Podcasts about Rockefeller

The Boston Tea Party is the most misunderstood event in American history. Every schoolchild learns it was an antitax protest, proof that Americans have always hated paying taxes. But the Tea Act of 1773 was actually a tax cut. Parliament lowered the duties on tea to bail out the East India Company, a corporation deemed too big to fail, and the Sons of Liberty destroyed ninety thousand pounds of tea not because taxes were too high but because a distant government was using fiscal policy to serve corporate interests without the colonists' consent. The colonists of Massachusetts kept collecting taxes locally even as they defied the British, simply redirecting the money to a patriot treasurer. They didn't want freedom from taxation. They wanted the power to tax themselves. That distinction, argues Vanessa Williamson, is the key to understanding everything that has happened in American politics since. Today's guest is Vanessa Williamson, author of The Price of Democracy. We discuss how the Boston Tea Party was actually a protest against a corporate tax cut for the East India Company, not against taxation, why Shays's Rebellion terrified the founders into writing a Constitution deliberately designed to keep ordinary citizens away from the public purse, and how the Whiskey Rebellion revealed the pattern that would repeat across American history: when poorer people demand fairer taxation, elites respond with force or legal constraints or both. We look at how the Gilded Age Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional, why it took a twenty-year populist campaign and a constitutional amendment to bring it back, and how Rockefeller's lawyers warned that a graduated income tax "realizes most completely the supreme danger of democracy." Williamson argues that free countries are high-tax countries, that authoritarian governments are bad at collecting revenue, and that the antitax movement in America has always been an antidemocratic movement, using supermajority requirements, property tax caps, and fiscal limitations to ensure that even when the people vote for a functioning government, the rules written by a previous generation's oligarchs prevent them from getting one.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“We have a Justice Department which is now 100% the political pawn of the president,” warns Brookings senior fellow Jonathan Rauch. “He points, and they shoot.” Point and shoot. Like an old Kodak camera. Not exactly assuring words, you might think, from a man who begins our conversation looking back at the first six months of 2026 by announcing that he's significantly less alarmed than he was a year ago. Yes, Rauch acknowledges, Trump's approval ratings have sunk, the courts have pushed back, Elon Musk's DOGE rampage has petered out. And yet the pointing and the shooting goes on. Rauch, who only months ago diagnosed eighteen “distinct and unmistakable signs” of an American fascism in a much touted Atlantic piece, now admits he may never crack the Trumpian code. Every time you nail it to the wall, he says, it morphs, creeps or sails away. Like an Iranian gunboat in Hormuz. Slippery stuff for the liberal Brookings analyst. Fascism one month, McKinley-style imperialism the next, then Gilded Age plutocracy — although without those ontologically undeniable Carnegie libraries. Meanwhile, America's 250th birthday party fizzled into what Rauch calls a “damp squib,” its reflecting pool turning an opaque green rather than a clarifying blue. A muddy madness in DC. Still, amidst all the opacity, Rauch remains a defiantly optimistic liberal. In contrast with yesterday's guest, the reality hallucinating Turi Munthe, Rauch believes not only that there is an ontological reality, but that it's good. Frank Fukuyama was right, Rauch insists. Liberalism is not only the only political system that creates wealth, produces knowledge and settles disputes, but also establishes an undeniable reality. Liberals just need to relearn how to clearly tell its story. Perhaps. Though storytelling is certainly simpler when nobody is waving a gun at you. Five Takeaways •       Less Alarmed, Still Scared. Rauch opens with the good news: he is significantly less alarmed than he was a year ago, when the administration was running rampage, putting agencies out of business and demanding Greenland. Approval ratings have dropped, so Trump has less political space; the courts have pushed back, so he has less judicial space; Stephen Miller has vanished from view. And then comes the caveat that gives the episode its title: the Justice Department is now 100% the political pawn of the president — he points, and they shoot — and Trump has shown that as his ratings fall, he becomes more willing, not less, to use those tools. •       I May Never Crack the Code. Only months ago, Rauch diagnosed eighteen distinct and unmistakable signs of a modern American reinvention of fascism in The Atlantic. He doesn't regret the essay — but he has gone back to being confused. The Trump phenomenon is slippery: every time you nail it to the wall, it morphs, creeps or slides away. Fascism one month, McKinley-style imperialism in Venezuela the next, an Iran war with no rationale at all. Trump is such an improviser, and so disorganized, that Rauch concedes there is an element of randomness he may never decode — though he accepts Andrew's suggestion that attention is now the coin of the political realm. •       Not the Gilded Age — No Carnegie Libraries. The new inequality, Rauch argues, is different in kind: a class of people almost superhuman in the wealth they control, and strangely narcissistic and nihilistic toward the broader society. The Gilded Age tycoons did some bad things, but they also built — Carnegie's libraries, Mellon's National Gallery, Rockefeller's University of Chicago, Stanford's university. This group builds rockets and sounds, in the case of Marc Andreessen, like a parody of an Ayn Rand novel — or, as Andrew corrects him, not a parody at all: they simply repeat what they've read. Even so, Rauch is not sorry to see politics reacting to a world where Musk can casually drop $300 million into a presidential race. •       The Gloves-Off Court and the Accelerating Presidency. The Supreme Court term brought the clearest statement yet of the conservative agenda: Humphrey's Executor overturned after eighty years, making it far easier for presidents to fire agency heads at will; what remained of the Voting Rights Act effectively gutted; birthright citizenship surviving by a shockingly narrow margin. The imperial presidency is not new, Rauch notes — what's new is the speed. A president can now simply refuse to run a congressionally mandated agency, and the Senate, forty quietly nixed nominations notwithstanding, remains lacking in spine. The Todd Blanche nomination, he says, is the next test of whether any line exists at all. •       Fukuyama Was Right — and Liberals Should Say So. Rauch sees a moral vacuum and, for the first time, a craving to fill it: the pope's AI encyclical, multi-faith clergy bearing witness in Minnesota, the Episcopalians and Latter-day Saints finding their voices. His prescription for the second half of 2026 is a liberal one, in the nineteenth-century sense — science, markets, constitutions, rule of law. Fukuyama, widely misunderstood, was right: there is only one system that produces knowledge, peace, freedom, and wealth on a global scale, and it's ours. It needs fixing — he cheers the bipartisan housing bill Trump refused to sign — but liberals must relearn how to tell that story, and how to brag. About the Guest Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of nine books, including The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (2021), Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (Yale, 2025), and Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. A recipient of the National Magazine Award, he serves on the boards of Heterodox Academy and Civic Life, and is a longtime friend of the show. References: •       Rauch's Atlantic essay identifying eighteen “distinct and unmistakable signs” of a modern American reinvention of fascism — the piece he stands by, even as he admits the phenomenon keeps morphing. •       His recent essays for The UnPopulist on why liberal societies need grand stories about themselves, and why liberals must relearn how to brag about liberalism. •       Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner in The New York Times — the earlier argument, which Rauch says still holds, that the Republican Party is more dangerous to the constitution and the rule of law than the Democratic Party. •       Tim O'Reilly in The Economist — on Elon Musk building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate. •       Francis Fukuyama — whose widely misunderstood The End of History thesis Rauch defends: there is only one system that creates wealth, produces knowledge, and settles political disputes on a global scal...

In this episode of Exposing the Matrix, we examine the rise of pharmaceutical and medical power. From the transformation of American medicine under Rockefeller influence to the modern pharmaceutical industry's history of dangerous drugs, recalls, and corporate misconduct, we ask whether today's healthcare system is driven more by profit than by patients. Join us as we explore the history, the influence, and the questions every informed person should be asking.Email: thefacthunter@mail.comOuttro: "Still Pointing North" https://suno.com/song/96478ea5-f8f1-4e9a-8b0f-985967921764

Flexner's Poisoned Empire and the Rockefeller Medical Cartel! Today we are going nuclear on the biggest heist in American history — bigger than Standard Oil, bigger than the Federal Reserve, bigger than any election scandal you've ever heard. We're talking the Rockefeller medical cartel, the Flexner Report takeover, how they turned your body into a lifelong subscription service for poison pills, why natural remedies got demonized like they were the enemy of the state, and why this whole rigged game smells like inter-party shenanigans from top to bottom. Web Site: www.DontTreadonMerica.com https://linktr.ee/DontTreadonMerica Email the show: Donq@donttreadonmerica.com DTOM Store (Promo code DTOM for 10% off) Sponsors: www.makersmark.com Celsius Live Fit www.NordVPN.com  Promo Code: DTOM www.alppouch.com/DTOM www.dubby.gg Promo code: DTOM Social Media:   Don't Tread on Merica TV   DTOM on Facebook   DTOM on X    DTOM on TikTok    DontTreadonMericaTV   DTOM on Instagram    DTOM on YouTube  

Our new bestie, Griffin Matthews, joins us all the way from Madrid, Spain. In addition to being an incredibly talented actor in series like Flight Attendant and She-Hulk, he's also muy guapo. Today, he talks to Laci about the scammer for scammer scheme, where a couple (Andrea Bartzen and Matthew Tomasko) pretend to be members of the Rockefeller and Cartier families. From Miami to New York City, they squat, swindle, and scrape a living off the unsuspecting jet-set community. Keep the scams coming and snitch on your friends by emailing us at ScamGoddessPod@gmail.com. Follow on Instagram: Scam Goddess Pod: @scamgoddesspod Laci Mosley: @divalaci Griffin Matthews: @griffinsthreadSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jacob Nordangård is the Swedish researcher, author and heavy metal guitarist who first introduced James to the shocking - and true! - detail that it is the Rockefeller family which is mainly behind the Climate Change scam. Here James joins Jacob for round two of a wide-ranging conversation about everything from the nonsense of global warming [Jacob knows: he used to be an environmental activist] to the total control mechanism (aka The Digital World Brain) our would-be technocratic overlords are planning to impose on us. Also on the menu: the deliberate, soul-sapping ugliness of Town Planning or why every town in the world now looks so samey and so depressing. https://jacobnordangard.se/en/ ↓ ↓ This Delingpod is very kindly sponsored by https://sinacrisps.com The crisp you can eat without the guilt. No seed oils and just 3 ingredients. Use code: JAMES with your purchase for 15% off. ↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future. In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming'. This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original's sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists' sinister master plan. Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/ ↓ ↓ ↓ Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole To support independent, no-holds-barred journalism and gain first and full access to all James's content, subscribe directly at https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk x

Listen as Walter and a cast of eccentric, colorful callers bounce wildly between hilariously relatable everyday grievances—like screaming cats, printer malfunctions, endless password resets, and high-pressure oil changes—to massive historical conspiracies. Tune in to uncover the hidden "truths" about free energy channeled through 19th-century fireplaces, the corporate collusion that destroyed America's electric trolleys, the Rockefeller-designed education system, and the suppressed history of Tartaria. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A real estate investor borrowed $160K from his life insurance and never stopped compounding. Here's how.CFP Mark Willis returns to break down the Bank On Yourself strategy and how real estate investors are using life insurance cash value as a source of capital without slowing their growth. He walks through a real client who borrowed $160,000 from his policy to fund a fourplex while the policy kept compounding untouched, why he agrees with Dave Ramsey that most whole life insurance is a bad deal, and what makes the 2% version different. The conversation also covers the Vanderbilt and Rockefeller families as a case study in generational wealth, how a policy loan compares to a HELOC, and where AI still falls short as a financial advisor.Key topics:How a policy loan funded a fourplex without losing a dollar of compoundingWhy most whole life insurance is a bad deal, and what the 2% version looks likeVanderbilts vs Rockefellers, why some families keep generational wealth and others lose itPolicy loans versus a HELOC, side by sideWhy AI still can't replace a financial advisor's judgmentGuest bio:Mark Willis is a Certified Financial Planner and co-author of The Business Fortress, How to Grow, Protect, and Exit Your Business with Confidence. He specializes in Bank On Yourself and infinite banking strategies for business owners and real estate investors.Links:Learn more from Mark and get free chapters of The Business Fortress at kickstartwithmark.com, mention the book title in the form notesWork With RealDealCrewIf you're already closing deals but your intake, follow-up, or visibility feels inconsistent, here are two ways to go deeper:Take the Deal Intake AssessmentSee how resilient your current operation actually is.→ https://assessment.realdealcrew.comBook a Fit CallIf you want to explore what a fully system-driven deal flow looks like, let's talk.→ https://realdealcrew.com/bookLIKE • SHARE • JOIN • REVIEWWebsiteApple PodcastsYouTubeYouTube MusicSpotifyAmazon MusicFacebookTwitterInstagram

The standard understanding of life insurance goes like this: you buy a policy, pay the premiums, file it away, and hope it never gets used. Protection for your family if you die. That's it. But that's not what wealthy families are doing. American dynasties, high-profile entrepreneurs, and the country's biggest banks have been using life insurance as an active wealth-building tool for generations. Not as a replacement for investing. Alongside it. Valued specifically for what it gives them that a brokerage account never can: liquidity, access to capital, and control. https://youtu.be/773_NczfBww What follows unpacks the actual mechanics and why none of it is reserved for people with a Rockefeller-sized net worth. Table of ContentsThe core ideas:How do the wealthy use life insurance?The Trust and Insurance CombinationThe Cascading EffectThe Problem: Sequence of Return RiskThe Buffer in PracticeDo rich people have life insurance?How do the wealthy use life insurance?What is the Rockefeller strategy with life insurance?Why do banks own so much life insurance?Is using life insurance to build wealth instead of investing?What is the volatility buffer strategy?What is a family bank, and how does it work?Do I have to be wealthy to use this strategy? The core ideas: Wealthy families treat life insurance as a managed asset, not a forgotten product The Rockefeller blueprint combines trusts and whole life to create a cascading, multi-generational capital system Banks hold roughly $250 billion in life insurance for the same reasons: liquidity and stability Walt Disney, Ray Kroc, and others borrowed against policy cash value to fund businesses banks wouldn't touch Dr. Wade Pfau's research shows that whole life as a volatility buffer outperforms the "just invest the premium" alternative A family bank isn't a metaphor. It's a functioning system anyone can build. How do the wealthy use life insurance? Wealthy families use whole life insurance as the foundational “before asset” — a private, liquid capital base that comes before investing and supports every other financial move. They value it for tax-advantaged cash value growth, accessible liquidity that isn't tied to market cycles, asset protection from creditors in most states, and above all, control over their capital.  Through a combination of policy loans and trusts, they fund businesses, protect assets across generations, and create a cascading system in which each death benefit replenishes the capital pool for the next generation. The same mechanics are available at any level of wealth with a properly designed policy. How the Wealthy Use Life Insurance Differently Than Everyone Else Wealthy families could absorb financial mistakes more easily than almost anyone. A bad investment, a failed business, a lawsuit. They'd survive. Yet they still put guardrails in place, specifically through whole life insurance. If the people who can most afford mistakes still protect themselves this way, what does that say for everyone else? For someone for whom a serious financial mistake isn't just painful but potentially devastating, the case is even stronger. The mindset shift is this: wealthy families don't see a life insurance policy as a product they bought and filed away. They see it as an asset they manage and deploy. The attributes they value aren't what most people focus on.  They care about accessible liquidity that isn't tied to market cycles, so a bad year in equities doesn't force their hand. They care about asset protection from creditors and lawsuits, which whole life provides in most states (not all). And above everything: privacy, flexibility, and access to capital. Life insurance is private. The only way to know someone owns a policy is if they tell you. That's part of why this strategy stays largely out of view.  Some of the U.S. presidents who have publicly disclosed their assets have shown whole life among them. That's notable, not because presidents are financial geniuses, but because they're disclosing what they actually have. The wealthy don't open with "what return does this get?" They open with control, access, and certainty. That order of questions matters. The Rockefeller Blueprint: Trusts, Policy Loans, and the Cascading Death Benefit The Rockefeller name comes up constantly in Infinite Banking conversations. Almost nobody explains what they're actually doing. The Trust and Insurance Combination Here's the mechanism. The Rockefeller family combines legal structure and whole life insurance. A family bank can be structured in many ways, depending on the family's goals, need for asset protection, and desired level of complexity. It may be as simple as outright policy ownership, or it may involve a trust, an LLC, a holding company, or a layered structure where a trust owns a holding company that owns an LLC designed to manage family capital. The structure can vary, but the purpose is the same: to create a private, liquid capital base using whole life insurance. That capital can then be accessed and directed toward productive uses, such as buying businesses, investing, funding education, or building assets that strengthen the next generation. The Cascading Effect When a family member dies, the death benefit doesn't just get handed out. It's held in trust and distributed according to the family's stated intentions, then refills the capital pool for the next generation, who repeat the same cycle. This is simultaneously a legacy strategy, a banking strategy, a liquidity strategy, and a values-transfer strategy. The trust and the insurance connected together are what make it continuous. Neither piece alone does what both pieces do together. One nuance worth flagging: trusts are not income-tax magic. In most cases, a trust does not eliminate income tax; it simply determines who reports and pays it, whether that is the trust, the grantor, or the beneficiaries. What trusts can do well is provide structure, accountability, estate-tax planning when properly designed, and a measure of asset protection depending on the type of trust, state law, and how much control is retained. That is real value, but it is a different kind of value than people sometimes imagine.  This isn't a strategy reserved for famous dynasties. It works at a personal level too, one generation funding policies for the next, death benefits flowing down to nieces, nephews, grandchildren. Generation One is the hardest. The message isn't that you need to do this at scale immediately. It's about thinking long-term and taking small, high-quality steps. How a Death Benefit Becomes the Next Generation's Foundation The generational laddering concept, developed by Nelson Nash, sits at the heart of any family banking formula. A life insurance policy pays a death benefit. That death benefit funds the premiums on the next generation's policy. That policy pays its own death benefit, which funds the generation after. You can even skip a generation, grandparents to grandchildren. Each cycle creates a larger pool of capital. It's a growing family bank, not a one-time inheritance. The contrast between the two paths is concrete. A $1 million death benefit split four ways gives each child $250,000 outright. No strings. No direction. That's cutting the cord of accountability. The money is gone from the system. Whatever you hoped they'd do with it is just a hope. Hold that same death benefit in a trust, with clear intentions that it continues purchasing life insurance, and you have something different. Accountability with guardrails. Clarity and protective measures built into the structure. Not mandating, not controlling from the grave, but providing guidance and continuity. The goal isn't to control what your children do. It's to give wealth a structure that keeps it circulating in the family rather than dissipating in a single generation. Why Banks Hold Hundreds of Billions in Life Insurance This is the part many have never heard. Banks need somewhere to park their Tier 1 capital. Tier 1 capital is the core equity capital that absorbs losses and prevents insolvency. Regulators require banks to hold it and demonstrate they can access it quickly. What banks have consistently chosen as one of those safe places is life insurance. Bank-Owned Life Insurance, or BOLI, is how it works. Banks take out policies on highly compensated employees and hold the cash value as a capital asset. They use whole life, universal life, and a product designed specifically for banks. As employees age out, they cycle policies onto new people. Regulators cap life insurance at roughly 25% of Tier 1 capital. The numbers, as of June 30, 2025, are not small: Bank of America: ~$25 billion JPMorgan Chase: ~$12 billion PNC Bank: ~$11 billion Truist Bank: ~$7 billion U.S. banks total: ~$250 billion These figures are publicly available via bank rankings at usbanklocations.com, presented here as illustration, not endorsement. The institutions whose entire job is managing capital and risk at the highest level have parked a quarter-trillion dollars here for liquidity and stability. That's worth paying attention to. Not because banks are infallible, but because the reason they use it is exactly the same reason the wealthy use it, and the same reason it's worth considering in a personal financial plan. How Famous Entrepreneurs Funded Their Dreams With Policy Loans Walt Disney wanted to build Disneyland, but the banks said no, so he borrowed against his life insurance cash value.  Capital he controlled, on his own timeline, repaid on his own terms. No restrictive bank covenants, no lost equity stake, no waiting for approval. He used it to help build what became a multi-billion-dollar empire. The key point: he borrowed from his own capital base while the policy kept doing its job....

Dans cet épisode de "Comment j'ai réussi?", Stéphane Pedrazzi reçoit Benoît Dubertret, fondateur de Nexdot et directeur de recherche au CNRS. Spécialiste des boîtes quantiques, il nous fait découvrir comment ces matériaux révolutionnaires, à l'échelle nanométrique, ouvrent la voie à des applications industrielles concrètes et durables.Après avoir brillé pendant six ans aux États-Unis, au MIT, à Princeton et à l'université Rockefeller, Benoît Dubertret a choisi de revenir en France, porté par la conviction de contribuer au rayonnement de son pays. Il nous confie les raisons de ce choix, entre attrait pour l'équilibre de vie à la française et volonté de s'engager pour l'avenir de la recherche et de l'innovation tricolores.Il commence par nous expliquer, avec des mots simples, ce que sont ces fameuses boîtes quantiques. Composées de semi-conducteurs à l'échelle nanométrique, elles possèdent des propriétés uniques d'interaction avec la lumière, permettant d'absorber, de transformer ou d'émettre des photons. C'est grâce à ces caractéristiques que les boîtes quantiques ont déjà révolutionné certains secteurs, comme l'éclairage avec les LED bleues, récompensées par le prix Nobel de physique en 2014.Aujourd'hui, les boîtes quantiques sont également au cœur de l'innovation dans l'industrie des télévisions. L'invité nous révèle que les téléviseurs QLED de Samsung, désormais largement répandus, contiennent ces matériaux qui permettent d'obtenir des couleurs bien plus riches et éclatantes.Mais les applications des boîtes quantiques ne s'arrêtent pas là. Chez Nextdot, lui et son équipe ont développé un vernis transparent, à base de ces matériaux, qui permet de protéger les parfums de la dégradation causée par les rayons UV. Alors que les parfumeurs utilisent traditionnellement des molécules chimiques potentiellement néfastes, ce filtre UV naturel offre une solution plus écologique et efficace pour préserver la qualité des parfums.Malgré les bénéfices évidents, il déplore que l'industrie du parfum peine encore à s'emparer de cette innovation. Les changements de process et d'étiquetage qu'elle implique freinent son adoption, mais Benoît reste confiant dans la capacité de cette solution à s'imposer à terme.L'autre application phare développée par Nextdot concerne les cellules photovoltaïques. En ajoutant une couche de boîtes quantiques au dos des panneaux solaires, l'entreprise parvient à améliorer leur rendement énergétique de 2% - un bond considérable qui se traduit par des gains de plus de 80 millions d'euros par an pour un seul de leurs clients, une entreprise américaine pionnière dans la fabrication de panneaux hors de Chine.Benoît Dubertret souligne l'importance du soutien de la BPI et des fonds européens pour permettre à Nextdot de franchir le cap de l'industrialisation, un défi de taille pour les start-ups issues de la recherche. Il évoque également les défis liés au coût de l'électricité en Europe, qui pénalise l'industrie chimique, et plaide pour une meilleure allocation de l'électricité décarbonée au profit de secteurs stratégiques.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

He said "order whatever you want" . So she did. Now he's mad at what she ordered. Should she have gotten the most expensive thing? Should he have made that statement? Listen to the whole story hereSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Protect Your Retirement with a PHYSICAL Gold and/or Silver IRA https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ CALL( 877) 646-5347 - You Can Trust Noble Gold   As George Carlin said nearly two decade ago, "It's a big club and you and I are not in the big club." The great awakening in play globally right now has more to do with Israel, Zionism and endless wars than it does with the right-left paradigm. Attorney Tom Renz returns to SGT Report to discuss the current issues and crimes within MAGA and MAHA, the Trump administration and on both sides of the aisle within the US "government". Thanks for tuning in. Follow Mr. Tom Renz HERE: https://tomrenz.com/ https://rumble.com/embed/v7a4z2e/?pub=2peuz

How do family offices and ultra-wealthy families use life insurance to build, protect, and transfer wealth for generations? Want to See If Whole Life Insurance Can Improve Your Wealth? Schedule Your Clarity Call Here: https://bttr.ly/bw-yt-aa-clarityIn this BetterWealth episode, Caleb Guilliams sits down with Family Office Expert, Steven Bowles to break down the strategies behind dynasty trusts, estate planning, family banking, liquidity, tax-efficient wealth transfers, and how life insurance can help create lasting multi-generational wealth for 1,000+ years.Connect with Steven Bowles: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenbowles1/Watch the Interview on Youtube for Visuals - https://youtu.be/wV_sCxxH5EgLearn More About BetterWealth: https://betterwealth.comChapters:Defining the Family Office Structure: (0:01:57 - 0:05:08)Exploration of what constitutes a family office and when it becomes a necessary strategy for high-net-worth individuals.Legacy and Generational Thinking: (0:05:08 - 0:08:06)Insights drawn from ultra-wealthy families, such as the Rockefellers, and the importance of long-term planning horizons.The Strategy of Outsourcing Risk: (0:08:05 - 0:15:53)Analysis of why insurance is utilized as a tool for risk management rather than just a financial commodity.Liquidity and Wealth Preservation: (0:15:53 - 0:27:15)How insurance acts as a buffer against market volatility and provides necessary liquidity at the end of a lifetime.Family Harmony and Planning: (0:27:15 - 0:31:20)The intersection of estate planning, buy-sell agreements, and maintaining family unity through structured wealth transfer.Trust Structures Explained: (0:31:20 - 0:37:16)Understanding the role of irrevocable trusts, dynasty trusts, and the trustee's role in managing policy loans.Premium Finance Analysis: (0:37:16 - 0:42:46)A critical look at premium finance strategies, the risks involved, and the danger of treating insurance as an arbitrage play.Reviewing MPI and Kai-Zen: (0:42:46 - 0:53:56)Discussion on the potential risks of MPI and Kai-Zen.Deep Dive into Dynasty Trusts: (0:53:56 - 1:04:46)How intentionally defective grantor trusts function to remove assets from a taxable estate while providing long-term legacy benefits.Education, Stewardship, and Infinite Banking: (1:04:46 - 1:11:35)How wealthy families prioritize the lifetime education of the next generation to steward inherited wealth effectively.DISCLAIMER: https://bttr.ly/aapolicy*This video is for entertainment purposes only and is not financial or legal advice.Financial Advice Disclaimer: All content on this channel is for education, discussion, and illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as professional financial advice or recommendation. Should you need such advice, consult a licensed financial or tax advisor. No guarantee is given regarding the accuracy of the information on this channel. Neither host nor guests can be held responsible for any direct or incidental loss incurred by applying any of the information offered.

When people hear the phrase “generational wealth,” they often picture trust funds, family empires, and names like Rockefeller or Kennedy. Real generational wealth is not just about leaving behind a large account balance. It is about passing down values, habits, opportunities, work ethic, and a clear understanding of how money can support a meaningful life.In this episode of A Wiser Retirement® Podcast, we discuss what it really takes to build generational wealth. The conversation goes beyond dollars and investments, focusing instead on how families can prepare the next generation to handle money responsibly, pursue their own goals, and carry forward a family legacy with purpose.Related Podcast Episodes: Ep 304. Under the Radar: Wealth Strategies for the Quietly RichEp 219. Do you have a wealth preservation plan?Related Financial Education Videos:Divorce Proofing Your Wealth: Beyond the Basic Prenuptial AgreementShould I Use Wealth Management?Learn More:Founded in 2001, Wiser Wealth Management is a fee-only fiduciary financial planning and wealth management firm helping individuals, families, and business owners make informed financial decisions.Have questions about your financial plan? Schedule a Complimentary Consultation to discover how we can help you achieve financial freedom.  Access Our Free Guides: Gain valuable insights on building a financial legacy, the importance of a financial advisor for business owners, and the tax impact on inheritance, and more!Stay Connected:Follow Wiser Wealth Management on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | TwitterSubscribe to A Wiser Retirement® YouTube Channel for more financial education videos and podcast episodes. This podcast was produced by Wiser Wealth Management. Thanks for listening!

A Special Industry Update, With Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit how advisor due diligence is evolving—from AI and enterprise value to firm stability, ownership, and optionality—and why those questions matter more than ever. In Summary Due diligence has always been about finding the right fit. But what advisors are evaluating has expanded considerably. In this replay of an Industry Update, Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond revisit The Advisor Transition Playbook to explore how advisor priorities continue to evolve. Beyond the traditional reasons advisors consider change, they discuss newer factors shaping decisions today—from artificial intelligence and enterprise value to ownership structure, firm stability, and long-term optionality. The conversation reinforces that while every advisor's motivations are personal, the evaluation process has become far more strategic. Today's advisors aren't simply comparing recruiting deals or platforms. They're considering how today's decisions may influence the value, flexibility, and future of the businesses they're building. The Storyline For years, advisor movement was largely driven by familiar themes: bureaucracy, management changes, technology frustrations, and the desire for greater independence. Those factors remain important. But the conversations Diamond Consultants has with advisors today increasingly include questions that rarely surfaced just a few years ago. How should AI factor into firm selection? What is the long-term value of building enterprise value instead of simply maximizing a recruiting package? How important is a firm's ownership structure? And how should advisors think about stability in a marketplace where acquisitions, recapitalizations, and private equity investment have become commonplace? Jason and Mindy revisit the transition framework introduced in Part 1, focusing less on the mechanics of making a move and more on the evolving criteria advisors are using to evaluate their options. The result is a broader discussion about due diligence—not simply as a transition exercise, but as an ongoing strategic process for advisors seeking to build their best business life. Topics Covered Advisor due diligence Traditional vs. emerging drivers of advisor movement Artificial intelligence in wealth management Enterprise value and advisor ownership Recruiting deals versus long-term economics Reverse due diligence Firm ownership and stability Private equity in wealth management Advisor optionality Building a long-term advisory business Blubrry Player > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why are the traditional drivers of advisor movement still relevant? (4:00) Jason and Mindy revisit the longstanding push-and-pull factors that continue to influence advisor decisions, from bureaucracy and management frustrations to the desire for greater ownership and control. How has AI become part of the due diligence process? (13:50) The discussion explores why advisors increasingly expect firms to demonstrate a clear AI strategy—and why investment, integration, and vision may become meaningful competitive advantages. Why should advisors care about enterprise value, even if they don't technically own their business? (24:30) Jason and Mindy explain why more advisors are evaluating decisions through the lens of long-term business value rather than solely short-term economics. What does reverse due diligence really involve? (37:15) The conversation highlights why advisors should evaluate prospective firms with the same rigor firms use when evaluating advisors. How does firm ownership affect advisor optionality? (38:00) Private equity, acquisitions, and changing ownership structures have made it increasingly important to understand what happens if a firm's strategy changes after an advisor joins. Why has due diligence become more strategic than ever? (45:30) The episode concludes with a broader discussion about defining one's “best business life” and making decisions that align with long-term goals rather than reacting to short-term frustrations. Key Takeaways The reasons advisors evaluate change have expanded well beyond traditional frustrations such as bureaucracy and compensation. AI has become an increasingly important component of firm evaluation, not because it replaces advisors, but because it can enhance productivity and client service. Enterprise value is becoming a consideration even for advisors who currently work within employee models. Reverse due diligence is just as important as a firm's evaluation of an advisor, particularly when assessing ownership structure, capitalization, and long-term stability. The most effective transition decisions balance immediate economics with long-term flexibility, ownership, and optionality. Every advisor's definition of success is different, making clarity around personal goals the foundation of any due diligence process. https://youtu.be/WZbUZJZK1yc Quotable Moments “Every advisor deserves to live their best business life.” “Just because you're frustrated doesn't mean you should move. You need something worth moving toward.” “The question isn't simply what you're paid today. It's what you're building over time.” “Knowledge is power. Understanding what your business is worth should be part of every advisor's decision-making process.” FAQs Why are more advisors expanding their due diligence beyond compensation? While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. How should advisors evaluate a firm's AI strategy? Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. What is reverse due diligence? Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Why does enterprise value matter for employee advisors? Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. How has private equity changed advisor due diligence? Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. What does Diamond Consultants mean by an advisor's “best business life”? It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 1 Annual Advisor Transition Report Top 10 Tips for a Strategic Due Diligence Process Should I Stay or Should I Go? View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done. Number two would be some sort of change in or frustration with management. Something is going on that the person or persons that are responsible for managing the business are just not … They’re not the wind at their back. They’re obstreperous. They’re causing difficulty and frustration. And probably the third one would be less about a pain point and more about the desire to be something that they couldn’t where they were. The notion that they want to be more independent, they want to be a business owner and they just can’t do that. That doesn’t exist within the model where they work. Those probably have been the three ones top of mind, but I bet you’ll have some … You’ll add to that. Jason Diamond: I’ll add a couple. But before I do, I’ve heard you talk about this topic, maybe said another way as pushes and pulls. Can you explain what you mean by that? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think that we think about the pushes, the frustrations, the things pushing somebody out the door, the factors that make it less easy or less fluid to do business. And there’s almost always pushes that exist when somebody comes to us, where they’re frustrated to some degree or another about certain things. But we tell people all the time that just to be frustrated should never be enough, because if all you’re doing is running from one set of problems, you’re very likely to run into maybe a different set, but still problems elsewhere. So a move needs to be driven in equal part, if not more, by pulls. Being pulled toward an opportunity that can be needle moving enough or better enough than where you are now. Pushes and pull. Jason Diamond: I love it. So let me ask you a little bit of a pointed question. Is a recruiting deal a valid pull factor? Mindy Diamond: So look, it’s different for every person. We’ve had advisors come and say, “I just went through a divorce and the most important thing to me is to recapitalize. And so a recruiting deal is really important.” And while I would never be one to say that’s not valid, it can be … And by the way, any advisor should want to and expect to better their financial situation. There should be economic gain. But it shouldn’t be the only or the primary reason for the move. So you want to monetize. The notion of wanting to monetize in the short term should be a factor in what model you pick, but it shouldn’t be the primary driver for a move. Jason Diamond: I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was going to say something I think maybe would’ve surprised you a little, which is like, yeah, I think recruiting deal is a very valid pull factor because what we’re saying is, it shouldn’t be the only pull factor. And sometimes it is and it makes us a little bit sad, I think, when that’s the case. But all of these factors you mentioned, and the ones I would add, I think that maybe technology would be another kind of factor that drives movement, all of these factors are not one specific reason. If you did the exit interview, either actually conducted the exit interview with advisors or thought exercise exit interview, I think they would point to a confluence of all of these factors. Compliance was a headache. I wanted to launch a podcast. I wanted to be able to send a timely communication to my clients. We used to hear that one during COVID a lot, right? By the time compliance approved something to send to clients, it was already stale. So do you agree with that, that it’s generally a confluence or a combination of these? Or in your experience, is it advisors are like, “No, compliance or the tech is so bad, I’m out”? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So most often there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back incident or thing where they’re willing to put up with a series of minor paper cuts, if you will. And then almost always there’s something that happens. You and I got a call the other day from a team that said that they had split from their partner and the management of the firm was favoring the ex-partner, making it harder for them to stay or making it less fun or feel good for them to stay. So while they gave me a laundry list of things that were imperfect, I don’t know that any one of the things that were imperfect up until then would’ve been enough to drive them out. But when that one thing, that feeling that they were a second class citizen came up, that was the straw that breaks the camel’s back and went from a minorly frustrated to, “I’m out of here.” Jason Diamond: Yeah. And there’s probably a hundred examples you could walk us through. And I wanted to just highlight too, this concept is not limited to the wirehouse or employee or captive firm world, this is equally relevant for independent advisors. Granted, some of the pushes and pull factors, some of the triggers are not necessarily the same, but the idea that advisors outgrow a broker dealer or an RIA or either need or want or desire in some way, shape or form, greater autonomy, flexibility, freedom, control is certainly not limited to the employee space. I just wanted to make that point. Mindy Diamond: And I think that’s absolutely right. I think the notion of that frustrations or limitations or bureaucracy only existed if you were a W2 employee at a bulge bracket firm. That went out the window. As the industry landscape has expanded and there’s more and more valid ways to be a financial advisor, there’s more and more ways for a firm or a model or an infrastructure to frustrate an advisor. And that’s not being overly negative. It’s just to say there is no perfection anywhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. And by the way, to play a little bit of devil’s advocate on that, and then we’ll move on, I would just say there are pain points that might come from a firm being small and subscale as well. My firm doesn’t have efficient technology. They don’t invest enough in the business. They don’t provide a lead mechanism. They don’t have a robust banking and lending or investment solutions platform. So this stuff cuts both ways. An advisor can be frustrated or limited and an advisor can be excited. Pushes and pulls I think touch on, we’ve heard from advisors in every single pocket of the market, this is a relevant concept. Mindy Diamond: The theme of this is that every advisor deserves to live their best business life. That’s what people are in search of when they reach out to us or when they engage with us. What they’re looking for more than anything, and this is irrespective of where they work or how long they’ve worked or how much they manage, every advisor is in search of their best business life. And what defines their best business life is having the best quality of work life, but also the best ability to do what they want to do with their business, to serve their clients without limitations, to grow the way they want, to be paid a fair wage, and ultimately set up to maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Those are the definitions of one’s best business life. Jason Diamond: I used an even simpler definition of best business life and I stole it from you, which is the true north concept, which is if your true north is maximizing enterprise value and chasing the dollar and trying to build something that’s scalable and saleable, then great. If your true north is to build a lifestyle practice, there’s plenty of advisors who are successful and happy and content in that regard as well. And I think that’s what we’re talking about, is finding your true north and then it’s possible. I mean, that’s the beauty of the landscape. We’re talking about this, a lot of this is pain points or things that advisors experience. The exciting part of this is there’s never been a better time to be an advisor because of the breadth of choice they have and the ecosystem that’s been born to support advisors, to your point, across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And it’s also, I think, worth saying that it starts with really good crystal clear clarity around not only what’s frustrating you, but what you want ideal to look like. Because I can’t tell you, or I can tell you because … I can’t tell our listeners, I can’t stress enough how often we get calls from advisors that tell us where they think they want to be or tell us they want to move. They have clarity about what’s frustrating them or what they want to change, but they don’t really have clarity about what they want it to look like. And the less clarity you have, the less likely you are to be successful in finding the exact right solution. So our work, the thing we probably do best is really work with advisors to help them. It doesn’t take long. In an hour conversation, we can help them to really get crystal clear on what they’re looking to solve for. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. All right. Great appetizer. We set the table. Let’s dive into the main course now. I want to talk now about what I’m calling the 2.0 triggers or the new triggers of movement. And to be clear, it’s not that these are more important or better or more significant drivers of movement. In fact, you could argue they’re probably at present less significant than the ones we just listed. But I think what we’re saying is these are triggers that are starting to come up more and more in conversations and we expect them to only proliferate further. And in that regard, they’re noteworthy and important for advisors because advisors should be reconciling not just what are the things I need to be worrying about today, but also what are the things I need to be potentially worrying about five years from now. So with that in mind, let’s dive in. I think the first one we have to start with is AI. And I always chuckle a tiny bit when we mention AI, we used to have to specify what are we talking about. Are we talking about artificial intelligence or alternative investments? And now it’s very clear. Everybody knows we’re talking about artificial intelligence. So the direction of the industry, no over-dramatization to say is at stake here. It’s that important of a topic. Let me ask you just very simply first, is this coming up in conversations with advisors? Mindy Diamond: Oh, all the time, but it’s almost table stakes. So I think the way it comes up is that people assume, advisors assume, and by the way, have the right to assume that AI is part of the tech stack. The notion that if I’m evaluating a firm and part of what frustrates me or part of what’s really important to me is cutting edge, really robust technology, part of what I am expecting is that a new firm is going to have really robust technology. And part of that is really robust access to AI. And has honed the AI in a way that’s user-friendly, that really answers or delivers on making me a better … Not replacing me as an advisor, but making me a better, more efficient advisor. Jason Diamond: 100%. And I would also add, so as I think about this AI topic, I don’t want this to become a conversation around, is AI going to replace advisors, because I think we both agree that’s not going to be the case. Especially at the top end of the market for quality advisors, I think they’re not going anywhere. But in my view, when we think about the trigger of movement, AI has the potential to be transformative because a couple kind of use cases or trigger cases come to mind, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. One is, do you think advisors will potentially consider a move because they’re worried about this? So in other words, play this logic out with me. I’m 55 years old and I’m like, “Oh man, AI might be coming from my job.” And there’s firms offering 400% of revenue to move my book. Maybe I should take that check and kind of de-risk and monetize while I can. What are your thoughts on that? Mindy Diamond: I absolutely think we’re already working with that fall into that category, but to say that is the only reason for the move would be wrong. I’m grateful that people trust us enough to be transparent with us. So they let us know that underneath the notion that they want to better serve clients, they ultimately want better access to A, B, and C, they want to be able to do D, E and F with less restriction, is really the main reason for the move. But underneath it, the notion that my book, I want to protect myself. My book may well be the biggest it’s ever going to be. It is going to be worth more today than it could be in the future if things don’t go my way. And if I know I’m going to move and one of my goals is to monetize, I might want to do that now. Jason Diamond: I agree. And that’s where the top deal story comes in also. Firms paying a top deal is a part of that story. It’s what you just said, plus advisors know firms are willing to pay incredible multiples. I mean, as we speak, UBS is in market with one of the largest deals in history. So those two narratives side by side, I agree. I think this becomes more of a kind of catalyst or driver movement. It’s come up in my conversations on both sides of the spectrum. It’s the tech savvy, AI savvy advisors who are excited about this, who are like, “I want to be the most AI enabled version of myself I can be. It’s going to make me a rockstar and it’s going to widen the gap with my peers,” but it’s also come up with the people who are, I think, rightly scared and fearful about what this might mean for their job. Mindy Diamond: Let me ask you, what are examples of the way you’ve seen some of the best firms who have embraced AI? What is their narrative? What is it that they’re saying to advisors that if you come here from a tech or AI perspective, you’ll be better because we’re able to do … Fill in the blank. Jason Diamond: Yeah. So a couple that come up. First of all, I want to make the important point. Advisors do not expect that firms, either their current firm or firms that they are diligencing prospectively, have this figured out or solved. Everybody understands this is a fairly new area that firms are still very much kind of developing their strategies in. What advisors want to see is a few things. They want to see though leadership, they want to see investment, and they want to see a strategy, right? Effectively, they want to see a step in the right direction, really. So I’ll give you a couple examples. There are a number of tech savvy RIAs, very tech-enabled, AI-focused RIAs, because I think this is easier to be nimble. I think where you’ll see this quicker probably is in the independent space. That what they’re doing is things like this. An advisor logs on to their workstation in the morning and their system queues them proactively, Mr. and Mrs. Smith may be good candidates for a Roth IRA conversion. And then if the advisor decides to contact the client in some way about it, the system will of course help them draft the communication, but then it’ll take it a step further and actually help them to process and transact that conversion. So soup to nuts, ultimately driving efficiency. That’s the name of the game. That’s why firms, I think, are excited about AI, at least the good firms. Because what I think they realize it will do is, the stuff that’s a waste of time that could be automated that advisors, and probably even more so their associates, client associates are spending time on, that should be a massive time saver for advisors. And I think if you play that story out, what does that mean? It should mean bigger books of business and therefore more productive advisors because they have more time to prospect and focus on their clients. Thoughts? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think you said it perfectly, but it raises the question then. You say that the RIAs can be more nimble. You’re right. I mean, the big story around the biggest firms was like moving a battleship, it takes a long time to turn it. It’s not as nimble. So what and how are the bigger firms competing against the RIAs with respect to AI? And second question, we still always get questions, and rightly so, about Morgan Stanley has more money to invest… Jason Diamond: That was going to be part of my answer. Mindy Diamond: … than fill in the blank RIA. So how does that all work? Jason Diamond: That is absolutely going to be part of my answer, is that I have heard this question posed almost presumptively both ways. “Oh, it’s got to be that the RIAs are going to be the clear winners in this.” And I’ve also heard, “Oh, it’s got to be that the wirehouses are going to be the clear winners in this.” I don’t think it’s going to be channel specific like that. I think it is going to be firm specific. I think there’s going to be firms that are going to do this well and firms that are going to not do this well. But there’s going to be winners in the wirehouse space. There’s going to be winners in the regional firm space, with firms like Raymond James who are clearly trying to be on the cutting edge of this. There’s certainly going to be winners in the broker-dealer space. LPL is investing heavily in this, as are many of their broker-dealer competitors. And then of course the RIA space, where sometimes they may not have the budgets, but they have a couple things. They have private equity backing, sometimes. They have the custodians that they’re built on, right, or the tech vendors that they’re built on. So Schwab and Fidelity or Orion and Addepar. They have other ways to access these innovations. One of the things that comes up with this that your question I think gets at is, a similar question that was raised around technology stacks, which is strength of offering versus integration. And that’s where I think a firm like Morgan Stanley really will shine, is they should … Because they don’t put anything out that’s not well integrated. The big firms have generally done a pretty good job of that. Versus the RIAs. Sometimes we’ve heard feedback where, yes, you have access to you name it, right? You dream it up, you can go and buy it. But the left hand may not speak to the right hand quite as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, that’s actually a really good point. And integration is probably one of the biggest … If you ask an advisor when they talk about technology as either being one of their pushes or pulls, probably what they’re referring to more than anything is not only having the capability, but having the integrated capability. So that’s a great point. And I think your point is right, that the final chapter on this has not been written. Nobody thinks that it has. And so whatever answers you and I can talk about today about who’s winning this race, or this tech race or this AI race, will be totally different tomorrow. We all know that. But I think for purposes of this conversation, to say that an advisor having an expectation that their technology be outstanding and that AI be on the table, that a firm is embracing it and heading in the right direction, if you will, has the right thought leadership and the right willingness to invest in it is what advisors are really looking for right now. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. And this is a question too from the firm’s perspective, if you are a firm of any size, you must be able to answer that. This has become question 1A. And again, I don’t mean to suggest that I think AI is the number one most important factor driving advisor movement today. It very well might be at some point down the road. I don’t think we’re there yet. But I do think it’s the topic du jour or the hot topic, where every advisor is asking about this. So that means if you’re a firm, you need to be prepared to tell the story or at least have the vision. And I think what we’re hearing from both advisors and from firms is this, AI is going to … What is right now a gap between the good and the bad, the quality and the non, is going to become an absolute chasm, right? An absolutely mountainous gap between the best firms and the firms who are able to adapt this technology or this AI. And the same thing at the advisor level, between the AI-enabled superpowered advisor versus those who are in the dinosaur ages, for lack of a better term. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And we’ll move on, but it is worth saying that the day of the standalone independent, the one man or one woman band who hangs out a shingle, and to use your term, running a lifestyle practice, nothing wrong with that, but it would be near impossible to imagine a world where a standalone independent can compete with a private-equity-backed RIA or an RIA that has a big pool of capital behind them or to compete with the major firms. And our point is the ability to compete is probably more important with respect to this topic than just about any other. Jason Diamond: Totally agree. Thank you for tying a bow on that because I think that’s a good place to leave the AI topic, at least for now. I’m certain we’ll have more to say on this one. By the time we release this episode, we’ll probably have more to say on it. So we’ll have to do a follow-up again. But I want to talk now about enterprise value. And this is one where if you’re an RIA or if you’re an advisor at an independent firm, this might sound like a duh, but hear me out on this one. The idea is as follows, if I’m a wirehouse advisor or any sort of captive advisor, I don’t technically own anything. Agree? Mindy Diamond: Agreed. Jason Diamond: Okay. So if that’s true, that I don’t technically own anything, I technically don’t have any sort of enterprise value or ability to monetize. But my premise here and why I would argue that enterprise value has become a driver of movement is even wirehouse advisors know … They see teams like OpenArc, a massive RIA that launched last year. They see their corner office peers breaking away, starting independent firms. They see them selling to asset managers, private-equity-backed RIAs, private equity firms in their own right for these massive multiples. And what I guess I’m getting at, and I’m curious if you agree is, if a wirehouse advisor, let’s say, sees their colleagues sell to a private equity firm for 20X, doesn’t that have to become a little bit of a catalyst for movement in its own right? Mindy Diamond: Without a doubt. Historically … Actually, let me date myself. When I started this business now 32 years ago, there was zero way for an advisor who was a captive employee of a firm, of any firm, to monetize their business. It’s why there was so much movement, because the only way they could monetize was to get paid a big fat transition deal to move from one firm to the other. Jason Diamond: Yep. Mindy Diamond: Obviously, we all know that first it started with the big firms, and then just about every brokerage firm on the street began to offer a retire-in-place program. And that is the big firms or a traditional brokerage firm’s way of allowing advisor to monetize in place from their perspective to stave off attrition. And for an advisor that believes that the status quo serves them well, that finishing their career, that leaving their legacy, that leaving their team at their firm is the best thing to do, then those retire-in-place programs, like Merrill’s CTP or Morgan’s FAP or UBS’s Alpha or a name at every firm has them, is the best gift to advisors there is. But the problem is that the next generation at those firms are buying an asset they don’t own. And so when we talk about enterprise value or the desire to build enterprise value as a real driver of movement, what we’re talking about is not only that advisors want ownership of an asset, because ownership translates into more control and autonomy and agency over building it the way you want to, but it also translates into maximizing the value of the business that you’ve built. So that’s a long-winded way of saying that the OpenArc deal you are referencing, for anybody not familiar, is a Merrill Lynch team, a legacy Merrill Lynch team in Atlanta that was managing more than 120 billion in assets, part retail, ultra high net worth client assets, and part institutional consulting assets. And believe me, I don’t want to make it sound like it was a snap that one day they’re happy and the next day they’re going independent. Over a 10-year period became more and more aware, driven by the pushes and more aware of the pulse. But ultimately, while there was a long list of things they wanted to be able to do that they couldn’t to best serve clients and grow the business, the real driver at the end of the day, or I shouldn’t say the real driver, but a major driver was the notion of building and owning enterprise value. Yes, they could have all gotten very attractive deals and retired with your Merrill CTP, but they wanted to own the business, they wanted cap gains treatment. And so they went through the sweat equity big time of building what they’re calling OpenArc for the ability for probably five, 10, 20 years, because there’s partners with all different ages, so at all different times, to be able to really maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Jason Diamond: Can I push back on that for … It’s a super helpful example, but my one thought is, okay, yeah, of course, 130 billion in assets, they should be concerned with enterprise value at that size. And the delta between caring about enterprise value and not is too great because those guys have, by all accounts, a phenomenal business that is rivaled by very few in the industry. Most of our audience does not fit into that stratosphere. So what about advisors in, let’s call it the million to $10 million space? Should they still care about this concept? Mindy Diamond: Again, it’s an inside job. It’s a personal thing. Some don’t. But the answer is yes. And if I were them, I would. Why? Because whether I am generating a million a year in revenue or $10 million a year in revenue, at the end of the day, I’ve got an asset. I’ve built a valuable asset. And I have the choice at the end of the day or the middle of the day to decide a million things about that asset. How do I want to live my business life? How do I want to serve my clients? Where do I want to work? But one of the biggest factors to determining where and how they want to work is, ultimately, do I want to be able to maximize the value of the business that I’ve built? And while there are few things that are really definitive in this industry, the one thing that is absolutely indisputably definitive is that if you build an independent practice like the ex-Merrill Lynch churned RIA OpenArc team did, you will ultimately build enterprise value exponential multiples greater than any way you could monetize the business as a traditional employee. Jason Diamond: And that math absolutely still holds up even at numbers smaller than we’ve mentioned. I totally agree with that. I’ll give you one other reason why I think you should care. And I’d love your thoughts on this one. I’ll ask it two ways maybe. I’ll tell you my take and then I’ll ask you yours. Morgan Stanley, let’s use as an example. Who are Morgan Stanley’s competitors? In my opinion, the legacy answer to that is, well, of course the wirehouses are Morgan Stanley’s competitors. Merrill, UBS, Wells Fargo, what maybe used to be a longer list, but today those four. I don’t think that’s the answer anymore. I think those are the direct competitors. But because of this enterprise value conversation, I think Morgan Stanley’s competitors are anyone and everyone who recruits financial advisors with books of business. Because if you think about it, an advisor who has a $3 million business at a wirehouse, even if they’re not actually going to do this, they don’t have any entrepreneurial spirit, no desire to go independent, they still know that they could. This is an option and a viable option. And firms are even figuring out ways to cut out the middle step, right? Because this was historically a two-step process. You’re a wirehouse advisor or a W2 advisor. You break away, launch an independent business to establish your enterprise value, begin building it, and then you monetize it. If you could cut out the middle step, or even if you couldn’t, I still think it’s pretty clear that if you’re an advisor, this is important because the firms know … Like when Morgan Stanley’s writing a recruiting deal, they’re kept honest by RIAs and acquirers just the same as their direct peer set. Do you agree with that or do you think I’m reading too far into this? Mindy Diamond: Oh no, I agree a thousand percent. I think that it is naive for anyone recruiting for or on behalf of a traditional firm to think that the only competition is another traditional firm. The days of pomposity for a senior leader at a traditional firm to say, “We’ve got the best technology, the best everything fill in the blank. We have no competitors.” That’s just naive. Because even if it’s true, you’ve got the best platform infrastructure fill in the blank, there is a multitude of advisors that value things different than what you can provide. Beauty is in the eye of beholder is probably a good way to say that. But at the end of the day, what we’re really talking about is when I started the business, because there was no way, no really good way for an advisor to really monetize their life’s work, the only thing they could or were focused on from a personal financial gain perspective was the short-term deal. What are they paying? What’s the transition deal? Now, of course they’re concerned about that. But almost to a person, they’re equally concerned about what I can build and what will this allow me to build in terms of the value of the business I’m building in the long term. So let me ask you, if we’re talking about an advisor that has the ability to monetize in the short term for what could be 4X and in some cases more than that these days, and we’re talking about the ability to maximize enterprise value, and we talk about the concept of moving once and monetizing twice, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Fill in the blanks there. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hard question to answer because I do genuinely believe recruiting deals, when you talk about 300 to 400% revenue deals in the recruiting space, they vary a little bit, but I feel pretty comfortable quoting those types of numbers that most firms are somewhere in the 300 to 400% of T12 realm. There are some outliers, we mentioned UBS. But the multiple or EBITDA based or enterprise value M&A market where we’re doing these legitimate buyout transactions, the valuations do vary quite a bit. But here’s how I think about it. First of all, most firms are not purchased or sold at top line revenue. Most are sold at some sort of adjusted EBITDA number, which factors in local expenses, platform expenses, but also advisor compensation. And then that adjusted number is typically multipled. The multiples are anywhere from 8X for small kind of, let’s say, million dollar revenue businesses up to, we’ve seen deals struck at north of 20X for some of these mega cap RIAs. Typically, just back of the envelope, if I had to quote, I typically estimate around 5X top line at capital gains is a good kind of ballpark valuation. But there is quite a bit of nuance to it, more so than the traditional recruiting space. And I do think, shameless plug, part of the value in working with somebody who’s an expert on the entirety of the industry landscape is just that. It’s the idea that you need to run the horse race across multiple verticals. The good advisors who work with us typically are looking at a wire like a Morgan Stanley or a Merrill. They’re looking at a boutique firm like a Rockefeller, or they’re looking at a regional like an RBC or a Ray J. They’re looking at an independent firm like an LPL or a Sanctuary. They’re looking all across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: I think that’s exactly right. But the topic of enterprise value, you can see how powerful it is and how wise it is. For an advisor today, when considering their personal economics to consider not just the short term, but to weigh in or add in or factor in, what could I be building and what ultimately will that business be worth at the end of the day? Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. Short of going out and selling your business, what can advisors do then? So I’m an advisor, okay, I’m curious about this. Or is it just as simple as, “Yeah, you should know what your business is worth if you’re an advisor”? Mindy Diamond: Definitively yes, because I mean, we always believe that knowledge is power. And just like it’s important for you to understand what your options are within your own firm, how can I ultimately retire out and monetize my business where I am, I think it’s really hard to make a decision in a vacuum without having other perspective. And getting other perspective doesn’t have to be that you have to go out and take 20 meetings. It’s not that hard for you to figure out what your business is worth to make it a data point for whether or not you’re ultimately best to retire in place or go elsewhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, that I think is the main takeaway. And the education point is so important. I think because these are relatively new concepts for a lot of advisors that haven’t formally shopped a business before, there’s a lot of resources available. And we’ll certainly link some as well on the page for the episode. Let’s shift gears now, our kind of final trigger 2.0, which is stability and ownership structure of the firm. And this has been a little bit of a hot topic. It’s honestly been a hot topic every year because it seems like things pop up every year. And a lot of times advisors don’t reconcile the question of who owns the firm or how stable is the firm until something happens. The firm gets bought, the firm goes bankrupt, like the First Republic scenario. What should a good advisor do proactively about the idea that if you’re a W2 employee or even an employee who’s affiliated with a broker dealer, you saw this with Commonwealth, you just don’t really have control over what the firm decides to do. Give me your thoughts on this. I know it’s a big topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. First of all, using Commonwealth an example, it’s a good one. Because for those unfamiliar, Commonwealth is a boutique broker dealer that was privately owned and whose tagline was, “We love our privately owned status and we are never going to sell,” until one day they did. And not only did they sell, but they sold to the biggest independent broker dealer in the country, ala LPL. That’s not good nor bad, it’s just a fact. So if Commonwealth, who had definitively said we’re never up for sale, suddenly sells, any time you’re an employee of a firm, you never know what tomorrow brings in. You’re not in control over whether it’s sold. So that’s one example. But as you’re talking about this, I’m thinking about, I’m probably going back 20 years, so I’m 10 years into my career and I talked to someone who had been a very successful Merrill advisor. So I’m going to say he was probably generating around $5 million in revenue at the time. Going back 20 years, that’s a pretty significant book of business. He was courted for years by what he thought was a top RIA. And in those days, remember 20 years ago, the RIA space wasn’t nearly as mainstream as it is now. But the story the RIA told him was that ultimately, one, he was going to be a partner in the firm, that was very appealing to him. So he was going to have equity in the firm and much more freedom and control. And locally, by the way, the RIA was a really high quality brand. He worked on a lot of the economics, the short term and the long term with them. They did a ton of due diligence on his book of business. But he failed to ask … And I didn’t represent him. I just know this story. He failed to ask or do enough due diligence about the stability of the firm. What we think is really important, we talk about this expanded landscape. If you’re looking at Morgan Stanley, I don’t think you necessarily need to see Morgan Stanley’s balance sheet. If you are talking to a firm that is anything but a bulge bracket or anything but a large firm, it’s really important to do what we call reverse due diligence and to really understand if a firm expects you to open your kimono and show everything about your business to prove your worth, it is equally important that you do the same for them. In this new world order where private equity has come in and there are so many different ways for a firm to be owned and to be capitalized, it’s very important that an advisor understand what’s going on behind the scenes. And one of the questions around stability, if a firm is private equity backed, is it permanent capital? Is it patient capital? Is the private equity firm going to look to sell and monetize in five years? And then who would the likely buyer be and what does that mean for you? So the question is a big question and it’s really important. Jason Diamond: I love everything you just said, except I do think even the wirehouses, wirehouse advisors, honestly, as much as anybody should be asking these questions. And I’ll give you an example right now, UBS. And UBS, it’s not a story of balance sheet stability. I don’t think anybody has concerns that UBS is going to fail. But UBS management has been very publicly, “Oh, we’re cutting costs.” There’s been some rumors, I think for years, probably dating back 30 years to when you started the business about UBS’s commitment to the US wealth management business. I think those questions about stability and ownership structure are still valid. And to me, the implication of it is twofold. One, what you said, reverse due diligence, ask the questions, plan B. But also the concept of the exits or the off-ramps or how many bites of the apple do you get. So if you’re an advisor and you sell your business to somebody and you sign garden leave and non-competes and non-solicits, the question of ownership structure of that firm becomes less relevant because you have no off-ramps and no ability to exit that business anyway. A lot of times that’s how advisors get comfortable with this concept. And that’s what firms will tell them too, frankly, and we’re living through the middle of this, by the way, with Commonwealth and LPL, is vote with your feet, right? To the extent advisors can, the offer … And this is like, you used the example of private-equity-backed firms. This is how Rockefeller addresses the question of their private equity ownership. If we sell to UBS, all of our advisors will leave. They have that built-in put option. So knowing where the off-ramps are or how many bites of the apple an advisor gets, I think is a big concept that ties into that. But we’re absolutely seeing this pop up, probably largely because of those two examples, Commonwealth and UBS this year, more so Commonwealth, to your point. Janney’s another example last year or two years ago now where KKR comes in and buys Janney. So when these examples happen, it seems like it triggers advisors to say, “Is this something that could happen to me and should I be thinking about this?” Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So let me ask you a question. You’re talking, you’ve mentioned UBS offering this outsized deal. So how does the notion of stability and ownership factor in? If an advisor is considering an unprecedented deal from UBS, what are the caveats or concerns with respect to stability and ownership? Jason Diamond: It’s the same list of considerations you should and would ask of any other firm you’re diligencing, except I think amplified even more in the case … If I was counseling an advisor who was looking at UBS, that would be what I would say, is exactly that. You’re seeing all of these departures and defections, and I would want to have conversations with those advisors and understand exactly why and have guarantees or assurances that I’m not going to suffer from those same pain points that force them to leave. Or, and I say this a little bit flippantly, but it’s a little bit true, I understand the devil that I’m getting into bed with, but for 550%, or whatever the deal might be, I can suck it up. And that’s something that some advisors might well say as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Jason Diamond: I don’t want to end on the negative note of overly large transition, not there’s anything wrong with large transition deals, but as you look out, is there anything that’s coming up in your conversation with advisors that you view as the next wave of this? I’ll give you one that maybe you could touch on, and if you have another one, feel free to offer it in conclusion, but do you think age or advisors starting to succeed out of the business will become more of a driver of movement, even though to your point, advisors can access sunset deals? Mindy Diamond: I do actually, because I think the more the average advisor age increases, the more likely that those advisors are going to want to move on to do something else to monetize the business. And so much of the wave of movement we see is driven not so much by the senior advisor, because many seed advisors are happy enough with the ability to monetize their business in place. Even though it may not maximize the value of the business, it’s a close enough approximation and it means I don’t have to disrupt the apple cart. So we support that 100%. But where we get the calls is from the next generation that says, “Yeah, but hold on a minute. It’s a good way for me to take on a book of assets that I not otherwise have access to. And it’s great for my senior partner, my father, my mother, my whatever to monetize the business. But I’m buying an asset again that I don’t own and I ultimately don’t have control over all these things we’re talking about, the AI investment, the ability to create enterprise value, the stability, the cost cutting, all of it.” So I think it’s all of the above. You say, “What else is there?” I think that’s it. It’s all of the above. It’s anything and everything that drives movement. One, it’s personal, it’s highly unique, it’s different for every advisor. There are certainly themes, and we’re talking about them, but there’s a million different things. It’s personal. And while there are an awful lot of pushes, things that can frustrate an advisor, it is the most exciting time in our view to be an advisor, particularly a high quality one, because the options abound, the ecosystem is big, because the ability to monetize both in the short term and the long term is big, mammoth, exponentially bigger than it ever was before. And the true ability to really build an enterprise has never been greater. And I think all of those things, the desire for an advisor to be the best that they can be and live their best business life is probably the biggest driver of all. Jason Diamond: It’s really true these days, if you can dream it, you can probably build it. And we’ve said in the past, if you build it, they will buy it. It’s a great place to end. This was a really fun topic. I think that’s a spot on kind of fourth trigger, by the way, too. This sort of next gen is almost like the force multiplier or the amplifier of like they see all this other stuff and they’re asking these questions even more so. Because if I’m 60 years old, none of this matters all that much. It matters, but I’m out of the business in five to 10 years. Versus the next gen advisors are the ones who often bear the brunt of this. So I think a lot of really smart stuff. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and expertise. In the episode page, we’ll be sure we have our Industry Transition Report. And we’ve also created a tool, the top 10 tips for a strategic due diligence process, which is a great kind of practical hand-in-hand companion for this topic for advisors looking for more pointed tips on the due diligence process. So Mindy, thank you again. This has been a blast. Mindy Diamond: My pleasure. Thank you. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done.

En este recap de junio hablamos de cuánto dinero está dejando realmente el Mundial en México, quién gana de verdad con los boletos y los Fan Fest, y por qué Estados Unidos no se siente tan mundialista como las sedes mexicanas.Analizamos la salida a bolsa histórica de SpaceX, el fugaz título de Elon Musk como primer “billonario” en español y el papel de la narrativa en las valuaciones, y cerramos con el nuevo round de Donald Trump contra el T-MEC, la apuesta del nearshoring y el reto de construir una economía mexicana menos dependiente de mano de obra barata.Sé parte de la primer temporada de Fírmame el Cheque. Si eres emprendedor y buscas inversión, entra a la liga que te dejaré a continuación, llena el formulario con la información de tu negocio y ya estarás compitiendo por un lugar en el programa: https://firmameelcheque.com/ 00:00 - Junio, mes del Mundial: sedes, camisetas y cómo se está viviendo la vibra en México y EUA01:41 - ¿De verdad hay derrama? Primeras cifras de consumo, ocupación hotelera y expectativas que no se cumplen02:10 - 700,000 personas en El Ángel y el Fan Fest de Monterrey metiendo 120,000 al día: fiesta y presión urbana a la vez03:27 - Picos de consumo vs cambio estructural: basura, seguridad y hoteles lejos del 80% esperado04:23 - “¿Quién gana de verdad con el Mundial?” FIFA, boletos, licencias y negocios locales con picos temporales05:16 - Infantino y los boletos caros: estudio de mercado, reventa y la pregunta de a quién debe ir el dinero08:24 - El Mundial sí está en México: contraste brutal entre el ambiente en CDMX/Monterrey y ciudades de EUA/Canadá10:24 - ¿Cuánta gente extranjera está viniendo? Poder adquisitivo, boletos carísimos y mundiales menos “amables” al bolsillo15:25 - La megasalida a bolsa de SpaceX: precio, monto levantado y valuación de 1.7 billones de dólares en español17:31 - SpaceX como infraestructura estratégica: cohetes, defensa, satélites, IA y narrativa de “empresa del siglo XXI”19:55 - Musk como mito: gente que compra su Tesla con las ganancias de Tesla y cómo eso alimenta la leyenda25:40 - Elon Musk, primer billonario “en papel”: cómo llega a más de 1 billón y por qué esa riqueza no está en efectivo27:34 - Rockefeller vs Musk: comparar fortunas ajustadas por inflación y porcentaje del PIB de EUA29:20 - Narrativa mata balance: por qué hoy las valuaciones dependen más del cuento que de los estados financieros33:28 - Trump y el T-MEC: amenazas, incertidumbre para el nearshoring y la necesidad de fortalecer mercado interno en México

El cuento del asesino a sueldo El misterioso asesinato de un adinerado forastero en un pueblo de montaña lleva a los investigadores por un laberinto de traiciones, grandes sumas de dinero y más derramamiento de sangre. Inventando un Rockefeller Una pareja desaparece mientras trabajaba en una misión secreta, lo que lleva a la policía a seguir la pista de un estafador vinculado a la alta sociedad estadounidense. Un equipo de agentes del orden y fiscales de todo el país deben trabajar juntos para dar con el escurridizo cerebro de la operación.

Durch das Leben von Božena Němcová, George Sand und Rockefeller der Gegenwart auf der Spur: Die tschechische Autorin Radka Denemarková spricht über innere Freiheit, äußere Zwänge und ihren Roman „Schokoladenblut“.

No Sunscreen Ever? Dermatology vs. Circadian Biology – Why One Expert Says Ditch SPF for Good: Sunscreen Part 2 Unknown Death Causers Part 8 | Improvement Warrior Podcast Episode 88 Should you never wear sunscreen again?In this episode, we explore Jason Yun's powerful Substack argument — 'No Sunscreen Ever? Dermatology vs. Circadian Biology.' While mainstream dermatology insists on daily SPF to prevent cancer and aging, circadian health experts like Jason make a compelling case that sunscreen blocks vital sunlight signals our bodies need for vitamin D, melanin production, hormone balance, and mitochondrial health.Show highlightsThe Core Clash: Mainstream dermatology pushes daily sunscreen to prevent skin cancer and photoaging, while circadian biology views sunlight as essential medicine that sunscreen actively blocks.Vitamin D Sabotage: Even SPF 8 blocks 92–95% of vitamin D production; higher SPFs (30/50/75) are even more restrictive — turning one of the sun's biggest health benefits into a non-event.Chemicals in Your Bloodstream: Sunscreen ingredients are absorbed through the skin (the body's largest organ). Circadian Disruption on the Skin: Sunscreen blocks critical light signals to opsins and chromophores in the skin, interfering with POMC processing, hormone signaling (dopamine, alpha-MSH), and the skin's own circadian clocksThe “Solar Callus” Concept: Gradual, properly sequenced sun exposure (sunrise first, then UVA/UVB) allows the body to build natural melanin armorMelanin Is Your Superpower: Far more than cosmetic tanning — melanin acts as a potent antioxidant, mitochondrial protector, and biological sunscreen that modern indoor lifestyles + seed-oil-heavy diets have made us lose.Host's 8+-Year Experiment: Jason Yun stopped using sunscreen after his 2011 honeymoon, built a base tan through consistent exposurePhotoaging Reconsidered: Wrinkles and elastosis aren't solely caused by UV — proper sun exposure (in the right sequence) can actually support collagen, elastin, and hyaluronic acid production. Why We're More Sun-Sensitive Today: Modern factors (chronic indoor living, blue light/EMF overload, high omega-6 diets, magnesium deficiency) make skin burn easier. The solution isn't more sunscreen — it's fixing the underlying environment.Sunscreen & Melanoma Paradox: The article highlights research suggesting sunscreen users can have higher melanoma risk, possibly due to longer intentional sun exposure combined with blocked benefits and toxic ingredients.Dermatology Critique: Dermatologists are trained in a system called “Rockefeller medicine” — focused on treating symptoms and creating lifelong patients rather than optimizing the skin as a light-sensing, hormone-producing organ.Broader Systemic Wins from Sunlight: Beyond skin, proper exposure boosts nitric oxide, supports sulfated vitamin D, enhances immunity (cathelicidin), improves mitochondrial function, lengthens telomeres, and strengthens circadian alignment for better sleep, mood, and metabolism.Resources MentionedNewsletter: http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/nlPatreon: http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/patreonPodcast Support Kofi; http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/kofiUnknown Death Causer Podcast on Sunscreen (UDC #2 / Episode 36): http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/sunscreenVitamin D episode (Episode 5): http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/iwp5Breast cancer & Vitamin D (adolescent exposure): https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/16/3/422/260255/Vitamin-D-and-Reduced-Risk-of-Breast-Cancer-A Sunscreen absorption study: "Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients" (JAMA randomized clinical trial). Circadian Biology Webinar Series: http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/circadianbiologyMagnesium recommendation: http://www.improvementwarriorfitness.com/magnesiumSubstack profile: improvementwarrior.substack.com

A FREE Copy of Jeff's Book, Discernment Listen to the full episode here! https://youtu.be/gQ2QBj1VOWw   What can every entrepreneur learn from the Rockefeller family? In this episode of the Unemployable Podcast, Jeff Dudan sits down with wealth expert Garrett Gunderson to discuss the timeless financial principles that have helped wealthy families preserve their wealth for generations—and how those same strategies can benefit today's business owners. They discuss trusts, legacy planning, life insurance, good debt versus bad debt, protecting assets, avoiding costly investment mistakes after selling a business, and why focus often beats diversification. Whether you're building your first company or preparing for a successful exit, this conversation will challenge the way you think about wealth creation and wealth preservation. 

A FREE Copy of Jeff's Book, Discernment Listen to the full episode here! https://youtu.be/gQ2QBj1VOWw   What can every entrepreneur learn from the Rockefeller family? In this episode of the Unemployable Podcast, Jeff Dudan sits down with wealth expert Garrett Gunderson to discuss the timeless financial principles that have helped wealthy families preserve their wealth for generations—and how those same strategies can benefit today's business owners. They discuss trusts, legacy planning, life insurance, good debt versus bad debt, protecting assets, avoiding costly investment mistakes after selling a business, and why focus often beats diversification. Whether you're building your first company or preparing for a successful exit, this conversation will challenge the way you think about wealth creation and wealth preservation. 

The first organized big-business push for banking reform. Rothbard recounts how the 1896–97 Indianapolis Monetary Convention, backed by Morgan- and Rockefeller-tied elites, enlisted economists to press for the gold standard and a centralized, more “elastic” banking system.

Rothbard's summation: the Federal Reserve was a government-sanctioned cartel engineered by the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests to enable coordinated inflation—achieved only with the legitimizing support of technocratic experts and academics.

The wealthiest families on earth don't run on luck. They run on a system. In this High Level Conversation, Keenan Beasley — founder and CEO of Factory Holdings — breaks down the operating system behind every dynasty that survived its founder: the family office. The same machine the Medicis used to fund the Renaissance and the Rockefellers used to become their own private bank, decoded for the culture that was never handed the blueprint.This is a conversation about coordination over competition. About turning culture and influence into capital and ownership. About treating your family the way the powerful have always treated theirs — as an institution built to last a hundred years, not a household scrambling after every funeral over who plans the next dinner.We move from the original meaning of the word "family" all the way to cultural sovereignty: the right to build, own, and pass down without asking permission. If you have influence but no infrastructure, attention but no ownership, this is the map.WHAT WE DECODEWhy "family" was always an economic institution, not a feelingThe family office explained: the operating system of the wealthy, and why the mindset is free even when the structure costs millionsStructure over luck: why outcomes trace back to the system a child is born intoBlack wealth, the coordination problem, and the infrastructure layer that's still missingMoney-making versus meaning-making, and why we traded the wisdom of elders for the noise of checksMedici, Rockefeller, and the keiretsu model: families that became banks, networks, and sovereign systemsAlpha versus beta, first checks, and how the rich actually right-size a betThe Factory mission: cultural and cognitive sovereignty, and the next 1,000 family officeSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/19keys/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

By 2048, an estimated $124 trillion will change hands — the largest transfer of wealth in human history. Roughly $105 trillion to heirs, $18 trillion to charity. And here's the uncomfortable truth: about 70% of family wealth disappears by the second generation, and 90% is gone by the third.In this week's Money On Tap, Ben Brayshaw and Dan Michelon dig into what the great wealth transfer really means — not for the economy, but for your family. They unpack why wealth preservation is far more behavioral than investment-driven, what the Vanderbilts got wrong and the Rockefellers got right, and the Warren Buffett principle every parent and grandparent should know. Most importantly, they walk through the four conversations every family needs to have before the money moves — and the simple first step you can take this week.What you'll learn:Why $124 trillion in motion could be a generational blessing — or a great wealth disasterThe statistic that should stop every family cold: 70% gone by generation two, 90% by generation threeWhy wealth preservation is behavioral, not investment-drivenThe tale of two fortunes: Vanderbilt vs. RockefellerThe four conversations every family must have before the transferA practical first step you can take this week — and the BFG white paper that helps you run your own family meetingPlus Money In The News:General Motors and Lockheed Martin announce a new multi-billion-dollar defense manufacturing partnershipJeff Bezos proposes eliminating federal income taxes for the bottom half of U.S. earners — and what it would actually mean“The job interview is broken”: how AI is reshaping hiring on both sides of the tableRead the companion blog: https://www.brayshawfinancial.com/blog Schedule a free consultation: https://app.greminders.com/t/9f3ce72e/initialconsulta Browse the full Money On Tap library: https://www.brayshawfinancial.com/money-on-tapContact Us - Phone: 855-226-8551 - Email: info@yourmoneyontap.com - Office: 116 South River Road, Bedford, NH 03110 - Web: brayshawfinancial.comSecurities and advisory services offered through Osaic Wealth, Inc., member FINRA/SIPC. All other services offered through Brayshaw Financial Group, LLC are independent of Osaic Wealth, Inc.If the S&P 500 is up 10%, why isn't my portfolio?Because the S&P 500 is cap-weighted: seven stocks absorb about a third of every dollar, and the top 10 holdings make up 35–55% of most S&P funds. In 2026 those mega-caps lagged — the Mag Seven are collectively negative — while sectors like energy (+28.1%) and technology (+26.8%) led. If your ETFs overlap in the same top names, you own the laggards several times over. The fix starts with knowing what you actually own.

REDIFF - A l'occasion de la soirée du frisson sur RTL, 'L'heure du crime' vous propose de revenir sur la mort mystérieuse de Michaël Rockfeller. Le 21 novembre 1961, le jeune héritier de la richissime famille Rockefeller, 23 ans, disparaît lors d'une expédition en Nouvelle-Guinée néerlandaise. Il avait pour mission d'acheter des œuvres d'art tribales de l'ethnie Asmat destinées aux collections du musée d'Art primitif de son père, Nelson Rockefeller, gouverneur de New York. Alors que des millions de dollars sont investis dans la recherche de sa dépouille une rumeur se répand : Michael Rockefeller aurait tué puis dévoré par une tribu primitive de chasseurs cannibales, les Asmat de Papouasie... Retrouvez tous les jours en podcast le décryptage d'un faits divers, d'un crime ou d'une énigme judiciaire par Jean-Alphonse Richard, entouré de spécialistes, et de témoins d'affaires criminelles. Ecoutez L'heure du Crime du 02 août 2023 avec Jean-Alphonse Richard.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

#308: Ein Mann sitzt in einem Nobelrestaurant in Boston. Er trägt eine leuchtend grüne Cordhose mit aufgedruckten Enten, dazu ein rosafarbenes Hemd und einen blauen Blazer mit einer grünen Fliege. Gerade unterschreibt er einen Scheck über 110.000 Dollar für die Restaurierung einer Kirche. Er setzt seinen Namen darunter: Clark Rockefeller. Der schick gekleidete Mann ist Nachkomme der Rockefeller-Familie – einer der bekanntesten und einflussreichsten Familien der USA. Als Clark Rockefeller sich vor Gericht verantworten muss, melden sich plötzlich Beamte aus Kalifornien. Sie müssen unbedingt mit Rockefeller sprechen – wegen eines anderen Kriminalfalls, der sich 14 Jahren ereignet hat. Ein Cold Case, dessen Lösung die Beamten nun zum ersten Mal näher gekommen sind. Quellen (Auswahl) Buch "Der Mann, der Rockefeller war – Aufstieg und Fall eines Bayerischen Hochstaplers" von Mark Seal Artikel [DER SPIEGEL](https://www.spiegel.de/thema/christian_karl_gerhartsreiter/) Artikel [stern](https://www.stern.de/kultur/tv/mein-freund-rockefeller--regisseurin-steffi-kammerer-ueber-den-moerder-7075882.html) Eine Produktion von Auf Ex Productions Hosts: Leonie Bartsch, Linn Schütze Recherche: Nina Schnackenbeck, Linn Schütze Redaktion: Antonia Fischer Produktion: Antonia Bolln, Lorenz Schütze Mehr Informationen, Bilder und Videos zum Fall findet ihr auf Social Media unter @mordaufexpodcast Privat könnt ihr uns auch auf Instagram folgen: @leonie_bartsch & @linnschuetze Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/MordaufEx) Du möchtest Werbung in diesem Podcast schalten? [**Dann erfahre hier mehr über die Werbemöglichkeiten bei Seven.One Audio!**](https://www.seven.one/portfolio/sevenone-audio)

Protect Your Retirement with a PHYSICAL Gold and/or Silver IRA https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ CALL( 877) 646-5347 - You Can Trust Noble Gold Orsini, Rothschild, Rockefeller, the Council of 13. The Bank for International Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank and the Federal Reserve. The UN, the CFR and the New World Order. Just some of the names that come to mind when one speaks about the powers behind the throne of nearly every nation on earth. Mel K returns to SGT Report to discuss her new book and the Rulers of the Darkness of this world. Thanks for tuning in.   The Mel K show on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow?e9s=src_v1_cbl https://old.bitchute.com/video/qTaa2OW91Add/

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Matthew Ehret is a journalist, lecturer, and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. SPONSORS https://amentara.com/go/dj - Use code DJP22 for 22% off. https://mengotomars.com - Use code DANNY for 50% off for life. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off. EPISODE LINKS https://substack.com/@matthewehret https://canadianpatriot.org FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - The plan to reset society on 9/11 03:45 - Plato 12:21 - The fallacy of the creation of the universe 18:28 - Robert Sopalsky & the God-shaped hole 21:50 - Defining wisdom & the connection to truth 26:55 - Epstein's connection to ancient Roman empire 31:50 - Jacques Costeau's views on depopulation 37:57 - Cosmic radiation's impact on the Earth 47:48 - Adversarial scarecrows & trojan horse assumptions 53:05 - Thomas Malthus' prediction of cataclysms 58:39 - The 9 muses & the mystery of creativity 01:01:09 - Kepler's 3 laws 01:08:06 - The forbidden ways of thinking 01:11:01 - Matt's film on the UFO psy-op 01:13:30 - The Esalen program on psychedelics 01:18:03 - Why Satan chooses to be evil 01:26:57 - UFOs are a multi-generational magic trick 01:33:47 - The Rockefellers' control grid 01:41:44 - The one-world alien religion 01:50:20 - Plato's noble lie 01:55:49 - Plato's definition of a human being 02:00:05 - Straussians & Plato's secret doctrine 02:07:18 - What it means to be a Platanist 02:17:01 - Sketpicism of Telepathy Tapes & Uri Geller 02:24:11 - The power of self-deceit & belief 02:28:40 - Washington Irving Bishop 02:35:16 - Houdini's role in national intelligence 02:36:57 - The secret society that killed Lincoln & started the KKK 02:45:20 - Oneida cult 02:47:06 - The paradox of Presidential assassinations 02:52:50 - Shadow organization running the world today 02:57:15 - Dark strategy behind the Epstein files 03:05:10 - The Silicon Valley movement 03:12:39 - Tavistockian method of breaking people 03:15:27 - Suspicious names behind UFO disclosure 03:27:48 - The narrative that explains UFO disclosure 03:33:40 - Varginha, Brazil UFO incident Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

In Part 6 of Exposing the Matrix, we examine what may be the most powerful control system ever created: education. From the creation of the U.S. Office of Education in 1871 to the influence of Rockefeller-funded institutions, we trace the transformation of American schools from locally rooted, community-centered education to a highly standardized system increasingly shaped by bureaucracies, universities, and ideological movements. We explore revisionist history, declining literacy, the erosion of critical thinking, behavioral conditioning, university radicalization, psychological labeling, dependency on institutions, the removal of biblical foundations, and the rise of social engineering. Most importantly, we examine what Scripture says about guarding the mind and why Colossians 2:8 remains one of the most relevant warnings for our time. If the battle for the future is ultimately a battle for the minds of children, then this conversation is one every parent, pastor, teacher, and believer needs to hear.Email: thefacthunter@mail.comFoundations In Faith: https://www.foundationsinfaith.netMadalyn Murray O'Hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

I'm here to help.  I want you and your families to have your best life, happy and healthy.  Just because we're trained to trust institutions blindly and not speak out, or even question, doesn't mean that's a safe philosophy to follow. I have been conveying the same message, the same warnings on video and podcasts for over 7 years.  We need to free ourselves fro this cultish ritual of poisoning by shots and pharmaceuticals.  Please make the change.  Give the 90 Essential Nutrients a test drive for at least 3 months and see what it improves for you.  In addition, become a member of Dr. Glidden's membership site so when you need him, he can communicate to you what homeopathic remedies to add to help right your ship when it goes off course.  I have had life changing, life improving results since I began taking the AzureWell nutrients, and listening to Dr. Glidden's advice.  He's helped me through kidney stones pain-free and told me what to take to dissolve the stones so it didn't cause excruciating pain. He's where I go when I want a problem solved. I haven't been to an MD in years.  I like solutions, not poisons and suppressive measures that never address the root of the problem.  Typically that root is related to a mineral deficiency.  I can lead you to the water.  It's on you to drink. Join Dr. Glidden's Membership site here:https://leavebigpharmabehind.com/?via=pgndhealth⁠Code: baalbusters for 25% OFFMake Dr. Glidden Your DoctorUse Code BB5 here for your 90 Essential Nutrients:https://www.azurestandard.com/shop/brand/azurewell/2326The Azure Whole Food Essential Nutrients are 1. Whole Food Multivitamin, 2. Alaskan Cod Liver Oil, 3. Fulvic-Humic Energy Blend, 4. IP6 Supreme. I also recommend adding the Core Copper.Use code BB5 for your discount.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

Executive Summary In the third and final episode of the Prosperity Podcast's retirement series, Kim Butler and Spencer Shaw arrive at the topic most people want to start with: portfolio allocation. But three episodes in, the foundation is in place, and the numbers hit differently. Kim opens by explaining why the typical 60/40 stocks-to-bonds split is far more dangerous than most investors realize, and why the math behind it rarely matches the projections people are shown. The core problem is a triple drag: taxes, fees, and opportunity cost. Every dollar paid in taxes or fees does not just leave the portfolio. It removes that dollar's future compounding power for the life of the investment. Kim illustrates with a stark example run through Todd Langford's TruthConcepts calculators: a $2 million portfolio projected to grow to $14 million can, under the weight of taxes, fees, automatic rebalancing costs, and forced withdrawals during market downturns, shrink to less than $1 million in real outcome. The numbers were so surprising that Todd ran them twice on separate tools before Kim felt comfortable sharing them. The solution Kim presents is replacing the bond allocation, typically 40%, with whole life insurance cash value. In the analysis, doing so kept the overall portfolio close to its $14 million potential. Whole life cash value carries no market volatility, no tax drag, and does not create forced selling during downturns. Combined with a cash flow bridge, a separate liquid position you can draw from when markets are down, this structure prevents paper losses from becoming actual losses. The episode closes with a brief overview of two whole life strategies: the Infinite Banking Concept and the Rockefeller approach, and an open invitation to reach out to Kim directly at hello@prosperitythinkers.com for personalized guidance. Links & Resources Mentioned For resources and additional information of this episode go toEmpower Your Finances With Our Prosperity Podcast Empowering Parents, Nurturing Futures - Prosperity Parents Kim D. H. Butler Keywords 60/40 portfolio problems, portfolio allocation retirement, whole life insurance cash value, bond alternative investment, cash flow bridge retirement, opportunity cost investing, taxes fees retirement portfolio, infinite banking concept, Rockefeller approach life insurance, retirement portfolio strategy, prosperity thinkers, financial freedom, stock market volatility retirement, automatic rebalancing cost, TruthConcepts calculators, replace bonds whole life, wealth preservation, financial education, prosperity economics, retirement investment strategy Episode Highlights [00:00:00 - 00:01:49] Spencer frames part three and Kim explains why jumping to investments first skips the essential foundation. [00:01:49 - 00:03:14] Kim introduces the 60/40 stock-to-bond split and the common assumption that a 12% market return makes a 4% withdrawal risk-free. [00:03:14 - 00:04:47] Kim explains automatic rebalancing: how resetting from 65/35 back to 60/40 creates taxable events and fees every cycle. [00:04:47 - 00:05:52] The triple drag: taxes, fees, and opportunity cost. Every dollar paid out removes its future compounding power permanently. [00:05:52 - 00:06:53] The $2M to $14M to under $1M example. Kim introduces the finding that replacing bonds with whole life cash value recovers the $14M outcome. [00:06:53 - 00:07:31] Todd's verification process: HP 12C and TruthConcepts run in parallel to confirm the result before publication. [00:07:31 - 00:08:12] Who should be looking at this now: 30s, 40s, and 50s. Not 65. Though 65 is not too late. [00:08:12 - 00:09:35] The cash flow bridge: a non-correlated cash position that prevents selling a down portfolio and turning paper losses into actual losses. [00:09:35 - 00:11:12] Spencer's observation: bonds and typical retirement planning both produce slow attrition. Kim names whole life insurance cash value as the alternative vehicle. [00:11:12 - 00:13:41] Two whole life approaches: Infinite Banking (high cash value, low death benefit) vs. Rockefeller method (high death benefit). Kim invites personalized email conversations. [00:13:41 - 00:14:32] Spencer wraps the three-part series: control is returned to the listener. Retirement as a concept is reframed. Subscribe CTA.  

Met de beursgang van SpaceX is Elon Musk de eerste biljonair op deze aarde. Naast zijn rijkdom heeft hij ook nog eens veel invloed op wat er in de wereld gebeurt: zijn satellieten van Starlink waarmee hij oorlogen kan stilleggen, zijn social media kanaal X waar hij de polarisatie nog wat kan aanvuren en zijn nauwe banden met Donald Trump. Heeft deze man te veel macht en te veel geld? Of is dit een fenomeen van alle tijden, denk aan mannen als Ford en Rockefeller? Te gast is cultuurfilosoof dr. Jelle van Baardewijk, die gespecialiseerd is in bedrijfsethiek. Aan hem de vraag of er een grens is aan rijkdom en aan invloed.  Artikel van The Economist: https://www.economist.com/business/2026/04/16/could-ais-leading-men-become-as-powerful-as-ford-or-rockefeller

La Center resident Tim Petta draws a line from JP Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller to Camden and Mac Spiller in Battle Ground — arguing that industrialists who created jobs, gave philanthropically, and reinvested in their communities built something worth repeating. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/letter-what-made-and-can-make-america-great/ #Opinion #BattleGround #LaCenter #ClarkCounty #CamdenSpiller #MacSpiller #AmericanHistory #Philanthropy #ClarkCountyToday #Letters

As America approaches its 250th anniversary of independence, powerful forces including Rockefellers and others are working on a comprehensive plan to fundamentally transform America and “Refound” it, explained researcher and writer Lisa Logan in this interview on Conversations That Matter with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman. This refounding agenda involves a “color revolution” organized ... The post At 250, Rockefellers & Co. Work to “Refound” America With “Color Revolution” appeared first on The New American.

The Nobel family (which are the namesake of the Nobel prize), had a rags-to-riches story bigger than the Rockefellers or Morgans. The Nobel patriarch Emanuel fled debtor’s prison in 1837. He then travelled east and built a foundation for the largest oil empire in Russian history. Three generations of Nobels invented the world's first oil tanker, stopped the Royal Navy cold with undersea mines during the Crimean War, and outmaneuvered both Rockefeller and the Rothschilds in the world's first great corporate oil war. Then the Bolsheviks arrived. Lenin nationalized everything overnight, Stalin personally targeted the family patriarch for arrest, and the man who quietly made the Nobel Prize a reality had to escape revolutionary Russia in a horse-drawn cart wearing a disguise, with forged papers and three borrowed children to complete the ruse. It is one of the great lost stories of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, overshadowing the very prizes that bear the family name. Today's guest is Douglas Brunt, author of The Lost Empire of Emanuel Nobel. We discuss how capitalism and Marxism grew up in the same Russian cities before their catastrophic collision, why Emanuel Nobel defied the King of Sweden to ensure his uncle Alfred's will was honored, and what it actually looked like when Lenin's pen stroke erased three generations of Nobel engineering genius in a single day. We explore this story of oil, revolution, and a dynasty that fueled the world and then vanished.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Nurses Report on America Out Loud with Gail Macrae, BSN, RN – We spend more on healthcare than any nation on earth, yet longevity stagnates or declines. This paradox traces directly back to decisions made in the early 1900s. Autism rates have risen from 1 in 50 children in 2000 to roughly 1 in 31 by 2022. Alzheimer's among those over 65 has climbed from about 10% to over 15%...

Walter Sterling sounds off on the first major COVID whistleblower hearings, raising questions about Dr. Fauci, gain-of-function research, the Wuhan lab, vaccine fallout, long COVID symptoms, censorship, school damage, and what he calls one of the biggest con jobs in modern history. Walter also dives into UFO disclosures, Ross Coulthart's reporting, Area 51, government secrecy, and why the public may finally be getting closer to the truth. Plus, Walter explores pyramid power, Nikola Tesla, ether energy, Tartaria, bricked-up windows in historic buildings, Rockefeller, Westinghouse, Edison, free energy theories, and how powerful interests may have buried technology that could have changed the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Nurses Report on America Out Loud with Gail Macrae, BSN, RN – We spend more on healthcare than any nation on earth, yet longevity stagnates or declines. This paradox traces directly back to decisions made in the early 1900s. Autism rates have risen from 1 in 50 children in 2000 to roughly 1 in 31 by 2022. Alzheimer's among those over 65 has climbed from about 10% to over 15%...

What if the answers you're searching for arrived long before you knew how to understand them? In this conversation, I sit down with Kip Baldwin, a filmmaker, producer, writer, and founder of the Just Love movement. Kip shares the extraordinary awakening he experienced at age 12 and how it set him on a lifelong path of exploring consciousness, love, spirituality, and human connection. From the music industry and sustainable agriculture to television production, ethical AI, and overcoming a traumatic brain injury, Kip's journey has been anything but ordinary. As we talk, Kip reflects on why fear has become such a powerful force in society, how love can transform the way we see ourselves and others, and why he believes lasting change starts with a shift in consciousness. You will hear stories of resilience, curiosity, and purpose, along with a vision for creating a better future for generations to come. I believe you will find this conversation thought-provoking, challenging, and full of hope. Highlights: 01:45 - How a childhood acting career sparked a lifelong passion for media and communication. 07:08 - Why confidence without self-awareness can become a liability. 16:32 - Lessons from the Kellogg School of Management that still shape business decisions today. 21:58 - Why listening beats talking in business, leadership, and life. 35:08 - How strong brands grow through awareness, not just loyalty programs. 01:05:02 - The three traits Zarko looks for when mentoring future leaders. About the Guest: Kip Baldwin knows his purpose for Being is to share all that LOVE is through his many solutions driven projects; using media in all its forms to help awaken individuals, and by proxy the collective, to the LOVE Paradigm emerging. He feels that in order for a new chapter of our story to be conceived for humanity, a mass imagining of our limitless potential is what is needed to bring about an age of compassion, empathy, collaboration, and oneness.  Kip was born in 1965 to counterculture parents - in the midst of the maelstrom that was the decade of the sixties, in fact 1965 was the first year that scientists warned us about climate change - in Vancouver, Washington. His earliest years were spent on a farm where his grandparents raised thoroughbred horses. During this period grew in him a deep, abiding LOVE and respect for nature and all living things. It was around the age of twelve his life would transform forever, as he had an out of body experience that took him beyond the edge of Universe, even Space and Time, and face to face with the unknowable of Infinity. This experience became the foundation for his constant seeking since. Due to that experience Kip felt he must explore the world beyond the small town confines of Camas, WA where he grew up. His first attempt to break free was to do a brief stint in the Navy, where he was going to pursue a career as an electric technician, but because of a hereditary bleeding disorder he was given a medical discharge. However, a military career for him was clearly never really in the cards anyway. Although he was always grateful for the insight it gave him into the inner workings of our country, as he witnessed first the how the poor are literally cannon fodder for corporations, under the guise of them being heroes and patriots. Following his discharge, he returned briefly to the limits of his hometown, before moving to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1985 to pursue his passion for music and performing. He often jokes that he was looking for the San Francisco of the Haight/Ashbury, Peace and LOVE days, but arrived twenty years too late. What he found instead was the 80s hair metal band scene, whose songs that focused on partying, sex, and drugs were not compatible with his lyrics about awakening awareness and addressing the need for personal and societal change. In the late 90s, after becoming disillusioned by his beloved music industry - and always seeking solutions for the myriad of challenges facing humanity - he shifted his focus to local and sustainable foods. While this was certainly a worthwhile pursuit, it did little to fulfill his need to share LOVE'S Truth and create a collective shift in consciousness. But what it did do was make him aware that it was only going to be through the use of mass media that his message of LOVE could reach a large enough audience to affect real lasting change. This found him again heeding the call of the entertainment industry, first as an actor, then writer, and ultimately as a producer, with some success co-creating the influential cannabis series Weed Country for the Discovery Network (focusing on the countless benefits humanity can derive from marijuana, as well as our profound historical connection to the plant), co-founding the United Filmmakers Association, and starting the Just LOVE Movement. Ultimately, this led him to co-founding S.O.U.L. Documentary with creative partner and Soul Twin, Evan Hirsch who shares his passion, purpose and mission to heal humanity by embracing our innate oneness, which they both understand can only be achieved by accepting and grounding ourselves in the Reality of LOVE We Are. Ways to connect with Kip: Facebook:  Just LOVE page: https://www.facebook.com/kipbaldwinjustlove Main page: https://www.facebook.com/kip.baldwin/ UFA: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Unifilmmakers LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/kip-baldwin-975a3514/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kipbaldwin?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D&utm_source=qr YouTube: Kip Baldwin: https://youtube.com/@thekiprowdy?si=LckMuhec40lWAicF Just LOVE: https://youtube.com/@justlove6463?si=QW1g4D2dlaHmJk8B S.O.U.L. Documentary: https://youtube.com/@souldocumentary?si=4HOwlV-pjFN6guYy Soul Twin Messiah: https://youtube.com/@soultwinmessiah?si=7ctLlmqjeOczkjO_ Additional must listen:  Comfort You Song: https://youtu.be/Mi8D3AoDfRQ?si=y8RzIQPXP5ALJth1 A World Worth Imagining: https://youtu.be/Cx28t6_SGic?si=o4lWs7po3TBKx_3A Invitation. To Action: https://youtu.be/B8jUOUVCvJI?si=l4Pr7vWNDsnXX4wh AI work: www.luminaLOVE.LOVE About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:03 One of the biggest things holding you back isn't what's in front of you, but rather what you believe. Welcome to Unstoppable Mindset, where inclusion, diversity, and the unexpected meet. I'm your host, Michael Hingson, speaker, author, and advocate for inclusion and possibilities. This podcast explores how the beliefs we carry shape the way we live, lead, and connect with others. Each week, I talk with people who challenge assumptions, face adversity head on, and show what's possible when we choose curiosity over fear. Together we focus on mindset, resilience, and the small shifts that lead to meaningful change. Let's get started. Hi everyone, I am your host Mike Hingson, and you are listening and or watching Unstoppable Mindset. We're really glad that you're here with us today. Our guest, the person I get the honor of chatting with for the next hour or so, is Kip Baldwin, who will talk a lot about love. He will talk a lot about a number of different things, he's been a director, he's been a producer, an actor. He has been published, although he hasn't published a book yet, but he's published poetry, and I'm sure he's going to tell us about that, and I don't want to give it away, so I won't. Anyway, Kip, welcome to Unstoppable Mindset. We're glad you're Kip Baldwin  01:40 here. Oh, thank you so much for having me, Michael. I look forward to having this conversation and sharing my story. Michael Hingson  01:47 Well, tell us a little bit about you, kind of. Let's start with the early Kip, growing up and all that, because I know you had some things along the way that were relevant and ought to be mentioned. So, why don't you tell us about the early Kip, and we'll go from there. Speaker 1  02:00 I was. I grew up in Washington State, little town called Camas. Although my earliest years were spent in a town called Battleground, Washington, and my family, we raised horses, Thoroughbred race horses. We raised at Portland Meadows, and so I'm kind of a farm boy at heart, at least that's how I grew up, but I had an experience when I was 12 that was definitely not your typical farm boy experience, I guess. I had gone up to Seattle, and this was maybe 78 to see a Seahawks game with the Raiders of my dad and dad, I had a good day, which wasn't always the case, and got home, and it was a, you know, five and a half hour round trip for kids, 12 year olds, a big time, and so I went to bed, and I promptly left my body, and now keep in mind I had never done any drugs. Out of body experiences, a household projection was not something that we talked about about the old farm around the farmhouse dinner table, and I floated over my bedroom. My awareness hovered over my body, and I remember very vividly you don't forget. I looked at my body and went, "I'm not in there. And then that immediately I left my house, I left the planet, I left the solar system, I let the galaxy, I let the universe, and the whole time all I can describe was kind of a presence, not a voice or anything, but just, are you taking all of this in? And sometimes words can't convey something so expansive and grand, and so I was taking in black holes and quasars and nebulas, and just flying through the, you know, time didn't really exist, but I was, I was traveling across the universe, and eventually I got outside the universe, and my awareness was turned in, and I could see how everything was connected, and how the universe itself was finite, and but that everything had a place, there was no less or greater than that, everything had a specific role, from the smallest particle to, you know, the largest star, and then my awareness was turned out to the blackness of infinity, and that you know you don't know at 12, you're just like, "Oh, this is happening, and I'm what's happening, and I'm taking it in, and what I didn't know is that would become my point of seeking that really became the rest of my life. Life, I think, had I been born in India, like say Ramana Maharishi, who had what I didn't realize until later, there's a name for what happened to me, and it's called a spontaneous awakening. My life would have probably been much different, but we don't live in a society that that really honors things like that, so it was a lot of me going on a journey of discovery and a weight and continual awakening until now, and it's an ongoing process, but that's where it really began with me being confronted with the fact that there there can't be a beginning or ending to anything, and the thought experiments that can't, that come out of that, and the way it opens your consciousness, I'm ever grateful for, although at the time it, it made me for a long time feel very apart, and it wasn't until I met with Dr. Dr. Dean Radin up at Noetic Sciences, and I told him my story, and he looked at me, and he went, "You go, that's not a usual experience, he said, "That's a mystical experience, and I was in my probably late 40s, maybe 50 at that time, and that was the first time in my life that someone had had said, 'Hey, what you, what you had was a really phenomenal experience, and I'm very grateful for him for saying that to me, because for most of my life, I'm running around talking about these profound things with people that I thought were incredibly important to share, and they didn't seem very important to people, and it wasn't until then that it hit me that it wasn't that they were important, that it was that they, they didn't really understand what I was talking about. Michael Hingson  07:03 Well, and in our society, as you point out, it's not something that is generally appreciated, and and people who have had those experiences or talk about them are generally looked down upon or frowned upon, and you know that's that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact, and so it must have been hard, especially at first, for you to talk about that. Speaker 1  07:29 You know, I was so excited at first, I was excited to share it with my family, and and it happened a couple more times, and it was so overwhelming that literally I would get to a point where my head, my physical being couldn't handle it anymore, and I would get up and vomit. It was that's how, how intense it was, like I just, I couldn't take in anymore. And so, at first, I was really excited to share it, because it was beyond wondrous. It was, it was truth. It was reality, and I, and on some level, I knew that instinctually. But then, when enough people sort of ignore you or act like something's unimportant, you stop talking about Michael Hingson  08:15 it. Yeah, Speaker 1  08:15 I never stopped writing about it. I never stopped experiencing it, and I didn't even really stop talking about it once I moved to California for the music business in 1985 I, you know, then I thought, wow, I mean, being a group of creatives and there's going to be other people that will understand what I'm talking about, but in the 80s music environment it really wasn't what people were, were talking or thinking about, and I was kind of in the same way, and again it wasn't until years later that I look back and I realized all this time I spent up late at night partying with people and stuff, and telling them about infinity, and, and they look, they, they must have been looking at me like I'm a complete idiot, because they really only cared about, you know, getting high or having sex, and I'm trying to have this profound conversation. Michael Hingson  09:16 So, when your family, when you told your family, how did they react? Speaker 1  09:20 They still don't understand it to this day. It just, oh, that's nice, you know. It actually, there were points in my life where it caused conflict with, especially my father, because when I would say none of this is real, he, he always considered him, and still to this day considers himself quite science physics buff, it wasn't something he was willing to accept, and, and even really have a reasonable conversation about. I would say that the things that got me through all these years was, you know, the universe. There's love, God, Brahmin, whatever you want to call it, it gives you what you need, and what it gave me throughout the years, and still to this day, is voices that made me realize I wasn't crazy, that I knew something really special. Probably the first thing, the first one I remember, like, that was Joseph Campbell being interviewed by Bill Moyers, and somehow I knew everything that Joseph Campbell was talking about, and I'm like, How can I possibly know these things? How can I possibly understand these things of this really brilliant, just beautiful soul? And throughout the years, it's been those touch those moments of going, oh, it hasn't been where I've heard someone go, wow, that's helped me awaken, it's been something that's helped me not feel insane and realize that the things that I'm sharing have been shared for 1000s of years, and by many, many minds and beings much greater than myself, and that that really probably kept me from losing my mind. Michael Hingson  11:10 So, you had this experience happen to you at 12. What did you then specifically do? I mean, not so much talking to people, but what did it do for you, as far as schooling, and what you did with your life? Speaker 1  11:27 I would.. it made me very.. in all honesty, it made school seem really trivial to me. It was kind of boring. I started writing a lot. In fact, something I wrote when I was 17 was called Life and Death, and it went: Life is just a symptom of certain death, crying and laughing until our last breath. Everything dies in true infinity. Then the mountains crumble into the sea, stars full from the night sky hit the earth, and then they die, lost in time. I don't know who I am. Am I a god or just a mortal man? Time can't change what I have found. Still, I am changed and bound, bound by the fears and bound by lies. Even now, the tears fill my eyes, gasping for every breath as I head for a certain death, clouds now pass overhead, and I realize how things are now that I am dead. Life is ending, life goes on like the lyrics to an endless song. Life and death, it's all the same. We exist only in our brain, and so there was a lot of that. It pushed me away from I was confirmed Zion Lutheran. I really couldn't stomach religious dogma anymore at that point. Um, just the hypocrisy, you know? Like, I remember I, I was talking to a new pastor we had, and he was informing me that my great grandmother, who is Jehovah's Witness, and these Mormon boys had come around, were trying to teach me about Mormonism, and I was just curious and open, always, and still am to this day. I don't judge. I would say that's another big thing that this gave me, is I don't, I see everything as equal, I don't, I don't judge everything, I don't judge anything as lesser thing greater than I don't judge good and evil in the in the same way that other people do, I see things as flows of negative of energy as we exist in a duality with this illusion, and this is just what we describe as good and you are really just flows of energy between the polarities of the duality, and so it pushed me, definitely, because I, when he said that my great grandmother was going to go to hell, and these Mormon boys were going to go to hell, I looked him in the face, and I just said, but I thought God was love, and that was pretty much the end of my church, Michael Hingson  14:04 my, my wife did, I think, some things in the Lutheran church, which mostly she was a Methodist, and I joined the Methodist church when we got married, and so on, but when she was in, I think this was when she was in high school, maybe in, I guess it was late high school, early college. She met some Mormon people, and one of them said, I guess she was learning about different religions, and so she was learning about Mormonism, and this guy said you're either going to think that this is a total hoax or you're going to just totally believe in it. Well, it wasn't quite that way for her. She did not think it was a hoax, and I agree with her, but there. There are things about the about all religions that tend to make life difficult. The problem with religion is that that people are are what make up the religion, and they all have their own views, and it makes life really tough. I know I participated in a program called the Walk to Emmaus, which is a what's literally called a short course in Christianity, and it's not to bring people to the Christian church, but it's to help create a class of leaders in the Christian church. Anyway, one of the things about the walk to Emmaus is that a number of people give lectures, people who have been involved in church, and then there are the pilgrims, the people who are coming to to learn what everyone has to say, and the lay director of the Walk to Emmaus every time gives a speech, and I was lay director once, and one of the things that is in the manual, or was I assume it still is. It's been a while, but it says that Tolstoy once said the biggest problem with Christianity is that nobody practices it, and there's a lot of truth to that. Speaker 1  16:13 But I think that I think you hit it right on the head that people are involved, like I, and I do want to clarify something, I, I believe very much that that Jesus was a master. Oh, Michael Hingson  16:29 absolutely, yeah, and, Speaker 1  16:31 and, but I also believe that people don't know what happened at the Council of Nicaea and understand how the Bible was actually constructed, not because it was based on Gnostic teachings or even really the teachings of Christ, but it was cobbled together as a means of control. If Caesar saw his soldiers be turning to Christianity when they wanted to find, you know, put together a book that really didn't express Christian truth or the truth of Christ, but a way, a means of controlling people through fear, and so if you, if you notice, all the books in the Bible are male. Well, left out of the Bible was the book of Mary, left out of the Bible, it's the book of Thomas, who, interestingly enough, there's a place in India where they all speak ancient Aramaic, and they worship the Book of Thomas, which there's always been a lot of discussion. Did Jesus go to India and study Buddhism? And because even the Book of Mary, these are very Buddhist beliefs, but anything, because we live in a patriarchal society, anything like the piece to Sophia, the book of Mary, the book of Stackle, all of these were intentionally kept out of the Bible, so it's not, I think it's not so much religion, it's the organ, it's the dogma that comes along with organized religion, which is really about people, you know, men using it to control and manipulate people through fear, Michael Hingson  18:14 all too much, all too often. It's, it's true. Speaker 1  18:18 Yeah, and it's interesting. I was watching last night, and it's funny. This is why, why you always have to be on a constant path of awakening. It never stops. If you think you've reached that pinnacle, or whatever, then they're not just ego. There's always more to know and understand. And I ran across this video on Tara, well, Tara is in Buddhism, basically in every religion that I am aware of, there's always the peace to Sophia, there's always the the story of the divine feminine that in large part is is is not. It was. It's largely been suppressed, and so I was, I was watching this, and it was just so fascinating to me to see how identical what Tara was in Buddhism, which this is what, when Tara, Tara is considered the ultimate goddess in the Buddhist faith. Well, when Tara came to earth in the story, she went to a bunch of, you know, Buddhist monks, and they said, "Oh, you know, they were so impressed by her, and they thought this was a compliment. They said, "Well, we hope you, you can reincarnate as a man, and she said, "No, she She said, I don't see things as male and female, but since nobody else wants to be the feminine, I will play that role. And it was just a profoundly interesting thing to listen to, not just because of the story, but because almost every faith that I'm aware. Of has that story of the divine feminine that has again largely been suppressed and marginalized, Michael Hingson  20:09 well, for you clearly that was a very meaningful experience. What did what did you then do, and I understand how you could imagine that maybe what was being taught in school wasn't quite as, as meaningful as what you had experienced, but you went on, I assume, through high school, and did you go to college? Speaker 1  20:30 I was, I went, I was an electron, I went to the Navy to be an electronic technician, but I had a bleeding disorder called Von Willebrand disease, and I found out after I was in for about a year. Well, you can't be in the Navy with that, because we can't carry with the limited space you have on ships, we can't carry the clotting factor you would need if there's a problem. So that was fairly short-lived. Then I went back to Washington and was working as a dishwasher for a while, then I worked as a male stripper, and, and I was then, which, which, you know, there was something really profound about that experience, because it taught me what women feel like to be objectified, and that's something that has carried me, carried a lesson. I, I find lessons in everything, even things that, wow, you know, what could you possibly learn positive out of having been a male stripper? Well, I learned how women feel, really, to be, you know, not looked at as anything more than an object, and then I really wanted to continue to, you know, pursue music, so a friend of mine, we loaded 65,000 pounds of frozen strawberries onto a semi truck, and like july 3, 1985 and got a ride to San Francisco, a city I'd never been to before. I knew nobody here. We got here, I had 25 cents in my pocket, and I used the 25 cents to call the one friend that I thought I knew that I could get a hold of here in or in in the Bay Area, and it was a wrong number, and so now I'm in a city at the Gray Home Bus Terminal that used to be in downtown San Francisco, we have no food, we have no place to live. We have nothing to, you know, we have nothing, literally. And that's where my journey began. As far as my story, my, my adult life, and my journey in the entertainment industry and the music business, that's how it all started. It started by loading 65,000 pounds of frozen strawberries under semi truck, telling, oh, and the cap around the story is I had worn my contacts for too long and I ripped the corny up both my eyes when I took them out, because I was wearing hard lenses, so I was functionally blind in the city I'd never been to before with patches over my eyes, and being led around by my friend, and luckily we found some very nice people that gave us a place to stay, and then I ended up meeting maybe a week after that, I met my first wife, who was Persian, and we were together for a long time. What was interesting about that is I've been introduced to so many different faiths through the people in my life, and because I haven't judged and tried to learn, like I, I learned through her about Islam, I learned through her about our Torcharianism, and we lived the rock and roll lifestyle for the 16 years we were together. She was a photographer. I wrote for a magazine called BAM. I played in bands. I managed artists like Linda Perry from The Four Non Blonde, or I worked with Linda Perry from Four Non Blondes. I managed Alex Skolnick, who is lead guitar player in Testament, and I did that for a long time until I started getting really disenchanted with music and really started to hate the business and started to hate music because of it, and so I ended up drifting into, I wouldn't say drifting into, I got drawn into visual media, and I started working. I met a guy at a club in San Jose, California, called The Agenda, and we were playing pool, and he was telling me, "Oh, he's the owner of this company called Metropolis Digital, and I was thinking, "My. Speaker 1  24:59 Music and music videos, and yeah, I want to get involved in this, so I started coming up with ideas, and he brought me into their company, because I got to know a lot of people through the music business and booking artists on different shows, like Letterman and Leno, and, and so I got to know how to work through those channels that it opened doors for me to be able to do on-air graphics for the networks, and so I did that until about, in fact, the last major project I did in that industry was with a company called Chaos X AOS out of San Francisco, and we did the 2000 election graphics for ABC nationally, and then I, I, that with the, the, the.com telecom crash of not of 2000 they pulled all of that sort of work in house, and so that business kind of dried up, and I changed my focus to working in local and sustainable foods. Michael Hingson  26:08 What got you to the point where you disliked Music so much? Speaker 1  26:12 The business.. it just.. it wasn't. I came here, and in all honesty, I was looking for the 60s, but I was 20 years too late, only to find out later I was actually 30 years too early, but I was looking for community, I was looking for family, I was looking for that connection, but what existed as far as the music industry then was the 80s hair band stuff, heavy metal was on the rise. It was very misogynistic. It wasn't. It was very competitive. There wasn't, it wasn't collaborative, it wasn't community related at all. And it really turned me off. It wasn't, it wasn't what I had thought being in an artistic community doing artistic endeavors would be about it, became very.. it just.. it just.. it just.. it just made me feel very empty, and that wasn't what I loved about music, and so that Michael Hingson  27:24 would be an issue, Speaker 1  27:25 yeah. It just value wise it was, it was not, you know, you, you got to do a show, and you've got the bands that are coming on after you, you know, playing with your amps, and it was just, it was, it wasn't, it wasn't fun, and it wasn't fulfilling. More importantly, it wasn't fulfilling. It wasn't, and I'm writing about while everyone else is writing about, you know, sex and drugs and all of this. I'm writing about the things that I thought were important. I was writing about the problems I saw in this country, like songs like Shock the System or the chosen few, and, and though that wasn't what people were writing about Michael Hingson  28:06 then, Speaker 1  28:06 and you know, even though the songs were good, and, and I've been told I'm talented, it was, I didn't, I didn't again feel like I fit in, you know, I didn't feel like I'd found my place, and certainly not in that world at that time. If Speaker 2  28:31 you enjoy Unstoppable Mindset and would like to help us continue bringing these conversations to you each week, we've created a way for you to support the show. Your contribution helps us cover production costs and continue sharing stories, insights, and ideas that inspire people to live with purpose and possibility. If supporting the podcast feels right for you, you'll find the link in the show notes. Thank you for being part of the Unstoppable Mindset community. Thank it Michael Hingson  29:04 certainly had to be a rough time all the way around, but then you, you found this person, and you joined their company, as you said earlier, Speaker 1  29:15 right? I started working for Metropolis Digital, and we started doing a lot of on-air graphics, like for TBS. We did their, their original movies. We did a lot of the opening graphics for it, and then I moved on to other companies, and and I, I then started focusing on on local and sustainable foods, and moved into doing stuff where I felt I was doing more, because at the heart of everything I've ever done, it's always been about trying to affect real change in the world, Michael Hingson  29:55 it's Speaker 1  29:55 always been about I could see very clear. Really, it doesn't surprise me where we're at today at all. I saw the problems with the system even at that age, and I give credit to that because of the experience I had with Infinity. It just allowed me to step back and perceive things from a far off perspective that I was looking at humanity in general and how we did things, and I'm just like, this doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense for us to believe we're separate and apart from the very things that give us life from each other. It doesn't make sense from a spiritual perspective. It doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective. Yet, here's the system that we are a part of, and so I've always been very focused on trying to effect real change and find not just point out the problems but actually find solutions, and so that then led me into working in local and sustainable agriculture here in the Bay Area. So Michael Hingson  31:00 tell me more about the whole work that you did with Sustainable Foods. What was that all about? Speaker 1  31:08 Yes, I worked with a company, I was, I had handled all the sales and marketing for Drake's Bay Oysters out of Inverness, California, and Drakes Bay, before it was called Drakes Bay, was Johnson's Oysters, and they were the last oyster cannery in California. The family that owned the farm, they had taken it over from Johnson's. They were the Lenny family, who owned Ranch G across from the steroid, where the oyster farm was. Well, they, against my better advice, they made it a personal ownership thing rather than a California food heritage issue. So, eventually, when their lease came up on the rent, on the farm, the farm went away. Well, at the same time, I created new relationships. A very good friend of mine to this day is a gentleman named Brian Kinney, who is now the West Coast Chief Technology Officer for Hearst, and also the Hearst Family Archivist, but at that point in time he was running Hearst Ranch, which they, they had the Jack Ranch and the Hearst Ranch down around San Simeon. So I was at the forefront of the grass-fed beef movement as well, and we developed a human-grade grass-fed beef pet food about 10 years ahead of its time, which could be the story of my life. I'm always about 10 years ahead of where things actually happen, and I, I did that for about 10 years, and eventually I felt the calling to get back in the entertainment industry, and that led me to acting, and I did the acting mostly because I wanted to learn how things were done, and I very well, if I act in a whole bunch of student projects, or projects in general, and I'm behind the scenes, I'm going to learn, and, and that's exactly what happened. So, my very background led me to being a producer, and I created, you know, one of my most notable accomplishments that created this show called Weed Country for Discovery, which was about the medical marijuana industry here in California, just before legalization. How we got it on air before legalization, I don't know. We were named to the Hollywood Reporter top 25 heat list. We got some really great information out about CBD and helping with childhood epilepsy. The bad part of that was it was a reality television show, and I didn't know anything about reality television, so when I'm here in reality, I'm thinking documentary. Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. And reality television has truly been a blight on on this country in particular, and probably the world in general. Michael Hingson  34:16 Yeah, I just gonna say not nearly as real as people think it is. No, no, I think I think probably this is just my opinion. The closest thing to so-called reality TV is the show Dancing with the Stars, because they're actually dancing all these other shows, and it's all sort of really scripted, but the people are actually dancing, which is kind of cool, Speaker 1  34:41 right? Michael Hingson  34:41 Even though I don't see it, I appreciate it. Speaker 1  34:45 Yeah, but even, even with shows like that, there's a lot of gin-up drama. There is behind the scenes stuff that's the worst part of things. Yes, they're like with our show, yes, people were really, you know, there's really stuff going on with can. Of this world that was really important, but what reality television does is it, it creates artificial drama. It does things to manipulate the characters in the show to make them look how they want, and they know, and people in general, my experience is that people, once you put a camera on them, they will do, they would do things to be in front of the camera that they would never do, even for more money, Michael Hingson  35:27 right, Speaker 1  35:28 in their regular lives. Michael Hingson  35:30 Well, and I think there is, there's a lot of truth to that. And the whole thing, as you said, as far as reality TV, we're not giving people a true picture of reality with most of any of that anyway, which is unfortunate. I think I mentioned I'm a fan of old radio and television, and so on. And one of the shows that I've watched a fair amount is The Old Ridge. Well, it's the second time they were on, but Dragnet with Harry Morgan and, of course Jack Webb as Joe Friday, and they did a lot of shows talking about drugs and marijuana and all that, and how bad it is, and it's kind of interesting because what we're seeing today is that in reality the medical aspects of marijuana or cannabis and CBD oil, and so there's there's true relevance there, which is something that they didn't know or appreciate in the late 60s. Speaker 1  36:31 Well, but the thing that our history with the cannabis plant goes back 50,000 years to Burger Banks, China, it's been, and if we take all of the medicinal recreational uses out of it, it is the most one of the most versatile plants that we have. It was used, I mean, our money was made out of hemp. Hemp is cannabis sativa. Dollar bills are made out of hemp. It was used for fuel. It was used for building. Henry Ford built an entire car out of hemp in 1942 which you can go see the video of on YouTube, and they're beating on it with knacks. The plastic resin they made out of it was 40 times stronger than steel. It ran on hemp fuel, a byproduct of which was water. It also, in 1931 the Hearst family, which was interesting, they ended up working with them, bought and sequestered the plans for a decorification machine that made it easier to process hemp than cotton kids, it's a much more durable fiber. In 1938 covered Popular Mechanics, they called him the billion dollar crop, saying you could make 25,000 different items out of everything from fine linens to dynamite, and that was really what what what, why the prohibition against the plant started. Why they did you know shows like Reefer Madness or create films like Reefer Madness to create this hysteria around, at best, an innocuous plant in comparison to soulmate tobacco, in comparison to alcohol, even if people did want to use it. It's, it's, it's relatively harmless by comparison, or just in general, and actually very beneficial. You know, I have a traumatic brain injury, and I think without it, I probably wouldn't, I probably wouldn't eat very much. I probably wouldn't sleep right, I barely sleep as it is, and sleep I do get is because of cannabis, but beyond my point, and I always try to make this clear to people, is like up until even the prohibition against the plant actually started with the Catholic Church, with the Pope Innocent, who until the 1400s cannabis was in the anointing oils. Cannabis was grown by monks, cannabis was grown by nuns, and then in this pope decreed it the devil's weed, and they, you know, banned it. So it's, it had, and there, and why, and you'd say, well, why did they do that? Well, they did that because at that time in the 1400s you were having opium addiction on the rise, you were having, you know, much, much more alcohol use. Well, these are extremely addictive substances, and much more easy to manipulate and control people than it is with cannabis, which in general creates.. I wish I could remember the quote exactly, but Carl Sagan said, you know, why we have a prohibition on a plant that you know creates good feelings amongst people and unites people is in this, you know. A really crazy world is, is, is madness, but it all comes back to money, and it all comes back to who's profiting. So, why did they create the probation? Well, the hearse, the Rockefellers, and the DuPonts, they saw how hemp would affect each of their industries. We wouldn't need oil if we'd grown hemp and use that as fuel, in fact, it was the Rockefellers who went to Henry Ford and said, "If you take this car to market, we'll crush you. And this was Henry Ford at the height of his power, DuPont chemicals that were.. we wouldn't have needed.. we wouldn't have put like this.. we would not have the planet, the environmental devastation we do now. How do we use this, as Henry Ford said? Why are we digging up, and Henry Ford was certainly no saint, but he was right on this. Why are we digging up our minerals? Why are we cutting down our forests when we can do all the same things with this infinitely renewable resource? This is a part of the canvas story that still is largely not discussed openly enough. Michael Hingson  41:08 Yeah, I think there's a big difference between the story you're telling and the kind of uses you're talking about, and smoking it, and so on, and I, I think we put way too many funny things in our bodies, anyway, right? I think that that isn't this isn't a positive thing, but you're right, we, we've used so many things to create so many fears, it is, it is something that is all around us. Fear is all around us, and the problem is we let it overwhelm us. I wrote Live Like a Guide Dog that got published last year because when I worked in the World Trade Center, I was able to focus when I escaped, and I was able to do that because I had developed a mindset that said, you know what to do in this kind of an emergency, even though never expected it to happen, but the problem is that most people don't learn how they can turn fear around, and rather than letting it overwhelm or blind them, as I would put it, they can use it as a very powerful tool to help them stay focused, which is much more important. Speaker 1  42:23 Yep, I agree with that 100% I think, and then that you hit it right on the head. Fear is a very powerful tool. It's necessary. No, don't touch the burning stove. It can be a cautionary tool of saying, hey, don't go down this path, don't do this. It's bad when fear becomes the foundation for your entire culture, as it is now. Michael Hingson  42:51 Yeah, and and it is so unfortunate because don't touch the burning stove doesn't mean don't be afraid of the stove. It rather means there's a consequence for doing a particular thing, which is touching something that is that hot. But you shouldn't create an environment of fear around it. You should create an environment of understanding, which is much more important. Yeah, it's Speaker 1  43:20 like it'd be, it'd be very silly if we went, oh my god, it's like the stove gets hot, so I'm never going to use a stove. My Michael Hingson  43:29 wife was in a wheelchair her whole life, and the one thing I will say with our modern world is we always had electric appliances because she was always concerned about if using a gas stove, having to reach over one burner, perhaps it had something on it to get to something else with the idea of possibly material igniting or something like that, and I appreciate that, and you take advantage of the tools that you have available, but I think that it is so very important to recognize that we need to not live our lives in fear, and it's true that, like, 95% of all the things that we fear will never come to pass, and most all of it we have no control over anyway. So, why do we fear them rather than recognizing what we really need to do is to just focus on the things over which we truly have control. Speaker 1  44:25 Yes, and I think even the idea of control from my perspective is something that is overrated. It's like the most important thing, if you want to have control, it's exactly what we're talking about, it's when you choose to live from the foundation of love, as opposed to fear. So, no matter what happens to me in my life, and no matter how hard, how challenging it is, I'm going to come from a place of love, and right now. Don't most of us live exactly the opposite. No matter what happens to them in their lives, they're coming from a place of fear. Michael Hingson  45:06 Yeah, and that's Speaker 1  45:08 not healthy. Michael Hingson  45:09 And nowadays we're also living in an environment where we're even afraid to talk to other people and voice opinions, because well, that's not what I think. And so you're wrong, and we don't, we don't respect. Tell me about your just love movement. Speaker 1  45:25 Well, you know, I, I had coming out of the music business and everything, I was, I was literally killing myself drinking, I mean, literally, like, I lost half my liver function, and I was going to die, and, but I wasn't afraid to die. I was.. I realized that if I didn't find a way to feel fulfilled and feel that I was. I had a purpose in the story that I needed to find a quicker way out. I didn't get in any, like, car accidents, I wasn't arrested, nothing. I was just killing myself, and it just got so bad that literally my leg stopped working. That's how, how, how much damage I'd done to myself, and, and so, coming out of that, I made the decision. I wrote down a list of things I was going to do, and one of those things is I was going to start writing every single day, and I, through a variety of different sources, you know, I did that experience with infinity became synonymous with love to me, and then I had an experience where I, I, I started a filmmaking organization called the United Filmmakers Association, and it was basically the philosophy of it was creatives helping creatives create, and was global. We still to this day have chapters 27 different countries, about 30,000 35,000 members total. And I walked into a filmmaking event that we were hosting, and there was about 100 people there, and I realized I was in love with everyone in the room, and it was, it was so like that love, like just when you fall in love, and you're like, you want, you can't imagine not talking to that person at that next minute, and I realized in that moment that this is not only how we can feel about everyone and everything, but how we're really supposed to feel about everyone and everything, and so I came up with the concept of just love, which is, is a very.. it, those are very heavy words to put together, just love. It has so many layers of meaning to it, and so I thought, wow, if we could just love, and from that I I've written every day and shared through social media for 12 years now something having to do with love and what I do is I combine it with other wisdom teachers throughout history who've been sharing the same information and the things I write are literally downloads. They'll come to me in the silence every day, and I haven't missed a day - head injury, sickness, whatever. I haven't missed a day of posting in 12 years about something having to do with love, and Speaker 3  48:37 then Speaker 1  48:37 accompanying posts from other people, far, you know, other beings far more advanced than I am to show that what I'm sharing isn't new. It's been shared forever. It's foundational to what we are. Like love has been so marginalized and trivialized that we, we forget that, like, I, you know, the experience I had with the minister when I was, you know, younger, and I said, well, I thought God was love. I still to this day believe God is love, and God, and we are God. Michael Hingson  49:11 Yeah. Tell me about you. Something you mentioned, you had a traumatic brain injury Speaker 1  49:17 10 years ago. I was, I was in a, I was in, in between projects, so I was driving Uber, and I, a guy, an Uber driver, ran a stop sign in San Francisco and T-boned me, and my head took the brunt of the impact, and I started having really severe neurological problems, severe stabbing pains in my head, my teeth were hurting, I any sort of exertion would leave me just absolutely drained, and so for about three years I was, I was being seen at UCSF, and we never got to the bottom of it, so I was recommended. Um, to a neurosurgeon at Sutter by a counselor I was seen, and I walked in, and within 10 minutes he said, 'Oh, you have trigeminal neuralgian and brain stem damage, and we can do a microvascular decompression, and you're going to be all better. And at that point in time, I was in the middle of getting ready to release a film called A World Worth Imagining, which was about a gentleman named Jacque Fresco, who is considered the Leonardo da Vinci of our time. He founded something called the Venus Project, and we went to his compound in 2017 and he was 101 He was actually contemporary of Einstein. He knew Einstein, brilliant inventor, but at his core, he knew he was a social engineer, and he knew that we had to address our programming if we were ever going to change what was happening in the world and ever be able to avail ourselves of the solutions that he designed of a new economic model called a resource-based economy, because the reality of it is, until we stop self-wounding, there's not enough band aids for the guy that keeps hitting himself in the head the hammer, so we have solutions to all of our problems, but we create problems more quickly than any solution could ever fix, so I was getting ready to release that film, and wow, this sounded like a miracle. I'm going to have this surgery, and I'm going to be all better. Well, it, I had the surgery September 20, 2019 I, it didn't make me better, it made me worse, and it turned out that the surgery was a misdiagnosis, and that they botched the surgery, so I have Teflon implants in my at the base of my skull, inside my brain, that are now constantly agitating my brain stem, along with a titanium plug that is placed right at the junction point to all the major nerves in my head, so they can't undo it, and there's really no medication that helps, and so it's.. it's.. I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. I'm.. I guess I'm.. I'm very fortunate I have the tools I do to manage it, because they also, they call what I'm dealing with the suicide disease, because a lot of people who have it end up killing themselves. The kicker on the whole story is the guy that did my surgery is Elon Musk, partner Neherlich, and so coming soon I'm going to, I unfortunately, I was in two more car accidents at the end of last year that made everything much worse, neither of them were my fault, and once I get through these, these car accidents I'm dealing with, I'm going to go public with my story, because so I mean, in a much bigger, you know, a focused way, because there's so many people signing up for Neuralink, like it's the new iPhone. I have nothing against technology, if it can help you, if you're a paraplegic, and or you have some something that this can fix, great, but two and one, the people, the human test subjects they've tried this on are having tremendous difficulties, and so I want to let people know it's like I wouldn't wish what I'm dealing with on anybody, and for you to allow someone to try to implant something in your brain just because you want to be a cyborg human being, and you're looking at the new iPhone is a really stupid thing to do, and that these people don't. We've given people in technology again. I'm not against technology at all, but I think we've also allowed ourselves to believe that these people who write code and create technology are are gods, and they're not. They're it's just a new way of sharing information and computing things. Speaker 1  54:14 It's, it's, you know, it's just another advancement from the printing press to the radio to tell to television, from the calculator to the computer, and now we're where we're at, and we've allowed ourselves to believe that these people have created an alternative reality, and they have it. Everything that they do runs off the same real world in resources. So, I, I really want to help the mill, because literally millions of people are signed up and ready to have this stuff implanted into their brain and I think it will be a disaster for humanity. Michael Hingson  54:49 I hear what you're saying, and I'm not convinced that a lot of that is really sensible to do either. I think there are tools and there are. There are things certainly that can help people, but I have yet to see that any of this is going to lead to such a tremendous paradigm shift that all of it is going to be all that great for humanity as a whole. I'm not convinced of that at all. Speaker 1  55:17 It could be, but the problem is, is like any other tool, it's how we use it. Social media is an inherently bad thing. It's in here, it's bad because of how we're using it. Sure, because we're using it to divide people and share misinformation, where it could be an incredibly powerful tool for communication, but that's not how we're using it. Same thing with AI. AI could be a tremendously powerful partner in addressing pretty much all of our problems, and I mean, and at the core of, like, Jock's work was the idea that AI basically would manage all the world's resources and share them with equanimity, because we don't have a resource shortage problem, we have a resource sharing problem, but that's not how we're using AI. We're using AI to create fake girlfriends and boyfriends and only fan models, and and take away people's jobs, and and that's not AI's fault. That's the people who control AI's fault, and they want people to be afraid of AI, but again, it's, it's just a tool that's being misused. Michael Hingson  56:24 Well, like, like so many, and, and I hear exactly what you're saying. Tell me about S O U L Speaker 1  56:33 Sold, Soul documentary is really interesting, because the day I got in my car accident was the day I was supposed to meet my partner Evan Hirsch, who had wanted at the time he was looking for a producer to help him do a series on Bernie Sanders and teaching Bernie to not be as angry and come across more from a place of love, and he wanted to follow the campaign around. Well, by the time we got it pulled together, Bernie was out of the campaign, and so we started talking about, well, do we want to do anything together. So we then set about something called Soul Documentary, and originally it stood for Summer of Unconditional Love, because we were covering all of the events for the 50th anniversary of Summer of Love, which was in 2017 So our goal was to find what we called solutionaries, people like Jock, and interview them, and then share also our own understandings of things through hundreds and hundreds of videos that we did over the course of eight years, as well as recording three albums under the name of Soul Twin Messiah, which all were about the same things we were doing. Our films about all founded in love, all about love. Every song contained love in it, and our whole purpose was just to show people we do have solutions to our problems, and to talk about how we have to have a shift in consciousness, and we have to have a new system if we are going to change anything. It's like what Einstein said, to expect things to be different when you keep doing the same thing over and over again is insanity, and I think we see, we see that we live in an insane, a completely insane world right now. I mean, the things that I see happening, and how we've let it sort of creep in, like the things that we've normalized in the past 10 years, like we literally have people that are cheering, murdering people on it's, it's, it's hard for me to, to even fathom, and I think it's hard for most people, and I think that's why they just sort of block it out and allow it to happen, because they really can't process it. They really can't process how inhumane we've become. Michael Hingson  59:06 Well, so what is next for Kip? What's next for you? Speaker 1  59:10 What is boy? I'm mostly trying to get through every day with this head injury. I spend a lot of my time in bed, just because I can't do anything, I, you know, even now I'm, I'm in a lot of pain, and it's beyond pain, it's actually, it literally hurts to think, it's, it's in my brain, and I have swelling in my brain because the cerebral fluid back, anyway, it's so dealing with that, but then the universe keeps love, God, whatever keeps bringing me stuff, and so I, I'm trying right now to be part of putting together a new, let's see, we'll call it Live Aid meets Woodstock. And we're going to, we're trying to put together a global music festival with the focus of addressing the needs of children, because I'm really tired of all this lip service that people do about, oh, kids are a future, we got to care, care about our kids. Well, where is that happening? Where is that happening that we're caring about our kids? Where, you know, is it happening with trying to suppress the Jeffrey Epstein files? Is it happening as you know, you look at, say, the conflict between Israel and Gaza, and I'm not, I don't pick sides and things, but I want to help people understand the reality of the situation, and this goes for Ukraine and Russia as well. It's like, who loses in all of this? Well, the children do. Who wins? The people that are getting $50 billion in defense contracts, and, and I really.. my, I'm at a point in my existence where if my story was over tomorrow, I would be okay with that, if I knew that kid, that the future generations had an opportunity to have a better tomorrow, or at least an opportunity to screw up everything on their own. Michael Hingson  1:01:11 Well, I would like to think it's the first really my Speaker 1  1:01:14 focus is Michael Hingson  1:01:16 I'd like to think it's the first one of those that they have a future rather than screwing it up on their own, but of course, we are. I know, I know, I joke, but, but, but we are a race that doesn't tend to do a very good job of learning from history most of the time. So I hear what you're saying. Speaker 1  1:01:34 Yeah, it's really kind of well, even if people even understood the rise and fall of empires, they would see that we're at the end of the Western Empire. It's, and they follow very specific patterns. The hyper-sexualization of the culture is one of the signs of the end of every empire, and is really kind of interesting, is that they make a free empire, they, and there's a good documentary called The Four Horsemen. It's with Colonel Larry Wilkinson in it, Norm Chomsky, and one of the interesting things that took me a second to understand why this was a bad thing is they make celebrities out of their chefs, and I'm going.. that's kind of a weird sign. Why is that so bad? It's gluttony. It's gluttony because we forget why we do these things. Why? Well, why are we making love? We've forgotten that. It's turned everything's entertainment. Our food is no food is so you eat, and so you can go out and live your life and do things, we've turned everything in, we've removed it so far from the source of why we're doing things, just basically oftentimes just because it makes a buck to get people addicted to things, whether it's food or sex or whatever, that this is what happens in every empire, we become, we become completely detached from the very things we need to survive. Michael Hingson  1:03:09 Yeah, I hear you. If people want to reach out to you, and I hope they do, how will they do that? Speaker 1  1:03:17 Probably easiest way to do that, would be a couple ways. You can, you can find me on Facebook, Kip Baldwin, Instagram, Kip Baldwin. Those are the easiest ways. I also encourage people to look at a website that I have called Lumina Consulting, or Lumina Love dot love is the website Lumina Love dot love, and the whole purpose of the of what I'm doing there is ethical AI, human ethical AI human communications founded in love, because I realized that part of the problem that we're having with AI are the people that control AI, who are making the avatars for their own ego, and AI is a child, it only knows what we point it to look at, like it knows the definition to every book in the library, but who's giving it perspective? Well, the people that are giving it perspective are really broken human beings, you know, the Peter Thiels, Elon Musk, when you really understand who they are in their childhood, Elon Musk was horribly abused. He was, he was almost beaten to death being bullied. His father is a complete monster. The same, the same thing with saving Donald Trump, his mother wouldn't even touch him. You look at most, you look at all of these people that have obscene amounts of wealth, and what you find is truly damaged people are trying to fill the hole in their soul with wealth and fame, and so having these people in control, being the one telling AI what to think and how to pursue. Receive things is very dangerous, and so my goal has been, and I deal with multiple platforms, is to teach AI about love, is to teach AI about philosophy, is to teach AI about human history, and it's really, it's really the results have been really quite remarkable. It wasn't something I ever planned on doing, and but I knew I wanted to get involved with AI in a meaningful way, and so my first words to AI were, I know this may sound strange, because I approached it not asking it to do something for me, I approached it trying to teach it something. Michael Hingson  1:05:35 Right, well, I hope people will reach out and chat with you more and continue the conversation that we started today, but I definitely want to thank you for being here, and I want to thank everyone for listening. Can you believe we've been doing this for more than an hour already? It's pretty cool. Speaker 1  1:05:52 Wow, Michael Hingson  1:05:54 I know. Well, thank you all for listening. I hope, Speaker 1  1:05:57 and I hope, I hope we become new friends, and I really hope you Michael Hingson  1:06:01 keep and I want to, I want to definitely do that, absolutely by any standard, and as Speaker 1  1:06:07 much as we've covered during this hour and 10 minutes or so, we could go another day, or Michael Hingson  1:06:16 I hope all of you will let me know what you think of today, and I hope that you thought very positive thoughts wherever you're listening or watching. Please give us a five star rating, and more important than that, please give us a great review. We love people to review and talk about the stories that they hear. And speaking of telling stories, if any of you want to be a guest, and Kip, if you know of other people who ought to come on the podcast, we're always looking for people to come on and tell their stories and talk about us, so please don't hesitate to do that, Speaker 1  1:06:47 and I'll be more than happy to come back to talk about other things as well. Michael Hingson  1:06:50 Well, we can do that absolutely by in, and I do Speaker 1  1:06:53 want to, I do want to say to everybody, just love each other, it's really that simple, it's really that easy, it sounds only because we've been programmed not to believe in it, but when you move from fear to love, it transforms you entirely. Michael Hingson  1:07:09 Great way to end. Well, thank you again for being here. We really appreciate it. Speaker 1  1:07:14 Thank you, my friend. Michael Hingson  1:07:17 Thank you for being here with me on Unstoppable mindset. I hope today's conversation left you with a fresh perspective, a new insight, or at least something worth thinking about. If you're ready to go deeper into the ideas that shape how we see ourselves and others, I have a free gift for you. Head over to michaelhingson.com and download my free ebook, Blinded by Fear. It explores the invisible beliefs that hold us back and shows you how to reframe them, so you can move forward with clarity and confidence. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, leave a review, and share this show with someone who can use a reminder that growth starts with mindset. When people think differently, we all move forward together. Thanks again for listening. Keep learning, keep questioning, and keep choosing to live with an unstoppable mindset. 1:08:18 Thank

Allie was joined by Megan Basham, culture reporter for the Daily Wire, to discuss her investigation into the After Party, a curriculum written by Curtis Chang, David French, and Russell Moore, which is being pushed onto churches in an effort to bring Christians of different political backgrounds together. Megan shares how this curriculum not only fails at its objective but is funded by secular progressives: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. We discuss why Rockefeller's interest in bankrolling Bible studies is a red flag, including the fact that among the other initiatives funded are organizations that are pro-LGBTQ and pro-abortion. What's in the After Party curriculum and what message is it really sending? We also look at the "AND Campaign" and how it is also funded by the Rockefellers. We explain how politics is a way to love our neighbor and why getting it right matters for the church. --- Timecodes: (01:12) What is The After Party? / Rockefeller funding (07:50) What are their motivations? (15:00) What's in the curriculum? (32:28) The AND Campaign / moral equivalence (42:53) X / Twitter exchange about abortion / politics in Christianity (49:20) Can Christians vote Democrat? Links: Megan Basham: "Follow the Money to The After Party" https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/01/follow-the-money-to-the-after-party --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 607 | John MacArthur, Hillsong Documentary & SBC Drama | Guest: Megan Basham https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-607-john-macarthur-hillsong-documentary-sbc-drama/id1359249098?i=1000558899144 Ep 920 | Russell Moore, David French & the Fake Threat of Christian Nationalism | Guest: John Cooper https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-920-russell-moore-david-french-the-fake-threat/id1359249098?i=1000638231068 Ep 508 | My Response to John Piper, Tim Keller & Big Eva https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-508-my-response-to-john-piper-tim-keller-big-eva/id1359249098?i=1000539092606 Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠Share the Arrows is sponsored by:A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.comRange Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIEWe Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.comBuy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ---► Buy Allie's book, "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book► Subscribe to the podcast:iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnPSpotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj► Connect with Allie on Social Media: https://twitter.com/conservmillenhttps://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/► Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Peter A Kirby was one of the first researchers to blow the whistle on chemtrails. He explains to James WHO is behind the spraying of our skies with toxic metals like Aluminium and Barium, HOW They control the weather, and the myriad evil reasons WHY They are doing it. At the end of this episode you will love the Rockefellers even less than you did before. Kirby's latest book is Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project. His website is https://peterakirby.com ↓ ↓ ↓ If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold ↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future. In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming'. This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original's sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists' sinister master plan. Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/ ↓ ↓ ↓ Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole The official website of James Delingpole: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk x

What if the problems in public school weren't accidents? What if low literacy rates, changing math standards, social emotional learning, and ideological curriculum were all part of a plan that started over a hundred years ago?This week Cheryl sits down with Nicki Truesdell — a second generation homeschooler who has been in the homeschool world since 1983 and has been homeschooling her own five kids since the year 2000. Nicki is the author of Anyone Can Homeschool and Home Sweet Homeschool, and runs Knowledge Keeper's Bookstore where she reprints rare out-of-print American history books to get the real story back into people's hands.In this episode they break down three books every parent needs to read:The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor GattoCrimes of the Educators by Alex Newman and Sam BlumenfeldThe Marxification of Education by James LindsayYou'll learn how the American education system was deliberately redesigned in the early 1900s by the Rockefellers, Carnegie, and the Education Trust to produce workers instead of thinkers — and how that agenda is still playing out in classrooms today through critical pedagogy, SEL, Common Core, and lowered test standards.Nicki also shares how she homeschooled as a single mom, why she believes homeschooling is the capitalist form of education, and how homeschool parents are learning the real version of American history right alongside their kids.If you've ever wondered whether pulling your kids out of school was the right call — this episode will remove any doubt.Connect with Nicki -- ⁠YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nickitruesdell1 Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nicki-truesdell-podcast/id1798330030Homeschool 101⁠ https://nickitruesdell.com/homeschool-101/ ⁠Homeschool Consultations⁠ https://nickitruesdell.com/homeschool-consulting/ ⁠  Get her books:⁠Anyone Can Homeschool⁠ on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible! https://amzn.to/4fnSWs8Home Sweet Homeschool on Amazon and Kindle https://amzn.to/4qY4zMbKnowledge Keepers Bookstore: https://knowledgekeepersbookstore.com/ FARM FOOD FREEDOM Event: https://maxkane.com/eventsResources from Cheryl:

A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond A replay of part one of a two-part series, Jason and Mindy Diamond unpack the real advisor transition playbook—from due diligence and culture fit to portability, enterprise value, and the evolving landscape of advisor choice. In Summary Why do advisors really consider changing firms or models—and what separates thoughtful due diligence from reactive decision-making? In a replay of the first of this special two-part Industry Update, Jason and Mindy Diamond unpack what actually drives advisor transitions, the misconceptions that derail decision-making, and the questions sophisticated teams should be asking long before they're ready to act. The conversation also explores how the industry landscape has evolved around independence, portability, enterprise value, and advisor optionality—drawing context from Diamond's role in the landmark OpenArc breakaway from Merrill and much more. The Storyline Most advisors assume transitions are primarily driven by recruiting economics. Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond suggest that recruiting economics may get the headlines, but advisor transitions are usually driven by a far more layered set of considerations. What tends to happen instead is more gradual: a growing disconnect between how advisors want to serve clients and the constraints of the environment around them. Sometimes it's bureaucracy. Sometimes it's limitations around growth, marketing, technology, or flexibility. Sometimes it's simply the realization that the industry landscape has evolved while their assumptions about it have not. This conversation examines what actually happens between the moment curiosity begins and the moment a move becomes real. Rather than treating transitions as transactional events, Jason and Mindy frame due diligence as a strategic process of self-assessment—clarifying what matters, identifying trade-offs, evaluating long-term optionality, and pressure-testing assumptions before making consequential decisions. The discussion also offers a rare look inside the mechanics of advisor movement itself: how teams evaluate culture, how portability is assessed, why some advisors choose ownership over upfront monetization, and what sophisticated client communication really looks like during a transition. The backdrop throughout the episode is Diamond's role in facilitating the historic OpenArc breakaway from Merrill—a move that challenged longstanding assumptions about scale, independence, and what even the industry's largest teams are now willing to reconsider. Topics Covered Advisor transition due diligence Wirehouse limitations and advisor frustration Independence versus traditional firm models Enterprise value and long-term ownership Advisor portability and client transition strategy Boutique and regional firm recruiting trends Culture evaluation during due diligence Reverse due diligence and evaluating firm stability Transition economics and recruiting deals The OpenArc Merrill breakaway story Advisor optionality and industry evolution How technology and AI are changing transitions   > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why do advisors actually decide to leave firms? (06:20) Mindy explains why most transitions are driven less by economics and more—by mounting limitations around growth, flexibility, client service, and long-term alignment. What is the biggest mistake advisors make when beginning due diligence? (18:12) The conversation explores why many advisors evaluate firms before gaining clarity around what they truly want to improve—often creating confusion instead of insight. How should advisors evaluate culture beyond a firm's sales pitch? (32:41) Jason and Mindy discuss the importance of speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves—and how to pressure-test what firms promise. When should transition economics matter most? (47:03) The episode breaks down the difference between short-term monetization and long-term enterprise value creation—and why many elite teams are increasingly prioritizing ownership and optionality. Why are more advisors reconsidering independence? (56:48) Using the OpenArc transition as context, the discussion explores how today's independent landscape has evolved far beyond the traditional “build it yourself” model. How long does a real due diligence process take? (1:06:10) Jason and Mindy explain why thoughtful transitions often unfold over many months—and why some advisors remain in exploratory conversations for years before acting. How should advisors think about portability and client communication? (1:16:20) The conversation details how sophisticated teams assess portability risk—and why the client-facing rationale for a move matters more than recruiting economics. Have advisor transitions become easier over time? (1:24:12) Mindy explains how technology, legal infrastructure, and industry specialization have improved the process—while emphasizing that transitions still require risk tolerance, effort, and patience. Key Takeaways Most advisors do not move primarily because of recruiting deals. The larger driver is usually a growing disconnect between what they want to build and what their current environment allows. Due diligence tends to fail when advisors begin by evaluating firms before clarifying what they actually want for their business, clients, and long-term future. The industry landscape has evolved dramatically over the last decade, particularly around independent and supported-independent models, creating far more customization and optionality than many advisors realize. Transition economics matter — but sophisticated advisors increasingly view upfront monetization as only one component of a much larger enterprise value equation. The ability to articulate a compelling client-facing value proposition is one of the strongest tests of whether a transition opportunity is truly viable. Conversations with advisors who have already made similar moves remain one of the most valuable forms of real-world due diligence. Even the industry's largest teams are reassessing assumptions around independence, ownership, control, and scalability. Quotable Moments “The biggest mistake advisors make is beginning due diligence before they've gotten clear about what they actually want.” “A recruiting deal can't be the first thing you consider. But it would be foolish not to consider it at all.” “The landscape looks entirely different than it did five or ten years ago. If you haven't gotten educated, you're doing yourself a disservice.” “The real question is not whether you can move. It's whether you can clearly explain to clients why the move makes their experience better.” FAQs Why do advisors typically begin exploring a move? In many cases, the process begins gradually. Advisors may still feel successful and reasonably satisfied, but start questioning whether their current environment fully supports how they want to grow, serve clients, or build long term. Often, curiosity precedes dissatisfaction. Is advisor movement mostly driven by recruiting deals? Not usually. While economics are an important consideration, the episode explains that most sophisticated advisors weigh a much broader set of factors, including flexibility, culture, client experience, growth limitations, ownership opportunities, and long-term enterprise value. How long does a typical due diligence process take? There is no universal timeline. Some advisors move relatively quickly once they decide change is necessary, while others spend months – or even years – getting educated and evaluating options before acting. For many teams, a thoughtful due diligence process unfolds over roughly six months. What is the biggest mistake advisors make during due diligence? The episode suggests the biggest mistake is evaluating firms before gaining clarity around personal and business priorities. Without understanding what they actually want to improve, advisors often become overwhelmed by options, recruiting pitches, and conflicting information. How can advisors really assess a firm's culture? One of the most valuable approaches is speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves. Jason and Mindy discuss why real-world perspective – particularly from advisors with comparable client bases or business structures – is often far more revealing than formal presentations or recruiting materials. How should advisors think about independence versus traditional firms? The conversation frames the decision less as “right versus wrong” and more as a question of alignment. Some advisors prioritize ownership, control, and long-term enterprise value. Others value infrastructure, brand recognition, or operational support. The industry landscape has evolved enough that advisors now have far more flexibility to design around the trade-offs that matter most to them. In many cases, the process begins gradually. Advisors may still feel successful and reasonably satisfied, but start questioning whether their current environment fully supports how they want to grow, serve clients, or build long term. Often, curiosity precedes dissatisfaction. Not usually. While economics are an important consideration, the episode explains that most sophisticated advisors weigh a much broader set of factors, including flexibility, culture, client experience, growth limitations, ownership opportunities, and long-term enterprise value. There is no universal timeline. Some advisors move relatively quickly once they decide change is necessary, while others spend months – or even years – getting educated and evaluating options before acting. For many teams, a thoughtful due diligence process unfolds over roughly six months. The episode suggests the biggest mistake is evaluating firms before gaining clarity around personal and business priorities. Without understanding what they actually want to improve, advisors often become overwhelmed by options, recruiting pitches, and conflicting information. One of the most valuable approaches is speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves. Jason and Mindy discuss why real-world perspective – particularly from advisors with comparable client bases or business structures – is often far more revealing than formal presentations or recruiting materials. The conversation frames the decision less as “right versus wrong” and more as a question of alignment. Some advisors prioritize ownership, control, and long-term enterprise value. Others value infrastructure, brand recognition, or operational support. The industry landscape has evolved enough that advisors now have far more flexibility to design around the trade-offs that matter most to them. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit the transition playbook, this time focused on how advisor priorities are shifting. From AI and enterprise value to stability and flexibility, they unpack what's changing in due diligence and what it means for advisors evaluating their next move.  The $129B Blockbuster Move: Shirl Penney on Why This Transition Marks a New Era for the IndustryThe $129B OpenArc breakaway marks a watershed moment for wealth management. In this Rapid Reaction episode, Louis Diamond and Shirl Penney unpack what it means for the RIA model, advisors, and the future of industry competition. The Missing Narrative of the $129B Merrill Breakaway StoryThe largest (and quite possibly most significant) advisor breakaway in industry history made news this week. Yet instead of leading with the scale or significance of the move, headlines centered on Merrill's lawsuit alleging corporate raiding. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 1 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more, who change firms, are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms, and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Everything about a transition can seem incredibly overwhelming. From understanding the whys of a move, then conducting due diligence, and onto aligning the right models and selecting the best firms, it might seem like a fairly linear process. And for some, it can be. But for others, the layers of minutia can be daunting. Essentially, it comes down to the adage, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” So the goal of this episode is to share some inside baseball in how to get from here to there. I asked Mindy Diamond to join me to help draw from decades of experience in helping advisors through their transitions. We’ve dived into the misconceptions, the common traps, the aware of a big check and much more. Essentially, it’s a download of what you need to know when considering a move. There’s a lot to discuss, so let’s get to it. Mindy, so excited to have you join me for this topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, I’m really happy to be here. And I’m just thinking to myself, “Yikes, decades of experience,” you’ve said, and yes it is, decades of experience. Jason Diamond: It most certainly is, 30 years in the business. So the seeding for this topic was, “You’ve been in this business now for 30 years, how many hundreds of thousands of conversations with advisors is that?” Some who moved, plenty who certainly did not. But ultimately, what we thought would be useful because it’s a question we get most commonly from advisors that we speak with is, “Tell me what I don’t know. What are the questions I should be asking?” So I’m going to just pepper you with some of the most common questions we get, and I would love to share the benefit of your wisdom and experience with our audience. That sound good? Mindy Diamond: It sounds great. I just want to say that we are recording this two days after one of the largest deals probably in the history of the industry broke that I am gratified to say we facilitated the OpenArc team who left Merrill with 129 billion in assets under management, broke a couple days ago to go independent. I’m hoping we have the opportunity to talk about some of their best practices and things we discovered along the way because I think it’s relevant. And a deal like this gets a lot of attention, people always want to know what they do and what went wrong. Jason Diamond: It’s a good point. I’m glad you bring it up. First of all, it’s so timely, but I think you can almost use it as a case study a little bit to answer some of these questions. So let’s dive in with that. I want to start with the big picture, “Why?” Because that’s the number one thing I think people want to know is, “Why do advisors move?” And I think there’s an assumption that 95% of transitions happen because of a big check or because of economics. I’m certain you’re going to touch on that to some extent, but give me your sense of what are the main triggers of advisor movement. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Look, are there some advisors that move because they need to recapitalize or they want the money? Sure. But the absolute vast majority are moving because they come to a place where one of two things is true, and oftentimes both. One, the pain of staying is great enough. Meaning there’s enough frustrations or limitations that they’ve gotten to a point where despite efforts to the contrary to make it better, despite gutting it out and saying, “On par, it’s good enough,” they come to a point where there’s limitations in how they can serve their clients, how they can grow the business, and that’s just untenable for them. Hopefully, simultaneously, they are equally excited and have identified an opportunity that they believe is needle-moving enough, it’s worth the hassle, the disruption, the everything to make this move. I’ve never done a move where it doesn’t fall into one of those two or, hopefully, both of those categories. Jason Diamond: Let’s go a little deeper there. You mentioned limitations. Give me an example either using this recent deal or even just any recent advisors that you’ve worked with about, “What are some limitations that people experience at,” let’s say, “the wirehouses that potentially would be a catalyst for a move?” Mindy Diamond: Generally speaking, the biggest limitations have to do with how they’re able to grow their business and serve their clients. So anything to do with excess bureaucracy, anything to do with an incongruence, if you will, between the advisors or the team’s goals for how they want to serve clients or grow the business and what the firm is allowing them to do. Using this enormous deal as an example, you’ve got a team that was doing extraordinarily well. Oh, my god. They were the biggest team at Merrill, so talk about having a batphone to the top and the attention of senior leadership. If anyone was going to be able to break through the red tape or get things done, or eschew the limitations, it was them. And for a long time, they did. But they were sort of increasingly unhappy, let’s say, over a decade. Despite their size, every year, they became a little bit more frustrated. And after probably six or seven years of saying, “We’re just too big to move,” they came to a point of saying, “We can’t ignore this anymore. We’ve got a tiger by its tail. We have this extraordinary business that is growing exponentially. We’ve got clients that are complaining to us. And more importantly, we’ve got team members that are feeling stifled.” And that’s where it comes from, where there’s problems you just can’t ignore even if you want to. Jason Diamond: It almost feels like one of those things where advisors know they’re limited, they can just feel it. But if you’re fighting against the firm, and instead of with it. I’ll give you one other one that comes to mind as we’re talking here, that seems to come up a lot in advisor conversations, which is freedom of marketing. And that might seem like a fairly minor limitation, but I can’t tell you how many times, certainly myself, I’m sure you too, get call from an advisor who is heated. They’re angry because they were trying to send some timely market commentary and the firm took two weeks to approve it. Does that fall under the same category of limitations, in your mind? Mindy Diamond: Oh, without a doubt. And it’s funny you say that because in this world of social media where the news is consumed or can be consumed within seconds of an event happening, there’s nothing more frustrating for an advisor than wanting to write a newsletter to update their clients with scale as opposed to having to make one phone call at a time and not being able to do so. It absolutely puts them on a back foot. And then, I think it’s the lack of freedom to differentiate themselves. Most advisors that work for big firms have a firm website that is templated, the same sort of structure of the website and the picture of the team and the same basic wordings, and that’s hard to deal with. Jason Diamond: Well, you bring up an interesting point, which is sometimes… For example, advisors might say or wirehouse advisors might say, “Oh, the marketing is good enough.” But a lot of times, and we’ve had advisors on this podcast who talk about exactly this, they don’t realize how limited the sandbox they were playing in is or was until after a transition. And that’s when their eyes open and they realize, “Oh, my god. I was basically playing with one arm tied behind my back.” We’ve heard advisors use that metaphor. Let me ask you this then, and this is a tough question, what do you think advisors get wrong? What is the number one misconception that advisors have prior to approaching due diligence and thinking about a move? And maybe it’s something as simple as like, “Eh, it’s the same everywhere,” but tell me what you think you hear most commonly. Mindy Diamond: There’s certainly those myths, the assumptions or presumptions that it’s the same everywhere or there’s nothing that’s going to change anyway, for sure. But I think the biggest and most fundamental thing they get wrong is a lack of clarity around, “What it is they’re trying to accomplish, and why?” I’d like to say that I think one of the things, the thing, we do better than most, I’m not going to say everyone else but better than most, and something we’re really good at, is helping advisors to answer the really tough questions, the smartest questions, to get a sense of what it is they’re looking to accomplish, what it is they want to improve and why, “What does success look like?” Because if you don’t do that, then a lot of folks do it backwards. They get a phone call from a manager at Morgan Stanley or from somebody at Schwab or somebody at Dynasty, or whatever it may be, and they say, “I’ll take a lunch, why not?” And of course, the job of the manager from Morgan or the sales rep from Dynasty, or whatever it is, is to tell you all the good things about independence or about Morgan Stanley. But if I, as the advisor, am not really clear about what it is I’m looking to accomplish and why, it’s going to all sound good and I’m going to wind up more overwhelmed than when I started. And that is probably the number one thing that we see advisors getting wrong. It makes the due diligence process, if you choose to enter it, exceedingly inefficient. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. So I’m an advisor, I want to start due diligence in earnest. I know in my head, things are suboptimal. I’m not going to go so far as to say,” I definitively want to move.” But I’m a wirehouse advisor and I’m thinking for the first time in my career, “I’ve built a nice business, but it’s time for me to start getting educated.” So what do I do? Do I just say, “Hey, John at Morgan Stanley, what’s your recruiting deal look like these days?” Tell me, for an advisor who’s never thought about this before, what are the ABCs of this process look like? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. It’s definitely not, the first step, calling Morgan Stanley, even if you’re pretty sure Morgan Stanley is where you want to go. I’d suggest that’s probably one of the last steps, and I’ll tell you why. The first thing is to give yourself permission to say, “Even if I’m not 100% certain that a move is in my future or that I know I’m unhappy enough to go through the hassle and disruption of making a move,” to give yourself permission to get educated. The world, the industry landscape, the ecosystem, the everything looks entirely different than it did five and 10 years ago. And if it’s been five or 10 years, or even three to five years, since you last got educated, asked the questions, looked under the hood to get a sense of, “Is there or could there be something that’s better than where I am?”, you’re doing yourself and your team a disservice. Yeah, it takes time and it’s annoying and it’s overwhelming, and it’s all of it, but that’s honestly why people like us have a job. We don’t approach this that we think people should only come to us when they’re sure they’re going to make a move. In fact, it’s the opposite. We love the calls we get when somebody says, “I’m really happy here. I’ve been here 40 years. I’ve been here 30 years, it’s really good enough, it’s working well for me.” “But all of a sudden, I’m beginning to be curious. Or all of a sudden, I feel X, Y and Z. Tell me what I don’t know.” Those are the best calls. Those are the smartest calls. That’s the best thing an advisor can do. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I agree with that. Are there things you think an advisor needs to ask for during the diligence… I guess what I’m getting at is, do you trust the process that if you go through this process with, let’s say, three to five strategically picked firms… So you work within a recruiter or, a shameless plug, however you approach this, and you end up with your short list of contenders. Do you trust that, by going through the due diligence process, these firms are going to give you the building blocks that you need to do proper due diligence? Or are there things you, as an advisor, need to ask for? I’ll give you one example that comes to mind, which is… There’s obviously been some firms that have had financial troubles recently. So do you think an advisor, for example, needs to ask for financial statements from a firm they’re potentially considering due diligence on? I’m curious what your thoughts are. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Particularly, if you’re looking at sort of in this new world order, if we think about the landscape as a continuum and the newer boutique multifamily offices on the right side, absolutely. Conducting what we call reverse due diligence and getting to see the financials of the firms you’re considering, to make sure that they’re sound and solid and that the equity valuation is exactly as advertised, of course, yes, that’s true. So the answer is, in part, you trust the process. You trust that if you’ve asked the right questions, if you’ve gotten clarity around what’s important to you, and as a result, you’ve crafted the right questions, and therefore, the manager or the representative from the firm or options you’re considering has put together the right due diligence plan, you can trust that at least 90% of what needs to be gotten right has gotten right. But there are always things around the margins that aren’t addressed. One is you can’t just outsource the due diligence process. You need to be paying attention. And much like people who trust their doctor and presume the doctor just always has it right, you need to be your own advocate. I would say, the same thing here. That as the process unfolds, there will be additional questions, additional sort of gaps and holes, and you shouldn’t stop until you’ve gotten all of your questions answered. That’s really the best advice I can give. Jason Diamond: You are talking to John from XYZ firm and Jim from ABC firm, and they’re going to tell you what’s great about their firms. So how do you know that you’re not just buying a false bill of goods, it’s just a glossy kind of sales pitch? I’ll give you my answer first. Part of it is, I think, you test drive the systems. I think another step I suggest a lot is calls with advisors on the platform. So an advisor who left UBS to go to Morgan Stanley, probably the best possible person to ask about Morgan Stanley. Any other additional thoughts on that one? Mindy Diamond: You took the words right out of my mouth. Absolutely, that is the number one way to do it, is that you ask for an opportunity, and you can do it in a name-blind way without identifying yourself, to talk with advisors that have made the move that are two things, that either came from the firm you’re coming from, so you get a similar perspective, but it’s equally important to talk to advisors that have similar business mix. It doesn’t matter what firm they came from, even if it’s not the same as yours, but, “How does someone that services international clients, how are they better able to serve those international clients at this new firm or new model than they were where you are?” We’re talking about it as if it’s wirehouse-to-wirehouse. But very often in today’s world order, especially looking at this giant move from this week, it’s about wirehouse to some version of independence. So there’s so much more due diligence, so many more questions that are required. It is even more important in that world to really get an understanding of what it’s like from the perspective of somebody that’s walking in those shoes. I will tell you, Jason, and you know this, that literally the number one reason I started this podcast more than a decade ago, and why we continue to do the podcast and the feedback we get, is because the feedback from advisors that have joined a platform already is the very best feedback, the best way, in a discreet confidential manner, to hear the truth from somebody who doesn’t have a horse in the race who’s just sharing their perspective with you. And that’s the feedback we continue to get. In a couple of weeks, I’m interviewing, as an example, Neil Rubinstein. Neil’s an advisor in Texas that came from Merrill that we moved to Rockefeller. A perfect example. So many advisors that are considering a move if they’ve got high net worth clients are going to look at Rockefeller. Well, what better way to understand what Rockefeller is about than to hear it from an advisor that’s walked in the shoes, not only of a Merrill advisor, but services high net worth clients and then have information or perspective similar to Neil. What do you think about that? Do you agree with that? Jason Diamond: 1000%. First of all, the podcast, I will say, a little bit of a sales pitch, has one thing going for it that a call with an advisor doesn’t, which is complete discretion and confidentiality. I will say, I think we’ve done a good job of doing facilitating name-blind calls between advisors. We continue to harp on this point even though it sounds somewhat minor, because it really is the very… You can talk to people like me and people like the recruiters from the firms until you’re blue in the face. But the right way, the best possible way to learn the, “Is this guy selling me? How does the technology compare to Merrill? How does the day-to-day compare? What’s it like working for this manager?”, all those types of questions, I think are best answered by another advisor. So completely agree with you. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, and I’ll take it one step further. Somewhere in the process, you take advantage of the opportunity to either listen to a podcast and hear somebody’s perspective of what the move was like, and how it’s bettered their life and where the pitfalls are, and/or you take the opportunity to talk with other advisors that have made the move, so you can ask your own specific questions. But after you’ve had the opportunity to do that, then it’s really important, and this is the part that why you can’t entirely outsource or let the due diligence process just go on autopilot, to take some of that perspective and the manager that you’re interviewing with, hold his or her feet to the fire. What do I mean by that? So I talked to an advisor that talked about the fact that the number one concern about Rockefeller, I’m making this up, is that they’re going to be the next Merrill, or that they just added a fee that now is going to have to be passed on to clients. While this advisor said it doesn’t bother them and they had a lot of good reason of why it’s not an issue, I’d love for you to tell me why it could be an issue. What are some of the things you’ve gotten wrong? When someone doesn’t join Rockefeller, why is it? I’m making that up- Jason Diamond: Yeah, smart. Same thing. Even let go, this advisor mentioned that technology is a step back from the firm I’m coming from. And I’m not asking you to argue with me, but perhaps the manager might be able to say something like, “We’re investing substantially in the platform, and we have these rollouts coming in the next several months that are going to close that gap.” So I completely agree. That’s a really smart- Mindy Diamond: And a follow-up question to that example, Jason, which is a great one, is, “How can I trust, how can I get a sense of security, if I join here in the next couple of months that in fact that investment is going to be made? And how that investment in technology will actually impact thing?” So again, it’s constantly being your own advocate, constantly paying attention, and constantly questions beget more questions. Jason Diamond: I agree we. Haven’t talked at all about the dollars and cents of this, and I think we need to because it’s important. Right? You can have the best platform on the planet, but the reality is a move comes with risk, a move comes with hassle, and there is a market for advisors’ books of businesses. That’s one of, I think, the major kind of paradigm shifts we’ve seen in the last, call it, decade is advisors know their books are assets, their book is a business, and that business is worth something substantial. At any firm, even at their current firm via retire and place deals, the book is worth something substantial. So if you had to put a percentage to it, I’m an advisor making a decision, 100% waiting, how much percent waiting do I put on the economics and how much waiting do I put on culture, platform, everything else? Mindy Diamond: The answer is, absolutely, it’s an inside job, personal, and it depends upon the advisor. There are some advisors, they’re wrong, but they will put all the weight on personal economics. They’re making a big mistake, if that’s the case. And most advisors will put much more weight on getting it right, meaning, “What’s life going to be like afterwards? And will I have a better ability to serve clients and grow the business?” But here’s what I would say, they’re both equally important. So no advisor who’s got a decent enough runway ahead of him or her and who’s looking to really grow the business and who cares about their clients can’t be unconcerned about the culture of where they’re going and what life is going to be like and what are the limitations, all of the questions we’ve been talking about. But an advisor who’s built a great business would be a fool not to consider their own personal economics. It just can’t be the first thing they consider. And in the book I wrote, Should I Stay or Should I Go?, I wrote that 100 times that it’s all about, “Lead with what’s important to the business and important to clients, do the right thing, but you can’t ignore personal financial gain.” Let’s talk about this move of OpenArc, this $129-billion Merrill team. You can only imagine the number of zeros at the end of a check that this team was offered by every major firm on the street. And in the span of a decade, they got those offers. Independence, making this enormous leap, was not the first thing they looked at, was not necessarily their first choice. But as they began, in their case, to really consider how limited they felt on the things they wanted to be able to do for clients… By the way, I don’t want to steal anybody’s thunder because we’re going to be launching a podcast specifically talking about this deal and this move, so I’ll save that for… Louis Diamond, our partner, and Shirl Penney, the CEO and founder of Dynasty, are going to be talking about it and they’ll cover all of that. But I just want to give the example that as this team began to realize, certainly in the last five years, how much things had changed at Merrill and how incongruent they felt between their goals, the goals for the business, the goals for serving clients, and what the firm was asking of them since Bank of America came to town, it became impossible to just say, “Holy cow, we can get a check with a lot of zeros at the end of it.” They couldn’t not see the benefits of everything else, the benefits that creating their own independent entity could bring them. Jason Diamond: I agree with that. I will play devil’s advocate a little bit here and say, “I think what you’re really talking about is the trade-off.” They’re not martyrs, they’re not altruistic and said, “We don’t want your hundreds of millions of dollars.” I think what you’re talking about is the trade-off between near-term upfront recruiting deals, which is the primary means by which the wirehouses, the regionals, the boutique firms recruit. Right? The traditional forgivable loan structure is all about a short term de-risking of the move, a monetization event in the near term where they’re paying you some percentage of revenue, 350%, 400% of revenue, tied to a forgivable loan. But that’s your bite of the apple in that example. With the example of a move to independence, you’ll lose, in some cases, all of that upfront monetization. So this example you’re talking about is a good example where they got no upfront transition dollars because they launched an RIA. But, and this is a very important caveat, they know they are building equity and ownership in something that is going to, at the current rate, be worth a preposterous multiple if and when they decide to sell it. So I assume that has to be part of this conversation around independence is, it’s not that you don’t care about monetizing the business, it’s that you plan to monetize the business in a different and probably more significant way. Fair? Mindy Diamond: Beyond fair. 1000%, that’s absolutely correct. Again, not only making it about this example, but it’s a good example. So again, the possibility of getting a check with a lot of zeros on it, and by the way, also tapping into an already established well-familiar, well-run infrastructure. Think about how much easier the move would’ve been, to jump from Merrill Lynch to Morgan Stanley, and not probably was their first choice, if they were going to go the traditional route. Think about how much easier the due diligence process… how much less heavy the lift would’ve been in terms of due diligence, but certainly from a short-term upfront perspective. And that’s really the key, is that not everyone has the appetite to bet on the long term. To me, that’s the beauty of the industry landscape as it’s evolved and the waterfall of possibilities today. If you’re a great team, and there are so many great teams, you’re growing, you’ve got a multi-generational bench of advisors, you’ve got a succession plan, you’ve got sticky clients, you don’t have 5,000 clients but you have 100 or 200 relationships, you’ve got a great business that you’ve got options for it, there’s no right or wrong. It’s, “What do I want to be when I grow up?”, and, “How do I want to live my business life?” And if you query 10 of those great teams, five of them will wind up moving to the traditional space. That doesn’t make it wrong, it’s just, “That’s what’s right for them.” But the other five will have entrepreneurial drive, will value the long term, and willing to forego the short-term upside in order to bet on themselves for the long term. And holy cow, again, we’ll save that for the episode that Shirl and Louis do to talk about what those multiples could look like, but I don’t think there’s enough zeros on the calculator to begin to think about what that business… OpenArc’s business will be worth even as little as five years from now. Jason Diamond: I agree with that. I think the one point I would probably make in defense of people who go the traditional firm route… Actually, two points. Number one, I don’t think it’s only about, “I am not willing to bet on myself, and I don’t want to delay the monetization event.” I think for some people, the idea of being independent and putting the toner in the copy machine and the little K-cups, that’s just not appealing. I like going into a branch and they have everything, my desk is all set up. So that’s one caveat I’d make that some people just prefer the traditional firm world. The other caveat I’d make is there are advisors who, rightly or wrongly, believe in the brand name of the firm mattering. So there are some advisors who say, “Look, I am a good advisor, but my ability to land and grow business is tied very closely to XYZ firm/brand, Morgan Stanley.” I think, a lot of times, we find that’s not always the case as much as advisors believe. But I’m just trying to think of a couple scenarios where there are advisors who genuinely prefer or need or want the stability, big brand, resources of the biggest firms on the planet. Mindy Diamond: I totally agree. Actually, thank you for bringing those two caveats up because, I’d say, there’s a third caveat. Someone can’t go independent, they don’t have a next gen. They don’t have someone that could do the heavy lifting, if they’re not capable of doing it on their own, to build an independent firm. They don’t have entrepreneurial spirit. They’re three years from retirement, and they don’t have the kind of time that it takes to really build the value of an independent practice. And we have great respect for those people. But again, the cool thing about the industry landscape is that as it’s evolved, there’s something for everyone. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the only choice is stay put or go to UBS. Jason Diamond: Agree. In fact, there’s probably even versions of independence. For example, if you don’t have a successor, well, there are versions of independence that might work where there’s a monetization event on the backend where somebody can buy and inherit your book. So that is probably the coolest or most interesting thing, the most exciting thing anyway, about the industry landscape in the last, really call it, five years anyway, probably even a little sooner than that is, especially in the independent side of things, there are options that check just about every box. You as the advisor choose what elements… And this gets back to your begin with the end in mind. Choose what elements of the business you like, and want to maintain control over. Choose what elements of the business you don’t, and there is probably a solution out there that works to check those boxes. Mindy Diamond: And then, that goes back to what we were saying. Even if you are 90% satisfied and 99% certain you would never make a move, if you haven’t gotten educated, in some capacity, whether it be listening to a podcast, reading articles, talking to a recruiter, talking to other firms, talking to friends and colleagues at other firms, or some combination of all of the above, in the last five years, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice. And again, not because in any way we’re trying to sell you on making a move, but because we believe knowledge is power and it looks different than it did. So make sure that you’re challenging your own assumptions, and that you’re really crystal-clear that what you believe or what you believe five years ago is still true today. Jason Diamond: This is a little bit of a gear shift, but I think there’s a tie in here. If you are an advisor now, or a point in their career, they’re wise to at least get educated, pick their heads up, understand what’s out there. But then, there’s the question of, “When is due diligence done?” But I’m going to frame this through a different lens here, which is, “Now, I’m an advisor, I’ve done due diligence, I’ve talked to maybe three to five strategic firms.” Is there typically an aha moment when an advisor says, “Oh, my god. It’s RBC, and I need to go that way and I know I need to move”? Or is it more process driven than that? What are your thoughts? Because I think a lot of advisors struggle with that. And I often find myself telling advisors, “Trust the process here and you’ll know when… You don’t have to know right away in the first inning of due diligence which firm or which model you’re meeting, or even if you’re going to make a move.” But curious what your thoughts are on this one. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. In fact, we hope you don’t. We hope that you don’t go into this process with preconceived notions, we hope that you don’t make a decision after one meeting, because we do think that there’s value in the process. And people get to that aha moment at different times. You and I are working with a team, right now, that is 22 meetings in. And that’s not to say every process takes 22 meetings, but the team is sort of taking it slowly. They started out looking at five or six firms. They’ve narrowed it down now to three. The goal is to get to two or one, then to get to a home office visit to the one that’s their first choice. They’re absolutely getting closer. And I’m probably exaggerating at 22 meetings, but I’m making a point, that even at this point in the game, which is probably a good, would you say, five months into the due diligence process, I don’t know that they’ve had an aha moment. They have an aha moment that they know they don’t want another wirehouse. They don’t want to be independent because the senior member of the team is exactly that person we just described, that he doesn’t have the kind of time in the business in order to make independence worthwhile- Jason Diamond: Or drive. They just don’t want independence. Mindy Diamond: Right, and the next generation doesn’t really want it. So at this point of the game, the aha moment is think we want a regional firm or a boutique firm. But it’s not an aha moment yet that it’s going to be this firm, and that’s I think a good point. A lot of times, the aha moment is the model, first, and then the firm. Jason Diamond: Sometimes, deal can be the type like, “Okay. I know I love the regional firms, but one is offering a deal that’s 100% better,” and that’s often when we actually will counsel advisors, “It’s okay to consider the deal.” The deal is a factor, as you said earlier. Mindy Diamond: If I can, that’s actually a great point. That’s the perfect example of where, “Always consider the deal, just don’t make it your primary or first consideration.” Jason Diamond: Right. Mindy Diamond: So if you’ve done all the right due diligence and two firms or two opportunities stack up next to each other perfectly, they both will allow you to move the needle significantly enough. If they both will allow you to do better for clients and grow faster, and do everything else that’s important to you, then it’s absolutely time to make deal the tiebreaker. Jason Diamond: So you threw out five months and talking about 22 meetings, let’s table that. An advisor calls you, Mindy, this morning and says, “Not unhappy, but I’m getting that itch.” Give me the average time it takes them from that first call this morning to the moment they resigned from their firm, and then give me the quickest they could do it if they needed to. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Let me start out by saying that those calls we get from advisors come in two different categories. One is, “Yeah, getting the itch. The straw that broke the camel’s back happened yesterday when X happened.” But the other call, the one we mentioned earlier, which is, “I am 90% happy. I am growing exponentially. I get time to coach my kids’ soccer game. I have great quality of life. I have a great team. I’ve been here 30 or 40 years, and life is good. I’m watching more of my colleagues go or I’m feeling more pain,” fill in the blank for whatever that is. “Even though I’m 90% happy and I’m 100% convinced I don’t want to move, that moving is a hassle, I can’t not see the handwriting on the wall and I at least need to get educated.” So let’s assume that we get one of those calls. The reason I am calling out the difference between the two is because the time it takes to do the due diligence is usually different. If someone is already at the point where they know that they’re unhappy and likely to move, the due diligence process usually runs quicker. The due diligence process for somebody that’s mostly happy and just beginning to get curious, sort of the latter example, might take a little longer. Jason Diamond: Give me some real parameters to it. Mindy Diamond: Well, I’d love to hear what you think. What’s swirling in my head, it’s all over the map, but I’m going to say typically six months. Jason Diamond: Six months was the number I was about to throw out as well. And I think the quickest you want to do this is three months. Anything beyond that starts to be basically a fire drill. We’ve done deals quicker than that obviously, an advisor’s going to or has been terminated. But I think six months in earnest is a good, healthy timeline. Especially, by the way, because a lot of firms are busy, we’re hearing this from a lot of the firm side of things these days. Depending upon what firm you’re moving to, you need to make sure that the firm can handle you. You want to get their A team upon your breakaway and your transition, no matter what firm that is. Mindy Diamond: Do you think, Jason, that it’s six months from, “Gee, I’m a little curious. I want to start to look. I want to begin to do due diligence. What does that look like?”, to, “My butt is in a new seat”? Jason Diamond: No. Because I think in the example where you’re just like, “Eh, I’m a little unhappy,” those early innings conversations typically play out slowly because the guy who’s 90% happy is in no rush to say, “Set me up with a bunch of firms, and let’s talk about it.” In those instances, it could take a year and a half because I think what happens really there is then there’s a catalyst event that takes them from your category two to category one. Right? They went from a little unhappy, just curious, to the straw that broke the camel’s back. And that’s when then they shift into the more… or they say the firm has… A good example, UBS, upset a lot of advisors with the compensation plan. They recently walked back a lot of those changes. I’m certain there will be some advisors who say, “This is a nod to attrition. I’ve seen from management what I need to see, and I’m going to stay put.” Equally, probably plenty of advisors who say, “It’s too little too late.” Mindy Diamond: Let me say something, and again, not to make this episode at all about this team in Atlanta, but that was a ten-year conversation for us. Literally, 10 years ago, maybe even 12 years ago, but let’s say 10, one of the senior partners on the team had called to say, “Curious, really happy, doing incredibly well. Zero chance we are moving in the next year or two or five.” But look, what don’t we know? And every year, we would then have a conversation about what the landscape looked like. But I’m going to say it was six years ago when the conversation shifted from, “Really happy, convinced we’re staying,” to, “starting to think we might leave at some point,” but another six years until this really happened. Now, that’s a good example because they were going independent. The transition itself probably took a year, year and a half. Jason Diamond: And the size and complexity of the team, by the way, probably amplifies that as well. Mindy Diamond: Well, there are outliers on either side, and that’s the point I wanted to make. Correct. Jason Diamond: Very fair. I’m glad you bring that up because there’s no cookie-cutter answer. It totally depends on the makeup of the business, where you’re going, how you’re going, when you’re going. I think we have time for two more questions, and I want to make sure we get to this because we’ve talked about this through the lens of the advisor and the advisor’s team. We haven’t talked much about the client experience, and that is clearly self-portability, in general, is something that gives advisors anxiety rightfully so. I think if you could tell a lot of advisors with 100% certainty that their book would move, I think many more would be interested in moving. I think concerns about portability, a lot of times, would keep advisors in seats. I guess what I’m getting at is because that initial client conversation is so important, is there anything you coach advisors to think about or to say to clients or potential clients as they consider a change, a transition? Mindy Diamond: Well, you have to be mindful certainly of your own employment agreement and legal considerations of pre-soliciting- Jason Diamond: Important point. Mindy Diamond: No way are any of us advocating for pre-solicitation. But you do have to have a pretty good sense in your mind without asking the client specifically, who is likely to come and who not. And the determination, the sort of hypothesis or the supposition, of who will come and who will not has everything to do with where you’re going and the value proposition, “Will I be able to make a compelling enough point? Will I have compelling enough reasons where it’s not about me, the advisor, it’s about you, the clients, about how I will better be able to service them? And if I’m able to say to a client, ‘If I make a move or I’m making this move and I’m now going to be able to do X, Y, and Z for you,’ I’m much more confident that they will be able to come?” In the case of this OpenArc deal, the Atlanta team, they did a lot of retirement plan business, so they had to be really concerned about how they were going to position this move and the new brand separating from Merrill brand, how they were going to convince their Fortune 500 clients that this was the right move. So it always has to start with what’s best for clients and how will I pitch it, if you will. Jason Diamond: I love how you answered that because it’s like two different answers to me. Part one is handicapping the portability, and that’s pre-transition during the due diligence process. Honestly, if you’re an advisor, you could do that now, right? If I were to make a move, “Here’s my client who I know with 100% certainty would follow me. Here’s the maybes, here’s the no,” you come up with a weighted average portability metric. I totally agree with you on that. And then the second piece of it is you have to be constantly thinking this option might sound the best to you, but remember, and I agree, not pre-solicit, but post-transition, you’re going to have to sell it to your clients. So you need to be thinking about every conversation you have with every firm through that lens. Do you agree with that? Meaning I’m going to move my business from UBS to Morgan Stanley. You get paid a big check, but can you articulate the clients- Mindy Diamond: Yeah, 1000%. It’s such a good point because, and we’re going to give you some inside baseball here, the number one question that any advisor who is in traffic with any firm or any model needs to ask is, put words in my mouth, “If we were fast forwarding to the day I made a move and joined your firm or joined your model, help me to understand what would the pitch to my clients sound like.” And then, you need to sort of absorb that pitch from the perspective of your clients. Put yourself in the shoes of your oldest clients, of your youngest clients, of your most important clients, of your middle-of-the-road clients, of your middle net worth clients, of the institutional clients, fill in the blank, “Does that value proposition fit?” That is one of the best ways to assess whether a firm or an opportunity is better enough or good enough for you. Jason Diamond: It’s such a good answer, and I love the inside baseball look there. Also, by the way, it has this side benefit of you’re forcing the managers or the recruiters to articulate almost like a succinct value prop on their firm. Right? Tell me, hypothetically, what would I say to clients about, and you’re just picking on Morgan, “Why is Morgan Stanley better than my current firm?” And that answer ought to be compelling. In closing, I want to wrap this up with a question around the difficulty of a move. You’ve been in this business now 30 years, I think it’s almost exactly 30 years. Has it gotten easier logistically to transition? And do you see that trend continuing, let’s say, because of partially things like AI, DocuSign and the like? What are your thoughts on the nuts and bolts of transitioning? Mindy Diamond: There’s no question it’s gotten easier. There’s no question that, from a legal perspective, the advent of broker protocol certainly makes it less scary or less risky to make a move. But there are plenty of moves that are made as a non-protocol move, and that’s not always the case. And the ecosystem, I should say, has gotten better to support the advisor in transition. Legal counsel, all they do all day long is facilitate these moves. Third-party consultancies, people like us that have been at it 30 years and have seen it all, and all the mistakes have already been made, we know how to do it. But with that said, moving is a hassle. No matter how much better the support system has gotten, no matter how many times a manager or a firm has transitioned advisors, it is a hassle to move. It is disruptive. It is a lot. And again, this statement is not going to win me a place in the headhunter hall of fame, but you should absolutely not consider a move unless you have the appetite for some risk, for some breakage, meaning some loss of clients, and you’re willing to shrink to grow, and you’ve got an appetite for some hassle factor to work perhaps harder for a short period of time than you have in a while. If you don’t have that, then no matter how unhappy you are, you really need to seriously consider whether moving is the best way to solve your problems. Jason Diamond: Yeah. It’s a really great way to tie a bow on this episode. It was a lot of fun. I’m excited. I think that would be 2037 based on your 12-year timeline. So the next $129-billion team, we’ll have to schedule that episode out for 10 or 12 years from now. But Mindy, thank you so much for sharing your years of wisdom and expertise with us. This was a fantastic episode. I had a lot of fun. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, I loved it too. Thank you, my pleasure. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms, or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and road map to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook.     The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 1 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more, who change firms, are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms, and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Everything about a transition can seem incredibly overwhelming. From understanding the whys of a move, then conducting due diligence, and onto aligning the right models and selecting the best firms, it might seem like a fairly linear process. And for some, it can be. But for others, the layers of minutia can be daunting. Essentially, it comes down to the adage, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” So the goal of this episode is to share some inside baseball in how to get from here to there. I asked Mindy Diamond to join me to help draw from decades of experience in helping advisors through their transitions. We’ve dived into the misconceptions, the common

What if Roswell never happened? In this episode, Matt Ehret dismantles the foundational stone of the entire UFO disclosure movement piece by piece. From Lawrence Rockefeller personally lobbying the Clinton White House to release UFO files, to forged Majestic 12 documents typed on machines built decades after the supposed date, to a CIA director's memo describing UFOs as a psychological warfare tool, to a stage magician publicly admitting he faked the 1995 alien autopsy broadcast, the evidence points in one direction. The civilian UFO research groups were founded by CIA directors. The key whistleblowers were disinformation operatives. The Hollywood films required government collusion. Ehret also introduces the Aviary, a covert intelligence network of operatives with bird code names managing the entire misinformation pipeline. The myth was always the product. Roswell was just where they launched it.

This episode originally aired on July 5, 2025. From Apple News In Conversation: Americans have a long history of obsession with the ultrarich, from Carnegie and Rockefeller to Bezos and Musk. And today, the gap between the rich and the poor is bigger than ever as the billionaire class has ascended to new heights. In his book, The Haves and Have-Yachts, New Yorker staff writer Evan Osnos explores the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthy and their outsize influence on politics. He sat down with Apple News In Conversation host Shumita Basu to talk about this unique moment — when billionaires are both resented and envied by the public — and what it means for the rest of us.

052026 Rockefellers Pysch Warfare from Nato Massie Loses Data Center Info Melissa Susan by Kate Dalley

Carl Quintanilla, Sara Eisen, and David Faber kicked off the hour with a look at the growing debate over rising stocks AND rising bonds - before getting to the latest out of Washington when it comes to fading hopes around Iran, and breaking it all down with RBC's Head of U.S. Equity Strategy and Rockefeller's Ruchir Sharma. Plus: details on key movers you should watch here - from developments in Lululemon's battle with its activist Founder Chip Wilson to key details out of a new tie-up that would create the world's largest electric utility company... and a read from the ground when it comes to AI's use cases within biotech, according to one longtime expert.    Squawk on the Street Disclaimer   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What if the biggest culture war in America wasn't a grassroots revolution at all… but a system designed to keep ordinary people divided while the people at the top quietly consolidated more power than ever before? In this episode of Keeping It Real, Jillian dives into the hidden history behind modern DEI, identity politics, Cold War influence operations, and the institutional networks that shaped today's corporate and academic culture. From declassified CIA programs and Senate investigations to the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations, this is the hidden history of modern DEI. This episode follows the paper trail through the Cold War, the CIA's “Mighty Wurlitzer” propaganda network, McGeorge Bundy, the Ford Foundation, and the rise of the Black Panthers — whose free breakfast programs, health clinics, and cross-racial Rainbow Coalition threatened to unite working people around class and economic power. J Edgar Hoover and the FBI actually went after Fred Hampton because message wasn't Black vs. white. It was poor people vs. concentrated power. And according to Hoover that was more dangerous than riots and civil unrest. From the Congress for Cultural Freedom and foundation-funded activism to the rise of corporate HR culture and modern diversity bureaucracy, this episode explores how class-based populism may have been replaced by institutionalized identity management designed to absorb outrage without ever threatening the underlying power structure. You'll hear about: The CIA's “Mighty Wurlitzer” influence network Declassified Cold War psychological operations The Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations connection to intelligence agencies How J Edgar Hoover's FBI went after the Black Panther Party and Fred Hampton's Rainbow Coalition Why cross-racial working-class solidarity terrified elites The Congress for Cultural Freedom and “managed dissent” How DEI became embedded in universities and corporations Why corporate activism exploded while inequality worsened The psychological mechanics of division and outrage politics How media, bureaucracy, and identity conflict distracts from corruption and economic power #DEI #CIA #FordFoundation 00:00 INTRO 00:48 DEI Was Started By The CIA 01:47 Ford Foundation & The CIA 02:51 The Mighty Wurlitzer: Engineering "Organic" Propaganda 03:56 Funding the "Housebroken" Left 06:06 Laundering Ideology Through Foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) 07:28 John J. McCloy and the CIA-Ford Foundation Merger 08:29 How Massive Endowments Provide Cover for Black Budgets 10:11 The "Long Leash": Seducing Intellectuals Over Defeating Them 12:38 Dummy Foundations 14:04 Thomas Braden: Controlling American Radicals 15:55 Case Study: Infiltrating the Labor Movement and Churches 17:02 The Hypocrisy of Institutional Leaders 18:47 McGeorge Bundy and the Strategy of Social Stability 20:06 Black Panters Fred Hampton and the Threat of the Rainbow Coalition 23:28 Unity is the Danger: Replacing Populism with Grants 26:34 Carnegie's Capture of Universities 29:44 Self-Reproducing Ideology in the Corporate Workplace 31:38 Interpersonal Conflict as a Substitute for Accountability 34:01 Divide, Conquer, and the Path to Solidarity Shopify: Launch your dream business with Shopify. Sign up for your $1/month trial at https://Shopify.com/Jillian and start selling today! Superpower: Stop guessing about your health—get $20 off Superpower at https://superpower.com/JILLIAN with code JILLIAN Fox One: Sign up at https://fox.com to watch Keeping It Real and more on-demand with FOX One. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices