Podcasts about historically

The right journeys across the woke-dark sea for Christopher Nolan's “The Odyssey”; ICE boils over in Maine and Texas, and Trump waters down the death toll in Iran. This week, W. Kamau Bell grills and roasts Lovett, while Patrick Renna has fun in the ‘90s sun. And we play back the tape on our Second Thoughts.Find Kamau's new show "Who's With Me? with W. Kamau Bell" on YouTube or wherever you get podcasts. Every week, he sits down with someone he admires to give them their flowers, ask his most burning questions, and discuss how to make the world a better place. Check out recent episodes with Leslie Jones on turning pain into comedy, Robert Reich on the fight for democracy, and Kristen Kish on authenticity.For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com.

We start with exclusive CNN reporting about warnings from a DHS official that could have avoided the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's trial date has been defined. We have more details on how an AI model broke into a company's system – we tell you what it did. Tropical storm Bertha has made landfall, we give you the forecast. Plus, Elon Musk is challenging Christopher Nolan's Odyssey film with a ‘historically accurate' version of the mythological Greek poem. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta.

Molly Brookfield's book, Watching the Girls Go By: A History of Street Harassment in the United States (University of North Carolina Press, 2026) explores the historical, legal, and cultural history of street harassment in the United States. Historically, Brookfield identified the "masher panic" (late 19th–early 20th century) when reformers and municipalities labeled male accosting of women a public problem and enacted anti-masher ordinances or applied disorderly-conduct laws. On law and policy, the book highlights primarily local legal responses against harassment, with municipal codes and reinterpretations of existing ordinances more common than coherent federal action that criminalizes mashing. In Watching the Girls Go By, street harassment is situated on a continuum with other gendered and sexualized violence, with the argument that street harassment normalizes and underpins more extreme harms against women. The book portrays historical scholarly perspectives to street harassment including those of Cheryl Bernard and Edith Schlaffler. Also, the book builds on diverse historical sources and employs varying terms for similar behaviors. The author uses "intrusive behaviors" as a more precise analytic category while preserving period-specific terms when discussing particular historical contexts.  Mariam Olugbodi is a university teacher and a writer, she is the author of the monograph titled: “Stylistic Features in the 2011 and 2012 Final Matches Commentaries in the UEFA Champions League”, published by Grin Verlag. Mariam's greatest dream is seeing a world where knowledge is accessible to all. She does this through her volunteering roles on open knowledge platforms as a host and an editor. As part of her effort to maintain inclusion and diversity in knowledge transmission, she volunteers as a teacher in crises contexts. Learn more and connect with Mariam through her social links: LinkedIn, ORCID, Meta. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello Interactors,As Canadian and Alaskan wildfire smoke drifts across North American borders, it's easy to resort to feelings and language of crisis in the demand for urgent, immediate control. But fires are not new to these landscapes, and this “crisis” sits alongside others that are also on fire. Climate crises events bring into focus which histories we forget, whose knowledge we ignore, and which relationships we disrupt. Turns out it's happening at a cellular level too. The real danger is a world and ecology changing so quickly, and understood so narrowly, that it erases the very temporal patterns, memories, and ecological relationships that make adaptation possible.FIRE'S FRACTURED FREQUENCYThe climate crisis is often communicated through rising averages. We read of climbing global temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and acres burned. These measurements are indispensable, but averages can make crisis feel distant and abstract. In a forest, climate change is also experienced as an altered interval — as too little time between one disturbance and the next.A forest is not a passive surface. It actively shapes its own microclimate, stores carbon, and retains moisture until fire temporarily disrupts these relationships…and in doing so creates new ones.To understand what shorter fire intervals are doing to Alaska's boreal forests, ecologist Xanthe Walker and an interdisciplinary team of researchers examined carbon storage and forest recovery across 555 plots associated with thirty-one fires. They compared stands with different fire histories, including sites that had burned repeatedly before black spruce forests could fully recover. The absolute amount of carbon released by individual fires was broadly similar across fire-return intervals, but recently burned landscapes began with smaller remaining carbon pools and therefore lost a greater proportion of what remained. Repeated burning also consumed more legacy carbon — the carbon inherited from earlier vegetation and accumulated soils — and reduced the likelihood that some sites would regenerate as black spruce forest. Fire was doing more than releasing carbon in the present. By interrupting regeneration, it was weakening the landscape's capacity to store carbon in the future (Walker et al., 2025).Black spruce forests are not merely tolerant of fire but have evolved with stand-replacing fire as a recurring part of their life cycle. Their cones evolved to be little seed bombs that stay in the trees and release their seeds when they burn. This helps new trees grow on the ground where they're not protected by the canopy. That strategy works when fires recur at intervals long enough for stands to mature, rebuild their seed stocks, and accumulate biomass. Historically, boreal fire-return intervals commonly ranged from about seventy to 130 years. Black spruce may require roughly fifty years to produce enough seed for self-replacement. Yet intervals of less than thirty years are becoming more common in some areas, allowing another fire to arrive before recovery is complete (Walker et al., 2025).Under those conditions, fire can push regeneration away from black spruce toward deciduous vegetation or more open landscapes. Such places may remain biologically productive, but they are no longer the same forests. They store carbon, retain moisture, shelter organisms, but also carry subsequent fires differently. The landscape may not simply return to its former state after disturbance; it may cross into another ecological regime, organized by different species, intervals, and feedback loops.MEMORY, MEANING, AND MALLEABILITYIt is tempting to call such transformations unprecedented. In some measurable respects, they are. We know Industrial greenhouse-gas emissions are rapidly altering atmospheric and ecological systems on a planetary scale, and the effects are not confined to normal oscillations around once-familiar conditions. The rate, direction, and geographic concentration of change effects forests adapted to fire and may be unable to adjust when fire's frequency exceeds the time needed for reproduction and recovery.The fact that Earth has always changed does not make the present disruption ordinary. But neither does the climate crisis mark the first time people have faced the collapse of an expected environmental order. Many humans didn't survive the Little Ice Age, but many did.For many Indigenous peoples, colonization produced generations of forced displacement, altered fire and water regimes, destroyed food systems, suppressed governance, and separated communities from ancestral lands. What dominant institutions now describe as an unprecedented disruption may appear within Indigenous histories as another transformation imposed by powers that have long treated land, water, plants, animals, and people as resources to be reorganized.The word crisis can therefore describe an observable material condition while concealing a historical one. The flames are real, but so are the questions of who altered the landscape, whose losses are treated as new, who is expected to adapt, and who gets to define recovery. Potawatomi scholar Kyle Whyte challenges this framing, arguing that a dominant “epistemology of crisis” treats environmental disruptions as radically new, imminent threats (Whyte, 2021). This framing isolates the crisis from historical contexts of colonialism, allowing institutions to justify urgent, top-down actions that bypass local consent and justice under the guise of emergency.That framing carries two recurring assumptions. The first is unprecedentedness — the belief that the past contains few usable precedents or lessons for present conditions. The second is urgency — the belief that immediate action may justify setting aside ordinary concerns about consent, justice, and responsibility. Whyte's intervention exposes how crisis language can obscure Indigenous histories of displacement and adaptation while allowing new forms of dispossession to proceed in the name of emergency responses (Whyte, 2021).Whyte is not arguing that climate change is unreal or that rapid action is unnecessary. He is asking what calls for urgency and emergency action leads people to overlook or forget.When the present is imagined as unprecedented, earlier crises become difficult to see. Climate-related relocation may be narrated as a novel problem even though Indigenous nations have extensive experience with forced removal, shrinking territories, flooding, and government-directed resettlement. Declaring the current moment historically unique can erase not only previous violence but also knowledge formed through surviving it.Whyte contrasts crisis epistemology with an “epistemology of coordination.” Coordination begins not with novelty but with constant change. It asks whether the relationships needed to respond remain intact. Those relationships take the form of kinship and mutual responsibilities, including care, consent, and reciprocity. They generate what Whyte calls the “responsible capacity to respond to constant change” (2021, p. 52).This is a big geophilosophical change in how we think about the world. Adaptation isn't just about an organism or group of organisms changing to fit their environment, it's also about how things are connected, like people, places, history, and processes (the primary focus of Interplace). Fire isn't just about heat progressively burning through plants. It depends on things like how old the trees are, how much moisture there is in the soil, how many seeds are available, if there have been any fires before, what the weather is like, and the rules and laws that people have made about how to handle fire. What the forest looks like after a fire depends on which relationships are still around.The same is true of human communities. Memory is not merely a record of what happened. It is part of the infrastructure of adaptation. It carries knowledge of earlier disturbances, durable practices, failed interventions, and obligations extending beyond the present generation. A society that repeatedly labels each disruption unprecedented may collect and reason over immense quantities of data while remaining unable — or unwilling — to learn from other histories.CELLS, CUES, AND CONTINGENCYThe adaptive value of memory may reach far deeper into life than culture or nervous systems. Evolutionary biologists Maor Knafo, Elena Casacuberta, and Iñaki Ruiz-Trillo begin a recent study with the observation that “one of life's most remarkable features is its persistent and adaptive resilience in the face of constant environmental fluctuations” (2026, p. 1). They investigated whether a single-celled organism could use an environmental cue to anticipate future stress rather than responding only after that stress arrived.Cells exposed to a predictable light and vibration cue before heat stress experienced a 12 percent mortality rate, compared to a 27 percent mortality rate for cells subjected to unpredictable, random cues. The cells didn't just adapt to the heat; they learned to anticipate it, demonstrating that even single-celled life relies on temporal regularities to survive.The authors paired this experiment with a computational model. A nonlearning “blind” agent could adapt only through genetic mutation and selection across generations. A learning agent could also revise its phenotypic strategy within its lifetime, exploring alternatives when earlier responses performed poorly. In predictable environments, learning agents achieved higher fitness because they could use environmental cues to prepare for approaching conditions.The study does not demonstrate that cells reason as humans do. Nor does a cellular experiment prove a general philosophy of life. It does, however, offer evidence that even single cells can exploit temporal regularities in their surroundings. Adaptation is not always a passive process through which an external environment selects among fixed organisms. Organisms detect, respond to, and sometimes anticipate the worlds they inhabit.The model also showed that flexibility has its limits. As the simulated environment became more unpredictable, the benefits of learning started to fade. After a certain point, the cues that used to predict what would happen next didn't work as well. Keeping things flexible came with a cost, because it didn't give them any clear guidance. In the end, simpler, fixed strategies performed better. When the environment suddenly changed, the learning agents first took a big hit because their expectations had become useless. But their flexibility eventually helped them bounce back, but it also meant they made mistakes, got confused, and took time to adjust. (Knafo et al., 2026).Let's not get carried away with the comparisons. A forest isn't a Bayesian agent, and Indigenous knowledge can't be boiled down to simple conditioning. They're different forms of life, knowledge, and organization. What they do have in common is this shared principle: adaptation relies on meaningful patterns connecting past experiences to future situations.A black spruce forest can recover from a fire when trees have time to grow and produce seeds. A cell can prepare for heat when it anticipates it. A community can adapt when things change, remembering past actions, taking responsibility, and maintaining relationships. Resilience arises from a symbiotic relationship between living things and their environment. Life's resilience isn't innate. It's more that it stems from memory, prediction, adaptation, and readiness…until the world's race surpasses its ability to keep pace.RELATIONSHIPS, RECOVERY, AND RESPONSIBILITYGeographer Karen Bickerstaff warns against the dominance of a “catastrophic gaze” that portrays climate change as an imminent, universal threat (Bickerstaff, 2026). While planetary measurements are indispensable, this abstract framing can paralyze political agency, reducing people to passive spectators awaiting either inevitable collapse or a far-off technological rescue (Bickerstaff, 2026). Although our atmosphere is shared, climate exposure, responsibility, and adaptive capacity remain radically uneven. The crisis is planetary in cause, but it is lived and experienced through particular bodies, infrastructures, and local ecosystems.This planetary abstraction often fosters a form of “cruel optimism” — a reliance on grand technological promises like geoengineering or carbon-removal systems that allow us to avoid changing our politics or holding powerful actors accountable (Bickerstaff, 2026). The dangers of these universal, top-down approaches are highly visible in fire governance. Simple, blanket policies — such as total fire suppression or restrictive carbon-offset projects — frequently ignore the diverse ecological histories of fire and displace Indigenous burning practices, which ultimately increases the flammability of the landscape.In contrast to these universalizing fixes, true responsibility must preserve and restore the unique capacities of particular systems to respond to change. This is where Kyle Whyte's epistemology of coordination can turn to practice. His push is for climate action to strengthen the relationships — such as consent, reciprocity, and intergenerational obligations. This is what is his ancestors practiced surviving constant change (Whyte, 2021).Instead of top-down emergency responses that make justice disposable in the name of speed, we need “situated action” (Bickerstaff, 2026). While individuals cannot act on a planetary scale, they can act meaningfully within their own watersheds, neighborhoods, and local political coalitions. Climate action becomes durable not when it chases abstract global targets, but when it visibly improves local health, restores specific ecosystems, and corrects immediate injustices (Bickerstaff, 2026).This is not an argument for delay. Emissions do need to fall (leading to innumerable benefits), but urgency cannot excuse us from asking what kind of world our interventions produce. The task is to connect scales without allowing the global to erase the particular. A mature black spruce indeed stores carbon, but it also stores decades of growth, fungal relationships, and a history of fire and recovery. When fire returns too soon, the forest loses not just biomass, but time. Climate responsibility begins here. Not in the fantasy of holding a restless Earth still, but in preserving the intervals, relationships, and possibilities through which living systems can continue to adapt.REFERENCESBickerstaff, K. (2026). The perils of climate catastrophism: A call to situate crisis and change. WIREs Climate Change.Knafo, M., Casacuberta, E., & Ruiz-Trillo, I. (2026). Beyond diffusion: Bayesian learning strategies in single-cell life. Walker, X. J., Mack, M. C., Black, B., Dean, J., Kemper, L. F., Potter, S., Rogers, B. M., & Truettner, C. M. (2025). Increasing wildfire frequency decreases carbon storage and leads to regeneration failure in Alaskan boreal forests. Fire Ecology.Whyte, K. (2021). Against crisis epistemology. In B. Hokowhitu, A. Moreton-Robinson, L. Tuhiwai-Smith, C. Andersen, & S. Larkin (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical Indigenous studies (pp. 52–64). Routledge. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Mark Schmidt unpack why U.S. healthcare feels so expensive and the potential impacts of rising hospital costs.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, a discussion into one of the biggest mysteries in one of the biggest sectors of the economy. We're talking about healthcare costs. It's Friday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Mark Schmidt: At 9am in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, we're talking today about healthcare, which represents roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy, the bulk of job creation over the last several years, and in my view, honestly, one of the biggest inflation paradoxes that we see in the market. On the one hand, the high cost of healthcare is taken as a given, and it's something that many Americans still struggle with financially. But if you look at the official inflation data in the U.S., healthcare costs have been lower than normal, and that's been true now for a number of years. So, what's going on? How do we tie this together? And Mark, you just wrote a report that tries to do exactly that. So, what did you hope to accomplish with this report? Mark Schmidt: You're absolutely right. It's hard to underline enough just how large healthcare is to the U.S. economy overall. Americans spend nearly $6 trillion on healthcare. That's more than the GDP of the entire country of Germany. And if we think about prices, Americans pay more. A knee replacement, for example, costs $25,000 in the United States. That same procedure costs just $6,000 in France. Common heart treatments that would cost $3,000 in Germany or $10,000 in Australia cost $34,000 in the U.S. It also matters for everyone's local community. Healthcare jobs have been growing twice as fast as the rate of job growth in the economy overall. And those are good jobs. They pay above average wages. For many Americans these days, the most secure path to the middle class is a career in healthcare. Now, this may seem a little bit arcane, but it probably hits close to your portfolio as well. Earlier in the year, when we took a look at how equity separately managed accounts invest, they typically have a core overweight to healthcare. And even though American prices may seem like an American issue, many of the largest and most profitable healthcare companies in the world are actually headquartered in Europe. So, whether you're sitting in New York or sitting in London, the price of American healthcare probably matters to you. But as you noted, Andrew, it does feel like a paradox because although Americans cite healthcare costs as one of their top concerns, and although healthcare spending is growing at 6 percent a year or more, the official inflation data says that healthcare prices are in check. And at one point earlier in the year, healthcare inflation, according to official data, even dipped below 3 percent. It just didn't make a lot of sense, and that's why we got together with our colleagues across equities, fixed income research, public policy, and economics to dig into what was actually going on. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, let's dig right into that. I mean, it seems like a perfect encapsulation of the so-called Main Street versus Wall Street perception of the economy. So, what's going on? How does one kind of square those two numbers? Mark Schmidt: The easiest way to understand it is that you can't walk through a grocery store and figure out the price of a knee replacement. And that's true both for you and me. It's also true for the government. They have to survey hospitals and health insurance companies. The trouble is that the prices that health insurance companies pay hospitals, well, those are trade secrets. So, at any given point in time, even for the best government economists, it's not entirely clear what the price trends are. And that's why when you look at the official data, healthcare inflation typically has relatively lumpy jumps in the series. You could see several months of 0.1 or 0.2 percent official growth in healthcare inflation. Or as earlier this week, you could see certain categories jump to 0.4 or even 0.8. Andrew Sheets: Another element, Mark, that you talked about in the report is that people are also consuming more healthcare. So, talk a little bit about that. How that factors into this dynamic, and again, is that just going to be the new normal as the population ages and we tend to spend more on healthcare as we get older? Mark Schmidt: That's right. The good news is that we're living longer lives. The bad news is that means that we have more chronic healthcare conditions to deal with. The good news is that more procedures can be done in outpatient settings, and those, generally speaking, are cheaper. The bad news is that inpatient care, inpatient prices go up as the complexity of procedures that actually happen in a hospital setting increase significantly. When you balance it all out, it's a situation where, thankfully, the United States and most Americans have the means and the wealth to pay more for healthcare. The flip side of that is that they are paying more for healthcare, and that's why we think that the recent softness in healthcare inflation is actually too good to be true. Andrew Sheets: Something that jumped out at me from this report, Mark, was just how important hospitals are in this equation. And the experience of the patient and the experience of the hospital can be different economically. And that difference can also matter for how this shows up in official inflation and government statistics.So, you know, it would be helpful maybe just to walk the listener through. If I go into the hospital and I need knee surgery. You know, how does that look like from my perspective in terms of paying for it, assuming I have health insurance through my employer? How could that look like to the hospital? And how could that look like coming out the other end into the official government statistics? Mark Schmidt: Well, of course, Andrew, the first thing that you do when you break your leg is you call six hospitals and shop around for the cheapest price, right? Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Of course. Mark Schmidt: So that's actually the problem because when you get care, you're not in a place to ask about the price. And frankly, even if you asked your doctor or nurse what the price is, they probably wouldn't know. Not only is it not their job to know the price, but all of those negotiations happen after the fact – with the prices that the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. After COVID, hospitals had a lot more costs to spread out among the people who were coming in the door, and so they raised prices across the board, not just for procedures that were related to respiratory illness. Naturally, insurance companies noticed that, and they started to push back. So long after you get a cast for your broken leg – and by the way, I wish you a speedy recovery – insurance companies end up going back and forth negotiating with your doctors for exactly how much they should pay you. And although these prices were loosely set well before you walked in the door, the exact way it gets billed and coded? Well, let's just say there's a lot of back and forth. For a well-run hospital, the cost of talking to and ultimately getting reimbursement from your insurance company, that alone could be 2 to 4 percent of revenue. And in especially complex cases, that whole negotiation can eat up 5 to 7 percent of the total bill. You're also right to flag that hospitals really are still the central point of the U.S. healthcare system. Americans spend $2 trillion in a hospital setting. And hospitals overwhelmingly coordinate care for both primary, specialty, and pharmacy services. Andrew Sheets: Mark, another issue I wanted to ask you about was the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and how those programs fit into the story? Mark Schmidt: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a variety of measures to slow the overall growth rate of healthcare. Now, for all the reasons we just discussed, that's probably warranted. The Affordable Care Act is another wrinkle. Enhanced subsidies, which were already set to expire – did in fact expire at the end of last year. And as a result, more Americans are now uninsured. It remains to be seen how that impacts overall costs. In the United States, when you have a health emergency, a hospital is legally obligated to treat you because of a 1990s law called EMTALA. Even if you can't pay, the system eventually does. Historically, uncompensated care costs have been passed on to individuals and companies with insurance. For now, however, it remains to be seen whether these changes in law and in the overall number of people with insurance will cause healthcare prices to rise or fall. Andrew Sheets: And Mark, just for the broad-based implications of this, right? It's fair to say that in any health insurance system, there are some people who consume a lot more healthcare. They're unhealthy or they're unlucky. And there are some who consume a lot less. And, you know, this is something where that overall coverage question matters. Because if you have things that reduce the number of otherwise healthy people who are in those healthcare pools, it can raise the cost for everybody else. Those people who were in some ways subsidizing the higher consumers of healthcare are no longer there. Is that a fair way to frame it, do you think? And are there potential changes given some of these legislative actions that could lead to changes of what the pool looks like – and what overall costs could look like? Mark Schmidt: That's a great point. And healthcare is probably the only part of our economy where you would say, "Thank goodness I did not get my money's worth." As we think about it… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Very true. Very true. Mark Schmidt: As we think about it, most young and healthy people are going to be paying more for their health insurance than they receive in healthcare. Again, that's a good thing. Because American healthcare prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the world, paying in more than you get back? Well, that hits the wallet harder in America than it does in other countries. And that's why for many people – choice – choosing how much health insurance to have and how much to pay for it, really is central to keeping the American economy dynamic. The flip side, however, is that as Americans get older, more people have Medicare. Now, Medicare is pretty good if you have it. But the catch is that Medicare prices, according to most independent estimates, do not fully reimburse for the cost of care. So, as more seniors take up more beds in a hospital, that means that commercial prices, the prices for people who have private insurance through their employer, are likely to rise even faster. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, I think a good place to close it out and kind of bring this all together is a really important conclusion of this report – is that hospitals have been absorbing a number of these rising costs of healthcare through lower margins for the hospital. And that has resulted in lower ultimate inflation because the inflation is measured out the other side, out ultimately what the hospital earns. And if you could just maybe talk a little bit more about that. To what extent have those margins been compressed? And what that might mean for things going forward? Mark Schmidt: That's right. We dug into the finances for hundreds of not-for-profit hospitals in the United States. They are facing higher costs and shrinking margins. Historically, hospitals have partially passed on expense increases of this magnitude. Now, in their conversations with insurance companies, the biggest benchmark setting of prices happens once every two to three years. So, we're not going to see hospital prices show up in the inflation data overnight. But when we look at hospitals across the country, their budget information and their guidance is consistent with firming prices. Andrew Sheets: Great. Thank you so much, Mark. I've really enjoyed the conversation. Mark Schmidt: Thanks for having me, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a friend or colleague today. And rate and review us on wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

META's stock surged last week, but investors shouldn't ignore the risks. Meta shares climbed last week as Wall Street became increasingly optimistic about the company's AI strategy. The stock was up about15% for the week and erased the year-to-date losses. Investors are betting that Meta's enormous spending on AI infrastructure, custom chips, top engineering talent, and next-generation models will lead to faster revenue growth, stronger advertising tools, and new revenue streams over the next several years. The market clearly believes Meta has positioned itself as one of the leaders in the AI race. But while investors were celebrating, Europe reminded everyone that even great companies face meaningful risks. The European Commission announced preliminary findings that Facebook and Instagram may violate the Digital Services Act because of what regulators call "addictive design" features, including infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, and recommendation algorithms that encourage users to stay engaged for longer periods. If the findings become final and Meta does not make sufficient changes, the company could face fines of up to 6% of its global annual revenue, along with potential changes to how its platforms operate across Europe. Meta has disputed the findings and says it has already implemented significant protections for younger users. This could amount to a fine of around $12 B, but the bigger problem I see is a potential hit to ad revenue if they must change their business practices. Europe is an important part of their business considering it accounts for about 23% of overall company sales. We also can't forget the legal liability Meta is facing in the United States, which could ultimately total as much as $1.4 trillion. That number may sound shocking, but it stems from multiple lawsuits brought by numerous states and plaintiffs. The first major cases are scheduled to go to trial in August, with California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Kentucky leading the way. The lawsuits allege deceptive business practices, and potential penalties range from $2,000 to $20,000 per violation. Given Meta's massive user base, those fines could accumulate rapidly if the courts rule against the company. Beyond civil penalties, the states are also seeking disgorgement of profits, which would require Meta to surrender profits earned from the alleged misconduct during the relevant period. If Meta performs poorly in these initial cases, another 25 states have similar lawsuits waiting in the wings, significantly increasing the company's legal exposure. There are already signs that these legal challenges carry real financial risk. New Mexico recently won a $375 million judgment against Meta, and a separate federal trial is scheduled to begin early next year. The AI opportunity is also far from guaranteed. Today, investors are rewarding companies that appear to be winning the AI race, but the competitive landscape is becoming more crowded every quarter. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, xAI, and others are investing billions of dollars to develop better models and attract developers. Meta has responded aggressively by spending heavily on infrastructure and recruiting top AI researchers, but there is no guarantee those investments will generate returns that justify the enormous capital being deployed. A big problem is today's leader in AI can quickly become tomorrow's follower if innovation slows. I also believe that all of these companies will not succeed in this space, which will mean enormous amounts of wasted capital for the losers. Wall Street seemed to be focused almost entirely on Meta's AI upside last week, and that optimism may continue to drive the stock higher. But investors should remember that valuation is increasingly dependent on AI execution while regulatory scrutiny remains elevated. If AI spending fails to produce the expected returns or regulators force changes that weaken engagement, today's bullish narrative could change quickly. Meta remains one of the strongest companies in technology, but even great businesses are not risk-free. As investors, it's important to weigh both the opportunities and the risks, not just the headlines driving the stock higher today.   The spring home sales season disappointed in June The spring home-selling season ended on a disappointing note. Through May, existing home sales had been showing signs of improvement, and many real estate professionals were becoming more optimistic about the housing market. However, June's data told a different story. The conflict involving Iran contributed to higher inflation expectations and pushed mortgage rates higher, weighing on buyer demand. Existing home sales fell 2.4% in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.09 million homes, well below economists' expectations for a 0.7% increase. Despite the monthly decline, the longer-term trend remains somewhat more encouraging. Existing home sales were still up 2.8% compared with a year ago, suggesting that underlying demand has not disappeared. There continues to be pent-up demand from prospective buyers, but many seem unwilling to make such a large financial commitment while borrowing costs remain elevated, even as housing inventory continues to improve According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.43% last week. If mortgage rates remain near these levels, many prospective homebuyers may continue to delay their purchases, preventing a stronger recovery in the housing market.   Another Hidden Cost of AI: Steel Most people know that the AI buildout has driven up demand for advanced computer chips, contributing to higher prices for smartphones, laptops, and other electronics. They also know that AI data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, putting upward pressure on utility rates as more power is diverted to support AI infrastructure. But there's another cost that receives far less attention: steel. Steel is a critical component of every data center. Industry estimates suggest that new data centers will consume roughly 1 million tons of steel annually, representing approximately $1.4 billion in demand. Steel is used throughout these facilities from the structural columns, roof joists, and roof decking to the server racks that house thousands of AI processors. This growing demand has ripple effects throughout the economy. Higher steel demand can contribute to increased costs for automobiles, household appliances, commercial buildings, bridges, and countless other products that rely on steel. The impact doesn't stop there. Steel production is one of the most energy-intensive manufacturing processes. A single electric furnace steel mill can consume anywhere from around 50 to 200 megawatts of electricity per day, competing for the same power resources as AI data centers. As both industries demand more electricity, utilities face increasing pressure to expand generating capacity. Ultimately, who pays for that increased demand? The answer is often the consumer. Higher electricity demand can translate into higher utility bills for households and businesses as utilities invest in additional generation and transmission infrastructure. In regions where electricity supply is already tight, the competition for power is becoming even more apparent. For example, PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest regional transmission organization, plans to begin conducting supplemental power auctions with electricity generators in September to help secure additional supply. Auctions reward the highest bidders, meaning electricity increasingly flows to those willing to pay the most. As large industrial users and AI data centers bid aggressively for power, consumers could face higher electricity prices if supply fails to keep pace with demand. AI will likely bring enormous productivity gains and economic benefits over the long run. However, it is also creating secondary inflationary pressures that extend well beyond semiconductors. Steel, electricity, construction materials, and other critical inputs are all experiencing increased demand, and those costs eventually work their way through the economy. As the AI revolution accelerates, these indirect costs are likely to become an increasingly important part of the inflation story.   Inflation Is Cooling... But Don't Pop the Champagne Yet The latest CPI report was another encouraging sign that inflation is moving in the right direction. Headline CPI declined 0.4% in June, marking the largest monthly drop since 2020, while the annual inflation rate slowed to 3.5% from 4.2% in May. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, was flat on the month and eased to 2.6% year over year. Much of the improvement was driven by a sharp decline in gasoline and broader energy prices. While this is welcome news, I'd caution against declaring victory over inflation. One of the biggest challenges with inflation is that it doesn't always show up in the headline numbers immediately. It often works its way through the economy in waves, especially when it comes to energy. A good example is my own pool service. My pool guy recently raised his prices, likely for two reasons: higher chemical costs and the increased cost of driving from house to house. Those are both directly tied to energy markets. Even if gasoline prices temporarily fall and help bring down CPI for a month, businesses often adjust prices more slowly because they have to account for prior cost increases and the uncertainty of where energy prices are headed next. That's why I think investors should remain cautious. The recent improvement in inflation was helped significantly by lower oil and gasoline prices following a temporary easing in geopolitical tensions. But with conflict in the Middle East once again threatening energy supplies and oil prices recently moving higher, that relief could prove short-lived. The trend is encouraging, and the Federal Reserve will certainly welcome softer inflation data. But as long as energy prices remain vulnerable to geopolitical events, inflation is likely to remain unpredictable. Businesses from manufacturers to small local service providers will likely continue to pass along higher input costs whenever they have to. One softer CPI report is good news. But sustained price stability will likely require a concrete outcome in the Middle East and more stability in the energy market. While again we welcome the positive news in this CPI report, the conversation around in inflation and what to do with interest rates will continue with the ongoing developments in Iran.   Higher Gas Prices Aren't Stopping the American Consumer If you were looking for evidence that higher gas prices are slowing down the American consumer, the latest retail sales report doesn't provide much support. The headline number was relatively modest, with retail and food services sales increasing 0.2% from May. But the year-over-year numbers tell a much stronger story. Total retail and food services sales were up 6.7% from June of last year. Even if you exclude gas stations, which saw an increase of 19.8%, retail sales still grew at an impressive rate of 5.7%. More importantly, when you look across the major spending categories, not a single major category declined year over year. Furniture and home furnishing stores was the only major category that was flat compared to last year, but again it wasn't negative! Some of the strongest performers included non-store retailers, which primarily includes online shopping, increased 14.2%. Electronics and appliance stores were up 8.6%, while clothing and clothing accessories increased by 4.8%. Building materials and garden equipment stores were up 3.5% One of the more interesting data points is that Americans are still spending money at restaurants and bars. Food services and drinking places were up 3.8% year over year, showing that consumers continue to spend on experiences and dining out despite higher costs and concerns about the economy. The big takeaway is that the consumer remains remarkably resilient. Yes, higher gas prices can eventually put pressure on household budgets. But so far, consumers have continued to spend across virtually every major category. The year-over-year numbers show broad-based growth, not just spending concentrated in one or two areas. The consumer may be under pressure, but they are clearly not out of the game yet.   Financial Planning: What's Next for Social Security The Social Security Trustees' most recent solvency report highlights the need for Congress to address the program's long-term funding shortfall. Under current projections, the retirement trust fund is expected to be depleted in 2032, at which point ongoing payroll tax revenue would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless legislative changes are made. Importantly, this does not mean Social Security will become insolvent or stop paying benefits, it means benefits would be reduced if Congress takes no action. While no specific legislation has emerged, many policy experts expect Congress to adopt a combination of gradual reforms rather than a single sweeping change. Potential solutions include increasing the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2%, raising or eliminating the taxable wage cap from $184,500, increasing the full retirement age from 67 for younger workers, and slowing future benefit growth for higher-income retirees. Historically, when Congress has made changes to Social Security, it has phased them in over many years, and most proposals would leave current retirees and those approaching retirement largely unaffected. As a result, individuals already receiving benefits or those within roughly the next decade of retirement are generally expected to experience little or no change, with the majority of reforms likely to apply to younger generations who have more time to prepare.   Companies Discussed: Nike, Inc. (Ticker: NKE)  

Employees are ready to leave if their boss fails in this crucial area of leadership. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Athens is a city full of contradictions. Planned and chaotic at the same time. Monumental and improvised. Historically layered and constantly transforming. It is exactly between these opposites that the master thesis Brave New Axis by Spyridon Loukidis, Markos Georgios Sakellion and Georgios Thalassinos from the National Technical University of Athens unfolds. The three architects received the prestigious EUmies Young Talent Award 2025 for their work — one of the most important European awards for emerging architects, presented during the Venice Biennale. Their project begins with a nearly forgotten historical axis running through the center of Athens. But instead of understanding the city as a rigid geometric order, they reinterpret Athens as a network of relationships, fragments, atmospheres and public spaces. Their work moves somewhere between urban design, architectural theory, collage, political vision and spatial storytelling. The drawings recall Archigram, Superstudio and radical architectural visions — while simultaneously addressing very real issues such as public space, housing, urban voids and the future of European city centers. Today, we talk with them about Athens, urban fragments, new strategies for European cities and why architecture today may be less about objects and more about relationships.

APEX Express is a weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. This Thursday APEX Express proudly presents “South Asians and The Labor Justice Movement.” This episode highlights Sandhya Jha, a pastor, founder and former Executive Director of the Oakland Peace Center, and racial, housing, and labor justice activist. In the first half of the episode, we discuss Sandhya's life, their path into organizing, and what they're up to now. The second half is dedicated to their recent project with the South Asian American Digital Archive's Archival Creators Fellowship Program. This episode was interviewed, produced, and edited by Swati Rayasam   Follow @Sandhya Jha on Facebook and check out Sandhya's website https://sandhyajha.com/    APEX Express is a weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Listen to the episode live on KPFA 94.1 in San Francisco, 89.3 in Berkeley, and online at KPFA.org.  References throughout the Show and Links: Without Fear Consulting Interfaith Alliance Oakland Peace Center Book – Blueprint for a Revolution Book – The Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad Podcast – Bending Toward Justice: Avatar the Last Airbender for the Global Majority The Alliance of South Asians Taking Action – ASATA Bay Area Solidarity Summer South Asian American Digital Archive Archival Creators Fellowship Program Sandhya Jha's project, you can listen to all of the oral histories here. Solidarity Forever Online Exhibit Arab Resource and Organizing Center Block the Boat No Tech for Apartheid  University of California Labor Center Equality Labs California Trade Justice Coalition NAFCON – National Alliance for Filipino Concerns Filipino Community Center Madhvi Trivedi Patak Transcript ​[00:00:00]  Miata Tan: Hello and welcome! You are tuning in to APEX Express—a weekly radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. I'm your host, Miata Tan. Tonight we're revisiting an episode from our archives, first aired January 5th, 2023. We're bringing it back this week in honor of South Asian American Heritage Month. This one centers Sandhya Jha — a pastor, organizer, and founder of the Oakland Peace Center — in conversation with APEX producer Swati Rayasam. The first half traces Sandhya's path into organizing, from a labor campaign at Johns Hopkins to two decades of interfaith and racial justice work. The second half digs into Sandhya's project with the South Asian American Digital Archive, where she spent a year interviewing South Asian workers inside the labor movement — collecting stories that don't usually make it into the archive. Here's Swati Rayasam in conversation with Sandhya Jha. [00:01:00] Swati Rayasam: I'm really excited actually today to talk to Sandhya Jha, who is a really close friend of mine. Hi Sandhya. Hi there. Sandhya is, a Pastor is a consultant and has been working on this really amazing project with the South Asian American Digital Archive that will get into later in the episode. But yeah, Sandhya I'm just really excited to learn more about you and to hear more of your story and, let's just dive in. [00:01:26] Swati Rayasam: Absolutely. [00:01:27] Swati Rayasam: We should first talk a little bit about how we know each other, you have this long organizing background. I've been in the Bay Area for the past seven years and I would be totally lying if I said I have not historically been, or I'm not even currently an active fangirl of yours. You are literally a pastor. You are a movement worker, how did you get involved in organizing? [00:01:53] Sandhya Jha: Yeah. So I am the product of my parents who were generous, compassionate [00:02:00] people who thought about the world beyond themselves, but were never involved in organizing or activism or anything like that. I think for anybody who comes from immigrant backgrounds, it's hard to tell our stories without naming who we come from. Right. And so my father was Sunil Kumar Jha from the village of Tildanga in West Bengal. My mother, who is still alive is Jeanette Campbell Jha. She is from Glasgow. So I come from a mixed religion and mixed race home. My parents chose not to name me Sandhya Campbell Jha not to give me that kind of grounding, but I was called Sandhya Rani Jha, which is a lot to live up to, well, yes, Rani does mean Queen. But it was actually handed down to me, part of the reason they wanted that middle name was it was my aunt's name, Durga Rani Upadhyay and she was the one who really [00:03:00] brokered my mother's acceptance into the Indian family and I think that there was something about being accepted on the Indian side of the family and not for many, many years on the Scottish side. That caused my parents and particularly my mother to double down on making sure I knew who I came from and who I came from was my people in the village of Tildanga. [00:03:23] Sandhya Jha: I grew up in Akron, Ohio, so we immigrated to this country when I was a toddler, in the late 1970s, which was a complicated time for Asian immigrants to be in the Midwest because it was a time that the rust belt was rusting and there was a growing sense that we were the reason. But also I grew up alongside folks who were trying to figure out how to put food on the table. So I think that landscape shaped me in a lot of ways. And I also come from people who grew up in poor working communities. And[00:04:00] when I went off to college, there was an organizing campaign. The board of directors of the university had created a for-profit corporation with the exact same board. [00:04:15] Swati Rayasam: Oh wow. [00:04:16] Sandhya Jha: So that the universities could subcontract all of their catering, all of their custodial work to this… basically Shell corporation. [00:04:28] Swati Rayasam: Are we telling on the university? [00:04:29] Sandhya Jha: Mm, Yeah. Why not? It was Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and I think that's relevant because the tension between Black communities next to Johns Hopkins Medical School and the school itself were very real because this was part of a very long history of exploiting community members. So the workers were organizing, and you know, I had read about activism, I cared about it. I paid as much attention as I could for a high school student. But when I got to college, this organizing [00:05:00] campaign was going, and the workers were really clear, Hey, college kids who are excited about this, we do have a role for you. It's to fill the crowd. It's to cheer us on. It's to when we ask you communicate to the university that our well-being matters to you because they will listen to you in different ways. But the campaign centered the workers and was really clear with us about what our role was because we were the folks with all the privilege by getting to be there, right? We had tons of privilege and it was a really good lesson for me. I am so grateful. The first organizing campaign I was a part of was a labor campaign that understood what it meant to center the people who were the most impacted by injustice and I think that shaped the rest of my career. [00:05:46] Swati Rayasam: And that's so special too because I think for many people who come into organizing, and I will definitely cop to this myself, like coming up and organizing through high school and college level organizing. When you are a student, nobody ever [00:06:00] tells you that actually you are the least useful kind of organizer that exists. Right. You are in this incredibly enclaved community. Your oppressor, the university, all they have to do is wait for you to graduate institutional memory will not keep you. Yeah. Right. And I think that it is, it's this perfect storm of, you have actually sometimes cool ideas, sometimes very rudimentary ideas, but you also have this turnover issue and you have this sense of self import, which often comes with your teens, early twenties. Yep. As you're just figuring all of that out. So Yeah, self differentiation, right? It's a narcissistic phase in our development. . [00:06:46] Swati Rayasam: It absolutely is and I think that's so important, and I can't imagine how my life would be shaped if I didn't have to spend a lot of time unlearning the self import and narcissism that I had gained through student [00:07:00] organizing. [00:07:00] Sandhya Jha: Yeah. No, I am really, really grateful for it. [00:07:02] Sandhya Jha: My first job outta college was working for a member of Congress, which sounds super fancy and pretentious, but, a member of congress from Akron, Ohio. So put that all in perspective. His name, believe it or not, was Tom Sawyer. Oh, wow. What I loved about Tom was back in those days, he believed very strongly that 80% of legislation was nonpartisan and that was the part that he spent most of his time on. He would weigh in with his party, when they were dealing with that 20% pretty consistently. But he was more interested in the stuff that everybody could agree on and I remember for about 15 years after I worked for him, I looked back and found myself thinking that was so naive. How did he not understand where we were about to head with the divisions between the political parties? But at this point in my life, I realize the people I respect most in organizing work keep pointing out that the binary of [00:08:00] left and right actually doesn't serve us very well. One of my biggest heroes in the movement right now is the Reverend Dr. William Barber, [00:08:07] Swati Rayasam: Hometown hero of mine. Yes. [00:08:09] Sandhya Jha: Poor People's campaign from North Carolina. And he always talks about how it's not about right and left. It's about right and wrong. And it turns out that when we engage in organizing with the awareness that there are huge swaths of things that most of us are well served by, we can do better organizing. And that was actually how Tom was legislating. And at a certain point I realized that my deep passion was around racial justice, but the distinct experience I had in a multi religious household was an awareness of how religion was being used as a weapon. I had an obsession. Every paper in college I wrote was about the Christian coalition, this right wing, organizing body in the nineties. So a friend of mine [00:09:00] said, You know, there's an interfaith organization working against the Christian Coalition. And it was called the Interfaith Alliance. Her mom had been a superintendent in Washington state in eastern Washington and was a pretty conservative person by my standards. [00:09:18] Sandhya Jha: But, Dr. Chow believed in multiculturalism and believed in teaching evolution. And the Christian coalition had organized to push her out of her position as superintendent and the Interfaith Alliance of Washington State had supported her in that time. [00:09:38] Sandhya Jha: And so Liz said, you know, they've got a national chapter, a national office. And that's where I ended up, cutting my adult organizing teeth which was great because talk about learning lessons for our current moment where religion is being weaponized in ways that are anti-trans, that are anti-queer, that are anti-women, that [00:10:00] are anti reproductive rights, that are anti-immigrant and refugee. I am really grateful to have experienced the power of multi-faith organizing, around a lot of those same issues. So that was what I did in the early two thousands and then I went to seminary and public policy school, and then I ended up out here pastoring a congregation of 10 people in a building of 40,000 square feet. [00:10:29] Sandhya Jha: And long story short, that's how the Oakland Peace Center was born, was out of this dream of cultivating deeper collaboration among nonprofits who were dedicated to a shared cause. The Oakland Peace Center, which is a collective of 40 different nonprofits committed to dismantling the root causes of violence in our community. I was the founder of that organization and it was when I was pastoring First Christian Church of Oakland that I asked the handful of folks who were members of that church, what they wanted to [00:11:00] contribute to the community, and they said they wanted to contribute peace in the midst of violence. And for a dozen folks to have given birth to a space that in non pandemic years, saw over a hundred thousand people do things like the Lawyers for Black Lives Conference and to do Kingian non-violence training and to be a part of food and clothing distribution, to participate in all the very diverse ways that we can create peace is pretty impressive. [00:11:30] Sandhya Jha: And a couple of years ago, I left the Oakland Peace Center because a colleague of mine said, Anybody can run a non-profit. We need you to do what you're actually good at, and what she meant by that was we need more people of color doing diversity, equity, and inclusion work that is actually grounded in power analysis. That isn't just how do we be nicer to each other in the workplace, but how do we recognize the ways that systems of white supremacy [00:12:00] unconsciously often shape the culture of our workplaces? And what do we do to dismantle that white supremacy culture so that we can be building nonprofits and institutions of higher education and faith organizations, and even corporations that are dedicated to our full liberation, our liberation, the lands liberation. [00:12:23] Swati Rayasam: I mean coming, especially from the place that you come in grassroots organizing and in faith based organizing, what is it actually to transition into this kind of consulting space around racial justice and really interface with a lot of people that I feel like as organizers, we don't really talk to? [00:12:42] Sandhya Jha: One of my favorite things about this shift in my work is I love getting to work with folks who don't think of themselves as organizers, who, it turns out are organizers, Right. I think we sometimes create a cult of here's what an organizer looks like, you [00:13:00] have to be a Martin Luther King or a Cesar Chavez and what I love is getting to work with moms and with teenagers and with folks who think of themselves as caring, compassionate, individuals, and when I go into an organization and work with their handful of folks who care about this issue, the DEI team, I get to teach them how to strategically organize. I get to teach them how do you create culture shift over time? I get to teach them how do you figure out who your allies are? How do you figure out how to move people who are neutral? It turns out that there are a lot more organizers out there than we realize if we don't create one definition of what an organizer needs to look like. [00:13:45] Swati Rayasam: I have been reading this political scholar Eqbal Ahmed, who really talks about the way the burden is on those of us who are deeply committed to movement work, narrow definition people, the burden is really on us to try and [00:14:00] create a liberatory future that feels both achievable. Mm-hmm. and safe for everybody. Because when people engage in mass struggle and in revolution, there are people who are a hundred percent willing to put their lives on the line. People who are willing to die for the cause. And we absolutely need those people. And there are many people along the spectrum who, if you can create a future that feels like it's within their grasp, they will come with you. [00:14:30] Sandhya Jha: Yep. I teach a lot of organizing classes and have gotten a chance to teach alongside my beloved colleague BK Woodson at Allen Temple Baptist Church, they have a leadership institute there. And one of the books we use is Blueprint for a Revolution by Srđa Popović. And I feel like I learned a lot as we read that book together and thought about how to apply it to the work we're doing in Oakland. They talked about how by engaging in nonviolent direct action, [00:15:00] they created space for elders to be a part of their work and youth to be a part of their work and families to be a part of their work. By making the movement playful. They gave people hope and gave people courage because dictators are terrified of being mocked. [00:15:17] Swati Rayasam: Yeah, exactly. And I think by being really restrictive or narrow about who we view as actually valuable organizers. And I think labor movements teach us this a lot, right? We really cut ourselves off at the knees on our ability to build a network or to be in touch with the general population, many of whom are more connected than we ever give them credit for. [00:15:41] Sandhya Jha: Yeah. Yep. it's part of why I love labor organizing. I talk with a lot of people who are disenchanted with organizing who ask me how I can have stayed involved for the past 25 years. And why I've been able to stay in it is cuz I'm organizing alongside workers and they have [00:16:00] full lives. And the work that they're doing in the movement is so that they can live their full lives. And there's something about having that perspective and recognizing the why all the time instead of getting lost in the weeds of the what. Is so important in this work. I think that has been a big theme of my organizing life is how do we build to the greatest common denominator? As my friend BK often says how do we build towards those shared values that often get erased when we are engaged in the right versus left debate. [00:16:39] Swati Rayasam: Yeah. I think that it is so important and I also think that it's really hard in this moment of what feels like constant trauma and re trauma. [00:16:51] Swati Rayasam: And to some extent especially when we're talking about the left right dichotomy there are real concerns [00:17:00] about safety. Yep. And there are real concerns about security and who you are in community with and who you can find even the smallest level of acceptance from to ensure that you won't have violence visited upon you. And I think that these conversations of united front organizing, Right. trying to bridge across difference mm-hmm. for a shared goal, for a shared liberatory future Yep. Are really important. And they feel kind of impossible to achieve right now. [00:17:31] Sandhya Jha: It's interesting cuz I think that in many ways that is true. There are a lot of conversations that I think people with privilege expect, people who are marginalized to engage in. And those expectations are unfair, what I found very frustrating was the number of people with a lot of privilege who would be like, Ugh, I just can't talk to those people. And I'm like, Then who's going to? Exactly. and so I do think that some of this is about being willing to have [00:18:00] hard conversations in the places where we have privilege and recognizing who's at actual risk and showing up in ways that are protective of who is at risk. But that doesn't mean walking away from people who aren't where we are. Right. Because the fact of the matter is everybody's on a journey. And I have watched at the same time some of the disposability culture in movements write off people without giving them any way to address harm, repair harm, and find a pathway back into community. [00:18:41] Swati Rayasam: Yeah. And I think that's why, at least I am feeling really hopeful about, what I've seen over the past couple of years, this really important track into transformative justice and restorative justice, to acknowledge that there is harm that has happened, there are harms that happen every day between people. [00:19:00] And also we are all on our own journey to unlearn the things that we have been taught either directly or indirectly by our upbringing, by our environment and that you cannot easily dispose of people and that people are able to come back into community. Now that comes with a very important caveat that like they recognize the harm. Mm-hmm. that. They have done or how they've been party to it, that they acknowledge that there is healing work that needs to be done both with the person that they harmed and also probably in internally. [00:19:35] Sandhya Jha: Well, and the community, folks who don't do RJ on a regular basis tend to skip the community aspect. Yeah. That there is actually repair that needs to be done with community and there's work community needs to do to figure out how to re-embrace reabsorb people who have done harm in ways that still protect the person who's been harmed. [00:19:55] Swati Rayasam: Exactly. In ways that do not erase the harm that has happened, but [00:20:00] acknowledge, contextualize it and say, Okay, we are patching this and we are working to move forward in step with each other. Absolutely. [00:20:09] Sandhya Jha: Can I just say that one of the other things that I think you and I have in common is a real passion for bringing joy back into the work of Justice I quote Fabiana Rodriguez a lot on this particular thing, because I was at an event she was doing eons ago, and she looked out at us and most of us were activists and she said, Listen, y ‘all you keep inviting people to a struggle. I'm on your side and I don't wanna join a struggle. I want to join a party. And that was like a call to arms for me when I heard her say that. I was like, Oh my gosh, you're right. We are so much more fun. Like, I've hung out with people who are anti-trans and anti queer and anti-immigrant and anti refugee. They are not fun people. No, no. We have all of the best parties. So I don't know why we don't [00:21:00] capitalize on that more. So I think the role of joy and justice is so important. And this is why I was so excited to have you on the podcast that I launched recently. [00:21:11] Sandhya Jha: Right. Bending Towards Justice Avatar the last Airbender for the Global Majority. [00:21:15] Swati Rayasam: So literally like bringing it together. Two of my favorite things right, is like TV shows, wholesome TV shows like Avatar, The Last Airbender that I deeply love and organizing. Yes. All the work that I love. And I think it's true You know, what is actually really the important work is to work to build toward a future that is desirable Yep. That people want to be a part of. Yeah. That people can see happen. Yeah. And I think that is a lot of the difficulty that I have seen in some organizing circles. We are so well versed in what we are against and all of the things that are bad that so many people have a really hard time seeing or visioning or communicating [00:22:00] what it is that we are fighting for. Yeah. Right. And it's not enough to say, I'm fighting for a world where we can all be safe. Right. Yeah. I'm not, I'm fighting for a world where we can all take long naps in the middle of the day if we'd like to do that. Right. Yeah. But like really building and visioning that future of like, in this world in which we are all safe, there will be harm that happens. How do we deal with that? Yeah. What do we do with that? How do we make sure that it is able to keep everybody safe and also able to account for the times in which it is not able to keep everybody safe. [00:22:38] Sandhya Jha: Visionary does not have to mean naive. And we need it to be visionary. And sometimes I forget to do the visionary stuff. I've got a colleague, Dave Bell, he's a farmer who is also an anti-racism trainer and we do a lot of work together. He's a white guy who lives in White Swan, Washington, on the reservation and I remember being at a training with him and I [00:23:00] was all fired up and I was so excited about the conversations we were having and the people were really ready to do the hard work and roll up their sleeves. And Dave says to them, I would like to not have to do this work. And I'm like, What is he talking about? This is amazing. We're doing such good work. And he says, I would like for us not to have to talk about racism all the time. I would rather be farming. I would rather be, taking care of the cows in my field. [00:23:26] Sandhya Jha: I would rather be talking about my pottery work that I'm doing badly but learning how to do, I would rather be doing anything than have this conversation. But I don't get to be on the farm with the wheat, with the cows, with my bad pottery until we figured out how to do this anti-racism work. And it was a really humbling moment for me because I also get into that like I'm an organizer, that's my identity space. And it was this reminder of Dave's doing this. So he gets to live in a world where he gets to hang out in the fields and he [00:24:00] gets to, love on the cows. There's something about being reminded that we're doing this so that eventually we don't have to do it. That I think is actually visionary in its own way and it's important. [00:24:12] Swati Rayasam: Moving into a little bit more of the grit of like why I asked you to be on the show today. I met you originally when I moved to the Bay Area when you were the executive director of the Oakland Peace Center because At that time I was doing organizing work with the Alliance of South Asians Taking Action, which is a 20 year old bay area based organization, that was really founded around the Laki Reddy Bali Reddy sex trafficking. Yep. Caste and labor exploitation case that happened in Berkeley in 1999. And I was just so thrilled to be around and have in community so many rad desis. And you also did work with ASATA, right. Historically and are actively doing work with us. [00:24:56] Sandhya Jha: Absolutely. One of the places I think I invested the most [00:25:00] energy in where we got to spend a lot of quality time in the kitchen was one of the projects, Bay Area Solidarity Summer, an organizing institute, camp, however you wanna refer to it. [00:25:10] Swati Rayasam: Political education, Summer camp. [00:25:12] Swati Rayasam: Yeah, exactly. For young South Asian Americans who are committed to activism. What I think was the most beautiful part of that program when I was involved in it, and it's still the case today, is for young South Asians who think that they're the only ones who care about justice issues, who haven't met other people, who are South Asian, and identify as justice seekers first to meet each other and realize that there are people just like them. Then to look around and realize that those of us who are usually 10, 15, 20 years older than them are also committed to the work and have been doing it for decades. And then for them to get exposed to the long history of radical visionary organizing and activism of South [00:26:00] Asians here in the US and also in the homelands of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and diasporic countries all over the world. [00:26:13] Sandhya Jha: There's something about realizing, Oh, you have contemporaries, oh, you have elders, oh, you have ancestors. Mm-hmm. Especially in the face of the model minority lie that so many of us have had imposed on us, this lie that all we are all we're supposed to be is cogs in this larger capitalist machine that are non disruptive, which is why we're allowed to survive. And if we are non disruptive enough, we might even be able to be comfortable. And to discover that there's more to our story than that is so exciting and I love, love, love being a part of that. [00:26:52] Swati Rayasam: Yeah. I think that is like fundamentally one of the most important kind of activities that [00:27:00] happens in the ASATA universe, I was a kid who also grew up thinking that there were no other South Asians like me, or there were no other folks who were interested in justice. I spent a lot of time doing, reproductive and queer justice in the south; I always think about what would it have meant if I came in, BASS for 18 to 24 year olds. Yep. what would it have meant if I had come in at a fresh 18 and been able to basically be apprised of the fact that I have this history Yeah. That it's not just me. And that actually, immigration and white supremacy and neo-colonial culture has created this project of assimilation that all of our parents have been in on, in a way to survive Yeah. And to be safe. And I tell my, I tell my mom that a lot because she's always a little surprised about the organizing work that I do. And I was just like, Your job was to survive. My job is to liberate. Yeah. [00:28:00] You know? Yeah. And I could not do that if you were not so focused on creating that environment for me. [00:28:07] Swati Rayasam: I love that. [00:28:07] Swati Rayasam: we'll drop in the show notes, but, BASS – Bay Area Solidarity Summer is solidaritysummer.org. So we'll put that in the show notes as well as ASATA, the Alliance of South Asians Taking Action is ASATA.org. And yeah, I think that is a really good segue into how we got involved in this amazing project. [00:28:31] Swati Rayasam: You're tuned in to APEX express at 94.1 KPFA and 89.3, KPFB in Berkeley. And online@kpfa.org. [00:28:43] Swati Rayasam: I think it was Fall 2021 that you and I were talking. Yep. And you were telling me that you were involved in this amazing archival fellowship project. Is run by the South Asian American Digital Archive and [00:29:00] that you were going to do your project about labor. Mm-hmm. and South Asians. Yep. And my immediate, incredibly naive response was, how many South Asians are there in labor? [00:29:12] Sandhya Jha: Exactly. And it's not naive. It's interesting cuz I think that this project actually emerged out of my favorite part of BASS, which was when the young adults would ask what their opportunities were in the world of justice. And I would say, you know, there's a place for us in labor justice. It had never crossed most of their minds. Right. We don't think of ourselves as having a role especially in formalized unions. And so SAADA, the South Asian American Digital Archives has an archival fellows project. And the whole purpose of it is to diversify their archives and collect the stories that are usually overlooked in the telling of South Asian American stories. [00:29:56] Sandhya Jha: And they have done a great job over the years of collecting the [00:30:00] stories of informal organizing, like the Punjabi Taxi Drivers campaign, the Bangladeshi Nail Workers Campaign. Those were informal labor organizing campaigns. That have been really well archived and they're amazing stories. I wanted to make sure that the next generation of South Asian activists knew about the South Asians who were actually part of the formal organized labor movement. [00:30:30] Sandhya Jha: And so I spent this past year interviewing, maybe a half a dozen or so South Asian American workers. Generally, not always, but mostly what would be classified as low wage workers who found a pathway into formal organizing bodies, unite here or the building trades or any number of the formal unions that keep [00:31:00] the labor movement alive across the country today. And I'm really proud of the fact that we do have South Asian workers who have moved up the ranks to be official organizers or to be at negotiating tables. And so that's part of the story I thought it was worth us telling. [00:31:19] Swati Rayasam: And I am, I'm so excited that we get to dive deeper into this project and I really love your framing too, around the three large bins that you have, solidarity, spirit and struggle. [00:31:34] Swati Rayasam: Right? Yeah. Yeah. [00:31:35] Sandhya Jha: I started out with certain assumptions about what I was going to learn, partly because I've been doing labor solidarity work for 25 years at this point. I really thought I knew what I was gonna hear. And what I discovered was there were these consistent themes across, the interviews. that there were these notions of, Oh, what's meaningful to me is [00:32:00] getting to organize across cultures, getting to organize with people who, on the surface and even deep down are very different than me, but we share this vision of what our lives can be. And so that solidarity message I found really powerful. Also, and admittedly because I come out of a spiritual background, was probably looking for it. I was really struck by how many of the interviews ended up talking about the role of spirituality and shaping people's values. And in a couple of instances, organizers said, what my religion taught me was that religion needs to be challenged. And building up that muscle was what helped me challenge systems of injustice in other places. But others said that their journey with their faith tradition was what guided them into the work of labor organizing. [00:32:52] Sandhya Jha: And then that third bucket of struggle, I think is the lived experience of how [00:33:00] hard it is to take on oppressive systems of capitalism, how hard it is to take on decks that are stacked against us and what it means to have somewhere to turn in the midst of those struggles. I will say there were also a couple of lessons I was surprised by because my South Asian identity is so central to my organizing work, I was expecting to collect stories of people who were proud South Asians, who were also proud to be involved in the labor movement. And I assumed that they would see connections between those things because I certainly do. But what I discovered is for the most part, they were like, Yeah, I'm South Asian. I'm not saying that doesn't matter, but it's not super relevant to my organizing work. My organizing work is about [00:34:00] our cross-cultural solidarity. And that was something I hadn't been expecting that emerged as I did those interviews. Interesting. And I'm really grateful that the South Asian American Digital Archives likes telling all of the stories because I think I promised them that what they were going to get was, we're proud to be South Asian organizers. And what I got was, yeah, we're South Asian, we're proud to be organizers. And the that SAADA is like, yeah, that's part of our story too. [00:34:28] Swati Rayasam: Yeah. And I think that's, that I think is incredibly important. We have this really, amazing series of audio clips from your SAADA interviews that really represent a lot of the themes that you were highlighting about solidarity, spirit, and struggle. And I'm just really excited to play them as we talk through these larger themes in your larger project and the experience of South Asian labor organizers. [00:34:55] Swati Rayasam: This clip is from somebody that you and I both know, which [00:35:00] is Prem Pariyar. I was so thrilled that Prem was a part of your project. I think Prem is an incredible organizer, so yeah tell our listeners a little bit about Prem. Prem [00:35:09] Sandhya Jha: It was pretty exciting to get to work with him you know, he moved here from Nepal and in Nepal he had been a Dalit activist and he came to the United States and had this notion that in the United States there is no caste and he was disabused of that notion very quickly as a restaurant worker dealing with anti Nepali bias in Indian restaurants, dealing with caste bias in Nepali restaurants, well dealing with Caste bias in all the restaurants. [00:35:35] Swati Rayasam: Hey, everyone, Narrator Swati here, I just wanted to put in an explanatory comma, a la W Kamau Bell and Hari Kondabolu to talk about some terms you just heard. Sandhya referenced that Prem was a Dalit activist and also talked about Caste bias. For those of you who don't know, Caste is a violent system of oppression and exclusion, which governs social status in many south Asian countries, although it is [00:36:00] most commonly associated with India. It works on an axis of purity and pollution, and it's hereditary. At the top of the caste system are Brahmins, by the way Sandhya and I are both Brahmin, and not even at the bottom, but completely outside of the system are Dalits who were previously referred to by the slur untouchable and Adivasis who are indigenous to South Asia. [00:36:25] Swati Rayasam: Despite being “illegal” Caste bias, Caste Oppression, Caste apartheid, are still prevalent, both in South Asia and as Sandhya references, in the United States. It manifests in many ways that people experience racial injustice, via socioeconomic inequality, systemic and interpersonal violence, occupation, and through the determination of marriage and other relationships. You can learn more at EqualityLabs.org and APEX currently has a show in the works that delves into this more deeply. Now. Back to Sandhya [00:36:58] Sandhya Jha: What is [00:37:00] delightful to me is Prem went on to get an MSW and is building out amazing mental health resources for Dalit communities for the Nepali community. Seeking to build out a program where there are more and more people in Nepal who are trained with MSW skills. [00:37:21] Sandhya Jha: I met with one of his professors from CSU East Bay where he got his degree and she said, You know, that the entire Cal State system is adding caste to its anti-discrimination policies thanks to the work he started at CSU East Bay. And it was really beautiful to hear that because the focus of my conversations with him were more around how his experiences in the restaurants led him into the solidarity work with nail salon workers. [00:37:53] Swati Rayasam: To just, kick back to the caste abolition work that Prem has been doing, that caste abolition work [00:38:00] at CSU East Bay has been such critical work in these ongoing conversations around caste that have been in the South Asian community primarily, but have been percolating elsewhere. [00:38:13] Swati Rayasam: You know, the state of California filed a lawsuit against Cisco systems Yep. For caste discrimination in their workplace and there have been all these conversations around caste and tech work and interplay that with the no tech for apartheid work. Right. That has been happening in Palestinian liberation circles. Yeah. And really building that solidarity movement. So I think that Prem is an absolute powerhouse Yeah. In that regard. But yeah, let's listen to this clip. [00:38:42] Prem: During that time, I got connected with other community organizer, like workers group. I got connected and so I was connected with nail salon workers, who were exploited at their workplace and with them, [00:39:00] I got to go to the capital in Sacramento. And so I thought I need to advocate for the restaurant workers. that was my first experience, like working with other workers and with the assembly members and like other other policy makers I shared what is happening what kinds of discrimination happening at the workplace. So I advocated for the restaurant workers at that time. I shared my stories and I supported the rights of nail salon workers. I was there to support them and they supported me as well, and it was wonderful. And finally that advocacy worked. And the bill was drafted and it was passed finally. And so it was huge achievement at that time. [00:39:49] Swati Rayasam: I love that. I think that is such a perfect story of when you win, we all win. [00:39:56] Sandhya Jha: And what I also love about it is he goes on [00:40:00] to talk about how he has remained in relationship with those nail salon workers. That they show up for each other, that they take each other food, that they show up to each other's baby showers and birthday parties, and there's this sense of community that emerges out of this shared struggle. And so that's a cross-cultural campaign. They were mostly Vietnamese. There were some Bangladeshi nail salon workers, but it was mostly people from a different culture than his. [00:40:27] Sandhya Jha: But somebody at the Asian Health Services program that he was at, saw his gifts, saw his passion, and he really responded to that in exactly, the most powerful way. I can imagine. [00:40:38] Swati Rayasam: And I think one of the nice things as well about that is that person at Asian Health Services connected Prem in and the Nail Salon Worker group, California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, Prem came from Nepal, I'm not sure, but the extent to which his organizing background and how comfortable he was in the US organizing space around labor [00:41:00] issues was probably significantly less that worker group took it upon themselves when they saw Prem come in to say, Oh, you are advocating on behalf of restaurant workers. Great. Why don't you join us? Let's help support and so the nail salon workers saw Prem, saw solidarity with Prem and said, It is our responsibility mm-hmm to bring you into this space to connect you in and to move in, struggle together. Yeah. Toward our shared goals of safety, of health, of rights. Yep. [00:41:35] Sandhya Jha: Exactly. [00:41:36] Swati Rayasam: So, we have this clip from Daljit, tell me a little bit about Daljit. Daljit [00:41:42] Sandhya Jha: Yeah. Daljit was an attorney who now reads tarot for people because she needed a break from the toxicity of that career and how it was taking her away from her family. Daljit is a deeply spiritual person and, [00:42:00] as I mentioned before, this theme of spirit showed up in some really beautiful ways in some of the interviews. I loved the way she understood her Sikh tradition as foundationally being connected with the land and foundationally connected with the people who work the land. [00:42:15] Daljit: Agriculture is our culture and the religion that I was born into, Siki, the founder of that faith was a farmer. And so a lot of the scripture, the analogies, the metaphors, the poetry, the music, the songs, the boon, the traditional folk songs, that can be taunting and teasing banter, all that stuff the land is the framework for that. And my most favorite line from the Guru Granth Sahib, our holy book, is, [speaks Punjabi] and that basically means that, the waters our guru, the airs our father, but our mother is Earth. And that's the greatest of all , and that's adherence to ecosystem. That's the [00:43:00] indigenous Cosmo vision that should be paramount. And that's what I try to teach my children. And so I think that's what I was taught as a kid without necessarily being able to pinpoint it, but it was just infused throughout our songs, our music, our food, the Harvest, there's two times a year that our celebrations, whether it Baisakhi or Lohri. It's so connected to the harvest and what is coming out of the soil or not. And you're connected to the cycles of nature. [00:43:28] Swati Rayasam: The connection between nature land, spirituality the way that it shows up in so many faith backgrounds and so many faith organizers, I think is really, really beautiful. [00:43:41] Sandhya Jha: And I love that Daljit Kaursoni who was raised in this tradition, has found her way to Buddhism and is raising her kids with those connections, but without ever losing this grounding in the liberation of the land, the liberation of the [00:44:00] people. [00:44:00] Sandhya Jha: And for that to be a key element of her spirituality, even as her spirituality evolves, I think it's pretty powerful. Tafadar [00:44:08] Sandhya Jha: One of the other people I got to interview ,Tafadar, he's a Bangladeshi American in the building trades and is a deeply committed Marxist. For me, this was a particularly exciting interview because I'm Bengali, so from West Bengal, before partition, Bangladesh and what's now West Bengal, were one state. And so it was fun to get to talk with him and to say, Hey, this is our legacy as Bengalis is radical worker organizing. [00:44:40] Sandhya Jha: And I remember saying to him, Some people in the building trades are not super excited to be working with brown people. And some people in the building trades are a little biased against women. And as a very, very progressive South Asian? How do you navigate that [00:45:00] space? [00:45:00] Sandhya Jha: And he said, Here's the thing is, yeah, I organize alongside some moderate to conservative white folks from New Jersey and he said, but in the building trades, if that moderate to conservative white guy from New Jersey decides he doesn't like my feminist politics, or he doesn't like my brown skin, if he decides that's a reason not to train me, he might die. And it was really interesting because even though I've been doing labor justice work for a long time, it was one of those moments I was like, Oh, right. Your work is very dangerous and you all have to rely on each other whether you like each other or not. That is the magic of organizing that no one ever talks about. This is why we can do cross class, cross-cultural work because literally you have to trust each other with your lives. Right. That was a really clarifying moment for me. And it was one of those interesting moments where I was like, [00:46:00] Solidarity is not a romantic thing. Uh, it is very much a matter of life and death. [00:46:05] Sandhya Jha: And I think that is really important and that exact thing that you brought up, you don't even have to necessarily trust somebody. Right. But you do need them. Yep. Right. And like that really clear understanding that like your fates are intertwined and it is truly in everybody's best interest. If you are trained well, irrespective of whether or not at lunch, I'm interested in sitting anywhere near you. I think that's really great. [00:46:32] Sandhya Jha: One of the things that was really exciting about talking with Tafadar was the reminder that labor organizing and formal union organizing at its best can be in solidarity with other movements really worker justice and housing justice and racial justice are inseparable, on some level. And so, one of the most inspiring stories I got to hear across all of these interviews [00:47:00] was a campaign that brought together folks across the anti- gentrification, the immigrant rights, and the labor justice movement. [00:47:14] Tafadar: It's ironic, building affordable housing with deadly exploitation. And, um, to do this, the de blassio administration, they embark on massive major rezonings of poor areas to relax the local zoning laws to be able to bring in these developments. And a couple of years ago, my, my union in local 79's. Took a very sharp turn towards a community organizing approach because labor can't win on our own, and that's the perspective that all of labor should adopt. In order to fight against the sweatshops in our industry. We united with a lot of community organizations in the South Bronx. [00:47:53] Tafadar: We formed the South Bronx, Safe Southern Boulevard Coalition. And along with these groups, we [00:48:00] protested and did a whole lot of activism, lobbying, community organizing to stop the rezoning of Southern Boulevard, which is a massive stretch in the South Bronx, while the De Blassio administration had succeeded in another part of the Bronx where there's like massive displacement still underway right now. And we were determined to stop it there. And it was a beautiful thing that we can unite because on our end as labor, we had to prevent all these trash companies from coming in and exploiting workers. And we were working with these tenants who are afraid of being displaced. And people generally, we do need revitalization of our neighborhoods. We do need investment. We do need things to be changed and made better. For us. If it's not for us, if it's done without us, then eventually we're not even gonna be here anymore. So we had that alliance going on and not only did we manage to stop that rezoning, we also educated the local city councilman on why his position was wrong and supporting the rezoning. And he eventually completely flipped this [00:49:00] position. And now chairs the land use committee of the city council from the perspective that we educated him on, which it's just been a very interesting dynamic. But, there's a lot of rezoning battles all over the city that's like the main front of anti gentrification struggles. And I've been watching those kinds of campaigns go on since I began organizing about 15, 16. I've seen very different approaches to them, but I've never seen any model really work until that one kicked in where Labor and the community came together. So that was one of my favorite campaigns because of that lesson that we were able to concretely put into practice and set as an example for not only for community movements all over New York City, but also for Labor. [00:49:43] Sandhya Jha: I think this hit me in particular because I've done so much work around antis displacement in Oakland, and my experience has been. [00:49:53] Sandhya Jha: That while for most of us on the ground, the connection between housing justice and labor justice is really clear. When you [00:50:00] start getting into the technical policy issues and the funding issues, the folks who are running labor and housing justice or affordable housing, struggle to find ways to collaborate. And it's been one of my consistent heartbreaks for at least a decade at this point because I work at the intersection of those things and sometimes I despair of us being able to find ways to move forward together. And so to hear a story like this one and to be reminded at core, those justice issues can and must be we already knew, must be, but actually can function together to build a better community. That was actually really life giving for me to hear. [00:50:45] Swati Rayasam: Yeah. I a hundred percent agree. And I think the point that Tafadar as well brings in the clip of just saying we knew that we could do this, but we knew we couldn't do this without community organizing. Right? Yeah. That labor couldn't do this alone. Yeah. [00:51:00] And I think that is a lot of what, when we talk about solidarity politics, it's not just a backdoor way of inclusion for inclusion's sake, we have to all do this. Actually, it is integral that all of us are involved in any of these campaigns because it impacts all of us. And because we are not going to win with only a single constituency and in the very same way that, Tafadar was identifying that labor couldn't do that alone. in community organizing spaces that you and I have been in mm-hmm. , like we are constantly talking about how we cannot do any of this without labor. Yep. And I think a beautiful example of that is the Block the Boat campaign yeah that the Arab Resource Organizing Center, started back in 2014 and then again during 2021 to block the Zim ship from the port of Oakland. And like this community organization [00:52:00] AROC could not do that without working with the longshoreman to collaborate with the port workers. And I think that when we see the marriage of community organizing and labor organizing, that is when we get the power of grassroots organizing. [00:52:16] Sandhya Jha: Something I wanna mention about the SAADA Fellowship that I was really grateful for: two things. First off, they did a really good job of making sure we got trained in grassroots oral history. So they took really seriously what it meant for this to be justice work. And they made sure we had exposure to methodology that was gonna lift up and honor and foster the voices of people whose stories don't get heard often enough. And that was a really big deal to me. The other thing is they made sure that we had an advisory board, people who are in this [00:53:00] work who could help us, figure out who to talk with, who could help us build out an event strategy. And you helped me build out my advisory committee. Anibel Ferris-Comelo who is with the University of California Labor Center, [00:53:14] Swati Rayasam: Prem Pariyar, a Nepali Dalit restaurant worker, organizer pushing for Caste as a protected category with Equality Labs, a Dalit feminist organization, and a social worker supporting the mental health needs of his and many other South Asian communities in Alameda county. [00:53:31] Swati Rayasam: Will Jamil Wiltchko with the California Trade Justice Coalition, Terry Valen who I did a lot of organizing with at the beginning of the pandemic, around the struggles that seafarers were facing with the onset of COVID-19. And he's the organizational director of the Filipino Community Center in San Francisco. The president of NAFCON which is the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns and just an all in all amazing organizer [00:53:57] Sandhya Jha: the last thing I wanna mention [00:54:00] is SAADA also helped me set up a digital exhibit with Art by Madhvi Trivedi Patak and I wanted to give them a shoutout because they're an incredible artist, but also they grew up in a working class family and didn't get exposed to what it looks like to do labor justice. And so as they developed the artwork to go with the digital exhibit, they got to experience the possibilities of labor solidarity that they hadn't gotten to experience as a child. And so I really loved that Madhvi was a part of this project as well [00:54:38] Swati Rayasam: All of the clips that you shared really identifying, again, these like huge fundamental pillars of solidarity and spirit and struggle. these clips were amazing. They are so rich and so layered with all of these people's varying and different experiences. Really showing in [00:55:00] all of these different walks of life at all of these ages with all of these experiences, that all of these people have this unified and shared identity in struggle, in spirit, and in solidarity for liberation. [00:55:14] Sandhya Jha: And one of the things that I think is worth celebrating is whether they see it as part of their South Asian identity or not. People who do identify as South Asian now have this resource that says there's a home for you in the labor movement. Yes, there are. There is a value to your voice. There is a value to your wisdom, there's a value to your experience in the labor movement. [00:55:36] Swati Rayasam: I think it's a beautiful project. Sandhya, I think it has been an amazing amount of work I've watched you do over the past year. These stories are so wonderful. I really encourage people to check it out. Where can they find your project? [00:55:49] Sandhya Jha: The website's www.saada.org/acfp [00:56:00] /exhibit/solidarity-forever. We'll put that in the notes. We'll definitely put that in the show notes. [00:56:05] Swati Rayasam: I just wanna make sure that we replug your podcast Bending Toward Justice Avatar, The Last Air Bender for the Global Majority and you can find that at tinyurl.com slash ATLA podcast, Capital P (tinyurl.com/ATLAPodcast). And then the last thing that I also wanna make sure that we plug is Without Fear Consulting. [00:56:27] Sandhya Jha: I love working with folks who know that their organization could be a little more liberative, and are, just not quite sure where to start. I love working with a team of folks who want to be about the work of incorporating diversity, equity, and inclusion into the DNA of their organization and I love setting them up so that they can keep doing that long after I'm working with them. So please do find me withoutfearconsulting.com. If you're interested in that. [00:56:58] Swati Rayasam: Amazing. Sandhya [00:57:00] Jha, Pastor, Racial Justice consultant, podcast host, archivist, singer songwriter, amazing cook. You can do it all. I think you deserve a nap. it has been amazing talking to you. I am so glad to be able to hear about your project and also to hear a lot more about your life. [00:57:23] Sandhya Jha: Yay. Thank you so much. [00:57:25] Miata Tan: That was Swati Rayasam in conversation with Sandhya Jha. As Swati mentioned, you can learn more about her work in the show notes at kpfa.org/program/apex-express. Speaking of Swati — she's currently working on an episode marking the 25th anniversary of 9/11, out in early September. It'll cover the work of the South Asian Coalition, a national network of organizations working together on South Asian American movement building. Keep an eye out for that one. This episode originally aired January 5th, 2023 — we're re-airing it this week in honor of South Asian American Heritage Month. This is APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, airing every Thursday evening at 7pm. Thank you for tuning in tonight. APEX Express is a proud member of Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality. A network focused on long-term movement building, capacity infrastructure, and leadership support for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders committed to social justice. Learn more at AACRE.org This program produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preeti Mangala Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's episode was produced by Swati Rayasam. Get some rest y'all. The post APEX Express – 7.16.26 – South Asians and The Labor Justice Movement appeared first on KPFA.

The spread of cabbage seedpod weevil (CSPW) into new areas of Western Canada means many canola growers are facing an unfamiliar pest in the battle to protect canola yields. Historically confined to southern regions on the western side of the Prairies, higher CSPW populations have pushed into central Alberta (reaching as far north as Edmonton),... Read More

Some baseball seasons are remembered for champions. Others are remembered for unforgettable players. But every once in a while, a season delivers everything—record-breaking performances, historic collapses, incredible comebacks, and a World Series that still has fans shaking their heads years later.In this episode Charles Combs and Dana Auguster will discuss the 2011 Major League Baseball season. The unforgettable 2011 Major League Baseball season was a year when Justin Verlander dominated the American League, Matt Kemp came within inches of one of the greatest individual seasons in modern baseball. It was also the final season of Albert Pujols' legendary run in St. Louis before free agency changed the baseball landscape.Also we'll revisit one of the wildest final days in regular-season history, when the Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves completed stunning September collapses while the Tampa Bay Rays and St. Louis Cardinals pulled off miraculous postseason berths. Then we'll relive an October filled with unforgettable drama that ended with David Freese becoming a baseball legend as the Cardinals captured one of the most improbable World Series championships ever.To contact the show, please email us at Historically.Speaking.Sports@Gmail.com

Annuity companies are counting on you to forget about your MYGA so they can quietly roll it into a low-paying renewal. In this episode, Stan The Annuity Man breaks down how the auto-renewal game really works—and exactly what you should do instead to lock in the highest contractual guarantees.    In this episode, The Annuity Man discussed:  What a MYGA is and how it functions like a CD How auto-renewal works with MYGAs Why renewal rates are often uncompetitive by design Using an agent of record to avoid bad auto-renewals Shopping for the highest-paying MYGA or SPIA at maturity   Key Takeaways:  Multi-year guarantee annuities operate much like CDs, but with the advantage of tax-deferred compounding when using non-qualified money. Auto-renewal rates on MYGAs are historically poor and are rarely competitive with rates available in the broader marketplace at maturity. Annuity companies benefit when contracts quietly roll over at low rates, especially when original agents leave the business and no one is actively servicing the account. Proactively working with a dedicated team to track maturity dates helps ensure policies are shopped at renewal and transferred to better-paying MYGAs or SPIAs without triggering taxes. Treat annuities strictly as contractual tools—focus on the highest guaranteed terms available rather than vague possibilities or marketing promises.   "Historically, the auto renewal rates are horrible." —  Stan The Annuity Man   Connect with The Annuity Man:  Website: http://theannuityman.com/  Email: Stan@TheAnnuityMan.com  Book: Owner's Manuals: https://www.stantheannuityman.com/how-do-annuities-work YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCXKKxvVslbeGAlEc5sra2g  Get a Quote Today: https://www.stantheannuityman.com/annuity-calculator!

In this BizNews interview, Irakli Rekhviashvili sits down with the three people behind FirstRand's R2.5 billion Cape Water Performance-Based Bond, the first time a commercial bank anywhere in the world has tied a bond's payout to nature. The Nature Conservancy's Louise Stafford traces it to 2018, when Cape Town's dams were weeks from "Day Zero" and the catchments were choked with thirsty invasive trees. Her teams have since cleared 40,000 hectares and reclaimed more than 36 billion litres of water. "If we clear that we can reclaim about two months' water supply for Cape Town at a fraction of the cost of grey infrastructure," she says. RMB's Martin Potgieter explains the twist: investors earn a performance-based success payment on top of their coupon, paid only when the trees actually come down and independent verifiers confirm it. The aim, he says, is to "get the investors to start thinking about nature as an asset class," and tellingly, "75% of the outcomes-based funding came from entities that had never before funded nature." Peace Parks Foundation's Colin Porteous frames the deeper problem: "Historically, conservation has been a cash-negative product," and philanthropy alone cannot carry a $700 million, 10-year funding need. Potgieter's parting warning is blunt: ecosystems are "the infrastructure behind the infrastructure," and the money flowing into nature must multiply "by 40, 50, maybe 100 times."

Is the Federal Reserve’s New Shake-Up Good or Bad for Your Retirement Income? By Tom Dupree, Founder, Dupree Financial Group Short answer: it’s genuinely both, and which one matters more depends on whether your retirement income is built to keep pace with rising costs. New Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh has launched a formal, five-part review of how the Fed operates — covering everything from how it talks to markets, to how it collects the inflation data that moves interest rates, to whether artificial intelligence is quietly reshaping the economy in ways the old playbook never anticipated. On this week’s episode of The Financial Hour, James Dupree, Mike Johnson, and Michael Dawahare sat in to break down what this shake-up actually means — and, more importantly, what it means for anyone relying on their portfolio to produce real, spendable income in retirement. Key Takeaways A new Fed chair is auditing the Fed itself — five task forces are reassessing communications, the balance sheet, data quality, and the inflation target. The Fed’s own bond portfolio carries an unrealized loss in the hundreds of billions — proof that duration risk applies to everyone, including the Fed. AI is cutting both ways on inflation — boosting productivity in some areas, raising input costs like memory chips in others. A tariff-driven price bump and true monetary inflation are not the same thing, and the difference matters for how policymakers respond. Income that doesn’t grow — money markets, CDs, old bonds — quietly loses ground to rising costs every year it sits still. Who Is Kevin Warsh, and Why Is He Changing How the Fed Operates? Kevin Warsh has been a student of the Federal Reserve for most of his career, and one of his first moves as chair was to launch five task forces to reassess the institution’s core functions: communications, balance sheet policy, data quality, productivity and jobs (including AI), and the inflation framework itself. According to CNBC’s reporting on the review, the task forces are directed to start from first principles and question existing practice rather than simply fine-tune it — Brown Brothers Harriman strategist Scott Clemons described the approach as “regime change, but in a velvet glove.” The philosophy behind it is simple: stop, assess, and pivot where needed — the same discipline any well-run company applies when a board challenges management on why things are done a certain way. Warsh is asking the Fed to do that to itself, publicly, for the first time in a long time. What Did the Federal Reserve Get Wrong in 2008 and 2021? To understand why this review matters, it helps to look at the Fed’s actual track record. In 2006 and 2007, as the housing market was cracking, the Fed’s regional offices were on record saying there was no housing problem. There was. Then, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed held interest rates near zero for over a decade — a policy commonly called ZIRP — creating what our team described on-air as a “wet blanket” over markets that made honest price discovery difficult. The more recent example is fresher: in 2021, as trillions in pandemic stimulus moved through the economy, the Fed described the resulting price increases as “transitory.” They weren’t. Prices rose at the fastest pace in decades, and by the time policy caught up, households had already absorbed the damage — a miss the current review is squarely aimed at preventing from happening again. Why Does the Fed Have a Balance Sheet Loss in the Hundreds of Billions? Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, System Open Market Account (SOMA) Annual Reports, 2022–2025. Here’s a detail that surprises a lot of listeners: the Fed itself is sitting on a large paper loss. During the zero-rate years, the Fed bought enormous quantities of bonds with very low coupon payments as part of a policy known as quantitative easing. When interest rates rose in 2022, the market value of those bonds fell — the same way any bond’s price falls when rates rise. According to the New York Fed’s own 2025 System Open Market Account report, the unrealized loss on the Fed’s securities portfolio stood at $844.2 billion at the end of 2025 — down from over $1 trillion the year before, but still historically enormous. The Fed can’t easily sell these bonds without disrupting the very bond market it’s trying to stabilize, so for now, it’s simply absorbing the loss. It’s a useful, if uncomfortable, reminder: interest rate risk doesn’t spare anyone — not even the institution that sets interest rates. The Reframe: What the Fed’s Own Mistake Teaches Retirees About Bonds Here’s the part of this story that doesn’t show up in the news coverage of Warsh’s review: the Fed’s $844 billion paper loss isn’t just a Washington curiosity. It’s a live demonstration of the exact risk that quietly erodes many retirement portfolios. The Fed bought long-duration bonds when rates were near zero, on the assumption that those rates — and the value of those bonds — would hold. They didn’t. If the most sophisticated balance sheet in the world can misjudge duration risk that badly, it’s worth asking whether a retirement plan built around the same assumption — that a fixed-rate bond bought today will still meet your needs in ten or fifteen years — is really as safe as it feels. A bond doesn’t know what a gallon of milk costs in 2035. It just pays what it promised to pay in the year you bought it. This is precisely why our firm’s approach leans on dividend-paying, financially strong companies rather than a bond-heavy “set it and forget it” allocation. A healthy company’s board can raise its dividend as costs rise — a bond’s coupon is frozen the day you buy it. The Fed just proved, at a scale of nearly a trillion dollars, what happens when income doesn’t adjust to a changing rate environment. Retirees don’t have the option of just holding to maturity and calling the loss “unrealized.” That gap has to show up somewhere in a household budget. Is Artificial Intelligence Good or Bad for the Economy? One of Warsh’s five task forces is specifically looking at how AI affects productivity and jobs, and our hosts see it as a genuinely mixed picture. On one hand, AI is already making certain kinds of work dramatically more efficient; our hosts pointed to real examples of complex technical projects being completed in a fraction of the time they used to take. Historically, technology has tended to be deflationary — it lowers the cost of producing things over time. On the other hand, the buildout of AI infrastructure is pushing some costs up right now — memory chips being a clear example, which in turn affects the price of consumer electronics. So the net effect on inflation isn’t a simple yes-or-no answer. It depends on which part of the economy you’re looking at, and over what timeframe. What’s the Difference Between a One-Time Price Increase and Real Inflation? This distinction came up repeatedly in the episode, and it matters more than it sounds. A tariff, for example, can raise the price of a specific good once — that’s a one-time adjustment, not ongoing inflation. True inflation, by contrast, is a monetary phenomenon: more money in the system chasing the same amount of goods and services, which pushes prices up broadly and persistently. Our hosts noted that both the current Fed and Treasury leadership seem comfortable with modest inflation as long as wages are rising faster — a meaningfully different posture than in years past, and one that, if it holds, could support the kind of broader economic growth the country hasn’t consistently seen since before the 2008 financial crisis. How Can Retirees Protect Their Income From Inflation? This is where the conversation gets most practical for anyone at or near retirement. Money markets, CDs, and bonds purchased years ago don’t adjust for rising costs — the income they produce today is the same as it was when you bought them, even as your expenses climb. That’s not a flaw in those tools; it’s simply not what they’re designed to do. An income approach built around dividend-paying, financially strong companies works differently. When the underlying businesses are healthy, they have the ability to grow their dividend payments over time — even during flat or difficult markets — because a board’s decision to raise a dividend is separate from where the stock market happens to be on any given day. That’s the mechanism our team described as the foundation of an inflation-aware retirement income strategy: income with the potential to rise, rather than income that’s frozen in place. Frequently Asked Questions Is a little inflation actually a good thing? Fed and Treasury leadership have signaled comfort with modest inflation as long as wages are rising at a faster rate. The concern isn’t inflation existing at all — it’s inflation outpacing the income people rely on to cover their expenses. Why did the Fed call 2021 inflation “transitory” when it clearly wasn’t? The Fed’s framework at the time treated the post-pandemic price spike as temporary, tied to supply chain disruptions expected to resolve quickly. Instead, inflation persisted and accelerated well into 2022, now viewed as one of the Fed’s most consequential misreadings. Does AI cause inflation or reduce it? Both, depending on where you look. AI-driven productivity gains tend to be deflationary over time, the way most technology has been historically. But the current buildout of AI infrastructure is pushing up costs in specific areas, like memory chips, in the near term. Why don’t bonds and CDs keep up with inflation? A bond or CD generally pays a fixed rate of interest set at the time of purchase. As the cost of living rises afterward, that fixed payment buys less — there’s no built-in mechanism for the income to grow along with your expenses, the same dynamic that produced the Fed’s own unrealized loss. What should I actually do if I’m worried my retirement income isn’t keeping pace? Start by getting a clear picture of what you currently own and what income it’s actually producing versus what your expenses look like today. A complimentary portfolio review is designed to give you exactly that picture, with no obligation attached. The Bottom Line The Fed rethinking its own playbook is genuinely good news — a clear-eyed institution is better than a defensive one. But the more useful question isn’t what Washington does next. It’s whether your own income is built to grow, or built to sit still while everything around it gets more expensive. That’s a question worth answering before the next rate cycle makes it more urgent, not after. Ready to See Whether Your Portfolio Can Keep Up? If you’re not sure whether your portfolio’s income is actually keeping up with what things cost these days, that’s exactly the kind of question a complimentary portfolio review is built to answer. No charge, no pressure — just an honest look at what you own and whether it’s working for you. Call 859-233-0400 or schedule your complimentary portfolio review. You can also listen to more episodes of The Financial Hour, and learn more about our fee-only, fiduciary approach on our About Us page. About Tom Dupree: Tom Dupree is the founder of Dupree Financial Group and a 47-year veteran of the investment business. He hosts The Financial Hour, covering the financial topics that matter most to retirees and those approaching retirement in plain English, without the Wall Street spin. Regulatory Disclaimer Dupree Financial Group is a Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training. The information presented here is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Listeners and readers should consult with a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions. { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "PodcastEpisode", "name": "Is the Federal Reserve's New Shake-Up Good or Bad for Your Retirement Income?", "datePublished": "2026-07-11", "description": "New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is auditing the Fed's own playbook. Here's what the shake-up means for inflation, AI, and your retirement income.", "partOfSeries": { "@type": "PodcastSeries", "name": "The Financial Hour", "url": "https://www.dupreefinancial.com/podcasts" }, "url": "https://www.dupreefinancial.com/fed-shake-up-retirement-income/" } { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "FAQPage", "mainEntity": [ { "@type": "Question", "name": "Is a little inflation actually a good thing?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Fed and Treasury leadership have signaled comfort with modest inflation as long as wages are rising at a faster rate. The concern isn't inflation existing at all — it's inflation outpacing the income people rely on to cover their expenses." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Why did the Fed call 2021 inflation "transitory" when it clearly wasn't?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "The Fed's framework at the time treated the post-pandemic price spike as temporary, tied to supply chain disruptions expected to resolve quickly. Instead, inflation persisted and accelerated well into 2022, now viewed as one of the Fed's most consequential misreadings." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Does AI cause inflation or reduce it?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Both, depending on where you look. AI-driven productivity gains tend to be deflationary over time, the way most technology has been historically. But the current buildout of AI infrastructure is pushing up costs in specific areas, like memory chips, in the near term." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "Why don't bonds and CDs keep up with inflation?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "A bond or CD generally pays a fixed rate of interest set at the time of purchase. As the cost of living rises afterward, that fixed payment buys less — there's no built-in mechanism for the income to grow along with your expenses, the same dynamic that produced the Fed's own unrealized loss." } }, { "@type": "Question", "name": "What should I actually do if I'm worried my retirement income isn't keeping pace?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Start by getting a clear picture of what you currently own and what income it's actually producing versus what your expenses look like today. A complimentary portfolio review is designed to give you exactly that picture, with no obligation attached." } } ] } The post Is the Fed’s Shake-Up Good for Your Retirement Income? | Dupree Financial appeared first on Dupree Financial.

Sign up for Practi, a new platform that helps law firms use subscription billing.Here are the top 5 takeaways from this episode:* AI is flipping the 80/20 rule in law. Historically, lawyers spent 80% of their time on document analysis and 20% on strategy. Thomas expects that to reverse, with AI handling the heavy data work, lawyers will spend 80% of their time on high-value strategy and client advising.* Generic AI tools aren't enough for law firms. Tools like ChatGPT or Claude alone are insufficient for professional legal work. Law firms need purpose-built platforms with legal-specific guardrails, secure data handling, and end-to-end workflows (intake, drafting, discovery, scheduling), not just a contract reviewer.* Being model-agnostic is a competitive advantage. August runs multiple frontier models simultaneously (Claude, Gemini, GPT, etc.) and selects the best one for each task. This “above the model layer” approach gives law firms better results than relying on any single AI provider.* The billable hour won't disappear but pricing models are evolving. Thomas recommends a hybrid approach: flat fees for defined task tiers (small/medium/large matters) combined with a variable billable component. He cautions against firms jumping to full subscription pricing too quickly without first proving the ROI.* AI enables small firms to compete at a higher level. With AI, smaller law firms can now take on work that was previously cost-prohibitive, like due diligence on a $2–3M M&A deal, by compressing tasks from 30 hours to 2. This allows firms to expand their practice areas and serve clients faster and at higher quality.__________________________Want your question to be answered on a future show? Fill out this short survey.Have subscription model question? Check out this free resource to ask all of your questions at notebook.practi.ai.Check out August.Sign up for Paxton, my all-in-one AI legal assistant, helping me with legal research, analysis, drafting, and enhancing existing legal work product.Get Connected with SixFifty⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a business and employment legal document automation tool.Sign up for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Gavel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, an automation platform for law firms.Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Law Subscribed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to subscribe to the weekly newsletter to listen from your web browser.Prefer monthly updates? Sign up for the Law Subscribed Monthly Digest on LinkedIn.Check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mathew Kerbis'⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ law firm ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscription Attorney LLC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Want to use the subscription model for your law firm? Click here to sign up for a new platform that helps law firms use subscription billing. Get full access to Law Subscribed at www.lawsubscribed.com/subscribe

Is the Bay Area finally hitting its expected summer slowdown — and what does that actually mean for your next move?Spencer Hsu, a top 0.5% real estate agent in the U.S., digs into the July 2026 MLS data across San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties to find out if this summer is following the typical seasonal pattern — home prices easing back and new listings pulling back from their spring peak. After a red-hot spring that pushed the Bay Area median to an all-time high of $1.4M, the question every buyer and seller is asking is simple: is this a real cooldown, or just the normal summer rhythm this market sees every year?===

Historically, a lot of America's values are based on Christianity, whether people realize it or not. In today's message, Pastor Dan talks about how the Founding Fathers actually used Deuteronomy numerous times while writing the Constitution. Although it may seem like Deuteronomy isn't that important a book, or that it's outdated and should be overlooked, it actually ended up as part of the foundation of the United States of America, with laws and rights that are still upheld today!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could potentially go wrong and disrupt markets' optimism this summer.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, discussing three things that could disrupt a quiet summer. It's Wednesday, July 8th at noon in New York. As markets turn the page toward the second half of the year, there are lots of reasons for optimism. Global growth remains solid. Earnings growth is strong, and broadening across more companies. Capital markets remain open and deal activity is robust. We continue to think that the best analogy for current conditions is something like 1997 through 1998 or 2005 through 2006 – periods where corporate aggression was increasing, and had further to go, leading to equities outperforming credit. Even more immediately, July also happens to be one of the best months of the year for markets. And while one should never base their entire investment strategy on how far the earth has travelled around the sun, this month has been the best month for the U.S. High Yield returns, by far, over the last 15 years. The last time the S&P 500 fell in the month of July was 2014. So given all that, what could go wrong? Well, here are three things that are on our mind. First, a key part of our most optimistic view is that U.S. inflation will be lower than the Federal Reserve expects in the second half of this year, leading them to leave interest rates unchanged, rather than raise rates as the market expects. The risk is that this assumption is just wrong, perhaps soon. There is certainly an argument that, if the Fed is worried about inflation, it shouldn't wait to act, and the market is currently placing roughly 1-in-3 chance that the Fed hikes rates on July 29th. If that happens – and again, our base case is it does not – it could drive volatility. Second is earnings season, which kicks off next week. While the general trend of earnings is important, the bigger focus is likely to be on the results of large U.S. tech companies, and in particular, how much they plan to spend building out AI infrastructure. Over the last several quarters, almost like clockwork, these spending estimates have been revised higher and higher. And that has helped boost confidence in AI – as the spending is a sign that the technology holds promise – as well as boosting the broader earnings outlook; since all of this spending is becoming other company's revenue. Our base-case remains that this AI spending cycle has further to run, with capex from the major U.S. hyperscalers rising from over $800bn of spending this year to roughly $1.2 trillion of spending next year. But the risk would be that second quarter earnings now show more hesitation to spend, maybe because the share prices of some of these big spenders have been recent underperformers. And given how much the current growth and earnings story is linked to AI, and how popular AI exposure is with investors, that would create a risk. Finally, there's Iran. Our base case assumes a gradual renormalization of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and we forecast Brent oil at about $75/bbl in 12 months time, which is pretty similar to current levels. But as of this recording there were reports of renewed hostilities, and the ceasefire may be fragile. The U.S. has already drawn down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest-ever levels, potentially reducing some ability to absorb shocks if the conflict re-escalates. Historically, July tends to be strong, and markets have a number of helpful tailwinds at their back. But an unexpected rate hike, an unexpected reduction in Hyperscaler Capex, and a resumption of the Iran conflict are three factors that are not in our base-case – and could disrupt that. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Historically, if the Yankees keep striking out at their current rate, they won't win the World Series. Plus, Audio Files featuring Buster Olney & Brian Windhorst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For the past 5 years, the ITX Product + Design Conference stands at the top of the company's calendar. In this Topics in Product Series (TiPS) episode, Product Momentum co-host Sean Murray called the 2-day conference event “my favorite two working days of the year,” complete with workshops, keynotes, spotlight sessions, and live podcast recordings. Sean (Director of Product Management) is joined by ITX colleagues Shannon Baird (Lead UX Designer), Kyle Psaty (VP of Business Development), and Dan Sharp (Product Manager, Product Momentum co-host). With conference excitement still fresh on their minds and drawing from their experiences across product management, UX design, and business development, the panel explored the conference’s most relevant takeaways. As you'll see and hear, one theme emerged: the boundaries that once separated the roles of Product and UX are rapidly fading. As AI changes how teams work, their success depends less on tools and more on the collaborative problem solving that grows from a deeper understanding of our products' users. Here's a look at what they learned: AI Amplifies Existing Product Practices Not surprisingly, Conference speakers discussed artificial intelligence and its impacts – but not as the primary topic. Instead, they focused on ways AI can be used to strengthen good product thinking, not to replace it. David Pereira, author of Untrapping Product Teams, explained that AI is most valuable when it enhances sound discovery, user research, and decision-making. Teams that already practice strong product fundamentals will benefit the most, he added. “AI accelerates what you are already doing,” David says. Leadership Is Something You Do, Not Someone You Are Leadership emerged as another major theme during the Day 1 workshops. In a Product track session guided by Rachel Kohman, attendees explored how leadership happens through everyday actions. Rather than being defined by job title or authority, leadership is revealed at all levels of the organization by speaking up, creating space for others, and helping teams navigate difficult problems. As Dan points out, “It’s really easy to think about leadership as a thing that happens when ‘somebody's in charge.’ But that’s not always the case. Leading is a verb that you do, not an overall overarching principle. I think there’s a lot of power in that.” Product and UX Deliver Stronger Results Together Our TiPS panelists believe that the Conference's most actionable takeaway is the growing convergence of Product and UX. Even though AI is enabling professionals to work across traditional role boundaries, a focus on shared customer and business outcomes are bringing the disciplines even closer together. “In past years,” Kyle shares, “guests like Jesse James Garrett, Jared Spool, and Rich Mironov really celebrated our conference because it brings together product and design. Historically, the impetus has been to actively bring those departments together. Now, those roles are converging in this kind of natural way; the game board is tilting us all together toward unified problem solving and shared solutioning.” [04:11] The ITX Product + Design Conference is my favorite two working days of the year! — Sean Murray, Director of Product Management, ITX. [13:28] I'm now building my own AI design expertise, and it's important to stop for a beat and make sure I'm asking the right questions as I design these tools. — Shannon Baird, Lead UX Designer, ITX. [18:51] One thing is clear: the work we’re doing – designers, engineers, product managers – is figuring out what brings value. It’s adaptive problem solving, right? — Dan Sharp, Product Manager, ITX. [19:50] The Product and Design roles are converging in this natural, authentic way that is tilting us all toward unified problem solving and shared solutioning. — Kyle Psaty, VP of Business Development, ITX. [21:05] That’s why this Product + UX Conference was killer for me. With AI technology becoming readily available, we’re seeing designers coding their own prototypes and product owners designing their own solutions. Our roles are more closely aligned and offering more opportunities to cross-collaborate. — Shannon Baird, Lead UX Designer, ITX. [22:33] I think we’ve lost a little bit of the in-person career development. And we wouldn’t have been able to make the observations that we were making about the blending of these worlds. There’s so much value for both distinct role sets; the opportunity to be there in person and the opportunity to talk with other people is really unique these days. — Sean Murray, Director of Product Development, ITX. Sean Murray. Sean is the Director of Product Management at ITX. His expertise lies in aligning teams with product goals, business objectives, and user value, all while creating a fun and collaborative environment where everyone can thrive. Dan Sharp. Dan is a Product Manager at ITX focusing on enterprise level clients and technology solutions. He enjoys shaping product strategy and turning a strategy into valuable solutions. Kyle Psaty. Kyle is ITX’s VP of Business Development. In this role, Kyle is the executive sponsor of the annual ITX Product + Design Conference. Shannon Baird. Shannon is a Lead UX Designer at ITX. She thrives on solving challenging problems with a user-centered design process, taking problems through research, ideation, prototyping, and testing design phases. The post 191 / TiPS: ITX 2026 P+D Conference – Converging Around Better Problem Solving appeared first on ITX Corp..

We're making history: welcome to the first bilingual episode in Bullpen Mafia history. Robert Zamora from Un podcast de las Mayores joins the show for the first time to discuss the Marlins and headlines across Major League Baseball. Javi and Eric dive into the Marlins' historic June and what the Fish need to accomplish to make the postseason. They explore rookie catcher Joe Mack's impact, Sandy's resurgence, and Max Meyer's development into an ace.

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. This series is dedicated to exploring little-known—and occasionally useful—trinkets lurking in the dusty corners of UNIX-like operating systems. In UNIX Curio #8 ( HPR episode 4657 ), I talked about using standard utilities to compare files. Left unmentioned, however, was a method commonly used today—the hash function. As I've stated in previous entries, while I am an engineer, I don't have a background in computer science, so my understanding of the mathematics is limited. But I can give a practical description of what a hash function does. It takes an input, performs a set of calculations on it, and produces an output. As hash functions are practically used, the input is a set of bytes, such as a file or another piece of data like a password. The output is a numerical value in a fixed range—most often, expressed as hexadecimal characters. Because this "hash value" can always be represented in a certain number of bytes, its length as printed is usually a constant number of characters, padded with leading zeros if necessary. This episode will not cover the use of hashes in programming, focusing instead on using them to validate data. A hash function, or more specifically, a cryptographic hash function, has an additional property. It should be very difficult to predict what changes to the input would be required to produce a specific change in the output. An older, related concept is called a "checksum". While these are designed to vary when the input data is damaged or digits are transposed, they do not necessarily have that last property mentioned for cryptographic hashes. You have probably already encountered a checksum, even if you didn't recognize it. On a 16-digit number assigned to a Mastercard or Visa 1 credit or debit card, the first six digits identify the card issuer (such as a bank), the next nine digits are assigned to you by the issuer, and the last digit is a check digit. The check digit is calculated using the values of the previous 15 digits, and it is a simple way to avoid typos in entering a card number. In another example, every Ethernet frame that your devices send or receive includes a checksum 2 to help ensure that the contents weren't scrambled in transit. This is 32 bits long and is called a cyclical redundancy check, commonly referred to as a CRC. A CRC is also used in many other places—for example, the .zip file format includes one for each archive member, and this allows a program extracting files from the archive to identify if any were damaged. Our UNIX Curio for today is another example, the cksum utility 3 . It generates a 32-bit CRC based on the Ethernet algorithm. It operates on either a named file or standard input and outputs the CRC value, the length of the input, and the pathname if a file was given as an argument. Unlike most modern hashing programs, the checksum is printed as a decimal integer and is not padded, so it can be anywhere from one to ten digits long. The length value is the number of bytes in the input (actually specified as the number of octets , as systems could potentially use a byte that isn't eight bits long), also expressed as a decimal integer. There are two major ways that one could use cksum to check the validity of a file. First, if you are transferring a file from one UNIX-like system to another, you could run cksum against it on both systems and check that the CRC and length are the same. The utility can also be given multiple filenames as arguments, which would generate a list that can then be compared. The second way would be for someone publishing a file or set of files to also publish the CRC values, lengths, and names so that people downloading them could verify that they match. However, I don't think the practice of publishing lists like this really started until more recent hash functions like MD5 and SHA-1 came about so it is unlikely that anyone would publish CRC values instead. The advantage of these tools should be pretty obvious in comparison to cmp , one of the utilities discussed in UNIX Curio #8. To verify a file using cmp , you need two files to compare—if you're trying to check a large file you downloaded, you would need to spend the time and bandwidth to download a second copy. And if they didn't match, you would have no idea which of the two, if either, was correct. By contrast, cksum is quicker to run, doesn't require downloading a massive amount of excess data, and if run against the original file, makes clear what the correct value is. This utility is a follow-on from a program called sum , which operated very much the same. I had a bit of trouble tracking down the exact development history, but what seems clear is that two different variants 4 were popular: a BSD version and a System V version. Both output 16-bit checksums, but used different algorithms so they didn't give the same results. Also, the BSD version printed the length of the input data as the number of 1,024-byte blocks, while the System V version instead gave a count of 512-byte blocks. (Some sources claim that System V sum generates a 32-bit checksum 5 , which could possibly be true internal to the algorithm, but I have tested several independent implementations of the utility and all of them output a 16-bit value for both the System V and BSD algorithms.) From what I can tell, the BSD version 6,7 came first; it was in 3BSD but probably appeared even earlier. An identical copy of BSD's sum was included with UNIX/32V 8,9 , which was AT&T's 1979 port of Seventh Edition UNIX to the VAX and became one of the ancestors of System III. The divergence seems to have started with System III, released in 1980; its version of the sum utility 10,11 changed to a new default algorithm, though it could be made to use the BSD algorithm via the -r option. System V looks to have kept the same behavior as System III. It's not clear to me why this algorithm is universally called the "System V algorithm" rather than the "System III algorithm"; perhaps it is because System V saw much more widespread use. Instead of trying to reconcile these differences, the POSIX committee decided to create a new utility with a unique name, use a separate algorithm entirely, and avoid the block-length dispute by printing the length in octets instead of blocks. I should point out that POSIX states that the CRC algorithm for cksum does not strictly meet the mathematical definition of a "checksum". I don't know enough to say exactly why it doesn't qualify or to say whether either of the sum algorithms do. However, in less-formal usage the term "checksum" has gathered the meaning of any value used to represent or validate a set of data, so I am fine with using it no matter the technical details of the algorithm. When two different inputs produce the same checksum or hash value, this is called a "collision". Because the output value has a limited range, there are an infinite number of possible inputs that could produce a collision. From a practical standpoint the possibilities are more limited—the majority of these inputs are larger than the number of atoms in the universe, which can't fit on any machine. Unlike a cryptographic hash algorithm, the CRC is not specifically designed to resist an attacker crafting a malicious input that would cause a collision. However, it should be sufficient to detect accidental damage. Programs implementing more modern cryptographic hash algorithms are superior to the checksum utilities in avoiding collisions (whether malicious or accidental), but there are still three advantages that the older programs have. First, a system running a historical operating system might not have the hash programs available, but is more likely to have cksum or sum already included. Second, the checksum values are much shorter than the hashes output by the newer programs, making them easier for a user to compare by looking at them. This advantage is not as great as it might appear at first, because a common way to check a hash these days is to save a list of hashes and filenames—the hash programs can use that and do the comparison themselves, sparing the user from having to validate it character by character. The third advantage is that cksum prints the input length in bytes. This greatly limits the number of inputs that could be maliciously crafted to create a collision. I did a moderate amount of research on implementations of modern cryptographic hash algorithms and found that some, such as MD5, SHA-1, and SHA-2, do use the length of the input (often termed "message length" in the literature) as part of the material fed in to the algorithm, but none of the hashing utilities present this length to the user as part of its output. There are two possible reasons for this that seem evident to me. First, if one is hashing a password, you would certainly not want to give a clear indication of its length—that would give any attacker a massive head start on guessing the password. However, that doesn't explain why one would avoid printing the input length for a file that is made publicly available. Second, it is convenient in many contexts, such as database entries or in software (such as git ), for the hash to be a fixed length. Including an extra value that can be of variable length would complicate those use cases. However, the length value could simply be dropped and they would be no worse off than they are currently. Historically on UNIX, password hashing was treated differently from checksumming files— the crypt() function 12 was used for passwords while sum and later cksum were used to confirm a file's integrity. So even rather early on, these two use cases employed algorithms with different properties, but I haven't dived into the history deeply enough to know how intentional this was. My discussion in this episode focuses on the file use case, so understand that I'm largely avoiding the topic of password hashing. Digital signatures are yet another use case, one that I'm ignoring entirely. Every few years, some security researcher declares a particular hash algorithm to be "broken" and that everyone should move over to a new one, which generally has a longer hash. While the larger hash space certainly reduces the opportunity for collisions, this disrupts workflows, such as publishing information about software releases by e-mail, which still tends to observe a 78-character limit on each line 13 , making it harder to include a list of hashes with filenames next to them. This is in addition to the work of modifying software and scripts to use the new algorithm and managing how to treat past data. It seems to me that publishing the input length along with the hash would make it far more difficult to craft a malicious input that matches both, but I haven't found discussion of that during my investigation. (See the Appendix for a possible implementation.) Perhaps someone listening can record a response episode for HPR explaining that. References: Payment card number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_card_number Ethernet frame: Frame check sequence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_frame#Frame_check_sequence Cksum specification https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/cksum.html GNU coreutils manual: sum https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/sum-invocation.html FreeBSD 15.0 sum manual page https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sum&sektion=1&manpath=FreeBSD+15.0-RELEASE+and+Ports 3BSD sum manual page https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=3BSD/usr/man/man1/sum.1 3BSD sum source https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=3BSD/usr/src/cmd/sum.c UNIX/32V sum manual page https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=32V/usr/man/man1/sum.1 UNIX/32V sum source https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=32V/usr/src/cmd/sum.c System III sum manual page https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/man/man1/sum.1 System III sum source https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=SysIII/usr/src/cmd/sum.c Crypt specification https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/crypt.html RFC 2822: Internet Message Format: Line Length Limits https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822#section-2.1.1 OpenSSH 10.1 released https://lwn.net/ml/all/dd12623ae86aa5eb@cvs.openbsd.org/ Appendix The MD5 hash algorithm was (and still is) widely used, but many people characterize it as being "broken" and discourage its use. Let us imagine a variant of this, called MD5.L, where the normal MD5 hash is followed by a "." character and the input length expressed as a hexadecimal number. Take, for example, the e-mail message announcing the release of OpenSSH 10.1 14 . At the bottom, it includes an SHA-1 hash and an SHA-2 256-bit hash for the available gzipped tar files. That longer hash is encoded with Base64 because if it were given as a hexadecimal number, it would make the line longer than 78 bytes. The MD5.L hash of the file would be one character shorter than the SHA-1 hash, as shown below. (The extra length of the name makes them both consume the same number of characters. The hashes shown are for the "portable" version of OpenSSH.) Some people claim SHA-1 is also broken, seeking to have people use newer and longer hash functions. For an attacker to compromise MD5.L in this example, they would not only have to create a valid tar file compressed with gzip containing a malicious payload having the right MD5 hash, that file would have to be exactly 1,972,831 bytes long (the decimal equivalent of 1e1a5f). While there are still many possible inputs that could be tried (256 1972831 , to be exact*), this is far fewer than the infinite possibilities for plain MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-2. If for some reason it is super important to have a fixed hash length, let's imagine another variation called MD5+L. In this one, instead of L being the input length, it is the input length modulo one terabyte (2 40 bytes), which can be represented by 10 hexadecimal characters, left-padded with zeros. While this approach substantially increases the number of possible inputs an attacker could try, it is likely that an intended victim would notice that the file they downloaded is larger (or smaller) than expected by that much. The MD5+L hash is longer than a SHA-1 hash, but still shorter than a 256-bit SHA-2 hash. SHA1 (openssh-10.1p1.tar.gz) = 7fd17b99d1beffb47cd380d64079e920bb0bd91f SHA256 (openssh-10.1p1.tar.gz) = ufx6K4JXlGem8vQ+SoHI4d/aYU3bT5slWq/XAgu/B1g= MD5.L (openssh-10.1p1.tar.gz) = 80dd9bb00a86519934710d05903fdf07.1e1a5f MD5+L (openssh-10.1p1.tar.gz) = 80dd9bb00a86519934710d05903fdf07+00001e1a5f Of course, if MD5 is considered to be too weak even with the inclusion of the length, one could produce a ".L" or "+L" version of any hash function. However, longer hashes will end up running into the 78-character limit. *This is a number with 4.75 million digits that the bc utility on my laptop took almost 5 minutes to calculate. Provide feedback on this episode.

https://youtu.be/uePyn0u75sY Staff Sheehan, CEO of Project Omega, is driven by a mission to strengthen America’s energy independence and national security by rebuilding the nation’s nuclear fuel cycle and scaling a culture-first business rooted in exceptional leadership and execution. With a career spanning energy, sustainable fuels, hydrogen, and chemical physics, Staff is leading the development of technologies that transform spent nuclear fuel into long-lasting power sources while helping usher in a new era of reliable, abundant nuclear energy. We explore Staff Sheehan’s Scaling Framework — Build the Best C-Suite, Due Diligence Your Investors, Build Things, and Execute, Execute, Execute. Staff explains why exceptional leadership is the foundation of every successful company, why founders should carefully vet their investors, and why hardware startups must prioritize building real products over ambitious concepts. He also discusses how AI-driven energy demand is fueling a nuclear renaissance, why restoring the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle is essential to energy independence, and what it takes to scale both advanced nuclear technologies and a high-growth company. — Scale a Culture-First Business with Staff Sheehan  Hi, everyone. Steve Preda here with the Management Blueprint Podcast. My guest today is Staff Sheehan, the CEO of Project Omega, an advanced nuclear recycling company with a mission to rebuild America’s nuclear fuel cycle end-to-end and unlock a new era of energy abundance for the United States. Wow. What a mission. Welcome to the show, Staff.  Thanks so much for having me, Steve. Great to be here.  Wow. You really are not playing small. Rebuilding America’s nuclear fuel cycle and unlocking a new era of energy abundance. Tell me about your personal “Why.” How are you manifesting it through the business? Well, I’ve been working in the energy industry, or adjacent to the energy industry, for a long time. This is the fourth business that I’ve started. Prior to this, I was in sustainable fuels. Prior to that, I was in metals and hydrogen. Before that, I did a Ph.D. in chemical physics. And before that, I was in software, but it was in something that was energy-intensive. So I've always been focused on how we can improve the energy industry in the United States. More recently, especially, that has become more and more intertwined with national security.Share on X  So I would say that for the last 10 years, I’ve spent a lot of time focused not just on energy, but also on national security. Right at the intersection of energy and national security is the nuclear industry. Over the last year, especially since four executive orders on nuclear power were signed, I’ve been focused on the nuclear industry. This has really been the resurgence of nuclear power in the United States over the last year or so. Yeah, it’s super fascinating. So, I mean, stupid question: why is this important?  Well, now I think we’re learning—and we’re having an acute learning experience, especially in the United States—that energy is a key bottleneck. And I think the thing that woke us up to that, in a lot of ways, is AI and the need for compute. But it’s not been only AI. We’ve been exporting manufacturing. We’ve been exporting a lot of things from the United States that rely on electricity or rely on energy in one way or another. Our exporting of that has caught up to us, and we now have to reshore a lot of things that maybe in the ’80s and the ’90s we decided to export out to China, for example. Now that we’ve realized that was not the greatest idea, we now are realizing that we need the energy to power it.  And so energy has become a key talking point, and the infrastructure behind energy has become a key talking point, especially in the United States. People’s electricity prices have gone up, so it’s not just industry and not just the folks who are building AI and data centers. It’s really everybody who’s now feeling the pain of our energy crunch. It’s crunched a little bit now, and I think people see that also because of what’s going on in the Middle East and the high price of gas. But the crunch is continuing because we know we have a high energy demand for all of the AI build-out that we’ve been doing for the last handful of years. Yeah, that is so interesting. And I remember in the 1990s, there was this phenomenon that actually the energy demand was falling, at least in Europe, where I come from, and there was overcapacity, and there was approval of overbuilding capacity. And the discussion was, “Okay, why do we need this? How do we slow this down?” And now the opposite thing is happening, which is pretty fascinating.  There’s a big question as to how idle assets are used, right? Because a lot of people don’t understand how electrical grids work. Everywhere in the world, energy is pretty much generated as you use it. So the energy that we’re using to talk on this podcast is being generated, depending on where you are located in the United States. From my location, it’s probably being generated by a natural gas power plant because it’s 2:10 in the afternoon, and this is around the time when a lot of natural gas peaker plants start to get going.  Depending on where you’re calling in from, those electrons are being generated live as we’re speaking. There’s not much storage on the grid. We do have some storage on the grid. California uses pumped hydro. They’re building battery infrastructure in places like Texas, but they’re not quite there yet. Grids don’t operate by just making the energy and then using it later. No. Grids operate by putting energy into the grid as demand is increasing. So the energy that you use is being generated live. You have to think about it that way.  Historically, back in the ’80s and the ’90s, there were not a lot of sinks for that live energy that was being generated, and people were also really bad at predicting demand. Another thing that happened in the ’80s and the ’90s, as I said right before, is that we were outsourcing a lot of our manufacturing to China. So China was building energy capacity because they saw all this manufacturing demand coming in. Their cost of labor was cheaper than what you guys had in Europe and what we had in the United States.  Robotics was not a thing, so everything was pretty manual. And the energy wasn’t needed here. It was needed, but Europe and the US were outsourcing, so we didn’t have the need for the energy here because we were sending all the jobs over to the Far East. They needed the energy there, so they built a bunch of coal-fired power plants. They built a lot of energy capacity while those conversations were happening in Europe. And now I think we’ve realized that it was a mistake to outsource so many things—and, in a sense, outsource your energy generation as well.  We need to find ways of either storing energy or converting that energy and using it productively. So rather than storing it, you could convert it into chemical products. You could convert it into a variety of different things. I think we've learned a lot since the '80s and the '90s, and I think that ties into the original learning experience: don't outsource everything. You need to learn how to be self-sufficient.Share on X Yeah. Yeah, don’t outsource your key competencies and your key resources. And energy is clearly one of those. Just a quick side question: How much energy is being wasted because it’s not able to be stored?  It depends on where you are. A lot of energy gets wasted in places where you have high hydroelectric utilization. But the cost to produce it is very cheap because hydro is indirect solar. The water evaporates, comes down, and it’s very dependent on the landscape where you can deploy hydroelectric power. In other places where you have power plants that follow load, like natural gas, for example, then you’re probably not wasting quite as many electrons as you are in places where you could potentially overproduce.  But I think we’re generally pretty efficient. We don’t waste too much, and a lot of that is because of the way grids work, where we predict how much electricity is needed, and we ramp production up and down as required.  Okay. Let’s talk about frameworks that you may have in your business. This podcast is about frameworks—the processes that are maybe unique to your business or that you discovered as you were building your business. Anything come to mind that can be explained in three to five steps, or as approaches or perspectives?  Yeah, I mean, I guess the learnings that I've had over all of my businesses. I think the first learning is: hire the right people.Share on X As a CEO, you have to spend an inordinate amount of your time on hiring, recruiting, and finding the right people. It’s super important to make sure that you have the best team. So that was my number one job when I started Project Omega: to hire the best possible team that I could hire.  And that was really, like, I told my investors that your first KPI is: build the best C-suite that you can. And I think I did that. I have a really incredible team of folks at Project Omega who are subject area experts in the parts of the business that they lead, and so I’m really happy with how I did it in this business. I’ve had stumbling blocks in prior businesses, and that’s how you learn. You call them learning experiences for a reason. My biggest stumbling block in my prior company was investors.  I didn’t do proper due diligence on investors. There’s ongoing litigation that I’m a part of that has to do with investors where you may not know where their money comes from. I think the number two thing is: make sure that you do a lot of diligence on who’s backing you. Typically, investors do diligence on founders, but founders don’t do quite as much diligence on the investors. And we need to flip that narrative. It’s especially true in national security. In national security, you have to be very sensitive to foreign actors. And this, again, was the issue that I ran into in my last business.  You can’t accept money from people who have significant backing from groups that are adversarial to the United States. A lot of those groups are U.S.-based funds. They’re not foreign funds, but they just get their money from foreign sources, and you have to be very careful about that when you’re in the national security world. It may not be as important if you’re making, like, a consumer app.  But if you’re doing things in energy and you’re doing things in national security, those are places where those people could seriously cause problems for your business down the line. And it comes out years after they invest in you. It’s not like they invest in you and then middle around two days later. All of these groups, including adversaries to the United States, are playing the long game. It’s not a next-week thing. It’s a several-years-from-now thing.  Interesting. Interesting. Okay. So that’s good advice. So build the best C-suite you can, and make sure you do your due diligence on your investors. What’s the next important lesson that you learned about building a business?  Focus on execution. Execution is the challenge. I think there are a lot of businesses out there that exist on paper, and when you’re a hardware company, that’s not the way to do things. I think there are a lot of on-paper businesses that, for better or for worse, have been very successful. Some of them have had IPOs and SPACs and things like that. There are businesses that exist on paper—at least in the nuclear industry, the energy industry, and the fuels industry—that have gone very far for on-paper businesses. But I think a very large portion of those—and I haven’t done all the statistics, but I’m sure Claude or Grok or GPT could—a lot of those businesses don’t do very well because they don’t have any actual experience building things in the real world.  So I think it's extremely important to execute, to get steel in the ground, and to focus on actually building things when you're in the hardware space.Share on X Now, of course, in software, that’s a little bit different. So it depends on whether you’re running a hardware or software business. In software, you may be able to keep going for a lot longer without a product or without having things in market because you’re building something that you know is going to have a huge splash when it comes out. But that’s not necessarily the way hardware businesses are able to be put together.  So give me an example of a business that’s on paper and not in the real world. Give me a hypothetical example.  A hypothetical example would be a business that has put together a number of contracts and a number of marketing materials about what they’re going to do, but they’ve never actually gone out and done it. Whether that’s at a small scale, like the lab scale, or at a larger scale, the point is they haven’t actually built it. My business—we’re very public about this. There are photographs and things like that of our lab out there. My business is at the lab scale. We’re working on going up to the pilot scale right now.  So that’s grams and kilograms of material. We’re not recycling metric tons of nuclear material. No business is doing that in the Western world except the one in France. So no business is doing that in the United States currently. But we’re public about where we are and what scale we’re at. A lot of businesses out there say they’re going to go out and operate XYZ widget, let’s say, and get a lot of traction around that before they’ve actually operated any sort of widget. And I think hardware is different than software.  Some venture markets have learned that, and some are probably going to learn that. But it’s been my experience over the last 12 years of running hardware businesses. My prior two businesses—Catalytic Innovations and Air Company—were both hardware businesses. And before I went to college and graduate school, I was in the software world, so I’ve kind of seen it from both sides.  Yeah. That’s interesting. So I saw your LinkedIn post about these underwater unmanned vehicles—UUVs, I think you call them. Is this like an underwater drone? Yeah. So, a UUV is an unmanned underwater vehicle. If you're trying to do something underwater, like do reconnaissance or try to find out what's going on under there with your adversaryShare on X or even a neutral party using a UUV is a way to do that without putting service members in harm’s way and a way to do that in a low-cost environment. So that’s one of the major applications for UUVs. But one of the big challenges for them is: how do you power them? You could use fuel to power them, but then they could run out of fuel, and then you have a stranded asset.  You could use electricity to power them with a battery, but the battery also runs out, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. It’s very hard to recover these. You’re not going to go down to the bottom of the sea to recover your UUV. The other option is to use—and we already do this, right, with our manned underwater vehicles, or our nuclear submarines in the United States—we already use nuclear power to power those submarines. And so that’s been the way that we've historically been able to operate underwater for long periods of time, and that's the way that I think we're probably going to go for these unmanned vehicles as well.Share on X  And that’s what my business focuses on. So we not only do this for UUVs but for space applications as well as terrestrial applications by building power sources. Those power sources are made using material that we recycle from spent nuclear fuel. Those power sources are called radiovoltaics, and you could imagine them as like an AA battery that lasts 30 years. And that’s really, I would say, the next step for operational energy. So we’re focused on using those as replacements for batteries in these small applications. You could think of it as a much broader application in the future—not just operational energy for the military, but beyond that. We actually use these sorts of materials in our everyday lives.  You’re sitting in a room, I’m sitting in a room, and I’m looking up at the smoke detector in my room. You’re sitting in a room with a smoke detector in it as well, and that smoke detector has a little piece of americium-241. Americium-241 is an isotope recovered from nuclear waste. We don’t recover it in the United States because we haven’t recycled nuclear waste in probably a little north of 50 years. But you can get these isotopes from places like France, where they recycle nuclear waste today. So all of us are sitting in a room with a radioisotope-powered device. Americium-241 specifically powers the detector in your smoke detector. Americium spits out alpha particles.  Those alpha particles are little helium nuclei. They hit a detector continuously, and that generates a current. Now, if smoke goes up into your smoke detector, those alpha particles hit the smoke instead of hitting the detector, and you won’t get that same current generation in your smoke detector. So that’s how we detect smoke, and right now, nuclear waste is sitting in all of our houses, keeping us safe. But that’s not really a mainstream part of the narrative yet.  Yeah. And what about the radiation? Is it not dangerous?  No. So for americium, there are different types of radiation. Well, not all radiation is created equal. There’s alpha radiation, which is what americium-241 emits predominantly, and those are little helium nuclei. Those can’t go through a piece of paper. Alpha radiation stops very easily. Like, your skin will very easily stop alpha radiation. Beta radiation, which is different from alpha radiation, is an electron that is flung out of a nucleus. So beta radiation is also stopped relatively easily.  Like, if you ingest it, then it could cause problems, but again, your skin can stop it. Gamma radiation is the one that we’re concerned about from a health perspective. Now, gamma radiation can be used for medical treatments and is very effective when it’s used in medical treatments, like to treat cancer, but gamma radiation is generally pretty bad because it goes straight through you. Gamma rays are little photons, and they’re very high-energy photons, so they can fly through you and they can cause damage to your DNA.  A lot of the, I would say, like, negative effects of any nuclear incident are really caused by gamma radiation more than anything else. Like Chernobyl, which is the famous one, had cesium-137 polluting a lot of the countryside around Chernobyl, and cesium-137 is a very strong gamma emitter. So gamma is what we try to avoid. At Project Omega, we don’t use gamma emitters for our power sources, and so all of our power sources use the safer types of radiation. That’s fascinating. So, Staff, I’d like to switch gears here a little bit and go back to business. So what drives growth in a business like yours—or specifically, your business?  A lot of things drive growth. Our business right now works together with a lot of groups in national security.Share on X We’re driven by the growth of the United States, and we’re driven by the growth of our economy. But beyond that, the demand for nuclear electricity has been very high, and that’s driven a lot of growth for us as well. How do you generate enough electricity to power data centers and power compute? That’s a huge problem in the world right now.  A lot of people who initially invested in AI are pivoting to invest in energy, actually, because they’re realizing the bottleneck for AI is not the chips. It’s the energy that’s needed to power the chips. As people are building these new assets that require all this energy, they’re quickly realizing that nuclear is one of the best ways to fulfill all of these energy requirements. As the nuclear industry grows, we’re seeing the need to reshore and bring the nuclear fuel cycle back to the United States.  We stopped doing commercial enrichment, for example, a long time ago, and there are a lot of great companies working on commercial enrichment. We stopped doing recycling and reprocessing back in the 1970s, and we’re bringing that back. We’re one of the groups working on bringing recycling and reprocessing back to the United States in a more responsible way than we did back then because technology is undoubtedly and unarguably better today than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.  That’s fascinating. So you’re helping all these old economies, which are obviously in a new skin, recover here—manufacturing and energy. So what’s one thing that you’re trying to figure out in your business right now?  So one of the challenges that everybody in the nuclear industry faces right now is scale. There’s a whole new group of reactors called small modular reactors, and another colloquial term for those is advanced reactors. Figuring out how to scale those is one of the challenges. So we’re working right now on scale. We're focused very heavily on scaling up our process so that we're able to build these true infrastructure projects that will ensure that the United States has a domestic nuclear fuel cycle going into the future. So that's really the main focus…Share on X  Being able to not only scale our technology but also execute at the current scale that we operate. On the execution side, we work together with two really great national labs: Idaho National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Execution in the nuclear industry is historically challenging, and working together with the government and the national labs is a big value-add because those national labs have the institutional memory, and they have the experience of working with radioactive materials and nuclear materials that we’re able to piggyback off of. They also have a lot of infrastructure that we’re able to work with.  Yeah. And when you say scale, is it about scaling energy generation, energy transmission, or the manufacturing of equipment that utilizes the recovered nuclear fuel? Or is it also about scaling the organization in terms of managing the organization? All of the above. All of the above. This time last year, we were pretty much one person. Or, this time last year, we were still a concept, and we started the business in July last year. So this time last year, we were pretty much one person, and now we’re close to 20. We’ve already scaled by a lot in just the last year. But we probably need to scale by another order of magnitude by the time we get to next year. So a big part of it is managing the growth of a high-growth and rapidly moving organization.  But a big piece of it is also scaling energy in the United States—scaling transmission, scaling generation, and scaling the production of nuclear fuel. Right now, we get a lot of our nuclear fuel from overseas. Twenty percent of the United States electrical grid is nuclear. So today, we use a lot of nuclear electrons to power, as I mentioned, based on our locations, we’re probably not using too many nuclear electrons right now. Or, Steve, I don’t know where you’re calling in from.  I’m in Virginia, the capital of data centers.  I take it back. You’re actually probably using nuclear electrons as we speak. So we need to scale that generation, but we also need to scale the fuel for those reactors. The nuclear electrons that you’re using to talk with me right now are most likely coming from Russian uranium that we buy from Russia.  I think your home country and many folks in Europe have learned that relying on Russia for your energy resources is not the greatest idea. We still, to this day, rely on Russia for a lot of our commercial uranium for our commercial reactors, and that’s something that we need to change. So scaling our nuclear fuel cycle in the United States is a key aspect of what we’re doing.  So what’s really fascinating is we were on vacation in Moab, Utah, just a few weeks ago, and we noticed that there was a lot of mining of nuclear materials there. Is this something that happened in the past and essentially the industry wound down in the U.S., or is there still mining of nuclear materials here?  So there’s very little actual mining of uranium in the United States. I think something like 99% of our uranium comes from foreign sources. So there’s not a lot of uranium mining. The management of nuclear resources in the United States… There is a good amount of nuclear work that’s being done in Utah, but there are a handful of states that actually do the majority of the nuclear-material legwork. Utah is one of them, I think. Idaho is the birthplace of nuclear energy, and so Idaho is doing a lot of work on the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear materials management.  Idaho is where all of the spent fuel from our naval fleet goes at the end of the life of aircraft carriers and submarines. That’s public knowledge. You can look it up. There’s a lot of work that’s been done to make sure all of that material is managed completely safely and very effectively. So Idaho is the birthplace of nuclear energy, and it’s also where a lot of work on the nuclear fuel cycle is happening. That’s actually the other state where we operate at Project Omega. So Idaho is, I would say, one of the leaders in the nuclear renaissance that’s happening right now.  Okay. So that’s a really good point. So you’re in Idaho. Where else are you in the United States, and what would you like our listeners to do when they hear about you? Who are the people that you would like to get in touch with you?  Well, I’m calling in from Newport, Rhode Island, right now. So Newport, Rhode Island, is our headquarters. We have a laboratory that we operate that’s down the street from here. So we have some operations in Rhode Island, and that’s our headquarters. We also have operations in Idaho, and that’s where we’re building some of our infrastructure. We have a small contingent in the DC area as well. We have other facilities as well, but we keep those confidential. Publicly, we’re headquartered in Rhode Island, and we do a lot of work in Idaho and in the DC area. That’s fascinating. So if people get interested in what you’re doing and would like to get in touch with you or learn more about Project Omega, where should they go, and where can they learn more? They would go to projectomega.com. info@projectomega.com is our main inbox. We do a pretty good job of staying up to date with it. That’s also what we use for careers and hiring. As I mentioned, hiring is one of my top jobs. So we’re always interested in finding the best candidates out there who want to revolutionize the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States. That’s fantastic. So if you’re interested in the nuclear industry, recycling nuclear fuel, and driving the UUVs of the next generation, then definitely check out the Project Omega website and reach out to Staff. And if you enjoyed this conversation, make sure you follow us and subscribe on YouTube. Stay tuned, because every week there’s an exciting entrepreneur coming on the show. Staff, thanks for coming and sharing your wisdom and unique knowledge. And thanks for listening.  Awesome. Thank you so much for having me, Steve. This was great. Important Links: Staff's LinkedIn Staff's Website Staff's email: info@projectomega.com

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a series of remarkable advancements and strategic maneuvers that are shaping the future of drug development and patient care. Starting with Roche's breakthrough in oncology, their small molecule inhibitor, Divarasib, has shown promising results in a Phase 3 trial for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. This trial demonstrated superior efficacy over competitors like Amgen's Lumakras and Bristol-Myers Squibb's Krazati. Historically, KRAS mutations have been difficult to target, but Divarasib's success underscores the potential of precision medicine in oncology. These findings could lead to more effective treatment options for NSCLC patients, showcasing how targeted therapies are revolutionizing cancer treatment by focusing on specific genetic mutations. In regulatory news, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has made significant strides with Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel), a gene therapy that now includes pediatric patients with sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia in its FDA-approved label. This marks a pivotal moment for gene therapy applications in blood disorders. Utilizing CRISPR technology, Vertex offers potentially curative solutions for debilitating conditions, signaling a new era where genetic disorders can be addressed at their root cause. Similarly, Novartis has gained European Commission approval for Itvisma to treat 5q spinal muscular atrophy in patients aged two years and older, further cementing gene therapies' role in mainstream medical practice. Strategic partnerships remain essential in driving innovation. Takeda's collaboration with Insilico Medicine on AI-driven drug discovery is a case in point. The $600 million partnership highlights the growing reliance on AI and machine learning to expedite therapeutic development processes. Platforms like Pharma.AI are being leveraged to identify novel drug candidates more efficiently. Additionally, AstraZeneca's alliance with CSPC Pharmaceutical Group to develop siRNA-based therapies for kidney diseases reflects the burgeoning interest in RNA therapeutics as these technologies open new avenues to address complex diseases. On the financial front, BridgeBio's ability to attract $1 billion in convertible preferred equity from Sixth Street and Healthcare Royalty underscores investor confidence in rare disease therapeutics. This funding will bolster its pipeline targeting cardiovascular and rare conditions, emphasizing the profitable potential found within niche markets of the pharmaceutical landscape. Manufacturing is also seeing expansion as Lonza deepens its partnership with an unnamed U.S. drugmaker to enhance biologics programs. Anticipated investments reaching into multi-billion Swiss Francs underscore the critical importance of robust manufacturing infrastructure to meet growing demands for biologics and antibody-drug conjugates. Clinical trials continue to yield promising results. Can-Fite Biopharma's Phase 2a trial for Namodenoson in treating advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has shown promising survival data when combined with therapies targeting Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathways. At the same time, Otsuka's Phase 3 data for Voyxact (sibeprenlimab-szsi) demonstrated improved kidney function in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy, bolstering traditional FDA approval pathways. On the acquisitions front, GNI Group's acquisition of Ayumi Pharmaceutical for approximately JPY 44.8 billion highlights strategic moves to enhance global biopharma operations focusing on pain management solutions. Yet not all news is positive; Sanofi's Genzyme Ireland unit received an FDA warning letter regarding manufacturing violations related to Altuviiio production, pointing to ongoing regulatory challenges within production practices. Moving on to geopolitical considerations, recent congressional letters to major pharmaceutical CEOs have raised concerns about clinical trials conducted within China due to national security concerns. This tension illustrates the delicate balance between leveraging China's economic potential and safeguarding US interests—a critical issue as international collaborations continue to expand. Meanwhile, AstraZeneca's ongoing collaborations with CSPC Pharmaceutical Group further signify strategic bets on China's capabilities despite geopolitical tensions. Their joint efforts focus on kidney disease treatments while adding to existing agreements addressing obesity and chronic diseases. The FDA remains pivotal as key decisions anticipated this quarter could significantly influence investment strategies and research priorities. This includes revisiting applications previously delayed or rejected—decisions that could reshape industry dynamics. In conclusion, this dynamic landscape is marked by significant scientific breakthroughs and complex global interactions guiding pharmaceutical and biotech sectors toward a transformative era. Gene therapy advancements underscore progress in personalized medicine while geopolitical factors continue influencing strategic industry decisions. As regulatory bodies evolve their approaches alongside increasingly international partnerships, these developments collectively herald profound implications for drug development and patient care globally.Support the show

Paul “Hembo” Hembekides and Buster Olney play a game of “Trend or Blip,” looking at the Marlins, Rays and Rangers. Then, they discuss why Aaron Judge is the rising tide that lifts all boats for the Yankees, the most obvious trade-deadline match, how bad is this American League — historically speaking, and more on Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s slog of a season. Then, Buster talks to longtime pro Rick Monday about snatching the American flag from field-invading protesters in 1976. Later, Sarah Langs plays The Numbers Game. And finally, Buster answers your questions during Bleacher Tweets. 0:00 Welcome 3:01 Hembo 4:13 Blip or Trend: Marlins 5:28 Blip or Trend: Yankees 7:10 Blip or Trend: Rays 9:16 Blip or Trend: Rangers 10:19 Blip or Trend: Cubs 11:39 Yankees sorely miss Aaron Judge 13:39 What happened to Austin Riley? 17:39 Bo Bichette back to Toronto? 25:50 Historically bad American League 28:50 Rick Monday saves the American flag 43:07 Sarah Langs plays The Numbers Game 44:33 Bleacher Tweets: PCA vs. Shohei Ohtani EMAIL THE SHOW: BleacherTweets@gmail.com REACH OUT ON X: #BLEACHERTWEETS Follow The Baseball Tonight Podcast on… YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHeL6O-A-ASmSMwbSCFvPKEq1Cslo_lrw Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5FG6xCcd338SgZjZ9urHRI Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/baseball-tonight-with-buster-olney/id137699414 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Paul “Hembo” Hembekides and Buster Olney play a game of “Trend or Blip,” looking at the Marlins, Rays and Rangers. Then, they discuss why Aaron Judge is the rising tide that lifts all boats for the Yankees, the most obvious trade-deadline match, how bad is this American League — historically speaking, and more on Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s slog of a season. Then, Buster talks to longtime pro Rick Monday about snatching the American flag from field-invading protesters in 1976. Later, Sarah Langs plays The Numbers Game. And finally, Buster answers your questions during Bleacher Tweets. 0:00 Welcome 3:01 Hembo 4:13 Blip or Trend: Marlins 5:28 Blip or Trend: Yankees 7:10 Blip or Trend: Rays 9:16 Blip or Trend: Rangers 10:19 Blip or Trend: Cubs 11:39 Yankees sorely miss Aaron Judge 13:39 What happened to Austin Riley? 17:39 Bo Bichette back to Toronto? 25:50 Historically bad American League 28:50 Rick Monday saves the American flag 43:07 Sarah Langs plays The Numbers Game 44:33 Bleacher Tweets: PCA vs. Shohei Ohtani EMAIL THE SHOW: BleacherTweets@gmail.com REACH OUT ON X: #BLEACHERTWEETS Follow The Baseball Tonight Podcast on… YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHeL6O-A-ASmSMwbSCFvPKEq1Cslo_lrw Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5FG6xCcd338SgZjZ9urHRI Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/baseball-tonight-with-buster-olney/id137699414 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Joe DeCamara and Jon Ritchie analyze the shocking trade that brought Jaylen Brown to the Sixers in exchange for Paul George and draft picks. They discuss the potential for a title run and the impact on Joel Embiid's legacy while debating the possibility of signing LeBron James. The discussion also covers the Phillies' latest victory, the Don Mattingly vs. Zack Wheeler situation, Team USA's soccer performance, and the Flyers' contract extension for Dan Vladar. 01:58 - Sports Day Highlights 03:03 - Jalen Brown Miracle Trade 11:52 - LeBron James Rumors 20:13 - Patriotic Contest Kickoff 24:14 - Dan Vladar extension 33:40 - Christina Koch Interview 41:33 - Phillies Offense Discussion 54:54 - Shams Breaks News 01:04:02 - Embiid Health Concerns 01:18:15 - Jaylen Brown Analytics Debate 01:27:10 - Historical Trade Comparisons 01:31:35 - Wheeler Mattingly Tension 01:40:36 - Kendrick Perkins Reaction 01:54:54 - Claude Giroux Return Rumors 02:05:10 - Brian Windhorst Intel 02:17:38 - Wheeler Postgame Frustration 02:29:51 - Paul George Trade Context 02:43:15 - Sixers and LeBron Polls 02:52:12 - Joe's Bill Clinton Impression 03:03:55 - Contest Winner Announced

A Special Industry Update, With Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit how advisor due diligence is evolving—from AI and enterprise value to firm stability, ownership, and optionality—and why those questions matter more than ever. In Summary Due diligence has always been about finding the right fit. But what advisors are evaluating has expanded considerably. In this replay of an Industry Update, Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond revisit The Advisor Transition Playbook to explore how advisor priorities continue to evolve. Beyond the traditional reasons advisors consider change, they discuss newer factors shaping decisions today—from artificial intelligence and enterprise value to ownership structure, firm stability, and long-term optionality. The conversation reinforces that while every advisor's motivations are personal, the evaluation process has become far more strategic. Today's advisors aren't simply comparing recruiting deals or platforms. They're considering how today's decisions may influence the value, flexibility, and future of the businesses they're building. The Storyline For years, advisor movement was largely driven by familiar themes: bureaucracy, management changes, technology frustrations, and the desire for greater independence. Those factors remain important. But the conversations Diamond Consultants has with advisors today increasingly include questions that rarely surfaced just a few years ago. How should AI factor into firm selection? What is the long-term value of building enterprise value instead of simply maximizing a recruiting package? How important is a firm's ownership structure? And how should advisors think about stability in a marketplace where acquisitions, recapitalizations, and private equity investment have become commonplace? Jason and Mindy revisit the transition framework introduced in Part 1, focusing less on the mechanics of making a move and more on the evolving criteria advisors are using to evaluate their options. The result is a broader discussion about due diligence—not simply as a transition exercise, but as an ongoing strategic process for advisors seeking to build their best business life. Topics Covered Advisor due diligence Traditional vs. emerging drivers of advisor movement Artificial intelligence in wealth management Enterprise value and advisor ownership Recruiting deals versus long-term economics Reverse due diligence Firm ownership and stability Private equity in wealth management Advisor optionality Building a long-term advisory business Blubrry Player > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why are the traditional drivers of advisor movement still relevant? (4:00) Jason and Mindy revisit the longstanding push-and-pull factors that continue to influence advisor decisions, from bureaucracy and management frustrations to the desire for greater ownership and control. How has AI become part of the due diligence process? (13:50) The discussion explores why advisors increasingly expect firms to demonstrate a clear AI strategy—and why investment, integration, and vision may become meaningful competitive advantages. Why should advisors care about enterprise value, even if they don't technically own their business? (24:30) Jason and Mindy explain why more advisors are evaluating decisions through the lens of long-term business value rather than solely short-term economics. What does reverse due diligence really involve? (37:15) The conversation highlights why advisors should evaluate prospective firms with the same rigor firms use when evaluating advisors. How does firm ownership affect advisor optionality? (38:00) Private equity, acquisitions, and changing ownership structures have made it increasingly important to understand what happens if a firm's strategy changes after an advisor joins. Why has due diligence become more strategic than ever? (45:30) The episode concludes with a broader discussion about defining one's “best business life” and making decisions that align with long-term goals rather than reacting to short-term frustrations. Key Takeaways The reasons advisors evaluate change have expanded well beyond traditional frustrations such as bureaucracy and compensation. AI has become an increasingly important component of firm evaluation, not because it replaces advisors, but because it can enhance productivity and client service. Enterprise value is becoming a consideration even for advisors who currently work within employee models. Reverse due diligence is just as important as a firm's evaluation of an advisor, particularly when assessing ownership structure, capitalization, and long-term stability. The most effective transition decisions balance immediate economics with long-term flexibility, ownership, and optionality. Every advisor's definition of success is different, making clarity around personal goals the foundation of any due diligence process. https://youtu.be/WZbUZJZK1yc Quotable Moments “Every advisor deserves to live their best business life.” “Just because you're frustrated doesn't mean you should move. You need something worth moving toward.” “The question isn't simply what you're paid today. It's what you're building over time.” “Knowledge is power. Understanding what your business is worth should be part of every advisor's decision-making process.” FAQs Why are more advisors expanding their due diligence beyond compensation? While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. How should advisors evaluate a firm's AI strategy? Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. What is reverse due diligence? Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Why does enterprise value matter for employee advisors? Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. How has private equity changed advisor due diligence? Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. What does Diamond Consultants mean by an advisor's “best business life”? It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 1 Annual Advisor Transition Report Top 10 Tips for a Strategic Due Diligence Process Should I Stay or Should I Go? View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done. Number two would be some sort of change in or frustration with management. Something is going on that the person or persons that are responsible for managing the business are just not … They’re not the wind at their back. They’re obstreperous. They’re causing difficulty and frustration. And probably the third one would be less about a pain point and more about the desire to be something that they couldn’t where they were. The notion that they want to be more independent, they want to be a business owner and they just can’t do that. That doesn’t exist within the model where they work. Those probably have been the three ones top of mind, but I bet you’ll have some … You’ll add to that. Jason Diamond: I’ll add a couple. But before I do, I’ve heard you talk about this topic, maybe said another way as pushes and pulls. Can you explain what you mean by that? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think that we think about the pushes, the frustrations, the things pushing somebody out the door, the factors that make it less easy or less fluid to do business. And there’s almost always pushes that exist when somebody comes to us, where they’re frustrated to some degree or another about certain things. But we tell people all the time that just to be frustrated should never be enough, because if all you’re doing is running from one set of problems, you’re very likely to run into maybe a different set, but still problems elsewhere. So a move needs to be driven in equal part, if not more, by pulls. Being pulled toward an opportunity that can be needle moving enough or better enough than where you are now. Pushes and pull. Jason Diamond: I love it. So let me ask you a little bit of a pointed question. Is a recruiting deal a valid pull factor? Mindy Diamond: So look, it’s different for every person. We’ve had advisors come and say, “I just went through a divorce and the most important thing to me is to recapitalize. And so a recruiting deal is really important.” And while I would never be one to say that’s not valid, it can be … And by the way, any advisor should want to and expect to better their financial situation. There should be economic gain. But it shouldn’t be the only or the primary reason for the move. So you want to monetize. The notion of wanting to monetize in the short term should be a factor in what model you pick, but it shouldn’t be the primary driver for a move. Jason Diamond: I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was going to say something I think maybe would’ve surprised you a little, which is like, yeah, I think recruiting deal is a very valid pull factor because what we’re saying is, it shouldn’t be the only pull factor. And sometimes it is and it makes us a little bit sad, I think, when that’s the case. But all of these factors you mentioned, and the ones I would add, I think that maybe technology would be another kind of factor that drives movement, all of these factors are not one specific reason. If you did the exit interview, either actually conducted the exit interview with advisors or thought exercise exit interview, I think they would point to a confluence of all of these factors. Compliance was a headache. I wanted to launch a podcast. I wanted to be able to send a timely communication to my clients. We used to hear that one during COVID a lot, right? By the time compliance approved something to send to clients, it was already stale. So do you agree with that, that it’s generally a confluence or a combination of these? Or in your experience, is it advisors are like, “No, compliance or the tech is so bad, I’m out”? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So most often there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back incident or thing where they’re willing to put up with a series of minor paper cuts, if you will. And then almost always there’s something that happens. You and I got a call the other day from a team that said that they had split from their partner and the management of the firm was favoring the ex-partner, making it harder for them to stay or making it less fun or feel good for them to stay. So while they gave me a laundry list of things that were imperfect, I don’t know that any one of the things that were imperfect up until then would’ve been enough to drive them out. But when that one thing, that feeling that they were a second class citizen came up, that was the straw that breaks the camel’s back and went from a minorly frustrated to, “I’m out of here.” Jason Diamond: Yeah. And there’s probably a hundred examples you could walk us through. And I wanted to just highlight too, this concept is not limited to the wirehouse or employee or captive firm world, this is equally relevant for independent advisors. Granted, some of the pushes and pull factors, some of the triggers are not necessarily the same, but the idea that advisors outgrow a broker dealer or an RIA or either need or want or desire in some way, shape or form, greater autonomy, flexibility, freedom, control is certainly not limited to the employee space. I just wanted to make that point. Mindy Diamond: And I think that’s absolutely right. I think the notion of that frustrations or limitations or bureaucracy only existed if you were a W2 employee at a bulge bracket firm. That went out the window. As the industry landscape has expanded and there’s more and more valid ways to be a financial advisor, there’s more and more ways for a firm or a model or an infrastructure to frustrate an advisor. And that’s not being overly negative. It’s just to say there is no perfection anywhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. And by the way, to play a little bit of devil’s advocate on that, and then we’ll move on, I would just say there are pain points that might come from a firm being small and subscale as well. My firm doesn’t have efficient technology. They don’t invest enough in the business. They don’t provide a lead mechanism. They don’t have a robust banking and lending or investment solutions platform. So this stuff cuts both ways. An advisor can be frustrated or limited and an advisor can be excited. Pushes and pulls I think touch on, we’ve heard from advisors in every single pocket of the market, this is a relevant concept. Mindy Diamond: The theme of this is that every advisor deserves to live their best business life. That’s what people are in search of when they reach out to us or when they engage with us. What they’re looking for more than anything, and this is irrespective of where they work or how long they’ve worked or how much they manage, every advisor is in search of their best business life. And what defines their best business life is having the best quality of work life, but also the best ability to do what they want to do with their business, to serve their clients without limitations, to grow the way they want, to be paid a fair wage, and ultimately set up to maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Those are the definitions of one’s best business life. Jason Diamond: I used an even simpler definition of best business life and I stole it from you, which is the true north concept, which is if your true north is maximizing enterprise value and chasing the dollar and trying to build something that’s scalable and saleable, then great. If your true north is to build a lifestyle practice, there’s plenty of advisors who are successful and happy and content in that regard as well. And I think that’s what we’re talking about, is finding your true north and then it’s possible. I mean, that’s the beauty of the landscape. We’re talking about this, a lot of this is pain points or things that advisors experience. The exciting part of this is there’s never been a better time to be an advisor because of the breadth of choice they have and the ecosystem that’s been born to support advisors, to your point, across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And it’s also, I think, worth saying that it starts with really good crystal clear clarity around not only what’s frustrating you, but what you want ideal to look like. Because I can’t tell you, or I can tell you because … I can’t tell our listeners, I can’t stress enough how often we get calls from advisors that tell us where they think they want to be or tell us they want to move. They have clarity about what’s frustrating them or what they want to change, but they don’t really have clarity about what they want it to look like. And the less clarity you have, the less likely you are to be successful in finding the exact right solution. So our work, the thing we probably do best is really work with advisors to help them. It doesn’t take long. In an hour conversation, we can help them to really get crystal clear on what they’re looking to solve for. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. All right. Great appetizer. We set the table. Let’s dive into the main course now. I want to talk now about what I’m calling the 2.0 triggers or the new triggers of movement. And to be clear, it’s not that these are more important or better or more significant drivers of movement. In fact, you could argue they’re probably at present less significant than the ones we just listed. But I think what we’re saying is these are triggers that are starting to come up more and more in conversations and we expect them to only proliferate further. And in that regard, they’re noteworthy and important for advisors because advisors should be reconciling not just what are the things I need to be worrying about today, but also what are the things I need to be potentially worrying about five years from now. So with that in mind, let’s dive in. I think the first one we have to start with is AI. And I always chuckle a tiny bit when we mention AI, we used to have to specify what are we talking about. Are we talking about artificial intelligence or alternative investments? And now it’s very clear. Everybody knows we’re talking about artificial intelligence. So the direction of the industry, no over-dramatization to say is at stake here. It’s that important of a topic. Let me ask you just very simply first, is this coming up in conversations with advisors? Mindy Diamond: Oh, all the time, but it’s almost table stakes. So I think the way it comes up is that people assume, advisors assume, and by the way, have the right to assume that AI is part of the tech stack. The notion that if I’m evaluating a firm and part of what frustrates me or part of what’s really important to me is cutting edge, really robust technology, part of what I am expecting is that a new firm is going to have really robust technology. And part of that is really robust access to AI. And has honed the AI in a way that’s user-friendly, that really answers or delivers on making me a better … Not replacing me as an advisor, but making me a better, more efficient advisor. Jason Diamond: 100%. And I would also add, so as I think about this AI topic, I don’t want this to become a conversation around, is AI going to replace advisors, because I think we both agree that’s not going to be the case. Especially at the top end of the market for quality advisors, I think they’re not going anywhere. But in my view, when we think about the trigger of movement, AI has the potential to be transformative because a couple kind of use cases or trigger cases come to mind, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. One is, do you think advisors will potentially consider a move because they’re worried about this? So in other words, play this logic out with me. I’m 55 years old and I’m like, “Oh man, AI might be coming from my job.” And there’s firms offering 400% of revenue to move my book. Maybe I should take that check and kind of de-risk and monetize while I can. What are your thoughts on that? Mindy Diamond: I absolutely think we’re already working with that fall into that category, but to say that is the only reason for the move would be wrong. I’m grateful that people trust us enough to be transparent with us. So they let us know that underneath the notion that they want to better serve clients, they ultimately want better access to A, B, and C, they want to be able to do D, E and F with less restriction, is really the main reason for the move. But underneath it, the notion that my book, I want to protect myself. My book may well be the biggest it’s ever going to be. It is going to be worth more today than it could be in the future if things don’t go my way. And if I know I’m going to move and one of my goals is to monetize, I might want to do that now. Jason Diamond: I agree. And that’s where the top deal story comes in also. Firms paying a top deal is a part of that story. It’s what you just said, plus advisors know firms are willing to pay incredible multiples. I mean, as we speak, UBS is in market with one of the largest deals in history. So those two narratives side by side, I agree. I think this becomes more of a kind of catalyst or driver movement. It’s come up in my conversations on both sides of the spectrum. It’s the tech savvy, AI savvy advisors who are excited about this, who are like, “I want to be the most AI enabled version of myself I can be. It’s going to make me a rockstar and it’s going to widen the gap with my peers,” but it’s also come up with the people who are, I think, rightly scared and fearful about what this might mean for their job. Mindy Diamond: Let me ask you, what are examples of the way you’ve seen some of the best firms who have embraced AI? What is their narrative? What is it that they’re saying to advisors that if you come here from a tech or AI perspective, you’ll be better because we’re able to do … Fill in the blank. Jason Diamond: Yeah. So a couple that come up. First of all, I want to make the important point. Advisors do not expect that firms, either their current firm or firms that they are diligencing prospectively, have this figured out or solved. Everybody understands this is a fairly new area that firms are still very much kind of developing their strategies in. What advisors want to see is a few things. They want to see though leadership, they want to see investment, and they want to see a strategy, right? Effectively, they want to see a step in the right direction, really. So I’ll give you a couple examples. There are a number of tech savvy RIAs, very tech-enabled, AI-focused RIAs, because I think this is easier to be nimble. I think where you’ll see this quicker probably is in the independent space. That what they’re doing is things like this. An advisor logs on to their workstation in the morning and their system queues them proactively, Mr. and Mrs. Smith may be good candidates for a Roth IRA conversion. And then if the advisor decides to contact the client in some way about it, the system will of course help them draft the communication, but then it’ll take it a step further and actually help them to process and transact that conversion. So soup to nuts, ultimately driving efficiency. That’s the name of the game. That’s why firms, I think, are excited about AI, at least the good firms. Because what I think they realize it will do is, the stuff that’s a waste of time that could be automated that advisors, and probably even more so their associates, client associates are spending time on, that should be a massive time saver for advisors. And I think if you play that story out, what does that mean? It should mean bigger books of business and therefore more productive advisors because they have more time to prospect and focus on their clients. Thoughts? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think you said it perfectly, but it raises the question then. You say that the RIAs can be more nimble. You’re right. I mean, the big story around the biggest firms was like moving a battleship, it takes a long time to turn it. It’s not as nimble. So what and how are the bigger firms competing against the RIAs with respect to AI? And second question, we still always get questions, and rightly so, about Morgan Stanley has more money to invest… Jason Diamond: That was going to be part of my answer. Mindy Diamond: … than fill in the blank RIA. So how does that all work? Jason Diamond: That is absolutely going to be part of my answer, is that I have heard this question posed almost presumptively both ways. “Oh, it’s got to be that the RIAs are going to be the clear winners in this.” And I’ve also heard, “Oh, it’s got to be that the wirehouses are going to be the clear winners in this.” I don’t think it’s going to be channel specific like that. I think it is going to be firm specific. I think there’s going to be firms that are going to do this well and firms that are going to not do this well. But there’s going to be winners in the wirehouse space. There’s going to be winners in the regional firm space, with firms like Raymond James who are clearly trying to be on the cutting edge of this. There’s certainly going to be winners in the broker-dealer space. LPL is investing heavily in this, as are many of their broker-dealer competitors. And then of course the RIA space, where sometimes they may not have the budgets, but they have a couple things. They have private equity backing, sometimes. They have the custodians that they’re built on, right, or the tech vendors that they’re built on. So Schwab and Fidelity or Orion and Addepar. They have other ways to access these innovations. One of the things that comes up with this that your question I think gets at is, a similar question that was raised around technology stacks, which is strength of offering versus integration. And that’s where I think a firm like Morgan Stanley really will shine, is they should … Because they don’t put anything out that’s not well integrated. The big firms have generally done a pretty good job of that. Versus the RIAs. Sometimes we’ve heard feedback where, yes, you have access to you name it, right? You dream it up, you can go and buy it. But the left hand may not speak to the right hand quite as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, that’s actually a really good point. And integration is probably one of the biggest … If you ask an advisor when they talk about technology as either being one of their pushes or pulls, probably what they’re referring to more than anything is not only having the capability, but having the integrated capability. So that’s a great point. And I think your point is right, that the final chapter on this has not been written. Nobody thinks that it has. And so whatever answers you and I can talk about today about who’s winning this race, or this tech race or this AI race, will be totally different tomorrow. We all know that. But I think for purposes of this conversation, to say that an advisor having an expectation that their technology be outstanding and that AI be on the table, that a firm is embracing it and heading in the right direction, if you will, has the right thought leadership and the right willingness to invest in it is what advisors are really looking for right now. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. And this is a question too from the firm’s perspective, if you are a firm of any size, you must be able to answer that. This has become question 1A. And again, I don’t mean to suggest that I think AI is the number one most important factor driving advisor movement today. It very well might be at some point down the road. I don’t think we’re there yet. But I do think it’s the topic du jour or the hot topic, where every advisor is asking about this. So that means if you’re a firm, you need to be prepared to tell the story or at least have the vision. And I think what we’re hearing from both advisors and from firms is this, AI is going to … What is right now a gap between the good and the bad, the quality and the non, is going to become an absolute chasm, right? An absolutely mountainous gap between the best firms and the firms who are able to adapt this technology or this AI. And the same thing at the advisor level, between the AI-enabled superpowered advisor versus those who are in the dinosaur ages, for lack of a better term. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And we’ll move on, but it is worth saying that the day of the standalone independent, the one man or one woman band who hangs out a shingle, and to use your term, running a lifestyle practice, nothing wrong with that, but it would be near impossible to imagine a world where a standalone independent can compete with a private-equity-backed RIA or an RIA that has a big pool of capital behind them or to compete with the major firms. And our point is the ability to compete is probably more important with respect to this topic than just about any other. Jason Diamond: Totally agree. Thank you for tying a bow on that because I think that’s a good place to leave the AI topic, at least for now. I’m certain we’ll have more to say on this one. By the time we release this episode, we’ll probably have more to say on it. So we’ll have to do a follow-up again. But I want to talk now about enterprise value. And this is one where if you’re an RIA or if you’re an advisor at an independent firm, this might sound like a duh, but hear me out on this one. The idea is as follows, if I’m a wirehouse advisor or any sort of captive advisor, I don’t technically own anything. Agree? Mindy Diamond: Agreed. Jason Diamond: Okay. So if that’s true, that I don’t technically own anything, I technically don’t have any sort of enterprise value or ability to monetize. But my premise here and why I would argue that enterprise value has become a driver of movement is even wirehouse advisors know … They see teams like OpenArc, a massive RIA that launched last year. They see their corner office peers breaking away, starting independent firms. They see them selling to asset managers, private-equity-backed RIAs, private equity firms in their own right for these massive multiples. And what I guess I’m getting at, and I’m curious if you agree is, if a wirehouse advisor, let’s say, sees their colleagues sell to a private equity firm for 20X, doesn’t that have to become a little bit of a catalyst for movement in its own right? Mindy Diamond: Without a doubt. Historically … Actually, let me date myself. When I started this business now 32 years ago, there was zero way for an advisor who was a captive employee of a firm, of any firm, to monetize their business. It’s why there was so much movement, because the only way they could monetize was to get paid a big fat transition deal to move from one firm to the other. Jason Diamond: Yep. Mindy Diamond: Obviously, we all know that first it started with the big firms, and then just about every brokerage firm on the street began to offer a retire-in-place program. And that is the big firms or a traditional brokerage firm’s way of allowing advisor to monetize in place from their perspective to stave off attrition. And for an advisor that believes that the status quo serves them well, that finishing their career, that leaving their legacy, that leaving their team at their firm is the best thing to do, then those retire-in-place programs, like Merrill’s CTP or Morgan’s FAP or UBS’s Alpha or a name at every firm has them, is the best gift to advisors there is. But the problem is that the next generation at those firms are buying an asset they don’t own. And so when we talk about enterprise value or the desire to build enterprise value as a real driver of movement, what we’re talking about is not only that advisors want ownership of an asset, because ownership translates into more control and autonomy and agency over building it the way you want to, but it also translates into maximizing the value of the business that you’ve built. So that’s a long-winded way of saying that the OpenArc deal you are referencing, for anybody not familiar, is a Merrill Lynch team, a legacy Merrill Lynch team in Atlanta that was managing more than 120 billion in assets, part retail, ultra high net worth client assets, and part institutional consulting assets. And believe me, I don’t want to make it sound like it was a snap that one day they’re happy and the next day they’re going independent. Over a 10-year period became more and more aware, driven by the pushes and more aware of the pulse. But ultimately, while there was a long list of things they wanted to be able to do that they couldn’t to best serve clients and grow the business, the real driver at the end of the day, or I shouldn’t say the real driver, but a major driver was the notion of building and owning enterprise value. Yes, they could have all gotten very attractive deals and retired with your Merrill CTP, but they wanted to own the business, they wanted cap gains treatment. And so they went through the sweat equity big time of building what they’re calling OpenArc for the ability for probably five, 10, 20 years, because there’s partners with all different ages, so at all different times, to be able to really maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Jason Diamond: Can I push back on that for … It’s a super helpful example, but my one thought is, okay, yeah, of course, 130 billion in assets, they should be concerned with enterprise value at that size. And the delta between caring about enterprise value and not is too great because those guys have, by all accounts, a phenomenal business that is rivaled by very few in the industry. Most of our audience does not fit into that stratosphere. So what about advisors in, let’s call it the million to $10 million space? Should they still care about this concept? Mindy Diamond: Again, it’s an inside job. It’s a personal thing. Some don’t. But the answer is yes. And if I were them, I would. Why? Because whether I am generating a million a year in revenue or $10 million a year in revenue, at the end of the day, I’ve got an asset. I’ve built a valuable asset. And I have the choice at the end of the day or the middle of the day to decide a million things about that asset. How do I want to live my business life? How do I want to serve my clients? Where do I want to work? But one of the biggest factors to determining where and how they want to work is, ultimately, do I want to be able to maximize the value of the business that I’ve built? And while there are few things that are really definitive in this industry, the one thing that is absolutely indisputably definitive is that if you build an independent practice like the ex-Merrill Lynch churned RIA OpenArc team did, you will ultimately build enterprise value exponential multiples greater than any way you could monetize the business as a traditional employee. Jason Diamond: And that math absolutely still holds up even at numbers smaller than we’ve mentioned. I totally agree with that. I’ll give you one other reason why I think you should care. And I’d love your thoughts on this one. I’ll ask it two ways maybe. I’ll tell you my take and then I’ll ask you yours. Morgan Stanley, let’s use as an example. Who are Morgan Stanley’s competitors? In my opinion, the legacy answer to that is, well, of course the wirehouses are Morgan Stanley’s competitors. Merrill, UBS, Wells Fargo, what maybe used to be a longer list, but today those four. I don’t think that’s the answer anymore. I think those are the direct competitors. But because of this enterprise value conversation, I think Morgan Stanley’s competitors are anyone and everyone who recruits financial advisors with books of business. Because if you think about it, an advisor who has a $3 million business at a wirehouse, even if they’re not actually going to do this, they don’t have any entrepreneurial spirit, no desire to go independent, they still know that they could. This is an option and a viable option. And firms are even figuring out ways to cut out the middle step, right? Because this was historically a two-step process. You’re a wirehouse advisor or a W2 advisor. You break away, launch an independent business to establish your enterprise value, begin building it, and then you monetize it. If you could cut out the middle step, or even if you couldn’t, I still think it’s pretty clear that if you’re an advisor, this is important because the firms know … Like when Morgan Stanley’s writing a recruiting deal, they’re kept honest by RIAs and acquirers just the same as their direct peer set. Do you agree with that or do you think I’m reading too far into this? Mindy Diamond: Oh no, I agree a thousand percent. I think that it is naive for anyone recruiting for or on behalf of a traditional firm to think that the only competition is another traditional firm. The days of pomposity for a senior leader at a traditional firm to say, “We’ve got the best technology, the best everything fill in the blank. We have no competitors.” That’s just naive. Because even if it’s true, you’ve got the best platform infrastructure fill in the blank, there is a multitude of advisors that value things different than what you can provide. Beauty is in the eye of beholder is probably a good way to say that. But at the end of the day, what we’re really talking about is when I started the business, because there was no way, no really good way for an advisor to really monetize their life’s work, the only thing they could or were focused on from a personal financial gain perspective was the short-term deal. What are they paying? What’s the transition deal? Now, of course they’re concerned about that. But almost to a person, they’re equally concerned about what I can build and what will this allow me to build in terms of the value of the business I’m building in the long term. So let me ask you, if we’re talking about an advisor that has the ability to monetize in the short term for what could be 4X and in some cases more than that these days, and we’re talking about the ability to maximize enterprise value, and we talk about the concept of moving once and monetizing twice, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Fill in the blanks there. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hard question to answer because I do genuinely believe recruiting deals, when you talk about 300 to 400% revenue deals in the recruiting space, they vary a little bit, but I feel pretty comfortable quoting those types of numbers that most firms are somewhere in the 300 to 400% of T12 realm. There are some outliers, we mentioned UBS. But the multiple or EBITDA based or enterprise value M&A market where we’re doing these legitimate buyout transactions, the valuations do vary quite a bit. But here’s how I think about it. First of all, most firms are not purchased or sold at top line revenue. Most are sold at some sort of adjusted EBITDA number, which factors in local expenses, platform expenses, but also advisor compensation. And then that adjusted number is typically multipled. The multiples are anywhere from 8X for small kind of, let’s say, million dollar revenue businesses up to, we’ve seen deals struck at north of 20X for some of these mega cap RIAs. Typically, just back of the envelope, if I had to quote, I typically estimate around 5X top line at capital gains is a good kind of ballpark valuation. But there is quite a bit of nuance to it, more so than the traditional recruiting space. And I do think, shameless plug, part of the value in working with somebody who’s an expert on the entirety of the industry landscape is just that. It’s the idea that you need to run the horse race across multiple verticals. The good advisors who work with us typically are looking at a wire like a Morgan Stanley or a Merrill. They’re looking at a boutique firm like a Rockefeller, or they’re looking at a regional like an RBC or a Ray J. They’re looking at an independent firm like an LPL or a Sanctuary. They’re looking all across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: I think that’s exactly right. But the topic of enterprise value, you can see how powerful it is and how wise it is. For an advisor today, when considering their personal economics to consider not just the short term, but to weigh in or add in or factor in, what could I be building and what ultimately will that business be worth at the end of the day? Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. Short of going out and selling your business, what can advisors do then? So I’m an advisor, okay, I’m curious about this. Or is it just as simple as, “Yeah, you should know what your business is worth if you’re an advisor”? Mindy Diamond: Definitively yes, because I mean, we always believe that knowledge is power. And just like it’s important for you to understand what your options are within your own firm, how can I ultimately retire out and monetize my business where I am, I think it’s really hard to make a decision in a vacuum without having other perspective. And getting other perspective doesn’t have to be that you have to go out and take 20 meetings. It’s not that hard for you to figure out what your business is worth to make it a data point for whether or not you’re ultimately best to retire in place or go elsewhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, that I think is the main takeaway. And the education point is so important. I think because these are relatively new concepts for a lot of advisors that haven’t formally shopped a business before, there’s a lot of resources available. And we’ll certainly link some as well on the page for the episode. Let’s shift gears now, our kind of final trigger 2.0, which is stability and ownership structure of the firm. And this has been a little bit of a hot topic. It’s honestly been a hot topic every year because it seems like things pop up every year. And a lot of times advisors don’t reconcile the question of who owns the firm or how stable is the firm until something happens. The firm gets bought, the firm goes bankrupt, like the First Republic scenario. What should a good advisor do proactively about the idea that if you’re a W2 employee or even an employee who’s affiliated with a broker dealer, you saw this with Commonwealth, you just don’t really have control over what the firm decides to do. Give me your thoughts on this. I know it’s a big topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. First of all, using Commonwealth an example, it’s a good one. Because for those unfamiliar, Commonwealth is a boutique broker dealer that was privately owned and whose tagline was, “We love our privately owned status and we are never going to sell,” until one day they did. And not only did they sell, but they sold to the biggest independent broker dealer in the country, ala LPL. That’s not good nor bad, it’s just a fact. So if Commonwealth, who had definitively said we’re never up for sale, suddenly sells, any time you’re an employee of a firm, you never know what tomorrow brings in. You’re not in control over whether it’s sold. So that’s one example. But as you’re talking about this, I’m thinking about, I’m probably going back 20 years, so I’m 10 years into my career and I talked to someone who had been a very successful Merrill advisor. So I’m going to say he was probably generating around $5 million in revenue at the time. Going back 20 years, that’s a pretty significant book of business. He was courted for years by what he thought was a top RIA. And in those days, remember 20 years ago, the RIA space wasn’t nearly as mainstream as it is now. But the story the RIA told him was that ultimately, one, he was going to be a partner in the firm, that was very appealing to him. So he was going to have equity in the firm and much more freedom and control. And locally, by the way, the RIA was a really high quality brand. He worked on a lot of the economics, the short term and the long term with them. They did a ton of due diligence on his book of business. But he failed to ask … And I didn’t represent him. I just know this story. He failed to ask or do enough due diligence about the stability of the firm. What we think is really important, we talk about this expanded landscape. If you’re looking at Morgan Stanley, I don’t think you necessarily need to see Morgan Stanley’s balance sheet. If you are talking to a firm that is anything but a bulge bracket or anything but a large firm, it’s really important to do what we call reverse due diligence and to really understand if a firm expects you to open your kimono and show everything about your business to prove your worth, it is equally important that you do the same for them. In this new world order where private equity has come in and there are so many different ways for a firm to be owned and to be capitalized, it’s very important that an advisor understand what’s going on behind the scenes. And one of the questions around stability, if a firm is private equity backed, is it permanent capital? Is it patient capital? Is the private equity firm going to look to sell and monetize in five years? And then who would the likely buyer be and what does that mean for you? So the question is a big question and it’s really important. Jason Diamond: I love everything you just said, except I do think even the wirehouses, wirehouse advisors, honestly, as much as anybody should be asking these questions. And I’ll give you an example right now, UBS. And UBS, it’s not a story of balance sheet stability. I don’t think anybody has concerns that UBS is going to fail. But UBS management has been very publicly, “Oh, we’re cutting costs.” There’s been some rumors, I think for years, probably dating back 30 years to when you started the business about UBS’s commitment to the US wealth management business. I think those questions about stability and ownership structure are still valid. And to me, the implication of it is twofold. One, what you said, reverse due diligence, ask the questions, plan B. But also the concept of the exits or the off-ramps or how many bites of the apple do you get. So if you’re an advisor and you sell your business to somebody and you sign garden leave and non-competes and non-solicits, the question of ownership structure of that firm becomes less relevant because you have no off-ramps and no ability to exit that business anyway. A lot of times that’s how advisors get comfortable with this concept. And that’s what firms will tell them too, frankly, and we’re living through the middle of this, by the way, with Commonwealth and LPL, is vote with your feet, right? To the extent advisors can, the offer … And this is like, you used the example of private-equity-backed firms. This is how Rockefeller addresses the question of their private equity ownership. If we sell to UBS, all of our advisors will leave. They have that built-in put option. So knowing where the off-ramps are or how many bites of the apple an advisor gets, I think is a big concept that ties into that. But we’re absolutely seeing this pop up, probably largely because of those two examples, Commonwealth and UBS this year, more so Commonwealth, to your point. Janney’s another example last year or two years ago now where KKR comes in and buys Janney. So when these examples happen, it seems like it triggers advisors to say, “Is this something that could happen to me and should I be thinking about this?” Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So let me ask you a question. You’re talking, you’ve mentioned UBS offering this outsized deal. So how does the notion of stability and ownership factor in? If an advisor is considering an unprecedented deal from UBS, what are the caveats or concerns with respect to stability and ownership? Jason Diamond: It’s the same list of considerations you should and would ask of any other firm you’re diligencing, except I think amplified even more in the case … If I was counseling an advisor who was looking at UBS, that would be what I would say, is exactly that. You’re seeing all of these departures and defections, and I would want to have conversations with those advisors and understand exactly why and have guarantees or assurances that I’m not going to suffer from those same pain points that force them to leave. Or, and I say this a little bit flippantly, but it’s a little bit true, I understand the devil that I’m getting into bed with, but for 550%, or whatever the deal might be, I can suck it up. And that’s something that some advisors might well say as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Jason Diamond: I don’t want to end on the negative note of overly large transition, not there’s anything wrong with large transition deals, but as you look out, is there anything that’s coming up in your conversation with advisors that you view as the next wave of this? I’ll give you one that maybe you could touch on, and if you have another one, feel free to offer it in conclusion, but do you think age or advisors starting to succeed out of the business will become more of a driver of movement, even though to your point, advisors can access sunset deals? Mindy Diamond: I do actually, because I think the more the average advisor age increases, the more likely that those advisors are going to want to move on to do something else to monetize the business. And so much of the wave of movement we see is driven not so much by the senior advisor, because many seed advisors are happy enough with the ability to monetize their business in place. Even though it may not maximize the value of the business, it’s a close enough approximation and it means I don’t have to disrupt the apple cart. So we support that 100%. But where we get the calls is from the next generation that says, “Yeah, but hold on a minute. It’s a good way for me to take on a book of assets that I not otherwise have access to. And it’s great for my senior partner, my father, my mother, my whatever to monetize the business. But I’m buying an asset again that I don’t own and I ultimately don’t have control over all these things we’re talking about, the AI investment, the ability to create enterprise value, the stability, the cost cutting, all of it.” So I think it’s all of the above. You say, “What else is there?” I think that’s it. It’s all of the above. It’s anything and everything that drives movement. One, it’s personal, it’s highly unique, it’s different for every advisor. There are certainly themes, and we’re talking about them, but there’s a million different things. It’s personal. And while there are an awful lot of pushes, things that can frustrate an advisor, it is the most exciting time in our view to be an advisor, particularly a high quality one, because the options abound, the ecosystem is big, because the ability to monetize both in the short term and the long term is big, mammoth, exponentially bigger than it ever was before. And the true ability to really build an enterprise has never been greater. And I think all of those things, the desire for an advisor to be the best that they can be and live their best business life is probably the biggest driver of all. Jason Diamond: It’s really true these days, if you can dream it, you can probably build it. And we’ve said in the past, if you build it, they will buy it. It’s a great place to end. This was a really fun topic. I think that’s a spot on kind of fourth trigger, by the way, too. This sort of next gen is almost like the force multiplier or the amplifier of like they see all this other stuff and they’re asking these questions even more so. Because if I’m 60 years old, none of this matters all that much. It matters, but I’m out of the business in five to 10 years. Versus the next gen advisors are the ones who often bear the brunt of this. So I think a lot of really smart stuff. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and expertise. In the episode page, we’ll be sure we have our Industry Transition Report. And we’ve also created a tool, the top 10 tips for a strategic due diligence process, which is a great kind of practical hand-in-hand companion for this topic for advisors looking for more pointed tips on the due diligence process. So Mindy, thank you again. This has been a blast. Mindy Diamond: My pleasure. Thank you. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done.

Franchise development is often viewed through the lens of growth—new locations, new markets, and new franchise agreements. While expansion is certainly part of the equation, the most successful franchise systems understand that sustainable growth depends on something far more important: building stronger operators. The strength of any franchise system ultimately comes down to the people running it. A great location in a strong market can still struggle if ownership is disengaged. Likewise, a franchisee operating in a competitive environment can outperform expectations when they embrace the system, invest in their team, and remain actively involved in the business. That reality has become increasingly important as franchise brands seek long-term growth rather than simply increasing unit counts. One of the most common misconceptions about franchise ownership is that it provides a passive path to entrepreneurship. Many prospective owners enter the process believing they can purchase a proven business model, hire a manager, and step away from day-to-day involvement. While some franchise concepts support semi-absentee ownership structures, the most successful operators typically maintain a strong connection to their business, especially during the critical early stages. Successful franchise development begins by identifying candidates who understand that ownership requires engagement. That engagement does not necessarily mean working inside the business every day. Instead, it means understanding the operation, supporting the team, monitoring performance, and maintaining accountability for results. Franchisees who invest time in learning the business often create stronger foundations that support future growth, including multi-unit ownership opportunities. This focus on operator quality has become increasingly important across the franchise industry. As brands continue expanding, many are placing greater emphasis on candidate selection rather than simply increasing the number of franchise agreements signed each year. Financial qualifications remain important, but experience, mindset, leadership ability, and willingness to follow a proven system often play an even larger role in long-term success. The relationship between franchisor and franchisee is also evolving. Historically, some viewed franchising as a one-way arrangement where corporate leadership dictated strategy and operators followed instructions. Modern franchise systems increasingly recognize the value of collaboration. Franchisees often bring local market knowledge, operational insights, and innovative ideas that can benefit the broader system when properly evaluated and implemented. The healthiest franchise systems create structured opportunities for that collaboration to occur. Franchise advisory councils, peer groups, regional meetings, and open communication channels allow operators to contribute feedback while helping brands remain connected to the realities of day-to-day operations. These feedback loops not only strengthen relationships but also help franchise systems adapt to changing market conditions. At the same time, successful franchise development still depends on consistency. Customers choose franchise brands because they expect a familiar experience regardless of location. Whether visiting a restaurant, retail store, fitness center, automotive service provider, or home services company, consumers expect consistency in service, quality, and customer care. That consistency becomes difficult to maintain when operators move too far away from the system. Many franchise brands have experienced situations where owners attempted to introduce products, services, promotions, or operational changes that were never tested or approved. While the intention may have been positive, these changes often create inconsistencies that weaken the overall customer experience. Strong franchise systems encourage innovation while maintaining the standards that helped the brand succeed in the first place. Customer experience remains one of the most powerful growth drivers available to franchise operators. Marketing campaigns, digital advertising, and promotional efforts all play an important role in attracting customers. However, long-term growth is often determined by what happens after a customer walks through the door. Positive experiences create repeat visits, referrals, reviews, and long-term loyalty. Negative experiences can quickly spread through online reviews and social media. For this reason, many successful franchise systems continue investing heavily in operational excellence and customer service training. Businesses that consistently deliver exceptional experiences often outperform competitors, even in crowded markets. Customers may initially choose a company based on convenience or price, but they frequently return because of trust, familiarity, and the way they were treated. This trend is particularly evident in service-based industries. Consumers increasingly value businesses that communicate clearly, respect their time, and create confidence throughout the customer journey. Whether the service involves healthcare, home improvement, financial services, automotive maintenance, or retail, people want to feel valued and informed. The automotive service sector provides a particularly interesting example of these dynamics. Vehicle ownership patterns have changed significantly over the past decade. New vehicle prices have risen substantially, leading many consumers to keep their vehicles longer than previous generations. As a result, routine maintenance and preventative service have become increasingly important for drivers seeking to maximize the lifespan of their vehicles. This creates long-term opportunities for franchise systems operating within the automotive service category. While headlines frequently focus on electric vehicles and emerging technologies, the reality is that the vast majority of vehicles on the road today still require regular maintenance. Even as electric vehicle adoption grows, service providers continue adapting their offerings to meet evolving customer needs while maintaining the convenience and expertise consumers expect. For entrepreneurs evaluating franchise opportunities, this highlights an important lesson. Rather than focusing solely on trends, successful franchise development often involves understanding long-term demand drivers. Categories supported by recurring customer needs, operational simplicity, and strong consumer demand tend to provide more stable growth opportunities over time. Another factor contributing to franchise success is expectation management. Strong franchise systems work to ensure prospective owners understand both the opportunities and responsibilities involved in ownership. Transparency throughout the evaluation process helps candidates make informed decisions while reducing the likelihood of future disappointment or misalignment. This approach benefits everyone involved. Prospective franchisees gain a realistic understanding of what ownership entails. Existing operators benefit from stronger peers joining the system. Franchisors improve long-term retention and performance. Most importantly, customers receive a more consistent experience because operators enter the business with appropriate expectations and preparation. Franchise development ultimately extends far beyond awarding territories and opening locations. The strongest systems focus on creating environments where operators can thrive, teams can grow, and customers receive exceptional service. Growth becomes a byproduct of operational excellence rather than the sole objective. As the franchise industry continues evolving, brands that prioritize operator engagement, customer experience, collaboration, and long-term support will likely remain best positioned for sustainable success. The future of franchise development will not be defined by how many units a brand opens. It will be defined by how effectively those locations perform, how well operators are supported, and how consistently customers are served. Watch the full episode on YouTube. Join Fordify LIVE every Wednesday at 11 a.m. Central on your favorite social platforms and catch The Business Growth Show Podcast every Thursday for a weekly dose of business growth wisdom. About Kelly Tope Kelly Tope is the Vice President of Franchise Development at FullSpeed Automotive, one of the nation's largest automotive service franchise organizations. With more than 30 years of franchising experience, Kelly has helped entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities, identify the right business fit, and build successful operations across multiple industries. Today, she leads franchise development efforts for leading automotive service brands including Grease Monkey and SpeeDee Oil Change & Auto Service, helping prospective franchisees navigate the path to business ownership through proven systems, operational support, and long-term growth strategies. Her expertise spans franchise development, operator recruitment, multi-unit expansion, and creating successful partnerships between franchisors and franchisees. About Ford Saeks Ford Saeks is a Business Growth Accelerator who has generated more than a billion dollars in sales worldwide by helping companies attract loyal customers, increase visibility, and accelerate growth. As President and CEO of Prime Concepts Group, Inc., Ford has founded more than ten companies, authored five books, earned three U.S. patents, and advised businesses ranging from startups to Fortune 500 organizations. A recognized expert in business growth, customer acquisition, leadership, franchising, and AI-driven marketing strategies, Ford helps organizations identify opportunities, improve performance, and achieve sustainable results. Learn more at ProfitRichrResults.com and watch Fordify LIVE at Fordify.tv.

Ever wondered why the center of the U.S. isn't buzzing with city life? The lack of a bustling metropolis in the heartland isn't due to any mysterious reasons. Historically, coastal regions stole the limelight as trade hubs and cultural epicenters, leaving the center feeling a bit left out. Plus, the vastness of the Midwest didn't exactly scream "let's build a city here" in the early days. While the center has its charms, the allure of coastal cities, job opportunities, and cultural hotspots often steal the show. But hey, every region's got its own unique flavor, right?

Mitch Evans and Sandra Golden break down the Atlanta Braves' historically poor performance in June, ranking at the bottom of the league in several offensive categories. They explore Archie Manning's recent comments regarding grandson Arch Manning's college journey and the immense pressure of his name. Mitch also provides a deeply personal update on his life and health. 01:50 - Mitch and Sandra Intro 05:25 - Braves Historical Offensive Slump 09:00 - Atlanta World Cup Festivities 12:30 - Nine at Nine Update 17:24 - Fried Apple Pie Debate 21:00 - Walt Weiss on Braves 31:11 - Mitch Evans Personal Update 37:47 - Archie Manning on Arch 43:40 - Brendon Sorsby Draft Status

In the grand scheme of things, Lyme disease is a fairly new scientific discovery. It was first traced back to ticks in the late 70s and early 80s. The tick-borne illness can cause a rash, fever, pain, neurological complications, and even facial paralysis. It's spread by only two of the nearly 50 species of ticks in the United States. Historically, most Lyme cases were limited to a small region, including the Great Lakes area and northeastern US. But thanks to changing temperatures, animal migration and shifts in land use, scientists say tick territory is expanding. So what does that mean for Lyme disease risk? And do you have to be worried about it in your own backyard?Interested in more episodes about pests and parasites? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. It includes perks like bonus episodes, early access, archive access, curated playlists and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Every great fighter brings something different to the ring. Some had lightning-fast hands, others possessed granite chins. Some could make opponents miss by inches, while others broke them down with punishing body shots or ended fights with a single punch.In this episode co-hosts Dana Auguster and Charles Combs are asking a question boxing fans have debated for generations: If you could build the perfect boxer, whose traits would you choose?We're not picking the greatest fighter of all time. We're creating the ultimate fighter by combining the very best attributes from boxing's legends. Muhammad Ali's footwork? Mike Tyson's explosiveness? Marvin Hagler's chin? Floyd Mayweather's defense? Roberto Durán's inside fighting? George Foreman's power? They're all on the table.We'll break down every category—from ring IQ and jab to power, defense, conditioning, heart, body punching, and knockout instinct—to see which legends own each piece of the perfect fighter.And, of course, we're going to have a few and of course debates along the way. Because in boxing, there are very few unanimous decisions.Please dont forget to subscribe to the podcast and if you would like to contact the show, please drop us a line at Historically.Speaking.Sports@gmail.com

Cetshwayo had sought refuge in Nkandla as his arch enemy, Zibhebhu, turned his attention to the royalists living along the Zululand Coastal plain. Soon Somkhele of the Mphukunyoni and the emaNgweni people were hiding in the swamps and reed-beds of the sub-tropical bush along the Indian Ocean. Melmoth Osborne was the resident commissioner of Zululand and a committed foe of Cetshwayo's royal line, a supporter of Zibhebhu. As Cetshwayo waited for the civil war to die down, he came to the conclusion that it was imperative to convince Melmoth of his right to rule. It was time to come out of hiding and to seek shelter from the commissioner — which he did under Henry Francis Fynn's junior's escort in October 1883. Cetshwayo was placed in a small house alongside his father's old kwaGqikazi homestead where he could contemplate how far he'd fallen. There he remained until 8th February 1884. Had he lived longer, he would have heard that his old Nduna and councillor, Mnyamana, had escaped with his life after being poisoned. The Zulu king was another going to be so fortunate. Shortly after he ate, at 2.30 pm on 8th February, he was overtaken by convulsions, then he collapsed and died a short while later. His family members refused permission for a post-morten, surgeon Scott declared the death had been caused by heart disease. However, historians know the truth - Cetshwayo had most likely been poisoned - placed either in his beer, or his snuff. While it's not known what poison was used, my research into the symptoms and passage of death points to Erythrophleum lasianthum, commonly known as the Swazi ordeal tree, is a medium to large leguminous tree native to southern Africa. It is notable for its exceptionally toxic bark and seeds, traditional cultural significance, and ecological value as a component of woodlands and forests across parts of South Africa, Eswatini and Mozambique. All parts of the tree—especially the bark, seeds, and roots—contain powerful alkaloids and cardiac toxins. Historically, extracts from the bark were used in ordeal poison practices in parts of southern Africa, giving rise to the common name "ordeal tree." The tree has also been used in traditional medicine, but these practices carry substantial risk because the difference between a toxic and potentially therapeutic dose is extremely small. Symptoms of poisoning can include vomiting, tremors, irregular heartbeat, seizures, respiratory failure, and death. The second option is Boophone disticha — a bulb known across southern Africa for centuries and Zulu herbalists were fully aware of its toxicity. Every part of the plant—especially the bulb—contains powerful Amaryllidaceae alkaloids and is highly poisonous to people, livestock, and pets. Traditional healers have employed carefully prepared doses for medicinal and ceremonial purposes but like the Swazi Ordeal Tree, there is a tight margin between a traditional dose and a dangerous one. Exposure to flowers in confined spaces alone causes eye irritation or headaches, giving rise to the common name sore-eye flower. Still, this bulb is highly sought after by modern collectors because of the bulb's beauty. Just wash your hands after fiddling with it, folks. A third possibility is the Acokanthera which causes death through cerebral hypoxia, and a fourth, poison beans, the species of Abrus precatorius in particular — but those can take days to kill you and Cetshwayo perished in an hour or two. Zibhebhu was immediately blamed and he would pay eventually for his actions. But first, the king had to be buried. First he was placed in a sitting position and tied to his hut's central post. The building was sealed with clay and mud so that no smell could emerge and Cetshwayo's body was left there for a few weeks to putrefy. The royal attendants asked Melmoth Osborne for permission to take the body to the emaKhosini valley so he could be buried with his ancestors, but the commissioner refused.

Listen to this full mini fix episode on Patreon! In this whirlwind mini we're going to talk about 7 historical figures who were at least probably gay. A few of these were definitely gay or at least bisexual. For some we'll never know for sure, we can only speculate. But, you know, why does it matter? Some might be wondering. Why does the sexual orientation of long dead people even matter? Because in many of these examples, these are highly respected and revered historical figures and to be represented in history as impressive, capable, accomplished movers and shakers like this, to be recognized throughout history where they've always been hidden, is a big deal for LGBTQ+ advocacy and awareness and the ongoing fight for equality. And that's what Pride Month is all about.SourcesWikipedia “Sappho”Wikipedia “Alexander the Great”Wikipedia “Leonardo da Vinci”Wikipedia “James VI and I”Wikipedia "Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben”Wikipedia “Oscar Wilde”Wikipedia “Alan Turing”Shoot me a message! Support the show

It's so easy to take what we have for granted in this country. It's so easy to underappreciate the phenomenal quality of life that we have today... It's also easy to underappreciate the historically great leadership we have today.  

Congress is on the verge of sending the first major housing bill in more than 30 years to the president’s desk. The Hill’s Helen Huiskes breaks down what the legislation does. The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in roughly a dozen cases before July 4. The Wall Street Journal’s James Romoser joins to discuss the decisions that will test Trump’s power. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is rallying support against a ballot measure that would tax the wealth of billionaires in the state. Politico’s Jeremy B. White explains the unlikely coalition Newsom is building to fight the proposal. Plus, the Senate rebuked Trump over the Iran war, sentences were handed down against Texas immigration protesters, and a look at last night’s NBA draft. Today’s episode was hosted by Gideon Resnick.

Historically, chastity was associated with suppressing sexual desire. Today, however, it often means something very different. For many people, it’s a way of exploring desire, anticipation, control, intimacy, and pleasure. In this episode, we’re diving into the psychology of chastity, including why people are drawn to it, who’s into it, and what it can teach us about human sexuality more broadly. My guest is Paul Botto, the COO of KINK3D. He's been working in the queer and kink community in San Francisco for the past 10 years, joining KINK3D in 2021 as the company's first hire. Some of the specific topics we explore in this episode include: What does chastity mean in modern sexual culture? How has the meaning of chastity changed over time? What do people find psychologically appealing about chastity? Why can limiting pleasure intensify desire? Why are some people drawn to chastity outside of kink? You can check out the KINK3D blog here, as well as find them on Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, and Reddit. Got a sex question? Send me a podcast voicemail to have it answered on a future episode at speakpipe.com/sexandpsychology. *** Thank you to our sponsors!  Check out Sex Ed with DB here to listen to an episode we love on your favorite podcast platform!  Passionate about building a career in sexuality? Check out the Sexual Health Alliance. With SHA, you’ll connect with world-class experts and join an engaged community of sexuality professionals from around the world. Visit SexualHealthAlliance.com and start building the sexuality career of your dreams today. *** Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook, Twitter, or Bluesky to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram. Listen and stream all episodes on Apple, Spotify, or Amazon. Subscribe to automatically receive new episodes and please rate and review the podcast! Credits: Precision Podcasting (Podcast editing) and Shutterstock/Florian (Music). Image created with Canva; photos used with permission of guest.

Historically, Pitt's defense has been pretty good and reliable under Pat Narduzzi (we think). So what do we expect out of the Panthers in 2026? Let's look at the defense from front to back and everywhere in between with a full breakdown on today's Morning Pitt.

The Federal Reserve's latest policy shift under new governor chair Kevin Warsh marks a significant regime change for global markets. With the dot plot revealing two potential rate hikes and a shift away from forward-looking guidance, investors face heightened market uncertainty across stocks, crypto, and real estate. This discussion cuts through the media noise to analyze macro data points, including the geopolitical resolution with Iran, falling energy prices, and the approaching $930 billion commercial debt maturity wall. While mainstream capital retreats to the stock market, sophisticated investors recognize that slow, stale, and sideways markets offer generational opportunities. This episode explains the math behind negative leverage, the critical role of the 10-year Treasury note, and why the absolute best real estate deals are historically secured before rate cuts occur, not after. Discover how to build defensive buffers into your underwriting parameters to transform macroeconomic headwinds into asymmetric long-term wealth. KEY TOPICS DISCUSSEDMacroeconomic analysis of Fed Chair Kevin Warsh's first FOMC meeting and monetary policy adjustments Geopolitical implications of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding and its impact on global crude oil volatility Understanding the "Fed Trap" and balancing the risks of reigniting inflation versus fracturing economic growth Technical evaluation of the 10-year Treasury note as the foundational gravitational force for commercial lending benchmarks Financial underwriting frameworks for identifying and avoiding negative leverage in a 6% to 7% interest rate environment Strategic management of the upcoming $930 billion maturing commercial real estate debt wall Asset allocation rotation from overvalued equity sectors into distressed, undervalued real estate opportunities KEY TAKEAWAYSLock in your real estate opportunities before the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates. Historically, the most profitable assets are acquired when market sentiment is deeply depressed and capital sits passively on the sidelines. Treat the Federal Reserve's policy decisions as macroeconomic weather rather than an absolute indicator of deal viability. Successful investing relies on strict individual deal underwriting rather than relying on central bank rescue parameters. Address floating-rate debt maturities 12 to 18 months in advance. Initiating proactive refinancing and restructuring conversations with lenders prevents forced liquidations when interest rate environments shift. Implement structural buffers of 50 to 100 basis points above current market rates when modeling new investments. Ensuring a deal cash-flows under restrictive conditions turns future monetary easing into pure financial upside. Monitor the 10-year Treasury note on a weekly basis to filter out short-term market noise. A sustained technical break below the 4% threshold serves as the primary signal that institutional debt conditions are turning positive. CONNECT & TAKE ACTIONSchedule a professional portfolio review with Ryan's team: Text "X-ray" to 844-447-1555 Build steady mailbox money with the Imagos Income Fund: Text "income" to 844-447-1555 Join the exclusive newsletter for unfiltered market insights: Text "WIB" to 844-447-1555 Access institutional investor resources and trackers: thewiseinvestorvault.com Gain direct access to accredited private placement deal flow: Text "deals" to 844-447-1555 Review comprehensive media notes and digital resources: millionairemindcast.com Connect directly with Matty A on corporate social channels: @officialmattya

Craig Cobb focuses this week on a market many crypto investors overlook: the U.S. Dollar Index. After breaking above major resistance around the 100 level, Craig believes the dollar may be beginning a larger move higher toward 106. Historically, stronger dollar environments have created pressure for equities and other risk assets, leading him to question whether Bitcoin could face another leg lower if the trend continues.On the crypto side, Craig remains cautious. Bitcoin continues struggling below key resistance around $65,000, and while a move above roughly $67,300 could shift the daily trend back to bullish, he believes the probabilities still favor downside for now. Across the broader market, assets like Cardano, Dogecoin, Solana, and XRP remain trapped below important resistance levels, with Tron standing out as one of the few exceptions showing relative strength.Craig's message remains simple: trade the trend, not the narrative. While last week's decline created profitable opportunities for traders, the market is now sitting in what he calls "no man's land." Until clearer trends emerge, he believes patience, risk management, and waiting for high-probability setups remain the best strategy.Check Craig out at:Market Intern: https://marketintern.com/The Grow Me Co: https://www.thegrowmeco.com/Happy Hodling, Everyone. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Republicans are now arguing that their aggressive mid-decade redistricting campaign could preserve their House majority even in an environment where history is usually not on their side. According to a new memo from the National Republican Congressional Committee, newly redrawn maps have reduced the number of competitive districts and forced Democrats to compete in more Republican-leaning territory. Democrats dismiss that analysis, arguing that strong special election results and voter dissatisfaction with President Trump still favor a House takeover. My gut is still that Democrats will take the House. I do think it's going to be closer than people think, if just because we're in an intensely polarized country.Republicans are still looking for the why. That's what they haven't found yet. Why am I excited? Historically, at least in the Trump administration, it has been things like immigration. But you can't run the next election on the thing you solved in the last election. I know there are a lot of frustrated conservatives who say we should be talking about the fact that we closed the border. What have you done for me lately? That is the refrain from voters. Republicans are going to gin up the culture war, and they're going to point at Democrats and say they've learned none of their lessons. Turning the keys back over to them is not going to get you anything. It's going to get you more impeachments, more nonsense, and less of what you want. Democrats, meanwhile, will say we have an out-of-control oligarch president and we need some kind of emergency brake, so give us back control of the House.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.With gas prices continuing to fall, it's not crazy to think Republicans could find some footing. The national average fell below four dollars, according to AAA. A month ago it was around $4.50. We are looking at a collapsing gas price. We have been told throughout the history of commodities that gas shoots up like a rocket and falls like a feather. We are seeing it fall pretty quickly. If the price of a barrel returns to the levels we saw before the war, now that the memorandum of understanding has been signed and there is free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, you're going to see lower gas prices. That's usually what people rely on, and it's also the hedge against inflation.Cheap gas had always been the Trump administration's hedge against tariff inflation. The argument was that while you might pay more on imports, gas would remain extraordinarily low. Obviously that promise was broken with the Iran war. Now it seems that we are at least in some phase of calm and negotiation, a controversial one. My point of view on any American activity in the Middle East—some may even say adventure in the Middle East—is that it almost always ends with America having to tell Israel no. Israel is usually very excited about having us in the region because, in general, we agree with Israel on most everything that happens in the Middle East. But they will always want us to do more, and eventually we usually have to tell them we are not going to do everything they want. That is just the way I understand the region.Is this memorandum of understanding wise? I read the text that was released yesterday. It's a pretty big give to allow Iran to sell oil. It's going to help the gas price, but it is a pretty big give. The carrots we are offering are big and juicy, but they are not promised up front. Everything is contingent on what happens from here. For Republicans, the best-case scenario is relative economic calm and Donald Trump being seen as a game-changing president that people might not always agree with but who is moving things forward. If we're talking about jobs numbers and things that are forward-facing, Republicans are probably winning the argument. If we're talking about side issues and distractions, Democrats are winning the argument. I still think it's going to be very, very, very hard for Republicans to keep the House. But again, this is a very polarized country, and the biggest thing Republicans need is a reason to get their people excited.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:57 - Republicans and the House00:12:19 - Obama00:15:51 - Thomas Kean Jr.00:19:36 - Iran00:24:43 - Kirk Bado on Primaries01:11:10 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the signals investors will be seeking from the new Fed Chair leading his first monetary policy meeting and possible implications for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So, what are your thoughts before the press conference? Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast? Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond? Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and we'll do what's necessary.' And second, I think as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is; past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference – the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue – as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design. The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give. And then we'll see what fills that vacuum. What narrative fills that vacuum? And is he okay with that? So, it may be that there's a new sheriff in town, and he chooses that there's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so, I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time. Matthew Hornbach: During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it? Michael Gapen: Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all, and then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off-press conference meetings [be]cause they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So, they migrated to eight meetings. So, I think it's kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight. Or there's longer gaps for other narratives to come in. Like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed, and is that replaced by forward guidance from the Treasury, for example? How do markets weigh those signals? And but then also I would say would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair, for example… Let's assume that at some point in the future, the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts, when it comes to that. But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, ‘Hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view.' Would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So, does it reduce their opportunity set? Matthew Hornbach: I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to – investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market. But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself? Or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications? Michael Gapen: I think the right thing to do… Again, our job is to say what we think he will do – not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do. I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does. [Be]ause as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So, I do think it would make sense to, kind of, work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can. And, here, what I would hope where they, kind of, ultimately land is – Warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the SEPs – the Summary of Economic Projections – to provide a forecast. But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function. That if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation, and unemplyment, then expect our policy path to look different. So, is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are in the context of Chair Warsh coming in having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy – both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy? What are the purview of the committee itself? Michael Gapen: Yeah. The two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policy, is both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So, to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets – all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the board can make certain decisions. Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case, communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of '08, '09. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through, through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So, the chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicates, how often it communicates. But the policy decisions are from the FOMC. Matthew Hornbach: I'm often asked about this idea that less communication may end up affecting the bond market in certain ways. And typically, the concern amongst investors is that with less communication from the Fed – whether it be the chair or whether it be from the committee as a whole through the Summary of Economic Projections and its interest rate dot plot – there's concern amongst investors that removing that type of guidance would raise bond yields, essentially through the term premium component of the term structure. And the way that we think about it is probably in this environment where interest rates have already been inching higher, and investors are concerned about the hiking cycle that may eventuate, it probably would raise term premia initially. But from a more medium-term perspective, the way I think about it is that, you know, term premia can be positive, it can also be negative. And if we have less forward guidance, I would generally expect that term premium component to be more volatile than it has been in the past. Not necessarily just in the upward direction. But it could also be in the downward direction if the macro environment ends up changing in some way. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I could see in the current context, the inflation surprises have been to the upside, so less communication may mean more term premium. But we went through almost a decade after '08, '09, where most of those surprises were to the downside. So, you can imagine that it could be a symmetric story rather than an asymmetric one. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. Well, thanks Mike. That's very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to talk ahead of this upcoming FOMC meeting. I'm looking forward to our next discussion around the following FOMC meeting. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.