Podcasts about ubs

Plus: Crypto-related companies Robinhood, Strategy, and Coinbase shares drop alongside bitcoin. And cybersecurity company Crowdstrike stock ends the day higher. Alexis Moore hosts. Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter. An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this episode by creating summaries that were based on Wall Street Journal reporting and reviewed and adapted by an editor. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Der DAX schließt 0,1 % tiefer bei 25.404 Punkten. Der Euro Stoxx 50 verliert 0,4 % auf 6.234 Punkte. Hohe Ölpreise und steigende Anleiherenditen belasten die Börsen. Brent kostet rund 108 USD, Gold fällt auf 4.277 USD. Schwächere US-Industriedaten lindern den Verkaufsdruck: Der Empire-State-Index sinkt auf 7,6 Punkte, erwartet waren 15. An der Wall Street bremsen zudem Zweifel an der Sicherheit von KI-Modellen. Bank of America erwartet mindestens 10 % weniger Investmentbanking-Gebühren. Deutsche Bank, DWS und UBS verlieren zeitweise kräftig. UniCredit-Chef Orcel will laut Reuters-Insidern Commerzbank-Chefin Orlopp und Aufsichtsratschef Weidmann ablösen. Deutz nimmt mit neuen Aktien brutto rund 179 Mio. Euro ein. Heute ist Heiko-Thieme-Club-Tag. Die Börsenweisheit von Howard Marks, sinngemäß: Entscheidend ist zu wissen, wo man steht, auch wenn man nicht genau weiß, wohin es geht.

Charisma can seem like something you either have or you don't. But according to Olivia Fox Cabane, charisma is a set of behaviors that can be learned, practiced, and strengthened. Olivia is one of the world's leading authorities on the science of charisma and the bestselling author of The Charisma Myth, which has been translated into 27 languages. She has lectured at Harvard, Yale, MIT, the Marine War College, and the United Nations, and has worked with leaders from organizations including Google, Deloitte, UBS, MGM, and TikTok. In this episode, Olivia joins Dr. Cindra Kamphoff to break down the three core components of charisma: presence, power, and warmth. She explains how each one influences the way others perceive us and shares practical strategies for becoming more confident, influential, and connected. You'll learn why presence may be the most important charisma skill in today's distracted world, how your mindset shapes your body language, and why trying to control every expression can actually make you appear less authentic. Olivia also shares strategies for handling pressure, quieting your inner critic, improving first impressions, and using visualization to shift how you show up before an important conversation, presentation, or performance. In this episode, you'll learn: The three building blocks of charisma: presence, power, and warmth. Why charisma is a skill you can learn and strengthen. Simple strategies to become more present in conversations and high-pressure moments. How visualization and mindset can influence your confidence and body language. Why self-acceptance and warmth are essential for authentic charisma. How to handle mistakes, pressure, and your inner critic with greater composure.   Olivia's website: https://www.oliviafoxcabane.com/ Mentally Strong Institute: https://mentallystronginstitute.com/ Request a Free Mental Breakthrough Call: https://freementalbreakthroughcall.com/ Download the National Confidence Research Study: https://confidencestudy.com/ Order Cindra's new Book: https://www.confidencetools.com/

Endlich verstehen, worum es in der neuen UBS-Regulierung geht – verständlich für alle! Soll die UBS mehr Eigenkapital halten müssen, damit der Staat im Notfall nicht nochmals eine Bank retten muss? Oder wären höhere Eigenmittel schlecht für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der UBS – und damit die Schweizer Wirtschaft? Der Ständerat berät in diesen Tagen über genau diese Fragen. Zuvor kreuzen Corinne Zellweger-Gutknecht, Finanzrechts-Professorin an der Universität Zürich, und Roman Studer, CEO der Schweizerischen Bankiervereinigung, im Geldcast die verbalen Klingen. www.fabiocanetg.ch Der Schweizer Wirtschaftspodcast mit den hochkarätigsten Gästen! Von Börsen und Bitcoin bis Kaufkraft und Zinsen: Fabio Canetg, Geldökonom und Journalist, diskutiert im Geldcast mit seinen Gästen aus Wirtschaft, Politik und Wissenschaft über deren Werdegang, über die aktuellsten Themen aus der Finanzwelt, über die Geldpolitik der Schweizerischen Nationalbank und über die Wirtschaftspolitik von Bundesrat und Parlament. Ein Podcast über Zentralbanken, Inflation, Schulden und Geld – verständlich und unterhaltsam für alle, die auf dem Laufenden bleiben wollen. Stichworte: UBS-Regulierung, Bankenregulierung, Eigenkapital, Corinne Zellweger-Gutknecht, Roman Studer

Die USA haben erstmals über 40 Billionen Dollar Schulden und auch weltweit betrachtet haben die Staatsschulden einen neuen Rekord erreicht. Was braut sich da zusammen und was heisst das für die Schweiz? Der Schuldenberg der USA ist auf über 40 Billionen Dollar gewachsen, so hoch wie nie zuvor. Allein die Zinszahlungen verschlingen über eine Billion Dollar pro Jahr und damit mehr als das US-Verteidigungsbudget. Weltweit steigen die Schuldenberge immer höher und haben zuletzt ein Niveau von über 350 Billionen Dollar erreicht. Wie gefährlich ist diese Entwicklung? Droht sogar eine nächste Finanzkrise? Und was bedeutet das für die Schweiz? Caroline Hilb, Leiterin Investment und Vorsorge Center bei Raiffeisen, und Daniel Kalt, Chefökonom Schweiz bei UBS, nehmen Stellung im «Eco Talk» bei Andi Lüscher.

Gold and silver closed a volatile week with silver holding near $66.22 per ounce and gold finishing around $4,430 as U.S. investors weighed rising Treasury yields, mounting federal debt concerns, and shifting global demand for bullion. The Netherlands' decision to relocate a significant portion of its gold reserves underscores growing attention to geopolitical and sovereign risk. Meanwhile, central banks, including China, continue to add gold during price pullbacks. UBS strategist sees gold potentially reaching $5,000 while forecasting silver could outperform gold through year-end. Learn more about the forces shaping gold and silver prices and what investors should be watching next.

David Lefkowitz, Frederick Mellors and Kiran Ganesh of UBS discuss the durability of the AI investment cycle, the breadth and resilience of corporate earnings growth, and the path of inflation and monetary policy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Der Widerstand von Bauern, SP und Grünen gegen das geplante Freihandelsabkommen mit den Mercosur-Staaten hat im Juni für ein Nein im Nationalrat gesorgt. Vor der Herbstsession stellte sich die Frage, ob das Abkommen durch Konzessionen an beide Seiten eine Mehrheit findet. Alle Themen (02:02) Bauern setzen sich mit Forderungen bei Mercosur-Abkommen durch (06:22) Nachrichtenübersicht (10:52) Die Schwierigkeiten bei der juristischen Aufarbeitung von 9/11 (19:03) Bankenregulierung: Wie die UBS in Bern für ihre Interessen kämpft (24:44) Die Sorgen in Sachsen-Anhalt kurz vor den Wahlen (30:29) Waldbrände in Indonesien: giftiger Rauch auch in Nachbarländern (32:56) Woher kommt das Misstrauen in die Politik auf dem Balkan? (38:21) Der lustigste Wissenschaftsevent der Welt

Crypto News: SEC proposes transfer agent rule, sets event to figure out round-the-clock U.S. trading. XRP ETFs pull in $170 million over 11 days. Goldman tops institutional holders. 21 major global banks including Bank of America, Citi, GoldmanSachs, DeutscheBank, and UBS, just committed to launching a joint stablecoin company, targeting a USD-denominated stablecoin to go live in H1 2027.

Dans cet épisode, James Parkyn & François Doyon La Rochelle passent en revue les principales leçons de la 27ème édition de l'annuaire UBS sur les rendements de placement mondiaux pour l'année 2026.

Welkom bij een nieuwe Beursupdate van De Aandeelhouder! In deze video bespreken Nico Inberg en Albert Jellema de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen op de financiële markten.We kijken naar het huidige beursmomentum en de bijbehorende risico's. Daarnaast bespreken we de rentes, koersdoelverhoging van ASML door UBS en de kwartaalcijfers van DELL. Tot slot blikken we terug op de Investor Talk van AMG Critical Materials die gisteren is opgenomen.

This week on Get Hired Up, I'm joined by my friend and colleague Shirley Hon, Principal of Globoconsult, a New York-based family office advisory firm connecting Asian family offices with opportunities across North America and Europe.The 2026 UBS Global Family Office Report found that 60% of family offices surveyed expect to change their strategic asset allocation over the coming year, which is the highest percentage UBS has recorded. Geopolitical conflict is their leading concern, yet another transition is occurring simultaneously, which is generational succession. Only 35% of surveyed family offices have a defined succession plan, while just 27% have a structured process for preparing the next generation.The driving principle here is that capital can be transferred. Leadership cannot. Shirley and I explored this challenge from a fascinating East-West perspective.We talked about why Asian families invest in U.S. assets, differences in how Asian and North American family offices perceive risk, the role culture plays in cross-border relationships, and what happens when significant family enterprises and wealth begin moving from one generation to another. But our conversation ultimately became less about capital than I expected. Rather, it became a conversation about trust. I hope you enjoy the show!Westgate Executive BrandingFollow us on LinkedInFollow us on FacebookFollow us on InstagramFollow us on YouTube

I really enjoyed hosting this Alpha Exchange discussion with Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, CIO for the Americas and Global Head of Equities at UBS Global Wealth Management. Ulrike has had a long career in markets, having spent nearly 25 years at Tudor Investment Corporation working across quantitative macro and global tactical asset allocation before joining UBS. We begin with Ulrike's academic background in economics, political science and financial econometrics and the path that ultimately brought her from academia to Tudor. She reflects on the culture created by Paul Tudor Jones and several lessons that stayed with her throughout her career: the importance of respecting trends, sizing positions appropriately, understanding liquidity and recognizing that while markets continually evolve, the human emotions driving them remain remarkably consistent. We then turn to portfolio construction at UBS, where Ulrike and her team combine three distinct lenses: macro, bottom-up fundamentals and structural trends. Within that structural framework, they are focused on three transformational opportunities—artificial intelligence, power and resources, and longevity. We discuss how AI connects all three and why the enormous capital expenditure associated with its development is increasingly becoming a macro factor in its own right. Ulrike walks us through the potential bottlenecks to the AI buildout, from electricity and grid capacity to permitting, turbines and transformers, as well as the possibility that monetization fails to keep pace with investment. We also explore opportunities across the AI value chain, including semiconductors, power, industrials, materials and healthcare. Lastly, we discuss hidden correlations and why portfolios that appear diversified across traditional asset classes may share common underlying exposures. I hope you enjoy this episode of the Alpha Exchange, my conversation with Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi.

Die Wirtschaftskommission des Ständerats lehnt die vom Bundesrat vorgeschlagenen strengeren Eigenkapitalvorgaben für die UBS ab. Ein Teil der Anforderungen soll mit speziellen Anleihen erfüllt werden können. Finanzministerin Karin Keller-Sutter hält diese Lösung für ungenügend. Weitere Themen: Auch Tibet ist von der verheerenden Sturzflut betroffen. Anders als in Nepal gibt es jedoch nur wenige unabhängige Informationen aus dem Katastrophengebiet. China lässt keine ausländischen Medien nach Tibet reisen. Was über die Lage und die Rettungsarbeiten bekannt ist. Viele Staaten haben ihre Versprechen zur Reduktion von Methan bisher nicht eingelöst. Auch die Schweiz hat zwar ein Reduktionsziel festgelegt, aber keinen konkreten Umsetzungsplan. Forschende der ETH Zürich zeigen nun, wie stark der Methanausstoss weltweit sinken müsste.

Die Wirtschaftskommission des Ständerats lehnt die vom Bundesrat vorgeschlagenen strengeren Eigenkapitalvorgaben für die UBS ab. Ein Teil der Anforderungen soll mit speziellen Anleihen erfüllt werden können. Finanzministerin Karin Keller-Sutter hält diese Lösung für ungenügend.

It was a mixed August for the market. JPMorgan fixed-income guru Bob Michele breaks down some of what's driving the moves across assets, including how the bond market could be playing a role in the wavering of some AI stocks. Meantime, Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon sorts through the weekend geopolitical headlines and what it means for investors. Our Kate Rooney reports on OpenAI's rapidly growing ads business before Evercore's Mark Mahaney discusses divide between Meta and Alphabet. Our Mackenzie Sigalos reports on Tim Cook's final memo and the challenges ahead for incoming Apple CEO John Ternus. Fairlead's Katie Stockton reads the technical tea leaves on some key macro charts. UBS analyst Michael Yee on the wild August for biotech. Piper Sandler's James Fish looks ahead to Dell's results. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Wirtschaftskommission des Ständerats will die UBS weniger stark regulieren als der Bundesrat, einige Schweizer Bäuerinnen und Bauern sind für die Ernährungsinitiative, Wiederansiedlung von Tigern in Kasachstan gestartet

We conclude our series on some of the thought leaders and innovators that UBS supports through its Global Visionaries programme by catching up with Tom Hall, who heads social impact and philanthropy at UBS.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

$1.5 trillion. That's what financial crime costs the world every year. And AI is making the criminals faster than the people trying to catch them.Eyal Azoulay, CEO of Tangos.ai shares why the real blindspot isn't detecting crime but rather how we've been trying to stop it. His company is helping major financial institutions resolve cases in minutes instead of months!In this ⁠⁠CEO Blindspots® Podcast⁠, Eyal also shares: → Why discipline beats talent → The hiring mistake that cost him early in his career → Leadership lessons he learned from selling multiple companiesHe could've retired after selling 3 companies. Instead he built another one, to solve one of the world's biggest problems instead.==================CEO Blindspots® Podcast⁠ Guest: Eyal AzoulaySerial entrepreneur and innovation leader with a track record of building and exiting successful ventures. Five-time CEO, three-time founder of companies acquired by international banks, including UBS and BNY Mellon. Expertise spans AI, fintech, and data-driven business transformation. exPartner @Entree Capital VC.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

 With Louis Diamond Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist could reshape RIA custody, bringing together Altruist's technology with the scale, capital, and reputation of one of the industry's best-known brands. In Summary Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist brings one of the financial industry's most established brands together with one of RIA custody's fastest-growing challengers. In this Rapid Reaction Industry Update, Louis Diamond looks beyond the reported $4B+ purchase price to consider what the combination could mean for advisors—what he sees as the good news, the potentially negative outcomes, and everything in between. Altruist gains the capital, scale, and brand recognition that could help it compete more aggressively for larger RIAs and breakaway teams. Vanguard gains a technology-forward custody platform and greater access to the independent advisor channel. The larger implication may be increased competition across RIA custody. With Schwab and Fidelity controlling much of the market, a Vanguard-backed Altruist could create new pressure around technology, pricing, service, referrals, and innovation—while raising new questions about how Vanguard balances its growing advice business with its role as custodian. The Storyline RIA custody has long been dominated by Schwab and Fidelity, particularly since Schwab's acquisition of TD Ameritrade. Altruist emerged as one of the few credible challengers, building its position around modern technology, lower costs, and an advisor-focused platform.   But technology was only part of the equation. For larger breakaway teams in particular, Altruist faced another hurdle: brand recognition. Advisors could be impressed by the platform while still wondering how clients accustomed to names like Merrill, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Schwab, or Fidelity would respond to an unfamiliar custodian.   Vanguard changes that equation.   Louis examines why the acquisition makes strategic sense for both companies, from Vanguard's push to expand access to financial advice to Altruist's opportunity to operate with the backing of a well-capitalized, long-term owner.   For advisors, however, the bigger story is what happens next. A stronger competitor in custody could affect everything from technology and pricing to referral opportunities and the choices available to breakaway advisors.   There are also important questions still unanswered. Vanguard operates its own advice businesses. Altruist's speed and fintech culture may be tested inside a much larger organization. And while Vanguard says Altruist will remain independent, the longer-term operating model remains to be seen.   The deal may not change advisors' options immediately. But it has the potential to change the competitive dynamics surrounding those options considerably.   Topics Covered Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist RIA custody competition Schwab and Fidelity Altruist's technology and Hazel AI Vanguard's financial advice strategy Custodian brand recognition for breakaway advisors Advisor referral networks Custody and technology pricing Direct advice and custodian conflicts The future of RIA platforms and Supportive Independence > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why is the Vanguard-Altruist acquisition significant for RIA custody? (03:53)Louis explains why custody has remained highly concentrated around Schwab and Fidelity and how combining Vanguard's scale and reputation with Altruist's technology could create a much stronger third competitor.   What problem does Vanguard potentially solve for Altruist? (05:01)Altruist has built a strong reputation among advisors for its technology, but larger breakaway teams have sometimes questioned whether clients would recognize or trust the brand. Vanguard could significantly reduce that concern.   Why does buying Altruist make sense for Vanguard? (07:00)Vanguard has more than 50 million investors and has publicly discussed the need to expand access to financial advice. Louis considers how Altruist could give Vanguard both additional capacity and a stronger connection to independent advisors.   What does Altruist gain from Vanguard beyond capital? (09:51)Louis discusses the significance of having a long-term, investor-owned parent rather than remaining dependent on successive rounds of venture capital, while gaining additional resources to develop custody, technology, and Hazel AI.   How could this acquisition change the choices available to breakaway advisors? (12:33)The combination of Altruist's technology with Vanguard's brand could make the platform more viable for larger teams that previously hesitated because of client recognition and trust concerns.   Could Vanguard become a meaningful source of client referrals to RIAs? (13:42)With millions of existing investors and more demand for advice than Vanguard can necessarily serve internally, Louis considers whether a future referral program connecting Vanguard clients with Altruist RIAs could become an important competitive advantage.   What are the potential risks of the Vanguard-Altruist combination? (16:54)The acquisition also raises questions around Vanguard's competing advice business, Altruist's long-term independence, differences in corporate culture, innovation speed, and talent retention.   What could happen next across the custody market? (20:00)Louis offers several predictions, including responses from Schwab and Fidelity, wider adoption of Hazel AI, a potential Vanguard-Altruist referral channel, and greater use of Altruist by breakaway advisors.   Key Takeaways Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist could introduce a more formidable competitor into an RIA custody market heavily concentrated around Schwab and Fidelity. Vanguard addresses one of Altruist's biggest challenges with larger breakaway teams: providing a widely recognized financial brand that advisors can more easily explain to clients. Altruist gives Vanguard a technology-forward entry point into RIA custody as Vanguard continues expanding its strategy around access to financial advice. Advisors could benefit from greater competition through pressure on custody and technology pricing, service, product development, and innovation. A future referral channel could become an important part of the combination, particularly given Vanguard's enormous investor base and Altruist's growing network of RIAs. The acquisition also introduces potential conflicts and execution risks, including Vanguard's own advice businesses, the integration of two very different corporate cultures, and questions about whether Altruist can maintain its speed and independence over time. For breakaway advisors, the custody shortlist may have changed: Altruist can now pair its technology and fintech capabilities with the capital and reputation of Vanguard. https://youtu.be/UlgCBjLXrnw Quotable Moments “Custody is really a trust business.”— Louis Diamond (05:55) “Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win.”— Louis Diamond (12:33) “Really, it's tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off.”— Louis Diamond (13:42) “There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before.”— Louis Diamond (22:44) FAQs Why is Vanguard acquiring Altruist? Louis sees several strategic reasons for the acquisition. Altruist gives Vanguard an established technology and custody platform serving more than 6,000 advisors, while potentially expanding Vanguard's ability to reach investors through independent financial advisors. It may also provide another distribution channel for Vanguard investment products and future offerings. What does Vanguard's acquisition mean for Altruist? Altruist gains the backing of one of the world's largest and best-known investment firms while retaining, at least initially, its brand, leadership, and operating structure. Vanguard's capital could allow Altruist to continue investing in custody capabilities, technology, and products such as Hazel AI without relying on additional venture funding rounds. How could the acquisition affect RIA custody competition? Schwab and Fidelity currently dominate RIA custody. Louis believes a Vanguard-backed Altruist could become a stronger challenger by combining Altruist's technology and pricing model with Vanguard's scale, capital, and reputation. That could increase competitive pressure around pricing, service, technology, and innovation. Why could the deal matter to breakaway advisors? Altruist's technology has attracted advisor interest, but some larger breakaway teams have questioned whether clients would be comfortable holding substantial wealth with a less familiar custodian. Vanguard's ownership could substantially reduce that brand-recognition hurdle and make Altruist a more viable option for larger teams. Could Vanguard refer clients to advisors using Altruist? No referral program has been announced. However, Louis believes it is an important possibility to watch. Vanguard has more than 50 million investors, while Altruist provides access to thousands of independent advisors. Connecting investors seeking human advice with RIAs on the Altruist platform could create a meaningful new referral channel. Are there risks for advisors using a Vanguard-owned custodian? Potentially. Vanguard operates its own financial advice businesses, creating some of the same competitive concerns advisors have raised about other custodians with retail advice operations. Other questions include whether Altruist will remain operationally independent over time and whether its culture and pace of innovation can be maintained under Vanguard ownership. What happens next for Altruist, Schwab, and Fidelity? Louis expects the competitive response to be worth watching. He believes Schwab and Fidelity could respond through technology, AI, pricing, or other changes to their advisor offerings. He also expects Altruist to compete more aggressively for breakaway teams and sees the potential for Hazel AI to expand well beyond advisors who custody assets with Altruist. Does the Vanguard-Altruist deal change anything for advisors immediately? Not necessarily. The transaction still needs to close, and its longer-term impact will take time to emerge. But for advisors evaluating custodians, independence, or the value they receive from existing partners, the acquisition adds another factor to consider as the competitive landscape evolves. Louis sees several strategic reasons for the acquisition. Altruist gives Vanguard an established technology and custody platform serving more than 6,000 advisors, while potentially expanding Vanguard's ability to reach investors through independent financial advisors. It may also provide another distribution channel for Vanguard investment products and future offerings. Altruist gains the backing of one of the world's largest and best-known investment firms while retaining, at least initially, its brand, leadership, and operating structure. Vanguard's capital could allow Altruist to continue investing in custody capabilities, technology, and products such as Hazel AI without relying on additional venture funding rounds. Schwab and Fidelity currently dominate RIA custody. Louis believes a Vanguard-backed Altruist could become a stronger challenger by combining Altruist's technology and pricing model with Vanguard's scale, capital, and reputation. That could increase competitive pressure around pricing, service, technology, and innovation. Altruist's technology has attracted advisor interest, but some larger breakaway teams have questioned whether clients would be comfortable holding substantial wealth with a less familiar custodian. Vanguard's ownership could substantially reduce that brand-recognition hurdle and make Altruist a more viable option for larger teams. No referral program has been announced. However, Louis believes it is an important possibility to watch. Vanguard has more than 50 million investors, while Altruist provides access to thousands of independent advisors. Connecting investors seeking human advice with RIAs on the Altruist platform could create a meaningful new referral channel. Potentially. Vanguard operates its own financial advice businesses, creating some of the same competitive concerns advisors have raised about other custodians with retail advice operations. Other questions include whether Altruist will remain operationally independent over time and whether its culture and pace of innovation can be maintained under Vanguard ownership. Louis expects the competitive response to be worth watching. He believes Schwab and Fidelity could respond through technology, AI, pricing, or other changes to their advisor offerings. He also expects Altruist to compete more aggressively for breakaway teams and sees the potential for Hazel AI to expand well beyond advisors who custody assets with Altruist. Not necessarily. The transaction still needs to close, and its longer-term impact will take time to emerge. But for advisors evaluating custodians, independence, or the value they receive from existing partners, the acquisition adds another factor to consider as the competitive landscape evolves. 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  Rise and Reinvent: Joe Duran on Building and Rebuilding World-Class Firms From Insurance Sales to $8B RIA: A Northwestern Mutual Breakaway Story Diamond Consultants 4th Annual Advisor Transition Report View the transcript of this episode… Vanguard Acquires Altruist: What It Means for RIAs, Custody & Breakaway Advisors With Louis Diamond Louis Diamond (00:06): Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is a special rapid reaction industry update, Vanguard acquires Altruist, what it means for advisors in the industry. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is The Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond (00:28): 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. (01:21): 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. Louis Diamond (02:05): Funny how the biggest news in the business almost never comes from the firms everyone is watching. On Wednesday, August 26th, 2026, Vanguard announced its acquiring Altruist. If you asked me a year ago to name the company most likely to buy an RIA custodian, Vanguard would not have been near the top of my list. Vanguard was in the RIA custody business once. They left in 2003 and handed roughly $120 billion of advisor assets to TD Ameritrade on the way out. 23 years later, they’re buying their way back in, reported $4 billion or more. So let’s talk about what happened, why it matters, and where I think it goes from here. (02:48): What happened? On August 26th, 2026, a definitive agreement was announced out of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. A deal is closing later this year where Vanguard is acquiring Altruist, the relative upstart RIA custodian. The price, an undisclosed number, but a reported $4 billion, some outlets reporting $4.6 billion or more. Either way, more than double their last private market valuation at the end of April 2025. Another element is Altruist is staying as a standalone. They’ll keep their brand, CEO, management team, and operate the same model just as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard. Altruist in one breath, for those unaware, was a custodian and fintech company founded in 2018 by Jason Wenk. They became a self-clearing custodian, third largest as far as number of advisors served, north of 6,000 advisors, and had a reputation for serving smaller or upstart advisors, but recently started getting into more of the larger market breakaway space. (03:53): One estimate I’ve seen peg’s Altruist market share of RIA custody at around 6%, but you compare that to about three quarters of the market for Schwab and Fidelity combined. So a relatively small player, but a rapidly emerging player and threat in US RIA custody. This is not the first time Vanguard has been involved with Altruist. They reportedly were an early investor in Altruist back in 2020 and former Vanguard CEO, Bill McNabb, has been on the board of Altruist, so a lot of history between the firms. Let’s get into now why I think this is interesting for the industry as a whole. In my view, custody has never really been all that competitive, especially since TD Ameritrade sold to Schwab. You really had an oligopoly between Schwab and Fidelity. Sure, there’s a number of compelling, say more boutique custodians, whether Pershing Advisor Solutions, Goldman Sachs, which was another newer entrant to custody, LPL, Raymond James, First Clearing, and a number of others are also in the space, but it is a market that is dramatically dominated by the two largest players. (05:01): So I think this matters because you add an amazing venerable brand and reputation of Vanguard with this scrappy upstart custodian, and all of a sudden you can see a world where custody is one of the more competitive spaces in the industry. Altruist, in my view too, was one of the first credible challengers to the incumbent custodians in 20-ish years. Goldman has since picked up some decent market share and certainly they’re attractive for the segment of advisors. But Altruist with their tech-forward approach, low fees, and even just the way they went to market as an antagonist to Schwab and Fidelity, they’re a big deal and I think this just magnifies what they’re able to do. The gap though for Altruist was brand and reputation. Sure, they had amazing tech. No one ever has doubted that. Hazel AI, which they recently launched has been very well received. (05:55): Advisors I’ve worked with who have demoed the platform are incredibly impressed. The big Achilles heel though for Altruist has been my clients don’t know who Altruist is. Why would my clients put their millions of dollars of wealth with a self-clearing custodian that doesn’t have the same scale or reputation as the incumbent custodians? Well, that really goes away here. And at the end of the day, custody is really a trust business, but you’d have to think that a client would trust their assets held with Vanguard or with Altruist through Vanguard in a very similar way that they would trust assets held by Bank of New York Mellon or Charles Schwab or Fidelity Investments or Goldman Sachs. So to me, Vanguard acquiring Altruist solves that problem in one sentence, very simple. Why I think this makes sense for Vanguard? Salim Ramji, the CEO of Vanguard, has been saying since he arrived from BlackRock two years ago that only one in five Americans work with a fee-based financial advisor and that quality advice shouldn’t be a luxury good and this shortage is only going to get worse as advisors retire. (07:00): This is really him putting his money where his mouth is and really trying to make financial advice, human directed financial advice more accessible to everyday Americans and the upper echelons of wealth in this country. Vanguard as a company has over 50 million reported investors and over 12 trillion in assets. A lot of these people want Vanguard advice, but Vanguard hasn’t had the manpower or the capacity to deliver it itself. Buying Altruist over time can certainly solve that capacity gap and make it so that a human-based financial advisor or any of Vanguard’s internal platforms now have a greater ability to provide advice to Americans looking for financial advisors in the United States. I think this also means more distribution capability for Vanguard funds. Not that Vanguard has ever had a problem with distribution. They have a relatively small wholesaling force compared to other firms, but given their cost and reputation and performance, they’re really on pretty much every platform. (08:04): Most advisors have some clients that are invested into Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs, but this I think just gives them a greater ability to distribute Vanguard products, probably in a similar way to Goldman’s approach. When Goldman entered US RIA custody, in large part, they were doing it for distribution of different things. For Goldman, it was private markets and lending and other types of products. Vanguard is more ETFs and mutual funds, but Vanguard has also been pushing more into the private market space, so I can definitely see a world in which they can ratchet up the distribution of their products in a fairly cost-efficient way. I think to me, the most interesting thing about this marriage is the mission overlap is quite real. When Vanguard started, and to this day, their goal was to provide quality investment products at a fraction of the cost of the incumbents so that investing can be accessible to everyday Americans. (08:59): That’s exactly the verbiage that Jason Wenk and Altruist has used from the beginning, where they want to become a all-in-one hub or tech-enabled custodian so that an advisor, regardless of their size and a client regardless of their AUM, have the ability to get quality advice. I recently listened to a podcast called Acquired. We’ll link it in the show notes, but it’s a three-hour in-depth look into the building of Vanguard. And if you combine that with the podcast episode that I recorded with Jason Wenk, the CEO of Altruist, if you play them side by side, the parallels are eerily similar. So we’ll link both into the show notes, but I really think both of these firms were cut from the same cloth and really from the beginning, both have gone against the grain and tried to rattle incumbent players in the industry. So at least on paper, seems like a very good match. (09:51): Why does this deal make sense for Altruist? For one, for Jason Wenk and his leadership team, this has to be the outcome you drew up, maybe even better. Founding a new custodian in 2018, selling it in 2026, eight years later for over $4 billion, that’s a pretty incredible return on time for this team. They deserve it all and built something special and really entered into a space where no one wanted to venture just given the market share of the major incumbents, but good for them and has to feel good to pull off this type of sale. I think the big thing too is the buyer is the story. Vanguard as a company, it’s investor owned. They’re not private equity owned. They’re not VC backed like Altruist was. So Altruist can get off of the fundraising treadmill. They don’t have to worry about fund life or a five-year hold period or an eventual sale to a strategic. (10:42): Now they can really just focus on the business at hand, having one of the most well-capitalized companies in the world as their capital backer and owner. And every advisor on a PE-backed platform knows the question hanging over every relationship, who owns this next? That’s a question they won’t have to answer anymore at all, and they can really just focus now going forward. I think this also gives Altruist a fortress balance sheet and a ton of capital to keep pushing and developing their Hazel AI platform, which was launched in September 2025. Hazel’s an AI tax planning tool, kind of AI superpower that really has taken the industry by storm and has started to be sold as a standalone product to RIAs. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve sold it to over 1600 new RIAs just in the first month alone for $60 a seat per month, and that’s available to folks if they custody at Altruist or not. (11:36): So this, I think, just gives them an ability to distribute their fintech solutions and certainly develop their custody platform in a way that maybe was challenging or not as possible before. They can also take a longer term view instead of having to worry about they raised a series F, whatever comes after F and an eventual sale, investors wanting to get a return on capital, they can now focus on building over the long term, which has been Vanguard’s strategy all along. I think too, this will give Altruist the ability to invest in new capabilities that they didn’t have before, whether it’s lending or whether it’s more on the product side. It takes a lot to be a custodian. It seems like a relatively straightforward business just holding assets, but there’s a lot of products, solutions, really requirements that everyday investors and RIA clients have, and I think this will just ratchet up Altruist’s ability to close some of the capability gaps that they’ve had since they launched and they’re very transparent about those. (12:33): What I’m most excited about this, just coming from my vantage point in the industry, is why should an advisor care? To me, there’s five things that advisors should really take notice of with this acquisition. First one’s competition. Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win. Schwab and Fidelity have fought Vanguard in the asset management space for decades, and more recently in financial advice. Now you’re adding custody against a firm that doesn’t need to be profitable the next quarter, and all of a sudden we very much have an arms race and some competition is good for pricing, for service, for innovation, and I think this is going to be only positives for clients across the country, having another competitive option and keeping the incumbents really on their toes. Another reason, the breakaway shortlist has changed. Objection I always heard about Altruist was, “The tech is great, the AI seems cool, but how do I explain the name Altruist to a 68-year-old client who’s leaving Merrill or UBS or Morgan Stanley?” (13:42): While someone may still get some objections because Vanguard may not have the same brand cache as Goldman Sachs or UBS Private Wealth or Merrill Private Wealth, that objection got a lot weaker today. Really, it’s tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off. It’s a genuinely different offer in the market than it was before. Third, I think this is one that hasn’t been talked about much, but should be watched closely, potential for referrals. Schwab confirmed last week that it was taking the SAN or the Schwab Advisor Network client referral minimum from two million to five million. For anyone not aware, referrals from the retail branches of Schwab and Fidelity are one of the major organic growth funnels for many of the top RIAs in this country and have driven valuations to billions and billions of dollars for firms that are in this program. (14:36): I really do see this as being a potential new massive referral opportunity of Vanguard existing clients and customers to Altruist custody to RIAs at a time when Schwab is trying to keep more of those referrals from themselves, which is a very savvy strategy, but at the same time, probably creates a bit of an opening for Altruist and Vanguard to become a really good referral hub for clients, which is a major draw for signing up new RIAs as clients, for breakaway advisors, et cetera. (15:07): So more details need to come there. We don’t even know if they’re starting a referral channel, but I have to imagine that’s high in the punch list and will be a very compelling offering in the marketplace. Yeah, think about it. Vanguard is 50 million investors and a CEO who said multiple times that they don’t have enough advisors or humans to deliver this advice. So perfect. You now have a massive array of RIAs and more and more coming to the table who offer that advice and being able to still serve them, still keep the assets in-house, but do it in a way where Vanguard doesn’t have to scale up their advisor force. They now have advisors to refer to. Fourth is pricing. I think the Vanguard effect is going to be real here. When Vanguard started, and even to this day, they’ve been the one who’ve pushed down the expense ratio on mutual funds and ETFs. (15:56): It’s been a massive benefit to investors across this country. It’s been Altruist’s playbook all along too, more focused on the advisor, so offering amazing tech and a custody platform for virtually no cost to an advisor. So I would say whatever you’re paying for technology, for custody, and really anything else that Altruist and Vanguard might touch, I would expect it to go down potentially and just have more pressures on the incumbent firms to really sharpen their pencil or to get more creative on pricing and innovation. I think that the fifth thing to keep in mind is Schwab has long used its scale and positioning in the market to best competitors, whether it was going to $0 on tickets for equities and ETFs, et cetera, a number of years ago or a number of other strategies they’ve taken. Now you have a firm that has similar scale as Schwab, a reputation for playing the long game and being comfortable making less money in the process. (16:54): So again, massive benefit to the advisors to have another major player driving down costs and increasing innovation in the space. But this is not all positives. As with anything, there’s the good and the bad, and also some open questions. The biggest, I think, downside or potential thing to watch here, and certainly if you are a BDO at a custodian, this is the line you’re using, “Vanguard has its own advice business, personal advisor, digital advisor, and a CEO who stated that his goal is that an advisor is in every investor’s pocket.” So now you have the custodian that’s holding your client’s assets also running one of the largest advice operations in the country. We’ve heard this concern in the past about Schwab or Fidelity where you have RA custody and then these firms have massive retail distribution networks. So certainly Vanguard, I think, will be in the same lane. (17:46): And if you look at a Pershing or an LPL or Raymond James, it’s a little bit different because they don’t have their own channels in the same way that Schwab or Fidelity do. So certainly if you’re BNY Mellon in particular, which is a straight B2B custodian, this is a clear point of differentiation for Vanguard, Altruist and certainly versus the other custodians. Next one is Vanguard has said that Altruist will remain a standalone business. The brand will stay intact, the management team, et cetera. But in fairness, every acquirer says versions of the same thing. The real test is let’s wait two years, three years and see how converging roles or similar roles across the firm start to converge into one, and over time will they more Altruist brand and human capital into one structure. (18:36): Right now we don’t know, but I’m always a bit skeptical with acquisitions that you have the honeymoon period, takes time for the deals to close, and then what happens a couple of years down the line? Either as there’s new executives in charge, there’s turnover, or just there’s certain synergies that can be had, and the best way to do it is by combining operations and the like. (18:56): The next risk, I think it might sound a little bit mundane, but it’s culture and speed. Vanguard based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Altruist in LA, very different cultures. Altruist as a fintech company has been superfast to market, building, breaking things, innovating. And Vanguard, I think they’ve been extremely innovative on pricing, on product development, but I’ve never heard amazing reviews about Vanguard’s technology. So does this convergence of cultures create an issue? Does it create more bureaucracy for Altruist trying to build stuff? Is there a cultural mismatch when it comes to speed of market and innovation? And I think the last thing to keep in mind or to watch is the talent drainage at Altruist post-closing. Yes, I was a FinTech company and custodian offering equity, lots of upside for people that have taken this journey with them. Vanguard notoriously is the opposite. They don’t offer equity to anyone and they offer their employees high base salaries and you have a culture of longevity within the firm. (20:00): So after the lockup period is done for, or the earn out period is done for any Altruist equity owners and many of their employees, does that cause some talent drainage where folks want to go onto the next big thing, think what will happen to all the amazing SpaceX employees a year from now when their IPO lockups are done? Does that lead them to another opportunity? All these are questions I don’t know, but trying to play devil’s advocate. I think the biggest potential negative is just the Vanguard advice business as a competitor, a conflict to RIA custody. Let me give you a couple of predictions before we wrap here. I think Schwab and Fidelity will respond fast, whether it’s on the AI front or because the pressure is really on. I don’t know, maybe the $5 million referral minimum that Schwab just announced, maybe that sunsets after a period of time. I have no idea. (20:53): I’m also excited to see, we’ll call it the tech face off between Altruist and Robinhood. Robinhood acquired TradePMR, which is on the Wells Fargo First Clearing platform and is in the process of launching an RIA custodian themselves. So now you have, I think, two pretty incredible tech-forward custodians really trying to gain market share, so that will be fun to watch. Could there be a threat in the RIA platform space? So RIA platforms meaning RIAs, we call them supportive versions of independence, where advisors can plug into, they get technology, compliance, operations, et cetera, and still own their business. Given the end-to-end tech stack that Altruist boasts, and they’ve also been in development of their own corporate RIA, does that become that much more of a competitive feature that could possibly become a solution in and of itself that takes a dent out of these RIA platforms playbook? (21:45): I don’t know, but I think it’s possible. Altruist Hazel AI, does that push even well beyond custody? There’s a ton of AI and fintechs popping up around the industry. Hazel has certainly taken a lot of headlines and attention. With Vanguard behind it now, does that push the price lower? Does it help their distribution? Maybe you picture this, if you have a Vanguard-owned product sitting in the daily workflow of a competitor’s advisors, so let’s say you’re a Morgan Stanley, you’re a Schwab advisor, et cetera, do you now have a Vanguard-owned product in Hazel as part of your workflow or your fintech stack? Could be interesting. I will call a referral channel for Vanguard or Altruist, we’ll say within the next year or two. I think it would be crazy if that didn’t happen and that will be a massive disruptor. And finally, my prediction is more breakaways landing in Altruist. They’ve started to crack that door, but now with the powerful brand and reputation behind them, the sky’s probably the limit. (22:44): So in closing, a guy, Jason Wenk, started a company in 2018 in Los Angeles because he thought independent advisors deserve better software at a lower price. Eight years later, one of the most respected financial institutions in the world paid $4 billion for it, and the reason is he was right in that bet. There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before. It’s a consistent theme across the industry. So nothing changes tomorrow, deals take time, deals have a way of falling apart, but if you’re evaluating custodians, thinking about independence for the first time, wondering whether your current partner is going to keep earning your business, today is a good day to reopen that question. And if you’re an advisor, I think cheer this on and be excited. (23:42): And as a industry participant, I am very excited to see how this deal takes hold and how this pushes the rest of the industry to innovate and continue to be better. So that’s it for today. Thank you for hearing my ramblings, and I’ll see you next time. Mindy Diamond (24:02): As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibilities 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.   Vanguard Acquires Altruist: What It Means for RIAs, Custody & Breakaway Advisors With Louis Diamond Louis Diamond (00:06): Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is a special rapid reaction industry update, Vanguard acquires Altruist, what it means for advisors in the industry. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is The Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond (00:28): 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. (01:21): 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. Louis Diamond (02:05): Funny how the biggest news in the business almost never comes from the firms everyone is watching. On Wednesday, August 26th, 2026, Vanguard announced its acquiring Altruist. If you asked me a year ago to name the company most likely to buy an RIA custodian, Vanguard would not have been near the top of my list. Vanguard was in the RIA custody business once. They left in 2003 and handed roughly $120 billion of advisor assets to TD Ameritrade on the way out. 23 years later, they’re buying their way back in, reported $4 billion or more. So let’s talk about what happened, why it matters, and where I think it goes from here. (02:48): What happened? On August 26th, 2026, a definitive agreement was announced out of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. A deal is closing later this year where Vanguard is acquiring Altruist, the relative upstart RIA custodian. The price, an undisclosed number, but a reported $4 billion, some outlets reporting $4.6 billion or more. Either way, more than double their last private market valuation at the end of April 2025. Another element is Altruist is staying as a standalone. They’ll keep their brand, CEO, management team, and operate the same model just as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard. Altruist in one breath, for those unaware, was a custodian and fintech company founded in 2018 by Jason Wenk. They became a self-clearing custodian, third largest as far as number of advisors served, north of 6,000 advisors, and had a reputation for serving smaller or upstart advisors, but recently started getting into more of the larger market breakaway space. (03:53): One estimate I’ve seen peg’s Altruist market share of RIA custody at around 6%, but you compare that to about three quarters of the market for Schwab and Fidelity combined. So a relatively small player, but a rapidly emerging player and threat in US RIA custody. This is not the first time Vanguard has been involved with Altruist. They reportedly were an early investor in Altruist back in 2020 and former Vanguard CEO, Bill McNabb, has been on the board of Altruist, so a lot of history between the firms. Let’s get into now why I think this is interesting for the industry as a whole. In my view, custody has never really been all that competitive, especially since TD Ameritrade sold to Schwab. You really had an oligopoly between Schwab and Fidelity. Sure, there’s a number of compelling, say more boutique custodians, whether Pershing Advisor Solutions, Goldman Sachs, which was another newer entrant to custody, LPL, Raymond James, First Clearing, and a number of others are also in the space, but it is a market that is dramatically dominated by the two largest players. (05:01): So I think this matters because you add an amazing venerable brand and reputation of Vanguard with this scrappy upstart custodian, and all of a sudden you can see a world where custody is one of the more competitive spaces in the industry. Altruist, in my view too, was one of the first credible challengers to the incumbent custodians in 20-ish years. Goldman has since picked up some decent market share and certainly they’re attractive for the segment of advisors. But Altruist with their tech-forward approach, low fees, and even just the way they went to market as an antagonist to Schwab and Fidelity, they’re a big deal and I think this just magnifies what they’re able to do. The gap though for Altruist was brand and reputation. Sure, they had amazing tech. No one ever has doubted that. Hazel AI, which they recently launched has been very well received. (05:55): Advisors I’ve worked with who have demoed the platform are incredibly impressed. The big Achilles heel though for Altruist has been my clients don’t know who Altruist is. Why would my clients put their millions of dollars of wealth with a self-clearing custodian that doesn’t have the same scale or reputation as the incumbent custodians? Well, that really goes away here. And at the end of the day, custody is really a trust business, but you’d have to think that a client would trust their assets held with Vanguard or with Altruist through Vanguard in a very similar way that they would trust assets held by Bank of New York Mellon or Charles Schwab or Fidelity Investments or Goldman Sachs. So to me, Vanguard acquiring Altruist solves that problem in one sentence, very simple. Why I think this makes sense for Vanguard? Salim Ramji, the CEO of Vanguard, has been saying since he arrived from BlackRock two years ago that only one in five Americans work with a fee-based financial advisor and that quality advice shouldn’t be a luxury good and this shortage is only going to get worse as advisors retire. (07:00): This is really him putting his money where his mouth is and really trying to make financial advice, human directed financial advice more accessible to everyday Americans and the upper echelons of wealth in this country. Vanguard as a company has over 50 million reported investors and over 12 trillion in assets. A lot of these people want Vanguard advice, but Vanguard hasn’t had the manpower or the capacity to deliver it itself. Buying Altruist over time can certainly solve that capacity gap and make it so that a human-based financial advisor or any of Vanguard’s internal platforms now have a greater ability to provide advice to Americans looking for financial advisors in the United States. I think this also means more distribution capability for Vanguard funds. Not that Vanguard has ever had a problem with distribution. They have a relatively small wholesaling force compared to other firms, but given their cost and reputation and performance, they’re really on pretty much every platform. (08:04): Most advisors have some clients that are invested into Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs, but this I think just gives them a greater ability to distribute Vanguard products, probably in a similar way to Goldman’s approach. When Goldman entered US RIA custody, in large part, they were doing it for distribution of different things. For Goldman, it was private markets and lending and other types of products. Vanguard is more ETFs and mutual funds, but Vanguard has also been pushing more into the private market space, so I can definitely see a world in which they can ratchet up the distribution of their products in a fairly cost-efficient way. I think to me, the most interesting thing about this marriage is the mission overlap is quite real. When Vanguard started, and to this day, their goal was to provide quality investment products at a fraction of the cost of the incumbents so that investing can be accessible to everyday Americans. (08:59): That’s exactly the verbiage that Jason Wenk and Altruist has used from the beginning, where they want to become a all-in-one hub or tech-enabled custodian so that an advisor, regardless of their size and a client regardless of their AUM, have the ability to get quality advice. I recently listened to a podcast called Acquired. We’ll link it in the show notes, but it’s a three-hour in-depth look into the building of Vanguard. And if you combine that with the podcast episode that I recorded with Jason Wenk, the CEO of Altruist, if you play them side by side, the parallels are eerily similar. So we’ll link both into the show notes, but I really think both of these firms were cut from the same cloth and really from the beginning, both have gone against the grain and tried to rattle incumbent players in the industry. So at least on paper, seems like a very good match. (09:51): Why does this deal make sense for Altruist? For one, for Jason Wenk and his leadership team, this has to be the outcome you drew up, maybe even better. Founding a new custodian in 2018, selling it in 2026, eight years later for over $4 billion, that’s a pretty incredible return on time for this team. They deserve it all and built something special and really entered into a space where no one wanted to venture just given the market share of the major incumbents, but good for them and has to feel good to pull off this type of sale. I think the big thing too is the buyer is the story. Vanguard as a company, it’s investor owned. They’re not private equity owned. They’re not VC backed like Altruist was. So Altruist can get off of the fundraising treadmill. They don’t have to worry about fund life or a five-year hold period or an eventual sale to a strategic. (10:42): Now they can really just focus on the business at hand, having one of the most well-capitalized companies in the world as their capital backer and owner. And every advisor on a PE-backed platform knows the question hanging over every relationship, who owns this next? That’s a question they won’t have to answer anymore at all, and they can really just focus now going forward. I think this also gives Altruist a fortress balance sheet and a ton of capital to keep pushing and developing their Hazel AI platform, which was launched in September 2025. Hazel’s an AI tax planning tool, kind of AI superpower that really has taken the industry by storm and has started to be sold as a standalone product to RIAs. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve sold it to over 1600 new RIAs just in the first month alone for $60 a seat per month, and that’s available to folks if they custody at Altruist or not. (11:36): So this, I think, just gives them an ability to distribute their fintech solutions and certainly develop their custody platform in a way that maybe was challenging or not as possible before. They can also take a longer term view instead of having to worry about they raised a series F, whatever comes after F and an eventual sale, investors wanting to get a return on capital, they can now focus on building over the long term, which has been Vanguard’s strategy all along. I think too, this will give Altruist the ability to invest in new capabilities that they didn’t have before, whether it’s lending or whether it’s more on the product side. It takes a lot to be a custodian. It seems like a relatively straightforward business just holding assets, but there’s a lot of products, solutions, really requirements that everyday investors and RIA clients have, and I think this will just ratchet up Altruist’s ability to close some of the capability gaps that they’ve had since they launched and they’re very transparent about those. (12:33): What I’m most excited about this, just coming from my vantage point in the industry, is why should an advisor care? To me, there’s five things that advisors should really take notice of with this acquisition. First one’s competition. Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win. Schwab and Fidelity have fought Vanguard in the asset management space for decades, and more recently in financial advice. Now you’re adding custody against a firm that doesn’t need to be profitable the next quarter, and all of a sudden we very much have an arms race and some competition is good for pricing, for service, for innovation, and I think this is going to be only positives for clients across the country, having another competitive option and keeping the incumbents really on their toes. Another reason, the breakaway shortlist has changed. Objection I always heard about Altruist was, “The tech is great, the AI seems cool, but how do I explain the name Altruist to a 68-year-old client who’s leaving Merrill or UBS or Morgan Stanley?” (13:42): While someone may still get some objections because Vanguard may not have the same brand cache as Goldman Sachs or UBS Private Wealth or Merrill Private Wealth, that objection got a lot weaker today. Really, it’s tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off. It’s a genuinely different offer in the market than it was before. Third, I think this is one that hasn’t been talked about much, but should be watched closely, potential for referrals. Schwab confirmed last week that it was taking the SAN or the Schwab Advisor Network client referral minimum from two million to five million. For anyone not aware, referrals from the retail branches of Schwab and Fidelity are one of the major organic growth funnels for many of the top RIAs in this country and have driven valuations to billions and billions of dollars for firms that are in this program. (14:36): I really do see this as being a potential new massive referral opportunity of Vanguard existing clients and customers to Altruist custody to RIAs at a time when Schwab is trying to keep more of those referrals from themselves, which is a very savvy strategy, but at the same time, probably creates a bit of an opening for Altruist and Vanguard to become a really good referral hub for clients, which is a major draw for signing up new RIAs as clients, for breakaway advisors, et cetera. (15:07): So more details need to come there. We don’t even know if they’re starting a referral channel, but I have to imagine that’s high in the punch list and will be a very compelling offering in the marketplace. Yeah, think about it. Vanguard is 50 million investors and a CEO who said multiple times that they don’t have enough advisors or humans to deliver this advice. So perfect. You now have a massive array of RIAs and more and more coming to the table who offer that advice and being able to still serve them, still keep the assets in-house, but do it in a way where Vanguard doesn’t have to scale up their advisor force. They now have advisors to refer to. Fourth is pricing. I think the Vanguard effect is going to be real here. When Vanguard started, and even to this day, they’ve been the one who’ve pushed down the expense ratio on mutual funds and ETFs. (15:56): It’s been a massive benefit to investors across this country. It’s been Altruist’s playbook all along too, more focused on the advisor, so offering amazing tech and a custody platform for virtually no cost to an advisor. So I would say whatever you’re paying for technology, for custody, and really anything else that Altruist and Vanguard might touch, I would expect it to go down potentially and just have more pressures on the incumbent firms to really sharpen their pencil or to get more creative on pricing and innovation. I think that the fifth thing to keep in mind is Schwab has long used its scale and positioning in the market to best competitors, whether it was going to $0 on tickets for equities and ETFs, et cetera, a number of years ago or a number of other strategies they’ve taken. Now you have a firm that has similar scale as Schwab, a reputation for playing the long game and being comfortable making less money in the process. (16:54): So again, massive benefit to the advisors to have another major player driving down costs and increasing innovation in the space. But this is not all positives. As with anything, there’s the good and the bad, and also some open questions. The biggest, I think, downside or potential thing to watch here, and certainly if you are a BDO at a custodian, this is the line you’re using, “Vanguard has its own advice business, personal advisor, digital advisor, and a CEO who stated that his goal is that an advisor is in every investor’s pocket.” So now you have the custodian that’s holding your client’s assets also running one of the largest advice operations in the country. We’ve heard this concern in the past about Schwab or Fidelity where you have RA custody and then these firms have massive retail distribution networks. So certainly Vanguard, I think, will be in the same lane. (17:46): And if you look at a Pershing or an LPL or Raymond James, it’s a little bit different because they don’t have their own channels in the same way that Schwab or Fidelity do. So certainly if you’re BNY Mellon in particular, which is a straight B2B custodian, this is a clear point of differentiation for Vanguard, Altruist and certainly versus the other custodians. Next one is Vanguard has said that Altruist will remain a standalone business. The brand will stay intact, the management team, et cetera. But in fairness, every acquirer says versions of the same thing. The real test is let’s wait two years, three years and see how converging roles or similar roles across the firm start to converge into one, and over time will they more Altruist brand and human capital into one structure. (18:36): Right now we don’t know, but I’m always a bit skeptical with acquisitions that you have the honeymoon period, takes time for the deals to close, and then what happens a couple of years down the line? Either as there’s new executives in charge, there’s turnover, or just there’s certain synergies that can be had, and the best way to do it is by combining operations and the like. (18:56): The next risk, I think it might sound a little bit mundane, but it’s culture and speed. Vanguard based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Altruist in LA, very different cultures. Altruist as a fintech company has been superfast to market, building, breaking things, innovating. And Vanguard, I think they’ve been extremely innovative on pricing, on product development, but I’ve never heard amazing reviews about Vanguard’s technology. So does this convergence of cultures create an issue? Does it create more bureaucracy for Altruist trying to build stuff? Is there a cultural mismatch when it comes to speed of market and innovation? And I think the last thing to keep in mind or to watch is the talent drainage at Altruist post-closing. Yes, I was a FinTech company and custodian offering equity, lots of upside for people that have taken this journey with them. Vanguard notoriously is the opposite. They don’t offer equity to anyone and they offer their employees high base salaries and you have a culture of longevity within the firm. (20:00): So after the lockup period is done for, or the earn out period is done for any Altruist equity owners and many of their employees, does that cause some talent drainage where folks want to go onto the next big thing, think what will happen to all the amazing SpaceX employees a year from now when their IPO lockups are done? Does that lead them to another opportunity? All these are questions I don’t know, but trying to play devil’s advocate. I think the biggest potential negative is just the Vanguard advice business as a competitor, a conflict to RIA custody. Let me give you a couple of predictions before we wrap here. I think Schwab and Fidelity will respond fast, whether it’s on the AI front or because the pressure is really on. I don’t know, maybe the $5 million referral minimum that Schwab just announced, maybe that sunsets after a period of time. I have no idea. (20:53): I’m also excited to see, we’ll call it the tech face off between Altruist and Robinhood. Robinhood acquired TradePMR, which is on the Wells Fargo First Clearing platform and is in the process of launching an RIA custodian themselves. So now you have, I think, two pretty incredible tech-forward custodians really trying to gain market share, so that will be fun to watch. Could there be a threat in the RIA platform space? So RIA platforms meaning RIAs, we call them supportive versions of independence, where advisors can plug into, they get technology, compliance, operations, et cetera, and still own their business. Given the end-to-end tech stack that Altruist boasts, and they’ve also been in development of their own corporate RIA, does that become that much more of a competitive feature that could possibly become a solution in and of itself that takes a dent out of these RIA platforms playbook? (21:45): I don’t know, but I think it’s possible. Altruist Hazel AI, does that push even well beyond custody? There’s a ton of AI and fintechs popping up around the industry. Hazel has certainly taken a lot of headlines and attention. With Vanguard behind it now, does that push the price lower? Does it help their distribution? Maybe you picture this, if you have a Vanguard-owned product sitting in the daily workflow of a competitor’s advisors, so let’s say you’re a Morgan Stanley, you’re a Schwab advisor, et cetera, do you now have a Vanguard-owned product in Hazel as part of your workflow or your fintech stack? Could be interesting. I will call a referral channel for Vanguard or Altruist, we’ll say within the next year or two. I think it would be crazy if that didn’t happen and that will be a massive disruptor. And finally, my prediction is more breakaways landing in Altruist. They’ve started to crack that door, but now with the powerful brand and reputation behind them, the sky’s probably the limit. (22:44): So in closing, a guy, Jason Wenk, started a company in 2018 in Los Angeles because he thought independent advisors deserve better software at a lower price. Eight years later, one of the most respected financial institutions in the world paid $4 billion for it, and the reason is he was right in that bet. There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before. It’s a consistent theme across the industry. So nothing changes tomorrow, deals take time, deals have a way of falling apart, but if you’re evaluating custodians, thinking about independence for the first time, wondering whether your current partner is going to keep earning your business, today is a good day to reopen that question. And if you’re an advisor, I think cheer this on and be excited. (23:42): And as a industry participant, I am very excited to see how this deal takes hold and how this pushes the rest of the industry to innovate and continue to be better. So that’s it for today. Thank you for hearing my ramblings, and I’ll see you next time. Mindy Diamond (24:02): As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibilities 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.  

GUnitedHealth shareholders sue company over ‘corporate governance failures on a historic scale' UBS fined record $125 million for money laundering violations$125 million civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) for willful violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the primary U.S. anti-money laundering law.FinCEN said the fine is the largest ever assessed against a broker-dealer for BSA violations.The settlement marks FinCEN's second enforcement action against UBS Financial Services, a subsidiary of the Swiss bank UBS. The firm had previously paid a $14.5 million penalty in December 2018 for similar failures, including inadequate monitoring of foreign currency wire transfers.Despite assurances to regulators that it would fix the underlying problems, the firm subsequently failed to monitor more than 50,000 foreign currency wires with a combined value exceeding $10 billion.SEC launches new enforcement unit aimed at accounting fraudHow??The unit will be housed within the SEC's Division of Enforcement and staffed by both attorneys and accountants with specialized skills related to financial reporting, accounting, and auditing in securities regulation, according to the announcement.The announcement is “a little surprising” given the SEC's current deregulatory focus under Chair Paul Atkins, Rebecca Fike, a partner in Reed Smith's regulatory and enforcement group, told CFO Dive.Andreessen Horowitz Focus of DOJ Probe Over Board DirectorsBIG DATA and AI BS‍ ‍Gwyneth Paltrow is rumored to be throwing a party for AI mogul Sam Altman. People don't love the opticsPaltrow played WeWork Rebekah NeumannAnthropic is embedding invisible watermarks in Claude text and images Young People Hate AI CEOs So Passionately That It's Almost Hard to BelieveCNBC survey asked over 1,000 US adults aged between 18 and 34Asked “who do you trust to act responsibly on AI?” the vast majority of participants said they “don't trust” any of the nine figures.Palantir's extremely controversial CEO Alex Karp scored the lowest, with 81 percent choosing “don't trust,” while Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella fared the best — albeit with a pitiful 35 percent “trust” score.Everyone else fell in between: 79 percent of respondents said they don't trust Peter Thiel, while a whopping 71, 70, and 69 percent said they “don't trust” Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman, respectivelyMeta, others lose appeal to drop thousands of social media addiction lawsuitsA U.S. Appeals Court [Judge Jacqueline Nguyen] said that thousands of lawsuits targeting Meta Platforms, ByteDance's TikTok and other social media outlets over claims that social media is harmful and addictive can proceed.The court also denied Meta's request to postpone a trial over allegations that they used data from children to keep them on its platforms.AI data center outrage is showing up everywhere from ads to electionsSpirit Flight Attendants Fight Google's Data Bid for AIThe flight attendants want assurance that their confidential information will be removed from the sale of the defunct airline's digital recordsCULTURE WARSThe 'MAGA Alternative to Amazon' Is Fighting for Survival After Nearly $160M in Losses and 99% Stock CrashPublicSquare's marketplace has struggled to grow despite political backing, prompting a costly shift to financial servicesDisney is suing the FCC in a departure from former CEO Bob Iger's strategy US firms that kept DEI policies despite ‘go woke, go broke' threats thrived Ellison Is Now Willing to Sell CNN to Save His $111 Billion DealE Solar Panels on Storage Units: Illinois Is Going All In on This No-Brainer First test flight of largest all-electric aircraft used just $5 of electricity Trump ordered to release billions in climate grants meant for Black communitiesa $2.8 billion program meant to help mitigate the harm from climate change and environmental issues in Black, low-income, and disadvantaged communities.Trump tried to curb clean energy. It's booming anywayClean energy additions will rise by a record 45 gigawatts this year, according to S&P Global Energy—equivalent to the average electricity demand of Turkey. The increase is roughly 25 percent higher than the record set in 2024.It Just Got Way Easier to Sue Fossil Fuel Companies Over Climate ChangeClimate attribution scienceA new peer-reviewed study published earlier this month in Earth's Future suggests that it is possible to demonstrate that “emissions from company X cause injury Y.”It also could potentially provide evidence so industry could be forced to answer for climate impacts.The new methodological framework has, for the first time, drawn a straight line from single corporate emitters like Exxon or Chevron, or even whole countries like the United States, to specific heatwaves and areas of extreme rainfall.By running over 150 simulations across 8 different climate models, the study's author, Christopher Callahan—an Earth systems scientist and assistant professor at Indiana University's O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs—built a statistical model to figure out the relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the odds of extreme heat or rain. He then used real emissions data to calculate the extent to which specific fossil fuel emitters increased the risk of extreme weather.SPEED ROUND‍ ‍DuckDuckGo Is Selling Anti Pervert Glasses That Contain Zero AI, Cameras, or Even Electronics Whatsoever Jason Kelce Wants Fans to 'Pee on Computers' to Protest AI Water Use: 'We Want Your Pee' Cards Against Humanity Unveils 'Sad Little Bitch' Elon Musk Monument Near Texas StarbaseFrance bans unsolicited telemarketing calls--$87,000 fine per call I'm the CEO of Siemens. I reply to most emails with 2-letter responses and don't have recurring meetingsScientists Genetically Engineer High-Protein LettuceGen Z is bringing pen and paper back to the workplaceArianna Huffington says even high-flying CEOs are unhappy and feel stuck in their multimillion-dollar jobs: ‘It's a trap'Bank of America is splashing out $250 million a year on weight loss drugs for its staff: ‘We see a great impact on employees,' CEO says‘We see a great impact on employees,' CEO saysExcuse me? Body shamer.

This week, Jack Sharry talks with Mike Perry, Head of Client Solutions and Wealth Management at Guardian Life. With leadership experience spanning Guardian, Nuveen, UBS, and Merrill Lynch, Mike has spent his career helping firms evolve their wealth management strategies while expanding access to comprehensive financial planning. Jack and Mike discuss Guardian's protection-first philosophy and why holistic planning begins long before retirement. They explore the firm's “living balance sheet” framework, the growing importance of strategic partnerships, Guardian's investment in Avantos, and why AI is best viewed as a tool that helps advisors deepen client relationships—not replace them. In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (02:24) - Mike's path to Guardian Life  (05:09) - The evolution of separately managed accounts (07:38) - Guardian's protection-first planning philosophy  (11:20) - The “living balance sheet” approach to holistic advice  (13:28) -  Why Guardian rebranded Park Avenue Wealth Management  (16:23) - Why Guardian invested in Avantos  (18:48) - AI as a force multiplier for advisors (20:51) - Why strategic partnerships accelerate innovation  (23:01) - Mike's key takeaways (27:51) - Mike's interest outside of work Quotes "What clients need is trusted advice from an advisor. So, the real engagement, where trust gets built, and problems are solved, is in that back-and-forth planning discussion with the end client." ~ Mike Perry "Our opportunity here is protection first, because we're engaging clients earlier in their lives and marrying it with a much broader set of questions and client engagement across all of our planning." ~ Mike Perry "Innovation has to be a constant thing you focus on, because across financial services, one day you may provide something at less cost, but it's immediately replicated. So you need to keep doing that." ~ Mike Perry Links  Mike Perry on LinkedIn Guardian Life Nuveen UBS Merrill Lynch eMoney Advisor Park Avenue Wealth Management Avantos Vanguard  BlackRock Connect with our hosts LifeYield Jack Sharry on LinkedIn Jack Sharry on Twitter Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

After years of being the market's perennial underdog, Europe is finally having a moment. In this episode Moz Afzal sits down with Gerry Fowler, Head of European Equity Strategy at UBS, to explore why sentiment on European equities has shifted and why this upgrade in tone looks structurally different from false dawns of the past.Gerry walks through the bottom-up story reshaping the market – from AI capex “late cycle joiners” in cables, turbines and semis equipment to a broadening industrial recovery fueled by German fiscal stimulus. The pair also discuss why Spain and Italy have outperformed and the bifurcated outlook for European autos.Our host, Moz Afzal:https://bit.ly/31XbkTROur guest:Gerry Fowler, Head of European Equity Strategy at UBShttps://bit.ly/3WUjyItEFG:https://www.efginternational.com/Important disclaimersThe value of investments and the income derived from them can fall as well as rise, and past performance is no indicator of future performance. Investment products may be subject to investment risks involving, but not limited to, possible loss of all or part of the principal invested. This document does not constitute and shall not be construed as a prospectus, advertisement, public offering or placement of, nor a recommendation to buy, sell, hold or solicit, any investment, security, other financial instrument or other product or service. It is not intended to be a final representation of the terms and conditions of any investment, security, other financial instrument or other product or service. This document is for general information only and is not intended as investment advice or any other specific recommendation as to any particular course of action or inaction. The information in this document does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of the recipient. You should seek your own professional advice suitable to your particular circumstances prior to making any investment or if you are in doubt as to the information in this document.Although information in this document has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, no member of the EFG group represents or warrants its accuracy, and such information may be incomplete or condensed. Any opinions in this document are subject to change without notice. This document may contain personal opinions which do not necessarily reflect the position of any member of the EFG group. To the fullest extent permissible by law, no member of the EFG group shall be responsible for the consequences of any errors or omissions herein, or reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein, and each member of the EFG group expressly disclaims any liability, including (without limitation) liability for incidental or consequential damages, arising from the same or resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the recipient in reliance on this document.The availability of this document in any jurisdiction or country may be contrary to local law or regulation and persons who come into possession of this document should inform themselves of and observe any restrictions. This document may not be reproduced, disclosed or distributed (in whole or in part) to any other person without prior written permission from an authorised member of the EFG group.This document has been produced by EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited for use by the EFG group and the worldwide subsidiaries and affiliates within the EFG group. EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority, registered no.7389746. Registered address: EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited, 116 Park Street, London W1K 6AP, United Kingdom, telephone +44 (0)207 491 9111.Independent Asset Managers: in case this document is provided to Independent Asset Managers (“IAMs“), it is strictly forbidden to be reproduced, disclosed or distributed (in whole or in part) by IAMs and made available to their clients and/or third parties. By receiving this document IAMs confirm that they will need to make their own decisions/judgements about how to proceed and it is the responsibility of IAMs to ensure that the information provided is in line with their own clients' circumstances with regard to any investment, legal, regulatory, tax or other consequences. No liability is accepted by EFG for any damages, losses or costs (whether direct, indirect or consequential) that may arise from any use of this document by the IAMs, their clients or any third parties.If you have received this document from any affiliate or branch referred to below, please note the following:Australia: This document has been prepared and issued by EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited, a private limited company with registered number 7389746 and with its registered office address at 116 Park Street, London W1K 6AP (telephone number +44 (0)207 491 9111). EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited is regulated and authorized by the Financial Conduct Authority No. 536771. EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence in respect of the financial services it provides to wholesale clients in Australia and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (FCA Registration No. 536771) under the laws of the United Kingdom which differ from Australian laws.ASIC Class Order CO03/1099EFG Asset Management (UK) Limited notifies you that it is relying on the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) Class Order CO03/1099 (Class Order) exemption (as extended in operation by ASIC Corporations (Repeal and Transitional Instrument 2016/396) for UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulated firms which exempts it from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) in respect of the financial services we provide to you.The financial services that we provide to you are regulated by the FCA under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United Kingdom which are different to Australia. Consequently any offer or other documentation that you receive from us in the course of us providing financial services to you will be prepared in accordance with those laws and regulatory requirements. The UK regulatory requirements refer to legislation, rules enacted pursuant to the legislation and any other relevant policies or documents issued by the FCA.Your Status as a Wholesale ClientIn order that we may provide financial services to you, and for us to comply with the Class Order, you must be a ‘wholesale client' within the meaning given by section 761G of the Corporations Act. Accordingly, by accepting any documentation from us prior to the commencement of or in the course of us providing financial services to you, you:• warrant to us that you are a ‘wholesale client';• agree to provide such information or evidence that we may request from time to time to confirm your status as a wholesale client;• agree that we may cease providing financial services to you if you are no longer a wholesale client or do not provide us with information or evidence satisfactory to us to confirm your status as a wholesale client; and• agree to notify us in writing within5 business days if you cease to be a ‘wholesale client' for the purposes of the financial services that we provide to you.Bahamas: EFG Bank & Trust (Bahamas) Ltd. is licensed by the Securities Commission of the Bahamas pursuant to the Securities Industry Act, 2011 and Securities Industry Regulations, 2012 and is authorised to conduct securities business in and from The Bahamas including dealing in secu...

What happens when the biggest threat to a business, family, or leadership team isn't strategy, money, or intelligence, but the things nobody is willing to say?On this episode of I Am Refocused Radio, Shemaiah Reed sits down with René Sonneveld, a former Fortune 500 executive turned ICF Master Certified Coach, author, and trusted advisor to executives, enterprise families, boards, and high performers around the world. René's career has taken him from international tax law and global banking to senior leadership roles with organizations including UBS, Deutsche Bank, and Citibank, where he worked at the intersection of family business, governance, wealth, and generational legacy.René shares what years inside boardrooms and family enterprises taught him about the human side of leadership: unspoken tension, trust, succession, identity, emotional dynamics, difficult conversations, and the decisions that determine whether a legacy grows or fractures.We also explore ideas from his book The Elephant in the Family Room, which examines the emotional forces operating beneath the surface of family businesses, along with his forthcoming book Invisible Capital: Building the Family Enterprise of Tomorrow, scheduled for October 2026.This conversation goes beyond business strategy. It's about developing the courage to address what everyone sees but no one wants to discuss, becoming a stronger leader, and building something that can outlive you.Because sometimes the most important conversation in the room is the one nobody is having.https://www.renesonneveld.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/i-am-refocused-radio--2671113/support.Subscribe now at YouTube.com/@RefocusedNetworkThank you for your time. 

Man Group's Kristina Hooper breaks down Kevin Warsh's closely watched moment and what the shifting policy outlook means for stocks. The episode also examines one of the more surprising turns in the AI trade: Ryan Levine, Senior Utilities Analyst at Citi, explains what happened to the expected AI boost for utilities and whether surging data center power demand can still translate into gains for the sector. Consumer trends come into focus as Ike Boruchow of Wells Fargo examines what a potentially warm winter could mean for retailers and apparel companies. Jonathan Boyar makes the case for value investing and identifies opportunities away from the market's most crowded trades. Nvidia takes center stage ahead of earnings later this week. Tim Arcuri of UBS previews the report and outlines the key signals to watch across AI demand, spending and the semiconductor ecosystem. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über Broadcoms Schuldenplan, Georgs geniale Gas-Idee und die historischen Auswüchse am Anleihemarkt. Außerdem geht es um Walmart, Advance Auto Parts, AutoZone, O'Reilly Automotive, Home Depot, Lowe's, TJX Companies, Coty, JD Sports Fashion, Adidas, Puma, Fresenius, Fresenius Medical Care, Sartorius, UBS, Tonies, Korea Gas Corporation, Vontobel, Alibaba, Deere, Broadcom, Apollo Global Management, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, TSMC, Meta Platforms, Samsung Electronics, ASML, SK Hynix, Deutsche Börse, Moderna, BioNTech, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Mini Future Long auf den TTF-Gaspreis von Vontobel, (WKN: VY80G4), Vanguard FTSE Global All-Cap ETF thesaurierend (WKN: A42B1M), Vanguard FTSE Global All-Cap ETF ausschüttend (WKN: A42B1N), Vanguard FTSE Global Small-Cap ETF thesaurierend (WKN: A42B1P), Vanguard FTSE Global Small-Cap ETF ausschüttend (WKN: A42B1Q), Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-U.S. UCITS ETF thesaurierend (WKN: A42B1R), Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-U.S. ETF ausschüttend (WKN: A42B1S), SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI ETF (WKN: A1JJTD), Vanguard ESG Global All Cap ETF thesaurierend (WKN: A2QL8U), Vanguard FTSE All-World ETF thesaurierend (WKN: A2PKXG), Vanguard FTSE All-World ETF ausschüttend (WKN: A1JX52). Am 2. Oktober findet unser „Alles auf Aktien“-Summit in Berlin statt. Mit dem Code „AAAFRIENDS“ sparst du 50 Prozent auf dein Ticket – aber nur unter folgendem Link: https://veranstaltung.businessinsider.de/event/financesummit26/summary?rp=c6dc55d6-6f4f-4fb4-b75f-3f3501d84859 Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Holt euch jetzt den exklusiven NordVPN-Deal inkl. 4 Bonusmonaten mit dem Code Allesaufaktien oder unter https://nordvpn.com/allesaufaktien Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Hier könnt ihr den AAA-Newsletter abonnieren: https://www.welt.de/newsletter/article232797673/Alles-auf-Aktien-Der-taegliche-Boersen-Newsletter-fuer-WELTplus-Abonnenten.html Und – ganz neu: AAA gibt es jetzt auch auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alles_auf_aktien/ Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Anzeige: Eight Sleep: Der Pod 5 reguliert die Temperatur im Bett automatisch, trackt Schlaf- und Gesundheitswerte ohne Wearable und kann so zu besserem Schlaf beitragen. Mit dem Code ALLESAUFAKTIEN erhaltet ihr auf https://www.eightsleep.com/allesaufaktien bis zu 350 Euro Rabatt. Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Markets turn skittish as rising Treasury yields and oil prices challenge investors' willingness to chase stocks near record highs. Priya Misra of JPMorgan Asset Management breaks down the bond market selloff and what's driving the move. Liz Ann Sonders, Chief Investment Strategist at Charles Schwab, explains what higher yields mean for equities and whether the market can continue to climb. Technician Jonathan Krinsky of BTIG argues it may be time to pare back risk. He breaks down the technical picture and weighs opportunities in financials and energy as market leadership shifts. Plus, Toll Brothers earnings with John Lovallo of UBS. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bessent just put a 60-day clock on the CLARITY Act before the September 15 vote — and while the banking lobby runs a full-court press, the crypto industry has gone silent. We break down this week's meetings, Galaxy's cut odds, why the SEC meeting may be a nothing burger, plus Saylor's MSCI response, UBS loading up on IBIT, and Tom Lee's latest.~This episode is sponsored by iTrust Capital~iTrustCapital | Get $100 Funding Reward + No Monthly Fees when you sign up using our custom link! ➜ https://bit.ly/iTrustPaul00:10 Sponsor: iTrust Capital00:50 Wednesday02:20 Matt Hougan on winners and losers04:00 Wheres Lummis?04:15 Bessent: 60 days05:00 ABA Bankers propaganda06:15 Matt Hougan: CLARITY will never die and never pass07:30 Saylor sells MSTR08:00 Strategy responds to MCSI08:45 Matt Hougan: Biggest narratives are not on twitter10:30 UBS loads up IBIT11:00 Tom Lee nearing 5%12:00 Things to watch this week~Banks Attack, Crypto SNOOZES?

Second Quarter Earnings Give Me Some Optimism  I call all my clients on their yearly anniversary with our firm to have a discussion about their past performance and where I see their portfolio going over the next six to 12 months. I'm very pleased to report that I expected a more subdued performance in 2026 than what we're experiencing so far. However, stronger-than-expected returns can also make projecting what comes next a little more difficult. Even with the nice year-to-date returns we've seen, I'm still telling my clients that I believe we can add a little bit more to their portfolios by December 31 of this year.  So, what is giving me this optimism?  For one, many of the companies in our portfolios have not become overpriced. On top of that, second-quarter earnings have come in rather strong, and the guidance from many of the stocks we own has also been positive going forward.  When looking at the overall market, some people may think it's simply AI and technology companies that are doing well. That is not the case. Recent numbers show that during the second-quarter earnings season, 86% of companies have beaten their earnings estimates. That is well above the recent average of 78%.  Historically, when good times seem to last too long, analysts often begin cutting their earnings estimates. But that doesn't appear to be happening right now. In fact, earnings estimates for the next quarter have actually risen by 0.3%.  There are certainly some concerns. The consumer has been dipping into savings to keep spending going, and the recent jobs market has been somewhat lackluster. However, the vast majority of people still have jobs, and at this point, there doesn't appear to be any sign of widespread layoffs in the near future.  With all that said, I think the green light is still on for investors to continue putting money to work. But, as always, I believe investors need to be very cautious about overpaying for public companies that are being bought based more on emotion and excitement than strong financial fundamentals.  For me, that remains one of the most important things to watch as we move through the rest of 2026. Strong earnings are encouraging, but valuation still matters.     The AI boom is getting increasingly dependent on financing  There is no question that AI is creating enormous demand for computing power, data centers and semiconductors. But the latest move from Nvidia and Wall Street raises an important question: How much of this growth is being driven by genuine economic demand, and how much is being enabled by increasingly creative financing?  Jensen Huang has been pushing the idea that AI data centers are essentially a new class of infrastructure or what Nvidia calls “AI factories.” Now Nvidia has partnered with some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR, to create financing platforms that could provide more than $500 billion of capital for AI infrastructure.  On the surface, this makes a lot of sense. AI companies need enormous amounts of capital to build data centers and purchase Nvidia's chips, while investors are looking for ways to participate in the AI boom.  But there is a risk that deserves much more attention: circular financing.  If Nvidia helps finance the companies that buy Nvidia's products, and those purchases generate revenue for Nvidia, which in turn increases Nvidia's valuation and ability to support additional financing, the system can begin to reinforce itself.  That doesn't automatically make the investments bad. But it does make it more difficult to determine how much of the demand is truly coming from customers who can generate sufficient returns on the infrastructure they are building.  And that leads to the bigger question: Can the economy actually absorb this level of investment? We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars going toward data centers, power generation, networking equipment and AI chips. The capital is available, but ultimately the infrastructure has to generate enough economic output and cash flow to justify the investment. That is where I become more cautious.  Another concern is details were extremely light as we don't know who the borrowers will be, what the rates will look like, where facilities will be built, and when this is supposed to start.  Intel's announcement is another interesting piece of the puzzle. Intel originally announced a $15 billion stock offering, but quickly increased it to approximately $20 billion, selling shares at $95 each. The proceeds are earmarked for general corporate purposes, including capital expenditures and working capital.  There is also an interesting irony here. We are increasingly financing AI infrastructure as though these assets will have long, productive lives. But AI technology is improving incredibly quickly.  Today's most advanced GPU, server or data center configuration can become obsolete much faster than traditional infrastructure. A power plant or building might remain useful for decades. A generation of AI computing equipment may have a much shorter economic life. That creates a unique risk.  What happens if we finance billions of dollars of AI infrastructure over 10 or 15 years, but the technology improves so rapidly that the equipment becomes economically obsolete much sooner?  The financing doesn't disappear just because the technology does.  I am not saying that the technology isn't transformative. I believe AI could absolutely create enormous economic value, but economic value and investment returns are two very different things.  The biggest question for investors over the next several years may not be whether AI works. It may be whether the amount of capital being committed to AI infrastructure can ultimately earn an adequate return. When companies, investors and lenders all believe they need to keep spending because everyone else is spending, that is when I start paying very close attention to the financing structure. The technology may be revolutionary, but the financial engineering surrounding it deserves just as much scrutiny.    Will Investors Really Be Patient Holding Their SpaceX Stock?  The common advice I hear when it comes to SpaceX is simple: “Don't worry about it. Just hold the shares, don't look at them, and you'll be glad you did 10 years from now.”  It's certainly possible that this advice will prove to be correct. But I question whether human emotions can really handle that kind of long-term commitment when it comes to an investment as volatile and intangible as a stock like this.  Think about everything that can happen over the next 10 years. There will be negative news, disappointing developments, changing expectations and plenty of commentary that investors simply won't be able to ignore.  And there's another issue: a significant amount of additional stock could become available over the coming months. Even after the recent unlock of just over 911 million shares on August 6, which was greater than the 639 million shares sold in the IPO, there is still a substantial amount of potential supply coming to the market.  On August 20, another 319 million shares could become available, followed by roughly 700 million shares in September and another 700 million or so in October. In November, an additional 28% of shares will become available, and by December, all remaining shares held by standard pre-IPO investors and employees will be eligible for release.  The final major unlock comes from Elon Musk's stake in June 2027.  That is a tremendous amount of potential supply entering the market in a relatively short period of time, and it raises an important question: Will investors have enough conviction to keep holding if the increased supply puts significant pressure on the stock?  The idea of investing alongside Elon Musk is certainly attractive, especially when you consider his ambitious vision for SpaceX from building data centers in space to eventually manufacturing on Mars. But ambitious visions don't necessarily make it easy to hold a stock through extreme volatility.  We're already seeing what can happen. Some investors appear to have panicked and sold shares for as little as $105 after the stock had climbed as high as $225.  It's easy to say you'll stay the course when the stock is going up. It's a completely different experience when you watch it fall every day and start asking yourself: What if this isn't going to work? What if SpaceX doesn't look nearly as attractive 10 years from now?  I believe the investors who have already sold may be a preview of what we could see over the next nine months. I'm not convinced there are enough investors willing to look 10 years into the future and maintain that level of conviction while hundreds of millions of additional shares are released.  So, here's the question: Can you honestly say you would hold SpaceX no matter what, even if the stock fell to $60 or $70 a share and stayed there for an extended period? I'd love to hear what you think. How much patience do you really have with an investment like SpaceX?    Retail sales look better than the headline suggests  The headlines are focused on the 0.6% month-over-month decline in retail sales in July, the first monthly decline in nine months and the largest drop since May 2025.  That sounds concerning, but there are some important factors behind the monthly decline that deserve attention. One of the biggest was nonstore retailers, which fell 2.2% from June. That category is heavily influenced by online shopping, and the decline appears to be largely a timing issue related to Amazon Prime Day.  Amazon moved Prime Day from July into June this year, creating a significant boost to June online sales and, consequently, a tougher comparison for July. U.S. consumers increased spending 9.3% year over year to roughly $26.4 billion online during the June 23–26 Prime Day period, and other retailers such as Walmart and Target also moved their promotional events earlier to compete. So, some of the July weakness is really a shift in spending between two months, rather than consumers suddenly deciding to stop spending.  Gas stations were another contributor.  Now look beyond the monthly number. Retail sales were still up 5.0% year over year in July. Even excluding gas stations which saw a 16.2% increase due to higher gas prices, sales were up approximately 4.2% year over year. That's a very different picture from the one you get by simply looking at the -0.6% headline.  There are also some areas showing impressive strength. Food services and drinking places saw sales climb 5% and even with the monthly decline in nonstore retailers, the annual increase was still quite impressive at 7.7%. Building material and garden equipment & supplies dealers are particularly interesting. This category remains strong, suggesting consumers are continuing to spend money improving and maintaining their homes. This led to an annual increase of 6.7%. There could be more room for the category to grow based on a recent UBS housing survey, which found that 34% of respondents intend to buy a home during the next 12 months, compared with a historical average of 30%. Even more interestingly, 61% expect to begin a repair or remodeling project, slightly above the historical average of 59%.  That's important because the housing market doesn't only generate economic activity when someone buys a house. Existing homeowners spending money on renovations, repairs, landscaping and other improvements can also provide a meaningful economic boost.  Ultimately, sales growth was spread throughout the report and furniture and home furnishing stores were the only major category that produced an annual decline as the group saw sales fall 1.2%. So, while I wouldn't dismiss the July retail report and the decline in the control group does suggest some moderation, I also don't think it's accurate to look at -0.6% and conclude that the consumer is suddenly falling apart. The consumer may be slowing, but the data doesn't yet suggest the consumer has stopped spending.    Inflation Is Cooling, But Energy Is Muddying the Picture  The CPI report was better than the headline number might suggest, and I don't believe it gives the Federal Reserve a compelling reason to raise interest rates.  Headline CPI increased 3.4% year over year in July, down from 3.5% in June. More importantly, core CPI increased just 2.5% year over year, down from 2.6% in June.  The biggest contributor to the elevated headline number continues to be energy. Energy prices are up 14.7% from a year ago, including a massive 24.6% increase in gasoline prices. That's a significant increase and is keeping headline inflation well above the Fed's 2% target.  But here's the problem I have with using higher interest rates to combat this inflation: higher rates aren't going to produce more oil or lower gasoline prices.  If anything, rate hikes could create demand destruction. Higher borrowing costs make it more expensive for consumers to buy homes and cars and for businesses to invest and expand. At a time when there are already concerns about economic growth and the labor market, I don't think weakening demand is the right prescription for an inflation problem being driven heavily by energy prices.  I'm also encouraged by what we're seeing in shelter inflation. Shelter increased 3.2% year over year, continuing its gradual improvement. However, because shelter is such a large component of CPI, 3.2% inflation is still putting meaningful upward pressure on core CPI.  One of the most interesting numbers in the report is airline fares, which were up 25.5% from a year ago. There is an important connection here to energy. Airlines are highly sensitive to fuel costs, so when energy prices rise dramatically, some of those costs eventually get passed along to consumers. There are certainly other factors influencing airfare, but it's another example of how higher energy prices can ripple through the economy.  The bottom line for me is pretty simple: 2.5% core inflation doesn't scare me. It's above the Fed's 2% target, but it's moving in the right direction. Meanwhile, some of the biggest sources of inflation are areas where monetary policy has limited ability to help. I would rather see the Fed remain patient and allow the economy to absorb these price pressures than raise rates and potentially create unnecessary demand destruction. Not every inflation problem can be solved by raising interest rates and I think this is becoming an increasingly important distinction for the Fed.    A new tax requirement could create another source of selling pressure for Crypto  There was an important change in the way the IRS tracks cryptocurrency transactions, and I think investors should pay attention to the potential impact on the crypto market.  Beginning with the 2025 tax year, crypto brokers are required to issue Form 1099-DA, which reports digital asset sales and exchanges directly to the IRS. For 2026 transactions, the reporting becomes even more detailed, including cost-basis information for covered assets.  The significance is that crypto is increasingly being treated more like traditional investments from a tax-reporting standpoint. The IRS will have much more information to compare against what investors report on their tax returns.  But there is another potential consequence that I don't think gets enough attention: the tax bill itself could create additional selling pressure.  Remember, you can owe taxes on a crypto gain even if you haven't converted all of your holdings into cash. Selling Bitcoin for dollars is taxable, but so can be exchanging one cryptocurrency for another.  That creates an interesting situation. Imagine someone bought Bitcoin several years ago at a much lower price and now has a large unrealized gain. If they realize gains during the year and don't have enough cash set aside to pay the resulting tax bill, they may be forced to sell additional crypto simply to raise the money needed to pay their taxes. That selling creates another taxable event and potentially another tax liability.  I'm not suggesting this will cause a major crypto selloff by itself. But it is another factor investors should consider when thinking about the supply and demand dynamics of the market. It's especially important to consider this information because it has been estimated that just 32% to 56% of U.S. taxpayers with crypto holdings report their transactions to the federal government and data suggests that a large number of taxpayers may be out of compliance.  While accounting for crypto transactions in the past can be complicated, the IRS doesn't count confusion as a reason for not paying taxes. With the increased reporting standards, we could see more back taxes, penalties and interest for people that intentionally or even unintentionally failed to file the crypto transactions properly.  Crypto investors have spent years benefiting from significant price appreciation. Now, as the tax-reporting system becomes more sophisticated, the IRS is going to have a much clearer view of those gains and investors are going to have to figure out how to pay the bill.  That could mean more selling pressure than many investors realize, particularly around tax-payment periods.    Financial Planning: 15- or 30-year mortgages?  A 30-year mortgage is often the better financial choice for a disciplined investor because the lower monthly payment frees up more money to invest. Although a 15-year mortgage typically has a lower interest rate and saves more interest over the life of the loan, the higher payments mean more money is tied up in home equity rather than invested. The financial benefit of those higher payments is the additional principal being paid down, providing a return equal to the after-tax cost of the mortgage interest. For a 6% mortgage, the after-tax cost could be approximately 4%. With a 30-year mortgage, if the extra cash flow can be invested to earn a higher long-term return than the mortgage rate, the investment growth can more than offset the additional mortgage interest. This can be even more attractive when investing in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. A 15-year mortgage becomes more compelling when interest rates are extremely high, making it difficult for investment returns to beat the mortgage rate. Ultimately, for someone who can comfortably afford the payment and consistently invests the difference, the 30-year mortgage generally provides greater flexibility and potentially greater long-term wealth.    Companies: Workday, Inc. (WDAY)

Jetzt bei Kraken anmelden und 30 EUR Bonus erhalten: https://bit.ly/kraken-bonusThemen & Timestamps:00:00 Begrüssung und Themenüberblick00:34 Datenleck bei Hardware-Wallet-Hersteller Trezor05:35 KPMG bestätigt Tethers Reserven08:57 UBS stockt Bitcoin-Position auf09:59 Ethereum verwirft Poseidon für Quantensicherheit

It was a pleasure to welcome Jon Havice, Founder and CIO of DGV Solutions, back to the Alpha Exchange. Our conversation explores systematic investing, volatility risk premia, and portfolio construction for institutional investors.   We begin with Jon's path from trading currency options and derivatives at O'Connor and UBS through hedge fund management and investment consulting before founding DGV Solutions. He reflects on advising endowments, foundations, and healthcare systems, and explains how those experiences shaped a philosophy centered on delivering liquid, systematic investment strategies designed to help institutions pursue long-term objectives while managing downside risk.   The discussion focuses on DGV's approach to accessing equity beta through a collateralized put-write strategy. Jon discusses the volatility risk premium as a persistent feature of options markets, comparing it to traditional insurance markets where investors are willing to pay for downside protection. He explains how systematic option-writing seeks to capture that premium while emphasizing disciplined risk management, position sizing, and maintaining sufficient collateral through changing volatility regimes.   We then broaden the conversation to the firm's suite of strategies across asset classes. Jon outlines how DGV applies carry, value, momentum, and trend factors differently across equities, foreign exchange, and commodities, noting that each market exhibits distinct characteristics that influence which factors have historically been most effective. Examples include combining value and carry in developed market currencies and pairing carry with momentum in commodity markets.   The latter part of the discussion focuses on portfolio construction, leverage, and risk management. Jon explains why DGV places significant emphasis on stress testing, limiting leverage, and maintaining control of portfolio positions through periods of market stress.   We conclude with Jon's perspective on diversification, artificial intelligence, passive investing, and structural changes across financial markets that continue to influence institutional portfolio management.   I hope you enjoy this episode of the Alpha Exchange, my conversation with Jon Havice.

Business and finance news from the Asia-Pacific. Sentiment toward technology remained buoyant, with CoreWeave Inc. surging 16% in extended trading after booming artificial intelligence spending drove stronger-than-expected sales growth. Super Micro Computer Inc. rallied 7.6% in the post market after its revenue forecast topped estimates. The robust tech earnings helped MSCI’s Asia Pacific equities gauge advance 0.4%, with South Korea’s tech-heavy Kospi Index adding 2.8%. US equity-index futures were little changed. We hear from Xi Qiao, Managing Director and Financial Advisor at UBS. Plus - the yen was little changed around 159.33 a dollar. Investors are watching the currency as it approaches the key level of 160, raising concern that Japanese authorities will intervene again. The dollar weakened against most of its Group-of-10 peers. We discuss the yen story with Michael Ball, Bloomberg News Macro Strategist.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we couldn't resist a deep dive into the recent UBS fine by four (yes, four) US regulators and what that means for anyone working in the Financial Crime Compliance spaceSend us Fan MailSupport the showFollow us on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-dark-money-files-ltd/ on Twitter at  https://twitter.com/dark_files or see our website at https://www.thedarkmoneyfiles.com/

This week on This Week in AML, John Byrne and Elliot Berman examine FinCEN's record-setting $125 million enforcement action against UBS, the largest civil money penalty ever imposed against a broker-dealer for Bank Secrecy Act violations. They discuss what made the case significant, the consequences of repeated compliance failures, and the lessons financial institutions should take from the enforcement action. The conversation also covers FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki's departure for Citibank and what the appointment of Acting Director Jenna Casanova could mean for future enforcement priorities. John and Elliot then explore Senator Ron Wyden's report on financial institutions' handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related accounts, including proposed changes to suspicious activity reporting requirements and concerns about SAR confidentiality. They also review Capital One's defense of account closures tied to AML obligations and the broader debate surrounding claims of "debanking." Internationally, the hosts discuss the FCA's planned overhaul of transaction reporting requirements in the UK, ongoing challenges in accessing beneficial ownership registries across the European Union, and Transparency International's push for stronger global anti-corruption measures.

Ryan Belanger — Founder & CEO, Claro Advisors Most firms are adding AI to existing workflows. Ryan Belanger chose a different path, acquiring a fintech company and rebuilding Claro Advisors around an AI-native platform. He explains why he believes the future belongs to firms that rethink how they operate, not just the tools they use. In Summary Most firms view AI as another technology investment. Ryan Belanger sees it as a business strategy. Louis sits down with the Founder & CEO of Claro Advisors to discuss why his $1.5 billion RIA acquired a fintech company, built an AI-native operating platform, and believes the firms that gain the biggest advantage won't simply adopt new technology—they'll rethink how their businesses are built. The conversation also explores the broader philosophy behind that decision. Ryan shares why he's consistently chosen unconventional paths—from recruiting younger advisors and embracing a partnership model built around ownership to investing in proprietary technology instead of relying on third-party solutions. For advisors, the bigger question isn't simply how AI will change their workflow. It's how it may change what it takes to build a durable, differentiated advisory firm. The Storyline Every generation of wealth management has been shaped by a different competitive advantage. For some, independence paved the way to build unique branding and a bespoke client experience. Inorganic growth and M&A gave many firms access to scale and growth. Today, many believe the next advantage will come from artificial intelligence. But simply adopting AI may not be enough. Ryan Belanger has spent his career challenging conventional thinking. He left Morgan Stanley in 2012, well before independence became mainstream. He built Claro Advisors by investing in younger advisors instead of competing for established producers. He embraced a partnership model centered on advisor ownership rather than restrictive employment structures. And when AI began reshaping the industry, he made another unconventional decision: instead of licensing another technology platform, Claro acquired a fintech company and built its own AI-native operating system. Louis explores the reasoning behind each decision and the philosophy that connects them. Ryan explains why he believes proprietary technology will become a defining competitive advantage, how Claro's AI platform, Claire, is changing advisor workflows, and why the biggest opportunity isn't replacing advisors; it's giving them more time to do the work clients value most. The conversation also tackles practical questions facing every advisory firm: how to integrate AI responsibly, where human judgment continues to matter most, and why the firms best positioned for the future may be the ones willing to redesign their businesses instead of simply adding another layer of technology. Topics Covered AI-native advisory firms Acquiring a fintech versus licensing technology Building proprietary advisor technology Advisor productivity and workflow automation Recruiting and developing younger advisors 1099 partnership model and advisor autonomy Enterprise building and long-term differentiation AI governance and advisor trust The future of wealth management technology > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why did Ryan launch independently long before it became common? (7:30) Ryan explains why leaving Morgan Stanley in 2012 wasn't simply about independence—it was about creating a better business model while betting on himself. Why recruit emerging advisors instead of established producers? (15:00) Ryan shares why investing in younger advisors has become one of Claro's greatest competitive advantages and succession strategies. Why would an RIA buy a technology company? (23:45) Rather than licensing another platform, Ryan explains why Claro acquired NDVR to build proprietary technology that could fundamentally change advisor workflows. How does Claire actually help advisors day-to-day? (33:00) From meeting preparation and client follow-up to portfolio management and workflow automation, Ryan walks through how AI is saving advisors meaningful time. Will AI replace advisors—or make them better? (36:30) Ryan discusses where AI belongs, where human advice remains essential, and why he believes technology should enhance – not replace – the advisor relationship. What does the advisory firm of the future look like? (38:20) Ryan shares his long-term view of how AI, proprietary technology, and advisor expectations will reshape wealth management over the next decade. Key Takeaways Ryan believes firms that build AI into the foundation of their businesses will create greater long-term differentiation than those simply adding new software. Claro's acquisition of a fintech company reflects a strategy of owning core technology rather than relying exclusively on third-party vendors. AI is most valuable when it eliminates administrative work, allowing advisors to spend more time serving clients. Recruiting younger advisors and investing in long-term talent has become a defining part of Claro's growth strategy. Advisor autonomy, equity participation, and technology can create stronger retention than restrictive employment models. Human relationships remain central to wealth management, even as AI becomes increasingly capable. The firms that adapt fastest may be those willing to rethink their operating model—not just their technology stack. https://youtu.be/7XvSXi0PzXI Quotable Moments “I wanted to build something that was integrated instead of just layering another tool on top.” “We're trying to make really good advisors become super advisors.” “Clients still want advice from a person—but they're going to expect that person to know how to use AI.” “The firms that win won't necessarily be the ones using the most technology. They'll be the ones building differently.” FAQs Why did Claro Advisors acquire a fintech company? Ryan believed owning proprietary technology would create greater long-term differentiation than licensing another collection of third-party tools. What is Claire by Claro? Claire is Claro Advisors' AI-powered chief of staff, designed to automate advisor workflows, prepare meetings, organize client information, and streamline operational tasks. How is Claro using AI differently than many RIAs? Rather than layering AI onto multiple disconnected applications, Claro built an integrated operating platform where AI has access to the advisor's workflow, planning, portfolio, and client information. Will AI replace financial advisors? Ryan believes AI will automate much of the administrative work advisors perform today, but that clients—particularly those with more complex needs—will continue to value human advice and relationships. How does Claro recruit advisors? The firm emphasizes advisor ownership, partnership, equity participation, technology, and operational support instead of relying primarily on acquisition-based recruiting models. What does Ryan believe will differentiate advisory firms in the future? He believes proprietary technology, integrated AI, and the ability to improve advisor productivity will become increasingly important competitive advantages. Ryan believed owning proprietary technology would create greater long-term differentiation than licensing another collection of third-party tools. Claire is Claro Advisors' AI-powered chief of staff, designed to automate advisor workflows, prepare meetings, organize client information, and streamline operational tasks. Rather than layering AI onto multiple disconnected applications, Claro built an integrated operating platform where AI has access to the advisor's workflow, planning, portfolio, and client information. Ryan believes AI will automate much of the administrative work advisors perform today, but that clients—particularly those with more complex needs—will continue to value human advice and relationships. The firm emphasizes advisor ownership, partnership, equity participation, technology, and operational support instead of relying primarily on acquisition-based recruiting models. He believes proprietary technology, integrated AI, and the ability to improve advisor productivity will become increasingly important competitive advantages. Related Resources Why AI Matters Now: Filling the Estate Planning Gap with Wealth.com Emotional Intelligence: The “Untouchable” Differentiator in an AI World Diamond Consultants Annual Advisor Transition Report Ryan BelangerChief Executive Officer & Founder Ryan founded Claro Advisors in 2012 after seven years at Morgan Stanley. He named the company after a Latin phrase “to make clear in the mind.” All Claro advisors strive to give their clients clarity and transparency, core tenants of the firm. Claro is continuously recognized within industry for its growth and thought leadership. In 2004, Ryan received a BA in Economics from The College of the Holy Cross and in 2009, he earned the Certified Financial Planner™ distinction. He is most proud of his philanthropic activity. Along with his wife Rachel, they started a foundation that raises money for genetic research in the name of their late daughter, Bella. Their focus is on extreme rare disease. Ryan resides in Boston’s Back Bay with his wife Rachel and their three children. He enjoys exercising, golfing, reading and spending time with his family. He has been featured in numerous magazines and industry publications and is regularly on television sharing his market thoughts. 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… Why AI Matters Now: How a $1.5B RIA is Building the Firm of the Future A conversation with Louis Diamond and Ryan Belanger, Founder & CEO of Claro Advisors.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Why AI Matters Now: How a $1.5B RIA is Building the Firm of the Future. It’s a conversation with Ryan Belanger, the Founder and CEO of Claro Advisors. I’m Louis 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. Louis Diamond: Artificial intelligence has quickly become one of the biggest topics in wealth management in the world. Almost every firm is experimenting with new tools, looking for ways to automate tasks, improve efficiency, or help advisors serve clients more effectively. But what if AI isn’t just another technology to plug into your business? What if it becomes the foundation for how your business is built? That’s exactly why I wanted to have Ryan Belanger on the show. Ryan is the Founder and CEO of Claro Advisors, a billion and a half dollar RIA that’s taken a very different path than most firms in the industry. Rather than simply adding AI to an existing tech stack, Claro acquired a FinTech company and is building its own AI native operating system designed specifically for advisors. What’s interesting is that this isn’t really a conversation about software, it’s about strategy. Ryan has consistently gone against the grain from leaving Morgan Stanley to launch an independent firm in 2012 before it became commonplace, to recruiting younger advisors when others chased established producers, to betting that proprietary technology will become one of the biggest competitive advantages an advisory firm can have. If AI is going to reshape wealth management, and I think it will, the firms that benefit most may not be the ones using the most tools. They may be the ones rethinking how the entire business operates. Ryan shares what that looks like in practice, what he’s seeing from advisors today, and why he believes the next generation of advisory firms will look fundamentally different from the firms we’ve known over the last two decades. There’s a lot to cover, so let’s get to it. Ryan, thanks for joining us today. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, nice to see you. Louis Diamond: You too, good to see you again. For those who aren’t familiar with you and your firm Claro, why don’t you walk us through your background and how you found your way into the industry to set the table. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, sounds good. So background was after college, I got a job at Morgan Stanley. I’d done an internship while in college and that gentleman, Morgan Dewey, said you should look at the Morgan Stanley. So I applied, got a job immediately, and just a couple weeks after graduating, I began as a financial advisor in a training program at Morgan Stanley and spent a good amount of time there and was able to develop skills necessary that really I had all along just growing up, a lot of entrepreneurial spirit I think is important in this business, how to relate to people, some competitiveness. I just happened to luck out and get into a profession that rewarded some of those skill sets. Louis Diamond: I’d say it was the right choice for you. So I think you started at Morgan Stanley in 2004. You were 21, 22 years old, just cutting your teeth, but the financial crisis happens a handful of years later. So what was it like being a relative newbie and seeing client accounts falling, the world crumbling every day? What did living through that crash teach you that’s shaped how you’ve built your business or serve clients now? Ryan Belanger: I did learn a tremendous amount at Morgan Stanley and I do still tell people if they’re looking to start at a big shop with big training programs and resources and really try to figure out what you like and then you can go off and get more specialized. But I do feel like it was a great place to get trained. They would post how many cold calls we were making every day. So on the board every morning you’d walk in and say, “Okay, where did you fall?” And I’m a competitive person, and I just want to make sure I was first every single day. So it was those type of things that really propelled me to keep interested in this business but also see the benefits. It’s really hard to get clients and that’s what people underestimate the most is to build the level of trust with someone that they’ll allow you to manage their retirement nest egg is it takes time. And I was 22, I looked really young, I had no experience, but I was fortunate to have two great mentors at Morgan Stanley, a gentleman named Todd Wetzel. He was brilliant at developing relationships, really caring for people. And then the gentleman that I had done an internship with went to Morgan Stanley as well, and he allowed me to work on some small accounts and really cut my teeth with some customers. And I was very fortunate to have done that, but you’d asked about the crash, and I think what I learned from that when people were literally weeping when their account values were down by 50%, 60% was that money is really emotional, and you have to understand how much it means to people, it’s not just the number on your screen. So having some empathy towards someone who’s really in a period of distress is now a critical skill that those of us have been around for this long understand. And there’s a whole generation, Louis, of advisors that have never experienced a real bear market, and I do fear for them at some point because when you go through that, it really changes the perspective that you have. But for me, it happened, I was four or five years into the business at that point, so I’m thankful that it happened just for my own personal development and I’ll never forget it. Louis Diamond: Yeah. Things have a way of happening for a reason and then the best advisors, best humans, they learn from them, and they’re better off for it. You’re very much right. I like that perspective about how the empathy around the emotions of money was something that you still carry and wear as a badge of honor today. So you left Morgan Stanley in 2012. I think you were 30 years old I read. One, that’s very young to consider leaving a firm like that nonetheless to go independent when in 2012, it wasn’t like everyone was going independent. There weren’t as many infrastructure providers or tech vendors or as much capital available as there is today. It definitely wasn’t a path that was as well-worn as it was. So two-part question, what pushed you to leave the firm presumably without a huge book of business? And second part, how’d you think about risk and reward at that age? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, what drove me was ultimately I felt like I was not seeing the value from the firm I was at, Morgan Stanley at the time. They were just taking an exorbitant amount of the revenue I felt. And I would see product managers strolling through and going to steak dinners, and I’m thinking, geez, I’m here every night on weekends. I’m busting my butt, and I should be creating more value to myself. And so that was one kind of thing. And I think there was a right level of naivete just to think that I could pull this off. I did believe that I had a small number of clients. I was hopeful that they would come because I had to hit a minimum for the custodian platform to start the RIA, which I was able to do. But I felt that they would come with me and that I had developed enough trust with them that I could be their advisor for a long time. And so for me, it felt like the technology wasn’t great. I was just told the mother-in-law is an expression. She says to my kids sometimes, “You get what you get and you don’t get upset.” Have you heard that expression? Louis Diamond: I have. My daughter reads a book where that line is repeated frequently. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, okay. So that’s how I felt then. I was like, “This is what you have and deal with it.” And to me, it just felt like there had to be a better way, but I didn’t have any capital backing, so I bootstrapped it. I Craigslisted an office from an estate planning attorney. I cold called Fidelity at the time they were our only custodian. I called to get some compliance help and I just thought that there’d be other people that would want to join. I named the firm, it’s a Latin phrase, it’s Claro Advisors, and it means to make clear in the mind. And I felt like not only was I trying to do that for clients, but I was trying to push advisors to challenge the norms here. There are other solutions out there. So I purposefully did put my name on it, I knew that there’d be other people that might feel the same way. I’ve always been a team sport guy. I like being around other people and collaborating. And I did have a good friend and credit to him. He said, “If you put this together, I’ll come with you.” And so just a couple weeks after I did, we talked and I said, “It’s up and running.” He came and Dana was our first, he’s still with us. And then a couple of months later, another guy I used to work with called and said, “Hey, I’m at this bank, and it looks like what you’ve done is interesting.” And I said, “We like it if you’d like to give it a try.” And so he came, his name’s Mike. He’s still with us. And so teams started to get put together. But I met someone in 2014, so I was two years in at that point and I was doing legitimately everything, not only as an advisor, but just all the stuff that you have to do to run the business. And it was becoming too much, especially the compliance. And I think nowadays starting an RIA, the threshold is so much higher. That’s why you see better than anyone else. You just see a lot more tuck-ins. But Jen Street was someone that I met and she really allowed me to catapult the business and scale it, so she took over all the operations and compliance and that really freed me up to be an advisor. And I really was just an advisor moonlighting as someone running. I would recruit a little bit or just be introductions, very soft. All that has changed based on what we’ve done in the last couple of years. Louis Diamond: Amazing. So thinking about risk spectrum, obviously now if you look back and say, “Hey, I had 30 million or whatever it was, I didn’t have anything to lose.” Right? But when you’re in it and you had income, you had recurring revenue, you had a paycheck versus the dynamic of, “I’m going to incur a bunch of expenses. I’m not positive who’s going to come with me. I’m not going to have a paycheck for a period of time.” Did the fact that your business was relatively small and you were just getting up and running, do you think it made it easier for you to reconcile that risk, or in some ways it was harder because your dispersion, if someone didn’t come, was that much higher? Ryan Belanger: I think it was easier for me, I knew I could always go to another firm. They would take me and whatever clients I had. I did it at a time when I had little personal risk, no kids, no mortgage. I didn’t have a wife at that point. So for me, it felt like the right time to take a risk. And I had been entrepreneurial in my life. I mean, I had a business in high school and my parents and grandparents were entrepreneurial. So that was in me, even if I didn’t really recognize it, was that I was okay with a good level of risk. And I do say this now to anyone that I’m hoping to partner with is that if you want to bet on yourself, I’ll go all in on you too. But you’ve got to be able to take that jump. I won’t let you fail, but you’ve got to be the one. I think that inertia is what a lot of advisors are like, “Geez, I don’t know, I got to give something up.” And that’s why the data’s important and you have all the data. The clients overwhelmingly go with the advisor. These days it’s just much harder to try to establish a new relationship with a trusted advisor than it is to just DocuSign some forms and move your account somewhere. So to me, it’s just trying to support people, and really push them to the edge and say, “No, this is possible. You should definitely explore this.” And I get it’s totally different, and you might be at a different life stage, but you know the numbers. I mean, tens of thousands of advisors are moving every year and not all of them have a small book like I did when I did it. Louis Diamond: Right, exactly. On one hand, making this entrepreneurial move as early in your career as you did, it was a benefit, right? Because you didn’t have as much to lose, like you said, the stage of life you’re in allowed you to absorb more risk. On the other end of the spectrum, if someone who has a massive business with immense value, they’re well situated financially, maybe their kids are through college, et cetera. And then most people are somewhere in the middle. So it’s interesting hearing that dynamic in real time. Let’s talk about Claro today. So you launched the business, like you said, you had to work hard to meet a minimum custodial threshold. So started from a very small base in 2012, but where is it today as far as assets, team size? Just give us some stats or perspective on what you’ve built in the last decade and a half or so. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, sure. So we enjoyed a tremendous amount of organic growth, Louis. We are not capital-backed. We don’t buy books of businesses, so I would recruit or partner with advisors that were coming from all the various places that you could think of that were finding us to be a very friendly place to work where you had a high level of autonomy, freedom, control, just great economics. We stayed out of people’s ways. We were just good people trying to help other good people, and it was just that friendly environment that allowed us to grow. And of course, we can’t discount market. I think markets had a tremendous growth for everybody in the business. And so the business as it stands right now, we’re about 1.5 billion in assets, 15 to 20 advisors. We got a 40-person team based primarily at a Boston headquarter, but we have advisors all over. And I think as we’ll get to, we’ve just gone through a really exciting new chapter for us where the next 15 years are going to look a lot different than the previous 15 years. Louis Diamond: Very cool. That’s amazing, and I’m in the recruiting businesses and doing recruiting yourself, it’s not easy to tell your story, get in front of the right people, the right like-minded people too, who are willing to take the leap to you, especially if you don’t have the capital backing and you can’t pay big deals or write big checks like others could, so that’s a massive testament to you and your vision. I know the average age of an advisor at Claro is around 40, yet the average advisor in the industry is 59, 60, 61, depending upon what data source you look at. What do you think you figured out about attracting, training, and really cultivating younger advisors that the rest of the industry either gets wrong or ignores? What’s been your hack in that regard? Ryan Belanger: I’ll just take a chance on people that others might not. And typically what that really means is someone with nothing, I’ll make them a deal and I’ll say, “Look, I believe in you. I think you’d be a great advisor. Let’s work on an arrangement where you feel like you can do this and I’ll support you.” And so our specialty was growing advisors from 20 million or 30 million into hundreds of million of client assets. And some of it was just being willing to look where others wouldn’t possibly want to spend their time. But when I was 22, someone took a chance on me, and so I owe it to the next generation to do that as well because there’s some great talent out there that really just isn’t getting the attention they deserve because they don’t have big books of business yet. But one of my core values is long-term thinking, and so that’s the way I frame my decisions is it doesn’t have to be a win today, but it can be a championship tomorrow or down three or five years from now. And so that’s how I’ve positioned it. I think that’s why we tend to get younger advisors. And then what happens when you get a lot of younger advisors, you have some older advisors say, “Hey, look, that’s an attractive bench of talent. I needed a succession plan. You guys seem to have a bunch of guys and gals that know how to do really great work and serve clients.” But I think that’s probably one of the things that I just was willing to take some chances on people at an earlier stage. Louis Diamond: Yep. I love it. I mean, once again, you said in the beginning, you developed an empathy for the emotional side of money and what people were going through that you carry through to this day. So not losing touch with the fact that you started. I mean, everyone starts in this business at some time, but I feel like once you’re successful or you’re through the first few years, you forget what it was like to be a newbie. So keeping that perspective and appreciation for the mentors you had, et cetera, is great. And honestly, from a business building standpoint, to me in this environment, unless you take on private equity capital, or you have capital from a BD or from a wirehouse behind you for recruiting, it’s really hard to win advisors with large books of business. So going in the blue part of the ocean instead of the red ocean, if anyone’s read that book, is very smart, looking under rocks that others don’t or really buying into or leaning into folks that you see something in that you know you can cultivate is a brilliant way. And it’s honestly more scalable, cheaper, you build a better business as well doing it the way that you do, but still, it’s hard. And my guess is the ROI is shorter. I’m sure you’ve made some hires that don’t pan out. So you have to have the tolerance and the demeanor to really invest in people. So long-winded way to say I love what you’re doing. How much of your recruitment of advisors and the retention of that talent as they become successful would you tie to how you compensate them, or equity if that’s available versus the culture of the firm and the mentorship that you and your team provide? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, I mean I’ll speak to what we’re offering now just because that’s more relevant, and so we are positioning ourselves now as the best home for advisors in the country and we really believe that’s the case, but our problem is we’re just a secret. We’ve just come to the market after our deal and all the technology that I know we’ll talk about. So we’re now marketing this message to advisors that want to partner with us. Economics will help them grow. We have a really interesting growth program. We’ll give them equity and Claro. I firmly believe that we should tie each other, just get in the same boat, so to speak. So our success is their success, but allowing them to operate in a 1099 model, which I know is not a popular strategy. I know everyone wants to buy books and own the assets and own the clients, but I feel there’s a tremendous amount of advisors that do not that probably should not be monetizing their businesses so quickly. And so I’m trying to foster a home for those like-minded advisors that want the autonomy to own their clients, maybe even still have a brand, but partner with a firm that’s got really credible technology, just unbelievable back office support and a firm of the future so that they can grow at 10X to what they could have on their own and then they could monetize. That’s what we’ve tried to put together here with our partnership model. Louis Diamond: Love it. Yeah, I mean it is definitely going against the grain a little bit, leaning into growing a 1099 model versus more of an acquisition model where everyone coming over as W-2s. So do you think about those trade-offs when it comes time to raising capital down the line or if you want to sell the business or even just an advisor wants to leave, that would stink if that happened. How do you think about those trade-offs? The ability to let advisors keep control and ownership. And honestly, in my view, probably win many people that you wouldn’t otherwise versus the stickiness, and the enterprise building abilities of owning the books of business. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, it’s a paradox because I understand why you want to own the client, but that’s a different business model. And frankly, I think it attracts different type of people. I had to really look myself in the mirror a couple years ago. We had enjoyed a tremendous amount of success, high growth and all organic, growing at 30% more per year on a CAGR basis. Nothing could stop us. But what happened was when private equity entered the space, everyone wanted to buy Claro. And to me, it didn’t feel like I did a lot of due diligence. I talked to a lot of firms. I didn’t see any differentiation in the market, Louis. To me from a technology perspective, everyone was doing the same thing. They’re using six to 12 different tools. We all know who they are. And now there’s a bunch of AI tools they’re layering on. And to me, it just didn’t feel like that was going to be any… There was no differentiation in the market. But admittedly, I had a couple of friends who I’d brought in at very low levels of AUMB that wanted to leave. And they said, “Look, I want to go to a firm that has more resources.” And so I had to just make a business decision and say, “Where do I want to take this?” And so it was only after some real adversity because you get emotionally attached to these people that you’ve developed friendships with and they still are friends, no doubt, but they can leave and they’re not captive. So we have to plan for that at Claro now, and I think we’ve got two ways that we’ve done that where it really ties the advisors to us, but in a way where they want to be here because we have something that’s really different. Louis Diamond: I like it. I’m sure we’ll get into that. But before we do, we’ll get into what you’re doing on the technology side, which is very cool and unique. How do you balance being an advisor and being a CEO? And what percentage of your time is advisor versus CEO and has that fluctuated or changed over time? Ryan Belanger: Drastically changed in the last year, two years or so. So the first 10, 12 years, I was really an advisor first and foremost. That’s inverse at this point, I’m strictly running the business. I have a great team here that deals with our clients, and I’ll still attend the client meetings and such, but I’m really laser-focused on running the business, trying to develop new partnerships with advisors, running an engineering team, sales and marketing. So the change for me has definitely occurred, and I’ll miss not keeping up with planning as much. I’m a CFP, but I just recognized that for me, I had to make a clear change and commit all my time to running the business, and so that’s the decision that I’ve made. Louis Diamond: It is a hard balance. I mean, there’s some people that try to do both, run a business, be an advisor, be a rainmaker, and something breaks. You’re not able to give all yourself to one thing. Then there’s others that would much prefer to be an advisor over a business owner. Others who say, “I’m over being an advisor. I want to be a business owner.” So I think the cool thing about doing what you’ve done is you get to choose, right? Some of it might be circumstances, but you really got to decide which elements of the business you personally want to invest your time in. And you really push your chips in the middle of the table. So let’s get into what you did in November of 2025. I read that you acquired a tech company of all things called NDVR. I’ve done this podcast for a while, speak to a ton of people. I can’t really think of anyone, any advisor or RIA that’s actually bought a tech company. So what made you puck the trend, buy a tech company and not just license all the FinTech that’s available today? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, that was the decision I had to make was do I really want to be different, or do I want to just say that I’m different? And so I was fortunate enough to get introduced to a gentleman named Michael Simon about 18 months ago, two years ago. And him and I immediately could see that we were both trying to solve the same problem, and we had perfectly mirrored image skills of one another so I had this deep wealth experience and he had a deep tech experience. And sometimes it’s just about timing in life, about catching someone at the right time. And I think we each caught each other at a really good time where we could see that coming together, we could create something really magical. And this AI wave was cresting. And I could see when I was talking to all the national PE firms or RIA firms about what people wanted to do, no one had quite figured out how AI was going to come into the technology mix, and it appears as though it’s just going to be another add-on tool to everything else. And for me, I wanted to try to build something that was integrated an all- in-one platform for an advisor so they didn’t have to use a ton of different tools. And I thought if you could do that, couldn’t you have AI that’s really much more rich and purposeful to help the clients? And so I felt like here’s an opportunity to elevate financial advice throughout the country, really give the clients all the value. And so what we’ve built allows advisors who are really good advisors to become super advisors because they’ve got this technology cape that no one else has that is allowing them to save a bunch of time and do all these really cool things for their clients. But it just felt like right time, right place. I’d been through a little bit of adversity and I felt like taking another swing just like I did 15 years ago going for it. I’ve really never been averse to risk, and so this felt like it was too good to pass up and so we went for it. Louis Diamond: Interesting. So that makes sense on the build or acquire versus rent dynamic, wanting to own the IP that makes you actually different. What does NDVR actually do? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, so everything’s all integrated. So we’ve kept the Claro Advisors name. We feel like clients really want to know that they’re still getting a person to deliver the advice. And so having the advisor’s name in our brand is important, but we have a Claro Intelligent Hub, and that’s where it’s an AI native operating system for the advisors. They spend their entire day in there, Louis. So they’re not toggling between 10 different Chrome tasks to perform all their business. And so what that allows them to do is not only it’s CRM, calendar, contacts, emails, messages, but we also have all the portfolio information. So trading history and we can do tax loss harvesting and factor-based investing. So we’ve got institutional grade portfolio management, and that’s really what Endeavor had created through their R&D was the hyper-personalized portfolios where you have a customer’s financial plan directly tied to their account. So there’s never any de-linking between the two. It’s really sophisticated technology that we can provide to our clients. So that’s all integrated as well. And so we’ve since continued to build the build upon that layer of integrated proprietary technology. Louis Diamond: It’s very interesting. And we have to imagine part of you maybe now or in the future is, okay, we’ve built this amazing technology mousetrap for our advisors, but do we become a FinTech? Is there any thought of eventually licensing what Endeavor is doing for your business and your clients to other RIAs? How do you think about that dynamic of just building something unique and different for Claro that advisors can latch onto versus making what you and your partners have developed into something that someone else can take and license themselves? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, it’s a fair question. We get it a good amount. While there might be a possibility that we license this to some other businesses, our main goal right now is to keep it captive to RIAs that want to partner with Claro. And so we feel like this gives them a true level of differentiation in the market, and so that’s the approach that we’re taking right now. Being a FinTech company, there’s a lot of different skills. The setup and tear down of getting someone to use the platform and I think all that time and resources we want on sales and marketing to try to attract new advisors and continue to develop just jaw-dropping technology for the existing advisors. Louis Diamond: Very cool. Let’s talk a little bit about your partnership model. So it does sound unique in that you have people that are 1099, but you don’t usually also hear partner. So how does it work? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, so we’re offering advisors to come and use Claro as a back office so you can have your own brand if you want or you can just be a Claro advisor. We have both here and you’ll be a 1099 advisor so you’ll still own the business that you’ve owned. So if you were at a wirehouse or something, you would actually now be creating some enterprise value for yourself. But if you’re an existing REA, you’d be coming to us because you’re tired of doing tech vendor due diligence all the time or you’re tired of the compliance, the AI regulations. That’s just coming. So that’s going to be a huge challenge for REAs, so we’re seeing a lot of interest from REAs saying, “Look, you’re not asking me to give up really anything except the stuff that I hate to do anyway, so this sounds great.” So they partner with us. In return, they get all access to our technology And we’ll provide all the back office support, office space, dedicated resources, planning, everything you could want to have to operate a business. We do have a growth program that’s really interesting. And then we’ve got this equity in Claro. As you’re a partner with Claro, you should get equity so we give stock options to our advisors who are here and every year thereafter. And naturally, that’s a way to stay connected with the advisor. So hopefully they never want to leave, and I do believe that once you experience our technology, you never want to go back to trying to do it the way you were doing it before. Louis Diamond: It’s like instead of building the most enclosed box that you keep people in with sticks and with locks and keys like a lot of firms do, it’s we’re going to keep advisors here, but not by force, but because they have the stock options, because you’re delivering value, because they have this amazing technology. To me, that’s the dynamic that so many firms across the industry get wrong is that they try to keep advisors where they are by restrictive covenants and by fear, and by retribution rather than if we just do good work for people, we add value, we make ourselves indispensable to the advisor. To me, it creates a healthier dynamic. I think firms would actually retain more even if it’s a gentler approach. And I love what you’re doing there. I think it’s the exact right way to think about we have advisors that are 1099, so yeah, they could leave us, but we’re doing things that make it that they don’t want to leave us. And that’s your charge as the owner to create the infrastructure and the structure where people could go out on their own, but there isn’t an advantage to do so. Ryan Belanger: Yeah, I think the culture is a big thing for us. And if you have people here that don’t want to be here, that’s a problem. And I think that’s what you see in a lot of the wirehouses. Frankly, they scare people and they don’t. It’s like, oh my God, if I leave. And for us, it’s like personally, life is too short. I want to work with people that want to work with me. I’ve got other things going on in my life and these things are just work things. And so I want to enjoy being in the office every day with people that want to be here. And if you think you’ve found a different place, you should go explore that. It’s really a soft approach. I know it’s not the most popular approach, but that’s just the style that I have. Louis Diamond: Yeah. I mean, it sounds like the trend in your career and in launching Claro was we’re going to do things that aren’t popular, but that work for us, like hiring younger advisors that may not have a book or have a small book, buying a tech company instead of licensing it, being 1099 when you’re recruiting instead of owning books of business. There’s a series of decisions you’ve made as the business owner that they’ve worked out, they’ve paid off, but they’re definitely against the grain. And I very much respect that. Ryan Belanger: I really have never been afraid to be a little different, and so I think typically you find other people that might be interested, but it’s a big pool out there. There’s 300,000 advisors so there’s something for everyone, which is awesome. Louis Diamond: Totally agree. Let’s get back to the AI platform that you’ve built, or that you’re building. Maybe give a real tangible example. If I’m a Claro advisor, how has my life changed now that I’m using this platform versus before? So the old model was I log in, like you said, to 10 different Chrome tabs. I’m meeting with clients, doing planning, et cetera. What is the day in the life? How does it look different from what an advisor’s actually doing today versus before this platform was rolled out? Ryan Belanger: Yeah. All right. I’ll just give you a couple examples. So a client will send you a request and say, “Louis, I need $25,000.” And so a typical advisor would either write a note down, go drop it off at the CSA’s desk, or maybe forward that email to the CSA and then that person would have to input it into their CRM, and they go perform the task. And then the advisor would want to know where things are in that process so that there’s a lot of back and forth. With our system, Claire, our intelligent chief of staff, AI chief of staff, you just forward that task to tasks@claroadvisors.com. It recognizes the email address that the client is emailing from, it knows the account number. It talks to our portfolio engineer. It knows which account to raise the cash from because it knows the tax jurisdiction, and otherwise, and it performs the task. And the last push of a button is that CSA just moving money from the custodian. So all along the way, the advisor can check on the task and see where it is in the process. It’s beautifully integrated in the intelligent hub, but you could see how that would save a tremendous amount of time and it’s a better customer experience. The mistakes get limited. So it really allows the advisor to get things done at a much higher level. So we’re raising productivity quite a bit. First of all, she’ll establish your meetings, Claire will. So she’ll schedule them for you. She’ll prep them for you. So we have a button, say prep the meeting because we have all the notes, emails. If you’re texting portfolio data, because she has all that information in about 30 to 45 seconds, she’s going to present to the advisor a really nice meeting summary that, “Hey, here’s the things that we should talk about.” She’s going to surface things that the advisor’s forgotten about because she doesn’t forget things. And so she’s prepped the meeting for you, so you’ve saved a couple hours there. She joins the meeting, she takes all of your notes, stores them in the system. She’ll give you a follow-up email. She knows your writing style, so she’ll know that you like to call this client this, and you send these emails typically at this time. And so she’ll deliver a nice follow-up email instantly for the advisor. They click that button, that’s done. So there’s just a lot of things that where she’s efficiency-wise where on 20, 30 hours a week that we’re saving advisors just on the productivity tools alone, so that’s where we’re seeing advisors seeing a ton of value in this. Louis Diamond: It’s very cool. Ryan Belanger: And then there’s a whole portfolio management capabilities, sweeping idle cash and tax loss harvesting and rebalancing that gets done while advisors are having a cup of coffee. They don’t have to think about these things. It just gets done for them. Louis Diamond: It’s so cool because it’s like I think I can conceptualize or think of building in Claude any one of those functionalities for the most part, but the way that the flow of things works and the journey of it is unique. I think every advisor would be interested in that type of promise of saving that much time. So how do you think now in the future, how do you think about the human advisor interaction, and what the human and the advisor will do versus what can be offloaded to AI? Ryan Belanger: Yeah, certainly a lot of the non-client-facing activity can be unloaded and that’s where advisors spend, according to recent studies, almost 60% of their time non-client-facing. So we’re trying to take all that off of their plates for them. We strongly believe clients still want the message to come from a person that has a level of experience and understands them. But at the same point, I think there’s a growing curiosity about, geez, what could it do for me? And so shouldn’t my advisor know how to use it? And so I think you’re seeing a lot of advisors put their head in the sand and say, “I don’t know. I’m just going to hope people don’t really want to use this and adopt it.” They’re a little bit shortsighted there. Our bet is that clients are going to want an advisor that knows how to use tech, has really sophisticated tech, but it isn’t just another tool layered on top that now my data is in that tool. The reason our system is so beautiful and integrated is because it captures everything in a structured and secure way. So all of the compliance is in there. We whitewash all the PII that’s sensitive information, so we’re not layering another tool on, because it’s integrated, we have an AI governance committee that really takes it seriously. How are we using this information? And so we’ve got an approach and we’ve put guardrails around what it can do and what it can’t do. Might there be a generation, Louis, that wants an AI advisor? I don’t know, that could happen. A twin, a digital twin where you say, “Look, I want to talk to Louis.” It’s 10 o’clock at night. He might be in a different time zone than me. He’s got little kids, but I do have this question. And so we’re iterating ideas on how we can surface that for an advisor to be advisable 24/7 without actually having to be available 24/7. Louis Diamond: Seven. It’s amazing to think about. I mean, obviously you’re deeply in this. You have a front row seat into the power of AI, how it’s transforming your business, doing due diligence on acquiring this technology five years from now, 10 years from now, what does the industry look like as a result of AI? What’s your big bet? Ryan Belanger: A lot of the big firms are going to try to figure out how to layer in tech. It’s going to be very difficult to do that. It’s built on extremely old legacy technology. They’ll be slow. They’ll figure out how to do some things. What we’re already seeing from advisors is the wow factor. Wow, I didn’t know this was even possible, and so I think just given our size and where we are, we have an advantage that we can build things from the ground up very quickly. I mean, what used to take an engineer a couple of months or years can be done in a couple of days or weeks, so things have really sped up in terms of the development. It’s much easier to build it than buy it. And so I think you’ll see a lot of firms trying to do what we’ve done, really build proprietary technology. And I think there’ll be a few winners that are able to do that, but being tech forward and aligned with someone who’s thinking about it, I think is what a lot of advisors are going to want to be. That’s the type of firm people would want to partner with, I think. Louis Diamond: What about the dynamic of, like you said, the digital twin thing is equal parts cool as it is terrifying, how do you see, we’ll say the threat of AI impacting the profession of being a financial advisor? Do you look at it as the entire pie is going to grow because everyone’s more efficient? Or do you look at it as it’s going to take out a lot of the advisor capacity we have because it’s no longer necessary? Where do you fall on that spectrum? Ryan Belanger: So robo-advisors came and went, you remember those. I mean, not that they went, but they never took off the way that it was projected. They’re still great businesses, but the human advisor won that battle. Clients do want an advisor, particularly at the higher end, and so I think at the lower end of the market, you’re going to see some AI solutions where people are perfectly comfortable just talking to someone in AI, and they’ll figure out if there’s a hallucinization or not. But I think there’s definitely going to be a market for it, and so I think it just depends on where the clients are and what level of complexity they have. On the higher end, I do feel like the advisors will continue to have a huge advantage there. But we’re building tools to give optionality to advisors. There might be some advisors who say, “Look, I’ll charge half the fee that I used to charge so you can get my digital twin. And that’s a win-win situation for everybody.” Louis Diamond: Yep, that’s fair. So do you look at your competitive ecosystem now? Not for recruiting advisors, let’s say for winning clients. Do you look at Farther and Savvy and different AI or FinTechs as your competition or do you still look at it as the wirehouses and other traditional RIAs? Ryan Belanger: I mean, Farther and Savvy have done a great job of going after this market. I think we’re not as well known yet as they are. We’ve certainly built out what we think is tremendous technology second to none. There’s a huge market of the IBD space that is just these guys and gals are stuck on these old platforms and things are okay, but they’re not super compelled to switch until maybe they see something like this, and so we have a massive pipeline of advisors and I’ve been recruiting for a long time. I’ve never had a pipeline like this. So I know it feels different to me. People really are interested in this. It’s enough for them to want to see tech demos and come visit us and really understand, okay, this is a firm that is challenging what’s possible and that’s someone that maybe I want to be aligned with, and so I think that there’s a lot of places where we can get the talent. And so for us, it’s just trying to find the right people that we want to partner with for the long term. Louis Diamond: Very cool, I got two more questions for you. It’s pretty remarkable that to get from where you started to now, the recruiting you’ve done, buying a FinTech, integrating it, that you still don’t have private equity investor outside capital. So you think it’s on the roadmap, whether it’s a certain size or you’re looking for personal liquidity where the business will just need it because it’s expensive to operate a FinTech platform and to scale up and to keep growing the firm. Do you think there’s a world in which you take on external capital to fuel your growth? Ryan Belanger: Most certainly. I mean, things have developed for us very quickly here, and outside capital and venture particular is a space that we’re actively in discussions with firms that believe in our vision, understand the value that we can create, and there’s just no doubt that you have to have some wind at your back to get to the market, and so while we’re not a household name right now, I’m confident in two years we will be, and our plan is to grow to hundreds and thousands of advisors across the country. Louis Diamond: Wow, big vision, but I love it. Last question for you. If you were 30 years old again, which I think everyone would kill for that opportunity, leaving Morgan Stanley today instead of in 2012, what do you think you would do differently knowing what you know now? Ryan Belanger: At that point, interest rates were near zero, Louis. Valuations you remember were two to three times revenue. It felt expensive then. Obviously things have changed quite a bit. So I would’ve begged, borrowed, and stole all the money I could from friends and family and said, “I need to buy as many businesses as I could at two times, three times revenue and pay, I don’t know, 3% loan.” Just in hindsight, that’s what everyone should have done. That’s not the path that we chose, but I think there’s a huge opportunity in front of us to elevate financial advice across the country, make really good advisors even better by putting that super cape on them. And so we’re very excited about the future, what we’ve got in store, and what we’re going to deliver to the market. And it seems like just yesterday that I walked out of Morgan Stanley with very little assets and tried to start this RIA, but I’m very thankful for all the people that have been supporting me throughout this journey. Louis Diamond: Amazing. And that’s a great spot to end, but let me ask the inverse of that question. Let’s say you leave in 2026, so leave today, you’re 30 years old, but you have the benefit of hindsight. You know what you know now. What would you do differently around the transition or building the firm other than of course be amazing if you can buy businesses for a fraction of what they cost today? Ryan Belanger: I would want to make sure that I’ve got an integrated solution. I don’t want to be picking a bunch of different vendor tools. I know that’s going to become way too time-consuming for me. So I would really try to figure out how you can get something that’s integrated that can scale, but I wouldn’t change anything about the people. I think you got to be able to connect with people that are like-minded and you still take the risk. What I can’t believe, Louis, is that people that sit at the wirehouses take a home team discount and they’re so fearful of leaving Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or UBS, but why are they taking that? The market says you should be paid double what you paid. And it’s not just like that’s 20, 30 years of data here that show that. And so I just would keep pushing people to bet on yourself. Your clients will come with you. Yes, that firm that you love will be the first ones to try to steal your clients. They’re going to call them, and that’s one way, loyalty. Another thing I don’t understand, but that’s the way the business is structured. I think there’s a huge opportunity to just educate advisors about what’s out there and I would take the risk. Louis Diamond: Love it. Ryan, this has been very fun. What you’ve accomplished, like I said earlier, gone against the grain at every turn. Leaving on the younger side without a huge business, buying and integrating a technology company, recruiting younger advisors without books of business. Every single thing you’ve done has been a different playbook. So I’m pumped to watch how we make Claro a household name and how this approach is going to pay off in spade. So I appreciate hearing this different perspective, and I know our listeners did as well, so much appreciated today. Ryan Belanger: Well, thanks for having me on. I know it’s a long time coming. Thanks for your patience. I wanted to make sure we had something really exciting to talk about when we finally did this, and hopefully I can come back in a couple years and catch up. And congratulations on everything you guys have built. You guys are just a premier name out there, and it’s been fun to watch your success as well. Louis Diamond: Thank you, Ryan, I appreciate it. 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 responsibilities 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. Why AI Matters Now: How a $1.5B RIA is Building the Firm of the Future A conversation with Louis Diamond and Ryan Belanger, Founder & CEO of Claro Advisors.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is Why AI Matters Now: How a $1.5B RIA is Building the Firm of the Future. It’s a conversation with Ryan Belanger, the Founder and CEO of Claro Advisors. I’m Louis 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. Louis Diamond: Artificial intelligence has quickly become one of the biggest topics in wealth management in the world. Almost every firm is experimenting with new tools, looking for ways to automate tasks, improve efficiency, or help advisors serve clients more effectively. But what if AI isn’t just another technology to plug into your business? What if it becomes the foundation for how your business is built? That’s exactly why I wanted to have Ryan Belanger on the show. Ryan is the Founder and CEO of Claro Advisors, a billion and a half dollar RIA that’s taken a very different path than most firms in the industry. Rather than simply adding AI to an existing tech stack, Claro acquired a FinTech company and is building its own AI native operating system designed specifically for advisors. What’s interesting is that this isn’t really a conversation about software, it’s about strategy. Ryan has consistently gone against the grain from leaving Morgan Stanley to launch an independent firm in 2012 before it became commonplace, to recruiting younger advisors when others chased established producers, to betting that proprietary technology will b

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore a subject more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly discuss a newly issued FinCEN consent order sanctioning UBS Financial Services, the U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary of UBS. It is a $125 million penalty, the largest FinCEN fine against a broker-dealer, for extensive anti-money laundering failures. They highlight weak transaction monitoring and suspicious activity reporting (SAR) processes, poor customer due diligence, inadequate wire-transfer data collection, and data governance gaps that led to under-reporting and hindered FinCEN's ability to build a complete money-laundering picture. The order notes UBS failed to monitor more than 50,000 foreign-currency wires totaling over $10 billion and did not disclose ongoing deficiencies discovered after a 2018 $14 million FinCEN action requiring fixes by 2021, with problems traceable back to 2004 and not addressed until 2023. They frame the matter as a tone-at-the-top and resourcing failure, compare it to other enforcement actions (including a recent SEC fine against Merrill Lynch), and suggest a future deeper dive after reviewing the full order. Key highlights: What UBS Got Wrong Scale Of The Failures Board Oversight and Resourcing Data Governance Breakdown SARs, Metrics, and AI Talk Takeaways and Next Steps Resources: ⁠USB Consent Order⁠  Tom   ⁠Instagram⁠ ⁠Facebook⁠ ⁠YouTube⁠ ⁠Twitter⁠ ⁠LinkedIn⁠ A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a ⁠Top 10 Business Law Podcast⁠, and ⁠a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast⁠. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred a Davey, Communicator, and W3 Award, all for podcast excellence.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Alt Goes Mainstream podcast.We sat down with Jake Elmhirst, Partner, Head of Private Wealth Secondaries Solutions and Head of Capital Formation at Coller Capital.We were live from Berlin, which becomes the “capital of private capital” in June as private equity industry leaders make the annual pilgrimage to the city for one of the marquee private equity conferences, SuperReturn Berlin.With Prosek Partners and former Bloomberg TV journalist Deirdre Bolton as my producer, along with her team, we took over a Tiny Space cabin to hold big conversations with some of the industry's leading alternative asset managers.Coller Capital has been a pioneer in the rapidly growing secondaries market. Coller's tagline? “First in secondaries.” Coller might be “first in secondaries.” The industry they focus on has moved to the forefront of private markets. Secondaries are coming in first for many LPs, in part because secondaries are now an active portfolio management solution for LPs (LP-led secondaries) and a way for LPs and GPs to continue to invest in the growth and value appreciation of some of their funds' best assets (GP-led secondaries). The firm completed its first secondaries transaction in 1990 and its first GP-led investment in 1996. Today, Coller has $55B in AUM (as of 3/31/26). Jake joined Coller after a long career at UBS, where he partnered with Coller from a few different vantage points co-founding and co-leading the Private Funds Group within UBS Investment Bank and leading the Private Markets effort within UBS Global Wealth Management. His perspective on Coller was very much a reason why he decided to leave his farm in Yorkshire (as a 23rd generation farmer!) to join Coller as they build out their wealth efforts.Jake and I had a fascinating conversation about the evolution of secondaries and how they are increasingly “solutions” for LPs and GPs. We covered:Jake's experience witnessing the rise of the early days of private markets and how that's shaped how he thinks about secondaries today.Why secondaries are becoming “solutions” for LPs and GPs.Why secondaries can be a core portfolio holding.The features of secondaries. The drivers of the increase in LP-led sales.Why have GP-led continuation vehicles become a popular solution?Why secondaries make sense for private wealth investors.BioJake is a Partner and Head of Private Wealth Secondaries Solutions and Head of Capital Formation. He is based in the firm's London office.Prior to joining Coller Capital in April 2022, Jake spent 25 years at UBS where he led the Private Markets effort within UBS Global Wealth Management, based in London. Prior to that, Jake co-founded and co-led the Private Funds Group within UBS Investment Bank, based in New York.He previously worked at Freshfields in London, where he qualified as a solicitor working in the Tax Team with a focus on collective investment schemes.Jake has a degree in Law (LLB) from the University of Bristol.Jake Elmhirst is a registered representative of Parallel Distributors LLC.Thanks, Jake, for sharing your wisdom, expertise, and passion in private markets, private wealth, and secondaries. Show Notes 00:00 Live in Berlin Intro00:39 Jake Elmhirst's Career Journey02:08 Wealth Channel Lessons05:06 Farming Roots Detour07:34 Secondaries Liquidity Fix09:26 Continuation Vehicles Impact11:21 Wealth Channel and Scale13:21 Why Secondaries Work15:15 Core Holding for Wealth16:31 Discount Versus Quality18:43 Underwriting in CV Era20:56 Evergreen Portfolio Mix21:56 Future of Solutions23:02 Toolbox Expansion Ideas24:55 Why Scale Matters25:53 Discount Nuance Explained27:30 Active Portfolio Management28:45 Closing Thoughts

Welcome to the Financial Freedom & Wealth Trailblazers Podcast! In today's episode, we're talking about how to manage investment risk like a professional so you can make smarter decisions and invest with greater confidence. Chris Ighodaro is a highly accomplished investment professional with more than 20 years of experience in portfolio management, investment strategy, and wealth management, having held senior roles with leading organisations including Lloyds Bank, UBS, and Schroders. Trusted by over 6,000 financial advisers, he combines deep expertise in asset allocation, risk management, and performance analysis with a strong track record in client acquisition and stakeholder engagement.Alongside his investment career, he has partnered with Bayes Business School to help individuals formulate and express ideas more effectively, improving interpersonal communication, confidence, and persuasiveness in public speaking and professional settings. His commitment to creating positive social impact is demonstrated through long-term voluntary work. For the past seven years, he has mentored postgraduate students at City St George's, University of London, supporting those who may not have access to established professional networks. He also serves on the Treasury Team at South Herts Credit Union, where he has gained firsthand insight into how access to fair loans and financial services can transform lives and promote financial dignity within local communities.He is the founder of Manresa Planning School, a multi-faceted financial literacy and coaching service dedicated to translating complex financial adviser knowledge into clear, practical, and confidence-building actions that help people make better financial decisions.Connect with Chris Here: https://x.com/Manresa_Schoolhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/135604208/admin/dashboard/https://wa.me/447931365840https://manresaschool.co.uk/===================================If you enjoyed this episode, remember to hit the like button and subscribe. Then share this episode with your friends.Thanks for watching the Financial Freedom & Wealth  Trailblazers Podcast. This podcast is part of the Digital Trailblazer family of podcasts. To learn more about Digital Trailblazer and what we do to help entrepreneurs, go to DigitalTrailblazer.com.Are you a coach, consultant, expert, or online course creator? Then we'd love to invite you to our FREE Facebook Group where you can learn the best strategies to land more high-ticket clients and customers. QUICK LINKS: APPLY TO BE FEATURED: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/podcast-guest-applicationDIGITAL TRAILBLAZER: https://digitaltrailblazer.com/

What does it take to build a luxury tented lodge in the middle of the Okavango Delta? To engineer a fabric structure that withstands a category five cyclone on the Australian coast? To convince a Swiss banker to walk away from a 20-year career and move to Bali to manufacture tented villas? Or to take a chance on a stretch tent made from horse-riding trouser fabric on a film set in Namibia, and turn that into one of the most innovative tent architecture firms in the world? It takes the kind of people you're about to meet. This is Titans of Tents... a brand new series inside the Glamping Business Podcast... and this first episode is where it all begins. I'm Sarah Riley, and I've spent years watching this industry grow from a niche curiosity into a globally recognised asset class. But one conversation I've never heard - not once - is the one where the people who actually build the foundations of this industry sit down together and speak honestly about how they got here, what they've learned, and where they think it's all going. Until now. In this episode, I'm joined by four of the world's leading glamping structure founders: Brendan O'Molony of Tenthouse Structures in South Africa, Ueli Wick of Escape Nomade in Bali, Tom Butterfield of Eco Structures in Western Australia, and David Patrick Court of Bushtec Creations, operating across Africa and the Middle East. Between them, they have delivered tented structures in over 55 countries, worked with some of the world's most prestigious hospitality brands, and built their reputations in some of the most remote and challenging environments on earth. What makes this conversation different isn't just their collective experience... it's the combination of genuine competitive respect, deep friendship, and a shared mission to raise standards across the industry that brings them together. They are four founders with hard-won knowledge, strong opinions, and the kind of honesty that only comes from having actually done the work. In this first episode, we hear their origin stories, and they are not what you'd expect. We talk about whether glamping is truly a global industry or a collection of very different regional stories. We explore what COVID really did to the outdoor hospitality sector, why an AI-disrupted world might be the best thing that ever happened to tented structures, and what is still... even now... misunderstood about what these buildings can actually do. This is the conversation the industry has been waiting for. Welcome to episode one of The Titans of Tents.  ____________ Who are the Titans? Brendan O'Molony - Tenthouse Structures (South Africa / Singapore) Brendan founded Tenthouse Structures in 2010, and over the past 15 years it has evolved into one of the industry's most innovative full-service tent architecture firms, delivering luxury tented camps and lodges across Africa, the USA, the Middle East, Europe and Australia. Headquartered in South Africa with an international sales and marketing office in Singapore, Tenthouse has developed over 60 international properties, and Brendan leads a 40+ strong team of tent-tensile architects, engineers, technicians, and lightweight building specialists. His personal mission is engineering superior wilderness fabric structures that are optimised to site... low-impact, high-comfort, and built for some of the world's most remote locations https://www.tenthousestructures.com/  Ueli Wick - Escape Nomade (Bali, Indonesia) A Swiss national who spent most of his professional life in private banking with UBS and Credit Suisse, Ueli made a dramatic career pivot and now leads Escape Nomade, designers and manufacturers of luxury tented villas based in Bali, with a mission to bring the "living without walls" lifestyle to a global audience. Under his leadership, Escape Nomade has delivered more than 450 luxury tented structures across 55 countries. Their product sits at the haute couture end of the market... large, semi-permanent, fully furnished tented villas used in resorts, wellness centres, and private residences worldwide https://escapenomade.com/  Tom Butterfield - Eco Structures (Western Australia) Tom has been driving product and concept at Eco Structures Australia since 2012, and has since completed over 85 glamping projects worldwide. His international portfolio spans locations including the US Virgin Islands, Saudi Arabia, China, and several Class A World Reserves. Eco Structures specialises in cost-effective, environmentally sustainable glamping accommodation engineered for remote and challenging terrain... including their patented concrete-free eco anchors and prefabricated bathroom pods... and exports globally from their Western Australia base https://www.ecostructures.com.au/  David Patrick Court - Bushtec Creations (South Africa / Middle East) David heads up Bushtec Creations as an Independent Executive Consultant, bringing over 25 years of safari and tourism/hospitality expertise across Botswana, Saudi Arabia and the wider Middle East. Bushtec holds a current range of 1,300+ tent designs... more options than any other tent manufacturer... with a fully owned manufacturing plant covering all canvas and steel components. Their work spans luxury safari lodges, award-winning tented resorts (including Sharjah's Kingfisher Retreat), and turnkey solutions across Africa, the GCC, and the Far East https://bushtec.net/our-tents/   Sarah Riley - Inspired Courses ☆ The Glamping Academy ☆ Inspired Collective Sarah Riley is the founder of The Glamping Academy... part of Inspired Collective Ltd. With over 15 years of experience in the glamping, retreat, and unique hospitality industry, Sarah has supported more than 2,000 business launches across 18 countries. She hosts the Glamping Business Podcast and Glamping Americas Podcast. She is also the Conference Director for the Glamping Show Americas.

With Josh Tomolak, Vice President of Independent Advisor Services, Diamond Consultants Louis Diamond and Josh Tomolak unpack today's IBD vs. RIA landscape, explaining what has changed, where each model excels, and how to determine which path best supports the business you want to build. In Summary The independent wealth management landscape has changed dramatically, making the decision between an independent broker dealer (IBD) and an RIA more nuanced than ever before. Louis Diamond welcomes Diamond Consultants' Vice President of Independent Advisor Services, Josh Tomolak, for a practical discussion of how the independent space has evolved, what truly differentiates the IBD and RIA models today, and how advisors can evaluate which path best aligns with the business they want to build. The Storyline Not long ago, the decision to become independent was relatively straightforward. Advisors either remained with a traditional firm or pursued independence through one of a limited number of models. Today, the conversation is far more complex. Independent broker dealers have significantly expanded their capabilities, offering stronger technology, larger transition packages, greater flexibility, and even pathways to RIA ownership. At the same time, the RIA ecosystem has matured into a sophisticated marketplace supported by multiple custodians, outsourced service providers, institutional capital, and enterprise platforms that rival many of the industry's largest firms. As these developments have unfolded, the traditional distinctions between an IBD and an RIA have become less obvious. Advisors evaluating their options are no longer simply asking whether they should become independent—they're asking which model best supports the clients they serve, the business they envision, and the lifestyle they want to create. In this Industry Update, Louis and Josh unpack the realities behind the IBD vs. RIA decision. They discuss where the two models overlap, where meaningful differences still exist, and why factors like service, technology, economics, operational responsibility, enterprise value, and long-term optionality often matter more than labels alone. Whether you're considering changing independent firms, launching your own RIA, or simply want a better understanding of how the independent landscape has evolved, this conversation provides an objective framework for evaluating today's choices—and preparing for tomorrow's opportunities. Topics Covered Independent Broker Dealer (IBD) vs. RIA models The evolution of supportive independence Technology investments across the independent space Transition support and advisor mobility Capital solutions and recruiting economics Business formation and enterprise value Launching an independent RIA Multi-custodial platforms and open architecture Minority investments and succession planning Future trends shaping advisor independence > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why are already-independent advisors reconsidering their current model? (5:27) Josh explains why service, technology, economics, and growing optionality are causing advisors to reevaluate their existing affiliations. How have independent broker dealers and RIAs become more alike? (19:28) Louis and Josh discuss the growing convergence between the two models and why the distinction is becoming less obvious than many advisors assume. What really separates an IBD from an RIA? (25:04) A practical discussion of autonomy, compliance, flexibility, custody, economics, and advisor experience. What misconceptions keep advisors from launching an RIA? (36:29) Josh outlines the “Four Pillars” of launching an RIA and explains where advisors tend to either overestimate or underestimate the operational realities. Which advisors thrive most in each model? (33:12) The conversation explores why there isn't a universally “better” model—only one that's better aligned with an advisor's goals. What trends are quietly reshaping independence? (42:13) Minority investments, enterprise value, business formation, and changing revenue models may have an even greater impact than advisors realize today. Key Takeaways Independence has evolved from a destination into an ongoing strategic decision. Independent broker dealers have significantly improved technology, transition support, economics, and flexibility. The RIA ecosystem has matured into a highly sophisticated marketplace with broad outsourcing and support options. Choosing between an IBD and an RIA should begin with long-term business objectives—not industry perceptions. Building a valuable business depends more on business structure and scalability than simply growing assets. Advisors considering independence should evaluate models with an open mind rather than relying on outdated assumptions. The next decade will likely bring continued convergence between independent business models. https://youtu.be/jHDVso2TsmQ Quotable Moments “The question is no longer, ‘Do I want to go independent?' The question is, ‘What kind of independence makes the most sense for my clients, business, and goals?'” “Business formation is far more important than assets under management.” “The way you build your business will ultimately determine how valuable that business becomes.” “Everything in an RIA is going to cost you either your time or your money.” FAQs Is there still a meaningful difference between an IBD and an RIA? Yes. While the two models increasingly overlap, they differ in areas such as flexibility, compliance structure, operational responsibility, economics, and control. Why are more independent advisors changing firms today? Improved technology, stronger transition support, evolving economics, and better service models are prompting many advisors to reassess whether their current platform still fits their business. Is launching an RIA easier than it used to be? Yes. Supportive independence, outsourced service providers, and improved custodial resources have significantly reduced many of the historical barriers. Does every entrepreneurial advisor belong in the RIA model? No. The best fit depends on an advisor's appetite for ownership, customization, operational responsibility, and long-term vision. What matters more: assets under management or how the business is built? Josh argues that scalable business formation often has a greater impact on enterprise value than AUM alone. What's the biggest mistake advisors make when evaluating independence? Starting with assumptions instead of objectives. The most effective due diligence begins by defining the business you're trying to build, then identifying the model best suited to support it. Yes. While the two models increasingly overlap, they differ in areas such as flexibility, compliance structure, operational responsibility, economics, and control. Improved technology, stronger transition support, evolving economics, and better service models are prompting many advisors to reassess whether their current platform still fits their business. Yes. Supportive independence, outsourced service providers, and improved custodial resources have significantly reduced many of the historical barriers. No. The best fit depends on an advisor's appetite for ownership, customization, operational responsibility, and long-term vision. Josh argues that scalable business formation often has a greater impact on enterprise value than AUM alone. Starting with assumptions instead of objectives. The most effective due diligence begins by defining the business you're trying to build, then identifying the model best suited to support it. Related Resources IBD vs. RIA Comparison Guide IBD vs. RIA Revisited: Two Independent Pathways for Advisors to Consider 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… IBD vs. RIA: A Special Industry Update on Independence A conversation with Louis Diamond and Josh Tomolak, Vice President of Independent Advisor Services at Diamond Consultants.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is IBD vs. RIA: A Special Industry Update on Independence. It’s a conversation with Josh Tomolak, our Vice President of Independent Advisor Services. I’m Louis 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. Louis Diamond: For a long time, going independent would suggest the destination. Today, it’s often the beginning of a different conversation. As the independent space has matured, advisors have more choices than ever before. Broker-dealers have expanded their capabilities. The RIA ecosystem has become increasingly sophisticated. Capital is more readily available and support models now exist that would’ve been difficult to imagine a decade ago. The result is that many advisors who are already independent are taking a fresh look at whether their current affiliation still aligns with what they’re trying to build. My guest is Josh Tomolak, Vice President of Independent Advisor Services here at Diamond Consultants and our resident expert on independence. Josh spends his days helping advisors evaluate independence in all its forms from independent broker dealers, the fully independent RIAs and everything in between. And his knowledge is critical because the distinction between these models is often blurred. Many broker dealers now offer pathways to greater autonomy while supported independence has made RIA ownership more accessible than ever before. So the question is no longer simply, “Do I want to go independent?” The question is, “What kind of independence makes the most sense for client, business, and goals?” Josh shares what he’s seeing across the landscape, the misconceptions that continue to shape advisor thinking and the factors that matter most when evaluating the next chapter of an independent business. There’s a lot to discuss, so let’s get to it. Josh, thanks for joining me today. Joshua Tomolak: Thanks for having me, Louis. It’s a real privilege to have come. This is a full circle moment for me going from being a student of your podcast, to working alongside you, to being a guest. So I appreciate you having me. Louis Diamond: Amazing. I’m excited for this one too, because you have a fresh and in the weeds perspective that a lot of our guests simply don’t have. So why don’t you start off, you spend your time helping advisors evaluate independence every day. So working with advisors who are already independent, for the most part. And to me, it feels like the independent space has really evolved dramatically over the last decade. I mean, this podcast is really the epicenter of that to prove that out, but give us a little background on your past roles in the space and then we can get into what you’re seeing right now. Joshua Tomolak: Yeah, I’d be happy to. So I took a very non-traditional path into wealth management. I spent a decade as a deep sea Navy diver, and upon completing my service there, I ended up working for TD Ameritrade. And in my role there, I spent about six years doing nothing but helping financial advisors explore the RIA space, whether that was to join or partner with an RIA, sell to an RIA, or in most cases, launch their own RIA. And one of the things that I ultimately came to terms with is it’s just not the right model for everybody. While I’m a huge advocate for it, we would often lose business to the major broker-dealers of the world. And at the time, I really didn’t understand why. In the last six years at Diamond Consultants has been a very interesting purview into what a lot of the broker-dealers have done and are doing to make themselves more RIA-ish and be very compelling to the right advisor. Louis Diamond: Perfect framing. Your background is incredibly germane to the folks you work with. So let’s start off with the softball here. What are you seeing right now? Joshua Tomolak: It’s not so different than the rest of the industry, the wirehouses, the regional firms, things of that nature, that if you took 10 firms, they’re all likely to go different directions, even if they were identical practices. That could be… A third would go from an independent broker-dealer to another independent broker-dealer. Certainly the supported RIA space is growing every day and has created a lot of very fun and unique solutions for advisors, very customized and curated. And then I think there’s still a lot of really great sophisticated teams and individual contributors that are making the decision to go hyper entrepreneurial and launch their own individual RIA. So the movement’s really all over the board from my perspective. Louis Diamond: It does feel like it’s no longer independence is an alternative option or it’s on the fringes. It’s very front and center whether for breakaways, which is a big topic on our podcast, but in general, the infrastructure has become much, much more sophisticated today than ever before. Advisors have way more tools in their toolbox to serve clients, whether in the private markets or through technology. And it’s no longer that if an advisor’s independent, they’re in the minor leagues where they don’t have the same ability to serve clients like they did if they’re at a big bank or a private bank or a wirehouse. Do you agree? Joshua Tomolak: I absolutely agree. And I’m reminded of a question I got one time from a great team that I worked with in New York. They asked me, “Are there really more options than ever before? Because all we see is one firm selling to another.” And I think that’s a really great point. There’s far less broker dealers on the street than there were even five years ago. But for every Commonwealth, for example, that sells to an LPL, up pops three or four really cool private equity-backed, sophisticated RIA platform firms that are built to service their own unique advisor base. Louis Diamond: I think that’s right. Sitting on the sidelines, sitting on top of everything going on in the industry, I feel like capital is always an interesting topic forever. If an advisor wanted to move within the independent world or break away from a big firm to go independent, the only way to get capital was to go to an independent broker dealer. So we still see that, but I feel like today between all these minority acquisition opportunities, we’re seeing firms acquire practices at time of transition, which is somewhat new. There’s debt solutions, recruiting deals are way up for firms that are paying forgivable loans. RIAs now would, in some cases, will pay a forgivable note. What are you seeing there as far as the availability of capital and just deals in general? Joshua Tomolak: It’s a great question and I didn’t want to take the low-hanging fruit, but capital’s been a huge innovation, I guess, in the last five years I’d say. Just to give you rough quotes, please don’t hold me to it, but traditional transition broker-dealer deals were five years ago, 40 to 60% of Trailing Twelve revenue today are somewhere between 90 and 120%, sometimes north of that for the right team. That’s really meaningful money for the team that is thinking about foregoing a wirehouse deal, for example. I’d also say a lot of these firms are getting hyper-creative in how they solve for capital. The minority investment piece that you mentioned is very interesting. We’re seeing a lot of privatized forgivable notes in the RIA space where third-party or private lenders are basically lending the money and the RIA is making the payments on that forgivable note as long as the advisor is affiliated with them. So there’s been a recognition among the RIA space to get away from the, “Oh, they just took a check” type of mantra, and to say, “Look, I understand there are capital needs. These people are taking a risk. We need to solve for that.” So we’ve seen a lot of that in the marketplace. Louis Diamond: Very interesting. I think another thing financially, and then we’ll keep the train moving, that I know I’ve seen, and maybe you can weigh in if you’ve seen the same, is the cost to an advisor or a business owner to join an independent BD or to join an RIA has come way down, probably in part because of Schwab going to zero on trading. That’s been a catalyst. But it feels like we used to say independent BDs were expensive relative to the RIA world. And in some cases, they certainly could be. And if you’re at scale, maybe you can pick up a point or two being in the RIA world versus a BD. But when you have some of these BDs that have a basis point admin fee or no admin fee at a certain size and the payouts I feel like are similar, maybe have gone up a little bit, but it’s more so like the administrator fees, the platform fees, the program fees. Anyone who’s not in that world, it’s like, “What are you talking about?” But basically the way that these broker-dealers make money, it seems like there’s been a pretty big differential in the exchange of value where advisors now get more services, better technology, get more money to join them and get it at a lower cost. Do you agree? Joshua Tomolak: I absolutely agree. I think that maybe that’s one of the larger changes that we’ve seen, and it’s probably one of the benefits from a lot of the industry consolidation on that independent broker-dealer side. The economies of scale of these folks have allowed them to increase their tech spend, increase their service capacities all while offering it to the advisors at a cheaper price. And when I was at TD Ameritrade, one of the biggest pitches was the idea of a 100% payout and you control the fixed expenses, your technology compliance, et cetera. But what’s changed is that broker-dealers are pretty darn comparable on the expenses. All of those admin fees and things you mentioned will still exist, but they’re on a much smaller scale. And I think the question a lot of advisors are asking is, “Am I getting congruent value from my broker-dealer for what I pay for?” And while that answer might’ve been no a couple years ago, today the answer is more often yes. Louis Diamond: Yeah, I would agree. A lot of times we work with advisors who are starting an RIA or affiliating with an RIA or going to a BD and they see how big the deals are in the independent BD world and the payouts are really high and the fees are relatively low. And honestly, it is a hard decision or calculus to make, like, “How does it make sense for me to turn down this extremely lucrative deal when my ongoing economics are going to be somewhat similar in the BD world versus in the RIA space?” I think it’s just an interesting dynamic and we’ll get more into that distinction. One of the stars of the show right here is we’ve seen a ton of advisor movement across the industry. Our annual advisor transition report said that in 2025, over 11,000 experienced advisors changed firms, which is a large number. A lot of those numbers are within the independent world. So advisors who are 1099 through a BD or through an RIA transitioning to another platform or organization or starting an RIA. So why do you think we’re seeing so many advisors reconsider their current firm or their platform or their broker-dealer today than in years past? Joshua Tomolak: It’s a jarring number. 11,000 is definitely a significant amount of advisor movements. To me, it comes down to a few things, but I will say that it’s almost always a conglomeration of pushes and pulls. Pushes being inherent frustrations with your status quo, pulls being the new sexy, shiny things that you see in the marketplace that could be really impactful for your business. To me, it typically comes down to one of three things, at least on the push front, that drives advisors to movement. Service being number one, technology being number two, and economics being number three. And if we were just going to unpack those, I think service being, “Can you call somebody that knows your business, that knows your name? Are you getting the correct answers? Are you being pushed through a phone tree? And even if you’re not doing it, is it taking up a meaningful amount of time of your staff’s free time?” On the technology front, there’s very significant tech spends happening in the industry right now. I think Raymond James and LPL reported, for example, they spent 500 million in 2025 on a tech spend. So advisors are going to the places that are making their life easier. People are looking for a mechanism to really scale their business without having to add staff and a lot of expenses to the bottom line. And technology is just the fastest, most efficient way to do that most times. And then economics, certainly a lot of advisors and teams have built phenomenal businesses and they’ve made a great living without really stressing out about the economics. And they eventually get to a point in their business where what they were giving up as a million dollar producer is far different than what they’re giving up as a $4 million producer. And back to the congruent value, it perhaps stops to make as much sense. Louis Diamond: Well said. I always say when the cost-to-value ratio is out of whack, that’s when advisors sit up and take notice. And not to name names of firms, but there definitely are firms that are more expensive. And even if you look at how much a wirehouse or a Ed Jones advisor paid their firm, it’s like, “What got me here is not necessarily what’s going to get me there.” And while the name on the business card, the resources were incredibly impactful, and I’m so grateful for what my firm, my broker-dealer did for me when I was just starting or when I was smaller. Now the business is bigger, I rely upon different resources or I don’t need the firm as much. So I’d rather plow the cost savings either into income for myself or invest it in areas that are most germane to my business. And it’s usually when that kind of light bulb moment goes off, that’s one of the major pushes that cause advisors to evaluate other options. So I agree with you, those are the major push factors, but then what are the pull factors? What are the major advancements or changes across the independent space that’s causing advisors to say, “Hey, okay, I might have some frustrations, but at the same time, I also need to find something that’s more than marginally better than the firm I’m at. Otherwise, why am I going to go through the hassle, take the risk, et cetera? So what are some of the pull factors that advisors are latching onto today? Joshua Tomolak: Sure. And I might say with one final push factor, there’s a straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back when you’ve been told for however many years that this change or that change is coming down the pipeline and it never happens. And it translates well into the pull factors is do they do what they say they’re going to do? The talking points really for the pull factors are exactly the same. So the counterpoint to service is perhaps having a direct relationship with the chief compliance officer at a firm or having a dedicated service representative that knows their stuff inside and out and can get you the answer even if they don’t know it off the top of their head. Having the technology to rebalance a household in two clicks instead of two hours. In economics, I think it’s really a transparency of economics. We’ve both worked with some really significant firms that have looked at their P&Ls and said, “where the heck is the money going?” And we’ve looked at the same P&Ls and said, “I have no idea,” because it’s so convoluted. People are happy to pay for good service, good technology, good products, but they just want to know where the money’s coming from. So I think it’s a yin and yang. The same things that they’re the push are often the pull. Louis Diamond: Definitely. I’ll give you a couple other from my perspective. I’ll say first specific to the independent BD world, and then we’ll dive into the RIA, I think it’s a little bit different. But I think some other will say innovations or changes that are causing advisors to really perk up and listen and really make the case to themselves that life will be better at this new organization than the status quo or staying put. We’ve seen major advancements in transition support, whether it’s being able to do a transition without a shred of paper, being able to… I mean, we’ve seen some independent advisors move their entire book within two weeks, which never would’ve happened before. So the firms that I’d say are playing offense, the larger firms that are winning, they have insane headcount around transitions and are always investing in technology, whether now on the AI front or in general. And we’ve seen transitions, they’re never easy. So that’s not a comment to say it’s easy, but a lot of the friction, a lot of the manual work has been taken away, which is massive. You definitely mentioned the significant technology spend. I mean, just the innovations going on across the industry. There’s definitely some firms that are laggards on technology and others that are light years ahead, whether because their tech is more integrated or they’ve built out their platform to be more, we’ll say modular, to plug in different third-party softwares where an advisor can really customize and create their own tech stack. I think there’s been some changes on compliance. It used to be if you’re at an independent BD, you had to be the OSJ by yourself or you had to roll up under an OSJ. But now most BDs offer home office supervision, so a big friction or pain point is taken away. And then I’ll give you a bridge to talk about what we’re seeing on the RIA side. But we’ve also seen, I would say, a real blurring of the lines between what you would traditionally think of as an independent broker dealer versus what was an RIA. So whether it’s an internal pathway where it’s like, “Start off on our independent BD platform, get the big deal, get the support, but then you can ditch that and just use this as a custodian or you can sell the business to us when you want to retire and convert to W2.” So in that vein, transitioning internally to an RIA, give me the same points like, “What are the major advancements or changes you’re seeing on the RIA side today?” Joshua Tomolak: I love that you said that because it’s been one of the most interesting changes to watch. Independent broker dealers becoming more like RIAs, and to your point, being more flexible, having more optionality, a more curated experience in some cases. And in many cases becoming closer to independent broker dealers with some of these massive shops that we’ve seen be created over the last five years that now have hundreds, if not thousands of advisors. To your question on the internal RIA slide as we sometimes call it, this really didn’t exist many places a few years ago. And I think it’s been created as both originally a retention tool in many places for the advisors that were with a major independent broker dealer and they ultimately wanted to have their own ADV and their own RIA. And the firm didn’t want to lose all the assets to an independent custodian so they gave them the green light to… And it’s ultimately became a sales tool in many cases. Just to use a couple of examples across the industry, I mean, Raymond James has Raymond James Custody Services, which has attracted a lot of really sophisticated teams. I know Wells Fargo Finance done something similar and even the counterparts over at Cetera and Osaic are trying to do the same thing. So it’s a recognition in my view that we want to keep the best talent possible. And if these folks are ultimately going to go RIA anyway, it’s less about the money and more about the flexibility and control that it offers them. So what can we do to keep those folks on board? And rightfully so, a lot of senior management of these firms have said, “Let’s not lose these teams. It’s going to be a lower margin business for us, but at the rate that they’re growing, it’s going to pay off in the long run.” Louis Diamond: Well said. RIAs are now more mainstream. And some of these RIAs, they’re either resembling independent BDs or I would even go so far to say the valuations that are even publicly available on some RIAs is definitely having people take notice. I mean, Cerity Partners recently raised capital at an over $8 billion reported valuation. Crescent was well over a billion. Firms like Mariner, Creative Planning, Mercer, Wealth Enhancement Group, and there’s many that I’m missing, are all worth a couple billion dollars or more and growing. Do you think that’s had an impact on the legitimacy or the staying power of the RIA model? Joshua Tomolak: Oh, absolutely. There’s no doubt about it. I mean, those groups that you mentioned and many more are winning some of the biggest teams on the street. I mean, if you pull up a run-of-the-mill advisor hub article, for example, you’ll see as many of those RIAs win significant businesses as you will their broker-dealer counterparts, partially in my opinion, due to the massive valuations these firms are fetching. And it’s much more of a partnership in the sense that joining a Crescent or a Wealth Enhancement Group, as you mentioned, you’re a part of a boutique group of maybe a couple of hundred very sophisticated high-producing advisors all playing under the same banner, all rowing in the same direction, and that creates substantial growth. Louis Diamond: Exactly right. I think two other things to me that’s driving the legitimacy or the growth of the RIA segment, there’s so many different outsourcing solutions that have popped up, whether it’s more of a… We’ll say a bundled or a package outsourcing solution through firms like Dynasty and Sanctuary. LPL has done a ton with having a shared services outsourcing model. So you have those. But you also have, I mean, probably 10 different firms I could think of that can be an outsourced chief compliance officer. You have tons of marketing agencies that specialize in helping RIAs. You have all these FinTechs popping up to support the RIA space. Really, it’s like anything and everything can be outsourced now. And even the big Wall Street banks like UBS, Merrill, et cetera, they’re attempting to sell and distribute product into the RIA space. Venture funds, private equity funds, anyone you talk to is trying to get a piece of the RIA space, which means there’s more product and platform availability than ever before. And I think it’s massive because one, it’s a catalyst for teams who say, “I love everything about the RIA world. I just don’t want to do it on my own,” or, “I don’t know where to start.” But also it means that they can look their clients in the eye and say, “Hey, not only do I have the same stuff that I had for you at XYZ firm, I can actually do more for you.” And even if you look at what the custodians are doing on the lending side now, Schwab owning a bank is massive and being able to facilitate mortgages, securities-backed loans, things that didn’t really exist in the past. I think it’s a very exciting time for advisors either that are independent or are considering the independent space because you have all these choices and it’s really like, “Choose your own adventure. Give me your top five things you want.” I’m sure it exists and we can find it and make it happen. And I don’t think we’d have the same confidence in that statement 5, 7, 10 years ago. Joshua Tomolak: I couldn’t agree more. That’s such a huge development is the marketplace of third party vendors in any kind of capitalism environment. There’s problems that people encounter and there’s really smart people that are trying to make a lot of money that go to market to solve them. And we’ve seen a ton of that over the last few years. Louis Diamond: Exactly right. Yeah, it’s like also… If an advisor looks around and says, “Hey, this is what I want,” and it doesn’t exist, oftentimes that’s a light bulb moment to be like, “Okay, I’ll go build it. I’ll do it on my own.” Whether it was Stewart Partners when they launched a number of years ago or Hightower, Dynasty, et cetera. They were all started by people that said, “Hey, I see a big gap in the ecosystem. Let’s create a business and raise capital to go solve it and then deliver this service to other like-minded advisors or business owners.” Honestly, it’s a treat to be able to watch all this happen in real time. We probably should have laid the groundwork with this next question, but I think it’s an important one. What’s the difference between a independent broker-dealer and an RIA? Really basic foundational. It sounds like the lines are blurred. There’s probably a lot of similarities. Advisors are successful in both. It’s not like one’s better than the other. How would you explain the differences, if a client of ours asked, “What’s the difference between an independent broker-dealer and IBD versus an RIA”? Joshua Tomolak: Get into the core of it. Again, the lines are blurred, and I’ll stay very high level on the strategic differences, but I like to use this example. I drive a Toyota Tundra. Really like the truck, gets me from A to B. Now, if I were getting to a point where I wanted a new vehicle, if I were to go get another Toyota Tundra because I really like a lot of aspects of it, but I want the one with the bigger screen and the bigger tires and the power seats, and I have rolled down windows because I have a fear of drowning. But if I want a lot of the bells and whistles, but I want to keep the foundation, that’s what I align to a independent broker-dealer to independent broker-dealer. You like the foundation of everything all under one roof. You like a lot of the resources, but you have some meaningful frustrations and you want to see if another provider in the market can solve for those or you can upgrade. If I instead, Louis, decided that I wanted a sports car or a Jeep Wrangler or something, I would be looking at a different category altogether. That’s how I articulate the platform space. They provide the same services and support in many cases that an independent broker-dealer does, think of marketing and a tech stack and regulatory oversight and a fellowship in a community, but they’re built on an RIA TC registered chassis. They’re typically far more customized so you can shop the street to get a lot more of the things that you like, though you are walking away from maybe some of the things that you’ve liked in the independent broker-dealer model. So I guess that’s the highest level I might explain it, just a little bit more minutia in any broker-dealer is going to be a FINRA registered, FINRA member broker-dealer. So they’re subject to the FINRA rules, which basically means it’s the compliance interpretation of those rules that they have to follow. So LPL’s rules may be slightly different than Cetera’s than Ameriprise’s because it’s based on their interpretations of the rules. In the RIA space, everybody really operates on the fiduciary standard. So it’s just a different lens that from a compliance standpoint, business is looked at. And a lot of people would make the argument that it’s just easier to get things done when you’re looking at something from that lens. I might’ve gone too compliance nerd on you there, but I’d be curious what you think some of the major differences are. Louis Diamond: Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, it sounds like if you’re in the RIA world in some capacity that you as the advisor or business owner are going to have a little bit more control and autonomy and flexibility. One, do you think that’s true? And what are the reasons why that is? Is it platform? Is it strictly just compliance is easier? What are the different ways that an RIA would have more or less flexibility than someone who’s with an independent BD? Joshua Tomolak: Yeah, I think it’s overwhelmingly true, but it certainly depends on your business. Within most RIA platforms, you’re going to be one of a couple dozen, maybe a couple hundred, where you’re going to have people within that firm that really know your business. So the experience in getting things done is much less about, “Can I do this,” or, “Can I not do this?” And it’s, “Louis, I understand you asked for this. We’re going to run into these issues, but let’s figure out how to get to yes.” So it’s far more curated by people that are not operating on black and white rules and can actually figure out how to get to yes for your business. The other thing I would say is that most significant RIA platforms have multiple custodial options. So many times you’ll see as few as two or as many as five. So if an advisor or a team is trying to bring on a new piece of business or do something creative, that might be something they can use a different custodial relationship to accomplish. It might be something that Goldman Sachs does really well but is in its infancy at Fidelity, or it might be international business that’s approved on Pershing’s platform but not Schwab’s platform. So the RIA partner that you’re with can really look at those custodians agnostically and say, “What’s the best home for this business? What’s the best way to get this done for Louis?” There’s a couple examples of where I see the flexibility in practice. Louis Diamond: Yeah, I think one more too would be the concept of being able to shop the street. I’ve heard it described as becoming a buy-side advocate for your clients versus being a professional seller. So meaning, if I’m affiliated with an RIA or I’m operating my own RIA, there’s no selling away like there is at a wirehouse or at certain BDs. So if I have a client who’s trying to get a $10 million loan for a new building that they’re breaking ground on, if I’m at UBS, Merrill, Morgan Stanley, captive to a BD, I can go to my firm and say, “Hey, this $10 million loan, here it is. What are the terms? What are the rates? Will you take on this business?” And the firm will say, “Yes. No. Yes, here are the terms. Here’s the caveats, et cetera.” But it’s a very closed market process and an advisor has to live and die by what their firm says. Versus in the RIA world, it’s, “Okay, I have relationships with nine different banks and I can go to these different banks and private credit funds and whoever and really create either an option process for my client or really just help them in a fully agnostic open way.” And we see the same thing when it comes to alternative investments. No one at a wirehouse, let’s say, is complaining that they don’t have enough alts that they can offer clients. Those firms have done an amazing job with really boiling the ocean and having tons and tons of options for private investments, hedge funds, et cetera. But if you’re in the RIA world, you can take it to the next level and say, “Hey, this $3 million startup company that my friend is starting, I’m going to help them raise capital,” or, “My client wants to get a syndicate of investors together to have a direct investment into a qualified opportunity zone fund that they’re starting. Let’s do it when we can advise on it.” So it really expands what an advisor is able to do on behalf of clients. Like to me, that’s the most interesting or exciting part of the RIA model. You can get some of that within the BD world, but to me, when an advisor’s business becomes more sophisticated as far as what their end client’s needs are, it tends to translate better to the RIA world than the BD world. Not to say there aren’t ultra-high net worth focused advisors at BDs, but because of that additional flexibility, autonomy, customization, et cetera, that speaks more RIA. So again, absolutely not down at all on the independent BDs because I think there’s a massive home for them. Josh, let me turn it back to you. I’m rambling now. Give me the pitch for an independent BD. What are the things that are misperceptions that people have? What are the advantages that an independent broker dealer like an LPL or a RayJ or a Cetera have over RIAs or over other models in general? Joshua Tomolak: Absolutely. And I’d say I’ve learned more over the last six years from some of your ramblings than most people learn in an MBA course, so keep doing what you’re doing. But it’s funny being in this position now, having spent so much time sort of selling against the IBD model within TD Ameritrade, but what I’ve learned is it’s a good home for everybody. And a lot of times the advisors that they’re entrepreneurial enough where they like having their name on the door, but they’re not so entrepreneurial where they want to build everything out themselves, that’s where the independent broker dealers absolutely kill it. Their economics have gotten to a point where they’re really competitive. They offer transition capital that isn’t even going to be comparable in the RIA space unless you’re selling a minority share of your business. And you mentioned LPL, or we could really list all of the major ones, there’s not a department that they don’t have. It could be as nuance as finding 403(b) payroll slots or it could be as mainstream as fixed income or setting up events. There are all kinds of really neat departments that these all under one roof independent broker dealers have invested in. And a lot of times they make an effort to make you very much aware of all of the support because most people don’t use it. So I would say for the advisors that are looking to get their improved Toyota Tundra, then you can get probably 70 or 80% of what you want within the independent broker-dealer world. And you can also keep 20 or 30% of the stuff, maybe more that you really liked at your previous firm. So I think that’s where it really shines. I sometimes call it an incremental change rather than a transformational change. But for many advisors, incremental is really good enough if you get to keep the familiarity of how you’ve been doing business for the last 20-some years, but you’re able to get net improvement on the things that were really bothering you. Louis Diamond: Well said. Something that I’ve seen that’s been… I guess this could be either pro or con depending upon the advisor, but with some broker dealers, letting an advisor co-brand with them or really having a real consumer-facing brand, whether it’s, “I’m a franchise owner with Ameriprise,” or, “I’m independent through Raymond James,” or, “Running my own practice through Wells Fargo FiNet,” or, “I’m independent with Northwestern Mutual.” There’s definitely some brand cache or brand familiarity with some of those firms that may or may not be the same if you’re in the RIA world. So I would agree there’s a lot to like about the independent BD world and there’s a fit for people that is absolutely better with independent BDs than on the RIA side. Even if some people would say RIA is better, we’re cleaner, I wouldn’t say that. To me, it’s all about what an advisor’s goals are and then matching that up with what these firms do. And there’s never a perfect option. I jokingly say, “If there was a perfect firm, we wouldn’t be in business.” Every firm has their advantages or disadvantages. And depending upon where an advisor’s coming from, their style of business, their pain points, that’ll match up really well with on firm or one type of firm or one model than the other. Let’s pivot a little bit to the RIA world. A lot of your comments have been more about advisors affiliating or joining RIAs, this whole supportive version of independence concept. But what about advisors who want to go and start their own RIA? Either they’re leaving a captive firm and taking the entrepreneurial route and starting their own firm, or they’re leaving an independent BD to go start their own RIA. What do you see as some of the biggest misconceptions that advisors have about that move? Joshua Tomolak: That’s probably my favorite topic because there are the most misconceptions I think in this space. Louis Diamond: I’d agree. Joshua Tomolak: And I would say there’s 9 out of 10 conversations that I have with advisors and teams, they start off with the launching an RIA in mind or at least RIA curious and they want to understand what’s out there. And probably less than half the time do these folks end up actually launching their own RIA, which is okay because the ones that do are massively successful and they know they’re dang sure that’s exactly what they want to do. I think it gets a little bit romanticized sometimes that they’ll say, “Oh, I’ll just give Schwab a call,” or, “I’ll just give the custodian a call,” as if they were shopping independent broker dealers. That’s fine. You can do that and they will help you, but there’s quite a bit more to think about. And it’s not, in my opinion, the same as evaluating independent broker dealers. If it’s all right, I was taught the four pillars of the RIA model. I can go through that with you really quickly. So the way to think about the RIA space is in four pieces. And shout out to a friend, Eli Suarez, that taught me this years ago. The first pillar… Thinking of four pillars on a bar stool, if you will. The first one being administration. And this is your compliance, this is setting up your ADV, your LLC, all of your business formation documents. The second piece being technology, what do you actually want to use? Because the benefits of the broker-dealer world and the supported independent world is they’ve already built it for you. They’ve already paid for it and scraped their knees building it. In this case, you have to. And for some people, that’s really exciting to source financial planning software and portfolio management software and your CRM and tax software, et cetera. For some people, it just sounds like a huge headache. The third pillar being custodians. I have them third because you want to make sure that the right custodian can integrate properly with the technology that you’ve sourced that you’re passionate about. And then ultimately transition. What does a transition really look like? What are my legal and regulatory requirements? How does this work? What are the timelines? Things of that nature. So I guess I would say in closing that if those four things are things that you really want to own, then you’re in a really good position to consider an RIA launch. What do you think, Louis? Louis Diamond: I think that’s a great framework to break it down. Not just be like, “Okay, I can tolerate that,” or, “My team can do it,” but I think you have to be pretty excited about rolling up your sleeves and customizing and doing it yourself because in our experience, there’s a nominal differential between the economics of running your own RIA versus affiliating with an RIA or going to an independent BD. All the extra work and responsibility, you’re not really going to make it up, at least on the front end, on a higher net payout. So it has to be more about what the model means to you and having a vision that you don’t think anyone else can accomplish other than yourself. And looking at that crazy ever-expanding Michael Kitces’ FinTech map and there’s 500 different logos on it and being like, “Yes, that’s what I want. I want to go through this. I want to pick the seven pieces of my tech stack that work for me,” rather than getting, “Here’s the tech stack, take a demo, you like it, you don’t like it, take it or leave it.” To me, the two biggest misconceptions people have about the RIA world is one, “I’m going to have to be a full-time chief compliance officer,” and just that compliance is this boogeyman, this terrible, scary thing. In some ways it is. But the reality is most, especially startup RIAs will fully outsource compliance to a firm or they’ll hire a compliance consultant or firms that are big enough even will hire a CCO or repurpose someone on their team to be CCO. But compliance is much more streamlined and simpler than BD compliance. And ultimately, it’s compliance that’s being built for your business rather than compliance that’s being built for a publicly traded multinational company that supports 20,000 financial advisors. So I think compliance is always a big misconception. It’s definitely what a lot of firms will pry upon when they’re saying like, “Oh, you’re going to own all the legal and regulatory requirements. You could, but it’s definitely not a requirement.” And then I think another one is folks sometimes underestimate and overestimate the operational burden and how much work it is to start an RIA. Sometimes people just… They’re perfect for the RIA world, that’s their goal, but they get stopped in their tracks. They don’t really know what to do. But what we’ve seen, we said it earlier with so many different outsourcing solutions and different service providers that have popped up, if you have the fire in your belly to go build something, it doesn’t mean you’re doing it by yourself. I mean, that’s what firms like ours do. The custodians are very helpful. On the flip side though, I have seen advisors chasing payouts say, “Hey, I’m just going to go start an RIA because I want to make another 1 to 3%,” or whatever it comes to and they drastically underestimate what it really takes to build a successful firm. Joshua Tomolak: Exactly right. I think that’s my favorite one, Louis, overestimating and estimating the operational burden there is you could have the same conversation with two teams and it can go the completely different direction. Louis Diamond: Josh, let’s wrap here. I got one more question for you that I think is an exciting one, but give me three key trends or storylines that most people don’t know about or aren’t talking about that you’re passionate about or that you’re sharing with advisors or counseling today. Joshua Tomolak: Sure. This is the free advice portion. And I’ll tell you what, Louis, if it’s all right with you, I’ll give you two and I would love to hear one from you as well. The first one I’ve seen in both the independent broker-dealer and RIA space is the minority investor concept. A lot of folks will talk about the idea of taking chips off a table and starting to partially monetize your business. I think that’s all important, but what I’ve found is that a lot of advisors really want their partner, whether it’s an RIA broker dealer to help them grow. And that could be with M&A opportunities, that could be with traditional recruitment of advisors, that could be building a business plan. But the minority investment part really helps accelerate that for a lot of businesses because all of a sudden, not only are you cashing out a small part of your business, but you’ve just created an ally with the parent entity, it is now much more likely to help you grow in that capacity because they’re insulated from it and they profit when you profit. So I think it’s easy to be shortsighted and say, “Well, my equity’s going to keep growing. Why would I sell you a piece of this?” But I counsel folks often to really think about what that long-term strategic partnership is and making somebody a real equity partner rather than just a vendor that provides you with technology and regulatory coverage. The other one I’d say is that… And this one’s really important to me, that business formation is far more important than your assets under management. Said a different way, the way you build your business is going to make your business far more valuable than the number of dollars underneath your name. And what I mean by that is, just to use an example, a sophisticated, well-built, centralized, scalable and repeatable business, whether it’s an RIA with a broker-dealer that is going to fetch a far higher M&A multiple than a OSJ that’s five times the size that just has a bunch of 1099 independent advisors underneath the umbrella. What we’ve seen in the M&A space is that if you’re going to shell out 50, 60, $80 million for somebody’s business, you want to know that you have this business for the long term. So I would certainly counsel people that have been around maybe far longer than me to take a look at how you’re building this and put together a business plan on what those next 10 years should look like and not necessarily fall into the trap where your only revenue source is the override that you receive from a firm and then you in turn pay to the advisors on your team. Louis Diamond: Well said. I really like that line. We’d probably do a whole episode on what are the tips and tricks for building a business with the end in mind? Like the Covey quote, “Begin with the end in mind.” Transitions are like… They’re a bear. I mean, there’s no way to sugarcoat it. Advisors, when they hear transition, if you ask them, “Don’t think about it, give me your reaction.” “Terrible, risky, a lot of work. I’ll never do it again. My friend did it and it was terrible. What if my clients don’t come?” It’s all these negative emotions. And in many cases, I don’t blame an advisor because it is a big act. But to me, if someone is weighing making a transition, whether a wholesale business model change going from being an employee to being independent, going from being an advisor at an independent BD to starting an RIA, or even going independent BD to independent BD, it’s an opportunity if you rise to the occasion to build with this next act with intentionality. So whether it’s restructuring compensation for your team, converting people from 1099 to W2, putting in place new workflows, changing how investments, instead of it being each individual advisor doing investments to more of a centralized model, cleaning up workflows, really investing in data, investing in AI. It’s something that I think, again, we can have a whole episode on it, but I think it’s a great one. Build the business the right way. And obviously, businesses that are larger, theoretically, sell for more, but we’ve certainly seen businesses that are half the size of a larger one sell for a similar amount or more because they did all the right things and the larger one did the things that really turn off a buyer or detract from a valuation. Let me give you one more and tell me if you agree, but I think we’re in this moment when Altruist, the upstart, a new kid on the block custodian, they launched a basically tokenization of cash in a way to automatically agentically source or sort cash to the highest yielding money market. And you’re like, “This is fricking wonky. Louis, why are you telling us this?” I think this is an important one just to keep a watchful eye on. I have no idea how this is going to shake out, but really the biggest way that independent BDs or even custodians like Schwab and Fidelity really make money, it’s not on their overrides from practices or the admin fee or the custody fee. It’s really on net interest margin. So how much the broker-dealer or the firm is making on client cash and brokerage accounts relative to what they’re paying out the client. It’s essentially like free margin to these firms. And this concept, I think, has massive potential for disruption for the business model. Again, I don’t know what it’s going to look like, whether it means platform fees that are instituted at all these firms, whether it means certain models would be more beneficial than others, whether it means nothing’s going to change, which is probably the right answer given this industry. But it’s something to keep a watchful eye on just if your firm institutes a new platform fee or there’s a fundamental way in which your firm can no longer make money. How are they going to make it up? Are they now going to be uncompetitive? They’re not going to have as much scale or profits to invest in the platform. Is it going to cause even more consolidation in the industry? So to me, that’s the one pretty under the radar, pretty wonky storyline that I don’t think enough people are talking about, but has the biggest possibility for disruption across their space than anything I’ve seen in a while. Joshua Tomolak: Sure. That’s the whole iceberg. Not a lot of people are talking about it. It’s not poking out of the ocean, but it’s going to be continuously brought up. I think it’s a question that a lot of advisors are going to have to ask these firms. And at the end of the day, the firms aren’t the bad guys. They have to make money too to provide a quality product. So where the money comes from matters. Louis Diamond: Exactly. Josh, this has been awesome. I learned a lot talking with you and just having your objective consulting hat on what I think are really the differences between IBD and RIA and some of the key trends and storylines to watch has been instrumental. I’ll also give a plug that on our website and we’ll link to it in the show notes, we have a really helpful one-page reference guide going through the differences between independent BDs or IBDs and RIAs. So feel free to click on it. We’ll make sure it gets in your inbox. Josh, thanks again for joining us today. Joshua Tomolak: Yeah, thanks for having me, Louis. It was a pleasure. 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 responsibilities 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. IBD vs. RIA: A Special Industry Update on Independence A conversation with Louis Diamond and Josh Tomolak, Vice President of Independent Advisor Services at Diamond Consultants.      Louis Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is IBD vs. RIA: A Special Industry Update on Independence. It’s a conversation with Josh Tomolak, our Vice President of Independent Advisor Services. I’m Louis 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. Louis Diamond: For a long time, going independent would suggest the destination. Today, it’s often the beginning of a different conversation. As the independent space has matured, advisors have more choices than ever before. Broker-dealers have expanded their capabilities. The RIA ecosystem has become increasingly sophisticated. Capital is more readily available and support models now exist that would’ve been difficult to imagine a decade ago. The result is that many advisors who are already independent are taking a fresh look at whether their current affiliation still aligns with what they’re trying to build. My guest is Josh Tomolak, Vice President of Independent Advisor Services here at Diamond Consultants and our resident expert on independence. Josh spends his days helping advisors evaluate independence in all its forms from independent broker dealers, the fully independent RIAs and everything in between. And his knowledge is critical because the distinction between these models is often blurred. Many broker dealers now offer pathways to greater autonomy while supported independence has made RIA ownership more accessible than ever before. So the question is no longer simply, “Do I want to go independent?” The question is, “What kind of independence makes the most sense for client, business, and go

Couples often treat prenuptial agreements as something to worry about only if a marriage ends, but many of the most useful decisions happen long before that possibility ever arises. The process can bring financial expectations, family responsibilities and future planning into the open while both people are still working toward the same goals. In this episode of Celebrity Estates, Senior Editor David Lenok speaks with Paul Karger, co-founder and managing partner at TwinFocus, about the role prenuptial agreements can play in marriage, estate planning and family wealth decisions. Using the recent marriage of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce as a starting point, Paul explains why prenups can help couples clarify ownership, protect individual assets and reduce the chance of costly disputes if circumstances change. David and Paul also examine why both parties need full financial disclosure and separate legal representation, how prenups should coordinate with trusts and estate plans, and why couples need to follow the agreement after the wedding when buying property or combining assets. Their conversation also looks at postnuptial agreements, tax considerations, family governance and the value of beginning these discussions well before the wedding date. Key takeaways: Why prenuptial agreements can provide clarity for both spouses before marriage How full financial disclosure and separate legal counsel support a fair process Why prenups need to align with trusts, estate plans, and family wealth structures How future purchases and shared assets should remain consistent with the agreement Why starting the process early gives couples time for thoughtful discussion and negotiation Resources: Listen to Celebrity Estates on Wealth Management Subscribe and listen to Celebrity Estates on Apple Podcasts Subscribe and listen to Celebrity Estates on Spotify Trust and Estates Magazine Connect With David Lenok: david.lenok@informa.com  Wealth Management LinkedIn: David Lenok LinkedIn: Informa LinkedIn: Wealth Management Connect With Paul Karger: LinkedIn: Paul Karger LinkedIn: TwinFocus Website: TwinFocus About Our Guest: Known for his discretion, global perspective, extensive worldwide network, and ability to solve complex challenges, Paul serves as a trusted confidant to a select group of families navigating the multifaceted demands of wealth, legacy, and cross-border complexity. He is often the first call for clients confronting high-stakes financial and personal decisions where judgment, nuance, and confidentiality are essential. Paul earned a B.S. in Engineering from Boston University, which recognized him with its Outstanding Alumni Award in 2012. Earlier in his career, he founded The Karger Group at UBS and began in investment banking at Leerink. Beyond TwinFocus, Paul co-founded and serves as Foundation Board President of Bridge Boston Charter School. Paul also serves on the boards of Level Ground and Commonwealth Shakespeare Company. Appointed by Governor Charlie Baker, he chaired the Massachusetts State Athletic Commission from 2016 to 2022. A lifelong martial artist, he actively trains and competes in Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and Jeet Kune Do.

Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz wechselt weitere Personen in der Regierung und im Kanzleramt aus. Die Stimmung in der CDU ist derweil schlecht: auch wegen der holprigen Neubesetzung des Verkehrsministeriums und der Entlassung eines angesehenen Staatsekretärs. Wie stark schadet das Merz? Alle Themen: (00:00) Intro und Schlagzeilen (01:15) Kanzler Merz: Ist das Führungsstil oder Führungsschwäche? (05:47) Nachrichtenübersicht (10:02) Ambitionierte Klimaziele? Ja. Flugverhalten anpassen? Nein! (15:25) US-Besuch Netanjahus: Die Beziehung ist angespannt (21:07) Tessin: Der leise Rücktritt des lauten Claudio Zali (25:07) Wie die UBS endlich den US-Markt erobern will (30:12) Geld und Loyalität: Warum die Fifa die WM teilprivatisieren will

US CENTCOM said IRGC forces launched multiple ballistic missiles from Iran towards US forces based in Jordan.Saudi Arabia's Defence Ministry said air defences intercepted and destroyed several drones, which had attempted to target petroleum facilities in the Eastern Region.US CENTCOM later announced that US and Saudi forces conducted strikes on Iran-backed terrorist sites in Iraq.Crude futures climbed as geopolitical tensions escalated (Brent Oct +2.8%); APAC was choppy, and sentiment deteriorated; Europe looks ahead to a subdued open.US equity futures, DXY, T-Note futures, and spot gold trade sideways ahead of FOMC.Looking ahead, highlights include Swedish GDP Flash (Q2), ECB Wage Tracker, US Atlanta Fed GDP, Fed Policy Announcement (Jul), BoC Minutes (Jul), Speakers including Fed Chair Warsh & RBA's Hunter, Supply from Germany, Earnings from SoFi, Microsoft, Meta, Arm, Qualcomm, L'Oreal, Hermes, Airbus, Porsche AG, BASF, UBS & Standard Chartered.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

If your porch light seems to attract every moth and flying insect in the neighborhood, you're not imagining it. Scientists have finally figured out why artificial lights are so irresistible to many insects—and knowing what they've discovered can help you keep more bugs away this summer. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44785-3 Some people seem to light up a room the moment they walk in. Others naturally draw people in, inspire confidence, and make lasting impressions. We call it charisma, and many assume you're either born with it or you're not. Olivia Fox Cabane says that's simply not true. In this conversation, she explains what charisma really is, why it's often misunderstood, and the surprisingly practical skills anyone can learn to become more influential and engaging. Olivia has advised leaders at Google, Deloitte, UBS, MGM, and TikTok, and is author of The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism (https://amzn.to/44kpuyI). For decades, we've talked about "the midlife crisis" as though it's inevitable. But what if we've gotten midlife completely wrong? Research suggests that your middle years can be one of the most productive, satisfying, and influential periods of your life. So why does this stage have such a negative reputation? And what are people in midlife uniquely positioned to do that younger and older adults often can't? Margie Lachman, Professor of Psychology at Brandeis University and director of the Lifespan Lab, shares a fresh, evidence-based perspective on why midlife deserves a lot more celebration than sympathy. She is author of Primetime: A New Vision for Midlife (https://amzn.to/4bpLbRJ). Have you ever searched everywhere for your keys or your glasses, only to discover they were sitting in plain sight the whole time? It's a surprisingly common experience, and it reveals something fascinating about how your brain decides what you do—and don't—see. https://dictionary.apa.org/inattentional-blindness PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS WAYFAIR: Ready to upgrade your home for way less? Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop all things home and get your space ready for less.  QUINCE: Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! SHOPIFY: It's time to turn those "what ifs" into CHA CHING with Shopify Today! Sign up for your $1 per month trail and start selling today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Shopify.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ INDEED: Get a $75 Sponsored Job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at ⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/PODCAST⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As part of The Lo Life's Level Up Series, Lo explores the skills that can help you thrive personally and professionally—and few are more misunderstood than charisma. This week, Lo sits down with internationally renowned charisma expert and New York Times bestselling author Olivia Fox Cabane, whose groundbreaking research has helped reshape the way leaders, entrepreneurs, and everyday people think about influence, connection, and presence. Drawing on decades of work at institutions including Stanford and MIT, and coaching leaders at Google, Apple, Airbnb, TikTok, Deloitte, and UBS, Olivia has become one of the world's leading voices on the science of charisma. Her own journey—from describing herself as introverted, socially awkward and autistic to becoming a globally recognized expert on human connection—makes her perspective all the more compelling.In this conversation, Lo and Olivia unpack why charisma isn't an innate gift but a learnable skill rooted in psychology and behavioral science. They explore how charisma influences leadership, careers, relationships, interviews, and everyday interactions, while examining how the rules have evolved in an era where our digital presence can be just as important as the person we are face-to-face. They also discuss why introverts can be deeply charismatic, the historical misconceptions surrounding charisma, and how these skills can be used to build trust, inspire others, and shape the next generation. Whether you're looking to become a stronger communicator, a more confident leader, or simply a more authentic version of yourself, this episode offers practical insights into a skill that can transform every area of life.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Matt Kilgroe — President & CEO, Cyndeo Wealth Partners Matt Kilgroe shares how Cyndeo Wealth Partners grew from a newly launched $1.2B RIA to a $3.5B enterprise, and why the next challenge isn't independence, but building a firm capable of reaching $25B.  In Summary Five years after launching Cyndeo Wealth Partners from UBS, Matt Kilgroe returns to the podcast to discuss what happens after independence. Rather than focusing on the transition itself, Louis and Matt explore the next phase of growth: scaling an advisory business, attracting talent, developing niche expertise, taking on outside capital, and building an enterprise designed to last. Along the way, Matt shares how Cyndeo expanded from $1.2B to $3.5B, why serving professional athletes required a different business model, and what led the firm to partner with Rise Growth Partners as it looks toward a $25B future.  The Storyline For many advisors, independence is viewed as the finish line. For Matt Kilgroe, it became the starting point. When Cyndeo Wealth Partners launched in 2020, the goal wasn't simply to leave the wirehouse behind. It was to build a business with the flexibility to grow in ways that simply weren't possible before. Five years later, that vision has evolved into something much larger. Cyndeo has nearly tripled in size, expanded its niche serving professional athletes and entertainers, recruited advisors, added specialized operational talent, and recently welcomed Rise Growth Partners as a minority investor to help accelerate its next phase of growth. The conversation explores what changes when firm leaders stop thinking like advisors managing successful practices and begin thinking like CEOs building enduring enterprises. The discussion spans succession planning, capital strategy, recruiting, organizational design, and the mindset required to scale from billions to tens of billions—all while remaining focused on clients and culture.  Topics Covered Building an enterprise beyond independence Scaling from $1.2B to $3.5B in assets Organic growth versus recruiting Serving professional athletes and entertainers Why fiduciary independence matters for niche client segments Building operational infrastructure for growth Partnering with Dynasty Financial Partners Minority capital and Rise Growth Partners Succession planning and employee ownership Thinking from $3.5B to $25B > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors What did Matt learn after transitioning nearly 98% of his clients? (06:20) Why client relationships—not firm logos—proved to be the firm's greatest asset during one of the most challenging transitions imaginable. How did Cyndeo nearly triple in size in five years? (16:10) Matt discusses the combination of niche specialization, disciplined organic growth, recruiting, and operational investment that fueled the firm's expansion. Why has Cyndeo become a destination for professional athletes? (17:15) The conversation explores how deep industry expertise, fiduciary flexibility, and specialized service created a business that would have been difficult to build inside a wirehouse. Why bring on a minority capital partner when the business was already thriving? (24:15) Matt explains why succession planning, future recruiting, and long-term enterprise growth made outside capital the right decision. How should advisors think about ownership versus compensation? (35:40) A candid discussion about enterprise value, equity, and why many advisors underestimate the long-term economics of ownership. What does it actually take to scale toward $25B? (42:20) From hiring executive talent to expanding geographically, Matt shares how he's thinking about the next chapter of Cyndeo's evolution. Key Takeaways Independence creates opportunities that extend well beyond higher payouts, including enterprise value, recruiting flexibility, and ownership. Scaling a business requires investing in operational leadership, not just adding advisors. Specialized client niches demand expertise that goes well beyond investment management. Outside capital can accelerate growth when it's aligned with long-term strategy rather than an exit. Building an enduring enterprise requires thinking differently about succession, talent, governance, and equity. https://youtu.be/WRYJd9Lkt7o Quotable Moments “Don't rent your practice. Own it.” “You can't work in those niches and not be a fiduciary.” “We're not done.” “The road from $3B to $25B is going to really compound on your equity.”  FAQs Why did Cyndeo decide to take on a minority capital partner? To support its next phase of growth, strengthen succession planning, recruit additional talent, and benefit from the experience of leaders who have successfully scaled wealth management businesses before. How did Cyndeo grow from $1.2B to $3.5B? Through a combination of consistent organic growth, specialized client niches, advisor recruiting, and investments in operational infrastructure. Why is serving professional athletes or other niche client segments different from serving traditional wealth clients? Niche client segments often face unique financial decisions involving private investments, business opportunities, and career transitions that require specialized knowledge and a fiduciary framework. What advantages did independence create that weren't available inside a wirehouse? Matt points to greater flexibility around private investments, the ability to build specialized client experiences, reward employees with equity, and create an enterprise with lasting value. How should advisors think about building versus joining an independent firm? The discussion highlights the tradeoffs between creating your own firm and joining an established independent enterprise, emphasizing that ownership and long-term equity often matter more than headline payouts. What does Matt believe is required to build a $25B firm? A willingness to invest beyond advisors alone, adding executive leadership, expanding geographically, recruiting strategically, and maintaining a long-term enterprise mindset. To support its next phase of growth, strengthen succession planning, recruit additional talent, and benefit from the experience of leaders who have successfully scaled wealth management businesses before. Through a combination of consistent organic growth, specialized client niches, advisor recruiting, and investments in operational infrastructure. Niche client segments often face unique financial decisions involving private investments, business opportunities, and career transitions that require specialized knowledge and a fiduciary framework. Matt points to greater flexibility around private investments, the ability to build specialized client experiences, reward employees with equity, and create an enterprise with lasting value. The discussion highlights the tradeoffs between creating your own firm and joining an established independent enterprise, emphasizing that ownership and long-term equity often matter more than headline payouts. A willingness to invest beyond advisors alone, adding executive leadership, expanding geographically, recruiting strategically, and maintaining a long-term enterprise mindset. Related Resources Article: Your Practice Isn't Worth What You ThinkMost advisors misjudge their business's value, not because of the number, but because of the framework. Learn what really drives enterprise value. Rise and Reinvent: Joe Duran on Building and Rebuilding World-Class FirmsHe's built and rebuilt some of the industry's most successful firms and now he's helping others do the same. In this episode, Joe Duran, the founder of Rise Growth Partners, shares lessons from building, selling, and starting again, and how staying curious and adaptable fuels lasting success. Matt KilgroePresident/CEO Prior to launching Cyndeo Wealth Partners in 2020, Matt ran advisory teams at Merrill Lynch and UBS Financial for 29 years. Providing guidance, counsel, and strategy for families the firm serves is Matt's passion. In addition to his role as an advisor, Matt works in a leadership capacity for Cyndeo while also helping with business development. Matt has been recognized by Barron's as a Top 1000 or Top 1200 Advisor consistently since 2009. In 2020 Forbes named him to their “Best-In-State Wealth Advisor” list. A graduate of Eckerd College, Matt has served on the Board of Trustees at his alma mater since 2012. His three children are his pride and joy. Daughter Carrington owns Sunstate Yoga studio in St. Petersburg, son Kent is a financial advisor with Cyndeo, and daughter Jillian recently graduated Florida State University. An athlete in college, Matt continues to enjoy staying in shape, playing basketball, and bike riding. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value A conversation with Jason Diamond, Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry – Founding Partners at Panoramic Capital Partners. Jason Diamond: Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is True Alignment: Advising Business Owners on Wealth, Significance, and Value. It’s a conversation with Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry, Founding Partners, Panoramic Capital Partners. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education-driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning, data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Advisory firms that work with business owner clients typically operate through a fairly traditional wealth management lens. The business may be the source of the wealth, but the advice itself often centers around investments, planning, and asset allocation, yet Panoramic Capital Partners approaches that equation differently. Nick Hubert and Taylor Gentry are the founding partners of the roughly $450 million RIA, serving about 150 families with a seven-person team. And while they come from very different professional backgrounds, Nick with more of a relationship and storytelling orientation, Taylor from the analytical and private equity side, they’ve built the firm around a shared philosophy tied to what they call personal significance, personal wealth, and personal value. A big part of that philosophy, or the north star as they put it, is applying some of the same accountability and long-term thinking frameworks commonly seen in private equity to the advisory relationship itself, not in a transactional sense, but in helping clients think more intentionally about decision-making, alignment, and outcomes over long periods of time. As a result, our conversation delves deeply into the private equity world, reframing how clients and advisors should consider this important tool as both a growth mechanism and a strategic part of their client’s plans. We talk about how that perspective also shapes not only how they think about serving business owners specifically, but also the role private equity should play in wealth management. Then we take a view of their long runway and how they and other younger advisors might see things differently about building firms today and why clarity of vision may matter more than sheer scale in the years ahead, and much, much more. It’s a narrative that is refreshing and informative, so let’s get to it. Taylor, Nick, thank you so much for joining. Walk us through your background. What brought you to the world of wealth management? Nick, let’s start with you. Nick Hubert: Sure. I think I got my first taste of the industry actually in a sophomore year of college internship, or I interned at Morgan Stanley here in Oregon. I studied finance and accounting at University of Oregon, and so I had this affinity for finance and markets and had that privilege of having that internship. So I had it early on in my career. Ultimately ended up setting my sights on doing investment banking and going that route and did that for a short period of time. Ended up not going very long due to a medical reason, so you don’t have to be that sorry for me. And ultimately started my career in business consulting before pretty quickly realizing that I want to get back to finance, back to investing these things that just felt like core competencies and that thing that you keep coming back to when you’re alone in the middle of the night thinking about stuff, it was always that. Just had this desire to work with smaller units than large corporations, which is great for wealth where you get to work with families and small businesses. And so it was just a natural alignment that took me back full-time to the space in 2016. Jason Diamond: I like the framing it through the size of the unit you’re working with and having more of an impact on the family. Taylor, what about you? Taylor Gentry: I’m a little more circuitous, if you will. Spent a couple of years in investment banking, so you can be sorry for me. Nick and I met in undergrad at the University of Oregon, had the opportunity to work in this investment group together where we were investing a portion of the university’s endowment. And like Nick, interned in wealth management and kind of walked away from it going, “Boy, that’s boring. I don’t really like that.” And so moved to New York, cut my teeth in banking for a couple years and we were working… So an investment bank for context, helping companies raise debt, raise equity, and with mergers and acquisitions, we’re working with huge companies. So the Mattels of the world, the largest toy company in the world. Like Nick, realized, “Hey, I’m going to work with smaller companies that we can get our arms around a little bit better and be more helpful with and have a bigger impact on.” So spent about 10 years with a private equity firm in the western half of the US and we invested in companies in what’s referred to as the lower middle market. So companies doing 50 to 300 million of revenue. And we would invest in those companies, grow those businesses and then look to sell them. Awesome experience, learned a ton, got a bunch of experience around how to invest in companies, how to grow businesses. Then had the opportunity to step into the CFO seat of a couple of different operating companies during that time. It was just a great learning ground, but also to see a whole bunch of different situations. Nick and I have always invested in things together. We’ve worked on things together and we’ve always wanted to work together full time. And a few years ago, the stars really just aligned to say, “Hey, what would it look like to create a differentiated offering in the wealth space where we can blend my background on companies, transactions, how to draw on scale and all those pieces and really marry that with the wealth management piece?” And Nick will get into that further, but it’s just a really unique way to partner with families and companies that are smaller which can have a really high impact experience with those families and really move them through their life journey, if you will. Jason Diamond: Yeah, there’s a lot to unpack there and we’ll get to some of the elements of how you run the business today. First of all, you can’t fool me by using a toy company as your example to make investment banking more interesting. I’m just kidding. Actually, my real takeaway there is you have a skillset that is incredibly relevant in the current wealth management ecosystem, especially in the model you’re currently in. So let’s talk about that a little. Tell us about your current chapter, which is Panoramic Capital Partners. Who do you serve? What types of clients? Give me some perspective on size as well. Nick Hubert: I'm going to take this first. Taylor can do the PE background side and give you a bunch of numbers. I’ll give you the story and see if we can piece it together that way. Jason Diamond: I get the impression you guys use that line a lot. Nick Hubert: Oh, no, that’s the first time. How’d it land? Jason, I spent eight years at our prior firm with our third founding partner, Andrew, and he was at that firm for 30 years. And so we’ve got this core DNA that we’ve always carried of serving high net worth families in a very holistic and deep planning-based capacity, which I think a lot of modern firms say that. And so that’s not necessarily that different, but it is a DNA that carries through. When we got struck with this vision of launching Panoramic and what inspired us to build the firm, it was as, Taylor outlined, around this idea of how do we partner with entrepreneurs and business owners more holistically across their entire entrepreneurial journey, not just around the exit as is so often where the gravity of the conversation sits. And so our firm vision and inspiration was all around that. And since launching in May of 2024, it has been about how do we bring that vision to life with a different business model. And to your point, there’s a bunch to unpack there, but that is ultimately the founding vision of what we are trying to build here overall and what inspires us every day to say, how do we, as Taylor mentioned, bring the combination of skillsets to bear in a way that allows us to be a better partner along the entirety of the journey as opposed to just towards the end when assets traditionally show up, so to speak? So that’s a story from a vision perspective. Taylor, I don’t know what you want to add to that. Taylor Gentry: As Nick outlined, it’s the ability to work with folks throughout the lifecycle. So in private equity, you invest in a company, you work with that management team for three to seven years and then you sell the business and move on to the next project or deal. And really, it’s the deal mechanic that is the value creation. Whereas, with what we are building here, we have the opportunity to really step along the journey with folks when they are in the early phases building what we talk about as the middle phase of allocating, and we’ll talk about this further, and then really the third phase of stewarding capital along the way. And it’s a life cycle or entrepreneurial journey that we’re able to be hand in hand with folks over decades opposed to measured in three to five year spans. Jason Diamond: So it sounds, and you’ve both kind of touched on this now, your different backgrounds, you view as very much a positive because it gives you, Taylor, the more in the weeds analytical perspective. Nick, you’re probably more the storyteller. Do you find that to be a benefit when you’re running your firm every day? And are there instances when it’s a negative? Is there ever a time when you say, Taylor, just maybe more for you, not coming from this world, you don’t speak the same language? Nick Hubert: Do you want me to drop off the call so Taylor can be honest and he can give you the scoop and then he can jump off and I’ll give you the scoop? Taylor Gentry: Jason, we talk about that a lot, honestly. I think it is atypical for someone with my background to step into the wealth space maybe more so. And we leverage that because we have the ability to work with folks on how do you drive value in the company, how do you set the business up for a potential sale exit or transition internally? But this business, historically, we’ve talked about it as almost like two tracks. You have Taylor on the quote unquote business consulting or the business work track and you have Nick on a wealth management track. It’s really not the case. And really, the power is the ability for these two pieces to come together and there isn’t a conversation we have with clients where those two perspectives and backgrounds or contexts aren’t married into one to create really truly holistic advice. And so Nick will probably tell you otherwise, but I haven’t seen an area yet where our two backgrounds has been a negative. It’s actually been immensely positive. And then on top of it, in terms of kind of building out the firm, Nick is more of a traction visionary and I’m more of the traction implementer. What’s amazing about it from our perspective is the partnership we have allows us to, A, recognize that, B, name it, and then C, leverage it in terms of being able to dole out duties and maximize our success together. Jason Diamond: Nick, anything you’d add? Nick Hubert: I think that’s all right. I mean, Jason, your question was from an operational perspective. I think a lot of Taylor’s view is from a client perspective, which is spot on that the overlap of that is really helpful for clients and I think what allows it to be a different experience for them. Internally, operationally, I think that where you could see friction there amongst partners with differences, and I think you do see that, and at the same time, Google was the one who did team research 15 years ago where they put out what you really want, is similarity and vision and differences in skillset when building a team. And so I think we’ve been intentional about that and it’s been really helpful for… Taylor and I functionally met in a quasi-professional setting back in 2011 and developed a friendship quickly, so we’ve got that deep level of friendship that underpins all of it. And same with Andrew and our time working together. So part of it is there’s just such a strength of relationship amongst us that we give space for each other’s differences and look for those as assets as opposed to negatives, but in some sense, beauty in the eye of the beholder as is the case with anything. Jason Diamond: Yep. I appreciate you adding that context. I’ll be honest that when I first encountered your firm, my reaction was your core value prop of serving business owners is not all that differentiated. And then I learned more about the way in which you serve business owners. Can you talk about that? Because a lot of advisors in general, but then I think more specifically, a lot of RIAs would say, “We service primarily business owners.” Tell me how do you do it in a way that’s different and meaningful? Nick Hubert: I’ll take a first stab at that and then Taylor can maybe add on with specific stories. The wealth space is an awesome business and it’s a place where it’s very difficult to differentiate. And so we think a lot about that through the lens of how do we grow this business well for the long period of time to create opportunities for clients and employees. And so we spent a lot of time thinking about that, not only for the sake of differentiation, but also how do we actually just continue to add value to clients? Because if we add value in a different way, growth will take care of itself. I’d say one way of cutting that is we revisit the mission is through this idea of, okay, if I want to be a partner along the journey, it’s about more than a single transaction, more than a single exit, whatever that might be, or a series of transactions as wealth is often created over a series of transactions. It’s this idea of how do we focus on wealth creation and driving business value as the engine of wealth creation for entrepreneurs and what we call personal significance, which is the life of the entrepreneur. And so there’s a next click down framing of our framework that we work through that lens. I think the most important piece for us has been how do we build a business model that actually brings that to life and that’s the trick because we can say that, and if we basically still just operate out of an AUM-based or an asset advisory fee-based business, the reality is my incentive is still towards getting assets out of the entrepreneurial environment, so to speak, into a place that I can manage them, which may or may not be the best thing for the entrepreneur based on where they are at. And so our current work continues to be around how do we build that business model. So layering in different ways of engaging, whether it’s a retainer fee or some other way of engaging so we can start earlier when assets aren’t there and actually encourage the entrepreneur, “No, keep reinvesting in your business. It’s your highest rate of return right now and it’s where the investment needs to go.” I don’t want to have a conflict in giving that advice. And so I think step two here has been building that business model from an actual engagement perspective to enable us to enact the vision. And then I think the third piece is how do we then build tools that are different than just evaluating pre-exit planning, and as is so often, the toolkit, but actually saying, okay, what are the value drivers of a business? And this is probably where Taylor has a lot more to add because it’s 101 of the PE model, but how do we take the mission and vision of an entrepreneur, what we call north stars, translate those into value drivers, ensure those tie to strategic initiatives in the business, ensure it ties to reporting, and ultimately, how capital is allocated between the business and other investments? So then that’s our toolkit that we continue to build out to deploy the mission through our business model with tools that back it up. So that’s how we frame it right now. Taylor, we can share stories about how that’s come to fruition to create different outcomes. Jason Diamond: Taylor, I’d love to hear that. Let me just add maybe my understanding, because this is what helped me, I think, to really understand how you defer, and Nick and Taylor, correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like the typical advisor thinks about an entrepreneur, a business owner relationship as the next liquidity event in most cases. And you take the viewpoint that it’s a journey, in some instances, 30 years in the making. It’s not even about liquidity event might come that’s beside the point. Is that a fair summary? Taylor Gentry: Yeah. We talk about it as a growing business is a healthy business, a business that is creating incremental value and adding to the multiple in terms of how the business is valued in the marketplace is a healthy business. And so whether you are going to sell that business or retain that business into perpetuity, let’s make a really valuable business and grow a very healthy business. And that’s what we do with clients. Nick laid out the north star framework. And so how do we actually go about engaging with folks on a practical level? It does start with the north star framework. It’s got five steps to it as Nick outlined in terms of defining the north star, where we’re going, what we’re trying to do and that’s across those three pillars, personal significance, personal wealth and business value. And that personal significance has to be held at that same level. Otherwise, we find folks that are mid 50s, their business is crazy valuable, they’ve got a lot of dollars, but their family life isn’t where they want it to be because they didn’t take care of that along the way. So we lay out a place map that says, “Hey, these are the north stars that we are aligning on and coming back to every month when we work with these owners.” We then push that into, okay, what are we trying to do on the business side of the equation? Let’s lay out what is going to drive the value of the business from a multiple and enterprise value perspective. We push that into a set of strategic initiatives that is tactical, who owns what, when’s it getting done, and are we red, yellow or green on it? We then build out the performance reporting package with folks. And so that is a monthly reporting package that says what happened last month and what operational data are we looking at to be able to improve the business month over month and get a good feedback loop going into the company. And then the last piece is around capital allocation that Nick mentioned where if the business generates a million dollars, where’s that capital going? I think there’s a lot in there and it’s really deep, but if you zoom all the way back out, it’s take a private equity style playbook where private equity firms come and invest in a company. And what do they do after close? They put in place good financial reporting, good operational reporting, and then hold the team accountable to that reporting and those results on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. And so this is not rocket science or something that’s never been seen before. It’s just most business owners that have never experienced this private equity world don’t have access to it and don’t know how to go about doing it. It’s a relatively long process to get that installed with companies and with teams to really dig in and understand it, but it’s building out those packages to be able to say, “Okay, what happened last month? What changes do we need to make and what are we doing from a initiative perspective to drive the business forward?” So to Nick’s point, it was previously, this was all about liquidity planning or from a wealth management perspective, it’s about the exit. This is about how do we make a more valuable business along the way, and that’s going to be good for the entrepreneur as they move through the journey. Nick Hubert: When we were around the dinner table, the proverbial dinner table creating the vision of this firm, it was around this idea of the silver tsunami and everything that everybody reads in the headlines of this massive wave of transition, this generational transition of business ownership that we could help facilitate. So we launched with that thesis in some sense. In addition to this broader journey perspective, we have gotten to this place by following the market and listening to what entrepreneurs actually want through the big unlock was honestly in a deal process with one of our clients where we realized, “This is a great deal. This person’s going to put a ton of money in their pockets, secure their future,” and it’s completely the wrong outcome for the entrepreneur because it’s thinking all about the deal, not thinking about what this person didn’t want was an exit. They wanted a different relationship with their business, and that required, what do you actually want out of life, that personal significance piece? And it required, “Hey, if we can actually create a layer of team members and reporting that allows you to manage this like a board chair would do as opposed to a highly engaged CEO. That’s actually what you want. You don’t want out of this business. You want to still have this be a huge rock in your life.” And so we’ve ran through that door, said no to the deal with them and have been building the infrastructure around this, and that was the unlock and aha moment for us. There’s something bigger here and that’s what then inspired, in some sense, the broader build out of the toolkit, but I think puts more meat on the bone of actually saying no to a deal, which is not the classic wealth manager outcome to get to a way better outcome for the client and is ultimately still an awesome client for us as a firm and somebody that we can go build with for the next 20 years. I think just telling it through the lens of a story that’s different than what’s normal, so to speak, is a way to frame that up. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hyper focus on a fairly long-term and honestly nebulous potential outcome. You don’t have certainty. That, I think, is why most advisors would prefer the near-term liquidity. I mean, it’s not a secret, right? You can bill on assets, firms are incentivizing it and it’s a pretty direct recipe to net new asset growth, but it’s certainly a refreshing point of view. It resonates with me. I’m wondering if it’s resonated with clients and prospects. I guess what I’m asking is, do they feel that this is something different than the typical wealth management experience for this type of client? Nick Hubert: Yeah, Taylor, tell that story of the guy who said, “I’ve had this, but I felt alone.” I think that story of partnership, you tell pretty well. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, it was actually that same client, he had a investment banker, a wealth manager, attorney, and a CPA. CPA said, “The deal’s terrible, you shouldn’t do the deal.” Investment bankers obviously incentivized to do the deal. And so he’s saying, “You should do the deal.” That’s how he gets paid. He had a wealth manager who was silent and he had an attorney who just pushing paperwork. Jason Diamond: It’s like the start of a bad joke. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. No, seriously, it’s pretty remarkable. It’s like this guy did what he was supposed to do. He put the team of resources around himself. He got professionals in the seat. It’s that no one could connect the dots of all four of those people because they have the seat of those four people. And so it’s really resonated because there’s an ability to see a bigger picture and connect these dots and say, “Okay, this investment banker is saying X because of A, B and C.” And the CPA is saying it’s a bad deal and that it’s not a market deal. It’s 100% a market deal. This deal is right down the fairway in terms of what the market should value your company at and they just don’t understand how the transaction mechanics should work. And so it’s worked really well from that perspective of being able to be the quarterback or centralized point or personal CFO for folks in understanding where interests lie and also being able to think about what they are pursuing in a bit of a different lens. I think the second piece on that is where does it resonate for folks? I think that there is a gap in the marketplace that we are still working to close, and that gap is that business owners do not know what this monthly reporting package looks like. They do not know what really good reporting on their business looks like in terms of they have always run their… You’ve got a business owner. They’ve run their business for 10 or 20 years. They have a pulse on the business from their gut feel. That does not mean that the business has been optimized, is ready to go to the next level or is ready for a transaction and go through a transaction because they have not done the work on the backend to understand the moving pieces of the business at a granular level. This recording package, we oftentimes get this confusion around, well, I’ve got a temporary CFO or a controller or X, Y, Z. That is very different than what we’re talking about. Well, that is all accounting, close the books, have clean numbers. What we’re talking about is how do I marry operational data in the business, number of units ships, number of jobs completed, time on job, operational data to the financials in the business so I can then go make adjustments operationally on how to improve the business and continue taking steps forward. Jason Diamond: It’s very clear. Nick, anything you’d want to add to that? Nick Hubert: I’d say it’s easy to still cut that from a deal lens and say, look, when an investment partner comes to evaluate a business to sit in their seat for a moment, they’re going to look at the replicability of what that leader has done without that leader still in the seat. And if so many businesses are still reliant on that person and this gets talked about as processes, reporting systems, that ultimately results in a discount to the value of the business because although it can be viewed… For the leader, it’s like, it’s that control thing that entrepreneurs deal with. It’s what made them good. It’s what got you there. And so that transition is really hard. And that’s important from a deal lens because that does a direct impact to value. And to widen out the scope beyond the deal and to think about the entrepreneur’s life, this goes back to the dynamic that a lot of times entrepreneurs look for the exits because they’ve built something that it’s now owning them and what they’ve built is not resulting in the life that they want. And so how can we use this system to actually change that relationship, as I mentioned earlier, with the business so that they can run it more like an executive might and get out of the knife fight, so to speak, that often is how this can feel for a lot of folks, even for pretty large businesses. It can just feel like you’re a firefighter, you’re in a knife fight, whatever you want to use for that terminology. I think it’s as much about creating a different life outcome and different relationship and owning and leading a business as it is in driving deal value. Jason Diamond: Taylor, maybe I’ll ask this of you. Forgive the question, but private equity, I think in our space, has a little bit of a negative stigma at the moment. I don’t think that’s true across the board. I think people appreciate generally the need for capital and there are certainly benefits of private equity. But I’ll say as a whole, advisors are, let’s say, suspicious of private equity. You ever get that pushback? Does anybody ever view your experience or the way you position the story as a negative? Taylor Gentry: I think most people that we talk to don’t know what private equity is. They may have seen it in the headlines. They may have some sort of connotation around it. They won’t come out and say that they don’t like it. They don’t know why they don’t like it. The average American business owner, they don’t know what it is or what it means. So yes, you do have to fight that because of the headline piece around private equity, bad actor ABC, and that’s what gets the headlines. I think what private equity is really good at is taking a business that is not optimized or not running on systems and processes that it can run on. Again, it's not rocket science is not crazy hard. It’s just the private equity world has created ways to install systems and process that improve the value of the business by way of providing visibility to financials and operations in a way that the owner previously didn’t have. And so for us, we view it not by any means as the end all be all or the answer. There are clients we’ve worked with that have taken private equity capital and grown successfully, executed on some acquisitions and then exited again. There are clients that have evaluated those transactions and said, “Hey, not for me.” We are actually fairly agnostic to it. What we really spend a lot of our time on is what are we solving for? What’s the end game? How do we use this private equity transaction to get to where we’re trying to go and is it what we want at the end of the day? Because the reality is, if you’re going to stay on and run that business with private equity investment in, there’s a higher expectation on what you need to do Monday morning than when you owned it yourself and it was a little bit of your personal piggy bank too. Jason Diamond: I love it because you bring it back to the north star concept. Taylor Gentry: Yes, that’s exactly right. It’s what are we solving for and what game are we playing to be able to get to where we ultimately want to go? And for, as Nick mentioned that client that turned down the deal, it was a private equity investment. We got very clear with that, “Hey, here are going to be the expectations. You will have a monthly financial reporting call. You’re going to have quarterly board meetings.” These are things that need to happen in this business to be able to upgrade the management and cadence in this company. You don’t have to do it all tomorrow, but that is how you make a more valuable company, is installing some of these systems, process and cadence. And so we’re working with him now on doing that, just in a private context instead of in the private equity backed environment. Nick Hubert: I think there are three things embedded in this. I’d say number one, to Taylor’s point, this is a massive black box, in some ways by design. Wall Street’s had not a great reputation for a very long time of putting things behind the paywall, so to speak. And so we think a lot about our job as empowerment and education. Jason Diamond: Education, yep. Nick Hubert: Yeah. And so part of it is just, number one, how do we just demystify this thing and name things and take away the go to or bad? Because it can be that, but it should not be that from a core basis. That’s number one. Number two, a lot of entrepreneurs feel like they cannot get access to this ability to professionalize or level up or whatever these things are without bringing on that investment partner. And so part of our motivation is how do we actually bring this skillset in without needing to bring on an investment partner because oftentimes, that investment partner comes when you’re done, and so you don’t actually get to experience it. That’s number two. Number three is, Jason, part of your point earlier was like there’s still a trap here of potentially being able to get motivated primarily by the exit. And so again, that gets back to our business model, making sure our price Racing is right, all that good stuff. And it’s also the reality that a lot of businesses, if you just look at a very broad scope of American businesses, a lot of them don’t have value in the marketplace in a massively material way and/or won’t exit in a traditional way. And so the wealth creation journey then becomes much more of a conversation of, how do we manage the balance between investing in the company and distributing out of the company to invest elsewhere because we should actually be creating investment assets along the way because when you get to the exit, there’s no better power position at the moment of exit than already having financial security to some degree and giving you choice in the right deal, not the highest and best deal because you need to fill the piggy bank for retirement. Jason Diamond: I just want to be sure to ask because you did mention a couple times your pricing structure. How have you set it up so that you can be more agnostic about this as opposed to the typical… You want to talk about it for a minute? Nick Hubert: As it’s structured now, it starts with a retainer earlier on where we are working… As Taylor mentioned, we are going deep in the operational build of the business. We will do that on a monthly retainer. We’re engaging consistently. As assets get built up and if assets get built up, we start to chew that retainer down as assets go up. I think what we are ideally trying to figure out, and still honestly have not figured out yet, is how do we get to parity so that we don’t create an… I want to be able to work agnostically with a client to say- Jason Diamond: Yeah, I love it. Nick Hubert: … regardless of how I’m engaging with you, that’s the goal. So I’d say we haven’t cracked the code on exactly what that is yet, but mechanically, we’ve got the levers to pull to say how we price and move that retainer down is basically allowing to keep it at par, so to speak, for the client and allowing us to say, “I’m here to engage in making the best wealth creation outcome for you along the way, whether that’s investing in the business or investing outside the business.” Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right recipe. I agree. The levers can be fine-tuned, but to me, that’s the model you want to create where you can credibly look your prospects and clients in the eyes and tell them, “Our job is to serve you in the best way… We’re sitting on the same side of the table as you.” I want to turn this inward for a second. The home cooking concept. M&A, within the RIA independent space, is obviously a hot topic. Have you thought about it? Do you think it’s a critical part of a potential growth trajectory of a healthy, independent firm? I’m curious your perspective. I feel you, Taylor in particular, probably have a unique lens on this coming from the world you came from. Taylor Gentry: Yeah, Jason, I think if Nick and I wanted to put as much money as we possibly could in our pockets as fast as humanly possible. It’s a pretty easy recipe. It’s go get some private equity capital backer, roll up a few RIAs, get to a few billion of AUM and then sell it to the next private equity firm or roll it to the next private equity firm, do that a few times. We’d all make plenty of money and go on our way. We’ve been really intentional on this front, and again, I talk about this is what we want to do for the next 30 plus years. And really being intentional around building a business that has that enduring nature to it, decided to take private equity capital on, you are on a shot clock to some degree. Yes, you’re trying to build a best business, all of those pieces. You get cadence. You get capital. There’s a ton of value there, but you are on a shot clock that is not a shot clock we’re trying to get on at this stage. I’d say we opportunistically are looking at acquisitions. So we think about it, and Nick and I talk about it all the time, how much of our time should we be spending on acquisitions? And we think of it as 80/20 or even 90/10, 80% or 90% organic growth-focused, 10 to 20% acquisitions-focused. And so we’re actively evaluating those consistently and see deals on a monthly basis that we look at and evaluate, but it’s less of the focus today than it could be down the road. Jason Diamond: And Nick, do you think of that when you guys talk? Do you guys call that your true north? Do you think the same way you coach your clients and prospects to say, “For right now, it wouldn’t be the right move for us to take private equity capital and to do this acquisition rollup strategy because A, B and C are more important for us”? Nick Hubert: Yes. I think if we take our life north star for Taylor. I’m speaking for Taylor, but we’re close and so we share this of… To Taylor’s point, the life outcome of scaling that quickly with that type of capital backing is likely to create a life that I don’t actually want that’s not good for me, not good for my family, and honestly, not good for our clients at this point. And so that overrides in this case, even though the wealth, north star might say, “Hey, absolutely do that.” At some point something has to win. And so that is true. At the business side, as the north star is motivated by this mission of the entire entrepreneur journey, the worst thing I could do is shortcut my ability to be on that journey for a long period of time. One of our friends in this space says, “The best thing I can do for my clients is still be in the seat 30 years from now because I’ve lived a good life that enables that.” And I think that’s spot on for us, is everything, it’s so easy in today’s world to be consumed by short-termism and we are intentional in ensuring that we don’t succumb to that. While still recognizing to your point, I mean, you’re in this all day, Jason, right? There’s a massive opportunity in front of us to be thoughtful about how acquisitions fit into this. And I think we want to be open to that in a way that ensures we just don’t lose the core of the goodness of what we’re trying to build. Jason Diamond: I think that’s the right answer. The only wrong answer in my mind is we’re not open to this or we’re closed to it. To not at least be opportunistically aware of the dynamics in the market, I think is naive. But also, I’ll be honest, Nick, when I think about the concept of the north star, I have a hard time imagining, because we use a similar concept when we counsel advisors. What is your true north or your north star and your best business life, whatever you want to call it? To me, it does include absolutely the personal piece. I think it’s hard to define it only on the economic verticals because, I mean, I think about this for a transitioning advisor. Almost never is the conversation about crunch the spreadsheet and get us the biggest check possible. It’s, yeah, sure, transition capital is important, but it’s let’s also, we want a better work life and we want freedom to market and blah, blah, blah. To me, I think it’s a completely fair way. You two are looking at it at least for now and I assume you reserve the right to revise that opinion down the line. Nick Hubert: I think acquiring for size and scale is as often the headline is, yeah, we’re not into that at this point because I think… And yet, hey, if the right acquisition with the right people came along in that, we’d be extremely excited and would move very quickly to execute on that. So it’s a little bit of a both hand. Taylor Gentry: Yeah. Jason, I think it goes without saying, but my background on having done a bunch of transactions of businesses like this, it’s a natural fit for us to have this as a lever. And so we are looking at deals. We just haven’t prioritized it as the top priority. Jason Diamond: I think also where you are, 2024 was the launch of the business. It’s pretty common to see, all right, let’s nail this, let’s get our feet under us, client service model and then we’ll start to think about that down the line. A couple other things I want to ask you about running an independent firm. This is a pretty glowingly positive review, I think, of your ability to service clients, your ability to grow and to build and run the business that you want. Has there been anything negative that you haven’t enjoyed about running and operating this business, other than working with each other, of course? Nick Hubert: No, I was going to say, I’m like, can we get Taylor off the call again? Taylor Gentry: Jason, maybe I’ll take a first cut at it. I think for both Nick and I, it’s just the administrative components of running an independent business that we don’t enjoy candidly. I don’t think many people would. That said, you come full circle and it is a pretty glowingly positive review of running an independent business because we get to run it in the way that we see fit. And oh, by the way, we use the same things that we use with our clients. So the value drivers we’ve talked about, we have a value drivers worksheet. We refresh it every six months. Nick, Andrew, and I get together every six months and we’re 18 months into this thing and we’ve already got this cadence and system to it, if you will. So I personally really enjoy the running the business piece of it from a macro perspective. Yeah, I’m responsible for running our fee billing and running the math on all that and getting that done, for example. Jason Diamond: I think that’s actually a very thoughtful answer. And I appreciate you saying I enjoy running… I feel the same way, by the way. There’s some elements of running a business that I think are immensely fun. I think it gets painted with this brush of, “Ugh, running the business is the hassle and I want to work in the business.” Agreed, nobody likes invoicing and accounts receivable for the most part, but Nick, what are your thoughts on this? Nick Hubert: Yeah, I think mine is different a little bit coming from a different background where it’s easier for me to sit with the rose-colored glasses of the joy of the freedom that we have in this model. At the same time, when I’m counseling folks who are talking with folks or mentoring folks, younger people who are thinking about, “Okay, I want to go start my own thing,” I’m like, “Hey, it’s like I’m the same way. I want to look in the mirror and think I’m the boss or I’m one of the bosses and we get to go build this.” Then the reality is, at the end of the day, if there was something that you didn’t want to do that had to get done and you didn’t do it, you got to look in the mirror and be like, “Well, you’re the boss, you didn’t do it.” It’s the both sides of the coin that I think a positive, negative cut is one way to look at that because it can feel that way sometimes. And the reality is every job has 20 to 30% of it that you just don’t enjoy doing, and that’s totally true. Jason Diamond: It’s why they call it work. That’s why they pay you. Nick Hubert: They’d be pretty quick to point out that I’m the one of the partnership group that they’re going to have to chase for a smaller administrative item because, yeah, I honestly, just similarly speaking, don’t enjoy that. I want to go talk to clients. I want to go focus on building what we’re building. In finance speaks, it is a higher beta to just the all encompassing realities of running a business that is really hard to underscore without being in the seat. And yeah, there’s definitely 20 to 30% of that I would love to wave a magic wand and say, I don’t have to do anymore. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I appreciate that. Nick Hubert: You can’t have one without the other. It’s both sides. Jason Diamond: I think it’s getting easier and I think it’s getting more offloadable and some of it probably gets more… In some ways, more offloadable as you scale, but then you get a new set of problems, probably two, because you’re dealing with bigger… It’s a never ending. I think most business owners would agree with that. And you said it well, you take the good with the bad and overwhelmingly, most people we speak with in the independent space feel as you do, which is, are there things I would prefer to offload or that I would prefer not to do? Of course, but that’s almost just the price you pay for the freedom and for doing all the things you want to do. Two more questions that I want to be sure to ask about where this has been a great episode. One is AI. Need to know your thoughts. Is this coming for our jobs? Do you think your firm is positioned to capture either asset flows or also just to leverage this technology and use it to serve clients better? Just give me your thoughts. Nick Hubert: I think, in some sense, it would be irresponsible as people this early in our entrepreneurial journey and thinking about how do we optimize what we do for clients to not be engaging with AI in some way, shape or form, at least in an evaluative posture. So we are actively, in a bunch of different ways, whether it’s buy it off the shelf or build it, continuing to find ways to think about, not only how do we drive efficiency, because there’s an obvious surface level dynamic of if I can save time and spend more time with clients, that is a go to thing objectively. And there’s this deeper dynamic of if it can amplify what… Actually, back to your prior question, if it can amplify what I’m best at and enjoy and reduce what I don’t enjoy, that’s a massive win. And I think we’re on the surface of seeing that. That’s the opportunity we are motivated by that and pursuing that. And at the same time, I would say an operational principle that really is important to us, and you can almost call it a north star within the business is client security can never be put at risk for the sake of our own growth, our own efficiency, or anything else. There’s, I think, still a question mark as to how we think about trusting this. And so we are very cautious as we think about we will never try to move so quickly on any technology, whether it’s AI or otherwise that we risk our clients in some way, shape or form, because the reality is we are also in a context where AI is, when pulled, one of the least popular things happening in the world today for the average American. And so there’s no kudos here for being a leader. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. The first mover advantage here is slim to none. Nick Hubert: Yeah, you don’t want to be the one sticking your neck out on this in our industry. And yet there still objectively has a potential to be better for the clients. Navigating that I think is messy. Taylor Gentry: I think the only thing I’d add, which is pretty short, is the use of these tools has the ability to create a better deliverable for clients on a more consistent basis. And marrying that with exactly what Nick just outlined around the risk is really the magic piece here. And so I think, to the extent we can get it implemented effectively with the security, but also with, this is going to result in a lot better outcome for clients across the board, that’s a pretty attractive objective to go after and it’s pretty exciting to be in the industry with that now on the forefront in terms of ability to improve that experience over time. Jason Diamond: Yeah. No, that’s a good color to add. I want to end here with a potential HR violation, but you’ll forgive me. I’m not going to ask about age, but you are clearly both relatively young advisors. And this is a hot button issue in our industry, the idea that there are not a lot of talented, young next gen advisors at a time when a lot of gen one or older advisors are retiring out of the business. So what would you say… I think one of you made the comment earlier, it’s not necessarily the coolest industry to go into at 23 years old right out of school. I think more commonly people go into sales and trading, investment banking or some of the other finance verticals. What would you say to younger folks interested in wealth? And maybe I’d ask also, do you have any thoughts on how we solve this next gen talent crisis? And if you’re both secretly 90 years old, you can just do it. Taylor Gentry: You talking my internal age or my actual age? Jason Diamond: Why don’t you go first? Nick Hubert: Yeah, go ahead, Taylor. Taylor Gentry: I think there’s two threads here. The first is it’s not a sexy industry to go into and not as sexy as an investment banking, private equity shtick, if you will. I think from my perspective, it’s really important what you’re working on. The ability to be in a firm like what we are building with the diversity of work that is available is a little bit like the world’s your oyster and we’re designing it with that in mind. For Nick and I, the ability to work on many different situations throughout the day and throughout the week is actually why this business is so attractive and interesting and why we want to do it for 30 years. And so we’re building with that context. And so, in some ways, it’s almost like a plug for younger advisors, the ability to work in a firm like what we’re building where you’ve got this diversity of work that is not just trading stocks and bonds or just spreadsheeting or just financial planning. This is a much broader expression and experience than what I would call “traditional” wealth management. So I think that’s the key on that front. Then, on the talent development side of the equation, if you will, this AI thing is going to be a big question mark. And what I mean by that is there is significant training that will be required in, call it traditional wealth management or the firm we’re building with regard to folks’ ability to actually learn when you can plug it into AI and get an answer that you don’t have to critically question or think through. And so there’s going to be a significant learning curve for folks that we’re going to have to continue to train and educate on in order to produce talent that can be long-term sustainable and beneficial for clients more writ large. Jason Diamond: Nick. Nick Hubert: Well, first and foremost, we haven’t given our third partner enough here of time. I think we have a tremendous benefit of having a multi-generational team at the partnership level where he’s in his mid to late 50s and can bring that additional experience to bear and as is necessary, and as is important because investing is an experienced business and a lot of clients want that. And so the power of that matters. I think that actually speaks to firms being willing to think of partnership at that level that partnership is not reserved for just once you’ve been there for a long time. So I think it’s getting at like, how do you share ownership earlier, do it in a way that is actually giving people a stake in the outcome and allowing that elevation to happen. I think that’s number one. Number two, honestly, the existence of people like you and your team and that your family has built over the years, Jason, is awesome. And because of the ability for you to help people navigate and see how easy it is to actually run this business and build this business in some sense… And that’s in the broader spectrum of having seen. We work with so many different types of companies. We sometimes say our business is so much easier to run and it has come so far with technology and with people like you who are providers to us to allow it to be easier for us so to speak. That’s a big deal. I think that should be talked about more that there is a massive… What that allows is more time to, as Taylor mentioned, build what you actually want because you can outsource the compliance piece in a major way that allows you to not spend as much time on that as you used to. So I don’t think that gets talked about enough. And I think if you just zoom out and view this in the perspective of post-2020, there was this massive movement of entrepreneurship through acquisitions and people looking at this idea of how do I get the life I want by way of not having to be on a two-year clock to go to the next job to the next job. Have something that I can have a long-term impact on where I get to build something and have employees. This is the perfect space for that because it’s such an awesome business where you get to work so intimately with people and clients and their life outcomes. They’re, again, relatively speaking, easier businesses to run relative to what’s out there. I’m just baffled by the fact that it is not seen a larger wave of younger people coming out of these more “traditional” paths and seeing this as an awesome place when they’re willing to go buy an HVAC company. This is so much easier than that. So honestly, I think

For thirty years, healthcare has met every new technology with the same four words, we've seen this before. Most of the time the doubt loses. The internet was called a fad, and by 2009 a majority of US adults were looking up health information online, up from a quarter in 2000. So the reflex is earned. This episode asks the harder question, whether being right about the internet tells you anything at all about AI. Chris Boyer and Reed Smith open with why the reflex is so strong. The 1999 objections to the web read almost word for word like the 2024 objections to AI. Patients won't trust it. It makes mistakes. It can't replace the clinician. Pew found 60% of US adults uncomfortable with a provider relying on AI for their own care, which rhymes with the discomfort that greeted the web. There is even a formal model for the pattern, the Gartner Hype Cycle, though its own critics point out the curve has no data behind it. In the second segment they find where the analogy breaks. The web reached a majority of adults over roughly a decade. ChatGPT reached 100 million users in about two months, the fastest ramp UBS had seen in twenty years. The web moved information you could still judge by its source. A large language model makes the answer in the moment, with no source to check, in the same confident tone whether it's right or wrong. Chris and Reed hand you one question to run in a meeting, does the thing that made the old case turn out fine actually show up here, and one way to sort your AI uses by how much a wrong answer costs. Then the conversation turns to two people who have hosted the room where healthcare argues about this since 1996. Kathy Divis and Mike Schneider of Greystone.Net mark the 30th anniversary of HCIC. They trace digital from a small side function to something so central that a keynote once argued digital marketing was dead, meaning it had stopped needing its own name. Mike makes the point plainly, the technology changes and the questions stay the same, from the internet to CRM to AI. And they share what surfaced across this year's conference proposals, a return to trust and authority as the theme running through the whole organization. In this episode, Chris, Reed and the guests cover: Why we've seen this before is both earned pattern recognition and a way to stop thinking Where the AI story tracks the internet and where it breaks, on speed and on the difference between moving information and making it The one question that separates a real analogy from a comforting one How 30 years of HCIC read the same skepticism across the internet, CRM and AI What it means when a technology stops needing its own name, and why invisible was the goal for the web and the risk for AI Why trust and authority came back as the theme in this year's proposals If someone in your next meeting says we've seen this before, this episode is about the follow-up question that tells you whether they just said something wise or talked the room out of thinking. touchpoint.health Mentions from the Show: Pew Research Center, The Social Life of Health Information, 2009 (25% of adults online for health info in 2000, 61% by 2009): https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/06/11/the-social-life-of-health-information/ Pew Research Center, 60% of Americans Would Be Uncomfortable With a Provider Relying on AI in Their Own Health Care, 2023: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/02/22/60-of-americans-would-be-uncomfortable-with-provider-relying-on-ai-in-their-own-health-care/ Gartner, Hype Cycle Research Methodology: https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle Reuters, ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base, 2023 (100M users in about two months): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-051929384.html BMJ Open, 2026 chatbot health-information audit (nearly half of answers problematic). CONFIRM primary link and figures before publish. Medical Hallucination in Foundation Models, medRxiv, 2025 (overconfidence and poor calibration): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323115v1.full HCIC (Healthcare Interactive Conference), 30th anniversary, produced by Greystone: https://www.hcic.net/ Live  Kathy Divis, president, Greystone. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathyldivis/   Mike Schneider, Greystone. https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelschneider-greystone/  Reed Smith on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reedtsmith/ Chris Boyer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisboyer/ Chris Boyer website: http://www.christopherboyer.com/ Chris Boyer on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/chrisboyer.bsky.social Reed Smith on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/reedsmith.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Olivia Fox Cabane reveals the behaviors and practices that help develop your personal charisma.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) The number one myth surrounding charisma 2) How to amplify your presence in just a few seconds3) The master key to looking and feeling more powerfulSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1167 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT IAN — Olivia Fox Cabane is a leading authority on the science of charisma and the bestselling author of The Charisma Myth and The Net And The Butterfly, translated into 36 languages. Formerly Director of Innovative Leadership for Stanford StartX, she has lectured on charisma, leadership, and innovation at Harvard, Yale, MIT, the Marine War College, and the United Nations. As cofounder of the KindEarth.Tech Foundation, she supports foodtech companies advancing environmental sustainability. Her clients include the leadership of Apple, Google, TikTok, Deloitte, UBS, and JP Morgan as well as founders of Airbnb, Brex, Paradigm, and Presight. She has been featured in The New York Times, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal. • Book: The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal Magnetism• Meditation: The Charisma Myth Exercises: Metta• Website: AskOlivia.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: “Case Report: Women, Be Aware that Your Vocal Charisma can Dwindle in Remote Meetings” by Ingo Siegert and Oliver Niebuhr• Study: “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes” by Jane M. Howell and Peter J. Frost• Study: “Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits” by John Antonakis• Researcher: Dr. Oliver Niebuhr• Microphone: Maono HD300T• YouTube: Podcastage• Book: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini• Book: Radical Acceptance: Embracing Your Life With the Heart of a Buddha by Tara Brach— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Shopify. Sign up for your free trial at Shopify.com/awesomepod• Monarch. Get 50% off your first year with code AWESOME at Monarch.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Investors weigh results from Netflix, Alcoa and Intuitive Surgical. Andrew Goldberg, Chief Global Strategist at Nomura Asset Management, explains how investors should position as earnings season gathers momentum. Evercore's Mark Mahaney analyzes Netflix's results and what they signal for growth, advertising and the broader media landscape. Our Annika Kim Constantino reports on Eli Lilly's move into psychedelics while Michael Yee of UBS discusses the latest wave of biotech M&A and where deal activity could accelerate next. Plus, a look at South Korea's move to ban new single-stock leveraged ETFs and growing short interest in SpaceX as investors debate whether early holders are hedging ahead of future share sales. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Story of the Week (DR):Social Media's 'Big Tobacco Moment': Meta Faces $1.4 Trillion Fine for Allegedly Fueling Teen Suicide and AddictionMeta is being sued by 33 US states, led by California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey.12 blue/12 red/9 purpleThe states allege that Meta deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teens, fueling a youth mental health crisis (including anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide).They also accuse Meta of violating child privacy laws by collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent.Meta warned a federal court that it could face up to $1.4T in penalties if the states prevail at the upcoming trial (set for August 18, 2026). Meta extrapolated this massive figure—which is roughly equivalent to the company's entire stock market value—based on the methodology proposed by the lead states for calculating damages.Meta calls the penalty "outlandish" and "unsubstantiated," arguing it has no precedent in consumer protection history: 'A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.' The company accuses the states of improperly multiplying penalties (e.g., stacking fines based on daily usage time). Meta denies the allegations, asserting its platforms have extensive safety tools and that the claims are unmoored from actual unfair practices.‘I Don't Think I'm Ever Going to Stop,' Says Mark Zuckerberg. Even With 'Infinite Money,' He Has No Plans to Retreat to His Massive Hawaii EstateMeta found to breach EU laws with 'addictive' Instagram, Facebook designsInstagram and Facebook's “addictive” designs have put Meta in breach of the European Union's digital laws, the EU concluded Friday in a preliminary report.The tech giant violated the EU's Digital Services Act by failing to adequately consider the risks associated with design features that affected the physical well-being of its users, including minors and vulnerable adults, the European Commission said.These features include infinite scroll, which constantly shows fresh content, autoplay, push notifications and highly personalized recommendation systems — feeding users' compulsion to continue using platforms and putting them into “autopilot mode.”The EU Commission also accused Meta of ignoring available information about how much time young people are spending on Instagram or Facebook at night, and how different types of content formats, from reels to stories, could lead to excessive use of its services.Meta said, “We disagree with these preliminary findings.”New Zealand Moves To Ban Climate Change Litigation. Will The U.S. Follow?New Zealand has proposed a bill to limit the ability of individuals to sue high greenhouse gas emitters over the impacts of climate change, relying instead on the enforcement measures taken by the government. The bill appears poised to pass.The women who wouldn't let climate data disappear MMAfter losing their jobs at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Rebecca Lindsey, her sister Mary and colleague Anna Eshelman teamed up to rebuild a pivotal resource the Trump administration took offlineRebecca Lindsey, a technical writer for NASA–one of 280,000 federal workers fired by Musk/Trump, joined forces with former NOAA employees Anna Eshelman, and Mary Lindsey, her older sister, to become the core team behind the deactivated site's successor, Climate.us, preserving over 15 years of key climate data and resources.Elon Musk says he always wanted his SpaceX employees to get rich — and now thousands of them are millionairesElon Musk's 'Chainsaw for Bureaucracy' Just Left an $11 Billion Budget Hole as Trump Rehires StaffThe trove features key maps, educational materials and climate indicator reports, including the now-deleted Fifth National Climate Assessment, the government's most comprehensive analysis of climate change that was at risk of being lost to the publicJersey Mike's $12 billion IPO filing reveals a $50 million payday for the founder's stepson and a $41 million jetFamily members of founder Peter Cancro were employed Jersey Mike's in various roles and received compensation in excess of $120,000 from the Company as follows for the years ended December 28, 2025 and December 31, 2024 and 2023:John Cancro, Mr. Cancro's brother, received total compensation of approximately $20,019,231, $519,231 and $500,000, respectively;Paul J. Cancro, Mr. Cancro's son, received total compensation of approximately $8,001, $216,022 and $208,023, respectively;Robert Cancro, Mr. Cancro's son, received total compensation of approximately $38,462, $1,038,462 and $1,000,000, respectively;Tatiana Cancro, Mr. Cancro's wife, received total compensation of approximately $11,538, $311,539 and $300,000, respectively;Caroline Jones, Mr. Cancro's daughter, received total compensation of approximately $38,462, $1,038,462 and $1,000,000, respectively;Alexandra Powers, Mr. Cancro's sister-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $0, $1,165,437 and $0;Daniel Powers, Mr. Cancro's brother-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $30,213,462, $1,793,952 and $0;John Tesauro Jr., Mr. Cancro's brother-in-law, received total compensation of approximately $0, $0 and $2,429,628, respectively;Phillip Sivolobov, Mr. Cancro's stepson, received total compensation of approximately $50,011,538, $311,539 and $276,923, respectively.GRAND TOTAL: $112MStepson Phillip got $51M, brother John got $21MOther Peter Cancro schwag in 2025:Got a $41 million jet and an additional fixed amount of $166,666.66 per month in light of the business expenses incurred by Mr. Cancro related to air transportation to travel from time to time for business purposes.Lease agreements valued at $1M in rent (leases go to 2030) Controlled company: Blackstone (will control more than 50% of voting power)Board: 8 directorsBlackstone:Chair Nigel Travis (also chair of Abercrombie & Fitch)David N. KestnbaumDevon L. RinkerMichael J. StaubFounder/former CEO/chair: Peter CancroCEO Charles R. MorrisonCheryl S. Miller, director on two controlled companies:Tyson FoodsOld Dominion Freight Line (Congdon brothers)Fran Horowitz, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch (where chair serves as chair)Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Amazon, Walmart and Other Large Employers Could Face New Costs As New Jersey Targets Companies With Medicaid Workers— Will Other States Follow?DR: UBS says rich people will be younger, female and openly queer thanks to the Great Wealth TransferMM: Meta Buried Research Linking Instagram To Teen Harm While Facing $1.4 Trillion Penalty That Could Erase Its Entire WorthMM: ESG!Madison Square Garden Kept a List of Gay CelebritiesAn internal Madison Square Garden database of VIPs labels Joe a “medium risk,” one of roughly 400 celebrities given a risk score.If you're a celebrity and you're marked with a risk score—even as a low risk—it means “you've done something in the publicity world, the social media world, that has caught the attention of the wrong people,” the source continues.The talent database also tracks some celebrities' race, gender identity, and sexual orientation; 93 entries are marked as “LGBTQIA.”MM: California vs. Elon Musk: Tesla Snubbed as New EV Incentives Boost Rivian, Lucid MM DRAssholiest of the Week (MM):Billionaire amplificationKen Griffin says everyone is misinterpreting the AI revolution — and wishes Zohran and Bernie would ‘read a damn history book for once'“[Capitalism is] the greatest success story in the history of humanity,” Griffin said, urging the self-identified socialist politicians, “whether it's Bernie Sanders, whether it's Mamdani,” to “read a damn history book for once and then tell us how to run our country.”Jeff Bezos 'Made All of Our Lives So Much Better,' Says Billionaire Investor Tim Draper"Amazon has made all of our lives so much better," Draper said.Draper said he has benefited from what Bezos has done, and that's a part of the world economy that isn't spoken about enough."Those geniuses who create this incredible world for us are benefiting all of us."40 Epstein-Tied Billionaires Have Injected $1.6B Into US Elections, Report FindsThese are the millionaires and billionaires pledging to fund Trump accountsZuckMeta AI Data Centre Contractor Triggers Biohazard Scare After Flushing Rare Bacterium Into Public SewersMeta Platforms To Build $9 Billion A.I. Data Centre In CanadaThe $145 Billion Lie? Zuckerberg's Leaked Town Hall Audio Exposes Massive AI Failures After Mass LayoffsMeta jumps into AI coding market in effort to chase Anthropic and OpenAIWhat person in their right mind would trust Zuckerberg with their coding?Hollywood Vs Zuckerberg: CAA Warns Meta's AI Image Tool Needs A Major Privacy Overhaul‘I Don't Think I'm Ever Going to Stop,' Says Mark Zuckerberg. Even With 'Infinite Money,' He Has No Plans to Retreat to His Massive Hawaii EstateJeff Sonnenfeld - DRIn defense of Musk, SpaceX, and dual class shares“the rigid formulas of proxy advisors create a perverse, socially destructive incentive: hoard your wealth like an oligarch to maintain your good governance rating, or give it away and risk losing your company”“The proxy advisors want a world governed by rigid mathematical formulas because auditing a checklist is easy. Evaluating human character, industry dynamics, track records of success and failure, and the capacity for visionary leadership is hard. But it is exactly that hard work of judgment which is vital. When it comes to dual-class shares, it is time for the critics to step out of the theoretical vacuum and look at the real-world scoreboards”Headliniest of the WeekDR: OpenAI Wants a $1 Trillion Valuation. But College Students Are Testing At The Level Of 10-Year-Olds AND Suspecting AI cheating, Ivy League prof ordered an in-person final; scores fell 50%MM: ‘Waymo Takes Revenge, Dropping Drunk Teens Directly Into Squad of CopsMM: West Virginia spent $3M to create university program to fight ‘woke ideology.' One student is enrolledWho Won the Week?DR: Free Float's new platformAnd blowhard Jeffrey Sonnenfeld for arguing that dualclass owners are necessary because the dualclass mechanism allows them to sell shares and maintain voting power so they can “cure diseases, endow universities, and combat poverty” MM: Free Float data: Elon Musk and the age of the corporate leviathanAbove a certain size the ordinary rules of governance apparently cease to apply.Of the 16 listed firms worth more than $1trn, seven are shareholder fundamentalists.None has an elaborate statement of corporate purpose, since they are mostly content making heaps of moneyFree Float says Nvidia, Amazon, Broadcom, Micron are all TOTALITARIANNext are the corporate paternalists, who believe that the problem with shareholder democracy is that its voters do not know what is best for them.Free Float says Berkshire, Google, Meta are all TOTALITARIANThe final clan presents the strongest argument against the end of corporate history: individual shareholders consent to hand over all of their rights to the world's richest man, who then governs as he sees fit.Free Float says SpaceX, Tesla are TOTALITARIANBasically, it's nice of the economist to recognize everything Free Float says every weekPredictionsDR: Jeff Sonnenfeld writes something on Fortune that triggers meMM: Jeff Sonnenfeld writes something on Fortune that triggers Damion