Podcasts about Vanguard

The Last Trade: government bond yields are blowing out across the developed world, Japan's 10-year hit 3% for the first time since 1996, and the Treasury's buyback program has already been overrun. Jackson, Michael, and Brian trace what a global bond rout means for hard assets, why $3.5 billion went into Bitcoin ETFs in August, and what it says that 21 of the largest banks just announced a joint dollar stablecoin.---

On episode 480, ⁠⁠Michael Batnick⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠Ben Carlson⁠⁠ discuss: the AI debt binge, no recessions for the rest of the 2020s, Kevin Warsh thoughts on the economy, the dead cat bounce in software stocks, bull market M&A deals, no one cares about dividends anymore, rising yields are a good thing, AI civilizations, Gen Z will be buying houses, Tom Cruise remakes and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts and Vanguard. To learn more about YCharts Future Proof session and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription, visit https://go.ycharts.com/future-proof-2026 (new customers only). Learn more about Vanguard bonds at https://vanguard.com/audio. Please take our 2026 audience survey HERE Sign up for The Compound newsletter and never miss out: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thecompoundnews.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Us On Social Media: Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find complete show notes on our blogs: Ben Carlson's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠A Wealth of Common Sense⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Michael Batnick's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Irrelevant Investor⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Feel free to shoot us an email at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation.   Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ritholtz Wealth Management⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael J Lopez helps organizations make change actually stick, which is one of the hardest problems in businessIn this episode, Nicole Greer sits down with Michael, founder of Michael J Lopez Consulting and author of Change: The 6 Science-Backed Strategies to Transform Your Brain, Your Body, and Your Behavior, to unpack the neuroscience behind why change is so hard and what it actually takes to build habits and culture that last.Michael has spent over 20 years guiding Fortune 500 leaders at companies like Entergy, Clorox, Vanguard, and Meta through major transformations. He is also the lead researcher behind Rethinking Change Management 2026, a national workforce study on why change initiatives keep failing.In this episode, you'll learn:Why roughly 47% of what you do every day is habit, and what that means when you want to changeThe six science-backed strategies behind lasting change: Shift environment, initiate movement, embrace stress, create focus, generate repetitions, and reward effortWhy "Quitter's Day" happens every January, and how to avoid itHow the anterior midcingulate cortex (the brain's "air traffic control center") grows stronger every time you do something hardWhy culture designs itself, whether you're intentional about it or notThis episode is perfect for leaders, business owners, and teams who want to build habits and culture that actually stick.Topics include change management, the neuroscience of habits, organizational culture, leadership development, resilience, and employee motivation. The Build a Vibrant Culture Podcast helps leaders improve work culture, communication, and business performance through real-world leadership strategies and practical insights. Click here to view the episode transcript. Connect with Michael J Lopez at https://www.michaeljlopez.coach/Learn more about training, coaching, and courses at https://vibrantculture.comConnect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/build-a-vibrant-culture-nicole-greer/For speaking inquiries: https://vibrantculture.com/speaker-kit-request/Download our training catalog: https://vibrantculture.com/catalog-request/Want to be a guest? Send your request to podcast@vibrantculture.com

After receiving an email from Vanguard urging a security profile update, I took a deep dive into the security options financial institutions are pitching to customers today. From AI-vulnerable voice prints to phone biometrics and multi-factor authentication, not all security layers are created equal. In this episode, we break down what features actually protect your retirement and brokerage accounts, why 3-second AI voice clones make voice authentication a major risk, and how hardware differences between iPhone and Android impact your mobile banking safety.Key Topics Covered:Vanguard Email Audit: How to safely navigate official-looking marketing emails, domain redirects, and link safety.The AI Voice ID Trap: Why voice biometrics are easily bypassed by generative AI tools like ElevenLabs, and why podcasters and public speakers are especially vulnerable.On-Device Biometrics Explained: The crucial security differences between Apple's 3D TrueDepth Face ID, Google Pixel's Class 3 machine learning, and Samsung's ultrasonic fingerprints.Smart MFA & Transfer Locks: Best practices for multi-factor authentication, trusted devices, and how outgoing transfer locks add an extra vault door to your wealth. Mentioned URLsVanguard Direct Security Profile URL: https:security-profile.web.vanguard.comVanguard Official Login: https:logon.vanguard.comPlease subscribe and leave a review on your favorite Podcasting platform. Get 12 Financial Mistakes that Keep Physicians from Building Wealth at https://www.growyourwealthymindset.com/12financialmistakesIf you want to start your path to financial freedom, start with the Financial Freedom Workbook. Download your free copy today at https://www.GrowYourWealthyMindset.com/fiworkbookDr. Elisa Chiang is  a physician and money coach who helps other doctors reach their financial goals by mastering their money mindset through personalized 1:1 coaching .You can learn more about Elisa at her website or follow her on social media.Website: https://ww.GrowYourWealthyMindset.comInstagram https://www.instagram.com/GrowYourWealthyMindsetFacebook https://www.facebook.com/ElisaChianghttps://www.facebook.com/GrowYourWealthyMindsetYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/WealthyMindsetMDLinked In: www.linkedin.com/in/ElisaChiang Disclaimer: The content provided in the Grow Your Wealthy Mindset Podcast...

Vanguard sorgt mit einem neuen Welt-ETF für Aufsehen: Der FTSE Global All-Cap UCITS ETF investiert in mehr als 7.000 Aktien weltweit und kostet gerade einmal 0,07 Prozent pro Jahr. Im Gespräch erklärt Vanguard-Chef Sebastian Külps, was den ETF vom FTSE All-World, MSCI World und MSCI ACWI unterscheidet – und warum Vanguard gerade jetzt die Preise deutlich senkt. Außerdem sprechen wir über die Zukunft des Altersvorsorgedepots, die Frühstartrente und die Frage, welche Rolle ETFs dabei spielen könnten. Und natürlich klären wir: Ist der neue Global All Cap möglicherweise der neue Welt-ETF für die Altersvorsorge? Risikohinweis: Dieses Material stellt keine Anlageberatung und keine Empfehlung zum Kauf oder Verkauf bestimmter Anlagen, Wertpapiere oder Strategien dar. Die regulatorischen Anforderungen an unabhängige Anlage- oder Strategieempfehlungen finden daher keine Anwendung. Der Wert von Anlagen und die daraus erzielten Erträge können schwanken, unter anderem aufgrund von Wechselkursänderungen. Anleger erhalten daher möglicherweise weniger zurück, als sie ursprünglich investiert haben. ++++++++ Kennst du die Risiken in deinem Portfolio? Mit dem extraETF Portfolio Tracker erhältst du volle Transparenz und tiefe Einblicke in dein Vermögen. Analysiere deine Aktien, ETFs und Fonds zudem mit detaillierten, individuellen Performance-Metriken, X-Ray-Analysen und vielem mehr. Teste den Portfolio Tracker jetzt kostenlos: https://go.extraetf.com/portfoliotracker ++++++++

CAPTION:  1914 BEIRUTDavid Daoud outlines the strategic dynamics of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is currently launching pinprick probing attacks to test Israel's rules of engagement under ceasefire constraints and US pressure. Within Lebanesepolitics, the Shia community remains structured around a symbiotic relationship between the nationalist Amal movement and Hezbollah, preventing any independent Shia opposition from gaining ground. Beyond Lebanon, Hezbollah acts as the tip of the spear for Iranian expansionism, training regional proxies in rocket, tunnel, and propaganda warfare. This veteran, transnational expertise makes Hezbollah an indispensable regional asset that Iran would find impossible to replace. (10)

Helen and Gavin chat about Weezer Gold, The Beast in Me, It Ends, and The Dog Stars, and it's Week 58 of the list of Grammy Record of the Year Winners from 2015, which will be picked from Really Love by D'Angelo & The Vanguard, Uptown Funk by Mark Ronson feat. Bruno Mars, Thinking Out Loud by Ed Sheeran, Blank Space by Taylor Swift, and Can't Feel My Face by The Weeknd. Support the show by buying us a coffee: buymeacoffee.com/thelistoflists

Kyle talks to Gavin & Zac of The Vanguard about early speculation on the 2028 presidential election and the firestorm surrounding Hasan's recent remarks on Zionism.

Every so often, a financial product gets picked up by the internet for one reason and one reason only — its name. TIPS are a perfect example. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities have the word inflation right on the box, so the moment people start worrying about rising prices, the hive mind of finance decides the answer is obvious: inflation's coming, buy the thing with inflation in the name, done. In this episode, Brandon and Brantley take that reflex apart — and make the case for an inflation-resilient asset almost nobody thinks to put in the same conversation: whole life insurance. We'll say the honest part first, because it's the part that trips people up. Nothing contractual, structural, or mechanical inside a whole life policy addresses inflation. Your dividend does not go up because CPI went up. It's not in the name, it's not on the box, it's not a line drawn from point A to point B. So how can we possibly call it inflation-resilient? Because once you stop reading the label and look at how these things actually work under the hood, whole life turns out to capture a far bigger piece of the inflation cycle than the flavor-of-the-week trade ever could. What we get into: What TIPS actually do — and what they quietly cost you. The nominal yield looks pathetic on the screen, but that yield gets added to the change in CPI, so functionally it's better than it looks and it does hedge your buying power in a high-inflation stretch. The catch is the tax bill. When inflation adjusts the value of the bond, you owe ordinary income tax on that gain in the year it happens — even though no money has actually been sent to you. State and local taxes are usually exempt, which blunts it, but in a higher bracket the real, after-tax return can drift toward zero or negative. That's a strange result for something you bought specifically to keep your buying power above zero. The part everybody forgets: you have to stick the landing. A TIPS trade is a bounce-in, bounce-out move on a single, narrow objective — protect yield against a rapid rise in inflation. The problem is that by the time you've decided inflation is here, the shock has usually already happened. You're reacting to a headline that's already priced in. Why the "safe bond" can still lose 12% in the worst possible year. We walk through a real, humbling number. Vanguard's inflation-protected securities fund — a stand-in for the TIPS exposure a regular investor could actually buy — lost around 12% in 2022, the very year inflation spiked to roughly 8%. That's the year it was "supposed" to shine. The culprit is a broader bond-market and duration problem, and it's exactly the kind of surprise that makes people who thought they owned something simple and safe scratch their heads. How whole life responds to inflation — through the bond market, not the CPI print. Here's the mechanism. An insurer's job is to earn enough on the premiums it collects to make good on a contractual guarantee. Say a company needs to earn 3% to capitalize that guarantee, and it can buy bonds at 4% — it pockets the difference, and with participating whole life, a large share of that gets returned to policyholders as dividends. Crucially, insurers don't buy bonds the way retail investors do. They don't chase total return; they match income-producing assets to their liabilities. So when inflation pushes yields up, they get to buy new bonds at higher yields, and they never sell the old ones at a loss just because rates moved. The lag that works in your favor. Because insurers keep buying up income at higher yields as rates rise — and because they reprice slowly — a relatively short burst of inflation can hold the returns inside a whole life portfolio elevated for years afterward. It doesn't snap up in lockstep with TIPS, and it never will. But it moves in the same direction, it stays there far longer, and it does the whole thing in a dramatically more tax-efficient way. You'll actually understand what happened. Only half tongue-in-cheek. Unraveling whether a TIPS position was a win or a loss is genuinely hard once you fold in the tax treatment. With a well-designed policy, if you pay the premium you planned to pay, you'll have more cash value at the end of next year than you had this year, and so on down the line. The honest caveat we make on-air: this isn't "whole life beats TIPS," and it certainly isn't a fast trade. Dividend rates change from year to year — we've had clients whose cash value came in a bit under the original illustration when scales dropped, and the honest reaction is usually a shrug, because the variance is manageable, not wild. Whole life won't move quickly, there's no contractual link to CPI, and it's not the tool for locking in a defined real return over a set horizon. What it is designed to do is capture a much broader slice of the inflation cycle — maintaining buying power and building profitability in a rising-rate environment — while being one of the more boring, dependable pieces of a plan. If you want to buy TIPS because you think that's the right move, fine. Just know that the "obvious" inflation play and the durable one are not the same thing. If you're interested in more of a deep dive, please check out the article we wrote as the companion to this podcast: https://theinsuranceproblog.com/whole-life-insurance-vs-tips/ Sitting on a life insurance illustration — or a policy you already own — and not sure it's actually pulling its weight in your plan? Don't let ChatGPT be the last word on it; it'll hand you a confident answer that's often just the "whole life is a rip-off" line scraped off the internet, and confidently wrong is still wrong. Send us the illustration, or just a few lines about your situation and what AI or your advisor already told you, and we'll give you a straight, honest read — what's right, what's wrong, and whether it's a good fit for you. No pitch, no sales call. Send us a message, or if you'd rather talk it through, book a call with us.

On this wek's episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, host Miriam Gottfried and guest host Aaron Back, editor of WSJ's Heard on the Street, preview the upcoming employment and inflation releases in advance of the Federal Open Market Committee's September policy meeting. They analyze why these economic indicators will draw heightened focus under Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh. Then Miriam and Aaron dig into Nvidia's recent blowout earnings and whether we will see that echo in Broadcom's earnings this week. Next, Dan Rasmussen, founder and portfolio manager at Verdad Advisers, offers insight into the past year's small-cap stock surge following an extended period of underperformance relative to mega-caps. Rasmussen explains why private equity firms face a massive exit logjam from acquisitions of small companies due to inflated valuations. Finally, we ask Rasmussen: does value investing still work? This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Telis Demos, writer for WSJ's Heard on the Street, and Miriam Gottfried, WSJ's investing and wealth management reporter, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@wsj.com. To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of WSJ.com Further Reading Inflation Was 3.4% in July, Down Slightly From the Previous Month Fed's Preferred Inflation Gauge Remains Above Target Range Nvidia Reports Blowout Quarter, Says Demand for AI Chips Is Getting Even Hotter Nvidia's $279 Billion Supply-Chain Gamble Nvidia Has Become a Banker to the AI Boom, Putting It on Dangerous Ground Private-Equity Firms Are Sitting on a Nine-Year Backlog A Better Mousetrap for Buying Small Stocks Moderna Shares More Than Double on Success of mRNA Cancer Vaccine For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ.com, WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter. Follow Miriam Gottfried here and Telis Demos here. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scott tackles questions on: withdrawing money from a 403(b) plan at age 59 1/2; quality of Lincoln National Life Group and Plan Member Services 403(b) offerings; time it takes for a 403(b) rollover to Vanguard IRA; the Ohio Deferred Comp 457(b) plan; best choice for Vanguard settlement fund.  Video of Podcast 457bwiser.org Learned by Being Burned (short pod series about K-12 403(b) issues) 403bwise.org Meridian Wealth Management 403bwise & 457bwiser Facebook Group Nothing presented or discussed is to be construed as investment or tax advice. This can be secured from a vetted Certified Financial Planner (CFP®).  

This week on Five Question Friday (FQF):Question 1: Has AI fundamentally changed the stock market, and does market history still matter?Question 2: If you retire a few years before claiming Social Security, how does the 4% rule apply during that gap?Question 3: If you roll a long-held Roth 401(k) into a brand-new Roth IRA, do you still have to wait five years to withdraw earnings?Question 4: Can you use traditional IRA funds to pay for long-term care and deduct the cost?Question 5: Can you build a fixed 50/50 portfolio by splitting money between Vanguard's 40/60 and 60/40 LifeStrategy funds?Resources mentioned in the episode:Schwab on the Roth 5-year rules: https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/wh...IRS Publication 502 (Medical and Dental Expenses): https://www.irs.gov/publications/p502Vanguard LifeStrategy Funds: https://investor.vanguard.com/investm...Boldin (retirement planner): https://go.robberger.com/boldin/yt-fq...ProjectionLab: https://go.robberger.com/projectionla...Join the Newsletter. It's Free:https://robberger.com/newsletter/?utm...

SpeedoIQ is a tiny tracker that sits inside a pair of Vanguard goggles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A Note from James:In 1790, one of the easiest ways to get rich in America was the old-fashioned way: marry someone rich.George Washington did pretty well that way. Benjamin Franklin, meanwhile, was so deep in debt that he offered to marry a woman if her parents would mortgage their house to pay off his printing press debt. When they said no, he married someone else who had money.And back then, debt was not just annoying. It could land you in debtor's prison. Actual prison. And not just you—your wife and kids could go too.Fast-forward to the 1900s, and most Americans still were not buying stocks. Only a tiny percentage owned shares. Everyday people were gambling, playing the numbers, using dream-interpretation books to decide what lottery number to play, and trying to find some edge that would move them a little closer to security.My guest today, Joseph Moore, literally wrote the book on this: How to Get Rich in American History: 300 Years of Financial Advice That Worked (& Didn't).The book is full of strange, funny, surprising stories about money in America: Franklin, Washington, debtor's prison, the Great Depression, bucket shops, real estate booms, FIRE, crypto, debt, index funds, and all the scams people keep falling for.But the bigger lesson is that the basic patterns have not changed as much as we think.People want security. People want freedom. People want hope. People want a way out. And whenever there is hope, there is usually someone selling a formula.Joseph has very little patience for the usual personal finance myths. Debt does not make you rich. Opportunity makes you rich. Real estate is not always a magic wealth machine. The stock market was not designed to be everyone's retirement plan. FIRE can work, but it can also become the CrossFit of personal finance. And optimism, marriage, mobility, risk, and solving other people's problems may matter more than almost anything else.If you think the rules for getting rich have changed completely, this conversation may convince you how little human nature has changed.Episode Description:Joseph Moore joins James to talk about the long, strange history of getting rich in America.His book, How to Get Rich in American History, looks at 300 years of financial advice—what worked, what failed, what people kept repeating, and what today's money culture keeps forgetting.The conversation starts in 1790, with George Washington, Martha Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Stephen Girard, debt, leverage, and debtor's prison. Joseph explains that many early American fortunes were built through risk, borrowed money, marriage, luck, and then—critically—de-leveraging over time.That becomes one of the core lessons of the episode: debt does not make people rich. Opportunity does. Debt is only a tool that allows someone to grab more of an opportunity than they otherwise could. But if the opportunity is not real, or the person cannot handle the risk, debt destroys them.James and Joseph then move into real estate. Joseph argues that real estate is a good way to build a modest middle-class fortune, but not usually the path to the biggest fortunes. In modern America, he says, real estate often functions as a short on the dollar, an income annuity in a low-dividend world, a tax shelter, and a way for ordinary people to use leverage they could not access anywhere else. But that does not make buying a house automatically smart. Renting versus buying depends on age, mobility, location, family needs, inflation, taxes, maintenance, transaction costs, and opportunity cost.The conversation then turns to the stock market. Joseph challenges the usual historical charts that claim anyone could have invested a fixed sum in 1929 and held forever. Most Americans could not invest that way. There were no index funds, mutual funds had high fees, and buying an index directly required enormous capital. Instead, everyday people went to bucket shops, bet on price moves, played the numbers, and treated gambling as a kind of financial hope.James and Joseph also discuss passive investing, shadow indexing, the rise of ETFs and 401(k)s, and the way the stock market has become a mass retirement promise. Joseph points out that this is historically new. For most of American history, no ordinary person would have expected to retire on the stock market.From there, the episode moves to FIRE: financial independence, retire early. Joseph has lived part of that story himself. He built enough wealth through rental real estate after 2008 to stop working for a period, only to discover that early retirement was not automatically fulfilling. He compares FIRE to CrossFit: extreme, demanding, sometimes powerful, sometimes injurious, and not a lifestyle most people actually want.The final section asks the big question: What has consistently worked?Joseph boils the lessons down to five pillars: solve other people's problems, take risks, move toward opportunity, marry well, and believe you can. James adds that optimism matters because it keeps people in the game long enough to get more shots on goal.The result is a conversation about money, but also about history, risk, luck, marriage, mobility, discipline, scams, and the difference between getting rich and staying rich.What You'll Learn:Why early American wealth often involved marriage, leverage, luck, and risk.How George Washington's marriage to Martha helped fund the Washington we remember.Why Benjamin Franklin's public advice about debt did not match his own early financial behavior.What debtor's prison meant in early America, including the risk to families.Why debt is a tool, not a wealth strategy by itself.Why opportunity—not debt—is what actually makes people rich.Why real estate can build middle-class wealth but rarely creates the biggest fortunes.How buying a home can reduce mobility and opportunity, especially for younger people.Why renting versus buying is situational, not a universal rule.Why most Americans historically could not invest in the stock market the way modern charts imply.What bucket shops and “the numbers” reveal about everyday financial hope.How passive investing changed the purpose of the stock market.Why stock-market concentration is not new, but mass participation is.Why FIRE can work mathematically and still fail psychologically.How older financial-independence stories often hid trust funds, inheritances, or outside support.Why inflation is one of the biggest risks to early retirement.Why getting rich and staying rich require different behavior.Why successful people often take risk early and reduce risk later.Why optimism is financially useful when it keeps people in the game.The five recurring pillars Joseph sees across American wealth-building history.Timestamped Chapters:[05:00] How to Get Rich in 1790James asks Joseph how someone got rich in early America, starting with George Washington, Martha Washington, and marriage as a financial strategy.[07:24] Stephen Girard and Benjamin Franklin's DebtJoseph compares Stephen Girard's leveraged rise with Franklin's messy early business debts.[10:29] Debt Does Not Make You RichJoseph explains that opportunity creates wealth, while debt simply lets someone reach for more of that opportunity.[11:23] Debtor's Prison Was RealJoseph explains why failing in the 1790s could mean prison not only for the debtor, but for the debtor's family.[12:25] The Real Estate MythJoseph argues that real estate can build modest wealth, but rarely creates the biggest fortunes.[13:43] Real Estate as a Short on the DollarJoseph explains modern real estate as an inflation bet, income annuity, tax shelter, and leverage tool.[15:22] You Need an EdgeJames argues that every bet has someone on the other side, which means investors need to know what their advantage actually is.[16:18] Beating the Market, Missing the MomentJoseph tells the story of shorting Jim Cramer stock pops, beating the market net of theory, losing to fees, and missing his daughter's first steps.[19:56] Shadow Passive InvestingJames and Joseph discuss hedge funds, index tracking, fees, and the way much of Wall Street quietly follows the same big benchmarks.[20:31] The Index RevolutionJoseph explains why Vanguard's 1976 index fund changed investing for ordinary Americans—and why passive investing may create new structural risks.[24:24] The Four Percent of Stocks That MatterJames and Joseph discuss stock-market returns, T-bills, concentration, and why a small number of companies drive most gains.[25:16] The Second Bank CrashJoseph compares modern market concentration to the 1830s, when the Second Bank of the United States made up a huge share of the stock market before collapsing.[26:21] The Stock Market as a Retirement PromiseJoseph explains why turning the stock market into a mass retirement strategy is historically new.[29:58] The Problem With “The Chart”Joseph criticizes the classic financial-advisor chart that assumes someone in 1929 invested a large sum, held forever, and never touched it.[31:17] Bucket Shops and Playing the NumbersJoseph explains how everyday people used gambling, bucket shops, and lottery-like games as financial hope when stock ownership was out of reach.[34:04] The Mean Moves Through TimeJoseph explains why history is not physics and why the “average” keeps changing as the economy changes.[35:49] Renting vs. BuyingJames and Joseph debate the homeownership myth, maintenance, taxes, transaction costs, mobility, family stability, and when buying can make sense.[41:02] FIRE and the Question of EnoughJames asks how much is enough in 2026, and Joseph explains why the answer depends on location, expectations, security, and lifestyle.[44:24] FIRE as the CrossFit of Personal FinanceJoseph compares FIRE to an extreme discipline that can work for some people but injure others if they push too hard.[45:38] Geoarbitrage and Selling the DreamJames and Joseph discuss moving somewhere cheaper, Instagram FIRE influencers, and the difference between living the dream and monetizing the dream.[46:00] The Long History of Financial IndependenceJoseph traces earlier versions of FIRE through Sylvester Judd, Thoreau, Emerson, and Helen and Scott Nearing.[49:17] Inflation and the FIRE RiskJoseph explains how Your Money or Your Life and bond-heavy financial independence strategies ran into changing interest-rate realities.[50:23] Five Pillars of Getting RichJoseph lays out the durable lessons: solve problems, take risks, move more, marry well, and believe you can.[53:43] Marriage, Optimism, and Staying in the GameJames and Joseph talk about supportive partnership, optimism, savings discipline, and why staying in the game increases opportunity.[56:11] The Line Between Optimism and RecklessnessJoseph distinguishes productive optimism from gambling and explains why control over outcomes matters.[58:28] Getting Rich vs. Staying RichJoseph explains why many wealthy people take risk early, then de-lever over time to keep what they built.[01:00:00] Leverage, Trading, and the Guy Who Never StopsJames and Joseph discuss extreme leverage, Bitcoin futures, Jesse Livermore, gamblers, and why some people cannot walk away.Additional Resources:Joseph Moore - History HelpsHow to Get Rich in American History - Book PageHow to Get Rich in American History - Google BooksNext Big Idea Club: “The Changing Rules for Getting Rich in America”Fast Company: “How the rules of getting rich in the U.S. change with every era”The Motley Fool Interview with Joseph MooreMeb Faber Show InterviewSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What happens when one of investing's original disruptors buys one of the industry's newest disruptors? Barry Ritholtz thinks investors may be the biggest winners and Bill and Jackie dig into why. This special breaking-news is an excerpt from an upcoming Catching Up to FI episode, recorded on 8/26/26. Barry reacts to Vanguard's newly announced agreement to acquire Altruist, the fast-growing technology and custody platform built for independent financial advisors. Barry also gives an important disclosure: he's an Altruist investor, so yes, he has a dog in this fight. From there, he explains why combining Vanguard's enormous scale with Altruist's technology could quickly reshape the custody business, put fresh pressure on Fidelity and Schwab, and potentially extend the famous "Vanguard Effect" into another corner of financial services. Bill calls it "disruptor squared." Barry sees an industry that never stands still. And if competition drives prices lower again, investors may ultimately be the ones cashing the biggest check. This episode covers Barry's immediate reaction to Vanguard's agreement to acquire Altruist His disclosure that he is an Altruist investor and financially benefits from the deal Why Altruist's clean-sheet technology made it an attractive challenger to legacy custodians How Vanguard's scale could immediately change Altruist's competitive position Why Fidelity and Schwab may suddenly have a much larger third competitor The "Vanguard Effect" and how competition can push fees lower across an industry Why Barry believes investors could be the biggest winners from the acquisition How Schwab and Robinhood previously disrupted investing through lower-cost and free trading Why Vanguard was a logical potential acquirer given its earlier relationship with Altruist Barry's larger lesson that financial technology never stands still    The Full Episode with Barry Ritholtz will be coming out soon! Be sure to follow the show or subscribe to the channel on YouTube, so you don't miss it!"   === SUPPORT  THE  SHOW ===

 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.  

Vanguard expert analysis, how manage their deck, and what events to use when. We interview Pursewarden, a Vanguard expert! We discuss everything from worst faction match ups, which cards to discard for magic, and how many Citadel Knights to play. Summoner Wars Discord: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/D8Bb4Xxzmj⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you have any questions, feel free to email us at aaronvw8@gmail.com 

Vanguard Group has agreed to buy digital wealth platform Altruist, marking a strategic shift from its traditional organic growth approach to expanding its wealth management capabilities through acquisition. The deal follows Altruist’s notable impact earlier this year when it introduced a tax strategy tool that caused a sell-off in wealth management stocks. In an exclusive interview with Bloomberg’s Dani Burger, Vanguard CEO Salim Ramji and Altruist CEO Jason Wenk discussed the significance of the transaction and Vanguard’s commitment to enhancing its digital wealth offerings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

100 % Aktien für maximale Rendite – oder gehören Anleihen in jedes langfristige Portfolio? Gemeinsam mit Axel Haus von Vanguard sprechen wir darüber, warum viele Privatanleger Anleihen unterschätzen und welche Rolle sie als „Stoßdämpfer” im Depot spielen können. Wir werfen einen Blick auf historische Börsencrashs, die Psychologie bei hohen Verlusten und die Frage, welche Mischung aus Aktien und Anleihen für Anleger sinnvoll sein kann. Außerdem erklärt Axel, welche Erwartungen die Vanguard-Modelle für Aktien und Anleihen in den kommenden zehn Jahren haben und warum weniger Risiko nicht zwangsläufig deutlich weniger Rendite bedeuten muss. Viel Spaß beim Anhören! ++++++++ Kennst du die Risiken in deinem Portfolio? Mit dem extraETF Portfolio Tracker erhältst du volle Transparenz und tiefe Einblicke in dein Vermögen. Analysiere deine Aktien, ETFs und Fonds zudem mit detaillierten, individuellen Performance-Metriken, X-Ray-Analysen und vielem mehr. Teste den Portfolio Tracker jetzt kostenlos: https://go.extraetf.com/portfoliotracker ++++++++

Journalist Nat Winthrop has been covering Vermont for a half-century, reporting stories that have surprised, infuriated and enlightened readers.From 1978 to 1990, Winthrop was publisher of the pioneering alternative weekly the Vanguard Press, and later the Vermont Times. These publications were launching pads for many journalists and were forerunners to Seven Days, the Vermont weekly that is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. He was also executive producer of “Freedom & Unity,” a six-part documentary film about Vermont that was led by Nora Jacobson. In 1987, he co-founded the online alternative news service AlterNet.Winthrop explained the niche filled by Vermont's early alternative weeklies. “There's the myth of objectivity in the media,” he told me. But “the Vanguard, in particular, wore our opinions on our sleeves or on the editorial page.”The weeklies differ from newspapers with their “narrative style of storytelling, so that all of the important information isn't necessarily right up at the top of the article.”Winthrop, 74, has a new book, “On the Record,” a collection of 17 of his cover stories. The topics vary widely, from his reporting on a controversial physician at Gifford Hospital in Randolph who championed in vitro fertilization in the 1970s, to his coverage of Iranian cadets at Norwich University just after the 1979 Iranian revolution, to his stories about Bernie Sanders and ice cream icons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield as they rose from obscurity to national fame. The book has many contemporary echoes and includes updates on what has happened with the subjects of each story.Filmmaker Jay Craven wrote in a foreword, “A newspaper in tune with its readers creates common ground and lets us know where we live in ways that are specific to ourselves, our towns, and our neighbors. Nat's work strengthened our links to each other and helped move our state forward.”Winthrop earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard and came to Vermont to attend Goddard College, where he received a master's degree in media education in 1977. He lives in Montpelier.“Print media across most of the country are a lot smaller in numbers and some say a dying breed,” conceded Vermont's alternative media pioneer. But he pointed to VTDigger, Seven Days and Vermont Public as indications that media “are actually doing quite a bit better in Vermont than in most states.”

Our guests on the podcast today are Andy Clarke and Nelson Wicas, co-authors—along with Ganesh Suntharam—of the new book, The Architecture of Wealth: The Art and Science of Portfolio Construction. Andy has spent more than three decades as an investment researcher and writer. He has worked at Morningstar and Vanguard, where he served as assistant to Vanguard Founder and indexing pioneer, John C. Bogle. Andy has published research in practitioner journals such as the Journal of Index Investing. He is the author of Wealth of Experience and a CFA Charterholder. Nelson has developed and managed quantitative equity strategies for more than 30 years. Most recently, he worked at Redpoint Investment Management, where he was a founder and research analyst. After completing his PhD in economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Nelson joined Vanguard to help establish its quantitative equity management function. Nelson later helped found Vanguard's investment counseling and research team to produce portfolio construction insights for clients and internal teams. Nelson has been a visiting professor of economics at Haverford College in Haverford, Pennsylvania. Episode Highlights 00:00:00 The Architecture of Wealth 00:06:42 Why Portfolio Construction is an Art and Science 00:10:03 Bogle's Approach to Active Management 00:15:38 Why Index Investing Isn't Passive 00:22:09 The Birth of Modern Portfolio Theory 00:26:58 Behavioral Finance, Investor Biases, and Impact of Education 00:36:13 Why Index Funds Finally Took Off 00:39:25 Evaluating Active Managers 00:43:27 The Small-Cap Effect More From The Long View Charley Ellis: Indexing Is a Marvelous Gift Jeff Ptak: The Simple Secret to Becoming a Better Investor Andy Reed: Inertia Is the Most Powerful Force in Behavioral Finance If you have a comment or a guest idea, please email us at TheLongView@Morningstar.com. Follow Christine Benz (@christine_benz) and Ben Johnson (@MstarBenJohnson) on X, and Christine Benz, Amy Arnott, and Ben Johnson on LinkedIn. Visit Morningstar.com for new research and insights from Christine, Ben, and Amy. Subscribe to Christine's weekly newsletter, Improving Your Finances. If you want more Morningstar podcasts, check out The Morning Filter and Investing Insights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scalable Capital lässt die KI ans Depot, Vanguard bringt den breitesten ETF der Welt für 0,07 Prozent, und eine China-Aktie könnte sich verhundertfachen und wäre immer noch kleiner als die westliche Konkurrenz. Drei Revolutionen in einer Folge. Außerdem debattieren die beiden Wirtschaftsjournalisten Dietmar Deffner und Holger Zschäpitz ob Deutschlands überraschend starke Konjunkturdaten tatsächlich schon den Aufschwung einläuten, ob Trump oder die Realrenditen die Zinsen treiben und ob der angekündigte Wirtschafts-D-Day gegen den Iran eine reine Luftnummer ist. Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/deffnerundzschaepitz DEFFNER & ZSCHÄPITZ sind wie das wahre Leben. Wie Optimist und Pessimist. Im wöchentlichen WELT-Podcast diskutieren und streiten die Journalisten Dietmar Deffner und Holger Zschäpitz über die wichtigen Wirtschaftsthemen des Alltags. Schreibt uns an: wirtschaftspodcast@welt.de Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutzerklärung: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

On episode 256 of The Compound and Friends, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Downtown Josh Brown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and Michael Batnick are joined by⁠ Michael Santoli ⁠ to discuss: the surprising strength of the stock market, what's keeping the bull market alive, interest rates and the growing U.S. debt load, why corporate earnings remain so powerful, and whether today's valuations can keep climbing. They also get into AI spending and the return on massive tech capex, market breadth and rotation, the rise of retail investors, options-income ETFs, why bears keep moving the goalposts, and what decades of market history can teach investors about adapting when the old rules stop working. This episode is sponsored by DBMF and Vanguard. To learn more about the world's largest managed futures ETF visit https://www.dbmf.com/TCF Learn more about Vanguard bonds at https://vanguard.com/audio. Sign up for The Compound Newsletter and never miss out: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thecompoundnews.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Josh Brown are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ritholtz Wealth Management⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ DBMF Disclosure: The iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses must be considered carefully before investing. The statutory and summary prospectuses contain this and other important information about the investment company, it may be obtained by visiting: http://www.imgp.com. The Fund is distributed by ALPS Distributors,Inc. DBMF is the world's largest managed futures ETF as of July 31, 2026 with $4.16 billion AUM. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are we headed for another housing crash — or is today's market fundamentally different from 2008?On this Ask Farnoosh Friday, Farnoosh digs into the state of the housing market with insights from real estate economist Dr. Joshua Harris, Academic Director of the Fordham Real Estate Institute. While some overheated markets are already seeing prices decline, Harris explains why today's housing landscape looks very different from the run-up to the Great Financial Crisis — particularly when it comes to housing supply, lending standards and homeowner equity.Farnoosh also examines the explosive growth of Buy Now, Pay Later, which is increasingly being used not just for clothes and electronics, but for groceries, rent, utilities, medical bills and even taxes. The question she wants consumers to ask: Are you using BNPL to solve a timing problem — or an affordability problem? Because those are two very different financial challenges.Plus, shopping scams are getting dramatically harder to spot thanks to artificial intelligence. The old advice — look for typos, awkward emails and suspicious-looking websites — isn't enough anymore. Farnoosh shares the new safeguards consumers should be using to protect their accounts, passwords, loyalty points and credit cards.Then, two excellent listener questions.First, Anne is in her 40s after spending two decades moving between employers and has accumulated a collection of 401(k)s, 401(a)s, 403(b)s and a rollover IRA. Should she consolidate everything? And is it actually safer to keep retirement money spread across multiple institutions in case one brokerage fails?Farnoosh explains the important difference between diversifying your investments and diversifying your custodians, how protections such as SIPC work, and why simplifying your retirement accounts can make sense — but only after checking fees, investment choices and plan-specific benefits.Finally, a listener follows up on the new Trump Accounts for children: Why is Robinhood the sole initial brokerage and trustee? Why can't families simply choose Vanguard, Fidelity or another provider from day one? And did Robinhood somehow pay for exclusive access?Farnoosh went digging. She explains the relationship between the U.S. Treasury, BNY Mellon and Robinhood, why Robinhood's role is described as initial rather than permanent, and why families should eventually be able to transfer Trump Account assets to another eligible provider. She also examines why questions about transparency are reasonable given the enormous customer-acquisition opportunity the program represents for Robinhood.Learn more about Farnoosh's upcoming literary workshop Book to Brand. Early bird registration is now open! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On episode 478, ⁠⁠Michael Batnick⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠Ben Carlson⁠⁠ discuss: one of the greatest bull markets of all time, falling valuations, why young people gamble, financial nihilism, the next recession, $3 trillion in money markets, when bond yields compete with stocks, debating AI outcomes, NHL ETFs, renting vs. buying, rich sports owners in trouble, breaking even at the blackjack table and more. This episode is sponsored by YCharts and Vanguard. To start a free trial and get 20% off your initial YCharts Professional subscription (new customers only) visit: https://go.ycharts.com/animal-spirits To learn more about Vanguard bonds, visit: https://vanguard.com/audio. Sign up for The Compound newsletter and never miss out: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thecompoundnews.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Us On Social Media: Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find complete show notes on our blogs: Ben Carlson's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠A Wealth of Common Sense⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Michael Batnick's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Irrelevant Investor⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Feel free to shoot us an email at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠animalspirits@thecompoundnews.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ with any feedback, questions, recommendations, or ideas for future topics of conversation.   Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Ben Carlson are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ritholtz Wealth Management⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if your retirement account is quietly funding companies and causes that conflict with your Christian convictions? Certified Financial Planner Mark Parrett and Steven Manuel explore Biblically Responsible Investing, Christian investing, and how fathers can build generational wealth without knowingly partnering with evil. Is investing in the stock market biblical? Does owning a small piece of a company make you morally responsible for what that company does? And how should Christians think about investments connected to abortion, pornography, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, ESG, and other practices that may conflict with biblical values? Steven and Mark explore these questions through the surprising lens of Exodus 21 and the biblical principle of an ox “known to gore.” Mark explains why he believes investing itself is biblical, while also arguing that ownership carries responsibility—and that Christians should take seriously the question of whether they are knowingly profiting from harm. The conversation gets practical as they discuss Biblically Responsible Investing (BRI), investment screening, direct indexing, Christian mutual funds and ETFs, and options including Timothy Plan, Inspire Investing, Praxis, Crossmark/OneAscent, and others. They also examine Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, including how major asset managers have approached ESG and corporate shareholder voting in recent years. But the goal isn't perfect financial purity. As Mark explains, Christians cannot completely separate themselves from a fallen economy. The goal is faithful stewardship: building wealth and inheritance for your children's children while keeping your heart free from the love of money and avoiding known complicity with evil wherever reasonably possible. In this episode:• Is investing biblical?• What does Exodus 21's “goring ox” teach us about investment responsibility?• Does owning stock make you responsible for a company's actions?• What is Biblically Responsible Investing (BRI)?• How can Christians screen investments for abortion, pornography, alcohol, gambling, and tobacco?• Should Christians invest through Vanguard, BlackRock, or State Street?• What is direct indexing, and how can it be used for Christian investing?• Which Christian investment funds and platforms are worth researching?• How should Christian fathers balance financial growth, generational wealth, conscience, and faithful stewardship? Chapters (00:00:02) - Biblical Investing for Abraham's Wallet(00:00:51) - Abraham's Wallet(00:02:16) - The Bull Known to Gore(00:09:36) - Andy on the Bull and the Big Three(00:11:43) - Exodus 11: Prior Knowledge and Negligence(00:15:09) - Biblical Responsible Investing(00:22:55) - Crux: Biblical Investing(00:31:45) - BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity: Option 2 to a B(00:40:11) - Biblically Based Investing(00:47:35) - God's Money StrategyHelp us equip more biblical bosses!: https://abrahamswallet.com/support AW website | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn

Semantic layers and ontologies have moved from nice-to-have data modeling tools to the foundational engine required for enterprise AI. In this episode, Raman Tallamraju, Senior Director and Head of Enterprise Data Architecture and Engineering at Vanguard, breaks down how Vanguard is architecting its AI semantic layer to turn scattered institutional knowledge into reliable, agent-ready context. He shares why autonomous agents expose decades of hidden data debt, how to bridge domain-specific definitions like clients versus prospects, and how to balance building a unified semantic layer with a pragmatic, federated data operating model. Key Moments: Why Data Is Your Differentiator (02:36): Across four asset managers, Raman shares the one lesson that holds: data is the real differentiator in an AI-first world. Why Semantic Layers and Ontologies Are a Priority (14:12): Autonomous agents remove the human workaround, exposing years of technical debt in data modeling that tribal knowledge used to hide. Why Context Makes or Breaks Your AI Agents (19:18): Context is everything. Agents act confidently on wrong answers when terms like client, prospect, and lead go undefined. Launching an AI-Ready Data Program: Where to Start (24:54): Raman advises starting with a real business use case tied to points of economic leverage, rather than trying to boil the ocean. Why You Need a Federated Data Model (36:51): Raman explains why a single central platform isn't practical at a global firm, and the four levers he uses to earn real business ownership of data. Key Quotes: “If we're going to go in an AI-first world and everybody has access to the same frontier models… well, what is going to be differentiated about you? Data will be your differentiator, and the companies that bring the best data game are going to have enduring advantages over those that don't.” - Raman Tallamraju “You want your data to be well-defined. You want your data to be trusted. You want your data to be well-connected. You want your data to be contextualized. You want your data to be consumed in a multimodal way, and you want it to be ready for humans and machines at scale.” - Raman Tallamraju “If you're going to start with tech and you're going to go towards the shiny toys, those are good, but without the data foundations, they're going to sit in the garage. So I started calling it the Ferraris in the garage problem. Unless you get the data strategy running ahead, these Ferraris are going to run out of gas.” - Raman Tallamraju Mentions: The Innovator's Dilemma by Clay Christensen 57% of enterprises traced a wrong AI answer to missing business context — Credible bets portable, open-source semantic code beats proprietary metadata Guest Bio: Raman Tallamraju has twenty years leading enterprise technology and data strategy across four of the world's largest asset managers — Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Capital Group, and Fidelity. Appointed Officer and Group Vice President at T. Rowe Price, where Raman built and led a 300-person global technology organization responsible for the firm's enterprise architecture and digital transformation. Wharton CTO Program, 2024. Raman has operated across the full investment value chain — research and trading platforms, client experience, distribution technology, and enterprise data infrastructure — with portfolio accountability exceeding $100M. Raman's career has been defined by taking on complex, high-stakes technology transformations and delivering measurable business outcomes: modernizing legacy estates, building scalable platforms, and creating the organizational structures that sustain them. Hear more from Cindi Howson here. Sponsored by ThoughtSpot.

https://youtu.be/jPTlkjF8M-c Tanner Taddeo, CEO and Co-Founder of Stable Sea, is driven by a mission to bring Wall Street-grade financial services to Main Street while embodying the principle Stay Put in Your Convictions. By combining blockchain technology, stablecoins, tokenized capital markets, and AI advisory services, Tanner helps businesses access investment opportunities, put idle cash to work, and move money globally with greater speed, transparency, and capital efficiency. In this conversation, Tanner introduces The Lionel Messi Startup Framework—Develop a High-Level Thesis, Talk With and Learn From the Market, Run 30-Day A/B Tests, Iterate Your Offering, and Stay Resolute With Your Convictions. He explains why founders should observe patiently, validate their ideas with customers, and act decisively when market opportunities emerge. Tanner also discusses balancing long-term conviction with continuous experimentation, unlocking 24/7 liquidity through tokenized capital markets, reducing friction in cross-border payments, and finding urgent “morphine” problems that customers cannot afford to leave unsolved. — Stay Put in Your Convictions with Tanner Taddeo  Hello everyone. Steve Preda here, and my guest today is Tanner Taddeo, the CEO and Co-Founder at Stable Sea, an autonomous treasury management platform that helps finance teams and global businesses access capital market products and move money around the globe to 40 currencies with the cheapest FX rates. Tanner, welcome to the show.  Steve, thanks for having me. Excited for the conversation today.  It’s very interesting that this is how you position your business because most businesses in your industry, as I see them, position themselves with low transaction fees, but really their money is made on the FX. So if you do preferential FX rates or cheap FX rates, that can be a very transparent way of getting business. So I don’t know if that connects to your personal why, but I’d love to learn about your personal why and how you manifest it in your business.  Yeah, definitely. At Stable Sea, we’re very mission-driven in terms of everything that we do. The team itself comes from Block, which was formerly known as Square. Yeah. And everyone on the team has been focused on building products for the real economy, for consumer use cases, for business use cases, et cetera, over the course of everyone’s career.  And so when we started at Stable Sea, our primary thesis was, with blockchain, with stablecoins, with some of the tokenized capital markets products like money market funds, bonds, equities, et cetera, that are coming on-chain, how can you really take Wall Street-grade financial services and provision them out to Main Street for businesses that need them the most? And so the why for Stable Sea, for myself, for the team, is really around helping businesses drive greater capital efficiency in their operations. And we service businesses in the real economy that typically make widgets or some sort of physical hardware devices, and they need to send them around the world.  We help them because we give them access to different types of capital markets products, so money markets and private credit and fixed-income products, et cetera. And then we help them move their money around the globe a little bit more efficiently than they could with either their state bank or their credit union or some third-party cross-border payments provider. Because our firm thesis has always been, if you and I ran Coca-Cola or a large organization, we would have the best-in-class transaction banks helping us put our idle capital to work at every point in time during the day.  If you and I ran a steel manufacturing company in Missouri, you typically have a checking account and QuickBooks, and that’s about it. And so for us, it was always about helping businesses grow, save more money, and then operate more efficiently with some of the new technologies that are out there today.Share on X  So that means, presumably, that what you focus on is more about the investment side of the business rather than crypto and blockchain, and helping people access financial products through the blockchain. Help me understand a little bit what you do and how it is different from what people can get from banks?  Yeah. So everything that we do, all the technology that we build and provision, is on-chain. So all of the capital markets products are tokenized. So tokenized bonds, tokenized equities, tokenized fixed income, tokenized money markets. All of the payment services and settlement services that we offer are through the use of stablecoins, and we can send that around the globe, settle it instantly, and then have low FX rates off the back of that. And then we have some of our AI advisory services.  But from a broad paintbrush perspective, at Stable Sea, you’ve got three products that hang off of our platform. You’ve got capital markets, you’ve got global settlement, and you’ve got advisory services. And then with all of that, we share a common architecture, and that architecture is built across many different blockchains. And then we utilize stablecoins and we utilize RWA tokens, or real-world asset tokens, to provision those use cases.  So everything that we do is stablecoin-native, but we don’t lead with that from a messaging perspective. And the reason we don’t lead with that from a messaging perspective is that if you and I ran a bakery here in Brooklyn, New York, and we had a point-of-sale terminal that just got offered RTP access from the Fed for instant settlement, the bakery owner doesn’t really care about the technology underneath it.  They just care, “Do I trust it? Is it going to get me my money quicker, and is it going to be cheaper than my current alternative?” How it happens, not very many people care unless you’re in the industry and you’re a builder, product manager, et cetera, and you want to nerd out on the actual mechanical nature of how the product works. But for us, it’s always been leading with the narrative of, what is the value proposition and how can we drive greater value to the businesses? So that’s how we lead. But to your point on what the difference is, with any new technological paradigm that occurs, rarely is it so disruptive in nature that folks can’t recognize it.  Everything that happens in terms of the innovation paradigm is typically you stand on the shoulders of giants and you make things incrementally better. And so for us, what we do with capital markets is, the first value proposition is that many businesses in the United States just don’t have access to a diverse array of capital markets products. So the first thing that we have done is just provision access, which is an innovation in and of itself because in the traditional markets, if you want to access a money market fund or a fixed-income product, you typically have high hurdle rates, meaning that as a business, you need to invest at least $10 million at the asset manager in question.  You need to hold that there so then you can get access to all these products. With us, you don’t. There’s only a $1 minimum to clear, so I think most folks can handle a $1 minimum. And then secondly, as things go on-chain, the value proposition there is that you have 24/7, 365 liquidity and tradability. And so what that means is that, just from a money market fund perspective, the interest accrues daily and it pays out daily.  So you get this interest that is dripped into your account daily as opposed to waiting for a month. You also have the ability—so let’s say that you and I run this bakery in Brooklyn. Let’s say that we close our business on Friday, and we’ve got $100,000 sitting in our checking account, and we’re closed on Saturday, Sunday because it’s the July 4th holiday. So we know $100,000 is just going to be sitting in our checking account Saturday, Sunday, not being put to work. With Stable Sea, you can put that to work in a tokenized money market fund because it operates 24/7, 365.  So what we see is businesses now that close their books on Friday can just do an auto-sweep into a money market fund, generate yield Saturday, Sunday, get back to U.S. dollars for their open of business. And again, it’s one of those things where it might not sound like the most revolutionary concept in the world, but if you can help businesses, especially in the mid-market, lower mid-market, operate a little bit more efficiently, I mean, saving an additional $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year is a big value-add to them in the real economy, right? If you’re a large Fortune 100 company, you probably don’t care, or it’s not as valuable. But for us, the companies that run on us, these small increments, standing on the shoulders of giants, a small derivation in innovation is actually really valuable for the end user.Share on X  Well, I think it is because, looking at the inverse of it, I used to be in banking, and I know that one of the biggest moneymakers for banks is float. Yeah. So it’s basically the money that doesn’t earn interest, which they have access to just because they cash the check a day later or make the wire two days instead of one day. And essentially, what you’re doing is you’re taking this money from the bank and you’re giving it to the company that actually should have it in the first place, right? Yep.  Then the question is, how are the banks going to survive if you take away their bread?  Yeah. That is the debate that’s happening right now. I think if you’re one of your G-SIBs, your major banks, you’re going to be okay. So the top 25 banks in the U.S. are going to be just fine, and they make money in tons of different ways, and you’re not going to disrupt that trust ultimately. In the long tail is where I worry because a lot of credit unions and a lot of state banks, they just don’t offer—they’re smaller banks, right?  So they’re not managing—they don’t have a ton of money by virtue of assets under management. So with the deposits that they receive, they need to turn around and recycle that because it’s fractional depository lending, meaning that if I have a checking account, I put 10 grand into it, the bank is then turning around with that 10 grand, making money on it somehow. And you have to think, how does the bank actually make money on that? Well, they typically make it through debt facilities, so mortgages, auto loans, student loans, cards, et cetera.  They’re putting it to work in high-margin financial products back into the economy. They’re not taking that and then buying some money market fund from an asset manager where they make 10 basis points and provisioning that out to the businesses, right? There, I think that we’re seeing a lot of companies move off. They’re taking their money from their checking account, moving it to Stable Sea because we can put it in these capital markets products.  I think that overall, that’s a net positive for the business because the business now has a higher degree of operating capital on hand that they can make money with. But by the same token, if the state banks and the credit unions don’t wake up and respond to this, their depository base will be, if not fully eroded, tarnished and diminished. And what that means for local community health, I’m not sure because banks do play a very important role, especially credit unions and local banks.  You know your local community the best, and so you lend back into that community with the deposits that you receive from that community. So there’s a cyclicality to it which has some poetry in it. And so it’s not apparently clear to me that some of this stuff is going to be a net positive. But at the same time, living in one of the most capitalistic countries and markets in the world, there’s a clear demand for this, and if the banks aren’t going to wake up and serve it, we’ll be there to help businesses do what’s best for them.  Yeah. It’s the invisible hand, right? You increase the efficiency, which will force the banks to also increase their efficiency. And yeah, the smaller banks might have to be more innovative. But they are more nimble, so maybe there are other ways that they can serve the community.  So I’d like to switch gears here and talk a little bit about frameworks. So this is a podcast of frameworks, and 350 episodes in, I’m always looking for some kind of a framework, shortcut, a mental model that you have come across or developed yourself that helps you make more sense of the world around you, get something done. It can be explained in three to five steps, something like that, which the listeners might get some ideas out of and be able to improve their businesses. So what comes to mind for you?  Yeah, two things. I’ll start with a high-level analogy and then go a little deeper. It’s the World Cup right now, so I don’t know if you or any of your listeners are following the World Cup. But if you watch Messi play, his playing style is a great analogy for startups. And whether that be a startup externally where you raise venture capital, or even just intrapreneurship if you’re inside of a big company and you’re on an innovation team, et cetera.  From the outside, it looks like startups are always building things and they’re always moving fast, et cetera. But in reality, if you watch Messi play, Messi really doesn’t move that much on the pitch. He just sits around, he observes, he watches, and then when a hole opens up and some opportunity opens up, he breaks for it, and then he goes and executes. But he spends the vast majority of time just sitting there, tinkering, observing, watching. And then if you’re watching him, you’re like, “He’s not working that hard. He’s just sitting around.”  And then he goes and executes. But he’s always observing, he’s always watching, and there’s a real learning in that. I feel like Silicon Valley, as it relates to startups, there’s this pressure that you always have to be building, you always have to be shipping, you always have to be constantly grinding. I think that wisdom is actually counterintuitive because you want to have a thesis in the market, and then you want to be able to test that thesis quickly. So in some respects, you do want to be shipping all the time.  But you don’t want to be working for the sake of work. You want to have a thesis in the market. You want to be building towards that thesis that will happen in the next six months, 12 months, two years. And then you always want to be learning and talking to the market because when that hole does open up, you’ll have the right product at the right time to go and execute on. So I think that's something that we have learned: being patient and staying resolute in your conviction that what you're building is right.Share on X And it can’t just be a gut feeling. It has to be validated by the market.  So we do a bunch of A/B tests every 30 days where we have an idea about a feature or a product or a direction we want to take it. And the thing is, if you can’t get five CEOs on the phone in 30 days to validate if a product is going to be interesting or not, then that’s a signal in and of itself, right? So for anything that we do, we always have a thesis on the market, and then we spend 30 days testing it. And at the end of those 30 days, we get some feedback.  The reason why we do these A/B tests, just to drill down into one level further, is that the idea of a startup or a product that you have in your head, it’s a living entity. It’s always evolving on the basis of who you talk to, what your team is thinking, what you’re reading in the market, et cetera.  And then you’re trying to take that living concept and plug it into a market. But the market itself is also living, right?  You’ve got regulations, you’ve got different macroeconomic cycles, you’ve got companies that have budget, don’t have budget, people getting laid off in different organizations. The market itself is living and evolving. So you have this idea that is living and evolving, and you have a market that is living and evolving, and you need those two things to stick together. And so for us, we’re always wedded to this concept that product at time A is not going to be product at time Z. You need to constantly be doing A/B tests to figure out what that right fit is.  And then when you have that fit, you need to double down on it and grow it into a line of business. But you also need to recognize that there are very few businesses in this world that have been around for more than 200 years, if at all. So whatever your original product idea is, or whatever the feature that gave you product-market fit is today, you have to consciously be aware that, “Hey, that’s not going to be the thing that gets us to IPO in five years’ time.” So you can’t be lulled into this false sense of security. You always have to be waiting, observing, testing, experimenting, growing, and then if you see opportunity, you strike.  Yeah, this is fascinating. Especially now, things are moving very fast with AI creating capabilities all the time for people to test products or to create capabilities that then get disrupted in a couple of months. So it’s interesting that you say that you have to stay resolute in your conviction. So there is a tension there. You build a thesis and you stay resolute, but then you’re testing and the market might tell you not to be resolute.  And then you also told me that companies don’t live forever. So how do you resolve this tension of being stable with your thesis and not letting your conviction be upended, but also being nimble in the changing market dynamics and everything to respond to? So how do you manage the tension?  Yeah, it’s a good question. There has to be a high-level thesis, right? So for us at Stable Sea, it is as simple as: In 10 years from now, will more finance teams and businesses be on-chain or off-chain than today? And so our high-level conviction is, in 10 years’ time, more businesses will be running their treasury stack on-chain. So that’s our conviction. We know, come hell or high water, that is going to be where the puck is going to be in the future, and we’re going to skate to that future.  So if you start with this high-level conviction that more companies are coming on-chain, that is what we’re building for. Now, how they come on-chain is a matter of debate, which is where the A/B test comes in, right? We originally thought it was going to be for payments. So we built all the stablecoin infrastructure to do global payments in 40 different markets.  Turned out to be not the case, actually. And then we started tinkering as we saw the data coming in and were like, “Okay, some companies are using stablecoins for payments, but there’s a bunch of inefficiencies. That world’s still going to take two or three years to wake up. Where is the wedge in the market today?” And so when we started experimenting with capital markets products, we found that there was this massive opportunity that businesses just didn’t have access to a diverse array of yield-bearing strategies, and they wanted that.  And so that was where we were like, okay, let’s get businesses into the on-chain economy through capital markets. And then what we’re finding is, as folks come onto the platform, everyone uses us today for capital markets, and then 20, 30% of our companies say, “Actually, I do have a cross-border payment need, and I already hold money with you. Can you facilitate that payment or that settlement to Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, South Africa, et cetera?”  So for us, when I say you need to stay resolute in your conviction, our why is always: We want to take Wall Street-grade financial services and provision them out to Main Street.Share on X The conviction behind that is that you can do that through on-chain technology. And then in 10 years from now, more businesses will be on-chain than off-chain. How we get to that future in 10 years, who knows, right? And that’s where the fun of the startup is.  You’re always testing. And so for us, we’ve waxed and waned on different product strategies, primarily because the market has changed. And as people start to educate themselves on what the value props are, you see where folks find value, and then you build to that value. And in theory, in three, five, seven years, we should be living in a world where more companies are operating on-chain, and then they might use that full product suite.  But out of the gate, it’s kind of like, where is that value, that wedge? You charge as hard as you can into that wedge, and then you continue to expand your product set over time. All with that high-level conviction of, in 10 years from now, we believe that more businesses will be on-chain than off-chain.  So basically, you want to find the point where you can penetrate that market opportunity, and then it’s a land-and-expand kind of thing. And then you expand from there as the market opportunities evolve over time. But you already have a customer, you’re already building trust with them, and now they’re going to be more disposed to buying from you.  Yeah, that’s right. And I think it’s interesting from a mental place being a startup because you’re forced to think so short-term because you just need to generate revenue, get to the next capital round, et cetera. So you’re always building for the moment. But what we try to do at Stable Sea is we try to think as if we were already a Vanguard and a large company, to the extent that we have the luxury of planning for 10 years.  If you think about it in that regard, it takes a lot of the day-to-day anxiety away. It’s a little bit like, if you listen to Warren Buffett, any time that there’s volatility in the market, he’s like, “Well, it doesn’t really bother me because I’m investing for 50 years.” So, is it up 20%, down 20%? Who cares? In 50 years, it’s going to be up 200%, so that’s all I’m worried about, right? And there’s a real luxury when you come and think about it that way. So that’s why I think if you’re founding anything, or if you’re starting something inside of a company as an intrapreneur, you need to have a strong conviction on where the market’s headed in five or 10 years, and then you need to test towards that future. But that also makes the day-to-day operations of the business a little bit more palatable.  So often, you can get caught up in this whipsaw of, “Big Company A launched this product. Regulation came down, wiped out this company. This competitor raised a Series C, and they have way more money in the bank than we do.” And so you can get caught up in all this minutiae, but it doesn’t really matter if you sit back and you say, “I know that I’m going to find a way to make this business exist for the next 10 years.” In 10 years’ time, what does the future look like? Do I feel strongly that that’s going to be the case? Cool. I’m going to build towards that future. And then whatever the headwinds are in the interim, they’re just short-term temporal problems that kind of come and go along.  Yeah. I mean, I totally agree with you. And interestingly, 20 years ago, or 25 years ago, I didn’t feel like I had enough time to think that long term. But now that I’m older, I actually am more patient to have the long view, which is very counterintuitive.  And Dan Sullivan, who is a coach and the founder of Strategic Coach, he is now, I think, north of 80, and he has this thesis that even at his age, he has a 25-year plan, and that allows him to actually create more value. So that’s fascinating. So switching gears here, what drives growth in your business right now?  Yeah. So we govern the business with an assets under management model. So we have USDC, we’ve got money market funds, we’ve got fixed-income products, we’ve got Bitcoin on platform. So we just look at overarching platform balance. And so that’s the primary, very simple heuristic for how we define success: Is that thing growing month over month, quarter over quarter? That’s how we define growth and measure our growth.  But again, the value prop in terms of what drives that, why do companies actually sign up to Stable Sea? Primarily because they just don’t have access. Almost every business that we have talked to so far, and honestly every business that I’ve interacted with, has idle cash sitting in a checking account someplace. Full stop. And that idle cash could sit there for the weekend, i.e., two days, or it could sit for a quarter. If you’re gearing up for quarterly bonuses in Q1, you will escrow a million, $2 million in Q4 so you can pay out in Q1. Not just the U.S. economy, but every economy, there’s just cash sitting around at a bank, and it’s being underutilized.  And so for us, when we go and finally chat to businesses in the mid-market, lower mid-market, even SMBs, we have a customer on platform that invests $2,500 every week. It almost looks like a checking account, or almost looks like retail behavior in some ways. But they do it because they say, “Hey, I don’t make a lot of money with my business, but if I can eke an additional two, three grand at the end of the year, that’s valuable to me.” And there’s a real poetry to that because they’ve never had access to it. They’ve always wanted it.  But banks, large and small, won’t go build for the long tail of the economy. And so finally, we show up and we say, “Hey, here’s your menu of investment options. Here’s the risk profiles. Here’s how you should think of it. Based on the seasonality of your business, we can get you into the right products.” There’s real utility there, and that’s what kind of drives the value proposition and the growth of the business and the business’s assets under management overall.  So you’re looking for opportunities where you can be additive to customers, where there’s a situation where maybe there’s a gap in the market or there’s friction that they are experiencing with investing their money, and you can be the wedge in that situation and offer them a 3X better solution.  Yeah. Correct. Correct. And again, our tagline internally is, “Keep your bank, upgrade your capital.” Because we really don’t want to compete with the checking account. Where you run payroll, where your invoices land if someone pays you, your day-to-day spend, keep your banking relationships because it’s very difficult to usurp that. And also, we don’t want to get into that. That puts us squarely in this neobank realm where you’ve got great companies like Mercury and Rho and Ramp and Brex and a thousand other companies there.  We don’t really want to go compete with that. We’re more of, if you had the privilege of working with some of the largest transaction banks in the world, that’s what we’re trying to be and essentially provision those services out to the real economy, which is typically access to capital markets, access to global foreign exchange for payments and settlement, and then advisory services, tax reporting, et cetera.  Almost like a democratized private banking service.  Yeah. Yeah. All of us at Stable Sea, we’re trying really hard to steer away from the banking narrative, but yes, in the future, if you take that 10-year perspective, yeah, we will most likely be a private banking solution, a democratized version of that.  Yeah. Fascinating. So what’s one thing that you’re actively trying to figure out right now in your business?  Yeah, it’s a great question. I mean, the one thing that we’re actively trying to figure out is two things, really. One is, so we build directly into ERP systems like QuickBooks or NetSuite or Oracle or SAP, and we have advisory services. So we take a lot of that data, we build our own model weights on top of it, and then we offer that out to our customers so that they can essentially query their own transaction data and use it for different services.  Now, we’ve got strong signal on the first value proposition for that, but I’m curious mostly for owner-operators in the real economy: What are their biggest back-office pain points? And that’s something that we’re trying to figure out because we hear a lot, “Yes, we don’t have access to savings products.” Okay, we can solve that today. “Yes, cross-border payments are frustrating, slow, and expensive.” Yes, we solve that today.  So we’re looking for that third pillar. One of our VCs always talks to us about morphine versus vitamins, where it’s kind of a crude analogy, but if you go to the hospital and you’re in dire pain, you don’t want to be sold vitamins. You want some morphine, and that’s what you’re going there for, right? And when you’re in a startup and you create products, you’re really looking for that morphine of, people just cannot live without this product. And then you can sell all the value-added services around it, which are essentially the vitamins.  And so for us, we’ve found two morphine-like products where there’s a real pain point for accessing capital markets. Primarily, there is no ability to access that today. And then second, cross-border payments: slow, difficult, expensive, opaque, all the things. Solved that. So the third one that we’re trying to figure out now is: How do we A/B test quickly enough to figure out—we have a treasure trove of data building into ERP systems—what is the highest signal-to-noise product that we can build using a diverse data set to help owners operate their back office a little more efficiently?  So you say highest signal-to-noise. Is it the ratio of signal to noise? So what is the product value which you can detect as being a need in the market? Is this what you mean by that? Yeah, yeah. It’s like, what is that one pain point that is so resolute that people are like, “I would do anything to have this thing solved”? There’s all these value-adds like cash flow reporting and automating some of your tax stuff at the end of the year, which are all nice-to-haves. We’re curious. We’re trying to figure out what it is that folks will say, “I’ve got all this data in my ERP system. I would love to know one, two, three things and have A, B, C automated so my back office can run a little bit more efficiently and my accountant doesn’t have to ask me every quarter-end, ‘Where is X, Y, and Z statement?'”  Yeah. I mean, I’ve got some ideas, but I’m sure that you’ve already thought about most of it, so I’m not going to share them. So if someone is listening to this who is a small business or medium-sized business, and they’ve got some cash just sitting around, or they’d like to invest, but they don’t have big enough balances or the transaction costs are prohibitive for their size of investment, whatever the reason, but they are curious about exploring how to have access to better FX rates, more investment products, where can they learn more, and how can they connect with you?  Of course. Well, connect with me on LinkedIn, Tanner Taddeo, pretty easy to find. And then the platform is stablesea.com. So, free to sign up, no cost whatsoever. Also, no cost to use the platform at all. So feel free to sign up right online, and then, yeah, typically it takes us two days to run through the KYB document requests, and then you’re up and running. So, pretty simple. Stablesea.com, free to sign up and start putting your capital to work. Awesome. We try and make it as seamless as possible.  So I’m just wondering, the name of the company, is it something to do with stablecoin? Is it a sea of opportunities for stablecoin?  It was stablecoin for sure. So we started with the word “stable” and then “sea” because we wanted to provide a sea of liquidity. Both for FX, because we do B2B settlements, which are typically large transactions, low volume. You’re not doing twenty $10 million transactions a day. You’re typically doing one $10 million transaction a week or every other week. But you need a deep pool of liquidity to service that.  And then also, from a capital markets perspective, we wanted to be able to provide a sea of liquidity there for different investment options that companies could access based on the seasonality of their cash flow or the risk tolerance that they have as a business. So stable meets sea, so Stable Sea.  Okay. Well, if you want to keep your bank but upgrade your capital, then reach out to Tanner Taddeo, the CEO and Co-Founder of Stable Sea. He’ll get you more investment opportunities that maybe you have not had access to. And if you enjoyed this episode, make sure you subscribe and follow us on Apple Podcasts. Do not miss any episode with exciting entrepreneurs like Tanner. So thanks, Tanner, for coming, and thank you for listening.  Thank you, Steve. Important Links: Tanner's LinkedIn Tanner's website

What if one of the smartest investing moves you could make was doing nothing at all? When markets get volatile, it's tempting to sell, move to cash, change your strategy, or react to the latest headline. But sometimes, the investors who come out ahead are the ones who resist the urge to act. In this episode of The Financial Quarterback, Josh looks at findings from Vanguard's How America Saves report and explains why discipline, consistency, and automation can be more powerful than constantly tinkering with your portfolio. From automatic 401(k) contributions to the psychology behind panic selling, Josh breaks down how investors can make inertia work for them instead of against them, and why successful investing often has less to do with predicting the next market move and more to do with avoiding the wrong ones. In this episode: Why doing nothing can sometimes be a powerful investing strategy What Vanguard's retirement data reveals about investors who stayed the course How 401(k) auto-escalation can help build retirement savings Why emotions can lead investors to make costly decisions The role emergency savings can play in protecting your retirement accounts How patience and compound growth can reward long-term investors Successful investing doesn't require predicting every market high and low. Sometimes it comes down to building the right habits, sticking with your plan, and giving your money time to work. Can't get enough of The Financial Quarterback? Click ‘Subscribe' so you never miss a play. If you're enjoying the show, leave a 5-star rating and drop a review—it helps keep the game going!

Sources:https://substack.com/@returntotradition1Contact Me:Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.comSupport My Work:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStineSubscribeStarhttps://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-traditionBuy Me A Coffeehttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStinePhysical Mail:Anthony StinePO Box 3048Shawnee, OK74802Follow me on the following social media:https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/https://twitter.com/pontificatormax+JMJ+#popeleoXIV #catholicism #catholicchurch #catholicprophecy#infiltration

Blackstone, Vanguard, and Wellington are bringing private markets to everyday investors.Their new funds give non-accredited investors access to alternative investments like private equity, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure. But is easier access actually a good investment?Referenced in this episode:Leyla Kunimoto's breakdown of the WVB All Markets Fund and its fee structure:Read Leyla's analysis here: https://x.com/LeylaKuni/status/2081081577099174243Bob Fraser, Ben Fraser, and Ellis Hammond break down the opportunity, the risks, the fees, and what this could mean for the future of alternative investing.Have more questions, or want more resources like a tax calculator? Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://investlikeabillionaire.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  to learn more about our community. Check out Ben & Bob's company and invest along at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://aspenfunds.us/

En este episodio de la séptima temporada de Análisis BIVA, nos acompaña Ignacio Saralegui, Head of Portfolio Solutions de Vanguard, quien nos habla sobre cómo la inteligencia artificial está transformando el análisis, la construcción de portafolios y las oportunidades de inversión. Conducido por Vicente García, Director de Análisis y Difusión de BIVA.

Americans now say they need $1.5 million to retire comfortably, according to a recent survey. That's nearly 60% higher than the "magic number" reported roughly five years ago, which helps explain why so many retirement savers feel behind. But that number is a survey average, and measuring yourself against it could cost you years you can't get back.  In this episode, I'm sharing why retiring at 62 may be more realistic than you think. Here's what you'll learn: → The new Vanguard research that challenges the conventional Social Security advice → How one couple with $1.8 million stopped chasing the $2.5 million their calculator demanded → A simple 4-step process for building (and stress-testing) a flexible early retirement plan For smart, diligent savers, the biggest retirement risk isn't always running out of money... sometimes it's running out of time. ***

Shadows Of Justice by David Hasty https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0G8KQNKRG https://www.facebook.com/david.hasty.7 “There’s a fine line between saving lives and losing your own in the process.” Eighteen-year-old Evan Drake has always lived in two worlds. By day, he’s a struggling student trying to keep up with grades, track practice, and a family still healing from loss. By night, he becomes Shadow-the masked apprentice of Vanguard, Crescent City’s legendary vigilante. But every lesson comes with a cost. Every victory leaves a scar. And as the Syndicate’s criminal network tightens its grip on the city, Evan’s double life begins to unravel. His relationships fracture, his body breaks, and his conscience fades under the weight of “justice.” When a mysterious voice on the comms warns him that Vanguard’s mission isn’t what it seems, Evan must choose between loyalty and truth-between being the weapon his mentor forged, or the hero his city truly needs. Shadows of Justice is a gripping, character-driven vigilante thriller that explores how far one boy will go to protect others before the darkness consumes him. Fans of Batman: Year One, Daredevil, and Nightwing will find a hauntingly human take on heroism, sacrifice, and the cost of wearing the mask. About the author David Hasty was born on September 15, 1971, in Ahoskie, North Carolina. David has always been drawn to the mysteries of life—both seen and unseen. A lifelong learner and natural storyteller, he has built a career that bridges science, humanity, and quiet spirituality. A graduate of North Carolina State University, he later earned his Master's degree in Education Administration from East Carolina University. For over 15 years, he has served as a high school science teacher, where his passion for discovery, curiosity, and connection has inspired countless students. Before his time in education, he worked in 911 emergency services and as a Quality Control Chemist, roles that gave him a unique understanding of people, precision, and the delicate balance between chaos and order. Outside the classroom, David Hasty is a proud father of three children—Jenna, his oldest daughter; Alex, his middle son; and Hannah, his youngest. Though divorced, he cherishes the close bond he shares with his children and finds joy in simple, grounding routines—cooking, singing, reading, and enjoying a quiet cup of coffee. Writing has always been his creative refuge. From his earliest years, he found comfort in books and storytelling, often imagining new worlds while reading survival stories or exploring nature. Today, his fiction reflects the same curiosity and wonder that have defined his life—a blend of imagination, empathy, and a subtle spiritual awareness that guides his characters and themes. While his stories are fictional, they are deeply influenced by his belief that there's a greater design in life—something spiritual that shapes every experience and connection. Through his writing, he hopes to remind readers that there is always light to be found, meaning to be discovered, and hope to be shared in the stories we tell.

Most investors spend their time deciding what investments to own. Far fewer spend time thinking about where those investments should be held. In this episode, Tyler Emrick, CFA®, CFP®, breaks down one of the most overlooked tax planning strategies in retirement: asset location. Using research from Vanguard, Tyler explains how placing the same investments in different accounts—taxable, traditional IRA/401(k), and Roth—can improve after-tax wealth without taking additional investment risk. In this episode, Tyler covers: What asset location is—and why it's different from asset allocation. Vanguard's research on improving after-tax returns. Where different investments generally belong. Why Roth accounts deserve special consideration. Common mistakes investors make when organizing their portfolios. Why asset location should evolve throughout retirement.   Have questions? Need help making sure your investments and retirement plan are on track? Click to schedule a free 20-minute call with one of True Wealth's CFP® Professionals. http://bit.ly/calltruewealth   Our website:  https://www.truewealthdesign.com/  Phone: 855.TWD.PLAN Contact our team: https://www.truewealthdesign.com/contact-a-financial-advisor/  Schedule your no-cost discovery call: http://bit.ly/calltruewealth  Check out our other no-cost financial resources here: https://www.truewealthdesign.com/financial-resources/    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TrueWealthDesign/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/true-wealth-design/  X: https://x.com/truewealthdesgn    Watch the show now on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjENBHOti-IEJFqeydZm_Fg?sub_confirmation=1

This Friday I'm sitting down with my friend Rick Ferri for a debate that I think matters a great deal, even though — or maybe because — Rick and I agree on almost everything. We both believe in diversification, low costs, index funds, ignoring predictions, and staying the course. Where we part ways is what happens after that.Rick's case is that you should simply own the whole market. A total stock market index fund gives you thousands of companies at an extraordinarily low cost, and adding complexity rarely pays. My case is that the academic research — Fama, French, and decades of market history — shows that greater exposure to small and value companies may raise long-term expected returns. Rick calls that factor tilting. I call it better diversification. He'll argue I'm not adding diversification at all, just changing the weights, and he's right that this is exactly what we're doing. The question is whether it's worth doing.We also take on a second question that gets far too little attention: if you do want small and value exposure, where should you get it? Vanguard, Fidelity, DFA or Avantis — traditional indexing or systematic portfolio management? Differences that look trivial today can compound into very large ones over 40 or 50 years.Neither of us is trying to win. Rick may be right. I may be right. Ask us again in 50 years. What I hope you take away is the process — examining evidence, understanding the alternatives, admitting what nobody knows, and committing to a strategy you can stick with. Because every strategy disappoints you eventually, and what you do in that moment matters more than which one you chose.The podcast and video of my conversation with Rick will be available Wednesday, August 19, 2026. If you have any questions for Rick, send them to Paul@paulmerriman.com.

Your future deserves more than guesswork. Use our calculator to see the potential value of professional planning. -----  Smart investors can build low-cost, diversified portfolios—and still make costly mistakes. Vanguard senior portfolio strategist Liz Muirhead joins me to examine where investors get tripped up and why the most valuable parts of investment management are often the hardest to see. Listen now and learn: ► What investors commonly overlook when comparing individual bonds and bond funds ► Why indexing, factor investing, and stock picking test discipline in different ways ► How taxes, rebalancing, and market volatility create hidden decision points ► Where a financial advisor can add value beyond choosing investments   Visit www.TheLongTermInvestor.com for show notes, free resources, and a place to submit questions. Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠) Disclosure: This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this "post" (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Plancorp LLC employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Plancorp LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Plancorp LLC or performance returns of any Plancorp LLC client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see disclosures here.  

If there is a point to the criticism, let's learn from it. If it's off base, then what do we care? -- Codie Sanchez is an entrepreneur, investor, and founder of Contrarian Thinking, where she teaches people how to build wealth through business ownership. After starting her career in journalism and later working in finance at firms like Goldman Sachs and Vanguard, Codie went on to buy, build, and invest in Main Street businesses. Listen to the full episode with Codie Sanchez: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or watch on YouTubeFollow Codie Sanchez on Instagram @codiesanchez, on TikTok @Codie_Sanchez, and on YouTube @CodieSanchezCTGrab signed copies of Main Street Millionaire by Codie Sanchez at The Painted Porch | https://www.thepaintedporch.com/Check out Ryan's episode on BigDeal by Codie Sanchez: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube

The desktop has barely changed in decades, even as we've all become digital hoarders. Scott Jenson's Local-First Conf talk, “How the Desktop UX Needs to Evolve to Keep Up With Local First,” gives The Trio a jumping-off point to explore spatial window management, document context, customizable dashboards, private workflows, and the surprising return of widgets. Kotaro then catches the game development bug and weighs rebuilding Retro Sparkle against the much more ambitious idea of a mobile-first pixel fighting game.## Chapters00:00 Introductions 01:15 Local-First Computing and the Future of Desktop UX 11:16 Widgets, Dashboards, and Personal Workflows 21:58 The Future of Software and AI Automation 38:35 Building Games in the AI Era 50:04 Closing and Community Updates 50:48 Tag ## Show Notes- The discussion begins with Scott Jenson's Local-First Conf talk, shared by Mike Zornek, a former PhillyCocoa organizer and one of its OGs who now works in Elixir.- Overlapping windows made sense on tiny early displays, but modern screens and growing piles of context expose the metaphor's limits.- Scott's prototypes rethink window management, attach research context to documents, and turn desktop history into a navigable timeline.- Brett Terpstra's TerminalWidget lets scripts power personal dashboards for network health, revenue, GitHub activity, and almost anything else.- Apple's old Dashboard sparks nostalgia for web-built widgets, glorious skeuomorphism, and the GPU-powered ripple effect.- Kotaro and Steve imagine desktops that help people assemble private, local workflows without needing to become programmers.- Steve argues that safer abstractions, plug-ins, and focused local models make more sense than asking everyone to generate raw application code.- Kotaro wonders whether the app era is giving way to workflows that connect software, data, and automation at a higher level.- Kotaro weighs rebuilding [RetroSparkle](https://tomatoboy.co/retro) with a pixel-inspired look against making a mobile-first fighting game in Godot.- PhillyCocoa meets in person Thursday, August 13, from 5:45 to 8:00 PM at Vanguard, 2300 Chestnut Street, with talks by Bill Atkins, Kotaro Fujita, and Chris Hiester.## Links**Desktop UX and Local First**How the Desktop UX Needs to Evolve to Keep Up With Local First: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IOLRcFC6OY | Mike Zornek: https://mikezornek.com**Widgets and Personal Workflows**Brett Terpstra's TerminalWidget Dashboard: https://brettterpstra.com/2026/08/10/my-terminalwidget-dashboard/**Kotaro's Project Ideas**Retro Sparkle: https://tomatoboy.co/retro**PhillyCocoa IRL Meetup**Beyond the Simulator: Perspectives on Modern App Development: https://luma.com/mwcqd1cl**PhillyCocoa:** https://phillycocoa.orgIntro music: "When I Hit the Floor", © 2021 Lorne Behrman. Used with permission of the artist.

Episode 302-Not Getting Tired of Winning Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 302 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun Lawyer, New Jersey assault firearm law, Third Circuit Court, Supreme Court, stay granted, unconstitutional laws, Second Amendment, sensitive places, National Firearm Act, suppressors, Jordan Salinas, good guy with a gun, training, legal advice, gun rights. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen,. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, the wins keep coming. These are great times. You know, we have suffered from the oppressors on our gun rights for decades upon decades, and now we are seeing the collapse of all their machinations over the years. It is great and getting greater. And so, just within this short period of time, we’ve had the spectacular win in New Jersey in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the full en banc panel, all the judges, of course, finding that New Jersey’s 36-year-old assault firearm law and magazine law is unconstitutional. It’s a fantastic decision, as we’ve discussed, written by a Biden-appointee judge who happened to be the first woman of color appointed to the Appellate bench. That is fantastic and has multi-dimensional impact, of course, having that great decision. Evan Nappen 01:52 Now, with that having been said, yes, a stay has been granted in terms of the implementation of the finding of unconstitutionality. So, that stay is granted essentially because traditionally these kind of stays do get granted, especially when the Supreme Court itself of the United States has taken this issue and has granted certiorari over the assault weapon, what New Jersey calls assault firearm law under Viramontes and Grant. They’ll be deciding that. Essentially we’ll have a decision by next June on that issue affecting the nation. Now, New Jersey has got their stay because they’re requesting the Supreme Court of the United States to grant certiorari over New Jersey’s case, and the stay has been granted pending the final resolution, essentially, of these issues, or at least in good part, these issues by the United States Supreme Court. So, in the meantime, Teddy Nappen 03:12 I don’t know if you caught what the AG Davenport wrote in their press release, Dad. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:20 Well, they can continue to irreparably harm law-abiding, honest gun owners over these unconstitutional laws until that finally happens. But what exactly did Davenport say as they try to turn an utter defeat into some sort of short-term victory? Teddy Nappen 03:45 We are thrilled that the Third Circuit this morning stayed its ruling on our assault weapon / large capacity magazine case while our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeds. That ensures this 36-year law will remain in place. (https://www.njoag.gov/statement-from-attorney-general-jennifer-davenport-on-third-circuits-grant-of-a-stay-in-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazines-case/) 36 years of going after people, putting them in jail, taking away their rights, providing ruining their lives. Evan Nappen 04:07 Hey, wait, Teddy, are you reading from their news release? Teddy Nappen 04:11 Oh, you know, I read their news release and then added the little context that they forgot. Evan Nappen 04:16 Did they actually use the word “assault weapon”? Teddy Nappen 04:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 04:20 Or did they say “assault firearm”? What did they say? Teddy Nappen 04:21 Assault weapon. Evan Nappen 04:22 Davenport called it “assault weapon” law? Teddy Nappen 04:26 Yes, assault weapons. Evan Nappen 04:27 Okay, just so you know, this is the top law enforcement attorney for New Jersey who is calling their law something it is not. We do not have an “assault weapon” law. We have an “assault firearm” law. Now, granted, it’s a similar issue, and you know it’s the same idea of going after New Jersey’s version of semi-automatics. But you would think if you’re a lawyer, and you’re a lawyer for the State that has this case that you might want to refer to it as the actual name that your State utilizes, because that term “assault firearm” is the term embedded in New Jersey’s law. It is a defined term under N.J.S. 2C:39-1. Page – 3 – of 12 They are called “assault firearms” in New Jersey by law, by law. But you know, why would she bother actually using the correct legal term when discussing laws? That would be amazing, wouldn’t it? Teddy Nappen 05:46 Well, Dad, I mean, just the abuse alone, just to give you the one-to-one. You’ve had many times where people have been charged with having a “assault firearm”, and it’s not. But they love to abuse it and just use whatever term they want. I mean that goes right back to Josh Sugarmann, and his whole idea of making that term “assault firearm” to confuse the public so they could pass their laws. I mean. Evan Nappen 06:10 Yep, it’s exactly that. Well, Sugarmann wrote the manifesto “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. That’s what laid the groundwork for this issue. It finally has one foot in the grave, is bedridden, on its deathbed, and the Supreme Court will hopefully administer the coup de gras in June 2027. I believe the odds heavily, heavily favor us, virtually to the point of I would be shocked if we lose. I just don’t see that happening, and the antis know it as well. Those oppressors get it that they’re going to lose on this issue. Teddy Nappen 06:54 It’s Viramontes and Grant. Evan Nappen 06:58 Yeah. Those are the two cases that Supreme Court has granted certiorari on. Just so you know, one is a local law out of Cook County, Illinois, that bans assault weapons, and has incorporated into the definition, magazines into their definition of assault weapon. So, the Supreme Court might actually address the magazine issue because it’s actually part of Viramontes’ law itself. e may see that. The Grant case deals with Connecticut’s assault weapon ban, state law, and when they challenged in Connecticut, they didn’t challenge the magazine portion. They only challenged the so-called assault weapon portion. New Jersey’s case, in the Cheeseman v. Platkin case, that court addressed both assault firearms, aka assault weapons, and magazines. And now, with New Jersey requesting certiorari, meaning requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, it also opens up the magazine issue. So, the Supreme Court that can do anything it wants might choose to address the magazine issue in the Viramontes and Grant decision. They might even, arguably, they could even take up New Jersey’s case and make it part of that. They might, and what most likely they’re going to just have it in a holding pattern. Evan Nappen 08:47 And we have the Duncan case that deals with magazines as well out of California, the Duncan v. Bonta case (25-198(. So, what it means is, if the Supreme Court doesn’t deal with magazines by next June, but just the guns, then they may very well take New Jersey’s case and Duncan with the split in the circuits there, and then deal with magazines. Like I said, they might do it all together. They might not. But New Jersey proceeding with this actually weirdly in the long run may present and give us a great opportunity because it presents magazines as a complete win by the court from our circuit. So, this may be one of those situations where you know the word to New Jersey is be careful what you wish for. This Page – 4 – of 12 is very interesting to follow. But I believe that all these laws are going to go to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time. Evan Nappen 09:59 But as I have advised listeners, even when this decision came out, not to do anything because of the ability to get a stay. To wait and see. Well, that’s proven correct. I’s been proven out to be the wise thing to do, and have our listeners not end up being GOFUs by obtaining the firearms and magazines that are not yet technically lawful. So, for these continuing months, New Jersey is still free to enforce the magazine and assault firearm laws. Of course, if you have such a case or such a charge, your attorney, if they’re anywhere competent, will raise these very important issues and hopefully get your matter, your criminal matter, stayed pending the outcome and preserve the constitutional issues on your behalf in fighting it. So, be careful. Don’t end up with a GOFU where you’re facing these charges and your current counsel isn’t doing anything about it. I’ve had a number of those cases coming to me from other attorneys, where the client is like, my attorney never raised the constitutionality on these issues. Well, that is a huge mistake because you need to raise these issues, preserve these issues, because ultimately your odds of success are so great here, and it is essentially, arguably, malpractice to not, especially now, raise the constitutional issues if someone is facing in New Jersey or in the Circuit that has decided that these laws are unconstitutional. So, it’s very important that you be aware of that. Teddy Nappen 12:05 Would it be better if the Supreme Court does the other two cases and then take this one up as a mag separately, or is it better to do it all in one go? Evan Nappen 12:13 The best for everyone would be complete victory as soon as possible. However, if they’re not going to do that, if they’re just going to address guns now and then we have these cases to address mags, fine. We’ll fight the fight, and there you go. But the important thing, honestly, is that they’re taking the cases. Remember, for years they did not take these cases, and instead, luckily, wisely, maybe by planning it correctly-I don’t know-maybe intentionally, the groundwork got laid for the challenges to ultimately be successful. Because look, way back in May of 1990, I was an attorney. I remember this horrible New Jersey assault firearm law and magazine law passing. It was disgusting. Of course, it also became the Evan Nappen Full Employment Act. But the fact is, they passed this ridiculous law, and I remember thinking at the time, yeah, you know, in my heart, I knew this has got to be contrary to the Second Amendment. But we did not have any of the cases at that time. We didn’t have Heller finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We didn’t have McDonald incorporating the Second Amendment to the states. We didn’t have Bruen laying out the test of constitutionality and what test is to be used to see if guns laws, if gun laws are proper and constitutional. We didn’t have any of that. We didn’t have the giant body of historical research that is critical in these wins. We didn’t have any of it. Evan Nappen 14:08 And what the pro-second amendment gun rights side has done is nothing short of Herculean. All the forces together have built this fortress of the ability to defend and to fight and to take on the fight and to attack. Built this up so that we’re now in a position to have victory after victory. Yet, we see another Page – 5 – of 12 victory, another victory. Just determined in the Fifth Circuit, a nationwide injunction as applied to the members of the parties and their members, such as NRA and GOA and SAF, and FPC, etc. (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260805/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-requirements-for-suppressors-short-barreled-rifles-and-short-barreled-shotguns-in-nra-case) All joining, attacking the National Firearms Act under a legal argument that was made possible by President Trump in the Big Beautiful Bill. Remember, the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a reconciliation bill, that was dealing with money, taxation, funding, money. When it’s done as a reconciliation, then what you have is no need or ability to run a filibuster. Since simple majorities can pass the reconciliation bills under the Senate rules, the Democrats, the anti-Second Amendment rights oppressors, could not stop its passage because they would. You know they would demand the 60, have the filibuster cloture, and the laws would die on the vine. But this did not, because it only needed simple majority. In that bill there was a specific repeal of the taxes. The taxes that get paid on suppressors, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, on any other weapon, and silencers. The tax was eliminated to zero. And by doing that, it opened up the ability for the Big, Beautiful Lawsuit that was just a success in the Fifth Circuit, and how it worked was not based on Second Amendment arguments. It was based on jurisdictional arguments. Evan Nappen 16:55 You see, the National Firearms Act is premised upon the federal power of taxation. It is not founded upon the federal power of interstate commerce. Nor is it founded upon the military power. The federal government’s powers are limited. And back in the ’30s, when the National Firearms Act passed, they did not have the insane expansion of the commerce powers under the federal government. Therefore, the first national gun laws, which the NFA was, was jurisdiction by taxation. They imposed a $200 tax on suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc. Now, $200 in 1934 was just a little bit under $5,000 in terms of it being adjusted for inflation. So, imagine today passing a law that said any semi-automatic firearm that you want to possess, you must pay a $5,000 tax to the federal government in order to obtain it. Evan Nappen 18:26 You see how prohibitive that makes the possession, and then go through a registration scheme that is hidden in a pretext of taxation, which is blatantly excessive. And what has happened is by the elimination of the tax to zero, the court essentially said if there’s no tax, then there’s no law. Therefore, the NFA collapses in the enforcement proceedings regarding the paperwork, registration, printing. All the things that get done on the acquisition of NFA items. That law has been stayed for seven days, even though this is a permanent injunction. There’s been a seven-day stay to see if it progresses further, but that is a tremendous win on yet a different front of fighting for Second Amendment liberty. ‘ve had both of these great wins, and we have a lot to be proud of, and a lot to be optimistic about. Teddy Nappen 19:39 Regarding the big win with the NFA, I always want to see what is the what are the gun rights oppressionists? What are they pushing on this one? The Trace didn’t bring up something. However, Giffords, they’re flipping out, and I love this. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/08/giffords-reacts-to-federal-court-striking-down-background-checks-for-firearm-silencers-short-barreled-rifles-and-shotguns/) They go right to the. Just laugh, just reading it. This came from Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Remove the tax on these devices. The court has struck down the National Firearms Act, requiring background check and registration of firearm silencers, short barrel rifles, and shotguns. Page – 6 – of 12 Silencers and short barrel firearms, and other than handguns, are rarely used in crimes today because current laws have stopped them. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. Logical fallacy alert, everybody! Logical fallacy alert. Correlation does not equal causation. Saying that this will stop that these things have prevented crime does not make it so. What is your argument? Oh, they didn’t. They don’t have access. Even though prior to that, they weren’t used in crime. Generally speaking, as well. Number one is handguns on that front. But I love how they just try to toss that in every time. Just a red herring every single time, and they try to push it. Evan Nappen 20:56 Yeah, they’re just propagandists, and they’re losing left and right. It’s going to end up, my friends. You can mark my words. It’s going to end up that their entire world of gun law schemes, machinations, all these things that they have hoisted upon us as they die. I am greatly enjoying watching these gun laws die. As they die off and are impossible to find workarounds that, as well, get killed and die off. That they’re simply going to be left with only one mission, and their one mission of the oppressors, the one mission of the Second Amendment rights haters, will be to repeal the Second Amendment. And that’s where a fight’s going to end up. A fight over the oppressors trying to remove the Second Amendment. Of course, they’ll push this through their socialist, communist political movement. Remember, they want to make all kinds of institutional, governmental, radical changes, including getting rid of the Senate, including ending the nine-person Supreme Court and expanding it, getting rid of the presidency being elected where it’s an appointed, et cetera, and going at all different constitutional rights and turning America into a communist nation, and in so doing, they will also push. And Teddy, I think they even are saying, even now, to get rid of the Second Amendment. And you’ll see them joining hands. You’ll see the anti-Second Amendment rights folks joining hands with the Communists, with the DSA, the Democrat Socialist Wing, as the Democrat Party in its civil war implodes over the monster that the Democrats have created themselves. This is their Frankenstein that is now running loose on them. Teddy Nappen 23:27 Yeah, and quite frankly, just going back to them where they have pushed and pushed and pushed, where they said we don’t. They and there was a great video where this guy was basically trying to argue the socialist dilemma of the Second Amendment because it’s that catch 22 where they want to ban arms but they need arms for the revolution. For their great, you know, seize the means of production, but they cannot because they still push for red flag. They still push for universal background checks. Evan Nappen 23:58 Teddy, it’s like the meme with the guy sweating as to which button to push, you know. Ban guns so that you get, you know, so they could disarm the populace, or don’t ban so that their radical, violent Left can have access to firearms. Right? You know, they’re conflicted over that choice. Yeah. But regardless of what politics may lay in the future, right now the wins in court and legislatively. Okay. Remember, this is a combination. The reconciliation bill, etc. That’s all an important legislative changes that open the door to the ability to win on the front of the NFA tax attack and the big beautiful lawsuit. We are making tremendous gains and wins. And it is absolutely a reason to be optimistic. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:03 I’m looking forward to seeing the decision in Koons and Siegel cases. Those that’s the case that addresses New Jersey’s sensitive places. We’re waiting for that same full en banc panel of the Third Circuit. Now, this is the same court that just killed New Jersey’s assault firearm and magazine law. That same court will be rendering an opinion over the constitutional validity of New Jersey’s sensitive places in the very near future. We’re going to see it. We’re just a matter, any day they can come out with that decision. Keep in mind, it’s going to be very important in countering and destroying the Carry Killer bill that Murphy and company got enacted. They did it. How? They did it because of their hissy fit to the Bruen decision, mandating carry permits get issued. So, they tried to make it so that this insane matrix of sensitive places makes it so incredibly difficult to actually exercise that right. is same court that gave us this fantastic pro-Second Amendment decision will be coming out with the sensitive places decision shortly. I’m cautiously optimistic about that. Keep in mind that the vote of the judges on the assault firearm magazine case. That was a panel of 15 judges, and the vote was 10 on our side, and five against us. So, it was 15 judges. One of the judges that opted to stay in was a judge that had been on a temporary assignment in, and that judge was a known opponent to Second Amendment rights. So, of course he wanted to stay in, and of the votes of the 10 to five ruling, one of the five judges was the anti-Second Amendment judge, but that judge is not part of the decision that will come out of Koons and Siegel. Therefore, it’s a 14-judge panel. And if we see the same voting as occurred on assault firearms and magazines, we should see a 10 to 4 ruling. Keeping our fingers crossed here in favor of knocking out New Jersey’s sensitive places, which would be really fantastic. And so, hang in there, folks. We’ve suffered a long time, but our suffering is slowly but surely being relieved. Evan Nappen 28:18 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot has some pretty cool offers and things happening. They’re offering the Bull Armory Ultralight Pro, and Bull is proudly recognized as North Jersey Friends of NRA Gun of the year for 2026. It’s lightweight. It’s exceptionally accurate, and it’s built for everyday carry. The pistol earned its title through outstanding performance, craftsmanship, and innovation. You can check out that Bull Armory Ultralight Pro at WeShoot. WeShoot is also offering Hornaday Critical Defense ammunition. Now, you know, Critical Defense and that Hornaday line of Critical Duty, as well, is one of the most trusted names in personal protection. That round is designed and engineered for reliable expansion, and dependable feeding, and confidence when it essentially matters most. And let me tell you, the Hornaday Critical Defense and Critical Duty, those are polymer-tipped rounds that perform arguably even better than hollow nose. But are not hollow nose bullets under New Jersey law because the nose is actually not hollow. It’s got an insert filling the hole. So, because of that, it is an ideal round for carry in New Jersey. You can’t carry, at the moment, actual hollow nose, but you can carry Critical Defense or Critical Duty. And frankly, it’s got advantages over hollow nose. Evan Nappen 30:12 Not just because it performs as well or better, but also because of the nose having the polymer plug. It actually feeds even more reliably than hollow nose. So, it’s actually far superior, at least in these terms, to your normal hollow nose ammunition. So, check out Critical Defense at WeShoot. Also, WeShoot has the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. Now that Mini 14, that’s an American classic. It’s earned its reputation through decades of proven reliability, versatility, and timeless styling. And let me tell you Page – 8 – of 12 about the Ruger. The new Rugers are incredibly accurate. You know the old Ruger with the pencil barrels-they were called pencil barrels. They weren’t known for their accuracy. hey functioned well and sure looked cool when the A-team had them rolling, right? But accuracy-wise, not so much. However, the new Rugers are extremely accurate. The barrel is thickened toward the base, and it is a redesign that gives incredible tack driving accuracy to the new Ruger Mini-14s. The Ranch rifle will be able to deliver for you, and of course, it’s set so you can not only have the scope rings, the classic Ruger scope rings, but even a Picatinny rail that fits in where you could put the rings, and then you could Picatinny it up to whatever optics you like as well. So, Ruger has come a long way, and the new Mini-14 is something you need to check out. I really do love the new Mini. I have one myself and greatly appreciated having had the old ones as well. So, you can get yours at WeShoot. Weshootusa.com is their website. Evan Nappen 32:26 I want to also remind you that if you want to get a New Jersey carry permit, you really should get it. Join our ranks of 100,000 or more here of permitted carry holders. The more folks we get with carries, the closer we get to constitutional carry. So, make sure you’re part of that. You can get your CCARE certification from WeShoot. They have all the great training there. It’s a fantastic facility. It’s a wonderful resource, conveniently off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. So, make sure you stop by and check out their website as well. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 33:10 Let me also shamelessly plug my book, New Jersey Gun Law. The Bible of Jersey Gun Law. You need to have it. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, so that you don’t become a GOFU. Make sure you have that book. Go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll see the big orange cover right there. Click it, and you’ll have it in a matter of days. Go to EvanNappen.com to get your New Jersey Gun Law book. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 33:48 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I imagine you’ve caught all about the In and Out shooting. What happened there? Evan Nappen 33:59 Well, maybe our listeners aren’t aware of that. would be surprised, but they may not know there was a major shooting that took place at, at and outside of and around this In / Out Burger in Idaho. Hey, I don’t know if any of you’ve ever eaten at In / Out Burger. It’s a West Coast thing. I really do love In / Out Burger. Just a side note, by the way, guys. But anyway, I digress. So, I could have well seen myself ending up at In / Out Burger in Idaho if I was out there. And Teddy Nappen 34:33 Isn’t there mustard on the burger that they do? Evan Nappen 34:35 No, no, that’s Whataburger. Another great burger chain. Oh, listen, we’re gonna have to call this the Burger Show shortly, instead of the burger lawyer, hamburger lawyer. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 34:44 What’s the best at In / Out? Evan Nappen 34:47 I like to get you know they have the secret menu and all that. I get the protein wrap where they take their In / Out Burger and they wrap it in lettuce. You know, I’ve lost over 200 pounds, and I avoid the carbs. I love the lettuce wrap, the protein. They call them the protein wrap. They wrap their In / Out burgers strictly in lettuce, so you have no carbs, and they’re delicious in-out burgers. So, that’s my favorite. But their stuff is really delicious. However, on this particular occasion, it was not so good. We had a bad guy going there with a gun and decided he was going to shoot up the place. And lo and behold, what happened, Teddy? What happened? A fellow by the name of Jordan Salinas. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 35:35 Yes, good guy with a gun. Jordan Salinas, where he was with his girlfriend, and they had planned a quiet Saturday. You know, going horseback riding, so and you know, going out for a nice lunch in Twin Falls. And as the gunman Chad Williams has been identified, who was shooting up the In-N-Out, Jordan drew his holstered FN five seven semi-auto pistol with a suppressor to fire back and save the people inside. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/armed-citizen-used-a-suppressed-pistol-to-save-lives-at-twin-falls-in-n-out/) Evan Nappen 36:10 Okay, so first of all, that gun standard has a 20 round magazine, and it’s readily available to have a 30-round mag, so that gun with its standard capacity magazine, you would you would up until the recent case, and even though there’s a stay at the moment, you still can’t have that handgun with the standard capacity magazine. But I’m confident we will be able to. So, you couldn’t have that gun in New Jersey unless you had a lame 10-round magazine in it. Which what’s the point when you have an FN five seven that can hold 20 or even 30 of the five seven ammo? And then his gun has a silencer or suppressor on it, which is just great. Again, that is prohibited in New Jersey because New Jersey doesn’t allow silencers at all. So, here we have this crime being committed by this Chad fellow, and lo and behold, the hero, the good guy with the gun, breaks out his five seven with the suppressor and starts laying down fire on the bad guy. It was fantastic, and he was credited, wasn’t he, by law enforcement with saving lives, Who’s Crowder? Teddy Nappen 39:28 Stephen Crowder, Gladworth Crowder. He did a full breakdown on it, where it’s about training, where you just do enough to where you can handle yourself in a situation. And what Evan Nappen 39:36 did he? What did he say hasn’t been? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 39:39 So the one thing that caught is the fact that he’s has a suppressor attached to it, and it was identified in one of his other videos as he uses an FN five seven USG fitted Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor, firing Vanguard 55 grain subsonic five sevens. Evan Nappen 40:00 Nice. Teddy Nappen 40:00 That was I so that may not now they may not be his exact rig at that moment, but that was what was reported to what he was practicing with. But that being said, this is one to one of what he was using in the and so Evan Nappen 40:12 you know when you step back, Teddy, and look at this. Normally, when there is some bad guy shooting up soft target area, the antis just cheer because they get to do a blood dance to try to attack and oppress gun rights, because it’s the old saying of they never let a tragedy go to waste. However, here the entire thing was turned on its ear because we had an armed civilian who saved lives and did it with a 20 to 30 round capacity handgun with a suppressor, okay, and so this completely turned around this incident to be one of the greatest current examples of why citizens need to be armed and ready and trained, and so the antis can’t even respond because in their normal blood dance that they like to do, it just always goes back to well. Look, we had a good guy with a gun make the difference. That’s the key, and it’s so important, so great that Jordan Salinas was there to save the folks that he did. He rendered aid even to the injured after. He’s just a great person as well. It was amazing to see this, that, and it so turned it around that I’m going to put on my conspiracy hat the way we sometimes see happen with the shootings that they use to go against our gun rights, I’m going to put my conspiracy hat on and say I think this, given how the outcome was, that this was a false flag operation run by us, because it’s had such tremendous-I’m just kidding about that. Of course, it’s not run by us. We, but you know, yeah, Candace Owens might run with it. Oh yeah, it was-it was the pro-gun side that engineered the entire thing. To no, but the thing is, the impact has been tremendous, and it’s now iconic of Jordan Salinas in his position. It’s like as iconic as Sophie Cunningham pointing is Jordan Salinas in his perfect firing position with his suppressed five seven. Seeing Teddy Nappen 42:57 the I’ve been seeing the citizen cowboy joke that’s been circling. Oh yeah, Evan Nappen 43:02 as compared to Citizen Vigilante, it’s now Citizen Cowboy. Teddy Nappen 43:06 Yeah, Citizen Cowboy because he has. But he’s Citizen Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 43:09 Defender. He’s not a vigilante. He’s a defender. He’s a defender at the moment. Being a man, imagine that being a man. Actually, is that your greatest example of so-called toxic masculinity, right there, called saving lives. I guess so. The Teddy Nappen 43:25 the other thing is, and I want to take this step further. I see where we win in the argument of common use. I want this to be a common thing where people are using suppressors in self-defense shootings. I want people to start carrying and doing that. I think there’s a lot of advantages to Evan Nappen 43:44 having them in self-defense shootings because Teddy Nappen 43:46 if you go back to the old where it was like we’re using 45 for the stopping power or nine, this guy had a five-seven with the suppressor. We were putting out more rounds, and you’re protecting your hearing on that. So it’s definitely that new frame. It’s a very interesting Evan Nappen 44:01 choice, and I’m sure on the technical side, people will can always debate what’s the best. But the bottom line is, well, someone Teddy Nappen 44:09 was going to say like, but look, what’s really the best Evan Nappen 44:11 is that a good guy with a gun helped save the day, and that’s what really matters. Evan Nappen 44:17 And Teddy, I need to tell you about this week’s GOFU because I’ve been seeing a lot of it. GOFUs, as you know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. It’s where gun owners make expensive mistakes, costly mistakes, and you get to learn for free. I got to tell you, this week’s GOFU something I see. You know, when it comes to restoring rights, when it comes to getting an expungement, I have to say, do not do it yourself. Seek professionals that know how to do it. I’ve been getting more poorly, improperly done pro se, where the individual themselves tried to expunge their record. There’s too much to that law. Too many complications. Too many nuances. Too many things you have to know to do it right. And when you do it wrong, it’s 10 times more difficult to fix it, and it can end up costing you. If you expunge poorly, and then you apply to get your firearm because you think your rights are restored and they’re not, you end up with a denial. Now you end up with falsification of the application because you wrote no when you should have wrote yes. You wrote no because you thought you were expunged, but you didn’t do it properly. We see this all the time. There is an entire procedure. There are things you need to know. You need to go to a professional. Whether, you know, and I just don’t mean me. Like some attorney. We do them at my firm. We do plenty of expungements. We help people with that. It’s great. But you need to make sure whoever is doing your expungement really understands it, and especially does it Page – 12 – of 12 with gun ownership in mind. Because when it’s done poorly, it can absolutely come back and bite you in the behind. Evan Nappen 45:54 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 46:01 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E302_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Rob Black talks to Vanguard's Global Chief Economist and Global Head of the Investment Strategy Group Joe Davis, Rob asks the questions you're wondering about investing and retirement, The Next Event is Saturday August 15th with Rob Black and EP Wealth Advisors in San Francisco for Pints and Portfolios

Chargebacks were built to protect consumers from stolen cards and crooked merchants. Now they're increasingly used when a subscription surprises someone, a restaurant disappoints, or buyer's remorse sets in. Don and Tom sort real fraud from “friendly fraud”—and explain why the first call should usually go to the merchant, not the bank.They also look at confusing statement names, recurring subscriptions, the cost merchants absorb when a dispute lands, and why credit cards generally provide stronger consumer protection than debit cards.Then it's listener-question time: a free-dinner annuity pitch promising 12% to 15%, whether to bunch charitable gifts, dialing a retirement portfolio from 60/40 to 50/50, and using RMD withdrawals to rebalance at Vanguard.0:38 — From 1929 bucket shops to today's prediction markets3:21 — Chargebacks, card fees and “friendly fraud”7:06 — Mystery merchant names and subscription confusion8:25 — Bad service, buyer's remorse and the fraud line11:10 — When a chargeback is legitimate13:28 — Why merchants lose most disputes16:59 — Listener questions begin17:30 — The free-dinner annuity pitch22:49 — Should you bunch charitable gifts?24:06 — 60/40 or 50/50 before Social Security?26:06 — RMD withdrawals and Vanguard rebalancingQuestions? Comments? Click!

⁠⁠⁠⁠Record-high 401(k) balances may make retirement savers feel like they are finally getting ahead—but the numbers could be creating false confidence. Vanguard's latest retirement savings data shows median 401(k) balances rising sharply, while much of that growth appears tied to strong stock market returns rather than improved saving habits. We explain why investment growth alone may not be enough, how the declining personal savings rate affects retirement readiness, and why increasing your contribution rate—even by 1%—can meaningfully strengthen your financial plan. Learn how much you should save for retirement, evaluate your 401(k), and become an active participant in building long-term wealth. Jump start your journey with our FREE financial resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reach your goals faster with our products⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Take the relationship to the next level: become a client⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe on YouTube for early access and go beyond the podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Connect with us on social media for more content⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bring confidence to your wealth building with simplified strategies from The Money Guy. Learn how to apply financial tactics that go beyond common sense and help you reach your money goals faster. Make your assets do the heavy lifting so you can quit worrying and start living a more fulfilled life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul returns from three days at the Garrett Planning Network retreat with a lesson that has almost nothing to do with investments — and everything to do with getting your money's worth from professional advice.Garrett advisors work by the hour, a business model Paul believes eliminates the conflicts of interest built into assets-under-management relationships. For $1,000 to $8,000, he's convinced most families can get extraordinary value from five to ten hours with a thoughtful, trained hourly planner. But there's a catch: the value of those hours depends almost entirely on your willingness to tell the truth. Inspired by a Seth Godin observation — people lie in focus groups, on surveys, and to themselves — Paul explains why the most valuable planning meeting isn't the one where you look financially successful. It's the one where you're completely honest. Paul and his wife are putting this to the test with an hourly planner of their own, and he'll report back in the weeks ahead.Next, Paul shares a private conversation with his longtime friend Rick Ferri, who challenged an idea Paul has taught for decades: that small cap value, large cap value, and international are equity asset classes at all. Rick argues there's only one equity asset class — the total market — and everything else is a segment or style. Paul takes the challenge seriously, does some digging, and explains why the answer matters far more than a debate over definitions. How you think about asset classes shapes the portfolio you'll live with for the next 60 or 70 years.Finally, Paul digs into AVGE, the Avantis globally diversified all-equity ETF, and how it compares to Vanguard's total market approach (VT and VTI). He walks through the meaningful differences: 70/30 U.S./international at Avantis versus 60/40 at Vanguard, and substantially larger positions in mid cap value, small cap value, and small cap blend. He looks at what those tilts have meant historically — including Vanguard's own mid cap value fund turning $10,000 into roughly $160,000 versus $102,000 for the S&P 500 — and why he believes the extra 0.17% in expenses may be money well spent. For investors who don't want to go all-in, Paul offers simple combinations, like a third VT, a third AVGE, and a third AVUV.CHAPTERS00:00 – Introduction: three topics from the Garrett retreat01:56 – Why hourly advisors have fewer conflicts of interest05:52 – The catch: your willingness to tell the truth06:38 – Seth Godin: "People lie... and they lie to themselves"08:04 – What planners can't fix if they don't know about it13:00 – Paul's debate with Rick Ferri: what is an equity asset class?18:05 – Why the definition shapes your lifetime portfolio21:34 – AVGE vs. VT: U.S./international balance23:07 – Comparing value, blend, and growth exposure25:00 – Mid cap and small cap: what history shows30:15 – Expense ratios and what you're paying for31:35 – Simple combinations: VT + AVGE + AVUV33:15 – Stay the course: closing thoughtsLearn more about the Garrett Planning Network

In this UK personal finance Q&A, Pete Matthew and Roger Weeks answer listener questions on offshore investment bonds, GIA tax, pensions, retirement drawdown and building financial stability in your twenties. They explain how UK tax can apply to dividends, capital gains, offshore bond withdrawals, top slicing relief and pension crystallisation, with practical context for retirement planning and long-term investing. The episode also covers the normal minimum pension age rules, phased pension access, tax-free cash and how couples often divide responsibility for managing household finances. Shownotes: https://meaningfulmoney.tv/QA57  01:04  Question 1 Hi Pete & Roger, I'm hooked on your Podcasts; they are invaluable and strangely fun. Though I don't recall hearing about Offshore Investments Bonds being discussed, this is a worry to me because I have one with Prudential which my financial advisor arranged for me. (My original premium invested £254,640 on 11th March 2027.) I would appreciate to hear your general views on Offshore Investments Bonds, a general overview with positives and negatives. Also, I'm thinking of letting my Pension Advisor go, and going alone at the beginning of April 2026, because I don't like the idea of paying for Pension Advisor costs and I don't plan to make any withdrawals until 2037 when I'm 67. Prudential have said that it is possible to go alone if I agree to a disclaimer, because this Bond is sold as an advised only product. Though I'm confident in my ability to manage this Bond because I'm a member of Meaningful Academy and I'm already retired at 56 and living off my Pru Drawdown Pension, therefore I have plenty of time to learn. (At 67 my Pension Pot will have virtually run dry.) My plan at 67 at my State Pension age is to take my Bond's 5% tax deferred allowance monthly, plus make annual 'Segment Encashments' to refill my 'Cash Buffer' that covers my monthly income shortfalls, and if (& when) I need to stop taking monthly withdrawals from the Bond during smoothing shocks; suspensions or UPA's etc. Also, when it's time to encash segments, I'd like to use 'Top Slicing Relief' to prevent being taxed as if I've earned that whole amount in a single year. I would also appreciate your general views on this plan too, I do realise this is not advice. I'm hoping this question is not too specific and that others may find useful. All the best. Jon 11:24  Question 2 Hi Pete and Roger, Thanks for everything you do, it is truly life changing. I currently live abroad and am a few years off state pension age. When I get to state pension age I am thinking of returning to the UK. When/if I do return, I will have approximately £800k in a UK GIA. (I can't have an ISA as not currently a UK tax resident).  My £800k GIA will be invested in about 10 various ETF's. I plan to live off the proceeds of this GIA, alongside my state pension. Let's assume the state pension takes up my single person tax allowance, so that is effectively tax free. What I am not sure of is how my 'income' from the GIA is taxed. Let's say I take 5% pa (close to the 4% rule of thumb) which is £40k pa. Although this will be my 'income' I don't believe it would be treated as income for tax purposes. It could also be subject to CGT as it's an investment, but it isn't all profit/gains, so I can't see how it would be taxed as that either. Please can you explain to me how the GIA would be taxed so that I can plan for returning to the UK, and understand whether it is financially viable. Also am I missing anything obvious? Hope that isn't too long a question to be answered on the podcast. Many thanks, Neil Thompson, Long time listener 19:11  Question 3 Hello, I always love listening to the podcast while I'm working and find it a great way to pass time when I'm bored. When I listen I never really hear many young people such as myself contact the show an ask for advice so I thought I would. I've recently just turned 20, I live at home and don't pay any board as I work away 5 days a week. I take home around 2500-2700£ a month after taxes. At the moment I have 6000£ in a stocks and shares ISA (I put 500£ a month in) and 2000£ in LISA. My only debt is my car finance which costs me 250£. What is the best advice you can give me to help me become more financially stable in the future? Thanks a lot for reading and appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks, Sam. 24:47 Question 4 Dear Pete & Rog, Really enjoying your podcast, (and your BOD spin-off Pete). I have a question about accessing a DC pension/SIPP, specifically the age one can access benefits. I understand this is 55, if you reach the age of 55 before Apr '28, after which the age rises to 57. I turn 55 in late January 2028, and am planning to retire then. As the rules stand I would be able to access my workplace DC pension and my own SIPP at this time, since I turn 55 prior the 6 April 2028 (before minimum age increases to 57). I am (was) planning to gradually drawdown my DC pensions, taking small monthly amounts to bridge the gap between 55 and 65. At which point have 2 deferred, index linked, DB pensions, along with the state pension a couple of years after that. Recently I saw a finance video on You-Tube which said that this is not correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=756h-kRxEug The video led me to believe the following…. Having already turned 55, before April 28, I assumed I would be free to access any amount from my DC pension, at any point after Jan 28, upto and including late Jan 30 (when I turn 57). Since I turn 55 late Jan '28 I will be able to access my DC pension from my 55th birthday, and until 6 April '28 for about 10wks! I will also be able to access my DC pension after I turn 57, late Jan '30. But in the period between April '28 and Jan '30 I would not be allowed to drawdown my DC pension nor my own SIPP, irrespective of whether I had started to access it already, or not. This seems ridiculous, is it true? Thanks so much for your thoughts, and keep up the good work! Phil GovUK: Pensions Newsletter 178 (February 2026) 33:40 Question 5 Dear Pete and Roger, and Nick... As a prolific personal finance podcast listener, I was surprised to only discover your podcast in December 2025. Since then I've been binge-listening to your listener Q&A series and have just finished the very last one, so I'm now fully up to speed and I absolutely love the series — keep up the awesome work. I do have a few questions, but as you don't like super long questions, I'll spread my three very different questions across different weeks. My first one is this: as I listened through the episodes, I was surprised by the number of questions coming from men, because I had always assumed that women tend to manage the money in most relationships. I know you said 85% of your YouTube audience is men. I'm wondering, just out of interest from your lived experience at Jacksons: in this self-selecting group of people who are interested in money management, what roles do men typically play in managing finances, and what roles do women tend to play? In my own household, I manage 100% of the finances — everything from utilities, contracts and payments to the investment portfolio. Basically anything to do with money my husband hates, so I end up doing it. Fortunately I love it, so it works pretty well for us. And just to sign off, as an indication of what a presence you've established in our household: a week ago I scratched my cornea and the doctor told me I needed to rest my eyes. My husband caught me scrolling on my phone and said, "Heather, the doctor said you need to rest your eyes. Put on your two stepdads and stop looking at your phone!" I didn't need to ask who my two stepdads were. I duly put on an episode of Meaningful Money and rested my eyes. As an African woman, the wisdom of additional parents is always welcome. From that moment on, you have been known as "the two stepdads" in our house. Heather KW 40:43  Question 6 Hi Pete and Roger, Firstly, I love the show - it has been transformative for me and my family! I'm looking ahead to retiring in a few years and have a drawdown question for you.  I anticipate that I will have a £600,000 pension pot and want to check whether my understanding of the withdrawal strategy is correct. Here's what I'm hoping to do: Take £30,000 of taxable income in each of the first two years before the state pension kicks in. In year 1, I also want to spend £100,000 to buy a lifetime annuity. Critically, I want to preserve all of my tax free cash at this point - so the £30k income would be taxable (and I assume that the annuity purchase is not-taxable as the income from it is). Then, at the start of Year 2, I want to take the 25% tax-free cash (say £150,000) in one go and use it to move house. After that, I would draw £20,000 a year of taxable income from the remaining pot forever (not relevant to the question, but I thought it would make the question make more sense). My understanding is that this can be done by partially crystallising only the amounts needed in Year 1 and leaving the rest of the pot uncrystallised so that the full 25% tax‑free cash is available for use in year 2.  I also understand that this is not UFPLS - just regular crystallisation. A bonus question if you have time - I assume that the income drawn in year 1 will generate 25% tax free cash - can I just leave this in my drawdown account to be used in year 2 (to contribute towards the full tax free amount) or I have to take it out? Could you confirm whether my understanding here is correct, and whether most pension providers (for example Standard Life or Vanguard) allow this kind of phased crystallisation and delayed tax‑free cash?  Sorry, I find crystallisation very confusing! Thanks very much - absolute legends the both of you (and the teams behind you)! James (your number 1 fanboy).

Charles Gasparino, author of Go Woke, Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America, explores the radicalization of corporate America by tracing the rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. He argues that these movements, once fringe academic theories, were embraced by corporate elites at global forums like Davos and the UN. This shift was accelerated by the 2008 financial crisis, which led CEOs to adopt "stakeholder capitalism" as a defensive "cover your backside" strategy against progressive populism and threats of government nationalization. The book details how major asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard leveraged trillions in investment money to force progressive social changes on the companies in their portfolios. Gasparino uses The Walt Disney Company as a primary example of "woke" activism backfiring, noting how political entanglements in Florida and ideological shifts in programming led to significant financial and cultural fallout. He also highlights the story of Sage Steele, who was allegedly forced out of ESPN for holding heterodox, non-woke views. Ultimately, Gasparino documents an ongoing backlash against these policies, as evidenced by massive withdrawals from ESG-focused funds and a retreat from diversity programs by firms like Goldman Sachs. He concludes that "wokeness" is often a distraction from core business responsibilities, such as managing balance sheets, and warns that it divides the country while harming the bottom line. (1)

Everyone is chasing the shiny online business while a guy with a pickup truck quietly clears six figures organizing other people's junk. Here are five unglamorous businesses you can start on nights and weekends, with the real numbers behind each one.

Titans On Tomorrow Ep. 1 with guest Anson Frericks Presented by Ethos: https://ethos.com/titans In a new show on business and finance at this transformative time for the global economy, Ben Shapiro talks directly with the founders, CEOs, and investors building the next decade.   Anson Frericks spent 11 years climbing to the top of Anheuser-Busch, becoming President of Sales and Distribution.  He watched in horror as the company he loved traded its relationship with customers for an elitist stakeholder capitalism scorecard.  Anson saw the Bud Light collapse coming before it cost the company $30 billion in market value, writing the definitive account of it in his bestseller Last Call for Bud Light. Ben and Anson break down: • What really happened inside Anheuser-Busch before the Dylan Mulvaney fiasco • Why BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard have outsized power over corporate America, and how Strive is fighting back • Whether corporate neutrality is enough, or if conservatives need to push harder • Why he left the culture wars behind to build an AI company tackling serious mental illness • What's next as AI, biotech, and capital markets reshape the American economy - - - Today's Sponsors: Ethos - Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/titans. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. VCX - VCX, by Fundrise, gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit https://getVCX.com for more info. Cardiff - If you've been in business for at least a year, and are pulling in $20,000 a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same day business funding at https://Cardiff.co/ben. Real growth. Fast funding. Cardiff—Borrow better. ZipRecruiter - 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for FREE today at https://ZipRecruiter.com/DAILYWIRE - - - DailyWire+ Become a Daily Wire Member and watch all of our content ad-free: https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe

Odds are good that part of your paycheck disappears into an account with the Fidelity name on it every two weeks. Almost nobody stops to ask who's actually on the other end of that relationship. The answer isn't a faceless Wall Street institution, it's one family that has quietly controlled a $15 trillion company for three generations, through boardroom near-mutinies, a succession fight that almost ended in the company being sold, and enough family drama to fill a book. It did, actually. Wall Street Journal reporter Justin Baer spent years uncovering it, and today he brings the whole story down to the basement.What You'll Walk Away WithWhy one of the biggest financial companies in America has never had a single outside shareholder, and what that's actually protected them fromThe surprisingly personal origin story behind Fidelity's founder, and the market-crash lesson that shaped the entire company's philosophyWhy Fidelity almost missed the money market fund revolution, and the workaround that changed how everyday people access their cashThe near-sale that almost happened in 2005, and how close the company came to becoming something completely differentWhy checking your 401k balance more often might actually be good for your financial decision-making, according to Fidelity's own researchHow a family succession battle nearly pushed the current CEO out of the business entirelyA useful mental gut-check for figuring out how much of your "checking account cushion" should actually count as part of your emergency fundWhy This Matters NowIf you're in your 40s, there's a good chance you've had a relationship with Fidelity, Vanguard, or a similar company for two decades without ever really knowing how they work or who's behind them. That's not a knock on you, it's just how most financial relationships start: automatically, through a job, without much choice involved. Understanding the incentives and history behind the company holding your retirement money doesn't change your investing strategy overnight, but it does replace a vague, faceless trust with something more informed, and informed trust is a lot more durable than blind trust.From the BasementA conversation about $189 average dates turns into a surprisingly sharp point about not overspending to impress someone before you even know if it's a match, in relationships or business. And a basement community note about "hidden" emergency funds sitting in checking accounts sparks a genuinely useful reframe worth stealing for your own budget.Resources MentionedHouse of Fidelity: The Rise of the Johnson Dynasty and the Company That Changed American Investing — Justin Baer's book on the Johnson family and Fidelity's historyField Kit Finance — the all-in-one net worth, budgeting, and credit tracking tool mentioned in the sponsor breakSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Healthcare costs have been climbing around 7% a year. Andrew sits down with Doc G (Dr. Jordan Grumet), hospice physician and author of The Healthcare Heist, to break down exactly how a routine ER visit turns into a five-figure bill and where every one of those dollars actually goes.