Podcasts about rich it

Why did you decide to own a property management business instead of working for someone else? Did you just want money, or was it something deeper that drove you to become an entrepreneur? In this episode of The Property Management Growth Show, industry growth expert Jason Hull sits down with Rich Walker, Founder of Quik! Forms to discuss adaptability as an entrepreneur and embracing change. You'll Learn [01:55] Entrepreneurial Tendancies from a Young Age [13:49] Reasons for Starting a Business [20:08] Embracing Change and Facing Adversity [30:31] The Power of In-Person Interaction Quotables “ You build something people want, they'll pay you for it.” “There's no value in worry.” “We think we want more money because we think it's going to give us more freedom and fulfillment, but we actually have less fulfillment and less freedom the more money we make.” “If everybody thinks they're right, then my beliefs can be just as right.” Resources DoorGrow and Scale Mastermind DoorGrow Academy DoorGrow on YouTube DoorGrowClub DoorGrowLive TalkRoute Referral Link Transcript [00:00:00] Rich: What do you get when you have your best work? [00:00:01] Rich: You get joy, you get fulfillment, you get productivity, you get engagement and you get the highest possible outcome from every person on your team. That's why I'm an entrepreneur more than anything else. [00:00:11] Jason: All right. Welcome DoorGrow property managers to the property management growth show. If you are a property management entrepreneur that wants to add doors, make a difference, increase revenue, impact lives, help others, and you're interested in growing your business and life and you're open to doing things a bit differently, then you are a DoorGrow property manager DoorGrow property managers love the opportunities, daily variety, unique challenges, and freedom that property management brings. Many in real estate think you're crazy for doing it. You think they're crazy for not because you realize that property management is the ultimate high trust gateway to real estate deals, relationships, and residual income. At DoorGrow, we are on a mission to transform property management business owners and their businesses. We want to transform the industry, eliminate the BS, build awareness, change perception, expand the market, and help the best property management entrepreneurs win. I'm your host, property management, growth expert, Jason Hull, the founder and CEO of DoorGrow. Now let's get into the show. [00:01:13] Jason: And my guest today, I'm hanging out with a local Austinite, fellow friend that I know locally, CEO and co founder of Quik! Forms Processing, Rich Walker. Welcome Rich.  [00:01:26] Rich: Hey everybody. Really an honor to be here. Jason. Thanks for having me on your show today.  [00:01:30] Jason: Yeah, glad to have you. [00:01:31] Jason: So you're doing some really cool stuff in business. And it's been great. We're in a mastermind locally together. And and you're going to be speaking to our audience at DoorGrow Live, you know, for those listening, make sure you get your tickets to DoorGrow Live. And you've written some books, like tell everybody, give us some background on Rich and how you kind of got into entrepreneurism and like, what you do. [00:01:55] Rich: So, well, boy, this could be a long story or I'll try to keep it brief. Look, I grew up very poor. I was the product of a broken household, if you will. And I learned very early on that if you make something people want, they'll pay you for it. It's amazing. So I started my first business at age 12. I took a $300 investment and turned it into over $1,100 in one day at an event. [00:02:18] Rich: And I was stunned. I was just struck with all these people handing me fistfuls of cash to buy my product. And I said, "wow, this is what I'm going to be. I'm going to be an entrepreneur. I'm going to build businesses." [00:02:29] Jason: What was the product at age 12?  [00:02:31] Rich: Oh, man. So I should show it to you. I'd have to go off screen to get it. [00:02:35] Rich: But if you know what surgical tubing looks like stretchy latex tubing, and you know what a pen tip looks like, take the pen tip, shove it into the tube, tie a knot on the other end, and then get a garden hose with a cone shaped nozzle and it blows up a long tube of water. Like a squirt gun. Yeah, we called them water weenies. [00:02:52] Rich: Yeah, I made those. Yeah! Yeah.  [00:02:56] Rich: So, but imagine before the super soaker came out, what were your options? You had water balloons, hand grenades, you had squirt guns that went five feet, you had the hose stuck to the house and then water weenies, which squirted 30 feet and carried gallons of water on your back. [00:03:13] Rich: So you are the king of the water fights.  [00:03:15] Jason: Yeah, and you got a good workout.  [00:03:18] Rich: Yeah, amazing.  [00:03:19] Jason: How long were these tubes? How long would you cut them?  [00:03:23] Rich: The longest cut length would be three feet, but when it filled up, it was nine feet. So imagine, draped around your neck, down to your toes, with water.  [00:03:31] Jason: Nine feet of water filled hose. [00:03:32] Jason: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:03:33] Rich: Yeah. So you were just a walking, like fire truck.  [00:03:36] Jason: I just got back from funnel hacking live and Russell Brunson always shares a story of starting by selling potato guns online, like how to build potato guns. This sounds very reminiscent.  [00:03:47] Rich: Yeah, very much. It was a really awesome experience. I mean, honestly, going from having nothing to having money in my hands. [00:03:54] Rich: And actually I saved up money at age 12, just about to turn 13. I saved it until I bought my first car when I turned 16.  [00:04:01] Jason: Wow. Wow. All right. So you ever heard of the marshmallow tests they give kids? I'm not sure. It's like, it's delayed gratification versus instant gratification, right? So they put a marshmallow in front of them and they make them wait with it. [00:04:14] Jason: And they're like, you can eat this marshmallow, but if you don't eat it by the time I get back, then I'll give you two marshmallows or something like this. I think it's how it goes. And most kids fail. They're like, "Oh, I really want that." Or they'll put cookie or whatever it is, you know, showing you saving money, when there's like, you could buy video games as a kid, like whatever, right? That's some serious delayed gratification right there, so.  [00:04:38] Rich: You know, Jason, I got to tell a bigger story here because really this is what happened at age eight, I went to my friend's house and my friend had a radio controlled car. [00:04:46] Rich: It was a kit you had to build yourself, but it would drive 35 miles per hour off road. It was amazing. This is the eighties, right? Yeah. And I wanted that car so bad. And we were so poor. There was no way my parents were going to buy me a $300 car. And in today's money, that's like 12 to 1500 bucks. Okay. Yes. [00:05:03] Rich: So that's not going to happen. So I started saving my money, birthday, Christmas money. I would sell candy around the neighborhood. I would rake leaves for a neighbor and make $2. Anything I could do, anything I could do to save money. It took me four years. To save up the $300. And that summer that I got introduced to water weenies was by my neighbor. He was a supplier to physicians. His son and I played all the time. And he came out and gave us these water weenies to play with, but then he took them back and all the other kids wanted one. So I was kind of observant and I said, "Hey, In your shed, I see a reel of tubing. Can I buy that from you?" [00:05:36] Rich: It was like 25 feet of tubing. "He's like, okay, how much?" It was like 12 bucks or something. Ran home, grabbed the money out of my bank account, gave it to him, went home, started cutting links, destroyed every pen in my house and started selling. And within a day or two, I had sold $50 worth of stuff. So I went and bought another 25 feet and sold another $50 bucks. [00:05:53] Rich: Then I went to summer camp and I rode my bike and squirted every kid I could find had 20 kids chasing me on my bike. And then I'd sell them all the water. So over that course of that summer, I got to the $300 mark and I bought the car. Now, my uncle saw all this behavior and said, "Rich next summer, I'm hosting fourth of July. [00:06:10] Rich: You could have a booth and sell these water weenies there. Would you like to do that?" I'm like, "yeah, absolutely." Months and months go by, go through winter, go into spring, my mom reminds me of this opportunity. And I'm like, okay, so I go to my neighbor, "How much for a thousand feet of tubing?" "300 bucks." [00:06:24] Rich: Guess what I don't have? I don't have 300 anymore.  [00:06:27] Jason: Yeah.  [00:06:27] Rich: So I said to him, "Hey, look, your son is about to have his birthday. Wouldn't it be cool if he had this RC car? He loves playing with it. Would you barter with me and trade me for the tubing?" And the guy's a saint. Honestly, I wish I could find him and say thank you because he did it. [00:06:42] Rich: His son got a great car. I got the tubing. I wrote a letter to Scripto pen company and said, "Hey, I'm doing a project. I need some sample pen tips. Would you mind sending me some?" They sent me a box of 5,000 pen tips for free.  [00:06:52] Jason: What?  [00:06:53] Rich: No cost. And so then I had all the materials to put it together and showed up at 4th of July, started selling by 7am, sold out by 1pm. [00:07:01] Rich: And this is why I said I had fist fulls of money. I had people at this, you know, long table. I had people out eight to 10 people deep lined up to buy these things. And it's all I could do is to take money and give them a water weenie. My pockets filled up with cash and my mom would pull the cash out of my pockets and put it in a safe box over and over again that day. [00:07:18] Jason: What were you selling each one for  [00:07:20] Rich: Anywhere from like $1.50-4.00 or something, depending on the length.  [00:07:24] Jason: Yeah.  [00:07:25] Rich: Yeah.  [00:07:25] Jason: Okay.  [00:07:26] Rich: It was such an incredible experience. And that's why I said, man, I'm going to be an entrepreneur. So I just knew that I was bitten and I had to do this and look, I'm age 50 now, my company that I own today, Quik! Just celebrated our 23rd anniversary, and I've started 10, about 10 different business ventures and companies since age 12. So I've always just had this desire to fulfill my own sense of freedom and creativity and serve people. Yeah. So yeah, that's really the genesis of it. [00:07:55] Rich: Like you build something people want, they'll pay you for it. And it's an amazing thing.  [00:07:59] Jason: I love it. You see a problem, you saw an opportunity. And lots of other people saw the problem. They just didn't see the opportunity. They're like, man, I would love that one of these. It's nice, you know, and you were able to fill that need. [00:08:12] Jason: So that's a great story. Love that story. That's how you kind of got it like, you know, bit by the bug of entrepreneurism.  [00:08:19] Rich: Yeah. Now, the Quik! company started because in the nineties, I worked at other companies that worked at Arthur Anderson, for example, and I learned technology, especially from like a backend perspective of big tech. How does it all work? How does it flow together? And I decided to get out of tech consulting late in the year 2000.  [00:08:39] Jason: Yeah.  [00:08:39] Rich: And in doing that, I really went back to my degree in college, which was finance and said, "I really love finance. Let me help people with their money." So I became a financial advisor. [00:08:47] Jason: Okay.  [00:08:48] Rich: And in doing that. You go out and get your licenses, you work really hard for all that, you work really hard to gain the trust and respect of your first client, and then they finally say, "yes, I will open an account with you," and guess what your reward is? Yeah, fine, you can make a commission that's a reward. [00:09:01] Rich: No, you get to handwrite paperwork. And I thought, man, this sucks. I am not going to make $4 an hour handwriting paperwork for people. I used to charge $200 an hour as a consultant, so how do I fix this problem? And I decided to build software, because I was a technologist, that would fill out my forms. Jason, it was a hack. [00:09:19] Rich: It was a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with fields overlaid on images. It was just a hack. It just made it work, but everybody around me for six months kept saying, "Rich, give me your software. I hate filling out forms," and I was in this quandary of, "wow, I have found a need. But I want to be a financial advisor. What do I do?" And after six months, I finally said, "okay, let's build the product." So we did our first install in February 11, 2002 and never looked back. I mean, we found out people really wanted this and it's changing people's lives. It was empowering them to do their best work, which is not paperwork. And today we manage a library of over 42,000 forms. [00:09:57] Rich: And we generate over a million forms every month across wealth management industry, serving well over a hundred thousand financial professionals.  [00:10:05] Jason: Yeah.  [00:10:05] Rich: So yeah. Yeah.  [00:10:07] Jason: That's awesome. Yeah. I had a short job. I worked for a while at Verizon, like in their business DSL tech support. Like I was an internet support guy and after every call, it was a call center, after every call that we did, we had to fill out this ridiculous form it just took so much time and we were measured on the time that we were unavailable between calls and how many calls we completed. And so I found some sort of like macro tool because there was only like three, maybe four types of tickets that we would do. [00:10:40] Jason: It was always the same sort of challenges. But we had to fill out all of these fields of ridiculous, stupid stuff. And so I use this macro tool that basically if I type a certain thing, it would just spit out a whole bunch of other stuff and it would go tab from field and fill it all out. And so I set this up because I started to see these patterns. [00:11:00] Jason: And so then I, similar to what you did I solved the problem for myself. So I built this thing that I could then just do this type of ticket, this type of ticket. And then there were other people on the floor and they're like, "man, I'm going to get fired. I can't do this. I can't do this fast enough." [00:11:14] Jason: Well, so then I'm starting to help people. So now I'm like a virus on the floor and the managers didn't like me for some reason. Like my manager did not like that I was doing this. I don't know why. Because maybe he didn't come up with the idea. I don't know. Yeah. Then I'm starting to help other people so they don't get fired, and I'm showing, you know, other people on the floor, how to set this up and how to do this and giving them my formula and, you know, for the script language for how to do this. And they're able to close their tickets out like really fast. They're just like "bloop!", and it's like "vrrrrrr", and they're like, cool next. [00:11:47] Jason: Right. And what was baffling to me at the time is that it was not seen as a positive by my superiors. It was seen as a problem and I'm like you are an idiot and this is where I kind of realized Like a lot of times, you know, you've heard of the Peter principle? Yeah. Which for those listening... [00:12:09] Rich: You're at your highest level of mediocrity.  [00:12:12] Jason: Or incompetence. [00:12:13] Jason: Right?  [00:12:14] Jason: And so, yeah, which means basically people get promoted because they're good at a certain level and then they get promoted again, just beyond their current capacity or ability to perform well. And now they're at a level where they are no longer able to intellectually maybe rise to the occasion or be good. [00:12:32] Jason: And so businesses are just full or rife with all of these people that like, especially big organizations, cause I was at HP. You know, I just saw it everywhere. I always had idiots like above me is what it felt like that were telling me I couldn't do things or slowing me down and I'm like, "don't you see?" [00:12:50] Jason: And then what would happen is months later, that idea that I was trying to push that they were fighting me on was their new idea. They're like, "I have this new idea."  [00:13:01] Rich: What you're explaining is the real truth. And it took me a while to figure this out for why I'm an entrepreneur.  [00:13:07] Jason: Yeah.  [00:13:08] Rich: I want to be able to do my best work and anytime I've worked for others, I've been limited and held back.   [00:13:14] Rich: So I really was seeking a way to empower myself to do my best work. And in my company, in our culture, it boils down to empowering others to do their best work. I want my team to do their best work. I want my vendors and my partners and my customers to all do their best work. Because what do you get when you have your best work? [00:13:31] Rich: You get joy, you get fulfillment, you get productivity, you get engagement and you get the highest possible outcome from every person on your team. That's why I'm an entrepreneur more than anything else. I mean, yeah. Ooh, I'd like to make money. Oh, I want freedom. I want creativity, but honestly, at the core of it, how do I get to do my best? [00:13:49] Jason: I love this. So some of you listening to this episode, you've heard me talk about my framework of the four reasons for starting a business. I call it the four reasons. And this is what makes us different than everyone else on the planet. And we're rare. Entrepreneurs are rare people. We are the minority. [00:14:05] Jason: We feel like we're living on a planet as aliens a lot of times. We're like, "why doesn't everyone think this way?" It's super weird. So entrepreneurs, the reason we start businesses is we want four things. We think we want money, usually in the beginning. But what we really want is what money will give us. [00:14:22] Jason: And that's these things. It's freedom. Well, first is fulfillment. The most important is fulfillment. We want to enjoy life, enjoy what we're doing, make a difference, whatever but we want fulfillment in whatever that means to us. And then second, we want freedom. We want autonomy. Usually in the beginning, we have, we start trying to start a business. [00:14:40] Jason: We think we want more money because we think it's going to give us more freedom and fulfillment, but we actually have less fulfillment and less freedom the more money we make. And so then we start to wake up like, "Hey, this sucks. Like, how do I like be pickier about my clients or how do I change this?" [00:14:56] Jason: You know? But fulfillment and freedom are one and two. Third, once we have those, we want contribution. We want to feel like we're making a difference, having an impact and we want to benefit other people. And that's what a business is designed to do, right? Solve real problems in the marketplace. [00:15:10] Jason: It's contribution. If not, it's snake oil, right? It's taking people's money. So fourth, once we have fulfillment, freedom, contribution, the fourth is we need support. And that's why we build a business because we can't max out on fulfillment, freedom, contribution if we are wearing every hat and we're miserable. [00:15:29] Jason: Yeah. Because we don't want to do everything. Not everything is fun for us. right? There's the pieces you love and there's pieces you just don't love, right? And that's true for every business owner, but we're all different. Like some of us love accounting. Some of us don't love accounting, right? Some of us love sales. [00:15:44] Jason: Some of us don't love sales, right? Some of us love ops. Some of us are bad at ops, right? And so, there is though what I call the fifth reason. This is what makes everyone else different than us. We want this one too, but everyone else in the planet prioritizes this fifth reason over the first four. [00:16:02] Jason: It's safety and security. Oh, right. Yeah. They want that. That's more important than freedom, fulfillment. They will give up freedom. You saw this during the pandemic. Most people were like, "forget your freedoms. I want to feel safe. Give me safety and security." Right. I remember here in, I was in North Austin. I went to Costco during the pandemic and masks were kind of optional, right? They were optional. And I'm walking around Costco without a mask and everyone else has masks on for the most part. And anyone that didn't have a mask, I was like, "Hey, do you own a business?" And they're like, "yeah." And we're looking at each other like we know like the world's gone fucking nuts. Like, what's going on? We had a knowing like, "yeah, everyone's crazy."  [00:16:42] Rich: Man, I wish I'd asked that question. I would have met a lot more entrepreneurs that way. Because I was out there, no mask, any chance I got. Right. I mean, I didn't want confrontation with people. [00:16:51] Jason: And for those listening, there's nothing wrong with this, right? We need both, right? Not everyone can be entrepreneurial. It would be a crazy world, right? We need people that are willing to work for us, right? We need both. And they want the four reasons too. Like nobody's going to say, "Oh, I don't want freedom." But they want safety and security first and that's most people on the planet. [00:17:11] Jason: And so psychologically, entrepreneurs, we're just wired different. We will give up safety and security in order to have freedom and fulfillment.  [00:17:20] Rich: I'll tell you how I did that, Jason.  [00:17:21] Jason: Yeah.  [00:17:22] Rich: So imagine, I'm a tech consultant charging $200 an hour. I'm making $350,000 a year. I'm age 24 or 25, driving my dream car. [00:17:31] Rich: I have everything. Yeah. I go become a financial advisor and I make very little money. I mean, I had savings basically, and then I start the software company. I have no income. I literally say, "I'm going to start this company." I have zero income. I had no house, no wife, no kids. So, I mean, that made it easier. [00:17:49] Rich: And for the first ...  [00:17:51] Jason: people will say "you're nuts". They're already saying he's crazy. But every entrepreneur listening is like we get it.  [00:17:55] Rich: No, that's what you do. I cashed out my 401k. I sold the dream car, cashed out any equity I had in that. I bought a cheaper car, et cetera. [00:18:03] Rich: And then I said, "okay, I'm going to have my dream car back in a year or two." Yeah. In the first four years of my business, my income was $1,000 a month. I mean, I made $12,000 year for four years straight. And so here's the thing. A thousand dollars a month doesn't pay my rent. My rent was $1200 to $1500 during that time. [00:18:21] Jason: Right.  [00:18:22] Rich: So here's the question that you'd ask yourself. How did you sleep at night? And I'll tell you this one thing. Every time I paid rent on the first of the month, I actually did not know how I would have the money in 30 days to pay rent again, right? So how do you sleep at night? I slept great. It never bothered me. [00:18:39] Rich: I didn't lose one minute of sleep over that financial burden. Okay. I just looked at it as that's another tool I've got to figure out how to make money with this. And there were things that happened. It's like sometimes a big credit card bill came through when somebody bought our software or sometimes I borrowed money off the credit card to pay the bill. [00:18:58] Rich: It was just different things happen. And you know what, in those four years? I was never late once. My wife and I contrast. She could not do that. She just cannot live that way, she could never have that kind of risk profile for me. I was just like, "yeah, whatever. I'll figure it out every single time." [00:19:13] Jason: So you trusted. You trusted yourself and maybe God, I don't know, but you trusted your ability to create, right? You knew you had confidence you could create money.  [00:19:24] Rich: Yeah. And I learned that being poor. I mean, in college, I went to USC, one of the most expensive schools around, but I paid my own way to go there. [00:19:33] Rich: And during college, there were so many weeks, I can't even count them, where I'd wake up on Monday with exactly $5 to my name. That's all the money I had access to. And I had to get to Friday before I got my paycheck and I had to pay for parking and food, et cetera. I was so scrappy. I would look at what ads were in the paper and I find people doing focus groups that would pay me $10 for 30 minutes of my time to go pretend to shop and pick products. [00:19:58] Rich: So I'd go make an extra 10 bucks and now I had triple my money to get through the week. I did so many creative things. So I knew at that point, like, yeah, money is just a tool. We'll figure it out. We'll always make it work. So, you know, I want to bring this up because this is the thing, you know, you mentioned at the start of the show that I'm going to be at your event, the #DoorGrowShow, right? [00:20:15] Rich: DoorGrow Live. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And what I'm going to talk about is one of my books and it's called, "It's My Life!". I'm going to hold it up for anybody watching. "It's My Life! I can have..." sorry, there's two books. "I can change if I want to." My other book's called "It's my life! I can have the job I want," but I'm going to talk about change. Because one of the questions inherent to this problem of how do you go through these hardships? [00:20:38] Rich: How do you go through these struggles, which would stress most people out like crazy? Comes down to your ability to handle change.  [00:20:46] Rich: And it starts with you. Adaptability. Yeah. Now, look, I was forced into it because. I'm 50, but I've moved 33 times in my life. I had moved 29 times by the time I was 32. [00:20:58] Rich: Wow.  [00:20:59] Rich: And I was forced to move as a kid. I had no choice about that. I was forced to make new friends. I was forced to go into new schools and new cities and new states.  [00:21:06] Jason: Military family or...? [00:21:08] Rich: No. Divorces. Job transfers, etc.  [00:21:11] Jason: That's a lot of change, a lot of turmoil. Yeah.  [00:21:14] Rich: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, really a very challenging childhood that I don't look back on with any negativity towards, but I was forced to learn how to change and adapt to change. [00:21:25] Rich: And out of that, around age 12, I developed a methodology for how I could change myself and the behaviors and the feelings I had. Because I started to look at the world. This actually comes from religion. I mean, you brought up God. My father was a minister in a church when I was born, but it was very extreme. It was considered a cult. [00:21:41] Rich: My stepfather was in the Catholic church, so we attended Catholic services. I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah. I've been to plenty of Mormon events, the LDS church. I know all about that. I've been part of other types of church.  [00:21:53] Rich: I grew up Mormon actually. So I was exposed to all these different religions. And what I saw was everybody said they're right. [00:22:01] Rich: And I'm not taking issue with that. I'm not trying to say one's better than the other, but just as an observation, if everybody thinks they're right, then my beliefs can be just as right. And that empowered me to say, "what do I want to believe about the world?" How do I want to choose beliefs that will help me be the best I can be? [00:22:18] Rich: And simultaneously at age 12, my mom was going through a huge awakening in herself. She was reading books by Dr. Wayne Dyer and all sorts of self improvement books, because she wanted to get better. And she was sharing those lessons with my brother and I. So I was learning through osmosis. I was learning through observing my mom go through these changes, but I was also observing the world around me, and I realized I can make changes to myself and become better, which means I could have lower stress. So let's go all the way back to the story of how do I start a company with no money? How do I believe I don't have to be stressed out about the money? And it comes down to your core beliefs of what you actually believe about your ability to go figure it out or your ability to let it stress you out or what even stress means in your life. [00:23:02] Rich: I'm sure you've talked about this with your group here. There's no value in worry. Like worrying about a problem, what does that actually get you? It gets you anxiety and stress. It doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't add value into your life. So therefore I looked at it and said, how do you not worry? [00:23:19] Rich: How do you not stress out about things? So what I'm excited to share with your audience when I get up on stage is how to use my methodology to become more resilient, to accept change for what it is, to learn how to control the change so that you can be the person you want to become. And therefore you can go through the hardships, the challenges, the biggest potential failures or actual failures that you're going through in your business and in your life and win on the other side, because you become a better person through the whole thing. [00:23:47] Jason: Love it. Yeah. I mean, running a business can be tough. It can be very hard. Entrepreneurs go through a lot of challenges. I often joke DoorGrow was built on thousands of failures, you know? But we have that hope and we keep moving forward. And so being resilient is essential. [00:24:06] Jason: Being adaptable is essential. Otherwise it's just takes a toll. It takes a toll on our body. It takes a toll on our health. We don't make progress. We don't have as effective of decision making and there's like, if we're not in a state of worry, not in a state of stress, we make infinitely better decisions. [00:24:24] Jason: Like decisions made from fear, decisions made from stress generally are almost never good decisions. So, and if you think about all the decisions we make on a daily basis in our own business, If you just have a healthy mindset, you will be at a very different place, even in a short period of time. And I've had periods of stagnancy. [00:24:43] Jason: I've had periods of hardship and I've had periods of like dramatic growth.  [00:24:47] Rich: Yeah. And transition. I love the graphic and I'm sure everybody's seen it where two guys are digging and one guy is giving up and the other guy keeps going and the diamonds are right there. The gold is right there. Okay. Right. The guy who gives up is one foot away from the gold and the guy who keeps digging hits it because he just went that one extra foot. [00:25:07] Rich: And to me, that is that point of exasperation where you're saying, "Oh my gosh, this is the worst day of my life. The worst month of my life. This is so challenging. It's, everything's wrong. And you embrace the change and suddenly things change faster." Now you may not strike the gold that you want. You may not win the biggest account you want, but I mean, look, you can read the biography on Elon Musk with his story of SpaceX and Tesla, and he was betting the farm on both of them. He was down to two weeks of payroll, I think when NASA came in with a one and a half billion dollar check to fund the rocket boosters they wanted. Like he is at the absolute lowest point and boom, the greatest thing happens. [00:25:42] Jason: You know, when we take these risks, they create great stories. And even if it doesn't work out, the risk, it still makes a great story. It does. Because we're going to figure it out. The one thing is if we're committed, if we're committed to getting the result, it's inevitable. [00:25:56] Jason: It will eventually come. It might take a little longer, but yeah, if we're committed and man, like, yeah, he took some big risks. He was committed.  [00:26:04] Rich: Yeah, but it comes back to you. I've met so many entrepreneurs who do stress out. They lose sleep. In fact, one of the most common things I hear from entrepreneurs is, "Hey, what makes you lose sleep at night?" Nothing. Honestly, my three year old makes me lose sleep, but losing business, man, it doesn't bother me in the same way that I think a lot of other people do. And that's because I know who I am. I know what my beliefs are and I've challenged myself to change the ones that don't work.  [00:26:31] Rich: I'll give you one other example here, Jason, to think about, and again, this is not a judgment towards anybody. [00:26:36] Rich: I was in an audience of entrepreneurs, man, I don't know, 12, 15 years ago. And the guy on stage said, "okay, everybody here, raise your hand. If you have ADHD," I was maybe one of two people who didn't raise their hands. I've never been diagnosed with ADHD and I refuse to accept the label of ADHD for whatever purpose the label means. [00:26:55] Rich: What if though, what if ADHD is your superpower? And what if the label of ADHD of treating it with drugs and you can't stay focused and still is a negative by all the other aliens on this planet? Because you said as entrepreneurs, we feel alien. What if it's everybody else's assessment of you versus your own? [00:27:12] Rich: What if your own assessment was your ADHD is actually your superpower?  [00:27:16] Rich: Sure. You've got the ability to hyper focus. You've got the ability to like do something unique or exceptional. Yeah.  [00:27:22] Rich: Or switch gears on 10 conversations in a day, because that's what happens during your day as an entrepreneur.  [00:27:28] Jason: Yeah. [00:27:28] Rich: Right. And adaptability. So I look at that again, going back to how I view your belief systems and my book on change, is that you can take something that a lot of people look at as, "Oh, that's harmful for our relationship or whatever. I say, no, I'm going to turn it into my superpower." [00:27:44] Rich: And take a different view of it because it's you. It's not me. It's not my judgment of you. It's your own judgment of you. How do you want to be? Yeah, I'm excited to share this with everybody when we get up there.  [00:27:55] Jason: Yeah, it'll be awesome to have you there. You know, the reason I'm having you come and other speakers that have nothing to do with property management, by the way, for the property managers, is I find that it's never really a business issue that's holding people back in business. [00:28:09] Jason: And I mean, I've talked to thousands of property managers, I've coached hundreds. And when I dig in it's never that they're focusing too little time on their business that's the problem. It's always related to mindset, self belief. You know, that's really what's holding them back. And so I think this, this'll, this'll be really awesome. [00:28:31] Jason: I'm really excited for you to benefit our clients that'll be at this event. And those of you that are not yet clients that are coming to DoorGrow Live, I think this'll be a game changer for them to just kind of shift their mindset a little bit and increase their resiliency. So, yeah, I'm excited for that. [00:28:46] Rich: Yeah. I am equally excited because you said one of the four pillars is contribution. And I didn't write this book for my business. It has nothing to do with software and efficiency. I wrote this book because my sister and her husband at the time were at the beginning of a divorce and they were both coming to me independently to ask me questions and I'm helping them. [00:29:04] Rich: And they both independently said, "Rich, you should write a book about this someday." And it was on Thanksgiving that year when they both tried to use me as a conduit to each other, where I said, "I'm fed up, I'm done." And honestly, Jason, I just spent the next whatever days until the 23rd of December writing the book. [00:29:20] Rich: I stopped watching TV and it just flooded out of me. I never thought I'd write a book. I don't even like reading books. I listen. So I wrote the book before Christmas and then I hand bound it and gave it to them as a gift and it went nowhere. It was lost on them.  [00:29:32] Jason: Yeah.  [00:29:33] Rich: And then I realized, man, I've got this thing. [00:29:35] Rich: I've got to get it out there to the world and help other people, because this is one of the ways I get to contribute in the world. Yeah. My business contributes too, and I love that, but at the core of who I am personally, I want to empower people to be their best version of themselves. Yeah. I can do that with the book. [00:29:50] Rich: I can do that with the podcast I have. I can do that with the software that we generate. There's a lot of ways to have that effect. And that is my lightning rod. So when you ask me to come speak, it's an easy yes, because this is an opportunity for me to help others become their best version of themselves. [00:30:06] Rich: Maybe by giving them a tool set that they can then use to implement for themselves and create the person they've always wanted to be, or they know is inside of them that's afraid to come out or just maybe just one behavioral change. I don't know. It's up to them.  [00:30:19] Jason: I love books. I think books are awesome. [00:30:21] Jason: I read lots and lots of books. I'm reading books all the time. Like I usually have like three or four books I'm reading at a time because maybe I am ADHD, but you know, I get bored of something and I then focus on something else or whatever. I love books. What I've noticed though, because I've gotten to be around a lot of the people that have written some of these books... I pay a lot of money to go to masterminds or events. Like I just got to see Tony Robbins at Funnel Hacking Live. It was really great. I learned some awesome stuff. Right. And I think there's some magic in being able to be around and be in the energy space of the person that is giving you this idea. [00:30:58] Jason: It's not the same. Like being in person and doing stuff, I've noticed this weird thing that people absorb information different. They perceive it different. It's not the same as being on video like this. I've taught lots of people through video and over again, when they would come show up to DoorGrow Live or come in person, things would just click in a different way. [00:31:16] Jason: And I started to call it, mentally I called it the 'real bubble.' I have to pierce this bubble that it's not real. I think our unconscious mind doesn't perceive this as real.  [00:31:26] Rich: Right.  [00:31:27] Jason: Right. But you and I met in person, so we know we're real people. So our unconscious mind is like, "Oh Rich and Jason. We're real people." So we know this, our brain knows this, but until I meet somebody, fist bump them, high five, give them a hug, whatever, like, and they see me in person, my clients don't get as big of results.  [00:31:45] Rich: Yeah.  [00:31:45] Jason: Their unconscious mind is somehow like "Oh, this is that digital universe or TV universe. That's not real. I don't know." So if they come and like experience this... even if you get his book, like get his book, but I'm excited for people to be in your energy field to experience you and for you to teach this and there's something you could say the same words that are exactly in your book, but people will absorb it differently. [00:32:08] Jason: I've seen this over and over again, and they will get so much more out of this. That's why I'm excited to have you come present this. So.  [00:32:14] Rich: Yeah, there's no replacing face to face. There's absolutely no replacement for the energy and the connection that's made when you're face to face. I 100 percent agree and I wish we could do more of it. So i'm glad for the event and the opportunity to do it in my hometown. [00:32:29] Rich: It's great.  [00:32:30] Jason: Yeah, it'd be an easy drive not too far. So yeah All right. So, cool. I'm really excited about this. So for those of you that are listening go to DoorGrowLive.Com get your tickets. This is different than other property management events. Property management events, usually people go to these conferences and they're really there to like hang out at the bar and escape their life and their problems. [00:32:52] Jason: DoorGrow Live's different and you can go to the bar. There's bars at the Kalahari resort. You can do that and you can hang out with people. But people come to our event because they want to be around other people in that space of other people that are really growth minded. And that's who I attract in the industry. [00:33:08] Jason: We have the most growth minded property management business owners. Like these are people that are focused on being a better person, a better husband, a better father, better wife, better parent, you know, whatever. Like, and they're focused on you know, taking care of their team, making a difference in the industry. [00:33:24] Jason: And I really believe good property managers can change the world. They can have a massive ripple effect. They affect all their clients, the investors' lives. They positively impact the tenants' lives. They can have a big ripple effect. They can affect a lot of people. And that's exciting is inspiring for me to be able to, you know, Help benefit them and bring that to the table. [00:33:44] Jason: So these are leaders. These are people that affect families. And so, you know, by you coming and presenting, I think there's definitely a ripple effect and a positive impact that can happen. So if you're a property manager listening and you don't care about any of that stuff, then just don't go to DoorGrow Live, because we don't want you there anyway. [00:34:00] Jason: All right. So Rich, any quick tip that you could give to people before we wrap up our conversation and then how can people, you know, get ahold of you and, or you know, or whatever you want to plug. Floor's yours  [00:34:12] Rich: I'm going to leave everybody with one of my core beliefs. That is an empowering one. [00:34:17] Rich: And it's this: confidence is knowledge of yourself. We all want more confidence, right?  [00:34:22] Rich: And the reason I call it knowledge of yourself is because you should be able to take confidence and apply it to any given situation. It's not a hundred percent confident all the time. It's confident about something you're doing. [00:34:33] Rich: My typing speed's near a hundred words per minute. I have absolute confidence in my ability to type, for example, right?  [00:34:39] Jason: Yeah.  [00:34:40] Rich: My, my other skills may not be the same. So how do you build confidence? It's you build knowledge of yourself and it's a lot of what we've been talking about is your own personal growth and who you are and all that's going to lead to more confidence. [00:34:53] Rich: So that's just one of the things I'll share. Best way to find me probably LinkedIn. I'm the Quik! Forms CEO and that's Q U I K. There is no C in the word 'quick' for my company. You could try to email me as well. rwalker@quikforms.Com. You could spell it with a C because we own both domains, but yeah, if you reach out to me on LinkedIn, there's one thing you should do, send me a personalized note, tell me why you want to meet me because I'm very happy to meet you and share my network with you. But if you're trying to sell me and spam me, I don't answer those. So just give me a personal note and I'm very happy to talk to you.  [00:35:23] Jason: Just say, "Hey, I heard about you on the DoorGrow podcast and you know, the property management growth podcast like..."  [00:35:30] Rich: Yeah. And I'll look, I'll plug one little thing. I don't know how relevant it is to your audience, but my podcast is called The Customer Wins. And I talked to business leaders about how they help their customers win, how they overcome challenges of growth, how they create a really excellent customer experience. [00:35:45] Rich: And about 20 percent of my guests come in with totally different perspectives. I had a custom suit broker on, I had a golf pro, I had a magician and the majority of people in the financial services space. But I'm telling you, there's a lot you can learn about building a better customer experience from listening to people talk about it and hear about it. [00:36:03] Rich: So I've studied that a lot for several years. Like that's, it's a big deal to me. I mean, you have to, if you're running a coaching business, coaching businesses are generally high churn. Education businesses are really like a low engagement. Yeah. So I've had to figure a lot of things out to make this go really well,  [00:36:19] Rich: so, yeah. [00:36:20] Rich: Yeah. Well, I mean, I really don't care about how many subscribers or listens I get on my podcast. That's not what I care about. I want people to get value. Yeah. So if you get value from it, awesome. Let me know. Awesome. Very cool.  [00:36:32] Jason: 110 words per minute. It's pretty fast. Do you type on QWERTY or did you change your keyboard? [00:36:37] Rich: No, I type on a normal keyboard. At one point I was at 115. Right now I'm around 100. I bought a device called a Kara quarter, which is a totally different configuration where you can type about 300 words per minute, but I've yet to learn it new skill. I'm just not picking on yet.  [00:36:51] Jason: So. I hear a lot of world typing speed records are set in Dvorak and I switched to Dvorak simply because my wrist started hurting when I was going through college. [00:37:02] Jason: So I actually pop all the keys off all my keyboards and rearrange them into Dvorak. So I know I'm a nerd. So, and you just change the setting. On Mac books and Mac keyboards, it's like doing brain surgery. It'd be really careful, but for the geeks out there. Maybe you'd appreciate this, but it has the most commonly used vowels on the home row of the left hand and the most commonly used consonants on the home row of the right hand. [00:37:27] Jason: Oh, that makes sense. And so world speed record. So, and it took me like a month to just get used to it. Like you would pick it up really fast. So how fast are you? I'm not that fast. I just did it because my wrists were hurting. I actually don't type that much. Honestly, you know, I'm like talking and drawing a lot more than I'm typing, but I'm probably faster than I would be with QWERTY. [00:37:50] Jason: So I don't know. I've never really like done a speed test or, you know, typing test to see, but I don't think I'd beat you. That's my guess, your QWERTY handicap. So, cause QWERTY was designed to slow down typewriters.  [00:38:04] Rich: Like the hammer strike colliding. Yeah. Of the old type that, yeah. So I'll leave you with a fun fact. [00:38:11] Rich: The average typing speed in my company is about 85 words per minute.  [00:38:14] Jason: Nice. Okay. It's pretty good.  [00:38:15] Rich: Tell you there's people faster than me here. Yes.  [00:38:18] Jason: Yeah. Cool. Well, Hey Rich, great to have you on here. Appreciate you hanging out with me and I'm excited to have you at DoorGrow Live.  [00:38:25] Jason: My pleasure. And thank you for having me today, Jason. [00:38:27] Jason: All right. So for those that are, you know, struggling with growth, you're wanting to figure out how to grow your property management business, or you're just getting stuck in the operational challenges. You're tired of telling your team all the time, thinking, "why won't they just think for themselves" and frustrated and you're dealing with operational systems challenges to get to that next level, reach out to us at DoorGrow. [00:38:49] Jason: We might be able to change your life. So, go to DoorGrow. com. And if you'd like to join our free community and Facebook group and, you know, learn about us get access to you know, some free stuff, go to doorgrowclub.Com to join our community. And of course, go check out DoorGrowLive.Com, get your tickets. [00:39:08] Jason: It's going to be in May and we would love to see there in person. And a little bit of that DoorGrow magic is going to change your life. We'll see you there. Bye everyone.

As 2024 comes to a close, we take a moment to reflect on what has been a busy year at Genomics England and in the wider genomics community. Throughout the year, guests have joined us to discuss groundbreaking research discoveries, important ethical considerations, and share their personal stories. It was also a year of transformation: we rebranded our podcast as Behind the Genes, welcomed Dr Rich Scott as our new Chief Executive Officer, and launched the Generation Study, in partnership with NHS England. The Participant Panel also saw changes, with Kirsty Irvine stepping into the role of Chair and Adam Clatworthy and Helen White becoming Vice Chairs. In this special end of year episode, Adam Clatworthy, Vice-Chair of the Participant Panel, sits down with Dr. Rich Scott, CEO of Genomics England, to look back on the highlights of 2024. Together, they revisit key podcast moments, reflect on research discoveries, and share insights into the evolving world of genomics. Below are the links to the podcasts mentioned in this episode, in order of appearance: Celebrating genomic breakthroughs - Insights from the Festival of Genomics Shining a light on rare conditions How has a groundbreaking genomic discovery impacted thousands worldwide? How can we work in partnership towards a new era of genomic medicine and research? How has design research shaped the Generation Study? How can we bridge the gap between diverse communities? Can Artificial Intelligence accelerate the impact of genomics? "It's really important that we just continue to bring that patient and participant community on that journey, just to ensure that they really understand the full benefits. And we've talked about that on the episode today. I know that the panel has always encouraged the Genomics England team to look at its boots while shooting for the moon. I really like that phrase just to make sure, look, we can't forget where we've come from to make sure we're taking people on that journey" You can download the transcript or read it below. Adam: Welcome to Behind the Genes.  Rich: Our vision at Genomics England is a world where everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare, thinking about how we ensure the lessons we've learnt through our diverse data programme is embedded across all of our work.  So that word “everyone” applies to people in lots of different ways, different communities people come from, different socioeconomic backgrounds, making sure that equity is baked into all of our work.  And there's real opportunity for genomics to play a broader role than in rare conditions and in cancer, we're proud of the impact we're already having there, and we should really look to the future.  Adam: My name is Adam Clatworthy, and I'm the Vice-Chair for rare conditions on the Participant Panel at Genomics England.  On today's episode, I'm going to be joined by Rich Scott, CEO of Genomics England.  We're going to be taking a look back at the key milestones from 2024 for Genomics England, and really discussing our hopes and aspirations for the year ahead.  During this episode we'll also hear from some of our guests we've had on the show this year, who have helped shape our discussions and shared some of their most impactful moments and insights.  And if you'd like to listen to more like this, then please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app.  So, with that, thanks for joining me, Rich, how are you doing?  Rich: I'm great, thanks for hosting today, I'm really excited about it.    Adam: So, Rich, it's been a pretty exciting year for you, you've taken on the CEO role at Genomics England full-time, so why don't you just start by telling us about how those first few months have been for you?  Rich: It's been a really exciting year, I think for us overall at Genomics England, and obviously personally taking on the CEO role, which is an enormous privilege.  I've been at Genomics England nine years, and I think both a privilege and a real responsibility to take on the role.  To think both about how we continue to honour the commitments we've given our participants and those we work with, and to think about the future, where we might go together, what evidence we need to generate, what our systems need to support.  So it's been great taking on the role, and thinking about that, both the present and the future, and there's been lots, as we'll talk about, there's been lots going on.  Adam: No, that's great.  And I must say for myself as well, I started the Vice-Chair role at a very similar time to you early in the year.  When I started, we were in the process of looking for our next Chair.  Obviously, we had Jillian and Rebecca, both standing down, after many years in the role.  They've been there from the start, really guiding the Panel through this amazingly successful period.  But for me, I've really enjoyed working in partnership with Helen, who is our Vice-Chair for cancer.  It's been a real partnership, in terms of filling in for that interim leadership role.  And we wanted to make sure that we weren't just caretakers, we were really continuing to be actively involved in a lot of the discussions that are happening with your colleagues across Genomics England.  Very much leading the Panel, and starting to have those important discussions around, where does the Panel go next?  And what's our strategy for the next two to three years?  What are the key areas that we can drive real value and impact, in line with your own milestones at Genomics England?    And, of course, I've just loved getting stuck into chairing the Panel meetings as well, for me, that's the best part, is really bringing together these amazingly diverse and passionate people.  With so many different personalities, lived experiences, and a combined passion for just taking this forward together, and making sure that the benefits of genomics really impact, and that's felt by the wider community itself.  So there's been lots of highlights to recognise this year, a real stand-out for me has to be the Genomics England Research Summit, from what I understand it was the most attended event to date.  And it was just so good to see that a lot of the Panel were front and centre across that event, sharing their stories, having a really active role, whether introducing speakers, or telling their own journeys as part of the Q&A sessions.   I myself was really privileged to be on stage with Baroness Nicola Blackwood, literally nine days after I officially started the role.  So it was great to just dive in at the deep end, get in front of an incredible audience, and just see that the broader Panel was front and centre of the event itself.  And it was just great to see how popular the event was, many more people coming to have a chat to us on the stand than would have found us before, so, all in all, a really big highlight for myself.  So, for you, Rich, are there any other highlights that you want to call out for this year?  Rich: And first to say, absolutely agree with the Research Summit being, you know, a highlight.  The diversity of the discussions that we had, it's one of the things we enjoy most about thinking about creating the summit, as you say, involving the participants very much at the centre.  Like, physically at the centre of the room, for people to come and talk to participants and hearing stories.  And then really seeing how over the years we can see the impact growing, and having talks, whether it's about individual findings, or big research studies.  So the final talk of the day was from Charlie Swanton.  He was talking about some really exciting work that his team have done in our National Genomics Research Library, making a really important discovery about extra chromosomal DNA in cancer, and that's now been published in Nature.  And then right next to him, we were having a policy talk from Sam, who's the CEO of NICE.  And you can see the range of things, the sorts of evidence, sorts of conversation, we need to have, so that was really fantastic.  I'd call out one discovery this year that maybe we'll come back to, and one other big highlight.  So I think the big discovery this year was the discovery of this piece of non-coding sequence in the genome called RNU4-2, which turns out to be pretty much the most common cause of developmental disorders that's been discovered.  And it's just so exciting to see that having been discovered in the National Genomics Research Library.  And then the news, the knowledge spread, across the world, and family support groups coming together to understand and learn more about what that means for them.  So that was, I think, the discovery over the years at Genomics England that's touched me most, seeing that story.  And I'd say for us, organisationally, another big highlight has been the launch of our newborns programme, the Generation Study.  So as lots of people listening will know, we've been actually thinking about what the questions underlying this study are for a good number of years, doing a lot of preparatory work.  Actually, before we even started, setting up public dialogue jointly with the National Screening Committee about what the public were keen to understand and the appetite for research in this area.  And then we've been spending several years designing the study, working with the NHS how to design, safely launch it, National Screening Committee involved all along, and working with patients and the public to design it.  And this year now launching the study at a public launch, just a couple of months ago, by the time people are listening to this, and at the time of recording, more than 2,000 families have joined the programme.    So really exciting, us exploring a really big question for genomics, about the use of whole genome sequencing in newborn babies.  Whether that should be offered to every baby at birth, primarily driven by that desire to do better for those children born with treatable conditions, where genetics, genomics, can be a way in to finding them, but doing that at the right pace, and very much in a research setting.  That's been a real, a moment, I think there's been so much work on the path to it, but it's right to sort of celebrate these staging posts on the way.  We're early in the programme, there's lots to do, lots to work through, lots of evidence that we'll accrue, but it's really exciting to be at that staging post.  Adam: No, absolutely, and from my side, I think seeing all of the media pick up for the Generation Study launch, you could really see the excitement in the wider kind of community.  Seeing it shared on social media, obviously those part of the 100,000 Genomes Project, seeing things like this.  It's like they can see the tangible outcomes of all the work that they've done as part of that initial project, and seeing how those learnings are then taken onto this new study.  So we'll now hear a clip from earlier in the year from Louise Fish, who is the former CEO of Genetic Alliance UK, who shares her thoughts on the potential of the Generation Study.  Louise: The Generation Study is looking at 200 conditions and whether it's possible to screen for them.  And for all of those 200 conditions, it's a really exciting opportunity to see if we can learn more.  Both about the potential to understand and develop treatments early, but also just about the chance to understand the natural history of that condition so much earlier than we do at the moment.  And I think that's it, it's that understanding the natural history of the condition really early, and understanding how a family can be helped, through all aspects of the condition, which is giving people most excitement I think, alongside the potential to develop treatments.  Adam: So now, let's look back at the priorities for Genomics England for 2025.  Now, Rich, would you like to just take us through some of the things you'll be focusing on next year?  Rich: Yes, one of the things that we've been doing this year, but also actually in the year before, is really looking to the future.  And saying, where might we be in terms of genomics really living up to the impact it could have, if we collectively, in the UK and working with international partners, sort of get things right?  And that's very much about balancing the realism of where we are, and the impact we're already having, and being proud of that, and then getting that same sort of ambition and realism casting to the future.  And I'd say, I think there are two really broad themes.  I think the first thing is, we're enormously proud of the impact we've had already for families with rare conditions, and people with cancer, and that impact will continue to grow in the coming years, in those areas.  And in the next few years, that's where the biggest impact of genomics will continue, and the rare disease programme we have thinking increasingly about how we support the generation of evidence and pathways that lead to rare therapies.    So building, getting better all the time at finding diagnoses, which is still a long journey we're on, and continuing that work.  Increasingly thinking about how we can support therapies, and in cancer, again, playing a better role in cancer, both by driving efficiency in diagnostics, and efficiency in identifying where therapies enabled by genomics can be targeted.  And we see lots of different examples of that, clinical trials is a big area where we hope to have more impact in the future, but also thinking about some of the novel therapies that are there, both for rare conditions, but also, for example, the cancer vaccines.  And I think we're uniquely placed in the UK, because of our partnership at Genomics England with the NHS, and the broader science ecosystem, to have that impact.  So that's the sort of like continuing very much where we are, but really pushing those boundaries.  And then also, if we look to the future, to say, what role could genomics play?  And we, as you know, our vision at Genomics England is a world that everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare, and I think that plays out in a couple of ways.  Firstly, thinking about how we ensure the lessons we've learnt through our diverse data programme is embedded across all of our work, so that word “everyone” applies to people in lots of different ways, different communities people come from, different socioeconomic backgrounds, making sure that equity is based into all of our work.  And then also, to say there's real opportunity for genomics to play a broader role than in rare conditions and in cancer, we're proud of the impact we're already having there, and we should really look to the future.  And as we set out where we think what evidence is needed and where we need to learn what the digital infrastructure that we build and others build, need to build that to support that, we look across a few different areas.  But really you can see genomics playing a role across the lifetime, in different places in different roles.   To pick one really powerful example is something people often refer to as pharmacogenomics.  Which is a medical term for what boils down to look at a person's DNA sequence, that's the genomics bit, and making decisions based on what drug to give them, what drugs to avoid, or perhaps what dose to drug to give them.  Based on, for example, the desire to avoid adverse drug reactions that people might be at high risk of, and you can identify that risk looking at the DNA.  That is one example of genomics playing a role in being increasingly sort of preventive, getting away from disease, getting upstream of disease arising, or harm arising.  And there are other opportunities in common disease as well, sort of casting forward to what that impact might be, and we feel that genomics could play a role, really broadly, across healthcare, in probably as many as half of all healthcare encounters.    But what we need to do over the coming years for that to potentially be the case is we need to build out the evidence, and we also need to understand what digital infrastructure we need, to make that a possibility.  So that the information is there in simple format, for patients and the public, for their GPs, for their pharmacist, for people in any speciality in hospital, not just sort of rare disease clinics or in cancer, as we are at the moment.  And so very much we're thinking about the programmes that we and others could run to ask some of those questions, to think about what we need to build out.  We feel that the UK's uniquely placed to develop that evidence, so that we can make the choices about how genomics is used, and so we can be ready to embed it.    And it really aligns with that shift that we see and we hear, for example, in government being talked about, when we're looking about sort of the shifts that the NHS sees as essential.  You know, increasingly preventive, increasingly digital, increasingly in the community, and that point of sort of getting upstream.  And genomics is going to be an important part of that.  And we at Genomics England are really excited about the role that we can play, whether it's through the digital infrastructure we build, whether it's the programmes that we run to develop the evidence.  Or whether it's through the ethics and the engagement work, the work with the Panel, and the work with the wider public, to understand how we might develop this evidence, what people are comfortable with, what the expectations are.  And I think that, pulling that together is complex, it's really exciting to think about how we do it.  I think we in the UK are uniquely placed to take advantage of that.  Adam: That's great, and I think the pharmacogenomics piece is fascinating.  I mean, you hear many stories of people having adverse reactions to certain medications, and you wouldn't even think it's something that may be linked to their genetic makeup.  It's so important that we take people along that journey, around what the benefits are, the ethics, to make sure that people really understand the journey that we're making and what the potential impact could be.  Whilst there's lots of amazing new areas to develop into, a key focus for us on the Panel is really continuing to demonstrate how the 100,000 Genomes Project participants continue to have an impact, and they're helping shape a lot of these developments.  So they generously donated their data, it not only helps Genomics England develop the systems and services that now benefit many families, but it also continues to drive that scientific and technological enhancement.  So it wasn't just about reaching that 100,000 genomes, that project was really the starting point, as it were, it's not the finish line, it laid the groundwork for a lot of these developments.  So it's about how do we focus on maximising the benefit for those participants over their lifetime, not just at that one point in time.    We know genomics is evolving so rapidly, what you can glean from a genome today is far more than what was possible in 2013.  And we know the Diagnostic Discovery team is continuing to analyse the data for participants in the project based on these new advances, the team led by Suzi (Walker), who's doing some amazing work there.  Using all the latest tools and enhancements, just to make sure that those participants are really benefiting from that learning.  So, we just need to make sure we stay close to that wider community, and just ensure they're not forgotten, that's really a key north star for us as the Panel.  And something that we've been pushing is better ways that we can help to communicate the ways that you're celebrating these successes, providing regular updates on research progress, offering personalised reports based on the latest findings.  And it's all about providing them with that hope.  Some people may never get a diagnosis, but it's about giving the hope that one day they might get that phone call out of the blue, so it's about giving the hope that those possibilities are out there for others.    So we're now going to shift gear onto hearing from Shaun Pye, who is the father of Joey.  She was diagnosed with DYRK1A syndrome, which is a rare chromosomal disorder, which causes a degree of developmental delay or learning difficulty, at the age of just thirteen.  In this podcast episode, Shaun and his wife Sarah told us of their journey to Joey's diagnosis, and how their role in writing the BBC television comedy drama series, There She Goes, has helped to shine a light on the rare condition community.  Shaun: Then the opportunity came along with 100,000 Genomes, and we signed up immediately.  And then that, they did that, and it was a few years before that went through the system, and then we had, out of the blue really, we were asked to go and see a geneticist, and we had no idea that this is what it was.  I honestly thought it was just a routine sort of, we've got a few more theories or something, and she just said, “We've found out what it is.”  And it's like, that moment is, well, we tried to describe it in the TV programme, but it is quite hard to describe what goes through your mind, when after thirteen and a half years somebody suddenly says, “Oh, by the way, that thing that happened with your daughter, we've worked out what it is.”  Adam: So here, Rich, did you want to provide some updates around future progress, particularly in diagnostic discovery and expanding the research?  Rich: When we're looking to the future, we're looking sort of in two areas.  How we can build the impact we're having today for families with rare conditions and cancer, and that very much includes the participants in our programmes, 100,000 Genomes, those through the NHS Genomic Medicine Service, who joined the National Genomic Research Library.  And we've seen, I think the number that I'm most proud of at Genomics England is that number of diagnostic discoveries returned to the NHS, which has just hit the 4,000 mark.  And for those less familiar with the terminology, essentially what that means is where either researchers or the internal team at Genomics England have identified changes in the genome data, that with new knowledge, often with a fine tooth comb, it's considered likely that that is the answer to the cause of the rare condition in that person in the programme.  So that's 4,000 of those returned to the NHS.    And that tells you a lot about where we are for families with rare conditions, and I think there's two points here.  The first one is, we've got a long way still to go to do what we want to for families with rare conditions.  I'm a doctor and still see families in my clinic once a month at Great Ormond Street, even with the incredible advances we've had over the last particularly 10or 15 years, with the changes in sequencing and analysis, we still find an answer for the minority of families.  So that number is growing, and we're really proud of how much better we've done, and there's a long way left to go.  And the really critical thing is designing a system which we're so lucky with in the UK here, where we can continue to learn.  And that's not just for learning for the knowledge of people who might encounter the health system in the future.  It's to learn for those people who've joined the National Genomics Research Library, who've already trusted us to be the custodians of their data, and to do better in the future.  And that's what our diagnostic discovery work really aims to do.  And sometimes that's about new gene discoveries.  So all the time new things are being discovered each year.  And if you look at the DNA code, if you like, boil it down very simply.  99% of it is what we call non-coding DNA, I'll come back to that, about 1% is the genes, which if you like are sort of the books in the library of the DNA, overall DNA code, that we understand relatively well how they're read by the body.  The bits in between, it's a bit of a funny, well-spaced out library this one, that's the 99%, actually we've had very little understanding of most of that code in between.  But we're beginning, and particularly this year, to gain an understanding of how we might interrogate some of those pieces.  And not all of the answers lie in that non-coding DNA, there's lots of answers still left in genes that we don't understand well.    But one of the examples I mentioned earlier, and in fact the thing, the single discovery I guess which I'm most proud of having happened in the National Genomic Research Library is this discovery of this non-coding region called RNU4-2.  Which is a funny, like technical series of letters and numbers, but basically it's a very small patch of the whole DNA code.  Where this year, scientists discovered actually about 60 patients in the families in the National Genomic Research Library where that was the cause of their child's developmental disorder.  Actually, that knowledge has really rapidly spread across the world.  So I actually saw on social media at the weekend, from one of the scientists involved in the discovery, that the family support group that's been set up for what they're calling ReNu syndrome, which I think is a lovely name in itself, speaks to that word hope that you mentioned, Adam.  There are now 248 members of that group, and that's how fast that knowledge spreads across the world.  And what we're doing is thinking how we can support those discoveries more broadly, and non-coding DNA is one of those areas where that growth is, but it's not the only one where we're looking to support things.  But it's so exciting, and I think it gives you a sense of the scale of progress that is left to make.  And I think a really important point is that remains a really important area of our focus, it's not about moving on and looking just to the future, but we need to keep working for the families who are already part of our programmes.    Adam: That's incredible, that 248 members in such a short space of time.  And I love the ReNu name for that, I agree, I think that's a fantastic way of positioning it.  Earlier this year, we heard from Lindsay Pearse, whose son Lars received a diagnosis through that groundbreaking discovery of the genetic change in the RNU4-2, or ReNu gene, which was made possible by whole genome sequencing.  She told us what the diagnosis meant for their family.  Lindsay: This feeling that, like, we've been on this deserted island for eight years, and now all of a sudden, you're sort of like looking around through the branches of the trees, and it's like, wait a minute, there are other people on this island.  And in this case, actually there's a lot more people on this island.  Yes, it's very exciting, it's validating, it gives us a lot of hope and, you know, it has been quite emotional too (laughter).  And also, a bit of an identity shift, because I spoke earlier about how being undiagnosed had become quite a big part of our identity, and so now that's kind of shifting a little bit, that we have this new diagnosis, and are part of a new community.  Adam: You talked about it there, Rich, I mean, it's been really seen as a success story for the whole genomics ecosystem, especially the speed at which it all came together.  From the conversations I had with some of the individuals that were involved in the study, from the date of seeing the first findings in the lab meeting to a polished pre-print going live, was exactly 47 days, which in science terms is less than a second.  So that's how they positioned it to me, incredible.  And you've just said there, they set up this support group earlier this year, and already got 248 members, which is incredible.  The impact on families is significant, the mother touched upon it there.  I mean, for many parents there is that relief that it wasn't something they did during pregnancy, but instead, it is a chance occurrence.  For some, this knowledge means that they can make important decisions, choosing to grow their family, for example.  And it really ends that diagnostic odyssey that many families face, providing answers and potentially ending unnecessary testing that their child is going through.  But I think, and I can talk from personal experience here, that the largest impact is really being able to connect with other families and building that community, you cannot really understate that.  If I look at our own experience of getting a CRELD1 diagnosis for our children, the first time we didn't feel alone was when we could find that community.  We can support each other, we can learn from each other's experiences, and really also drive forward further research into that condition through advocacy.  So, I remember seeing that post on the Facebook page, about that RNU4-2 discovery, and this was before I'd even started in the role at Genomics England on the Panel, but you could really feel that excitement and the relief that they had.  And they mentioned that the official paper only had 36 other people worldwide, they found this little Facebook group that they created with five families in, and in the space of, what, 6, 7 months, they're already at 248.  That's all people that understand what they're going through.  And it's really hard to describe, it's like finding your family that you've never met, people that understand, and they really get what you're going through.  And being able to share tips, advice, learnings, and things that everyone's going through at different stages in their child's life.  So, I really don't think you can talk highly enough of that, that community aspect, and that's just been amazing to see.  And, look, this new era of research into the role of non-coding RNA genes, it really may open more opportunities for diagnoses for patients, participants potentially leading to hopefully more breakthroughs in the year ahead.  So now we're going to move on to why it's so important to engage patients and participants in the genomics world.  So, we'll now hear a clip from Helen White, who is the Vice-Chair for cancer on the Participant Panel.  Now Helen and I have been working really closely together as Vice-Chairs in this interim leadership role, to really ensure that we continue advancing the Panel's strategic initiatives while we recruit that new Chair.  So it's been amazing learning and working with Helen.  In this clip, she discussed an important topic that's been very much top of mind of the Panel, which is the importance of involving the patients and public in genomics research.  Helen: I think, you know, as patients, members of the public, we're eager to get on and for change to happen and things to be better, but it's, yes, a big, big process.  But also, good to hear that you talk about it being a collaborative approach, it's not just Genomics England, it's the NHS, it's members of the public and patient voices, it's other organisations working in partnership.  Adam: Now I think we all recognise the importance of engaging patients and public to ensure diverse communities understand the benefits of genomics, and actively involving patients and participants in the research, to make sure that they're including the perspective of what matters most to them.   Rich: I mean, it goes back to the thing that we really see as central to the value that we at Genomics England can provide.  So we increasingly think of ourselves as a data and evidence engine for national scale genomics, and I think a really important to call out there is that evidence is broad.  And part of that evidence is about public expectations, public preferences, and patient preferences.  And if you think about the big things that we do and where we bring that value, and bring that data and evidence engine role, is, you know, firstly in the digital infrastructure that we build and the data that we hold and present to our various users.  Secondly, it's in the evidence that we distil from that, and very much thinking about part of that being evidence in and around, including that piece on what people expect, this isn't just about hard science and health economics, this is an equally if not more important part of that.  And then thirdly, it is the third area of our focus is on that engagement piece, because that's so fundamental.  And I think you and Helen called that out absolutely right, about that being, that's integral to the whole process, and it's the beginning of any programme you need to start with understanding what the big drivers are, what the expectations are, and doing this very much together.  That's one of the reasons we're so fortunate to have the Participant Panel we do, in our Newborns Programme the Panel have been an important part of that design from the outset.  It's also about broader engagement with different communities, people who currently don't engage with genomics, because they've had no need to, sort of understanding that piece.  And I think we've definitely seen over time in health data research, but also research more broadly, where it's quite easy for these things to be disconnected.  And that results in two things.  It results in research happening about interesting esoteric stuff, but not on the stuff that makes a difference for families.  And I think that's really important, because researchers need to be directed in the resource limited world towards the things that really make a difference.  So that's the first thing.  And the second thing is, it's very easy, with the best will in the world, for people to make wrong judgements about what people are or aren't content with, and you need therefore to be absolutely transparent about what the research is.  Be really clear about what those questions are, and let people challenge you, right from the outset, so that we can design research studies, but also, the system as a whole, together in a way that everyone has a say.  Not everyone has the same view, but how we can develop a system that takes into account those things and gets that balance right.  This is about making a difference to people's health outcomes, thinking about how we achieve that, while also balancing off all of the different views there are, is really important.  And that's at the heart of it.  And it can be scary, because it's right that there is that challenge out there.  And it's one of the things that I think we've learnt at Genomics England, how important it is to be really open to that challenge, and to do that piece really early in all of our work, and have it there baked into our governance as well, for example, the Participant Panel.  Adam: Absolutely, and I think you've summarised all the key areas there really well, in terms of the importance of that engagement.  And one other area I'd just like to pick up on is the impact it can have on the patients or the participants, simply by having that connection with the researcher, that's doing all of the amazing stuff that for some of us, it's really hard to comprehend.  But having that interaction and collaboration with them, it's so important in terms of, again, I go back to giving you that hope.  And a real highlight for me at the Genomics England Research Summit was when Hannah, one of the members of our Panel, she came running over to us and she was just beaming.  And she said, “Guys, you'll never guess what, I've just met the scientist who discovered my daughter's diagnosis in the NGRL.”  And you could see that she was so excited, you cannot understate the impacts that can have on them as a family.  Like having that interaction and that personal connection with the person that really in some ways kind of changed their lives, in terms of understanding more about what that could mean for their daughter growing up, and how they're managing the condition.  So, it's amazing when you can see those highlights and hopefully we'll see more of those.  And it's also really important that we get that diversity I think, as well, in that collaborative approach, just to make sure that it is equitable for all.  And that really brings us on nicely to the next topic, which is about how do we bridge the gap between those diverse communities, and make sure that we're reaching everyone as best as possible?  So we're now going to hear a clip from Sandra Igwe.  Sandra is a CEO and founder of the Motherhood Group, speaking about the Generation Study.  Now, Sandra spoke about the importance of building trust, and how it is vital to engage with a diverse group of communities in the design of research studies.  Sandra: Every community's different, and every patient is different as well.  And so that may require different focuses or different formats or different messengers for different groups.  And so we like to have people with lived experience from the community representing that, and also driving the uptake of consent as well.  But failing to engage diverse voices can lead to perpetuating inequalities in access and uptake.  So it's really important to have representation, because the lack of it in research can overlook communities' specific concerns and needs.  Adam: So, Rich, did you want to talk about why it's so important to have that diversity?  Rich: Yes, I mean, it's critical.  One, I mentioned earlier, our vision as an organisation is a world where everyone benefits from genomic healthcare, and that word “everyone” really resonates.  I think Sandra has been really an important part of the work that we've done over the last couple of years, particularly through our Diverse Data programme.  But I think one of the real challenges for us is how we make sure that that is something which is embedded across all of our work.  And that's something that we're really focused on at the moment, how we embed the learnings that we've had through that standalone Diverse Data programme into everything we do.  Because we're absolutely committed to that, and I think that is engagement with the diversity of different groups relevant to each programme.  I think one of the real important things is that transparency piece about actually that it's hard to achieve equity in healthcare, full stop, because of historical underinvestment in some of these areas.  And I think being clear with people about that is a really important step, and then talking really practically about why it really makes sense to take different approaches.  And so one thing about our programmes and how we think about the future overall, if genomics is going to make a difference to more than half of healthcare encounters, it needs to be something that across all communities, and across the large majority of people in each of those, that this is something that they want to be part of.  Because it's going to make a difference for them or their families or something they really buy into.  And that's why this isn't just about thinking only about specific programmes where this is a question, it's about making sure that we're designing a system, developing the evidence that is really broadly applicable, and continues to learn.  Because we know that what we learn today is hopefully an improvement on where we are, but we continue to learn and learn and learn.  And it's about creating a system that does that, and does that equitably, or as equitably as we can.  Adam: So we're now going to hear from Moestak Hussein, who works to build and embed cohesion, inclusion, and social justice, in her role at Bristol City Council, in public health and communities.  Moestak talks about the value of co-production, and how this can help to build trust with communities who have historically been underserved or mistreated.  Moestak: If we talk about co-production, true co-production is really creating a power balance where there's no hierarchy, it's an empowering model.  It empowers both the researchers or the person that comes in, but also the communities that participate, and you all start on the same level, on the same outcomes and the same goals and aims that you want to achieve.  Adam: So, if I look at that from our perspective on the Panel, I think co-production in genomics research, so using participant data in the NGRL, is certainly what we'd like to see much more of.  To ensure that research is not only relevant to its intended audience, but also aligns with broader democratic principles of citizenship, accountability, and that transparency as well.  But look, we have to be realistic.  Some genomics research projects are not going to lend themselves to meaningful patient and public involvement in the early stages, but it's really important later on in the research pathway, if the findings identify a patient population who might benefit from that research.  At the moment, involvement of patients and participants, carers in research, is really not great, in terms of the researchers using the NGRL.  So, in conversations what we're hearing is they're saying, “Well, we don't know how to do it, we don't know what steps we should take.”  Or “We don't think it's relevant because we do this particular research.”    But really, our view is that some PPIE, or patient and public involvement engagement is better than none.  Some may not be relevant for all stages of the research pathway, we're not really seeing enough of that happening at the moment, and some papers are even being published without any context of the participants' lived experience at all.  Which can actually be quite frustrating, if you're that patient or parent, and you see a paper published, and you think, well, actually, why didn't they reach out to us?  Just to understand a bit about the symptoms that we're experiencing, what are the challenges that we're facing, just to really add that important context.  So, I think there's certainly an opportunity for us on the Panel, certainly for Genomics England, to be that kind of guiding light for those researchers.  Whether it's providing them with researchers, research papers, or a hub of patient advocacy organisations that are already connecting those patients with researchers.  It's all about signposting them the relevant information, so I think there's certainly things we can do there.  And it really fits in with the bigger engagement piece.  So, whether there's a landing page or a dedicated website that shows them, where do they go, what are the steps that they can take, what's the best practice, what's worked well for another researcher, and how did that lead to really great outcomes for the families involved?  That's where I think we can all play a part in guiding them on that journey, rather than it just being a case of, they're not doing that patient and participant engagement very well, and kind of criticising it.  Let's reach out to them and say, “Look, we can help you and guide you on that journey.”  Rich: I really agree with the need to make those connections happen.  One of the things I think that is often missing is just a confidence just to crack on and do some of this stuff.  And I think, actually, looking at the ReNu syndrome experience, that was work that was swiftly done.  Scientific at the beginning, the initial publication put out there so that people could understand, and was quite medical by necessity, in terms of the speed of getting information out there.  And then very quickly, and quite organically, patient support groups have formed, and also, the scientists are working with that group.  I had a really interesting conversation with Sarah Wynn, who's the CEO of the Unique last week, about how some of that has played out, how the role they've played in facilitating some of that.  And some of it just comes down to sort of really simple things, and working through how you can set up Zoom or whatever meeting, for people to learn about the condition.  And how you preserve anonymity, where that's appropriate, but also allow people to have discussions about their loved ones where they want to, etc.  So it's partly just about giving people the space and the confidence to get on with some of these things.  And as you say our, one of the things we at Genomics England are quite thoughtful about, and I think it's a really good topic to continue talking to the Panel about, is how we get that balance right.  Where, actually, us being a connector and, as you say, signposting useful resources or ways of doing these things, just to break down some of those barriers.  Because almost always the research groups, when they discover something new, this is really new territory for them, and they're often nervous about doing the wrong thing.  And so it's about breaking down some of that anxiety actually I think.  Adam: Yes, absolutely.  In our case, with our condition that we're advocating for our son, we've been working with a researcher.  And it's almost on us as well just to kind of share our story with them, and making them feel more comfortable to ask us questions and be very open and transparent about the more we can share, the more that can hopefully benefit their research moving forward.  It's very much a two-way thing as well, but I like what you said there about having the confidence just to kind of reach out and start those conversations, and have that starting point.  Next topic, we're going to look at some of the innovations that are on the horizon, that we're seeing in the world of genomics.  So, Rich, do you want to take us through what are the most exciting things that you're exploring at the moment?  I know we hear a lot about AI and the technological aspect, so why don't you take us through some of those?  Rich: Yes, so I guess this comes back to that question where we've been looking forward, you know, where might genomics be impactful and making a real difference to people's lives, to helping us have a more efficient healthcare system in the future?  And I think part of that is about this general shift.  You know, genomics technology, we just take for granted now how much it's shifted, how it's within the means of the healthcare system to generate genomic data.  And we're really fortunate in this country because of the digital infrastructure that we've been able to build together with the NHS, that opens up a lot of these questions.  And it's just extraordinary the time we're at in genomics, so almost take those two things for granted, which we should never do.  The change in genomic testing technology, which continues to advance, and secondly, thinking about the digital infrastructure, like the nuts and bolts of what we've got, and the ability to safely store and reuse and analyse some of that data at scale.  And point at two big things.  Firstly, genomics enabled therapies are changing a lot.  So, our understanding, our ability to make a diagnosis, or understand what's different about a cancer, for example, mean that in various ways it's becoming feasible to do more tailored therapies.  Where knowing that, the genomics nitty-gritty of that condition, helps you tailor that, or create sometimes even a bespoke personalised, truly for that one individual, therapy.  And in rare conditions we see that with the so-called N=1 therapies, but also with gene therapies and so forth.  And in cancer we see that with the cancer vaccines, for example.  So that's an enormous area of change, and one of our responsibilities is to support that sort of research, to help identify people who might be eligible for trials or treatments.  But it's also to work with the ecosystem to think about how we can help support the generation of evidence that means that those therapies can be affordable and so forth, on a scalable basis.  So that's one really big area of excitement.  And we see our Rare Therapies Launch Pad being part of that, the National Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad, being part of that.  So that's thing one.  Thing two is AI and machine learning, and I think sat on alongside the sort of broader picture of saying, there's a lot left to learn, there's enormous potential in genomics in terms of playing a role in many different situations, not just in rare conditions, in cancer.  And we know doing that well, but also scaling it, making it really efficient, so that we can do that in a context of a really busy health service, one of the answers is making sure that we're leveraging everything we can about the potential of AI.  And there's lots of different ways in which that can be supportive, I won't list lots of them.  But one of the things that we're doing at Genomics England and working with the NHS is thinking about the most promising areas.  And some of those are quite, like, down and dirty, if you like, so sort of saying, which jobs are there that we can use AI, if you like, as a co-pilot, alongside experienced scientists, to speed up their work?  And we're really excited about the role we can play in a few ways actually.  So the first one, back to that sort of data and evidence engine point, is helping organisations who have a tool, help validate it for use in the NHS, and say, “Does it perform to this standard?  What do we want to say about how it performs from an equity point of view?  And from a clinical safety point of view?” etc.  And making that leap from stuff that makes a Nature paper to stuff that lands in clinic is surprisingly challenging, and that's one of our roles.  And we really enjoyed working with various companies and academics over the last few years on that.  We did some work recently with Google DeepMind, on their AlphaMissense tool, thinking about how we can think about that role that might play, for example, in speeding up the interpretation of rare variants that might cause rare conditions.  And there's enormous potential in all sorts of different parts of the sort of end to end of genomics playing a role in healthcare.  And then I'd also say one of the really important things is because genomics in many ways just needs to be part of healthcare and not be treated differently, we also need to recognise where there are questions we need to work through really thoroughly that are a bit more bespoke.  And one of the things that we're really committed to doing, as we look to the future, is making sure that we can support on some of those questions that we really need to be clear on.  I'll go back to that point on, what do we mean about making sure we understand how a tool is working, and whether it's producing results in an equitable way for all different communities?  How do we understand that?  How do we explain what we understand about the performance of a tool?  How do we make sure that patient identifiable data remains non-identifiable if a tool's been built, trained on data?  Working through some of those questions.  But they're really important for us to do, and we're enormously excited about the potential, and we're really committed to working through in detail how we can make that path to adoption safely and in the way that everyone would expect and desire as rapid as possible.  We're just one step in that process.  But we really see a sort of important role for helping people who are producing various tools or various use cases, helping them prove them, helping them validate them, and making the system more efficient overall, but in ways that we really understand.  Adam: That's fantastic.  Look, not that I'm biased at all, but I can tell you that the AlphaMissense innovations that are being developed are shared a lot internally at Google, it has been seen as an amazing success case.  So hopefully we'll see more on that moving forward.  But in the next clip, we're going to hear from Francisco.  So Francisco is the Director of Bioinformatics at Genomics England, who tells us more about the application of AI and its benefits in genomics in healthcare.  Francisco: So AI is already driving the development of personalised medicine for both research and healthcare purposes.  Now at Genomics England we are investigating the use of AI to support a number of tasks, for the potential impact in both research and healthcare.  In the context of healthcare, we are talking about AI tools that can support the prioritisation, the ranking of genomic variants to allow clinicians to make more accurate and faster diagnosis.  Adam: While all of these innovations sound really exciting, it's really important that we just continue to bring that patient and participant community on that journey, just to ensure that they really understand the full benefits, and we talked about that on the episode today.  I know that the panel has always encouraged Genomics England team to look at its boots while shooting for the moon.  I really like that phrase, just to make sure, look, we can't forget where we've come from to make sure we're taking people on that journey.  So, we're going to wrap up there.  Thank you to Rich Scott for joining me today, as we reflected on key milestones for 2024, and looked at the year ahead for both Genomics England and the wider genomic ecosystem.  If you enjoyed today's episode, we'd love your support.  Please like, share and rate us on wherever you listen to your podcasts.  I've been your host, Adam Clatworthy, this podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital and produced by Naimah Callachand.  Thank you everyone for listening. 

As we approach the conclusion of 2023, we reflect on a year that not only signifies our 10-year anniversary but also marks another chapter of The G Word. Throughout the year, guests have joined us fortnightly to share their research, stories, and aspirations for the future of genomic healthcare.  In this special end-of-year episode, Naimah Callachand sits down with Dr Rich Scott, Interim Chief Executive Officer at Genomics England, to look back on the last decade of Genomics England. Tune in as we revisit memorable moments from the 2023 podcast episodes through key quotes, reflecting on the transformative journey of Genomics England. Join us for this insightful recap and a glimpse into the exciting future ahead!  Below are the links to the podcasts mentioned in this episode, in order of appearance:  Adam Rutherford, Laurence Hurst, Cristina Fonseca and Vivienne Parry: Public views on genetics - what have we learnt?  Dr Jack Bartram: Can genomics improve our understanding of childhood cancers?  Helen Webb, Lizzie Mordey, Kirsty Russell and Prabs Arumugam: How can advances in genome sequencing support patients through their sarcoma journey? Vivienne Parry and David Bick: Which conditions will we look for initially in the Generation Study?   Dr Nicola Byrne: What are the challenges of data governance in the digital age?  Chris Wigley: The journey to the Human Genome Project and beyond with Dr Francis Collins   “We're also looking to the future where, as I say, we're proud of the impact that there already has been, and the NHS Genomic Medicine Service is the first national healthcare system to offer whole genome sequencing and that is extraordinary. Thinking about how we can broaden our impact is a really important part of that, and that's thinking about how we can be supportive of genomic technologies broader than just whole genome.”    You can read the transcript below or download it here: Reflecting-on-2023-transcript.docx   Naimah: Welcome to the G Word. Rich: We're in an extraordinary time. The power to analyse genomic data has changed enormously. These are big changes in terms of the, sort of, analytics that AI could bring and the potential to work not just within the UK but with other countries and other big initiatives to make sure that we're answering the questions as best we can. Naimah: I'm your host Naimah Callachand and today we'll be hearing from Rich Scott, Interim CEO for Genomics England. He'll be sharing insights with us from the last year, and we'll be revisiting key moments from earlier podcasts in the year featuring some of the voices that have shaped our discussions. If you enjoyed today's episode we would love your support, please like, share and rate us on wherever you listen to your podcasts. Now let's get into the interview. So, this year we celebrated our ten-year anniversary and as 2023 comes to a close we want to reflect on our achievements not just in the last year but over the last ten. So, Rich first of all can you talk us through where we started in 2013 and where we are now? Rich: It's amazing really to think about how much things have changed in terms of genomics in clinic and in hospitals and then for us as Genomics England over the last ten years. So, actually thinking back ten years ago was only ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, and when one thinks about what one could do in clinic and those questions you could answer using genomics in clinic. We could see what was coming, we could see these new technologies, next generation sequence in coming, but it was much more dependent on very targeted testing. And now with, you know, our founding project, the 100,000 Genomes Project that Genomics England was founded to deliver in partnership with the NHS we asked the first big question if you like which was how can whole genome sequencing play a role in routine clinical care. And that's now played out where evidence from the project, what we've learnt, the infrastructure we've built, and also evidence from around the world that through the NHS Genomics Medicine Service has now put that into practice and we're working in partnership to help them deliver it. So, it has gone from an idea where we could see this new technology, this potential, to a position where now patients in the NHS with cancer or with rare conditions have whole genome sequencing as a routine part of their clinical care where that's in that national genomic test directory that NHS England have set up. Naimah: Earlier in the year we heard from Dr Adam Rutherford, geneticist, author and broadcaster who commented on how the public perception of genetics and science has evolved over the last few decades. “I've been doing this a long time and I think that when it comes down to it, genetics which is a relatively young science and really in a sophisticated way, you know, a mere few decades old, but what is it at its absolute core, it's thinking about families, it's thinking about inheritance and it's thinking about sex. And these have been the major preoccupations of humans for thousands of years, and it's only really in the last century, really only in the last 30 years or so, that we've had a sophisticated understanding of how these things work, if indeed we have had at all.” Naimah: Let's get back to Rich. Rich, I've already touched briefly on it, but can we dive a bit deeper into the 100,000 Genomes Project and can you tell me a bit more about how it started. Rich: Yes, so the 100,000 Genomes Project as I said was there to ask what role can whole genome sequencing play in understanding medical conditions, you know, is it ready for clinical prime time. And also how can we link routine clinical care to research so that we're not just asking questions with today's knowledge, but we can continue to build that knowledge for the future. So, the 100,000 Genomes Project was driven by that idea that people realising, the government realising and the NHS forming a partnership with us Genomics England to explore that question in real depth. And it's not just about the clinical aspects and the scientific questions, it has also been working with participants and the public to understand how we could do that. And through the 100,000 Genomes Project we worked particularly with patients with cancer and rare conditions to see how we could help make diagnosis and improve care. And also with their consent make their data available in our secure, trusted research environment so that researchers could continue to look for answers that we couldn't answer today, and we continue to do that work for those participants now. Naimah: Next we're going to hear from an interview with Dr Jack Bartram, a Consultant Paediatric Haematologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. He spoke about the significance and impact of integrating genomics into routine clinical care in diagnosing cancer in children. “If I look back and if I reflect on the last three years, you know, we could probably accurately say at least a quarter of patients it has given us additional information which is either aided in diagnosis or like I had said help risk stratify a patient or potentially reveal a target for a therapy that we didn't know of before. And what this has led to and what we've seen over the last three years or so is that we have actually changed management of patients based on this. So, definitely we've got examples where we scan clarify the diagnosis, we've changed the risk category, or we've identified for example that an unexpected cancer predisposition in a family which has then led onto screening for the family which can then give the family the knowledge to try and do things to either modify the risk of cancer in the family or at least screen for it so they can detect things early to prevent things presenting too late.” Naimah: Okay, now let's talk a little bit about some of the initiatives at Genomics England. Can we talk about how they've progressed and what they might look like in the future. Rich: Yeah, so we really are on a journey both as an organisation but with all of those partners that we work with across the UK system. And one of the great things I think about genomics and genomics in the UK is that the ecosystem that we're in and the strong partnerships that we can form to ask these really big questions. So, if you like when we formed as an organisation we had the questions that we're asking around diagnostic use of whole genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project. And if you like in our second chapter as we've moved on to support the NHS in delivery of life clinical care we also have been thinking about the other big questions that we need to address. And those have played out and we've been really fortunate to gain the funding and to work in partnership with the NHS and others on these big questions. So, firstly our newborn genomes programme, secondly our diverse data programme and then our cancer 2.0 initiative. And each of them have big questions behind them so that we're saying, you know, where could genomics better support healthcare and move forward and improve care for everyone. Our vision at Genomics England is a world where everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare and each of them is pushing those boundaries, asking those questions in different ways. For the newborns programme the big question is should every newborn baby be offered whole genome sequencing driven particularly by that potential to identify more treatable severe genetic conditions at birth, and if so how should we do that. Again, developing evidence in and around really broadly across the clinical and scientific aspects, but also engaging and understanding public attitudes how we might do that. And really understanding how that might impact on the healthcare system, how it might be delivered in clinical care. For the diverse data initiative we recognise the challenges historically that there have been because of the inequity in terms of the communities who have been engaged with and included in genomic research. And the diverse data initiative aims to both understand where we are today but also to make sure for example the national genomic research library is at least representative of the UK population so that we can work towards again that word that's in our vision, everyone, a world where everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare. And in the cancer 2.0 initiative we've been exploring two really promising areas in terms of cancer genomics. Firstly, exploring different sequencing technologies and in this case partnering with the NHS to work on the Oxford Nanopore technology which we think is really promising in terms of use in diagnostics to speed up and better diagnose and treat cancers. And also looking in our multimodal element of our cancer 2.0 initiative at bringing in a broader range of data alongside the genomic and clinical data that participants in our programme consent to us holding in our trusted research environments. And bringing in image data, images of their tumours on the histopathology slides that are looked at traditionally down a microscope but scanning those at very high resolution and with uniformity between participants working with NPIC to do that. And also bringing in imaging, so radiology type imaging, of tumours so that that data is there to drive new discovery. And working in partnership with academics and with industry for example insitro to understand how we can both bring that data together usefully, put the right tools next to it and then allow that discovery so that our participants know that we're looking not just on what we know today but to improve things for the future. Naimah: Rich mentioned some of our initiatives here at Genomics England. And now we're going to hear from some G Word guests on how these programmes can make a difference for those with a genetic diagnosis. We spoke to Lizzy Mordey, a clinical trials co-ordinator, whose husband Steve sadly passed away last year after receiving a sarcoma diagnosis. Lizzy commented on the pivotal role whole genome sequencing can play in receiving a quicker diagnosis on the identification of suitable treatments for patients with sarcoma. “Personally, I would hope for quicker diagnosis, and I know that's super hard to do and I think as we've discussed before on this call it's such a rare thing and it, kind of, often doesn't fit the standard clinical pathway and that's one of the reasons why it's so frustrating. So, anything that we can do on that front that I think would be hugely valuable to anyone experiencing a journey like what me and Steve went through, and yes advances like genome sequencing are really amazing in supporting that. Yes, as I mentioned as well any information about types of treatment, you know, the diagnosis is important but then the other aspect of getting a diagnosis and a specific diagnosis is understanding what's most likely to help.” Naimah: Next we're going to hear from David Bick who is a principal clinician for the Newborn Genomes Programme at Genomics England. He spoke about the generation study which is being delivered in partnership with the NHS. “I'm doing this because I imagine a day when all over the world we will find and treat children before they get ill. This is one of the most wonderful programmes to be involved with because I can see that future. I want there to be a healthcare system. I really want to help children stay healthy and really live their best lives, that's what's so exciting for me.” Naimah: Now let's get back to the interview with Rich. You mentioned all of the partnerships there and also one important one is with the NHS. As you know the NHS also celebrated its 75th anniversary year as well as our tenth anniversary. And I wondered if you could tell me a bit more about that relationship with Genomics England and the NHS and how we're working together.  Rich: Our relationship with the NHS is absolutely critical. So, as we're thinking about what we can do to enable better genomic healthcare we're so fortunate in this country to have a national healthcare system. And for us and for our work at Genomics England it's absolutely critical to work hand in hand with NHS England both in supporting their live clinical services so we enable their national whole genome sequencing service through the Genomic Medicine Service and also as we work through all of our patient facing research. So, as we did for the 100,000 Genomes Project, as we are for our Newborn Genomes Programme and so forth co-designing these programmes so that the evidence that we're able to generate is relevant in the UK for our healthcare system but also that national scale is just so extraordinarily powerful. And I think we're really lucky for many reasons, the UK genomics ecosystem, it's richness, the investment that has come from government and from the NHS in genomics and the recognition of its importance and from funders, and then that ability to ask questions at national scale. And when you look internationally I think that's the piece that people are often most jealous of in terms of the power of the questions that we can ask together with the NHS so that we can do exactly what we want to do which is transform care so that it's better in the future. Naimah: Rich highlighted the importance of our relationship with the NHS in transforming patient care. Louise Fish, CEO of Genetic Alliance UK commented on the importance of joined up care following diagnosis to support them throughout their lives. “So, there is a lot more we need to do to work with the NHS to make sure that the care from the health service is joined up and co-ordinated for people. And then beyond that how does the co-ordination reach out to education, to housing, to benefits, to social care. The bit that almost should be simplest is if the NHS has someone who understands your child's condition. But it should be possible for their school to be in touch and to find out how that condition is going to affect them and what support the school might need to put in place through an education health and care plan, but those links out to the other services aren't there either. So, for us there is a lot of work to do that's not just around the diagnosis but it's about ensuring that lifelong care and support is delivered in a co-ordinated way. And as more people are getting genetic diagnosis through this amazing, kind of, clinical advances how do we make sure there is also investment into the clinical services that are going to support people throughout their lives.” Naimah: One of the key factors in supporting Genomics England to deliver this important work and all of our initiatives is the participants and the trust that they have in us. I wondered if you could share a bit more on this, so how Genomics England works with their participant panel. Rich: Yes, so I think one of the things I'm proudest about at Genomics England and it was established about the time I was arriving at the organisation is the participant panel who are a group of our participants who represent a broader participant across the national genomic research library. And they're a part of our governance, which governance sounds like a boring word, our relationship with the participant panel and their role in our governance is absolutely critical. They are the people whose data we are the custodians of, and we have a responsibility to them to live up to their expectations and also to make sure that they're driving the decisions that we're making. An example is how we setup the access to data for researchers. So, I mentioned that the way the national genomic research library works and a model that we developed through engagement with the public and with the input of our participants is that people can visit the de-identified data in our trusted research environment, but they can't take it away. They come and look at the data, they carry out their research which is on approved projects that is exploring healthcare questions. Those researchers have to go through an access process overseen by an independent access review committee that has our participants on it. So, they are making the decisions about the sort of research that they are comfortable with and that they want to be done on their data, and I think that's really critical. It has also been a real pleasure to work with our participants as we design future programmes either on for example finding further answers or looking for better treatments for people who are already in the national genomic research library, already a part of our participants or to help us design future programmes, for example our Newborn Genomes Programme. Our participants as well as engagement with potential future participants and the public more broadly has been absolutely critical in guiding us on how we do that. It's a team sport what we're doing in many different ways. That's with our broader ecosystem, it's with our participants, and that means this isn't about some people going away and sort of thinking up what sounds like the right programme and using all of their knowledge and expertise and producing something which is set in stone. This is about dialogue and engagement and using that to understand the right way of us approaching the questions we are and responding to what we hear. And our participant panel are absolutely critical in that. Naimah: And maybe it would be good now to discuss a bit about the new challenges that we're currently facing such as AI and issues with data sharing and data protection. Can you comment a bit on that. Rich: Yeah, so genomics is a fast moving area. We're really proud of the impact that we've had already, but we also recognise that at the moment we can only use genomics in a particular number of clinical situations. And even within those we can only help a certain proportion of patients. And what our participants say to us is that we need to be restless if you like and not accept where we are today. I think it's quite easy to merely celebrate progress but it's really important to also then ask where we need to be going next. I'm always guided by our participants thinking about what the new technologies are and what the different ways of approaching these scientific questions is critical. We're in an extraordinary time, genomic technology has changed enormously. The power to analyse genomic data has changed enormously. These are big changes in terms of the sorts of analytics that AI could bring and the potential to work not just within the UK but with other countries and other big initiatives to make sure that we're answering the questions as best we can. That brings with it as with all of these areas questions about how you best do things and how you balance the importance of privacy, data privacy, with the benefits of being able to look across larger number of research participants to find answers that you just wouldn't otherwise. Likewise with AI there is the potential for us to both speed up current processes but also ask broader questions that we can't yet using some of these technologies. Doing that in conversation with our participants and the public to understand how to best balance the different benefits and also clarify where there are, sort of, very clear expectations that we shouldn't exceed is really important. And I think that's one of the things that puts us in such a strong position is that confidence that our participants are guiding us and often, and speaking as a doctor myself, it's interesting the medical community is often quite paternalistic, quite cautious and quite narrow in what they might think their participants would want. What we like to do is be driven by what our participants want and expect, and I think that has been really important for us in our history up to now as an organisation and increasingly in the future. Naimah: Yeah, and I think you've really highlighted how Genomics England were trying to keep the participants at the heart of everything that we do. Dr Nicola Byrne, the National Data Guardian for health and adult social care in England spoke about challenges with sharing health data and the importance of transparency and accountability in how data is used to support better outcomes from health and care services. “So, it's absolutely important that people feel that they can share that information and then feel confident that any information they do share is going to be used in ways that are safe, appropriate and ethical. Whether that's for their own care or thinking about the benefit of other people in future through research, innovation and planning.” Naimah: Well, let's get back to the interview for some final reflections with Rich. So, we've been looking back at our achievements over the last ten years, and I'll be keen for us to look at what's next. So, we've touched on it, but let's take some time to reflect on the research that has taken place across the global genomic landscape for example and, you know, what we've done here at Genomics England. Rich: The world has changed a lot in ten years. We've learnt a lot ourselves as an organisation and the researchers that work with our participants data and the national genomic research library have done extraordinary work. So, to give you a flavour of the sorts of things that I guess have changed in terms of what we can enable them doing in terms of research and research work. When participants data enters the research library they're consenting to their genomic data sitting there alongside deidentified clinical data from their longitudinal health records. As I said through our multimodal cancer initiative we're also now able to bring in image data for our cancer participants. And increasingly, and this is something that Matt Brown, our chief scientist, was talking a lot about at our research summit in September, was bringing in additional modalities of data alongside that. So, for example, in our rare disease participants bringing in proteomic, transcriptomic and long read data alongside the current sets of data. It means that that resource becomes even more powerful and able to answer a broader set of questions and able to ask questions across a broader set of data in terms of what might be useful for improving the understanding of medical conditions and improving clinical care. So, for example, there has been amazing work over the last few years on cancer and the mutational signatures that are there in tumours. For example, Serena Nik-Zainal's group understanding the patterns of mutation that are there in tumours driven by the underlying biology, not just because it helps us understand how things have happened, but also because it helps us understand about prognosis and how to treat conditions. We've got really exciting early insights from the work on the image data, that multimodal data, working as I said with academia and also looking at the work that insitro are doing. Recognising patterns between you can see down the microscope of a tumour and the genomics. To understand some of those processes that we've just not been in a position to explore before. And I think one of the really powerful pieces of work that is ongoing and will continue to is the ability for researchers and teams within Genomics England to continue to look for answers as our knowledge improves. So, some of the research work that we're doing is discovering some new fields if you like of understanding. We also know that each year literally hundreds of new genes linked to rare conditions are identified. So, enabling research that allows us to go back and look in our existing participants data to see if that new knowledge, that new knowledge about gene to condition links or better understanding of genomic variation means that we can keep looking for and finding things relevant to people who at the moment are research studies, 100,000 Genomes Project, or the Genomic Medicine Service initial testing with today's knowledge or the knowledge of today or whenever their test was couldn't identify because of the limitations of knowledge. Now we can go back and identify through by sharing likely insights of clinical importance with NHS laboratories. We can then pass those findings back to participants and that has been the case in more than 2,000 of our 100,000 Genomes participants already and it's enormously powerful. I think as we think about the direction of travel in the future, I think thinking about how we make sure that the breadth of questions that can be addressed for our participants in the national genomic research library is even broader, is really important. And that's, as I say, something that's particularly bringing in other types of data alongside has been a really important part of. We're also looking to the future where as I say we're proud of the impact that there already has been, and the NHS Genomic Medicine Service is the first national healthcare system to offer whole genome sequencing and that is extraordinary. Thinking about how we can broaden our impact is a really important part of that, and that's thinking about how we can be supportive of genomic technologies broader than just whole genome. So, for example,  panel and exome data and thinking about some of those other modalities of data like transcriptomes is really important as well for us. And that's something that we're exploring at the moment how we best do that, how we might do that. Also thinking about the range of settings that genomics is currently playing a role and we can see a future in five to ten years' time where rather than genomics being something where it plays a role in a small proportion of healthcare encounters where it could be impactful, over a much larger proportion, perhaps even up to a half of all healthcare encounters through, for example, pharmacogenomics potentially. And our Newborn Genome Programme is developing evidence that will help us understand whether that whole genome sequencing should be offered to all newborns. Potentially in research studies like Our Future Health are asking questions around the value of integrated or polygenic risk scores. Through those sorts of elements we can see genomics playing a role much more broadly both in terms of the number, proportion of clinical settings where it's relevant, much more towards it being a routine part of healthcare, but also across the lifetime at different stages and thinking about the value of genomic data if you like through the life course as something that can be looked at repeatedly increasingly without requiring specialist knowledge from the clinical teams so that it can have the impact it can. And thinking about how we might play a role in developing that evidence but also supporting the infrastructure through our expert knowledge in the management of coherent national genomic data sets. And also having that dialogue in public about how genomic data might be used and working out how we generate evidence that can drive policy change. I think there is enormous potential in the future and we in the UK I think remain uniquely placed to explore those sorts of questions. Naimah: So, we'll wrap up there and that brings us to the end of our podcast for 2023. Thanks to Rich Scott for sharing his reflections on the last ten years of Genomics England and his aspirations for the future. Moving into the new year we'll leave you with a powerful quote from our podcast with Dr Francis Collins who is renowned for his landmark discoveries and leadership in the Human Genome Project.  “My dream Chris is that we come up with in the next decade a scalable approach to every genetic disease where you know the mutation.” You can find all of the podcast episodes mentioned in this podcast plus many more on our website www.genomicsengland.co.uk or on your favourite podcast app. We look forward to bringing you some new episodes with more exciting guests in the New Year but do get in touch if you have any topics you would like us to cover. I've been your host Naimah Callachand, and this episode was edited by Mark Kendrick at Ventoux Digital. Thank you for listening.  

Patrick addresses a fascinating question brought up by Alex about the concept of heaven and how it could potentially become boring. Patrick eloquently explains why this perspective is flawed and delves into the nature of eternity and the blissful experience of being in God's presence. While he acknowledges that it may be challenging to convince a skeptic, Patrick offers valuable advice on sharing rational proofs for the existence of God and the inherent limitations of atheism. Preston Allex shares his experience at the Padre Pio's Chruch and filling Holy Water bottles with his family Sharon - My dad's family had 12 kids and they were really poor. There have been many fruits and miracles in the family. I think Randall has a lack of faith. Rich – It's an assumption that it's only the mother who gives birth that will feed the child. Ralph - Starvation or Extermination: Hitler said he wanted to allow people to exterminate handicapped children Alex - What is the difference between heaven and hell regarding eternity? (27:23) Barbara - My mother had 4 girls and then a boy. He is now a Catholic Missionary Priest. I am very grateful that she had him.

In the first epitope of 2023, TWiV reviews our coverage of virology in 2022, including favorite story arcs, episodes, show titles, and much more. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Dickson Despommier, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode Our favorite 2022 virology stories: •Vincent: Paul Offit on bivalent boosters (TWiV 917, 942, Special) •Dickson: Interviews with Paul Offit and Andy Slavitt •Rich: TWiV 948: Breathless with David Quammen •Kathy: TWiV 915: Mouse mouth to mouse mom •Brianne: Spillovers (TWiV 923 and 876) •Vincent: Giant viruses (TWiV 873, 906, 968) •Dickson: TWiV 960 – Getting Funky with Dan Wilson •Rich: TWiV 927: Merchlinsky vs monkeypox •Kathy: TWiV 958: Pass the RNA and have some venison pi •Brianne: TWiV 869: Epstein-Barr virus and MS, a perfect storm •Twiverse •Letters read on TWiV 968 •Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Picks Dickson – Jazz Project: Tenor saxophone: John Coltrane/Dexter Gordon/Stan Getz: John Coltrane: Signature album: Giant Steps: Signature song: Blue Train; Dexter Gordon: Signature album: The Other Side Of Round Midnight. Signature song: Round Midnight; Stan Getz (with Charlie Byrd on guitar): Signature Album: Jazz Samba; Signature song: Desafinado Brianne – A Full Circle Rainbow over Norway Kathy – Frozen soap bubbles Rich – It's Turtles All the Way Down in the Fossil Record by Asher Elbein Vincent – Vincent's Top Ten Music Listener Picks Charles – Wayne Bergeron and Vince DiMartino MacArthur Park Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

Rich Fettke has a passion for helping people improve their businesses, grow their wealth, and live more fulfilling lives. He is the author of The Wise Investor, Extreme Success, and the audio program Momentum. Rich is also a co-founder of RealWealth®. Since 2003, the company has helped over 60,000 members improve their financial intelligence and acquire cash-flowing income properties — so they can live life on their own terms. As a licensed real estate broker and an active investor, Rich was selected as a Rich Dad Author for his expertise as a Wealth Mindset Expert.   The real estate industry is not easy for everyone to jump into. If you have just gotten your real estate license and feel you need extra support before getting your feet wet, or if you are an experienced agent looking to take it to the next level, you may decide to get a real estate coach. Rich who is a coaching mentor and investor will discuss the value of having a coach and mentor and what you can expect to find in his new book.   Episode Links: https://realwealth.com/ https://realwealth.com/the-wise-investor-book/ --- Transcript Before we jump into the episode, here's a quick disclaimer about our content. The Remote Real Estate Investor podcast is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as investment advice. The views, opinions and strategies of both the hosts and the guests are their own and should not be considered as guidance from Roofstock. Make sure to always run your own numbers, make your own independent decisions and seek investment advice from licensed professionals.   Michael: Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of the Remote Real Estate Investor. I'm Michael Albaum and today I'm joined by Rich Fettke, who is an author, investor, coaching mentor, surfer, among many other things, and Rich is going to be talking to us today about some of the mistakes he seen investors make the value of having a coach and mentor as well as what you can expect to find in his book, which is soon to be released. So let's get into it.   Rich, what's going on, man? Welcome to the Remote Real Estate Investor. Thanks for hanging out with me.   Rich: Good to be here. Great hanging out with you.   Michael: Super excited. So before we hit record here, you and I were chatting a little bit about some sports where you both share in common, but I would love if you could give our listeners a little bit of insight into who you are, where you come from and what it is that you're doing in real estate today.   Rich: Sure, absolutely. My name is Rich Fettke and yeah, interesting. The way we got into real estate investing, I'm an I'm an investor and my wife and I also have a company that helps investors but that was what really got us into it was despair. It was about it was exactly 20 years ago, I was on top of my game, I had a book deal, just signed with Simon and Schuster. I was a business and personal coach had a thriving coaching practice, I was giving keynote speeches all over the country. It was like I was just crushing it and I felt so good. I was 37 years old and then I was diagnosed with melanoma, which is an advanced skin cancer but that's not the biggest deal is that they thought it spread to my liver.   So they had me do a CT scan and ultrasound and it kept showing these masses on my liver and so I met with an oncologist and he said, you know, it looks like you got about six months to live and we had a 10 year old daughter. Yeah, it just rocked my world, I had a 10 year old daughter, a three year old daughter. My wife is amazing but she was a stay at home mom and so she was freaking in the sense of what am I going to do financially if Rich dies and so she started to she had a as a coach, we were doing things together, she was also a trained coach and so she had this small radio station in San Francisco that she used to do a radio show on about all areas of life being your best self and personal development and all and she said I gotta figure this out. So she started to help people on that were financially successful, and was interviewing them about how do they create wealth and how do they create financial success and most of them turned out to be real estate investors. No surprise, so she came home all excited. One of them was a mortgage broker and he said, if you get your license, you can come become a mortgage broker. This is about 2003. So you know, things were still the mortgage world is pretty easy back then. So she went and did that. In the meantime, we figured out I had a PET scan, which is the most advanced scan for cancer, and it showed me cancer free. So it was just it was a false diagnosis. It was just hemangiomas little clusters of blood vessels on my liver but that was enough for me to go for those three months of not knowing if I was going to be alive, it was enough to give us the kick in the butt to get out and, and make things happen. So Kathy, and I see after that after I was healed, we started to invest together. We bought a bunch of properties in the Dallas, Texas area and it just took off from there and then Kathy started to help other investors with their mortgages. We had a bunch of friends and family saying, tell us how are you doing this? We you know, how are you doing this out of state investing and so we started we formed a group that we thought would be just a small group of family and friends and people that listen to the radio show. We thought it'd be a couple 100 people and today it's over 64,000 members now at real wealth that we're helping invest.   Michael: It's pretty amazing. Richard, good for you guys, so I I'm curious in your coaching business before you got diagnosed, did you ever come across real estate investors?   Rich: That I coached? Yes. Yeah and my mindset was, I want to invest in real estate someday when I have enough money and so and I was thinking I needed, you know, several $100,000 you know, to buy that first rental property or first investment, not realizing the power of leverage and how much banks love to lend money on real estate and so that was that was the eye opener for us.   Michael: Okay, I love it and what made you go remote? I mean, you're in California and your wife live in in San Francisco. Why did you pick to invest outside California?   Rich: Actually Robert Kiyosaki. It was she because Kathy was on the San Francisco radio station she was and it got bigger and bigger or she was able to attract some pretty big names and then this guy who had just written a book called Rich Dad, Poor Dad, not long before that, and he had this cashflow game that he was promoting and we had a friend who was his distributor for crypto cash flow game back in the day and so he was on the radio show, and he warned Kathy's listeners to sell their overpriced California properties and to invest in Texas and so we took his advice. Not we didn't sell all our expensive property, sadly, because 2008 crushed us with our California properties but it was, you know, he just saying for cash flow and what's going to happen, he was currently kind of calling out what was going to happen in 2008-2007. That's what sent us out of state.   Michael: Love it. So you also recently have written a book, haven't you?   Rich: Yeah, I just finished my second book. 20 years later, well, I have an audio program back then, too but yeah, it took me 20 years to write my second book and it's called the wise investor and it's a lot different than my first book that was mostly coaching focused. It was a nonfiction, basically a personal development book and this book is a modern parable. So it's story forum, and it tells a story of creating financial freedom and but also living your best life.   Michael: That's awesome and why did you decide to write it?   Rich: Interesting process, you know, I've had my own coach, to walk the talk to over the last 25 years now, I started coaching 25 years ago, and this coach that I that I still talk to every week, or every other week, now, he kept kind of he had read my first book, so he's always kind of knocking on me saying, when are you going to write your next book? When are you going to write your next book and I was like, I'm too busy running this company, you know, we have 27 employees and but then what we did is we applied story branding to our company. Are you familiar with that story branding?   It's a guy named Don Miller. He wrote a book called Building a story brand and it's all about basically telling the hero's journey, Joseph Campbell's work, using the hero's journey, just like great movies, do great books do weaving a story where your customer is the hero, and you are the guide. So the company is the guide, you help your customers and so we changed everything on our marketing around that, and how we served our members as being the heroes and I just got into this whole storytelling thing. I'm like, this is fascinating the structure of how to write a story, a compelling story that engages people that elicits an emotional change all that and so one day when in a coaching session, I said, you know, if I was going to write a book, I'd probably tell a story and then he heard that and you just like, What do you mean, tell me more and then that was the spark. So then then I get obsessed with it and I'm like, I could write a parable about what I've learned over the last 20 years as an investor, what I've learned in the last 25 years as a coach, yeah, and kind of weave them together into a story.   Michael: How cool and without giving away too much of the book. I mean, what could people what should people expect to find when they when they get a copy?   Rich: Basically, it's about this family, man, his name is Ryan Brooks and he's like a hard worker. He's got a wife, he's got a couple kids, and he's making a decent six figure income maxing out his 401k but he has no time for his wife or his kids or even his life and he's not investing. He's basically what we call today, Henry, right? A high earner, not rich yet. So he's…   Michael: I love it.   Rich: Yeah, they're out there does a lot of people you know, especially in California, where I'm based, and that make a lot of money, make a good income, but they're not rich, they're not wealthy, and they're not investing their money. They're spending it on things and so this guy is, is in that same trap. So he just starts to learn from he meets this new friend and mentor, who takes him out on adventures. Of course, it takes him out climbing takes him out mountain biking in in the sessions, when they're having fun together. He teaches him about investing about how wealthy people think, how rich people operate, and how and how poor people operate and think and he really goes over the difference between, you know, truly wealthy people, and people with a lot of money. He even says, you know, I know some people who are so poor, all they have is money and I see that in Malibu, you know, where I live there's a lot of has a lot of money and some of the people are really stoked and really happy and getting the most out of life and investing their money at some of the people are grumpy and miserable and, you know, that's rich in money but not in life.   So there's a lot of lessons about helping Ryan Brooks and his mentor walks them through this on how to invest how to how to really look at life through a different lens. One of my favorite things a mentor says to his mentor is about assets and he just kind of puts it in a different frame. He's like, you know, assets is are anything that will provide you income, or better health or happiness or two time and liability is anything that detracts from your income, or your health or your happiness or your time. So it's kind of a cool that type of perspective is this mentor is like, he's the me I hope to be in the future. He's that in that wise investor who's you know, he's got it all together, he's got this sage advice. He's very stoic, but he shares these lessons. So it covers the journey of five years of when they first met, and Ryan Brooks is struggling and just doesn't know what to do and it shows five years later, what happens and how he becomes wealthy in more ways than just money. I love it in money, too.   Michael: I love it. I love it enrich. Where can people find the book?   Rich: It's on Amazon, all major booksellers, published through Rich Dad advisors. So Robert Kiyosaki wrote the foreword for me, which I'm very grateful for… Come full, full circle, right.   Michael: Totally.   Rich: Yeah. So it's on Amazon. It's called the wise investor. Subtitle is a modern parable about creating financial freedom and living your best life. I got the cover right here. So it's out on eBook. This is what the cover looks like. Perfect. So it's out on eBook. But the printed version, the hardcover and the audio book won't be out until August and it's because of just like real estate supply chain issues. There's not enough paper at the printers, so it's a long wait six, seven months now to get a book printed.   Michael: Holy smokes…   Rich: Isn't it wild?   Michael: Yeah, okay. Well, I'm interested, get your order in now, because it might be a while.   Rich: Right, yeah. So hopefully it all comes out in August. Hopefully it comes out earlier in August but yeah, and the audio book was, that was a fun challenge for me. Big goal, because, you know, it's a story and there's 10 different characters, females, older people, young kids, so I had to become, I had to learn some voice acting skills over the period of a couple of months and really practice it. Oh, how can I think I pulled it off, we'll see how the reviews are.   Michael: Right on. That's great. Well, Rich, I'm curious to get your opinion on something because you're a coach, I will also work as a coach and there are folks out there that say you can take the horse to water, but you can't make him drink and so thinking about kind of the Henry's out there, and I think a lot of our listeners might find themselves in this boat, too. They have friends, family, folks around them that don't get real estate investing, right? I have a six figure job, I got a great job, why would I bother investing, I can make more money at my job. So what do you say to all those people and really, how do you position investing in general or real estate investing specifically to the people that think they haven't really good as things stand?   Rich: Yeah, I mean, first of all, you know, as a coach, I'm going to help point out what is good first, you know, this is the way I coach, the gratefulness piece and, you know, it's like, well, you know, be stoked on that six figure job, or whatever it is and it's about creating freedom and so many people don't have that freedom and that's what the Henry's don't have. If they have a short runway, if they stopped if they lost their job, which we've seen happen, they don't have many months left of cash flow, to be able to live their lifestyle, or any type of lifestyle. So that's the biggest thing would be that, do you want to create freedom for yourself, and not have the stress of losing your job, or wanting to move to a different job, if you're not loving what you're doing, a lot of people stay trapped, struggling, just trapped in their jobs, because it's like, this is my income, this is the way this is what I need to make ends meet. So that's the biggest thing, it's really about having your money, make money, so you can create freedom in the future freedom of time and everything. I think that's the biggest one and then so then flipping on the other side, there's something too about America, in the world that we are preprogrammed.   When we think invest, we think stock market and you know, I have nothing against it and Kathy and I are and my wife and I are invested in the stock market, but our major focus and the big aha, back through that story is, you know, we were doing that we were contributing to our IRAs and, you know, doing everything we were supposed to do investing in the stock market. But when we learned about leverage the power of leverage and how you can like 5x your money, just through the power of leverage. I mean, that's a standout and that's one of the lessons the mentor goes over in the book. He, he has Ryan compared to say, say you have $200,000 to invest and you invest 200,000, and gold, you put 200,000 and you buy, you buy maybe 400,000 in the stock market on that, you just leverage it and then you invest that same amount into real estate and then he kind of plays it out over five years, and over 10 years, sorry. So he's like 10 years later, and he said, so how much would the gold be worth at the same appreciation that's gold has been at and they look at that outcome and he said, oh, now let's look at your stocks and he looks at that. It's like good, he's got a decent return. Another investment, you know, he's got home and he's like, almost tripled his money but then the real estate, he looks at it, and he's 5x his money and more and then he's like, and that doesn't include the cash flow. It doesn't appreciate all the depreciation write offs and the tax benefits. So it's kind of like an eye opener to be like, oh, wait a minute. Now I see the, you know that the angels sing about investing in real estate and all those amazing, amazing benefits.   Michael: Totally, totally. Yeah, that makes that makes complete sense and curious, rich to get your thoughts on when looking for a coach because I think that that's something that some people have trouble wrapping their head around, it's like, oh, I you know, I don't have a coach in life and so I would never be inclined to go get a coach or pay for coaching and so if people are inclined to do so if people are okay, accepting that, what are some things they should be looking for when selecting a coach, or a mentor or whatever, you'd have someone to help walk them through their journey?   Rich: Yeah and that's a great question. It's like, I'd actually like to start step back a little bit, because you said what if they want to coach I would even go as far as there's a lot of people that I meet who say, Why do I need a coach, you know, I can hold myself accountable. I, I know how to set goals. I know how to go after what I want and everything in so why would I… Yeah, like you said, Why would I even pay someone or do anything like that and it's, you know, it's that age old metaphor or an analogy of an Olympic athlete, right? Did they get to the Olympics without a coach? No, you need someone to point things out. So for me, I know the power of coaching has been incredibly amazing because I have a coach to basically hold up the mirror to ask me the questions that I'm not asking myself, to help me look at myself and be like, you know, asking those tough questions. How are you operating? Are you being your best self? Are you, where are you getting in your own way? What's that inner Gremlin in your head saying to you? What's your limiting beliefs and what are you going to do here, what and look at new perspectives, new ideas. So there's a power in that, that it's called, I'm certified in CO active coaching, which is two people, you know, when you come together, you come up with ideas that you neither would have thought about their own? So that's another powerful piece of coaching. So that's, that's the first part of my answer and then the second part is, when you're looking for a coach, I think it's really what you're looking for.   So are you looking for a mentor, which is I think, different than a coach, a mentor has kind of been there, done that, just like the mentor, and in the book I wrote, he's been there and done that. So he can say, if you just do what I did, you will be where I am, which is awesome, and very valuable and that's a mentor and I think some people are looking for training and consulting, where they sign up for a coaching program. But it's more about teaching to learn a specific skill and that's very valuable to so and then the third one would be looking for a coach who's more like that coactive approach where it's someone who I first shared, and what I've gotten from coaching is someone to ask the most powerful questions, someone who's intuitive, someone who can really help you shift your mindset and be your best self and operate at your best self. So that would be a another type of coach or a peer coach in my eyes and sometimes it comes together, you know, I'll say to my clients, do you mind if I throw on my consulting hat right now or my mentoring hat? So they know that I'm stepping out of that coat peer coaching role and be like, you know, I've invested in real estate for a while I can give you some advice here, I'm not going to have you, you know, go and search it and try to learn it elsewhere when I've got it right here, and I can share it with you. So I think that's it, it's like looking for what is it that you want? What are you looking for and that would be the first thing and when I was interviewing for a coach and looking for I've had several coaches over the past 25 years, when I interview a coach, I'm always coming from the place of like, what's the vibe? What's it feel like to be coached by this person?   Do they? Do they ask powerful questions? Are they really hearing me and are they into my vision? You know, I think the biggest thing would be connecting with that coach, and really, really noticing, like, is this coach, really seeing my vision? Do they really get me who I am and what I want what's going to help me be fulfilled in my life, and in my career, and it's just a sense thing. So you can get that sometimes you you're talking to a coach, it's like, oh, this guy's or gals just coaching for the money, you know, just looking for another client. Sometimes you talk to a coach, it's like, wow, this person is really like, wants to coach me on their ideal client and so you can sense that   Michael: Interesting and how should people be thinking about it for themselves? If maybe they're not sure if someone is just getting started out in this journey, they know they want to invest in real estate, that's the goal but they don't know how to approach it to the to coaching and mentoring a consultant. I mean, what are some questions that they could be asking or things they could be thinking about, as they're starting?   Rich: That process gets great, I mean, experience, I would ask for experience and you know, I think it's great, you can find you can definitely find a coach, you know, or whatever they call themselves. They might call themselves a mentor, but it's like asking those questions. and talking to that person, just you know. So here are some of my goals. I know that you invest in real estate, can you tell me about your real estate background? What's your investment, investment philosophy? What have you invested in and I would even ask the coach, you know, what's been your biggest challenge your biggest failure as a real estate investor, you know, get see how vulnerable and real they are and if they're willing to, you know, to share that, and what's been your biggest, you know, what's been your biggest win as a real estate investor and what's your greatest strength? So I would ask some of those questions of a coach and then also like, what's, where do you I mean, real estate investing so broad, right and so it's like, what do you specialize in? What do you know best? When it comes to real estate investing?   Michael: Yeah, I love that. You mentioned tell me your biggest failure, biggest flop. I had a mentor back in the day, and he said, I don't trust anybody without a limp. Yeah, because like the people that have only had successes don't know how to do save no right to ship when things go sideways, and they will go sideways.   Rich: They will, they will. Yeah, I know that people who got into real estate in 2010-2015, who are just, you know, knock it out of the park, and they think they're, you know, superheroes. Sometimes I'm like, oh, careful, careful   Michael: We are all superheroes in this, you know, the last decade.   Rich: Exactly. Yeah, yeah.   Michael: So Rich, talk to us a little bit about what you've seen. Some of your coaching students or mentees get right and what have they gotten wrong because you really we have the beauty of hindsight now…   Rich: When it comes to investing, specifically?   Michael: When it comes to investing specifically…   Rich: Yeah, wrong and it's the same mistakes that Kathy and I made too. And it's that you try to talk people out of it and it's like buying an overpriced property in a non-landlord friendly state that is maybe slightly negative cashflow, or just breakeven, and they're looking at and say, but look at how this is appreciating in five years, it's going to be worth this much and it's like, no, so honestly, that's the biggest mistake I can see and I can see it in single family all the way up to multifamily. You know, just speaking at these conferences and meeting with a lot of people are doing multifamily. They think they're superheroes. They're doing this short term, short term lending short term loans, and bridge loans and really dangerous stuff at this time in the market because it's what's worked in the past and they think that they just like, Well, yeah, it's like, I know, this is a I know, it's only a you know, 2% cap rate, but that's okay because, yeah, just a one in three years… Yeah, exactly, so there's something there's something about, there's something about that. Yeah, it's just it's fundamentals, I think that's what it is, is comes down to investing fundamentals and that's what we preach at our company. It's how we help our investors, it's just really coming back to the fundamentals. Make sure you're doing it right.   Michael: Yeah, that makes sense and what about the other side of that coin for the folks that you've really just seen knock it out of the park? What are they doing and you can't say the fundamentals, you have to pick a different answer go?   Rich: That's great. I love that. Agreed, yeah, what value is that? Really, it's the people who, what I've seen, it's the people who take the long term game plan to the boring investors, the ones who are not trying to do this rapid growth, and trying to 10x their portfolio or 20, exit, or whatever it is. So it's keeping that long term perspective and just, you know, making sure that you can control the properties through any type of downturn and so the lessons learned that that, you know, being going through the whole recession, the Great Recession, and the whole mortgage meltdown, and all that big lessons came from that and so that it's the people who take out long term, continuously reinvesting to so it's like, you start this small, small portfolio, whether it's passive or active, and then you just start expanding and expanding and expanding it and I would say, it's the people who focus on the overall cash flow, not just I mean, brink weaving into appreciation, but looking at it, like five years from now, this is what my portfolio will most likely be doing based on everything, even if there's a recession, or whatever and then looking out 10 years and looking at it 15 years.   So it's that big picture and then reinvesting. The opposite of that would be someone who's I have some friends who were only flipping, so very transactional, and they had to find the properties either flip it and that's where their income was coming through into constantly flipping it and they adjusted the wise ones and the smart ones adjusted and switch to the bur stead strategy and so they started to find these properties, fix them up, but then they would hold them and rent them out and now they're the ones that have amassed a good amount of wealth, whereas the other people who are flipping are still in the transaction game.   Michael: Yeah. Ah, that makes sense, that makes sense. Okay. We've had a pretty good debate on the show over episodes about something called an alligator, which I don't know if you know Michael Zuber at all he's an author of one rental at a time. He's a good friend of the podcast, but in his definition alligators any property, that's negative cashflow, you have to feed it every month to keep continue owning it. So as you're talking about big picture, are you okay? If you say for instance, take out a cash out refinance a property to make that property a go negative, but to buy property B and now your global cumulative cash flow is greater than that a property a alone.   Rich: I'm in the camp of no, don't, do not no, no negative cashflow and negative cash flow and I'll be completely honest and transparent that the house at Kathy and I were in in Malibu before this, we bought it, we fix it up, we bought it for $747,000 in Malibu, which is rare, hard to find, it's like unheard of. Yeah, it was like it was a one bedroom, one bath built in 1927 and we had to completely gutted it and rehab and we put about 300,000 into it and then we didn't get permits. So we got busted in that process and now there's still a lien on title from LA county building department and so we can't sell that place and we can't even get a refi until we get those liens off title and get it all permanent everything which is a, that's a whole different stories…   Michael: Trying to get us to do an entire podcast series…     Rich: Coastal Commission and all that stuff. So oh my gosh, so we have a tenant in there and it's slightly cash negative cash flow. So that's like 150 to 200 a month negative cash flow.   So being completely honest, we do have a negative cash flow, it drives me crazy and that house has gone up probably $400,000 over the last couple of years in value. So we could look at it that way. But we can beyond that everything that we hold is positive cash flow, even if it's just like $100 a month positive. That's fine and if we're going to do a cash out refi we make sure that it's appreciated enough where we can do that cash out refi and not have the loan payment, PTI go over what we're gonna get for rental income.   Michael: Yeah, makes sense. Well, I appreciate you sharing the misstep and the vulnerability here on the show but it wasn't intentional, that was just a series of consequences. That hadn't be negative. You wouldn't you would intentionally do that.   Rich: Yeah, we did bring it on ourselves and but yeah, wasn't intentional. We didn't want to get caught.   Michael: I've played that game before, too. It's a risky one.   Rich: It is. Yeah, so you're always looking out the window and yeah…   Michael: Who is coming in, roday gonna be the day get caught o maybe tomorrow?   Rich: Exactly. When we were almost done. We were building the final deck in the back and all of a sudden, this building inspector shows I'm investigating you because one of your neighbors called…   Michael: I was gonna say but it's probably one of your neighbors.   Rich: Yeah, because it would make the cut and concrete and it was so loud or for the whole week. I think it just drove this neighbor crazy and so it is what it is.   Michael: As soon as a quick aside one of the other hosts on the show with me, Tom he, one of his neighbors called on him he was adding an offer a small prefab office in the backyard of his property. neighbor called he gets in trouble. Same thing didn't pull permits. So now he's going through that whole rigmarole. But the funny part is the neighbor that called Tom found out that their fence is on Tom's property, it's on the wrong side of the property. He's like, thanks for calling and alerting me to that little fact.   Michael: Unbelievable.   Rich: So he's, he's playing that game. How do I how do I want to you know, play my next hand?   Rich: The revenge game…   Michael: That's it, that's it, best served cold on ice. Okay, Rich. Let's wrap up here. I'm curious to get your thoughts. We are in this very unique time in our economy in our market in this country and I'm just curious to kind of get your thoughts on what are you doing, personally as an investor and what are you doing in your business and what are you telling your students to do, as well?   Rich: Absolutely, yeah. I have the benefit of being married to Kathy Fettke, who has been around for a while she's on the on the market podcast on Bigger Pockets and so she's constantly doing her market updates every year, she does predictions and has done that for the last 15 years and then at the every quarter, she doesn't investor update and at the end of the year, she puts herself on the line says okay, here's what I predicted back in January. Let's see how accurate I am and yeah, and she's been really good. She's like almost 95% on her predictions, which is awesome. So I just listened to her. You know, she's always interviewing experts and she's connected with like John Chang from Marcus and Millichap and so many just, you know, experts, as I said, with Kiyosaki and all that. So what she's saying I'll just speak, you know, because I get to hear through her office door when she's doing all her interviews and everything she think He said interest rates are not going to go up that much more, maybe even dip a tiny bit for mortgages, and then maybe level off.   But even though the Feds gonna keep raising the rate, the lender and great mortgage rates can't kind of withstand that going up too much. So she thinks mortgage rates are going to hold around where they are and then there's such a glut in such a need for properties and not enough inventory. It's like a whole different world than 2008-2009. So yeah, I think we're, it's estimates are between three and 5 million homes shy right now, for housing units. So inventory still low and also, there's that whole thing where people are locked into these amazing interest rates, so they don't want to sell. So they just, it doesn't make sense to sell something and when you got a 3% mortgage or lower and go into a higher mortgage, so the real estate is gonna hold strong is what she's predicting, it's even going to increase a little bit rents are even going to increase a little bit surprisingly, even with, with the economy and inflation, rents are still gonna go up a little bit, that's her prediction and then a recession will hit well, most likely, sometime around late 2023, early 2024 but it will be a mild one, just kind of more of a correction that that's needed.   Michael: Okay. Okay and does either her or you think that there will be any kind of pullback in demand as folks go back into the office or are we going to be seeing remote work kind of indefinitely, which I think was a big driver of that single family rental demand?   Rich: Yeah, that's a big one. Yeah and the cool thing is like, we have teams that are like the boots on the ground. So there's different 15 different property teams in our company that find properties and so and we just did a mastermind with them in Tampa, Florida and we spent two days and we really talked about all this exact same stuff. So it's, it's something around not like a big hit on it. There still will be some availability, but not much different than if you look at today's current market right now is not going to be a lot different than that over the next year and a half.   Michael: So for instance, we don't expect there to be much pullback in terms of demand. Dude, because we're expecting people to continue remote working basically…   Rich: There's definitely a return to the office. There's there are definitely companies that are saying no, it's time to come back now that we want to look over your shoulder, we want to hold you accountable and all that stuff. It's so funny, because it's like the surfing lineups are getting a little bit lighter thinning. So funny. Go Oh, it's like why are so many people surfing? Oh, they're supposed to be orange. They think they're working. Their bosses think they're at work right now. Yeah. So I'm seeing a pullback there. So that's my gauge.   Michael: So funny.   Rich: Yeah, but not as much. There's definitely, with so many people how they've learned to use Zoom and GoTo Meeting and being remote and all that stuff. It's we're in a new world, there's no doubt about it. So I think there's going to be a slight pullback on buyers and transactions and all that. As far as the rate, but it's still not going to it's not going to drop to like dismal levels.   Michael: Okay, sweet. Well, we will definitely have to stay in touch and see how you do how you and your wife do on those percentages. Rich, this has been so much fun, man. Thank you again, if people want to learn more about you want to learn more about real wealth, where can they do that?   Rich: For the book? Like I said, it's on Amazon or if people want to learn more, before they buy it, just go to https://realwealth.com/the-wise-investor-book/  and then our website is just simple, real wealth: https://realwealth.com/   Michael: Perfect. Alright, thank you again and I'm sure we'll be chatting soon.   Rich: All right, man. Thank you, it was fun.   Michael: All right, everyone a big thank you to Rich for coming on. Super, super insightful. I know I learned a ton as a coach myself in what to look for in a coach and mentor going forward as well. So as always, thank you so much for listening, and we look forward to seeing the next one. Happy investing…

So, what are the most important elements of an effective PR plan? Hosts Millie and Rich would argue that intent ranks high on that list. On today's episode of Storyology, Millie and Rich describe the core factors that go into any successful PR campaign. Spoiler alert: most of them involve intent! Intent is Crucial... Rich explains that intent starts with identifying the “why.” In order to define the “why,” you must be able to ask the right questions to your clients. To curate the best questions, understanding the goal of the piece is imperative. Rich tells listeners that they must determine who it is that they ultimately WANT to influence. The Importance of Intentional Questions... Throughout the Storyology series, Millie and Rich have highlighted the importance of questions. In this Storyology segment, they point to the connections between intent and questions. Millie offers some helpful tips for getting intentional answers from your clients, masterfully shaping the client's story with questions, and approaching a story from multiple angles to glean new insights. Not All Press Is Good Press… Rich is a staunch believer that not all press is good press. At most companies, the spokespeople have several other larger responsibilities. So, if they're taking time away from their main role to write an article or communicate something with the press, was it worth it? Did this communication tangibly work towards company goals? If not, then a company may want to reconsider its PR approach. Hear more… If you've enjoyed these takeaways, be sure to listen to the full Storyology episode linked below. Also, be sure to listen to, rate and subscribe to our podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, iHeartRadio or Soundcloud. Quotes • “A lot of companies and people think of PR as a means to put information out there. And they believe that the market will just understand. But PR doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's a partnership.” (00:17-00:25 | Millie) • “It's really understanding what the goal is not just of the piece of writing, but how that piece fits within the overall story that the company is trying to tell. Because everything they do from a product to a partnership, customer to new hire, to new program, all should be a part of a bigger story that is bigger than what they're doing in the moment.” (03:56-04:16 | Rich) •“You just have to understand what are the assets you have to bring and then how you use those to help the market understand the impact you're having.” (05:15-05:26 | Rich) •“​​It doesn't happen without work. It doesn't happen without communicating the right things at the right time.” (14:50-14:58 | Rich) Learn more about Connect2 Communications: Website: https://www.connect2comm.com/ Podcast home page: https://www.connect2comm.com/podcast Twitter handle: @Connect2_Comm Instagram handle: @connect2_comm LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/connect2-communications Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Connect2-Communications

About RichRich Burroughs is a Senior Developer Advocate at Loft Labs where he's focused on improving workflows for developers and platform engineers using Kubernetes. He's the creator and host of the Kube Cuddle podcast where he interviews members of the Kubernetes community. He is one of the founding organizers of DevOpsDays Portland, and he's helped organize other community events. Rich has a strong interest in how working in tech impacts mental health. He has ADHD and has documented his journey on Twitter since being diagnosed.Links: Loft Labs: https://loft.sh Kube Cuddle Podcast: https://kubecuddle.transistor.fm LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/richburroughs/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/richburroughs Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/richburroughs TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part my Cribl Logstream. Cirbl Logstream is an observability pipeline that lets you collect, reduce, transform, and route machine data from anywhere, to anywhere. Simple right? As a nice bonus it not only helps you improve visibility into what the hell is going on, but also helps you save money almost by accident. Kind of like not putting a whole bunch of vowels and other letters that would be easier to spell in a company name. To learn more visit: cribl.ioCorey: This episode is sponsored in part by Thinkst. This is going to take a minute to explain, so bear with me. I linked against an early version of their tool, canarytokens.org in the very early days of my newsletter, and what it does is relatively simple and straightforward. It winds up embedding credentials, files, that sort of thing in various parts of your environment, wherever you want to; it gives you fake AWS API credentials, for example. And the only thing that these things do is alert you whenever someone attempts to use those things. It's an awesome approach. I've used something similar for years. Check them out. But wait, there's more. They also have an enterprise option that you should be very much aware of canary.tools. You can take a look at this, but what it does is it provides an enterprise approach to drive these things throughout your entire environment. You can get a physical device that hangs out on your network and impersonates whatever you want to. When it gets Nmap scanned, or someone attempts to log into it, or access files on it, you get instant alerts. It's awesome. If you don't do something like this, you're likely to find out that you've gotten breached, the hard way. Take a look at this. It's one of those few things that I look at and say, “Wow, that is an amazing idea. I love it.” That's canarytokens.org and canary.tools. The first one is free. The second one is enterprise-y. Take a look. I'm a big fan of this. More from them in the coming weeks.scaCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Periodically, I like to have, well, let's call it fun, at the expense of developer advocates; the developer relations folks; DevRelopers as I insist on pronouncing it. But it's been a while since I've had one of those come on the show and talk about things that are happening in that universe. So, today we're going back to change that a bit. My guest today is Rich Burroughs, who's a Senior Developer Advocate—read as Senior DevReloper—at Loft Labs. Rich, thanks for joining me.Rich: Hey, Corey. Thanks for having me on.Corey: So, you've done a lot of interesting things in the space. I think we first met back when you were at Sensu, you did a stint over at Gremlin, and now you're over at Loft. Sensu was monitoring things, Gremlin was about chaos engineering and breaking things on purpose, and when you're monitoring things that are breaking that, of course, leads us to Kubernetes, which is what Loft does. I'm assuming. That's probably not your marketing copy, though, so what is it you folks do?Rich: I was waiting for your Kubernetes trash talk. I knew that was coming.Corey: Yeah. Oh, good. I was hoping I could sort of sneak it around in there.Rich: [laugh].Corey: But yeah, you know me too well.Rich: By the way, I'm not dogmatic about tools, right? I think Kubernetes is great for some things and for some use cases, but it's not the best tool for everything. But what we do is we really focus a lot on the experience of developers who are writing applications that run in Kubernetes cluster, and also on the platform teams that are having to maintain the clusters. So, we really are trying to address the speed bumps, the things that people bang their shins on when they're trying to get their app running in Kubernetes.Corey: Part of the problem I've always found is that the thing that people bang their shins on is Kubernetes. And it's one of those, “Well, it's sort of in the title, so you can't really avoid it. The only way out is through.” You could also say, “It's better never begin; once begun, better finish.” The same thing seems to apply to technology in a whole bunch of different ways.And that's always been a strange thing for me where I would have bet against Kubernetes. In fact, I did, and—because it was incredibly complicated, and it came out of Google, not that someone needed to tell me. It was very clearly a Google-esque product. And we saw it sort of take the world by storm, and we are all senior YAML engineers now. And here we are.And now you're doing developer advocacy, which means you're at least avoiding the problem of actually working with Kubernetes day-in-day out yourself, presumably. But instead, you're storytelling about it.Rich: You know, I spent a good part of my day a couple days ago fighting with my Kubernetes cluster at Docker Desktop. So, I still feel the pain some, but it's a different kind of pain. I've not maintaining it in production. I actually had the total opposite experience to you. So, my introduction to Kubernetes was seeing Kelsey Hightower talk about it in, like, 2015.And I was just hooked. And the reason that I was hooked is because of what Kubernetes did, and I think especially the service primitive, is that it encoded a lot of these operational patterns that had developed into the actual platform. So, things like how you check if an app is healthy, if it's ready to start accepting requests. These are things that I was doing in the shops that I was working at already, but we had to roll it ourselves; we had to invent a way to do that. But when Kelsey started talking about Kubernetes, it became apparent to me that the people who designed this thing had a lot of experience running applications in distributed systems, and they understood what you needed to be able to do that competently.Corey: There's something to be said for packaging and shipping expertise, and it does feel like we're on a bit of a cusp, where the complexity has risen and risen and risen, and it's always a sawtooth graph where things get so complicated that you then are paying people a quarter-million dollars a year to run the thing. And then it collapses in on itself. And the complexity is still there, but it's submerged to a point where you don't need to worry about it anymore. And it feels like we're a couple years away from Kubernetes hitting that, but I do view that as inevitable. Is that, basically, completely out to sea? Is that something that you think is directionally correct, or something else?Rich: I mean, I think that the thing that's been there for a long time is, how do we take this platform and make it actually usable for people? And that's a lot more about the whole CNCF ecosystem than Kubernetes itself. How do we make it so that we can easily monitor this thing, that we can have observability, that we can deploy applications to it? And I think what we've seen over the last few years is that, even more than Kubernetes itself, the tools that allow you to do those other things that you need to do to be able to run applications have exploded and gotten a lot better, I think.Corey: The problem, of course, is the explosion part of it because we look at the other side, at the CNCF landscape diagram, and it is a hilariously overwrought picture of all of the different offerings and products and tools in the space. There are something like 400 blocks on it, the last time I checked. It looks like someone's idea of a joke. I mean, I come up with various shitposts that I'm sort of embarrassed I didn't come up with one anywhere near that funny.Rich: I left SRE a few years ago, and this actually is one of the reasons. So, the explosion in tools gave me a huge amount of imposter syndrome. And I imagine I'm not the only one because you're on Twitter, you're hanging around, you're seeing people talk about all these cool tools that are out there, and you don't necessarily have a chance to play with them, let alone use them in production. And so what I would find myself doing is I would compare myself to these people who were experts on these tools. Somebody who actually invented the thing, like Joe Beda or something like that, and it's obviously unfair to do because I'm not that person. But my brain just wants to do that. You see people out there that know more than you and a lot of times I would feel bad about it. And it's an issue, I really think it is.Corey: So, one of the problems that I ran into when I left SRE was that I was solving the same problem again and again, in rapid succession. I was generally one of the first early SRE-type hires, and, “Oh, everything's on fire, and I know how to fix those things. We're going to migrate out of EC2 Classic into VPCs; we're going to set up infrastructure as code so we're not hand-building these things from scratch every time.” And in time, we wind up getting to a point where it's, okay, there are backups, and it's easy to provision stuff, and things mostly work. And then it becomes tedium, where the day starts to look too much alike.And I start looking for other problems elsewhere in the organization, and it turns out that when you don't have strategic visibility into what other orgs are doing but tell them what they're doing wrong, you're not a popular person; and you're often wrong. And that was a source of some angst in my case. The reason I started what I do now is because I was looking to do something different where no two days look alike, and I sort of found that. Do you find that with respect to developer advocacy, or does it fall into some repetitive pattern? Not there's anything wrong with that; I wish I had the capability to do that, personally.Rich: So, it's interesting that you mentioned this because I've talked pretty publicly about the fact that I've been diagnosed with ADHD a few months ago. You talked about the fact that you have it as well. I loved your Twitter thread about it, by the way; I still recommend it to people. But I think the real issue for me was that as I got more advanced in my career, people assumed that because you have ‘senior' in your title, that you're a good project manager. It's just assumed that as you grow technically and move into more senior roles, that you're going to own projects. And I was just never good at that. I was always very good at reactive things, I think I was good at being on call, I think I was good at responding to incidents.Corey: Firefighting is great for someone with our particular predilections. It's, “Oh, great. There's a puzzle to solve. It's extremely critical that we solve it.” And it gets the adrenaline moving. It's great, “Cool, now fill out a bunch of Jira tickets.” And those things will sit there unfulfilled until the day I die.Rich: Absolutely. And it's still not a problem that I've solved. I'll preface this with the kids don't try this at home advice because everybody's situation is different. I'm a white guy in the industry with a lot of privilege; I've developed a really good network over the years; I don't spend a lot of time worried about what happens if I lose my job, right, or how am I going to get another one. But when I got this latest job that I'm at now, I was pretty open with the CEO who interviewed me—it's a very small company, I'm like employee number four.And so when we talked to him ahead of time, I was very clear with him about the fact that bored Rich is bad. If Rich gets bored with what he's doing, if he's not engaged, it's not going to be good for anyone involved. And so—Corey: He's going to go find problems to solve, and they very well may not align with the problems that you need solved.Rich: Yeah, I think my problem is more that I disengage. Like, I lose my passion for what it is that I'm doing. And so I've been pretty intentional about trying to kind of change it up, make different kinds of content. I happen to be at this place that has four open-source projects, right, along with our commercial project. And so, so far at least, there's been plenty for me to talk about. I haven't had to worry about being bored so far.Corey: Small companies are great for that because you're everyone does everything to some extent; you start spreading out. And the larger a company gets, the smaller your remit is. The argument I always made against working at Google, for example was, let's say that I went in with evil in mind on day one. I would not be able—regardless of how long I was there, how high in the hierarchy I climbed—to take down google.com for one hour—the search engine piece.If I can't have that much impact intentionally, then the question really becomes how much impact can I have in a positive direction with everyone supposedly working in concert with me? And the answer I always came up with was not that much, not in the context of a company like that. It's hard for me to feel relevant to a large company. For better or worse, that is the thing that keeps me engaged is, “You know, if I get this wrong enough, we don't have a company anymore,” is sort of the right spot for me.Rich: [laugh]. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because I had been at a number of startups last few years that were fairly early stage, and when I was looking for work this last time, my impulse was to go the opposite direction, was to go to a big company, you know, something that was going to be a little more stable, maybe. But I just was so interested in what these folks were building. And I really clicked with Lukas, the CEO, when we talked, and I ended up deciding to go this route. But there's a flip side to that.There's a lot of responsibility that comes with that, too. Part of me wanting to avoid being in that spotlight, in a way; part of me wanted to back off and be one of the million people building things. But I'm happy that I made this choice, and like I said, it's been working out really well, so far.Corey: It seems to be. You seem happy, which is always a nice thing to be able to pick up from someone in how they go about these things. Talk to me a little bit about what Loft does. You're working on some virtual cluster nonsense that mostly sails past me. Can you explain it using small words?Rich: [laugh]. Yeah, sure. So, if you talk to people who use Kubernetes, a lot, you are—Corey: They seem sad all the time. But please continue.Rich: One of the reasons that they're sad is because of multi-tenancy in Kubernetes; it just wasn't designed with that sort of model in mind. And so what you end up with is a couple of different things that happen. Either people build these shared clusters and feel a whole lot of pain trying to share them because people commonly use namespaces to isolate things, and that model doesn't completely work. Because there are objects like CRDs and things that are global, that don't live in the namespace, and so that can cause pain. Or the other option that people go with is that they just spin up a whole bunch of clusters.So, every team or every developer gets their own cluster, and then you've got all this cluster sprawl, and you've got costs, and it's not great for the environment. And so what we are really focused a lot on with the virtual cluster stuff is it provides people what looks like a full-blown Kubernetes cluster, but it just lives inside the namespace on your host cluster. So, it actually uses K3s, from the Rancher folks, the SUSE folks. And literally, this K3s API server sits in the namespace. And as a user, it looks to you like a full-blown Kubernetes cluster.Corey: Got it. So, basically a lightweight [unintelligible 00:13:31] that winds up stripping out some of the overwrought complexity. Do you find that it winds up then becoming a less high-fidelity copy of production?Rich: Sure. It's not one-to-one, but nothing ever is, right?Corey: Right. It's a question of whether people admit it or not, and where they're willing to make those trade-offs.Rich: Right. And it's a lot closer to production than using Docker Compose or something like that. So yeah, like you said, it's all about trade-offs, and I think that everything that we do as technical people is about trade-offs. You can give everybody their own Kubernetes cluster, you know, would run it in GK or AWS, and there's going to be a cost associated with that, not just financially, but in terms of the headaches for the people administering things.Corey: The hard part from where I've always been sitting has just been—because again, I deal with large-scale build-outs; I come in in the aftermath of these things—and people look at the large Kubernetes environments that they've built and it's expensive, and you look at it from the cloud provider perspective, and it's just a bunch of one big noisy application that doesn't make much sense from the outside because it's obviously not a single application. And it's chatty across availability zone boundaries, so it costs two cents per gigabyte. It has no [affinity 00:14:42] for what's nearby, so instead of talking to the service that is three racks away, it talks the thing over an expensive link. And that has historically been a problem. And there are some projects being made in that direction, but it's mostly been a collective hand-waving around it.And then you start digging into it in other directions from an economics perspective, and they're at large scale in the extreme corner cases, it always becomes this, “Oh, it's more trouble than it's worth.” But that is probably unfair for an awful lot of the real-world use cases that don't rise to my level of attention.Rich: Yeah. And I mean, like I said earlier, I think that it's not the best use case for everything. I'm a big fan of the HashiCorp tools. I think Nomad is awesome. A lot of people use it, they use it for other things.I think that one of the big use cases for Nomad is, like, running batch jobs that need to be scheduled. And there are people who use Nomad and Kubernetes both. Or you might use something like Cloud Run or AppRun, whatever works for you. But like I said, from someone who spent literally decades figuring out how to operate software and operating it, I feel like the great thing about this platform is the fact that it does sort of encode those practices.I actually have a podcast of my own. It's called Kube Cuddle. I talk to people in the Kubernetes community. I had Kelsey Hightower on recently, and the thing that Kelsey will tell you, and I agree with him completely, is that, you know, we talk about the complexity in Kubernetes, but all of that complexity, or a lot of it, was there already.We just dealt with it in other ways. So, in the old days, I was the Kubernetes scheduler. I was the guy who knew which app ran on which host, and deployed them and did all that stuff. And that's just not scalable. It just doesn't work.Corey: This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle Cloud. Counting the pennies, but still dreaming of deploying apps instead of "Hello, World" demos? Allow me to introduce you to Oracle's Always Free tier. It provides over 20 free services and infrastructure, networking databases, observability, management, and security.And - let me be clear here - it's actually free. There's no surprise billing until you intentionally and proactively upgrade your account. This means you can provision a virtual machine instance or spin up an autonomous database that manages itself all while gaining the networking load, balancing and storage resources that somehow never quite make it into most free tiers needed to support the application that you want to build. With Always Free you can do things like run small scale applications, or do proof of concept testing without spending a dime. You know that I always like to put asterisks next to the word free. This is actually free. No asterisk. Start now. Visit https://snark.cloud/oci-free that's https://snark.cloud/oci-free.Corey: The hardest part has always been the people aspect of things, and I think folks have tried to fix this through a lens of, “The technology will solve the problem, and that's what we're going to throw at it, and see what happens by just adding a little bit more code.” But increasingly, it doesn't work. It works for certain problems, but not for others. I mean, take a look at the Amazon approach, where every team communicates via APIs—there's no shared data stores or anything like that—and their entire problem is a lack of internal communication. That's why the launch services that do basically the same thing as each other because no one bothers to communicate with one another. And half my job now is introducing Amazonians to one another. It empowers some amazing things, but it has some serious trade-offs. And this goes back to our ADHD aspect of the conversation.Rich: Yeah.Corey: The thing that makes you amazing is also the thing that makes you suck. And I think that manifests in a bunch of different ways. I mean, the fact that I can switch between a whole bunch of different topics and keep them all in state in my head is helpful, but it also makes me terrible, as far as an awful lot of different jobs, where don't come back to finish things like completing the Jira ticket to hit on Jira a second time in the same recording.Rich: Yeah, I'm the same way, and I think that you're spot on. I think that we always have to keep the people in mind. You know, when I made this decision to come to Loft Labs, I was looking at the tools and the tools were cool, but it wasn't just that. It's that they were addressing problems that people I know have. You hear these stories all the time about people struggling with the multi-tenancy stuff and I could see very quickly that the people building the tools were thinking about the people using them, and I think that's super important.Corey: As I check your LinkedIn profile, turns out, no, we met back in your Puppet days, the same era that I was a traveling trainer, teaching people how to Puppet and hoping not to get myself ejected from the premises for using sarcastic jokes about the company that I was conducting the training for. And that was fun. And then I worked at a bunch of places, you worked in a bunch of places, and you mentioned a few minutes ago that we share this privilege where if one of us loses our job, the next one is going to be a difficult thing for us to find, given the skill set that we have, the immense privilege that we enjoy, and the way that this entire industry works. Now, I will say that has changed somewhat since starting my own company. It's no longer the fear of, “Well, I'm going to land on my feet.” Rich: Right.Corey: Yeah, but I've got a bunch of people who are counting on me not to completely pooch this up. So, that's the thing that keeps me awake at night, now. But I'm curious, do you feel like that's given you the flexibility to explore a bunch of different company types and a bunch of different roles and stretch yourself a little with the understanding that, yeah, okay. If you've never last five years at the same company, that's not an inherent problem.Rich: Yeah, it's interesting. I've had conversations with people about this. If you do look up my LinkedIn, you're going to see that a lot of the recent jobs have been less than two years: year, year and a half, things like that. And I think that I do have some of that freedom, now. Those exits haven't always been by choice, right?And that's part of what happens in the industry, too. I think I've been laid off, like, four or five times now in my career. The worst one by far was when the bubble burst back in 2000. I was working at WebMD, and they ended up closing our office here.Corey: You were Doctor Google.Rich: I kind of was. So, I was actually the guy who would deploy the webmd.com site back then. And it was three big Sun servers. And I would manually go in and run shell scripts and take one out of the load balancer and roll the new code on it, and then move on to the next one. And those are early days; I started in the industry in about '95. Those early days, I just felt bulletproof because everybody needed somebody with my skills. And after that layoff in 2000, it was a lot different. The market just dried up, I went 10 months unemployed. I ended up taking a job where I took a really big pay cut in a role that wasn't really good for me, career-wise. And I guess it's been a little bit of a comfort to me, looking back. If I get laid off now, I know it's not going to be as bad as that was. But I think that's important, and one of the things that's helped me a lot and I'm assuming it's helped you, too, is building up a network, meeting people, making friends. I sort of hate the word networking because it has really negative connotations to it to me. The salespeople slapping each other on the back at the bar and exchanging business cards is the image that comes to my mind when I think of networking. But I don't think it has to be like that. I think that you can make genuine friendships with people in the industry that share the interests and passions that you have.Corey: That's part of it. People, I think, also have the wrong idea about passion and how that interplays with career. “Do a thing that you love, and the money will follow,” is terrific advice in the United States to make about $30,000 a year. I assure you, when I started this place, I was not deeply passionate about AWS billing. I developed a passion for it as I rapidly had to become an expert in this thing.I knew there was an expensive business problem there that leveraged the skill set that I already had and I could apply it to something that was valuable to more than just engineers because let's face it, engineers are generally terrible customers for a variety of reasons. And by doing that and becoming the expert in that space, I developed a passion for it. I think it was Scott Galloway who in one of his talks said he had a friend who was a tax attorney. And do you think that he started off passionate about tax law? Of course not.He was interested in making a giant pile of money. Like, his preferred seat when he flies is ‘private.' So, he's obviously very passionate about it now, but he found something that he could enjoy that would pay a bunch of money because it was an in-demand, expensive skill. I often wonder if instead of messing around and computers, my passion had been oil painting, for example. Would I have had anything approaching to the standard of living I have now?The answer is, “Of course not.” It would have been a very different story. And that says many deeply troubling things about our society across the board. I don't know how to fix any of them. I'm one of those people that rather than sitting here talking how the world should be; I deal with the world as I encounter it.And at times, that doesn't feel great, but it is the way that I've learned to cope, I guess, with the existential angst. I'm envious in some ways of the folks who sit here saying, “No, we demand a better world.” I wish I shared their optimism or ability to envision it being different than it is, but I just don't have it.Rich: Yeah, I mean, there are oil painters who make a whole lot of money, but it's not many of them, right?Corey: Yeah, but you shouldn't have to be dead first.Rich: [laugh]. I used to… know a painter who Jim Carrey bought one of his big canvases for quite a lot of money. So, they're not all dead. But again, your point is very valid. We are in this bubble in the tech industry where people do make on average, I think, a lot more money than people do in many other kinds of jobs.And I recently started thinking about possibly going into ADHD coaching. So, I have an ADHD coach myself; she has made a very big difference in my life so far. And I actually have started taking classes to prepare for possibly getting certified in that. And I'm not sure that I'm going to do it. I may stay in tech.I may do some of both. It doesn't have to be either-or. But it's been really liberating to just have this vision of myself working outside of tech. That's something that I didn't consider was even possible for quite a long time.Corey: I have to confess I've never had an ADHD coach. I was diagnosed when I was five years old and back then—my mother had it as well, and the way that it was dealt with in the '50s and '60s when she was growing up was, she had a teacher once physically tie her to a chair. Which—Rich: Oh, my gosh.Corey: —is generally frowned upon these days. And coaching was never a thing. They decided, “Oh, we're going to medicate you to the gills,” in my case. And that was great. I was basically a zombie for a lot of my childhood.When I was 17, I took myself off of it and figured I'd white-knuckle it for the next 10 years or so. Again, everyone's experience is different, but for me, didn't work, and it led to some really interesting tumultuous times in my '20s. I've never explored coaching just because it feels like so much of what I do is the weirdest aspects of different areas of ADHD. I also have constraints upon me that most folks with ADHD wouldn't have. And conversely, I have a tremendous latitude in other areas.For example, I keep dropping things periodically from time to time; I have an assistant. Turns out that most people, they bring in an assistant to help them with stuff will find themselves fired because you're not supposed to share inside company data with someone who is not an employee of that company. But when you own the company, as I do, it's well, okay, I'm not supposed to share confidential client data or give access to it to someone who's not an employee here. “Da da da da da. Welcome aboard. Your first day is Monday.”And now I've solved that problem in a way that is not open to most people. That is a tremendous benefit and I'm constantly aware of how much privilege is just baked into that. It's a hard thing for me to reconcile, so I've never explored the coaching angle. I also, on some level—and this is an area that I understand is controversial and I in no way, shape or form, mean any—want anyone to take anything negative away from this. There are a number of people I know where ADHD is a cornerstone of their identity, where that is the thing that they are.That is the adjective that gets hung on them the most—by choice, in many cases—and I'm always leery about going down that path because I'm super strange ever on a whole bunch of different angles, and even, “Oh, well he has ADHD. Does that explain it?” No, not really. I'm still really, really strange. But I never wanted to go down that path of it being, “Oh, Corey. The guy with ADHD.”And again, part of this is growing up with that diagnosis. I was always the odd kid, but I didn't want to be quote-unquote, “The freak” that always had to go to the nurse's office to wind up getting the second pill later in the day. I swear people must have thought I had irritable bowel syndrome or something. It was never, “Time to go to the nurse, Corey.” It was one of those [unintelligible 00:27:12]. “Wow, 11:30. Wow, he is so regular. He must have all the fiber in his diet.” Yeah, pretty much.Rich: I think that from reading that Twitter thread of yours, it sounds like you've done a great job at mitigating some of the downsides of ADHD. And I think it's really important when we talk about this that we acknowledge that everybody's experience is different. So, your experience with ADHD is likely different than mine. But there are some things that a lot of us have in common, and you mentioned some of them, that the idea of creating that Jira ticket and never following through, you put yourself in a situation where you have people around you and structures, external structures, that compensate for the things that you might have trouble with. And that's kind of how I'm looking at it right now.My question is, what can I do to be the most successful Rich Burroughs that I can be? And for me right now, having that coach really helps a lot because being diagnosed as an adult, there's a lot of self-image problems that can come from ADHD. You know that you failed at a lot of things over time; people have often pointed that out to you. I was the kid in high school who the counselors or my teachers were always telling me I needed to apply myself.Corey: “If you just tried harder and suck a little less, then you'll be much better off.” Yeah, “Just to apply yourself. You have so much potential, Rich.” Does any of that ring a bell?Rich: Yeah, for sure. And, you know, something my coach said to me not too long ago, I was talking about something and I said to her, I can't do X. Like, I'm just not—it's not possible. And her response was, “Well, what if you could?” And I think that's been one of the big benefits to me is she helps me think outside of my preconceptions of what I can do.And then the other part of it, that I'm personally finding really valuable, is having the goal setting and some level of accountability. She helps with those things as well. So, I'm finding it really useful. I'm sure it's not for everybody. And like we said, everybody's experience with ADHD isn't the same, but one of the things that I've had happened since I started talking about getting diagnosed, and what I've learned since then, is I've had a bunch of people come to me.And it's usually on Twitter; it's usually in DMs; you know, they don't want to talk about it publicly themselves, but they'll tell me that they saw my tweets and they went out and got diagnosed or their kid got diagnosed. And when I think about the difference that could make in someone's life, if you're a kid and you actually get diagnosed and hopefully get better treatment than it sounds like you did, it could make a really big positive impact in someone's life and that's the reason that I'm considering putting doing it myself is because I found that so rewarding. Some of these messages I get I'm almost in tears when I read them.Corey: Yeah. The reason I started talking about it more is that I was hoping that I could serve as something of, if not a beacon of inspiration, at least a cautionary tale of what not to do. But you never know if you ever get there or not. People come up and say that things you've said or posted have changed the trajectory of how they view their careers and you've had a positive impact on their life. And, I mean, you want to talk about weird Gremlins in our own minds?I always view that as just the nice things people say because they feel like they should. And that is ridiculous, but that's the voice in my head that's like, “You aren't shit, Corey, you aren't shit,” that's constantly whispering in my ear. And it's, I don't know if you can ever outrun those demons.Rich: I don't think I can outrun them. I don't think that the self-image issues I have are ever going to just go away. But one thing I would say is that since I've been diagnosed, I feel like I'm able to be at least somewhat kinder to myself than I was before because I understand how my brain works a little bit better. I already knew about the things that I wasn't good at. Like, I knew I wasn't a good project manager; I knew that already.What I didn't understand is some of the reasons why. I'm not saying that it's all because of ADHD, but it's definitely a factor. And just knowing that there's some reason for why I suck, sometimes is helpful. It lets me let myself off the hook, I guess, a little bit.Corey: Yeah, I don't have any answers here. I really don't. I hope that it becomes more clear in the fullness of time. I want to thank you for taking so much time to speak with me about all these things. If people want to learn more, where can they find you?Rich: I'm @richburroughs on Twitter, and also on Polywork, which I've been playing around with and enjoying quite a bit.Corey: I need to look into that more. I have an account but I haven't done anything with it, yet.Rich: It's a lot of fun and I think that, speaking of ADHD, one of the things that occurred to me is that I'm very bad at remembering the things that I accomplish.Corey: Oh, my stars, yes. People ask me what I do for a living and I just stammer like a fool.Rich: Yeah. And it's literally this map of, like, all the content I've been making. And so I'm able to look at that and, I think, appreciate what I've done and maybe pat myself on the back a little bit.Corey: Which is important. Thank you so much again, for your time, Rich. I really appreciate it.Rich: Thanks for having me on, Corey. This was really fun.Corey: Rich Burroughs, Senior Developer Advocate at Loft Labs. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with a comment telling me what the demon on your shoulder whispers into your ear and that you can drive them off by using their true name, which is Kubernetes.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

IN THIS HOUR OF TOUCHER & RICH: It was Truck Day yesterday at Fenway Park, but because of the pandemic, it was a VIRTUAL edition of the annual event! (00:00) Callers continue to weigh in as Fred questions a portion of the New England fanbase and their loyalty  (13:49) How was 3 Doors Down so huge? The Ringer’s Kevin O'Connor wrote that multiple executives in the league think the Celtics are up to something and are looking to upgrade the wing and big man position. (30:48) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you have been around the digital signage industry for even a little while, you'd know Rich Ventura - the very active board member and then chair of the Digital Signage Federation, and pretty much the front man for NEC Display. But now, after about 20 years with NEC, he's now at Sony - running its B2B group, which includes digital signage products. I caught up with Rich last week to talk about the job change, and where Sony sits in the signage and AV ecosystems. We get into Sony's smart displays, where Sony is at with software, and the past, present and future of its gorgeous but big-dollar micro LED displays. He even drops a hint that maybe we'll see more LED from Sony. Have a listen ...  Subscribe to this podcast: iTunes * Google Play * RSS   TRANSCRIPT So, Rich, good to chat with you. You have moved on. People know you from many, many years at NEC and now you are at Sony. What prompted the move? Rich: You know, some people say it was kind of a midlife crisis and I kind of laugh at that. As I've told everybody in the 20 years at NEC, and I love NEC, and I always will and I tell everybody at NEC family, it was an opportunity that just made a lot of sense form my career. It had to be a really, really amazing opportunity for me to move and you know, I looked at the direction Sony wants to go, I looked at the leadership within Sony, I looked at the technology, I looked at all those different things. And it was that really great opportunity.  And I think it was also that opportunity to give me the ability of driving change even further and adding to my skill set, but you know, going looking at the tech and the direction that Sony wants to go, it was just hard to say no. It was a hard decision to say yes. But it was also a hard decision to say no. So what is the gig? Rich: You know, it's basically running and leading our B2B organization. And I hate to say running and leading because it's really, to me, it's more supporting and growing and partnering within the B2B organization with all the people that we have there, to really grow our business. It's for North America.  So you look within the B2B organization, it's working with our BRAVIA professional displays. We do also have access to some of our consumer products as well, working with our CLED product, which is really just an amazing technology. It's working with our projector group, projector products, an area I've never really worked with before, our PTZ cameras space, our boom mikes. We have Edge analytics, but it's not the type of Edge analytics people are used to hearing me talk about. It's really around distance learning and the classroom. And looking at any of those types of solutions that fit within our pro AV space. Is broadcast on your portfolio as well? Rich: No, it's not. That's gonna be a different group in there. But we have kind of that touch and that's what that PTZ camera base is because there's some products that we have that can play in both the AV space but also in the broadcast space. Right. So, you know, this is a digital signage podcast, so I will tend to talk about that. I'm curious about where Sony is in the context of signage, because Sony has had a product out there in different ways for at least 15 years, and they've kind of been in and out of signage.  You know, they've had booths at the trade shows, and then they kind of disappeared. And they seem to have software, but maybe they don't. They were the first guys, as far as I know, to do system-on-chip displays. But, you know, Samsung made a lot more noise about it than them and on and on. So, where are they at? Rich: It's great. I mean, part of the reason or part of my decision criteria to come over here was I did look at the SOC play and what we're doing. And if you look at it, you know, our displays have an SOC chip on it, we're running Android. It's not a Sony operating system, It's an Android operating system. And there was a lot of attractiveness to that and I see this great opportunity within digital signage. I mean you look at how the industry has gone, you've got organizations that have their own operating system, and they're running this closed environment, so to speak, right?  And then you have organizations that are not running operations. They're just running this massively open environment where you can use these different types of computers and open an operating system. And in Sony, we kind of can go both directions. We have this Android operating system, which is fairly open. But it's designed for our displays. And one of the things I want to look at is how can we capitalize on that and you'd be amazed, or you may not be amazed, but the first week of me joining Sony, so many CMS companies called me saying, “we want to work with Sony.”  And I said great, let me understand where we're at. To me, I look at digital signage as still a very young industry. I always refer to the industry we're in today as really that fourth industrial revolution. We're focusing on IoT, in an everything's connected device world and digital signage is a massive part of it. Nobody has truly capitalized on that. And so when I came into Sony and had my conversations with leadership and everyone, they said, well, we don't focus that much on digital signage, because there's everybody's doing business in there, and I said actually, they're not. They're not doing it the right way. And I think even with what's happening with COVID, digital signage has taken on this whole different life and this whole opportunity.  And to me, this is very opportunistic for Sony, and what we can do and I'm having a lot of late night conversations with our team in Japan. I'm talking a lot with our team here. I'm talking to a lot of different software companies and looking at what has been our strategy, so it's here and where do we want to grow? And where do we our strategy being and that's part of my first 30-45 days, laying out what is our strategy. Digital signage has got a massive opportunity for us. There's a lot of upside to it. I think we need to have, I don't want to say open our eyes a little bit differently, but I think we need to look at it a little differently than what we have historically. And I think you're gonna see a lot of really exciting stuff coming from us, both in the near future and long term future around digital signage. It's a little bit challenging though, because Sony primarily, if you set aside the CLED product, which we'll talk about, but the on the LCD flat panel side, it seems to be increasingly a commodity play and the big Korean guys like LG and Samsung seem to be backing off of it a little bit because it can't compete with China panels. Rich: Totally and I think you've always known my opinion about value. If you look at what I have shared with the organization in my first week, I have really three core values when looking at our business. Everything we have to do needs to drive value. So if we're delivering a 55-inch LCD, we're delivering a PTZ camera, CLED, whatever it is, there has to be value driven to our customers.  Well, the way we drive value is really twofold. One is we drive value by being easier to engage and work with, not having complex systems. And you know, some people say, that's what you said when you were at NEC and I go well, I believe in that. I mean, I believe that as an organization, to drive value, we have to be easier to work with. We have to have systems that work very well together that go all the way down to the level of our platforms, where with Android, being able to integrate into that, being able to deploy our product, being able to purchase a product, all those things have to be easier. And that drives value.  The second aspect of it is solutions focused. And I don't mean taking a monitor mount and a cable and throwing it in a box. Solutions focus, to me, means solving pain points for our customers. We're creating an opportunity for them to impact their business. And so when we look at those three things, our focus is not to sell at the lowest price point, our focus is not to compete at a dollar for dollar. Our focus is really competing at the value, how do we drive that value to our customers? If you look at our product category, we don't have 100 SKUs. What we have though, are very focused SKUs that can work well in the corporate space, well in the education space, work well in the transportation space, the wayfinding space. Okay, so you don't really, I mean you would take the opportunity if it came along, but the high volume commodity-ish stuff like digital menu boards, that sort of thing where you're just selling large volumes of them isn't really the play. It's going to be more around situations where you need very high quality displays. Rich: You know me, I'm gonna go after every deal I can, right? I'm gonna be opportunistic, but I also need to maintain and make sure that we're doing it profitably. What I don't want to do is, I don't want to give up quality, I don't want to give up support. I don't want to give all those things that we're known for just so that we can sell, you know, 10,000 displays.  It's interesting when I've asked our employees, why do people buy Sony? And the answer has been almost identical across the line. It's been around our quality, it's been around our technology, it's been around our reliability, those things that I value very heavily. And so how do we do that? Grow the business, maintain profitability, and really deliver on the value. It's a difficult task, right? And especially as we see more and more of the commoditization happening out there, and, and that's where I'm really challenging the team. And that's where I'm even challenging our partners, from our technology partners and even our channel partners. How do we do that? And where can we become opportunistic to go after the right business and deliver the right solutions and value to our partners? And right now, is that partners as you describe them, is that a reseller channel partner ecosystem that you primarily sell through? Rich: Yeah, we are a channel organization. We have very strong relationships with our distribution partners. Our regional integrators are national integrators. We have really strong relationships with them. And I want to find ways to expand that relationship with them and how can we help them grow their business and really take on more of that solution. Not meaning any meaning Sony taking on that solution, but how do we help them take on that ability of growing their capabilities and growing their value add. At the same time though, I'm going to be very opportunistic and see what are the ways that we can help them with differentiation from Sony as well. Sure. So in the ecosystem, where do you think right now or historically, these channel partners have been kind of jammed up to like, where do they need the help? Rich: It'd be easy for me to say well, they need XYZ, but I think they're all different. Every one of these channel partners, really out of necessity and opportunity have really differentiated themselves. Some have the most amazing content creation organizations. Some of them have amazing installation capabilities and service. That's really where integrators have always cut their teeth, it's been around integration services. Some of them have just amazing levels of partnerships. So it's really looking at every level with them, where can we help them?  And I'll use a really easy example, there's a partner that I had a call with in my first week as one of our channel partners, and they cut their teeth and broadcast an audio, that's where they've always focused their attention. And digital signage is a new realm for them. And so as we were talking through and I asked him, you know, who do you partner with, who have you talked to and stuff like that? We started talking about organizations that are out there, from a software perspective. And the knowledge base that we have is very valuable to them. And so the fact that we can help steer them and look at who are the right types of companies to work with, or as you verticalized, who are the right players in different vertical markets, that becomes very valuable.  So now how do I use that to our advantage? And that's the million dollar question. And I think as I work with the sales organization and our marketing organization, looking at who we have worked with, and where we've seen those values and create, to me really a tear of manufacturer partners, like you know, it's our friends, it's our family, and it's our blood. Friends are those that we know each other, we work well together, right? Family is where we start getting that stickiness where we have some integrations together or we have ease, you know, I go back to the ease of use and the value. Blood is really where solutions come in and where our products are integrated with one another.  And that's new for Sony and I think as we grow the business, it’s not going to be today, it's not gonna be tomorrow, it's going to happen over a period of time. That's where we start driving and helping that value with that integration channel. What do you think of the whole work-from-home thing and the realization amongst a lot of companies that, “Hey, maybe we don't need this big office tower or five floors and an office tower. We can have one floor and everybody else just works from home”. What that's going to mean for things like workplace communications and this idea that this was one of the next big frontiers for signage in particular that you can sell them all this stuff, because of the need to communicate in white collar environments? Rich: So the selfish, opportunistic salesperson in me hates it, because it reduces my opportunity to sell. I love having a million tons of the top offices out there because I can sell a lot of products. The realist in me sees this as an opportunity to differentiate and drive value, whether it's, you know, I go back to the Android player and the fact that we have simple solution for signage, and being able to get that to a company so that they can do simple, whether it's information to their employees about COVID, and information about status and information about things going on in their business.  I think it's also going to be opportunistic and challenging for us as manufacturers to look at. What are other ways that we communicate, right? Is it putting higher brightness displays in windows so that people can be communicated to? Is there going to be this growth within the out of home community? And are they going to have a different type of need with direct view LEDs? It's all those things. One of the things I also see is, it's a challenging opportunity from a technology perspective.  I go back to this being that industrial revolution around IoT. How do we deliver our tech that doesn't require somebody to physically touch the monitor? How do we derive solutions that allow our customers to remotely monitor, manage and deploy their technology? Where they do have offices, and maybe they don't have an employee in every single location? It's all those things, I think are going to be a play for us. I've worked from home for many years. I mean, I carried a bag for NEC, right? So you look at my first 10 years at NEC, I worked from home, then I worked at an office, and now I'm back to working at home. So, I'm used to it. It's definitely creating a new dynamic for employees. The engagement has to be different. We have to engage with our employees a lot different, we have to make sure that they feel engaged. I've seen some of these digital signage software companies like Signagelive, for example, building out platforms that allow them to engage at the employee level to their laptops. I think when we're looking at what's going on today, I think it's gonna really drive creativity and innovation. And it's gonna be really interesting, it’s gonna be fun to see how companies do innovate and drive engagement now. So when I go to trade shows, when those things still happened, I would walk through, let's say the last one was ISC, I walked through the big Sony booth and I would see a lot of information about a product, I think, it was called TEOS, which seemed to be primarily office based, digital room signs, that sort of thing, but I got a sense that there was a digital signage component to it, but you also have some sort of a signage-CMS product that maybe comes out of India or I'm not quite sure where from really, what are those things? Rich: I'm still learning. (Laughter) TEOS is really an interesting platform. I'm learning a lot about it. I got to spend some time last week with our team in Europe to understand it. To me, TEOS is like this office management, automation, communication platform. And it's a platform, it's not a piece of software. And I know that it’s critical to understand that it's a platform, and it's allowing us to look at, you know, room management and schedule management and there's a digital signage element to it, but it's not like if I were to rank like the top 10 features to it and functionalities, it's not in that top five, because there's a lot of other things behind it.  It's a module.  Rich: It is. It's not a standalone “I'm going to deploy this for my digital signage and that's all I'm gonna do”, that's not what it's for. And so I'm really learning a lot about it. There's some really cool capabilities with it. But it's not something I would go and deploy in a retailer, for example. This is more for an office workspace environment. And you know, I'm definitely learning a lot about it. I think there's some really cool capabilities in it. And you know, knowing my background when I'm working with software teams, I of course, start asking a million questions and blow their minds a little bit, but I think there's some really cool things about it. The digital signage element you're talking about is something else that I haven't had a chance to go learn and spend my time on yet, but from what I see it, it's very simplistic. It's something that you can do within our environment.  What I will say is, there's a necessity for it. As we all talk about, you know, that early SMB, that single screen environment that you don't make your money on. But do I think it's the silver bullet? I think you know me well enough to know that I've never considered any digital signage software package to be a silver bullet, you know, one package can’t do  everything for everyone. So, I'm gonna reserve judgment till I've gotten to really see it and play with it, right? But it's exciting to see that people are thinking about ways that we can deliver value. Everything goes back to my conversation around value. Yeah, whenever you have your own CMS, it becomes this delicate little dance of what is it for, does it compete with your software partners and all that sort of thing. I don't think any of the software partners who started calling you would be too worried about a totally entry level onesie-twosie kind of thing.  But I've chatted quite a bit with Samsung and Magicinfo through the years and they're now at a point where they have a full-time Product Manager and they're taking it very seriously, but you know, that starts to get really foreign in terms of the partner ecosystem that they have on the software side. Rich: Yeah, I look at it as an opportunity. Hire as many product managers as you can, please. I look at it as an opportunity where we can partner with companies. I think you've known me long enough, and those in the industry have known me long enough, I take partnerships very seriously. And they're a path to growth. And if I can have thousands of people out there pushing and talking about the Sony brand, that's very valuable to me.  I've had a lot of people go to me and say, “You were at NEC all those years and you guys are one of the top dogs, why go to Sony?” And I say because Sony's a top dog too, you just don't realize it yet. And I think we've been quiet. I think everybody knows me well enough to know I'm not shy. I bleed my brand. I bleed my company. I told everybody on the team on day one, I've got your back. And my job here is to help us grow and really put us in that position that we're going to be the top dog and I look at those opportunities with the products we have today, the partnerships and you know, the one product we haven't talked about yet is CLED, I mean, I'm blown away by what that product can do. It is an absolutely beautiful technology. I know you and I have talked about it. When we first saw it, you first saw it, we talked about it in interviews, and you've asked me what's my opinion of the CLED product, I said it's pretty amazing looking. I don't know anything about it yet, but it's pretty cool looking. The one thing I would ask about CLED and if people listening don't know what it is, it's Sony's micro LED product which has been around about four or five years. Now yes, it looks amazing. I've stood really close to it and tried to figure out what was going on. And over the years I've learned more about what micro LED is. The one thing that I wondered about is that it seems to be the same product that it was three, four years ago when it first came out and in LED, everything's evolving so quickly. I wonder where is it now? Is it on Gen 3, and I just don't understand that. Rich: Well, why fix anything if you made perfection day one? (Laughter) I'm just kidding. I think we are evolving, right? I think where CLED is today and where we want to take it, you're going to see we will evolve it, right? One of the things I really dive deeply into and it's been an interesting experience, I think, for my business team, is really understanding all of our products whether it’s CLED, it’s BRAVIA to PTZ, you can have a list of it and having these calls with the product management team here, but also our team in Japan, and that's challenging. I’m like okay, what are we going to do? How do we grow this business? How are we positioning ourselves against the competition in the industry?  You know, going back to my three things earlier about value, simplicity and solutions, what are we doing? And I think you're going to see a lot of really cool stuff. I can't go into depth about it at all, but I can tell you, there's a lot of cool stuff that we're working on and looking at. That being said, we've got some really, really amazing projects that are deploying the CLED product and the clarity of the product, the uniformity of the product, the technology behind it, is exactly what they need for those applications. And It's not a utilitarian product at all. No. I mean, I've seen it in the wild Now a couple of times. And just like in the trade shows being really impressed the one thing that worried me a little bit was the glossy finish that it has on it, seems to pick up reflection. Rich:  No, it does. And that's, like I said the applications are very explicit for how it's being used. You know, I've seen some I've seen pictures of some of the deployments that we've done. And I go, “Aha, that makes sense to me.” That makes sense on where it goes and why it goes in this application. It's really a technology you need to really dive in to understand. It's not like a traditional LED at all. And I'm still learning it. I mean, I've had nine meetings just specifically around CLED, and I still have a million questions everytime I get on the phone. So I'm excited about what it can do and how we can position it better in the market or how we currently position it, but how we continue to position it in the market. Yeah, I think it'll be important for people to understand the price points and how the technology is evolving. Because when that thing first came out, making a micro led of that scale would have been enormously expensive, just because the manufacturing technology wasn't there. But, you know, micro LED is, I want to say it's becoming commonplace, but it's pretty widely adopted now. So, I would assume that you can do a hell of a lot more and you'll make it more relatable price wise to more potential buyers. Yeah. Rich: Yeah and that happens, you know, we always talk about technology at that tech curve, right? So you're the early adopters all the way through to the late adopters, and technology follows that curve, right? So even if you’re the early adopters, you don't have a lot of volume, you don't have the technology to drive things. Because it's new. It's a new idea. And it takes a while to happen. But I think that's where I challenge our team. When I tell them I say our team, I am talking about everybody: our sales organization, our marketing organization, our development team, is how do we drive forward where that product, that platform is the right product, right platform for the marketplace and where it needs to go, but also fits the right applications and use cases. So like I said, I think you'll see a lot of opportunity coming out of us with the CLED product. It's interesting that even today, you still have any number of people referring to any big outdoor LED board as a Jumbotron, which was a Sony product that came and went. But really the only Sony direct-view LED product I know of is the CLED. Are there any plans to expand? Or is that just such a crowded market and you'll stay with this premium product, and that'll be it? Rich: All I can say is keep your eyes and ears open. Yeah. Well that makes sense. I mean, you know, wherever it's going, it's hard not to have a range of products to suit different needs particularly in the business market.  One other thing I'm curious about is, is it an advantage to you or does it feel more comfortable in the fact that you spent 20 years working for a Japanese company already, so you understand the business culture? Because I would imagine somebody who's spent all their time working just, with North American manufacturers or whatever going and starting to work with a Japanese business culture might be quite a shift for them. Rich: So, it's an advantage and a disadvantage. It's an advantage because I've gotten to really learn so much, especially as I say, in the last three or four years of my career in NEC. I really spent a lot of time with our Japanese tema and I got to learn how they work and how we as an organization can work better with them and communicate better.  I think I always have to remind everybody that English is not their first language, right? And so as we share information with our team in Japan, they may be speaking to us in English, but they're also computing this in their heads in Japanese to make sure they understand. So it's very critical that we communicate and we're very open and transparent with one another. That was the first thing.  The second thing is that I also can understand where their needs are, and you know, they're not asking questions to be difficult, they're not doing things that way. They truly want to understand, they truly want to be there with us and support us and so I've got that, and that's been an awesome experience that I've had coming into this.  Where it's not an advantage is I've got 20 years experience working with NEC and how they operate. Now I have a new organization. So I have a new vocabulary, I have a new chain of command, I have all those new things to learn, which is actually exciting. As I have told a lot of people, everybody's been going, “How's it going so far? Your week three!” and I go, yeah, just as excited as I was in week one. And they laugh go, well it’s only been two weeks, and I go, yeah, but you don't understand, I'm excited and I think even my people are seeing that as I talk with them and even with the Japanese, it's exciting. It's such an exciting opportunity and I hope that I can transfer that excitement within the organization. So I see a lot of value in my history of working with the Japanese and going to work with Japanese organizations because I do have a history and I do have an understanding of how we work best with one another. Well, this has been great. It's great in a couple standpoints first, just catching up. But second, I've struggled to find the right person on the business side to talk to at Sony for many, many years. And now I have someone!  Rich: (Laughter) Well, it's funny, Dave. I was talking with Allison in our marketing, social media Group, and I was actually talking with some of our product managers and business managers yesterday. And one of the things that I told him is that we need to be more present. We need to be more out there in the industry, whether it's just social media, whether it's speaking, training, it's education. And those who know me well know that is something I really value heavily, right? And if not me, I don't need to be the person doing it. And I really want to empower our organization to be more present in the industry. Because I look at it from a couple ways, one is it builds value. The second is it builds those bridges between our organizations, but also it shows just how much we can do and all that drives sales and all that drives relationships and everything else.  So, I'm excited because it kind of feels they have a little bit of a blank canvas to work with. But you know, if we sit down a year from now, and we talk about all the things that we did in this first year and, you know, let's do that, let's talk in a year from now, let's talk about how much Sony's changed. And I think the statement you just made, I hope I never hear that again, because I think you guys will see us more present in the industry. You'll see us more present in the technology. You're gonna see us out there more. And I'm really excited about seeing that happen. All right, Rich, thanks for your time. Rich: As always, thank you for inviting me and I look forward to continuing to have these conversations with everybody. Probably virtually. (Laughter) Rich: I do look forward to the day that I can actually travel and see some of our customers and partners and face to face again. Yeah, me too.

James: Hi, audience and listeners. This is James Kandasamy from Achieve Wealth at Real Estate Investing podcasts. Last week, we had Jake and Gino from Wheelbarrow Profits. You know, Jake and Gino have tons and tons of deals on their own and you know, recently have moved into syndication space as well. And their story is just very interesting in terms of knowing how did they get started, how did they refinance their first deal to launch their multifamily investing career.   Today I have Rich Fishman from Dallas, and Rich has almost 8,000 units right now across 23 complexes and he has been buying in Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi, and South Carolina. So Rich is going to be giving us a lot of valuable insights into how he had bought so many apartment units. And imagine half of that 8,000 units is fundamentally owned by Rich itself and the other half of it is more of a partnership and syndication. Hey Rich, welcome to the show.   Rich: Well, thank you, James. Glad to be here.   James: Good, good. So, Rich, it's going to be a very interesting podcast because, and I'm going to be learning so much from you and I'm sure my listeners is going to be learning so much from you. How did you get started? I mean, you have like 8,000 units right now. You started almost 20 years ago. So walk back, how did you get started in multifamily immediately when you get started in real estate?   Rich: Well, actually, I was the owner of a mortgage company in the San Francisco Bay area in Berkeley, California and I financed mostly half homes, but I also financed apartment complexes. And I had a deal to finance, it was a six-plex in Alameda, California, and it was a foreclosure. Back then, there were a lot of foreclosures and the realtor gave me the deal, I got the loan, and then the buyer fell out of escrow; they didn't like the deal. And then there was another buyer; same thing happens. And I said to the realtor, I said, “What's wrong with this deal? It looks like it makes money.”  And she says “Nothing's wrong with the deal.”  And I said, “Well, I don't know how to manage anything like this.”  She says, “Well, I know management company, don't worry about it.” So I went to the property, then I dragged my wife there.   And it's a funny story because my wife is from Scandinavia and they don't do very well there. And so we went to the property and we had one of those, you know those long screwdrivers that the termite guys have because we are poking around, seeing if it was well-built. And the screwdriver went right through the wood into the drywall. And my wife says, "No, I can't buy this with you.”  I said, "No, we're buying this.”  And she looked at me and she said, “Okay.”  And so we bought this six-plex. And the six-plex was the beginning of us starting to buy real estate in earnest. So that's the story is we cut aside. There was a sidebar from the mortgage business.   James: Got it, got it, yeah. I always wonder, like whenever I meet brokers, mortgage brokers, and even brokers, I always ask them, why not you guys buy these deals, right? Why are you just doing transaction? And a lot of times, I mean not a lot of times I think once I talk to someone who went from a mortgage broker to become an investor. I'm sure you know him; it's like Michael Becker, right? Yeah. I think he's a big buyer in Dallas. I asked him this question because he used to be working in Wells Fargo and he told me not everybody likes to take risks like a business owner.   Rich: It's not only about the risk. The main reason that people get into the investment side is because, when you're doing transactions as a broker, you're making income and you're only as good as your last deal. You have to keep churning and closing deals to make a living, and every broker is off to the next listing, or the mortgage person is off the next loan and you'd live and die by the transaction. So eventually, most people either say, I've got to own this stuff; build wealth rather than income. Or I'm not interested; I really don't want to own anything. It takes the risk and the responsibility of owning property. So that's the thing, I had to make a decision to own it, take care of it, use my free time because I was still a mortgage broker. I had to use my weekends to run the real estate with my wife. We want to get started because we couldn't just go into multifamily; we needed the income from the mortgages. So it takes a lot of sacrifice for the first couple of years to get into something like this.   James: Got it, got it. So you must know the industry; working as well in the mortgage and to really successfully become owner and take advantage of that knowledge as well. So after how many years or after how many unit count that you, you said, okay, I'm going to give up this mortgage business, I'm going to be just a fulltime, a real estate investor?   Rich: I think we hit about a thousand apartments. And at that point, I let go of my duties in the mortgage company and concentrated on just buying and selling apartments.   James: Got it, got it. So, 20 years ago you started buying the six-plex, when did you see your fastest acceleration of purchase or acquisitions?   Rich: Well, we hit about 4,000 units and then the recession came 2009 to 14, 12, 13 as on the area of the country, and that was really hard. So we didn't really grow during that period. We were selling off as fast as we were buying, just kind of trying to keep our head above water. We got to about 5,000 units, about two or three years ago, and then we've grown a lot more. I could probably have 50,000 apartments today if I wanted them. I would have to basically align myself with someone on Wall Street or some investment banking for like a Goldman Sachs or something like that. And they would be happy to raise the money and give me all that money and I could then own five or 10% or 15% or whatever it is that is bought, BUT I'm not that going to ho for that strategy.   So the growth at this point is really about organic growth for me and our company, and also quality of life because when you have institutional mining, you have to take care of it in a way that suits the institutions. And they have requirements that family and friends and other people don't have. For example, they might want audited books every year. That doesn't sound like a lot because we don't; we have books [inaudible 08:46] and everything, but that just takes a lot of time to get an audit done. And if you multiply that by 15 or 20 EO, now you have to have a whole audit department, and CPAs work who for you and things like that. So it's been really about opportunity and raising money mostly from either my own, resources or family and friends and other methods.   James: Got it, got it. So, Rich, I think you bring a really good perspective in terms of economic cycle because you have went through, I mean, you started 20 years ago, you went through that 2008 and everybody said 2008 multi-family, you know, fat better than any other asset classes, they are very, very low. What you call, you know, who went into a receivership or bankruptcy; multifamily, so is that true?   Rich: That's not true at all. Most of the people who are in multifamily today, we're not even involved in the business.   James: Exactly, that's what I'm asking because everyone is sort of newbies--   Rich: A lot of people were wiped out in that recession and a lot of other people were underwater. I mean, there were thousands of apartment complexes that were foreclosed on. Now was it as bad as office buildings or retail? Maybe not, I really don't know, but it was bad. Now they say anybody who lasted eight years, they could come out the other side feeling good. But most people don't have the capital to take five or six or seven years of losses, and large losses. If you're not making debt coverage, if you're not able to pay your loan and you're coming out of pocket, that might be okay for one deal. But if you have 20 deals like that, yeah, that's a whole different story. So it's quite a different thing than when people say. Now, the multifamily was hitting extremely hard, and I think the default ratio was up to about 8%.   James: 8%. Okay.   Rich: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. That doesn't sound that bad compared to student loans. But if you think about it 8% is, you know, you're talking about housing that touches the lives of millions of people.   James: Got it. Yeah. It's very interesting data because you are giving me true data. I mean, sometimes we read in the news and they say low delinquency rate and it was not a hard hit and we don't have real, true story. Right, because a lot of it depends on the sub-marker, depends on which class we are talking about, and you know, depends on the operator as well. So how did you survive the 2008 crash?   Rich: Well, I have some properties that cash barge really well and I had others that really couldn't survive and I got rid of them. I sold them off or actually, I had you cut my portfolio down in order to survive and retrench a little bit, but I only had a few deals that were like that, the rest, I didn't have the leverage. If you were totally leveraged up in a bad market, then you cannot save yourself because, and if you're a partnership, you can't save yourself either. Because, if you own 10 or 20% of the deal and the loan is negative, then you would actually have to make a capital call every month on your partners in order to make those payments, and if you raise money. You know that there are two words that should never be spoken ‘capital costs’.   James: Exactly.   Rich: And so it's hard to really get money out of people to feed something that's losing money. So, there are a lot of people who gave; I know one fellow in the Houston market, he had property all over Houston, Atlanta, I think he gave up about 40 yields back. And there were other people like that who had just a tremendous amount of deals that they gave back to the banks.   James: So was this deal when they give back did Fannie and Freddie was giving non-recourse loan at that time?   Rich: Yeah, non-recourse loans, they just won't; if you give them deals back, they don't want to lend to you again unless you pay a heavy penalty to offset their losses because they take losses, themselves or the service or takes the loss. And in Fannie Mae's case, the loan originator slash servicer usually takes about five to 10% of the risk of the loan. So, you know, that could be pretty substantial too, to them because they're usually own companies by either large wealthy individuals or by banks. They don't like taking losses at all.   James: Got it, so they--   Rich: Hopefully we won't be there again.   James: Yeah, absolutely, we didn't want to be there again. So it was non-recourse and the owners were able to just give up their property, they lose their equity and the service that takes some loss and they gave it back to Fannie Mae and that's it.   Rich: Fanny Mae never own; one of the problems with the way the system was set up, is that Fannie may never really own the loan. People don't realize this, but Fannie Mae is just a broker.   James: Really? Okay.   Rich: There's really like nobody, you know, there's not like someone in Mumbai who owns or in Shanghai who owns all these loans. I mean, they basically securitize the loans and they sell the loan as a bond in the world financial markets. And so there's a special servicer who represents the interests of the bondholders and that person is delegated decision making, but they're not able to cut deals on Fannie Mae loan. So, they don't generally go and say, we see that you're negative, and why don't we go from 5% to 3% and you can owe us the money later? Things like that; they're not flexible. So, actually, Freddie Mac is, is more flexible, they act more like a bank, and so they can do workouts in a much better way than Fannie Mae can. It's just one of the things people don't know.   James: Got it. Wow, that's interesting. That's a lot of information out there. Yeah, I mean, Fannie Mae does a, securitize the loan and they sell it to the investor who buys it as a bond and they get certain percentage out of it. And in the middle there's servicer, there's Fannie Mae, everybody makes a few percent like this one [inaudible 15:59].   Rich: Everybody is making money, and at the end, the only people who generally lose money are the bondholders.   James: Okay, are the bondholders. But if the deal is given back, I mean the equity holder, whoever, the owner also lose the money as well, right? So there are two people, the buyer, and the seller, right?   Rich: The borrower absolutely loses a whole lot of their entire investment. And then the lender, if the lender can't be made whole by the sale of the real estate, they may lose money too. Things can get pretty bad in that cycle, that the value of the property often sunk below the outstanding balance of the loan. There're a lot of negative things to talk about, but let's talk about more positive things.   James: Got it. So you talked about people who are highly leveraged, right? So let's say you're buying a deal at 75% leverage. Do you think that's high level, I mean, can you define highly leverage? What is the highest leverage that you think?   Rich: Well, in today's world, you can leverage up to, Oh, even 90% for the first and second or preferred equity. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just that you don't want to leverage that high on a stabilized property. It's one thing if you buy a property that's a value add and that you're going to add value and renovate a property, increased rents, increased value, and you're looking on a stabilized basis that okay, you went high leverage, but within a year or two you're going to be catching up and the leverage point will be at 60%, 65 or 75% or something. But if you're basically highly leveraged in stabilized properties without any value add then. If the rents go down five or 10%, then you're underwater, you want to have some protection; you want to certainly have 20% or debt coverage or something like that.   James: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, that's the reason where I'm going with the question because we buy deals, we buy deals or value at deals even at 80% leverage, but in one to two years, that 80% leverage is going to be, 70 to 65% leveraged. So basically it's not leveraged at the start of the loan, it's basically, where are you going to be once you're stabilized; that's the more important thing. Sometimes people get confused that you shouldn't be highly leveraged? Why highly leverage and you don't understand that we are looking for buffer for DSCR? We want to be as further up from the debt service coverage ratio. That's the fundamental discussion about what highly leverage and costing higher risk.   Rich: Right, leverage is your friend, if you're using the leverage to invest capital, if you're using leverage to service debt or to pay out dividends, then you're making a huge mistake.   James: Okay, absolute point, that's an awesome point. That's well-said. I couldn't have said it better. So what about the guys who have done breach loans at that time in 2008 what happened to them and what would you give advice to that kind of people who are doing--   Rich: You mean the answer 2007 or 2008 with a value add deal, and then they had a bridge situation. While those people probably suffered, I mean they didn't execute. If they executed, that's fine. It was hard to push rents back then, everything is based on increase in rent. Fundamental multifamily strategy is how can I increase the rent? What value can I give the tenant so they'll pay more? Now, between 2008 and 2012, the only value add strategy that I know that worked was the fixed deferred maintenance to make sure you kept the lights on, for the most part. So beyond that, I didn't see people putting granite countertops in and all this other stuff because everyone was just trying to supply.   So those people, many of those people who got in at the cycle; at the end of the cycle, didn't make money unless they stayed all the way through 2015-16, so there were about seven years. But you would have to stay in that deal in order to make it. Now I did buy a property in the Midwest that I bought for about 15,000 units. You can get things that way back then. And I bought it in 2006 and I did do really well on it, but it was unusual because I got it so cheap; my basis lever was very high. But at the time it seemed like I had really jumped the shark as they say because the economy wasn't very good, and it wasn't easy to rent up any apartments for a while.   James: So coming back to Midwest, which I believe is MAVA secondary or tertiary market, right? So like right now in 2019 right now, market is so hard and people can't buy in the hot cities like Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, people are, I mean, I'm just looking at Texas, right? I mean, we're in Florida, we have Orlando, Tampa, and what Jacksonville, and I mean a lot of people have started going to other States and tertiary market or States which is like supposedly supposed to be upcoming. So, what would you give advice to them?   Rich: Well, I think my advice on the States like South Carolina or those kinds of places, is that to study the local market and make sure that it's vibrant, that there are good jobs there. There are a lot of great secondary and tertiary markets. Huntsville, Alabama or Hoover, Alabama or you know, Greenville, Columbia, South Carolina, I mean there's just, you know, Asheville, North Carolina, there's a lot of great secondary markets. I think the biggest problem that people have in these markets, one is they think they can increase rents more than they can. Because if you go to some of these markets and you think you can get $200 for putting in a new kitchen, you might find out you can only get $35 and 20 cents because there's a limit to what a lot of these people were willing to pay in these markets.   And if you go too high, they just want [inaudible 22:56], but there are still some markets that are small that people are really surprised at. I mean if you've been to Indiana and you know, there is Columbus, Indiana, well that sounds like a real nothing place, but Commons is located there, it's a very large company, and it's a pristine town with really high rents. Bloomington is also a great town in Indiana; it's got the college there. So there's a lot of college towns and there are capitals and there are places where there's a lot of manufacturing that's particularly in the Southeast that they didn't have manufacturing before. Some of these places have become very desirable for retirement and for our businesses like Charleston, South Carolina, nothing was going on there except history about 20 years ago. If you've been they are now, they are building homes like crazy. People are moving there to retire. There's a huge tourism business, I think ranked the number one wedding venue one year recently. And then they have they're making small planes there; just tremendous amount of activity going on.   James: What happened to this kind of tertiary market? I'm sure you had similar tertiary market during 2008 where you thought, okay, this is really good to go in and invest in. Looking at some of the cities that you're looking at it right now, what happened to that kind of market in 2008 how did they do compared to the major cities that are well known for--?   Rich: I own the property, and the answer is different. Every tertiary market was different, just like every major market. For example, if you look at the major markets or the secondary major markets take Tucson. Tucson was wiped out in the recession, now people say it's a good investment. Phoenix was wiped out, Vegas was wiped out, Reno was wiped out. Today Reno; people think Reno is part of California. It's hard to buy something under 150 a door in Reno now. So back then it was 50 a thousand a door was a great retirement exit. So I own property in Sierra Vista, Arizona, and there is an army base there. Now, I will never buy another property next to an army base. I don't care what the numbers look like because the politics of the army base are things that I cannot control.   And they decided that army base that they didn't need hardly anymore. So they cut the enrollment at the army base there by about half. And it was the town that depended upon the army base almost completely, not just the army people, but the people who were feeding and the vendors, and everybody else. And so the town really; rents went down about 30-40% in the town, but then there are other locations. I owned a property in Davenport, Iowa and it got hit, but it didn't get hit that bad. And agriculture, which was a real feeder for Iowa, stayed pretty good. And you know, they had the ethanol and that was pretty good. We never got below in general 90% occupancy in the properties that we own there, so it just really depends, you've got to do your research. Just how you can't make a blanket and say tertiary market, secondary market; core markets; it wasn't long ago that people considered Baltimore to be almost a core market.   Because of its proximity to DC on the Amtrak corroder from New York, the new Harbor that they had built there with the aquarium and today, a lot of people don't think of Baltimore as a core market and back then people didn't see DC as a core market. They thought it was crime, wedding blah, blah, blah, you know, stay away from DC. And now today, I mean, you're talking about very expensive real estate all over DC.   James: Awesome, awesome. That is a lot of insights there. So Rich, which market have you been focusing on, I mean, you bought in a lot of markets before these and you probably own some of it over there, but what has your strategy has been at this hot--?   Rich: Right now my strategy is really to buy more in DFW.   James: Okay.   Rich: Our office is here. This is probably the best multifamily market in the country. The cranes are all over the skyline. The jobs are coming in like crazy every day or week there is another multinational company that's relocating from California generally to Dallas Fort worth. There's a lot of vibrancy here. Rents keep tricking up. I like DFW. I've liked Houston a lot in the past; Houston is very squatty though, and there's a lot, I can't just tell you that Houston's going to do well because every part of Houston is so different and there's no zoning, so it doesn't have a character. Neighborhoods don't have as much character that they do here. But Houston is great Austin is great, it's just the real question, isn't what do I like, the real question is, is there an upside? Where is the upside in multifamily today?   And the answer is that there isn't the kind of upside today that there was until a couple of years ago because we were still basically catching up from the recession; a lack of housing, deferred maintenance and household formation. During the people said to me, "aren't there going to be more renters?" Because people were foreclosed, I don't know if you remember that. They will say, "You're in a great business". All these foreclosures, they have to rent now. No, they didn't have to rent. They moved in with their families, they hold up; whatever they had to do. People are much more flexible and adaptable than statisticians and university professors. So people didn't create households, kids stayed in the basement, and so here we are 2012 wondering where are all the renters? Well, it turns out that they were hiding out.   So when the economy got good and they got jobs, they all came out and that created a lot of household formation, a lot more renters. And that created a boom in multifamily. So, either more and more people who need rental housing, absolutely, and particularly in areas like Dallas, Fort Worth where they're coming in for the jobs, they need housing; Austin, they need housing. That puts pressure on rents and they usually start building a lot more too. The areas that have a declining population, I wouldn't invest.   So if a deal's in a city that has a declining population, I automatically say no, I'm not interested in, even if I could fix it up and make some money, to me that's; I'm going against the tide. I'm just one guy, I can't make an ocean. I have to get in my little boat, and I have to have the-- I want the ocean to work for me and not against me. I don't want to fight that. Same or crime; if I'm in an area that has just tremendous amount of crime, it's still, crime is [inaudible31:42], but if it has a lot of crime, I don't want to own it because I can't do all the things necessary to stop crime in my neighbor. I'm not a police department. I'm just one person owning one complex or two in a neighborhood and I've got to have an ability to deliver safe housing to the people who rent from us.   James: Got it, got it. Just want to add one thing to the listeners and audience. If you want to find a city where there's declining on appreciating one free resource, which is very quick to check, it is called bestplaces.net. Bestplaces.Net, and you can go and enter the city information and you can go to a household. I believe it's a real estate statistics and it shows you whether there's a declining population or increasing population. I mean in general, I think Texas is increasing in general. Everybody's moving to Texas and I believe Florida as well, so--   Rich: I mean, if you're looking in Texas and you say, well, why don't I buy in Amarillo or Abilene or these kinds of places, I don't have anything to say. I don't know those markets, but those are not vibrant places generally.   James: It makes sense; vibrant. Okay, got it. But I think the major cities in Texas are pretty vibrant.   Rich: The major cities are really San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Then you have cities like El Paso, Lubbock, Tyler, you know, places like that that are in the second tier. Corpus Christi is another one that is in between the second and third-tier cities. Aon, actually in Corpus Christi real estate, and that's on a lot of people's radar because they are putting along money to the ports and the petroleum industry, but it's not as vibrant as it San Antonio or Austin.   James: Got it. Got it, got it, very interesting. So but Dallas, I mean, I know you're focusing on Dallas, but Dallas prices have appreciated from what 50,000 a door. I mean, I think all over Texas it's like this, right? For the past five years, $50,000 a door to almost a hundred thousand a dollar for a C-class property. So how are you planning to buy deals? I mean since, don't you think at some point the price per door is just going to be limited by the rent wage growth of the--?   Rich: Well, I think that it's a mistake to really focus on price per door. I think it's a better thing to focus on cap rates.   James: Cap rates, okay.   Rich: And if you could buy something over a five cap rate and put loan on it for under 4%, then you have positive arbitrage, and you're going to make money. So a lot of properties are expensive, but property in San Francisco is 350,000 a door. Now, I was a mortgage broker there when they were going for 100,000 a door, and I thought people were crazy. Who would ever pay that? So, we can't let a number and you shouldn't let a number per door impact your buying decision. What your buying decision should be based on is what return on your investment you're going to get. Now, it's true that you want to make sure there's an exit there, meaning that there's somebody else who would buy a property at more per door if that's a problem.   Now there are some markets where maybe that is an issue still, but they're generally very depressed; places like Detroit or things like that or Cleveland. But even those places are not any more per door oriented. So I've seen deals recently that are 120,130 a door. They were bought for 80 a door just three, four years ago. And before that, they had one for 55 a door. And I don't really care what people bought them for in the past, I just care what can I do? What's my return going to be? If I could hit my numbers and I don't really care. Now the question is, can I hit my numbers? Am I chasing a dream that's-- is the ship already sailed? Is there really any more room in this property to enhance value? And the answer has to be yes. And a lot of the areas in Dallas are improving. The income levels are going up in some of these places. The number of jobs in the area is going up, so they're not static environments. Today, a suburb of Dallas is not the same place as it was 20 years ago because now there are four times as many people living in the area, shopping in the area, working in the area, and those people are all competing for housing.   James: Wow, that's interesting. Okay, so how do you underwrite your deals? I mean I'm sure you're looking for upside, right? That's what you talk about in any deals and whether you can make a return on your investment, right?   Rich: I'll tell you my tricks of the trade, which is nothing unusual; first of all, we go into the numbers and make sure we understand the expenses. And we also increase the property taxes based on what we think the assessor will increase the taxes too. Yeah, that's a really big thing; people don't realize they come from out of the outside Texas that your property is assessed every year a new bag. So you can't look at a tax that your seller's paying and think that you're going to have the same tax. So we get the real expenses, and then if we're going to do a value add, we want to find a property that's very similar, same vintage and everything that's already done the value add and see what rent they're achieving, what they've done, and we're not going to go past that.   In other words, I'm not going to be a pioneer and decide that I need golden faucets or Berber carpets or whatever it is; I'm going to make a nice value-add, the same as everybody else. Maybe you are a little better, but I'm not going to a guest that I can get more rent, so that's where I get my revenue, just estimating how many of this was going to renovate? What rents can we get today, today in the marketplace, not tomorrow? And then use those numbers, and if those numbers show that I can get a great return based on what it costs and what the money we put into the property, then it's a go. If the numbers, there's nothing here, I can't get a return from doing this or the rents are tapped out, that kind of thing. Then I pass. And we use a model. I think we use the CRM model. We bought the model because it got too complicated for Excel for us. And so we use a model that we bought to program the IRR and all that stuff.   James: What about the rent growth assumption? How do you usually predict that?   Rich: We don't put more than two or 3% a year in there? We're not looking to create false expectations. 5% rent growth sounds nice, but that doesn't happen all the time. In fact studies in Houston show that there's been virtually no rent growth in two or three years in Houston. And every year they say that they had four or 5% rent growth. And I asked the realtors, is the four or 5% rent growth that these reports say? And nobody seems to know where the data's coming from.   James: Yeah, absolutely. But do you think we can get that 3% rank growth moving forward from now on the next five years? I mean, do you think it's real estate?   Rich: I think we can get the two to 3% rent growth just by doing nothing; if you're in a market that is strong.   James: So it depends on the market as well.   Rich: It all depends on one thing and one thing only, which is wage growth in the market you own.   James: Correct.   Rich: I own a lot of property in San Antonio and there was virtually no wage growth in San Antonio. And I have property that I've owned there now six years, seven years. And the last two or three years there's been virtually no increase in wage growth or rents in none of these markets. The cap rates keep going down, so people keep paying more for these properties. They expect wage growth and rent growth, so everyone has a different expectation.   James: Got it, got it. So what about the, I mean, you mentioned that I mean, you did this for 20 years, own like 8,000 units, you could have multiplied 10 X your holdings by going with private equity money which some people have done. And some people have gone to private equity and came back to be a [inaudible41:31]. Some people are trying to get into working with private equity because it's easier to rent and raising money from retail investors which is like family and friends. I know you mentioned some perspective, but can you give a full perspective on why you didn't choose that route at all?   Rich: Well, we do have family and friends, and private equity, and some family offices in our deals. I have three deals that I have is tuition in, and I just prefer the flexibility that-- I prefer working with individuals and with people I know because multifamily is not a straight line. You buy something a lot of times prizes after you close, you don't know, some problems that you run into. Sometimes you have to replace staff. A lot of times you have a staffing issue. It could take a year or two longer to execute your business plan. And still, it's very good. When you execute your business plan, you make a lot of money, but instead of taking one or two years, it could take five years or four years. And when you have institutional money, they're not very patient and they are very willing after; if you don't make your numbers for one to two years, they're very willing to take the management away or threaten you with your cramming, taking away your investment. Actually, you're cramming down; they call it crammed down; to make the return.   It can be pretty nasty, so that's one of the reasons. It's getting easier to raise money from family offices privately. There are a number of crowd-sourcing platforms; we've done some crowd-sourcing rising for a couple million dollars as infill, you know, to fill in a partnership after a family or friends invest, and we still have a couple million left. Well, we've been successful at raising that money there. We've also used preferred equity, which is kind of a hybrid deal. It's not secondary financing, like mezzanine financing, but it's similar. What they do is there is a pay, they want a pay rate of around four to 6%, and then they want a complete return of let's say nine to 11% or 12%. They'll take the difference when you sell the property well when you refinance. So, it gives you more leverage, you might say, but it's not partnership money, so it reduces the money that you have to raise as a partnership.   James: Got it, got it. And what would you give advice to people who are saying that you know, when the market turns, I mean, they will not be any more private investors anymore, I mean, you have to go back to private equity? Do you think that's the true case?   Rich: You mean institutional equity? You have to go back to-- that's all private equity. I think the reality is when the market turns, everyone goes back into their little clamshell, so what you call it and money is money. And if people don't feel that they can make a return, then they won't invest. Now, what happens is that if the market turns and people are not making return, some deals will go south and will go sour, and then you'll start a new cycle of this trust real estate. And then there'll be opportunity funds or vulture capital guys who are trying to invest in those deals and they'll be looking to invest. So every part of the cycle has a different kind of investor. Right now the profile of the average investor is looking to clip coupons. Most people know that the glory days of making two, 300% on their money is over and they're very happy with what they'd done and now they really don't want to lose their principal. There have gotten more conservative as wealthier people do, and then they say, well, can I get a seven or an 8% or 6% coupon clip every month when you send me a check? And there are a lot more of those people today. There is virtually none of those people in 2008, nine, 10, 11, 12. Yeah, but today, most people have the profile as investors of wanting to have lower risk and are willing to take less reward.   James: So what you're saying is in 2008, everybody disappeared; nobody invests retail, right? And then after that, there is some vulture capital and then now people are looking more into stabilized assets with lower risk.   Rich: The people who appeared in 2008 were the people who worked at Goldman Sachs or Blackstone or these other Carlisle group and these other large accumulators of capital. And what they saw is a tremendous amount of blood on the street as they say. They saw just a lot of financial suffering and they were looking at enabling because of their massive amounts of capital to scoop up troubled assets for pennies on the dollar. So a lot of the mortgages that went bad were sold off for 20, 30, 50% of their mortgage value to these conglomerate; these large companies. And then they went through the process of foreclosing on individual assets. Some of them actually created management companies themselves, and they got the properties back. A bunch of then they put them back on the market and made a lot of money. So there was a lot of business, a lot of wealth created in that time frame, but it wasn't created by people like you and I, it was created in Goldman Sachs, and in Blackstone, and these kinds of places.   James: Got it, got it. So where do you think we are heading in the next two or three years or five years? Are we going to have a slowdown bump or it's going to be a crash into like 2008 or there is just going to be a coupon rolling in multifamily?   Rich: I don't think that we're going to have a crash. I see it more that it's just a steady market and I just think it's going to go up and down a little bit here and there, and I don't see much change from where we are for a couple of more years. I can't see out too far into the future. Sometimes politics and things like that intercede, and we don't know if someone politically comes in and starts changing the tax code like they did in 1986 or something like that. But the way I see it is that America is fundamentally becoming a retro society. People are living a lot longer, and the longer people live the less they want to own a house. A lot of people will own houses and raise families there, but they will exit houses more and more frequently to live in places like central cities or small main street America so they can be near services and doctors and entertainment and [inaudible 49:41].   And I don't think that we're going to go back to the white picket fence for everybody's environment. Now, that doesn't mean people won't buy houses, but when people are not raising children, they will prefer generally to live in smaller environments, more like Europeans do, and I think that pertains, well, for multifamily. There are so many good trends that are feeding into the multifamily trough that I can't imagine right now that in general, multifamily would have a crash.   James: Got it, got it. And so we're coming almost to the end of the show. Can you give us one advice to people who are thinking of becoming like you owning thousands of units and they're just getting started?   Rich: Sure. So this is my main piece of advice is that if you want to be in this realm, then you must make it a full-time job. This is not an investment, multifamily is not a stock that you-- it's not putting money on Microsoft and watching it go up and down. It's an active business, and if we're going to try to be somebody who owns several apartment complexes, then you just really can't buy the complexes and hand away the keys to the management company and expect great results. You have to be very actively involved, visit your properties, know the rents in the market, walk vacant apartments, and make sure you hire good people. It really is a business, and if you're not prepared because of your lifestyle, your other job or something like that to devote most of your time to this business, then my recommendation is become a limited partner in a deal or two, try to make money that way. But don't think that you could become a principal and own five or 10,000 apartments that way, no, it's not going to happen.   James: Got it. I mean, this is one of the requests from our listeners. Is there anyone advice that you want to give to a passive investor who is investing in this deal? What they should look for [inaudible 52:14]?   Rich: Well, the big issue for passive investors is that they should really understand what they're investing in, like any other investment, and not take the offering that they get from the company or the operator at its face value because it could be too optimistic. You want to make sure you agree with the assumptions. So you would probably at the very least get on the computer and look at how much are units really renting for in that area. If they're going to renovate, well, what does a renovated unit look for? Is this an achievable rent that they're projecting and are their expenses realistic? Are they in line with what expenses really shouldn't be? So do a little homework; that's my main thing, and don't just trust that, just because somebody sent you something that said that there's a 30% return, that that's a real thing.   James: Yeah, I have many, many times some passive investors just look at the final return numbers and decide whether they want to invest or not, but they forgot that we are making thousands of assumptions in that spreadsheet. So you rather check the assumptions rather than just the final numbers.   Rich: Absolutely.   James: Right, so Rich we're really happy to have you here. How can the listeners and audience reach out to you?   Rich: Well, they could, we have a website, alcapgroup.com and they can send me an email through there. If they want to know about our upcoming deals, we'd be happy to put them on their list and work with them, talk to them, and see if we can do some business together.   James: Awesome, awesome. Thank you very much Rich for coming onto the show.   Rich: Thanks James, been a pleasure.   James: Pleasure to have you. Thank you.

Rich Harris talks about Svelte and Reactivity. Rich Harris: Graphics Editor on The New York Times investigations team. Resources: Svelte Please join us in these conversations! If you or someone you know would be a perfect guest, please get in touch with us at contact@frontside.io. Our goal is to get people thinking on the platform level which includes tooling, internalization, state management, routing, upgrade, and the data layer. This show was produced by Mandy Moore, aka @therubyrep of DevReps, LLC. Transcript: CHARLES: Hello and welcome to The Frontside Podcast, a place where we talk about user interfaces and everything that you need to know to build them right. TARAS: It's actually a really nice, Rich and I'm really, really happy to have a chance to actually chat with you about this because Svelte is a really fun piece technology. In many ways, it's interesting to see our technology evolve and our industry evolve through innovation, real innovation. I think Svelte 3 has really been kind of that next thought provoking technology that kind of makes you think about different ways that we can approach problems in our space. So, really excited to chat with you about this stuff. RICH: Well, thank you. Excited to be here. TARAS: I think quite a lot of people know, Rich, about your history, like how you got into what you're doing now. But I'm not sure if Charles is aware, so if you could kind of give us a little bit of a lowdown on where you kind of come from in terms of your technical background and such. RICH: Sure. I'll give you the 30-second life history. I started out as a reporter at a financial news organization. I had a Philosophy Degree and didn't know what else to do with it. So, I went into journalism. This was around the time of the great recession. And within a few weeks of me joining this company, I watched half of my colleagues get laid off and it's like, "Shit, I need to make myself more employable." And so gradually, sort of took on more and more technical responsibilities until I was writing JavaScript as part of my day job. Then from there, all these opportunities kind of opened up. And the big thing that I had in mind was building interactive pieces of journalism, data-driven, personalized, all of that sort of thing, which were being built at places like the New York Times, and The Guardian, and the BBC. That was the reason that I really wanted to get into JavaScript. And that's guided my career path ever since. CHARLES: It's interesting that this D3 and all that did come out of journalism. RICH: It's not a coincidence because when you're working under extreme time pressure and you're not building things with a view to maintain them over a long period of time, you just need to build something and get it shipped immediately. But it needs to be built in a way that is going to work across a whole range of devices. We've got native apps, we've got [inaudible], we've got our own website. And in order to do all that, you need to have tools that really guide you into the pit of success. And D3 is a perfect example of that. And a lot of people have come into JavaScript through D3. CHARLES: And so, are you still working for the same company? RICH: No. That's ancient history at this point. CHARLES: Because I'm wondering, are you actually getting to use these tools that you've been building to actually do the types of visualizations and stuff that we've been talking about? RICH: Very much so. I moved to The Guardian some years ago. And then from there, moved to Guardian US, which has an office in New York. And it was there that I started working on Svelte. I then moved to the New York Times and I'm still working on Svelte. I've used it a number of times to build things at the New York Times and the people have built things with it too. And so, yeah, it's very much informed by the demands of building high performance interactive applications on a very tight deadline. CHARLES: Okay, cool. So I've probably used, I mean, I'm an avid reader of both Guardian and the New York Times, so I've probably used a bunch of these visualizations. I had no idea what was driving them. I just assumed it was all D3. RICH: There is a lot of D3. Mike Bostock, the creator of D3, he was a linchpin at the graphics department for many years. Unfortunately we didn't overlap. He left the Times before I joined the Times, but his presence is still very much felt in the department. And a lot of people who are entering the industry, they're still becoming database practitioners by learning from D3 examples. It's been a hugely influential thing in our industry. TARAS: How long is a typical project? How long would it take to put together a visualization for an article that we typically see? RICH: It varies wildly. The graphics desk is about 50 strong and they will turn around things within a day. Like when the Notre Dame burnt down a couple of months ago, my colleagues turned around this interactive scroll driven webGL 3D reconstruction of how the fire spreads through the cathedral in less than 24 hours, which was absolutely mind blowing. But at the same time, there are projects that will take months. I work on the investigations team at the Times. And so, I'm working with people who are investigating stories for the best part of the year or sometimes more. And I'm building graphics for those. And so that, it's two very different timescales, but you need to be able to accommodate all of those different possibilities. CHARLES: So, what does the software development practice look like? I mean, because it sounds like some of this stuff, are you just throwing it together? I guess what I mean by that is, I guess the projects that we typically work on, three months is kind of a minimum that you would expect. So, you go into it, we need to make sure we've got good collaboration practices around source control and continuous integration and testing and all this stuff. But I mean, you're talking about compressing that entire process into a matter of hours. So what, do you just throw right out the window? What do you say? "We're just doing a live version of this." RICH: Our collaboration processes consist of sitting near each other. And when the time calls for it, getting in the same room as each other and just hammering stuff out on the laptop together. There's no time for messing around with continuous integration and writing tests. No one writes tests in the news graphics, it's just not a thing. CHARLES: Right. But then for those projects that stretch into like three months, I imagine there are some. Do you run into like quality concerns or things like that where you do have to take into account some of those practices? I'm just so curious because it sounds like there's actually, the difference between two hours and two months is, that's several orders of magnitude and complexity of what you're developing. RICH: It is. Although I haven't worked on a news project yet that has involved tests. And I know that's a shocking admission to a lot of people who have a development background, but it's just not part of the culture. And I guess the main difference between the codebase for a two-hour project and a two-month project is that the two-month project will strive to have some reasonable components. And that's, I think, the main thing that I've been able to get out of working on the kinds of projects that I do is instead of just throwing code at the page until it works, we actually have a bit of time to extract out common functionality and make components that can be used in subsequent interactives. So, things like scroll driven storytelling, that's much easier for me now than it was when I first built a scroll driven storytelling component like a couple of years ago. CHARLES: Yeah. That was actually literally my next question is how do you bridge that, given that you've got kind of this frothy experimentation, but you are being, sounds like, very deliberate about extracting those tools and extracting those common components? And how do you find the time to even do that? RICH: Well, this is where the component driven mindset comes in really handy, I think. I think that five or 10 years ago when people thought in terms of libraries and scripts, there wasn't like that good unit of reusability that wasn't the sort of all encompassing, like a component is just the right level of atomicity or whatever the word is. It makes sense to have things that are reusable but also very easy to tweak and manipulate and adapt to your current situation. And so, I think that the advent of component oriented development is actually quite big for those of us working in this space. And it hasn't really caught on yet to a huge degree because like I say, a lot of people are still coming with this kind of D3 script based mindset because the news industry, for some interesting and historical reasons, is slightly out of step with mainstream mode development in some ways. We don't use things like Babel a lot, for example. CHARLES: That makes sense, right? I mean, the online print is not like it's a React application or it's not like the application is all encompassing, so you really need to have a light footprint, I would imagine, because it really is a script. What you're doing is scripting in the truest sense of the word where you essentially have a whole bunch of content and then you just need to kind of -- RICH: Yeah. And the light footprint that you mentioned is key because like most new sites, we have analytics on the page and we have ads and we have comments and all of these things that involve JavaScript. And by the time our code loads, all of this other stuff is already fighting for the main thread. And so, we need to get in there as fast as we can and do our work with a minimum fuss. We don't have the capacity to be loading big frameworks and messing about on the page. So that again is one of these sort of downward pressures that kind of enforces a certain type of tool to come out of the news business. TARAS: A lot of the tooling that's available, especially on like the really fatter, bigger frameworks, the tools that you get with those frameworks, they benefit over long term. So if you have like a long running project, the weight of the abstractions, you've experienced that benefit over time and it adds up significantly. But if you're working to ship something in a day, you want something that is just like a chisel. It does exactly what you want it to do. You want to apply it in exactly the right place and you want to get it done exactly, like you want the outcome to be precise. RICH: That's true. And I think a lot of people who have built large React apps, for example, or large Ember apps, they sort of look at Svelte and think, "Well, maybe this isn't going to be applicable to my situation," because it has this bias towards being able to very quickly produce something. And I'm not convinced that that's true. I think that if you make something easier to get started with, then you're just making it easier. If you build something that is simple for beginners to use, then you're also building something simple for experts to use. And so, I don't necessarily see it as a tradeoff, I don't think we're trading long-term maintainability for short term production. But it is certainly a suspicion that I've encountered from people. TARAS: This is something that we've also encountered recently. It's been kind of a brewing discussion inside a front side about the fact that it seems to be that certain problems are actually better to rewrite than they are to maintain or refactor towards an end goal. And we found this, especially as the tools that we create have gotten more precise and more refined and simplified and lighter, it is actually easier to rewrite those things five times than it is to refactor it one time to a particular place that we want it to be. And it's interesting, like I find this to be very recent, this idea is blossoming in my mind very recently. I didn't observe this in the past. CHARLES: Do you mean in the sense that like if a tool is focused enough and a tool is simple enough, then refactoring is tantamount to a rewrite if you're talking about 200 or 300 lines of code? Is that what you mean? TARAS: Yeah. If you're sitting down to make a change or you have something in mind, it is actually easy to say, "Let's just start from scratch and then we're going to get exactly the same place in the same amount of time." But this kind of mantra of not rewriting makes me think about that, makes me question whether that's actually something that is always the right answer. RICH: I definitely question that conventional wisdom at all levels, as well. I started a bundler called Rollup as well as Svelte more recently. And Rollup was the second JavaScript bundler that I wrote, because the first one that I wrote wasn't quite capable of doing the things that I wanted. And it was easier to just start from scratch than to try and shift the existing user base of its predecessor over to this new way of doing things. Svelte 3 is a more or less complete rewrite. Svelte has had multiple, more or less, complete rewrite. Some of them weren't breaking changes. But Svelte itself was a rewrite of an earlier project that I'd started in 2013. And so in my career, I've benefited massively from learning from having built something. But then when the time comes and you realize that you can't change it in the ways that you need to change it, just rewrite it. And I think that at the other end of the spectrum, the recent debate about micro frontend has largely missed this point. People think that the benefit of the micro frontend is that people don't need to talk to each other, which is absolute nonsense. I think the benefit of this way of thinking about building applications is that it optimizes for this fact of life that we all agree is inevitable, which is that at some point, you're going to have to rewrite your code. And we spend so much energy trying to optimize for the stability of a code base over the long term. And in the process, lock ourselves into architectural and technical decisions that don't necessarily make sense three or four years down the line. And I think as an industry, would be a lot better placed if we all started thinking about how to optimize for rewrites. CHARLES: So for those of us who aren't familiar, what is the debate surrounding micro frontends? This is actually something I've heard a lot about, but I've actually never heard what micro frontends actually are. RICH: Yeah. I mean, to be clear, I don't really have a dog in this fight because I'm not building products, but the nub of it is that typically if you're building a website that maybe has like an admin page, maybe it has a a settings page, maybe it has product pages, whatever. Traditionally, these would all be parts of a single monolithic application. The micro frontend approach is to say, "Well, this team is going to own the settings page. This team is going to own the product page." And they can use whatever technologies they want to bring that about. And the detractors sort of attack a straw man version of this, "You're going to have different styles in every page. You're going to have to load Vue on one page. You're going to have to load React on the other page. It's going to be a terrible user experience," when actually its proponents aren't suggesting that at all. They're suggesting that people from these different teams coordinate a lot more that are free to deviate from some kind of grand master architectural plan when it's not suitable for a given task. And darn right. I think it means that you have a lot more agility as an engineering organization than you would if you're building this monolithic app where someone can't say, "Oh, we should use this new tool for this thing. We should use microstates when the rest of the organization is using Google docs." It's not possible. And so, you get locked into the decisions of a previous generation. CHARLES: Right. No, it makes sense. It's funny because my first reaction is like, "Oh my goodness, that's a potential for disaster." The klaxon's going to go off in your head, but then you think, really then the work is how do you actually manage it so it doesn't become a disaster. And if you can figure that out, then yeah, there is a lot of potential. RICH: Yeah. People always try and solve social problems with technology. You solve social problems with social solutions. CHARLES: Right. And you have to imagine it too, it depends on the application, right? I think Amazon, the Amazon website is developed that way where they have different teams that are responsible even down to little content boxes that are up on the toolbar. And the site doesn't really, it shows, right? Like it shows like this is kind of like slapped together, but that's not what they need. They don't need it to not look like there's slight variation with the different ways that things behave. They need to be showing for their business to work. They need to be showing the right thing at the right time. And that's the overriding concern. So having it look very beautiful and very coherent isn't necessarily a thing. Same thing in Spotify, used as another example of this. I didn't know if it was called micro frontends, but I know that they've got a similar type thing, but they are clearly the experience and having it look coherent is more important. And so, they make it work somehow. And then like you're saying, it probably involves groups of people talking to other groups of people about the priorities. So yeah, it doesn't sound to me like just like you're going to adopt micro frontends guarantees one particular set of outcomes. It really is context dependent on what you make of it. RICH: Totally. TARAS: I'm curious though, so with Svelte, essentially for your reactivity engine, you have to compile to get that reactive behavior. RICH: Yeah. TARAS: How does that play with other tools like when you actually integrate it together? I've never worked with Svelte on a large project, so I can't imagine what it looks like at scale. I was wondering if you've seen those kind of use cases and what that ends up, if there's any kind of side effects from that. RICH: As you say, the reactivity within a component is only in the local state within that component or to state that is patched in as a prop from a parent component. But we also have this concept called a store. And a store is just a project that represents a specific value and you import it from svelte/store. And there are three types of store that you get out of the box. A writable, a readable and a derived. And a writeable is just, var count = writable (0) and then you can update that and you can set it using methods on that store. Inside your marker, you can reference or in fact inside the script block in the component, you can reference the value of that store just by prefacing it with a dollar sign. And the compiler sees that and says, "Okay, we need to subscribe to this store as value and then assign it and apply the reactivity." And that is the primary way of having state that exists outside the component hierarchy. Now, I mentioned the writable, readable, and derived are the built in stores that you get, but you can actually implement your own stores. You just need to implement this very simple contract. And so,, it's entirely possible to use that API to wrap any state management solution you have. So you can wrap redux, you can wrap microstates, you can wrap state, you can wrap whatever it is, whatever your preferred state management solution is, you can adapt it to use with Svelte. And it's very sort of idiomatic and streamlined. Like it takes care of unsubscriptions when the component is unmounted. All of that stuff is just done for you. CHARLES: Digging a little bit deeper into the question of integration, how difficult would it be to take wholesale components that were implemented in Svelte and kind of integrate them with some other component framework like React? RICH: If the component is a leaf node, then it's fairly straightforward. There is a project called react-svelte which is, I say project, it's like 20 lines of code and I don't think it's [inaudible] they did for Svelte 3, which I should probably do. But that allows you to use a Svelte component in the context of React application, just using the component API the same way that you would [inaudible] or whatever. You can do that inside a React component. Or you could compile the Svelte component to a web component. And this is one of the great benefits of being a compiler is that you can target different things. You can generate a regular JavaScript class and you've got an interactive application. Or you can target a server side rendering component which will just generate some html for some given state which can then later be hydrated on the client. Or you can target a web component which you can use like any other element in the context of any framework at all. And because it's a compiler, because it's discarding all of the bits of the framework that you're not using, it's not like you're bundling an entire framework to go along with your component. And I should mention while I'm talking about being able to target different outputs, we can also, as a NativeScript project, you can target iOS and Android that same way. Where it gets a little bit more complicated is if it's not a leaf node. If you want to have a React app that contains a Svelte component that has React [inaudible], then things start to get a little bit more unwieldy, I think. It's probably technically possible, but I don't know that I would recommend it. But the point is that it is definitely possible to incrementally adopt Svelte inside an existing application, should that be what you need to do. CHARLES: You said there's a NativeScript project, but it sounds to me like you shouldn't necessarily need NativeScript, right? If you're a compiler, you can actually target Android and you could target iOS directly instead of having NativeScript as an intermediary, right? RICH: Yes. If, if we had the time to do the work, then yes. I think the big thing there would be getting styles to work because Svelte components have styles. And a regular style tag just to CSS and you can't just throw CSS in a native app. CHARLES: Right. Sometimes, I feel like it'd be a lot cooler if you could. [Laughter] RICH: NativeScript really is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Basically what it's doing is it's providing a fake dom. And so, what the NativeScript does is it targets that dom instead of the real dom and then NativeScript turns that into the native instructions. CHARLES: Okay. And you can do that because you're a compiler. TARAS: Compilers has been on our radar for some time, but I'm curious like what is your process for figuring out what it should compile to? Like how do you arrive at the final compile output? Manually, have you written that code and then, "I'm going to now change this to be dynamically generated." Or like how do you figure out what the output should be? RICH: That's pretty much it. Certainly, when the project started, it was a case of, I'm going to think like a compiler, I'm going to hand convert this declarative component code into some framework plus JavaScript. And then once that's done, sort of work backwards and figure out how a compiler would generate that code. And then the process, you do learn certain things about what the points of reusability are, which things should be abstracted out into a shared internal helper library and what things should be generated in line. The whole process is designed to produce output that is easy for a human to understand and reason about. It's not like what you would imagine compile [inaudible] to be like, it's not completely inscrutable. It's designed to be, even to that level of being well formatted, it's designed to be something that someone can look at and understand what the compiler was thinking at that moment. And there's definitely ways that we could change and improve it. There are some places where there's more duplication than we need to have. There are some places where we should be using classes instead of closures for performance and memory benefits. But these are all things that once you've got that base, having gone through that process, that you can begin to iterate on. CHARLES: It's always curious to me about when is the proper time to move to a compiler, because when you're doing everything at runtime, there's more flexibility there. But at what point do you decide, "You know what? I know that these pathways are so well worn that I'm going to lay down pavement. And I'm going to write a compiler." What was the decision process in your mind about, "Okay, now it's time." Because I think that that's maybe not a thought that occurs to most of us. It's like, "I had to write a compiler for this." Is this something that people should do more often? RICH: The [inaudible] of 'this should be a compiler' is one that is worth sort of having at the back of your head. I think there are a lot of opportunities not just in DUI framework space but in general, like is there some way that we can take this work that is currently happening at runtime and shift it into a step that only happens once. That obviously benefits users. And very often we find that benefits developers as well. I don't think there was a point at which I said, "Oh, this stuff that's happening at runtime should be happening at compile time." It was more, I mean, the actual origin has felt that it was a brain worm that someone else infected me with. Judgment is a very well known figure in the JavaScript world. He had been working on this exact idea but hadn't taken it to the point where he was ready to open source it. But he had shared like his findings and the general idea and I was just immediately smitten with this concept of getting rid of the framework runtime. At the time, the big conversation happening in the JavaScript community was about the fact that we're shipping too much JavaScript and it's affecting startup performance time. And so the initial thought was, "Well, maybe we can solve that problem by just not having the runtime." And so, that was the starting point with Svelte. Over time, I've come to realize that that is maybe not the main benefit. That is just one of the benefits that you get from this approach. You also get much faster update performance because you don't have to do this fairly expensive virtual dom different process. Lately, I've come to think that the biggest win from it is that you can write a lot less code. If you're a compiler, then you're not kind of hemmed in by the constraints of the language, so you can almost invent your own language. And if you can do that, then you can do the same things that you have been doing with an API in the language itself. And that's the basis of our system of reactivity, for example. We can build these apps that are smaller and by extension, less bug prone and more maintainable. I just wanted to quickly address the point you made about flexibility. This is a theoretical downside of being a compiler. We're throwing away the constraints about the code needing to be something that runs in the browser, but we're adding a constraint, which is that the code needs to be statically analyzable. And in theory, that results in a loss of flexibility. In practice, we haven't found that to affect the things that we can build. And I think that a lot of times when people have this conversation, they're focusing on the sort of academic concepts of flexibility. But what matters is what can you build? How easy is it to build a certain thing? And so if empirically you find that you're not restricted in the things that you can build and you can build the same things much faster, then that academic notion of flexibility doesn't, to my mind, have any real value. CHARLES: Hearing you talk reminded me of kind of a quote that I heard that always stuck with me back from early in my career. I came into programming through Perl. Perl was my first language and Perl is a very weird language. But among other things, you can actually just change the way that Perl parses code. You can write Perl that makes Perl not throw, if that makes any sense. And when asked about this feature, the guy, Larry Wall, who came up with Perl, he's like, "You program Perl, but really what you're doing is you're programming Perl with a set of semantics that you've negotiated with the compiler." And that was kind of a funny way of saying like, "You get to extend the compiler yourself." Here's like the default set of things that you can do with our compiler, but if you want to tweak it or add or modify, you can do that. And so, you can utilize the same functionality that makes it powerful in the first place. You can kind of inject that whole mode of operation into the entire workflow. Does that make sense? That's like a long way of saying, have you thought about, and is it possible to kind of extend the Svelte compiler as part of a customization or as part of the Svelte programming experience? RICH: We have a very rudimentary version of that, which is pre-processing. There's an API that comes with Svelte called preprocess. And the idea there is that you can pass in some code and it will do some very basic, like it will extract your styles, it will extract your script and it will extract your markup. And then it will give you the opportunity to replace those things with something else. So for example, you could write some futuristic JavaScript and then compile it with Babel before it gets passed to the Svelte compiler, which uses acorn and therefore needs to be able to have managed other scripts so that it can construct an abstract syntax tree. A more extreme version of that, people can use [inaudible] to write their markup instead of html. You can use Sass and Less and things like that. Generally, I don't recommend that people do because it adds these moving parts and it makes like a lot of bug reports of people just trying to figure out how to get these different moving parts to operate together. I don't know, it means that your editor plugins can't understand what's inside your style tag all of a sudden and stuff like that. So, it definitely adds some complexity, but it is possible. At the other end, at a slightly more extreme level, we have talked about making the cogeneration part plugable so that for example, the default renderer and the SSR renderer are just two examples of something that plugs into the compiler that says, "Here is the component, here's the abstract syntax tree, here's some metadata about which values are in scope," all of this stuff and then go away and generate some code from this. We haven't done that so far, partly because there hasn't been a great demand for it, but also because it's really complicated. As soon as you turn something into a plugin platform, you just magnify the number of connection points and the number of ways that things could go wrong by an order of magnitude. And so, we've been a little bit wary of doing that, but it is something that we've talked about primarily in the context of being able to do new and interesting things like target webGL directly or target the command line. There are renders for React that let you build command line apps using React components. And like we've talked about, maybe we should be able to do that. Native is another example. The NativeScript integration as you say, it could be replaced with the compiler doing that work directly, but for that to work presently, that would mean that all of that logic would need to sit in core. And it would be nice if that could be just another extension to the compiler. We're talking about a lot of engineering effort and there's higher priority items on our to do list at the moment. So, it's filed under one day. CHARLES: Right. What are those high priority items? RICH: The biggest thing I think at the moment is TypeScript integration. Surprisingly, this is probably like the number one feature request I think is that people want to be able to write Typescript inside the Svelte components and they want to be able to get TypeScript when they import the Svelte component into something else. They want to be able to get completion [inaudible] and type checking and all the rest of it. A couple of years ago, that would've been more or less than thinkable but now it's like table stakes is that you have to have first-class TypeScript support. CHARLES: Yeah, TypeScript is as popular as Babel these days, right? RICH: Yeah, I think so. I don't need to be sold on the benefits. I've been using TypeScript a lot myself. Svelte is written in TypeScript, but actually being able to write it inside your components is something that would involve as hacking around in the TypeScript compiler API in a way that, I don't know if anyone actually or any of us on the team actually knows how to do. So, we just need to spend some time and do that. But obviously when you've got an open source project, you need to deal with the bugs that arise and stuff first. So, it's difficult to find time to do a big project like that. CHARLES: So, devil's advocate here is if the compiler was open for extension, couldn't a TypeScript support be just another plugin? RICH: It could, but then you could end up with a situation where there's multiple competing TypeScript plugins and no one's sure which ones are used and they all have slightly different characteristics. I always think it's better if these things that are common feature requests that a lot of people would benefit from, if they're built into the project themselves. I go really light in the batteries included way of developing and I think this is something that we've sort of drifted away from in the frontend world over the last few years, we've drifted away from batteries included towards do it yourself. CHARLES: Assemble the entire thing. Step one, open the box and pour the thousand Lego pieces onto the floor. RICH: Yeah, but it's worse than that because at least, with a Lego set, you get the Lego pieces. It's like if you had the Lego manual showing you how to build something, but you were then responsible for going out and getting the Lego pieces, that's frontend development and I don't like it. CHARLES: Right. Yeah. I don't like that either. But still, there's a lot of people advocating directly. You really ought to be doing everything completely and totally yourself. RICH: Yes. CHARLES: And a lot of software development shops still operate that way. RICH: Yeah. I find that the people advocating for that position the most loudly, they tend to be the maintainers of the projects in question. The whole small modules philosophy, they exist for the benefit primarily of library authors and framework authors, not for the benefit of developers, much less users. And the fact that the people who are building libraries and frameworks tend to have the loudest megaphones means that that mindset, that philosophy is taken as a best practice for the industry as a whole. And I think it's a mistake to think that way. TARAS: There is also, I think, a degree of a sliding scale where you start off with like as the more experience you get, because there is more experience you get closer, you get to that kind of wanting granular control and then they kind of slides down towards granular control and then slice back up to, once you've got a lot of experience, you're like, "Okay, I don't want this control anymore." And then you kind of cast that and you get into like, "I'm now responsible for tools that my team uses," and now you're back to wanting that control because you want things to be able to click together. It's kind of like a way that your interest in that might change over time depending on your experience level and your position in the organization. So yeah, there's definitely different motivating factors. Like one of the things that we've been thinking a lot about is designing tools that are composable and granular at individual module level, but combined together into a system for consumption by regular people. So like finding those primitives that will just click together when you know how to click them together. But when you're consuming them, just feel like a holistic whole, but at the same time not being monolithic. That's a lot of things to figure out and it's a lot of things to manage over time, but that's solely the kind of things we've been thinking about a lot. RICH: I think that's what distinguishes the good projects that are going to have a long lifespan from the projects that are maybe interesting but don't have a long shelf life is whether they're designed in such a way that permits that kind of cohesion and innovation tradeoff, if you think of it as a trade off. Anyone can build the fastest thing or the smallest thing or the whatever it is thing. But building these things in a way that feels like it was designed holistically but is also flexible enough to be used with everything else that you use, that's the real design challenge. CHARLES: It's hard to know where to draw that line. Maybe one good example of this and, these are actually two projects that I'm not particularly a fan of, but I think they do a good job of operating this way. So, I guess in that sense, it means I can even be more honest about it. I don't particularly care for Redux or like observables, but we ended up using, in one of our last React projects, we had to choose between using Redux-Saga and Redux-Observable. The Redux-Observable worked very well for us. And I think one of the reasons is because they both had to kind of exist. They had to kind of co-exist is their own projects. Like Redux exists as its own entity and Observables exist as their own kind of whole ecosystem. And so, they put a lot of thought in like what is the natural way in which these two primitives compose together? As opposed to the Saga, which I don't want to disparage the project because I think it actually is a really good project. There's a lot of really good ideas there but because it's more like just bolted on to Redux and it doesn't exist outside of the ecosystem of Redux and the ideas can't flourish outside and figure out how it interfaces with other things. Like the true primitive is still unrevealed there. And so, whereas I feel like with Redux you actually have to really, really true primitives. Now, they're not necessarily my favorite primitives, but they are very refined and very like these do exactly what they are meant to do. And so when you find how they connect together, that experience is also really good. And the primitive that arises there I think ends up being better. Is that an example of what you guys are talking about? RICH: Maybe. [Laughs] TARAS: No, I think so. I mean, it's distilling to the essence, the core of what you're trying to do and then be able to combine it together. I mean, that's been kind of the thing that we've been working on at the Frontside. But also within this context, it makes me think of how does a compiler fit into that? How does that work with the compiler? It's just like when you add the compiler element, it just makes it like my mind just goes poof! [Laughter] CHARLES: Yeah, exactly. That's why I keep coming back to like, how do you, and maybe I haven't, you just have to kind of go through the experience, but it feels like maybe there's this cycle of like you build up the framework and then once it's well understood, you throw the framework away in favor of like just wiring it straight in there with the compiler and then you iterate on that process. Is that fair to say? RICH: Kind of, yeah. At the moment, I'm working on this project, so I referred a moment ago to being able to target webGL directly. At the moment, the approach that I'm taking to building webGL apps is to have webGL components inside Svelte in this project called SvelteGL. And we've used it a couple of times at the Times. It's not really production ready yet, but I think it has some promise. But it's also slightly inefficient, like it needs to have all of the shade of code available for whichever path you're going to take, whatever characteristics your materials have, you need to have all of the shade of code. And if we're smart about it, then the compiler could know ahead of time which bits of shade of code it needed to include. At the moment, it just doesn't have a way of figuring that out. And so that would be an example of paving those cow paths. Like if you do try and do everything within the compiler universe, it does restrict your freedom of movement. It's true. And to qualify my earlier statements about how the small modules philosophy is to the benefit of authors over developers, it has actually enabled this huge flourishing of innovation, particularly in the React world. We've got this plethora of different state management solutions and CSS and JS solutions. And while I, as a developer, probably don't want to deal with that, I just want there to be a single correct answer. It's definitely been to the advantage of the ecosystem as a whole to have all of this experimentation. Then in the wild, there are projects like Svelte they can then take advantage of. We can say, "Oh well, having observed all of this, this is the right way to solve this problem." And so, we can kind of bake in that and take advantage of the research that other people have done. And I think we have made contributions of our own but there is a lot of stuff in Svelte like the fact that data generally flows one way instead of having [inaudible] everywhere. Things like that are the results of having seen everyone make mistakes in the past and learning from them. So, there are tradeoffs all around. TARAS: One thing on topic of data flow here and there, one thing that I've been kind of struggling to compute is the impact of that as opposed to something where you have like one directional data flow because it seems like conceptually it's really simple. You set a property like in two way balance system, like you just propagate through stuff but we don't really have a way, you don't have any way of assessing what is the true impact of that computation. Like what is the cost of that propagation where I think it's almost easier to see the cost of that computation if you have like one directional data flow because you know that essentially everything between the moment that you invoke transition to computing the next state, that is the cost of your computation where you don't have that way of computing the result in a two way balance system. Something like Ember Run Loop or mobx or zones, Vues, reactive system. All these systems make it really difficult to understand what is the real cost of setting state. And that's something that I personally find difficult because this clarity that you have about the one directional data flow and what it takes to compute the next state, it's almost like because that cost is tangible where you're thinking about like mutation of objects and tracking their change like that cost is almost immeasurable. It just seems like a blob of changes that they have to propagate. I don't know. That's just something that I've been thinking a lot because especially with the work that we'll be doing with microstates because as you're figuring out what the next state is, you know exactly what operations are performed in a process where that might not be the case with the system that tracks changes like where you'd have with zones or with Ember Run Loop, or Vue. RICH: I would agree with that. The times that I found it to be beneficial to deviate from the top-down ideology is when you have things like form elements and you want to bind to the values of those form elements. You want to use them in some other computation. And when you do all that by having props going in and then events going out and then you intercept the event and then you set the prop, you're basically articulating what the compiler can articulate for you more effectively anyway. And so conceptually, we have two way bindings within Svelte, but mechanically everything is top down, if that makes sense. CHARLES: Is it because you can analyze the tree of top down and basically understanding when you can cheat. This might be really over-simplistic, but if you're kind of with the event, you're collecting the water and then you have to put it way up on top of the thing and it flows down. But if you can see the entire apparatus, you can say, "Actually, I've got this water and it's going to end up here, so I'm just going to cheat and put it over right there." Is that the type of thing that you're talking about where you're effectively getting a two way binding, but you're skipping the ceremony. RICH: It's kind of writing the exact same code that you would write if you were doing it using events. But if you're writing it yourself, then maybe you would do something in a slightly inefficient way perhaps. For example, with some kinds of bindings, you have to be careful to avoid an infinite loop. If you have an event that triggers a state change, the state change could trigger the event again and you get this infinite loop. A compiler can guard against that. It can say this is a binding that could have that problem, so we're going to just keep track of whether the state changes as a result of the binding. And so, the compiler can sort of solve all of these really hairy problems that you had faced as a developer while also giving you the benefit in terms of being able to write much less code and write code that expresses the relationship between these two things in a more semantic and declarative way without the danger. TARAS: This is one of the reasons why I was so excited to talk to you about this stuff, Rich, because this stuff is really interesting. I mentioned that we might, so we have a little bit more time. So I just want to mention, because I think that you might find this interesting, the [inaudible], the stuff that we were talking about that I mentioned to you before. So, I want to let Charles talk about it briefly because it's interesting, because it essentially comes down to managing asynchrony as it ties to life cycle of objects. Life cycle of objects and components are something we deal with on a regular basis. So, it's been an interesting exercise and experimenting with that. Charles, do you want to give kind of a low down? CHARLES: Sure. It's definitely something that I'm very excited about. So, Taras gets to hear like an earful pretty much every day. But the idea behind structure concurrency, I don't know if you're familiar with it. It's something that I read a fantastic -- so people have been using this for a while in the Ember community. So Alex Matchneer, who's a friend and often time guest on the podcast created a library called ember-concurrency where he brought these ideas of structure concurrency to the ember world. But it's actually very prevalent. There's C libraries and Python libraries. There's not a generic one for JavaScript yet, but the idea is just really taking the same concepts of scope that you have with variables and with components, whether they be ember components, Svelte components, React components or whatever there is, you have a tree of components or you have a of parents and children and modeling every single asynchronous process as a tree rather than what we have now, which is kind of parallel linear stacks. You call some tick happens in the event loop and you drill down and you either edit an exception or you go straight back up. The next tick of the event loop comes, you drill down to some stack and then you go back up. A promise resolves, you do that stack. And so with structure concurrency, essentially every stack can have multiple children. And so, you can fork off multiple children. But if you have an error in any of these children, it's going to propagate up the entire tree. And so, it's essentially the same idea as components except to apply to concurrent processes. And you can do some just really, really amazing things because you don't ever have to worry about some process going rogue and you don't have to worry about coordinating all these different event loops. And one of the things that I'm discovering is that I don't need like event loops. I don't really use promises anymore. Like actually, I was watching, I think it was why I was watching your talk when you're talking about Svelte 3, when you're like -- or maybe did you write a blog post about we've got to stop saying that virtual doms are fast? RICH: Yes, I did. CHARLES: So I think it was that one. I was reading that one and it jived with me because it's just like, why can't we just go and do the work? We've got the event, we can just do the work. And one of the things that I'm discovering is with using the construction concurrency with generators, I'm experiencing a very similar phenomenon where these stack traces, like if there's an error, the stack traces like three lines long because you're basically doing the work and you're executing all these stacks and you're pausing them with a generator. And then when an event happens, you just resume right where you left off. There's no like, we've got this event, let's push it into this event queue that's waiting behind these three event loops. And then we're draining these queues one at a time. It's like, nope, the event happens. You can just resume right where you were. You're in the middle of a function call, in the middle of like [inaudible] block. You just go without any ceremony, without any fuss. You just go straight to where you were, and the stack and the context and all the variables and everything is there preserved exactly where you left it. So, it's really like you're just taking the book right off the shelf and going right to your bookmark and continuing along. Rather than when you've got things like the run loop in ember or the zones in angular where you have all these mechanics to reconstruct the context of where you were to make sure that you don't have some event listener. An event listeners created inside of a context and making sure that that context is either reconstructed or the event listener doesn't fire. All these problems just cease to exist when you take this approach. And so, if it's pertinent to this conversation, that was a surprising result for me was that if you're using essentially code routines to manage your concurrency, you don't need event loops, you don't need buffers, you don't need any of this other stuff. You just use the JavaScript call stack. And that's enough. RICH: I'm not going to pretend to have fully understood everything you just said but it does sound interesting. It does have something not that dissimilar to ember's run loop because if you have two state changes right next to each other, X+=1, Y+=1, you want to have a single update resulting from those. So instead of instruments in the code such that your components are updated immediately after X+=1, it waits until the end of the event loop and then it will flush all of the pending changes simultaneously. So, what you're describing sounds quite wonderful and I hope to understand that better. You have also reminded me that Alex Matchneer implemented this idea in Svelte, it's called svelte-concurrency. And when he sent it to me, I was out in the woods somewhere and I couldn't take a look at it and it went on my mental to do list and you just brought it to the top of that to do list. So yeah, we have some common ground here, I think. CHARLES: All right. TARAS: This is a really, really fascinating conversation. Thank you, Rich, so much for joining us. CHARLES: Thank you for listening. If you or someone you know has something to say about building user interfaces that simply must be heard, please get in touch with us. We can be found on Twitter at @thefrontside or over just plain old email at contact@frontside.io. Thanks and see you next time.

How does the endless scroll of Netflix impact our desire for sneakers? How does the manufactured scarcity of shoes influence a billion-dollar secondary market? What is a sneaker bot? The difference between iPhones and Sneakers: This week Paul Ford and Rich Ziade sit down with product designer Matthew Famularo to talk about sneaker appreciation, manufactured scarcity, and the second-hand marketplace built around sneakers. We get acquainted with sneaker bots and discuss the ways that teens unknowingly carry out digital strategy for their favourite brands. We also listen to Rich’s admiration of Paul Newman’s good looks. [podcast player] ►iTunes/►SoundCloud/►Overcast/►Stitcher/►MP3 /►RSS 5:25 — Matthew: “Part of this multi-billion-dollar industry of sneakers winds up being sold because the supply is so incredibly limited and the demand is so high.” 7:25 — Matthew: “People will camp out for sneakers… It’s like Apple products, it’s like when the iPhone comes out.” 9:40 — Paul: “There was kind of a larger trend of athletes going from cool hometown celebrities to global mega superstars where everything is affiliated with them, like when Steph Curry came out with his sneaker and everybody made fun of it — I don’t follow basketball or sneakers, but that was big news.” 10:00 — Rich: “It’s fully baked at that point. You’re not wearing a sneaker to go play basketball in the schoolyard. You can, but it became fashion.” 16:18 — Matthew: “It’s a multi-billion-dollar industry, sneakers. It’s a marketplace. Because of this multi-billion-dollar industry and supply that doesn’t meet with demand, there’s now a billion-dollar secondary market that StockX is participating in, that eBay is participating in, that people are using platforms to sell sneakers.” 16:30 — Paul: “There’s a low cost of entry, it’s connected to street culture, there’s an element of hustle to it, and there’s a key thing you’ve just described which is that you’ve got this marketplace over here, you’ve got this waiting room here, you can automate this — or you could, theoretically.” 16:55 — Matthew: “There are a lot of different kinds of sneaker bots that you can get and it depends on the shoes that you’re looking for… Some bots do all of them. Some bots only do websites that use Shopify. Some bots only work on jailbroken iPhones because they work on the Nike SNKRS app. You have to understand what you’re looking for, and dependant on that, there are a number of options available.” 17:35 — Paul: “Everything you can do with the web has ended up in sneaker bot development territory.” 19:25 — Matthew: “We are now exposed to digital objects more than types of physical objects.” 20:05 — Matthew: “What you have today is between the digital objects [of music, TV, and film] is the notion of scarcity has exploded. Netflix will just pour content over your head until you drown in it so the perceived value is gone. I think that this is almost in a way a reaction to it, because you actually have this thing you can cherish in a weird way because not everyone has it. You know for a fact that because of the marketplace that there are just not a lot of them.” 20:50 — Paul: “That aspect, that sort of raw capitalist consumption part of street culture got really into the brains of cool rich young kids who are like, ‘Oh yeah, $1500 for a cool pair of sneakers, that’s no big deal. I’m a DJ and my parents are funding the next 30 years of my college education.’” 22:00 — Paul: “It’s not such a big market that serious, giant players are really deeply invested in it so it stays kind of ground level. Even the fact that there’s this whole sneaker culture and the bots and so on becomes part of the mystique. The marketplace is now connected to the big public branding event… They’re seeing this growing marketplace as feeding into their overall big brand efforts. Matthew at some level is pulling off the digital strategy around perceived value in the adidas and Yeezy brand for them.” 22:50 — Matthew: “One of the key points is that demographically you’ve got teenagers who fully understand that everything’s disposable. Everything. My Instagram, my Snapchat.” 27:35 — Paul: “Watches are very specific. Watches are rich people catnip.” 28:25 — Rich: “I just it’s cool that there’s this appreciation for this thing that there aren’t just endless amounts of.” 28:35 — Matthew: “There’s a separation between how widespread it can be. On social media, you can see photos of the shoe everywhere. But you go to… Ohio, and you’re not going to see that.” 29:30 — Paul: “When we’re having our kids play Pokemon Go, we’re training them to be sneaker drop consumers.” 31:10 — Paul: “As a species we find scarcity. I think it’s really exciting and I think it’s because we like having access to everything and then we get really excited about rich people having access to things we don’t and we’re like, ‘well why don’t I have it?’” LINKS Matthew Famularo, product designer StockX Virgil Abloh x MoMA x Nike The Story Behind The Air Menthol 10s YEEZY 500 | adidas + KANYE WEST Supreme Paul Newman’s Rolex

  How have sales funnels changed in the past 20 years? What actually is a CRM or CMS? Are they merging together into a larger client management platform? This week, Paul and Rich sit down to discuss the new way of onboarding customers. Systems Collide Into Each Other: This week Paul Ford and Rich Ziade sit down to talk about bringing the right clients into your company. We explain the three pillars that are working behind sucessful customer relationships: sales, customer service, and marketing. We define the differences between CRMs and CMSs, and discuss the convergence of the two. We also announce that we’ll mail a box of chocolates to anyone who comes up with a good name for this convergence!   1:30— Paul: “At some level, your funnel is everyone in the whole world. …” 2:20 — Paul: “Funnel is kind of a marketing term about getting from less qualified to more qualified. … about somebody signing on some dotted line and saying, ‘Yeah, I’m gonna do that’.” 3:53— Rich: “There was a day you’d have to stand out in the street with a sign. …That’s the old school, analog way of somehow taking the millions of little atoms that make up New York City and somehow filtering just a few into your shop.” 6:02 —  Rich: “There is software today that gets you way, way further ahead than standing outside of your shop with french fries.” 9:06 — Paul: “CRM is a big bucket term… but it’s basically how do I track people and how I’m doing at persuading them over time.” 18:07 — Paul: “Everybody’s a publisher on the web. Everybody.” 25:12 — Paul: “This platform is emerging where the people are in the funnel, the kind of content they see, the kind of opportunities that they have to integrate and connect to your thing… are all in one.” 28:33 — Rich: “It’s something big and beautiful. I would even say it’s broader than System A and System B colliding into each other.” A full transcript of this episode is available. LINKS Tugboat Finders CRM Salesforce CMS Be Kind to People Dressed As Food Track Changes is the weekly technology and culture podcast from Postlight, hosted by Paul Ford and Rich Ziade. Production, show notes and transcripts by EDITAUDIO. Podcast logo and design by Will Denton of Postlight.  

Has the entry-level to the internet become too high? Has the purpose of the web shifted from a software platform to an information delivery tool? Have we lost site of what the internet really is? This week, Paul and Rich sit down to discuss the levels of abstraction we’ve created to make the web easier, and the problems it has created. The website as we know it is gone: This week Paul Ford and Rich Ziade sit down to talk to about the expansion and simultaneous shrinking of the web. We talk about creating abstractions to make the web more accessible (like Google Docs) and the ways that has also limited our ability to understand what the web is. Paul takes over Can I Tell You, and Rich provides words of comfort — no one gives a shit about your life!   4:11 — Paul: “on one hand you have someone saying the web is about giving people access to publishing, giving people the ability to publish and communicate outward … and on the other hand someone is saying, you’re asking us to move backwards in time” 5:55 — Rich: “The story arc of the web to where we are today… isn’t even the web. It’s just this wild network of protocols that have been appropriated by a few companies.” 7:33 — Rich: “It’s over. The notion of having to do the heavy-lifting is gone. Everything is shrinkwrapped.” 8:26 — Paul: “A designer does better if they actually understand the stack underneath” 11:06 — Rich: “There is a generational thing… that they view the web as a software platform and not an information delivery platform.” 12:09 — Rich: “I think the term ‘website’ and what it represents, is gone.” 13:28 — Rich: “the infrastructure of the world, the things people use day to day, the way that people access information… the web is still actually flawless and unmatched for accessing that information.” 14:54 — Paul: “you’re always playing catch-up and then there’s all this new stuff… it’s hard to get it done.” 15:58 — Rich: “The web originally had the organizational characteristics of a library — this notion of stuff in rows and columns. Google abstracted away any notion or implication of organization… the notion of a page, the webpage, was obligerated.” 19:53— Rich: “Technology should give you abstractions that give you more power.”  22:05 — Rich: “We’re getting dumber, it’s getting smarter. It got smarter because we got smarter.”