Podcasts about Ria

In this episode, I sit down with Fran Mariano, co-host of the hit podcast, Chicks in the Office, to hear her takes on the latest pop culture moments. We dive deep into the Summer House drama, whether the new seasons of Love Island are worth the watch, a debate on Off Campus vs. Heated Rivalry, and why we're both unashamed romance readers. Fran also talks about her career journey at Barstool, building her show with co-host Ria, and why their sister-like dynamic works so well. Plus, we put Fran to the test with a celebrity guessing game of "Who The F Is That?”Key Takeaway / Points:Going from Barstool intern to co-hosting her successful show, Chicks in the OfficeWhy her co-host, Ria, is like family and being women in a male-dominated companyFran's love of pop culture and how she is a fangirl at heartA breakdown of the Summer House reunion part twoFavorite TV shows: Off Campus, Heated Rivalry, Summer I Turned PrettyWhy SMUT/romance novels are the best (and not because of the writing)Love Island USA vs. UKColoring confessionals: TV boyfriend obsessions, her Nick Jonas fangirl moment, and dream podcast guestsFollow Fran:Instagram: @francescamariano & @chicksintheofficeTikTok: @francescamariano & @chicksintheofficeYouTube: Chicks In The OfficeFollow me:Instagram: @cameronoaksrogersSubstack: Fill Your CupWebsite: cameronoaksrogers.comTikTok: @cameronoaksrogersYouTube: Cameron Rogers

Hello and welcome to Handgun Radio! I'm your host Ryan Michad and Weerd beard and this is your home for all the news, information and discussion in the handgunning world!   This week, we talk The Current State of Handgun Development Down By The River!!!   Please check out the Patriot Patch Company for their awesome patches and other high quality  items! Visit www.patriotpatch.co for more information! Cool artist “proof” rendition come along with the latest patch of the month patches!    We are proudly sponsored by VZ Grips! Please go check out all their fantastic products at their website! VZ Grips!  -KFrame Magna Grips   Thank you to all our patreons! Visit us at https://www.patreon.com/handgunradio    Week In Review:   Weerd: I'm next to him on a Bench DOWN BY THE RIVAH!!   Ryan: In NH with mr Weerd beerd!   Drink Segment: Fort Constitution Blended Whiskey that benefits some NH fund    Main Topic: The Current State of Handgun Development Down By The River! -RIA 5.0e Forgotten Weapons Video Where do you think it's going to go Metal 3D printing, suppressors etc   Wrap Up: Don't forget to shop Brownells using our affiliate link! Head to firearmsradio.net and click the affiliate link in the upper right hand corner! Be sure to go like Handgun Radio on facebook and share it with your friends! Leave us a review on iTunes! Check out VZ Grips!  Listen to all the great shows on the Firearms Radio Network! Check out the Patriot Patch Company!! www.patriotpatch.co   Weerd where can people find you? Assorted Calibers Podcast,  Weer'd World   Oddball gunscarstech.com Assorted Calibers Podcast ACP and HGR Facebook Play screechingtires.wav   David Assorted Calibers Podcast ACP and HGR Facebook Blue Collar Prepping Brena Bock Author Page David Bock Author Page Team And More Xander: Assorted Calibers Podcast Here so Ryan doesn't do a bad impression of me   Until next week, have fun & safe shooting!  

What happens when a psychology major discovers financial planning and decides to completely rethink how advice can be delivered? In this episode, Andy Baxley shares his journey from teaching English in South Korea to working at large financial institutions, discovering the fee-only RIA world, and ultimately launching his own firm, Two Trails Financial Planning. Andy opens up about the career pivots, self-doubt, and entrepreneurial lessons that shaped his path, along with the mindset shifts that helped him finally make the leap into business ownership. We also dive into how Andy is using AI to create more personalized, high-quality client experiences rather than simply automating tasks or reducing costs. He explains how advisors can use AI tools to build bespoke solutions for clients, why understanding psychology and communication is becoming even more important in the age of AI, and how newer planners can find the right career path based on their personality, strengths, and long-term goals. If you're interested in entrepreneurship, career growth, financial planning, or the future of AI in advice, this episode is packed with practical insights you won't want to miss. You can find show notes and more information by clicking here: https://tinyurl.com/mrxxx5jw

In this episode, Matthew Jarvis hosts Michael Belluomini and Liam Heffernan from the Carson Group to discuss their recent acquisitions, the intricacies of deal approvals, and the importance of cultural fit in acquisitions. They delve into the structure of acquisition payments, the significance of maintaining a full pipeline, and the financial discipline required in the M&A landscape. The conversation also covers the importance of growth metrics in valuation and the tax implications for advisors considering a partnership with larger firms. Unlocking Value Through Strategic Acquisitions With Michael Belluomini And Liam Heffernan Resources in today's episode: - Matt Jarvis: Website | LinkedIn - Liam Heffernan: Website | LinkedIn - Michael Belluomini: Website | LinkedIn - Download the evaluation framework Carson uses to assess RIA growth! - Learn More about our Coaching Programs

Josh Brown and Michael Batnick on Ritholtz, Authenticity, and Why Risk Finds a WayWhat began as a funny observation from Boyar Value Group founder Mark Boyar — that Josh Brown and Michael Batnick are “the Howard Stern of financial podcasting” — turned out to be a pretty good way into the real story.Josh and Michael built an audience by being candid, irreverent, and willing to say things much of traditional Wall Street would rather leave unsaid. But underneath the humor is a serious wealth-management business, a disciplined investment process, and a culture that has become a magnet for clients and talent.In this wide-ranging episode, Jonathan Boyar sits down with Josh and Michael to discuss Ritholtz Wealth Management, their highly successful Compound and Friends podcast, the dangers of making stock picks public, how to build a financial brand today, Porterhouse, and why — in markets as in business — risk finds a way.Key Topics Covered:Authenticity as a Competitive AdvantageHow Josh and Michael built trust by being candid, irreverent, self-aware, and willing to sound different from traditional Wall Street.The Real Business Behind RitholtzWhy Ritholtz is not simply a content platform attached to an RIA, but a serious wealth-management firm that also creates influential financial media.Building a Talent and Client FlywheelHow Ritholtz's audience has helped attract clients, advisors, employees, and like-minded people who already understand the firm's culture.Why Wealth Management Became One of Wall Street's Best BusinessesJosh explains why the RIA model has become such a powerful business and how wealth management has reshaped financial media and Wall Street.Could Ritholtz Be Built Again Today?Josh and Michael discuss whether their content-driven model could be replicated now, and why LinkedIn, YouTube, and owning a niche matter more than ever.CNBC, Media, and Market CommentaryHow Josh prepares for CNBC and how Michael has helped sharpen that process.The Danger of Public Stock PicksMichael draws on lessons from his book Big Mistakes to explain why publicly discussing investments can make it harder to change your mind.Porterhouse and Rules-Based InvestingJosh and Michael discuss Ritholtz's new Porterhouse equity strategy and why systematic rules can help investors avoid emotional mistakes.Why Risk Finds a WayA discussion of market leadership, momentum, and the idea that new opportunities tend to emerge even after difficult periods.Unlocking Investment Opportunities Since 1975At the Boyar Value Group, we've dedicated nearly five decades to the pursuit of value on behalf of our clients. Founded in 1975, our firm has earned a reputation as a trusted source for uncovering undervalued opportunities in the stock market.To find out more about the Boyar Value Group, please visit www.boyarvaluegroup.com

Your income can grow fast and still leave you feeling behind. That's the paradox we dig into with Sean Rawlings, founder of WealthBound Advisors, who works with young, high-income earners scaling toward $500K or seven figures only to realize they have no system for taxes, spending, or big decisions.Sean shares his story: Southern California roots, a start at a mutual firm, and the growing discomfort of watching "financial planning" turn into product pitches. He explains what pushed him toward independence, how he found the fee-only model, and why building an RIA is more achievable than many new advisors think.From there, we get specific. Sean covers what great onboarding looks like for first-time planning clients, how he uses modern tools (including AI like Claude) to stay efficient while keeping things high-touch, and the biggest pain point for fast-growing earners: tax planning around variable income. We close with real estate as an asset class, when it's worth the complexity, and how concepts like cost segregation and 1031 exchanges fit into a coordinated plan.Sean's Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-rawlings/?skipRedirect=trueMusic in this episode was obtained from Bensound.

There is a question that keeps coming up in cider, small business, and independent media: Is this sustainable? In this episode, Ria sits down with Adrian Luna, known as the Hard Cider Guy, for a conversation that goes well beyond cider. What starts as a discussion about content creation quickly turns into something deeper. Two practitioners, each with their own discipline, circling around the same hard truth: if you do not value your work, no one else will. This is not about rejecting collaboration or generosity. It is about understanding the long-term cost of working for free, and what it takes to build something that lasts. From orchard life to media strategy, from martial arts philosophy to the realities of burnout, this episode asks what it really means to take your role seriously, whether you are making cider or telling its story. Timestamps 00:00 Is Cider Work Sustainable 01:28 Episode Theme and What's at Stake 02:12 Orchard Life and Spring Work 03:47 Planting, Grafting, and Growing Trees 07:02 French Cider Tour and Limited Spots 10:22 Meet Adrian Luna The Hard Cider Guy 11:20 The Cider Sensei Mindset 13:42 Finding Cider and Career Shift 15:51 Building the Hard Cider Guy Brand 17:21 From Scholarship to Cider Career 19:13 Too Many Hats Small Business Reality 20:53 Burnout in Cider and Media 24:20 Mission Statement Versus Making Money 26:03 Does Cider Need Independent Media 27:54 Should Creators Be Paid 29:32 Why You Should Not Work for Free 29:59 Martial Arts Discipline and Cider Ethics 30:50 Why Cider Media Needs Support 32:24 Finding Your Lane in Cider 33:16 Education and Audience Building 35:29 Hooks Versus Authentic Content 37:19 Discipline Through Adversity 42:33 Community Responsibility in Cider 48:15 Key Takeaways from the Conversation 49:12 Support Cider Chat and Keep It Going 50:12 Strange Apples Outro Find the full show notes for Episode 505 at CiderChat.com Direct Link at: https://ciderchat.com/podcast/505-cider-senseis-media-value/ Listen wherever you get your podcasts and do not forget to subscribe so you never miss what is coming next in Ciderville. Prefer to watch? Find Cider Chat on YouTube for more cider stories, orchard adventures, and global cider culture. Enjoy cider? Help keep #ciderGoingUP by supporting Cider Chat. Your support helps keep the podcast on the air and makes it possible to share more conversations like this one.

What would it take for a client to happily pay you $70,000+ per year… and feel like they're getting a bargain? In the case of today's guest, it's building a high-value advisory firm by helping business owners unlock significant tax savings, often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Patrick Lonergan is the founder of Vital Wealth, an RIA based in Clinton, Iowa, that generates $2.5 million in annual advisory fee revenue for approximately 100 client households. In this episode, Patrick breaks down how he structures his services around a clear, tiered tax strategy approach, starting with foundational optimizations and progressing into more advanced, high-impact planning techniques. Listen in to learn how these strategies go beyond tax savings to support better cash flow, smarter reinvestment decisions, and long-term wealth building for entrepreneurs, as well as how delivering clear, tangible value has turned his clients into powerful referral engines. For show notes and more visit: https://www.kitces.com/491    

On this episode of Behind Beautiful Things, Ria joins Kevin for a powerful and deeply personal conversation about trauma, survival, addiction, crime, and redemption. Ria shares the story behind her memoir, Off-road Destiny, opening up about her childhood, her mother's suicide attempt, and growing up between Slovenia, Hungary, and Dubai.The episode dives into Ria's descent into drug smuggling, the life-changing moment she was caught, and the reality of serving time in prison. She also reflects on rebuilding her life after returning to Hungary and the lessons she learned through resilience, recovery, and self-discovery.If you enjoy true stories, memoir interviews, personal growth podcasts, and conversations about overcoming adversity, this episode of Behind Beautiful Things is one you won't want to miss.Please note: This episode contains discussion of suicide — please take care while listening. Check Out Ria's Work:https://www.offroaddestiny.com/https://www.instagram.com/rianeme?igsh=ZzY3OWZuNW14aHQw&utm_source=qrhttps://www.tiktok.com/@offroad.destiny?_r=1&_t=ZN-965X1qZQ7cchttps://x.com/neme_ria?s=21Behind Beautiful Things Website: www.sadtimespodcast.com Follow Behind Beautiful Things on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/373292146649249Follow Behind Beautiful Things on Instagram: @behindbeautifulthingspodcastLearn more about Kevin's Professional Speaking and Acting at www.kevincrispin.comCheck out Kevin's substack: https://allconviction.substack.com Get your very own “Sad Schwag”: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/hysteria51/albums/253388-sad-times-podcast?ref_id=9022Editorial note: Behind Beautiful Things is committed to sharing various stories from generous guests. The hope is to allow any number of stories to be shared to help people feel less alone and, perhaps, more empathetic. It is important to clarify that the guests' stories, perspectives, and sentiments do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of Behind Beautiful Things in any way. Please note that Behind Beautiful Things is in no way a substitute for medical or professional mental health support.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Multi-Family Office Manages ~$1B Mainly in Crypto – Meet Jake Claver Chairman Digital Ascension GroupJake Claver, CEO, Digital Ascension GroupWebsite: www.digitalfamilyoffice.ioAUM = $1 Billion Jake's Bio:Jake Claver is CEO and Principal of Digital Ascension Group, founder of Digital Wealth Partners, a digital-asset-focused RIA, and leader of Syndicately, an SPV platform for sophisticated investors. A recognized expert in blockchain and Web3 adoption, he advises family offices and high-net-worth clients through a multi-family office model that integrates planning, governance and next-generation investment strategies. Jake is a frequent industry speaker, has been featured in Bloomberg and MarketWatch, and is co-author of the bestselling book Wealth in Numbers. His focus is helping investors build durable, multi-generational wealth in the digital economy.Awards & Recognition:• Member of the Forbes Finance Council• Speaker at the Digital Fusion Summit 2025

A lot of wealth management still assumes you've already "made it" before you deserve real advice. Chelsea Ransom-Cooper, CFP®, co-founder of Zenith Wealth Partners, is challenging that assumption by building a fee-only RIA designed to serve women and people of color with relatable, high-quality financial planning.Chelsea walks us through the turning points that shaped Zenith: discovering fee-only planning through early networking, recognizing in 2020 that her client base didn't reflect the people who inspired her to enter the profession, and partnering with co-founder Jason Ray to build what they couldn't find in the market. She shares a concrete early-business tactic we loved — using a simple "30-name" validation list to prove demand and build confidence before making the leap, then turning those early conversations into her first wave of clients.We also get specific on how to scale without losing the mission. Chelsea explains how Zenith thinks about capacity (targeting 60 to 80 clients per advisor), support staffing, and using EOS to put the right people in the right seats. We dig into their flexible fee structure, including why they hold a minimum fee for service, avoid asset minimums, and blend planning engagements, retainer-style work, and AUM as clients' balance sheets evolve.Chelsea also shares how she manages a packed calendar through delegation, why that creates real growth opportunities for the next generation of advisors, and how her "zone of genius" in equity compensation helps her stand out. If you care about accessible financial advice, building a sustainable fee-only firm, and scaling with intention, this one is for you.Subscribe, share with a fellow advisor or founder, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway.Chelsea's Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chelsea-ransom-cooper-cfp-6b198346/Zenith Wealth Partners Website: https://zenithwealth.partners/Music in this episode was obtained from Bensound.

Javier Riaño, desde IronIA Fintech, ha explicado cómo han construido una plataforma de inversión centrada en facilitar el acceso y la comparación de fondos de inversión para cualquier usuario. La gestora cuenta actualmente con más de 23.000 fondos y 200 gestoras, tanto nacionales como internacionales, cubriendo gestión activa, pasiva y una amplísima variedad de estrategias y geografías. Riaño pone el foco en la enorme capacidad de búsqueda y clasificación de la plataforma. Destaca que disponer de miles de fondos hace que el inversor pueda elegir el que más que se acerque a sus preferencias. Para resolverlo, IronIA Fintech ha desarrollado herramientas avanzadas de filtrado y análisis que permiten encontrar fondos por categorías, sectores, regiones o estilos de inversión. Uno de los elementos más relevantes es el “buscador de categorías”, una herramienta basada en big data que permite comparar fondos dentro de una misma temática —por ejemplo tecnología, monetarios o renta fija. Javier Riaño destaca la accesibilidad: cualquier usuario registrado gratuitamente con un correo electrónico puede acceder a estas herramientas de análisis sin necesidad de contratar fondos o pagar suscripción. IronIA busca diferenciarse no solo por amplitud de oferta, sino por transparencia, comparabilidad y facilidad de uso para el inversor minorista.

Ria's back! (00:00-14:00). Summer House Finale & In The City premiere recap (15:45-27:58). Ria's thoughts on Drake's new albums (27:59-36:59). The Jonas Brothers have entered the podcast game (38:11-46:32). Anne Hathaway is producing an Ella Enchanted TV series (46:33-53:38). Grey's Anatomy is getting a Texas spinoff (53:39-1:00:32). Ria has rewatched Off Campus three times already (1:00:33-1:06:31). PopCorner voicemails: Beyond the Villa drama, Hot take on sheer dresses + Evan Bates & Madison Chock on DWTS idea (1:07:37-1:20:05). Interview with Ashley Iaconetti - talking everything Real Housewives of Rhode Island, her and Fran's love of the Jonas Brothers + more! (1:20:53-1:57:48). CITO LINKS > barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office.You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office

Terri Kallsen has had an outstanding career in financial services over the last 30 years. During her tenure at Charles Schwab, she led 7,000 employees and managed $1.6 trillion in assets, played a key role in transforming Wealth Enhancement Group as COO and over the last two years, she has been instrumental in building Rise Growth Partners, the RIA investing company started by former United Capital CEO Joe Duran. And this year, she's serving as chair of the CFP Board, a huge undertaking. Terri has done this all while raising three children, moving three times and being a mentor to many women and young professionals in the industry. The path was not always easy. Through it all, running has been a constant for Terri, and a form of therapy through stressful times. She has completed 21 marathons, 50 half-marathons and numerous triathlons, and she brings the same endurance, discipline and vision from the course to her approach in wealth management. In this episode of The Healthy Advisor, host Diana Britton interviews Terri Kallsen, managing partner and head of partnerships at Rise Growth Partners and chair of the CFP Board, about her journey through leadership, ethical crossroads, and personal resilience. Terri reflects on integrity, fiduciary duty and building a career aligned with her true north. She discusses: Balancing executive leadership, motherhood and earning the CFP through intense life transitions Choosing integrity over trends when fiduciary concerns conflicted with firm strategy Building a wealth management culture grounded in planning, ethics and client focus Using marathon training to develop discipline, resilience and long-term thinking Finding clarity by defining your true north during high-pressure career moments Resources: Listen to The Healthy Advisor on Wealth Management Subscribe and listen to The Healthy Advisor on Apple Podcasts Subscribe and listen to The Healthy Advisor on Spotify Connect With Terri Kallsen: LinkedIn: Terri Kallsen Website: Rise Growth Partners Website: CFP Board Terri@risegrowth.com  Connect with Wealth Management: Wealth Management LinkedIn: Diana Britton diana.britton@informa.com LinkedIn: Informa LinkedIn: Wealth Management About Our Guest: Terri Kallsen, CFP, is an accomplished wealth management executive known for leading strategic initiatives and driving innovative solutions across both large institutions and rapidly growing RIAs. As Managing Partner and Head of Partnerships at Rise Growth Partners, a minority investor and strategic advisor to leading firms, she leads enterprise transformation for partner firms—supporting strategic planning, organic growth initiatives, client experience innovation, and platform and performance reporting enhancements.  Before joining Rise, she served as Chief Operating Officer at Wealth Enhancement Group (WEG), where she oversaw advisor teams, platform and digital strategy, high-net-worth offerings, and trust services. Prior to WEG, she was Executive Vice President of Investor Services at Charles Schwab, where she led 7,000 employees and $1.6 trillion in assets under management.  Known for her innovative thinking and commitment to advisor advocacy, Terri is a respected speaker and writer who has been featured in Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, MSNBC, CNN, and other leading outlets.  She has been recognized numerous times for her dedication to mentorship, empowering women in the workplace, and advisor advocacy: – San Francisco's Financial Woman of the Year in 2019 – InvestmentNews Women to Watch 2024 Female Trailblazer of the Year Finalist – Named by Financial Planning as one of 20 People who will shape wealth management in 2025 – InvestmentNews Top Financial Professionals in the US | Hot List 2025 Terri currently serves as Chair of the CFP Board of Directors. She also sits on the Hollins University Board of Trustees.  She earned a Bachelor of Science degree from College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University in Minnesota and a Master of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Terri earned her CFP certification in 2005 and is also a Certified Wealth Strategist. She received her Finance CFO Certificate at the University of Chicago Executive Education Program.

Shannon Spotswood is CEO at RFG Advisory, an innovative RIA platform empowering entrepreneurial advisors to build their businesses and own their firms. We sat down with Shannon for a conversation on recent technological innovation driving growth in the wealth management space, and how RFG is providing advisors with the tools and support to scale.

In this episode of The Rainmaker Podcast, Gui Costin sits down with Dan Amir, Managing Director of Investor Coverage at Crow Holdings, for a wide-ranging conversation on building a wealth distribution team, applying institutional rigor to the wealth channel, and leading a sales organization through a difficult fundraising environment.Dan grew up in New Jersey, spent the first 13 years of his career in New York at BNY Mellon and Morgan Stanley in relationship and distribution roles, and made the pilgrimage to Dallas in 2017 — pre-COVID, before it was cool to go south. He joined Crow Holdings, the Dallas-based real estate investment and development firm founded by Trammell Crow, which today operates a development platform across multifamily and industrial sectors in 20 offices nationwide and an investment management business spanning industrial, multifamily, manufactured housing, self-storage, retail, and student housing.Crow Holdings Capital started its partnership journey in the institutional world — foundations and endowments first, then pensions and sovereign wealth. Over the last six years, the trajectory of growth in private real estate has shifted decisively toward the individual wealth community, which is why Dan was hired to lead a dedicated wealth coverage effort. His team of four (going to five) is structured geographically rather than channelized, with deliberate diversity of backgrounds — RIA, wirehouse, and non-linear distribution paths — to create overlap with how RIAs, wirehouses, and private banks actually behave in a market.Dan and Gui dug deep into the discipline of communication: starting every year with a written business plan, measuring weekly against benchmarks, and once a quarter looking back at the original plan. Communication up to leadership is succinct by design — pull data from Salesforce, summarize the position on each strategy, and engage the executive team only on genuinely strategic decisions. Dan emphasized the judgment of knowing when you need executive input.The CRM is the backbone of the operation, and AI sits on top of it. Dan ranked the CRM as indispensable for activity tracking, goal measurement, meeting note memorialization, and populating pre-meeting briefs across the broader client engagement team. Gui shared Dakota's pro tip for using Claude to dictate call notes in the lobby immediately after a meeting — eliminating the typing friction that has historically been the biggest barrier to capturing IP. Both agreed that AI is only as good as the data going in, and that picking one source of truth and training the team on it is now a strategic business decision, not a data decision.The conversation closed on leadership, trust, and culture. Dan's philosophy centers on understanding individual motivations, holding everyone accountable consistently, and trusting the team to do their jobs without micromanaging. In a difficult fundraising environment, maintaining team motivation comes from giving people the room to build durable, non-transactional relationships. Dan credited Crow Holdings' top-down culture as the reason he has never felt more like himself professionally — and the reason the team can apply institutional rigor to the wealth channel without losing the human element.Tired of chasing outdated leads? Book a demo to see how Dakota Marketplace simplifies your fundraising process with accurate, up-to-date investor data. 

YDF Founder D. Vance Barse shares how a pivotal career moment reshaped his philosophy around wealth planning and why he believes traditional financial advice often falls short for affluent families. He also discusses the proactive strategies used by $2 million to $20 million households, the importance of communication in building trust, and what differentiates his approach within today's increasingly competitive RIA landscape.

Should a string of perfect spelling tests earn you the right to choose movie night? Alma thinks so but Mum has other plans, usually involving detective films and a dose of Jessica Fletcher... When your Friday night hangs in the balance, is “We Can Be Heroes” too much to ask? Judge Bex weighs spelling triumph against cinematic tradition and hands down a verdict. Meanwhile, the court faces the siblings' classic: Ria vs. Mum (and her brother!). Ria is tired of always catching the blame for spills and snack wrappers left behind. Is she being unfairly singled out, or are memories of past misdemeanors clouding Mum’s judgement? Maybe it’s time for a detective in this house too! Judge Bex unpacks the evidence, interviews both sides, and rules on who truly deserves the blame and who needs to tidy up their act.Support the show: https://funkidslive.com/plusSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lot of advisors want to launch their own fee-only RIA, but the gap between "I'm ready" and "I have clients" can feel enormous. We're talking with Matt Ryan, founder of Focused Mission Financial in San Diego, about how he made the leap in 2022 after nearly a decade inside planning-focused firms, and what it actually looked like to build momentum from the ground up.We get specific about how his growth really happened: boots-on-the-ground marketing through coffees, lunches, and golf, backed by consistent touchpoints like a newsletter and short-form video. Matt also shares the truth about shiny objects, including paid lead programs like SmartAsset, and why some tactics fall flat for a solo RIA without the time and speed to follow up like a larger team.On the client service side, Matt walks us through how his process evolved into a formal six-step onboarding system, plus what changed when he hired an operations specialist to tighten workflows. We also dig into his work with self-employed clients, including solo 401(k) planning and tax planning, and how those needs show up differently than traditional retiree households.Finally, we talk about scaling with intention, integrating clients from a retiring advisor's book, and setting a boundary around lifestyle so growth never crowds out family time.If you're building an advisory firm, refining your financial planning process, or trying to find marketing that fits your personality, you'll take away practical ideas you can use right away. Subscribe for more conversations like this, share the show with another advisor, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway.Matt's Linkedin:https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-ryan-fmf/Music in this episode was obtained from Bensound

Whether you start your own RIA, or join an existing one, choosing which custodian to use is an important part of the decision process.As with choosing most solution providers for your practice, many variables should be evaluated. Price is one of them.So how much does a custodian cost?For better or worse, there is a very nuanced answer to that.On this episode (#148) of the Transition To RIA question and answer series, I explain what you should expect to pay (or not) for custodial services.Come take a listen!P.S. Prefer video? You can find this entire series in video format on Youtube. Search for the TRANSITION TO RIA channel.Show notes: https://TransitionToRIA.com/how-much-does-a-custodian-cost/About Host: Brad Wales is the founder of Transition To RIA, where he helps financial advisors between $50M and $1B understand everything there is to know about WHY and HOW to transition their practice to the Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) model. Brad has 20+ years of industry experience, including direct RIA related roles in Compliance, Finance and Business Development. He has an MBA and has held the 4, 7, 24, 63 & 65 licenses. The Transition To RIA website (TransitionToRIA.com) has a large catalog of free videos, articles, whitepapers, as well as other resources to help advisors understand the RIA model and how it would apply to their unique circumstances.

On this week's episode of That Peter Crouch Podcast, Pete, Sids and Chris dive headfirst into one of the wildest Listener Mail episodes yet — and absolutely nothing is off limits. From pink eye, polyps and footballers wearing makeup on live TV… to whether finishing SECOND deserves an open-top bus parade, the lads somehow manage to cover it all.There's chaos as the boys debate if modern football has officially gone soft, including refs with trendy haircuts, xG nerds, shirt-off celebrations, and whether heading could eventually disappear from the game entirely. Plus, a listener's all-time “Games Gone” rant sparks one of the funniest football debates they've had in ages.Elsewhere, Pete reveals his secret childhood career working in his grandad's butcher shop, the Wealdstone Raider officially dumps Chris for Crouchy, and there's an unbelievable story involving someone legally named after the entire 1979 Liverpool team.The lads also react to bizarre old-school footballer tweets, discuss marathon punishments for the Football League, rank Aussie icons in a “Down Under Vanarama,” and preview the FA Cup Final with the help of Chris' wife Ria — who might actually be better at predictions than all three of them combined.It's listener mail at its absolute finest: ridiculous football chat, nostalgia, complete nonsense, and plenty of classic pod chaos.Chumbawamba00:00 - Intro, makeup chat & Chris' pink eye reveal03:15 - Polyps, bllocks & why the lads do this to themselves04:27 - Fans listening to the pod on the London Underground05:12 - Shin pad injury update & the listener who got slashed06:02 - Does SECOND place deserve an open-top bus parade?07:18 - Playoff winners vs automatic promotion debate08:50 - The Wealdstone Raider officially dumps Chris10:22 - Will the Wealdstone Raider come on the podcast?11:45 - Sponsored Segment with England15:52 - Download the England app!19:01 - Listener Mail officially begins19:21 - The unbelievable football shirt sent from Vanuatu20:48 - The lads decide to give the shirt away21:24 - Aussie caravans & the “Down Under Vanarama”25:31 - Steve Irwin, Alf Stewart & Toadfish in a Vanarama26:51 - Sids loses it at “Beanpole, Fire Pbes and One Ball”27:18 - Serious chat about checking yourself & men's health29:31 - A listener legally named after Liverpool's 1979 team30:43 - Charlie Otway's insane full name explained31:58 - Marathon punishment ideas for the Football League34:58 - The funniest accidental footballer tweets ever36:44 - “Games Gone” mega-rant begins37:11 - Referees with trendy haircuts debate37:29 - xG, “big chances” & football nerd culture38:19 - Shirt-off celebrations & VAR frustrations39:00 - Why clubs keep buying young foreign players39:20 - Is football removing physical contact from the game?40:23 - Players showing personality vs media backlash42:49 - Football League table update & Ria's prediction success45:24 - FA Cup Final preview: Chelsea vs Manchester City47:42 - Paddy Power's Minister of Mischief returns49:32 - Has Chris replaced the listeners with his wife?50:53 - Ria gives her FA Cup predictions52:28 - The lads react to Ria outperforming them54:30 - Why the FA Cup Final morning feels special57:00 - Predictions: Man United vs Forest & Newcastle vs West Ham58:37 - Paddy's Boost selections01:01:18 - OutroThe Official England squad drops May 22nd on the England App first - if you want to see who is making Tuchel's squad download the app here :https://england.onelink.me/rgxW/lbj1at4bAnd if you want to be in with a chance of winning an official signed England shirt - submit your selects in the Squad Selector by May 21st . #adFor more Peter Crouch: Twitter - https://twitter.com/petercrouch Therapy Crouch - https://www.youtube.com/@thetherapycrouch For more Chris Stark Twitter - https://twitter.com/Chris_StarkInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/chrisstark/For more Steve Sidwell Twitter - https://twitter.com/sjsidwell Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/stevesidwell14 #PeterCrouch #ThatPeterCrouchPodcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the RIA Edge Podcast, host David Armstrong speaks with Randy Morris, founder and CEO of Summit Wealth Group, about the firm's transition from a long-standing broker/dealer affiliate to launch its own independent RIA platform. He explains how the decision was shaped by a desire for greater autonomy, improved client experience and long-term growth potential. Randy also shares how leadership structure, internal ownership and a minority capital partnership are helping guide the firm forward, along with how digital marketing, acquisitions, expanded services and technology are each playing a role in building the next phase of the business. Key takeaways: What drove the firm's leaders to leave a 20-year tenure as a hybrid affiliate of an independent broker/dealer to launch “Summit 2.0” as a fully independent RIA The succession calculations that fueled many of the structural changes Summit made in recent years The importance of organic growth and how Summit has landed some of its largest clients via SEO and Google What drives the firm's M&A strategy, and the types of firms it is looking to add to the mix in the future How Summit executives decided on an executive organizational structure to formalize and streamline decision-making processes, and how they deliberately created internal career pathways for employees The reasons the firm accepted an investment from Constellation Wealth, beyond simply access to operating capital How the firm feels about balancing unified branding with localized identities for its geographically diverse advisors Resources: Listen to the RIA Edge Podcast on Wealth Management Listen and Subscribe to the RIA Edge Podcast on Apple Podcasts Listen and Subscribe to the RIA Edge Podcast on Spotify Connect With David Armstrong: Wealth Management LinkedIn: Wealth Management LinkedIn: David Armstrong Twitter: David Armstrong LinkedIn: Informa Connect With Randy Morris: LinkedIn: Randy Morris LinkedIn: Summit Wealth Group Website: Summit Wealth Group About Our Guest: Randy Morris' early career helped prepare him as a financial planning pioneer. After graduating from the University of Colorado in 1982 with a degree in business and organizational management, he worked for two years as Vice President of Executive Economic Services, Inc., in Denver, Colorado. In 1985, Randy founded Executive Financial Planning, Inc. (EFP), one of Mississippi’s first financial planning firms. In 2002, he created Summit Wealth Group (SWG) out of a desire to provide additional wealth management services for clients. Randy serves as the firm’s CEO. In March 2025, Summit Wealth Group, LLC, registered with the SEC as a registered Investment Advisor and filed notice with six states.  Peers in the financial industry have recognized Randy's skills and accomplishments by electing him as a past President of the Mississippi Chapter of the Financial Planning Association (FPA). Randy is a Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC-1985), and a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® Practitioner (1987). He is also a Registered Representative, an Investment Adviser Representative, and a Registered Securities Principal. Additionally, he has assisted the CFP® Board of Examiners as an exam reviewer.  Randy has served on numerous boards, including Barge Timberlands International, Camp Lake Forest Ranch, Southeast Regional Committee for Young Life, Military Community Youth Ministries (MCYM), and the World Vision Leadership Council. Randy lives with his wife, Nancy, in Scottsdale, Arizona, where they attend Scottsdale Bible Church. They have six children: Joy, Jesse, Hannah, Scott, Randy, and Ryan, as well as 12 grandchildren. Randy's accolades include being recognized by Forbes Magazine in each of the past 8 years, making its “Best-In-State Wealth Advisors” list for the state of Arizona. 

Ria's celeb filled night in NYC (00:00-45:34). Ciara Miller claims West Wilson & Jennifer Fessler slept together (46:23-59:45). Ciara Miller & Tefi Pessoa join Love Island USA as Aftersun co-hosts (59:46-1:02:37). Taylor Frankie Paul calls out Mikayla Matthews (1:02:38-1:12:19). Weekly Watch Report: The Roast of Kevin Hart, The Devil Wears Prada 2. Euphoria+ more! (1:13:52-). CITO LINKS > barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office.You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office

What happens when you stumble into a career you didn't even know existed and end up building a business entirely on your own terms? In this episode, Kaleb Paddock, founder of Ten Talents Financial Planning, shares his unconventional journey into financial planning and the lessons he learned along the way. From discovering the profession through third-party administration work to earning his CFP and gaining hands-on experience at an RIA firm, Kaleb walks through the pivotal moments that shaped his career. Listen in to learn how he made the leap to entrepreneurship, the challenges of starting from scratch in a new state, and how he evolved his business model into a virtual family office designed to better serve his clients. You can find show notes and more information by clicking here: https://tinyurl.com/3ykhxaza 

Fluent Fiction - Hindi: Mysterious Carvings and Secret Tales: A Qutub Minar Adventure Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/hi/episode/2026-05-08-07-38-19-hi Story Transcript:Hi: कुतुब मीनार के आसपास का माहौल आज कुछ खास था।En: The atmosphere around the Qutub Minar was something special today.Hi: वसंत की सुगंधी हवा में ताज़गी थी, और हरे-भरे बागान में बच्चे अपने अध्यापकों के साथ घूम रहे थे।En: A fragrant breeze of spring brought refreshment, and children were touring the lush gardens with their teachers.Hi: अदित्य और रिया अपनी इतिहास की कक्षा के साथ यहां आए थे।En: Aditya and Ria had come here with their history class.Hi: अदित्य को ऐतिहासिक स्थलों में बेहद दिलचस्पी थी, उसे रोमांच और हल्की शरारतों का भी शौक था।En: Aditya had a deep interest in historical sites and also had a taste for adventure and mischief.Hi: उनकी कक्षा की अध्यापिका, मिसेज़ शर्मा, सभी छात्रों पर कड़ी निगरानी रख रही थीं।En: Their teacher, Mrs. Sharma, was keeping a close watch on all the students.Hi: "देखो," अदित्य ने रिया से फुसफुसाया, "यहां की कहानियाँ कहती हैं कि एक राजदार रास्ता है जो अभी तक किसी ने नहीं पाया।En: "Look," Aditya whispered to Ria, "Stories here say that there's a secret passage that no one has found yet."Hi: "रिया ने आदित्य की तरफ देखा।En: Ria looked at Aditya.Hi: "तुम्हें नहीं लगता कि हमें मिसेज़ शर्मा के निर्देशों का पालन करना चाहिए?En: "Don't you think we should follow Mrs. Sharma's instructions?"Hi: ""हाँ, लेकिन सोचो, रिया!En: "Yes, but think, Ria!Hi: अगर हम इसे ढूंढ पाए तो?En: What if we find it?"Hi: " अदित्य की आंखों में चमक थी।En: There was a sparkle in Aditya's eyes.Hi: तभी एक कलाकार की टोली ने परफॉर्मेंस शुरू कर दी।En: Just then, a troupe of performers began their performance.Hi: मिसेज़ शर्मा और बाकी छात्र उस तरफ ध्यान देने लगे।En: Mrs. Sharma and the rest of the students turned their attention to it.Hi: यह देखकर अदित्य ने रिया को खींचा, "यह हमारा मौका है!En: Seeing this, Aditya pulled Ria, "This is our chance!"Hi: "रिया थोड़ी संकोच के साथ पीछे आ गई।En: With a little hesitation, Ria followed behind.Hi: अदित्य ने तेजी से मीनार के पिछले हिस्से की तरफ दौड़ लगाई, जो कम भीड़भाड़ वाला था।En: Aditya quickly ran towards the less crowded back area of the minaret.Hi: अचानक, आदित्य ने दीवारों पर कुछ अलग सा देखा।En: Suddenly, Aditya noticed something different on the walls.Hi: कुछ नक्काशीदार पत्थर थे जिनमें एक अद्वितीय चित्र था।En: There were some intricately carved stones with a unique depiction.Hi: अदित्य ने खोद-बीन शुरू कर दी।En: Aditya started to investigate.Hi: उसे बिल्कुल यकीन नहीं था कि वह क्या खोज रहा था, लेकिन उसका दिल जोर-जोर से धड़क रहा था।En: He wasn't entirely sure what he was looking for, but his heart was pounding.Hi: "अदित्य, यह ऐसा करने का सही तरीका नहीं है," रिया चेतावनी भरे स्वर में बोली।En: "Aditya, this isn't the right way to go about this," Ria warned in a concerned tone.Hi: "बस थोड़ी देर और," अदित्य चुपचाप उत्तर दिया।En: "Just a little longer," Aditya quietly replied.Hi: तभी एक गाइड वहां आया, जिसने अदित्य को देखकर मुस्कुराया।En: Just then, a guide came over, smiling at Aditya.Hi: "तुम इस जगह की कहानियों में रुचि रखते हो?En: "Are you interested in the stories of this place?"Hi: " गाइड ने पूछा।En: the guide asked.Hi: अदित्य ने सिर हिलाया।En: Aditya nodded.Hi: उन्होंने गाइड को उस खास नक्काशी के बारे में बताया।En: They told the guide about the particular carving.Hi: गाइड ने गहराई से समझाया कि ये चित्र तत्कालीन शासकों के राजकाज और उनकी दैनिक जिंदगियो से जुड़े हुए हैं।En: The guide explained in depth that these images were related to the governance and daily lives of the rulers of that era.Hi: रिया भी अब रुचि ले रही थी।En: Now Ria was also taking an interest.Hi: "तो ये राजदार रास्ता कोई कहानी नहीं, बल्कि पुराने समय के रहस्य हैं।En: "So this secret passage is not just a story, but a mystery from ancient times."Hi: "अदित्य ने अपनी जिज्ञासा की वजह से एक नया पहलू जाना।En: Aditya learned a new dimension due to his curiosity.Hi: "कभी-कभी," अदित्य ने कहा, "कहानियाँ खुद में ही सबसे बेहतरीन खजाना होती हैं।En: "Sometimes," Aditya said, "stories themselves are the greatest treasures."Hi: "रिया मुस्कुराई और बोली, "अब तुम समझदार हो गए हो।En: Ria smiled and said, "Now you've become wiser."Hi: "मिसेज़ शर्मा और बाकी छात्र दाने-दाने लौटे।En: Mrs. Sharma and the rest of the students returned in small groups.Hi: अदित्य और रिया उनके साथ हो लिए।En: Aditya and Ria joined them.Hi: अदित्य ने पाया, भले ही उसने वह छुपा रास्ता न पाया हो, पर उसने एक ऐसी कहानी पाई थी जो उसके मन को भा गई और रिया की नजरों में उसकी इज्जत बढ़ा दी थी।En: Aditya realized that even though he hadn't found the hidden passage, he had discovered a story that captivated his heart and increased his respect in Ria's eyes. Vocabulary Words:atmosphere: माहौलfragrant: सुगंधीrefreshment: ताज़गीlush: हरे-भरेmischief: शरारतोंintricately: नक्काशीदारdepiction: चित्रinvestigate: खोद-बीनpounding: धड़कwarned: चेतावनीconcerned: चिंतितparticular: खासgovernance: राजकाजdimension: पहलूcuriosity: जिज्ञासाtreasures: खजानाentirely: बिल्कुलperformance: परफॉर्मेंसinstructions: निर्देशोंsparkle: चमकtroupe: टोलीattention: ध्यानpassage: रास्ताcrowded: भीड़भाड़ancient: पुरानेrealized: पायाcaptivated: भा गईuncommon: अद्वितीयsmile: मुस्कुरानाwiser: समझदार

Most investors think Bitcoin is about price. At the high-net-worth level, a far more important conversation is happening around taxes. Because Bitcoin isn't treated like a stock or a business. It's treated as property. And that classification opens up strategies around taxation and capital movement that simply don't exist in traditional asset classes. And once you understand that, the way you evaluate Bitcoin starts to change. Most high-net-worth investors don't dismiss Bitcoin because they don't understand it. They dismiss it because, from where they sit, it doesn't meet the standard. If your entire framework is built on fundamentals, intrinsic value, and cash flow, Bitcoin feels like a contradiction. It's volatile, it doesn't produce income, and it doesn't behave like the assets that built their wealth. But that framework may be incomplete. In this episode of Money School Elite, I sit down with Eric Runge to unpack how Bitcoin is actually being used inside high-net-worth portfolios, and why the conversation at that level looks very different from what most investors see. Eric works directly with family offices and high-net-worth investors, helping them think about capital, risk, and structure beyond traditional asset classes. And in this conversation, he breaks down how Bitcoin fits into that picture, not as a speculative bet, but as a strategic layer.   About the Guest  Eric Runge is an RIA working with family offices to build capital preservation and tax strategies using Bitcoin, an approach that challenges how most investors think about the asset entirely. He is the founder of Veritas Bitcoin Strategies, a registered investment adviser focused on integrating Bitcoin into high-net-worth portfolios through risk-managed, long-term allocation frameworks. With over 20 years in financial markets, Eric works with families and sophisticated investors who aren't looking to speculate, but to understand how digital assets can be positioned within a broader strategy focused on preservation, structure, and tax efficiency. His work sits at the intersection of traditional wealth management and emerging monetary systems, helping investors rethink where Bitcoin fits, not as a trade, but as a strategic layer inside a portfolio. To learn, send an email to eric@veritaswealth.net.      About Your Host From pro-snowboarder to money mogul, Chris Naugle has dedicated his life to being America's #1 Money Mentor. With a core belief that success is built not by the resources you have, but by how resourceful you can be. Chris has built and owned 19 companies, with his businesses being featured in Forbes, ABC, House Hunters, and his very own HGTV pilot in 2018. He is the founder of The Money School™ and Money Mentor for The Money Multiplier. His success also includes managing tens of millions of dollars in assets in the financial services and advisory industry and in real estate transactions. As an innovator and visionary in wealth-building and real estate, he empowers entrepreneurs, business owners, and real estate investors with the knowledge of how money works. Chris is also a nationally recognized speaker, author, and podcast host. He has spoken to and taught over ten thousand Americans, delivering the financial knowledge that fuels lasting freedom.   Resources Private Money Guide:  https://go.moneyschoolrei.com/book-podcast Wealth Wednesday Webinar: https://go.moneyschoolrei.com/wednesday-webinar-podcast Mapping out the Millionaire Mystery:  https://go.moneyschoolrei.com/newbook-podcast    

A "backup plan" PowerPoint deck can become a real firm faster than you'd think, but the messy middle is where most people quit. Ryan Johnson, founder of Hundred Financial Planning, joins us to talk through what it actually takes to build a fee-only firm from the ground up.Ryan shares how he found the fee-only RIA community through cold outreach, why he wanted ownership of a book of business, and what the first two years really felt like. We get into client experience, including the early mistake of overwhelming plan presentations and how he's shaping an ongoing service model that stays structured without feeling rigid.We also dig into growth: why LinkedIn finally started generating leads, why silent followers often turn into your best prospects, his niche focus on high-earning young families, and the values-first discovery meeting that helps clients feel heard before any numbers come out. We close with AI in financial advice, where it helps, where it breaks, and why the risk of a wrong answer makes a human advisor worth the cost.Subscribe, share with an advisor friend, and leave a review with your biggest growth question!Ryan's Linkedin:https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanjohnsonku/Music in this episode was obtained from Bensound

Your clients don’t want a portfolio manager. They want someone who’ll catch them when they fall. That’s the truth most advisors are too busy chasing alpha to hear, and it’s exactly why Duncan MacPherson sits down with industry legend Steve Sandusky in this episode. Steve climbs mountains, and he’s spent decades teaching advisors that the most important rope in their practice isn’t tied to the markets. It’s the belay: the quiet discipline of holding the line so your client can keep climbing without fear of the fall. Get that right and you stop selling advice. You become the first call when life cracks open. Duncan and Steve unpack “Return on Life,” the framework reshaping the profession by measuring success not in basis points but in a client’s freedom, time, and meaning. They get into why story and symbolism build trust faster than any performance chart, how celestial navigation can steady clients (and you) when the markets blur, and what it takes to build a practice the AI tsunami can’t touch. Key takeaways: Using story and symbolism to forge trust that compounds Designing a purpose-driven practice that ages well Pricing human judgment in an AI-saturated market Knowing when to lean into technology and when to put it down Finding your North Star when every client is asking, “What now?” If you’re done competing on returns and ready to compete on meaning, this episode is the map. Outthink. Outcare. Outlast. Promotions: Pareto Systems: Turnkey Advisor Membership Pareto Systems Consulting: paretosystems.com/financial-advisor-coaching Connect With Duncan MacPherson: Website: ParetoSystems.com Toll Free: 1.866.593.8020 Learn More: Schedule a Call LinkedIn: Duncan MacPherson Connect With Steve Sanduski: LinkedIn: Steve Sanduski E-mail: ssanduski@belayadvisor.com Website: belayadvisor.com About Our Guest: Steve Sanduski, MBA, CFP® is the Founder and President of Belay Advisor, a financial advisor coaching, consulting, and marketing services company that works with individuals and firms to accelerate growth. For more than 20 years, he's been building businesses and helping professionals become more successful. Prior to founding Belay Advisor, Steve was the Managing Partner of Peak Advisor Alliance, a business coaching and training resources company that grew from 0 to 1,000 coaching clients during his 11 years of managing the company. Earlier in his career, he was a senior leader at an independent broker/dealer and helped build the firm's corporate RIA from $0 to nearly $2 billion in assets under management in a short period of time. An accomplished writer, Steve is a New York Times Bestselling author and the co-author of two books: Tested in the Trenches: A 9-Step Plan for Success as a New-Era Advisor (it has become one of the most sought after practice management books in the industry) Avalanche: The 9 Principles for Uncovering True Wealth (became a New York Times bestseller and a Wall Street Journal #1 bestseller) Steve is also a frequent contributor to the trade press including Investment News. Financial Planning Magazine, and Financial Advisor Magazine. As a professional speaker, Steve has addressed audiences all over the country and he focuses on delivering practical ideas, strategies and tools that attendees can use immediately to reach higher levels of success. He's also the host of several podcasts including Between Now and Success and Barron's Advisor: The Way Forward podcast. On both podcasts, Steve interviews top financial industry leaders as well as other accomplished professional from around the world who have messages that can benefit financial advisors

It's Q&A Wednesday, and Lance Roberts & Danny Ratliff are taking your questions live from the YouTube chatroom. From markets at all-time highs and rising pullback risk, to Fed policy, rates, and portfolio positioning, we're breaking down what matters most right now. With stocks extended, volume thinning out, and momentum showing signs of fatigue, is this a healthy pause or the start of a correction? What should investors and traders be doing right here? Key topics include: 0:00 - INTRO 0:57 - Markets Rally, Oil Plunges 4:05 - AI Trade is Back - but watch for reversal 7:52 - Vanguard Bond Builders - Bonds vs ETF's 12:32 - Best Store of Cash for a Portfolio? 14:39 - Couples with Pensions 17:06 - How did you react to downturn in the market? 19:59 - Lump Sum vs Pension Payout? 21:15 - The Thing About High-Yield Bonds 23:15 - What About the "Bucket Strategy" for Managine Risk? 24:31 - What Happens if Pensions Go Broke? 26:12 - Technical - Is the MACD Ever Wrong (and what is it?) 28:14 - Technical - What is the difference between Absolute & Relative scores? 32:28 - Where Are Rotations Going Next? 33:33 - Why Aren't Nvidia & Palantir Part of This Advance? 35:32 - Are Gold Stocks a Decent Buy? 38:16 - Use of Inverse ETF's as Hedges 39:03 - Portfolio Over- & Under-weighting 39:58 - How to Work with RIA? 40:44 - What if U.S. Dissolves? 42:35 - Don't Worry; Be Happy 43:07 - Managing Stocks w Different Advisors 45:35 - What's Your Story? 46:20 - The Thing About Apple & Microsoft 50:48 - BOE Interest Rates & Impact on Gold Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist, Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Investment Advisor, Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/TFn61TpR-Fc ------- Watch today's "Before the Bell" feature, "AI Rally Nears Exhaustion," here: https://youtu.be/cievTNHiw6Y ------- Watch our previous show, "Investing vs Trading - Finding the Balance," https://youtube.com/live/LGDW2OXJ6oo ------- * REGISTER for our next Candid Coffee, Saturday, May 16: "Financial Organization Made Simple:" https://streamyard.com/watch/SA6aj2aMdMhf -------- Download Lance's Latest e-book, "Laws of Money & Wealth:"https://realinvestmentadvice.com/ria-e-guide-library/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #StockMarket #Investing #AIStocks #MarketOutlook #RiskManagement

It's Q&A Wednesday, and Lance Roberts & Danny Ratliff are taking your questions live from the YouTube chatroom. From markets at all-time highs and rising pullback risk, to Fed policy, rates, and portfolio positioning, we're breaking down what matters most right now. With stocks extended, volume thinning out, and momentum showing signs of fatigue, is this a healthy pause or the start of a correction? What should investors and traders be doing right here? Key topics include: 0:00 - INTRO 0:57 - Markets Rally, Oil Plunges 4:05 - AI Trade is Back - but watch for reversal 7:52 - Vanguard Bond Builders - Bonds vs ETF's 12:32 - Best Store of Cash for a Portfolio? 14:39 - Couples with Pensions 17:06 - How did you react to downturn in the market? 19:59 - Lump Sum vs Pension Payout? 21:15 - The Thing About High-Yield Bonds 23:15 - What About the "Bucket Strategy" for Managine Risk? 24:31 - What Happens if Pensions Go Broke? 26:12 - Technical - Is the MACD Ever Wrong (and what is it?) 28:14 - Technical - What is the difference between Absolute & Relative scores? 32:28 - Where Are Rotations Going Next? 33:33 - Why Aren't Nvidia & Palantir Part of This Advance? 35:32 - Are Gold Stocks a Decent Buy? 38:16 - Use of Inverse ETF's as Hedges 39:03 - Portfolio Over- & Under-weighting 39:58 - How to Work with RIA? 40:44 - What if U.S. Dissolves? 42:35 - Don't Worry; Be Happy 43:07 - Managing Stocks w Different Advisors 45:35 - What's Your Story? 46:20 - The Thing About Apple & Microsoft 50:48 - BOE Interest Rates & Impact on Gold Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist, Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Investment Advisor, Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/TFn61TpR-Fc ------- Watch today's "Before the Bell" feature, "AI Rally Nears Exhaustion," here: https://youtu.be/cievTNHiw6Y ------- Watch our previous show, "Investing vs Trading - Finding the Balance," https://youtube.com/live/LGDW2OXJ6oo ------- * REGISTER for our next Candid Coffee, Saturday, May 16: "Financial Organization Made Simple:" https://streamyard.com/watch/SA6aj2aMdMhf -------- Download Lance's Latest e-book, "Laws of Money & Wealth:"https://realinvestmentadvice.com/ria-e-guide-library/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #StockMarket #Investing #AIStocks #MarketOutlook #RiskManagement

In this episode of The Rainmaker Podcast, Gui Costin sits down with Keith VanOrden, Head of Retail Distribution for North America at TCW. Keith brings nearly 30 years of experience building and leading sales teams, including more than 13 years at BlackRock, most recently as the national sales manager for iShares, and earlier roles at Delaware Investments, Fidelity, and Putnam, where he started his career in Boston.The conversation opens with Keith's origin story growing up in Philadelphia, attending Syracuse where he met his wife Toby, and his early internship at Smith Barney that pointed him toward distribution. He shares how a literal steno notebook, started during his wholesaling years, became the blueprint for his approach to leadership. Tracking nine different sales managers across six years, he identified the two traits that mattered most: trust and having walked in the team's shoes.When Keith joined TCW three years ago, the firm had great active fixed income, concentrated equity portfolios, and a strong legacy in private credit and asset-backed finance but no retail sales team. He built one from scratch, drawing on the notes and patterns he'd been collecting for decades. Today the team includes 15 internals, 14 in the wirehouse and independent channels, 9 in RIA, and a wealth portfolio consulting team built around white-glove service.Keith and Gui dig into the channelization debate, agreeing that the right answer depends on team size, product breadth, and where revenue actually lives. They unpack TCW's sales process anchored in Sequoia training, transparent alignment between salesperson, client, and firm interests, and a disciplined follow-up cadence. They also break down CRM as the lifeblood of distribution, with Salesforce, voice-to-text dictation, automatic internal follow-ups, and 100% adoption. Keith shares a study that overturns the old 4–6 touchpoints-per-year rule the real number is 8–12 and explains why digital engagement signals have to feed into the CRM to capture the full picture of an account.On communication, Keith emphasizes Team chats over email, including channels he doesn't even know about, which he sees as a healthy sign. He runs annual "retirement parties" for bad ideas and standing meetings that have outlived their usefulness. Gui shares Dakota's check-in cadence short, momentum-driven, never about performing for the boss.Keith reflects on managing up after 14 years with the same boss, emphasizing that he never coasts on the relationship. He describes his leadership style as servant leadership and tells the Ed Harris / Gulf and Western story every time Harris got a big job, he asked his team what they needed to succeed, and then he gave it to them. Keith looks for four traits in salespeople: natural curiosity, work ethic, a development mindset, and genuine love for the business.He closes on his biggest challenge: knowing when to pivot versus when to stick with what's working. Sometimes the highest-leverage move is to keep doing exactly what's working and trust the discipline.Tired of chasing outdated leads? Book a demo to see how Dakota Marketplace simplifies your fundraising process with accurate, up-to-date investor data. 

What if today's RIA partnership models aren't solving the right problems? In this episode of RIA+, Jim Dickson explains to Emigrant's Mark Bruno why he launched Elevation Point in 2024 and the structural gaps he believes exist across the advisory landscape. He outlines the specific challenges advisors face around growth, alignment, and support after they go independent —and why traditional aggregators and PE-backed models often fall short. Jim and Mark also touch on the exceptional growth Elevation Point has shared since partnering with Emigrant in May 2025, what success looks like for partner firms, and how leaders should think about capital, control, and scalability in a rapidly evolving wealth management environment.

Episode: The Tom Dupree Show  |  Host: Tom Dupree  |  Co-host: Mike Johnson Episode Summary Tom Dupree and Mike Johnson tackle one of the most common misconceptions in retirement planning: that a 401(k) balance is a retirement plan. It isn’t. It’s a savings vehicle — and a very good one — but it was designed to collect money, not distribute it. This episode explains what that distinction means in practical terms, and what steps to take before retirement to make sure your savings can actually do the job you’re counting on them to do. Topics Covered in This Episode Why a 401(k) is an accumulation vehicle, not a retirement plan The problem with applying a growth portfolio to a withdrawal strategy How rolling a 401(k) into an IRA opens up income-oriented investment options The three-legged stool: income, growth of income, and price appreciation Why selling shares to fund expenses works in a rising market — and fails in a flat or declining one The case for consolidating multiple old 401(k) accounts before retirement How dividend income shifts the focus from watching the balance to watching the cash flow Why pure asset allocation models limit flexibility in retirement The psychological value of knowing what you own and why you own it Key Takeaways The 401(k) did its job — now it needs a different tool. A 401(k) is structured for dollar-cost averaging and tax-deferred growth. That design is a poor match for generating predictable monthly income in retirement. A bigger balance is not a plan. Knowing your account value is not the same as knowing what that value will produce for you each month, for how long, and under what market conditions. Income-first investing changes the math. When a portfolio generates enough dividend income to cover living expenses, you are not forced to sell shares during market downturns — and that distinction is what protects long-term wealth. Rolling to an IRA opens up your options. The investment menu inside a 401(k) is limited by plan design. An IRA allows access to individual dividend-paying stocks and income-generating vehicles that most 401(k) plans don’t offer. Scattered accounts are a retirement hazard. The average person approaching retirement holds three to five old 401(k) accounts. Consolidating simplifies beneficiary designations, RMD calculations, and day-to-day management. Watch cash flow, not just the balance. In retirement, the number that matters most is what the portfolio produces each month — not what it’s worth on any given day. Know what you own and why you own it. Clients who understand their holdings don’t panic when markets get choppy, because they know the income side of the equation hasn’t changed even if the price has. Three Questions Worth Answering Before You Retire Tom closed the episode with three questions every listener should be able to answer: Do you know what fees you’re paying? Do you know what income your portfolio is currently producing? Do you know what you own and why you own it? If you can’t answer even one of those with confidence, that’s worth addressing before retirement — not after. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between a 401(k) and a retirement plan? A 401(k) is a tax-deferred savings vehicle offered through your employer. It is designed to accumulate money during your working years. A retirement plan is a personalized strategy that determines how you will generate income from your savings throughout retirement — including what you own, how much you withdraw, how taxes are managed, and how long your money needs to last. The 401(k) is one piece of that plan, not the plan itself. Should I roll my 401(k) into an IRA when I retire? For most retirees, rolling a 401(k) into an IRA makes sense because an IRA offers a much wider range of investment options — including individual dividend-paying stocks and income-focused strategies that most 401(k) plan menus don’t include. Pre-tax contributions roll into a Traditional IRA; Roth contributions roll into a Roth IRA. The rollover should always be done institution-to-institution to avoid taxes and penalties. Every situation is different, so it’s worth reviewing your specific plan before making the move. What is wrong with leaving my 401(k) invested in an S&P 500 index fund in retirement? The S&P 500 yields just over 1% in dividends — not enough to cover most retirees’ living expenses. That means you’d need to sell shares regularly to generate cash. When the market is rising, that works. When the market is flat or declining, you’re forced to sell more shares to get the same dollar amount, which depletes your principal at the worst possible time. Over a 20- or 30-year retirement, that pattern can quietly cause serious damage to a portfolio. What is an income-focused retirement portfolio? An income-focused portfolio is built around investments that generate regular cash flow — primarily dividend-paying stocks in companies with long track records of consistent and growing dividends. The goal is for the income produced by the portfolio to cover living expenses, so you are not dependent on selling shares to fund retirement. Price appreciation is still part of the picture, but it’s the third priority, not the first. How many 401(k) accounts should I have going into retirement? Ideally, as few as possible. The average person approaching retirement holds three to five old 401(k) accounts from previous employers. Consolidating them into one or two IRAs — one Traditional, one Roth if applicable — simplifies beneficiary designations, required minimum distribution calculations, and overall portfolio management. It also makes it much harder to lose track of money you’ve worked decades to save. What is a safe withdrawal rate in retirement? A commonly referenced figure is 4% per year, which comes from historical research suggesting that withdrawal rate has a high probability of lasting 30 years across most market environments. However, the right withdrawal rate depends on your specific expenses, other income sources like Social Security or a pension, your tax situation, and how your portfolio is structured. An income-focused portfolio where dividends cover most expenses may allow for more flexibility than a pure growth portfolio using a fixed percentage rule. What does Dupree Financial Group do differently from a typical 401(k) plan? Dupree Financial Group is a fee-only, fiduciary RIA that manages separately managed accounts — meaning your investments are held in your name, not pooled into a fund. The firm builds income-focused portfolios around dividend-paying companies selected for their financial strength, cash flow, and dividend history. There are no products sold, no commissions, and no conflicts of interest. The focus is entirely on building a portfolio that generates reliable income and protects principal over a long retirement. About The Tom Dupree Show The Tom Dupree Show is hosted by Tom Dupree, founder of Dupree Financial Group and a 47-year veteran of the investment business. Each episode covers the financial topics that matter most to retirees and those approaching retirement — in plain English, without the Wall Street spin. Dupree Financial Group is a fee-only, fiduciary Registered Investment Advisory firm based in Lexington, Kentucky. The firm manages separately managed accounts focused on income-generating, dividend-paying portfolios — no products sold, no commissions, no conflicts of interest. Past episodes are available at dupreefinancial.com under the Radio tab. Schedule a Complimentary Portfolio Review If you’re not sure whether your 401(k) can actually support the retirement you’ve planned, we’ll take a look. No charge. No pressure. Just an honest conversation about what you own and whether it’s working for you. Call: 859-233-0400  |  Visit: dupreefinancial.com The post Your 401(k) Is Not a Retirement Plan appeared first on Dupree Financial.

Over the past decade, all the (now tired) excuses for why advisors shouldn't move to the RIA model have fallen.To name a few:"The technology is not as good.""You won't have access to the same level of investment solutions.""Clients want the big brand name on the door."Not only are these arguments no longer true, but the RIA model now generally provides a superior solution.But what about servicing HNW and UHNW clients?Can such clients be accommodated the same, or even better, in the RIA model?In this episode (#147) of the Transition To RIA question & answer series, I explain how supporting such clients is not just possible, but generally more favorable in the RIA model.Come take a listen!P.S. Prefer video? You can find this entire series in video format on Youtube. Search for the TRANSITION TO RIA channel.Show notes: https://TransitionToRIA.com/can-i-service-high-net-worth-and-ultra-high-net-worth-clients-as-an-ria/About Host: Brad Wales is the founder of Transition To RIA, where he helps financial advisors between $50M and $1B understand everything there is to know about WHY and HOW to transition their practice to the Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) model. Brad has 20+ years of industry experience, including direct RIA related roles in Compliance, Finance and Business Development. He has an MBA and has held the 4, 7, 24, 63 & 65 licenses. The Transition To RIA website (TransitionToRIA.com) has a large catalog of free videos, articles, whitepapers, as well as other resources to help advisors understand the RIA model and how it would apply to their unique circumstances.

Kay Lynn Mayhue, President of Merit Financial Advisors, discusses the firm's growth strategy, evolving M&A approach, and commitment to cultural alignment as the RIA landscape shifts. She also shares her perspective on the changing role of financial advisors, investments driving scalability, and her long-term vision for Merit's impact on the wealth management industry.

Episode 142: This week, Kyle Van Pelt talks with Nate Angelo, CEO of Composition Wealth. Nate brings a diverse background spanning institutional investing and advisory leadership, with a focus on building firms that balance growth, culture, and client experience. His career reflects a commitment to thoughtful leadership and long-term value creation in the RIA space. Nate talks with Kyle about how to grow with purpose in today's wealth management landscape. He shares how leaders can build purpose-driven careers, lead with conviction and humility, and navigate transformational change without losing cultural integrity. Nate also discusses how data, AI, and integrated technology can enhance client experience while reinforcing that real success still comes down to human connection, trust, and empathy. In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (01:36) - Nate's money moment (04:38) - Nate's early career development at Russell Investments (07:44) - Why personal context should come before financial strategy  (09:53) - Nate's transition from institutional investing to advising  (13:05) - Foundational leadership skills: mindset, mentors, and risk (19:40) - Building a brand with meaning and resonance  (24:27) - Defining growth beyond traditional metrics (30:33) - Maintaining consistency in inorganic growth (35:19) - How accountability and rigor shape better acquisition decisions  (38:37) - Differentiating through technology and client experience (43:32) - Integrating tax services for seamless advice  (47:46) - The move toward holistic client relationships (51:19) - Using frameworks to manage uncertainty and client emotions  (54:32) - Nate's outlook on the future of wealth management (57:41) - Nate's Milemarker Minute Key Takeaways Growth only matters when it's tied to purpose. Growth for the sake of growth is empty. The real question leaders should ask is: Are we growing in a way that actually improves the lives of the people we serve? Growth becomes meaningful when it's intentional, disciplined, and tied directly to impact. Start with the person, not the spreadsheet. Data and optimization matter, but they should never come first. The most effective decisions result from understanding values, emotions, and behaviors before applying financial frameworks.  Holistic advice is no longer optional. Clients today want a single, trusted relationship, not a fragmented network of professionals. Integrating services like tax and estate planning is becoming table stakes. The future is AI-powered, but human-led. AI will handle more of the repetitive, operational work. But empathy, trust, and human understanding will become even more valuable and more differentiating. Quotes "If I can leave a little mark in this space, it's really to help financial advisors never lose sight of the intimate relationship they have with clients and the ability to impact their lives." ~ Nate Angelo "We're in the business of managing human psychology and helping people stay engaged and invested. And there's a real strategic decision in doing nothing with your portfolio and just bringing your emotional level back to a rational state." ~ Nate Angelo "We as humans long to be seen, heard, and known. And technology is going to power the advisor and that relationship and interaction in unique and dynamic ways." ~ Nate Angelo Links  Nate Angelo on LinkedIn Composition Wealth Russell Investments RBC Wealth Management Brock Moseley Corsair Capital The Go-Giver Connect with our hosts Milemarker.co Kyle on LinkedIn Jud on LinkedIn Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube Produce game-changing content with Turncast Turncast helps your company grow by producing top-quality content and fostering transformative conversations. We specialize in content generation, podcasting, digital strategy, and audience growth for fintech and financial services companies. Learn more at Turncast.com.

#414 Thid - Richard returns to his old stomping ground of Balham to take part in the Cheerful Earful Festival at the Bedford pub, a place that holds a lot of memories, some of which occur to him as he's speaking. His guest is the fabulous Ria Lina. They talk about the power of being an outsider in comedy, gigging whilst pregnant, working for the serious fraud office, why the coronavirus helped propel Ria into the spotlight, some behind the scenes secrets from Have I Got News For You? and the extra demands put on female performers.Buy Richard's new book here. http://gofasterstripe.com/ballSUPPORT THE SHOW!See details of the RHLSTP LIVE DATES Watch our TWITCH CHANNELBecome a badger and see extra content at our WEBSITE Buy DVDs and books from GO FASTER STRIPE Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

GuestSarah DerGarabedian, Director of Investment Strategy, Principal at Modera WealthCompany: Modera WealthWebsite: www.moderawealth.comAUM ~$18BSarah's Bio: Sarah specializes in investment strategy at Modera, where she oversees the firm's research team and investment initiatives. She thrives on solving operational challenges and helps bring clarity to complex financial concepts for the firm's clients. She is particularly passionate about the behavioral side of investing—understanding what drives investor decisions and guiding them with empathy, evidence, and a touch of humor. Her approach is grounded in consistency, discipline, humility, and a long-term perspective, mirroring her personal philosophy on health and wellness. Sarah's curiosity and beginner's mindset keep her adaptable and engaged in the ever-evolving financial landscape. With over 20 years of experience in the RIA industry, Sarah joined Modera in 2023 following an 18-year tenure at Parsec Financial, where she led research, trading, and portfolio management. Before entering the financial sector, she worked in fields as diverse as petroleum geology and academic editing, showcasing her wide-ranging interests and adaptability. Sarah holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geology from Wellesley College and is a Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA®). She is affiliated with the CFA Institute and the CFA Society North Carolina. Outside of Modera, Sarah is an avid reader who often juggles multiple books across genres—from history and mystery to humor and leadership. She enjoys spending time outdoors with friends and family, whether hiking the mountains around Asheville or searching for shark's teeth on the beaches of Pawleys Island.

We're back with a brand new episode of Money Wise, with a look on the numbers coming out of Wall Street last week. Markets showed mixed performance this week, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipping about 0.4%, while the S&P 500 rose roughly 0.5% and the Nasdaq gained about 1.5%. Year to date, all three major indexes remain positive, with the Dow up 2.4%, the S&P 500 up 4.7%, and the Nasdaq leading at 6.9%. The guys note that after a sharp V-shaped recovery in recent weeks, markets now appear to be settling into a more consolidated trading pattern. A major focus of the discussion centered on the shift in market drivers, with strong corporate earnings taking precedence over geopolitical concerns in the near term. Early earnings reports have come in well above historical averages, with a significant percentage of companies exceeding expectations on both earnings and revenue growth. The Money Wise guys also highlight a shift in market participation, with institutional investors playing a larger role in the recent rally while retail investors have remained more cautious. Despite ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East, the broader takeaway emphasized that markets are increasingly focused on fundamentals, particularly earnings growth, while still navigating periods of short-term volatility and consolidation. Institutional Buying Leads Recent market activity has highlighted a shift in participation, with institutional investors taking a more active role in driving the current rally. After a period where retail investors were a significant force behind market gains, professional money managers appear to be increasing equity exposure and putting cash back to work. This shift can influence market direction, as institutional flows tend to be larger and more sustained. At the same time, retail participation has been more measured, which may suggest that some investors are still waiting for greater clarity before fully reengaging with the market. In the second hour, the Money Wise guys explore RIA vs. Broker. You don't want to miss the details! Tune in for the full discussion on your favorite podcast provider or at davidsoncap.com, where you can also learn more about the Money Wise guys or take advantage of a portfolio review and analysis with Davidson Capital Management.

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

In this episode, the hosts discuss the current state of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the wealth management industry, focusing on the benefits for clients, the risks involved, and the importance of succession planning for advisors. They emphasize the need for advisors to prepare for transitions and the potential pitfalls of waiting too long to sell their practices. The conversation also touches on the technological advancements in the industry and how they can enhance client service. In this conversation, the speakers discuss the critical aspects of preparing a business for sale, emphasizing the importance of a five to seven year plan for growth-oriented firms. They explore the challenges faced by advisors as they scale their businesses, particularly the transition from small to larger firms and the complexities that arise. The discussion also highlights the significance of understanding net new assets and the impact of unexpected life events on business continuity. Additionally, the speakers address the trend of younger advisors engaging in deals and the flexibility in deal structures for high-growth advisors. How M&A Benefits Clients and Advisors With Michael Belluomini and Liam Heffernan Resources in today's episode: - Matt Jarvis: Website | LinkedIn - Liam Heffernan: Website | LinkedIn - Michael Belluomini: Website | LinkedIn - Download the evaluation framework Carson uses to assess RIA growth! - Learn More about our Coaching Programs

The firm advisors think they know is not the firm that exists today. And if you are going to say NO, at least know what you are saying no to. Frank LaRosa goes one on one with Brian Mora of Ameriprise for a candid conversation that challenges some of the most common misconceptions advisors carry about one of the largest and most innovative firms in the industry. Frank and Brian break down what $1.7 trillion in assets actually means for an advisor looking for stability in a consolidating market, why Fortune named Ameriprise one of the most innovative companies in America and how their AI-powered CFP brain is giving advisors back hours of time every single week by transforming how they prep for meetings, generate recommendations and summarize client conversations. They also get into the numbers that matter most. Advisors who transition to Ameriprise are at 101% of their hiring assets after just 12 months, compared to the industry average of 91%. The conversation also breaks down how their digital transition process moved a billion dollar team onto the platform in just 16 days and why a firm telling you it takes six months to transition your book is a red flag you should not ignore. The episode closes with the message Frank keeps coming back to: before you say no to Ameriprise, at least know what you are saying no to. Because the firm advisors think they know is not the firm that exists today.   Questions answered in this episode include: Why are advisors surprised by what Ameriprise has become in the last 20 years? What does $1.7 trillion in assets mean for the stability of the firm you choose? How is Ameriprise using AI to help advisors grow their practices and serve clients better? What is the CFP brain and how does it work inside an advisor's practice? Why do Ameriprise advisors move 101% of their book after transitioning when the industry average is 91%? How fast should a book of business actually move when an advisor transitions today? What is the impact analyzer and how does it help advisors see the real financial difference of growing faster?   Chapters: 00:00 — Know What You're Saying No To: The Ameriprise Truth 01:04 — Why Ameriprise Surprises People: 1.7 Trillion and the Innovation Awards 03:00 — How Ameriprise Changed 20 Years Ago and Why It Matters Now 06:18 — Fortune, Time, and the Case for Innovation 09:18 — The CFP Brain: AI That Thinks Ahead for Every Client 10:07 — Meeting Summarization and Giving Advisors Their Time Back 12:52 — 101% vs 91%: Why More of the Book Moves at Ameriprise 15:37 — 16 Days, a Billion Dollars, and the Digital Transition Difference   Learn more about Elite and our resources: Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitions https://eliteconsultingpartners.com Elite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisors https://elitemarketingconcepts.com Elite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers and Acquisitions https://eliteadvisorsuccessions.com JEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisors https://jedidatabasesolutions.com Elite Wealth Management Insights Report https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/insight-report Listen to more Advisor Talk episodes https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/

Joe Jonas welcomed Ria to his fan club (00:00-30:40). West Wilson speaks on Amanda Batula relationship + Summer House S10 E12 recap (31:44-44:06). Alex Cooper's ‘Unwell' under fire after allegations of a toxic work culture led by her husband Matt Kaplan (45:28-52:02). Sydney Sweeney cameo cut from The Devil Wears Prada 2 (52:03-55:18). Interview with Odeya Rush - talking taking child acting classes with Ria, her new show Memory of a Killer, working with legendary actors and directors + more! (56:20-1:47:44). CITO LINKS > barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office.You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office

You can feel stuck in a successful career and still know it's not the life you want.In this episode, we talk with Jacob Tally of Prospero Wealth about what it actually looks like to pivot later, especially after years in high-intensity environments like startups, corporate finance rotations, and big-name financial services.Jacob shares the practical side of making the move: deciding between going solo or joining an independent RIA, why fee-only planning mattered to him, and how he evaluated firm fit before jumping.We also get into planning for tech and startup employees, where equity compensation, job changes, and sudden life transitions create complexity that generic advice can't solve.The most useful part is the decision framework. We dig into risk management beyond investing: pressure testing your situation, spotting blind spots, and using fear setting to turn vague anxiety into clear options. Jacob also challenges the obsession with goals, reframing growth around principles that keep you moving when life doesn't follow a neat timeline.If you're considering a career change, building a financial plan, or trying to make a brave decision without guessing, this conversation gives you language and structure you can use right away.Please subscribe, share, and leave a review. What decision are you trying to get clarity on right now?Jacob's Social:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhtally/Prospero Wealth website: https://prosperowealth.com/Music in the episode was obtained from Bensound

In this episode, Chris sits down with Matthew Ogle, Co-founder & CEO of Legacy Knight, a $2.8B multi-family office in Dallas, TX that he co-founded in 2019. We dig into how you build a world-class multi-family office from scratch - and why so many wealthy families out there don't actually have one yet. Matthew's path into wealth management didn't start in a boardroom - it started on a tennis court. A summer teaching tennis to a CIO's family at Cape Cod opened the first door, which led him to Credit Suisse's private bank through the GFC and then five years at the Crow family office, helping transform it into one of the first true multi-family offices in Dallas. He opened Legacy Knight's doors in October 2019 with $2.5M of operating capital, 14 seed families, and a contrarian bet - that the new generation of sub-50-year-old entrepreneurs hitting their first liquidity event needed something the bulge brackets couldn't offer. Six years later, Legacy Knight manages over $3B and was named the fastest-growing RIA in Texas. Chris and Matthew go deep on what it actually takes to build a multi-family office the right way - the technology, the hiring, the legacy conversations with families, and why Matthew refuses to grow by acquiring other books of business. They discuss: Why every hire at Legacy Knight comes out of the family office world, not from the bulge brackets How most $100M+ families are still running their wealth on a Google Doc and a handshake with their accountant Why "do nothing in the year after a liquidity event" is half good advice and half terrible advice The most creative things Matthew has seen ultra-wealthy families do with their capital How Matthew thinks about his own kids, legacy, and when to start the wealth conversation Links: Legacy Knight - https://legacyknight.com/ Matthew on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-ogle-ab11873/ Topics: (02:01) Matthew's First Exposure to Wealth Management (07:58) Joining Credit Suisse (Pre-GFC): Why the "Bulge Bracket" Mattered, How the Private Banking Associate Model Works (13:08) Why Credit Suisse Failed to Serve Ultra-High-Net-Worth Families (20:07) The First Client Meeting: Soft-Tissue Questions (28:57) Tax Timing and Mitigation Strategies (37:57) The Founding Thesis: People and Platform (Building Legacy Knight) (44:46) The Decision to Launch Legacy Knight Independently (54:43) Fundraising Lessons: Managing Expectations and The Importance of Pitch Order (01:01:18) The Full-Service Family Office Model (01:06:24) What a Vertically Integrated Family Office Actually Includes (01:09:07) Proactive Investment Sourcing (01:13:02) Next-Gen Engagement and Family Legacy Planning: How to Involve Children Appropriately (01:21:46) Matthew's Hiring Philosophy (01:30:05) Time as the Hidden Cost of Unstructured Wealth Support our Sponsors: Collateral Partners: https://collateral.com/fort Chris on Social Media: X: https://x.com/fortworthchris Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepowerspodcast LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrispowersjr/ Visit our website: https://www.powerspod.com/ Leave a review on Apple: https://bit.ly/45crFD0 Leave a review on Spotify: https://bit.ly/3Krl9jO

Sayantani DasGupta's latest middle grades novel, Theft of the Ruby Lotus (Scholastic, 2026) is an adventure heist. Ria Bailey finds herself in quite a fix, and it's all because of a strange treasure that turns up in the mail one fateful day. It might be a ruby, and it just might hold the key to some troubling developments in her life. Most importantly, if she and her besties Miracle Owusu and Annie Hernandez can trace the significance and stay one step ahead of the mysterious strangers tracking their moves through the Metropolitan Museum of Art and out into the city streets of New York, then just maybe Ria can turn things around for herself. Sayantani DasGupta returns in rare form with a brand new story that's part love letter to the Metropolitan Museum and New York City immigrant families, part twisting and turning heist, and completely an examination of where art belongs, who gets to keep it, and what it means to be on display. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Every firm says they have great culture. Very few can back it up. Raymond James can. And in this episode, they explain exactly how. Frank LaRosa sits down with Jodi Perry, Head of Advisor Recruitment and Business Development and Todd Ferguson, Chief Information and Security Officer at Raymond James, for a wide ranging conversation recorded live at the Ignite Conference. The group breaks down what it really means to put the advisor in the driver's seat, why the freedom versus independence distinction matters more than most advisors realize and how Raymond James has been doing for 25 years what other firms are only now starting to talk about, including putting the advisor's ownership of their business in writing through the Advisor Bill of Rights. The conversation also gets into AI and technology in a way you will not hear anywhere else. The group breaks down how Raymond James is investing $1 billion in technology to give advisors more time for the relationship side of the business, how their opportunities platform surfaces client service gaps before they become problems and what every advisor needs to know about protecting their clients from bad actors and digital fraud in today's environment.   Questions answered in this episode include: Why is Raymond James a strong option for financial advisors right now regardless of where they are in their career? What is the difference between freedom and independence at Raymond James? What is the Advisor Bill of Rights and why does no other W2 firm offer it? How is Raymond James investing $1 billion in technology to help advisors grow their practices? Will AI reduce headcount in an advisory practice or expand its capacity? What should advisors do right now to protect their clients from bad actors and digital fraud? How does Raymond James approach advisor recruiting differently from other firms?   Chapters: 01:02 – Welcome: Ignite Conference Edition with Jodi Perry and Todd Ferguson 02:03 – Why Raymond James Now: Flexibility Across Every Stage of an Advisor's Career 03:38 – Culture Is Experiential: What That Really Means at Raymond James 05:31 – Freedom vs Independence: Why W2 at Raymond James Is Different 08:29 – The Advisor Bill of Rights: Putting Ownership in Writing 10:46 – AI and Technology: How Raymond James Is Using a $1 Billion Investment 15:57 – Bad Actors and Cybersecurity: What Every Advisor Needs to Know 25:20 – Quality Over Quantity: How Raymond James Thinks About Growth   Learn more about Elite and our resources: Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitions https://eliteconsultingpartners.com Elite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisors https://elitemarketingconcepts.com Elite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers and Acquisitions https://eliteadvisorsuccessions.com JEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisors https://jedidatabasesolutions.com Elite Wealth Management Insights Report https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/insight-report Listen to more Advisor Talk episodes https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/

Andrew Mirolli was this week's guest on Success Profiles Radio. He is a Certified Exit Planning Advisor (CEPA) and is the Vice President and co-founder of buyAUM.com. He specializes in helping RIA owners managing $100m-$700m+ navigate the human side of succession planning. He is also skilled at bringing complicated M&A deals to a desirable conclusion. We talked about how your first business is not necessarily your greatest hit, his current business of matchmaking people who want to buy and sell financial advisory practices, how you should pick the niche you serve, and the importance of relationship building in business. In addition, we talked about using cold calling and referrals to build a business, why businesses should have a solid succession plan, what has to be in place in order to sell your business, and how to properly value your business for sale. Finally, we discussed how to vet potential buyers for your business, what to do if your financial advisor is retiring, developing mental toughness, and his best advice for young entrepreneurs. You can follow and listen to Success Profiles Radio on Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, Audible, Heart Radio, and at Success Profiles Radio | Live Internet Talk Radio | Best Shows Podcasts You can learn more about Andrew and his work at www.buyAUM.com

Sometimes the money IS the right reason. And pretending otherwise might be the most expensive mistake you ever make. In this episode of Advisor Talk, Frank LaRosa and Stacey Frank challenge the conventional wisdom around advisor transitions and make the case that when the difference between two firms is not a few thousand dollars but millions, the economics have to come into play. Frank breaks down the unicorn recruit concept, how asset based transition deals are creating massive opportunities for advisors whose AUM far outpaces their revenue, and why the transition window right now is unlike anything the industry has seen in decades. He also explains why advisors should think like their wealthiest business owner clients when evaluating an opportunity, what they can do with that capital to grow their practice faster, and why getting a monster transition package is not selling your business but monetizing it without giving anything up.   Questions answered in this episode include: What is a unicorn recruit and why do some advisors have more leverage than they realize? What is the difference between an AUM based deal and a T12 based transition package? Why are transition packages and practice valuations at all time highs right now? Is it okay to make a move primarily because of the economics? How can a large transition package help an advisor grow their business faster? What should advisors be thinking about before a market downturn hits? How do you know if you are leaving money on the table by staying where you are?   Chapters: 00:00 – When the Money IS the Right Reason to Move 01:04 – Welcome to Advisor Talk 02:20 – Why Most Firms Look the Same and Where the Difference Really Is 05:00 – The Unicorn Recruit: AUM Based Deals vs T12 09:00 – The $9 Million Question: When Economics Has to Come Into Play 13:00 – Think Like Your Wealthiest Business Owner Clients 27:14 – How to Reach Frank and Stacey   Learn more about Elite and our resources: Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitions https://eliteconsultingpartners.com Elite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisors https://elitemarketingconcepts.com Elite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers and Acquisitions https://eliteadvisorsuccessions.com JEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisors https://jedidatabasesolutions.com Elite Wealth Management Insights Report https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/insight-report Listen to more Advisor Talk episodes https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/

SPRING TOUR TICKETS > barstoolsports.com/events/bestshowonearthtour. March Madness! (00:00-11:31). Ria's ‘Survivor' recap (11:32-19:22). Great cast additions for ‘The White Lotus' season 4 (20:32-24:09). ABC cancels Taylor Frankie Paul's season of ‘The Bachelorette' (24:10-42:24). Justin Bieber & Usher reportedly had heated exchange at Beyoncé's Oscars party (43:25-46:24). Tom Brady's cringeworthy flag football trash talk (46:25-49:27). Olivia Rodrigo speaks on relationship with Sabrina Carpenter + teases new album (49:28-52:52). Zendaya jokes about all the fake AI photos of her and Tom Holland's wedding (53:56-1:00:55). Beat Ria & Fran game 211 with Daniela & Nate (1:01:51-1:22:26). CITO LINKS > barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office.You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/chicks-in-the-office