Podcasts about Frazer

Today we have a great conversation with Caleb Frazer Northern Iowa football player and former Maker.TOPICS COVERED1. Caleb talks about how he fell in love with football and realized he wanted to play in college.2. Caleb discusses some of the surprises he faced being a college football player3. Caleb shares his thoughts on coaching changes on dealing with multiple position coaches.4 We discuss making a position change from high school to college.5 Caleb gives his get your edge advice.If you enjoy the podcast please share it with your athletes- teachers- parents and other coaches.Help us grow our GET YOUR EDGE community and share the podcast.#chop-itGET YOUR EDGE PODCASTInstagram and X- @getyouredgepodDean Contactwww.foxvalleythrowsclub.comInstagram and X- @foxvalleythrowsBrian Contactwww.sportsadvantedge.comInstagram- @sportsadvantedge / @brianbott23X- @botter23 / @sportadvantedgeEmail- Brian@sportsadvantedge.comGraphics and Logo- Bailey MarashInstagram and X- @bmarasch13#foxvalleythrows #getyouredge #sportsadvantedge #hardwork #athlete #makernation #foxvalley #fireit #feedthecats #loadthedawgs #dynamicfitness

Frazer, Joe, and Andy go off on the Crosby injury and other Olympic topics plus other NHL news and bonus content.

Guests: Brian & Kathryn JonesMinistry: missionaries to Moldova, where they are involved in foster care, ministering to children and familiesInterview Location: Frazer Church (Montgomery) 2026 Missions ConferenceWebsite: modernday.org/profile/teamjonesinmoldova/

Guest: Michelle MeeceMinistry: Hands and Feet ProjectPosition: Program AssistantTopic: an overview about the work done in Haiti bringing hope to families and children through the Hands and Feet ProjectInterview Location: Frazer Church (Montgomery) 2026 Missions ConferenceWebsite: handsandfeetproject.org

On today’s program, I am talking with Fiber Artist and teacher Jean Frazer about her participation in Fiber Arts February at the Washington Public Library.

Guests: Jimmy Aycock + "Joseph"Ministry: International Leadership InstitutePosition: (Jimmy) International Director for MENA (Middle East/North Africa)Interview Location: Frazer Church (Montgomery) 2026 Missions ConferenceWebsite: iliteam.org

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss LA Kings trading for Artemi Panarin, Leon not happy with Jarry, and an Olympic hockey preview.

Guest: Yimmi SalomonOrganization: Iglesia Metodista en CubaPosition: SuperintendentInterview Location: Frazer Church (Montgomery) 2026 Missions Conference

Guests: Luiz & Dani CardosoChurch: Glasgow Story ChurchLocation: Glasgow, ScotlandInterview Location: Frazer Church (Montgomery) 2026 Missions ConferenceWebsite: glasgowstory.church

Send a textJoin us as we return to complete our run through the landscape of metastatic renal cancer with the effervescent Professor Ricky Frazer.We look at the Dolly Mixture of subtypes that makes up non clear cell renal carcinoma.We discuss the new HIF2a inhibitors such as belzutifan.We look at future directions in kidney cancer.A treat for anyone who treats kidney cancer.Enjoy!

Send us a textJoin us is as we celebrate Kidney Cancer week with a Masterclass walk through metastatic Renal Cancer with Professor Ricky Frazer from Velindre Cancer Centre.Ricky is a co-host of the hugely successful Immunobuddies podcast and has a vast experience in immunotherapy management.We look at the indications for immunotherapy versus anti-VEGF TKI therapy.Should we just accept anti-VEGF TKI monotherapy in Favourable Risk patients?When should we try IO/IO combination versus IO/TKI combinations in the first line setting?All this whilst Ricky looks to put John in his place!!Enjoy

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss the Penguins coming back to Earth, who the Red Wings should go after, and MORE.

This conversation delves into the intricacies of Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) and its significant tax benefits for founders. MICHAEL ARLEIN, Partner at Patterson Belknap, explains the eligibility criteria, the importance of strategic planning, and the potential pitfalls that can arise. The discussion also covers the implications of state taxes and the advantages of gifting strategies. We cover innovative approaches like the “GOAT” trust to maximize tax-free gains. Founders are encouraged to engage with legal experts early in their business journey to fully leverage QSBS opportunities. https://youtu.be/lfBt0j7BlW0?si=LufZ8j2YtgdspLMJ Takeaways from “QSBS For Founders” QSBS is a powerful tax benefit for founders.The maximum exclusion amount has increased to $15 million.Careful planning is essential to avoid QSBS pitfalls.Gifting QSBS stock can multiply tax exemptions.State tax implications vary; California does not recognize QSBS.Discounting shares can aid in estate planning.Converting from an S-Corp to a C-Corp can preserve QSBS benefits.Early engagement with legal counsel is crucial for founders.Innovative strategies like the GOAT trust can maximize benefits.Almost all businesses should consider QSBS eligibility. Chapters 00:00 Understanding QSBS: A Founder’s Guide.02:56 Navigating the QSBS Landscape: Common Pitfalls.06:07 Maximizing QSBS Benefits: Stacking Strategies.08:42 The Importance of Timing: Gifting and Valuation.12:03 State Tax Implications: The QSBS Challenge.14:52 Entity Structures and QSBS: What Founders Need to Know.17:37 Transitioning to C-Corp: Strategies for S-Corps and LLCs.20:29 Who Should Pay Attention to QSBS?23:44 Innovative Business Structures: Technology and QSBS-26:36 Early Stage Strategies: Cloning Yourself on the Cap Table- Transcript of “QSBS for Founders” Frazer Rice (00:01.109)Welcome aboard, Michael. Michael Arlein (00:03.096)Thank you. Good to be here. Frazer Rice (00:04.617)So let’s get started here. QSBS, Qualified Small Business Stock, is something that certainly all founders should be aware of. It’s a tax feature. It’s probably one of the nicest goodies that the federal government gives to people who are starting businesses. Take us through a little bit about what happens there. For founders, you’re going to hear the numbers 1202, which is the section that is quoted here. Take us through a little bit about what happens at QSBS and why it’s a powerful feature. Michael Arlein (00:37.496)Sure, that sounds good. To your point, the New York Times called QSBS a lavish tax dodge that is easily multiplied. And I happen to. I’m not aware of any other provision of the tax code that can save anyone as much money as QSBS. It’s really incredible. I think the policy reasons behind the provisions are that they’re designed to encourage entrepreneurship. Everyone on both sides of the political aisle is in favor of. The basic premise of it is that if you create a company.You own the stock for five years. The company’s in the form of a C corporation, It’s not in one of a series of restricted industries. Mainly service industries, that when you sell the stock, you can exclude from paying tax $10 million, the first $10 million of your gain. That’s the old rule, which I’m still dealing with, that that’s for stock that was issued before July 4th, 2025. And now QSBS has gotten even better. So if you get stock after that date. You hold it for actually now three years, you can exclude ultimately up to $15 million from tax. So we’re now dealing with two different regimes. I’m still stuck in the old regime. Most of the people I’m dealing with got their stock before last July. But I’ll try and point out the differences as we go along. Frazer Rice (02:29.066)Sure, as you said, there are a bunch of things you have to jump through. To make sure that you can sort of apply and then to further comply with the rules associated with it. Things like services. Making sure that maybe you don’t have too much cash and that it’s deployed correctly. Making sure that the original stock issuance persists throughout. What are some of the things that you tell your clients? How do you walk them through the process so that they don’t trip on themselves and lose this nice tax advantage? Michael Arlein (03:09.676)Yeah, there are some landmines, things that you can step on and blow it. There’s some weird rules around redemptions. Like if you have redemptions. Let’s say you create a company and then there’s three co-founders. Then very early on, one of the co-founders wants out or you want to kick them out. And then the mechanism for that is the company kind of buys back their stock. You know, there’s complicated rules that can, you know, blow up QSBS for the entire company. I think some people start their businesses as LLCs or S-Corps or things like that, and then later convert them. And that has to be done very, very carefully with good tax advice. Otherwise that can also blow things up. When I talk to founders, it’s pretty clear their business qualifies. They didn’t screw anything up. Frazer Rice (04:19.626)So the OBBBA in a sense turbocharged a little bit the tax savings. That five year requirement that you talked about. You can now get some of the benefits even as early as three years. And then the dollar amounts got expanded. In addition, and this was not necessarily OBBBA related. The ability to take one exemption and maybe multiply it via stacking continues to be a powerful tool. For those people who are walking into your office now. How do you get them when they sit down situated so that they do that planning upfront? Michael Arlein (05:08.598)Yeah, that’s, you we kind of buried the lead. The benefit of QSBS: it would be incredible if you could just pay no tax on 10 or $15 million. But what’s even more incredible is that you can stack or multiply the number of exemptions. You have using a provision of the code. It says that if you gift QSBS stock to some other person or entity. That that person or entity can take their own up to 10 or 15, their own QSBS exemption. I’m just gonna say it’s 15. We understand that’s for newly stocked. So, classic move for a founder would be to set up trusts for children. There’s a special kind of a trust for a spouse. You can do this with sometimes people make trust for their parents, their siblings. There are certain states where you can actually make a trust for yourself. Usually when people come to my office, the conversation is around creating entities. Typically trusts, and then gifting shares to those trusts. that As a family, you could go from 15 million tax free to 30 or 45 or 60 million tax free. The record I had one guy who had a very large family. He married, he had kids and was very close not only with his parents. With his siblings, his nieces, his nephews, even his aunts, uncles, and cousins. He created 23 trusts, which on paper at least would save up to $230 million. Wow. Yeah. Frazer Rice (07:08.896)There’s a danger with that though, with those 23 trusts had to be different. I imagine the IRS would say, wait a minute, we see what you’re doing. Stacking all of these different things is theoretically nice and all, but is there a way to create differences within those trusts so that the IRS doesn’t view them as one big pot? Michael Arlein (07:39.692)Yeah, great question. So you can’t create multiple identical trusts. Meaning I can’t create five trusts for my child. The IRS has rules that consider those trusts as one trust and would have only one exemptions. So, one of the limiting factors on creating trust is often, who are the people you’re willing to gift to? You know, so this guy with the 23, he actually was willing to create trust for his cousins, his aunts, uncles. Now, those individuals were the beneficiaries of the trusts, which means that they were eligible to receive money from the trust. But those trusts were designed so that when those people passed away, the money would circulate back to his children. So, you we never talked about it, but it’s possible that in his head, his plan was that he would maybe provide some benefit to his cousin. Maybe he’d say to his cousin, hey, if there’s $5 million in this trust and you need a little money, I’ll make some distributions to you, but I’m going to request that the trustee kind of withhold most of the money. And then when you die, it’ll come back and benefit my kids. So there are nuances there. But generally speaking, most people aren’t willing to do that. They’re not close enough with their cousins and their aunts and their uncles. So they end up maybe creating trusts, you know, for their kids, for their parents, sometimes, you know, for their spouse and maybe sometimes they go a little beyond that, but not that far. One thing that’s important is that the U.S. Frazer Rice (09:33.472)One thing that’s important is that the the QSBS is a capital gains tax Concept meaning you’re you’re saving on the tax. From a QSBS for Founders standpoint when the the founder sells the business, and you have to pay capital gains tax on that front. Part of the reason I’m skewing this toward founders is that there’s an gift in a state exemption of 15 million dollars. So it’s important to get these assets into these trusts as early as possible and with as low evaluation as possible. That in many ways is where the real leverage is. Does that square with your thinking? Michael Arlein (10:11.019)Yeah, absolutely. We have a permanent $15 million lifetime gifting limit. $30 million for spouses. And when you gift stock into these trusts, you’re typically gifting at a common stock valuation. People are familiar, founders are familiar with common stock valuations because they do that for purposes of issuing stock options, you know, the so-called 409A valuation. Now, a gift tax appraisal is different than a 409A valuation, but in many ways, they’re very similar. S0 founders know that, you know, they could be raising a preferred round at $10 a share, but their 409A common stock valuation is still $2 a share. So you can get a lot of gifting done. You can give a lot of shares away. You know, using your $15 million exemption, even if the company is very valuable. So we see founders doing this sort of gifting, you know, late in the game, even right before a transaction or an IPO. But if you had a crystal ball, or at least, you know, you were willing to take some risk, obviously, the earlier you do it, the better, because you could gift… I mean, theoretically, if you set up trusts and you gifted shares the day after you created your company, they would be worth essentially nothing. And so you wouldn’t have to use hardly any of your gifting exemption. The problem is most people, A, aren’t thinking about that on the day they create their company. They don’t have anyone whispering in their ear and telling them to do that. And number two, they wouldn’t want to spend the money on legal fees to set up structures because at that point they’re like, don’t know what this is going to be worth. This could be zero. This could go out of business in a year. So there’s a trade off that I see between doing this later in the process where you’re gaining visibility into outcomes, maybe for younger people sometimes, you know, there’s visibility into their family lives. Maybe when they founded the company they were single. Then if they wait five years they marry, they’ll have children, i.e. people who they could create trust for. But the cost of doing that is that you’re gifting at a higher value. Frazer Rice (12:46.591)One of the considerations that people don’t understand is the state tax implication. QSBS is a federal concept that a lot of states join onto and link to. But a state like California isn’t. And so sometimes that can be an untoward surprise to people that there’s a state tax that happens that they may not have expected. Michael Arlein (13:16.299)Yeah, it’s kind of bizarre that California, the home of Silicon Valley, doesn’t recognize QSBS. But most states do. My home state of New Jersey, in fact, very recently joined the QSBS club and now recognizes it at the state level. There are a few other states, I think. Pennsylvania, I don’t think recognizes it, but the vast majority of states do. But unfortunately, if you live in California, you’re probably only in quotes saving the federal tax. But the federal tax on $15 million, 23.8 % of 15 is a pretty big number. Frazer Rice (14:01.086)No question and absolutely worth doing. one of the things that I find happens is that from an income capital gains tax perspective, we’re on top of it with the QSBS. When we get into the estate planning world, we use the concept of discounting, meaning putting QSBS shares or any shares for that matter into other entities so that you get discounting for lack of marketability and the ability to make decisions around it. Are there any tripwires on that front as far as putting things into other LLCs so that you don’t, maybe in a sense that in trying to really maximize the estate planning and the estate tax avoidance that you create issues that might cause problems with your QSBS tax avoidance usefulness there. Michael Arlein (15:02.413)Yes. Again, the rules under Section 1202 of the code for QSBS have some strange traps for the unwary and some gray areas. And one of those gray areas is around transferring interests in partnership type entities, which would mean like an LLC or a partnership. that owns QSBS. So essentially, it’s very clear that if you have QSBS stock and you gift it into one of these entities we’ve been talking about, that that entity would take the QSBS attribute and be able to enjoy the benefits of QSBS. If the QSBS is held in an entity like an LLC, let’s say you set up a, well. Let’s say a realistic example is that you made an investment in a venture capital fund that invested in an early stage company that’s QSBS. And now you’re a limited partner in that fund and you know that that fund is going to have a large exit in this QSBS position and that you’re going to get the benefits of that, but it’s going to exceed $15 million. So you say, what I should do is I should take my interest in this venture capital fund. I should give them to trust for my kids so that when the fund distributes those shares or distributes the proceeds from selling that company, it’ll be split among various entities and I’ll be able to stack QSPS. The transfer of an interest in a fund that owns QSPS, there’s a gray area about whether the recipient of that fund interest would actually have QSPS and it’s generally viewed as something to be avoided. Frazer Rice (17:08.944)In a sense putting it at risk. A question that I think pops up is that there are people who started businesses maybe pre that July 4th date that you were talking about and maybe they chose an entity like an S Corp or an LLC that isn’t sort of a good qualifying C Corp and they’re looking and saying you know what I may be able to sell this business three to five years or beyond and take advantage of this QSBS. Are there avenues to be able to change that tax elections so that you can begin that QSBS and what’s the analysis around? Michael Arlein (17:44.972)Yeah, in fact, a fairly common structure is, and we haven’t really gotten into these details, but it’s a great question. So QSBS is actually the greater of $15 million or 10 times your basis. Now we ignore the basis rule for the most part because the vast majority of founders do not have basis. They create their company and they put nothing into it. With a bank account with $10,000 in it, and they’re not contributing actual dollars into their business. And so the 10 times basis rule doesn’t actually apply. But there’s a way for a founder to take advantage of that, and this strategy is actually called PACKING. And the packing strategy involves starting your business as an LLC and with an LLC and then converting it to a C corporation. with an LLC, when you convert, there’s an attribution of basis to the founder based on the value of the LLC’s assets. Theoretically, if you started off as an LLC, and before the LLC hit $75 million value of its assets, $75 million being sort of the cutoff for qualifying for small business, you have to acquire your stock before your company assets are worth $75 million. Theoretically, let’s say you did that when it was $74 million, then if your basis was $74 million, 10 times your basis would be $740 million, you would have up to $740 million tax free. So people kind of play this game. I think for a lot of companies, it’s not realistic to be an LLC because venture cap, if you’re going to raise venture funds, they want you to be a C Corp. This works for bootstrapped companies, but most companies are forming a C corporations. You know, there is a path to convert from an S-Corp to a C-Corp and preserve QSPS for Founders. I’m no expert in that. All I can tell you is that it has to be done very carefully and very specifically. And I’ve seen a lot of people who didn’t know they needed to do anything specific and they do not qualify for QSPS. Frazer Rice (20:45.085)As we sort of, I’m not going to say wind down here because we may have some other topics that pop up. But when someone walks through their door, I guess maybe the way to think about it is, who does this apply to? You said the services industry. So accounting, finance, that type of thing- NO. For those things that venture tries to invest in, whether it’s software or other processes, who is really should be paying attention to this? Michael Arlein (21:16.491)I mean, I think almost anyone should be paying attention to this because it may be that you don’t qualify, but often people do. And more often than not, you do. This has broad application for most businesses. There are excluded industries, architects and lawyers and accountants. But if you’re doing something in the tech world, you’re probably going to qualify. It’s good to get some advice from the corporate lawyer who’s helping you create your business. I think one of the considerations of whether you form as a C Corp or an LLC is probably the availability of QSBS status. You know, I think stacking strategies, it’s worth having a conversation probably sooner than later with a lawyer to find out what the menu of stacking options is. I talk to people all the time and we decide it’s premature for them to do something. And then they call me back a year or two later and all the time I’m calls from people who say, hey, we spoke a few years ago and now Frazer Rice (22:34.013)Alright. Michael Arlein (22:39.913)the time is right. So it’s good to get educated, learn what the options are. QSBS stacking is not just about giving shares to your kids. There are strategies that are specifically designed for single people where you can create these benefits for yourself and You know, it’s too good to be missed. if you, I do talk to people who say to me, they’re usually on their second venture or third venture and they say to me, I really screwed this up the first time around. I paid no attention to it and I was focused on my business and I just screwed it up. I literally cost myself millions or tens of millions of dollars had I done it correctly. And now that’s why I’m calling you, because I want to do it correctly the second time around. Frazer Rice (23:33.278)Part and parcel with that, I ran into somebody really more of what’s called a media personality. And usually the way I think of it is that the QSBS isn’t necessarily available for people whose value is centered around them as a personality or them as a brand. But I said, you know what, the QSBS component, while it might not apply here, if your business morphs into something where you’re developing other things, slash maybe you turn into a media production company or, youbecome involved in a technology that drives other things, that you shouldn’t dismiss that. The pivot in the business from sort of a personality generated to something a little bit more business process generated might be something to think about, not only from a strategy standpoint, not that you necessarily wanna do things purely for tax reasons, but if that’s a natural consequence, that’s something to think about. Has that ever popped up in your world? Michael Arlein (24:31.915)Yeah, for sure. Every business these days is technology enabled. And I think sometimes businesses that you wouldn’t think of as being technology businesses are doing enough technology things that they can claim that they’re a technology business and not a business providing a particular kind of service. So, you know, with the help of a clever accountant or a tax lawyer, this is not an area that I operate in. I’m more about multiplying QSBS once you have it. But there are tax lawyers and corporate lawyers and accountants who can advise you how to make your business eligible for QSBS by leaning into, as you said, things that you’re doing that may be…you know, eligible versus other parts of your business that would not be. Also, you know, you can, sometimes you see companies that are divided, right? Like, so there’s a company who provides counseling services, like, you know, they’re actually hire psychotherapists that will counsel you, you know, online, like on a Zoom. and their business is split. There’s a medical services company that employs all the counselors and medical services is one of the excluded industries. But then they also have a completely separate business that is their technology platform. And the way they structured it, the value is really in the technology platform. That business is QSBS eligible because it’s a completely separate company. Frazer Rice (26:28.771)That’s a great example. part of the purpose of the question was to elicit that, is that people may say, well, we fall squarely into one classification when maybe some underlying thought might lend itself to structuring from a tax perspective that might be useful later on. OK, now as we wind down, for someone who is, at this point, starting a company when they’re forming these things, not that you, QSBS for Founders should drive the world, but how do they get involved with the discussions so that they do the right things early? Michael Arlein (27:06.401)Yeah, I mean, I do have a very specific strategy that I love for people who are about to form a company. And it really works best in that scenario of an early stage company that’s just about to launch. The way I describe this to founders is that you can and should clone yourself on the cap table. So if you start off a company and you own all of the shares, you’re basically eligible for 15 million tax free. That’s great. But what if you could clone yourself and there were three Frazers on the cap table, then Frazer would have $45 million tax free. So how do you do this? You can do it with trusts. And the beautiful thing is if you have other people create trust for you, then you can be the beneficiary of the trust and control it as well. And I have sort of branded and named this strategy a GOAT trust, which of course has the double meaning, know, greatest of all time. Frazer Rice (28:21.02) QSBS for FoundersRight. Michael Arlein (28:21.165) QSBS for FoundersBut actually stands for gift optimized to alleviate taxes. The essentials of it are is that we would work with your parents, the founders parents, we would work with your grandma, your uncle, and we would spin up some trusts that they create for the benefit of you as the founder. You would have all sorts of control and access to those trusts and they make a gift into those trusts, probably something fairly modest. Then those trusts on the day of formation buy up some of the common stock. And so those are your clones. You know, you’re having your cake and eating it too. You’re getting, you know, QSBS stacking for Founders. You’re getting some other benefits we haven’t even talked about. Those trusts can be exempt from a state tax and state level income tax. And you control those trusts and benefit from them. So we’ve essentially cloned you on the cap table. And that is a beautiful strategy that most people miss out on because they don’t do it. And then they come to me a few years later and they own the stock and it’s valuable and then we have to do the more traditional stacking strategies. Frazer Rice (29:40.432)Really cool stuff. Michael, how do people get in touch with you if they have these problems slash opportunities? Michael Arlein (29:48.525)Sure, well they can Google me. I have a nice web presence. We have our…Founder Focus Practice Group that I lead at the firm, which is very specifically tailored to provide legal services to founders, personal legal services. And I focus on the tax side of that and QSBS stacking for Founders. My email, msarlein at pbwt.com. Phone number 212-336-2588. Frazer Rice (30:23.324) QSBS For FoundersThat will all be in the show notes. Michael, thanks for being on. Michael Arlein (30:26.753) QSBS For FoundersThank you. FAMILY OFFICE MYTHS https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/ QSBS for Founders QSBS for Founders

Have you ever thought or said, “I didn't sign up for this!” Plot twists come and we're tempted to wonder where is God in this? Right now, we're learning to engage our sense of hearing, to hear God through His Word and the stories of those who lived long ago. To help us, my friend, Sarah Frazer, author of “I Didn't Sign Up for This” is joining us today.Sarah E. Frazer is a writer, Bible study mentor, wife of Jason, and mother of five. With a background in missionary work and Bible teaching, her passion is to encourage women to start today with a Bible reading and prayer habit. She shares tools and encouragement for Bible study and prayer study on her website, sarahefrazer.com, and at @sarah_e_frazer.C A N D A C E  C O F E Rauthor + speaker ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠instagram⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠youtube⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠facebook⁠

White Oak Baptist Church of Stratford, CT is a loving, Christ-centered Church engaging our community in a powerful way. To learn more about our church and how you can connect, please visit http://www.whiteoakbc.org

White Oak Baptist Church of Stratford, CT is a loving, Christ-centered Church engaging our community in a powerful way. To learn more about our church and how you can connect, please visit http://www.whiteoakbc.org

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss the Knights and Sharks trades, more Mitch Marner drama, and Ranger letter 2.0.

Ken and Frazer review the play of the Ravens IOL in 2025 and look forward to how the 2026 group may be constructed.Our Sponsors:* Check out Aura.com: https://aura.com/remove* Check out BetterHelp: https://www.betterhelp.com* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss Red Wings retiring Sergei Fedorov's number 91, Patrick Kane's 500 goals, and more; plus bonus hidden content.

In this episode, 10 Family Office Myths exposed (and debunked). https://youtu.be/j1cgcZZcRBM Welcome back and Happy New Year on the Wealth Actually podcast. I’m Frazer Rice. We have a fun show today where we talk about 10 myths in the family office space. Mark Tepsich, who runs the family office governance practice at UBS is here as we dish into the ideas and concepts that are misunderstood in the family office world. Summary This conversation delves into the complexities and myths surrounding family offices, exploring their structure, governance, and the unique challenges they face in wealth management. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the specific needs of families and the role of family offices in managing complexity and preserving wealth across generations. It also addresses common misconceptions about family offices, including their necessity, governance, and their relationship with institutional investors. Takeaways Family offices are established to manage complexity in wealth.Not all family offices are the same; each has unique needs.Governance frameworks are essential for effective family office management.Many family offices outsource functions rather than internalizing them.The myth that 85-90% of family offices shouldn’t exist is false.Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a debated concept in wealth preservation.Family offices need to adapt to the evolving needs of families.Investment functions in family offices are often secondary to administrative roles.Family offices are driven by complexity rather than just size.The future of family offices may involve more direct investment opportunities. Chapters: Family Office Confidential 00:00 Understanding Family Offices: Myths and Realities02:02 The Complexity of Family Office Structures04:37 Debunking Common Myths About Family Offices06:17 The Role of Outsourcing in Family Offices07:54 Generational Wealth: The Shirt Sleeves Myth10:51 Flexibility vs. Permanence in Family Offices12:48 Governance and Decision-Making in Family Offices15:49 Investment Functions in Family Offices18:05 Size vs. Complexity in Family Offices20:09 Family Offices vs. Institutional Capital21:19 The Aspirational Nature of Family Offices23:30 The Relationship Between Family Offices and Institutions25:36 Technology in Family Offices: Current Trends29:03 Family Offices and Private Equity: A Comparative Analysis Myths 85-95% of FO’s should not exist vs. “there is no such thing as a family office’ Family office internalize everything A Family Office Anchored by an operating business is the same that is one funded solely by liquidity event Shirtsleeves to Shirtsleeves is myth Family offices are designed to be permanent’ Family Offices don’t need high end (almost SOX) like governance Family Offices are driven by net worth (no, by complexity) Family Offices are built on a robust investment function (no, it”s complexity management- often rooted in bookkeeping and accounting) Family Offices are like institutional Capital (no, many more motivations than pure returns- including whimsy and the knee-jerk ability to override the IPS) Family Offices are the right result for a career (they could be, but it is extremely unlikely- a lot of things have to be “just right” and there is little to know patience for development Family Offices make great wealth clients (very much depends on the function and the product- they can be difficult consumers) Family office tech is best – in – breed (No and it probably never will be) Family offices shun Large institutions (Surprisingly, no- needed for deals, expertise, and most importnatly financing and introductions) Keywords family offices, wealth management, governance, investment strategies, family dynamics, myths, financial planning, family wealth, complexity management, family governance Transcript: Family Office Myths Busted Frazer Rice (00:04.462): Welcome board, Mark. Mark Tepsich: Hey, Frazer, good to see you again. Appreciate the opportunity. Frazer Rice: Likewise. So let’s get started first. We’re going to go into some of the myths around family offices. But you really participate in kind of an interesting subset of that in terms of helping families design and govern them. What exactly does that mean on a day-to-day basis for you? Mark Tepsich: Yeah, good question. So, you know, it means a couple of things, right? So if you think about a family office, you have families that are at the inception point, right? Where things are getting too complex for them. They need to set up some sort of infrastructure. And it’s really like, what is a family office? What can it do for me? What are the pros, cons, and trade-offs? Where do I start? What’s the infrastructure, the systems? Who do I hire? How do I structure a compensation? So you’ve got families maybe coming at it. From post liquidity event, maybe coming at it from, we need to lift up, lift out this embedded family office out of the business to, hey, we’re an existing family office. We’ve got, you know, we’re evolving, right? The family’s growing, their enterprise is changing, the world around us is changing. People are leaving the family office, the next gen’s getting incorporated into the family office in some way. We’ve got some questions that could be, how do we engage the next generation through the family office? Mark Tepsich (01:21.614): How do we make decisions, communicate around our shared assets and resources, which could be a portfolio, maybe even a business, or hey, how do we come together and hire? What is this profile of this person look like? Who should we hire and not hire? What’s the structure of their compensation, carry co-investment, leverage co-investment? What’s the tech stack look like across accounting, consulting, reporting? Now, how do we insource and outsource? So it’s sort of. I like to call it organizational capabilities. So, you know, sometimes it’s soup to nuts, like starting from zero, other times it’s, we’ve been around for a long time, but we have a couple of questions. So that’s kind of my day to day. And, you know, I’ve been living this really since 2008 pre-global financial crisis. Frazer Rice So we’re going to go into, I think, some of the craziness of the family office ecosystem where we have people who wear many hats, people who wear masks, some people who are jokers and other people who are really good technicians and provide a lot of great insight. One of the things you were talking about is that the different types of mandate can be different. And I think maybe one of the first myths we should tackle is the The bromide that if you’ve seen one family office, you’ve seen one family office, which is thrown around at every family office conference and everybody chuckles for a minute and then it sort of washes away and no one cares anymore. What do you think about that statement? Mark Tespich (03:19.006): So I don’t necessarily think it’s true. And here’s what I mean. Let’s make an analogy to this, right? A business needs certain core infrastructure to just operate, right? And using accounting back office, you know the inflows, the outflows, you know, if you’re make a decision, these are the steps you have to go through. And so a family office, right? It needs to incorporate that, but it needs to incorporate it with the family and the family enterprise that is existing for that family, right? So, yeah, each family office is different because each family is different, but that’s like saying you’ve seen one business, you’ve seen one business, right? The strategy could be, the culture could be different, but, you still need some core operating infrastructure. And again, there’s accounting infrastructure, and that’s the basics, right? So there’s a curl of truth, but largely I think that it is false. Well, and at the same time, yes, families are different, but in general, families are trying to get to the same place, which is, know, they want to steward the wealth. They want to make sure it benefits the family and the other constituencies. And they want to make sure that it’s preserved over time. And those functions, you know, it’s very infrequent. You’d find the functions not there. And so how you get from A to B may be different, as you said, but there are a lot of universal truths to setting one of these things up. Frazer Rice So one of the other myths that we’ve come across is the idea that 80 to 90 percent of family offices shouldn’t exist. is, people and families set these up for, let’s call it the wrong reasons. Maybe it’s fear of missing out, maybe it’s great cocktail party chatter, maybe it’s an overdiagnosis of their needs. What do you think about that? Mark Tepsich Again, false. know, family offices are largely a function. They largely exist because there’s a market scale here. And what I mean by that is when you look under the hood at a family office, you’ve got basics of an accounting firm. You’ve got basics of an investment slash wealth management firm. You’ve got the basics of a legal slash tax firm. And then you’ve got essentially everything in between. And when you look at professional service firms out there, They can’t provide all of those under one roof, whether compliance or regulatory reasons. But the other reason is because no business model out there can really scale the complexity that each one of these families has. So yeah, you could outforce a lot of this stuff, but at the end of the day, family offices often exist because of a market failure. so, false, 85 to 90 % of family offices should exist. Frazer Rice (05:41.164) One of the other things, I’ve been around enough of these getting set up, is that the family office, if we get into sort of a technical structure, such that you set up a structure so that you’re able to deduct the expenses related to administering the wealth around that, that’s a valid reason to do things in addition to the organizational component. So I agree with you that there’s, to say that they shouldn’t exist is sort of belying the notion that these functions should take place internally. And I think you spoke to that. And I guess that gets to another myth, which is that family offices should internalize all of these functions. You just talked about it a little bit, that that’s not a great business model either. Mark Tepsich No, mean, yeah, so, you know, 85 to 90 % of family members out there, you just use that statistic, outsource a fair amount of things, right? And what that means is let’s just use tax counsel, for instance, right? This is something that these issues exist in every family office, they exist for every individual, but at the end of the day, should you have, you know, a tax counsel in-house in a family office that’s only doing, you know, income tax advisor work? Probably not. For 95 % of family offices because the frequency just isn’t there, right? So, you if you look at general councils alone, right? So they should have a broader mandate than income tax. should have well-transferred estate planning. Every family has those issues, but do they have the frequency to warrant bringing that individual, that professional and the rate, the cost? Probably not. a lot, you know, most family offices outsource a fair amount of whether it’s investment management, manager selection and due diligence. So false. Most fair amount offices do outsource a fair amount. Frazer Rice (07:31.374) One the things, this is one of my favorite controversial topics in the family office ecosystem of vendors that are out there is this notion that shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a myth. that the, and for those who don’t know what that means is, know, the first generation has generated the wealth, the second one enjoys it. And then the third one for a variety of reasons is ill-equipped to carry the wealth forward. And then everyone kind of goes back. It transcends culture. It’s lily pad to lily pad. You know, there’s a British version and a Russian version and whatever version. But the advice ecosystem around this is such that there’s a lot of debate about the statistics that have, quote unquote, proven that. And I can listen to that and say, yes, those may be very narrow. But there is a myth out there that shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves is a myth. Maybe you have some comments on that. Mark Tepsich Man, this is a tough one. I will say this will probably be the toughest one. So I think once a family becomes wealthy, right? And you can kind of define that as, the wealth, meaning the financial wealth will last a few generations with really out, with really nobody working, right? Let’s just define it that way. It’ll last a couple of generations if you make some not dumb decisions, we’ll call it. I think such as the financial markets today, right, as long as you’re diversified, you will stay wealthy. Does that mean you are going to have the same amount per capita over time? Maybe not, right? So if you look at it today, is a nuclear family of four, and you look at it 50 years from now, and the family is 30 people, right? I don’t know what the growth rate would have to be on those assets. So I think the family will remain wealthy whether they remain, you know, on a per capita basis, right? That’s a different story. I think what this is missing, however, I think the numbers kind of overshadow what this is getting at. I think when you look at it, when you take a step back, that first generation wealth creator, right? Will the family continue to be builders and entrepreneurs down the road? Frazer Rice (09:50.26) That I think that’s the question. Will they continue to kind of reach their full potential? I think that is that should be the focus. I’m going to punt on this one. I think it’s TBD and it’s there’s no set answer. I think the idea that the returns, To get back to your point is that as you go from generation to generation, the complexity increases, I’d say geometrically. Whereas the assets in many ways are going to be designed to increase linearly. And so at some point it may be 14 generations down the line when you’ve got 300 people that you have to take care of, are those assets gonna be in place to be able to support the level of living that people expected in generation one, two, and three? I think that’s the equation we’re all trying to fight. And so I’d say while Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves isn’t necessarily a prophecy, it’s definitely something that has to be addressed. So I’m gonna say that the fact that Shirt Sleeves to Shirt Sleeves is a myth, I think that’s the myth. Mark Tepsich So that’s where I draw my line in the sand there. think there’s an equation you constantly have to fight. Okay, so here’s another one. Family offices are designed to be permanent. I happen to think that they start out trying to be permanent, but in actuality, they really have to be more flexible and flex with the needs of the family, even at the first or second generation. Yeah, I would agree. Often they’re established for a good reason, right? That reason is complexity. Whether that complexity continues to exist for the family is a different story, right? You might have a business being sold. The family might just say, “hey, we don’t need to do all these direct investments, these alternate investments. Let’s just keep it simple, keep it passive.” I don’t think they’re designed to be permanent. I think families don’t really think about that too much. They want to exist for probably the existing generation that’s leveraging it and they wanna transition it, to your point, be flexible over time. But I don’t think anyone like a business, right? If you think about a business, the business generally speaking, it’s meant to exist in a perpetuity. That’s why you have a business, right? It’s not a sole proprietorship, but a family office, I think it’s TBD, right? So, you know. I don’t think anyone’s setting up a family that will say this is going to exist a thousand years from now. And I think if they came out and said that, think that it would add question and motivations. Frazer Rice Maybe we may be welcoming the Martians, we may be speaking Mandarin. There’s a thousand things that could happen in between here and then, that’s for sure. Here’s a myth that I think you and I are both going to agree is one, which is that family offices, for the ones that we think are going to try to persist, don’t demand necessarily Sarbanes-Oxley or high-end governance. Mark Tepsich I think as family offices mature, meaning as the family evolves, they do need some sort of decision-making framework. Especially if they’re going to really come together and act like somewhat of an institution. What I mean by that is, under the hood of a family office or under the hood of a family, let’s say there’s 10 family members. Let’s say there’s 20 to 25 trusts within that. You know, you could come together and pull your assets, right? And pull your resources. That’s part of the reason for having a family office. And so you just have a larger pool of capital. When you’re doing that, you do need governance. Okay? But if you’re gonna have, it’s just like, hey, we’re gonna have our separate portfolios. We’re not gonna come together and have pooled investment vehicles. You might not need an investment company, okay? And there might be good reasons to have an investment committee. In fact, many the investment committees I see, they’re not like college endowments where, we got eight people or nine people on here. We need to agree at least have five people to agree to allocate to this manager or change the allocation or change the IPS, depending on where that authority resides. I often see many investment committees for families, hey, we’re just collaborative in nature. We’ll get together. We’re going to have a meeting and talk about different strategies. Different advisors, things we should be doing. But if they’ve always had to agree at the family business level, they might not wanna have that same construct in the family office slash investment portfolio. If they’ve always struggled, know, come into agreement at the family business, now they’re gonna like, hey, we’re gonna recreate this dynamic. don’t have a binding construct. In fact, we ran a report, it’s coming out hopefully in the next couple of weeks. on family enterprise governance and a component obviously is the investment committee. 70 % of the investment committees out there are advisory in nature, meaning they don’t make binding decisions. They take it back to the trustees or whoever the authority is and they say, hey, here’s what we think, right? So individual family investors, whoever that is, co-trustees, it’s a, okay. So I do think governance is important, but it depends on what you mean by that, right? Should there be an IPS in place? I 100 % think that each family investor should have an IPS in place. The biggest mistake I see there is, hey, we’ve got this shared pool of capital. We’ve got 50 trusts. We’ve got one single IPS, right? I think that is a big mistake. don’t think that’s good governance. So it really depends on what you mean, but I think, yes, there should be some decision-making framework that you’re following. Otherwise, what exactly are you? Adhering to it, right? Like, what is your framework? What is your decision making tree? Frazer Rice (15:53.902) On top of that, possible myth. Family offices are built on a robust investment function. I mean, yes, there are some that are like that, right? You know, there’s a big names out there, MSD, Pritzker, so on and so forth. Those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Most family offices, 85 to 90 % are formed to manage the complexity, right? So again, otherwise you’re gonna have all these outsourced providers and that just doesn’t make sense when you’re trying to make a decision, because you need all the different parts to come together. They’re often built as administrative functions first, rather than, we’re gonna go start the next, you know, a private equity firm. that’s false. Frazer Rice The, as I like to say, probably to the boredom of a lot of people who talk to me a lot is that a lot of these really are built on a bookkeeping or an accounting spine. You’ve got to manage the inflows and outflows of everything and keep track of what you have or else you can have a great investment function, but things are going to spill all over the place. Mark Tepsich (17:30.872) I’ll never say, yeah. mean, and that actually goes back to good governance, right? So I always say, it’s not provocative. I’ll say, listen, this is not a provocative answer, but you need to create that first. And most of the people that are considering this rate are business owners. So they’ll intuitively get that. In fact, that function might exist somewhere at the business, but it’s really not organized. And without that function, like, it’s hard to make a decision, right? If you’re going to allocate 20 % of your portfolio, to private equity drawdown vehicles. got cap calls, capital commitments, distributions, like that needs to be budgeted and forecasting, right? So a lot of these families will have, one nuclear family can have three to four homes, 10 bank accounts, 20 entities. It’s not like a single piggy bank that you could take cash out of and move it every which way, right? Those are owned by different vehicles, different trusts, different assets and things like that, so. Frazer Rice Here’s a myth that I espouse which is Family offices and whether you have one or not is driven solely by size whether you have five billion or two hundred million or something like that that if you aren’t a certain size you shouldn’t have one and if you’re Of a certain size you must have one. Mark Tepsich That’s a myth. It’s driven by complexity first. I’ve seen, I’ve spoken to people that are worth two to $3 billion. It’s concentrated in a few stocks, meaning like they were early stage employees, right? They’re still in it. They’re getting a healthy dividend at this point. Guy talked to couple years ago. He had two homes, two cars, probably 95 % of his network was tied up into two separate securities that were probably traded. And he’s like, I don’t think I need a family office. You want to know what one was, what it could do from. And I’m like, listen, if you don’t have the complexity, it probably doesn’t make sense. Okay, if you can make a decision within whatever framework you have, whatever complex you have. Now, the other, you know, there is a cost factor to it, right? It gets easier to start a family office, meaning hire a couple of people, if you’ve got the… asset base for it to make sense on a cost perspective. So most of the time it’s driven by complexity, but cost does become a factor, right? If you’re worth a hundred million dollars, you’re to go hire 10 people. That probably doesn’t make sense. Frazer Rice (19:28.342) Right. Well, on top of that too, if you, and there’s a sort of the difference between a family office driven by a liquidity event and meeting that’s, that’s all you have versus a family office that’s tethered or sorry, a family business that’s tethered to it, that is also generating cash flows to help pay for things that that’s a big part of the decision. Because if you’re hiring people, you know, a CIO minimum, absolute minimum is probably $500,000. They’re going to need people, you know, you’re looking at at least 3 million. just to get the thing up and running before you start figuring out what you actually have to do. And so the concept that the size is going to dictate completely, it underscores sort of that cost component that you described there. Frazer Rice This is an interesting one and I like this concept to talk about. Family offices are like institutional capital as investors. Mark Tepsich Again, myth, there are some, again, there are some that are like institutions. They have the size and the sophistication. Oftentimes you see them, they’re former PE or hedge fund founders, right? That just aren’t doing any more of it. They made their wealth in the financial ecosystem, in the markets. And so they’re very sophisticated. But by and large, I mean, they’re sort of quasi-institutional, right? So I’ve seen multi-billion dollar family offices that Again, they’re more of the administrative hub rather than, we’re gonna be splashing around and playing in the markets and using a lot of leverage and doing a lot of control equity investments. So by and large, it’s the myth. 85 to 90 % are institutional-like. They are there to fill a need and that need is complexity management. Frazer Rice Here’s one on a different angle, which is family offices are the goal for people in the wealth management industry to work for, meaning family offices are a great aspiration for people who work in the industry and that that’s universal. Mark Tepsich (21:34.35) Myth, I think it’s an option. I think it’s interesting. I think it is a growing opportunity for folks that work in, you know, maybe wealth management or investment management or the financial ecosystem. But you didn’t, again, family has been around for a long time, but they’ve really only became, you know, kind of popular post global financial crisis with the rise of PE because of ZERP. You know, I’ll talk to a lot of people that are like in the hedge fund ecosystem looking for a change, right? And I say like, listen, like these opportunities for you are out there, but it depends on the family. It depends on their compensation philosophy as on the culture that you’re going to have to live within. There’s a lot of key man risk. Is it an opportunity? Yes. But again, it is, it is family office by family office. Frazer Rice I tell people too, it’s for people who are used to having lots of clients or lots of institutional support that is going to be a shift. It’s different to have one client. It’s different to have a scenario where the business of a family office, the business model of that particular family office can change on a dime. And if you don’t share the last name of the family you’re working for, you could be in a tough spot. Mark Tepsich Yeah, “we’re gonna build out a sustainability impact portfolio. We’re gonna build out, we’re gonna have a direct investment initiative. We’re gonna allocate whatever, a few hundred million dollars to it.” That person, that professional gets there and then a year or two or three years goes by and the strategy changes because a family member too had to change a heart. And then it becomes, okay, why am I here? Where am I gonna go now? So again, they could be great opportunities. I had a great experience.but it really just depends on the family. Frazer Rice (23:26.894) Here’s one, and you’ve got UBS over your shoulder there, so this is dramatic foreshadowing in some ways, but I think it bears talking about. It’s that family offices shun the large institutions, and that they want it bespoke, they want something peculiar all the time. What do you think about that? Mark Tepsich No, I mean, it goes back to the earlier myth that, you know, basically we’re saying family office should, family office do outsource a lot, right? So again, most family offices are five to eight people, right? I call it family office island, meaning you’re there on the island and you’re like, what is going on outside of the island or off of the island? You know your island really well, right? You know the family, know all the facts inside and out, but they are, I mean, there’s a reason why all these institutions, including UBS, has built out the resources to cater to family offices, right? I’m the perfect example. They brought me on to help our clients build family offices, right? They would not do that if it was gonna cannibalize their business. So they could be great clients and other times it’s like, hey, we’re very insular and we’re gonna keep everything close to the vest. Again, it’s family office to family office. But by and large, they’re great wealth clients. Frazer Rice No, and they also, you know, they need institutions to partner with of size, whether it’s at custody or lending or any number of other functions that are out there. Sometimes, you know, the RIA space is such that, you know, they try to be all things to all people and the appeal of being in, you know, the billionaire space. It takes a lot of people and a lot of effort and frankly a different business model to deal with that and to just sort of wander in and say we’re great and we can do these things. I think that’s a short road for a lot of institutions. Frazer Rice (25:17.602) Again, like we are brutally honest too. And I’ll, and here’s what I mean by that. Well, like we’re rated a lot of things, but I’ll say like, listen, there’s things that we can’t do for you. We can’t be your accounting back office, right? Like we just don’t offer that. We don’t have it. We’ve got a couple firms that would do that. They’re pure plays on it. So they’ve got to be good at it. but you know, use the various institutions for what they’re good for. They’re, know, again, that’s why you’ve got a family office. You can kind of pick or choose and be agnostic as to what you’re using them for. Frazer Rice If we wind down here a couple of last ones: The tech that family offices rely on is going to be best in breed. Mark Tepsich I, listen, I have this power station all the time with family office meeting, like what, what, you know, what tech providers should we be looking at? Listen, family office have grown in, right over the past 10, 15 years that there’s not a question. they’re historically, right. had to use in a family office, had to take basically institutional tools, try to repurpose them for the family office and they just, they’re just kind of clunky, right? The family office is still a cottage industry. If you’re trying to sell the family offices, you’re selling the two firms with five to eight employees, right? So the tools are going to continue to get better. But in my opinion, they’re always going to lag the institutional tools and kind of sophistication. But that’s also because institutional tools are very kind of narrow and deep, whereas the family office tech tools, you’ve got the accelerated reporting, but it needs to link to the accounting. That’s an issue. And so the family of standard day is left with like a bunch of disparate fragmented systems that have a challenge talking to each other. With that said, AI, I’ve been talking to a lot of these sort of mom and pop shops, I’ll call them. They’re firms that are trying to incorporate AI to break down these walls. So it’s not fragmented disparate systems. I use the analogy of it’s like jailbreaking an iPhone. I don’t know where this is gonna be in a couple of years, but I think the tools are going to continue to improve. But again, you’re probably not going to take a family office tech tool and deploy it at institutional scale. So if that answers your question, I guess it’s a measure. Frazer Rice First of all, I think it’s going to take a long time before something, quote unquote, replaces Excel, which is still a powerful tool that is flexible and does what it says it’s going to do. And people use it sometimes at their own peril to be the underpinning of everything. the one thing I would add is that the mom and pop software components, I think, have a lot of great ideas. The total market to sell into that, though, does not necessarily make for a great software business. As you say, to get those tools that are specific and required at the family office level to be profitable, you got to figure out a way to sell that into something bigger. I’m not sure there is anything bigger. Mark Tepsich (28:49.358) Yeah, I mean, you’d be better selling it to, you know, small businesses, right? So, I mean, the tools are going to get better, but there’s been a lot of interest recently in the past couple years. I don’t think, I think most of them are not going to survive. I don’t want to say there’s only going to be a couple winners, but on the Consolidated Reported Front, I really think there’s only going be a couple winners because you need scale. And again, family office, if you’re looking to make a decision, you’re like, well, okay, well, 5,000 users use Adapar and 50 use this other platform. So which one are you gonna choose? You don’t wanna onboard to the one that has 50 and then three years down the road, they’re out of business, or there’s fold or something like that. So with scale comes a little bit of security that at least you know that a lot of other people are using. You could point to that. Frazer Rice Last question. Family offices will rival PE firms in terms of influence in the investing market? 85 to 90 % will not rival PE firms. That’s not what they’re set up for. That’s not the goal of most family offices. Again, it’s complexity management. Will some rival PE firms? Yeah. But again, you… Listen, I’ve seen some family office go out there and raise their party capital. When they do that, they’re not a family office anymore. They might have a component in there, but they’re private equity firms. What you’re getting at is private equity firms are raising a fund every couple of years. Can a family office do that? No, because once they do that, they will be a private equity firm. So PE by and large has an infinite capital source, as long as they are good at what they do, right? So with that said, you know, there’s a lot of entrepreneurs that are are post liquidity events have played in the direct investment space, they really wanna do it. They’re still young, right? They’re billers, operators created. They wanna do it from a different vantage point. They’re coming to a realization: “that w”We need to start a fund.” I really love that story because again, they’re founders and operators. They didn’t come from the financial ecosystem first to do this. So I think they’re putting a different spin on PE. I think it’s great for the PE industry as a whole, by the way. And I think, if you’re a founder or a business owner, you might have an easier time taking an equity investment from somebody like that, who’s known in that specific industry that they made their money in, who’s had to make payroll. And they probably have a different timeline than normal PE that’s looking to flip every three to five years. So I think as an investor, I think that would be an interesting investment opportunity, right? And so it’s like, okay, well, part of my PE allocation, you know, This might look interesting. I hesitate to make, you know, I’m not an investment person, so. Frazer Rice Great stuff. Mark, how do people find you and reach out? Mark Tepsich I’m on LinkedIn. I would attempt to just spell my name with my email address at ubs.com, but it’s very lengthy. You just hit me up on LinkedIn. But, Frasier, I appreciate the time. This was great. Frazer Rice I’ll have that in the show notes and as a final parting, we sort of listen to people say, the family space is getting loud. I’m not sure it is. I think the vendors are more loud than the family offices are. I don’t know what your experience is there. Mark Tepsich 100%, the family members themselves are still quiet. You don’t see them out there on LinkedIn. It is the ecosystem to your point around them that is getting loud, right? It’s LinkedIn. It’s like, you know, every time I’m on there, it’s like somebody’s got something to say about families, which is good. Again, if you think about every boom in history, they attract people, right? You could say the same thing about AI, right? But again, it’s become loud, but that’s the industry. It’s not the family offices themselves. Frazer Rice Great stuff. Thanks, Mark. Mark Tepsich Thank you, Frazer. Appreciate it. FAMILY OFFICE DEFINED MORE ON FAMILY OFFICE DESIGN WITH ED MARSHALL https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Thank you for downloading the Trap One Podcast. On this episode UK Jason, Si, Frazer and Simon Fox mark the armistice between the land and the sea with the series finale - The End of the War. Contains spoilers. You can pre-order the series on DVD and blu-ray here #ad

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss the Olympic rosters, Sid passes Mario, Stamkos, Matthews, and Marchand reach milestones. PLUS tons of news and statistics.

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens offense vs the Patriots.Our Sponsors:* Check out Aura.com: https://aura.com/removeAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Patriots.Our Sponsors:* Check out Aura.com: https://aura.com/removeAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Frazer, Joe, and Andy talk about the Flyers announcer blunder and Joe quizzes the guys on each franchises All Time Power Play Goal leaders.

Frazer, Joe, and Andy talk about the Penguins sale, trades before freeze, and Joe quizzes the guys on All-time Games Played leaders for every franchise.

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Patriots.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens offense vs the Patriots.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

We have Mike Monaghan on the show today and covering the “Birth of an ETF.” He’s going to talk about the Founders ETF and its new launch. We’re also going to talk a little bit about what it takes to get an ETF up and running. From a compliance perspective, remember, there’s no guarantee of future performance. https://youtu.be/o-m3PYHKXqk?si=qBaHkJpUt7xgdpjG Transcript of “The Birth of an ETF” 00:00 The Founders ETF Frazer Rice (00:00.986)Welcome back, Mike. Michael Monaghan (00:02.616)Frazer, it’s great to be back. Frazer Rice (00:04.4)You are at an interesting point in time right now. You’re about to start up Founders ETF and I think you’re about to get trading authorization to get going. Maybe tell us a little bit about the process to set up an ETF. Then we’ll dive into the strategy a little bit. Michael (00:21.25)Yeah, absolutely right. We should start trading on the SIBO Thursday, so two days from now. And we’ve launched our first fund, the Founders 100, that owns the 100 best founder-led companies. I’d be happy to go through some of the process that it takes to set up an ETF. Frazer Rice (00:40.014)Love it. ETFs are the main way to go now in terms of getting an inveestment cvhicle up and running. What has your experience been around? The Popularity of the ETF Structure Michael (00:52.014)Yeah, so ETFs have become the primary investment vehicle for a few reasons. Let’s outline those reasons. Then we can go through some of the steps that it takes to set up an ETF. So on the advantage side of an ETF, they’re typically a bit lower cost than traditional mutual fund products. Importantly, they’re tax advantaged. So there’s no gains or losses that occur during the normal ETF growth phase. Everything that happens within the ETF is done with what’s called an authorized participant. So you do exchanges. And so there’s no capital gains that are assigned to the investors. As long as they hold the ETF, a tax trigger only occurs when they actually sell the ETF. Finally, it’s a great way to get exposure to the market. So whether you want to own a broad market index, one of the legacy indexes, or a vehicle like ours. That gives you in one single trade, rather than having to guess who’s going to win. Is Nvidia going to win or Palantir who’s going to win? You can own a hundred of the best winners in the market in one single stock ticker. In our case, FFF. Frazer Rice (02:07.364)So let’s dive into that theme a little bit. As you said, it’s the top hundred founder led companies. First and foremost, public I assume, private, you’re not diving in those waters. Public vs Private Michael (02:20.59)Correct. So these are the hundred best publicly traded founder led stocks. And we generally fish from the 200 largest founder led publicly traded stocks. So a lot of these are names and founders that are very well recognized. Whether it’s Elon at Tesla or a Mark at Metta, Larry at Oracle, Rich Fairbanks at Capital One. These are all very well known founders. They’re great entrepreneurs who are leading highly scalable, very high performing publicly traded stocks. 02:53 Understanding Founder-Led Companies Frazer Rice (02:53.914)So let’s define founder a little bit. Obviously we have sort of the cult of personality around high-end CEOs. It sounds like you’re identifying companies that have been founded. The people who are running them not only founded them, but they scaled them. They have now gotten them to a level of maturity. That’s different from the typical public company that we find in the S &P 500. Definition of Founder Michael (03:19.104)Yeah. So first let’s define a founder. Then let’s talk about why we think the founder led companies outperform a traditional S&P company. We define the founder as being a chief executive leader. It could be chief executive officer, could be chief technology officer. Sometimes that say a scientific or medical company, would be the chief scientific or chief medical officer. And that person conceived and founded the company, took it from zero to one. It’s their imprint that has guided it over its 10 or 20 or 30 year period. That’s taken it from a small private company to a venture backed company to a large publicly traded company. And so the idea being the person that founded it continues to run it to this day. We talk about the fact that we own an Nvidia that Jensen still runs. But we don’t own Intel. We own Meta because Mark still runs it, but we don’t own Google. We own Dell computer because Michael Dell still runs it. But we don’t own Apple. We own Capital One because Rich Fairbank still runs it, but we don’t own American Express. Investment Process Frazer Rice (04:25.86)Got it. So lots of things to get into here. How does it a company get on your radar screen? And then ultimately, how does it get off of it? Michael (04:35.806)Great question. the getting on the screen is fairly mechanical. We look at the 200 largest by market capitalization founder led stocks. So we look at all U.S. listed. So it could be listed on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, but it has to be U.S. listed. We then look at the 200 largest. And from there, we select the 100 best using a quantitative factor model. So I’m have a Sanford Bernstein background and so do some of the folks here. And so for folks who are familiar with Bernstein’s research, we use a Bernstein factor model to pick the best, the hundred best names out of the 200 largest. That’s how they get on our radar. And to get off is quite simple if they retire. So if a CEO announces he’s retiring, per the prospectus, we have 90 days to sell the stock. once we, so for example, Mr. Buffett recently stepped down from Berkshire Hathaway. And so we sell Berkshire Hathaway on his announcement and no longer own the stock. Frazer Rice (05:38.0)things like corporate mergers or divestitures or maybe even a reclassification of stock where the founder stays on in some capacity but their decision making has been reduced. How do you analyze that? 05:54 The Investment Strategy Behind the ETF Michael (05:54.326)Yeah, so there is some human overlay judgment calls here and the founder has to be an executive officer leading the company. So they can’t just run a division. They can’t just be chairman of the board. They have to be the executive in charge of running the company. Frazer Rice (06:14.0)And if for, I guess one of the exits possibly would be if, and I don’t know if this is even possible, but if NVIDIA were to take over Meta and there isn’t room for Jensen and Mark in the same suite, how do you analyze something like that? Michael (06:34.253)So in the business combinations where you have two founder-led companies or a non-founder-led company swallowed up by a founder-led company, as long as an original founder remains, it remains in the portfolio. So we’ve had some stocks that had, say, three to four co-founders. And as long as one of those co-founder remains, it remains in the portfolio. Voting Shares Frazer Rice (06:58.352)So one of the things that’s a bee in my bonnet is the concept of having shares where, in a sense, they’re super majority or voting components and then shareholders that have less decision making authority to act as a check and balance around the company. Is that something you’re not really that worried about or is it something that may be a factor that’s important later on? Michael (07:24.525)So we actually think that’s one of the opportunities that this exists. Like one of the things that we haven’t talked about yet is why is all this alpha there? Why is this uncaptured alpha there for us to go get? And we think historically in the past, active money managers have sometimes shied away from these founder led companies because to your point, Frazier, oftentimes the founder has managed to have super voting control, 10 to one shares, 101 shares. So they completely control the company. And some of these larger active money management complexes have said, well, we as the shareholder, we need to be able to have a vote and we’re going to underown these stocks. We have the opposite view. We think these founders are special. So we think that by the time a Mark or a Elon has driven their company into the public markets, they’ve showed that they know how to set the vision, ruthlessly execute and generate value for the shareholders. Concerns? And so we’re not concerned by super voting structures. Oftentimes those are the stocks that we want to own because it’s the founder that’s in control and setting the direction of the business and generating high returns for the shareholders. We view it as you either believe in them and you own the stock or you don’t believe in them and sell the stock. We’re not interested in other people’s getting on the board and monkeying with the decisions of the founders. Frazer Rice (08:30.255)Is this it? What is it about the founders, especially for those that go from zero to one, then to scale, and then to shepherding a mature business? What makes them better and what drives the alpha that you’re trying to seek? In terms of putting together a portfolio of these types of companies? 09:01 The Importance of Founders in Business Michael (09:02.891)Yeah, so the great ones tend to be a bit irreverent. They tend to be highly visionary. They tend to be charismatic communicators and relentless in their execution ability. They’ve got a great ability to pivot if a change needs to be made. And rthe moral authority to set a tone to generate very high rates of return. We see it sort of over and over and over in these founder led companies. And if you look at some of the studies that we’ve done. There’s a study that Bain Capital, Bain had done years ago in combination with Harvard Business Review, founder led companies tend to outperform non-founder led companies in say the S &P 500 by 3X. So it’s this personality type of high vision and high execution tends to drive outsize returns. And it’s a bit of a self-selecting process. What makes Founders Unique? If you think about it by the time any of these founders that we own or talk about have got to the public market. They first had to identify an opportunity to go after. They had to develop a great product by listening to their customers. And they’ve shown that they can scale all the way from a series A round, B, C, D, all the way investing and generating high rates of return in the private markets. Transitions of Founders to Executives They get to the public markets, continue to do that. And now you get a little bit of an effect of a echo of that, of now all of sudden you’re in the public markets. If you get enough scale, you have this highly effective business. Now you’re getting relatively cheap capital that you’re feeding into your business through the public markets. And now you continue to grow. Frazer Rice (10:42.096)Just to summarize at least what I’m hearing is that they’ve gotten to the point of becoming public. They’ve been able to say no to losing control in exchange for either putting some liquidity back in their pocket or otherwise moving on. And so they’ve almost ratified their vision and message and they keep going. And by the fact that they’re public, there’s enough liquidity for everyone else out there in terms of their investments. So it ends up being a win-win. Michael (11:11.157)I think so. That’s what we see. Frazer Rice (11:13.316)So one thing that I’ve been sort of reading about and thinking about is the concept that the number of public companies is becoming less, well, it’s decreasing, and that many people are able to stay private for longer. Do you worry that your universe is going to get too small to provide sort of a canvas for your ideas here? 12:02 Market Trends and Future Outlook Michael (11:37.549)Let’s talk about three phases of that. We don’t, we actually see the data showing that there’s more and more opportunities within founder led. So let’s look at history and then let’s move to the future. So historically, probably about the time you and I joined the securities business, they would actually take the, to your point, they would take the founder, they would kick out this charismatic founder. They would put in some mid-level proctor or GE middle level manager to be the you know, the suit in the room to take the company public. And that was sort of in the late nineties and people figured out that wasn’t such a good idea. So if you actually look at the chart, there’s more and more founders staying and leading their public, their, their publicly traded companies. That’s number one. Number two. Yes. We have seen some companies stay private, obviously Stripe, SpaceX, but we are now seeing, for example, SpaceX coming to the public markets. Eli is talking about coming next year. so we, we haven’t seen it so far impact the pool with which we can fish in. And as I mentioned, that’s what we saw historically. Public Markets and the Future In the future, think, Frazer, I think we’re going to start to see a conversion of public and private markets, meaning these private mega cap companies have liquidity. And I think that you’ll see more and more ability to trade those stocks almost in public liquidity. So I think these two markets are converging. So I think that Not only do we have plenty of founders in the traditional public markets, I think that the liquidity and the big privates is going to converge to a public market style shortly anyway. Frazer Rice (13:13.232)You’re in a curious time as far as launching an ETF around this concept. I know a lot of people are wary of Mag-7 and ultra valuations and issues related to that. How do you respond to that concept that a lot of the growth has taken place in seven, maybe seven out of the hundred that you’ve chosen? Debunking the Mag-7 (to the Mag-3) Michael (13:33.356)Yeah, so that’s a misconception. We see Mike Saylor get on TV and wave his arms around it, but it’s not really true. First of all, what’s interesting, if you tear apart the Mag-7, it’s actually the Mag-3. The outperformance in the Mag-7 has come from Meta, Tesla, and NVIDIA. So it’s not just the Mag-7, it’s a founder led. And now you say, well, that’s a small sample set. Let’s look at a bigger sample set. So if you look at the NASDAQ 100, for example, It’s actually the 20 founder led companies have driven most of the outperformance over the last 25 years. And what I’m about to tell you about the S &P 500 probably won’t surprise you. It’s the 37 founder led companies that have driven most of the outperforming the S &P 500. So the outperformance is coming from founders, not from any specific part of the market. And one of the things that we think is great about this ETF is to avoid concentration. 14:50 Risk Management I know you’re really familiar with the concept of active share and that’s how different you are than the S &P 500. We have an 85 % active share to the S &P 500. So if you own the founders 100 ETF, you have much different exposure to the market than say the S &P 500. And so we think it helps reduce some of that concentration. We’ve done some things to make sure that we are diversified. First of all, we do own 100 stocks. Diversification So really good diversification across that. And then number two, while we run a market weight portfolio, we cap. No stock can be bigger than 7 % of the portfolio, so we don’t get out of balance at any point. So we think that we mitigate some of those concentration risks and we allow people to invest in innovation without being over concentrated to any one name, say the MAG-7, for example. So we think that we’re giving our investors really good exposure to innovation through the founders, but not exposing them to pre-existing market concentrations. And then finally remind everyone It’s not the MAG-7, it’s not the NASDAQ-100, it’s not the S &P-500, it’s the founders within each of these are what are driving the outsized performance in those analytical groups. Frazer Rice (15:36.218)So from a diversification standpoint, obviously not everything in one name, the 7 % cap you described, do you have sector concentration guidelines as well? Michael (15:45.749)We don’t have sector concentration guidelines, but if you look at the nature of the portfolio, we were fairly well diversified. We’re slightly overweight tech and financials versus say the S &P, but we own healthcare stocks, own consumer stocks, we own energy stocks. So we’re giving you a broad exposure to the market. Leverage Frazer Rice (16:05.924)Let’s talk about leverage for a second. I know a lot of people are trying to juice returns by piggybacking off of other people’s money on that front. Does that have a place in your ETF? Michael (16:17.004)So there’s no leverage in the ETF. We sort of believe in get rich the slow way. I like to tell people that it’s very hard to make money in the stock market over the short term, but it’s not particularly difficult over the very long term. think Mr. Munger and Mr. Buffett used to talk about this. the idea being, leverage can impact you in times that are not favorable. So we believe in just owning the stocks unlevered, let them compound over very long periods of time. And we think that by doing that, we and our shareholder, we think our shareholders can generate wealth over very long periods of time. Taxes Frazer Rice (16:54.98)So tax efficiency, the concept of holding period, does that play into your process at all? Michael (17:04.316)So remember within the ETF, as long as you’re managing your trading properly within the ETF, there’s no tax implications inside of it for your shareholders. Your shareholders only would be impacted at selling. So assuming they hold the stocks for over a year, any gains would be long-term capital gains treatment. Frazer Rice (17:27.024)And when you’re describing the investor profile that you’re looking to attract here, who is this for? Michael (17:35.916)Yeah, so the person that, you we really think it’s appropriate for you if you have a five year or more holding period and you want to have long-term capital appreciation. You know, if your goal is to be exposed to the best minds and public securities, that’s the founder led companies, and you want to compound your wealth over a very long period of time and have a high probability of outperforming the traditional broad market indexes, this ETF is designed for you. 17:59 Investor Profile and ETF Positioning Frazer Rice (18:04.705)And as you’re sort of outlining that profile and for those people who are trying to figure out where this fits in from an equity allocation perspective, you’re in charge in many ways of the spoke of a hub and spoke component of people are really sort of looking at indexes as the base of their equity portfolio. What are you looking for? What kind of benchmarks do you sort of measure yourself against? Michael (18:35.007)Yeah, so we think this is absolutely a core holding. So if you’re looking to build out you or your client’s portfolio, we think this should sit at the core. It is on the growth side, so it’s core growth. We think that it is a one-for-one replacement for, the NASDAQ 100. Or, for example, somebody holding the triple Qs. We think this is a better holding than the triple Qs. So we benchmark ourselves against them and against the S &P 500. Ee look at beating those two broad market indexes, generating better risk return for our investors. Frazer Rice (19:13.019)For those listeners that are out there and want to find out more, what’s the best way that they can either get a hold of you or maybe even better, do you have a ticker symbol ready that people can discover? FFF and Contact Information Michael (19:25.215)Yeah, absolutely. So the ticker is FFF. So that’s the FFF ETF that we’ll trade on. And investors can find that at their favorite brokerage firm, whether they’re Schwab customers, Interactive Brokers customers, Fidelity customers, trades under one ticker, just like a stock. Frazer Rice (19:44.365)And let’s take, we have a few minutes to go here, which is great. Your experience in terms of establishing the ETF, maybe a couple of some of the touch points when you went from vision to execution here, what was the process? Michael (20:00.106)Yeah, so ETF has a few basic processes that are regulated under the 1940 Securities Act. And so a lot of those rules are set up to protect the end investors. So for example, the securities live within a trust. So we set up our own trust. Some people use a mingled trust. We thought it was better for our end investors to have our own trust that we set up that has an independent trust board that oversees to make sure that we’re executing our strategies as we’ve outlined in the prospectus to make sure that we’re Doing the best we can for our investors. You’ve got to set that up There’s a few firms that do the plumbing for the for the ETFs would say US Bank is probably the largest player. So US Bank provides our our fund custody and fund administration and then there’s just a few other vendors in the space that sort of help with all the plumbing to make sure that the ETF runs smoothly. So it’s probably a six month process if you stay really focused to get all of that set up. 20:58 Navigating the ETF Launch Process Frazer Rice (21:03.313)You get that set up, how do you approach the Schwabs and the Fidelitys and the other platforms to make sure that people can access, buy, sell, whatever they want to do with your ETF? Michael (21:14.347)Yeah, that’s a great question. So the online brokerages typically put you on the platform as soon as you’re listed on a major US exchange. So you’ve got to get listed on NASDAQ, NYSE or CIBO. We chose CIBO. So again, on the traditional online brokers, you’re there day one. And then the big wire houses, JP Morgan, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BAML, they typically have a few hurdles that you’ve got to get through, whether it’s daily trading liquidity assets under management. And over time, as you run the wickets through their process, you’re added to those platforms. Macro Issues? Frazer Rice (21:48.721)We live in a political age and a time when there’s just chaos everywhere, different types of rules in order to allocate capital. If you’re an investor trying to guess what’s happening politically, et cetera, that are difficult, you must be positive as far as the environment for founders to find success in this country and beyond. Is there anything that you’re looking for to make sure that those conditions hold? Michael (22:18.225)Yeah, we don’t really look at the macro or political backgrounds. think over very long periods of time, U.S. innovation outperforms. so we sort of we think that, again, one of the great things with investing in founders is they keep adapting as the background changes behind them. So we think over very long periods of time, the U.S. has great economic growth. And for those people that have worried about little blips along the way, we think the founders are the absolute best at mitigating those blips. Frazer Rice (22:48.334)I like to say you bet against America at your own peril and it sounds like from a founder perspective it’s still a great place for them to locate their businesses and grow them here. Michael (23:01.042)Absolutely. 23:50 Final Thoughts and Contact Information Frazer Rice (23:02.971)Just to reiterate, FFF is the ticker symbol for people to find it. any other contact points for people to find you if they’re interested in what you’re putting together. Michael (23:15.613)Yeah, so we have a great website at FounderETFs.com. can go check out there or anyone’s happy to email me, just michael at FounderETFs.com. Happy to chat with anyone who has interest about the portfolio, the strategy, or what we’re building. Frazer Rice (23:32.197)Well, great to have you back on, Mike. Thank you for putting up with my attempt at looking like Steve Jobs. It’s 25 degrees in New York here, and I am the stupid one who’s not in California or somewhere warm. appreciate you taking the time to be on and talking about your new product. Michael (23:48.011)Yeah, it was great to be on here. Really a huge fan of your podcast and just the level of guests that you’re able to interview and help educate your viewers. Frazer Rice (23:56.849)Mike, thanks for being on. Michael (23:59.061)Thanks a lot, Frazer. https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/ Previously with Mike Monaghan ETF EDUCATION ARTICLES ON ETF.COM

What d'ya want for Christmas? More of Frazer's mum Laura? You got it! Ben becomes an athlete to discuss HYROX, while Fraz and Lozza wang on about SANTA BARBARA. UR WELCOME!Leave us some feedback;Insta: @urwelcomeamericaTwitter: @urwelcomeUSAEmail: UrWelcomeAmericaPodcast@gmail.com

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss the 2 huge trades Quinn Hughes to Wild, Jarry for Skinner, Penguins epic weekend from hell, Olympic rink update, and more.

We've reached 200 episodes! To celebrate, we're continuing our annual tradition by welcoming aeromodelling's most entertaining character, Frazer Briggs, back to the show to review his year. Frazer shares stories from his travels around the world competing in F3A events, along with highlights from his flying closer to home in New Zealand. If you've never listened to a Frazer Briggs episode, this is one you won't want to miss.

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Bengals.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens offense vs the Bengals.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss Buffalo's woes, Kucherov's greatness, the young talented Duckies, and more.

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens offense vs the Steelers.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Steelers.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Like Pato Banton, Frazer's mum Laura is BACK! In her honour, Frazer bangs on about CADBURY (again), and Ben takes us on a flight with DELTA AIRLINES. UR WELCOME!Leave us some feedback;Insta: @urwelcomeamericaTwitter: @urwelcomeUSAEmail: UrWelcomeAmericaPodcast@gmail.com

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss Colorado's dominance, overbearing refs, and loser points.

Pastor Danielle Frazer shares a powerful moment from the life of Mary, showcasing her humble and generous act of anointing Jesus' feet with a costly perfume, highlighting her devotion and love in contrast to Judas' criticism.

In this episode, Lukie and Dakota break down the week's action. We begin with a ProBox TV card with lightweight Charlie Sheehy shining on the prelims. We also talk about Karlos Balderas as well as Justin Pauldo's comeback knockout win over Nike Theran. Adelaida Ruiz became a world champion by defeating Alexas Kubicki. Erik Badillo could be headed toward a title shot with his junior flyweight win over Elwin Soto. Also, is Cristian Cruz the next “Venado” Lopez? We will talk about his draw against Muhammad Yaqubov.Also, Frazer Clarke suffered a shocking upset loss to Jamie TKV. Francesca Hennessy, a women's bantamweight, also got a win on the card. Ben Whittaker got a first-round knockout over Benjamin Gavazi. Whittaker is a 2020 Olympic silver medalist who has star potential. This was his first fight with Matchroom Boxing. Notable undercard action, Cameron Vuong and Gavin Gwynne fought to a draw. They will probably have a trilogy before it is all said and done. Middleweight Tom Cowling upset Aaron Bowen, and Jimuel Pacquiao's pro debut against Brendan Lally was scored as a draw. The big fight this week is Lamont Roach Jnr taking on Isaac Cruz. We talk about all the scenarios that we see. Also on the undercard a middleweight unification bout between Erislandy Lara vs. Janibek Alimkhanuly, a 130lbs title fight between O'Shaquie Foster and Stephen Fulton Jr. The pay-per-view card starts with Jesus Ramos Jr taking on Shane Mosley Jr. Undercard bouts of note, Frank Martin will face Rances Barthelemy, Luis Nunez will return to action, so will Isaac Lucero, Elijah Garcia, Jordan Roach and Robert Guerrero Jr. Also “our guy” Jai Opetaia will face Huseyin Cinkara. Opetaia being ducked? We discuss.In the U.K., Shabaz Masoud will face Peter McGrail in a solid bout. A sneaky great fight will pit IBF women's lightweight titleholder Beatriz Ferreira against Elif Turhan. Conah Walker will face Pat McCormack, and Sean McComb will face Hugo Micallef. 0:00 ProBox TV Justin Pauldo thoughts7:45 Karlos Balderas thoughts11:25 Charlie Sheehy14:35 Erik Badillo-Elwin Soto17:23 Remaining ProBox TV bout20:50 Ben Whittaker 30:20 Frazer Clarke's upset loss32:40 Lamont Roach Jr-Isaac Cruz 38:34 Erislandy Lara-Janibek 43:00 Jesus Ramos Jr-Shane Mosley Jr46:06 O'Shaquie Foster-Stephen Fulton Jr52:20 Shabaz Masoud-Peter McGrail54:50 undercard56:43 Jai Opetaia01:02:57 Takuma Inoue upsets Tenshin01:04:55 Jimuel Pacquiao

Boxing's back on prime-time BBC TV this Saturday, so Buncey's in Derby catching up with the fighters. He chats to Frazer Clarke about the pressure of a hometown fight and checks in with TKV, who's hoping to make a statement. Francesca Hennessy and her dad Mick drop in ahead of her opening the BBC Two show at eight. And promoter Ben Shalom tells us how you can feel the tension between the two heavies starting to bubble.

Frazer, Joe, and Andy discuss what teams are in the playoffs as of American Thanksgiving.

Wealthy families are discovering Tennessee's legal and tax ecosystem as a key component for their long term wealth strategy. I spoke with ANDREA CHOMAKOS from Pendleton Square Trust on Tennessee around these advantages that the Tennessee Wealth Ecosystem provides in the context of other states' legal systems and economies. We cover directed trusts and Tennessee situs, and even a tip like the Community Property Trust, which is interesting in both prenuptial tax planning and estate planning contexts. https://youtu.be/CiR8eoAG-iI "The Tennessee Wealth Ecosystem" Transcript Frazer Rice (00:00.814)Welcome aboard, Andrea. Andrea Chomakos (00:03.128)Thanks, Frazer, happy to be here. Frazer Rice (00:04.696)Well, glad to have you on. Always happy to talk to friends of mine at Pendleton, talk about Tennessee and trust administration generally. Our listeners are probably pretty well versed as far as the idea of trusts, but I don't think it hurts to go and talk a little bit about what the trustee function normally entails as we talk about what is interesting about Tennessee and other jurisdictional issues. Andrea Chomakos (00:29.358)Absolutely. So Frazer, it's great to be here and share some conversation with you and your audience. While I have been in the professional fiduciary role for several years, for several decades before that, I was a practicing attorney. So I would often have conversations with my clients and drafting their documents and asking them decisions about who to appoint as a trustee. One of the very first conversations we would have is what does it mean to be a trustee? As I have now come over to the other side, broadly stating that the trustee has the responsibility to administer the trust for the sole benefit of the named trust beneficiaries in accordance with the trust terms. That seems like a lot of really big words that don't make a lot of sense to the average person. I get it. When I was practicing, a lot of my clients, their reaction would be, okay, so you're just telling me that this person is the person who makes the decisions about distributions and that's great. I can go, you know, no big deal. And the reality is, yeah, the reality is it is a big deal. Because it's more than just making distribution decisions or making them in a vacuum. You have to look at the broader picture. Frazer Rice (01:41.228)It's more than that though. Andrea Chomakos (01:55.598)But it also entails managing the trust assets and investments. It means making those important distribution decisions and understanding the impacts those are going to have not just in the short term but the long term. Filing and paying tax returns for the trust. Communicating with trust beneficiaries, providing reports and accounts. And even all of that sometimes seems like not that big of a laundry list but Let me give like an example that I ran into. Everybody loves a good example. So when I say a trustee is responsible for investing and managing all of the assets of the trust, that also means the protection and preservation of those assets. And it's incredibly common to see a trust hold some real estate, oftentimes a residence that a trustee or a beneficiary lives in. Frazer Rice (02:24.58)That'd be great. Andrea Chomakos (02:51.094)And you may say, OK, well, no big deal. Like if something happens, we'll just get it fixed. Well, it's more than that, right? You need to really understand what that means and the risks you're taking and the potential liability you're taking if you don't manage those issues in a way maybe different than you would if it was just your own house. So I was at a prior institution and that institution was serving as co-trustee with a beneficiary who resided in some trust-owned property. And lo and behold, you know, got a call from that beneficiary saying, hey, there was a leak with one of the pipes in the house. So I just went out and got some duct tape and put that around the pipe to stave off the leak, but now it's gotten really bad. And you're just sort of like, well, wait a minute. Like that's. Frazer Rice (03:34.276)Hmm. Andrea Chomakos (03:47.573)As a trustee, that's not an appropriate response to fixing a leak, it's not a roll of duct tape. So it's things like that that trustees are responsible for. Frazer Rice (04:00.004)One of the things too that's happened in modern legislation is that those three functions you talked about, the investment, the distribution, and the administration have been in many states you're able to, we like to call it bifurcate them, so that you can put an expert maybe in the investment role, maybe a family member with a corporate trustee in the distribution role, and then a corporate trustee in the administration role who, you know, they're used to doing the paperwork and the tax filings and the eye dotting and T-crossing. And in your, I guess in your experiences, we've gone through that. How have trust companies evolved to take into account this new flexibility? Andrea Chomakos (04:42.254)Absolutely, think you hit the right word. I always say the same thing, Frazier. It's a bifurcation of those duties and responsibilities. And so there are more trust companies who are embracing what we call the Directed Trust Model, where the corporate trustee is handling the administrative functions. So the reporting, the trust beneficiary communications, filing the tax returns, all of those very important functions, but ones that oftentimes are overlooked, their importance is overlooked. And other people are given the role of either distribution advisor, and sometimes the corporate trustees in these roles will make distribution decisions. But certainly the investment function is one. And as you see arise in individuals, families, using private equity for investments, other alternative investments, you see them using RIAs, multifamily offices, to manage their investments that, and those entities don't have that trustee function. There are more corporate trustees who are filling that role. And I think that we're only going to see that market increase and that demand increase. Frazer Rice (06:11.196)I don't think I could agree more with that statement. I think the idea of people having all of those functions under one umbrella really ignores just the way wealth is being managed these days, whether it's sort of peculiar assets or even, you know, regular run of the mill stocks and bonds, people have their advisors and they don't want to necessarily give that up to take advantage of trust situs and professional trustee services. Andrea Chomakos (06:21.998)Listen. Frazer Rice (06:36.524)As I talk to people around this topic, the culture of a good trustee, and especially sort of a good corporate or a good administrative trustee, there are a lot of things that go into that. In your experience, what is it that makes a good sort of corporate or administrative trustee for particular family? Andrea Chomakos (07:01.422)There's I mean, that's a great question. And it should be top of mind for all clients. Right. I think there's a couple of things. One is the institutional professionalism that a corporate trustee, independent corporate trustee provides, as well as the skill, the background and then the lack of conflict of interest. So when you think about an administrative trustee that's not managing the investments, we have no dog in that fight as they say about what's going on with the investments, how they're being managed, how they're being allocated. We, Pendleton Square and others are here to serve the beneficiaries, to facilitate communication, to help beneficiary wealth education, to continue the continuum of family values and conversations, as well as be some be a person who can sit there alongside them and educate them about the trust, about the wealth, about the impact the distributions from the trust are having on their own estate, on their own lifestyle, and really honing in on the things that they're really good at. And I think predominantly it is that being free of conflict. We don't have any other interest in the trust. Frazer Rice (08:28.252)I think the concept of staying in your lane is important. I think in the old world where the big trust companies did everything and they would allocate resources to that because doing everything required good integration and so on, it made a lot of sense. But nowadays, as we talked about the bifurcation just now, the provision of the administrative trustee functions and the distribution committees, et cetera, that feels more like an accommodation. Andrea Chomakos (08:30.913)I'm sorry. Frazer Rice (08:56.696)than a sort of focus for them. And so these trust companies that have developed, the new ones that are less worried about the investment function, that that focus is now a strength in the sense that people hire experts in that field in order to get what they need from an estate planning perspective or a site of choice, et cetera, but then to really effectuate that culture we just talked about. Andrea Chomakos (09:26.956)Yeah, I mean, think there's a couple of nuances there that you touch on that always resonate with me. And so one is. Trust business, it's a business, we all have to admit that it's a business, but is it relational or is it transactional? And at its core it's really relational. You're working alongside a family for hopefully multiple generations and as an institution you can carry forward that historic bank of knowledge in the grantor's intent, the family values as you're administering the trust. But in many larger institutions, because of just structural considerations and constraints, sometimes you have a lot of turnover in personnel. You have some loss of historic knowledge and information. And you have a compression of what it takes. not just the skills,

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Jets.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Jets.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Browns.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Vikings.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens offense vs the Vikings.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Ken and Frazer preview the Ravens defense vs the Vikings.Our Sponsors:* Check out Mood and use my code RAVENS for a great deal: https://mood.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy