Podcasts about RIAS

Welcome to the Financial Freedom & Wealth Trailblazers Podcast! In today's episode, we're exposing the top financial myths that are holding you back from building real wealth, clarity, and long-term financial freedom. Scott Zuckerman is a financial services professional, entrepreneur, and technology founder with more than two decades of experience helping individuals, families, business owners, and advisors make better financial decisions.As President and CEO of Wexford Financial Strategies, he leads a planning-first wealth management firm built around comprehensive financial analysis, dynamic client service, and independent guidance. Wexford focuses on helping clients organize their financial lives, clarify their goals, and build strategies across wealth management, retirement planning, insurance planning, business planning, and risk management. His work is grounded in the belief that financial advice should be transparent, disciplined, and aligned with each client's priorities. Wexford's public positioning emphasizes comprehensive analysis, client service, and independence from any one insurance or investment company.He is also the founder and creator of Financial Fitness Passport™, a financial wellness and guidance platform designed to turn financial education into measurable progress. The platform helps users better understand where they stand financially through structured modules, scoring, guidance, and technology. Financial Fitness Passport was created to address a problem he has seen throughout his career: people often receive fragmented financial information without a clear system for organizing decisions, measuring progress, or connecting each part of their financial life to the bigger picture.In addition, he founded Advisor Marketing System, an AI-powered marketing platform built specifically for financial advisors and RIAs. Advisor Marketing System was created to help advisors produce original, compliance-ready marketing content, automate campaigns, and strengthen client engagement without relying on generic templates or traditional agency models. The platform reflects his broader mission to help independent advisors grow more efficiently while preserving professionalism, originality, and regulatory awareness.Across all three ventures, his work sits at the intersection of financial planning, insurance strategy, technology, advisor growth, and consumer financial wellness. Whether he is advising clients, building financial wellness tools, or creating technology for advisory firms, his focus remains the same: simplify complexity, improve decision-making, and help people move forward with greater confidence.Connect with Scott  Here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottzuckermanwexfordfs/https://financialfitnesspassport.comGrab the freebie here: All users can get their free initial passport score just from registering on our website https://financialfitnesspassport.com===================================If you enjoyed this episode, remember to hit the like button and subscribe. Then share this episode with your friends.Thanks for watching the Financial Freedom & Wealth  Trailblazers Podcast. This podcast is part of the Digital Trailblazer family of podcasts. To learn more about Digital Trailblazer and what we do to help entrepreneurs, go to DigitalTrailblazer.com.Are you a coach, consultant, expert, or online course creator? Then we'd love to invite you to our FREE Facebook Group where you can learn the best strategies to land more high-ticket clients and customers. QUICK LINKS: APPLY TO BE FEATURED: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/podcast-guest-applicationDIGITAL TRAILBLAZER: https://digitaltrailblazer.com/

How can financial advisors get found in AI search, build trust faster, and use online reviews in a compliant way?In Episode 111 of The Influential Advisor Podcast, Paul G. McManus interviews Brian Thorp, Founder and CEO of Wealthtender, about one of the biggest opportunities in advisor marketing today: compliant online reviews as a trust signal for Google, ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and other AI-powered search tools.Financial advisors have always relied on referrals, reputation, and trust. But today, before a prospect reaches out, they are often searching online, reading reviews, asking AI tools who to consider, and comparing advisors before the first conversation ever happens.That means your digital reputation matters.In this episode, Paul and Brian discuss how financial advisors can use compliant online reviews, third-party credibility, Google visibility, and AI search optimization to help prospects make a more informed decision about whether you may be the right advisor for them.You'll learn:How financial advisors can get found in AI searchWhy online reviews are becoming a major trust signalHow compliant reviews differ from traditional Google reviewsWhat the SEC Marketing Rule changed for testimonials and reviewsWhy ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and other AI tools may use reviews to summarize reputationHow reviews can support SEO, AEO, and GEO for financial advisorsWhy “stars” matter, but client stories matter even moreHow advisors can ask for reviews without cherry-pickingHow reviews can help independent advisors compete against larger firmsWhy advisor-level reviews may matter as much as firm-level reviewsHow niche advisors can use reviews to strengthen local and specialized visibilityWhy a book, a website, LinkedIn, Google Business Profile, and reviews all work together as authority signalsThis conversation is especially relevant for independent financial advisors, RIAs, wealth management firms, advisor marketing teams, and practice leaders who want to understand how trust is built in the age of AI search.If you are a financial advisor wondering how to show up when someone asks ChatGPT, “Who is the best financial advisor for me?” this episode will help you think through the credibility signals that matter.Learn more about Influential Advisor Media:https://influentialadvisor.com/Learn more about Wealthtender:https://wealthtender.com/COMMON QUESTIONS ANSWEREDCan financial advisors use online reviews?How can advisors ask clients for reviews compliantly?Do financial advisor reviews help with SEO?Can online reviews help advisors show up in ChatGPT?What is the difference between Google reviews and Wealthtender reviews?How do testimonials work under the SEC Marketing Rule?How many reviews does a financial advisor need?Why do online reviews matter for financial advisor referrals?How can advisors build trust before the first meeting?How can financial advisors improve AI search visibility?#FinancialAdvisorMarketing #FinancialAdvisorReviews #AIsearch #Wealthtender #AuthorityMarketing #FinancialAdvisors #RIAmarketing #AdvisorSEO #AEO #GEO #TheInfluentialAdvisorSupport the show

Michael Smith—Managing Partner and Founder, Emerald Advisors Michael Smith shares how a client-first philosophy, niche specialization, and independence helped Emerald Advisors grow from $385mm to more than $1B in assets. In Summary What happens when an advisor builds a business around client service rather than operational efficiency? Jason Diamond speaks with Michael Smith, Founder and Managing Partner of Emerald Advisors, about the path from a successful Merrill practice to an independent RIA that has grown from approximately $385mm to more than $1B in assets. Along the way, Michael shares the story of being told he was “overservicing” clients, why that moment became a catalyst for independence, and how a highly specialized service model fueled the firm's growth. Drawing on lessons from a 24-year Navy career, Michael offers a perspective on leadership, specialization, client care, and what it takes to build a durable business in today's wealth management landscape. The Storyline Growth is often viewed as the result of marketing, referrals, acquisitions, or scale. Michael Smith sees it differently. After building a successful practice at Merrill, Michael found himself at odds with the constraints of the traditional wirehouse model. What ultimately stood out wasn't compensation, technology, or platform capabilities. It was a philosophical difference around client service. When he was told he was spending too much time helping clients navigate tax planning, equity compensation, and other financial decisions outside the traditional scope of investment management, he began to question whether the model aligned with the way he wanted to serve families. That realization eventually led him to launch Emerald Advisors in late 2019. The firm started with roughly 85 clients and approximately $385mm in assets. Today, Emerald serves more than 225 families and oversees more than $1B in assets. Throughout the conversation, Michael reflects on the lessons learned from building an independent firm, developing a niche around concentrated stock positions and executive compensation, navigating custodial and technology decisions, and creating a culture rooted in accountability and service. Underlying it all is a simple belief: when firms become highly intentional about who they serve and how they serve them, growth often becomes the outcome rather than the objective. Topics Covered Merrill breakaways and independence Client service as a growth driver Building an RIA RIA growth and scalability Organic growth strategies Concentrated stock positions and equity compensation planning Ideal client personas and niche specialization Schwab and Fidelity custody relationships Advisor succession and enterprise value Navy leadership principles in wealth management The rise of mega RIAs Advisor technology and infrastructure > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why did being accused of “overservicing” clients become a turning point? (08:15)Michael explains how a conversation with management revealed a deeper misalignment between his client-service philosophy and the wirehouse model. What does client service look like beyond portfolio management? (11:30)The discussion explores how tax planning, equity compensation guidance, and proactive coordination can deepen client relationships. Why can specialization accelerate growth? (15:45)Michael shares why serving a defined niche often creates stronger referrals, greater expertise, and clearer positioning. How has the RIA landscape evolved since 2019? (20:30)Michael reflects on the rise of mega RIAs, changing technology capabilities, and why he believes independent firms still have significant advantages. What role do custodians really play in an independent business? (23:15)Michael discusses his experience working with Schwab and Fidelity and why he views custodians as strategic partners rather than competitors. Is the wirehouse model still the right fit for some advisors? (26:45)The conversation challenges the assumption that independence is the best path for everyone and explores the realities of running a business. Does reaching $1 billion in assets actually change anything? (32:45)Michael offers a practical perspective on growth, success, and why asset milestones can be misleading. What can advisors learn from the “steamboat” philosophy? (37:15)Drawing on his Navy experience, Michael shares a leadership framework that continues to shape how he approaches business building and decision-making. Key Takeaways Exceptional client service can become a meaningful competitive advantage when it extends beyond investment management. Independence gave Michael the flexibility to build a service model that aligned with his philosophy rather than adapting his philosophy to fit the platform. Developing a niche around executive compensation and concentrated stock positions helped accelerate Emerald's growth. The ability to make technology, custodial, and operational decisions quickly remains a significant advantage for independent firms. Not every advisor should be independent. Running a business requires a different set of skills and responsibilities than serving clients alone. Growth milestones are useful, but they do not define success. Michael believes success existed long before Emerald reached $1 billion in assets. High-performing teams with a clear client focus often find that growth becomes a natural byproduct of execution. https://youtu.be/RjzsMcC2DnY Quotable Moments “I literally had to go back and Google the word overservicing.” “Servicing the client is the most important thing that we can do today.” “If you serve a niche and you're very good at that niche, that word gets around.” “Growth becomes the outcome.” FAQs Can an advisor really “over-service” clients? The discussion explores the tension between efficiency and depth of service. While some business models prioritize scale and consistency, others are built around solving a broader range of client problems. The right answer often depends on the advisor's philosophy and business model. Does specialization still matter in a relationship business? Michael argues that developing expertise in a specific area can accelerate growth by making referrals easier and helping advisors become known for solving a particular set of problems. What actually changes when an advisor becomes independent? Beyond economics, independence often creates more flexibility around client service, technology, processes, and business decisions. At the same time, advisors assume responsibility for running the business itself. Is full independence the right path for every advisor? No. Michael acknowledges that many advisors benefit from the structure, support, and resources available within traditional firms. Independence offers flexibility, but it also introduces complexity and responsibility. How should advisors think about the $1 billion milestone? Michael views asset milestones as useful benchmarks but not measures of success. In his view, business quality, client outcomes, and sustainability matter more than any specific asset number. What role does an ideal client persona play in growth? Rather than trying to serve everyone, Emerald built its business around a clearly defined client profile. Michael believes that focus improves service, creates operational consistency, and supports organic growth. How can advisors balance growth with client service? One of the central themes of the episode is that growth and service are not necessarily competing objectives. In some cases, a differentiated service model becomes the reason a business grows. The discussion explores the tension between efficiency and depth of service. While some business models prioritize scale and consistency, others are built around solving a broader range of client problems. The right answer often depends on the advisor's philosophy and business model. Michael argues that developing expertise in a specific area can accelerate growth by making referrals easier and helping advisors become known for solving a particular set of problems. Beyond economics, independence often creates more flexibility around client service, technology, processes, and business decisions. At the same time, advisors assume responsibility for running the business itself. No. Michael acknowledges that many advisors benefit from the structure, support, and resources available within traditional firms. Independence offers flexibility, but it also introduces complexity and responsibility. Michael views asset milestones as useful benchmarks but not measures of success. In his view, business quality, client outcomes, and sustainability matter more than any specific asset number. Rather than trying to serve everyone, Emerald built its business around a clearly defined client profile. Michael believes that focus improves service, creates operational consistency, and supports organic growth. One of the central themes of the episode is that growth and service are not necessarily competing objectives. In some cases, a differentiated service model becomes the reason a business grows. Related Resources The Transitioning Advisor's Lament: Things I Wish I Knew Before Freedom vs. Familiarity: Is it Worth Disrupting Comfort for Something That Might Be Better? IBD vs. RIA Revisited: Two Independent Pathways for Advisors to Consider Advisor Transition Report 2026 Guest Bio Michael Smith, CPWA® is the Founder and Managing Partner of Emerald Advisors, an independent wealth management firm overseeing more than $1 billion in assets for affluent families, executives, and business owners with complex planning needs. Mike entered the wealth management industry in 2005 after a distinguished 24-year career in the United States Navy, where he served both as an enlisted sailor in the Submarine Force and later as a Limited Duty Officer aboard USS Abraham Lincoln and on major staffs around the world. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Management and an MBA with dual emphases in Finance & Accounting and International Business. Throughout his career, Mike has been known for his commitment to comprehensive planning, helping clients navigate complex issues involving concentrated stock positions, executive compensation, tax strategy, estate planning, philanthropy, and multi-generational wealth transfer. His client-first approach and passion for education have helped Emerald Advisors grow from a startup firm in 2019 to a nationally recognized RIA serving more than 225 families. Outside of the office, Mike is an avid ultrarunner, golfer, lifelong learner, and dedicated advocate for children’s health initiatives. He is a current member of the Legacy Council at Seattle Children’s Hospital and has served in leadership and board roles supporting the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, the ALS Association, and the Alyssa Burnett Adult Life Center. He is also the proud father of Kat Smith. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… From “Overservicing” Clients to Building a $1B RIA: A Merrill Breakaway Story A conversation with Jason Diamond and Michael Smith, Managing Partner and Founder of Emerald Advisors.      Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is From “Overservicing” Clients to Building a $1B RIA: A Merrill Breakaway Story. It’s a conversation with Michael Smith, managing partner and founder of Emerald Advisors. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for financial advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned and, each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Growth is often viewed as the result of better marketing, stronger referrals, a larger team and even acquisition and that’s all true yet growth can be the byproduct of something else entirely. For example, Michael Smith built a successful practice at Merrill then, one day, he was told he was spending too much time with his clients, or his management put it over-servicing clients. For Michael, that wasn’t a warning sign about his approach, it was a signal that he might have outgrown the firm and the model. Today, Michael is the founder and managing partner of Emerald Advisors, the independent RIA he launched in late 2019 with roughly 385 million in assets and 85 client relationships. Less than seven years later, the firm has grown to more than a billion in assets while remaining deeply focused on a highly-specialized client base and an unusually hands-on service model. What makes this story particularly interesting isn’t just the growth, it’s the thinking behind it. Michael’s perspective was shaped long before he entered wealth management. After serving more than two decades in the Navy, he brought a leadership philosophy centered on accountability, discipline and what he calls steamboat people, those who keep moving forward regardless of conditions, that mindset continues to influence how he builds his team, serves clients and evaluates opportunities. In this episode, we discuss the decision to leave Merrill, the realities of launching a fully independent RIA, why specialization can accelerate growth, the evolving role of custodians and technology and why he believes exceptional client service remains one of the industry’s most durable competitive advantages. Because Michael’s experience suggests that growth isn’t always the result of finding more opportunities, sometimes it’s the result of creating the freedom to execute the vision you already had so let’s jump in. Michael, thank you so much for joining us today. For starters, can you walk us through your background and what brought you to the world of wealth management? Michael Smith: Jason, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today, I do listen to the podcast a lot especially before I left Mother Merrill. But my background and how I got into financial services is really distinct because I was on the board of JDRF back in the day and the national sponsor for JDRF was UBS PaineWebber and they’re like, “Mike, why don’t you be a financial advisor?” And my master’s degree was actually a finance and accounting in portfolio management because I’ve managed my own portfolio for years and years and so, when I couldn’t get a job, I just fell into it because I couldn’t get a job and I needed a job. That was 21 years ago, Memorial Day so that’s how I got into this industry. Jason Diamond: It’s a unique background, it’s super interesting and I want to talk more about it. You mentioned Mother Merrill, we’ll certainly get there. Before we do, give us a little bit of context on the current business you operate, Emerald Advisors, any context you can share on size, number of staff, types of clients you serve would be great. Michael Smith: Sure. So, we launched Emerald in 2019, November 2019 with about 85 clients and you always talk about this on the podcast how scared it is to launch and go independent. And I would say we took over about 95% of our clients that we wanted to bring over and today we’re at about 230 clients, I think we have some onboarding right now, we have just over a billion of assets. So, we launched with the 85 clients and around 350, 385 million, now we’re over a billion. Jason Diamond: Good for you. Michael Smith: Thank you. And I launched with four employees and we’re now at 11. And I would give a shout-out to one of my key employees because, when I launched, I actually hired somebody that had no experience with us and that was really a good thing because that allowed that person to really focus on operations and back office stuff while my business partner Emily and I were able to focus on bringing on the clients and alleviating any issues that they may have or thought. Jason Diamond: So, meaning you hired somebody basically immediately upon launch to help you with the transition and with this next chapter? Michael Smith: Correct. I hired them before but they started the day we launched. Jason Diamond: Brilliant, I love it. Oh, let’s definitely talk more about that because I think that’s a great strategy for … You’re right, you said it in a joking manner now because you’re seven years past but it’s a very real fear that advisors have and I think it’s worth talking more about. I want to mention too you have, obviously, built this business and grown this business dramatically. I don’t want to make this episode about the pandemic but you moved the business at a, certainly, a unique time. Did it impact your growth at all? Did you feel like you hit a brick wall? Just curious about your thoughts. Michael Smith: No, Jason, that’s a great observation. I would venture to say that the pandemic was actually a good thing for us. Jason Diamond: Interesting. Michael Smith: And I say that because, all of a sudden, you could hit pause because everyone was relearning how to do business, how do we do client reviews, how do we communicate with clients in a environment. So, I think the pandemic allowed us to just really reset our expectations visiting with clients because I used to fly a lot because I have clients in 38 different states so this has actually been, not just good for me, but good for the industry because I think it’s reset our expectations that we don’t have to be every day with a client facing. Jason Diamond: I agree with that largely and it’s true of our business too, by the way, it’s certainly reshaped the way people expect to be communicated with. I think Zoom has become much more mainstream, phone calls and we’ve heard from many other advisors who say something similar. I was just curious because you moved so close to or if there was an impact but I get, honestly, I think you’re right, it allowed you to have this nice natural inflection point and almost like flipping a switch of a clean slate. Michael Smith: It allowed us to learn the processes too. So, we launched in November 1st, by March we were in lockdown and so it gave us the opportunity to take several months of just learning the processes of how to be an RIA, it was pretty good. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. So, one of the things you mentioned in that was the way in which you serve clients and I’d read something funny and I think it was around the time of your move. You were talking about that, Merrill, you had a manager who spoke about that you would overserve your clients, you serve clients too much, tell me about that. Michael Smith: That was such an interesting topic because I got called down to the ops officer’s office and they’re like, “Ugh, Mike.” And it brought my admin down with me and they’re like, “Mike, these reports that you’re taking care of your clients too much,” and I’m like, “What do you mean?” “Well, you’re overservicing them.” Jason, I literally had to go back and Google the word overservicing because I was like, “How do you overservice the client? I’m not making their bed.” It was just so funny to me that I got counsel for overservicing clients when we’re in a client-facing job and I think that was part of the catalyst. Jason Diamond: Tell me more about what they meant, you think. Michael Smith: Hindsight, I think they … I like to take care of people which means I’m very intuitive towards taxes, I understand how the tax code works, I understand how everything impacts their bottom line. So, when we’re doing deferred comp enrollments or 401(k) enrollments or I’m a big believer in Roth 401(k)s and backdoor Roths and I’ve been doing them for years, I think what Mother Merrill wanted at that time was us not to do that. And, again, nothing against Merrill, I get it but this is how they wanted us to act and I wasn’t in that mold, I was taking care of clients to a much deeper depth is how I would say it. Jason Diamond: And I think that speaks to you outgrew the model not necessarily the firm. I think Merrill does a lot of things really well, you would agree with that, I think given that you built 85 clients and 350 million in assets is nothing to sneeze at. But the model that it seems like you value client service and an integrated client service experience of that and the wirehouse model oftentimes doesn’t put a premium on that. Tell me about your ethos or your thoughts around client service today and what being independent enables you to do. Michael Smith: So, that’s an interesting observation because one of my clients actually just mentioned to me that the reason we’re growing so much is because of our service model and the fact that we deliver a tremendous amount of value over just portfolio management. I said my managers is in portfolio management, I don’t do that any longer, I have a staff that handles that for me but it’s really the servicing of the clients because they don’t know what we know and I think servicing the client is the most important thing that we can do today. Jason Diamond: Give me some examples of what you mean by servicing the client in a more holistic way. I agree with you, by the way, portfolio management, table stakes, financial planning, table stakes, tell me more about what you mean. Michael Smith: By that I mean we do a quarterly review on tax. So, a lot of people don’t understand how taxes work and how estimated taxes work. So, estimated taxes are January 1st to March 31st, January 1st to May 31st, January 1st to August 31st, that’s how you do your estimated tax payments, you figure out what that is. And for compensated employees where they have RSUs that come in at different times of the year or different grants or exercise their options at a different time, that can affect their estimated tax liability and I’m not big on giving Uncle Sam any more money than they have to have until they need it. And then everyone doesn’t understand how the penalties and interest works on the IRS. And I’m big on the tax payments because that’s where we can add a lot of value for not a lot of time and we integrate it with our portfolio so we know what we’re doing with our gains. And I happen to reside in Washington State which has a long-term capital gains tax rate once you surpass about 270,000 of long-term capital gains. So, it’s super important for us to be aware of this and that’s how we service them. We also help them with their rebalancing of their 401(k)s, things that wirehouses cannot supposed to do, we are not supposed to be helping them with some of their aspects of life. Jason Diamond: Yup. That’s what I was alluding to earlier, it’s limitations on the model, not because they’re bad models, it’s just a different way, a different ethos around client service. You mentioned RSUs and corporate employees, I know that’s a niche you have is around concentrated stock positions and equity comp plans. I guess let me ask you two different questions around this. First of all, why that niche? Interested. And then, second of all, do you think a team needs to have a specialization to be competitive these days or do you think it’s okay just to be like, “My job is to be the best advisor and I want to service assets wherever those assets may come from?” Michael Smith: Another great observation. I’m going to address the niche first and foremost. I think, and I talked to R.J. Shook’s staff just recently, and having a niche gives you a specialization and it also accelerates your growth factor. If you serve a niche and you’re very good at that niche, then that word gets around. If you’re a jack of all trades, you can do lots of things but I don’t think you’re focused and you’re not hitting the right numbers that I like to see. And I think that would be my theme is the niche allows you to focus on a very specific type of ideal client, that’s a Schwab thing where you have an ideal client persona and our firm has an ideal client persona. As far as having the equity comp, I absolutely was one of the teams at Merrill Lynch that was equity compensation designated, I managed a couple of plans. My exposure to that, Jason, I haven’t thought about this in a very long time, came from UBS where I had team members that were colleagues that were associated with the Nextel Sprint plan. And I always thought that you’re taking care of the top executives but, really, my background being in the military was how do we take care of the troops, the troops, I call them sailors, and how do we educate those sailors. And one of the things I’ve always said in my entire career in the military and I still say to this day is 50% of every bonus or a promotion or something like that should go to long-term savings. So, I use that same mentality with RSUs, with stock options, with bonuses. Set that aside, let that grow because you’re not used to spending it and you will learn to spend what you make. Jason Diamond: I think that’s a great reason, it’s super smart and I love your explanation, it was a very simplistic way. Honestly, even I hadn’t thought about that around your niche, I think, becomes almost like a force multiplier for your own growth because it’s much easier to become the guy in X, Y, Z vertical than to be the guy in every financial advisor of America, across America. Let me ask you a follow-up question, you mentioned the ideal client persona. I spend a lot of time at our firm thinking about this as well, what does your ideal client persona look like. How do you think about an opportunity though that differs from that persona? So, it’s great. Obviously, everybody, it’s easy, you get somebody who’s your perfect prospect, they walk in the front door, sign me up. But when you get something that’s not down the fairway for you, is it just I evaluate it on a one-off basis or are you super disciplined to that approach because it’s who your firm is? Michael Smith: I truly haven’t given that a whole lot of thought but I will tell you how I would handle that because I am handling it with some one-offs. I like the opportunity because you’re stretching your brain in that you’re thinking about how somebody else is reacting so you’d never know. So, I like it from a learning perspective but I also know it comes with a lot of other baggage, I’ll call it baggage, because, all of a sudden, they want to short the market, they want to go long-short strategies. So, all of a sudden, they’re not in our niche and, all of a sudden, they’re taking a lot of time, they’re draining our time so I think you got to be very careful about what you wish for. And there’s a lot of great advisors out there that will walk circles around these topics that I’m like, “Okay, I would rather refer somebody so they get the right experience than give them the wrong experience.” Jason Diamond: I absolutely love that answer. The bow you just put on it, I think, is the appropriate way in my mind to put a bow. At the end of the day, wouldn’t you rather service somebody more optimally even if you don’t believe it’s yourself, I agree with that. I want to ask you one more point on the client service piece. I was playing around on your website and, on your service model, you have health as a component of the client experience of your diagram. Why do you think health matters in a financial context? Michael Smith: I always believed in a healthy mind and a healthy body will bring so much joy to you and I think health is just part of your persona. If you don’t take care of yourself and your body and your mind, then it doesn’t matter what I do, I think you got to start with health. So, I’m very big on the executive physicals, I routinely require all of our staff to have an annual physical. And, again, they’re young people but you got to have these annual … I live and breathe going to see a doctor every year to do my annual physical, not because I think I’m pretty good health, I still run, I do a lot of things but I think your life starts with being healthy. Jason Diamond: Yeah, it’s refreshing to hear that, no doubt. It’s funny to think about but 2019 is a long time ago now and, in RIA world, I almost think of it like dog years. You’ve been around the block now for a little while so I’m curious how have you seen this space change since you launched in 2019? Michael Smith: In 2019, I didn’t know what I was doing, I could barely get out a wet paper bag but I do think it’s changed dramatically. I would say the biggest thing I’ve seen in just the six and a half, almost seven years is the rise of the mega RIAs and how they’re going to shape the industry. Everyone talked about fee compression at Merrill Lynch. When I was at Merrill, we talked about fee compression, then they talked about robo-advisors and now they’re talking about artificial intelligence replacing advisors, I don’t believe that and I don’t think that’s going to happen in the RIA space. What I see the RIA space maturing is into these very big mega firms as well as these independent RIAs like myself that serve a very niche market where we can walk in our lane. The ability to transact today is so much easier as an RIA than it was at a wirehouse as well because we have instant access to technology. My military background, my Navy background says make a decision right, wrong or different, if you don’t like it afterwards or you get new data, course change. So, in our industry, we can change on a notice. I hired a tech firm last year, I didn’t like the experience nine months into it, guess what, they’re not coming back. So, I can do that but you can’t do that at the bigger firms and even the bigger mega firms would have a hard time navigating a change just like that on a dime. Jason Diamond: You bring up an interesting point. To the extent you face competition, do you find yourself competing more against traditional wirehouse type firms or RIAs like yourself, mega caps RIAs? Are your clients attuned to any of this? Michael Smith: That’s an observation I haven’t thought of either there, Jason. I would say I don’t feel that I have a … I know there’s competition out there but we have a growth issue more than we have anything else so I don’t … I can’t take on the clients that want to become my clients so I’m not competing with people too much. Jason Diamond: A capacity issue, you mean? Michael Smith: Yeah, I have a capacity issue. Jason Diamond: I think you’re not alone in that. How can I even think about competition and the like when … A lot of advisors would probably say that. I want to talk more about the capacity situation but, before I do, let’s talk a little more about the RIA setup. Who do you custody with, remind us, and why or how did you arrive at that decision? Michael Smith: Yeah. So, when I launched, I went with Schwab, Schwab is a phenomenal partner, they helped me get a lot of stuff done, I couldn’t have done it without Schwab. During the pandemic, I realized that I should probably … So, remember, during the pandemic, we had a lot of issues with the banking industry, it was almost like a financial crisis but in a very compressed time. So, during the COVID, I decided to add Fidelity as another custodian so now I have two custodians and I opened accounts on both sides of the house but I like the custodians that are there to help you, they’re very good at what they do. I don’t even consider them a competitor and they aren’t competitors, they have their own branch so I don’t consider them competitors, I think they’re my partners and both Charles Schwab and Fidelity are good partners. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I think that’s the healthy way to look at the custody relationship. That’s a very common approach, I think, is launching with one custodian and then adding a secondary custodian or a tertiary custodian down the line for one reason or another so I appreciate you sharing that because we get those types of nuts and bolts questions a lot so I figured I’d ask you. One last question on the setup and then we’ll shift gears. Has anything been a negative? So, you talked about leaving Mother Merrill behind and, Mother Merrill, we use it facetiously but obviously it implies a degree of comfort and the homeland so I’m curious if you miss anything. Michael Smith: I miss the camaraderie of being with a bunch of other folks. I mentioned this when I first launched, I mentioned it year over year with my team, the one thing that we miss as an RIA and, again, Dynasty has their benefits as well and the mega RIAs have their benefits but, if you’re a true independent like myself, we get to go to conferences that we want to and that’s a timing issue, really, a time constraint. But one thing Merrill and Morgan, JPMorgan, and the other big wirehouses have as well as the megas, they have the ability to put conferences together for their advisors or their administrators and have this education. That’s the one thing that, I think, would evolve in the RIA industry in the future as well. They’re not my competitors, they’re my business colleagues. And if we think of them as competitors, and a lot of people do because I don’t want to share my client information or what I do with my competitor because they may steal them, if you’re that insecure, then you’re probably not the right advisor in the first place. Jason Diamond: I don’t disagree with that. It’s interesting too, I hear two common answers to that question, not about Merrill but just about somebody who’s broken away, what do you miss about the captive firm world. Either on this podcast or just in conversations with advisors, brand comes up a lot and then the point you just raised. I’ll even hear like, “Hey, forget the conferences and the trainings, just being able to have an office where I’ve got eight other advisors on a row for me, it’s a little bit of a different setup than in the independent space,” and I think that’s just a reality of you take the good with the bad. And for other advisors, by the way, one of the things I want to ask you about to this point is do you believe that there are advisors that are just better served in the W2 traditional firm world or do you think that every advisor should be looking at the RIA space? Michael Smith: I think that wirehouse serves a great purpose and- Jason Diamond: Okay, me too. Michael Smith: … there’s a lot of great people that are great advisors in that wirehouse, they need the structure. What I hadn’t alluded to is, and I mentioned this to a former manager from Merrill Lynch of mine just recently, actually, I was like, “I don’t think advisors realize what it takes to run a business.” I’m not trying to sugarcoat it, running an RIA is hard work, it takes a lot of your time day in and day out to run a business as well as taking care of and servicing your clients so I do think the wirehouse venue is the right way to go. And, Jason, I want to go back to one other thing about your identity. I launched as the Smith Group because that’s what I was known at Merrill Lynch. Within three or four months, I changed that name to a firm because I did not want to be associated with it. So, when you’re at one of the wirehouses, you’re known as your team name or something of that sort, I didn’t want to be known as that, I wanted to be known as Emerald Advisors not the Smith Group because, all of a sudden, you have a single point of failure. So, brand identity, it’s not so unique inside the wirehouse because it’s a team name versus Merrill or Morgan Stanley or something like that. Jason Diamond: It’s a good segue because I’ll tell you where my mind goes when you bring that up. My mind goes is you’re smart in a way that you might not even realize or maybe you do realize which is that, if and when it ever comes time to sell this business, it is probably more valuable without your name attached to it or maybe not. But in some way, shape or form, as an RIA, you have an obligation to be thinking about that or it’s probably on your radar, maybe not an obligation. Have you given an ounce of thought to M&A either acquiring businesses, growing in that way or, ultimately, when you succeed out of this business and what the RIA space enables you to do? Michael Smith: To answer that question, yes. Everyone’s thinking about merger and acquisition, I think about succession planning from day one. I actually thought about I’m a big team person, I come from the submarine force where everyone is a key player on a submarine, every single person has a job and responsibility on a nuclear submarine. So, inside the financial services industry, I know Merrill Lynch was very big on teaming, I understand Morgan Stanley is as well because teaming gives them a breadth of responsibility where the responsibilities are shared. So, mergers and acquisitions or selling my business, I think, if you’re not thinking about that … And I’m not thinking about selling my business because that’s a distraction to me. If I needed the money, then I would’ve went to a wirehouse and that’s okay, you monetize your life’s work. Today, I’m all about what’s right for the client, what’s right for my team and what’s right for where I want to be in the next 10 to 20 years. So, I am growing, I do want to grow, I’m looking at opening offices in probably three locations in the next 24 months or so. Jason Diamond: Well, that’s what I was going to say, plenty of advisors I think would say the same, I have a lot of runway. But what about the other side of this equation which is you’ve had tremendous organic growth, you’ve tripled your client base, you’ve more than tripled the asset base, have you thought about acquisition as a mean to jet fuel the inorganic growth side of things? Michael Smith: I have but not in the typical sense that you’re looking at as buying a book of business. I want to partner with like-minded advisors that share that common thread of taking care of clients where you can serve as their trusted counsel and sit in the meetings with their attorneys and sit in the meetings with the accountants and give them sage counsel that you can only do because you’ve been with the family for 20 years. You know this family and that, not always, but I think that’s missed a lot in other firms. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I think that’s fair. I just thought of something else that you brought up. You brought Dynasty so I’m going to ask … I’m going to pull on this thread. That implies to me that you’re at least loosely aware of the supportive independence models that are out there yet you chose a very independent, autonomous path, why? Michael Smith: Because I didn’t know what I was doing. Jason Diamond: Fair. Michael Smith: Let’s be honest, I like Dynasty, I talked with Dynasty when I left. I talked to them all, I talked to Rockefeller, I talked to Morgan, I talked to Dynasty and then, when push came to shove, I wanted to be Mike Smith and launch my own firm and learn. And I will tell you, you learn drinking through a fire hose and we did that, we learned, I know the mistakes. What I didn’t want to do is just go to someplace where this is the stuff you’re going to have to use. So, I think Dynasty is a great launching platform, I think there’s other ones out there that are similar to Dynasty or the Rockefellers or the Morgans, it’s truly what you’re trying to achieve in life. What do you want for you and your clients and I always put my clients before me because I’ve always had this lifelong thing of, you do the right thing, you’re going to get taken care of. Jason Diamond: Yeah. And that’s a very common analysis, by the way, and it’s very common too for big advisors like yourself to say I did my homework across all of those different categories. I looked at the traditional wirehouses and regional firms and boutique firms, I looked at the independent broker dealers, I looked at the support platforms and the aggregators and the roll-ups and here’s ultimately what I landed on and why. Did you always know that though or was that something that it took you a diligence process to figure out? There was plenty of advisors, by the way, who come to us and they’re like, “I knew for the last five years that I was sitting there I was launching an RIA someday.” Michael Smith: Yeah. I did not know that and, to be honest with you, hindsight, I think one of those partners probably could have made me a little bit better at first because then I could have focused on clients versus focusing on, hey, how to open a business, who’s your technology … We talked about custodians and some other things but we didn’t talk about technology, how do you go find that technology. Where’s your email address come from? Who’s your chief compliance officer? When it resides on you, you got to look in the mirror. So, I think those parties out there that provide that for brand-new advisors launching could be very beneficial. I had in my mind what I needed to do and I knew I’m very frugal so mine boiled down to how much money I wanted to spend, to be honest with you. Jason Diamond: I think it is a cost benefit analysis, it is. It’s absolutely … Because if you list the functions of a support platform on paper and you showed it to somebody who didn’t know the industry, they would say, “Why on earth wouldn’t you do this? They’re taking off your plate compliance and tech and custody and the like,” and the answer is because there’s a cost associated with it and plenty of advisors decide what you decide, I wanted … Or I just wanted a greater degree of autonomy and freedom, to your point, the name on the door piece, I wanted this to be mine. Michael Smith: And, Jason, I think it also goes to the uncertainty. I had never done anything since Navy, financial advising and then launching. So, for me, I was launching with four employees I had to take care of and here I was going to hire a third party that I was going to have to spend X amount on and I didn’t even know what my income was going to be. That’s different if you’re a multi-billion dollar FA coming out of a wirehouse, the monetary dynamics are different. Jason Diamond: Agreed. Okay, here’s a good one for you. We get this concept from advisors, from firms, from private equity that a billion dollars in assets is like this magic number in our industry. Do you feel like anything’s changed now that you’re at a billion and what’s the next chapter for Emerald Advisors? Is it just continuing on this steady trajectory and serving clients and trust that everything else comes with that? Michael Smith: I go back and forth on a billion, everyone thinks that’s the right number, the biggest number that you need but I think it’s just an arbitrary numbers because it didn’t define who I was. And a lot of people define success at a billion, they define success that you’re a successful firm at a billion. I think I was a successful firm at 300 million, I was a successful financial advisor with 20 clients in 2005. I would say a billion is a multiplier, what I would tell new advisors out there today is gather assets. The more assets you have, the more revenue you generate. The more revenue you generate, the more money you can put in your pocket which means the longer you can stay in the industry. The problem with the industry is an attrition problem, not anything else. So, assets just give us the ability to have revenue which gives us the ability to grow. Jason Diamond: And is that the plan? Keep adding assets, keep growing one client at a time with the focus though, obviously, on what makes you which is a very client-centric service model. Michael Smith: Correct. There’s a lot of things I want to do in the next couple of years and expanding our footprint is our biggest one with the right partners and then just keep adding. I have a business development officer that I’m probably offer a job to here pretty soon and things are going well. Jason Diamond: Yeah, that’s great. You mentioned the tech stack and the other components of the business and I hear you on the frugal cost-benefit analysis. But who did you turn to for some of those early decisions, was it Schwab primarily who helped hold your hand through that? Michael Smith: Schwab was very good at helping me identify the tech stack at first and the tech stack is actually the one consistent, there’s a lot of things I’ve been consistent on but tech is one that I’ve stayed with them. I launched with RightSize, now they’re Advisory, they’re very good, they do the right job for us and I’m big on cybersecurity. So, tech was helpful from Schwab, Schwab helped us with that. Jason Diamond: So, we spoke a little bit about your naval experience but, I’m curious, can you tell us how has your naval experience shaped your perception or your experience in wealth management? Michael Smith: My Navy path was a lot different than many officers. I served 12 years as an enlisted person before I got my direct commission as a Mustang officer, typically called limited duty officers or loud, dumb and obnoxious as I like to say. But that experience gave me a unique perspective because I was able to be the enlisted side and officer which are the workers and then the management side so I had both experiences which was unique. When I was commissioned, Admiral Jerry Ellis, a submarine admiral that commissioned me, heard this lesson to the podium, he was just talking about me in this point but he said, “There are three kinds of people in every organization. You have rowboat people who need to be pushed, you have sailboat people who move whenever the conditions are favorable and then there’s steamboat people, they move continuously through calm or storm.” And he said, “This is Ensign Michael Smith,” he said, “Make your course.” And that’s always stood with me because you do have those three types of people in life. You got people that are just … They’re robo people, they go until they get tired. You got sailboat people that go wherever the wind blows them and then you got steamboat people that chart their own course. I would say for advisors out there make your course or just be happy with what you’re doing. But for some of us hard chargers, I think that analogy has stayed with me my entire career. Jason Diamond: It’s fantastic. I love the analogy, great naval tie in also. Thanks for sharing that. We got time for one more question. You have a fascinating background, a fascinating path to the industry, obviously, an incredibly disciplined approach around client service, any parting thoughts, words of wisdom especially as it relates to growth? That’s what strikes me most about your story is the growth that your move unlocked and that’s what every advisor who listens to our show is looking for. Michael Smith: I’m going to give another plug to Schwab on this. We actually were fortunate and I got their consulting group to come in right afterwards and I’m a big believer in having offsite. So, I’ve had an offsite, two offsites a year for my team and it’s the entire team unlike the wirehouses where you don’t take your admins and stuff like that. I take my entire team to an offsite and we group up on what we’re trying to achieve and have goals and objectives for the year. Schwab allowed us to use their consultants and we came up with our ideal client persona. Teams or firms that have this model become high performing. When you become high performing, growth becomes the outcome. I couldn’t do anything but grow. Jason, I couldn’t not grow because I had this ideal client persona, I knew how I was going to do it, it was measurable. So, growth becomes the outcome and, if you hold people responsible, then we’re all going to grow together and it’s a fun outcome. Jason Diamond: Fantastic, it’s a great place to end. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us, I can’t wait to see what the next chapter holds for Emerald, this has been a lot of fun. Michael Smith: Jason, thank you so much. I appreciate everything you do for the industry as well. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? Is a book written with you in mind? It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. From “Overservicing” Clients to Building a $1B RIA: A Merrill Breakaway Story A conversation with Jason Diamond and Michael Smith, Managing Partner and Founder of Emerald Advisors.      Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is From “Overservicing” Clients to Building a $1B RIA: A Merrill Breakaway Story. It’s a conversation with Michael Smith, managing partner and founder of Emerald Advisors. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for financial advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned and, each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Growth is often viewed as the result of better marketing, stronger referrals, a larger team and even acquisition and that’s all true yet growth can be the byproduct of something else entirely. For example, Michael Smith built a successful practice at Merrill then, one day, he was told he was spending too much time with his clients, or his management put it over-servicing clients. For Michael, that wasn’t a warning sign about his approach, it was a signal that he might have outgrown the firm and the model. Today, Michael is the founder and managing partner of Emerald Advisors, the independent RIA he launched in late 2019 with roughly 385 million in assets and 85 client relationships. Less than seven years later, the firm has grown to more than a billion in assets while remaining deeply focused on a highly-specialized client base and an unusually hands-on service model. What makes this story particularly interesting isn’t just the growth, it’s the thinking behind it. Michael’s perspective was shaped long before he entered wealth management. After serving more than two decades in the Navy, he brought a leadership philosophy centered on accountability, discipline and what he calls steamboat people, those who keep moving forward regardless of conditions, that mindset continues to influence how he builds his team, serves clients and evaluates opportunities. In this episode, we discuss the decision to leave Merrill, the realities of launching a fully independent RIA, why specialization can accelerate growth, the evolving role of custodians and technology and why he believes exceptional client service remains one of the industry’s most durable competitive advantages. Because Michael’s experience suggests that growth isn’t always the result of finding more opportunities, sometimes it’s the result of creating the freedom to execute the vision you already had so let’s jump in. Michael, thank you so much for joining us today. For starters, can you walk us through your background and what brought you to the world of wealth management? Michael Smith: Jason, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today, I do listen to the podcast a lot especially before I left Mother Merrill. But my background and how I got into financial services is really distinct because I was on the board of JDRF back in the day and the national sponsor for JDRF was UBS PaineWebber and they’re like, “Mike, why don’t you be a financial advisor?” And my master’s degree was actually a finance and accounting in portfolio management because I’ve managed my own portfolio for years and years and so, when I couldn’t get a job, I just fell into it because I couldn’t get a job and I needed a job. That was 21 years ago, Memorial Day so that’s how I got into this industry. Jason Diamond: It’s a unique background, it’s super interesting and I want to talk more about it. You mentioned Mother Merrill, we’ll certainly get there. Before we do, give us a little bit of context on the current business you operate, Emerald Advisors, any context you can share on size, number of staff, types of clients you serve would be great. Michael Smith: Sure. So, we launched Emerald in 2019, November 2019 with about 85 clients and you always talk about this on the podcast how scared it is to launch and go independent. And I would say we took over about 95% of our clients that we wanted to bring over and today we’re at about 230 clients, I think we have some onboarding right now, we have just over a billion of assets. So, we launched with the 85 clients and around 350, 385 million, now we’re over a billion. Jason Diamond: Good for you. Michael Smith: Thank you. And I launched with four employees and we’re now at 11. And I would give a shout-out to one of my key employees because, when I launched, I actually hired somebody that had no experience with us and that was really a good thing because that allowed that person to really focus on operations and back office stuff while my business partner Emily and I were able to focus on bringing on the clients and alleviating any issues that they may have or thought. Jason Diamond: So, meaning you hired somebody basically immediately upon launch to help you with the transition and with this next chapter? Michael Smith: Correct. I hired them before but they started the day we launched. Jason Diamond: Brilliant, I love it. Oh, let’s definitely talk more about that because I think that’s a great strategy for … You’re right, you said it in a joking manner now because you’re seven years past but it’s a very real fear that advisors have and I think it’s worth talking more about. I want to mention too you have, obviously, built this business and grown this business dramatically. I don’t want to make this episode about the pandemic but you moved the business at a, certainly, a unique time. Did it impact your growth at all? Did you feel like you hit a brick wall? Just curious about your thoughts. Michael Smith: No, Jason, that’s a great observation. I would venture to say that the pandemic was actually a good thing for us. Jason Diamond: Interesting. Michael Smith: And I say that because, all of a sudden, you could hit pause because everyone was relearning how to do business, how do we do client reviews, how do we communicate with clients in a environment. So, I think the pandemic allowed us to just really reset our expectations visiting with clients because I used to fly a lot because I have clients in 38 different states so this has actually been, not just good for me, but good for the industry because I think it’s reset our expectations that we don’t have to be every day with a client facing. Jason Diamond: I agree with that largely and it’s true of our business too, by the way, it’s certainly reshaped the way people expect to be communicated with. I think Zoom has become much more mainstream, phone calls and we’ve heard from many other advisors who say something similar. I was just curious because you moved so close to or if there was an impact but I get, honestly, I think you’re right, it allowed you to have this nice natural inflection point and almost like flipping a switch of a clean slate. Michael Smith: It allowed us to learn the processes too. So, we launched in November 1st, by March we were in lockdown and so it gave us the opportunity to take several months of just learning the processes of how to be an RIA, it was pretty good. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. So, one of the things you mentioned in that was the way in which you serve clients and I’d read something funny and I think it was around the time of your move. You were talking about that, Merrill, you had a manager who spoke about that you would overserve your clients, you serve clients too much, tell me about that. Michael Smith: That was such an interesting topic because I got called down to the ops officer’s office and they’re like, “Ugh, Mike.” And it brought my admin down with me and they’re like, “Mike, these reports that you’re taking care of your clients too much,” and I’m like, “What do you mean?” “Well, you’re overservicing them.” Jason, I literally had to go back and Google the word overservicing because I was like, “How do you overservice the client? I’m not making their bed.” It was just so funny to me that I got counsel for overservicing clients when we’re in a client-facing job and I think that was part of the catalyst. Jason Diamond: Tell me more about what they meant, you think. Michael Smith: Hindsight, I think they … I like to take care of people which means I’m very intuitive towards taxes, I understand how the tax code works, I understand how everything impacts their bottom line. So, when we’re doing deferred comp enrollments or 401(k) enrollments or I’m a big believer in Roth 401(k)s and backdoor Roths and I’ve been doing them for years, I think what Mother Merrill wanted at that time was us not to do that. And, again, nothing against Merrill, I get it but this is how they wanted us to act and I wasn’t in that mold, I was taking care of clients to a much deeper depth is how I would say it. Jason Diamond: And I think that speaks to you outgrew the model not necessarily the firm. I think Merrill does a lot of things really well, you would agree with that, I think given that you built 85 clients and 350 million in assets is nothing to sneeze at. But the model that it seems like you value client service and an integrated client service experience of that and the wirehouse model oftentimes doesn’t put a premium on that. Tell me about your ethos or your thoughts around client service today and what being independent enables you to do. Michael Smith: So, that’s an interesting observation because one of my clients actually just mentioned to me that the reason we’re growing so much is because of our service model and the fact that we deliver a tremendous amount of value over just portfolio management. I said my managers is in portfolio management, I don’t do that any longer, I have a staff that handles that for me but it’s really the servicing of the clients because they don’t know what we know and I think servicing the client is the most important thing that we can do today. Jason Diamond: Give me some examples of what you mean by servicing the client in a more holistic way. I agree with you, by the way, portfolio management, table stakes, financial planning, table stakes, tell me more about what you mean. Michael Smith: By that I mean we do a quarterly review on tax. So, a lot of people don’t understand how taxes work and how estimated taxes work. So, estimated taxes are January 1st to March 31st, January 1st to May 31st, January 1st to August 31st, that’s how you do your estimated tax payments, you figure out what that is. And for compensated employees where they have RSUs that come in at different times of the year or different grants or exercise their options at a different time, that can affect their estimated tax liability and I’m not big on giving Uncle Sam any more money than they have to have until they need it. And then everyone doesn’t understand how the penalties and interest works on the IRS. And I’m big on the tax payments because that’s where we can add a lot of value for not a lot of time and we integrate it with our portfolio so we know what we’re doing with our gains. And I happen to reside in Washington State which has a long-term capital gains tax rate once you surpass about 270,000 of long-term capital gains. So, it’s super important for us to be aware of this and that’s how we service them. We also help them with their rebalancing of their 401(k)s, things that wirehouses cannot supposed to do, we are not supposed to be helping them with some of their aspects of life. Jason Diamond: Yup. That’s what I was alluding to earlier, it’s limitations on the model, not because they’re bad models, it’s just a different way, a different ethos around client service. You mentioned RSUs and corporate employees, I know that’s a niche you have is around concentrated stock positions and equity comp plans. I guess let me ask you two different questions around this. First of all, why that niche? Interested. And then, second of all, do you think

What if the problem is not that online leads do not work, but that most advisors are targeting the wrong people with the wrong message?   In this episode of the Registered Investment Advisor Podcast, Seth Greene interviews Allan Khazak, Founder & CEO of Vroom Media Group, who explains how his company helps insurance agents, RIAs, regional firms, and IMOs attract better prospects through targeted online advertising, client avatars, landing pages, surveys, nurture campaigns, and sales training. He also discusses why dinner seminars and radio shows are less effective than they used to be, how compliance affects advisor marketing, and why patience, follow-up, and continual improvement are essential to converting online leads.   Key Takeaways: → Online ads perform best when advisors target a specific client avatar. → Campaigns focused on tax issues, Roth conversions, or TSPs can attract more qualified prospects. → Lead quality improves when prospects are filtered by age, assets, and fit before they reach the advisor. → A strong landing page and survey process help train the ad algorithm to identify better prospects. → Advisors who treat every failed conversation as feedback can improve conversion rates over time. Allan Khazak is a Canadian entrepreneur, digital marketing expert, and founder and CEO of Vroom Media Group, a results-driven agency that helps life insurance brokers, financial advisors, and annuity agents generate qualified prospects and convert them into clients. Raised in Canada by an immigrant family, Allan developed a strong work ethic and entrepreneurial mindset early in life. He studied at the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto before beginning his career in public accounting. In 2019, Allan founded Vroom Media Group to help solve one of the insurance industry's biggest challenges: consistent lead generation and conversion. Under his leadership, the agency has built a niche using data-driven strategies, online advertising, and proprietary systems to help advisors book qualified appointments and grow annuity production.   Connect With Allan: Website: https://www.vroommediagroup.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vroommediagroup/ X: https://x.com/GroupVroom Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/VRMMediaGroupLeadGen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Promoting a high-producing advisor into a leadership role without teaching them how to lead isn't development, it's a risk transfer. Ray Sclafani has seen this pattern play out across hundreds of advisory firms: the best advisor gets promoted, the firm assumes leadership will follow, and within months the culture quietly starts to fracture. In this episode, Ray makes the case that leadership development is not a soft-skills initiative as it is an operational and economic imperative that directly shapes growth, retention, client experience, and enterprise value.What You Will Learn in This EpisodeWhy promoting high performers without leadership training is one of the most common and costly mistakes in wealth managementThe five direct questions every leadership team should ask to diagnose their management infrastructureHow to define what "meeting," "exceeding," and "far exceeding" expectations looks like for every leadership role in your firmHow to build a leadership scorecard that makes accountability observable, coachable, and measurableWhy leadership depth, not any single rainmaker or founder, is what allows a firm to grow without breakingKey Insight from This Episode"Promoting a high-producing advisor into a manager or leadership role without teaching that person how to lead is not development. That is a risk transfer."Leadership is not a reward for strong performance. It is a distinct skill set that requires training, structure, and ongoing accountability. The firms that invest in building that infrastructure now will have the bench depth, the culture, and the continuity to compete at the highest level — and to scale without depending on any one person.The Five Questions to Diagnose Your Leadership InfrastructureAsk your leadership team right now:Performance Reviews: Do you conduct performance reviews more than once a year?One-on-Ones: Do managers hold one-on-one meetings with their direct reports at least monthly?Feedback: Do employees receive regular, real-time feedback — not just at review time?Defined Standards: Have you defined what meeting, exceeding, and far exceeding expectations looks like for every role in your firm?Manager Accountability: Are managers held accountable for engagement, retention, and the development of the people they lead?If the honest answer to most of those is "no" or "not consistently," you have a leadership development gap and that gap has a direct cost.The Four-Step Framework for Building LeadersStep 1 — Define the Leadership Role Vague expectations produce vague performance. When a person is promoted to manager, their scope must be explicit and written down: What do they own? Which decisions are theirs to make? Which require alignment? Which belong elsewhere? Clarity here is not bureaucratic, because it is the foundation of effective leadership.Step 2 — Define What Strong Performance Looks Like For every leadership role, articulate three levels:Meeting expectations — Holds regular one-on-ones, provides timely feedback, follows through on commitments, keeps the team alignedExceeding expectations — Develops talent ahead of need, strengthens team capacity, reduces confusion, helps others make better decisionsFar exceeding expectations — Develops leaders who develop other leaders, builds scalable systems, improves retention, reduces the firm's dependence on any single personOnce the levels are defined, performance conversations, calibration, comp decisions, and development plans all improve. People stop guessing.Step 3 — Build a Feedback Cadence Annual reviews are too slow. By the time the review occurs, everyone already knows what should have been said months earlier. Managers should hold regular one-on-ones, provide feedback in real time, and ask the questions that matter: What is working? What is unclear? What needs to change? What support is required? What are you learning? Where do you want to grow? Feedback should not be dramatic. It should be normal.Step 4 — Hold Leaders Accountable for the People They Lead A manager should be evaluated not only on their personal performance or technical competence, but on the engagement, retention, development, and performance of their team. If a leader is personally successful but leaves behind confusion, burnout, or turnover, that is not strong leadership. Create a leadership scorecard for every manager in your firm. Include five measures: communication rhythm, feedback quality, talent development, accountability, and team health. Review it quarterly. Coach to it. Compensate it.Coaching Questions for ReflectionWhich leaders in your firm, including you, have been promoted based on production or contribution, but never trained to lead?Where have you clearly defined performance expectations, and where are people still guessing?Which leadership behaviors should be measured because they directly shape culture and retention at your firm?What would change if managers were held accountable for the growth of the people they lead?Why This Matters for Enterprise ValueManagers shape the firm's lived experience. Not the values poster in the break room. Not the retreat agenda. Not the title structure. Managers decide how feedback is delivered, whether accountability is real, whether talent is developed or ignored, whether high performers are challenged, whether underperformance is tolerated, whether meetings are useful, and whether people feel stretched, supported, and included.SHRM research shows that only 44% of managers globally have received formal management training. More than 90% of HR executives say people managers are critically important to organizational success — and job satisfaction nearly doubles among workers with highly effective managers.For advisory firms, this isn't abstract. Leadership development affects growth and retention, client experience, and ultimately the enterprise value of what you are building.The firms that develop leaders will win — because they will not rely on any single founder, rainmaker, or heroic operator. They will build bench depth. And that bench depth is what allows a firm to grow without breaking.Resources & References MentionedSHRM — Global Management Training ResearchKorn Ferry — Workforce 2025 Research ReportBuilding the Billion Dollar Business is hosted by Ray Sclafani, founder and CEO of ClientWise, the financial services industry's leading executive coaching and team development firm for elite advisors and wealth management teams.Find Ray and the ClientWise Team on the ClientWise website or LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeBuilding The Billion Dollar Business

It's been well-documented and researched: While valuations in the RIA industry have skyrocketed over the last decade, the large majority of firms are not proactively growing. Organic growth rates remain anemic when the opportunity to acquire new clients has arguably never been greater. In this episode of RIA+, Ray Sclafani, the Founder and CEO of Clientwise, comes back to the podcast for a deeper dive into his "10% Rule." Ray argues that RIAs should be targeting 10% increase in net new assets or revenues each year - an aggressive, but achievable goal with the right strategy, structure and growth architecture. 

Boundaries are often presented as the answer to difficult relationships, workplace stress, and emotional well-being. But what happens when a boundary is actually avoidance in disguise? In this episode, Paul Wagner and Ray Christner explore the complicated space between protecting yourself and limiting your growth. They discuss how rigid boundaries can sometimes create new problems, why flexibility matters, and how anxiety can influence the decisions we make about work, relationships, and personal fulfillment. Through clinical examples and practical insights, they examine how to recognize when a boundary is serving you, when it may be holding you back, and how to make thoughtful decisions that align with your values. This conversation offers clinicians and listeners a fresh perspective on balancing self-protection, growth, and meaningful connection.Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

There is no golden goose when it comes to affiliation models in the wealth management industry.Wirehouses, independent broker-dealers, RIAs all have pros and cons.Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ill-informed or being disingenuous.So when considering pathways for your advisory practice, it's important to understand how those pros and cons compare.In this episode (#150) of the Transition To RIA question & answer series, I explain the pros and cons of 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/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-ria-model/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.

Discover the step-by-step system that turns accountants and attorneys into weekly referral sources for your advisory practice. In this episode of the Registered Investment Advisor Podcast, Seth Greene, Founder and CEO of Market Domination, reveals the Dream 50 referral process, designed to help registered investment advisors secure consistent weekly referrals from professional centers of influence. Drawing on decades of experience and work with more than 83 RIAs, Seth explains how to define target markets, warm up influencers through social engagement, and convert relationships into high-value leads. He also shares real client examples and the tools needed to implement this process efficiently, demonstrating how it can generate significant revenue with minimal time investment. Key Takeaways: → Define your target market precisely to focus your outreach. → Warm up influencers by engaging with them on social media and leaving reviews. → Convert influencer goodwill into actionable referrals through follow-up and strategic calls. → Capture prospect contact information and implement a multi-channel drip-follow-up system. → Done-for-you implementation by a professional staff ensures scalability and high ROI. Seth Greene is a leading authority on business growth and affiliate marketing, recognized for scaling 50 DREAM affiliates and achieving Inc. 5000 status in 2023. He co-hosts the Sharkpreneur podcast with Shark Tank's Kevin Harrington and is ranked No. 6 among the best business podcasts to listen to. A nine-time best-selling author, Seth has been featured on NBC News, CBS News, Forbes, Inc., and CBS MoneyWatch. He is the only person in history to be nominated three consecutive years for the GKIC Marketer of the Year award. A serial entrepreneur, he has founded four successful businesses and continues to guide entrepreneurs in scaling, visibility, and building profitable ecosystems. Connect With Seth: Website: https://marketdominationllc.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/_marketdomination X: https://x.com/mktdominationus Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarketDominationLLC LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/market-domination-llc Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As firms move beyond artificial intelligence notetaking, prep tools and basic automation, the bigger opportunity may be rethinking how work gets done across the entire organization, from the front office to the back office. What happens when the goal is not doing more, but giving people room to do better human work? In this episode of The WealthStack Podcast, host Shannon Rosic sits down with Andrei Pop, founder and CEO of Humanity Labs, to explore the rise of the AI workforce in financial services. Pop explains why RIAs are uniquely positioned for this next wave of AI, how firms can use digital workers to close capacity gaps, and why the future of advice may depend less on scaling tasks and more on scaling trust. Key takeaways:: How AI is moving beyond individual productivity Why clean data helps, but outcome definition matters more Why RIAs are “human businesses” and trust remains the real product advisors deliver The argument that AI could create more accountability, not less Why the financial plan was never really the product Resources: Listen to WealthStack on Wealth Management Subscribe and listen to WealthStack on Apple Podcasts Subscribe and listen to WealthStack on Spotify Connect with Shannon Rosic: Shannon Rosic WealthStack website Wealth Management Connect with Andrei Pop: LinkedIn: Andrei Pop LinkedIn: Humanity Labs Website: Humanity Labs andrei@humanitylabs.ai  About Our Guest: Andrei Pop is the Founder and CEO of Humanity Labs, a company focused on building AI workforces for financial services firms. Originally from Romania, Andrei brings a human-centered perspective to technology and operations, shaped by his experience growing up in an oppressive system and later spending years in Silicon Valley. Through Humanity Labs, he works with RIAs and wealth management firms to help them rethink how work gets done, using AI to create firm capacity, streamline operations, and free advisors to focus more on trust, judgment, and human connection.

Four days. Twenty-four firms. $4.5 trillion in controlled assets. Here is what Frank and Stacey took away from Elite Ignite 2026. Frank LaRosa and Stacey Frank are back in the studio for the first time in about six weeks and they are using this episode to do something they have never done quite like this before: open up the room. Elite Ignite started five years ago as an internal team meeting. It grew into a broker dealer and RIA conference unlike anything else in the industry. No deals discussed. No transition packages on the table. Just firms coming in, laying their swords down and getting to work. Frank and Stacey walk through the standout sessions and conversations from the 2026 conference held in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. They explain why working with 65 to 80 firms is not a liability but a strategic necessity, why 85% of what firms offer is essentially the same and why the remaining 15% is what Elite is built around understanding and how the conference is designed to make every advisor placement a deliberate decision rather than a convenient one. They get candid about the Good Firm Bad Firm Recruiter panel, where firm recruiters heard directly from Frank about what professional courtesy looks like when an advisor takes time away from their family to explore a transition. They also talk through the growing AI conversation among financial services firms, why the pro forma model Frank has been building for 15 years stopped every firm in the room and what it means that some firms walked out of the conference and immediately started rewriting their 2026 growth strategy. The full Elite Ignite 2026 Insight Report is available at eliteconsultingpartners.com/2026-ignite-recap   Questions answered in this episode include: What was Elite Ignite 2026 and who attended? How does Elite Consulting Partners decide which firms to work with and recommend to advisors? Why do advisors get confused when comparing offers from multiple firms, and how does Elite solve that? What did the Good Firm Bad Firm Recruiter panel reveal about how firm recruiters approach advisors? How are broker dealers and RIAs using AI to support financial advisor growth right now? Why doesn't Elite invite financial advisors to the conference, and will that change? What does it mean to make the right move instead of just the next move?   Chapters: 0:00 — What It Means to Make the Right Move, Not the Next Move 0:54 — Welcome Back: Stacey Rejoins and Elite Ignite Recap Begins 3:12 — The $4.5 Trillion Room: Firms, Collaboration, and the Iron Sharpens Iron Moment 7:15 — Why 85% Is the Same and the 15% Is Everything 10:06 — Inside the Conference: RIA Panels, M&A, and the AI Conversation 13:38 — Good Firm Bad Firm Recruiter: What Firms Need to Hear 18:11 — The Pro Forma Reveal and What the Industry Can Learn From It   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/

With Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry—Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners Jason Diamond speaks with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry of Panoramic Capital Partners about helping business owners align personal significance, wealth, and business value through a long-term advisory framework. In Summary Many advisors who work with business owners focus on managing wealth after it is created. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that the greater opportunity is helping clients create, preserve, and align value long before a liquidity event occurs. In their conversation with Jason Diamond, the founders of Panoramic Capital Partners discuss how concepts borrowed from private equity – including accountability, reporting, capital allocation, and long-term planning – can help advisors become more valuable partners to entrepreneurs. The result is a different framework for advising business owners: one that places personal significance, personal wealth, and business value on equal footing and measures success over decades rather than by transactions. The Storyline Most business owners spend years aligning their companies around a mission, strategy, and long-term objective. Far fewer spend the same amount of time aligning their business, wealth, and personal lives around a common destination. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry believe that true alignment begins when business owners stop viewing those decisions separately. As founding partners of Panoramic Capital Partners, they have built a firm designed to engage earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Their framework centers on helping business owners define a “north star” that balances three interconnected dimensions: personal significance, personal wealth, and business value. The conversation explores how that framework evolved from Taylor's experience in private equity and Nick's background in consulting and wealth management. Rather than viewing private equity solely as a source of capital or a transaction event, they examine what advisors can learn from the systems, reporting structures, and accountability mechanisms that private equity firms use to create value over time. Jason and his guests discuss why many business owners struggle to connect financial, operational, and personal objectives; how advisors can serve as a true personal CFO; and why alignment often matters more than maximizing the next transaction. The discussion also turns inward, examining how the same principles influence Panoramic's own growth decisions, their views on acquisitions and private equity investment within RIAs, and what the industry must do to attract the next generation of advisory talent.   > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why do many business-owner relationships begin too late? (13:10)Nick explains why focusing primarily on liquidity events can create misaligned incentives and why advisors may add greater value by engaging earlier in the wealth-creation process. What does Panoramic mean by a “north star” framework? (16:40)Taylor outlines the firm's approach to aligning personal significance, personal wealth, and business value into a unified planning and decision-making framework. How can advisors apply private equity thinking without becoming private equity investors? (18:11)Taylor describes how institutional reporting, accountability, and value-creation systems can help business owners improve outcomes regardless of whether a transaction ever occurs. Why did one client walk away from a successful deal? (19:45)Nick shares the story of a business owner who discovered that selling the company would solve the wrong problem and why redefining success led to a better outcome. Is private equity misunderstood by many business owners? (26:26)The conversation explores how private equity often functions as a “black box” and why advisors can help clients evaluate opportunities more objectively. How does Panoramic structure its pricing to reduce conflicts of interest? (30:52)Nick discusses the firm's effort to align compensation with client outcomes rather than asset gathering alone. Should RIAs pursue acquisitions and private equity capital? (32:20)Taylor and Nick explain how they evaluate growth opportunities through the same long-term framework they use with clients. What role will AI play in the future of advisory firms? (40:14)The discussion focuses on balancing efficiency gains and enhanced client experiences with the responsibility to protect client trust and security. Topics Covered Business-owner advisory models Personal significance, wealth, and value Entrepreneurial wealth creation Private equity frameworks Business value growth strategies Capital allocation decisions RIA business building Advisor compensation alignment Artificial intelligence in wealth management Next generation advisor talent Key Takeaways Many advisors focus on the liquidity event, while business owners often need guidance throughout the entire value-creation journey. The most effective business planning frameworks connect personal goals, financial objectives, and enterprise value rather than treating them separately. Private equity's greatest contribution may not be capital itself, but the systems and accountability structures used to create long-term value. Business owners frequently pursue an exit when the underlying issue is a misaligned relationship with their business, rather than a desire to stop owning it. Advisor compensation models influence behavior, making alignment between pricing and client outcomes increasingly important. Growth through acquisitions can be valuable, but only when it supports a firm's broader vision and long-term objectives. AI has the potential to improve advisor efficiency and client outcomes, but trust and security remain the non-negotiable constraints. https://youtu.be/_Fhic8CxtCs Quotable Moments “Growing businesses create value. The transaction is not the value creation event. The business itself is.” “The reality is that many entrepreneurs don't want an exit. They want a different relationship with their business.” “Private equity is often treated like a black box. Most people don't actually know what it is or how it works.” “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now.” FAQs How can advisors create more value for business-owner clients? Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that advisors can create greater value by engaging earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, they discuss helping clients align business strategy, capital allocation, personal goals, and long-term wealth creation. How does Panoramic Capital Partners work with business owners differently from a traditional wealth management firm? Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, Panoramic seeks to partner with entrepreneurs throughout the business ownership journey. Their approach incorporates business strategy, value creation, capital allocation, and long-term planning alongside traditional wealth management services. What is the “North Star” framework discussed in the episode? The North Star framework serves as the foundation for Panoramic's advisory process. It helps business owners define long-term objectives across their personal lives, financial goals, and businesses, creating a shared reference point for major decisions over time. How can advisors apply private equity principles without working in private equity? The discussion highlights how advisors can borrow many of the operational disciplines commonly used by private equity firms – including reporting systems, accountability structures, performance measurement, and strategic planning – to help clients create value regardless of whether a transaction ever takes place. Why do some business owners choose not to sell their companies? According to Nick and Taylor, many entrepreneurs discover that they do not actually want an exit. Instead, they want a different relationship with their business. In some cases, improving management systems, leadership structures, and operational accountability can achieve that goal without a sale. What are the advisors' views on AI in wealth management? They see AI as a potentially powerful tool for improving efficiency and enhancing client deliverables, while emphasizing that client trust, data security, and responsible implementation remain more important than being first to adopt new technologies. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry argue that advisors can create greater value by engaging earlier in the entrepreneurial journey. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, they discuss helping clients align business strategy, capital allocation, personal goals, and long-term wealth creation. Rather than focusing primarily on investments or eventual liquidity events, Panoramic seeks to partner with entrepreneurs throughout the business ownership journey. Their approach incorporates business strategy, value creation, capital allocation, and long-term planning alongside traditional wealth management services. The North Star framework serves as the foundation for Panoramic's advisory process. It helps business owners define long-term objectives across their personal lives, financial goals, and businesses, creating a shared reference point for major decisions over time. The discussion highlights how advisors can borrow many of the operational disciplines commonly used by private equity firms – including reporting systems, accountability structures, performance measurement, and strategic planning – to help clients create value regardless of whether a transaction ever takes place. According to Nick and Taylor, many entrepreneurs discover that they do not actually want an exit. Instead, they want a different relationship with their business. In some cases, improving management systems, leadership structures, and operational accountability can achieve that goal without a sale. They see AI as a potentially powerful tool for improving efficiency and enhancing client deliverables, while emphasizing that client trust, data security, and responsible implementation remain more important than being first to adopt new technologies. Related Resources Finding the Shortest Path to Excellence Can Be a Game Changer for AdvisorsDoing everything you can to deliver better service, drive growth, and achieve your goals faster can result in extraordinary benefits. Why So Many Successful Advisors Feel StuckThey've built thriving businesses. Strong production. Loyal clients. Growing teams. So why do so many successful advisors quietly wonder, “Why doesn't this feel as good as I expected?” This episode tackles the psychology of success and what comes after it. Top Tips for Setting Your Business Up for Success Years Before a MoveEven if a move is years away—or just a possibility—it's never too soon to start preparing. These insights will help you position your business and team for success, whenever the time is right. Guest Bios Nick Hubert is a Founding Partner at Panoramic Capital Partners, where he works with business owners, founders, and families on the integration of personal wealth and business decisions. His focus is on the moments where the two sides converge, growth, capital, liquidity, and long-term planning, and helping clients see the full picture in one coherent strategy. Nick began his career in investment banking in New York and management consulting in Seattle before moving into wealth management in 2016. He has also helped lead several commercial real estate development projects, giving him a hands-on understanding of how to build and maximize value in private investments. A native of Portland, Oregon, Nick lives there with his wife, Kaitlin. Outside of work, he’s usually backcountry skiing in the Cascades, cycling, or trail running across the Pacific Northwest. Taylor Gentry is a Founding Partner at Panoramic Capital Partners, where he works with business owners, executives, and families whose wealth is tied to illiquid assets, operating companies, real estate, and private investments. His role is to translate business performance into clear financial decisions and pressure-test those decisions before they become expensive or irreversible. Before Panoramic, Taylor spent his career in investment banking and private equity, and served as CFO at several operating companies. That blend of advisory and operating experience shapes how he approaches the work: focused on fundamentals, tradeoffs, and execution. At Panoramic, Taylor acts as a Personal CFO for clients, connecting business performance, personal balance sheet, and long-term planning into one coherent strategy. An Oregon native and University of Oregon graduate, Taylor lives in Missoula, Montana with his wife, son, and daughter.s NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value A conversation with Jason Diamond, Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry – Founding Partners at Panoramic Capital Partners. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value. It’s a conversation with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry, Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Advisory firms that work with business owner clients typically operate through a fairly traditional wealth management lens. The business may be the source of the wealth, but the advice itself often centers around investments, planning, and asset allocation, yet Panoramic Capital Partners approaches that equation differently. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry are the founding partners of the roughly $450 million RIA, serving about 150 families with a seven-person team. And while they come from very different professional backgrounds, Nick with more of a relationship and storytelling orientation, Taylor from the analytical and private equity side, they’ve built the firm around a shared philosophy tied to what they call personal significance, personal wealth, and personal value. A big part of that philosophy, or the north star as they put it, is applying some of the same accountability and long-term thinking frameworks commonly seen in private equity to the advisory relationship itself, not in a transactional sense, but in helping clients think more intentionally about decision-making, alignment, and outcomes over long periods of time. As a result, our conversation delves deeply into the private equity world, reframing how clients and advisors should consider this important tool as both a growth mechanism and a strategic part of their client’s plans. We talk about how that perspective also shapes not only how they think about serving business owners specifically, but also the role private equity should play in wealth management. Then we take a view of their long runway and how they and other younger advisors might see things differently about building firms today and why clarity of vision may matter more than sheer scale in the years ahead, and much, much more. It’s a narrative that is refreshing and informative, so let’s get to it. Taylor, Nick, thank you so much for joining. Walk us through your background. What brought you to the world of wealth management? Nick, let’s start with you. Nick Hubert: Sure. I think I got my first taste of the industry actually in a sophomore year of college internship, or I interned at Morgan Stanley here in Oregon. I studied finance and accounting at University of Oregon, and so I had this affinity for finance and markets and had that privilege of having that internship. So I had it early on in my career. Ultimately ended up setting my sights on doing investment banking and going that route and did that for a short period of time. Ended up not going very long due to a medical reason, so you don’t have to be that sorry for me. And ultimately started my career in business consulting before pretty quickly realizing that I want to get back to finance, back to investing these things that just felt like core competencies and that thing that you keep coming back to when you’re alone in the middle of the night thinking about stuff, it was always that. Just had this desire to work with smaller units than large corporations, which is great for wealth where you get to work with families and small businesses. And so it was just a natural alignment that took me back full-time to the space in 2016. Jason Diamond: I like the framing it through the size of the unit you’re working with and having more of an impact on the family. Taylor, what about you? Taylor Gentry: I’m a little more circuitous, if you will. Spent a couple of years in investment banking, so you can be sorry for me. Nick and I met in undergrad at the University of Oregon, had the opportunity to work in this investment group together where we were investing a portion of the university’s endowment. And like Nick, interned in wealth management and kind of walked away from it going, “Boy, that’s boring. I don’t really like that.” And so moved to New York, cut my teeth in banking for a couple years and we were working… So an investment bank for context, helping companies raise debt, raise equity, and with mergers and acquisitions, we’re working with huge companies. So the Mattels of the world, the largest toy company in the world. Like Nick, realized, “Hey, I’m going to work with smaller companies that we can get our arms around a little bit better and be more helpful with and have a bigger impact on.” So spent about 10 years with a private equity firm in the western half of the US and we invested in companies in what’s referred to as the lower middle market. So companies doing 50 to 300 million of revenue. And we would invest in those companies, grow those businesses and then look to sell them. Awesome experience, learned a ton, got a bunch of experience around how to invest in companies, how to grow businesses. Then had the opportunity to step into the CFO seat of a couple of different operating companies during that time. It was just a great learning ground, but also to see a whole bunch of different situations. Nick and I have always invested in things together. We’ve worked on things together and we’ve always wanted to work together full time. And a few years ago, the stars really just aligned to say, “Hey, what would it look like to create a differentiated offering in the wealth space where we can blend my background on companies, transactions, how to draw on scale and all those pieces and really marry that with the wealth management piece?” And Nick will get into that further, but it’s just a really unique way to partner with families and companies that are smaller which can have a really high impact experience with those families and really move them through their life journey, if you will. Jason Diamond: Yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there and we’ll get to some of the elements of how you run the business today. First of all, you can’t fool me by using a toy company as your example to make investment banking more interesting. I’m just kidding. Actually, my real takeaway there is you have a skillset that is incredibly relevant in the current wealth management ecosystem, especially in the model you’re currently in. So let’s talk about that a little. Tell us about your current chapter, which is Panoramic Capital Partners. Who do you serve? What types of clients? Give me some perspective on size as well. Nick Hubert: I'm going to take this first. Taylor can do the PE background side and give you a bunch of numbers. I’ll give you the story and see if we can piece it together that way. Jason Diamond: I get the impression you guys use that line a lot. Nick Hubert: Oh, no, that’s the first time. How’d it land? Jason, I spent eight years at our prior firm with our third founding partner, Andrew, and he was at that firm for 30 years. And so we’ve got this core DNA that we’ve always carried of serving high net worth families in a very holistic and deep planning-based capacity, which I think a lot of modern firms say that. And so that’s not necessarily that different, but it is a DNA that carries through. When we got struck with this vision of launching Panoramic and what inspired us to build the firm, it was as, Taylor outlined, around this idea of how do we partner with entrepreneurs and business owners more holistically across their entire entrepreneurial journey, not just around the exit as is so often where the gravity of the conversation sits. And so our firm vision and inspiration was all around that. And since launching in May of 2024, it has been about how do we bring that vision to life with a different business model. And to your point, there’s a bunch to unpack there, but that is ultimately the founding vision of what we are trying to build here overall and what inspires us every day to say, how do we, as Taylor mentioned, bring the combination of skillsets to bear in a way that allows us to be a better partner along the entirety of the journey as opposed to just towards the end when assets traditionally show up, so to speak? So that’s a story from a vision perspective. Taylor, I don’t know what you want to add to that. Taylor Gentry: As Nick outlined, it’s the ability to work with folks throughout the lifecycle. So in private equity, you invest in a company, you work with that management team for three to seven years and then you sell the business and move on to the next project or deal. And really, it’s the deal mechanic that is the value creation. Whereas, with what we are building here, we have the opportunity to really step along the journey with folks when they are in the early phases building what we talk about as the middle phase of allocating, and we’ll talk about this further, and then really the third phase of stewarding capital along the way. And it’s a life cycle or entrepreneurial journey that we’re able to be hand in hand with folks over decades opposed to measured in three to five year spans. Jason Diamond: So it sounds, and you’ve both kind of touched on this now, your different backgrounds, you view as very much a positive because it gives you, Taylor, the more in the weeds analytical perspective. Nick, you’re probably more the storyteller. Do you find that to be a benefit when you’re running your firm every day? And are there instances when it’s a negative? Is there ever a time when you say, Taylor, just maybe more for you, not coming from this world, you don’t speak the same language? Nick Hubert: Do you want me to drop off the call so Taylor can be honest and he can give you the scoop and then he can jump off and I’ll give you the scoop? Taylor Gentry: Jason, we talk about that a lot, honestly. I think it is atypical for someone with my background to step into the wealth space maybe more so. And we leverage that because we have the ability to work with folks on how do you drive value in the company, how do you set the business up for a potential sale exit or transition internally? But this business, historically, we’ve talked about it as almost like two tracks. You have Taylor on the quote unquote business consulting or the business work track and you have Nick on a wealth management track. It’s really not the case. And really, the power is the ability for these two pieces to come together and there isn’t a conversation we have with clients where those two perspectives and backgrounds or contexts aren’t married into one to create really truly holistic advice. And so Nick will probably tell you otherwise, but I haven’t seen an area yet where our two backgrounds has been a negative. It’s actually been immensely positive. And then on top of it, in terms of kind of building out the firm, Nick is more of a traction visionary and I’m more of the traction implementer. What’s amazing about it from our perspective is the partnership we have allows us to, A, recognize that, B, name it, and then C, leverage it in terms of being able to dole out duties and maximize our success together. Jason Diamond: Nick, anything you’d add? Nick Hubert: I think that’s all right. I mean, Jason, your question was from an operational perspective. I think a lot of Taylor’s view is from a client perspective, which is spot on that the overlap of that is really helpful for clients and I think what allows it to be a different experience for them. Internally, operationally, I think that where you could see friction there amongst partners with differences, and I think you do see that, and at the same time, Google was the one who did team research 15 years ago where they put out what you really want, is similarity and vision and differences in skillset when building a team. And so I think we’ve been intentional about that and it’s been really helpful for… Taylor and I functionally met in a quasi-professional setting back in 2011 and developed a friendship quickly, so we’ve got that deep level of friendship that underpins all of it. And same with Andrew and our time working together. So part of it is there’s just such a strength of relationship amongst us that we give space for each other’s differences and look for those as assets as opposed to negatives, but in some sense, beauty in the eye of the beholder as is the case with anything. Jason Diamond: Yep. I appreciate you adding that context. I’ll be honest that when I first encountered your firm, my reaction was your core value prop of serving business owners is not all that differentiated. And then I learned more about the way in which you serve business owners. Can you talk about that? Because a lot of advisors in general, but then I think more specifically, a lot of RIAs would say, “We service primarily business owners.” Tell me how do you do it in a way that’s different and meaningful? Nick Hubert: I’ll take a first stab at that and then Taylor can maybe add on with specific stories. The wealth space is an awesome business and it’s a place where it’s very difficult to differentiate. And so we think a lot about that through the lens of how do we grow this business well for the long period of time to create opportunities for clients and employees. And so we spent a lot of time thinking about that, not only for the sake of differentiation, but also how do we actually just continue to add value to clients? Because if we add value in a different way, growth will take care of itself. I’d say one way of cutting that is we revisit the mission is through this idea of, okay, if I want to be a partner along the journey, it’s about more than a single transaction, more than a single exit, whatever that might be, or a series of transactions as wealth is often created over a series of transactions. It’s this idea of how do we focus on wealth creation and driving business value as the engine of wealth creation for entrepreneurs and what we call personal significance, which is the life of the entrepreneur. And so there’s a next click down framing of our framework that we work through that lens. I think the most important piece for us has been how do we build a business model that actually brings that to life and that’s the trick because we can say that, and if we basically still just operate out of an AUM-based or an asset advisory fee-based business, the reality is my incentive is still towards getting assets out of the entrepreneurial environment, so to speak, into a place that I can manage them, which may or may not be the best thing for the entrepreneur based on where they are at. And so our current work continues to be around how do we build that business model. So layering in different ways of engaging, whether it’s a retainer fee or some other way of engaging so we can start earlier when assets aren’t there and actually encourage the entrepreneur, “No, keep reinvesting in your business. It’s your highest rate of return right now and it’s where the investment needs to go.” I don’t want to have a conflict in giving that advice. And so I think step two here has been building that business model from an actual engagement perspective to enable us to enact the vision. And then I think the third piece is how do we then build tools that are different than just evaluating pre-exit planning, and as is so often, the toolkit, but actually saying, okay, what are the value drivers of a business? And this is probably where Taylor has a lot more to add because it’s 101 of the PE model, but how do we take the mission and vision of an entrepreneur, what we call north stars, translate those into value drivers, ensure those tie to strategic initiatives in the business, ensure it ties to reporting, and ultimately, how capital is allocated between the business and other investments? So then that’s our toolkit that we continue to build out to deploy the mission through our business model with tools that back it up. So that’s how we frame it right now. Taylor, we can share stories about how that’s come to fruition to create different outcomes. Jason Diamond: Taylor, I’d love to hear that. Let me just add maybe my understanding, because this is what helped me, I think, to really understand how you defer, and Nick and Taylor, correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like the typical advisor thinks about an entrepreneur, a business owner relationship as the next liquidity event in most cases. And you take the viewpoint that it’s a journey, in some instances, 30 years in the making. It’s not even about liquidity event might come that’s beside the point. Is that a fair summary? Taylor Gentry: Yeah. We talk about it as a growing business is a healthy business, a business that is creating incremental value and adding to the multiple in terms of how the business is valued in the marketplace is a healthy business. And so whether you are going to sell that business or retain that business into perpetuity, let’s make a really valuable business and grow a very healthy business. And that’s what we do with clients. Nick laid out the north star framework. And so how do we actually go about engaging with folks on a practical level? It does start with the north star framework. It’s got five steps to it as Nick outlined in terms of defining the north star, where we’re going, what we’re trying to do and that’s across those three pillars, personal significance, personal wealth and business value. And that personal significance has to be held at that same level. Otherwise, we find folks that are mid 50s, their business is crazy valuable, they’ve got a lot of dollars, but their family life isn’t where they want it to be because they didn’t take care of that along the way. So we lay out a place map that says, “Hey, these are the north stars that we are aligning on and coming back to every month when we work with these owners.” We then push that into, okay, what are we trying to do on the business side of the equation? Let’s lay out what is going to drive the value of the business from a multiple and enterprise value perspective. We push that into a set of strategic initiatives that is tactical, who owns what, when’s it getting done, and are we red, yellow or green on it? We then build out the performance reporting package with folks. And so that is a monthly reporting package that says what happened last month and what operational data are we looking at to be able to improve the business month over month and get a good feedback loop going into the company. And then the last piece is around capital allocation that Nick mentioned where if the business generates a million dollars, where’s that capital going? I think there’s a lot in there and it’s really deep, but if you zoom all the way back out, it’s take a private equity style playbook where private equity firms come and invest in a company. And what do they do after close? They put in place good financial reporting, good operational reporting, and then hold the team accountable to that reporting and those results on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. And so this is not rocket science or something that’s never been seen before. It’s just most business owners that have never experienced this private equity world don’t have access to it and don’t know how to go about doing it. It’s a relatively long process to get that installed with companies and with teams to really dig in and understand it, but it’s building out those packages to be able to say, “Okay, what happened last month? What changes do we need to make and what are we doing from a initiative perspective to drive the business forward?” So to Nick’s point, it was previously, this was all about liquidity planning or from a wealth management perspective, it’s about the exit. This is about how do we make a more valuable business along the way, and that’s going to be good for the entrepreneur as they move through the journey. Nick Hubert: When we were around the dinner table, the proverbial dinner table creating the vision of this firm, it was around this idea of the silver tsunami and everything that everybody reads in the headlines of this massive wave of transition, this generational transition of business ownership that we could help facilitate. So we launched with that thesis in some sense. In addition to this broader journey perspective, we have gotten to this place by following the market and listening to what entrepreneurs actually want through the big unlock was honestly in a deal process with one of our clients where we realized, “This is a great deal. This person’s going to put a ton of money in their pockets, secure their future,” and it’s completely the wrong outcome for the entrepreneur because it’s thinking all about the deal, not thinking about what this person didn’t want was an exit. They wanted a different relationship with their business, and that required, what do you actually want out of life, that personal significance piece? And it required, “Hey, if we can actually create a layer of team members and reporting that allows you to manage this like a board chair would do as opposed to a highly engaged CEO. That’s actually what you want. You don’t want out of this business. You want to still have this be a huge rock in your life.” And so we’ve ran through that door, said no to the deal with them and have been building the infrastructure around this, and that was the unlock and aha moment for us. There’s something bigger here and that’s what then inspired, in some sense, the broader build out of the toolkit, but I think puts more meat on the bone of actually saying no to a deal, which is not the classic wealth manager outcome to get to a way better outcome for the client and is ultimately still an awesome client for us as a firm and somebody that we can go build with for the next 20 years. I think just telling it through the lens of a story that’s different than what’s normal, so to speak, is a way to frame that up. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hyper focus on a fairly long-term and honestly nebulous potential outcome. You don’t have certainty. That, I think, is why most advisors would prefer the near-term liquidity. I mean, it’s not a secret, right? You can bill on assets, firms are incentivizing it and it’s a pretty direct recipe to net new asset growth, but it’s certainly a refreshing point of view. It resonates with me. I’m wondering if it’s resonated with clients and prospects. I guess what I’m asking is, do they feel that this is something different than the typical wealth management experience for this type of client? Nick Hubert: Yeah, Taylor, tell that story of the guy who said, “I’ve had this, but I felt alone.” I think that story of partnership, you tell pretty well. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, it was actually that same client, he had a investment banker, a wealth manager, attorney, and a CPA. CPA said, “The deal’s terrible, you shouldn’t do the deal.” Investment bankers obviously incentivized to do the deal. And so he’s saying, “You should do the deal.” That’s how he gets paid. He had a wealth manager who was silent and he had an attorney who just pushing paperwork. Jason Diamond: It’s like the start of a bad joke. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. No, seriously, it’s pretty remarkable. It’s like this guy did what he was supposed to do. He put the team of resources around himself. He got professionals in the seat. It’s that no one could connect the dots of all four of those people because they have the seat of those four people. And so it’s really resonated because there’s an ability to see a bigger picture and connect these dots and say, “Okay, this investment banker is saying X because of A, B and C.” And the CPA is saying it’s a bad deal and that it’s not a market deal. It’s 100% a market deal. This deal is right down the fairway in terms of what the market should value your company at and they just don’t understand how the transaction mechanics should work. And so it’s worked really well from that perspective of being able to be the quarterback or centralized point or personal CFO for folks in understanding where interests lie and also being able to think about what they are pursuing in a bit of a different lens. I think the second piece on that is where does it resonate for folks? I think that there is a gap in the marketplace that we are still working to close, and that gap is that business owners do not know what this monthly reporting package looks like. They do not know what really good reporting on their business looks like in terms of they have always run their… You’ve got a business owner. They’ve run their business for 10 or 20 years. They have a pulse on the business from their gut feel. That does not mean that the business has been optimized, is ready to go to the next level or is ready for a transaction and go through a transaction because they have not done the work on the backend to understand the moving pieces of the business at a granular level. This recording package, we oftentimes get this confusion around, well, I’ve got a temporary CFO or a controller or X, Y, Z. That is very different than what we’re talking about. Well, that is all accounting, close the books, have clean numbers. What we’re talking about is how do I marry operational data in the business, number of units ships, number of jobs completed, time on job, operational data to the financials in the business so I can then go make adjustments operationally on how to improve the business and continue taking steps forward. Jason Diamond: It’s very clear. Nick, anything you’d want to add to that? Nick Hubert: I’d say it’s easy to still cut that from a deal lens and say, look, when an investment partner comes to evaluate a business to sit in their seat for a moment, they’re going to look at the replicability of what that leader has done without that leader still in the seat. And if so many businesses are still reliant on that person and this gets talked about as processes, reporting systems, that ultimately results in a discount to the value of the business because although it can be viewed… For the leader, it’s like, it’s that control thing that entrepreneurs deal with. It’s what made them good. It’s what got you there. And so that transition is really hard. And that’s important from a deal lens because that does a direct impact to value. And to widen out the scope beyond the deal and to think about the entrepreneur’s life, this goes back to the dynamic that a lot of times entrepreneurs look for the exits because they’ve built something that it’s now owning them and what they’ve built is not resulting in the life that they want. And so how can we use this system to actually change that relationship, as I mentioned earlier, with the business so that they can run it more like an executive might and get out of the knife fight, so to speak, that often is how this can feel for a lot of folks, even for pretty large businesses. It can just feel like you’re a firefighter, you’re in a knife fight, whatever you want to use for that terminology. I think it’s as much about creating a different life outcome and different relationship and owning and leading a business as it is in driving deal value. Jason Diamond: Taylor, maybe I’ll ask this of you. Forgive the question, but private equity, I think in our space, has a little bit of a negative stigma at the moment. I don’t think that’s true across the board. I think people appreciate generally the need for capital and there are certainly benefits of private equity. But I’ll say as a whole, advisors are, let’s say, suspicious of private equity. You ever get that pushback? Does anybody ever view your experience or the way you position the story as a negative? Taylor Gentry: I think most people that we talk to don’t know what private equity is. They may have seen it in the headlines. They may have some sort of connotation around it. They won’t come out and say that they don’t like it. They don’t know why they don’t like it. The average American business owner, they don’t know what it is or what it means. So yes, you do have to fight that because of the headline piece around private equity, bad actor ABC, and that’s what gets the headlines. I think what private equity is really good at is taking a business that is not optimized or not running on systems and processes that it can run on. Again, it's not rocket science is not crazy hard. It’s just the private equity world has created ways to install systems and process that improve the value of the business by way of providing visibility to financials and operations in a way that the owner previously didn’t have. And so for us, we view it not by any means as the end all be all or the answer. There are clients we’ve worked with that have taken private equity capital and grown successfully, executed on some acquisitions and then exited again. There are clients that have evaluated those transactions and said, “Hey, not for me.” We are actually fairly agnostic to it. What we really spend a lot of our time on is what are we solving for? What’s the end game? How do we use this private equity transaction to get to where we’re trying to go and is it what we want at the end of the day? Because the reality is, if you’re going to stay on and run that business with private equity investment in, there’s a higher expectation on what you need to do Monday morning than when you owned it yourself and it was a little bit of your personal piggy bank too. Jason Diamond: I love it because you bring it back to the north star concept. Taylor Gentry: Yes, that’s exactly right. It’s what are we solving for and what game are we playing to be able to get to where we ultimately want to go? And for, as Nick mentioned that client that turned down the deal, it was a private equity investment. We got very clear with that, “Hey, here are going to be the expectations. You will have a monthly financial reporting call. You’re going to have quarterly board meetings.” These are things that need to happen in this business to be able to upgrade the management and cadence in this company. You don’t have to do it all tomorrow, but that is how you make a more valuable company, is installing some of these systems, process and cadence. And so we’re working with him now on doing that, just in a private context instead of in the private equity backed environment. Nick Hubert: I think there are three things embedded in this. I’d say number one, to Taylor’s point, this is a massive black box, in some ways by design. Wall Street’s had not a great reputation for a very long time of putting things behind the paywall, so to speak. And so we think a lot about our job as empowerment and education. Jason Diamond: Education, yep. Nick Hubert: Yeah. And so part of it is just, number one, how do we just demystify this thing and name things and take away the go to or bad? Because it can be that, but it should not be that from a core basis. That’s number one. Number two, a lot of entrepreneurs feel like they cannot get access to this ability to professionalize or level up or whatever these things are without bringing on that investment partner. And so part of our motivation is how do we actually bring this skillset in without needing to bring on an investment partner because oftentimes, that investment partner comes when you’re done, and so you don’t actually get to experience it. That’s number two. Number three is, Jason, part of your point earlier was like there’s still a trap here of potentially being able to get motivated primarily by the exit. And so again, that gets back to our business model, making sure our price Racing is right, all that good stuff. And it’s also the reality that a lot of businesses, if you just look at a very broad scope of American businesses, a lot of them don’t have value in the marketplace in a massively material way and/or won’t exit in a traditional way. And so the wealth creation journey then becomes much more of a conversation of, how do we manage the balance between investing in the company and distributing out of the company to invest elsewhere because we should actually be creating investment assets along the way because when you get to the exit, there’s no better power position at the moment of exit than already having financial security to some degree and giving you choice in the right deal, not the highest and best deal because you need to fill the piggy bank for retirement. Jason Diamond: I just want to be sure to ask because you did mention a couple times your pricing structure. How have you set it up so that you can be more agnostic about this as opposed to the typical… You want to talk about it for a minute? Nick Hubert: As it’s structured now, it starts with a retainer earlier on where we are working… As Taylor mentioned, we are going deep in the operational build of the business. We will do that on a monthly retainer. We’re engaging consistently. As assets get built up and if assets get built up, we start to chew that retainer down as assets go up. I think what we are ideally trying to figure out, and still honestly have not figured out yet, is how do we get to parity so that we don’t create an… I want to be able to work agnostically with a client to say- Jason Diamond: Yeah, I love it. Nick Hubert: … regardless of how I’m engaging with you, that’s the goal. So I’d say we haven’t cracked the code on exactly what that is yet, but mechanically, we’ve got the levers to pull to say how we price and move that retainer down is basically allowing to keep it at par, so to speak, for the client and allowing us to say, “I’m here to engage in making the best wealth creation outcome for you along the way, whether that’s investing in the business or investing outside the business.” Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right recipe. I agree. The levers can be fine-tuned, but to me, that’s the model you want to create where you can credibly look your prospects and clients in the eyes and tell them, “Our job is to serve you in the best way… We’re sitting on the same side of the table as you.” I want to turn this inward for a second. The home cooking concept. M&A, within the RIA independent space, is obviously a hot topic. Have you thought about it? Do you think it’s a critical part of a potential growth trajectory of a healthy, independent firm? I’m curious your perspective. I feel you, Taylor in particular, probably have a unique lens on this coming from the world you came from. Taylor Gentry: Yeah, Jason, I think if Nick and I wanted to put as much money as we possibly could in our pockets as fast as humanly possible. It’s a pretty easy recipe. It’s go get some private equity capital backer, roll up a few RIAs, get to a few billion of AUM and then sell it to the next private equity firm or roll it to the next private equity firm, do that a few times. We’d all make plenty of money and go on our way. We’ve been really intentional on this front, and again, I talk about this is what we want to do for the next 30 plus years. And really being intentional around building a business that has that enduring nature to it, decided to take private equity capital on, you are on a shot clock to some degree. Yes, you’re trying to build a best business, all of those pieces. You get cadence. You get capital. There’s a ton of value there, but you are on a shot clock that is not a shot clock we’re trying to get on at this stage. I’d say we opportunistically are looking at acquisitions. So we think about it, and Nick and I talk about it all the time, how much of our time should we be spending on acquisitions? And we think of it as 80/20 or even 90/10, 80% or 90% organic growth-focused, 10 to 20% acquisitions-focused. And so we’re actively evaluating those consistently and see deals on a monthly basis that we look at and evaluate, but it’s less of the focus today than it could be down the road. Jason Diamond: And Nick, do you think of that when you guys talk? Do you guys call that your true north? Do you think the same way you coach your clients and prospects to say, “For right now, it wouldn’t be the right move for us to take private equity capital and to do this acquisition rollup strategy because A, B and C are more important for us”? Nick Hubert: Yes. I think if we take our life north star for Taylor. I’m speaking for Taylor, but we’re close and so we share this of… To Taylor’s point, the life outcome of scaling that quickly with that type of capital backing is likely to create a life that I don’t actually want that’s not good for me, not good for my family, and honestly, not good for our clients at this point. And so that overrides in this case, even though the wealth, north star might say, “Hey, absolutely do that.” At some point something has to win. And so that is true. At the business side, as the north star is motivated by this mission of the entire entrepreneur journey, the worst thing I could do is shortcut my ability to be on that journey for a long period of time. One of our friends in this space says, “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now because I’ve lived a good life that enables that.” And I think that’s spot on for us, is everything, it’s so easy in today’s world to be consumed by short-termism and we are intentional in ensuring that we don’t succumb to that. While still recognizing to your point, I mean, you’re in this all day, Jason, right? There’s a massive opportunity in front of us to be thoughtful about how acquisitions fit into this. And I think we want to be open to that in a way that ensures we just don’t lose the core of the goodness of what we’re trying to build. Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right answer. The only wrong answer in my mind is we’re not open to this or we’re closed to it. To not at least be opportunistically aware of the dynamics in the market, I think is naive. But also, I’ll be honest, Nick, when I think about the concept of the north star, I have a hard time imagining, because we use a similar concept when we counsel advisors. What is your true north or your north star and your best business life, whatever you want to call it? To me, it does include absolutely the personal piece. I think it’s hard to define it only on the economic verticals because, I mean, I think about this for a transitioning advisor. Almost never is the conversation about crunch the spreadsheet and get us the biggest check possible. It’s, yeah, sure, transition capital is important, but it’s let’s also, we want a better work life and we want freedom to market and blah, blah, blah. To me, I think it’s a completely fair way. You two are looking at it at least for now and I assume you reserve the right to revise that opinion down the line. Nick Hubert: I think acquiring for size and scale is as often the headline is, yeah, we’re not into that at this point because I think… And yet, hey, if the right acquisition with the right people came along in that, we’d be extremely excited and would move very quickly to execute on that. So it’s a little bit of a both hand. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, I think it goes without saying, but my background on having done a bunch of transactions of businesses like this, it’s a natural fit for us to have this as a lever. And so we are looking at deals. We just haven’t prioritized it as the top priority. Jason Diamond: I think also where you are, 2024 was the launch of the business. It’s pretty common to see, all right, let’s nail this, let’s get our feet under us, client service model and then we’ll start to think about that down the line. A couple other things I want to ask you about running an independent firm. This is a pretty glowingly positive review, I think, of your ability to service clients, your ability to grow and to build and run the business that you want. Has there been anything negative that you haven’t enjoyed about running and operating this business, other than working with each other, of course? Nick Hubert: No, I was going to say, I’m like, can we get Taylor off the call again? Taylor Gentry: Jason, maybe I’ll take a first cut at it. I think for both Nick and I, it’s just the administrative components of running an independent business that we don’t enjoy candidly. I don’t think many people would. That said, you come full circle and it is a pretty glowingly positive review of running an independent business because we get to run it in the way that we see fit. And oh, by the way, we use the same things that we use with our clients. So the value drivers we’ve talked about, we have a value drivers worksheet. We refresh it every six months. Nick, Andrew, and I get together every six months and we’re 18 months into this thing and we’ve already got this cadence and system to it, if you will. So I personally really enjoy the running the business piece of it from a macro perspective. Yeah, I’m responsible for running our fee billing and running the math on all that and getting that done, for example. Jason Diamond: I think that’s actually a very thoughtful answer. And I appreciate you saying I enjoy running… I feel the same way, by the way. There’s some elements of running a business that I think are immensely fun. I think it gets painted with this brush of, “Ugh, running the business is the hassle and I want to work in the business.” Agreed, nobody likes invoicing and accounts receivable for the most part, but Nick, what are your thoughts on this? Nick Hubert: Yeah, I think mine is different a little bit coming from a different background where it’s easier for me to sit with the rose-colored glasses of the joy of the freedom that we have in this model. At the same time, when I’m counseling folks who are talking with folks or mentoring folks, younger people who are thinking about, “Okay, I want to go start my own thing,” I’m like, “Hey, it’s like I’m the same way. I want to look in the mirror and think I’m the boss or I’m one of the bosses and we get to go build this.” Then the reality is, at the end of the day, if there was something that you didn’t want to do that had to get done and you didn’t do it, you got to look in the mirror and be like, “Well, you’re the boss, you didn’t do it.” It’s the both sides of the coin that I think a positive, negative cut is one way to look at that because it can feel that way sometimes. And the reality is every job has 20 to 30% of it that you just don’t enjoy doing, and that’s totally true. Jason Diamond: It’s why they call it work. That’s why they pay you. Nick Hubert: They’d be pretty quick to point out that I’m the one of the partnership group that they’re going to have to chase for a smaller administrative item because, yeah, I honestly, just similarly speaking, don’t enjoy that. I want to go talk to clients. I want to go focus on building what we’re building. In finance speaks, it is a higher beta to just the all encompassing realities of running a business that is really hard to underscore without being in the seat. And yeah, there’s definitely 20 to 30% of that I would love to wave a magic wand and say, I don’t have to do anymore. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I appreciate that. Nick Hubert: You can’t have one without the other. It’s both sides. Jason Diamond: I think it’s getting easier and I think it’s getting more offloadable and some of it probably gets more… In some ways, more offloadable as you scale, but then you get a new set of problems, probably two, because you’re dealing with bigger… It’s a never ending. I think most business owners would agree with that. And you said it well, you take the good with the bad and overwhelmingly, most people we speak with in the independent space feel as you do, which is, are there things I would prefer to offload or that I would prefer not to do? Of course, but that’s almost just the price you pay for the freedom and for doing all the things you want to do. Two more questions that I want to be sure to ask about where this has been a great episode. One is AI. Need to know your thoughts. Is this coming for our jobs? Do you think your firm is positioned to capture either asset flows or also just to leverage this technology and use it to serve clients better? Just give me your thoughts. Nick Hubert: I think, in some sense, it would be irresponsible as people this early in our entrepreneurial journey and thinking about how do we optimize what we do for clients to not be engaging with AI in some way, shape or form, at least in an evaluative posture. So we are actively, in a bunch of different ways, whether it’s buy it off the shelf or build it, continuing to find ways to think about, not only how do we drive efficiency, because there’s an obvious surface level dynamic of if I can save time and spend more time with clients, that is a go to thing objectively. And there’s this deeper dynamic of if it can amplify what… Actually, back to your prior question, if it can amplify what I’m best at and enjoy and reduce what I don’t enjoy, that’s a massive win. And I think we’re on the surface of seeing that. That’s the opportunity we are motivated by that and pursuing that. And at the same time, I would say an operational principle that really is important to us, and you can almost call it a north star within the business is client security can never be put at risk for the sake of our own growth, our own efficiency, or anything else. There’s, I think, still a question mark as to how we think about trusting this. And so we are very cautious as we think about we will never try to move so quickly on any technology, whether it’s AI or otherwise that we risk our clients in some way, shape or form, because the reality is we are also in a context where AI is, when pulled, one of the least popular things happening in the world today for the average American. And so there’s no kudos here for being a leader. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. The first mover advantage here is slim to none. Nick Hubert: Yeah, you don’t want to be the one sticking your neck out on this in our industry. And yet there still objectively has a potential to be better for the clients. Navigating that I think is messy. Taylor Gentry: I think the only thing I’d add, which is pretty short, is the use of these tools has the ability to create a better deliverable for clients on a more consistent basis. And marrying that with exactly what Nick just outlined around the risk is really the magic piece here. And so I think, to the extent we can get it implemented effectively with the security, but also with, this is going to result in a lot better outcome for clients across the board, that’s a pretty attractive objective to go after and it’s pretty exciting to be in the industry with that now on the forefront in terms of ability to improve that experience over time. Jason Diamond: Yeah. No, that’s a good color to add. I want to end here with a potential HR violation, but you’ll forgive me. I’m not going to ask about age, but you are clearly both relatively young advisors. And this is a hot button issue in our industry, the idea that there are not a lot of talented, young next gen advisors at a time when a lot of gen one or older advisors are retiring out of the business. So what would you say… I think one of you made the comment earlier, it’s not necessarily the coolest industry to go into at 23 years old right out of school. I think more commonly people go into sales and trading, investment banking or some of the other finance verticals. What would you say to younger folks interested in wealth? And maybe I’d ask also, do you have any thoughts on how we solve this next gen talent crisis? And if you’re both secretly 90 years old, you can just do it. Taylor Gentry: You talking my internal age or my actual age? Jason Diamond: Why don’t you go first? Nick Hubert: Yeah, go ahead, Taylor. Taylor Gentry: I think there’s two threads here. The first is it’s not a sexy industry to go into and not as sexy as an investment banking, private equity shtick, if you will. I think from my perspective, it’s really important what you’re working on. The ability to be in a firm like what we are building with the diversity of work that is available is a little bit like the world’s your oyster and we’re designing

Eli Edwards is Head of U.S. Real Estate Equity at Fortress Investment Group. We sat down with Eli to learn about real estate investment strategies with the potential to provide portfolio diversification and tax-advantaged capital appreciation. Eli shares how the development of these strategies has evolved to meet increasing demand from RIAs, and what's driving advisors to incorporate them into client portfolios.

In dieser Radioreise nimmt Sie Alexander Tauscher mit nach Plauen. Freuen Sie sich auf  die Spitzenstadt im Vogtland, die wir aus verschiedenen Perspektiven betrachten. Andrea Sachs läuft mit uns vom Tunnel vorbei am Nonnenturm zum Klostermarkt und weiter zum historischen Altmarkt mit dem Symbol der Stadt, dem Plauener Rathaus. Unterwegs stoßen wir auf die Neideiteln, ein Original dieser Stadt in Form einer Statue. Die historischen Weberhäuser erinnern uns an die Zeit der Gerber und Färber. Kerstin Rüffer vom Verein Unikat e.V. Weberhäuser Plauen erklärt uns, was hier gerade für Kinder geboten wird. An die Bedeutung der Textilindustrie für Plauen erinnert uns in der Fabrik der Fäden beim Rundgang Dr. Angelika Kober. Aus dem Zentrum der Stadt sind die Vater-Sohn-Figuren des Plauener Künstlers Erich Ohser nicht wegzudenken. Mehr über sein Leben erzählt uns Sarah Kühnel als Leiterin der Galerie e.o.plauen. Am Wendedenkmal erzählt Frank Spranger, wie er den 7.10.1989 erlebt hatte, als hier in Plauen die DDR-Staatsmacht zum ersten Mal vor den Demonstranten einknicken musste. Der Protest der Vogtländer gegen das SED-Regime wäre nicht möglich gewesen, wenn sie nicht über den RIAS freie Informationen aus dem Westen bekommen hätten. Zum 80. Geburtstag des einstigen Rundfunks im amerikanischen Sektor Berlins haben wir die Erinnerungsparty im Vereinsheim des Ersten F.C. Wacker in der Plauener Ostvorstadt besucht. Hier sprachen wir mit Organisator Karsten Repert aus Plauen und dem RIAS-Fan Jürgen Stader aus Hof auch über die besondere Beziehung der beiden Städte. In einer separaten Sendung werden wir dieses Thema noch einmal näher beleuchten. Kulinarisch beleuchten wir die traditionelle vogtländische Küche mit Sauerbraten und Bambes im ältesten Gasthaus von Plauen, in der Matsch. Chefkoch Denny Buchta aus Berlin und Restaurantleiterin Nicole Floss erzählen über ein Haus, das direkt am letzten verbliebenen Abschnitt der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer liegt. Viel Spaß in Plauen! 

Regulators aren't waiting for new rules before they start examining for compliance failures — they're applying existing frameworks to AI and vendor oversight right now, and wealth management firms that aren't prepared are already behind. Hollie Mason, Managing Director at Stout and former FINRA senior enforcement counsel, joins Rafael DeLeon to break down what the SEC and FINRA are prioritizing in 2026 exams, where the vendor oversight documentation gaps are showing up, and what defensible AI governance looks like for RIAs and broker-dealers.

What happens when the symptoms fit… but the diagnosis doesn't?In this episode of Psyched to Practice, Paul Wagner and Ray Christner break down the messy reality of differential diagnosis and why so many mental health conditions can look nearly identical on the surface. From ADHD and anxiety to autism, depression, sleep problems, medical conditions, and substance use, they explore how clinicians can avoid jumping to conclusions and start asking better questions.Ray shares practical ways to rule diagnoses in and out without getting trapped by confirmation bias, while Paul highlights how curiosity, collaboration, and ongoing assessment can completely change treatment outcomes.They discuss why diagnosis should be treated like a working hypothesis instead of a fixed answer, how overlapping symptoms create false positives, and the danger of diagnostic overshadowing when one diagnosis hides another. The episode also explores why women with ADHD were so often missed for years, how medical conditions can mimic mental health disorders, and why gathering information from parents, spouses, and caregivers can completely change the clinical picture.This episode is packed with practical insights for therapists, psychologists, counselors, and anyone trying to better understand the complexity behind mental health diagnosis.Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

Matt Hougan is the Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise Asset Management — one of eleven spot Bitcoin ETF issuers, managing over $10 billion. When family offices, RIAs, and pension consultants size their Bitcoin allocation, his is the analysis they read. This is the institutional case for Bitcoin in plain language: Bitcoin as two investments at once (digital gold plus a call option on becoming the world's apolitical currency), the math behind his $1.4 million by 2035 call, and why he thinks Bitcoin is about to repeat the supply shock that just took gold parabolic. If you've been trying to explain Bitcoin to the most sophisticated person in your life — send them this. We discuss: Bitcoin as two investments in one — store of value + call option on currency status The kinetic vs. monetary chaos lenses, and why both push Bitcoin up Why Harvard's endowment quietly went BTC + gold as their two largest 13F positions The $36 billion first-year ETF launch — 6× the previous all-time record Why Matt's personal price target is $1.4 million by 2035 The gold supply shock parallel — and why Matt thinks Bitcoin is next Quantum computing — manageable upgrade problem or existential threat? Three ways to pitch Bitcoin to three different kinds of institutional allocator Why generational change is the biggest underrated catalyst in the space Subscribe so you never miss an episode.

I sat down with David, co-founder and president of Mangrove.ai, live at Consensus Miami. David's journey is one of the most unexpected paths into Web3 I've come across — starting with Snoop Dogg tickets in India and ending up building one of the most interesting risk-compliant trading infrastructure platforms in the space. We talked about why traditional financial advisors are losing clients to Robinhood, how AI agents will force global crypto adoption whether banks like it or not, and how Mangrove is bridging TradFi and DeFi with a suite of tools built for the messy, brackish world we're all living in right now. If you care about where institutional crypto adoption is really heading, this one is worth your time. Disclaimer:Nothing mentioned in this podcast is investment advice and please do your own research. It would mean a lot if you can leave a review of this podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share this podcast with a friend. Be a guest on the podcast or contact us - https://www.web3pod.xyz/Connect:Website: https://www.mangrove.ai Keypoints with timestamps:• [00:00] David shares his background producing large-scale music festivals globally and how fans asking to buy Snoop Dogg tickets with Bitcoin in India first sparked his interest in crypto• [05:30] How David's technical co-founder Tim, who built AI systems for NASA and the Department of Defense, started building algorithmic trading tools and the two eventually joined forces• [09:00] The pivot from launching a hedge fund to building Mangrove.ai after hedge fund mentors told them the trading desk technology itself was the real business opportunity• [13:00] Why registered investment advisors (RIAs) are losing assets under management to Robinhood and how the largest wealth transfer in human history creates a huge opportunity for digital asset onboarding• [18:00] The Mangrove product suite explained — API, agentic trading, institutional tools, and retail — and how the platform is non-custodial and built around transparency• [23:00] Why Mangrove open-sourced their trading signal library (228 signals, 1000+ downloads in under 30 days) and how their Stripe-like API model works• [27:00] The risk and compliance guardrails built into every strategy — circuit breakers, max drawdown limits, and daily loss caps — and why that matters for institutional clients• [31:00] How Mangrove is approaching distribution through software companies (TAMPs) that already service hundreds of RIAs rather than going client by client• [35:00] David's take on the three-year industry outlook — consolidation, institutional adoption as a multi-year macro trend, and why AI agents will force global crypto adoption• [40:00] Mangrove's near-term plans — flipping to revenue in six weeks, launching a seed round after announcing an institutional partnership, and hiring a VP of Engineering

The founder and CEO of Dynasty Financial Partners describes five things that buyers and sellers of RIAs each need to do before engaging in a transaction. Host: Greg Bartalos.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 146: This week, Kyle Van Pelt talks with Vib Arya and Sean Meighan of Envestnet. As Head of Strategic Relationship Management, Vib is a seasoned wealth and investment management leader with more than 25 years of experience driving innovation and efficiency across RIA, institutional, wirehouse, and fintech channels. As Head of RIA Distribution, Sean has spent his career helping advisory firms navigate growth, technology adoption, and operational strategy within the evolving RIA landscape. Vib and Sean talk with Kyle about how modern RIAs can scale fast. They explore how technology has evolved from a support function into a true growth multiplier, powering efficiency, enabling personalization at scale, and helping firms navigate complexity. They also discuss the ongoing battle against tech sprawl and how Unified Managed Accounts (UMAs) act less like a product and more like an automated trading chassis capable of handling everything from high-net-worth personalization to account efficiency.  In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (01:11) - How technology fits into the RIA growth equation  (02:34) - Designing the ideal advisor workflow (04:00) - What shaped Sean's and Vib's technology philosophy (08:49) - Diagnosing tech stacks and aligning them with firm strategy  (13:00) - The hidden cost of tech sprawl  (18:01) - How UMAs are evolving for modern RIAs  (24:29) - Separating AI hype from practical application in wealth management  (31:49) - Vib's and Sean's Milemarker Minute Key Takeaways The best tech decisions begin with a clear vision of the client and advisor experience. Workflow clarity should dictate your tech stack, not the other way around. Don't let tech sprawl slow you down. Chasing best-in-class tools can create fragmented systems that are hard to manage. At some point, simplicity and integration become a competitive advantage. UMAs are evolving into a flexible growth engine. What used to be a high-net-worth solution is now becoming a scalable infrastructure for firms of all sizes, handling everything from simple ETF models to complex multi-manager portfolios.  Ground AI in workflow and data basics. With AI moving at a rapid pace, firms seeing the most meaningful AI opportunities are the ones that already have clean data, intentional systems, and clearly defined processes. Quotes "RIA growth is going to be driven by scale, consistency, and risk control. But you can't do that without technology." ~ Sean Meighan "The UMA is a tech chassis that can solve a myriad of problems an RIA faces today." ~ Sean Meighan "There's an opportunity for Envestnet to provide RIAs and advisors with as much complexity, personalization, and sophistication as they would like, and as simple a form as possible, with one account having multiple strategies and multiple sleeves." ~ Vib Arya "As client demands become more sophisticated and complex, the UMA is a perfect ecosystem to provide all of that, and we're proud to offer it." ~ Vib Arya Links  Vibhaw Arya on LinkedIn Sean Meighan on LinkedIn Envestnet  Shufro Rose Tamarac | Envestnet Good to Great The Game Connect with our hosts Milemarker.co Kyle on LinkedIn Jud on LinkedIn Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the views of Envestnet. These views reflect the judgement of the author as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this piece is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. Intended for investment professionals only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. 

In this episode of the RIA Edge Podcast, host David Armstrong sits down with Marty Bicknell, president and CEO of Mariner Wealth Advisors, to discuss how the firm has grown into one of the biggest RIAs in the country. Marty shares how Mariner approaches acquisitions with a strong focus on culture, builds in-house capabilities across tax, trust and insurance services, and structures business development to support advisor growth. He also explains how artificial intelligence and operational systems may reshape advisor capacity, scalability and the future direction of wealth management firms. Key takeaways: What's driving Mariner's current acquisition strategy How Bicknell thinks about bringing client services like tax, trust, insurance and estate planning into the Mariner ecosystem Why Mariner bought a small boutique M&A firm Why niche markets like dentists, athletes and first responders are a key part of Mariner's future growth focus How he sees AI tools impacting advisor capacity and the firm's operations 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 Marty Bicknell: LinkedIn: Marty Bicknell LinkedIn: Mariner Wealth Advisors Website: Mariner Wealth Advisors About Our Guest: As the CEO and president of Mariner, Marty drives the strategic direction for the firm. As a recognized leader in wealth management, he devises innovative solutions to help meet the needs of our clients. He has extensive personal and professional experience with closely held family businesses and their unique complexities. He often mentors other successful entrepreneurs. Marty, along with seven others, founded Mariner in 2006 with a goal of keeping the client at the center of all we do. He wanted to build a firm that could simplify our clients' lives by having all the resources they need under one roof. The day the doors opened, Marty made the promise to put the clients' interests before anything else…a promise he still holds dear to this day. Marty has a bachelor's degree from Pittsburg State University in Pittsburg, Kan

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.

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. 

Dr. Jon Randall reveals why most entrepreneurs cannot help their team build wealth until they secure their own foundation first.If scaling feels harder than it should, this episode will shift how you see growth. Dr. Jon Randall, business scaling expert and founder of @xfacoach eXtraordinary Financial Advisors, breaks down the hidden constraints that keep entrepreneurs stuck, starting with capacity. He explains why growth is not just about working harder, knowing your numbers, or hiring more people. It is about identifying the real bottleneck, understanding what can truly scale, and building a business that no longer depends on the founder for everything.In this episode, you will discover:• Why entrepreneurs must “get theirs” first before they can truly help their team build wealth• The #1 constraint blocking growth: capacity• How to identify what is scalable versus what requires your unique genius• Why numbers alone are not enough without the story behind them• How leaders who celebrate team wins create stronger culture• Why entrepreneurs often ignore red flags and keep pressing forward• How Dr. Jon's scaling workshops help business owners find constraints in just 3 to 4 hours• What his journey from financial advisor to scaling consultant taught him about building sustainable businessesJon Randall is the founder of eXtraordinary Financial Advisors, a coaching and consulting firm helping growth-minded financial advisors scale faster, smarter, and with greater confidence. With over 25 years of industry experience, Jon helps firms eliminate bottlenecks, optimize client bases, build scalable advisor teams, and think more like CEOs. His clients include Barron's Top 100 advisors, Hall of Famers, and some of the fastest-growing RIAs in the country.Chapters include capacity constraints, understanding business numbers, entrepreneurial wealth psychology, team culture, and Jon's half-day scaling workshops.Connect with Dr. Jon Randall:https://www.xfa.coach/linkedin.com/in/jonrandallcmc/https://www.linkedin.com/company/xfa-coach/https://www.facebook.com/XFA.COACHhttps://www.instagram.com/xfa.coachhttps://www.youtube.com/@xfacoach

Why do so many therapists hesitate to use exposure therapy for PTSD, even when the research strongly supports it?In this episode of the Psyched to Practice podcast, Ray sits down with Dr. Carmen McLean and Dr. Elizabeth Goetter to unpack the myths, fears, and misunderstandings surrounding Prolonged Exposure Therapy (PE). Together, they explore why avoidance keeps PTSD symptoms alive, why many clinicians feel anxious delivering trauma-focused care, and what the science actually says about retraumatization, dropout rates, and treatment outcomes.The conversation also dives into some of the newest developments in PTSD treatment, including intensive treatment models, telehealth delivery, virtual tools, culturally responsive adaptations, and how PE is being used with complex comorbidities like substance use, borderline personality disorder, and suicidality.Along the way, they reflect on the legacy of Dr. Edna Foa, the pioneer behind PE, and discuss why evidence-based trauma treatment still remains out of reach for far too many people.This episode is packed with practical insight for clinicians, graduate students, and anyone interested in how trauma treatment continues to evolve.Their New Book: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-72720-7Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

What if your message sounds just like everyone else, and that's why clients aren't choosing you? In this episode of The Registered Investment Advisor Podcast, host Seth Greene interviews Jody Lowe, Founder of The Lowe Group, who explores how financial advisors can stand out in an increasingly crowded and digital-first marketplace.  Jody explains why earned media, thought leadership, and clear messaging are more important than ever as search behavior shifts, and generative AI prioritizes third-party validation over corporate content.   Key Takeaways: → Generative AI and search trends increasingly prioritize third-party media mentions over company-owned content, making PR more critical than ever. → Advisors must clearly define who they serve, how they serve them, and what makes them different in order to stand out.   → Overreliance on templated or AI-generated messaging can lead to indistinguishable brands that fail to resonate with ideal clients.   → Real client stories and relatable examples help demonstrate value more effectively than technical jargon or abstract claims.   → Strong communicators prepare clear, focused messages and deliver them conversationally, rather than relying on scattered talking points.     Jody Lowe is president and founder of Lowe Group, an award-winning financial PR, investment communications, and digital marketing firm. As an entrepreneur who has spent her entire career in the financial services industry, Jody Lowe shows up every day to help her clients build brand awareness and achieve their PR and marketing goals. She has cultivated strong relationships with top-tier media and helps leading asset management, RIAs, and financial services firms build their brands, grow assets, and gain market share.   Connect With Jody: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LoweGroup-dv2pz Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lowegroup.pr Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/thelowegroup.bsky.social LinkedIn (Company): https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-lowe-group-llc/ LinkedIn (Personal): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jody-lowe/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Launching a registered investment advisory firm involves far more than financial expertise. Here's what new RIAs need to know about building a compliant operation from the start. Go to https://riacomptech.com/ for more information. RIA Compliance Technology City: Scottsdale Address: 10031 E Dynamite Blvd Suite 240 Website: https://riacomptech.com/

As the school year winds down, many students hit a wall. They're tired, overwhelmed, and often feel like it doesn't even matter anymore. Missing assignments pile up, motivation drops, and even high-achieving students start to question whether it's worth the effort.In this episode, Paul and Ray break down what's really happening during this final stretch. They explore why students feel “over it,” how burnout shows up differently across age groups, and what clinicians and parents can actually do to help.You'll hear practical strategies for tackling missing work without overwhelm, using “good enough” in a productive way, and helping kids regain momentum when they feel stuck. They also address the stress around standardized testing and how to reframe it so it doesn't define a child's sense of self.This conversation is packed with real-world tools you can use immediately in sessions, at home, or in schools to help kids finish the year with less stress and fewer regrets.Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

Send us Fan MailWhere is capital actually going right now? In this episode, $1B+ investors share what they are actively looking for—from community bank acquisitions and RIAs to commercial real estate, technology platforms, and growth-stage opportunities.If you're raising capital or sourcing deals, this episode gives you a clear picture of current investor demand and how to position your opportunity to match it. Understanding what investors want today is one of the fastest ways to improve your fundraising success.If you want to connect with serious investors, build better partnerships, and access real deal flow—join us inside the Family Office Club.Our investor club offers 30 nationwide events a year, 10,000 registered investors, and 40 proprietary AI tools designed to help you raise capital faster and more effectively.

Your brand is building trust or burning it. Most businesses don't know which.Voice Marketing with Emily Binder is about how people actually make decisions, assign value, and choose who gets their business — and what that means for your brand, your content, and how you show up in an algorithm-driven, AI-accelerated world.Emily Binder has spent 15 years tracking shifts in media, marketing, and human behavior before they became obvious. She defined voice marketing as a discipline and has guided technology brands and over $170 billion in AUM consulting for top wealth management firms, RIAs, ETF issuers, and more.Episodes average 10 minutes. Most are evergreen — start with the latest or browse the most popular. Watch clips on Spotify or YouTube.emilybinder.com/podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, host Sandra Abrams talks to Jamie Coughlin Silverman and Gabriel Silverman about the making of their feature documentary, THE SPIES AMONG US and how a German-American journalism program known as RIAS helped them meet Peter Keup, the subject of their film. The husband and wife duo, who run SideXSide Studios, filmed Keup's personal journey and the actions he took after reading his secret police file created by the East German government. The secret police, or Stasi, had a data surveillance program on its citizens. From returning to the prison cell he was in, to the actual building where the program was run, Keup confronts high level officials who ran the program in rare one-on-one interviews. The film shows Keup, who was blindsided when he learns his brother was an informant for the secret police, piece his life back together and heal through the process. During their conversation, Jamie also shares what it was like to be a first time director and pregnant during filming.Learn more about the doc and SideXSide Studios:thespiesamongus.filmsidexsidestudios.comSupport the show---Subscribe to learn more about filmmaking, production, media makers, creator resources, visual storytelling, and every aspect that brings film, television, and video projects from concepts to our screens. Check out the MediaMakerSpotlight.com show page to find even more conversations with industry professionals that inspire, educate, and entertain!We on the Women in Film & Video (WIFV) Podcast Team work hard to make this show a great resource for our listeners, and we thank you for listening!

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.

What if the problem isn't that your clients don't have the right tools—but that the tools don't feel usable in real life? In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Jesse Finkelstein to unpack how DBT moves beyond worksheets and into everyday decision-making. We break down what DBT actually is, why it works across diagnoses, and how its core ideas—like holding two truths at once—can shift the way clinicians think about change. You'll hear how skills like mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation show up in ordinary moments, not just crisis. We also explore why clients often avoid using skills, how to make them more engaging, and what it looks like to translate complex concepts into something people will actually use. If you've ever had a client say “I know what to do, I just don't do it,” this conversation gives you a different way to approach that gap.His book: https://a.co/d/01LfKduu Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

Host KJ welcomes Mark Forman, CMO of Optifino to explore how AI is finally modernizing the $2 trillion permanent life insurance industry. Mark shares his accidental journey from poetry student to InsureTech marketer, explaining how a lack of transparency, outdated distribution models, and the absence of a true marketplace have left millions of Americans underinsured. He shares how Optifino uses AI to compare complex permanent life insurance policies side by side, giving advisors and consumers the kind of informed, data-driven experience that every other financial sector already enjoys. The conversation also tackles the $12 trillion U.S. life insurance coverage gap and why 82% of wealthy investors want insurance guidance but only 12% are getting it. Four Key Takeaways: The Insurance Industry Has Benefited from a Lack of Transparency (12:23) Unlike stocks or ETFs where all data is accessible instantly, permanent life insurance has no real marketplace. Consumers can't easily compare policies, leading to overpaying, policy lapses, and lost cash value. AI Makes Advisors Bionic, Not Obsolete (24:20) When advisor Mike Sheen first saw Optifino's AI demo, he feared replacement — but quickly realized there's now no ceiling to how good he could be. With 25+ carriers, 10+ products each, and thousands of permutations, AI assistance isn't optional — it's essential. There's a $12 Trillion Life Insurance Coverage Gap in the U.S. (29:27) LIMRA data shows Americans are massively underinsured. The shift toward fee-based RIAs (who don't sell commission-based insurance) has widened the advice gap — 82% of wealthy investors want insurance guidance, but only 12% report receiving it. Know Your Problem Deeply Before Going to Market (36:48) Mark's parting advice: fall in love with the problem you're solving. Talk to the people you want to serve, validate that your solution actually addresses their pain, and lead with hard data — not corporate jargon. Quote of the Show (30:16):"Insurance sucks until you need it. No one likes to pay their premiums, but if you've ever had an experience where the insurance paid off, you were very happy." — Mark Forman Join our Anti-PR newsletter where we’re keeping a watchful and clever eye on PR trends, PR fails, and interesting news in tech so you don't have to. You're welcome. Want PR that actually matters? Get 30 minutes of expert advice in a fast-paced, zero-nonsense session from Karla Jo Helms, a veteran Crisis PR and Anti-PR Strategist who knows how to tell your story in the best possible light and get the exposure you need to disrupt your industry. Click here to book your call: https://info.jotopr.com/free-anti-pr-eval Ways to connect with Marc Forman: LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-formanCompany Website: https://optifino.com/ How to get more Disruption/Interruption: Amazon Music - https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/eccda84d-4d5b-4c52-ba54-7fd8af3cbe87/disruption-interruption Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disruption-interruption/id1581985755 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6yGSwcSp8J354awJkCmJlDSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode cuts through the marketing fog around “financial advisors,” breaking them into three real categories—brokers, insurance agents, and fiduciary investment advisors—and exposing how incentives, commissions, and murky regulations shape the advice investors receive. Don and Tom highlight the industry's gradual shift away from commissions while warning that titles like “fiduciary” or “CFP” don't guarantee behavior. A listener segment dives into retirement portfolio construction, clarifying misconceptions about bond funds like BND, sequence risk strategies, and the role of safe assets. The episode closes by reframing trendy concepts like “liability matching portfolios” as common-sense planning: keep near-term spending safe and let long-term money grow.0:05 Three types of “financial advisors” and why the title means nothing0:51 Brokers vs RIAs vs insurance agents—what they actually do2:10 Fiduciary confusion and “part-time fiduciaries”3:10 How brokers really operate (transactions, firm-first incentives)6:00 Insurance agents, annuities, and massive hidden commissions7:47 Regulation gaps and misleading “no commission” language8:15 Investment advisors (RIAs) and the fiduciary standard (with caveats)9:42 CFP designation—rigorous, but not a guarantee of behavior10:36 Portfolio reality: “a collection of ideas” vs an actual plan11:50 Industry trend: slow death of commissions and rise of fee-only15:13 Listener: retirement portfolio, glide path, and bond confusion18:15 BND vs Treasuries—risk, diversification, and reality19:59 Sequence risk strategy—lower equities early, increase later21:31 2022 bond drop explained (rates, not failure)23:11 Managing volatility fear—cash buffers vs bond funds24:01 Practical solution: mix of bonds, CDs, and cash28:07 Liability Matching Portfolio (LMP) vs “bucket strategy”31:01 Core takeaway: match short-term needs with safe assets, let rest growQuestions? Comments? Click!

One wrong portfolio choice can turn a tax-saving strategy into a taxable mistake. Here's how to prevent it. In this episode of The Registered Investment Advisor Podcast, host Seth Greene interviews experienced entrepreneur and investor Jason Marcus, who discusses the realities of building, funding, and scaling companies in today's capital environment. This conversation explains the difference between fast money and smart money, emphasizing why alignment between founders and investors is essential and why disciplined decision-making is more important than market timing. For RIAs advising entrepreneurial clients or investing alongside them, it offers practical insights on navigating volatility and minimizing downside risk. Key Takeaways: → Not all funding is created equal. Strategic investors who bring experience, relationships, and discipline can be far more valuable than simply the highest valuation offer. → Clear expectations between founders and investors, especially around time horizons and exit strategy, can prevent costly misalignment later. → Entrepreneurs often underestimate how long it takes to achieve liquidity. Building financial buffers and exit optionality protects both business and family stability. → Markets fluctuate, industries trend, but disciplined underwriting and thoughtful scaling remain constant drivers of long-term success. → RIAs can add significant value by helping founders think holistically about personal wealth planning, tax strategy, and diversification beyond their primary business asset. Jason Marcus serves as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Compliance Officer at Scharf Investments, where he recently helped lead one of the largest active mutual fund-to-ETF conversions of the year. Blending executive leadership with deep operational expertise, he oversees firm operations, compliance, and strategic execution during pivotal moments of growth and change. Prior to joining Scharf in 2010, Jason spent eight years at Fairholme Capital Management in multiple operational roles during a period of rapid asset expansion, gaining firsthand insight into how structure, scale, and disciplined execution create the foundation for long-term investment success. Connect With Jason: Website: https://scharfinvestments.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/scharfinvestments/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brent Brodeski, Founder and CEO of Savant Wealth Management, outlines how Savant's hybrid ownership and integration model is designed to provide long-term stability, alignment, and succession solutions for RIAs. He explains how the firm differentiates itself from traditional private equity-backed buyers by emphasizing shared ownership, cultural integration, and a sustainable path forward for founders, employees, and clients alike.

Episode 139: Kailash Duraiswami is the Chief Technology Officer at Milemarker, where he leads the development of data infrastructure and AI-powered solutions for modern advisory firms. With a unique blend of financial expertise and deep technical knowledge, Kailash brings his passion for innovation, data strategy, and scalable technology to help wealth management firms thrive in a multi-platform world. In this episode, Kyle Van Pelt talks with Kailash about his unconventional path from launching an RIA straight out of college to building tech that transformed data operations for financial firms. They unpack the challenges firms face with fragmented data, the importance of centralized infrastructure, and how AI will reshape wealth management. They discuss why firms need to reclaim ownership of their data, how to avoid becoming an “accidental CTO,” and how Milemarker is building scalable, simplified tech solutions for advisors navigating a multi-platform, AI-enabled world. In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (03:17) - Kailash's money moment (08:20) - What is Pantenix? (11:34) - The value of a data warehouse (13:55) - Kailash's thoughts on cloud-based infrastructure (15:40) - The importance of data platforms (19:53) - Why becoming a CTO should be intentional (23:54) - AI in wealth management (26:10) - The advantage of building your own language models (33:15) - Why CTOs in RIAs need to understand wealth management (37:26) - Why all-in-one platforms limit user experiences (40:27) - Kailash's Milemarker Minute Key Takeaways Centralize your data to maximize AI and operational efficiency. Without consolidating your firm's data into a single, accessible environment, it's nearly impossible to generate meaningful insights or leverage AI effectively. Fragmented data limits your ability to scale and innovate. You don't have to become an “accidental CTO”. Many firm leaders end up spending too much time wrestling with tech. Outsourcing specialized functions—like data architecture and infrastructure—can free up your time to focus on clients and growth, while still driving innovation. Owning your data is not the same as using cloud-based tools. Just because your systems are in the cloud doesn't mean you own your data. True ownership means having control over how and where your data is stored, accessed, and used to make decisions. AI is only as smart as the data it has access to. For AI to deliver meaningful outcomes—like intelligent agents or predictive analytics—it needs clean, well-structured, and centralized data. Start with solid infrastructure before diving into advanced AI capabilities. Quotes "What we're doing here, as a help to your technology footprint, is enabling you to see and understand your business in ways you've never done before. And that requires very sophisticated technology." ~ Kailash Duraiswami "You must have your data in one place to really make use of AI because the conclusions that the model can make or the recommendations are all subject to what data is presented to it." ~ Kailash Duraiswami  "The biggest thing we are making here is building a tool that is advisor-centric and executive-centric. And that means simplicity. Above all, the boldness of what we have here is to do less in an excellent way." ~ Kailash Duraiswami  Links  Kailash Duraiswami on LinkedIn Orion Advisor Solutions Black Diamond Tamarac 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.

Leif Abraham, Co-Founder and Co-CEO at Public, joined me to discuss how Public is offering crypto alongside traditional assets and integrating AI agents to improve investing for users.Topics:- Public's investing solutions - AI Agents in investing - Crypto market outlook- Future of Investing Brought to you by https://propy.com/home/ 

School refusal isn't just about kids staying home. It shows up in subtle ways—frequent nurse visits, missed classes, late arrivals, and quiet disengagement that often goes unnoticed until it becomes a major problem.In this episode, we break down what's actually driving school refusal behavior and why a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Drawing from real clinical and school-based experience, we explore the four core functions behind these behaviors and how they often overlap in ways that make intervention more complex than it seems.You'll hear how anxiety, avoidance, attention-seeking, and access to more rewarding alternatives all play a role—and how modern factors like virtual learning, technology, and shifting family dynamics are changing the landscape.We also walk through practical, evidence-based strategies that clinicians, schools, and families can use together. From distress tolerance and exposure work to environmental changes and caregiver collaboration, this episode focuses on what actually helps move kids back toward consistent school engagement.If you're working with students who are struggling to attend—or families who feel stuck—this conversation will give you a clearer framework and more confidence in how to respond.Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

John Bernard of Southview Timber breaks down timberland investing — how it generates multiple income streams, why the Southeast is the top market, and how to get in.In this episode of RealDealChat, Jack Hoss sits down with John Bernard, co-founder of Southview Timber and manager of the Southview Timberland Fund, to break down one of the most overlooked asset classes in real estate investing.John covers:Why his family bought timberland in 2008 — and how 15 years at JP Morgan and Wells Fargo led him to democratize the asset classWhy the Southeast US (Georgia, North Florida, South Carolina, Alabama) is now the #1 timber region in North AmericaThe three ways a single property can generate returns: timber harvest, real estate appreciation, and development or recreational saleHow Southview sources deals entirely through personal relationships — and why outsiders simply can't access the same pipelineThe sweet spot: 200–2,000-acre mid-size properties that fall below institutional radar and above most individual investor budgetsUnderwriting criteria: proximity to mills (within 50 miles), soil productivity, access roads, and multiple buyer optionsWhy timberland investors can wait for the best timber prices — unlike farmland, there's no forced harvestHow demographic migration from the Northeast and West Coast is driving rural land values up in the SoutheastThe 500-acre deal they bought for $1M and exited in 60 days — selling parcels to a business and an adjacent landownerWhy John is cautious about AI-labeled startup investments — and why he prefers assets you can put boots on the ground to verifyCurrent bottleneck: capital. They have deal flow. The fund is nearly deployed and raising toward $50M.This episode is for:Accredited investors looking for non-correlated, tangible alternatives to stocks and cryptoReal estate investors who want to understand a high-margin niche with multiple exit optionsFamily offices and RIAs seeking a conservative real assets strategy

Is AI actually different this time or is it just another overhyped technology cycle? In this episode of Building the Billion Dollar Business, financial advisor coach Ray Sclafani makes the case that for wealth management professionals, artificial intelligence is not a trend to wait out. It is a fundamental shift in how advice is delivered, how clients experience service, and how advisory firms build competitive advantage.What you'll learn in this episodeWhy AI is different from past disruptions like robo advisors and discount brokerage — and what that means for your practiceHow Know Your Client (KYC) is evolving from a compliance requirement into a strategic data asset in an AI-driven worldThe three-part AI roadmap every advisory firm should follow: learn, apply, redesignWhich AI tools are most relevant for financial advisors right now, including Microsoft Copilot, Jump.ai, TaxStatus, and Advice.aiWhat agentic AI is, how it differs from a chatbot, and why it matters for your firm's future workflowThe compliance and fiduciary considerations every advisor must understand before deploying AI tools with client dataHow to lead your team through AI adoption as a behavior change, not just a software rolloutCoaching questions for reflectionWhat is one workflow in your business today that is inefficient, repetitive, or dependent on one person — and how could AI improve it in the next 30 days?Where are you and your team under-invested in learning, and what would change in 12 weeks if you committed to one AI course or certificate program together?Courses and certificate programs to followGoogle AI Essentials – for foundational AI skills and a beginner certificate Google AI Professional Certificate – includes free access offers for eligible small businesses Microsoft Learn AI Learning Hub – free learning paths AWS Learn About AI – AWS AI learning resources DeepLearning.AI – short courses on agentic AI, multi-agent systems, and AI agents in LangGraph Anthropic AI Fluency – AI fluency and Claude for Work resources OpenAI Academy – plus ChatGPT at Work resources Newsletters to followOne Useful Thing by Ethan Mollick – practical, research-based thinking on AI and work Ben's Bites – quick daily AI news and product updates Latent Space – a more technical view of AI engineering and agents Import AI by Jack Clark – serious analysis of research and policy The Rundown AI – broad daily tracking of tools and newsBuilding the Billion Dollar Business is hosted by Ray Sclafani, founder and CEO of ClientWise, the financial services industry's leading executive coaching and team development firm for elite advisors and wealth management teams.Questions Financial Advisors Often AskQ: How are most financial advisors using AI right now?A: According to Schwab's latest RIA study, 63% of RIAs are already using AI in some capacity, but most are still in the early innings. The majority are using it mainly for administrative tasks like note-taking and drafting emails. In other words, the industry has started moving, but most firms have not yet made the jump from experimentation to real redesign of how they work.Q: What AI tools should financial advisors start with?A: Start with narrow use cases that save time and improve quality. Practical starting points include AI tools for meeting prep, note summarization, drafting follow-up emails, CRM cleanup, task extraction, pre-meeting briefing packets for clients, client segmentation analysis, internal knowledge search, and first drafts of planning observations. Microsoft Copilot, Jump.ai, and Zox are tools worth exploring at this stage. For planning-adjacent workflows, TaxStatus.com provides IRS-sourced client data to advisors and tax professionals, and Advice.ai is positioning itself around AI-powered analysis for complex multi-generational wealth planning.Q: What are the compliance and fiduciary risks of using AI as a financial advisor?A: If you are using public AI tools, you must be thoughtful about what information you put into them. Client data, personally identifiable information, and anything confidential should not go into tools that have not already been approved by your firm or compliance team. The US SEC has already issued guidance making it clear that advisors are responsible for how they use AI, including how client information is handled, how outputs are supervised, and how advice is delivered. This ties directly to your fiduciary duty. Always understand where your data is stored, know what is being retained, and always have a human reviewing the output before it touches the client.Q: What is agentic AI and why does it matter for advisory firms?A: An AI agent is not just a chatbot that answers questions. An agent is software that can reason through a goal, use tools, take actions, and sometimes coordinate steps with limited supervision. Think of an agent as a digital worker assigned to a job with rules, tools, and guardrails. In the future, we will start seeing multiple agents interact with each other, and then a convergence of those agents. OpenAI and Anthropic are both actively moving from chat to action, meaning these systems will increasingly be able to operate tools, workflows, forms, files, and systems — not just answer questions.Q: Will AI replace financial advisors?A: No — but the role of the advisor will shift. As information becomes more accessible and tools to analyze data become more available, advisors will move from being gatekeepers to being guides. Less about explaining products, more about making sense of them. Less of an isolated expert, more of a builder of trust, accountability, and community around a client's financial life. Research from Cerulli found that human advice remains clearly preferred over online-only advice, particularly among older clients. The future is not about choosing between human and AI — it is about enhancing humanity with AI.Find Ray and the ClientWise Team on the ClientWise website or LinkedIn |

On this episode, Kevin chats with Derek Myron, Managing Partner of Centura Wealth Advisory, a San Diego-based registered investment advisor specializing in ultra-high-net-worth families. Since founding Centura in 2014, Derek and his team of 62 professionals have grown to $1.4 billion in assets under management.Derek walks us through how Centura has built a practice that goes well beyond traditional asset management into comprehensive tax planning and financial engineering. He gets into how sophisticated strategies around index replication, hedging, and tangible property regulations can materially change the tax picture for high income earners, and why that planning conversation is fundamentally different from what most advisors offer.He also gets into how RIAs like Centura think about allocating into real estate, where private market investments fit within a UHNW portfolio, and why real estate remains a core tool in the tax planning conversation, not just an asset class.On the business side, Derek shares how he thinks about building a firm, designing accountability around roles before people, extracting genuine core values from top performers, and why he prioritizes his team's growth above everything else. His advice for entrepreneurs is straightforward: stay humble, find good mentors, and build a peer network that functions like a real board of directors.

This week, Kameron McRay talks with George Svagera, Senior Vice President of Institutional Sales at Orion Advisor Solutions. George leads a talented team of sales professionals to deliver Orion's industry-leading technology and wealth management solutions to broker-dealers, banks, trust companies, and custodians.George talks with Kameron about how Orion meets the growing demand for fee-based annuities and insurance. He discusses the integration of DPL's discovery tools into Orion Connect, the launch of Orion's RIA Accelerator program for breakaway advisors, and how firms can transition without sacrificing assets or revenue. George also explains why insurance solutions are becoming a revenue-driving force for modern RIAs and why adding commission-free annuities directly into advisors' workflows is a game-changer for both client outcomes and firm profitability.

Social media isn't going anywhere, but the way we're handling it with kids and teens might be making things worse. In this episode, we sit down with Kelly McCullough, LCSW, to unpack what's actually happening when kids spend hours on their phones. From sleep loss and anxiety to comparison and constant pressure to respond, we explore why this generation is struggling and why it's not just a “self-control problem.” You'll hear how clinicians can guide parents without turning the phone into a constant battle, what actually motivates teens to change their behavior, and how to shift from control to collaboration. We also break down practical strategies that work in real homes, including setting limits without escalating conflict, helping kids rethink what they see online, and building healthier habits that stick. If you work with kids, teens, or families, this conversation will change how you approach screen time, connection, and mental health.Brightminds AdPAR Ad This episode is brought to you by PAR.Explore the AI Report Writer here:https://www.parinc.com/product/ai-report-writer?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsLearn more about the RIAS-2 NU here:https://www.parinc.com/product/groups/rias-rist-assessments?utm_campaign=38111624-Psyched%20to%20Practice%202026&utm_source=P2P%20Podcast&utm_medium=Related%20PodcastsTo hear more and stay up to date with Paul Wagner, MS, LPC and Ray Christner, Psy.D., NCSP, ABPP visit our website at: http://www.psychedtopractice.com “Be well, and stay psyched"

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Maura Harris, Founder of Maura Harris & Company, an operational due diligence (ODD) consulting boutique. With over 25 years of experience in alternative asset management, Maura has worked for premier asset managers, fund of funds, RIAs, and family offices. Her core services include Operational Due Diligence (ODD) Readiness, ODD Document Review, ODD Full Reviews, ODD Audit and ODD Verification, as well as add-on specialty due diligence. Prior to working with private clients, Maura was the Head of Due Diligence at Bostwick Capital, a fund of funds, from 2016 to 2024. In addition, she provided consulting and advisory services for a broad range of firms including AITEC, a technology peer group, Centrl Inc., a fintech company digitizing investor questionnaires, Symphonic Leadership Partners, a change management advisory group, and Harness All Possibilities, a nonprofit helping individuals transform their value to meet the future of work. From 2006 to 2015, Maura developed and managed the operational due diligence program at The Permal Group. Permal was a global multi-strategy, multi-manager investing in hedge funds, private equity, and real assets. Prior to Permal, she worked in accounting, operations and due diligence at GAM Investments and Bank of America Alternative Group, as well as the private equity group at Prudential Financial. In this episode, we discus Maura's core area of expertise – operational risk and due diligence (ODD) for family offices. She explains why this discipline is important and what families, family office executives, and family advisors should do to stay focused on in this specialized field of ODD. Maura leads us through the different types of operational risks family offices need to understand and mitigate and outlines the various dimensions of ODD that she covers in her work with family offices. One practical need and challenge for family offices is how to assess managers and vendors for operational risks. Maura talks about this need and how family office leaders should think about and manage these external risks that are affecting their operation. Maura explains how family leaders and family office executives should think about the value of ODD and offers her tips on the best methods and tools to articulate, measure, and mitigate these operational risks. Enjoy this highly instructional conversation with a deep expert in the ODD discipline as applied to family enterprises and family offices.

Jeremy has spent more than 20 years in the financial services industry building, scaling, and strengthening distribution channels for independent financial professionals across the country. His career began in retail financial services in 1999, shortly after graduating from St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota. He then spent two years with John Hancock Financial, where he built a strong foundation in product knowledge, advisor support, and client strategy.In 2001, Jeremy transitioned into the wholesale channel with American Financial in Minneapolis; a move that shaped the trajectory of my career. Since then, He has dedicated myself to helping independent insurance reps, Advisor Representatives (IARs), RIAs, and Registered Representatives grow their businesses with intention and discipline.In today's IMO world, support often comes *after* they've already proven themselves. Empire was built to change that.Jeremy believes in identifying talent early and backing it immediately, not waiting until production numbers make the decision easy. At Empire Marketing Partners, they support advisors at launch and throughout their growth by being a stable, strategic partner from day one.He is committed to proving that through service, experience, and consistency, they bring more value than anyone else in the space. This isn't transactional. They operate like family, and their actions reflect that commitment every step of the way.Today, Jeremy focused not only on supporting advisors operationally, but also on strengthening his brand and influence within the industry—aligning with like-minded professionals and firms who are committed to growth, excellence, and long-term impact.Learn more: http://www.empiremps.com/Jeremy Lach is the Founder of Empire Marketing Partners, an independent marketing organization (IMO) that supports licensed insurance professionals. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast/interview are for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as individualized investment, tax, or legal advice. Empire Marketing Partners does not provide direct financial planning or investment advisory services to the public. Insurance and annuity products are offered through properly licensed insurance professionals and are subject to state availability, carrier underwriting guidelines, and suitability requirements. Guarantees referenced, if any, are backed solely by the financial strength and claims-paying ability of the issuing insurance carrier. Financial professionals and consumers should consult their own qualified advisors regarding their specific situation before making any financial decisions.Influential Entrepreneurs with Mike Saundershttps://businessinnovatorsradio.com/influential-entrepreneurs-with-mike-saunders/Source: https://businessinnovatorsradio.com/interview-with-jeremy-lach-president-of-empire-marketing-partners-scaling-to-8-figure-annuity-production-without-burning-out

In this episode of the Major League Real Estate Podcast, Thomas Castelli shares the full story of his journey, from attending local RIAs and investing as an LP, to joining the GP team on an 82-unit apartment complex, navigating hurricane due diligence, raising capital under pressure, and exiting during the chaos of COVID in 2020. But that's not all. Tom also opens up about: - The hardest lesson he learned about capital raising - Why most new GPs underestimate the importance of investor relationships - What changed in the syndication world since 2017 - The risks LPs don't think about (until it's too late) - How a failed ATM investment reshaped his investing philosophy -,Why experience matters more than ever in today's market For GPs raising money, LPs evaluating risk, or investors entering the syndication space, this episode shares practical, experience-backed insights. Request a free discovery meeting: go.therealestatecpa.com/mlre Subscribe to the REI Daily Newsletter: go.therealestatecpa.com/mlresubscriber Get the Ultimate Guide for Real Estate Syndications: go.therealestatecpa.com/mlreultimateguide Submit your questions to: contact@therealestatecpa.com The Major League Real Estate podcast is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, legal, investing, financial, or accounting advice. Information on the podcast may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. No reader, user, or listener of this podcast should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this podcast without first seeking legal and tax advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney and tax advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this podcast or any of the links or resources contained or mentioned within the podcast show and show notes do not create a relationship between the reader, user, or listener and podcast hosts, contributors, or guests. Any mention of third-party vendors, products, or services does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. You should conduct your own due diligence before engaging with any vendor.

Most advisory marketing doesn't fail because advisors aren't trying—it fails because the funnel breaks in predictable places, leaving great content and good intentions without a clear path to consistent leads. This episode explores the most common "break points" in advisor marketing funnels, as well as what it takes to build a strategy that attracts the right prospects, communicates value quickly, and makes it easy for prospects to take the next step towards becoming a client. Kendra Wright is the owner of Rebel Media Agency, a marketing firm based in Austin, Texas, that helps RIAs establish and execute clear marketing strategies. She joins us today to share the four ways she most often sees advisor marketing funnels break and how advisors can get what she calls "ideal client clarity" without necessarily forcing themselves into a single ultra-narrow niche. We also discuss how firms can choose a marketing channel that fits their client profile, why it's important for advisor content to be "targeted" in order to stand out, and how advisors can better move prospects from content to client.  For show notes and more visit: https://www.kitces.com/478

In this episode of Advisor Talk, Frank LaRosa and Stacey Frank break down the realities behind minority equity deals in advisory practices - including what advisors often misunderstand about control, exit clauses, valuation multiples, and long-term implications.Frank explains why even a 10–20% minority stake effectively creates a partner in your business - whether you think of it that way or not - and why advisors must think beyond the upfront check and consider the unwind scenario before signing anything.They also explain the difference between taking a transition loan versus selling equity - and why one is far easier to reverse if things don't go as planned.Key questions explored in this episode:What does selling a minority stake actually mean for control?Even at 10–20%, you now have a financial partner whose incentives may influence hiring, spending, technology, and growth strategy.Is there usually an exit clause?In many cases, especially with smaller RIAs, there may be little to no unwind option. Larger firms may offer buyback terms — but often at a higher multiple if you've grown.Why are broker-dealers offering these deals now?Firms are looking to accelerate growth beyond the industry's typical 5% net new asset growth rate and to retain advisors long term.If you're a financial advisor considering selling 10–30% of your practice - or being approached with a “sell and stay” offer - this episode will help you think through the long-term consequences before you sign.Chapters:01:06 – Episode Intro03:12 – Advisor Concerns04:45 – Revenue vs Profit Share06:02 – You Now Have a Partner06:59 – Exit Clauses Explained10:16 – Control & Fees14:09 – Growth Expectations18:25 – Why Firms Invest25:28 – Don't Decide on MoneyLearn more about Elite and our resources:Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitionshttps://eliteconsultingpartners.comElite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisorshttps://elitemarketingconcepts.comElite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers & Acquisitionshttps://eliteadvisorsuccessions.comJEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisorshttps://jedidatabasesolutions.comListen to more Advisor Talk episodes:https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/