Podcasts about PFS

Aug 31, 2026 – When one spouse manages all the finances, passwords, and key relationships, their sudden death can trigger legal, financial, and operational chaos. Today, we explore the risk posed by the "death of a decision maker" and three...

Aug 28, 2026 – Nvidia and Marvell reveal AI's next phase, software stages a comeback after the "SaaS apocalypse," and a hawkish Warsh puts a Fed hike back on the table. Ryan Puplava breaks down where growth, value, and rate risk collide for investors...

Aug 27, 2026 – As frontier AI models converge on near-identical performance, Coeus Institute's Michai Morin argues the industry's defining battle is shifting from intelligence to economics—and the West may be losing. In a wide-ranging interview...

Aug 26, 2026 – Futurist Garry Golden returns to discuss why the backlash against AI data centers has gone bipartisan—from blue states to Texas's new moratorium. He explains why slowing AI is unlikely, how humanoid robotics could reshape the global economy

This interview is disseminated on behalf of Rua Gold Inc.From securing regulatory approval to drill at the Glamorgan Project to advancing a pre-feasibility study (PFS) and permitting at Reefton, Rua Gold (TSX: RUA | NZX: RGI | OTC: NZAUF | FSE: X9R) is progressing key milestones across its New Zealand portfolio. CEO and Director Robert Eckford highlights the fully funded 9,000-metre Glamorgan drill program, Reefton's PFS and fast-track permitting process, and the key catalysts ahead as the company works toward transitioning from explorer to producer.Learn more: https://ruagold.com/Watch the full YouTube interview here: https://youtu.be/z37qMywBmE0And follow us to stay updated: https://www.youtube.com/@stockstowatchofficial 

Aug 24, 2026 – Wealth advisors Crystal Colbert and Nick Kile break down the four best ways to build long-term wealth for your children in 2026—including 529 plans, UTMAs, custodial Roth IRAs, and the brand-new Trump Account. Discover expanded K-12...

Aug 25, 2026 – Legendary gold investor Pierre Lassonde joins Jim Puplava to reveal why gold's current bull market may only be the beginning of a much larger advance throughout the remainder of this decade. Lassonde exposes striking historical...

Aug 21, 2026 – Chris Puplava explains why Treasury Secretary Bessent's buyback announcement was a pivotal "whatever it takes" moment—and what it could mean for your portfolio. He reveals how the US may now be sacrificing the dollar to cap...

Aug 20, 2026 – Is official inflation telling the full story? Economist John Williams of ShadowStats joins Jim Puplava to examine how methodological changes to the CPI since 1980 have reshaped reported inflation, and what his alternate measure...

Aug 21, 2026 – How strong is the current bull market and which sectors are outperforming? Vincent Randazzo of ViewRight Advisors joins Jim Puplava to reveal why strong market breadth is leading the S&P 500 higher despite rising rates, oil, and...

Aug 21, 2026 – The biggest move this week wasn't semis or Iran—it was bonds. 30-year Treasury yields hit 5.3%, a two-decade high. Investors are demanding more compensation for duration amid $40T debt, AI financing needs, and rising oil...

Aug 19, 2026 – Meteorologist and commodity trading advisor Jim Roemer explains the factors increasing the odds of a Super El Niño, threatening to drive soft commodity prices higher and also bring disruptive weather patterns globally...

Aug 17, 2026 – Brendan McMurtrie and Crystal Colbert of Financial Sense Wealth Management discuss essential financial planning steps for new and expecting parents. Topics include budgeting for baby expenses, optimizing health insurance...

Interview with Darrin Campbell, President & CEO of Namibia Critical Metals Inc.Our previous interview: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/namibia-critical-metals-tsxvnmi-japan-backed-path-to-dfs-in-q2-2027-9891Recording date: 13th August 2026Namibia Critical Metals (TSXV:NMI) has reached a pivotal moment in the development of its Lofdal Heavy Rare Earth Project in Namibia. In July 2026, the Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security (JOGMEC) and Toyota Tsusho Corporation completed a C$23 million earn-in commitment, roughly 18 months ahead of the original March 2028 schedule, securing a combined 50% participating interest in the project. The two partners formed TJ Namibia Rare Earths Corporation (TJNREC) to hold that interest, and JOGMEC has separately committed up to C$47.668 million (approximately ¥5.5 billion) to capitalise the new entity, funding Lofdal through Definitive Feasibility Study completion and toward a Final Investment Decision.Critically, all project funding from this point forward is structured as non-interest-bearing, non-dilutive Pre-FID Capital Funding - a mechanism CEO Darrin Campbell described as a temporary free carry that removes near-term financing risk without forcing Namibia Critical Metals to make a dilution decision until FID itself. The company retains the option to participate at up to 45% ownership or dilute to a carried floor of 21%, with management signalling a preference to retain maximum exposure given the project's economics.The economics, laid out in a December 2025 PFS, show a 13-year mine life producing 2,000 tonnes of total rare earth oxide annually, including significant dysprosium, terbium and yttrium output. A base case using moderate pricing generates a $275 million after-tax NPV and 19% IRR on $348 million of capex; a divergent case reflecting the elevated non-Chinese pricing seen over the past 18 months delivers a $748 million after-tax NPV and 35% IRR. Campbell noted current market conditions increasingly resemble the divergent scenario.Technical work continues in parallel. A 13,000-metre, 83-hole drill programme launched in June 2026 is targeting a maiden resource at the Area 5 xenotime system, the project's first deep test hole at Area 4 to approximately 800 metres for underground mining studies, and infill drilling at Area 2B. SGS has been awarded pilot-scale flotation and hydrometallurgical testwork contracts aimed at producing separated - rather than mixed - light and heavy rare earth products, which Campbell said better matches offtaker demand. A DFS completion target of Q3 2027 is intended to lead into an FID shortly after.Despite this de-risking and the depth of sovereign-industrial backing, Campbell argues the market continues to price Lofdal as an early-stage exploration story, at roughly 0.15-0.2x price-to-NAV versus 0.4-0.8x for comparable PFS/DFS-stage peers. He attributes the gap to thin liquidity, minimal institutional coverage as the company has not needed to raise meaningful capital in six years due to JOGMEC funding, and market confusion over the earn-in's dilution mechanics. Final offtake pricing terms with the Japanese consortium remain under negotiation, representing a further catalyst to watch as the project approaches FID.View Namibia Critical Metals' company profile: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/companies/namibia-critical-metals-incSign up for Crux Investor: https://cruxinvestor.com

Aug 14, 2026 – Inflation data cooled enough to ease rate-hike fears. The consumer is showing real cracks in retail sales and sentiment. AI infrastructure spending keeps accelerating, led by Nvidia's $500 billion financing push. Market breadth is broadening beyond mega-cap tech...

Aug 13, 2026 – A shock to the oil market may be just getting started. In this Financial Sense interview, Jim Puplava sits down with Ron William of RW Advisory to break down why the Strait of Hormuz, record-low strategic reserves, and a fragile geopolitical standoff between the US and Iran could trigger a repeat of a 1970s-style oil super spike...

Aug 12, 2026 – Energy expert Mark Mills at the National Center for Energy Analytics upends conventional wisdom in this must-hear Financial Sense Newshour conversation with Jim Puplava—one that could reshape how you think about...

Interview with Christian Easterday, Managing Director and CEO, Hot Chili LimitedOur previous interview: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/hot-chili-tsxvhch-water-business-with-1b-npv-to-fund-copper-project-6917Recording date: 10th August 2026Hot Chili Limited (ASX/TSXV: HCH, OTCQX: HHLKF) is advancing the Costa Fuego Copper-Gold Project on Chile's Atacama coastline, positioning itself as one of only five independent (non-major-controlled) copper developers globally with a project capable of exceeding 100,000 tonnes of annual copper-equivalent production. Managing Director and CEO Christian Easterday, who has led the company since its 2010 ASX listing, argues the market has not yet caught up with the scale of the opportunity.The company's March 2025 Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) outlined a 20-year mine life (14 years at primary production rates), average annual production of roughly 116,000 tonnes of copper-equivalent, a post-tax NPV of US$1.2 billion, and a post-tax IRR of 19% at a long-term copper price of US$4.30/lb. Start-up capital was estimated at US$1.27 billion.The central near-term catalyst is La Verde, a copper-gold porphyry discovery acquired in November 2024 roughly 35km from Costa Fuego's planned processing hub. Extensive drilling (three rigs, with a fourth arriving) has defined a broad, high-grade mineralised footprint, and management expects a maiden resource estimate of approximately 500 million tonnes before the end of 2026. Folding La Verde into a restated Costa Fuego PFS is expected to lift post-tax NPV toward US$2 billion and post-tax IRR toward the mid-30s%, while shortening payback from roughly 4.5 years to 2.5 years and improving the project's position on the industry cost curve.On valuation, Hot Chili highlights two benchmarking metrics: an EV/lb-of-reserve multiple of roughly 3.8 cents against a peer average near 11 cents (implying a 2.9x re-rating opportunity), and a price-to-net-asset-value gap of roughly 2.3x versus recent comparable copper-sector transactions.Financing is addressed primarily through the company's Huasco Water asset — the only maritime licence with permitted seawater access in the Huasco Valley. Stage 1 (seawater supply to Costa Fuego, 500 L/s) is already funded within the existing PFS. A second maritime licence, which would unlock a larger multi-user desalination business (Stage 2: 1,300 L/s, ~US$977 million post-tax NPV) serving neighbouring major-miner projects, has been in Chile's approvals process for roughly five years and remains on track according to recent government contact, following an earlier delay tied to a change in administration. Management frames monetising this asset as a way to cover a substantial share of the project's equity requirement without heavy shareholder dilution. Additional untapped levers include uncommitted gold production (48,000-70,000 oz/year with La Verde) and roughly 40% of concentrate offtake left uncommitted outside the company's existing Glencore agreement.Glencore holds a 7.5% equity stake and an offtake agreement for up to 60% of concentrate for the first eight years of production, on benchmark terms. The company has also strengthened its board, adding Stuart Matthews (formerly EVP at Goldfields, with five major mine builds) as Independent Non-Executive Chair.Near-term catalysts include the maiden La Verde resource estimate (year-end target), a restated Costa Fuego PFS, EIA submission (targeted Q2 2027), progress on the second Huasco Water maritime licence, and an ongoing strategic partnering process. Final Investment Decision is targeted for 2029, with first production guided for 2031.Learn more: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/companies/hot-chili-limitedSign up for Crux Investor: https://cruxinvestor.com

Aug 11, 2026 – Could AI be quietly steering your money into the next Enron? New Constructs CEO David Trainer reveals why the AI everyone's using for stock picks is dangerously blind—chasing hype while missing the accounting time bombs that sink...

Aug 10, 2026 – Can longevity really be measured and improved? In this eye-opening interview, Jim Puplava sits down with Dr. Brian Lenzkes to break down the results of his MVX Plus longevity blood test after completing an intensive biohacking regimen...

Aug 7, 2026 – Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity joins Jim Puplava to expose the "mystery seller" crushing oil prices in thin overnight futures markets—and why it can't last. From plunging Cushing and SPR inventories to surging diesel crack...

Aug 7, 2026 – Chris Puplava highlights recent catalysts behind the rally in gold and silver, including yen intervention, a weak jobs report, and broad-based dollar weakness. He notes China's aggressive gold buying, a shift in the U.S. labor market toward...

Interview with Hugh Agro, President & CEO of Revival Gold Inc.Our previous interview: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/made-in-america-revival-gold-tsxvrvg-the-case-for-us-based-gold-development-10516Recording date: 6th August 2026Revival Gold Inc. (TSXV:RVG) is a Toronto-headquartered gold developer advancing two brownfield, pure-gold assets in the western United States: the Mercur Gold Project in Utah and the Beartrack-Arnett Gold Project in Idaho. Both sit on historically productive ground with existing infrastructure, which the company argues reduces development risk and capital intensity relative to greenfield alternatives.Mercur, at the preliminary economic assessment (PEA) stage, is the company's near-term production driver. The May 2025 PEA outlined a 66 Mt resource grading 0.60 g/t gold for 1.275 million ounces contained, average annual production of 95,600 ounces over a 10-year mine life, initial capex of $208 million, a 56% after-tax internal rate of return, and an after-tax NPV of $741 million at a 5% discount rate and $3,000 gold (rising to $1,270 million at $4,000 gold). The company is roughly halfway through an 18,000-metre drilling programme aimed at converting inferred resources to measured and indicated categories, with a Preliminary Feasibility Study targeted for completion by the end of Q1 2027 and construction decision expected in 2028.Beartrack-Arnett is further along, at Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) stage for its first-phase open-pit heap leach restart, with a 2023 PFS outlining 65,300 oz gold per year over eight years at $1,248/oz all-in sustaining cost, $109 million pre-production capex, and an after-tax NPV of $484 million (80% after-tax IRR) at $3,000 gold. Behind that sits a second-phase, higher-grade underground opportunity at the Joss zone, currently an inferred resource of 877,000 ounces at 4.05 g/t. A 5,500-metre 2026 drilling programme targeting expansion of that underground resource recently returned one of the project's strongest intercepts to date: 3.43 g/t gold over 131.7 metres, including 6.56 g/t gold over 42.5 metres, at hole BT26-255D, extending known continuity to roughly 850 metres of vertical extent. The zone remains open along strike and at depth.Combined, the two projects represent an after-tax NAV of $1.225 billion at a 5% discount rate and $3,000 gold price, against a basic market capitalisation of approximately C$211 million, a 0.11x price-to-NAV ratio that the company positions against a 0.35x average for US developer peers, citing S&P Global Market Intelligence data. Estimated cash of C$27.8 million is stated to fund both projects through to Mercur's construction decision.Ownership is institutionally weighted, with institutions and corporates representing 59% of the capital structure, including EMR Capital, Konwave, and Dundee Corporation among named holders. Basic shares outstanding stand at 319.4 million, with 359.6 million fully diluted.Key near-term catalysts include the Mercur PFS (end of Q1 2027), pending Joss wedge-hole assay results, initial Mercur metallurgical column test results (expected before the end of August 2026), and continued Mercur infill and expansion drilling results through the remainder of 2026.View Revival Gold's company profile: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/companies/revival-gold-incSign up for Crux Investor: https://cruxinvestor.com

Aug 7, 2026 – Greg Weldon, publisher of the Global Macro Strategy Report, discusses gold and silver's surge this week, signaling renewed momentum for precious metals as the U.S. dollar weakens. Greg also explains how forecasts for a Super El Nino...

Aug 7, 2026 – Earnings continue to support the AI infrastructure cycle. The labor market is slowing without clear evidence of recession. The Nasdaq repaired what now looks like a failed breakdown. Breadth remains healthy, and global technology...

Aug 5, 2026 – Sevens Report's Tom Essaye breaks down the whiplash rally driving the S&P 500 and Dow to record highs—crediting blowout cloud earnings from Microsoft and Amazon for shattering AI bubble fears. He weighs in on the chilling reality...

Aug 4, 2026 – Stocks surged to record highs Tuesday as the S&P 500 and Dow rallied on blowout cloud earnings from Amazon and Microsoft. But CIO Peter Boockvar warns the AI-fueled melt-up may be a "bear trap." He breaks down the historic data center...

Send us Fan MailPBS listings can radically reshape practice and the August changes are all about precision. Rachael Babin from the Oncology Network sits down with Professor Craig Underhill to translate the latest Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) oncology and haematology listings into what clinicians actually need: who's eligible, what the key trials show and what to watch for once the script is written.  We start with vorasidenib, newly listed for IDH mutant astrocytomas and oligodendrogliomas. Alongside a powerful public advocacy story, we unpack the INDIGO phase 3 data and why a clear progression-free survival gain matters for patients facing long treatment journeys. We also get practical about toxicity, including fatigue and liver function abnormalities, and the reality that chronic low-grade side effects still require close monitoring and supportive care to keep people well on therapy.  Next, we move to selpercatinib for RET-mutated medullary thyroid cancer, a rare disease where “getting the target right” can be transformative. Craig talks us through the LIBRETTO-531 results, what “PFS not reached” signals, and why tolerability and discontinuation rates matter just as much as headline efficacy. We then cover tafasitamab (anti-CD19) added to rituximab and lenalidomide for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, including day unit visit burden, neutropenia risk and the size of the benefit reported.  To close, we ask the bigger question: as targeted therapy and tumour-agnostic approvals increase, are we heading toward mutation specialists rather than tumour-type silos? If this helped you keep up with PBS oncology and haematology updates, please subscribe, share it with a colleague and leave a review so more clinicians can find us.Visit the Show Notes for links to the papers and other materials related to the PBS updates discussed in this episode and to send us audio feedback or questions for future episodes.Proudly produced by The Oncology Network

When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn't: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Paul Edelman, PhD of Edelman & Associates about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision. https://youtu.be/p2KCsftvM74 Key Takeaways Succession is not one decision — it is at least six. Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends. Watch behavior, not titles. Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal. Three tells that authority hasn't moved: the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room. Speed is not the test. A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving. “Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder. If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path. Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity. When you catch yourself thinking “why can't they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family's, or your need to close the file. A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not. Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto. Agreement is not ownership. A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — why “he's just not ready” is untestable [01:05] Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads [01:48] Unbundling succession into six separate questions [02:23] Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is [03:00] Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you [04:00] Decision reversals and the second-guessing test [05:00] The crisis test: who owns the emergency [05:36] Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity [06:10] Milestones that show it's working — and goalposts that keep moving [08:00] Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics [08:54] Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance [09:47] Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable [11:10] The advisory ecosystem's frustration with stalled progress [12:16] Whose timeline is being served? [13:31] Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising [15:00] When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator [15:36] Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build [17:37] Board composition: independence vs. familiarity [20:00] Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise [20:54] Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners [21:34] Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment [23:31] Matching complexity to the outcomes you need [25:00] Communicating decisions to people who weren't in the room [25:26] How to reach Paul Edelman [25:46] The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys [29:19] Close Pull Quotes “If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman “To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman “A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman “Just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman About the Guest Paul Edelman, PhD is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at Edelman & Associates, where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at The UHNW Institute and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College. Contact Paul Edelman Email: paul@edelmancoaching.com Website: edelmancoaching.com (contact form on site) LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pauledelman The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy Paul and Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman, CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of Shenkman Tietz, have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys: Simplicity and its trade-offs — When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan, WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates, July 8, 2026. The language of estate planning conversations — published in Steve Leimberg's LISI Estate Planning Newsletter (subscriber archive). Beneficiary education — forthcoming October 2026, expected in Estate Planning. Paul's running author archive: wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman More from Paul Edelman Approval Is Not Ownership: Helping Family Office Investment Decisions Hold Under Pressure — Family Wealth Report, July 1, 2026 How Families Can Override Emotions to Make Better Judgments — Family Business Magazine, April 9, 2026 Lessons For Families And Their Advisors From A Hit TV Series — Family Wealth Report, February 24, 2026 Stronger Family Bonds and Better Strategic Decisions — FFI Practitioner, January 20, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into?Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity. How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor?Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward. Is a fast succession better than a gradual one?Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances. What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto?A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto. How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family?Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can't they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor's discomfort with uncertainty. What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company?The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder's golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide. Why isn't agreement good enough?Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice. Full Transcript [00:00] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. [00:36] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. [01:05] Frazer Rice: Welcome aboard, Paul. [01:07] Paul Edelman: Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation. [01:09] Frazer Rice: Well, it's important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that's really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations. [01:34] Paul Edelman: Yes. [01:35] Frazer Rice: So when we're thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated? [01:48] Paul Edelman: Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there's who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority. [02:23] Frazer Rice: So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that's a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up? [03:00] Paul Edelman: I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn't moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story. [04:00] Paul Edelman: Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can't afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that's one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that's never happened, it's possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it's not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test. [05:00] Paul Edelman: So when something genuinely bad happens — there's a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership, in a sense. [05:36] Frazer Rice: So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise. [06:10] Paul Edelman: Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don't want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it's working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They're learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes. [07:01] Paul Edelman: They're developing important relationships and they're becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder's involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that's the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they're not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that? [08:00] Frazer Rice: When you're diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with? [08:29] Paul Edelman: If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same. [08:40] Frazer Rice: Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially. [08:54] Paul Edelman: Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they're in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over. [09:47] Frazer Rice: And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that? [10:02] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you're unable to, that's an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done. [11:10] Frazer Rice: For those of us in, let's call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it's tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we're presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues? [12:16] Paul Edelman: The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can't they just do this? And in my experience, that's often the moment when it's helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor's own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, and the advice that they give. [13:00] Paul Edelman: One useful check that advisors can use for themselves is to ask whose timeline is being served. There may be a genuine business reason to act — it may be, for example, that the continued ambiguity is hurting the company, or weakening the successor, or leaving employees unsure about who's in charge. But I would also ask myself, and other advisors can ask themselves, whether their recommendation is mainly to help them close the case, or to demonstrate progress, or to relieve their own discomfort with uncertainty. [13:31] Frazer Rice: The concept of — this is really, I guess, the mix of art and science of advising — between push versus pause versus a total restructure or a reframing of the conversation. There's an intersection of, you have to have the technicals down, but then experience in dealing with personalities, experience with dealing with the specific family and situation, and guiding that. [14:15] Frazer Rice: I imagine occasionally you run into situations where, at the intersection between the advisors and the family, they feel stuck. And so then the concept of getting them unstuck — yet there is resistance to maybe bringing in a facilitator to help grease the skids and get the conversation moving again. How do you help that reframing discussion? [14:40] Paul Edelman: I guess the question I would ask is, where do things stand? Has a decision actually been made, or is the obstacle substantive, or is it the process? So when a decision has been reached through a legitimate process and what you see is some sort of executional drag or discomfort, those are the situations where I think it's helpful to hold the boundary. You can acknowledge whatever feelings may be slowing things down, but there's not a need to reopen the decision. [14:55] Paul Edelman: On the other hand, if the discomfort that people are feeling suggests that there's some sort of important concern that hasn't yet been understood, then that's where I would pause. And that pause can involve useful work. You can ask people, what is it you're trying to protect? What are the consequences that you fear? What would need to be true for proceeding to feel responsible rather than reckless? And then there are times when it makes sense to restructure or to add structure. So for example, the choices are pretty clear, but the same conversation keeps recurring and producing the same result. In that case, you want to think in terms of either changing the forum, or clarifying the decision rights, or maybe dividing the issue into smaller decisions, or even bringing someone in to help structure the conversation, like a third-party facilitator. [15:36] Frazer Rice: The handoff ultimately — when the founder, or generation one, has gotten to the point where they're ready to move things along to the next set of operators, the next set of owners — and at the same time, in order to feel safe, they've created some safeguards, or let's call it some trap doors or back doors, to be able to help influence decisions if they feel like things are going in a different direction. How do you think about it so that they don't turn into pain points — maybe regret that turns into a veto power that stymies the succession, even if it's already been decided and put in motion? [16:21] Paul Edelman: Well, I think you put your finger on it. There's a key distinction to be made here between a safeguard and a veto. A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk, whereas a veto is kind of an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision. So when it comes to safeguards, a family might reserve certain kinds of decisions — like selling the company, or taking on debt above a certain level, or issuing new equity, or changing the basic business strategy, or entering into a transaction with a family member. [16:59] Paul Edelman: Those kinds of things can be specified, and the scope, the threshold, the decision process and the duration of the safeguard should be clear — as well as who can invoke that protection, what evidence is required, and who decides whether the trigger has occurred, and so on. So the problems arise when the arrangement is essentially one in which the successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable. If the founder is allowed to intervene anytime they feel uncomfortable, as opposed to for these specific kinds of reasons, then you're dealing with more of an undefined operational veto. [17:37] Frazer Rice: To that end — boards of directors related to these companies, whether they're private or public, but we're really talking about private in most cases. The constitution of those boards: how involved do you get in that? And what is the importance of independence versus familiarity versus family member input, to act as a go-between in many ways between founder, the operational executives, and then ultimately the owners? [18:07] Paul Edelman: Well, in order to really add value — the kind of value that independent directors can potentially offer to a company — they need to be adequately independent. That is to say, they need to be able to exercise their sound business judgment and carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in a way that is free from undue influence by other kinds of family considerations, and potentially loyalty to particular family members. So I think in those cases where a so-called independent board member is actually a golfing buddy of the CEO or the founder, or has a tie to one particular family member or branch of the family, it may be harder for them to bring the full value that an independent director can bring. [18:55] Paul Edelman: Then of course, another reason why companies bring in independent directors is because they have some additional expertise that the current board members or family members lack. So for example, a colleague and I are working with a company right now where the core business has been subject to commoditization, and they've made a strategic decision to diversify. But in order to diversify, they need to bring in people with new expertise, particularly in the line of business that they want to move into. In order to do that, they need to create some space in their board or boards of directors — they have several different kinds of boards. And as part of this, we were brought in to take a look at those existing boards and help them think about how to restructure in a way that could create some open seats while minimizing the displacement of people who are currently board members, including family members who are board members, who may not feel too positively about losing their board seat. [20:54] Frazer Rice: Related to board seats, but more specifically to family ownership — the concept of family members who rely on the family business for income, versus maybe other parts of the family that are looking at the business and thinking of growing the valuation or innovating with the business, that type of thing. With the tension between those two different components, how do you solve for that and have that conversation stay productive, when I imagine it can get emotional very quickly? [21:34] Paul Edelman: This is where a third-party facilitator can be helpful to slow things down. When things begin to get heated, it's often helpful to have a neutral or impartial person present who can help to reduce the heat in the conversations. There are a number of things in particular that can be done under those circumstances. First of all, anytime there are these kinds of tough decisions, there's never a single right answer. There's always trade-offs involved. And some boards work their way through these things by voting. I'm dealing with a situation right now where some members of the family were outvoted. At the end of that vote, they say, okay, we now have an agreement, we're going to move forward with this. But just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision. [22:34] Paul Edelman: So in order to create ownership, I think it is helpful to have the difficult conversations and to consider the implications of going one way versus another. If we were to distribute all this money in the form of dividends, what would be the benefits of that, and what would be the costs associated with that? And on the other hand, if we were to plow it all back into growth of the business, what's the upside and downside of that? Only by considering different options and the implications of each can the family ultimately arrive at a decision where people feel like, well, I may not have agreed to this, but I was part of the discussion, I was part of the process of weighing the different considerations, and I'm willing to buy into this. In other words, I feel some ownership for this decision. [23:31] Frazer Rice: As we start to wind down here, an interesting concept is what should all the constituencies come away with from the decision-making process. And as a follow-up to that is simplicity versus complexity of the solution. How do you manage that so that you take care of the needs of the business and the needs for structuring, with the need for simplicity, so that everyone who comes away from the discussion and the decision-making understands what's been put in place? [24:06] Paul Edelman: As far as the solution itself goes, the level of complexity should match what's required to accomplish the desired outcomes. So complexity for its own sake is not useful. But when you're trying to accomplish more than one thing at a time, it may require a more complex approach to the solution. So that's on the solution side. Now the other side of it has to do with communication. How do you share what's been decided with other people, especially people who haven't been in the room? And I think that the best way to do that is to try to explain clearly what was the context of the situation in which the need to make this decision arose; what were the desired outcomes that the decision makers were trying to produce, what were they trying to accomplish; and the flip side of that is what were they trying to avoid, or what were they trying to protect. [25:00] Paul Edelman: When you share all of that, the rationale for the decision becomes more understandable, and also you have a better case for justifying any complexity that's part of the decision. As far as complexity goes, of course, you want to use the simplest, most straightforward language to describe what you've come up with. But I think the key thing to getting buy-in is to make sure that the rationale is clear, and people understand that there was a thoughtful and systematic process behind it. [25:26] Frazer Rice: Really good stuff. Paul, how do people find you to hear more about what you're up to? [25:32] Paul Edelman: My website is edelmancoaching.com. So people can go to edelmancoaching.com, read more about the work that I do, and there's a contact form there. Or people can simply email paul@edelmancoaching.com. [25:46] Frazer Rice: Just to — because you're being very humble — you have a couple of articles coming out with Marty Shenkman, where the intersection of probably the trust and estate planning and the actual, let's say, getting the business ready for the next generation, whatever form that takes, is probably front and center there. How would people find that? [26:06] Paul Edelman: So we've written three articles recently, kind of a trilogy, and they're each going to be carried in different places. Two have already come out, and one is due to come out. These are aimed primarily at estate planning attorneys. But the first one is on when the client asks for a simple estate plan. And this relates a little bit to what you were describing, in a different domain — the domain of trusts and estate plans and so on. But the point that we make is that the client's request for simplicity is understandable, and ideally the attorney will validate that. But at the same time, along with the request for simplicity goes potentially some compromises, because when you have multiple desired outcomes, it may take more of a complex structure to achieve those outcomes. So the role of the planner is not to introduce complexity for its own sake, but to make clear to the client [27:06] Paul Edelman: what trade-offs they'd be making if they went with a simpler plan, and what additional protections they can get by considering a more complicated one. Then the second piece is on the use of language in these estate planning conversations. And again, it relates to this concept we were talking about a minute ago, of the difference between agreement and ownership. Some clients are willing to agree to whatever the attorney says. If you say to them, “Well, I think this is the best plan for you,” they say, “Fine, where do I sign?” But the goal, ideally, is more than just agreement. It's ownership. Because in the absence of ownership — and by ownership, I mean that the client understands the trade-offs that are being made, they feel that they had agency in the process of making those trade-offs — [28:06] Paul Edelman: and ultimately, if something doesn't work out as well as hoped, people will not go back and point a finger at the planner and say, “You did this, how could you do this?” or something like that, but rather, “This was a collaborative effort. You made clear what the choices were, and we made them together.” So that piece talks about language, and how, for example, there's a difference between saying to a client “you should do this,” and speaking to them in terms of what they can do. [28:42] Frazer Rice: And then the third piece — when's that coming out? [28:46] Paul Edelman: The third piece is on beneficiary education, and that one will come out in October. And so the first piece came out in a publication called Wealth Management. The second piece came out in a newsletter that's published by, I think it's LISI. And the piece that's coming out in October is, I think, being published in a magazine or a journal, something like Estate Planning. [29:19] Frazer Rice: They're everywhere. So, terrific. Well, Paul, thanks for being on. I'll put all that in the show notes, and look forward to staying in touch. [29:26] Paul Edelman: Thanks very much, Frazer. [29:28] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice, and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. Additional Links Mark Tepsich of Family Governance https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Glenn Jessome, President & CEO of Silver Tiger Metals (TSX.V:SLVR) (OTCQX:SLVTF), joins me for a visual construction update of the surface heap-leach mine; with commissioning and first pour targeted for December, 2027; at the El Tigre Silver-Gold Project in Sonora, Mexico.   We review the work already completed, the work yet to come, the future advancement of the underground mine at El Tigre, and the exploration program around the historic North Tigre Mine that is underway.   Key construction updates at El Tigre:   Build out of Mexican engineering and construction team is nearing completion with a total of 166 persons on site and 100,000-man hours logged since start of construction Detailed engineering by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (“KCA”) and Kappes, Cassiday del Norte S de RL de CV (“KCN) pursuant to the Engineering Procurement and Construction Management Contract (“EPCM”) for the Project is proceeding on schedule Procurement on long lead items is complete, including crusher plant, conveyer and stacking system, and the Merrill-Crowe plant and refinery Land clearing, and flora/fauna management for the total construction area is 60% complete Installation of construction offices has been completed Engineering for improvements to the 46 km road built from Colonia Morelos to El Tigre is complete. The contract to improve this road has been awarded and work has begun, with 25% of road improvements complete The major earthworks contract has been awarded for the heap leach, ponds and crusher platforms and these earthworks have commenced Comision Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”) have granted access to grid electrical power for the El Tigre Project Long lead items such as crusher, conveyor, stacking and Merrill-Crowe have been ordered. Mine commissioning and first pour on track to commence in December 2027.   We discussed the larger growth plan to keep advancing the derisking and development of the underground mine at El Tigre, moving the economics from the current Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) to a PFS, and some of the synergistic advantages of having a large build team and engineers on site for the surface heap-leach mine, that can then transition over to working on the underground, reducing down some of the assumed upfront capex in the PEA.   Additionally, the Company is now expanding the scope across their district-scale land package, and has been conducting exploration drilling targeting the high-potential vein systems north of the main El Tigre area, near the historic North Tigre Mine. This priority zone aligns directly with the El Tigre North Mine Design outlined in Section 24 of the Company's recently filed PEA (dated January 20, 2026). First results will start being released to the market in the months to come.   If you have any follow up questions for Glenn regarding Silver Tiger Metals, then please email them into me at Shad@kereport.com.   In full disclosure, Shad is a shareholder of Silver Tiger Metals at the time of this recording, and may choose to buy or sell shares at any time.   Click here to follow the latest news from Silver Tiger Metals   For more market commentary & interview summaries, subscribe to our Substacks:   The KE Report: https://kereport.substack.com/ Shad's resource market commentary: https://excelsiorprosperity.substack.com/     Investment disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Investing in equities and commodities involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Guests and hosts may own shares in companies mentioned.    

Aug 3, 2026 – Missing a single deadline can trigger a 25% tax penalty, and most retirees do not realize how many ways an RMD can quietly reshape their finances. Brendan McMurtrie sits down with Ryan Puplava to break down required minimum distributions under SECURE Act 2.0...

Jul 30, 2026 – Is the stock market flashing warning signs even as analysts predict record earnings? Veteran market technician Tom McClellan joins Jim Puplava to explain why extreme optimism often signals a top, why valuations relative to money supply...

Jul 30, 2026 – When an OpenAI frontier model broke out of its sandbox and hacked Hugging Face on its own, it forced a hard question: how do we govern AI that's both ubiquitous and powerful? Policy powerhouse Bruce Mehlman unpacks...

Jul 31, 2026 – Jim Puplava argues that precious metals are near the end of a cyclical cooldown and consolidation. He attributes the correction to rising rates, a strong dollar, and leveraged paper-market shakeouts. Longer term, he sees intensifying tailwinds...

Jul 31, 2026 – This week showed that earnings can overpower macroeconomic pressure when companies provide hard evidence that spending is producing revenue, backlog, and adoption. Microsoft and Amazon revived the AI trade through rapid cloud growth and clearer monetization,

Jul 28, 2026 – Explore how shifting power dynamics between China and Japan are reshaping the Indo-Pacific, with exclusive insights from geopolitical analyst Rodger Baker. Learn why critical supply chains, rare earth minerals, and control...

Jul 24, 2026 – Jim Welsh of Macro Tides sees U.S. stock markets locked in a sideways chop as sector rotations offset semiconductor weakness, with the S&P at a critical technical juncture. He expects Treasury yields to climb, possibly surpassing...

Jul 24, 2026 – China's rapid AI advancements and dominance in critical minerals are spotlighting a global “race for stuff” beyond simple computing power, says analyst Craig Tindale. Tindale highlights looming supply bottlenecks in gallium...

Jul 23, 2026 – Is it time to get more defensive? Financial Sense Wealth Management CIO Chris Puplava discusses the ongoing geopolitical conflicts in Iran and the broader Middle East, which are disrupting oil supplies and raising inflation risks...

July 22, 2026 – Chief Technologist Dr. Sven Bilén explores the audacious vision of launching data centers into space—a move championed by SpaceX, which plans to deploy up to 1 million orbiting data satellites. Leveraging sun-synchronous orbits...

July 21, 2026 – Singapore-based macro strategist Laurent Lequeu of The Macro Butler discusses the intensifying US-China AI race following the release of Moonshot's Kimi K3. Lequeu explains why Chinese competition threatens Western AI profitability...

Jul 20, 2026 – Brendan McMurtrie and Crystal Colbert discuss essential financial and workplace planning tips for expectant mothers. They explain maternity leave, FMLA, California protections, paid family leave, and supplemental disability...

Jul 17, 2026 – Robert Bryce discusses his data center rejection database, highlighting the surge in local moratoriums and project denials across the U.S., including the recent first-ever state-wide moratorium by New York. He explains the drivers...

Jul 17, 2026 – Explore how minerals and natural resources underpin modern technology, AI, national defense, and the shift to green energy. Financial Sense's Jim Puplava reveals how critical minerals drive everything from smartphones...

Jul 16, 2026 – Edward Gustely, co-founder and managing director of Penida Capital Advisors in Jakarta, breaks down how the escalating Iran war is reshaping global trade and energy security. He reveals why the Malacca Strait, carrying 40%...

Jul 17, 2026 – Chief Global Economist Ryan Sweet of Oxford Economics shares insights on the economic risks posed by renewed conflict in Iran, oil price volatility, and global supply chain pressures. He explains potential impacts on GDP growth, inflation

Jul 16, 2026 – The AI trade is running out of oxygen, and the fire is shifting elsewhere. Jim Puplava sits down with Samantha LaDuc of LaDuc Trading to unpack a market stuck in a tight, tense range near all-time highs, as money rotates...

Jul 15, 2026 – AI is not just a single investment but a vast ecosystem, says Xavier Stonehouse of Financial Sense Wealth Management. He breaks down the critical “five layer stack” that underpins today's AI economy, revealing why semiconductors now...

Jul 13, 2026 – Anyone can call themselves a financial advisor—so how do you find one who's actually required to put you first? Today, we discuss which credentials and public databases to check, the right questions to ask, and how to prepare...

Jul 10, 2026 – The COMEX is not being drained, and the silver squeeze everyone is talking about didn't happen the way you think. Jim Puplava sits down with Bob Coleman and David Morgan to cut through the noise dominating precious metals commentary...