Podcasts about ICR

Maybe medicine will end cancer. Maybe. But the medical institution has spent more than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars trying without meaningful success. We have to try a new paradigm. Which is what Dr Beth du Pree is doing. She cut out cancer in her patients for 35 years, now she believes the solution is to stop cancer before it even manifests by healing our bodies mind, body, electric and soul.Beth DuPree, MD, is a trailblazing surgeon, integrative medicine physician, and healer who has spent more than 35 years at the forefront of breast cancer care, cancer survivorship and healthcare leadership. She is an author, nationally sought-after keynote speaker, and founder of The Healing Consciousness Foundation. Dr. DuPree is medical advisor to breakthrough electroceutical technology companies and is certified in psychedelic-assisted therapy. She is shaping the future of medicine and healing with her belief that bioelectric medicine and plant medicine will transform how we understand, deliver, and experience healing.Contact Website: https://drbethdupree.comJoin us as we explore:From 35 years as a surgeon to practicing and advocating the need for integrative, psychedelic and bioelectrical medicine if we have any chance of actually beating cancer. A cancer prevention masterclass, and why the first line of defense is education not medication.ACEs scores and the 200% increased chance of developing cancer.Bioelectric medicine, ICR, bioelectric medical tools like SignalPatch, vagus nerve treatment, HRV and how the body knows how to heal when in the right frequency.Preventing toxins coming in and the best ways to excrete them out. Bone density scores, strength training and the fear-mongering around HRT based on one very flawed study.MentionsProduct - mindvybe, https://mindvybe.com Product - SignalRelief, https://signalrelief.com Get 20% OFF with discount code THRIVEDocumentary - The HealthCare Cure, https://thehealthcarecure.comProduct - ICR, https://www.seqex.it/enProduct - ICR, https://lifelift.live/Support the showFollow Steve's socials: Instagram | LinkedIn | YouTube | Facebook | Twitter | TikTokSupport the show on Patreon:As much as we love doing it, there are costs involved and any contribution will allow us to keep going and keep finding the best guests in the world to share their health expertise with you. I'd be grateful and feel so blessed by your support: https://www.patreon.com/MadeToThriveShowSend me a WhatsApp to +27 64 871 0308. Disclaimer: Please see the link for our disclaimer policy for all of our content: https://madetothrive.co.za/terms-and-conditions-and-privacy-policy/

Today, we're revisiting a conversation from this years ICR conference, where we sat down with Mark Goldston, a respected turnaround executive, and the Executive Chairman of The Beachbody Company. Summary: When a once-successful business falls on hard times, it can sometimes be hard for them to diagnose and fix the problem from within. Today's guest has built a career out of helping these businesses turn things around, and he's doing it again with one of America's premiere fitness brands.Mark Goldston is the Executive Chairman of The Beachbody Company, which trades under the symbol BODI. Mark is one of the world's most respected turnaround executives, and has spent his career reviving some of the best known brands in the world, including Revlon, Reebok, and LA Gear to name a few. He is also a prolific inventor with 135 US and foreign patents to his name. Today, Mark walks us through the history of The Beachbody Company, the issues he identified within the business, and how he and his team are working to right the ship.  Highlights:Mark's Career (1:40)Symptoms of a struggling business (6:34)The Beachbody Company turnaround (10:12)Navigating a difficult retail environment (17:16)Brand Awareness (21:58)How GLP-1's are impacting the business (26:46)What are investors missing about Beachbody? (29:50) Links:Mark Goldston LinkedInThe Beachbody Company LinkedInThe Beachbody Company WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Netflix has released a new “documentary” series called The Dinosaurs… Today Trey sits down with Dr. Tim Clary — PhD geologist and director of research at ICR with over 40 years in the field — to expose what the four-part documentary gets wrong, what it deliberately ignores, and what the actual fossil record shows, before revealing why the biblical account of creation and Noah's Flood offers a far more consistent and compelling explanation for what we actually find in the ground. Resource by Dr. Tim Clarey: https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-399.pdf Submit your question to our scientists: https://forms.gle/hAY8RNGHCPee4ZRU8 --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on P... More...

As we work on some new episodes for you, please enjoy this past interview with Alex Faherty, CEO and Co-founder of the awesome family-owned clothing company, Faherty Brand.Summary: Alex and Mike Faherty built a clothing brand inspired by their origins as surfer kids on the Jersey shore, and their later years living in Manhattan. And even as the company has grown, they've always tried to stay true to that original vision, and the values that have made them a beloved brand for so many. Alex Faherty is the co-founder and CEO of Faherty Brand, a family-owned lifestyle apparel company. Since its founding in 2013, he and his twin-brother have built a nine-figure omnichannel business, with nearly 80 stores, a large e-commerce presence, and a robust wholesale business with partners like Nordstrom, Bloomingdale's, and numerous specialty stores across the country. Alex joins us to discuss the origins of Faherty, their plans for international expansion, and how they plan on growing while remaining authentic to who they are. Highlights:Faherty origins (1:46)Alex's PE Background (5:06)What is Faherty Brand? (7:21)Faherty Customers (8:51)Fashion Innovation (10:16)Embracing Wholesale (12:06)Faherty's Retail Strategy (14:01)Authenticity (16:35)Sustainability (18:34)Technology and AI (20:49)New Product Offerings (22:23)Competitive Landscape (24:58)10-year Vision for Faherty (26:34)Links:Alex Faherty LinkedInFaherty Brand LinkedInFaherty Brand WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

În studioul RFI, Liviu Jicman, președinte ICR între 15 noiembrie 2021 și 15 mai 2026 ne vorbește despre provocările mandatului său.

Super Group runs gaming and betting operations on every continent, but where they really dominate is in Africa, where they have worked very hard to understand — and cater to — regional differences in consumer preference.Our guest today is Kirsty Ross, Chief Operating Officer of Super Group, which trades under the symbol SGHC. As COO, Kirsty is responsible for global operations, organizational effectiveness, and scalable growth.Kirsty joins us today to discuss Super Group's ongoing expansion in Africa, their strategy for utilizing AI, and how the upcoming World Cup will drive further brand engagement. Highlights:What is Super Group? (2:07)Kirsty's evolving role (2:53)The African Market (4:44)Super Group's main brands (6:41)Using tech to service local markets (8:20)Plans to expand in Africa (9:35)The World Cup (11:31)Capitalizing on Brand Partnerships (13:41)Approach to Capital Allocation (15:32)Turning Strategy into Action (16:25)AI Deployment Strategy (18:21)Building Company Culture (20:25)5-year Outlook for Super Group (21:52) Links:Kirsty Ross LinkedInSuper Group LinkedInSuper Group WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

Science matters. Genesis matters. GenZs have been marked as the most anxious depressed, suicide-ideation-prone, atheistic generation in the history of the nation. The vast majority, almost 50 million, are taught in secular schools where the truth and beauty of God's word has been stripped from the foundations of education. It wasn't always this way. A destructive seed was planted 60 years ago that has taken root in American soil. Children are now taught a false "science" that ignores the overtly verifiable facts of Creationism, the truth of scripture. As a result, they are hopeless, adrift without an anchor. Join Dr. Lisa Dunne as she interviews one of CVCU's favorite scientists, Paleobiochemist Dr. Brian Thomas, and gain some practical resources to help those in your realm of influence see the truth, purpose, and hope embedded in God's design. Learn more at ICR.org! K to 12 Rescue Mission: https://www.academicrescuemission.com  Christian Community College: https://www.veritascc.usCVCU degree programs: https://www.cvcu.usBook Dr. Lisa to speak: https://www.DrLisaDunne.com@DrLisaDunne

As we work on some new episodes for you, we'll be re-running some old favorites from the archive. Please enjoy this episode from back in February with Will Ulrich, the co-CEO of Presidio Petroleum. Summary:For most companies in the oil industry, drilling new wells is a major part of their business strategy. Today, we're highlighting a firm that's taking a very different tack. Will Ulrich has served as co-CEO of Presidio Petroleum alongside his partner Chris Hammack, since founding the company in 2017. Presidio's mission is to generate the oil industry's best return on capital by delivering the industry's lowest operating expenses, highest profitability and best emissions profile — all without doing any drilling. Today, Will shares Presidio's unique approach to value creation, their upcoming plan to go public via business combination, and the reasons why they're optimistic for the future. Highlights:Founding Presidio (1:57)Going Public (4:45)The end of the 'Capital Intensive Shale Era' (7:06)Institutional Backing (8:58)Dividend (10:46)Private Equity (13:58)Reducing Operating Costs (17:21)Field Incentive Plan (20:55)Stable Well Production (22:30)Hedging (23:42)CapEx (25:43)Acquisition Strategy (27:23)5-year Outlook (29:17)Links: Will Ulrich LinkedInPresidio LinkedInPresidio WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Brett’s back with our weekly conversation with Patrick Coolican, editor-in-chief of the Minnesota Reformer. Today they talk about another Minnesotan with no criminal record still being held by ICR despite medical issues; Amy Klobuchar pivoting from Tim Walz and uncivil posts by our members of Congress (hint: one in particular is a big offender). Read… The post Brett Johnson with Patrick Coolican (5/5/26) first appeared on AM 950.

Brett’s back with our weekly conversation with Patrick Coolican, editor-in-chief of the Minnesota Reformer. Today they talk about another Minnesotan with no criminal record still being held by ICR despite medical issues; Amy Klobuchar pivoting from Tim Walz and uncivil posts by our members of Congress (hint: one in particular is a big offender). Read… The post Brett Johnson with Patrick Coolican (5/5/26) first appeared on AM 950.

En nuestro episodio 510 conversamos con Monica Jimenez, miembro de varias juntas directivas y Principal Latin America de ICR sobre: + Dar un nuevo significado a la crisis. + El gobierno corporativo. + Cómo tomar mejores decisiones. + Encontrar la libertad profesional. + Conversaciones de talento en juntas directivas. + Los incentivos en la empresas y gobierno corporativo. + La importancia de incomodarse para crecer. _________________________________________________________________________

For all the recent negative news surrounding renewable energy in the US, the reality is that in 2025, around 80% of the new power generation that came online globally was renewable. But to encourage global players to participate in that market for renewables, you need a rigorous system of verification, and a stable modern marketplace. That's where today's company comes in.John Melby is the CEO of Xpansiv, the world's largest registry platform for renewable energy and carbon. John is an accomplished leader in energy and environmental markets, with over two decades of experience driving innovation in renewable carbon, natural gas, and power markets. John joins us for an in-depth discussion on the current state of power generation, and how Xpansiv's platform is facilitating the growth of renewables. Highlights:John's experience with energy markets (2:24)The opportunity for Xpansiv (3:44)Xpansiv's slate of services (5:05)Shifting energy consumption (6:22)Importance of registry infrastructure (9:05)Xpansiv's power business (11:39)Partnership with Constellation (13:56)Asia's role in the energy transition (15:25)Xpansiv's acquisition strategy (18:06)The evolving role of AI (20:48)Outlook for Renewables in the US (22:45)What's success for Xpansiv? (28:06)Links:John Melby LinkedInXpansiv LinkedInXpansiv WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

AABP Executive Director Dr. Fred Gingrich is joined by Monika McConkey who is a counselor in Minnesota providing mental health services with a focus on rural agricultural communities. McConkey grew up on a 5th generation farm in Minnesota. This podcast was developed by the AABP Mental Health and Well-Being Committee. If you are interested in the work of this committee, please consider joining to provide resources on this topic to AABP members. Find the committee page at this link.  McConkey discusses some of the unique challenges with mental health services in rural communities including access to care, access to a virtual mental health counselor, financial barriers, and the barrier of the stigma especially in small rural areas where anonymity is lacking. The AABP Mental Health and Well-Being Committee strives to remove the stigma associated with mental health by bringing the conversation to the forefront and providing resources to our members. The ICR Change Ruler comes out of motivational interviewing techniques as a behavioral health tool to help clients make change happen and identify why change is not happening. ICR stands for importance, confidence and readiness. McConkey discusses how veterinarians can use this tool to help clients accept change based on veterinarian recommendations. McConkey reviews some of the reasons change is difficult for many people and how we can help them accept change.  McConkey reviews some questions that veterinarians can ask clients to help them through a change. This can include asking them what they are looking forward to, how they think change could work for them and what do they need to do to make change happen. Asking questions that target the disadvantages of not changing and maintaining the status quo is another method to encourage change based on your recommendations. McConkey also recommends prioritizing a list of stages and steps vs. overwhelming clients with many suggestions can result in small positive changes steps to help clients achieve a goal. We close the podcast with a discussion about how veterinarians can apply the ICR Change Ruler to take steps to apply change to our own life. Identifying the change needed, understanding its importance, being confident you can be successful with change and being ready for the change can have a positive impact on our own mental and physical health. 

As we continue working on some new episodes for you, enjoy this look back at our episode from September with John O'Donnell, the visionary founder behind the clothing brand, Johnnie-O. Summary: When John O'Donnell founded Johnnie-O in 2005, his goal was to create a brand that combined East Coast prep with West Coast surf culture. 20 years later, you'll find their surfer logo in golf pro-shops and menswear stores across the country.Today, John joins us to share his incredible journey from being a walk-on on the UCLA golf team to founding one of America's most iconic golf brands.We get into the origins of Johnnie-O, discuss the source of their customer loyalty, and talk about their impressive growth over the last two decades.Highlights:The opportunity John saw in 2005 (2:05)John's midwest roots (4:46)UCLA Golf team (5:50)Johnnie-O's differentiation (6:45)The origins of Johnnie-O (8:17)Distribution (9:28)Inflection point for the brand (10:28)Marketing evolution (11:37)Scale of growth (13:57)Breaking into women's wear (16:30)Avenues for growth (17:35)Tariffs (18:30)Outlook for Johnnie-O (20:27)Competitive Landscape (22:15)Lessons learned (23:13) Links:Johnnie-O LinkedInJohnnie-O WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

When were dinosaurs created according to Genesis?Were dinosaurs reptiles, birds, or something else?What really caused dinosaur extinction?Support this show!! : https://www.bibspeak.com/#donateGrab your free gift: the top 10 most misunderstood Biblical verses: https://info.bibspeak.com/10-verses-clarifiedJoin the newsletter (I only send 2 emails a week): https://www.bibspeak.com/#newsletterShop Dwell L'abel 15% off using the discount code BIBSPEAK15 https://go.dwell-label.com/bibspeakDownload Logos Bible Software for your own personal study: http://logos.com/biblicallyspeakingSign up for Riverside: https://www.riverside.fm/?utm_campaig...Use Manychat to automate a quick DM! It's great for sending links fast.https://manychat.partnerlinks.io/nd14879vojabStan.Store—way better than Linktree! It lets me share links, grow my email list, and host all my podcast stuff in one place.https://join.stan.store/biblicallyspeakingSupport this show!! : https://www.bibspeak.com/#donate Dr. Tim Clarey received a master of science in geology in 1984 from the University of Wyoming and a master of science in hydrogeology in 1993 from Western Michigan University. His Ph.D. in geology was received in 1996 from Western Michigan University. From 1984 to 1992, Dr. Clarey worked as an exploration geologist at Chevron USA, Inc., developing oil drilling prospects and analyzing assets and lease purchases. He was full professor and geosciences chair at Delta College in Michigan for 17 years before leaving in 2013 to join the science staff at the Institute for Creation Research, having earlier conducted research with ICR in its FAST program. He has published many papers on various aspects of the Rocky Mountains and has authored two college laboratory books. He and his wife, Reneé, are coauthors of the children's books Big Plans for Henry, Henry Explores the New World, and Henry and the Ice Age.Recommended reading from Dr. Tim Clarey:

As we take a brief hiatus from releasing new episodes, we wanted to revisit Tom's conversation with WellWithAll CEO and Co-Founder, Demond Martin, from back in December. Demond has an incredible story, and he's built a powerhouse of a company while going to great lengths to lift up his community. Enjoy!    Show Notes: In this country, health outcomes are too often dictated by your ZIP code, but one company is working very hard to fix those inequities.Demond Martin, is the CEO and co-founder of WellWithAll, a health and wellness company dedicated to advancing health equity for underserved communities. Operating under ‘inclusive capitalism', WellWithAll reinvests 20% of its profits into health initiatives tailored to specific community needs, tackling health disparities, and ensuring a targeted approach to wellness.Before WellWithAll, Demond was a senior partner at Adage Capital Management, where he invested in the consumer sector for 21 years. Earlier in his career, he served in the Clinton administration, and he has served on numerous nonprofit boards, including the Berkeley College of Music, The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Obama Foundation. Today, we get into what WellWithAll does, how they're giving back to the community, and Demond's journey from a trailer in North Carolina to CEO of this incredible company.Highlights:Demond's background (2:21)Stories from the White House (3:50)Working at a hedge fund (5:58)Lessons about investing (8:32)The origins of WellWithAll (11:42)Health inequities (13:54)How WellWithAll has evolved (15:08)Getting in with large retailers (17:08)Sources of funding (18:57)The Obama Foundation (20:19)A career in politics? (21:00)Demond's mentors (22:14)27th ICR Conference (24:04))Links:Demond Martin LinkedInWellWithAll LinkedInWellWithAll WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

AI coverage tends to skew pretty negative, with things like energy consumption and job losses dominating the headlines. Today, we're re-running an episode that spotlights the hopeful side of AI, and how one company is using it to help the millions of people around the world who lack access to adequate medical care. Enjoy! Summary:In today's medical system, getting a proper diagnosis and course of treatment can take ages, with potentially disastrous consequences for your health. Today, we're spotlighting a company that's trying to change that paradigm, using the power of AI.  George Tomeski is the CEO of Helfie.ai, a company whose platform will allow you to assess a whole host of health conditions using only your smartphone. And they hope to bring that ability to billions of people around the world who have historically lacked access to proper medical care.   In this episode, we get into the fascinating origins of Helfie.ai, the company's groundbreaking tech, and George's thoughts on AI's evolving role in the healthcare sector.Highlights:George's professional journey (2:18)Origin of Helfie.ai (3:32)The people healthcare is leaving behind (5:45)How Helfie.ai works (7:28)Working with healthcare orgs (9:53)Next steps after disease identification (10:58)Choosing which diseases to tackle (13:15)Building the algorithm (14:19)Partnerships (17:35)Helfia.ai funding (18:33)The leadership team (19:41)Thoughts on the future of AI in healthcare (20:49)What's on the horizon for Helfie.ai (24:10)Links:George's LinkedInHelfie.ai LinkedInHelfie.ai WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

When it comes to defense tech, it's not enough to design the best weapons systems, you need to be able to actually build them. Today's company is investing in the infrastructure that will restore American arms manufacturing capabilities, and preserve our advantage in a world that's becoming more dangerous. Our guest today is Joe Musselman, Founder and Managing Partner of Bravo Victor Venture Capital, a US-based early seed and series-A venture capital fund. Joe is accountable for the firm's strategic vision and day-to-day mission, and leads all teams at the firm, including capital, investment, portfolio, and fund operations. Since 2019, Joe's invested in companies like Firestorm, Epsilon3, Havoc AI, and notable early breakouts like Anduril, and Figure AI. And importantly for our conversation today, he recently led investments into Union, a new energetics prime where he is Co-Founder and Chairman.Today, Joe discusses his fascinating journey as a founder, how BVVC is enabling national security start-ups to scale effectively, and why winning the AI race will be crucial for the future of our country. Highlights:Joe's journey (2:17)Why defense tech? (6:01)Fund in the field (8:26)Scaling national security startups (13:18)Union and the manufacturing advantage (19:01)The importance of AI (23:25)Why defense tech investments are crucial (27:29)Links:Joe Musselman LinkedInJoe Musselman LinkedInBVVC WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

The Approach Angle Nate Schwartz (@_nateschwartz) and Kyle Bland (@blandalytics) discuss the importance of WHIP and how it can be analyzed with Str-ICR to find underappreciated pitchers.  They talk about the basis of WHIP: first, why it's an important stat, and how it can be forgotten when analyzing a pitcher. Is it still important in today's analysis? Then, the discussion pivots to the most volatile part of WHIP, batted ball results. Ideal Contact Rate (ICR) groups all contact that's bad for a pitcher, and is an easier way to understand the quality of contact a pitcher is giving up. The two discuss the significance of finding the right batted balls to measure, and how ICR can be combined with Strike Rate as a proxy for estimating WHIP. This concept comes from an article Kyle wrote two years ago (https://pitcherlist.com/introducing-str-icr/). Finally, they mention players who stand out between their 2025 Str-ICR and 2026 projected WHIP. Players mentioned: Mick Abel, Jose Soriano, Cade Horton, Spencer Strider, George Kirby Join Our Discord & Support The Show: PL+ | PL Pro - Get 15% off Yearly with code PODCASTProud member of the Pitcher List Fantasy Baseball Podcast Network Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Running a hotel can mean processing all sorts of guest transactions, from check-in, to spa treatments, to a martini in the lobby bar. One company promises to consolidate all of those transactions — and all of that customer data — onto one single platform. Taylor Lauber is the CEO of Shift4 payments, which trades under the symbol FOUR. Taylor's been with the company since 2018 with prior roles including President and Chief Strategy Officer, he was also one of the company's first interns 25 years ago. Taylor joins us to discuss Shift4's incredible growth over the last few years, how they differentiate themselves in the crowded payments industry, and their strategy for generating new revenue streams organically or through M&A.Highlights:What is Shift4? (2:02)Shift4's Market Share (5:38)Brands within the brand (8:55)Taking over as CEO (10:26)Strategy for Organic Growth (11:49)M & A Strategy (13:58)Global Blue Acquisition (17:22)Stable Coin payment processing (20:18)Building cross-regional consistency (22:18)AI's evolving role in the business (23:47)Balancing growth and profitability (25:47)Exciting things ahead (27:41)Links:Taylor Lauber LinkedInShift4 LinkedInShift4 WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

 Heavy hitters like Larry Fink and Paul Atkins have said that tokenization is the future, but acquiring and managing tokenized assets can be a tall order for the average retail investor. Today's company is working to change that, with a unique strategy that provides value far beyond market exposure. Marco Santori is the Chief Executive Officer of Solmate, which trades under the symbol SLMT. Solmate is an institutional infrastructure company accelerating Solana's growth, and giving investors exposure to Solana's native token, SOL. Marco is a treasury company pioneer, launching the very first Altcoin treasury on Nasdaq, and he was a partner at Pantera Capital where he helped to structure some of the industry's best performing treasuries. Marco was also the Chief Legal Officer at Kraken, one of the world's largest digital asset exchanges, served as the President of Blockchain.com, and he was a partner at the law firm Cooley, where he led the firm's global fintech team. Today, Marco joins us to explain how Solmate's infrastructure flywheel creates value, what makes Solana unique among blockchains, and how the emergence of digitized capital markets will impact the world of finance.Highlights:Blockchain basics (2:22)What is Solana? (4:27)What sets Solmate apart (7:28)Infrastructure flywheel (11:08)Digital capital markets (13:31)Why the UAE? (15:42)Institutional readiness and blockchains (19:30)How will blockchains change finance? (21:17)Innovations in the works (24:53)Solmate's investment thesis (27:19) Links: Marco LinkedInSolmate LinkedInSolmate WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

Join Andrew's FREE Investing for Beginner's Masterclass. Click the Link Here  

The African American community has long been an under-appreciated and underserved segment in retail. One clothing retailer is tailoring their offerings to meet their specific needs, which has led to incredible brand loyalty, and huge profits.Ken Seipel has served as Citi Trends CEO since November of 2024, and became the chairman of the Board of directors in April of 2025. Ken has extensive retail leadership experience, including serving as the CEO of West Marine from 2019 to 2021, and CEO of Gabriel Brothers from 2013 to 2017.Ken joins us to talk about his storied career in retail, how Citi Trends is leveraging AI to make smarter decisions, and why he feels so confident in their future growth.Highlights:Ken's retail journey (2:05)Turnaround experience (3:53)The Scale of Citi Trends (5:03)Off-price retail (6:35)Serving the African American community (7:21)Three-Tiered Product Strategy (10:08)The Citi Trends Turnaround (12:38)Leveraging AI (14:29)What's driving their recent success? (16:21)Gross Margin Expansion (19:35)Expansion Strategy (21:44)Focus for 2026 (24:46) Links:Ken Seipel LinkedInCiti Trends LinkedInCiti Trends WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

If income-driven repayment flexibility matters to you, don't wait until summer 2026. Any federal loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2026, lose access to IBR, ICR, and PAYE. Because consolidation can take months to process, treat April 1, 2026 as your planning deadline. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is changing with income-driven repayment? The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed July 4, 2025, restructures federal student loan repayment starting July 1, 2026. Loans disbursed on or after that date are limited to a new Standard Repayment Plan or the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). Legacy plans — IBR, ICR, and PAYE — will not be available for those loans. Are IBR, ICR, and PAYE going away entirely? Not immediately. Borrowers with loans disbursed before July 1, 2026, who take on no new loans after that date, can still enroll in or remain on IBR, ICR, or PAYE. That said, per NASFAA's bill analysis, borrowers on ICR or PAYE must move to IBR, a standard plan, or RAP by July 1, 2028 — otherwise they are automatically placed in RAP. IBR remains available for existing borrowers on an ongoing basis. Why does consolidation matter? Borrowers with FFEL loans, Perkins loans, or mixed federal portfolios often must consolidate into a Direct Consolidation Loan to access income-driven repayment at all. Under the OBBBA, that loan must be disbursed — not just applied for — by June 30, 2026. A consolidation disbursed on or after July 1, 2026 loses access to IBR, ICR, and PAYE, even for borrowers previously enrolled in those plans. Parent PLUS borrowers have an additional requirement: a consolidation loan used to pay off a Parent PLUS loan must enter repayment under ICR before July 1, 2026 to preserve later IBR eligibility. Why April 1? April 1 is not in the law — it's a practical safety deadline. Federal Student Aid encourages borrowers who need to consolidate to apply at least three months before July 1, 2026 to ensure disbursement clears by June 30. Three months back from July 1 is April 1. What counts as "disbursed"? Disbursement means the consolidation loan has been fully processed, the underlying loans paid off, and a new Direct Consolidation Loan officially issued. Submitting an application or receiving approval does not count if the actual disbursement occurs on or after July 1, 2026. Should everyone consolidate before April 1? No — consolidation is not automatically the right move. Consider the impact on interest capitalization, existing borrower benefits, and forgiveness timelines before acting. The goal isn't "everyone consolidate." It's everyone check. Log in to StudentAid.gov, review your loan types, and determine whether action is needed before the window closes. REFERENCES NASFAA (2026, January). Federal student aid changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/Federal_Student_Aid_Change_OB3.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid. Big updates: Changes to federal student loan repayment. https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/big-updates U.S. Congress (2025). H.R. 1 — One Big Beautiful Bill Act (119th Congress). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

For most companies in the oil industry, drilling new wells is a major part of their business strategy. Today, we're highlighting a firm that's taking a very different tack. Will Ulrich has served as co-CEO of Presidio Petroleum alongside his partner Chris Hammack, since founding the company in 2017. Presidio's mission is to generate the oil industry's best return on capital by delivering the industry's lowest operating expenses, highest profitability and best emissions profile — all without doing any drilling. Today, Will shares Presidio's unique approach to value creation, their upcoming plan to go public via business combination, and the reasons why they're optimistic for the future. Highlights:Founding Presidio (1:57)Going Public (4:45)The end of the 'Capital Intensive Shale Era' (7:06)Institutional Backing (8:58)Dividend (10:46)Private Equity (13:58)Reducing Operating Costs (17:21)Field Incentive Plan (20:55)Stable Well Production (22:30)Hedging (23:42)CapEx (25:43)Acquisition Strategy (27:23)5-year Outlook (29:17)Links: Will Ulrich LinkedInPresidio LinkedInPresidio WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

For thousands of years, people in Eastern Europe have been drinking Kefir, a fermented dairy drink. Now, people around the world are waking up to its incredible health benefits, and for one US company, that presents a tremendous opportunity.Julie Smolyansky is the CEO of Lifeway Foods. When she took over Lifeway in 2002 at just 27 years old, she became the youngest female CEO of a publicly traded company. Since then, Julie has propelled the business forward with innovative product development and marketing, bringing Kefir into the US mainstream.Today, Julie joins us to recount the history of the company since it was founded by her father, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, back in 1986, and discusses the different market forces working in tandem to drive their recent success.Highlights:History of Kefir (2:19)History of Lifeway (6:52)Behind Lifeway's recent success (9:44)Approach to Social Media and Marketing (13:43)GLP-1s (15:23)International Distribution (16:41)Goals for 2026 (20:19)The Lifeway Team (21:35)Brand Authenticity (23:02)What investors miss about Lifeway (24:37)Links:Julie Smolyansky LinkedInLifeway LinkedInLifeway WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

When a once-successful business falls on hard times, it can sometimes be hard for them to diagnose and fix the problem from within. Today's guest has built a career out of helping these businesses turn things around, and he's doing it again with one of America's premiere fitness brands.Mark Goldston is the Executive Chairman of The Beachbody Company, which trades under the symbol BODI. Mark is one of the world's most respected turnaround executives, and has spent his career reviving some of the best known brands in the world, including Revlon, Reebok, and LA Gear to name a few. He is also a prolific inventor with 135 US and foreign patents to his name. Today, Mark walks us through the history of The Beachbody Company, the issues he identified within the business, and how he and his team are working to right the ship.  Highlights:Mark's Career (1:40)Symptoms of a struggling business (6:34)The Beachbody Company turnaround (10:12)Navigating a difficult retail environment (17:16)Brand Awareness (21:58)How GLP-1's are impacting the business (26:46)What are investors missing about Beachbody? (29:50) Links:Mark Goldston LinkedInThe Beachbody Company LinkedInThe Beachbody Company WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

In this episode of the LSCRE Podcast, Craig McGrouther sits down with Sam Morris to answer one simple but critical question:What's in it for you as an investor?Whether you're new to passive multifamily investing or have invested across multiple sponsors, this episode breaks down exactly how LSCRE operates, why capital preservation comes first, and what separates disciplined operators from the rest of the market.We cover:Why zero losses and zero capital calls matterHow monthly distributions are paid from true free cash flowWhat “vertically integrated” actually means (and why it protects investors)How LSCRE underwrites deals using loaded ICR, not pro forma hypeWhy Texas (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix) remains a top marketHow appreciation, depreciation, and cash flow work together1031 exchange options and long-term investor strategiesWhy repeat investors are the ultimate performance metricWith over $800M under management, 5,600+ units, 200+ employees, and 400+ repeat investors, LSCRE focuses on one thing only:delivering strong risk-adjusted returns while protecting investor capital through every cycle.Learn more about LSCRE:www.lscre.com

After serving as CEO of ICR for nearly 30 years, Tom's role within the company is changing. Today, Tom sits down for a chat with his successor — the new CEO of ICR, Anton Nicholas.  After joining ICR in 2012, Anton eventually came to run ICR's consumer practice, and was subsequently tasked with managing the entire communications division. He has over 25 years of communications and advisory experience, having served in several senior positions at leading US and International public relations firms.  Anton joins us to discuss what sets ICR apart in the world of strategic communications, and how he aims to build on that legacy of excellence as he leads the company into the future.  Highlights:What sets ICR apart? (1:55)StratComs (5:18)Why ICR services are critical for management (6:34)ICR Capital (9:09) Services for Private Companies (12:04)Building Culture (14:48)Case Studies (16:47)Getting to know Anton (19:23)The benefit of ICR's network (20:35)ICR's 3-5 year outlook (23:34) Links:Anton Nicholas LinkedInICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Weight Watchers became one of the most trusted brands in weight-loss by emphasizing the importance of human connection. Now, medications like GLP-1's have completely changed the weight loss landscape, and Weight Watchers has adapted their platform and product offerings to meet the moment. Tara Comonte became the President and CEO of Weight Watchers in February of 2025 after serving as a director since June of 2023. Tara has over two decades of executive leadership experience across corporate and digital strategy, technology, operations, and finance. That includes serving as CEO of Tomorrow Life Sciences, CFO of Shake Shack, Chief Financial and Business Affairs Officer at Getty Images, and CFO of McCann World Group, the world's largest marketing communications business. Today, Tara takes us through a whirlwind year for Weight Watchers, and discusses her plans for reinvigorating the brand through innovation, while maintaining their emphasis on personal connections.Highlights:History of Weight Watchers (2:15)Brand Positioning (6:50)Pharmaceutical Company Collaborations (10:03)Rebranding Weight Watchers (11:38)Product Innovations (13:25)Brand Partnerships (15:39)Marketing Strategy (17:50)Weight Watchers' B2B Strategy (20:48)Using AI and Maintaining Human Connection (22:34)Outlook for 2026 (24:35)Links:Tara Comonte LinkedInWeight Watchers LinkedInWeight Watchers WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Alex and Mike Faherty built a clothing brand inspired by their origins as surfer kids on the Jersey shore, and their later years living in Manhattan. And even as the company has grown, they've always tried to stay true to that original vision, and the values that have made them a beloved brand for so many. Alex Faherty is the co-founder and CEO of Faherty Brand, a family-owned lifestyle apparel company. Since its founding in 2013, he and his twin-brother have built a nine-figure omnichannel business, with nearly 80 stores, a large e-commerce presence, and a robust wholesale business with partners like Nordstrom, Bloomingdale's, and numerous specialty stores across the country. Alex joins us to discuss the origins of Faherty, their plans for international expansion, and how they plan on growing while remaining authentic to who they are. Highlights:Faherty origins (1:46)Alex's PE Background (5:06)What is Faherty Brand? (7:21)Faherty Customers (8:51)Fashion Innovation (10:16)Embracing Wholesale (12:06)Faherty's Retail Strategy (14:01)Authenticity (16:35)Sustainability (18:34)Technology and AI (20:49)New Product Offerings (22:23)Competitive Landscape (24:58)10-year Vision for Faherty (26:34)Links:Alex Faherty LinkedInFaherty Brand LinkedInFaherty Brand WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

On this week's Extra Serving, NRN editor in chief Sam Oches and executive editor Alicia Kelso discuss the latest restaurant industry news, including expert predictions for 2026, Chipotle's negative year, and the ongoing value wars. First up is 2026 predictions, specifically as it relates to the economy; Sam and Alicia both traveled to Florida last week for separate conferences where they heard more about 2026 expectations. The short version? It doesn't look great — but maybe it won't get worse? They break down the economic factors impacting restaurants and how operators can protect their businesses from yet another down year. Next up are Alicia's insights from the ICR event in Orlando, where she spoke with two brands who were looking to buck the trend in 2026: Jersey Mike's and TGI Friday's. She shares exclusive thoughts from her conversations and how exactly these two brands — which have been on different trajectories the past few years — plan to grow. Then Sam and Alicia discuss Chipotle, which announced that it expected 2025 to be its first-ever negative sales year on record. Could CEO Scott Boatwright be on the hot seat? The sudden departure of chief brand officer Chris Brandt suggests the company is ready to shake things up to get back to growth. Sam and Alicia explore what this could mean for Chipotle. Finally, in the extra serving portion of the episode, senior food and beverage editor Bret Thorn joins to discuss recent value offerings from around the restaurant industry, including major evolution at Taco Bell and Wendy's. He then shares a conversation he recently had with Chickie's & Pete's head chef Brendan Mullan. For more on these stories: Navigating lingering uncertainty: Insights from the ICR ConferenceChipotle faces first same-store sales decline in over 20 yearsTaco Bell launches $3 Luxe Value Menu

Everyone is clamouring to integrate AI into their businesses and personal lives, but our guest today is concerned that some AI companies aren't taking the necessary steps to protect personal data. Thankfully a privacy-centric option does exist, through Telegram, and today's company is helping to build it.Brittany Kaiser is the CEO of AlphaTON Capital (ATON), the world's leading technology public company scaling the Telegram super-app, with an addressable market of a billion plus monthly active users. Brittany is a globally recognized expert at the intersection of digital assets, public policy, and the capital markets. She's spent her career guiding companies and governments through technological and legislative changes. Brittany joins us today to walk us through her incredible career, demystify the Telegram ecosystem, and explain AlphaTON's myriad strategies for value creation.  Highlights:Brittany's career (2:26)The Telegram Ecosystem (4:23)What is TON? (9:21)AlphaTON's Growth Strategy (13:44)A Treasury and More (19:38)Brittany's Approach to Risk Management (20:38)Evolution of Privacy Centric AI (23:40)The AlphaTON Management Team (27:56)Links:Brittany's LinkedInAlphaTON LinkedInAlphaTON WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

This week's episode of The PR Week podcast features 2026 predictions from our editorial team: Editorial director Steve Barrett, news editor Diana Bradley, associate news editor Jess Ruderman and reporter Julia Walker. They talk about what's in-store for the year ahead in relation to consumer marketing trends, agency dynamics and the impact of AI.PRWeek executive editor Frank Washkuch also joins the podcast remotely from CES in Las Vegas. He shares his insights and snippets of conversations he had with PR pros on the ground at the event, such as Jennifer Hartmann, John Deere's global director of corporate reputation and brand marketing; Sona Iliffe-Moon, Yahoo's chief communications officer; and Joseph Gallo, PayPal's director of communications and head of communications for crypto and PayPal Ads.The team also discusses the biggest industry news of the week, including Allison Worldwide hiring Wendy Lund as global CEO; ICR appointing Anton Nicholas as CEO; Chris Chiames' retirement from his role as Carnival Cruise Line's chief communications officer; Universal Music Group naming James Steven as EVP and chief communications officer; and WPP launching Agent Hub on its AI marketing platform WPP Open.  PRWeek.comTheme music provided by TRIPLE SCOOP MUSICJaymes - First One Follow us: @PRWeekUSReceive the latest industry news, insights, and special reports. Start Your Free 1-Month Trial Subscription To PRWeek Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Anyone working in the food service industry knows the importance of operating efficiently, providing a quality product, and always prioritizing customer experience. Today's company, with its impressive roster of brands, has solutions to help with all of that.Tim Fitzgerald is the CEO of the Middleby Corporation, which trades on NASDAQ under the symbol MIDD. Middleby is a worldwide manufacturer of solutions for the commercial kitchen, as well as residential, indoor, and outdoor appliances, and systems for industrial processing, packaging, and baking.Tim was named CEO in 2019. Before that, he served as Chief financial Officer, a position he held since 2003. Since joining Middleby over 25 years ago, Tim has been heavily involved in company-wide strategic decisions and has led acquisition and business development activities, which has led to their portfolio of roughly 120 brands.Today, Tim walks us through the impressive breadth of Middleby's offerings, their strategy for long-term value creation, and their ongoing commitment to innovation. Highlights:Middleby's Evolution (2:15)Spinning off Food processing (6:02)Share Buybacks (10:09)The Middleby Advantage (12:12)Commitment to Innovation (14:01)Sustainability in Kitchens (16:52)Middleby's go-to-market strategy (19:04)Food Service Trends (21:29)Opportunities on the Horizon (23:39)Links:Tim FitzGerald LinkedInMiddleby LinkedInMiddleby WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Financial Clarity for Doctors tackles some student loan updates with hosts Rachelle Vanderzanden and Corey Janoff.  On December 10th, the Department of Education proposed a settlement in the case challenging the SAVE plan and agreeing to dismantle the payment plan (pending court approval, so maybe not officially dead).  What does that mean for the seven million borrowers still enrolled in the plan?  Next steps for SAVE plan participants:  Most folks will likely need to apply to move into a new income-driven payment plan or move into a Standard repayment plan.  This means recertifying income and enrolling in one of the remaining plans.  Currently, those options are IBR, ICR, or PAYE with the new RAP plan being rolled out this coming summer.  If the goal is to work toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), you will likely want to enroll in the plan that equals the lowest payment.  When you reach 120 months of qualifying employment, you can look into the “Buyback” program to see if you can make payments from your time in forbearance.  If the goal is not PSLF, you can explore lots of options, payment plans, and even refinancing.  Although move slowly with refinancing!  Moving to a private bank has some downsides.  As with everything, your student loan approach should be determined based on your goals and needs.  Any strategy (including loan repayment) depends on the specifics of your situation.  If needed, consult with a professional to try to find the best strategy for your loans.  They were an investment in your future!   But we don't want them hanging over your head forever.  For more financial planning tips from Corey and Rachelle, find them on social media!  LinkedIn: @CoreyJanoff and @RachelleVanderzanden; Instagram: @CoreyJanoff and @VanderzandenRachelle; and Twitter: @CoreyJanoffCFP and @RachelleFinance     Discussions in this show should not be construed as specific recommendations or investment advice. Always consult with your investment professional before making important investment decisions. Securities offered through Registered Representatives of Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., a broker-dealer, member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser. Finity Group, LLC and Cambridge are not affiliated. Cambridge does not offer tax or legal advice. 

As 2025 comes to a close, Tom provides a recap of the biggest stories in business from the past year, talks about the value ICR continues to provide for clients, and looks ahead to what 2026 may have in store. Happy new year! 

Space is full of some of the strangest and most breath-taking objects in existence. Among them, black holes sit right at the top of the list. They're so powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape their pull. They push the limits of physics and challenge how mainstream scientists think the universe formed. Day 4 Creation Astronomy Class at ICR: https://www.icr.org/event/2550/ Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Climate Change Part 1: https://www.icr.org/article/11802 Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Climate Change Part 2: https://www.icr.org/article/11854 --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon

For those who might be newer to the space, Digital Asset Treasuries, or 'DATs' for short, can be a good way to start investing in crypto. Not all of these treasuries do a great job of creating value for users, but today's company uses an innovative model that includes several different strategies for yield generation.Patrick Horseman is the Chief Investment Officer at BNB Plus, a digital asset treasury company that trades under the symbol BNBX. The company unlocks institutional-grade access to the Binance ecosystem through non-directional yield strategies and long BNB exposure. Patrick has been the founder or co-founder of several hedge funds and businesses operating in the world of decentralized finance, including Coral Capital, Esoteric Strategies, and Innovation Shares. He's also the founder of Verified Organics, an Ethereum based blockchain application designed to bring transparency and accountability to the organic food production process from farm to table.Today, we get into BNB Plus' different yield generation strategies, what makes the Binance ecosystem unique, and the general state of the DAT market now that some of the initial euphoria seems to have waned.Highlights:Patrick's path into DeFi (2:15)The BNB Plus Mission (5:48)DeFi Explained (8:34)What makes Binance unique? (10:24)Patrick's BNB Optimism (14:35)BNB Plus' Yield Generation Strategies (16:14)The BNB Plus Team (22:11)Binance's potential impact in the US (24:48)The state of the DAT market (25:34)BNB Plus' approach to risk (29:15)Links:Patrick Horsman LinkedInBNB Plus LinkedInBNB Plus WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

In this country, health outcomes are too often dictated by your ZIP code, but one company is working very hard to fix those inequities.Demond Martin, is the CEO and co-founder of WellWithAll, a health and wellness company dedicated to advancing health equity for underserved communities. Operating under ‘inclusive capitalism', WellWithAll reinvests 20% of its profits into health initiatives tailored to specific community needs, tackling health disparities, and ensuring a targeted approach to wellness.Before WellWithAll, Demond was a senior partner at Adage Capital Management, where he invested in the consumer sector for 21 years. Earlier in his career, he served in the Clinton administration, and he has served on numerous nonprofit boards, including the Berkeley College of Music, The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Obama Foundation. Today, we get into what WellWithAll does, how they're giving back to the community, and Demond's journey from a trailer in North Carolina to CEO of this incredible company.Highlights:Demond's background (2:21)Stories from the White House (3:50)Working at a hedge fund (5:58)Lessons about investing (8:32)The origins of WellWithAll (11:42)Health inequities (13:54)How WellWithAll has evolved (15:08)Getting in with large retailers (17:08)Sources of funding (18:57)The Obama Foundation (20:19)A career in politics? (21:00)Demond's mentors (22:14)27th ICR Conference (24:04))Links:Demond Martin LinkedInWellWithAll LinkedInWellWithAll WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

This week, another trip down memory lane as we revisit an episode from April with Dan Galpern, the CEO of DanceOne, who's managed to harness the explosion of interest in dance, into a thriving global brand. Summary:  We may not talk about them the same way we talk about basketball or baseball players, but make no mistake, dancers are elite athletes. Their training is intense, and the competition is fierce. And with Breakdancing at the Olympics, dance content flooding TikTok, and dance competition shows all over TV, there's never been more interest in the art-form. So how do you take that global phenomenon, and harness it into a global business?  Dan Galpern is the CEO of DanceOne. In 2023, the company was formed out of the merger between Break The Floor Productions and Star Dance Alliance, and it has become the premier producer of educational and competitive dance events, as well as the largest family of dance brands in the world.  Dan joins us to discuss DanceOne's plans for future expansion and growth, and how their global community is raising up the next generation of world-class dancers.  Highlights:The origins of DanceOne (3:48)Path from investor to CEO (5:41)DanceOne infrastructure (6:46)Building the DanceOne experience (8:11)The global appeal of dance (9:20)DanceOne event offerings (10:30)Growth opportunities (11:43)The power of dance (15:29)The DanceOne community (17:52)Goals for the future (20:00)Links:Dan Galpern LinkedInDanceOne LinkedInDanceOne WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co. 

For more than 50 years, the Institute for Creation Research has continued its mission to show how scientific evidence confirms the truth of Scripture. But what leads someone to devote their life to studying God’s creation? In this episode, ICR President Dr. Randy Guliuzza shares how his upbringing, faith journey, and pursuit of science all converged to reveal a deeper calling. Discover how God shaped his path, from his early years to his leadership at ICR, and how his story continues to inspire others to see God’s hand in every detail of life and science. Explore some of Dr. Guliuzza's Research at ICR: https://surl.li/hofxgn --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon &nbs... More...

This week we're once again dipping into the archive, and revisiting an episode we released in May with Adam Goldenberg, CEO and Co-Founder of Fabletics. Adam has been an entrepreneur since the age of 16, and he shares what decades of experience have taught him about building a successful brand. Summary: When you're shopping for clothes, there's a checklist of things you look for: you want them to look and feel good, you want them to last a long time, you might want them ethically and sustainably sourced, and probably most importantly, you don't want them to break the bank. In 2011 one active wear company emerged that ticked pretty much all those boxes.  Adam Goldenberg is the CEO and Co-Founder of Fabletics. Adam is a seasoned entrepreneur and leader in the e-commerce industry with a proven track record of building multiple-billion dollar brands. In fact, alongside co-founder Don Ressler, Adam has generated over $10 billion dollars in sales through his company, TechStyle Fashion Group, which in addition to Fabletics, has launched other digitally-native fashion brands like Savage X Fenty, Just Fab, Fab Kids, Shoedazzle and Yitti.  Adam launched his first company at 16, at 19 he became the youngest ever COO of a public company. He joins us to share his thoughts on e-commerce, customer retention, sustainability, and opportunities to grow the Fabletics brand.  Highlights:Fabletics origins (2:50)Fabletics' customer base (4:48)Tech and personalization (5:55)Celebrity partnerships (7:32)Membership model (8:37)E-commerce vs. Brick and mortar retail (11:23)Amazon (13:54)Plans for growth (15:27)Sustainability (19:09)Lesson's learned (20:58)What's next for Fabletics (23:19)Links:Adam Goldenberg LinkedInFabletics LinkedInFabletics WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Today, we're hopping back into the archive and revisiting an episode with Gerard Barron, the co-founder, CEO, and chairman of The Metals Company, who joined us to discuss the company's plans to harvest critical metals off the sea floor.  Summary:The Trump administration has made American reindustrialization a top priority, but to do that, the US is going to need access to an abundance of metals like copper, manganese and nickel. The challenge then is to find a way to source these materials that doesn't rely on Chinese supply chains, and won't lead to serious environmental harm.Gerard Barron is the co-founder, CEO and chairman of The Metals Company, which trades on the Nasdaq under the symbol TMC. The Metals Company mission is to harvest and process metal-containing nodules from the sea floor, providing a clean and abundant source of raw materials for an array of critical industries, like steelmaking and EV production. Gerard walks us through the evolution of TMC, their groundbreaking tech, and some recent regulatory breakthroughs that have brought them closer to achieving their goals than ever before.Highlights:The Metals Company Mission (2:07)The history of seabed harvesting (3:43)Land-based supply chains (7:17)TMC's tech (10:44)Regulatory roadblocks (12:28)Defense implications (15:51)EVs (17:37)Korea Zinc deal (19:41)Looking ahead (21:34)PE Involvement (24:22) Links:Gerard's LinkedInThe Metals Company LinkedInThe Metals Company WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, Joe@lowerstreet.co.

Across the United States, discarded food too often ends up just rotting in landfills. But one company in California is harnessing the power of data to make sure those valuable nutrients don't go to waste.Clemens Stockreiter is the Founder and CEO of RE:CIRCLE Solutions, a company transforming pre-consumer food byproducts into sustainable animal feed ingredients. He's spent more than two decades leading recycling and circular economy businesses, including as CEO of PreZero US and CFO of Sky Plastic Group. Today, Clemens joins us to break down how RE:CIRCLE is using science and technology to close the loop on food waste, and build data-driven circular food economies. Highlights:What does RE:CIRCLE do? (1:43)Complexity of organics recycling (2:57)RE:CIRCLE's Ontario Facility (3:59)De-packaging (4:57)California sustainability requirements (5:47)RE:CIRCLE's TraceOS system (7:19)Convincing grocers to participate (8:48)Dealing with different types of food waste (9:43)'Copy and Paste Scalability' (11:03)What's next for RE:CIRCLE? (12:37)The future of circular waste systems (13:34) Links:Clemens' LinkedInRE:CIRCLE LinkedInRE:CIRCLE WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

Please enjoy the second part of our conversation with Maja Vujinovic where we break down staking, the evolving crypto regulatory environment, and how the emergence of AI could influence blockchains. Maja is the CEO of Digital Assets at FG Nexus, which trades under the symbol FGNX and specializes in ETH accumulation, yield generation and real-world asset tokenization. She's been a pioneer in financial innovation for nearly two decades and helped shape the crypto industry from its earliest days.Part 1 came out last week, and you might want to go back and listen if you haven't already, especially if you don't have a strong understanding of crypto and blockchain technology.  Highlights:How does staking work? (2:00)How regulation is evolving (5:28)Geopolitical impacts (7:57)How will AI impact blockchains? (11:11)What it's like being a crypto expert (14:10)What sets FG Nexus apart? (15:21)Links:Maja's LinkedInFG Nexus LinkedInFG Nexus WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co.

ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that confirms the Bible's account of creation. But how does someone become a creation scientist? Dr. Brian Thomas shares how his personal journey led him to discover a deeper purpose through Christ. Hear how discipleship and the influence of faithful mentors shaped his worldview, strengthened his faith, and ultimately guided him to the Institute for Creation Research, where he now uses his passion for science to point others to the Creator. --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon

ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy and confirms the Bible’s account creation. But how does someone become a creation scientist? In this episode, Dr. Timothy Clarey shares how his faith, love for geology, and career in the oil industry ultimately led him to ICR and a calling to defend biblical creation. --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon

ICR’s science staff have spent more than 50 years researching scientific evidence that refutes evolutionary philosophy and confirms the Bible’s account of a recent and special creation, and through their work thousands of lives have been impacted with Christ’s creation truth. But how does one become a ‘creation scientist?’ What leads an individual down that particular vocational path? Join us as we sit down with Dr. Jeff Tomkins and learn more about his story and what led him to become a creation scientist at ICR. --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon