Virginia Turfgrass Foundation endowment expands graduate education and research appeared first on The Turf Zone.

⁠Download PDF of episode transcript⁠What does it look like when a major foundation decides that a crisis calls for more than business as usual? Bold but smart!This episode offers amazing insights and inspiration from Brenda Solórzano, President and CEO of The California Endowment. Brenda shares about how philanthropy can respond when nonprofits face rising demand, shrinking resources, and mounting pressure. She discusses how The California Endowment decided to substantially increase its spending, eliminate grantee reporting requirements, accelerate resource flows, and experiment! She explains why the Endowment signed the Level Up pledge and how it's spending the additional funds.For funders and nonprofit leaders alike, this conversation offers practical ideas for moving from risk-aversion toward responsive partnership. Solórzano discusses what it takes to build trust between foundations and nonprofits; why multi-year funding alone isn't enough; how funders can create relationships where grantees feel safe talking honestly about burnout; and why philanthropy may need to rethink payout. perpetuity, and the business model of foundations. She also makes the case that, rather than simply trying to preserve existing systems, funders can help communities build what comes next.For a Guest Bio, please click here: https://candid.org/authors/brenda-solorzano/ Key Links to Resources:Featured Guest & Institution Links:The California Endowment: https://www.calendow.orgThe California Endowment: Increased Spending: https://www.calendow.org/tce-board-approves-increased-spending/ Level Up & CHANGE Philanthropy Links:Level Up Campaign: https://levelupphilanthropy.org/CHANGE Philanthropy: https://changephilanthropy.orgCHANGE Philanthropy / Our Work: https://changephilanthropy.org/elementor-397/Trust-Based Philanthropy Links:The California Endowment's Go! Gifts: https://www.calendow.org/gogifts/Headwaters Foundation of Montana's Go Grants: https://www.headwatersmt.org/what-we-fund/go-grants/Trust-Based Philanthropy Project: https://www.trustbasedphilanthropy.org CHANGE Philanthropy Member Organizations Links:Asian American Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy (AAPIP): ⁠https://aapip.org⁠ABFE - A Philanthropic Partnership for Black Communities: ⁠https://www.abfe.org⁠Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy: ⁠https://www.epip.org⁠Funders for LGBTQ Issues: ⁠https://lgbtfunders.org⁠Hispanics in Philanthropy: ⁠https://hipfunds.org⁠Native Americans in Philanthropy: ⁠https://nativephilanthropy.org⁠National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: ⁠https://ncrp.org⁠Neighborhood Funders Group: ⁠https://nfg.org⁠Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity: ⁠https://racialequity.org⁠ Women's Funding Network: ⁠https://www.womensfundingnetwork.org⁠Fund the People Links:Fund the People website: https://fundthepeople.org/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Fund the People Podcast: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/fund-the-people Join the FTP Podcast Premium community over on Patreon for extended episodes, bonus content, and more: http://patreon.com/fundthepeopleRelevant FTP Podcast Episodes Links:Level Up: Helping Funders Give More, Faster with Jodeen Olguin-Tayler, CHANGE Philanthropy (S10:E01 published 09/09/26) https://www.podpage.com/fund-the-people-a-podcast-with-rusty-stahl/level-up-helping-funders-give-more-faster-with-jodeen-olguin-tayler-change-philanthropy/ Meet the Moment: A Call to Action for Funders with Shaady Salehi, Trust-Based Philanthropy Project (S07:E17 published 04/02/25): https://fundthepeople.org/meet-the-moment/ MacArthur President Chooses Courage, Not Quiet with John Palfrey, MacArthur Foundation (S07:E27 published 06/11/25): https://fundthepeople.org/palfreyDo Funders Understand the Nonprofit Burnout Crisis? with Elisha Smith Arrillaga, Center for Effective Philanthropy (S07:E01 published): https://fundthepeople.org/funders-understand

Scott Munro, President of the NYC Detectives' Endowment Association, represents a law enforcement community deeply affected by the events of September 11, 2001. On 9/11, members of the NYPD responded to the World Trade Center and many detectives and officers made the ultimate sacrifice while helping others. Munro has continued to honor the memory and legacy of those who were lost, while supporting the families and survivors whose lives were forever changed. 

Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar in Berlin for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with co-host Thaddeus McCotter: Dempsey describes European Baltic and Nordic leaders flocking to Kyiv, yet warns that "moral outrage" lacks a cohesive strategic plan to negotiate an end to the war. She highlights the rising prominence of the pro-Russian, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in state elections. Interestingly, an ideological rift has emerged as radical AfD factions in East Germany sour on MAGA due to Trump's policies on Iran. McCotter delivers a severe critique of the MAGA-AfD relationship, arguing MAGA should never have "played footsies" with neo-Nazis, and asserting the AfD is fundamentally aligned with Vladimir Putin rather than the United States—their temporary embrace of MAGA merely a superficial attraction. Although West Germans have abandoned historical sentiments toward Russiadue to the Ukraine invasion, East Germany remains deeply split, harboring lingering sentimental pro-Russian views and separate post-unification cultural dynamics. (7)

Mike Switzer interviews Pete Madden, president and CEO of the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities in Greenville, SC.

Vocalist, composer, educator, and visual artist Carmen Lundy joins Tavis in studio to discuss being named a 2026 National Endowment for the Arts Jazz Master, her new album, Notes From The Wine Cellar, and her illustrious career.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

Being great at running a company does not make anyone a market oracle. Don and Tom unpack the money regrets of successful CEOs—and the costly confidence that often follows success.They draw the line between business skill and investment skill, explain why financial literacy matters, and make the case for diversification over hindsight, stock-picking games, and concentrated bets.Then they turn to listener questions on catching up at 43, investing a church endowment, an underperforming robo portfolio, and where stock dividends should go near retirement.Topics03:46 CEOs, money regrets, and false confidence08:10 Financial literacy without the stock-picking game10:21 Tesla hindsight and the bets we didn't make11:41 Asset allocation and the cost of being too conservative15:20 Business owners and concentration risk17:48 Catching up on retirement saving at 4321:22 A 60/40 church endowment with a 2.5% draw23:12 When a robo portfolio badly trails the market25:35 Dividends, bonds, and rebalancing near retirementQuestions? Comments? Click!

Brooke and Tyler read through the letters from the Sleepless, the shard of Endowment, and Hoid as we try to understand the hints hidden within the epigraphs. #AllSpoilers Support this podcast by becoming a Patron on Patreon Original music by David Gruwier. "Radiant" by David Gruwier.

Fire the Whole Investment Team: Meb Faber on 250 Years of American Compounding and Why CalPERS Can’t Beat a 60/40 allocation https://youtu.be/9lBYkG4J2sY A dollar invested in the U.S. stock market in 1800 is worth roughly $200 million today, and Meb Faber says the giant pension funds paid to beat that kind of compounding usually can’t. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Meb Faber, co-founder and CIO of Cambria Investment Management and host of The Meb Faber Show, about his new coffee-table book Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market, the shareholder yield thesis behind Cambria’s ETF lineup, and his long-running public campaign arguing that CalPERS and other giant institutional pools routinely fail to beat a simple, low-cost buy-and-hold portfolio. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4WmnPm3GN8jwQtJuCVV9XG?si=nLLcz8y8RSuydORA5_ZHGQ Key Takeaways America is, in Faber’s words, the greatest compounding machine in history. He puts a dollar invested in U.S. stocks in 1800 at roughly $200 million today — a number he uses to reframe how clients should think about staying invested through wars, depressions, and pandemics. The book’s origin story starts with meme stocks. Faber says COVID pulled a new generation of retail investors into the market through gamified trading apps, and he wanted to hand them a historically grounded alternative to day-trading and zero-day options. Diversification is older than the country itself. Faber traces the concept back to 15th- and 16th-century joint-stock voyages — the Mayflower and the Virginia Company among them — where spreading capital across many risky expeditions let “merchant adventurers” survive when any single ship was lost. Shareholder yield, not dividend yield, is Cambria’s core factor. Since the S&P 500’s dividend yield now sits near an all-time low of 1.04%, Faber argues the real signal is cash dividends plus net buybacks — net of the dilution from stock-based compensation that quietly erodes shareholders’ ownership every year. Faber’s CalPERS critique boils down to one line: “the returns are not bad, they’re just not good.” He’s built an entire body of work, including Cambria’s ENDW endowment-style ETF, arguing that giant pools with virtually unlimited access to managers still can’t consistently beat a disciplined global 60/40. Complexity is often the enemy, not the edge. Faber contrasts investing with almost every other field of expertise: hiring the best doctor or coach nearly always helps, but hiring the most sophisticated (and expensive) money manager frequently doesn’t. Illiquidity has a way of showing up at the worst possible time. Faber points to endowments getting caught upside down in 2008–2009 and to more recent leveraged blowups as the same lesson repeating: over-lever a portfolio and you’re out of chips at the poker table. The real accountability gap is career incentives, not investment theory. Faber contrasts Yale, which gets a pass for strong long-term results, with Harvard’s endowment, which he says has underperformed for two decades without anyone losing their job over it — a dynamic he says maps directly onto UHNW family governance. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — CalPERS CIOs vs. UK prime ministers [00:29] Show open and disclaimer [00:54] Welcome: Meb Faber, Cambria, and the new book [02:07] The $76 price tag and the 1776 joke [03:13] Genesis of Investing in America: COVID, meme stocks, and joint-stock voyages [06:33] The most surprising find: Ben Franklin’s “Mind Your Business” motto [09:09] Argentina vs. the U.S. — what actually drove American exceptionalism [12:47] Cambria today: the shareholder yield thesis [17:46] Why politicians target buybacks instead of stock-based comp [20:54] The CalPERS critique begins [21:34] The Ivy Portfolio, the ENDW endowment ETF, and year-one results [25:45] The Nevada pension comparison and the liquidity-complexity pushback [26:56] Institutional blowups, Harvard’s endowment dysfunction, and misaligned incentives [29:36] The “anti-Switzerland of asset management” bit [31:16] Close: where to find Meb, Cambria, and the book Pull Quotes “No, no, no, no, Frazer — it is $76, in honor of 1776.” — Meb Faber “A dollar would be worth roughly $200 million today… despite wars and depressions and pandemics and everything else terrible that’s happened in the history of the world, this relentless compounding is such a fun story.” — Meb Faber “There are dividend funds in the U.S. today… whose actual dividend yield is lower than their management fee. A negative net dividend yield — an astonishing statistic in 2026.” — Meb Faber “Who’s had more turnover in the past 10 years — CalPERS CIOs or UK prime ministers? Both totally dysfunctional. I think CalPERS has a slight edge, but it’s close.” — Meb Faber “I’m the anti-Switzerland of asset management.” — Meb Faber About the Guest Meb Faber is co-founder, CEO, and Chief Investment Officer of Cambria Investment Management, an independent, privately owned advisory firm built around quantitative asset management and alternative investment strategies (BusinessWire). He hosts The Meb Faber Show, one of the most widely followed investing podcasts, and is the author of eight books, including The Ivy Portfolio, Global Asset Allocation, Global Value, Shareholder Yield, and now Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market — his first coffee-table book, released to coincide with the U.S. semiquincentennial (Curzio Research). Proceeds from the book go to charities that fund investment accounts for Americans born in the country. A ninth book, The Awesome Portfolio, is slated for release on September 8, 2026 (Meb Faber on X). Contact Meb Faber & Cambria Cambria Investment Management: cambriainvestments.com Cambria Funds: cambriafunds.com Meb’s blog, podcast & research: mebfaber.com The Meb Faber Show: themebfabershow.com Twitter/X: @MebFaber Book — Investing in America: available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and signed via Pages bookstore in Manhattan Beach, CA (Acquirer’s Multiple) Cambria Funds Mentioned Shareholder Yield suite (SYLD, FYLD, EYLD, plus small-cap and large-cap variants) — cash dividends plus net buybacks plus net debt reduction, divided by market cap (MarketWatch) GVAL — Global Value ETF screening the cheapest quartile of roughly 45 country markets by long-term valuation (Cambria — GVAL) TAIL / FAIL — U.S. and global ex-U.S. tail-risk ETFs pairing short-term Treasuries with a rolling ladder of out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts (Cambria — TAIL) Trinity Portfolio (TRTY) — roughly half buy-and-hold, half trend-following across a basket of other Cambria funds (Cambria — Trinity Portfolio) ENDW — Cambria’s endowment-style ETF, discussed on the show as roughly $150–180 million at launch and referenced later in conversation as having grown toward roughly $5 billion in assets with more than 100,000 investors (MebFaber.com) The CalPERS Critique — Further Reading 9 Institutions Can’t Beat a Basic Buy-and-Hold Allocation — MebFaber.com How California’s $450B Pension Fund Misses the Basics of Investing — YouTube Should a Robot Be Managing CalPERS’ Portfolio? — MebFaber.com, 2015 Index Funds vs. Ivy League — MarketWatch/Barron’s Streetwise CalPERS: America’s Misled and Misleading Pension Leader — Retired Public Employees Association CalPERS Section II Performance Tables (2026) — CalPERS.ca.gov Reducing the Noise of AI Investing – FrazerRice.com Frequently Asked Questions How much would a dollar invested in the U.S. stock market in 1800 be worth today?Meb Faber says roughly $200 million, using the figure to illustrate how relentless compounding has powered through wars, depressions, and pandemics over the country’s history. It’s an illustrative, back-of-envelope estimate rather than a precise index calculation, since standardized stock indexes didn’t exist in 1800. Why is Meb Faber’s new book priced at $76?It’s a nod to 1776 and the country’s founding, timed to the U.S. semiquincentennial. All proceeds go to charities that fund investment accounts for Americans born in the country. What is shareholder yield, and how is it different from dividend yield?Shareholder yield is cash dividends plus net stock buybacks (net of new share issuance, particularly from stock-based compensation), divided by market cap. Faber argues it captures real capital return to shareholders better than dividend yield alone, especially now that the S&P 500’s dividend yield sits near an all-time low of about 1.04% and share buybacks have outpaced dividends every year since the late 1990s. What is Meb Faber’s argument against CalPERS and other large pension funds?Faber’s recurring claim is “the returns are not bad, they’re just not good” — that giant institutional pools with access to virtually any manager on the planet still fail to consistently beat a simple, low-cost, diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, once fees and complexity are accounted for. Cambria launched an endowment-style ETF (ENDW) partly to make this a live, ongoing comparison rather than a hypothetical one. What is Cambria’s endowment-style ETF and how does it compare to institutions like CalPERS?ENDW replicates a Yale/Swensen-style endowment allocation — global stocks, global bonds, and real assets like gold, TIPS, and REITs — in a low-cost ETF with an all-in expense under 25 basis points. Faber uses it as a running, real-time benchmark against actual endowment and pension performance reported each fiscal year. Why does Meb Faber say complexity is often the enemy in investing?Unlike most fields, where more resources and the best available experts reliably produce better outcomes, Faber argues that in investing, more complexity and more access to exotic managers frequently doesn’t translate into better returns net of fees — and often just adds cost and illiquidity risk. What lesson does Meb Faber draw from institutional blowups and the 2008–2009 crisis?Endowments that mark their portfolios only once a year got caught badly offsides in 2008–2009, with illiquid positions falling even further than public markets. Faber sees the same pattern recur whenever a fund over-levers and gets forced out of the game — a basic failure of position sizing and situational awareness that keeps repeating at the highest levels of finance. Full Transcript [00:00] Cold Open (produced VO): I said, who’s had more turnover in the past 10 years — CalPERS CIOs or UK Prime Ministers? Both totally dysfunctional. And I think CalPERS has a slight edge, but it’s close. Meb Faber suggested that CalPERS should fire its entire investment team, and that complexity has become a major headwind to their ability to generate returns. Find out more on this episode of Wealth Actually. We’re also going to talk about Meb’s new book, which argues that America is one of the greatest compounding machines in the history of capitalism. [00:29] Show Open (produced VO): Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast — the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators who give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at WealthActually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not investment, legal, or tax advice. It does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guest. [00:54] Frazer Rice: Welcome back. Meb Faber is on the show. He founded Cambria Investment Management, which is a $4 billion ETF group. He also has The Meb Faber Show and does a lot of different writing. He’s famous for being on Twitter and taking on CalPERS. But most importantly, he has a new book out talking about America as a great compounding machine. It’s a lot of fun to have him on. Welcome aboard, Meb. [01:16] Meb Faber: My man, great to be here. Frazer Rice: Oh, thank you for being on. I thank you beforehand for including a piece of my writing in one of your old compendiums on best investment writing. I’ve never forgotten that, so thank you again. Meb Faber: Well, good job making the cut. Frazer Rice: Yeah, right, exactly. I passed the audition. Seen you a few times on The Idea Farm here and there over the years. Meb Faber: Yep. As I tell people with my girlfriend, I met expectations in my recent review, so we’re onto the next year. Look, key to life, Frazer — investors, we’re in a bull market, everyone expects 15% returns forever. Key to investing in life: just low expectations. That’s it. Set your expectations low, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised every day. Don’t lose principal over time — that’ll get you pretty far in life. [02:07] Frazer Rice: So anyway, you’ve got a new book out too, which I thought was pretty cool. I love the fact that you priced it at $17.76 and really focused on the— Meb Faber: No, no, no, no, Frazer — it is $76, in honor of 1776. Now to be clear, we don’t make any money on this book. We’re donating all the proceeds to the Invest America charities that fund accounts for Americans born in this country — a wonderful charity, big supporters of it. Frazer Rice: But yes, in honor of the country’s founding. This is why we have you all to make sure I get that stuff right. But the concept of America as the best compounding machine ever — I think that’s really interesting. First of all, what prompted you to get involved with putting this book together? You’ve written before — seems like you’ve been busy with other stuff, of course — but then you came back and decided this was a good topic to take on. What was the genesis of the book? [03:13] Meb Faber: Yeah, so this is my eighth book, and the first coffee-table book we’ve ever done. People were saying, “What the hell, $76? Are you guys crazy?” Look — this is a beautiful 200-page book. There’s probably 70 pictures, charts, tables. And the concept is in the subtitle: Investing in America: The Rise of a 250-Year Bull Market. And the origin story goes back to COVID. Nobody had anything to do — sports stopped, you couldn’t go to the beach. So people were sitting around, and Americans — look, they’re gamblers, they’re risk-takers, we know that. And I said, we can’t do anything about that. So this entire generation of young people turned their attention to the stock market, and we got meme stocks. Today that’s evolved into prediction markets and zero-day options and all sorts of other nonsense. We wanted to grab those young people and say, “No, you don’t understand — the real story is better than any of this. You don’t have to day-trade. You don’t have to bet against the casino and lose.” So we said, let’s do this history since the founding of our republic — what it would have looked like if you could invest from 1800. And the compounding math is so fantastical it seems wrong. A dollar invested in 1800 — and yes, I know there were no indexes back then, chill out, people — but just to be instructive, a dollar would be worth roughly $200 million today. The point is you get on this train despite wars and depressions and pandemics and everything else terrible that’s happened in the history of the world — despite all that, this relentless compounding is such a fun story. On top of that — the founding of our country, and a lot of people don’t know this: when you learn the history of America in elementary school, you learn about the immigration, particularly from Europe, people escaping religious persecution, seeking a better life through freedom — the Mayflower, all that. All true. But what they leave out is that most of these explorations and voyages were funded by companies. Back then they called them joint-stock companies; today we call them companies, LPs, C-corporations — corps, right, partnerships. Because the reality, going back to the 15th century, is that if you’re sending a ship to the New World to find gold, that ship could sink, or there were pirates — you’d lose all your money. So this brilliant invention we call diversification today has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. These companies said, it’s risky to invest in one voyage, but you can own part of a company that invests in 10 or 20 or 30 of these, and maybe one of them will hit. That sounds like venture capital. They used to call these people “adventurers” or merchant adventurers. Hudson’s Bay, the Mayflower voyage, the Virginia Company — many of them failed, many didn’t make money, but some made spectacular profits. It’s a fun origin story that hasn’t really been told about these early entrepreneurs and risk-takers, who honestly still permeate our culture to this day. [06:33] Frazer Rice: In putting the book together, what was the most surprising chart you found that you ended up including? [06:41] Meb Faber: There’s a lot of fun historical statistics in the book. One of my favorite parts of writing it was buying — I don’t know, 50 or 100 financial history books I’d never heard of, books on financial crises globally from various markets. We just had an author on the podcast talking about the global financial crisis of 1873, and on and on — you learn so much. One I love telling people, especially young people — my son or his friends — is: look at a dollar bill or a quarter, and I ask, what’s the motto on there? Well, that used to not be the motto. Ben Franklin, back in the day, the motto on the Fugio cent used to say “Mind Your Business” — which I thought was amazing. And it’s not “mind your business, kid” in the nosy sense — it’s more like, mind your (own) business. It had a sundial on it, too: time is short, mind your business. I thought, let’s go back to that — such a great motto. A bunch of little fun stories, but to me one of the big takeaways of the book is: as a public stock investor, the news is always negative. You turn on CNBC, Bloomberg, pull up your phone, social media — negative, negative, negative, negative. It’s hard to sustain conviction. Look, we haven’t been through a big bear market in 17 years, but when you’re down 30%, 40%, 50%, and you’re reading “Lehman’s going under” and all these crazy headlines — the book lets you zoom out. Each chapter zooms into a decade and then zooms back out and says, okay, 1930s, Great Depression, you lost 80% in stocks — but guess what, here’s your return over the next 50 years. Even over a 20-year period, large-cap stocks become less volatile than bonds, which is an amazing takeaway. Being able to zoom out and say, “I’m a long-term investor, why am I even concerning myself with day-to-day negativity” — that shift in mindset is really important, because when you zoom out, you can barely even see 1987 on a long-term chart of the stock market. I think it’s a useful thing to send to clients, particularly at year-end if you’re a financial advisor. We’ve got big discounts if you buy 50 books online — send it to clients and say, hey, stop going crazy, this too shall pass. [09:09] Frazer Rice: One thing I always have in my mind — I don’t remember if this is exactly true, but Argentina and the US were on roughly equal economic footing back around 1900. When you were putting this together, did you see anything in the US’s political climate or structure — the things that gave it tailwinds to go from 1900 through to now with this rocket-ship growth — versus a country like Argentina, similarly situated, that just muddled along economically? Was there anything in particular that you saw that codified American exceptionalism? [09:51] Meb Faber: Yeah, you’ve got to remember, the US was an emerging market too, for a long period. We didn’t always hold the crown as the largest economy or the largest stock market in the world. The US is two-thirds of world market cap today — astonishing. But if you and I were sipping tea back in 1800 or 1900 and betting on what country would dominate the next century, you’d have gotten a whole host of different answers. That’s part of the fun of this book — you realize, when things got started in Amsterdam in the 1600s, they held the crown, but not forever. It shifted to London, then eventually to New York. And in our own lifetimes, the US wasn’t always the largest stock market — Japan was, in the 1980s. It’s a useful construct: look how much things change. Not even just on a country level — sectors too. Go back 100 years and you’re like, wait, where are the tech stocks? It was railroads. Go back another 100 years and it’s, wait, where are the railroads? There weren’t any — it was banks and insurance. The constant is always change and creative destruction. The big takeaway is you have to be an owner. This ownership mentality is particularly pervasive in the US. Talk to people in Sweden, Europe, Asia, Latin America — they own far fewer stocks than Americans do. Ask what they invest in, and it’s cash in the bank, real estate, maybe. There’s something in the water here. Same thing with entrepreneurship — talk to Americans about failure, and there’s no shame in it here. It’s almost celebrated; we cheer for it. The only thing we like seeing more than someone fail is their eventual rise after failure — the phoenix. There’s a lot of big takeaways in that. It feels like the last 17 years, the US is just going to dominate forever. We wrote a paper called The Bear Market and Diversification a few years back about how special this period has been for US stocks, crushing everything else — but it’s not totally without precedent. In the last hundred years it’s happened three other times where 10-year rolling stock returns hit 15%: the 1920s (the Roaring Twenties), the Nifty Fifty period in the mid-20th century, and my favorite bull market, the late 1990s. And now again today — COVID, meme stocks, the AI boom, whatever you want to call it. Eventually the good times don’t last forever; you probably shouldn’t expect 15% returns to the moon. But pat yourself on the back and celebrate it — it’s been a very special run. [12:47] Frazer Rice: Day-job-wise, at Cambria you’ve got a whole host of different investment theses that you build vehicles around. One that’s gotten my attention, and that I really like the idea of, is the shareholder yield concept — especially the global shareholder yield concept, for the reasons you just described, coming off a very long cycle of US exceptionalism in the stock market. I like the idea of cash flow as an indicator of good investment performance, and diversifying both within and outside the US. With an asterisk here that this is not investment advice, everyone — take us through what you’re thinking on that front, and what else you’re up to at Cambria that’s interesting in the investment ecosystem right now. [13:35] Meb Faber: Sure. It’s kind of crazy, Frazer, but we hit our 20-year anniversary this year, which feels like just yesterday when I started the company. Some of the shareholder yield funds — we now have three with over a 10-year track record, and our oldest, SYLD, is a pesky teenager now. What do you expect out of teenagers? More volatility — hopefully up volatility, not down. We wrote a book on this topic 10, 15 years ago, and a new second edition is out — it’s free online as an ebook, listeners, you can get it from the blog. The subtitle of the book is Shareholder Yield: A Better Approach to Dividend Investing — a pretty bold claim, given there are hundreds of dividend-type funds out there: dividend income, dividend growth, equity income, on and on. Our thesis was that there’s something the entire marketplace hadn’t noticed or appreciated: the rise of share buybacks. Starting in the late ’90s, share buybacks have outpaced dividend distributions in the United States every year. In fact, the US dividend yield on the S&P 500 is at an all-time low of 1.04% — it may cross below 1% for the first time ever, which is astonishing. Our thesis was that a shareholder yield approach — simply cash dividends plus net stock buybacks — outperforms, historically, any dividend strategy you can construct. The “net” matters because it accounts for share issuance, particularly stock-based compensation to the C-suite, which is everywhere in the US — my home state of California’s tech companies love to “make it rain” with stock-based comp. The problem is the average US stock is a diluter: your ownership share goes down every year because they keep issuing more shares. We’ve since demonstrated this in real time across SYLD, FYLD, EYLD (the emerging-market version), and now small-cap and large-cap variants — they’ve done exceptionally well. These funds effectively target a Buffett-like, value-and-quality approach: the average stock coming into the portfolios has roughly a double-digit shareholder yield. Let that sink in — there are dividend funds in the US today, ETFs and mutual funds, that claim to be high-yield or dividend-income funds whose actual dividend yield is lower than their management fee. A negative net dividend yield — an astonishing statistic in 2026. In the US, that shareholder yield is mostly driven by buybacks. In foreign developed and emerging markets, it’s closer to 50-50 — those markets still have more of a culture of cash dividends, so you’ll see yields there closer to 5-6%. But that’s changing, and changing fast. We did a blog post recently calling the UK the “buyback capital of the world” — the UK, China, Japan, and a bunch of other countries have hockey-sticked higher on this. It’s spreading globally, this idea of corporate responsibility: “my stock’s at half of book value, maybe we should consider buybacks.” There’s so much mythology around stock buybacks — we could do a whole podcast on it — and we try to tackle it in the book. Hopefully it’s like a red pill: once you take it, it’s hard to look at investing the same way again, because it feels like you were missing a major piece of the puzzle. [17:46] Frazer Rice: How infuriating is it when the Warrens of the world take aim at buybacks? It feels like an economically illiterate, and certainly politically driven, approach to legislating. To put the clamps on a genuinely useful capital allocation tool — I just don’t understand it. You must look at that and want to shake people and say, you’re missing the point, and you’re not even really targeting the abuses that exist. [18:20] Meb Faber: Well, I try not to be too dismissive of our lovely politicians — the joke I always make is, don’t look down on them, they weren’t taught finance and investing in school either. We don’t teach money and investing in school, and that’s sort of my white whale — I think we should be teaching it as early as elementary school, just basic classes on money. The good news is, roughly a quarter to a third of high schools are now requiring at least one class on the topic. What they’re actually targeting, I think somewhat thoughtfully underneath it, is executive compensation and stock issuance — which is the crazy part, because buybacks are the flip side of that. If a company is consistently loading up its CEO with options and diluting shareholders, and using buybacks to mop that dilution up — that’s what they’re really targeting, but it’s not the buyback itself. It’s the stock-based comp. Buybacks are the exhaust; that happens down the road. The cool part about our methodology is we’re only targeting companies trading at something like 80 cents on the dollar. Buffett is my favorite example here — Berkshire has never paid a dividend, and you might think that’s crazy, but he understands this better than anyone. He’s been writing about buybacks since the 1980s. There’s a great quote from an old Berkshire annual report where he says there’s no better use of cash than buying back your own shares when they’re trading below intrinsic value. Berkshire has bought back a ton of stock over the past several years — smart — they say they’ll buy back at 1.2 times book or below and run a valuation screen. There’s a great, somewhat surprising, takeaway in the book: there’s a myth that CEOs are megalomaniacs who just buy back stock whenever they think it’s expensive or cheap, but if you model it out historically, companies doing big buybacks (say, to retire 5% of market cap) tend to trade at a valuation discount to the market, and companies doing share issuance tend to trade at a valuation premium. There’s a real valuation arbitrage going on — CEOs aren’t dummies. That’s part of what you’re capturing with a shareholder yield approach, as long as it’s consistently recycled. And remember, a buyback is optional — there has to be someone willing to sell into it, so there are always two sides. [20:54] Frazer Rice: Let’s talk about one of my favorite parts of your persona, honestly — your fun critique of CalPERS and what large institutions do (and don’t do well) in managing money, and the inefficiencies that creep in with these big pools of capital as implementation and asset allocation get very complicated and very expensive. Walk me through your thinking when you first noticed the CalPERS phenomenon, and a bit of the history there. [21:34] Meb Faber: My very first book was called The Ivy Portfolio, and we looked at how top endowments manage their assets — Yale, the late David Swensen. One of the strange things about our world in asset management — almost unique among industries — is the assumption that more resources, more money, more access automatically equals better results. That’s true in almost every other endeavor: get the best doctor, you’re probably better off than with your local doctor; best trainer, best nutritionist, best coach, on and on. Not necessarily true in investing. The longer I’ve been in this business, the more I see complexity as often an enemy. So we love to pick on CalPERS — we’ve written a dozen articles: should CalPERS be run by a robot, should they just fire everyone and buy ETFs? We’ve run the simulations, and in many cases these giant institutions — with $500 billion, hundreds of employees, access to literally any fund on the planet — should be able to beat everyone, but they can’t. A very basic buy-and-hold portfolio can mimic what a lot of these top institutions actually deliver. Eventually I got tired of just talking about it. I’ve applied for the CalPERS CIO job at least half a dozen times — they have an opening every other year, listeners, it’s the most dysfunctional organization. I joked on Twitter the other day: who’s had more turnover in the past 10 years, CalPERS CIOs or UK prime ministers? Both totally dysfunctional — I think CalPERS has a slight edge, but it’s close. I said I’d do the job for free — I’d fire almost everyone and get rid of all the illiquid, high-fee investments. But there’s this entire ecosystem of people incentivized to keep the engine running: private equity consultants and the rest of the “two-and-20” crowd. So eventually we said, let’s make this a real, live contest. We launched an endowment-style ETF, ENDW — roughly $150-180 million in it now — and said every June 30th, once we’re through a fiscal year, we’re going to compare results head-to-head. This ETF has no management fee to speak of, all-in under 25 basis points. Can you beat a low-cost ETF like that? Let’s find out. Sure enough, year one — CalPERS has already reported, and they didn’t do badly, but it was basically like a 60/40 portfolio; you’d have been just as well off doing 60/40 and moving on. Our endowment-style allocation actually replicates the average endowment quite well — a nice global mix of global stocks, global bonds, and global real assets (gold, TIPS, REITs, and so on — that real-assets sleeve is one a lot of people leave out). To get closer to a Swensen-level result, you need a couple more ingredients, in my view: you can approximate something like private equity with small-cap value, and approximate the broader endowment risk profile with a bit of leverage, plus tilts to value, global exposure, and trend-following. We’ll see how year one shakes out once all the endowments report — UNC might actually beat us because they had a huge stake in SpaceX, so congrats to Chapel Hill. But I think year one goes to me, sorry to say, CalPERS. I’m going to be a giant irritant on this for years to come. The cool thing is you now have a genuinely investable benchmark. Every endowment investment committee suddenly has to ask, with real fiduciary teeth: can we beat this low-cost ETF? And if we can’t, what are we even doing — why are we studying all these crazy illiquid partnerships instead of just buying a basket of ETFs and calling it a day? That’s going to be an awkward conversation in a lot of boardrooms. [25:45] Frazer Rice: Two comments on that. First — isn’t there someone in the state of Nevada doing something similar, basically running one of the state pension pools with a team of about three people? [25:51] Meb Faber: Yes — we had him on the podcast. I told him, look, you’re putting your money where your mouth is on this. I won’t do his story justice here, I’ll tell you about it off-air — but it’s a great example that this doesn’t have to be as hard as people make it out to be. Frazer Rice: The second thing is — anytime I’ve talked to people in the industry about this, they come back and say, “yes, we technically have an infinite investing horizon, but we have very rigid liquidity needs, so we need to be complex, because our liquidity needs can shift at any moment.” Meanwhile, on one hand I’m thinking, that complexity doesn’t actually help you with liquidity, as far as I can tell — and on the other, it feels like a bit of a convenient excuse. Do you have a response to that? [26:56] Meb Faber: Oh boy, I’ve got a bunch. The endowments famously got caught upside-down in 2008-2009. They only mark their portfolios once a year, June 30th — I wish we could all do that; maybe we should just tell clients, you’re only allowed to look once a year. They were probably down roughly half in ’08-’09, and the illiquid positions were probably down even more. A lot of them got badly offsides, and I don’t think many of them have fully learned the lesson — if you look at the amount of private allocations still sitting in a lot of these portfolios today, it’s a massive amount. I hope they’ve learned the lesson. We’ll see. But it’s a story as old as time — we just saw a version of it recently with a fund blowup, a basic, one-oh-one level failure of situational awareness and position sizing: you over-lever a portfolio, you get taken out of the game, you lose all your money, and then you’re out of chips at the poker table. You watch these mistakes happen at the upper echelons of finance and wonder how it’s still happening — and the core problem is that the career incentives of the people running the money don’t necessarily match the actual investment problem. Yale gets a pass. When Swensen’s successors hit a rough patch, how long do they get a pass? Because Harvard has been a total mess for the last 20 years — there are entire books written about the Harvard endowment, which used to be the Yale before Yale. The Harvard Crimson ran article after article saying, you’re overpaying people, what’s going on here — and the fund would underperform and nobody would actually lose their job over it. That’s the real problem, and I have some sympathy for how hard it is to fix. You deal with a version of this on the personal client side too, with multigenerational wealth — it’s almost an unsolvable structural problem for a Harvard, an endowment, or a CalPERS, because — take Harvard — you’ve got current students, alumni, future students, professors, the people who work at the endowment itself, all with completely different incentives and interests. It creates a genuinely absurd situation where, in no realistic scenario, should the resulting portfolio look like what they actually end up with. It’s an outright disaster, structurally. [29:36] Frazer Rice: It reminds me of a car designed by committee — you end up with this stitched-together Frankenstein’s monster of a product that was never going to work or sell, and it ends up sinking the company. Meb Faber: Yeah, yeah — a Rube Goldberg machine is not what you need. But there’s a reason our endowment ETF, out of the roughly 20 funds we’ve launched, has gotten the least attention — even though it’s now about $5 billion in assets with over a hundred thousand investors. It’s received the least publicity of any ETF we’ve ever done, because it doesn’t benefit anyone in that whole existing ecosystem — it’s actually a genuine threat to it. I was at an institutional conference up in Santa Barbara, at a wine happy hour, talking to three women who run three of the most famous pension and endowment pools of real money in the country. We’d just launched an endowment-style ETF, and they just stared back at me with these icy daggers. I said, oh, sorry — I’m not really a competitor to you, you should easily be able to beat me, I’m just the table stakes. But I think they realized that’s probably not true — they’re going to have a very hard time beating me, which doesn’t exactly make me anyone’s friend. I’m the anti-Switzerland of asset management. [31:16] Frazer Rice: Meb, how do people find the firm, find the book, find you? [31:24] Meb Faber: With a name like Meb, it’s easy. Cambria Funds is the day job, with the ETFs. Meb Faber is the old blog, podcast, and Twitter presence — you can find that just about anywhere. And if you find yourself in Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, come say hi. We’d love to hear from you if you pick up a copy of the book, Investing in America — let us know what you think. Frazer Rice: Really cool stuff. Thanks, Meb, for being on. This was a blast — let’s do it again. Meb Faber: Let’s do it. [31:50] Close (produced VO): This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice. It does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

St. Michael's College gets permission to tap into its restricted endowment as the school navigates financial woes, Vermont Democrats embrace their new de facto leader and New England firefighters help put out blazes out west.

During this episode of Growing Kentucky's Leaders, hosts Sheldon McKinney and Ruth Ann Fink discuss the brand new "100 for 100" plan leading up to Kentucky FFA's centennial celebration in 2030!Kentucky FFA Website Forever Blue Endowment Information Plan Your Gift

In this episode of Critical thinking, Eimear Walsh, European Head of Investments, is joined by Michel Meert, European Consulting Leader for Endowments, Foundations and Family Offices, and Michael Curtin, Senior Investment Consultant at Mercer, to explore why the investment committee is often the point where governance becomes real and where investment culture can be most visible.  The conversation unpacks the investment committee's role in turning purpose, strategy and risk appetite into decisions and what helps them work well, from clear delegation and strong chairing to good preparation and documentation. It also explores often common pitfalls – slow decisions, unclear accountability, groupthink – and discusses ways asset owners can aim to overcome these to strengthen committee effectiveness over time.  This content is for institutional investors and for information purposes only. It does not contain investment, financial, legal, tax or any other advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. The materials are not tailored to your particular personal and/or financial situation. If you require advice based on your specific circumstances, you should contact a professional adviser. Opinions expressed are those of the speakers as of the date of the recording, are subject to change without notice and do not necessarily reflect Mercer's opinions. This does not constitute an offer or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities, commodities and/or any other financial instruments or products or constitute a solicitation on behalf of any of the investment managers, their affiliates. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not formal investment advice to allow any party to transact. Additional advice will be required in advance of entering into any contract.  Read our full important notices - click here 

Judy Dempsey, Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, describes a Europe struggling with record heat, wildfires, and critically low river levels that are hampering nuclear power and agriculture. She argues these patterns reflect a deteriorating climate requiring a global response. The conversation shifts to a massive migration incident where 60,000 young men attempted to enter a Spanish exclave from Morocco. Dempsey explains that this surge is being exploited by far-right parties across Europe, such as the AfD in Germany, who capitalize on voter dissatisfaction. She notes that despite bilateral labor agreements, the political fallout is fueling nationalism. (2)1651 SPAIN

Paul Chai joins Alan Dunne to discuss what it takes to manage a perpetual investment portfolio designed to support future generations. As CIO of the Kansas State University Foundation, Paul explains how disciplined asset allocation, thoughtful manager selection and strong governance create resilient long-term results. The conversation explores endowment investing, private markets, hedge funds, portfolio construction and the importance of building a decision-making culture where diverse perspectives are encouraged. It is a wide-ranging discussion about investing with humility, managing uncertainty and creating an investment process that can endure through changing market environments.-----50 YEARS OF TREND FOLLOWING BOOK AND BEHIND-THE-SCENES VIDEO FOR ACCREDITED INVESTORS - CLICK HERE-----Follow Niels on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube or via the TTU website.IT's TRUE ? – most CIO's read 50+ books each year – get your FREE copy of the Ultimate Guide to the Best Investment Books ever written here.And you can get a free copy of my latest book “Ten Reasons to Add Trend Following to Your Portfolio” here.Learn more about the Trend Barometer here.Send your questions to info@toptradersunplugged.comAnd please share this episode with a like-minded friend and leave an honest Rating & Review on iTunes or Spotify so more people can discover the podcast.Follow Alan on Twitter.Follow Paul on LinkedIn.Episode TimeStamps: 00:00 - Why better investment decisions start with diverse thinking01:02 - Paul Chai's journey from engineering to institutional investing04:50 - Managing a perpetual endowment for future generations08:48 - Building resilient strategic asset allocations11:54 - The advantages of managing a $1.2 billion endowment15:29 - Portfolio construction beyond the traditional 60/40 model20:57 - Strategic asset allocation versus total portfolio investing24:05 - Lessons from the Yale Endowment model26:26 - Finding unconventional investment opportunities31:21 - Building a diversifying hedge fund portfolio38:02 - Why CTA strategies no longer fit the portfolio43:01 - Manager selection, due diligence and finding alpha45:39 - The importance of grit when selecting investment managers51:25 - Building better investment teams and decision-making cultures57:20 - Advice for the next generation of long-term investorsCopyright © 2025 – CMC AG – All Rights Reserved----PLUS: Whenever you're ready... here are 3 ways I can help you in your investment Journey:1. eBooks that cover key topics that you need to know about In my eBooks, I put together some key discoveries and things I have learnt during the more than 3 decades I have worked in the Trend Following industry, which I hope you will find useful. Click Here2. Daily Trend Barometer and Market Score One of the things I'm really proud of, is the fact that I have managed to published the Trend Barometer and Market Score each day for more than a decade...as these tools are really good at describing the environment for trend following managers as well as giving insights into the general positioning of a trend following strategy! Click Here3. Other Resources that can help youAnd if you are hungry for more useful resources from the trend following world...check out some precious resources that I have found over the years to be really valuable. Click HerePrivacy PolicyDisclaimer

Origins hosts Nick Chirls (GP, Asylum Ventures) and Beezer Clarkson (LP, LGT Capital Partners) unpack their recent conversation with Thomas Kristensen, Beezer's new colleague at LGT Capital Partners. They discuss what it actually takes to merge investing teams, why the endowment model still matters, and how a platform built on 700+ years of institutional history changes how you think about surviving venture cycles.For a monthly roundup of the latest venture insights, including the newest Origins episodes, subscribe to the OpenLP newsletter – delivered straight to your inbox: https://subscribe.openlp.vcCHAPTERS:[00:00] Welcome to Origins[00:44] Thomas Episode Takeaways[01:06] LP "Co-Founder Dating" - How Beezer & Thomas Built Alignment[01:42] Culture Fit Without the Questionnaire[04:35] Surviving Venture Cycles[06:24] The Endowment Model Revisited[07:41] Why LGT's Longevity Is a Competitive Advantage[09:38] What LPs Should Offer GPs Beyond CapitalLearn more about OpenLP: https://openlp.vcLearn more about Asylum Ventures: https://asylum.vcLearn more about LGT Capital Partners: https://www.lgtcp.com

Michelle Knudsen is Chief Investment Officer of NYU, where she oversees the university's $8 billion endowment. Michelle joined NYU two years ago, after fourteen years as an allocator at Partners Capital and the Mellon Foundation, with a mandate to build a best-in-class endowment from a clean sheet of paper. Our conversation traces Michelle's lessons learned working at Goldman Sachs, a growing OCIO, and a foundation that shaped her investment philosophy and views on portfolio construction, risk management, and manager selection. We then turn to the transformation of NYU's investment office from the ground up across governance, portfolio strategy, investment process, and the team. Along the way, we discuss manager selection, emerging managers, venture capital, hedge funds, AI, stress tests, and what it takes to build an enduring investment organization. Any leader should see for themselves the benefits of elite coaching. Try ALEX: tryalex.admiredleadership.com. Learn more about our Strategic Investments: OWL. Learn More Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Access Transcript with Premium Membership   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠)  

What did the Nauvoo Temple endowment look like in its earliest form? In this episode of Mormonism Live, Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon examine one of the earliest published firsthand accounts of the Nauvoo Temple ceremony: Catherine Lewis’s 1848 narrative. Written only a few years after the events it describes, Lewis’s account provides a… Read More »Mormon Endowment’s Earliest Historical Form !

What did the Nauvoo Temple endowment look like in its earliest form? In this episode of Mormonism Live, Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon examine one of the earliest published firsthand accounts of the Nauvoo Temple ceremony: Catherine Lewis’s 1848 narrative. Written only a few years after the events it describes, Lewis’s account provides a… Read More »Mormon Endowment’s Earliest Historical Form ! The post Mormon Endowment’s Earliest Historical Form ! appeared first on Mormon Discussions Podcasts - Full Lineup.

What did the Nauvoo Temple endowment look like in its earliest form? In this episode of Mormonism Live, Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon examine one of the earliest published firsthand accounts of the Nauvoo Temple ceremony: Catherine Lewis’s 1848 narrative. Written only a few years after the events it describes, Lewis’s account provides a remarkable window into the temple rituals, secrecy, and theological ideas circulating during the Nauvoo period. Together we’ll explore:The earliest known form of the Mormon endowment Washing and anointing ordinancesNew names, signs, tokens, and the veilThe Garden of Eden drama and progression through the kingdomsHow Lewis connects temple secrecy with plural marriageHeber C. Kimball’s role in her narrativeThe Law of Adoption and priesthood authorityEarly teachings surrounding Native Americans and “white and delightsome”How Lewis’s account compares with William Clayton, the Nauvoo Expositor, John C. Bennett, Martha Brotherton, and other contemporary sources We’ll also examine Catherine Lewis herself—what we know, what we don’t know, and how historians evaluate the credibility of an early eyewitness whose account repeatedly intersects with other Nauvoo-era evidence. Whether you’re interested in Mormon history, the development of temple worship, or the origins of plural marriage, this episode takes a careful, source-based approach to one of the most significant primary documents from the Nauvoo period. If you enjoy this work and would like to support Mormonism Live and the work of Mormon Discussion Inc., please consider making a tax-deductible donation: https://donorbox.org/mormonism-live Looking for one-on-one support as you navigate a faith transition, religious trauma, or life after a high-demand religion? Bill Reel’s trauma-informed coaching: https://www.awakenandthrive.coach If this episode was valuable, please: Subscribe to the channelLike the videoLeave a comment with your thoughtsShare it with someone interested in Mormon history MormonismLive #MormonHistory #JosephSmith #NauvooTemple #TempleEndowment #PluralMarriage #Polygamy #HeberCKimball #WilliamClayton #RadioFreeMormon #BillReel #LDSHistory #ChurchHistory #MormonDiscussion #FaithTransition

Stewart Alsop sits down with investor and entrepreneur Adnan Hassan on the Crazy Wisdom Podcast to explore his thesis on creating a small state asset class, using evolutionary insights from asteroids, dinosaurs, and mycelium as a framework for understanding resilient systems. Hassan brings his background in Silicon Valley technology, New York and Washington finance, and sovereign funds—including senior leadership roles at the World Bank—to explain why 162 of the world's 200 states are actually small states with populations under 12 million, and why these distributed, autonomous entities might be best positioned to survive the coming global shocks from AI, currency disruption, and the wobbling international order. For more information about Hassan's work, visit www.sac-holding.com (SAC stands for Small State Asset Class), where you can find two-minute videos explaining his approach to building this new financial architecture.Timestamps00:00 Introduction and the asteroid, dinosaur, mycelium thesis as a framework for understanding evolutionary survival patterns across billions of years05:00 Global order institutions are wobbling while currency systems evolve and AI emerges, creating simultaneous shocks that favor adaptable networked systems over large centralized structures10:00 Small states defined as populations under 12 million represent 162 of 200 global economies, contradicting assumptions that most nations are large centralized powers15:00 States behave as selfish entities seeking regulatory control while individuals seek autonomy, creating tension as the Westphalian system undergoes fundamental transformation20:00 Cooperation versus competition in human systems, examining how KYC requirements and state surveillance are expanding globally including in America and Argentina25:00 Small states are most interested in rule-based global order because they need protection from larger powers, unlike powerful nations that prefer unconstrained action30:00 Of the twenty richest countries by per capita GDP, seventeen are small states, yet no small state asset class exists in financial markets35:00 Uncorrelated assets provide diversification protection for investors, while small states offer geographic distribution across Caribbean, Africa, Europe, Gulf, and Pacific regions40:00 Cross-border family business collaboration between small states will increase, leading to knowledge sharing and a proposed Davos for small states event45:00 The individual sits at the core of this framework, with AI enabling creative minds in small places to access world-class resources previously impossible50:00 Demonstration of accessible technology costing only ten dollars shows how AI removes barriers, allowing creativity to become the distinguishing factor for entrepreneurs globallyKey Insights1. Adnan Hassan presents a thesis grounded in billions of years of evolutionary data, arguing that systems which survive major shocks share common characteristics: they are autonomous, networked, cooperative, resilient, and lack single points of failure. He uses the asteroid strike that killed the dinosaurs as his central metaphor, noting that while massive dinosaurs went extinct, smaller organisms like mycelium, ants, bees, and marsupials survived because of their distributed and adaptable nature. Hassan believes we are currently experiencing a similar asteroid-level shock to our global systems through the simultaneous disruption of the rule-based global order, currency systems, and artificial intelligence, all happening at once over the next three to five years.2. Hassan identifies 162 out of 200 global states and economies as small states, defined as having populations under 12 million people. This number surprises most people, including sophisticated observers who typically guess around 60 or 70. Even more striking, 17 of the 20 richest countries by per capita GDP are small states, representing 85 percent of the wealthiest nations. These small states have disproportionate resources to deploy internationally and the greatest interest in maintaining a rule-based global order since they have the most to lose from chaos and cannot rely on size or military power for protection.3. The current global institutional framework established after World War Two, including the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO, is fundamentally wobbling and reaching the end of an era. Hassan argues that states are inherently selfish creatures addicted to regulatory sovereignty and control, but the systems designed to give these states structure and credibility are now failing. This represents the first major restructuring of the global order since the post-World War Two period, which itself followed 400 years of colonial systems. The transition period will be characterized by significant chaos and convulsions throughout the global system.4. Hassan advocates for creating a new small states asset class in financial markets, which does not currently exist despite small states representing the majority of countries and the wealthiest per capita economies. This asset class would provide large institutional investors like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds with globally diversified, potentially uncorrelated assets while simultaneously supporting political and economic structures that embody the evolutionary principles of survival through distributed, autonomous, networked cooperation. The small states asset class represents both sound evolutionary strategy and pragmatic investment opportunity.5. Technology without philosophy is efficiency without purpose, a concern Hassan raised as early as 1994 when he helped prototype the first electronic trading market on the internet. He witnessed the naive optimism of Silicon Valley technologists who believed simply throwing tools over the wall would create a better world, but this approach made both good and bad activities more efficient. Social media demonstrated this danger by efficiently creating disruption and loss of trust in political systems. Hassan warns that the same mistake is being made with AI, where powerful tools are being deployed without adequate philosophical framework or consideration of consequences.6. Small states and their leading families will find more common language and shared understanding with each other across geographic boundaries than with larger neighboring states. A family business in Montevideo has an easier conversation with counterparts in Singapore or New Zealand than with businesses in Sao Paulo because small state actors recognize each other's unique realities and circumstances. Hassan plans to create a Davos for small states in 2027 to facilitate this knowledge sharing among the mycelium colony, allowing different nodes to exchange innovations and strategies across the distributed global network of small state actors.7. The optimistic future involves unleashing individual creativity globally by giving people access to AI-enabled tools that provide world-class legal, financial, and consulting advice in their language of choice. The solopreneur can now become a conglomerate, with individuals no longer constrained by lack of access to execution machinery. Hassan envisions young people in places like Gabon, Swaziland, or Uruguay having the same access to sophisticated business infrastructure as those in traditional power centers, with the distinguishing factor being creativity of mind rather than geographic or institutional privilege. Small states can pivot faster on regulatory frameworks, sometimes achieving in a dinner meeting what takes large states three years of legislative, executive, and judicial wrangling.

On today's show, Kelly Kenoyer discusses her months-long investigation into alleged morale issues in Wilmington City Hall. And Rachel Keith sits down to discuss her recent reporting on the Upperman family's decision to stop supporting UNCW scholarships over the university's anti-DEI policy, plus her recent efforts to track the $20 million nursing pipeline grant.

6/13/26, Megan Zinn -- Co-Host Nancy Gertner, U.S. Dst Ct Judge (ret) & Harvard Law Professor: what the recent Supreme Court's recent decisions mean for democracy, the future, & all of us. Daniel Mason, the superlative, award-winning novelist on a nationwide book tour -- tonight at the Odyssey Books in South Hadley-- on “Country People.” It's Mayors Monday w/ Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia: the ban/moratorium on data centers in his city & the $2million/yr in tax revenues one (!) could bring; then, summer in the City. “And Death Shall Have No Dominion”— the community's response this weekend. Kemper Carlsen, Clinical Director, Fisher Home Hospice in Amherst: hospice & end-of- life care—what it is; also, their 20th anniversary & a $100,000 endowment campaign.

David Rivard is a renowned poet with seven books of poetry to his credit. His newest is called “Some of You Will Know”. His other books incude “Standoff”, “Otherwise Elsewhere”, “Sugartown”, “Bewitched Playground”, “Wise Poison”, and “Torque”. His work has won the PEN/New England Prize in poetry, the James Laughlin Prize from the Academy of American Poets, and he has been a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize. He's also received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Civitella Ranieri Foundation.  My featured song is “Heat 2007”, from the album Prisoners Of Love. Spotify link. —------------------------------------ The Follow Your Dream Podcast:Top 1% of all podcasts with Listeners in 200 countries! Click here for Start Here Click here for All Episodes  Click here for Guest List  Click here for Guest Testimonials Click here for Pillars Click here for Robert's Project Grand Slam Click here to Subscribe  Click here to receive our Email Updates Click here to Rate and Review the podcast —---------------------------------------- CONNECT WITH DAVID:www.davidrivard.net —------------------------------------ ROBERT'S NEWEST RELEASE:“THE BUZZ” - Ft. Darius de Haas (vocals) and Dave Eggar (Celo). Short, Sweet and Totally Different CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL VIDEO CLICK HERE FOR ALL LINKS —-------------------------------------- Audio production: Jimmy RavenscroftKymera FilmsConnect with the Follow Your Dream Podcast:Website - www.followyourdreampodcast.comFollow Robert's band, Project Grand Slam, and his music:Website - www.projectgrandslam.com    

Open Discussion!

Alma the younger was a wicked idolatrous man, a great hindrance to the church going about secretly, flattering away the hearts of the people unto dissension. In our day, wicked miserable men publicly flatter away the hearts of the people who could otherwise be born of God if they would awake, arise, repent and be healed. How will the wise virgins stand in holy places and be not moved? Come, listen, closer to the spiritual rebirth of Alma the Younger found in Mosiah 27 and Alma 36.  Come and learn the Doctrine of Christ.  TheRedemptionOfZion.org 

Preview for Later Today: Judy Dempsey. Resident Specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Berlin, specializing in European populist movements, German politics, and regional security. She examines the political exploitation of Volkswagen layoffs by the AfD (Alternative for Germany) and the party's lack of viable economic solutions, and monitors the rise of the AfD in polls and their opposition to NATO, the EU, and military conscription.

We're back to December Spoiler Stream WoBs, just in time for the end of June, right? At least we get through a lot more of them this time! This episode we have Eric (Chaos), Ian (Weiry), Evgeni (Argent), and Adim (AAKS). Cosmere Princess Reading: https://wob.coppermind.net/events/547-fanx-2025/#e16943 Chapters: 0:00:00 Introductions 0:03:05 Transportation, Speed of Light 0:13:36 Autonomy is a bit Dominion-y 0:23:37 Why does silver nullify shades and spores 0:26:35 Does Ed have true Vaxilian heritage? 0:28:29 Did Odium hijack Braize's original purpose? 0:37:47 Relationship between Charred and Inquisitors 0:50:32 What was the scene that was twenty years in the making? 0:55:54 Were Aona and Skai ever a couple? 0:58:33 Rall Elorim in RoW 1:02:20 Silverlight connected to Reason 1:03:31 Dragon Vessels 1:06:45 Magical knacks in the cosmere 1:11:14 Pregnant dragons changing forms 1:15:14 Nightblood not chipping other Honorblades 1:24:48 Book five's ending if Odium was Rayse still 1:35:28 Hemalurgy and the Sleepless 1:36:37 Unoathed granting Surges 1:42:20 Final Mistborn era and Hoid's apprentices 1:45:12 Endowment and Valor's relationship 1:47:01 Nightblood granting all Surges 1:51:46 Who's That Cosmere Character

Jason Fertitta – CEO & Partner, Americana Partners Jason Fertitta shares how Americana Partners grew from a $2.6B breakaway team to a $13B+ enterprise by focusing on ownership, enterprise value, strategic acquisitions, and long-term growth. In Summary Many advisors view independence as the ultimate objective: a chance to gain control, improve economics, and build a business on their own terms. For Jason Fertitta, independence was only the beginning. Louis Diamond speaks with the CEO and Founding Partner of Americana Partners about the firm's evolution from a $2.6 billion breakaway team in 2019 to a national enterprise managing more than $13 billion today. The conversation explores the decisions that fueled that growth, the mindset required to build long-term enterprise value, and why Jason believes advisors should evaluate success through the lens of net worth rather than annual income. Along the way, they discuss recruiting, acquisitions, private equity, professional management, and the tradeoffs that come with building something intended to outlast its founders. The Storyline The independent channel has matured. A decade ago, many advisors pursued independence primarily for greater autonomy, higher payouts, and control over the client experience. Today, a growing number are approaching the decision differently—viewing independence as a platform for building enterprise value, attracting capital, completing acquisitions, and creating businesses that can scale beyond the founders themselves. Jason Fertitta's journey reflects that evolution. When he and his partners left Morgan Stanley in 2019, Americana launched with approximately $2.6B in client assets and a vision to build a nationally recognized wealth management firm. Seven years later, the firm oversees more than $13B, employs roughly 100 people, operates across multiple markets, has completed several acquisitions, and brought on Lovell Minnick Partners as its first institutional investor. Throughout the conversation, Jason offers a transparent look at the realities of enterprise building. That includes reinvesting profits rather than maximizing income, hiring professional management long before it feels necessary, embracing acquisitions as a growth strategy, and making decisions based on long-term value creation rather than short-term economics. For advisors considering what comes after independence, the episode provides a practical framework for thinking about ownership, scale, capital, and the future value of their business. About the Build, Grow & Transact Series for Advisors Build, Grow & Transact explores what happens after independence. The series features advisors and firm leaders who viewed independence not as a destination, but as the foundation for building something larger. Some launched firms from scratch. Others scaled through recruiting, acquisitions, or strategic partnerships. Many eventually faced decisions around capital, ownership, succession, or liquidity. While every story is different, they share a common thread: a willingness to think beyond the transition itself and focus on creating long-term enterprise value. Through candid conversations with founders, builders, and industry leaders, the series examines the decisions, tradeoffs, and lessons that come with growing an advisory business into an enduring enterprise. For advisors contemplating independence, actively building a firm, or considering what comes next, Build, Grow & Transact offers a look at the paths others have taken—and what they've learned along the way. > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why did Americana grow from $2.6 billion to more than $13 billion? (06:16)Jason explains how a combination of organic growth, advisor recruiting, acquisitions, and long-term strategic planning helped accelerate the firm's expansion. Why do clients often do more business with independent advisors? (12:17)Jason shares his perspective on why clients frequently deepen relationships after an advisor leaves a wirehouse environment. What role have alternatives played in Americana's growth strategy? (14:40)The discussion explores how differentiated investment access can help advisors stand apart in an increasingly commoditized marketplace. When is it time to build a professional management team? (18:36)Jason explains why Americana invested heavily in leadership, operations, and infrastructure from the very beginning. Why did Americana bring in private equity capital? (25:16)A candid discussion about growth capital, M&A opportunities, and the decision to partner with Lovell Minnick Partners. How do you evaluate enterprise value versus annual income? (20:16)Jason offers one of the episode's most important lessons: building wealth through ownership can look very different than maximizing current compensation. What makes a successful acquisition target? (39:51)Jason outlines how Americana evaluates M&A opportunities and how acquisitions fit into the broader client experience. Is it better to build your own firm or join an existing platform? (45:40)The conversation closes with Jason's perspective on the trade-offs between launching independently and joining a scaled independent enterprise. Topics Covered Enterprise value creation Independence and ownership Organic growth strategies Advisor recruiting RIA acquisitions Private equity partnerships Professional management teams Alternative investments Family office services Building a national wealth management firm Key Takeaways Independence can be a starting point for building an enterprise rather than the final objective. Long-term wealth creation often stems from ownership and equity appreciation, not from maximizing annual income. Reinvesting profits into leadership, infrastructure, and talent can accelerate enterprise value. Organic growth and acquisitions can complement one another when supported by a clear strategy. Outside capital can be a growth catalyst when aligned with management's long-term vision. The most scalable firms are often built around client needs rather than predefined acquisition targets. Advisors have more options than ever before, ranging from building independently to joining established platforms. https://youtu.be/_12jZJFsi4U Quotable Moments “Even to this day, I don't make anywhere near the amount of income that I made when I was on Wall Street. But my net worth is up tenfold.” “If you want to create value for yourself and your partners and grow your balance sheet, you can do it in a much more tax-efficient way in the independent world.” “I've never thought about how much of the company I own. I've thought about what my slice is worth.” “We want to build something our children would be proud to say we helped create.” FAQs Why are more advisors viewing independence as a business-building opportunity? The independent channel increasingly offers opportunities to create enterprise value, pursue acquisitions, attract capital, and build scalable businesses beyond a traditional advisory practice. How can advisors increase the enterprise value of their firms? Enterprise value is often driven by factors such as growth, profitability, leadership depth, recurring revenue, client demographics, infrastructure, and scalability. What role does private equity play in wealth management firms? Private equity can provide capital, strategic guidance, operational expertise, and acquisition support while helping firms accelerate growth initiatives. How do RIAs use acquisitions to grow? Many firms use acquisitions to expand geographically, add specialized capabilities, deepen client services, and accelerate asset growth. Why are professional management teams becoming more common among RIAs? As firms scale, dedicated leadership across operations, finance, compliance, and business management enables advisors to focus more effectively on clients and growth. Is launching an independent firm always the best path? Not necessarily. Some advisors prefer to build their own enterprise, while others may achieve their goals more effectively by joining an established independent platform that already provides scale and infrastructure. The independent channel increasingly offers opportunities to create enterprise value, pursue acquisitions, attract capital, and build scalable businesses beyond a traditional advisory practice. Enterprise value is often driven by factors such as growth, profitability, leadership depth, recurring revenue, client demographics, infrastructure, and scalability. Private equity can provide capital, strategic guidance, operational expertise, and acquisition support while helping firms accelerate growth initiatives. Many firms use acquisitions to expand geographically, add specialized capabilities, deepen client services, and accelerate asset growth. As firms scale, dedicated leadership across operations, finance, compliance, and business management enables advisors to focus more effectively on clients and growth. Not necessarily. Some advisors prefer to build their own enterprise, while others may achieve their goals more effectively by joining an established independent platform that already provides scale and infrastructure. Related Resources From Ex-Morgan Stanley Advisor to One of the Biggest Breakaway Stories of 2019 with Jason Fertitta (Podcast Episode) Intentional Growth: How Top Advisors Build Businesses That Last (Article) M&A Readiness Assessment (Tool) Guest Bio Jason Fertitta Jason is currently Chief Executive Officer / Founding Partner of Americana Partners. Jason was a Managing Director in Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Division for eleven years. He joined Morgan Stanley in 2008 after six years with Lehman Brothers High Net Worth Division. Prior to joining Lehman Brothers, Jason worked six years for Texas Direct. Jason serves on the Board of The Good Samaritan Foundation and Endowment and the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Jason attended St. Edwards University in Austin. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… Build, Grow & Transact: Americana's $12B Path from Breakaway to Enterprise A conversation with Louis Diamond and Jason Fertitta, CEO & Partner at Americana Partners.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Build, Grow & Transact: Americana's $12B Path from Breakaway to Enterprise. It's a conversation with Jason Fertitta, CEO and partner of Americana Partners. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is the Diamond Podcast for financial advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors, and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven, and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement, and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Louis Diamond: Independence is often viewed as the finish line. Break away, gain control, own the business, and enjoy the economics that come with it. But, for some advisors, going independent is just the beginning. That’s the idea behind this new series called Build, Grow, and Transact, featuring advisors who saw independence not as a destination, but as the first chapter of a business building story. And there will be some familiar names along the way, including our first guest who was on our show back in 2020, talking about what was at the time, one of the industry’s breakaway moves. That’s Jason Fertitta, CEO and founding partner of Americana Partners. When Jason and his partners left Morgan Stanley in 2019, they started Americana with approximately 2.6 billion in client assets, and a vision that extended well beyond becoming a successful independent firm. Today, Americana oversees more than 12 billion, has expanded nationally, completed multiple acquisitions, built out a professional management team, and brought on institutional capital to support its next phase of growth. What makes Jason’s perspective valuable that he’s now experienced independence through several different lenses as a breakaway advisor, as a founder, as a builder of enterprise value, and now as the leader of a firm, actively pursuing acquisitions and recruiting talent from across the industry. We talk about the decisions that fueled Americana’s growth, why Jason has always viewed the business through a long-term lens, what changed when private equity entered the picture, and why maximizing enterprise value often requires a very different mindset than maximizing current income. For advisors who think independence is a destination, Jason’s story offers a look at what can happen when it’s treated as a starting point instead, so let’s get to it. Jason, thanks for coming back on our show today. Jason Fertitta: Pleasure to be here. Thanks for inviting me. Louis Diamond: You got it. Yeah, you’re our first guest in our new subseries, so you should feel honored. And I’m honored too, because the last time we had you on the show, Americana was about a year old, you’re navigating COVID, and all those challenges. But, for listeners who may not remember the episode, can you give us a quick version of the origin story of Americana, and what the firm looked like when you first launched it? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, I believe if I’m remembering correctly, I was in Colorado talking to you guys, and it was right after we launched, so that was a fun but stressful time. I think at the time that we launched, it was certainly the road less traveled. Most teams go from one wirehouse to another. We had an entrepreneurial itch. There was 11 of us that started the firm. We actually launched the firm from this exact building that we’re in here, but all of this was under construction. We were in temporary space one floor below on card tables, and pizza boxes, and all the things that you can envision when you think of a startup. But, yeah, we weighed all of our options in terms of going from one firm to another, staying where we were, and had a lot of talks with ourselves, and our spouses, and they were all very supportive. When you do something like this, you’re certainly scratching the entrepreneurial itch that I think is required for somebody that wants to try and build their own company. And I think we’re all satisfying that itch in different ways. We all had a lot of other outside business interests. I’m passionate about the restaurant industry, because it’s what I grew up in as a kid. And so, had opened some restaurants with some chefs that I really admire, and were doing things like that to scratch the itch, but there’s no other way to do it than doing that in your profession. And so, we decided to launch the firm. We also just felt like Texas being such a wealthy state, there really wasn’t a regionally dominant RIA from here. There’s a lot of big RIAs in the Northeast, and the Northwest, and the West Coast. And we just felt like Texas was ready to hopefully be able to support the concept of launching it from the state, and then expanding it out regionally and nationally from here. Those are all thoughts in our heads and dreams and we’ve worked really hard to get to where we are, but I think we’re in a great spot right now for another leg of growth. Louis Diamond: Amazing. I would say that plan has certainly worked out. When you were on our show last in 2019, the firm was at about 2.6 billion at time of launch. And now, I saw in news articles and your ADV, it’s north of 12 billion, but I’m sure it’s even larger now. Can you walk through just what’s the makeup of the firm today? How many partners and advisors? What’s the profile of the end client? What markets are you in, in and around Texas or around the country? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, so today we’re roughly a hundred employees, right at 13 billion in AUM. I would say we have six offices, Houston, Austin, Dallas, Midland, Beverly Hills, and Nashville. We have about 30 advisors, 30 financial advisors, and our average account size I would say is right around $20 million. That’s not a rule, it’s just the way it is. We have some wonderful accounts that are two or three million, and we have some great accounts that are well over a billion. And in terms of the makeup of the firm, since the time we’ve spoken, and we’ll get into this later, but we have run in private equity, we have about nine families that are owners of the firm with us. It’s really families, private equity, and employees. That’s the cap table currently. Louis Diamond: Very cool. As far as building the firm geographically, for the offices of Texas, that makes sense to your earlier comment about wanting to build a Texas dominant or a regionally dominant firm. But, how’d you land in Beverly Hills and Nashville? That’s a little bit different. Jason Fertitta: Yeah, it is. I think so much of where we’re going is secondary to who we’re partnering with. I think we would go anywhere in the country if we had the right partner in that city. We’re not necessarily saying we have to be in Atlanta. Let’s find the right partners in Atlanta. It’s more about, we found the right partners in Atlanta, so we’re going to Atlanta. And you meet these people everywhere. Everyone has their own Rolodex inside of our firm. Sometimes it’s an employee here that has a relationship with someone that wants to break away and be part of an independent firm. Sometimes it’s me. There’s a lot of golf DNA in our firm, so we’ve met a ton of people through the incredible game of golf. In fact, last weekend we just hosted our first Americana Cub Golf Tournament where we took over an entire club, and invited 40 strategic invitations to people that could be helpful to our firm. I would say it’s really just networking, trying to find like-minded advisors that were very big at putting the client at the center of every decision you make. A lot of times you’ll come across of an advisor that financially looks really good on paper, but they’re maybe not always doing what’s right by the client. We run from those situations. We’d rather have a financial advisor that perhaps statistically is inferior to that other one on paper from a P&L perspective, but we feel like it’s doing what’s right by the client in the decisions. And that’s usually the main factor for us in seeking out the right partners. Louis Diamond: I love that. And one of the premises of this new subseries of ours is about growing, and then, of course, recognizing that value through some sort of monetization. To me, the star of your show is your insanely impressive growth, which I would assume comes from both organic means, and also from inorganic, whether through M&A, or recruiting teams from your predecessor firms, or from other wirehouses. Can you talk a little bit about the breakdown of the two growth channels, and how you pursue both, organic and then inorganic growth? Jason Fertitta: Yeah. Well, I think organic growth, the preference for anyone that’s in our sea, because you don’t have to pay for organic growth. It’s just you have to expose your platform to potential clients, and it has to be differentiated enough for them to move assets from another firm to yours. And I would tell you, I think we do a really good job at that. We’ve built an incredible platform that has, and enables a financial advisor to have all the same arrows in the quiver that a big firm has. We’ve got an incredible alts department. We’ve got an incredible CIO that produces great research. We got incredible in-house portfolio managers, both in the core equity space, but then also the municipal bond space. We have an incredible external manager platform that has everything from cash management on steroids, to venture capital investing, to co-investing, to direct investments into companies. We have this really great platform. We also recognize that we want to grow through M&A as well, because there’s only so much time in the day you’re not willing to add more employees and more like-minded advisors to grow. We do both, to your point, we absolutely do both, and they’re both equally as important. On the M&A side, I would say it’s been responsible for half of our AUM growth over the last seven years, and the other half has been organic. And I think as we get bigger and bigger, that number’s going to not stay consistent. I would say that if we could grow our AUM organically by 10% per year, and then do five to seven acquisitions a year, combination of RIAs and Wall Street lift outs, I think those are good goals for us, and we’re off to a good start in trying to achieve those goals. Louis Diamond: I think if you pull off even half of that, I think your private equity sponsors, and investors, and employees would be very happy. Can we double click into the organic growth side? How do you view whether your growth rate changing organically since leaving Morgan to start the RIA? And if it has changed, what do you think are the things that are responsible for the faster growth, or slower growth if it’s slower than when you’re at Morgan? Jason Fertitta: One of the interesting secrets about being independent versus inside of a big bank is I think your clients will actually do more business with you if you’re independent. I didn’t realize that until we went independent. I had heard that before, but I was like, that may or may not be true. But, when we went independent, and every time we recruit a team from a big bank, the same thing happens. It’s like the clients are like, “What took you so long?” They’ve very much, for the most part … Now, that’s not every client, but most clients, I think prefer to be serviced by an advisor that’s conflict bringing the independent channel. There are other clients that might have a big investment banking relationship with a big bank, or something like that, like a business reason for not leaving. But, in terms of just being able to service the client from an independent channel where you’re a legal fiduciary, I think all the interest is aligned from client to service provider, and I just think it’s easier to raise money in this channel than it is at a bank. Louis Diamond: And you really think the types of clients you work with or just clients in general, the difference maker is really the conflict-free advice. Obviously, it sounds good, but I would argue that when you were at Morgan Stanley, your team was one of the top teams in the country, you had an amazing reputation, you’re probably giving similar quality advice then than you were today. How has that really manifested itself? Jason Fertitta: I always say I think you can have a great experience at a firm that is perhaps not the most prestigious, great firm in the country if you’re with the right team. And I think you can also have a horrible experience at a firm with a great reputation if you’re with the wrong team. It is my belief the most important thing from the customer’s perspective is who you’re working with. I appreciate your comments about our team, and we work very hard to deserve the reputation that you’re talking about. But, I also think that when you’re in the independent world, some of the things the banks do very well is they have great investment platforms, and a lot of due diligence in their products. I think when you’re an independent firm, you’re obviously, you don’t immediately have all of those same intangibles that a big bank has. I think it was very important for us to invest heavily into those departments inside of our firm to where we could be on some equal footing with Wall Street firms, and we have been. We have raised a lot of money for alternative managers. I think alternatives are a huge secret sauce that an independent advisor needs to have access to, because in a world where the public markets are getting more efficient and more commoditized, it’s very challenging to grow organically the way that we have without some secret sauce. And I think the secret sauce lies within the alternatives, because it’s very hard to differentiate yourself if you’re just trying to optimize someone’s public equity portfolio, and improve where they sit on the efficient frontier. I think that’s just a tough challenge. But, if you can mix in some truly differentiated alternatives where access is a big component of the value proposition, then all of a sudden, you’re bringing your clients something special, and something that’s unique. Louis Diamond: I really like that perspective. I think you’re completely right. I’ve always heard people say investments are commoditized, and it’s all about advice and planning, but I think the way you framed it about the ALFA essentially being worked out of it, so it’s the access, and it’s what you’re doing different on the investment side outside of the more basic or commoditized stuff that’s a difference maker. When you launched the firm, and I believe still today, Americana hired Dynasty Financial Partners as your infrastructure partner. Now that you’re significantly larger, you’re seven years into your independent journey, how does the relationship with Dynasty change, if at all? What do they do for you that you benefit from differently today than when you first launched? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, it would’ve been impossible for us to do what we did without Dynasty’s help. Dynasty has delivered for us in a meaningful way and they continue to. They’re a great partner. We definitely are developing our own sea legs as well, just because you have to just by virtue of the size that you get to. But, Dynasty, I think, has been incredibly innovative in terms of launching an investment bank and bringing … Dynasty’s brought us deals, which is incredible. Just in addition to being an infrastructure partner, they’ve actually provided us deal flow. They’re also, because they’re working with so many firms, you get in all sorts of situations as an independent firm, and to have someone to pick up the phone and say, “Here’s what we’re dealing with.” And they’ll say, “Oh, here are the three things you need to do. You either need to do it like this or this.” Just a lot of experience within Dynasty. I don’t know if we’re Dynasty’s biggest client or not, but I would say we’re certainly in their top three. We are looking to continue that relationship, and always having a relationship with Dynasty, but I would describe it as evolving, because our revenue is up 6X in the last six years. Louis Diamond: Amazing. That makes complete sense. The needs of the business when you are leaving a big firm is got to get the clients over, got to build the plane before it can fly, and understand how to do X, Y, and Z, to now, it’s enterprise building, and optimizing, and growing inorganically, so that makes complete sense, and very cool to hear that Dynasty has evolved or morphed the relationship to meet you where you are now. And to me, I think a big part of that is hiring professional management. That’s always a question we get. When am I big enough? When’s the right time to hire professional management, whether it’s a full-time CEO, a CFO, a COO, et cetera. I know in your case, fairly early on you hired Ron Thacker who was a regional manager from Morgan Stanley. I saw recently you hired a CFO, so you’re really professionalizing the leadership ranks. When did you know it was the right time to build a professional management team, and how did you think about that evolution? Jason Fertitta: We knew from day one that’s what we wanted to do. I think when you go independent, there’s a couple of different schools of thought. One school of thought is I can go independent. I’m not going to really have a boss. I’ll be my own boss. I may or may not grow the business. I’m going to run it in a way that’s lean. I might be able to have a little bit more of a take home because there’s not a third hand in the cookie jar in terms of the bank, and it’s a great lifestyle. I think that’s one school of thought and I think that’s great. That was not our school of thought. Our school of thought is we had a belief that in this country, there’s going to emerge five to 10 regionally dominant RIAs, and these regionally dominant RIAs were going to enjoy economies of scale, and they were going to compete with Wall Street. And in order to do that, we had to reinvest a lot of our profit into our business through building this management team that you’re referencing. Even to this day, I don’t make anywhere near the amount of income that I made when I was on Wall Street, but I’m not, and it’s because we’re building equity value, and we’re building something that will last, and we reinvest a lot of our cash flow into professionalizing the management team, and then being able to deliver on that promise to the financial advisors that are here that you’re going to have a platform, that when you walk in the room, you’re going to be able to compete with Wall Street. And so, that’s always been our goal, which is not necessarily everybody’s goal when they go independent, because it’s a lifestyle decision really. I work way harder today than I worked when I was at a Wall Street firm. Louis Diamond: It’s so interesting. Two threads I want to tug on from what you said. The first one is I think just the comment you made that you’re making less today when the business is significantly larger than it was when you’re at Morgan Stanley, you’re working harder. I think even that dynamic is going to feel like a shock to a lot of people, right? If you’re working harder, the business is doing six times more revenue than it was at Morgan Stanley, that doesn’t seem like a fair trade. How do you think about that relative to the equity value that you’re amassing? Was that always the plan, or is that just something you’ve leaned into as the firm has grown and scaled? Jason Fertitta: Well, the third component you left out is my net worth is up 10X- Louis Diamond: There you go. Jason Fertitta: … whereas if I would’ve stayed at a Wall Street firm, and so are all the employees here. If it’s about that, I can tell you that we checked that box. Americana is very valuable, and we’re happy about that. It’s really just about how you want to create that, right? If you want to create it through income, and pay a lot of taxes along the way, stay at the Wall Street firm. But, if you want to create value for yourself and your partners, and grow your balance sheet, you can do it in a much more tax efficient way in the independent world. And I’m light years ahead of where I would’ve been if I would’ve stayed at a Wall Street firm. Louis Diamond: I think that’s the coolest realization I think someone can have, right? We always say it’s like, what do you value more? Is it the short-term liquidity, or certainty of getting a big upfront recruiting deal at ordinary income, or staying where you are and keep making your 50% payout, take advantage of your firm’s retire in place program? And for many people, that’s what they value. But, for you, I think you very clearly and transparently articulated that, yeah, I might make less, but what really matters is my net worth. It’s how much I’m actually netting for my family in the long run. For people who want to play the long game, really buy into that concept, it sounds like following your path would be ideal, but it may not be for everyone. Jason Fertitta: It’s a much better path, and I’m living proof of it, and not only am I living proof of it, all of my partners are here, and everybody that owns equity in Americana is living proof of it. Louis Diamond: Amazing. You said you’re working more now than when you’re at Morgan. How has your day-to-day, or day in the life changed? What types of activities are you doing more or less of, and how do you balance everything? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, it’s hard to balance everything, it is. But, I would say that one of the unique things about Americana is the founders are all financial advisors. We aren’t consultants that came out of the consulting world, we’re financial advisors. I’m still a financial advisor. I still cover clients. I would say a third of my time is actually covering the house accounts here with some of my original partners. A third of my time is firm related stuff, and then, a third of my time is M&A, and that’s not only M&A, but helping the advisors that are here grow their business also. And so, I come across a lot of leads and opportunities. I’m not really taking them for the house account book or myself. I’m finding the right advisors that I feel I could service the clients the best, and then I’m flipping them to them and sitting second chair and I’ve seen some amazing growth to their businesses by just being able to send them leads. Louis Diamond: Yeah. I think that’s always like the tug of war for … I think most founders of RIAs in this industry, they were advisors themselves. They were the rainmakers, or they still are, but there’s definitely some folks who, whether because of lack of time, or lose the spark or passion for working with clients, that they pivot to being full-time CEO, or we’ve even seen people go the other way where they say, “I was the CEO. I really just want to be an advisor, or just do M&A, and I’m going to hire a CEO.” It’s really cool to hear how you split up your time, and you’re able to do it all. And I’m sure it’s not perfect. I’m sure your family wishes they saw you more, and et cetera, but it sounds like you’re able to really pursue your different passions. Jason Fertitta: All those three activities are very fun, and they keep everyday interesting, and you don’t necessarily know at what points in the day you’re going to be working on which bucket, and there’s a lot of blend and overlap, but we spend a lot of time here working on behalf of our clients, and the firm, and every day is an adventure, but it's fun. It’s a blast. Louis Diamond: Absolutely. Well, let’s spend some time talking about your fairly recent capital raise. In October of 2024, Americana announced that PE firm Lovell Minnick Partners, the firm’s first outside institutional investor was coming in to take a majority stake in the firm. Can you take us back to that decision? I’m sure it’s still clearly vivid. Maybe talk through it, and when did you first start to think seriously about bringing in capital? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, so probably at the end of ’23, we looked down, and there was $100 million worth of potential M&A that was fairly actionable that we could do. And the other M&A events we did were small deals, 10, $20 million sometimes, but firms with three, 400 in AUM to 600 million in AUM. We were doing deals that size, and we’re just passing the hat, and saying, okay, to the families that were in our cap table and to ourselves, who wants to write a check? The cap table was changing all the time based on people’s buy-in and M&A transaction. But then, when you sit down, and you look at potentially $100 million of M&A, if every deal came through that you’re in conversations around, and we owned at the time 75% of the firm, the families owned 25. If all of that M&A were to have happened, we didn’t have $75 million as employees. We were facing dilution. And then, we went to the families and said, “Hey, we don’t mind being diluted, but we got to know that if all of these came through, you guys want to invest another 100 million into this business.” And that’s when they said, “Well, we can. All the deals that you’ve done so far have been accretive and great. But, our value add to you is not M&A. It’s not underwriting. It’s not how to take this firm from four billion to 12 billion or customers. Why don’t you contemplate bringing in an institutional partner to help you round first base and go to second and third?” And so, I called a good friend, a gentleman by the name of Jimmy Dunne, who’s legendary in the world of golf and business. He’s a vice chair at Piper Sandler. I explained the situation, and he said, “Well, this is going to sound self-serving, but I think you should hire me and my firm to run a process to find your partner.” Louis Diamond: Classic investment banker. Jason Fertitta: And we did, and he worked on a very small retainer, and a contingency fee, and they helped us get ready to show the firm to the institutional world, and that took nine to 12 months of hard work to get ready. They ran the process. I think we had 30 firms sign the NDA in the October of ’24 month that you mentioned. I think we had 20 offers. And during that year, we were getting to know a lot of the people that were going to be bidding on us, and we frankly were incredibly impressed by Lovell Minnick and their success that they have had in investing in the wealth space. We were always pulling for Lovell Minnick to compete and compete well, got to run an honest process and Lovell Minnick was not the high bid, but they were a very good and well-thought-out bid that was easy for us to understand on why they were where they were. And for us, it was about how can we create value from this point forward with the right partner to really grow the firm and scale it to where we wanted it to be? And so, that was the more important driving factor in our decision to sell to Lovell Minnick. Now, of course, we wanted to sell a minority piece, but the reality is, given the activity that we had in our M&A pipeline at the time, they were going to eventually get to majority anyway. And so, I may be skipping ahead a little bit in the podcast, but I know what some of the questions are going to contemplate, and our thought was, you’re in a better position to negotiate minority rights before the transaction than later. And so, we got all of that out on the table in our negotiations with our private equity partner, and then just got married immediately instead of had this weird period of where they ultimately were going to get to majority control through M&A, and then, you have this awkward moment where that shift happens after you’re already partners. Louis Diamond: Very interesting. Was it a hard decision to give up majority control over your baby? Jason Fertitta: Definitely a lot of self-reflecting on behalf of our team and everything, but I think where we came out with it, and I’m a big believer in this, is the people that really control the business are the people that control the relationships with the clients. Lovell Minnick knows that, and we’ve never had a decision in a year and a half that we don’t all arrive at the same place. We negotiate, we study, but they know that it’s not in their best interest to try and force the management team to do something that the management team is not in agreement on, because at the end of the day, we’re servicing all of these accounts. Look, we don’t see eye to eye exactly on everything, no partners do. But, we’re generally in the same zip code on everything, and we talk things through until we all arrive at the same place that this is in the best interest of the company. And I think a big part of why that works so well for us in Lovell Minnick, and I think this is very unique in the industry, it all goes back to we all own the same share class. We’re all in the foxhole together. We all sink or swim together. There’s no way one group can win and another group can lose. We all own the exact same security. Not only do we all own the exact same security, but our employees own it. The families that are in our cap table own it. And so, every decision comes from the standpoint of how do we make decisions to benefit that security? Louis Diamond: Makes sense. It’s still a tough decision, but you lay it out, make it seem like an easy decision with the conviction you have, I think the very pure motivation to make that leap. Aside from capital to fuel M&A, what are the other things that Lovell Minnick is doing for your business to help it? Jason Fertitta: Well, Lovell Minnick, and this is another thing that was impressive to us, they’re always the first institutional capital until what’s otherwise an entrepreneurial family-owned business. They’re not afraid of building the things that you have to build to get ready to scale. They’ve seen it in every investment they’ve made. And so, that was very refreshing to us, because frankly, we wanted the help. We wanted the expertise. We’re financial advisors at heart. Like a lot of private equity firms, LMP has this third party advisory relationships with industry people, and they’ve brought those people into our firm, several sit on the board of the firm today, and they’ve just been fantastic to work with. Some have more experience with FinTech, some have more experience with HR, some have more experience with actual investment platforms and product. Some have more experience in how to help clients optimize from a tax perspective. Some have family office experience. And so, we’ve really benefited from this group of people. And I would tell you that, since they came into our world, which is about 18 months ago, we have been building a lot of things that are about to be unveiled to not only our financial advisors, but our clients. And I think that the experience is just going to continue to get better for both of those segments. Louis Diamond: Very cool. Yeah, it seems like a great fit. And I meant to ask you before, because it’s such a cool, and I think still a fairly novel concept, but what was the thinking behind having nine families, their customers or clients come in, and buy some equity in the firm? Why’d you do that? And then what’s been the outcome of that? Jason Fertitta: It was more their idea than us after we launched the firm. And this goes back to my original comments about the clients want to do more business with you when you’re independent than when you’re inside the bank. And we have a lot of clients that are entrepreneurial. And so, I think when we explained to them the reasons why we were doing this, and the reasons why we’re so excited about it, they got excited about it too, some clients, most clients. And so, what they said was, “Yeah, we’re going to move our money to it, we’re excited about it, but if there’s an opportunity, we’d also like to own a piece of the firm.” And originally, when they said that, I didn’t know if they meant that they wanted us to give them, but they wrote a check. They all wrote checks. We set an arbitrary value of the firm in the first year after we launched it. And that wasn’t a whole lot of science behind the value. It’s basically what we would’ve been paid by walking across the street, and that was the original value. And they bought into the firm, and then, Lovell Minnick really thought it was a nice novel concept that they hadn’t seen before, and they’ve embraced it. When they invested, we brought another round of clients into the firm at that valuation. I think it’s really powerful, because what’s important for us in these families is that they’re all pillars of their respective communities and they’re spread across all over the country and Mexico. We have some incredibly good reputation, great business people in Mexico City, and Monterrey, and Los Angeles, and Midland, and Dallas, and Austin, and Houston. And we’re open to the concept of when we come into new markets, finding that pillar of the community, finding that family who people ask, “Well, what do you do with your money?” We want them to say, “Well, we own our own wealth management firm. He wants to have them call you and they’ll show you what we do with our money.” And that’s a powerful part of the organic growth and the flywheel. Louis Diamond: I absolutely love that. I oftentimes have clients, especially breakaway clients talk about how cool it would be to have a client or set of clients invest in their business. But, the reasons why, I love that as part of a very consistent, repeatable strategy of identifying key influencers essentially in different markets, and then having them come into the cap table. I would assume too, the dynamic of, “Oh, you should call Jason, he’s my financial advisor, he’s great,” to, “Hey, you should come in and meet my firm.” And I feel like clients are probably much more incentivized naturally to refer friends, family, et cetera. And just the power and dynamic of that referral is probably that much better than a referral from another happy customer who’s not an investor. Jason Fertitta: Exactly. When we’re looking at coming into a new city with a new partner, to the extent they have those clients in that community, and when they join us, we have a private equity partner that embraces that strategy and concept. When we’re talking to that Wall Street advisor, and they’re interested in our business model and our plan, I think that particular part of our business model is very differentiated and intriguing to them. Louis Diamond: Amazing. You mentioned in your last answer that you have, it sounds like you have some investors in Mexico, and that you’re serving families in Mexico and Latin America as well. Can you talk about adding that capability or the openness to go international? That’s clearly a big decision. It’s a different risk profile, different client needs. What was the thought process behind taking Americana, I guess, still in the Americas, but outside of America? Jason Fertitta: Yeah. Well, I think a lot of it is growing up in Texas, there’s a lot of wonderful families from Mexico whose kids and grandkids have moved here, and our children are going to school with their children, and they’re part of our community, and I think they’re a great part of our community. And so, I just started to notice how Wall Street treated this community as just one, right? And what we were able to do is cherry-pick a few families that we knew very well that are incredibly good reputations in the cities that they’re from, and their origins are from. And there’s a high desire on behalf of not only those families, but their friends to invest into the United States into our economy. And given that a lot of their children and grandchildren live in the US, these are families that have citizens and their family inside of the US and back home in Mexico. Most of these families, they’ve been going to our colleges. A lot of these families sit on the boards of Fortune 500 companies inside of the United States. These are families that are very easy to do due diligence on, and frankly, we have learned a lot from them. They’re very sophisticated families, and so, they’ve been amazing partners, and we use Bank of New York Pershing to custody a lot of these assets, and I think they’re increasingly becoming more interested in alternatives as part of their portfolios, because I think going back 15, 20 years ago, these families were mostly stocks, bonds, and cash. But, as they continue to build out their own family offices, they’re becoming more sophisticated and interested in alternatives, so it’s really been an exciting part of our firm. Louis Diamond: Did this expansion, does it scratch the itch to go into different Latin American countries in Europe and Asia, or is that not really part of the roadmap? Jason Fertitta: Well, it’s open to the concept. Like I said, the genesis of this for us was the fact that our children go to school with their children, and we got to know several families just through our social circles here in Texas. But, I don’t think that same phenomenon would exist in Europe, other Latin American countries per se, but we’re certainly open to it, and there’s a lot going on in Latin America. There’s a lot going on and a lot of potential, so we’re open to anything that increases the footprint in the right way for Americana. Louis Diamond: Great answer. Let’s go back a little bit to talk a little bit more about your M&A strategy. You merged with or acquired Boulevard Family Wealth, which was Matt Celenza’s firm. I think Matt was the first breakaway guest on our show, and an amazing advisor. You bought Goodpasture Gray in Nashville, and more recently you bought NRT Consulting. I think from my read, three different types of firms, different geographies. How do you think about the M&A strategy? Jason Fertitta: I feel like we’re building out a firm and departments in the firm, and each of those acquisitions goes into a different department of our firm. I think Matt Celenza and Boulevard are fantastic, and they’re really good at tax optimization strategies for families, and they’re really innovative there. That is a very hot topic with all of our clients. More and more families are getting smart about the fact that not only does it matter what your returns look like. What really matters is how much of those returns you get to keep. And so, Matt and his team are incredibly sophisticated and cutting edge on tax optimization, and that's proliferating throughout our firm right now, which is I think making us even better at what we can advise and provide to our clients. I would say that’s more in the family office service and tax planning part of our firm. Goodpasture Gray’s fantastic. WL who runs that firm, or did prior to the merger, I’ve known him for 30 years. He’s a longtime family friend. His clients are in Nashville, Santa Fe, and Texas. He and my father actually used to office together. And then, ironically, he hired Dynasty to represent him to find the right partner. That’s an example where full circle Dynasty brought him back and I hadn’t talked to him for decades, but we shared a bunch of fun stories about how I used to go up in college, and hang out with he and my dad in their office. That was a great full circle experience, but WL’s just a fantastic financial advisor that does what we’ve always done. He’s just a natural fit inside of our firm. And then NRT, Chris Ginsbach and his team, they’re unbelievable. They do bookkeeping services for families. They’re not signing tax returns, but the more sophisticated these families get, some of these families have 35, to 45, to 55 different LLCs that require bookkeeping services. He’s an accountant by training, so is everyone that works there. And I think that there’s a lot of cross-pollinating with our client base that wants bookkeeping services for their needs. With all of these different M&A events, it’s trying to meet or have the ability to meet your client at wherever their pain points are. And some of your client’s pain points are in bookkeeping and accounting. Some are in tax optimization, and some are just good old-fashioned financial advice and access. And all three of those acquisitions that you described are meeting that client in a different pain point, but they’re all pain points, and they’re all important. Louis Diamond: When you’re thinking about M&A, is it like you have, these are the three areas that we want to add to the firm? Next one, making it up, we want to add tax preparation. Are you then going out to find a firm that fits the bill, or is it more so just you’re selective with who you take on, and you look for a new capability, or just like an extreme alignment with how you’re already serving clients, and then, that’s what makes a compelling deal for you? Jason Fertitta: Yeah. Most of the time, we’re getting feedback from our clients on where they need help, and that is usually the spark that starts the fire on, okay, what if we added this? It’s really I would say more based on client feedback. We don’t have estate planning attorneys inside of Americana per se. We don’t have accountants that are signing people’s tax returns inside of Americana. We get a lot of interesting opportunities from accounting firms and estate planning firms. And so, I like how we have this great referral network in place with those industries. And so, I think we’d have to think long and hard about getting into those businesses per se. Louis Diamond: Makes sense. I feel like there’s probably a version of this story, your story, where you break away, you plot along, you’re happy to not have a boss anymore, clients are happy, maybe you get to like four or five billion in assets, and you call it a win, and just throw in coast mode, but clearly you didn’t do that. You went the opposite direction. What do you think drove the ambition to keep building towards something larger? What’s really sparking you and motivating you today maybe differently, or in a more defined way than it was when you first broke? Jason Fertitta: Yeah, I would say it’s not just me, it’s all the founders, and I think all the employees. I share this and not to sound corny about it. I think everyone here wants to try and build something that his or her children would say, “My parent was one of the founders and employees of Americana Partners.” It’s like, I think when you work at a bank, you definitely care about your brand that you’re building, but this is a whole next level of care about your brand. We really care about this brand, and we want it to outlast all of us. Louis Diamond: Love that. For a successful wirehouse advisor or team that’s sitting on a really nice practice maybe similar in size or in the same realm that you had back where you were in that world, and they’re thinking about maximizing their value, what advice would you offer? Do you think your story is an outlier, or do you think it’s doable by others if they follow certain advice or principles? Jason Fertitta: I would have a two-word answer. Call us. I’m kidding. I have a much longer answer. One of the things I really respected about a certain advisor, and if he’s listening to this, he’ll know exactly who he is, but I feel awkward saying his name. When I was contemplating going independent, I talked to an entrepreneur I really admire, and I called him, and I said, “Hey, we’re thinking about doing this.” And he said, “Look, I’m going to try and convince you to join our firm, and if you don’t end up doing that, it’s fine. There’ll be no hard feelings, because we ended up launching our own firm and I would never fault you for the decision if you wanted to do that with your team.” And we thought long and hard, we almost joined his firm. It was in a very different geography so we ended up launching our own firm. I would say that if you want to do it yourself, we would respond the same way. We would give you a high five, and wish you well, and say you’ve made a great decision, and we’d be pulling for you. If you want to spend more time with your clients, and less time in building the firm, we have the firm built, and it’s fantastic, and it wasn’t without blood, sweat and tears for seven years, and we can create a transaction that is economically the same or better as launching your own firm, and you have a voice, and you have a seat at the table, because we’re still small enough to where you can help shape the direction of this firm, and we want your input. The difference is that instead of spending a third of your time interacting with financial advisors the way I do, you could spend 90% of your time interacting with your clients, instead of a third, and be part of a firm that I think has great national prospects. But, I would never fault someone for doing it themselves, because that’s what we did, and that would be hypocritical. But, I really do think that this is a better path, even if you did it yourself, or if you did it with someone like us. I think you’re choosing two better options than what you currently have. Louis Diamond: I think it’s a great perspective, and I think it’s balanced and fair too. There’s plenty of people that I speak to where their passion is building. They want to be the next Americana, right? That’s what’s going to spark them and get them out of bed. They want to do M&A, they want to be the CEO, they want to really make their mark on the industry, and that’s fine. But, I do think there’s probably more advisors out there that would love to be part of something, and they’d love equity, and they’re passionate about different things than you were passionate about when you launched the firm. And the theory of a rising tide lifts all boats, it’s like, you can do this yourself or let’s just build something bigger and better together. And just getting comfortable with the theory of you’ll own a smaller piece of the pie, but the pie is much more valuable than owning 100% or 80% of something that’s less valuable, and is going to take you in a different direction personally. I always say we’re not in the business of making judgments for people. It’s up to them to define their goals, and then, we’ll help them execute on it. But, I really like that perspective. I agree, it’s not for everyone. What you did is extremely hard, it’s a risk, it’s a big swing. But, if you have the stomach for it, and you want to take the swing, to me there’s no better time to pursue that path than today. Jason Fertitta: I agree. And I could totally see a world over the next five years where some of these advisors that join us are bigger shareholders in this firm than me, and that would be great. Louis Diamond: Interesting. Jason Fertitta: I’m with you, not only do I agree with what you’re saying, to me, I’ve never thought about how much of this company do I own? I’ve thought about what is the percentage of the company that I own, and what is it worth? I could care less if it was 25%, 12.5%, 5%. What I care is, what is that slice worth? Louis Diamond: That’s a fun way to look at it. Jason, this has been really fun. This new series Build, Grow, and Transact, this is proof of concept, but we’re going to have to do a ton of these, because the richness of detail, and whenever we have breakaway guests, we’re talking to them in the beginning when they’re still finding their feet, everything’s new and fresh. They haven’t thought about or executed on M&A and taking on capital partners. But, I feel like this is the missing ingredient where it’s a playbook for how others can be better themselves, something to shoot towards. And I really appreciate your candor and transparency, and I’m very serious, we’ll have to do this again when you’re at 25 billion, and you have even more lessons, and I’m sure battle scars to share. Jason Fertitta: No doubt. I’m for sure open to doing that. And maybe in the meantime, I see the pictures behind your head there. I’d love to come visit you in Park City and hang out and ski, or play golf, or- Louis Diamond: You got it. Jason Fertitta: All right. Thanks for your time and thank you for having me. Louis Diamond: Thanks, Jason. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful, because you take your professional responsibility seriously, and are dedicated to your clients, but are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms, or could a better option exist? Should I Stay Or Should I Go is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions, and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. Build, Grow & Transact: Americana's $12B Path from Breakaway to Enterprise A conversation with Louis Diamond and Jason Fertitta, CEO & Partner at Americana Partners.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Build, Grow & Transact: Americana's $12B Path from Breakaway to Enterprise. It's a conversation with Jason Fertitta, CEO and partner of Americana Partners. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is the Diamond Podcast for financial advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors, and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven, and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement, and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Louis Diamond: Independence is often viewed as the finish line. Break away, gain control, own the business, and enjoy the economics that come with it. But, for some advisors, going independent is just the beginning. That’s the idea behind this new series called Build, Grow, and Transact, featuring advisors who saw independence not as a destination, but as the first chapter of a business building story. And there will be some familiar names along the way, including our first guest who was on our show back in 2020, talking about what was at the time, one of the industry’s breakaway moves. That’s Jason Fertitta, CEO and foun

What does managing $600 billion teach you about risk that most investors never learn?Jeffrey Blazek, Co-CIO of Multi-Asset at Neuberger Berman, joins Prashant on VC10X to challenge the assumptions that have quietly shaped — and quietly undermined — institutional portfolios for a generation. From the macro shift that is more permanently broken than rates or geopolitics, to the asset class generating 10 to 15 percent returns with zero correlation to equities, to whether AI is the internet bubble all over again — this is one of the most substantive allocator conversations we have had on the show.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comIn this episode:— Why deglobalization is the one macro assumption that will not reverse— The difference between short-term volatility risk and the purchasing power risk that actually destroys portfolios— Why bonds have failed as a diversifier and what replaces them— Catastrophe bonds: the non-consensus case for an asset class most institutions will not touch— The $1B to $10B institutional sweet spot and why scale is not always an advantage— AI investment: real conviction, real concentration risk, and the winner-take-most bear case— What the private markets miscalibration of the last decade means for LP portfolios today— The off-script manager due diligence technique that separates process from performance— Career risk as the hidden driver of institutional conservatism— Where rates are headed and why the old fixed income playbook is goneJeffrey Blazek is Co-CIO of Multi-Asset at Neuberger Berman, a $600B global asset management firm with over 700 investment professionals across 30+ offices worldwide.Links:Neuberger - https://www.nb.com/Jeffrey on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-blazek-cfa-a0a57212Connect with Prashant: https://linkedin.com/in/choubeysahabSubscribe to VC10X newsletter - ⁠https://vc10x.beehiiv.com⁠Subscribe on YouTube - ⁠https://youtube.com/@VC10X ⁠Subscribe on Apple Podcasts - ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vc10x-investing-venture-capital-asset-management-private/id1632806986⁠Subscribe on Spotify - ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7F7KEhXNhTx1bKTBFgzv3k?si=WgQ4ozMiQJ-6nowj6wBgqQ⁠VC10X website - ⁠https://vc10x.comTimestamps:(00:00) - Preview(01:39) - Introduction to Jeffrey Blazek(03:16) - Which Macro Assumptions Are Permanently Broken Today?(05:03) - Key Drivers of Long-Term Returns Most Investors Underestimate(06:24) - Coaching Clients to Embrace Appropriate Equity Exposure(07:55) - What Real Diversification Looks Like in Practice(09:51) - How Portfolio Construction Changes as Institutions Scale(11:55) - Should Investors Change Their Approach to Equity Markets Now?(13:31) - Evaluating a New Asset Class for Permanent Allocation(15:16) - AI: A Genuine Secular Shift or a Narrative-Driven Boom?(17:26) - The Bear Case for AI: Commoditization and Concentration Risk(19:30) - Uncovering a Non-Consensus Asset Class: Catastrophe Bonds(21:09) - Common Mistakes LPs Make in Private Market Allocations(22:58) - The Key to Effective Investment Manager Selection(24:25) - Analyzing Past Portfolio Mistakes: Errors of Analysis vs. Behavior(26:24) - The Gap Between Institutional Goals and Portfolio Realities(27:38) - What Drives Over-Conservatism in Institutional Investing?(29:15) - How Investment Needs Differ Across Institutions (Hospitals vs. Endowments)(31:38) - Advising Family Capital: Avoiding Common Mistakes(33:43) - Career Lessons Learned from Navigating Market Crises(36:01) - The Most Misunderstood Risk of the 2020s(37:22) - Is the AI Boom a Repeat of the Dot-Com Bubble?(38:15) - The Three Most Important Bets for the Next Decade(40:00) - Outlook on the Future Interest Rate Environment(41:19) - Where to Find Jeffrey Blazek and Neuberger Berman

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., welcomes Karen Houghton, CEO and Founder of Infinite Giving, for a clear, lively, and highly practical conversation about endowments: what they are, why they matter, and when nonprofits should start thinking about them. Karen brings a rare mix of nonprofit leadership, technology, finance, venture capital, and board service to the topic, which means she can explain endowments without making everyone reach for a legal dictionary and a strong cup of coffee. Her big message is that nonprofits are part of the “nonprofit sector,” not the “not-profit sector,” and when organizations generate a surplus, they can use it strategically to build long-term sustainability. Bill and Karen start with the basics: an endowment is money set aside, invested, and used to provide ongoing support for an organization's mission. In practical terms, a nonprofit might invest the principal, allow it to grow, and then draw a percentage each year, often around 5%, to support operations or programs. Karen gives the example of a $10 million endowment producing roughly $500,000 each year. The goal is not to hoard money, but to create reliable, recurring support that can keep pace with inflation and serve the mission for generations. The conversation also tackles the nuts and bolts of getting started. Karen explains that endowments do not have to be wildly complicated; organizations can often begin by setting aside funds, opening an investment or brokerage account, and creating key documents such as an endowment agreement and an investment policy statement. She especially encourages small and midsize nonprofits to consider a quasi-endowment, also called a board-restricted endowment, because it gives the organization flexibility while still establishing a long-term financial framework. But she offers one very important caution: if an organization does not yet have reserve funds, the first step is not an endowment. First build the six-month emergency reserve fund. Then move from scarcity to strategy to sustainability. Bill and Karen close by connecting endowments directly to fundraising, donor intent, and organizational confidence. Karen shares a cautionary tale about a nonprofit that turned down a $1 million endowment gift because the board wanted the money for immediate use, only to watch the donor give it elsewhere to an organization that honored the donor's legacy vision. She also cites research showing that 69% of major donors are more likely to give to nonprofits that demonstrate strong leadership and clear financial strategy. The takeaway is crisp: endowments are not for every organization at every moment, but when the timing is right, they can help nonprofits honor donors, stabilize programs, attract legacy gifts, and plan in 10-year cycles instead of 10-minute panic bursts.

This week The President of The United States of America and Tech Stuff Guy discuss Trumps Birthday, UFC, Iran, Kennedy Center, G7 Summit, Newsome, NY Knicks, and more. If you enjoy the show leave a rating and review on spotify or iTunes. Join the Patreon for hours of bonus content ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.Patreon.com/MPGA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 338: Most florists have seen the AFE logo, but many don't realize just how much the American Floral Endowment impacts their business every day.In this episode, Vonda and Lori sit down with Debi Chedester, Executive Director of the American Floral Endowment, to uncover the research, scholarships, internships, grants, and industry initiatives happening behind the scenes that help florists succeed.Debi shares her unique journey into the floral industry, what surprised her most about the people who make it special, and how AFE has spent 65 years investing in the future of flowers. From flower quality and consumer research to sustainability, travel grants, and recruiting the next generation of industry professionals, this conversation highlights why AFE matters to every florist, whether you realize it or not.In this episode you'll learn:What the American Floral Endowment actually doesHow AFE research improves flower quality from seed to consumerFree resources available to florists right nowTravel grant opportunities for industry eventsThe growing importance of sustainability and SustainabloomWhy consumer and Gen Z research matters more than everHow AFE is preparing the industry for the next 5–10 yearsWays florists can support and get involved with AFEWhether you're a retailer, wholesaler, grower, designer, or simply passionate about the floral industry, this episode offers a fascinating look at the organization quietly working behind the scenes to help flowers - and florists - thrive.Because when we invest in the industry together, everyone blooms. Sponsored by: Flower CliqueFlower Clique Prep SchoolReal Life Retail Florist

Scott Munro, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, joins Sid on this Monday edition of Sid & Friends in the Morning. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode Summary This webinar features Jack Brennan, CIS Founding Chair & Chairman Emeritus, The Vanguard Group, and Mario Giannini, Executive Co-Chairman & Former Chief Executive Officer of Hamilton Lane, as they share their perspectives on private markets — why they matter, how they fit within a long-term institutional portfolio, and what Catholic investors should be thinking about in today's environment. The information in this Communication is provided herein is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or a solicitation to buy, hold, or sell an interest in any CIS Fund offering. Alternative investments in private equity and hedge funds are subject to substantial risks including the potential loss of principal. Fund interests are illiquid and should be considered speculative investments. Investors are encouraged to read the offerings documents for the fund offerings discussed in this presentation carefully before investing. All data is sourced to Catholic Investment Services or other third-party sources and compiled by Catholic Investment Services. Information contained herein that has been obtained from third parties is believed to be reliable for the purposes for which it is used herein. Opinions and general information provided herein, including guest speaker(s), are current to the date of this presentation and are subject to change without notice. There can be no guarantee that the funds will achieve their investment objectives. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Financial forecasts and investment returns in this letter may significantly differ from actual results. Certain information contained in this report constitutes "forward-looking statements," which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expect," "anticipate," "target," "project," "estimate," "intend," "continue" or "believe," or the negatives thereof or other variations thereon or comparable terminology. Furthermore, any projections or other estimates in this report, including estimates of returns or performance, are "forward-looking statements" and are based upon certain assumptions that may change. Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results or the actual performance of the funds may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Moreover, actual events are difficult to project and often depend upon factors that are beyond the control of the general partner of the relevant fund and its affiliates.   © 2026 Catholic Investment Services (CIS), a registered investment advisor, and all rights reserved. Episode Links: Home - Catholic Investment Services About Us - Catholic Investment Services CIS Institute - Catholic Investment Services CIS Symposium - Catholic Investment Services Keywords Private Equity, Private Markets, Private Credit, Institutional Investing, Asset Allocation, Portfolio Construction, Venture Capital, Growth Equity, Buyout Funds, Secondaries, Illiquidity Premium, Diversification, Long-Term Investing, Alternative Investments, Hamilton Lane, Catholic Investment Services, Endowments, Foundations, Investment Strategy, Risk Management, Liquidity, Public Markets, Private Debt, AI Investing, Venture Investing, Investment Governance Episode Highlights 00:05:25–00:08:23 – Mario explains the fundamental case for private markets and why investors receive an illiquidity premium. 00:08:47–00:10:48 – The evolution of private equity from leverage-driven transactions to governance-driven value creation. 00:10:48–00:14:05 – Why private companies increasingly remain private longer and what public market investors are missing. 00:14:40–00:16:14 – Building a successful private markets portfolio through disciplined commitment pacing. 00:16:47–00:17:55 – Persistence of manager performance in private equity and venture capital. 00:18:13–00:19:40 – The importance of relationships and access in private market investing. 00:19:40–00:23:32 – Why investors often overvalue liquidity and how liquidity can become a source of investment mistakes. 00:24:32–00:25:19 – The dangers of market timing in private equity investing. 00:26:27–00:28:27 – Current distribution trends and the growing role of secondary markets. 00:31:24–00:35:05 – Understanding recent private market performance relative to public markets and the impact of AI-driven concentration. 00:35:54–00:39:18 – The case for private credit and how the landscape is changing as banks re-enter lending markets. 00:39:46–00:42:17 – Addressing common misconceptions around private equity valuations. 00:42:34–00:43:51 – How Catholic Investment Services integrates faith-consistent investing into private market strategies. 00:44:10–00:47:22 – Venture capital, buyouts, and growth equity: understanding the differences and opportunities. 00:47:48–00:49:26 – Why Mario believes private investments in retirement plans may present significant challenges for retail investors.

In a time of market volatility, inflation concerns, and growing financial pressure across higher education, how can colleges and universities ensure their endowments remain both resilient and mission-aligned? In this episode, AGB's David Bass speaks with Kyle Adams of Cerity Partners about the evolving role of the outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) model and what boards and investment committees should expect from their investment partners today. Together, they discuss how institutions of all sizes can strengthen decision-making, navigate uncertainty, and position their endowments to support long-term priorities. Opinions expressed in AGB podcasts are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of the organizations that employ them or of AGB. Disclosures Please read important disclosures here. Cerity Partners OCIO LLC ("Cerity Partners OCIO" or "CP OCIO") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cerity Partners LLC (together with its affiliates, "Cerity Partners"). Views expressed are as of the date recorded unless otherwise indicated. Client data is as of February 28, 2026. The NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, which is available for purchase, provides an annual analysis of endowment investment returns, asset allocations, and governance policies and practices at hundreds of U.S. higher education institutions and affiliated foundations. Cerity Partners OCIO is a corporate partner member of NACUBO and sponsors certain NACUBO events. Certain CP OCIO clients may have participated in the study. NACUBO data is as of June 30, 2025. Cerulli Associates provides market intelligence and strategic business for the financial industry.  The Cerulli US Outsourced Chief Investment Officer Function 2025 Report, which is available for purchase, explores the evolving OCIO landscape, including market sizing, forces of growth, demand and needs across client segments, use of OCIO search consultants, and the various challenges facing providers. "CapEx" refers to Capital Expenditures. "Fed" refers to the Federal Reserve. "RFP" refers to Request for Proposal.

In this twelfth installment, James explains Modified Endowment Contracts (MECs), how they occur, and why policy design should focus on long-term performance rather than maximizing early cash value. He discusses MEC limits, policy flexibility, and common misconceptions surrounding overfunded whole life insurance. As always, we hope you enjoy the episode, and thank you for listening!━━━Become a client!➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/how-to-fast-track-becoming-your-own-bankerBuy Nelson Nash's 6.5 hour Seminar on DVD here:➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/product/the-5-part-6.5-hour-video-series-nelson-nash-recorded-live/(Call us at (817) 790-0405 or email us at myteam@bankingwithlife.com for a DISCOUNT CODE)Register for our free webinar to learn more about Infinite Banking...➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/getting-started-webinar━━━Implement the Infinite Banking Concept® with the Infinite Banking Starter Kit...The Starter Kit includes Becoming Your Own Banker by R. Nelson Nash and the Banking With Life DVD by James Neathery.It's the perfect primer for everyone interested in becoming their own banker.Buy your starter kit here:➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/product/becoming-your-own-banker-infinite-banking-concept-starter-kit-special-offer/━━━Learn more about James Neathery here:➫ https://bankingwithlife.com━━━Listen on your iPhone with Apple Podcasts:➫ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banking-with-life-podcast/id1451730017Listen on your Android through Stitcher:➫ https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/bank...Listen on Soundcloud:➫ https://soundcloud.com/banking-with-life-podcast━━━Follow us on Facebook:➳ https://www.facebook.com/jamescneathery/━━━Disclaimer:All content on this site is for informational purposes only. The content shared is not intended to be a substitute for consultation with the appropriate professional. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc., unless otherwise specifically cited. The data that is presented is believed to be from reliable sources and no representations are made by James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc. as to another party's informational accuracy or completeness. All information or ideas provided should be discussed in detail with your Adviser, Financial Planner, Tax Consultant, Attorney, Investment Adviser or the appropriate professional prior to taking any action.

A healthier city is not built by luck. It's built by neighbors who notice what's breaking, leaders who listen without flinching, and funders who use data to back up compassion. In this episode, we sit down with Kate Bolz, President and CEO of Community Health Endowment, to talk about an audacious goal: making Lincoln, Nebraska, the healthiest community in the nation, and what it really takes to move from good intentions to measurable change.Connect with the Community Health Endowment at:·       Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/chelincoln/·       Website – https://www.chelincoln.org/·       Brave fACEs Website – https://www.bravefaces.org/

What happens when a classically trained musician from Juilliard ends up managing a $6 billion endowment? Today's episode of Origins explores exactly that journey - and what it reveals about how the best institutional investors really think.Nicholas Csicsko, Managing Director of Investments at Trinity Church NYC, brings a rare perspective to venture capital - one shaped by years of classical music training, a doctorate from Juilliard, and a decade building out one of America's most unique institutional investors. Trinity Church, founded in 1697 and endowed with 215 acres of Manhattan by Queen Anne in 1705, has grown its diversified investment pool to over $4 billion under Nicholas and CIO Meredith Jenkins.Together with hosts Nick & Beezer, the group digs into what institutional LPs really look for in venture managers, and what puts them off. From the tension between patient capital and the need for liquidity, to skepticism around sky-high private market valuations and the growing disconnect between private and public markets, Nicholas delivers the kind of frank, independent thinking that makes for a truly exceptional investor.Along the way, they explore the virtues of "cynical optimism" in early-stage investing, the institutional pressures that push LPs toward brand-name funds, and why Nicholas believes the best venture managers are those who know themselves deeply. From the challenges of scaling a venture firm to whether today's AI-driven capital surge is sustainable, this conversation offers a grounded, data-aware take on what it takes to build lasting returns in private markets.—Quotes"If you could put a bunch of investments into a line item that wasn't going to receive scrutiny, that left tail risk of something going to zero would probably be less. But if it's visible, it's discussable. You probably don't get fired for doing the next a16z fund, but you might be questioned if you take a flyer on someone who's up and coming. And so there's this institutional pressure towards, dare I say, conformity. But what's safe? What's perceived as safe?”"It's all fine and good that folks think they can raise and put more money to work, but I'm a little worried about where it's taking us because when open AI raises around 4x larger than any IPO in history, I kind of worry that we're creating a market that is not sustainable because ultimately there's not enough liquidity. There is a massive disconnect there.”"Knowing thyself is probably the number one thing I would attribute to all of the best investors I've met. And as they get older and more experienced, they know what they think they need more and more without stopping challenging their bias, without adding that new person to make them better.”—Time Stamps00:55 Meet Nicholas Csicsko, Managing Director, Investments at Trinity Wall Street02:24 Musician Mindset to Investing03:40 From Juilliard to Finance05:56 Trinity Church Endowment Story09:56 Building the Portfolio and Venture12:31 Institutional Risk and Conformity14:47 Private Public Market Disconnect18:57 DPI, TVPI and Secondaries20:41 Backing Off Radar Managers23:47 Cynical Optimism in Venture28:04 Building a VC Firm Team34:34 Where Venture Fits Today39:02 Too Much Capital and Liquidity?42:20 Closing and Next Episode—LinksConnect with the guest and hosts on LinkedIn!Nicholas CsicskoBeezer ClarksonNick ChirlsLearn more about:Trinity Church NYCAlfred P. Sloan FoundationOpenLPAsylum Ventures

After 14 months of fruitless contract negotiations with the Harvard University administration, over 4,000 workers represented by the Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU-UAW Local 5118) walked off the job on an indefinite strike on April 21. According to the union, “Graduate student workers will suspend teaching and research labor until Harvard's bargaining team takes substantive action in addressing the union's key issues: pay that keeps pace with the rising cost of living, recourse for harassment and discrimination, support for non-citizen students, protections for academic freedom, and ‘fair share fees' to equitably distribute the expenses of union representation, among others.” In this episode of Working People, we speak with three striking graduate student workers about the issues at the center of this strike, and about what it's like to live, work, and strike at the country's richest university amid political attacks from the federal government, scandals connecting high-ranking Harvard officials to Jeffrey Epstein, and a nationwide cost-of-living crisis. Panelists include: Sara Speller, a fifth-year PhD student in the Music Department at Harvard and president of the Harvard Graduate Students Union; Zoë Feder, a seventh-year PhD student in the program in Biological & Biomedical Sciences at Harvard Medical School and a research assistant in the Microbiology Department; and Jacob Wolf, a third-year PhD student and Teaching Fellow in the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Additional links/info: Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU-UAW Local 5118) website, Facebook page, X/Twitter page, TikTok, and InstagramHarvard Graduate Students Union Strike Update/FAQ ZineLydialyle Gibson, Harvard Magazine, “Harvard graduate student workers strike”Noah A. Ferris, The Harvard Crimson, “Grad students rally outside Garber's home as strike enters third week”Hugo C. Chiasson & Elise A. Spenner, The Harvard Crimson, “Harvard promised a ‘full' review of its Epstein ties. Its own files reveal what it left out”Featured Music: Jules Taylor, Working People Theme SongCredits: Audio Post-Production: Jules TaylorBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-news-podcast--2952221/support.Help us continue producing radically independent news and in-depth analysis by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Follow us on:Bluesky: @therealnews.comFacebook: The Real News NetworkTwitter: @TheRealNewsYouTube: @therealnewsInstagram: @therealnewsnetworkBecome a member and join the Supporters Club for The Real News Podcast today!

Scott Munro, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, joins Sid on this Monday edition of Sid & Friends in the Morning. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When most people hear "dividend," their brain goes straight to stocks. That's understandable. And completely wrong when applied to whole life insurance. https://www.youtube.com/live/HPXaTnOOU4U That one assumption causes real problems. People chase companies with the highest declared dividend rate. They compare illustrations side by side and pick the bigger number. They make decisions based on a metric that, on its own, tells them almost nothing about how their policy will actually perform. This article gives you a clear picture of what whole life dividends actually are, what they're not, and what really determines whether your policy works for you over the long run. The conclusion is probably not what you'd expect: the most important factor isn't the dividend rate, the company, or even the policy design. It's your own behavior.For a deep dive into how dividends are calculated and the four biggest myths about dividend rates, see our earlier conversation with Perry Miller here. Table of ContentsKey TakeawaysWhat Whole Life Dividends Actually AreHow the Money Actually MovesNot Guaranteed, but Highly ProbableThe Coca-Cola AnalogyWhat Whole Life Dividends Are NotNot Stock DividendsNot a Simple Interest Rate on Your Cash ValueNot in Addition to the Guaranteed Interest RateHow Dividends Are Actually Allocated to Your PolicyThe Endowment RequirementWhy Younger Policyholders Get a Smaller ShareWhy Base Premium Gets Higher Crediting Than PUAsThe Direct vs. Non-Direct Recognition DistinctionWhy the Dividend Rate Is the Wrong Thing to CompareThe Factor That Matters More Than Any of This: Your Own BehaviorWhy Premium Consistency MattersWhy Loan Repayment Matters Just as MuchThe Bottom Line on BehaviorHow to Use Your Dividends StrategicallyStop Chasing the Rate. Start Building the SystemBook a Strategy CallFrequently Asked QuestionsWhat are whole life insurance dividends?Are whole life dividends guaranteed?How are whole life dividends different from stock dividends?Does a higher dividend rate mean a better whole life policy?What is the best way to use whole life dividends?What is direct vs. non-direct recognition in whole life insurance? Key Takeaways Dividends are return of excess premium. What happens between your payment and your dividend is capital management, not a refund. A 6% declared rate does not mean 6% cash value growth. Actual growth depends on Age, base-to-PUA ratio, and other policy design options. Loan activity can also affect results with direct recognition companies. The guaranteed interest rate is not separate but makes up part of the declared dividend. 2% guarantee plus 6% dividend does not equal 8%. Younger policyholders get less of the dividend pool. Older policyholders get more. Endowment math. Base premium gets higher crediting than PUAs because the company can count on it. Never compare direct and non-direct recognition illustrations without modeling loan activity in both. Your behavior matters more than the rate, the company, or the design. What Whole Life Dividends Actually Are For tax purposes, the IRS classifies whole life dividends as a return of excess premium. That label gets used against whole life all the time. "See? They're just giving your money back." It's not. If you paid $500,000 into a policy over twenty years and now you have $1.7 million in cash value, nobody just gave your money back. You have far more than you paid in. How the Money Actually Moves Insurance companies are extremely conservative in their projections. They overestimate mortality costs, overestimate expenses, and lowball what their investment portfolio will return. That's deliberate. It protects your money for the long run. The CIO deploys premiums into a portfolio that's roughly 75 to 85 percent fixed income: bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and some real estate. A small sliver sits in equities. The company pays death benefit claims, pays operating expenses, and sets aside money into reserves. Then the board declares how much of the remaining surplus goes back to policyholders. Three factors drive that surplus: investment performance against projections, operating expenses against budget, and actual mortality experience against actuarial estimates. Beat expectations on any of those, and policyholders share in it. Not Guaranteed, but Highly Probable Dividends sit outside the contractual promises; unlike the death benefit, the cash value growth, and the level premium, they're not guaranteed. But mutual companies have paid them consistently for over 100 years. Through recessions. World wars. The 2008 crisis. A decade of near-zero rates. They adjusted downward. They didn't vanish. The Coca-Cola Analogy Coca-Cola has excess profits because they charge more per can than they need to. That's how they fund dividends to shareholders. A mutual insurance company works the same way. It prices conservatively, manages capital, and returns the surplus. But here's the difference. As a policyholder of a mutual company, you're not just a customer. You're a part-owner. You participate in your company's profits. What Whole Life Dividends Are Not Not Stock Dividends Stock dividends are volatile, taxable in the year received, and are subject to cuts or elimination in a bad year based on economic factors that swing wildly.  Whole life dividends from mutual companies are non-taxable (classified as return of premium), built on actuarial science rather than market speculation, and backed by a stability track record that equity dividends simply can't match. Even during the financial crisis of 2008, when bond rates dropped and stayed down for over a decade, mutual companies adjusted their dividend rates. They didn't collapse. They didn't plummet to near zero. They adjusted. Not a Simple Interest Rate on Your Cash Value This is the misconception that causes the most confusion. If a company declares a 6% dividend, that does not mean your cash value grows by 6% that year. You can't just take 6% and apply it to your current cash value. There's a list of reasons why. That declared rate is gross, before administrative fees, before mortality costs, and before the actuarial mechanics that make your policy endow at age 120 or 121. The actual impact on any individual policy depends on the policyholder's age, the ratio of base premium to PUAs, other policy design options.  Additionally, if with a direct recongnition company, whether there are outstanding loans. Same rate but very different outcome depending on who you are and what you're doing with the policy. Not in Addition to the Guaranteed Interest Rate This trips people up constantly. They see a guaranteed interest rate of 2% and a declared dividend of 6% and assume they're getting 8% growth. That's not how it works. The guaranteed rate is already inside the dividend. The company guarantees it can make at least 2%. If it earns enough to support a 6% crediting rate, the additional performance above the 2% floor is what generates the dividend.  So the real outperformance is 4 percentage points and not 6 stacked on top of two. How Dividends Are Actually Allocated to Your Policy This is the part that goes beyond what most dividend conversations cover. And it matters if you want to understand what your dividend actually means for your specific policy. The Endowment Requirement Every whole life policy is contractually engineered to endow at age 120 or 121. That means your cash value and your death benefit will be equal at that point. This isn't a footnote buried in the contract.  It's the mathematical engine driving how dividends get allocated. The company has to make sure every policy's cash value reaches the death benefit by that endowment date, regardless of what the markets do along the way. Why Younger Policyholders Get a Smaller Share Contrast a 20-year-old and a 60-year-old. Both paying $10,000 per year into a whole life policy.  The same premium and the same declared dividend rate. They receive very different dividend credits. The 20-year-old has 100 years until endowment. That cash value has an enormous runway to compound. Less dividend is needed today because time does the heavy lifting.  The 60-year-old has only 60 years. Their cash value needs a bigger share of the dividend pool to close the gap between cash value and death benefit faster. Same rate but a very different allocation. And it's not unfair. It's contractual. The policy promises to endow at a specific age, and the actuarial math allocates accordingly. Why Base Premium Gets Higher Crediting Than PUAs Base premium is the portion you're contractually obligated to pay every year. The company knows it's coming. The CIO can plan investment decisions around that certainty and deploy capital with confidence. Paid-up additions are optional. You don't have to pay them. The Chief Investment Officer can't rely on PUA contributions the same way when making long-term decisions. There's a second factor too, with base premium, the death benefit relative to the premium amount is much higher.  A policyholder paying $100,000 in base premium might carry a death benefit of $800,000 or $1 million. That cash value has to close a gap of $700,000 to $900,000 by endowment.  But $100,000 of PUA premium might only buy $200,000 of death benefit, because it's already paid up. It only needs to grow by $100,000 over the same period. So the dividend has to work harder on the base side. More crediting goes there, especially in the first 20 to 30 years. If someone funds PUAs religiously for three decades and the PUA's death benefit grows to exceed the base death benefit, the crediting can equalize. But until then, base drives the dividend engine. The Direct vs. Non-Direct Recognition Distinction A non-direct recognition company credits the same dividend whether you've borrowe

This Sunday, April 26, the Dean's Forum features Scott Rhodes, Chair of the Endowment Board of Trustees, Ray Hill, Member of the Cathedral Towers Fund Committee, and Joe Iarocci, Chair of the Hellen Plummer Fund. They discuss the endowed funds of the Cathedral and how they are used for operational support, capital expenditures, and mission and outreach projects.

Scott Munro, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, joins the program to double down on his plea to NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani to back up and show support for his police force in NYC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scott Munro, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, calls into the morning show to discuss two NYPD narcotics detectives being placed on modified duty after a viral video captured the pair punching and kicking an arrested man, who turned out to not be the suspect they were looking for after all, cops said. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scott Munro, President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, joins Sid to preview tonight's special event where the DEA will be honoring Sid alongside Bo Dietl and Paul Mauro. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bruce MacDonald is the CEO and CIO of the Virginia Commonwealth University Investment Management Company, which runs $2.5 billion for VCU's endowment and health system. Bruce joined the University in 2015 and shortly thereafter, had the opportunity to sell the portfolio and start fresh. Since being promoted to CIO in 2022, VCU has been a top decile performer with a team of just five investment professionals. Our conversation covers Bruce's unconventional path from a religion major at Wesleyan to fixed income investing at Putnam and endowment roles at Columbia and UVIMCO before arriving at VCU. We discuss the principles of VCU's approach, including building a portfolio around secular tailwinds like India, Vietnam, gold, and artificial intelligence while maintaining abundant liquidity to act countercyclically during market dislocations. We explore VCU's team-based underwriting process, lessons learned from mistakes, and personal influences that have shaped Bruce's investment philosophy. Learn more about our Strategic Investments: Ascension. Learn More Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Access Transcript with Premium Membership   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠)

How historical and expected returns for university endowments can guide us in setting reasonable return expectations. We also analyze managed futures strategies to see how they work, how they have performed, and how to use them in your investment portfolio.Show Notes2025 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments (NCSE) Results—NACUBOPrinceton University cuts expectation for endowment returns by Sun Yu—The Financial TimesDemystifying Managed Futures by Brian K. Hurst, Yao Hua Ooi, and Lasse H. Pedersen—AQRInvestments MentionedAQR Managed Futures Strategy Fund I (AQMIX)iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF)KraneShares Mount Lucas Managed Futures Index Strategy ETF (KMLM)WisdomTree Managed Futures Strategy Fund (WTMF)First Trust Managed Futures Strategy Fund (FMF)Return Stacked US Stocks & Managed Futures ETF (RSST)Related Episodes524: Facing a Financial Squeeze: What Harvard's Response Can Teach the Rest of Us204: Why Are Investment Returns So Low?180: Can You Outperform Harvard's Endowment?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Judy Dempsey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Thaddeus McCotter of American Greatnessdiscuss the upcoming State of the Union, questioning the administration's economic messaging and the looming societal disruptions caused by AI displacing white-collar workers. 4.1953

Thaddeus McCotter of American Greatness and Judy Dempsey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peaceanalyze the ongoing Ukraine conflict, debating European unity, the untrustworthiness of Putin, and the difficult search for a consensus-driven offramp to end the persistent carnage. 3.19Brussels

Welcome back to our Joseph Smith Podcast series with historian Dr. John Turner!This is Episode 29, where we dive into Chapter 24, titled “Upper Rooms,” from John Turner's new book Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet.In this episode, we focus on Nauvoo in 1842 –a pivotal year when Freemasonry, the Relief Society, secrecy, and the earliest forms of the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony all intersect.The central question we wrestle with is this: To what extent did Freemasonry shape Joseph Smith's use of secrecy –and was it intended to protect his authority and reputation?We explore the anti-Masonic climate of early America and the murder of William Morgan, why the Book of Mormon was once read as an “anti-Masonic Bible,” Joseph Smith's embrace of Freemasonry, the founding of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge, Parallels between Masonic rituals and the original Nauvoo Endowment, the secret oaths, handshakes, signs, tokens, and penalties, and Joseph Smith's evolving theology around power and exaltation.This conversation is historically grounded, candid, and essential for anyone trying to understand how Mormon temple theology developed –and why it still matters today!Show NotesYouTubeMormon Stories Thanks Our Generous Donors!Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today:One-time or recurring donation through DonorboxSupport us on PatreonPayPalVenmoOur Platforms:YouTubePatreonSpotifyApple PodcastsContact us:MormonStories@gmail.comPO Box 171085, Salt Lake City, UT 84117Social Media:Insta: @mormstoriesTikTok: @mormonstoriespodcastJoin the Discord