Guaranteed Income in Plans: Five for Life Breakdown

[0:00] JD: I got it. You know, peaks and valleys. [0:03] Chad: I guess it is time for a bad one, right? You did good. Bad. Okay, you guys, do you guys know [0:10] JD: I still feel terrible for Brett? [0:12] Chad: You guys know who's on next week? [0:14] Justin: No, I was asked to find out. Until this week, I didn't know an answer. [0:19] Chad: I don't know. It's going to be rough, though. [0:22] Justin: Who's it going to be? Don't say Shamanda. [0:26] JD: Oh, no. [0:52] Chad: Drop it. [1:03] Mark: Always sad when that song ends, Brandon. [1:05] JD: Are you gonna be able to post that online, by the way, on YouTube? [1:11] Justin: JD is gonna see how long he can be quiet for. [1:13] Chad: We'll see. [1:14] Speaker E: Sometimes that's not even Let JD Talk [1:17] Mark: Today, that's when I run the show. [1:19] Justin: When I posted that, Justin, it had a big pop up and like red alerts that said you can't put this song on there. And then I hit submit muted. [1:28] JD: You should have rolled the dice, man, just to see how serious they were. [1:32] Chad: All right, all right, all right. Welcome to another episode of Retireholics. Thanks for tuning in, everyone. I know I understand why I do start with some kind of intro. What do you think is just going to start bantering amongst each other? When everyone tunes your show, you're supposed [1:46] Justin: to be the one to intro. [1:48] JD: Yeah. [1:48] Justin: You're excited for too long. [1:49] JD: So we thought we had to jump in to save you. [1:51] Chad: I was going to do a bit. I was going to put on a suit and tie and act nerdy and throw the glasses on, but then I was over it. And so, yeah, I just thought, you know what? I'm just gonna be quiet and see what happens. See what they do, see what they say. But clearly, miserably, nothing there. Welcome everyone, to another episode Retireholics. My name is, I don't know, Alice Watts is my name and I'm here with Mark Palmer, Justin McNeil, Chadwick Johansen, and a guest to be named shortly. Like right now. Let's fucking name him Justin. Who do we got? [2:24] JD: You're jumping in a little quicker than I thought you were going to be, buddy. [2:26] Justin: He hasn't written an intro yet. [2:28] JD: Although this is the. I'm actually typing it right now. [2:33] Justin: I said something similar last week and [2:34] JD: it kind of applies here. But, you know, we've been extremely fortunate to, you know, really, for every guest we've ever had on the show, we love them all. [2:43] Justin: They. [2:43] JD: And you find people in the chat bar are responsible for really all of our excesses or our successes, you know, because let's face it, when we don't have guests, viewership drops like the eighth season of Game of Thrones. Hashtag, spoiler alert. [2:58] Justin: Jd Sorry. Not sorry. [3:00] JD: Don't watch it. Not worth your time. But every now and again we get a guy like this that comes along, just kind of, kind of pulls on our heartstrings just a wee bit, a little bit more. Perhaps it's because he made us a brand ambassador of Fi360, which I don't think we really held a bar into the bargain there. [3:15] Speaker E: Question mark. [3:15] JD: I did. Did you really? That was every show anyways. Or perhaps he's got a great heart, but nonetheless, you know, we love him. Love him a ton. And he's the original founding member of the J.D. carlson Surf Club. [3:30] Chad: Yes. [3:31] JD: Yeah, yeah. [3:32] Justin: Remember that? [3:33] JD: Former president of Fi360. I'm seeing a trend here week to week. Head of sales, Morningstar back in the day. And now he is the president of Income America. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Wolnowitz. [3:49] Chad: All right, everyone out there, you know what to do. Rate Justin's intro 0 to 10. 7 1. Thanks, Jeremy. [3:56] Justin: That's fair. [3:57] Chad: Harsh. [3:57] JD: I got a little shaky. [3:58] Chad: Greg. Negative 5.6.9 4. Hackler with the golf clap. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know. I don't. Yeah. [4:06] Mark: Welcome to the show. [4:07] Chad: Wannie, I do have to say I believe you are tying Jeannie Fisher for the all time appearances on Retireholics. I'm pretty sure you each have four, so we'll see who rises to the top. But thanks for joining us, man. We're gonna have fun. I'm actually gonna kind of get right to it because there's a lot to cover and we're gonna have some fun. We're doing some fun stuff. But I, maybe I say this all the time, but I mean, at this time I'm interested in this subject today. I think that we could be possibly talking about something that might change our industry. And there's a couple of little nuances we're going to get into that I'm really excited to talk about things that are really different from how we've ran 401ks before. So I do want to maximize our time today and get into all that stuff. But before I do, I want to express an opinion and then ask you guys a question. My opinion, I've said it before. Josh Itzo's Fiduciary, you podcast. I'm sorry. Rick Unser is now my favorite industry podcast, bar none. [5:20] Mark: Hey, you yourself, I listened to Josh. It says podcast sponsor me to prep for this show. [5:30] Chad: And because Matt was on it just the other day. I think they released it on Wednesday. And I just gonna say they talked [5:35] Mark: about you at the end of the show. [5:36] Chad: No, it's. It's because Josh really does have a skill set for asking smart questions, getting deep into the subject matter, voicing his own opinion. And Matt, you did a great job inserting yourself when you had to, because Josh likes to talk almost as much as I do and. But I just love that podcast. If you haven't checked it out, make sure that you do because I'm just a huge fan of it. Okay. Secondly, I had a couple meetings today and no, I'm not going to talk about the record keeper meeting that we all sat in on for an hour, but I do appreciate the group text that kept me laughing through that meeting we had today. So thanks for that, guys. No, I actually sat in on a fiduciary review meeting with an advisor partner of ours and I and I sit on, on these from time to time and. Yes, go ahead. [6:30] Mark: Have we started? [6:31] Justin: We need acros in, right? [6:33] Chad: Oh, no, no, not yet. [6:35] Justin: That's because JD knew he was going to rant for 12 minutes so he didn't want to start. [6:39] Mark: That's totally fair. All right, go on. [6:42] Chad: This is harsh. The advisor went through this meeting basically using their record keepers, what do we call it? They give you like their little booklet for these reviews or the deck. [6:54] Justin: Our annual contract review. [6:56] Chad: Annual contract review or acr Mark. Acr. [7:00] Mark: And I'm ringing the bell on that one. [7:03] Chad: And he basically went through the entire thing, which I know that's what it's intended for, but we got to the end of it, it all wrapped and then he called me and asked for my input, kind of my assessment of the meeting. And I felt like sitting there that he wasn't putting forth his value. It was all about the record keeper. All about the record keeper saying even the record keeper was on the call and client had questions about the acr. He had asked the record keeper to answer those questions. So my question to you guys is, and I'll go to you first, Chad, Is it a mistake for advisors to lean too heavily on this record keeping ACR stuff in these meetings? What do you feel? [7:45] Justin: I mean, it depends on the plan and the service model of that advisor. We tell most of the advisor partners we're working with who are focused in the micro space that don't have access to full fund analytics and are not pulling in their own tools to create some of these data points that they need to leverage that. What else are they going to do walk in and just show performance on the funds and stop there. So no, I don't think it's a bad thing to lean too hard. But if you're a 401 folks advisor, you should be pulling all that data in in house and have your own fiduciary view, not using the providers. [8:18] Chad: Mark, how do you feel about the situation? [8:23] Mark: Well, I'm in agreement with Chad entirely exactly how he positioned it. [8:27] Justin: I'm not trying to say I would [8:28] Mark: echo exactly what he said because I don't want to be stealing from him, but I agree wholeheartedly. [8:36] Chad: So I disagree with the two of you and we'd love to get kind of Matt's insights here. My problem with this is that I feel like, and I've seen a lot of these review meetings that follow this same kind of template is the client does not walk away from these meetings feeling like they have an advisor that's in charge or an advisor that's leading anything. They walk away from these meetings feeling like they have an advisor who goes through a cheesy little booklet to give them their quarterly or their annually review. And so I'd like to see that advisor pull in outside stuff, pull in legislation changes, pull in outside fee benchmarking stuff, pull in best practices on a fucking article you read, but do something besides just going through the goddamn ACR from start to finish. [9:22] Justin: What size plan was this? 6,7 million advisor have more than 10 clients. [9:29] Chad: It doesn't matter, Chad. I don't care if they have six. [9:32] Justin: That does matter because if you've got three clients and your business is focused on private wealth or group health or something else, they don't have that skill set to pull in these outside data points to put it together. That's not the industry they're in. [9:46] Chad: Chad. Chad, I don't care if you only have three plans and you don't have the skill set. You contracted with a plan sponsor to do a job. Your job is to get in there and do it. And can you at least in part of doing your job is prep, have bring some intelligence to the table, understand things. You're acting like these people have no brains in their head. And the only because they don't focus on 401k. You know, you know about these ACRs that we're talking about here? [10:18] Speaker E: I do. [10:19] Chad: What's your. You get our little argument. Where do you slant on this? [10:23] Speaker E: I think that if you're, if you're just presenting performance and risk, you're missing the boat because people can get most of that online. So I think that it's a great opportunity for the advisor to prove that there's a value add. But the issue is that if they're going to bring in outside data, one, they got to get a subscription or two, they've got to have a provider that can provide that support to them because to take third party data along with the deck that they built already in merge, that takes time and have [10:55] Justin: they not tried to do that already? JD and where's the pressure go? It usually goes to the TPA community to input that information so that there's more stuff for that advisor to work off, not just investment analytics. [11:09] Chad: Let's wrap it with this. And the reason why I brought it to the front of the show is because me sitting through, I sat through two rough meetings today and that was one of them and I really felt like it was a message I wanted to share with everyone out there. And you guys are kind of getting into the details. I'm not suggesting you couldn't use the acr. Go ahead and use it. I'm not saying you have to pull in all this outside data. I'm just saying make it your core but supplement it with some other stuff. Don't let your client finish that meeting thinking that all you do is go through this thing that was provided to you as your review. Because I think that's a huge mistake. Yes, Mark, we are going to play acro sin. We will kick it off right in the beginning. Matt, if you say any acronym, you must drink from your penalty drink starting now. Ok, we will have a chat bar champion. Yes we will. Matt, pay attention to that chat bar because you will be. And yeah, you can vote for your girl that's in there. That's fine, that's fair game. And what else is, oh, make sure you're in gallery view. But you all know how to do that. You all know how to do that. Before we start, Matt, you have to share the story about where your dad asked you to go in and meet with the, have you tag along for him to meet with his advisors. Can you do that for the audience here? Because I love this story. [12:32] Speaker E: Yeah, of course. You know, my father was getting ready for retirement really in 2007. And you know, he was lucky in a sense that he did have a DB plan that had followed. [12:49] Chad: Oh, one benefit, the find benefit. But keep going on your story, we'll count them up for you. [12:55] Speaker E: Oh, this is going to get ugly fast. So he was covered by some pension, but we went in and he'd had a wirehouse advisor that he'd worked with for a really long time. And so when we went into the meeting and we sat down with him, the first question that I asked him, I said, jim, tell me your philosophy on asset allocation. And he looked at me and he knew that I was working at Morningstar. Some sweat started coming down his forehead and he said, I'll be right back. I said, great. And as soon as he left, my dad tore in and you can't do that. What are you doing? That's so unprofessional. And I said, let's just see what he says. He came back about 20 minutes later and went like this. And he sat down on the table, about 100 page document that his firm had created to explain asset allocation. And I said, no, no, Jim, what's your philosophy on asset allocation? [13:52] JD: Retirement? [13:53] Speaker E: And he couldn't do it. And as we were leaving, my dad was still upset with me, but I said, hey, Pop, this is not the person that's going to see you through retirement. Because his biggest concern was that him and my mother didn't run out of money in retirement. [14:09] Chad: I kind of want to get this is how we'll kick this off. I just thought that was such a cool story with you going in there protecting your dad, the advisor, sweating bricks when you ask him those questions. I wanted to share that with the audience. I got an email from a defined contribution investment only wholesaler today that will remain unnamed. But he said the following to me. When you stop to think about retirement, what did I do? [14:36] Mark: I've been told by the chat bar that you said annual contract review and hit the button. [14:43] Chad: All right, I will get to that. Thanks, Greg. When you stop to think about retirement, it's a game of how many sources of guaranteed income you can find. It's why people loved Social Security pensions. And you wrote me a lot more here. But I thought this is a great way to kick it off, this goal of getting guaranteed income. Something you can count on each and every year. Are there studies that show us that this is what participants really care? Do they like this stuff? Because I'm assuming, Matt, you didn't get into what you're getting into without there being a need for this. So help set the stage for us. Do people want this? And what tells you that they do? [15:29] Speaker E: Yeah, there's. There's all kind of studies. I mean, Callan has a good one out. That's from a participant's point of view. And there's no doubt that they are worried as they get older about income once they move into retirement. That is a, that is a big concern. I mean about 2/3 participants are looking for some kind of income solution. And we all know that if it doesn't come from a plan, it's going to come from a rollover and it's going to come from a retail annuity. Not saying that retail annuities are bad, but we all know that there's plenty of people that aren't even licensed that are out selling annuity products. And so at the end of the day, that's not always the best outcome for a participant or an individual investor. But absolutely, there's plenty of data out there that says that participants are looking for guaranteed income. There's also, I mean, you guys know better than I do, but anecdotally I've heard a lot that more and more sponsors are thinking about how they can support the retirees in retirement and not necessarily have them roll out of the plan. [16:44] Chad: I feel like we're jumping ahead with that a little bit, but since we're there and we have a lot of smart people tuning in so we don't have to piece it all together for them. But is that really true you think plan sponsors or we have something that tells us that plan sponsors want to hang on to retired employees and keep them in their plan. I know Matt's answer because of the company that he's slinging right now. But Chad, [17:11] Justin: I can't fathom a reason as to why they hold on to that participant in the plan after the participant has left. The company no longer delivers any value to the business and is nothing but a liability at that point. [17:24] Mark: Yes, Mark, my thought again this is just a naive opinion is if they're nearing retirement, that likely means they have the bigger balances. That means the plan assets are bigger with them a part of the plan. [17:41] Chad: So this is a pricing thing. [17:42] Mark: I'm not talking about mega plans. [17:44] Justin: Right. [17:44] Mark: I'm talking about your small to mid sized plans that if you get 25, 50% decrease in assets rolling out because maybe half your workforce retires and you're replacing it with people who don't roll over money and are younger workforce and starting the retirement savings, could it affect plan cost? [18:03] Chad: Could be a pricing thing. Matt, I appreciate you checking in on that chat bar, but what's the corporate answer here with Chad? And I say really, you think plan sponsors want to keep their people around? What does Income America say? [18:16] Speaker E: I don't know that I've seen. I was just looking to see. I don't know, if I've seen any studies that quantify it, that's why I mentioned that anecdotally. I just know that as I've talked to, you know, as I've talked to more of the retirement focused advisors, that there certainly are companies that do worry about their participants that are moving into retirement. You know, and maybe it depends upon the type of industry that they're in. But they know that if that if that individual isn't going to receive any professional advice or if they really don't have somebody to turn to, I think the companies that really care and really believe in the wellness, you know, I think that that is something that they do believe in. [18:58] Chad: Greg said it perfectly paternalistic or maternalistic. So, yeah, I get that. Think about it. Some of the people that have worked for us, you guys worked for us for decades and we've had some recently that go into retirement. I could see an employer saying, I want to take care of them. I want to make sure that they're [19:15] Justin: doing okay, providing to them. How are you taking care of them by trying to keep them into your plan? Well, this is good, but they may have access to a financial professional through the plan or lower cost investments. Maybe, probably. I think about your team, jd. Why would you want to keep one of your prior employees that have left in the plan? [19:39] Chad: I think you're now nailing the subject matter of today. 401k could evolve to not just accumulation, but also to decumulation. And so that would be the answer. And that to me is where this gets exciting because I like to see our industry not stay stagnant and kind of evolve and move forward. So that gets fun to me right now where we can have some conversations down the line here with what does that look like? And could it be a future where plan sponsors care about their employees enough to keep them on board? So, Matt, let's move on to what really caught my attention when this stuff hit the Internet. The collaboration of all these different industry players really kind of knocked me off my chair. I was like, wait a second, what is this? All these companies are coming together to create this thing. Maybe run the audience through who these companies are. I think you can quickly let us know, do you have to dive into what each of them are doing yet? But just let us know who's part of this team and then tell me why. Why are you all working together as opposed you guys? Many of you are competitors. [20:50] Speaker E: Yeah, well, they really all are competitors in one sense. But let me just start with the why. The why is because open architecture wins the day at the end of the day, period. And so any solutions that are out there are sole provided by an insurance company. It has their investments and the record kept by them. So there is no other alternative out there. And so the why is everybody believes that open architecture is really the future of investments. And I think that no matter whether it's on the retirement side or the individual side, that that's a statement that it would be hard to argue with. [21:31] Chad: When you say open architecture, are you also saying that dead and gone is revenue from proprietary types of investments or structures? Is that what you mean by. [21:42] Speaker E: Good question. We know that that isn't gone and we know that that still exists today. And it's interesting because the asset management world has gone from splitting off different pieces of advisory and wealth, and now some of them are coming back together. But certainly in general, there still are a lot of proprietary products. It doesn't make them bad, it doesn't make them necessarily more expensive. But the end consumer is used to portfolios that contain different strategies and different providers. [22:16] Chad: Okay, so I agree with you. Open architecture is here to stay. You know, just being that you could choose any investment to put on your platform, institutional share, class of funds, et cetera, et cetera. Clearly our industry's heading in that direction and has been for quite some time. But still, why the teamwork? Like why. Why wouldn't just American Century come out and create something, or Nationwide come out and create something, or Lincoln come out and create something? Like why work and divvy up these process? Is it a distribution thing? Is that what it is? Like, is it better to have a team of people selling this and selling the same story? When Scott's on the airplane thinking about this, when they're consulting with you on how to build it, why the teamwork? There had to be a big reason. [23:02] Speaker E: Yeah, I mean, there's really two. Right. Because both Lincoln and Nationwide have their own retirement income strategy. So. So that exists. However, I think that nobody in the industry has really solved the in plan retirement income answer. There's been solutions that have been in the market and they've got money in them, but nobody can really say that they've been a runaway success. And so I think the partners look at this opportunity much like they did the target date space, where when target dates were new, not everybody really knew or understand them. They didn't think that they'd be successful. And at the end of the day, those firms that were first to market, they grabbed the lion's share of the market. And so this retirement market is so big, however you want to measure $17 trillion, that being able to bring traditional competitors together to build a solution that's really differentiated, there's a much better opportunity for success than if you're just telling your own story and all you have is a proprietary offering. [24:02] Justin: JD I also see two things there. One is the ability to have different marketing efforts from a variety of different companies. Now you've got eight marketing this thing, but also you just spread the costs out by eight. I mean, I don't, I don't know what the upfront is, but if they're looking at roi, thinking this could be the next target date, and they're saying, hey, if we can all minimize the upfront just to see if this is going to hit, it hits. They've minimized the headwind and now they make a ton of money. [24:33] Chad: I'm such a capitalist. You said it was split eight ways, and I thought you're making a negative point. I'm like, yeah, man, everyone's going to make less. That sucks. I got you. You're saying you're spreading the risk, the risk to start to go around. Fair enough. [24:46] JD: Matt, you talked about Tina, had asked a question. He said, what's the plan to get this product on other insurance company platforms like Peru, Hancock, Lincoln, et cetera? [24:53] Speaker E: Thought it was good. [24:54] Chad: I will jump in. [24:55] Speaker E: Yep, really good question. I mean, you know, right now we've made the public launch, right? But it's not available on the Record keeper. So on April 1, it'll be available on Lincoln's platform. And then on May 1, it'll be available on Nationwide's platform. So we've been out talking to literally every other record keeper that's in the space about the solution. And those efforts really just began two weeks ago. [25:23] Chad: But that is the goal to Tina's question is you do want to get out there and talk to the Voyas, the empowers, the principal. On and on and on. You're hoping. And that is another is this. We talked about the three, or at least three in my mind, that failed. I'll go to you, Chad, for a little bit because I think you're pretty intimately involved with Hancock's attempt at guaranteed income for life. And I would say it crashed and burned. Right. It never really came to fruition the way they hoped. Why? [25:52] Justin: And that's kind of the question I wrote down earlier is Matt was alluding to the fact that the participants want this. And I'm questioning whether or not that's actually True. And then I'm going to take it a step further and say, do the participants need this? And I think that that's why they failed JD is because this was an attractive thought to business owners. It was attractive to those of us that are thinking about using this as a selling tool. But when it came down to the employees picking and choosing their investments, they looked at something that was higher cost, that they couldn't understand because it was confusing, and they're not looking that far into the future. [26:31] Chad: Anyways, I set my trap on the now. I set my trap and you fell into it. Good. That's what I think. I think it was too complicated. And so now I'm really being easy on Matt here. Another thing I really liked about income America 5 for life when I saw it and dug into it was the simplicity. You've got to tell me that was part of the strategy, Right? You guys realize it in the past? [26:59] Speaker E: Yeah. [26:59] Chad: Okay. All right, expand on that. [27:02] Speaker E: The number one priority in designing the strategy was that it was simple. And it had to be simple for investors or participants. It had to be simple for the retirement advisor community. And really it had to be simple for the plan sponsors. Because to Chad's point, the strategies that are out there, they've got cool features, step ups and all kinds of different things, but nobody understands them. And so for us to create a strategy that at age 65, you were going to receive 5% for life, it's real simple to understand. The other thing is, if there's a massive bull market and you want to take your money out, you can do so with no surrender fee. You've quote unquote lost what you've paid in for the guarantee, but you're not locked up into the strategy. So simplicity was number one. [27:53] Chad: And I think that was. [27:55] Mark: Anything seem simple? [27:58] Chad: No, it is. [27:59] Mark: Hold on. It's about execution, right? And I get it. You can go to a website for anything and they can tell you three steps and you'll be rich. Right? No, it's not that simple. So in my mind, I'm just saying it's one thing to say it is, but it's another thing to put that into action and show that it is. And then you gotta be able to stand behind that and prove it. [28:25] Justin: Right. [28:27] Chad: Two things I want to touch on. Nevin talked about in the chat bar, that things have been simple before. And I think that Nevin brings up a question that we all should be very cognizant of for this whole show, which is I think there's a Lot of people out there asking themselves, is this really any different, you know, than what we've seen before? And so I. Let's, let's pay attention to that as we continue to have this conversation and see if we can unpack that more. But the simplicity, I will tell you, is I think if I'm in Matt's spot or I'm in the spot of income America and I'm trying to create this product, looking at things like step ups and different time periods and locking in certain gains, all seem really attractive. But I think you actually did it right by not doing those types of things and just keeping it super darn simple so the participants can understand it. Because I think that's why some of these have failed in the past. But yes, Chad, I was just going [29:19] Justin: to say, for those that may not know, let's try to describe what it is and I'll do it. And if I fail at it, then so be it. But what I've seen online, Matt, what I've heard is I'm going to be putting money into five for Life. Whether I'm contributing for a long period of time or rolling over a balance. And when I hit 65, my threshold is going to be set. If my threshold is more than what I put in because my market returns are higher than I lock in there, my threshold is lower than what I put in because market returns are down, then I lock in at what I put in. I never lose money on what I put in. And now I'm paid out 5% per year based upon what that dollar amount was on the day I turned or the year. I don't know how it is, but when I turned 65 and I'm paid out that amount for the remainder of my life, assuming my life is more than 20 years, one would say I made out because if 5% per year for 20 years, it's 100%. If I die early, I couldn't. I don't really know what happens to the remaining money if that just gets eaten up by five for life or if it goes to beneficiary. [30:28] Speaker E: Beneficiary. [30:29] Justin: And so is it that simple? Did I describe it to where that makes sense? [30:34] Speaker E: That's right. [30:36] Justin: So then, yeah, I would say that's pretty, pretty darn easy to understand. My question for you that I couldn't find when I looked through and JD you can stop me if I'm going off on the pattern. You want to go on a path that you want to go on. [30:47] Chad: Go. [30:48] Justin: I couldn't see anything on the actual investments. You give me upside potential with downside protection. So why wouldn't I try to hit it out of the park? Would be my first question. And then second question, kind of on the back end. Are you all taking that money? If I see how I invest it until I hit 65. Once I hit 65, the investment changes. Right. I'm no longer picking what I want. You guys are then buying insurance to cover the payout or what's the structure look like? [31:20] Speaker E: No. So it's a CIT structure. [31:23] Mark: First of all, finally, someone did drink. [31:26] Justin: That was a long time. [31:27] Mark: You did it purposely. Walny. [31:29] Chad: Come on. [31:30] Speaker E: Yeah, I know. [31:32] Chad: Only, where's your penalty drink, bro? Sip it up. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. [31:38] Mark: That's a rookie. [31:39] JD: No, the makers. The makers. [31:41] Chad: Something to drink? Yes, Something real good. Yeah, sorry, I lost track there. Your question is, how are the investments made up? He's digging for his drink. I will tell you this. I've had several conversations leading up to this. And I do know that I originally looked at American Century as the creating the glide path, like the brain behind the glide path. There you go. But they're playing a pretty big role here and they're pretty fired up about it. Their sales team is going to push this stuff, and so someone is going to choose some underlying investments. And I do believe that some of these partners are going to potentially be some of those underlying investments as well. Right. So they might make help us understand the structure and how people are going to make money. And like Chad said, who chooses these investments? Where do they come from? [32:33] Speaker E: Yep. So let's talk about that. I mean, first of all, there's full transparency. You know, the website just went up literally the day of the launch. So there's a lot that's coming there with a calculator for participants so that they can understand what the guarantee looks like, along with a thought leadership corner and a whole bunch of. Whole bunch of other information. So that's all on its way. So let's talk about the investments. It is based on American Century's glide path. So American Century is the glide path manager. So the allocation between equity and fixed will continue to change over time. Now, for the underlying investments, that's where Wilshire fits in. They're the 321 on the strategy, so they have full discretion over the investment managers. They're going to look at them every single quarter. They can replace them whenever they don't meet the standards that they've set. So they have full discretion. [33:26] Mark: 338 or 321. [33:27] Chad: 321 is Wilshire podcast. [33:31] Mark: Just saying. [33:32] Chad: There's a 338, but it's not Wilshire. [33:34] Mark: Right. [33:34] Speaker E: It's Wilmington, right? That's right. Wilmington is the 338. But Wilshire has full discretion over the investment managers and over the insurance providers because the insurance is going to be shopped on an annual basis, and either other insurance providers can be added or they can be replaced. So as interest rates rise, there'll be some decisions to be made, like does the guarantee increase or do the fees come down? And again, by taking that out to market, you get the full benefit of really having an open architecture platform. So to answer Chad's question, there are investment managers. Fidelity, pgm, Vanguard. [34:18] Chad: Oh, I don't. I don't know what. I don't know what that stands for, but it's something that's old, Prue, right? [34:28] Mark: Yes. [34:29] Justin: You are buying insurance on the back end, though, right. As it transitions. [34:35] Speaker E: It's a GLWB structure. And so [34:40] JD: that one was coming. [34:42] Chad: Guaranteed life withdrawal benefit. [34:46] Speaker E: Oh, I'm just so terrible at this game. God, it's awful. [34:51] Chad: Does American Century get dibs on some of those core funds that Wilmington's going to pick? None at all? [35:00] Speaker E: No. They're involved in some of the investments, but they're using their G shares, which are zero revenue. So anytime you do evaluation with the 0 rev share, it's going to come out to be, you know, pretty good. [35:17] Chad: And I want to be clear. I wasn't sliding American Century. I actually have a shit ton of respect for that company on lots of levels. I was just trying to figure out how it's made. What's up, Mark? [35:30] Mark: I think our chat bar is amazing. I love everybody who's come, but go look up the definition of acronym before you question things. [35:40] Speaker E: Things. [35:40] Mark: It's very simple. It's letters that mean something. [35:44] Chad: It's not. Jesus. All right, let's. Let's. Let's loosen up a bit. And yes, I know we're extra serious this week, and that's because next week is Shamanda, and it's going to be a shit show. So I wanted to make sure we did get a lot of informational content in today, but let's have some fun. We have a new wheel of ice. We're going to spin the new wheel, but I think I should describe it a little more because we haven't. It's changed. We haven't really specifically explained it to everyone, but the same wheel is going to spin whoever it lands on then. Now you're going to see a secondary wheel spin inside of the original wheel. This is far more complicated than five [36:24] Justin: guaranteed income life 10 years. [36:27] Chad: And if that lands on the ice maker, the frozen maker, then you got to do the makers and the shot glass in the sphere and off ice. Now, I sent you, Maddie. I sent you by mail. Makers and Smirnoff. So here's the deal. You choose a retireholic to lock yourself up with, and if it lands on that retireholic, you have to do the penalty along with them. [36:53] Mark: So who are you for the rest of your life? Just like your product. [36:59] Chad: Which retireholic are you choosing? Wilney. [37:04] Speaker E: Did I really have to? [37:05] Chad: And. [37:06] Speaker E: And J.D. [37:07] Speaker F: i also. I have the option of throwing a guest on here. [37:11] Chad: No, no, I like this. I like this, buddy. [37:13] Mark: Getting way too complex. Spin the damn wheel. [37:17] Chad: Now make a decision. [37:18] Speaker E: Can I pick Brandon? [37:20] Justin: Yeah. Yep. [37:22] Chad: He's in there. [37:22] Justin: Yeah, he's on there, Matt. [37:25] Speaker E: He's on the wheel. [37:26] Chad: All right, let's spin it. [37:27] Mark: There's loopholes here, buddy. [37:30] Speaker F: Let me shuffle it real quick. [37:33] Justin: Shuffle it and click. JD. [37:48] Chad: Oh, God dang it. Wait, wait. Bring me. Everyone, bring me. Oh, everyone. No, no. Oh, boy. Chat bar. Just chat amongst yourselves. It's gonna be a little while. [38:09] JD: Is it? [38:10] Mark: It's only a half of a Smirnoff, isn't it? [38:13] Speaker E: Whatever. [38:14] JD: I mean, I guess we're gonna finish [38:15] Justin: the other half of it. Is it half the Smirnoff or is it all the Smirnoff? [38:18] JD: I need to know you all is Smirnoff. It's going to come out. [38:23] Mark: This is complicated. Yeah. You guys actually have makers. I don't have that. [38:31] JD: Yeah, I got vodka putting in bourbon. [38:34] Justin: Yeah, me, too. [38:35] Chad: Oh, boy. [38:36] Speaker E: And it's like a boilermaker. It goes into shot glass. [38:39] Chad: What are you guys claiming? It's just half. [38:42] JD: Cheers, boys. [38:44] Mark: Don't go yet, Justin. Wait, wait, wait, wait. [38:47] Chad: I'm gonna wait. [38:48] Mark: All right. [38:50] Justin: Come on, Matthew. [38:54] JD: Maker's bottle. That's pretty sweet, Brandon. [38:56] Justin: The worst idea you've ever had. B. [39:02] Mark: Oh, that's gross. [39:03] Chad: That's way better. [39:04] Speaker F: Did you see my cup? I got Bob Ross on there. [39:10] JD: That's terrible. [39:12] Mark: Not gonna lie. It wasn't that bad. [39:14] Justin: Yeah, well, you have bourbon in yours, too. I didn't get to the bourbon very bottom. And that was pretty good. I had this. [39:20] Speaker E: It's awful. [39:21] Justin: Basil Hayden. [39:22] Mark: Good. [39:23] Chad: Oh, boy. [39:24] Justin: Great idea, Brandon. We really appreciate it. [39:27] Mark: Yeah, this show just went from, like, here. [39:31] Chad: That was the first. That was the first. [39:33] JD: I think I'm Just gonna start doing Jaeger bombs. [39:35] Chad: That was the first. Okay, let's dive into the. No, tell us about the fee structure here. We're talking about a collective investment trust. We're talking about a target date fund. [39:48] Mark: So many acronyms missed. [39:50] Chad: What's the expense ratio? And tell me. Yeah, just what's the expense ratio? That's my question. [39:58] Speaker E: All right, that's great. There's two different versions of it. There's a straight up target date version and then there's the five for life version that includes the guarantee. On the straight up target date version, it's 32. And on the five for life it's 130. [40:16] Chad: Yep, it's 32 and 130. [40:19] Speaker E: 130. [40:21] Justin: So that's coming off the top five for life is what we're saying. [40:25] Chad: That's expense ratio. Yeah, that's the expense ratio. So. [40:29] JD: Right. [40:30] Justin: I'm curious if there's about 100 basis [40:32] Speaker E: points for the guarantee. [40:34] Chad: Let me ask a stupid question. If I'm 45 years old, I'm going to invest in the 30 basis point target date fund, and then when I turn 65, I'm going to click over into the 130 basis point. Help me understand how this works. [40:53] Mark: Isn't it less than that? Like in your 50s? [40:57] Speaker E: So here's the deal. I mean, the one thing that's interesting, Jason Roberts just. And Fred, who I know everybody loves and adores. [41:05] Chad: Oh, name dropping, name dropping. [41:08] JD: Is that Mark's best friend? [41:09] Mark: Yes. [41:11] Speaker E: I had to make JD feel good on that. Jason just wrote a white paper about the concept of a dual qdia. And so the way that the strategy could qualify. [41:23] Chad: Default investment alternative. Keep going with your thought though. I want to answer my question, though, about like, what does the 45 year old do? But this dual thing. Let's get into that too, because this is a question. [41:35] Speaker E: Let's talk about it. Because if, if somebody's younger and they want a high equity exposure, they can, they can start off in the target date and then the plan sponsor and the retirement advisor can work with the plan demographics to decide at which age they're going to make it. Qualified default investment alternative. [41:56] Chad: Nice. [41:56] Speaker E: And so if that's 50, like I'm 55. If it's 50, then at 50, the contributions would begin to go into the five for life version. If it's 55, it's 55. But, you know, certainly for me, you know, you don't want to really start at 55 when you only have 10 years ago. You'd be Better off to start at [42:17] Chad: age 50 because I still, I want that protection in case the market crashes. I've built up a ton of wealth in my 401k. I'm 55 years old. Getting closer to that. 65. I don't want to have all hell break loose and lose my money. But it's, again, it's not a high watermark. You're not locking in my account with its gains. You're locking in what I've put into it, right? [42:42] Speaker E: That's right. [42:43] Chad: I can't go negative. [42:44] Speaker E: That's correct. [42:45] Justin: And it's what I put into the five for Life investment. [42:49] JD: Right. [42:50] Justin: So if I roll over a million dollars, that's where my starting point is. And the remaining contributions that go in after that. [42:57] Chad: That's an interesting question. Do you see people dabbling, putting half of their balance in something like this, and then half of their balance, they're investing more aggressively or something? [43:06] Speaker E: Well, and again, I don't want to get too far ahead, but the dual qualified defense. [43:13] Justin: Got it. [43:14] Chad: We got it. [43:16] Speaker E: That idea lives so that if there's an existing target date portfolio that somebody really likes and it's in the platform, but they want to do something to bring guaranteed income for their participants, five for Life can go on the platform in addition to whatever the target date is. And then if they want to split contributions or, you know, again at 50, default, everybody into the five for life. They've got the ability to do that. So there's, you know, there's a fair degree of flexibility there. [43:45] Chad: Greg Greenfield says Five for Life sounds like a boy band. [43:50] Mark: That would be our name if all five of us were a boy band. Start that. [43:56] Chad: Let's. Let's talk about this. Dual qi, qda. Oh, damn it. That's check swing, right? [44:04] JD: He got three. Three fourths of the way. [44:06] Chad: Well, I didn't finish it. [44:09] JD: That's a plate. [44:10] Chad: Let's talk. [44:12] Justin: Daddy, you're over. [44:14] Chad: Let's talk about this. Okay, I'll drink that. Let's talk about this. I like the pass the plate analogy. This is exciting to me because this is what I talked about in the beginning. This is one of those things that caught my attention. This kind of dual qualified default investment alternative, or maybe even like a dual core menu, if you will, like just to have a lot of fun with this. Could this be where we head as an industry where the old people on the plan have different investments to choose from than the young people? Chad talk about that? [44:46] Justin: Yeah, it should be. I mean, if we're talking about defaulting someone into an investment, it's best to default them into an investment that likely fits their risk tolerance and their stage of life. And so why shouldn't we be defaulting a 50 year old differently than we are a 25 year old? And I know that was the argument for, for target date funds as being the qualified default investment alternative versus risk based funds for years, but I'm not sure that that's the only strategy we need to be considering. Hence why we're having a guaranteed income for life conversation. Perhaps there's an age in which or a period in which these folks should be defaulted into their. [45:26] Chad: As we're on this qualified default investment alternative discussion, what's the big deal with secure Act? Like, why does everyone be like, oh, the Pension Protection act was the bomb for target date funds and somehow secure act is going to be the bomb for this five for life thing because it's giving you some type of safe harbor or protection or help us understand that a little more. [45:50] Speaker E: Yeah, it's the safe harbor protection that's offered to the plan sponsor and we've got one of the experts in the chat bar with Nevin. But, but that really does set the stage. [46:03] Chad: Gotcha, Nevin. Okay, fair enough. [46:05] Mark: No, that was by the way, Nevin. Yes, Greg called that first. [46:09] Chad: So setting every community up for who the fuck knows what. I don't know [46:16] Mark: any acronym by the way. Acronyms over like four letters should not be allowed. [46:21] Chad: No, they should, Matt. Why, why is that it's such a big deal? [46:27] Speaker E: Because it provides a safe harbor for the plan sponsor. [46:32] Chad: The same way they were concerned about qualified default investment alternatives back in the day and target date funds. Now they can feel more comfortable with this type of guarantee because this has been under a lot of scrutiny. Okay, okay. So when you guys built this thing, I'm assuming you basically looked at the failures of the past and you tried to tackle each one of them. Right? The simplicity, the portability, which we haven't really talked about yet. So we will probably wrap with that and have a little more fun here. I'm going to go back to kind of the negative, pessimistic viewpoint here. I need you to help the audience understand and an advisor who's a bit of a pessimist. Why is this going to become something that's, that's cool and popular just because it's simpler, Just because you've got, you've set up some portability which right now if I look at portability as just record keeper to record keeper, I know it's Deeper than that. It's the other company you've got there that is an acronym. I won't say their name that's built the pipeline or the, you know, for all that stuff. But is this really going to make a difference? Are we really going to see our industry change at all? And I mean that. I'm not just trying to set you up. I'm not so sure. On one hand, I want to be excited. About the other hand, I'm kind of like, oh, God, is this just going to fall flat? And Wolnowitz is going to become asking if he can be part of Retireholics in a year because the company goes under. I don't know. [48:08] Speaker E: I hope so. But then it would be five for life if that happened. [48:13] Chad: The answer would be yes. By the way, you could join us, our boy band, anytime. Go on. [48:18] Mark: Right. Five, two lines, six. [48:20] Chad: Help us understand why this is really going to be a big deal. [48:23] Speaker E: Well, look, there's two questions that I've gotten from my friends in the industry as I've talked to them. One actually surprised me when we responded to our first rfp. The institutional consultant said, [48:35] Chad: request for proposal. [48:38] Mark: It just flows [48:41] Chad: Acro Center. [48:42] Speaker E: I lost my shot glass. So who came? [48:46] JD: Nice, to be honest. That's the right way to do it. [48:50] Speaker E: Yeah, for sure. [48:52] JD: Because you can take this a little as much as you want. [48:55] Chad: All right. After a swig of makers, he tells us why this is going to be the difference. [48:59] JD: Yeah. I got to ask this right now. Is anyone's head, like, super warm from that, that drink that we had? [49:04] Chad: My cheeks are. [49:05] JD: But like, I feel like I did when we were in Tahoe, my head, super. [49:09] Speaker E: This is terrible. [49:10] Speaker F: I'm glad I had the heater on. [49:12] Chad: Thank you. [49:13] Mark: I turned mine off. [49:14] Chad: Okay, seriously, back to it. Matty, I'm an advisor out there. I want to go into prospects and tell them about something that's new and fresh and different, especially if it's something like that'll really make a difference, you know, for their participants. And so I'm interested. Like, this could be my way to win more plans. Right. But tell me that this is actually going to come to fruition. Why is this going to be any different than the ones that have failed before it? [49:43] Speaker E: Yeah. And like I said, that's. That's the most asked question that I've had. One is a simplicity at both the participant and the retirement advisor and the plan sponsor level. So that's number one. Number two is open architecture on the investment management. So there's, I think there's seven firms and 20 different strategies in there. Maybe eight firms. So that's different. It's multi insured. That's the third one. So there's not any single insurance risk. The fourth one is portability. So if the participant changes jobs, then they've got the ability to bring the guarantee that they've been paying for with them. And can we stop do the fifth? And then the fifth is, it's multi fiduciary with both Wilshire and Wilmington Trust. Wilshire being the 321 and Wilmington being the 338. This is my cheat sheet. [50:40] Chad: You don't need a cheat sheet, by the way. [50:43] Speaker E: That's what I leave on the table as I'm talking to people. [50:46] Chad: Cheat sheets are only necessary when you're swigging straight out of the bottle. Okay, portability. Chad, is your question about portability? [50:53] Justin: No, my question is of the five things you just named, only one does afford participant actually care about. [50:59] Mark: And if that's not a question. [51:02] Justin: I didn't say I had a question. If we're talking about will this, will this take off? What you just described is it will take off because advisors will push it because only one of those things will potentially change the interpretation of the product from a employee perspective. [51:19] Chad: That simplicity, simplicity. [51:22] Speaker E: It just depends. If it's a qualified default investment alternative, then the participant doesn't have any saying. Right? [51:30] Chad: That's great. Love the answer, Matt. Yeah, Chad, that's what he's saying is this isn't about. This isn't about those measly peasant participants choosing it. This is about me again. This is about distribution, bro. This is about selling it. Getting plan smiles to make decision. Okay, Matt, let's have a little fun before we get to the after show. I feel like the after show is going to get nuts. Yes, Mark. [51:54] Mark: No, seriously, because I feel like, Matt, listening to the podcast with Josh, hearing you talk about this now, is almost like you're giving away the secret ingredients in a way. And so my question, I do have a question is, are you concerned with an influx of competition of people coming in and saying, good question. You guys successfully did list and you're giving us the blueprint about how to do it. Now we're going to come in and do this simple and easier and better. What are your thoughts there? I mean, you're very open about this. You're obviously passionate about the why. So what makes you think that people aren't going to come start doing this too? And are you concerned about that? [52:42] Speaker E: I hope that they do. And I'll tell you why, Mark, because it's a $17 trillion market. And so the more people that are out talking about this, the more accepted it's going to be and the more that demand is going to grow. I know personally, you know, I started on this project back in October, and it was supposed to launch at the end of the month. Getting something through seven different partners, compliance departments, it is the job of a lifetime. [53:07] Chad: So especially those stodgy people at American Century, they're the worst. [53:13] Speaker E: If somebody wants to take that on, God bless them. Because corralling all that and getting agreement and consensus, it was unbelievably painful. So I hope that there are more people in the market. And that's why I love Matthew Jackson, because he talks about the opportunity for all of us. And if it's good for the industry, it's good for the industry, and we'll all win. So I hope that there's a lot of people doing this. I don't think that anybody's going to do it in the short term, but I hope that there's a lot of people doing it. [53:45] Chad: Yeah. Cause then it becomes a trend and it's more viable and it moves forward. I get you. And I don't want to completely softball you, but I have to say one more time that the collaboration, to me, the hippie surfer in me, felt really good about that. I feel like we're always talking shit about each other all the time. We were on a record keeper meeting today, and it was all about how they do this better than their competitor and they do this better than their competitor, and I didn't name them, Mark, even though they're probably tuned in. Sorry, that was a little weird meeting we had. But I like to see us come together. And I've talked about this many times in different avenues. And so you guys did it. You did it in a big way. You came together. I love that aspect of it. I think it's very cool. Brannon, do you have movie trivia ready, yes or no? Because I'm going to give Matt a chance. No. Okay. Matt, would you like to play lamer game or lamer game? [54:43] Speaker E: Lamer game, baby. [54:45] Mark: I thought we were you. You had. Okay. All right, cool. We're gonna go this route for the [54:52] Chad: end of the show. [54:55] Mark: Matt's time could be better well spent answering questions. [54:58] Chad: We're going into after show and audience, tell me how excited you are for lamer game show. Mark. The love. You know you love lamer game. [55:05] Mark: I feel like my first Question. And yeah, I have to look at my notes. Has been dominated in the chat bar today a little bit. So I'm actually excited about this one because I feel like there's a. There's a pretty big split between the people who are in our corner versus not lamer game. Mr. Wolnowitz. The Retireholics removing the parentheses K and adopting the C C at the end of our name. Lamer game. All right. [55:40] Speaker E: Who made that decision? [55:42] Mark: Not gonna fucking ask. JD Because I know his answer. Justin. [55:46] JD: Lame. [55:47] Mark: Chad. [55:48] Justin: Sorry, guys. [55:50] Mark: All right, let's see the chat bar. [55:51] Chad: Huh? [55:52] Mark: Huh? [55:52] Chad: Okay. [55:53] Mark: I'm getting a feeling like this. [55:56] Speaker E: I see a lame, lame, lame in there. [55:58] Mark: I know. Like Brandon and JD Just doing this to piss us all off. [56:03] Chad: What do you. What do they say about the forest and the trees? The forest. [56:07] Speaker E: I know. [56:07] Chad: Brandon. [56:08] JD: Don't. [56:09] Chad: Don't let him know. Don't even let him know why. [56:12] Speaker F: I just want to tell a story. You know, when I was a kid. [56:16] Mark: I'm going to interrupt your stupid. [56:17] Speaker F: We're in Kansas. He's wearing these night. These big surf shorts, and all the kids in Kansas are making fun of his shorts. And JD Goes, don't worry, dude. In five years, you'll be wearing these shorts. And then walked away. And everyone's gonna dump. Everyone's gonna dump this K thing, and we're gonna be long gone from it. We're gonna be happy. [56:41] Speaker E: Oh, yeah. Is. Is Jake 401k on? I don't think so. Yeah. [56:45] Chad: Yeah. The K is getting overdone. We're moving on. And there's another much bigger reason for it. Over. [56:50] Mark: Done. There's a. [56:52] Chad: There's another much bigger reason for it, but we'll move on. [56:55] Mark: Next question mark. Scratchers. [56:59] Speaker E: Oh, fuck. [56:59] Justin: Yeah. [57:00] Mark: So I'm gonna just tell a little story about myself. Okay. I don't buy the lotto tickets. I don't do that. I never buy scratchers. I don't do that. I rarely gamble that much. It's just I do outside of sports. But I just. So you all know, I've probably done maybe a hundred scratches in my life. [57:20] Justin: Maybe less. [57:21] Mark: Probably way less. [57:21] Speaker E: That's a lot. [57:23] Mark: Yeah. And I've never won a single $00. I've never even won a free ticket. Okay. Ever. And no one believes me. It's just true. [57:33] Justin: My daughter. [57:34] Mark: I bought for fun. It was her birthday. Shameless plug. On Tuesday, I bought her five scratchers just for fun. [57:39] Chad: Like. [57:40] Mark: Ah, fuck it. [57:40] Speaker E: Whatever, Whatever. [57:42] Mark: She won money. I can't even do that. So I Digress. [57:48] Justin: Are you quitting? You retiring already? [57:51] Mark: She won $4, but that's like her winning a million. Okay, Mr. Wolnowitz, lamer game. Scratchers. Okay. [58:03] Chad: Do you have a problem saying lame? What is. I like his answer. Scratchers. Did you ask me, Mark? [58:10] JD: Yeah, [58:15] Mark: Justin, Absolutely. [58:17] JD: Game. It's a tradition every year in our stockings for Christmas. [58:20] Justin: The family Chad can't surprise anybody that I like the crossword puzzle. Scratchers. [58:31] Mark: All right, and my final question is around. The theme of what's happening today, and Matt pointed it out earlier in LinkedIn is obviously, March Madness is back. We didn't have it last year, but filling out brackets, I don't know. It's like apple pie. It's like, you know, just truly something we all do. But people who brag about, you know, oh, hey, my. I picked western Kentucky to beat Duke when they filled out, like, 700 brackets. [59:05] Chad: I don't know. [59:05] Mark: Who cares about that? My question just is lamer game. [59:11] JD: The team. [59:11] Chad: The team. [59:12] Mark: Go team. Participating in March Madness Bracket. Filling out. Matt, your verse. [59:17] Chad: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. [59:21] Mark: I don't care what JD has to say about this. So, Justin. [59:27] Justin: Oh, man, I'm game. [59:29] Mark: All right, well, you know what they say. [59:33] Justin: You know what they say. [59:36] Chad: I don't know. I do love that game. I do love that game. All right, let's. Let's try to crank out Chat Bar Champion real quick. [59:44] Mark: There was no question. I have no clue. No clue. [59:48] Chad: Chad, your vote for Chat Bar Champion. [59:51] Justin: Nevin. His final comment asleep while Mark was doing his lamer game was. Was good enough to get him over the house. [59:58] Mark: What did he say? [59:59] Justin: He put Z's across the screen. [1:00:01] Chad: Yeah, I'm. [1:00:06] Justin: Yeah. [1:00:06] Mark: Well, by the way, Nevin, smartest guy in the chat bar probably doesn't know what a fucking acronym is, so he never gets my vote. [1:00:14] Chad: My vote is going to be for when I close my eyes and imagine this person. He's in like a. I feel like it was like a wood paneled room with, like, livestock hanging from the walls and a cowboy hat. And he was drunk off his ass the last time he was on the show. I'm going with Harlow Harlow for Chat Bar Champion. And I say all those things about his room with the utmost respect. This is my favorite person to come into the show, Justin, [1:00:43] JD: because I can't let it go. Can we do a duel? Webby and Greg, because they won't let go of the K you want. [1:00:53] Chad: Oh, in the after show, you mean? [1:00:55] JD: Yeah, they've been good on that tonight. No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. In the chat bar. [1:01:00] Justin: They're together for chat. [1:01:02] Chad: You want them both together? [1:01:03] JD: Can we do a duel? Like a dual? [1:01:05] Chad: Why not? What? Not. Not duel, Greg? Yes, a duel, as in two of them together. [1:01:11] Justin: Ual. [1:01:12] JD: Yes, sure. [1:01:15] Chad: You want them to be a team to win chat Mark? [1:01:18] JD: Yes. [1:01:19] Chad: Okay. Hey, Matt, use that at your next, like, boardroom presentation. Use us. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Matt, who's your vote? Who's your vote for Chat Bar Champion? [1:01:38] Speaker E: Well, you know, it would have been John Sullivan, but he didn't attend tonight, so he can't. [1:01:42] JD: Yeah, he did. [1:01:43] Speaker E: He did. He's here. [1:01:45] JD: He talked shit on me drinking Moscow. [1:01:50] Speaker E: Sorry, John, I didn't see you. But, you know, after looking at the four of you all night, it's really easy for me. It's my good friend Sherry Fitz. [1:02:00] Justin: I knew you were going. [1:02:01] JD: Sherry. [1:02:02] Justin: So much cooler than we are. [1:02:03] Speaker E: Yeah. Ms. Fitz wins the day. [1:02:07] Chad: Sherry's gonna end up being in the goat category with Hackler and Greenfield if she wins another one here. She's won before. [1:02:14] Speaker E: And Sherry, all I'll say about sharing Fish is ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. [1:02:20] Chad: Sherry, if you win again and you create a certificate, reach out to Brandon, we'll create you a proper one. We'll do in our. Brandon. Let's throw them up there, everybody, and let you, the audience, you vote. Now, you know how this works. You're going to choose. Mark didn't vote for anyone. Ah, fuck Mark. [1:02:40] Justin: Sorry, Mark. [1:02:41] Mark: Sorry, Mark. [1:02:42] Chad: No one cares. No one gives a shit about who you think should be on Chat Bar Champion. [1:02:47] Justin: Mark was going to pick tan man anyways. Doug had a good night. Doug should be in there. [1:02:52] Chad: Brandon's back there right now just going, what the hell did they all say? Who am I throwing up there? He always comes up with this. Pretty good, though. [1:03:00] Speaker F: All right, well, I have Harlow, Webby and Greg and Sherry. And I just threw Doug on. [1:03:09] Chad: No, Nevin, you throw on Tannis. Man alive. What? For Mark. [1:03:14] Speaker E: For Mark. [1:03:17] JD: Okay, let's see how this works. [1:03:19] Chad: All right, audience, you guys vote who will be. [1:03:24] Speaker F: I'll let you guys vote this time. [1:03:25] Chad: Oh, sick. [1:03:26] Justin: Thank you. [1:03:27] Speaker E: We vote every week. [1:03:29] Chad: That doesn't mean me, though, huh, Brandon? Just means no. All right, the votes are coming in and I'm the only one that can see them coming in right now. I've recently realized. Oh, wow. [1:03:40] Justin: Hey, Matt, you should know, as we wait, I have. [1:03:43] Chad: Keep voting, everyone. Someone's taken off with it. You've got 15 seconds to vote. This just shows you how many people Are tuned in there, have passed out. [1:03:55] Justin: Where did he go? He just went straight to the side, Right? So he's literally next to his computer right now. [1:04:00] Chad: This is a runaway. I think we can close it. Brandon. Nevin Adams. You. Nevin Adams, our chat bar champion for Nevin Nevin Nevin. As we wrap it out, we head into the after show. I want to remind everyone that next week we will be having the 3.0 version of Shamanda. So tune in for that because it's going to be a. You know what? [1:04:35] Speaker E: Get ready to party. [1:04:37] Chad: That's next week. [1:04:38] Justin: We stay off. Like, we don't have to join, right? [1:04:41] Mark: What? [1:04:42] Chad: No, no, it's just. [1:04:43] Justin: Are you sure? Where we don't show up? [1:04:47] Mark: Where does. Where does Amanda work? [1:04:49] Chad: I got news for you. Chad Nevin's here online. Napa reached out to me to do a little Justin Timberlake presentation at Napa. [1:04:59] JD: Surprise, surprise. [1:05:01] Chad: And I told them that if. If NSYNC wasn't coming, I wasn't coming. So I don't know, I'm probably not going. But I just want you to know I stood by you. Next week, Wednesday, we will be part of Chris Carosa at Fiduciary News's virtual summit. The tables will be turned and he'll be interviewing us. There's great people there speaking. Fred Reich, Marcia Clark, David Levine. I mean, the list goes on and on. It cost you some Wagner. [1:05:36] Justin: Marcia Clark. It's a new. [1:05:38] Chad: Did I say Marcia Clark's a new one? Oh, sorry about that. You know what I meant. It cost some cash to get in there, but, hey, man, come join us. It should be fun. So go check that out at Investment News. If you need information on, let me know. And we'll be doing that. And that is that. That is that. Make sure you check out Josh Itza's Fiduciary you podcast. And if you haven't bought his books, they're on Amazon. Buy his books. [1:06:09] JD: That was so close. [1:06:11] Chad: Where's Matt going? Chad, do you want to intro this song? It's your turn to do this song. [1:06:15] Speaker E: Oh, I forgot about that. [1:06:17] Justin: I don't know if Brandon got it loaded up, but. [1:06:19] Mark: No, it's loaded. [1:06:20] Chad: It's loaded. Oh, it's there. All right, everyone. Chad, JD Doing edibles next week? I don't think so. Chad, you don't need to intro it or you just let it rip. [1:06:30] Justin: No, I mean, this was a staple of my development as a human right here. [1:06:36] JD: Development way. [1:06:38] Mark: Please explain. [1:06:39] JD: Yeah, seriously. [1:06:40] Justin: Come on. This takes you back to those joyous years where you were driving and all your friends were piled in your car and you bumped your radio as loud as you could while your subwoofer. [1:06:50] JD: Oh, I know what this song's gonna be. [1:06:53] Chad: Name it Justin. [1:06:53] Justin: Name it. [1:06:54] Mark: Name it. [1:06:54] JD: No, I'm gonna see if it is. [1:06:57] Mark: Name the artist. [1:06:59] Justin: Just play it on Little John. [1:07:01] Mark: All right, Close. [1:07:03] Speaker E: Ladies and gentlemen, this is Mark. Oh, gives a from 93tv. [1:07:10] JD: This is my co host, Bob. [1:07:12] Speaker E: Say hi. [1:07:14] Chad: We've got a crowd that's in a frenzy. [1:07:16] JD: Bob, Nelly's a good choice. Never saw you picking this song, by the way. [1:07:35] Speaker E: Nelly. [1:07:44] JD: Is it strictly because of the music video and all the baseball players. [1:07:56] Mark: It's not even just Nelly, is it? It's not safe, boys. [1:08:30] Justin: Does it get bad here.