Podcasts about ICR

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.

Continuăm seria de discuții dedicate diplomației culturale și rolului Institutului Cultural Român ca instrument de soft power pentru promovarea culturii române în străinătate. În ce măsură îşi îndeplineşte ICR misiunea de a promova cultura română peste hotare? Cum se măsoară succesul unei acţiuni de diplomaţie culturală? Care ar fi cea mai potrivită instituție în subordinea căreia ar fi ferit ICR de politizare? Am întrebat-o pe Oana-Valentina Suciu, sociolog, cadru didactic la Facultatea de Științe Politice a Universității din București, unde coordonează, începînd de anul acesta, un masterat de diplomație culturală.În ce măsură îşi îndeplineşte ICR misiunea de a promova cultura română peste hotare?Oana-Valentina Suciu: „Deşi ICR are o strategie, aceasta nu se pliază foarte bine pe cerinţele şi aşteptările pe care le au reţele precum EUNIC – reţeaua internaţională a institutelor culturale – care îşi propune să fie tot mai implicată în problemele gobale, în susţinerea democraţiei şi a drepturilor omului, în chestiuni legate de migraţie, de încălzirea globală... Agenda europeană şi agenda internaţională sînt foarte diferite de ceea ce oferă Institutul Cultural Român la ora actuală. În plus, acele proiecte sînt gîndite pe termen mediu şi lung – proiecte multianuale – or, ICR, chiar dacă ar vrea să facă acest lucru, din cauza legislaţiei financiare din România nu poate să propună şi să coordoneze proiecte multianuale. De aceea, probabil, a recurs la această soluţie mai simplă, de a organiza o serie de evenimente. Nu discut calitatea în sine a acestora, unele sînt de o înaltă calitate artistică. Dar nu denotă o viziune coerentă a ceea ce înseamnă cultura română vie, pe care, de altfel o şi menţionează în statutul său şi în legea de funcţionare.”Cum se măsoară succesul unei acţiuni de diplomaţie culturală?Oana-Valentina Suciu: „Asta nu ştiu nici alte institute culturale. Vă dau exemplul Institutului Francez care, pentru a măsura succesul unuia dintre proiectele lor de film, numără cîte bilete s-au vîndut sau cîte accesări au avut dacă e vorba despre filme online oferite gratuit. E un indicator, dar nu este cel mai potrivit. Asta e altă întrebare care apare în diverse rapoarte şi manuale de diplomaţie culturală: cum măsurăm nemăsurabilul. De altfel, asta este şi întrebarea pe care ne-o punem în seria de propuneri de politici culturale pe care le realizăm în cadrul echipei NARDIV – un proiect finanţat de UE în care sînt implicaţi Universitatea din Bucureşti, Institutul Goethe din România, Institutul Francez din România, Universitatea Marseille-Aix, Franţa, Amsterdamul… – şi fiecare dintre acele echipe de cercetare vine cu cîte o propunere de politică culturală în sensul de a identifica nişte probleme şi a propune nişte soluţii care se vor reuni într-un raport ce va fi prezentat anul viitor, pe 12 mai, la Bruxelles, membrilor comisiei de cultură de acolo.”Apasă PLAY pentru a asculta interviul integral! O emisiune de Adela Greceanu și Matei Martin Un produs Radio România Cultural 

Is there anything creationists agree with in evolutionary theory?Was Darwin's view missing data or missing design logic?What's the difference between random mutation and purposeful design?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. Randy Guliuzza is the President of the Institute for Creation Research. He is a leading biological design theorist and is actively expanding ICR's scientific research and the critical endeavor to develop a theory of biological design. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. He holds the Doctor of Medicine from the University of Minnesota, and a Master of Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza also has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute. He was board certified in Aerospace medicine and he is a licensed Professional Engineer. During his career he served as Chief of Aerospace Medicine for the 28th Bomb Wing. Prior, he worked nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps. Dr. Guliuzza and his wife, June, were high school sweethearts and have been married for 47 years. June and Randy have three incredible children and are the proud grandparents of three boys and four girls. He is the author of numerous books including: Made in His Image: Examining the Complexities of the Human Body, Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design, and Twenty Evolutionary Blunders.Recommended reading from Dr. Guliuzza and ICR:

Continuăm seria de emisiuni despre diplomația culturală și rolul culturii în diplomația publică a României. După ce ieri am discutat cu Corina Șuteu – fostă directoare a ICR-New York și fostă ministră a Culturii, astăzi l-am invitat pe Liviu Jicman, președinte al Institutului Cultural Român din 2021 aflat, acum, la final de mandat. Vorbim despre acțiunea ICR și despre cum poate cultura să profileze imaginea României în plan extern. Liviu Jicman: „Este primul mandat de patru ani, după epoca Horia-Roman Patapievici, respectiv după mutarea din 2012 a ICR de sub Preşedintele României sub controlul Senatului, cînd au funcţionat şi am şi aplicat în acelaşi timp atît legea de funcţionare cît şi strategia pentru perioada 2022-2026, pe care am adoptat-o la începutul mandatului împreună cu Consiliul de Conducere al ICR.”Care sînt direcţiile principale ale strategiei?Liviu Jicman: „Ne-am propus să ne concentrăm pe cîteva dintre obiectivele din legea de funcţionare a ICR, fiind conştienţi că, pe de-o parte e foarte bine ca legea să fie cît mai permisivă, pe de altă parte că într-un timp limitat nu putem să acţionăm pe toate palierele. Şi-atunci am prioritizat cîteva teme. Promovarea creaţiei contemporane, cultura vie este una dintre aceste priorităţi. La fel cum am încercat şi ne-am propus să urmăm inclusiv o agendă europeană, deci nu doar să ne limităm la colaborările care existau, de exemplu, în reţeaua EUNIC, parteneriate în ţările în care avem reprezentanţe dar chiar şi în alte spaţii în care sîntem reprezentaţi prin ambasade ale României, dar să vedem cum asumăm această agendă, cum o integrăm în discursul Institutului Cultural Român.”Avînd în vedere constrîngerile bugetare, ce reforme interne sînt prioritare pentru ICR în următoarea perioadă? Unde se poate interveni astfel încît să nu compromiteți acțiunea externă a institutului? Liviu Jicman: „Acest mandat a stat în integralitatea lui sub semnul reformei. De cînd am venit, am făcut o nouă structură care să fie adaptată acestei strategii dar în acelaşi timp reducînd funcţiile de conducere la parametrii legali, după care în 2023, împreună cu Consiliul de Coducere, am făcut o nouă ajustare, reducînd de la 12% la 8%, adică cu o treime funcţiile de conducere, desfiinţînd toate posturile de şef-birou, reducînd alte funcţii şi, tot cu sprijinul Consiliului de Conducere, pe 20 octombrie anul acesta am redus din nou poziţiile din structura ICR. Este locul în care noi putem acţiona legal. Am propus de asemenea şi cred că este timpul ca structura ICR din străinătate să fie adaptată spaţiului şi acolo unde putem să ne permitem echipe mai mici să putem reduce aceste echipe.”Apasă PLAY pentru a asculta interviul integral! O emisiune de Adela Greceanu și Matei Martin Un produs Radio România Cultural 

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

This is an invitation for you to participate with the global fellowship of Christians in marking Sunday, Nov. 2 asInternational Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church. Here at Calvary in partnership withICR Canada, we celebrate your faithfulness and the faithful witness of Christians everywhere with a guest ICR speaker in both our 9AM + 10:30AM Sunday services. This years theme is Unite in Prayer.

This is an invitation for you to participate with the global fellowship of Christians in marking Sunday, Nov. 2 asInternational Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church. Here at Calvary in partnership withICR Canada, we celebrate your faithfulness and the faithful witness of Christians everywhere with a guest ICR speaker in both our 9AM + 10:30AM Sunday services. This years theme is Unite in Prayer.

If you hear words like 'crypto', 'Ethereum' and 'Blockchain' and feel confused, you're definitely not alone. Today, we're sitting down with someone who's been in crypto since long before it became the hot new thing, and getting her insight into how it works, and why it matters. Maja Vujinovic is the CEO of FG Nexus, which trades under the symbol FGNX and specializes in ETH accumulation, yield Generation and real-world asset tokenization. Maja has been a pioneer in financial innovation for nearly two decades and helped shape the crypto industry from its earliest days. Today, you'll hear part 1 of our conversation where we break down what blockchain is, the role Ethereum plays in the decentralized finance ecosystem, and how FG Nexus aims to create value for clients.Tune in next week for part 2.Highlights:Where are we in crypto's evolution? (3:01)Maja's journey into crypto (4:49)What is Blockchain and Ethereum? (8:07)What makes Ethereum special? (10:36)How Ethereum is valued (12:12)Dollars 'on chain' (14:03)How Maja ended up at FG Nexus (15:39)FG Nexus' value creation strategy (18:08)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.

It's officially fall, and that means we're deep into the MLB playoffs, and the NHL, NFL and NBA seasons are in full swing. With it being such an exciting time for professional sports, we thought it'd be an opportune moment to revisit an episode we recorded in April, where Doug Perlman, CEO of Sports Media Advisors, demystifies the complex process of negotiating league media rights. We hope you enjoy this fascinating look into the evolution of sports media licensing in a post-cable world.  Summary: Major sporting events used to be clustered among a handful of TV channels. Now following your favourite team might require subscriptions to a whole litany of cable and streaming services. Which is to say nothing of all the licensed content you'll find spread out across social media platforms. In such a complex media ecosystem, how do organizations even begin to think about licensing their media assets? And how do they calculate their worth?Doug Perlman is the founder and CEO of Sports Media Advisors. SMA advises sports properties on their media strategies and rights negotiations. Doug has negotiated tens of billions of dollars in rights fees for some of the largest sports properties in the world, including the NFL, NASCAR, US Soccer, and the Ryder Cup, among others. Doug joins us today to discuss recent trends like the rise of streaming, the popularization of sports betting, and the emergence of AI, and all the unique challenges and opportunities they present for different leagues and organizations.Highlights:Doug's early career (3:00)Working for the NHL (4:40)Founding SMA (7:53)SMA's services (9:31)Negotiating rights deals (13:55)Cord-cutting (17:16)Impact of sports betting (18:35)Women's sports (19:37)AI in sports (20:58)Advice for young people trying to work in sports (26:12)Links:Doug Perlman LinkedInSMA LinkedInSMA 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.

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

Today we talk about Dinosaurs and Soft Tissue with Dr. Brian Thomas from ICR

This week, we're reaching back into the archive, and re-releasing an episode from back in May with Jereme Kent, the CEO of One Power Company. Given our recent episodes focusing on AI-driven enterprises, we thought it would be a good time to revisit this episode where Jereme discusses the need for a modernized grid to power those projects. Enjoy! Summary: The world has changed a lot in the last century, but it might surprise you to learn that the US power grid has remained pretty much the same. In this country, energy is by and large controlled by regional utilities with de-facto monopolies, and no real incentive to innovate. That inertia impacts the entire economy, as industrial projects are starved of the power they need to get off the ground. Jereme Kent is the founder and CEO of One Power Company. Under his leadership, One Power is trailblazing the creation of the customer-centric power grid of the future. Before founding One Power in 2009, Jereme led the construction of some of the world's premier wind projects. As a field engineer, erection superintendent and site manager, he has overseen more than a billion dollars in wind turbine construction. Jereme joins us to discuss how and why current US power infrastructure is falling short, and how the One Power model could both energize and decarbonize America's efforts to re-industrialize. Highlights:The state of the grid (3:09)Why we need fixes now (7:04)One Powers services (9:03)Vertical Integration (11:30)Digital Substations (13:54)Fundamental Industries (15:20)Sustainability (16:55)Net Zero (19:45)10 year outlook (21:02)Culture of innovation (23:36)One Power's priorities (25:30)Links:Jereme Kent LinkedInOne Power LinkedInOne Power 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 you're running a large industrial operation, tracking all of the elements of your process to know where they are and what they're doing in real-time, can be a huge challenge. Today, we're spotlighting a company whose revolutionary platform can help solve that problem. Ed Nabrotzky is the CEO and co-founder of Dot Ai, a company specializing in industrial asset intelligence solutions. Ed brings with him over 25 years of experience in technology development, and has held executive leadership roles at large public enterprises, including Molex and Panasonic.  Ed joins us to discuss Dot Ai's competitive advantage, how AI is changing the game when it comes to asset intelligence, and how their tech helps make companies more efficient.  Highlights:What Dot Ai does (1:53)The gap in the market (2:25)The customers (3:21)Inflection point (4:01)The current emphasis asset intelligence (5:51)ROI (7:09)The Dot Ai platform (8:36)Data Security (12:04)Meeting Unique Client Needs (13:25)R&D (14:40)Puerto Rico Manufacturing (16:15)SPAC (18:49)Forces reshaping supply chains (22:59)Misconceptions about automated asset tracking (25:04)Future outlook (26:10) Links:Ed's LinkedInDot Ai LinkedInDot Ai 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 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

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.

Summary: Since the 1980s, beloved children's clothing brand Hanna Andersson has been delivery quality and durability to happy customers.  Now, Aimée Lapic leads the company as CEO and is using her deep experience in apparel, retail, and omnichannel marketing to turn the legacy brand into a digital powerhouse. Today, they're building on their long-standing strengths with innovative products and services designed to give families even more reason to return to Hanna generation after generation. Aimée joins us to share the strategies, both old and new, that have helped Hanna Andersson nurture decades of dedicated customers, and to explain how every decision connects back to the brand's mission of championing childhood.  Highlights:Hanna Andersson's evolution over four decades (3:27)What opportunity did Aimée see at Hanna? (5:01)Hanna's brand mission to champion childhood (7:12)Why committing to quality earns customer loyalty (9:07)Innovations at Hanna Andersson (13:03)Introducing new fabrics, prints, and styles (15:00)Turning customers into brand ambassadors (22:32)Community connection (23:26)Collaborations and partnerships (25:18)Up next at Hanna Andersson (27:11) Links:Aimée Lapic LinkedInHanna Andersson LinkedInHanna Andersson 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.

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? In this series, we’ll be taking a look at the lives and journeys of several members of ICR’s science staff to answer those questions. Join Dr. Jake Hebert as he shares his story of faith, how he found his way to ICR, and the groundbreaking projects and discoveries he’s contributed to along the way. --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon

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.

Issuing convertible derivatives can be a great way for companies to raise capital, but issuance can be complex and daunting. Today's guest, Syed "Raj" Imteaz, has made a career out of demystifying that process.Raj is the head of ICR's Convertible and Equity Derivatives Advisory. During his career at ICR, Barclays and Lehman Brothers, he has worked on more than 200 convertible and equity derivatives transactions, totalling over $125 billion in deal value. Raj joins us to discuss the state of the convert market, the importance of receiving unbiased advice, and the incredible ROI he and his team are able to provide clients.Highlights:The importance of convertible and equity derivatives advisors (2:24)How Raj's team helps companies save money (4:16)The power of the ICR platform (7:16)The importance of unbiased advice (11:50)What's behind the booming convert market? (15:09)Why some firms shy away from converts (18:13)Factors influencing the future convert market (20:18)Links:Syed "Raj" Imteaz LinkedInICR Convertible and Equity Derivatives AdvisoryICR 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.

Did Noah's flood really happen—or is it just a Bible story?If it was global, where's the proof?What about dinosaurs, giants, and other ancient flood stories?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 co-authors of the children's books Big Plans for Henry, Henry Explores the New World, and Henry and the Ice Age.Websites: https://www.icr.org/http://store.icr.org/Recommended reading from Dr. Tim Clarey:

Ziosk's pioneering pay-at-the-table solutions mean that customers at their partner restaurants are never stuck waiting for the bill. And now they're working to leverage their treasure trove of data to boost efficiency and improve customer experience, in ways that go far beyond payment. Rhonda Levene is the CEO of Ziosk, a leading digital hospitality platform serving major restaurant brands such as Chili's, Texas Roadhouse, and Red Robin. Since joining Ziosk in 2020 and being appointed CEO in 2024, Rhonda has spearheaded the company's transformation into a SaaS driven enterprise.Rhonda joins us to break down Ziosk's slate of products, their approach to innovation, and tech's evolving role in the future of the restaurant sector. Highlights:Rhonda's career path (2:17)Ziosk's Services (5:52)The scale of Ziosk usage (7:21)ROI for partners (8:41)Pivot to SaaS (11:10)Leveraging Data (12:39)Ziosk's approach to Innovation (14:34)Total addressable market (19:56)Lessons learned as CEO (21:44)Mentorship's role in Rhonda's career (22:42)Finance and leadership (24:46)Future outlook (25:47) Links:Rhonda's LinkedInZiosk LinkedInZiosk 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.

Summary:a.k.a. Brands have seen incredible success bringing their digitally native brands into the physical marketplace. A big part of that success comes from their 'test and repeat' retail strategy, which allows them to gauge and adapt to consumer trends extremely quickly. Ciaran Long has been serving as the CEO of a.k.a brands for more than two years. He was previously CFO at Samsclub.com, and held other leadership positions at Walmart's e-commerce division, as well as at CBS, CNET Networks and KPMG.Ciaran joins us to break down the test and repeat strategy, and explains why it can be so effective at minimizing guesswork and mitigating risk. He also delves into a.k.a. Brands' unique approach to influencer marketing, their strategy when it comes to M & A, and the philosophy that will guide their expansion efforts in the years to come. Highlights:The a.k.a. Brands portfolio (2:05)What sets a.k.a apart? (3:12)a.k.a.'s evolution (4:43)Expansion strategy (5:50)Dealing with fickle consumers (8:56)Test and Repeat (10:55)Culture Kings (13:39)Navigating volatility (16:02)Sustainability in fashion (17:37)M&A (18:53)Looking ahead (21:06)Links:Ciaran's LinkedIna.k.a. Brands' LinkedIna.k.a. Brands' 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.

The human body is an amazing example of biological engineering, with a myriad of interconnecting systems that produce unique capabilities. We further explore this conversation on this episode.Dr. Randy Guliuzza is the president of the Institute for Creation Research. He is a leading biological design theorist and is actively expanding ICR's scientific research and heading the critical endeavor to develop a theory of biological design. He has represented ICR in several scientific debates at secular universities and in other forums. He holds a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Minnesota and a Master of Public Health from Harvard University. Dr. Guliuzza also has a B.S. in engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and a B.A. in theology from Moody Bible Institute. He was board certified in aerospace medicine, and he is a licensed professional engineer. During his career he served as chief of aerospace medicine for the 28th Bomb Wing. Prior to that, he worked nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps. Dr. Guliuzza and his wife, June, were high school sweethearts and have been married for 47 years. June and Randy have three incredible children and are proud grandparents of four girls and three boys.https://www.icr.org/We also highly encourage you when visiting the website to click on Publications and review the Acts & Facts section. It is very helpful info. Please also visit them on You tube. With over 950,000 subscribers they are providing great content. @icrscience

In this episode of The Personal Finance Podcast, we break down the massive student loan changes hitting in 2025—why SAVE, PAYE, IBR, and ICR plans are being eliminated for new borrowers starting July 2026, how interest resuming on SAVE loans means balances could grow again, and why wage garnishment restarts in August 2025. We provide a 12-step action plan to pay off loans faster, including the biweekly payment hack that saves $1,000+ in interest, scripts to negotiate lower rates, and how to get $5,250 per year in tax-free employer loan assistance before these changes make escape even harder. ⁠Get the Student Loans GUIDE Here!  How Andrew Can Help You: Listen to The Business Show here. Don't let another year pass by without making significant strides toward your dreams. "Master Your Money Goals" is your pathway to a future where your aspirations are not just wishes but realities. Enroll now and make this year count! Join The Master Money Newsletter where you will become smarter with your money in 5 minutes or less per week Here! Learn to invest by joining  Index Fund Pro! This is Andrew's course teaching you how to invest!  Watch The Master Money Youtube Channel! , Ask Andrew a question on Instagram or TikTok Learn how to get out of Debt by joining our Free Course  Leave Feedback or Episode Requests here.  Car buying Calculator here Thanks to Our Amazing Sponsors for supporting The Personal Finance Podcast Shopify: Shopify makes it so easy to sell. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at  shopify.com/pfp Thanks to Policy Genius for Sponsoring the show! Go to policygenius.com to get your free life insurance quote. Indeed: Start hiring NOW with a SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLAR SPONSORED JOB CREDIT to upgrade your job post at Indeed.com/personalfinance Shop outdoor furniture, grills, lawn games, and WAY more for WAY less. Head to wayfair.com Get 50% Off Monarch Money, the all-in-one financial tool at www.monarchmoney.com/PFP Chime: Start your credit journey with Chime. Sign-up takes only two minutes and doesn't affect your credit score. Get started at chime.com/  Acorns: Start investing automatically with Acorns and get a $5 bonus at Acorns.com/PFP  Visit www.functionhealth.com/PERSONALFINANCE or use gift code PERSONALFINANCE100 at sign-up to own your health. ⁠Delete Me⁠⁠: Use Promo Code PFP for 20% off! Connect With Andrew on Social Media: Instagram TikTok Twitter Master Money Website Master Money Youtube Channel  Free Guides: The Stairway to Wealth: The Order of Operations for your Money How to Negotiate Your Salary The 75 Day Money Challenge Get out Of Debt Fast Take the Money Personality Quiz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summary: There are a lot of different brands fighting for market share in the "polished" segment of the restaurant industry. To stand out, you need to offer great food, at great value, in a great atmosphere. But above all, you need to make sure you have the right people at your side.And if anyone knows the value of people, it's Steve Kislow, the CEO of Firebirds wood-fired Grills. Since joining the Firebirds team in 2003, Steve has helped open dozens of locations, as the brand has grown from three restaurants in two states to 60 plus locations in 22 states.Steve joins us to talk about Firebirds' approach to innovation, their commitment to customer experience, and their plans to expand their reach even further in the coming years. He also discusses the emphasis Firebirds places on always hiring the best.Highlights:Path from chef to CEO (2:23)Firebirds' niche (4:27)How Covid Changed Things (6:44)Menu Innovation (8:17)AUVs (11:18)Price Adjustments (12:37)Growth Strategy (13:41)Changes to 'The Box' (15:48)Growing While Preserving Quality (16:58)Changes in Consumer Behavior (19:10)Approach to Technology (21:41)Evolution of the Corporate Culture (22:49)10 Year Outlook (24:09)Favorite Dishes (25:34)Links:Steve's LinkedInFirebirds LinkedInFirebirds 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.

Want more exclusive content?! http://prometheuslens.supercast.com to sign up for the "All Access Pass" and get early access to episodes, private community, members only episodes, private Q & A's, and coming documentaries. We also have a $4 dollar a month package that gets you early access and an ad free listening experience!====================ABOUT:Dr. Timothy Clarey from ICR came on with me and Steve to talk about his book "Carved In Stone". This man has traveled the world exploring and taking samples of the rock layers compiling his evidence for a global flood just like the Bible tells us!====================

It's been nearly a year since we sat down with Andy Goldberg, the CEO of PCH media, to discuss how the company has successfully navigated more than 40 years of shifts in the media industry. A lot has changed since we spoke, which in a way, makes this conversation all the more relevant. We hope you enjoy, and we'll be back with a fresh episode next week. Summary: Longevity in any business is something to celebrate, but when a media company can successfully evolve through several decades of seismic shifts, it's also a huge lesson in the art of pivoting. Today's guest has navigated through 41 years of change and his company has come through stronger than ever.We're sitting down with Andy Goldberg, CEO of PCH Media. Andy is leading PCH's multi-year transformation as the company continues to pivot from direct-to-consumer retail towards an identity and data-driven advertising business. This includes a concerted effort to attract and hire top media talent to align with the company's new focus. The company is aimed at creating incremental shareholder value based on PCH's unique value exchange and unparalleled ability to generate peer audience authentication, permission first-party data, and tremendous user engagement.Andy has led the company through several successful evolutions via acquisitions in the online search, casual games, and mobile advertising markets. In addition to being CEO, he's also Chairman of the Board of Directors and a past member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Direct Marketing Association.Recognized for excellence in the industry, Andy has been honored with the Silver Apple Award from the Direct Marketing Club of New York. He earned a BS in Marketing from the Wharton School at UPenn.Highlights:PCH's background and history (3:16)How Andy got involved at PCH and his path to leading transformation initiatives (4:43)User base and engagement at PCH (7:50)The value of PCH's audience and engagement data to marketers and advertisers (9:02)How PCH partners with clients to help them build their databases (13:24)The differences between zero, first, and third-party data (14:47)Andy's take on the discussion around depreciating third-party cookies (16:39)PCH's marketing collaborations with third-party players (19:12)The role of AI in the evolution of PCH (20:39)Andy's outlook on future goals and opportunities for PCH (22:31)Links:Andy Goldberg on LinkedInPublishers Clearing House on LinkedInPublishers Clearing House 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.

This Crosstalk features Dr. Henry Morris III as he recounts the life experiences that led his father to become credited with the publication of a special Bible edition. Dr. Henry Morris III is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Morris has four earned degrees. He is a former college professor, administrator, business executive and senior pastor. He is also an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies and national conferences. He is the eldest son of the founder of ICR. He has authored numerous books including: 'The Big Three: Major Events That Changed History Forever,' 'Exploring the Evidence for Creation,' 'The Book of Beginnings,' 'Your Origin Matters' and numerous other books and articles. Dr. Henry Morris (the father of Henry Morris III) lived from 1918 to 2006. He had an engineering background with a double major in hydraulics and geology and was a civil engineer by profession. He taught at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and during those years he corroborated with Dr. John Whitcomb to write the book, 'The Genesis Flood.' That book was the catalyst for the modern creation science movement. Dr. Morris wanted to guide the academic world into thinking of science from a creationist perspective so he worked with Dr. Tim LaHaye in the late 1960's which led to the development of Christian Heritage College in San Diego and from that was birthed the Institute for Creation Research. The Henry Morris study Bible came about from the notes Dr. Morris was making in his teaching efforts and personal study.

This Crosstalk features Dr. Henry Morris III as he recounts the life experiences that led his father to become credited with the publication of a special Bible edition. Dr. Henry Morris III is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Morris has four earned degrees. He is a former college professor, administrator, business executive and senior pastor. He is also an articulate and passionate speaker frequently invited to address church congregations, college assemblies and national conferences. He is the eldest son of the founder of ICR. He has authored numerous books including: 'The Big Three: Major Events That Changed History Forever,' 'Exploring the Evidence for Creation,' 'The Book of Beginnings,' 'Your Origin Matters' and numerous other books and articles. Dr. Henry Morris (the father of Henry Morris III) lived from 1918 to 2006. He had an engineering background with a double major in hydraulics and geology and was a civil engineer by profession. He taught at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and during those years he corroborated with Dr. John Whitcomb to write the book, 'The Genesis Flood.' That book was the catalyst for the modern creation science movement. Dr. Morris wanted to guide the academic world into thinking of science from a creationist perspective so he worked with Dr. Tim LaHaye in the late 1960's which led to the development of Christian Heritage College in San Diego and from that was birthed the Institute for Creation Research. The Henry Morris study Bible came about from the notes Dr. Morris was making in his teaching efforts and personal study.

As a workwear and outdoor apparel company, it's imperative that you stay attentive to the needs of your customer, and remain nimble enough to adapt to the demands of an ever-shifting retail landscape. Well, the folks at Duluth Trading are doing exactly that.Today we're sitting down with Stephanie Pugliese, the CEO of Duluth Trading, which trades under the symbol DLTH. She first joined Duluth trading in November of 2008, and In 2015, she became President and CEO until 2019 when she left to become president of the Americas for Under Armour.Now, Stephanie is back as president and CEO of Duluth. She joins us to discuss the innovation, customer experience, and brand awareness that's made them a force in the American retail sector for more than 3 decades, and how she plans to double down on those things to keep Duluth profitable in the decades to come.Highlights:The Duluth Story (2:13)Stephanie's return to Duluth (5:05)Urgency vs. Thoughtfulness (6:40)Brand Engagement (7:50)Brand Awareness (9:15)Solutions Based Products (10:44)Duluth Portfolio of Products (12:36)Approach to Innovation (13:56)Direct to Factory Sourcing (15:31)Opening new stores (17:00)Finding Savings (19:19)Optimizing Inventory Levels (21:10)Promotions (22:46)Tariffs (24:20)Expanding beyond workwear (26:27)Outlook for the future (28:11) Links:Stephanie's LinkedInDuluth LinkedInDuluth 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.

As we take a brief hiatus from releasing new episodes this week, we thought it would be interesting to revisit this episode from December 2024 with Michael Saylor. Ahead of the Trump administration officially taking office, Michael explained why he thought the year ahead would be a seminal one in the history of Bitcoin. Was he correct? You be the judge. Summary: With a new, crypto-friendly administration incoming, 2025 may be the year we see Bitcoin integrate more fully into mainstream finance in America and globally. Though volatile, and with an uncertain future that will heavily depend on how macroeconomic conditions and regulatory policies play out across the year, there's reason to believe that Bitcoin could soon be more prominent than ever. Today's guest is here to tell us why.Michael Saylor is the Executive Chairman and co-founder of business intelligence company MicroStrategy (Nasdaq: MSTR), and a leading advocate of Bitcoin. MicroStrategy considers itself to be the world's first Bitcoin Company, and under Michael's leadership have adopted a unique Bitcoin acquisition strategy with approximately $42 billion in Bitcoin held to date. In this episode, Michael describes his journey from skeptic to Bitcoin maximalist, emphasizes the importance of understanding Bitcoin as a digital capital asset, and discusses its potential to disrupt traditional valuation methodologies in finance.Highlights:Michael recommends resources for Bitcoin beginners (2:37)Why fear of progress holds us back (3:55)Michael points out the clues suggesting Bitcoin is here to stay (7:11)What USD maximalists get wrong (13:15)How we can understand the potential of Bitcoin through an engineering lens (16:25)Why valuation methodologies need to adapt to include Bitcoin (18:48)How Bitcoin outperforms traditional investments (28:09)Why supportive regulatory environment is crucial for Bitcoin's growth (30:54)Michael explains why the current capital market structure favors a select few (34:59)Why sound money is critical for societal progress (39:00)Links:Michael Saylor LinkedInMicroStrategy WebsiteBook: The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean AmmousICR 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 their 125 years in existence, Alico had grown to become one of America's leading citrus producers. In January 2025, owing to adverse weather events and crop disease, they made the difficult decision to wind down their citrus operations and adopt a new real estate-focused business model.Today, we sit down with John Kiernan, president and CEO of Alico, which trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol ALCO. John has been overseeing Alico's recent efforts to transition out of the citrus industry towards a strategy that makes full use of their extensive holdings in Florida real estate, valued somewhere between 650-750 million dollars.Going from growing oranges to building communities is no easy feat. John explains how Alico is leveraging their great team, and ample liquidity, to make it work.Highlights:Alico's history (2:10)Alico's land holdings (4:09)Pivot to Real Estate (5:03)Florida Population Growth (6:04)A Diversified Land Company (8:18)Shareholder Returns (10:35)Alico's Identity (12:18)Alico's Role in Development (13:30)Corkscrew Grove (14:53)Regulatory Hurdles (17:22)Entitlements (1945)Mitigating Risk (22:18)Links:John's LinkedInAlico LinkedInAlico 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.

Questions? Thoughts? Send a Text to The Optometry Money Podcast!Episode SummaryIn this timely episode, Evon unpacks the Department of Education's recent surprise announcement that interest will resume accruing on the SAVE plan's current forbearance beginning August 1, 2025. We explore what this means for optometrists managing student loans - especially those approaching forgiveness eligibility or considering refinancing.What You'll LearnSurprise Announcement: Why SAVE's interest-free forbearance ends on August 1, 2025, and how to prepareOBBBA Overview: How this new legislation (effective July 2026) changes income-driven repayment plan options - removing SAVE, PAYE, ICR plans as available options for current optometristsRepayment Roadmap: How optometrists should evaluate refinancing, staying federal, or switching plans based on degree completion and loan timingIDR Plan Comparison: Breaking down olcd vs. new IBR, PAYE, and SAVE rules - including repayment terms like 20‑year repayment at 10% of discretionary incomeStrategic Tax Planning: Using filing status and extensions (especially important in community-property states) to lock in the lowest monthly paymentTimeline Guidance: When key deadlines hit (Aug 1, 2025; July 2026; July 2028) and how to reconcile existing loans within the new REPAY plan frameworkResources MentionedThe Optometry Money Podcast Ep 143: How the Final One Big Beautiful Bill Act Impacts Optometrists – Taxes, Student Loans, and More!Click here to Subscribe to the Eyes On The Money Newsletter for weekly financial insights tailored specifically to optometrists.Have Questions? CLICK HERE to schedule a short introductory callThe Optometry Money Podcast is dedicated to helping optometrists make better decisions around their money, careers, and practices. The show is hosted by Evon Mendrin, CFP®, CSLP®, owner of Optometry Wealth Advisors, a financial planning firm just for optometrists nationwide.

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.

Summary: When your A/C breaks down in the middle of summer, you want someone at your house to fix it that same day. And one firm has been able to leverage that reliability into a national home services empire. Ken Haines was appointed CEO of Wrench Group almost 10 years ago and he has since guided the company to become the second largest non-franchised home services company in the United States. Ken joins us to discuss his philosophy on leadership, the benefits of Wrench Group's innovative partnership model, and the impact of emerging tech in the home-services industry.  Highlights:Wrench Group Services (1:59)Ken's path through the industry (2:40)Company-owned vs. Franchised (4:50)Autonomy vs. Consistency (5:49)Evaluating Culture Fit (7:03)Customer Experience (8:34)Covid's Impacts (11:24)Emerging Tech (13:10)Recruitment (16:42)Where does Wrench Group go from here? (19:32)Links:Ken's LinkedInWrench Group LinkedInWrench 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.

Investors often talk about the desire for companies to diversify. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a firm who's done that better than the Superior Group of Companies (SGC), which operates in three distinct buckets: healthcare apparel, branded products and contact centres.  Our guest today is Michael Benstock, the Chairman and CEO of SGC. Michael takes us through the evolution of SGC since its founding more than a century ago, and its successful diversification efforts over the years. We also discuss SGC's adeptness at pivoting, as well as their commitment to service quality, advanced technology, and omnichannel commerce. Highlights:The SGC Story (1:51)Michael's journey (4:40)SGC's Global Footprint (6:03)Total Addressable Markets (8:25)Pivoting (11:32)Acquisitions (13:43)Leveraging tech (16:13)Divestment (19:29)Philosophy on Capital Allocation (20:34)Legacy (22:26) Links:Michael's LinkedInSGC LinkedInSGC 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.

“Senate parliamentarian” isn't exactly a household name, but her latest ruling is huge news for anyone with student debt. Learn what her surprise decision means for the Big Beautiful Bill Act and how it could shape repayment plans and forgiveness programs. You'll find the specifics of what this means if you're a Parent PLUS borrower, in dental and medical school, or just worried about how these policy shifts could affect your financial future. We'll take you beyond the political noise and cut through the confusion to give you actionable info you can use.   Key moments: (02:32) The current bill would essentially kick a lot of people who need to borrow after July 2026 onto the RAP plan (05:21) Future students deserve clear repayment rules upfront, not changes mid-degree like the Senate is proposing (08:45) Anybody who's ever had a parent plus loan needs to apply for the ICR plan (11:20) PAYE borrowers must be prepared to get switched to the old IBR or possibly the RAP plan (15:48) Different borrowers should take different approaches while legislation is pending   Resource mentioned:  IDR Plan Request at Studentaid.gov   Like the show? There are several ways you can help! Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Amazon Music Leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts  Subscribe to the newsletter Feeling helpless when it comes to your student loans? Try our free student loan calculator Check out our refinancing bonuses we negotiated Book your custom student loan plan Get profession-specific financial planning Do you have a question about student loans? Leave us a voicemail here or email us at help@studentloanplanner.com and we might feature it in an upcoming show!  

Summary: At this point, most Americans will probably be familiar with the media company, Newsmax. Their political slant has garnered the company its fair share of criticism, but their growth in recent years has been undeniable.  Chris Ruddy is the CEO of Newsmax Media, which trades under the symbol NMAX. Chris began his career as a journalist at the New York Post and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review before founding Newsmax in 1998. Since then, it's grown into one of the nation's leading broadcasting and digital media companies. Chris joins us today to talk about the public perception of NewsMax, the rationale behind their recent IPO and their plans to leverage their massive reach into future growth. Highlights:Founding Newsmax (2:06)Product offerings and reach (3:14)Political leanings (5:23)Attracting younger viewers (8:14)IPO (9:59)Capital allocation (11:16)Avenues for growth (12:24)Podcasting (14:38)International expansion (15:52)AI (18:21)What do investors get wrong about Newsmax? (19:34) Links:Christopher Ruddy LinkedInNewsmax LinkedInNewsmax 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.

As payment methods diversify and customer expectations increase, the traditional collection and lockbox processing model must evolve. The growing complexity of incoming payments—especially non-conforming mail and unstructured transactions—coupled with the change in expectations, demand smarter, scalable solutions. This situation of complexity and expectations has ushered in a new era of modern collection processing, focused on eliminating manual inefficiencies and using intelligent automation tools to improve accuracy and data quality, driving faster payment processing and improved operational throughput and scalability. Deluxe's Dave Boyce sits down with Craig Jeffery on the Treasury Update Podcast to talk about the latest capabilities lockbox providers can use to improve their existing processes and meet the growing needs of corporations. In this episode, we'll discuss some key features of modern collection solution sets: Virtual batching Machine learning-driven recognition Historical learning Intelligent character recognition (ICR) technology  

Back in January, we had on Julie Masino, the President and CEO of Cracker Barrel, who walked us through her strategy for transforming the brand, and gave great insights into general trends in the restaurant industry. Since it's summer time, and patio season is in full swing, we thought now would be a good time to revisit this gem. Summary: What does it take to revitalize a legacy brand, while maintaining its identity? By balancing tradition and transformation, any company can breathe new life into its business and consistently evolve to meet the changing expectations of customers and employees alike.Today's guest is Julie Masino. Julie is President and CEO of Cracker Barrel, a role she took on just over a year ago in November of 2023. Since then, she's led the company with a focus on innovation and growth drawing on her over 30 years of experience in the restaurant and retail industries. Previously, Julie served President of International at Taco Bell and before that, President of North America. She's also held senior leadership positions at Sprinkles Cupcakes, Mattel, Starbucks, and began her career at iconic brands like Godiva, Coach, J. Crew, and Macy's. In this episode, Julie shares her vision for the brand and the five-pillar transformation strategy she is implementing aimed at enhancing market share, guest experience, and profitability.Highlights:Julie explains the opportunity she saw for Cracker Barrel (2:58)Julie's fiver pillar strategy for Cracker Barrel's transformation (4:25)Why dinner remains a key area for increasing market share (9:23)What updates are being made to Cracker Barrel's pricing strategy? (12:39)Improving facilities and team satisfaction (15:44)Julie highlights the metrics correlated with sales growth (18:48)Digital and off-premises growth (23:00)How Cracker Barrel is engaging younger consumers (27:05)Links:Julie Masino on LinkedInCracker Barrel on LinkedInCracker Barrel 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, marion@lowerstreet.co.

What role do in-person events play for a creation science ministry? How can you host an event through ICR? Are these events still important in the digital age? Find the answers to all these and more in this special 100th episode of The Creation Podcast! Learn more about ICR events Host an ICR event in your area --- Join ICR's YouTube channel to get access to perks Join us on Patreon

Dash Miller may not be a CEO, but like many of the people we feature on this show, he is a true leader, he has a vision, and he's executing on his plan.Sometimes life forces you to grow up quickly, and that's exactly what happened to Dash. He lost his 16-year-old brother Callum after a five year battle with cancer. And out of that tragedy, dash started a unique corporate outreach campaign on LinkedIn making inspiring and grateful videos about companies that touched his family's life while Callum was in treatment.Dash joins us to discuss the inspirations behind the campaign and the incredible responses he's received from both individuals and companies.Highlights:Callum's Story (2:16)Dash' work at UCSF (2:58)Dash' work with LLS (4:08)Why LinkedIn? (5:23)Biggest Challenges (7:33)Nestlé (9:55)Hasbro (10:50)What's next? (12:19)Links:Dash Miller LinkedInFundraiser 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

Mary welcomes Rob Yardley to the podcast, Rob is a true servant in the church with the heart of a pastor and theologian. Rob has served on several boards of note and continues to do so - from Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa to ICR to Thru the Bible with J Vernon McGee. His new role as Executive Director of The Berean Call is one that is dear to his heart because of his friendship with the late Dave Hunt, and of course T.A. McMahon, who has recently retired. When putting godly men like Dave Hunt, TA, Henry Morris, and J Vernon side by side we get a picture of 20th century men that God greatly used. We will look at the legacies of each one, and talk about what it means to be a Berean in 2025. Where are today's great apologists and theologians? A thoughtful hour with a thoughtful brother.   Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A