Litigation, Pooled Plans & Private Equity in 401(k)s

[0:00] JD: You are gonna have a really, really bad time, sir. This shit. Welcome, everybody, to another episode of Retireholics. We drink beer and we talk about 401k stuff. Remember when we used to have to. When we did live shows and we'd have. Way back in the day and like in the beginning and we'd have to. The first thing we would do when they announced us to the stage is explain to everyone what it is that we were and what we were doing. I always felt very intimidated by that. This. There will be like 50, 75 people in the audience. I'm like, they have no idea what we are. And now I have to somehow describe it to them as we get started. I sucked at that. That was hard to do back then. I wasn't going to do this, but I've got a new special kind of graphic video. I shouldn't say I do. Brandon created it. So let's do this. My name is J.D. carlson. We are the Retirelics. I'm joined by Silent J, Justin McNeil, Chad Nerdy, Chad Johansen, and wait for it, everybody's favorite Retireholic. The one, the only road. [1:28] Chad: I'm not gonna lie. Usually I hate it when you do that. [1:30] Justin: I really like that. [1:32] Eric Dyson: Oh, man. [1:33] JD: Wait for the music. Backtrack. We put on it next time, Justin. Let's get to it, man. Intro our fabulous guest. Because that's what we do here. We have fabulous guests with over a [1:46] Mark: quarter century of experience. He's certainly been around the block a time or two, and that's just not in financial services, but the world as well. He's also a highly decorated nuclear submarine officer who's taken. Who's broken. Sorry. Through some polar ice caps near Santa's workshop. He's touted as one of the most prominent expert witnesses of our industry, but we all know that's just a fancy term for a snitch. Here to break the case against guideline wide open, exposed the alleged underground spy ring of three brothers, host of Be More Than a Fiduciary podcast, the executive director of 90 North Consulting, Mr. Eric Dyson. [2:16] Eric Dyson: Wow. [2:17] JD: Well done. Yeah. He is a snitch. That is what that is. They're always getting people in trouble. What the fuck? Let's just keep this moving along. We got so much fun stuff to talk about today. I'm going to do something I've never done. Let me. Let me quickly overview all the shit we're going to talk about today. We're going to talk about this thing between human interest and guideline and some Espionage that's happening there. It's going to be very exciting. We're going to talk about some new pooled employer plans that have come out from Empower and Voya that are very third party administrator, flexible, friendly. We're going to talk about Warren and Sanders and their continued push against private equity and crypto and 401k plans. Come on, J.D. come on, J.D. we're going to talk about some new legislation around a mandatory employer contribution type of government 401k plan. And we're going to revisit drunk stock tips with Rogue Guy today. We got a good one on the docket. I think that's about it. Maybe. Maybe. Oh, and a couple quick little news we're going to go to. So let's start with the quick ones, shall we? Let's go. Brandon. Headlines. Hook us up. When you're in the retireholics game, you have guests on your show. And we, we in the old days had the Shamanda show, Shannon and Amanda, and they would get fucked up and say stupid shit and then there they are. And then lo and behold, the years go by and one of them is going to be the president of fucking Aspa. I'll drink. Shannon S words is the 2026 president of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries. Did I get that right? [4:20] Justin: Now they just saw that picture and decided she is no longer the president. [4:24] JD: So congrats to one of our own in our retireh community doing big. I don't think so, assholes. Important things. Oh, shit. And S words is Mom's iPhone. [4:39] Justin: There we go. [4:42] JD: Oh, Grant Ellis, everybody. Grant Ellis is on Josh Itzo's podcast. I mean, whoa. I had to check myself after that one. That's exciting stuff. [4:56] Justin: Have you listened to it? [4:57] JD: I have not. It just came out. It's a fiduciary university the Letter podcast. But you get those two geniuses together, it's gotta be good. And then lastly, on the quick ones. [5:11] Chad: How long is that podcast? Is it like seven and a half hours? [5:15] JD: Is it? I hope so. No, I would love that if it was. He's usually about 60 minutes, but if they went seven hours, I would be giddy over that stuff. [5:24] Mark: 69 minutes. [5:25] JD: Okay. Oh, that's intentional. Sexy. Well, nothing like it's so. And Ellis sick. Never mind. Okay, last quick one. Our guest today, Eric Dyson, is a National association of Plan Advisors top social media influencer. Am I getting that right, Eric? [5:49] Eric Dyson: I think so. Hopefully. [5:51] JD: The. [5:51] Eric Dyson: Hopefully. I've got more than two or three people listening to the podcast. Finally. And it's been. Been recognized. [5:56] JD: That's awesome. Congrats. You must. [5:58] Justin: Congratulations. [5:59] JD: Thank you. People are taking notice of that. So I think that's cool for you to get that type of award and distinction. Here we go everybody. When I read this article, I felt like God was sending me a nice little gift from the heavens Guideline and human interests are in a little lawsuit brawl over. Ready for it everyone? Espionage. Are you kidding me? This is fucking awesome. 2 Former human interest employees were funneling info to, I believe, their brother. And we call these people. [6:38] Chad: Can we just say allegedly before we say anything else? Yeah, allegedly. Every. Every 30 seconds or so. Just say allegedly. [6:49] JD: Thank you, Robbie. Thank you. Very good. Allegedly. These three brothers, the Steary brothers, they had a quote. We are going to tear apart human interest. I love that we're going to get Eric's opinion on text messages because it looks like it's the back and forth text messages that are at the base of this case a lot. So Eric, I'll get your opinion in a second. But I also want to let the audience know that I feel like this is much more than just some brothers kind of conceiving this plan. Because in the article, Mark allegedly past guest on this show, the chief executive office. Oh, was it Kevin Boost they were talking about? Maybe not. He seems like the founder. Did they have another. [7:35] Mark: That's what I interpreted it. [7:36] Justin: It says chief executive officer and chief operations officer. [7:40] JD: But is Kevin, is Patrick Tyler's guest Kevin, this the chief executive officer or is he just a. I'm not sure about that. But. But it gets heightened because apparently these high level executives were in the know and somehow like saying yeah, this is cool. Like let we give you our approval. Like let's push this a little further. Eric, thoughts on this from a legal perspective? Because I'm imagining this type of espionage kind of happens all the time. [8:09] Eric Dyson: Well, just a reminder, I'm not an attorney. I don't even play one on tv. And I did not sleep and a Holiday Inn Express last night. Okay. But I will tell you. [8:20] JD: But Eric, you are a snitch. So go on. [8:26] Eric Dyson: I'm just the witness. Okay. By definition. But anyways, I have seen in litigation, we won't go down. This isn't a question about emails, but there have been emails that people have sent to each other, you know, internally that have been very damning. I've. I've seen a case where text messages were admitted as very substantial evidence and very damning evidence to the defendants in a case. And I went through this Deposition where one of them was challenged and said, well, did you send text messages to each other? And. And one person says, well, no, we didn't. And the attorney said to him, I want you to take out your iPhone. And I don't remember the exact keystrokes, but I did exactly what this guy said as I'm reading the deposition, and every text message that I had ever sent with his iPhone appeared back on my phone like that. Hundreds and hundreds of text messages that appeared back. And I was pissed because, I mean, there was nothing that I didn't want anybody to see. I just had weeks worth of deleting text message. [9:25] JD: Right. [9:26] Eric Dyson: So text messages get admitted as evidence [9:29] JD: in court cases, and that's just on your device, or is that coming from the cloud? I mean, I think we've always known that the providers have our text message history locked away somewhere where if we're in some accused of murder or something, they're gonna go find that stuff and pull it out. It just seemed. Do we all know as. As. As four or five dummies here, that when you're in something like this, like someone suing you for something businesslike, can they run off and get your text messages? It's just insane. [10:01] Eric Dyson: Absolutely. A subpoena will get it. The answer to your question, I don't know. I'm assuming they did not exist on my phone and it went out to my service provider and just downloaded them all. [10:10] JD: Yeah, right. Yeah. Chad, I learned something in this article that was a little bonus guideline. Oh, let me first set the stage of this. Today on LinkedIn, Gusto CFO did a video. Damn it. Saying that today was the day the deal has closed with Guideline somewhat related to this, this article, somewhat not, and that they were finally, the Gusto 401k plan was here to save small business, you know, and finally we had a product that brought the best payroll company together with the great 401k product. And he was making this statement like, wow, the world was about to change today because we finally have the Gusto 401. But what I wanted to ask you, Chad, is apparently they had planned. Guideline had planned to divest accounts associated with rival payroll companies. I did not know this. I thought about this. [11:20] Chad: I didn't know that. [11:21] JD: Yeah, this is interesting. So when Gusto bought Guideline, they had this plan to get rid of clients they had or somehow, you know, get rid of them out of the mix that were with competing payroll companies. And apparently human interest inquired about purchasing these plans, these assets and guidelines said In a six year old voice. No, not until you stop the lawsuit. Then maybe we'll talk about it. What do you think about that? The divesting of. [11:51] Justin: Well, I mean it makes sense from a business standpoint, right? Their profitability lies in this efficiency between payroll and 401k providers. So they don't want to have to deal with outside payroll services leading into a now 401k chassis that they own. So I get the divesting of those relationships. I had to be a party wouldn't go after them. Is is interesting. I have to imagine their terminology for divest means we're going to try to sell the out of our services to them and if it doesn't work, we're going to tell them we can no longer be the record keeper. It's got to be what that means [12:24] JD: we'll, we'll wrap this one up. But let's see. I've given a lot of shit to guideline and human interest over the years. Is Samson on tonight? I mean Guideline sucks and I still don't understand. Human interest is profitability. So I have to admit it's really fun to stand on the sidelines and watch them go at each other. [12:44] Eric Dyson: But. [12:44] JD: Go ahead, Chad. [12:45] Justin: I was just going to ask to Eric being here and from his knowledge, does the issue exist that an employee was leaking this information or does the real issue exist that apparently the employees got the blessing or acknowledgement from upper management to continue to do this stuff. [13:06] Eric Dyson: And I'm not trying to be a smart butt here, but it's still allegedly. Right. And so that, and I'm, I'm not trying to be a jerk in the answer, but I think, Chad, that's the answer question what, what were the real facts? And let's look at for example, Nevin's always good about every time he writes up something in litigation, the, the last line is there's always two sides to every one of these arguments. And there are. Right. I've read a lot of these complaints and until you see the real live documents, a lot of times there's a different story than, than the plaintiffs necessarily alleged to start with. [13:39] JD: But it is not alleged that I am enjoying watching this fight happen. So that is. And so we'll keep our eye on it and watch these two duke it out, which I think by the way, we can now refer to Guideline is no longer guideline. It's kind of gusto 401k. According to some of the press releases I saw today, they even had a [14:02] Chad: new commercial gusto Did. Sorry. [14:06] JD: Yeah. [14:06] Chad: Gusto. [14:07] Eric Dyson: Gusto. [14:08] JD: Hey, awesome. Greg Greenfield. Last shows Chaparchamp got his 40 hot wings. We'll talk about that later. Okay, let's go to the next one because this is boring yet interesting. This is the lawsuit against the fuck International Business Machines Machines retirement plan for having proprietary target date funds and risk based asset allocation funds and I guess like a handful of other just regular investments. Ironically vanguard ones that apparently these participants and the lawyer backing them feels as though they have underperformed. I think it was from like 2016 to 2024. And so this is. Goes right up Eric's kind of bailiwick here. But I always were Baileywick. Yeah, I don't know. [15:11] Chad: Bailey Wick. [15:12] JD: That's part of my vocabulary. [15:14] Chad: Where did that even cross inside of that brain of yours, dude? Like, there were so many other words. [15:19] JD: You want to know the deal? I think. I wonder if Brandon could back me up. This is a word my father used and I. And I picked up on it somehow that would make it like it's an old guy. Okay, back to the deal. I was. I was always concerned with these lawsuits around investments. Eric and I understood when they were about share class or high fees. Kind of made sense. This gets a little sketchy to me when all of a sudden we're going to compare a fund. Let's use the target date fund as example to other target date funds. And this lawsuit, I believe it was blackrock and T. Rowe or something like that. T Row Fidelity, T. Rowe and Vanguard. [16:05] Eric Dyson: Yeah, it was T. Rowe, Fidelity, Vanguard and American funds. And those are typically nothing against Fidelity. Fidelity is not typically part of the. Oh, this is the standard group. It's normally T. Rowe, Vanguard and American funds. That's what you see as the comparator funds, no matter what. And I'm not saying that's right, but that's what you see. Sorry. Go ahead, J.D. keep going. [16:25] JD: No, I mean you're getting to the point of it, which is if we're going to look back at returns and say that somehow the fiduciaries made a non prudent decision because the fund didn't perform over a period of time, I feel like we're really stepping into a path of no return. Return. Like that. Not pun. [16:47] Chad: Unintended. [16:48] JD: No, no, not like that to me. Seems super sketchy, Eric. Like you can't do that. Like different funds perform differently. That's. And by the way, what are the asset allocations of these funds? Are some of these set up more conservatively than the others and didn't partake in the boom of the stock market over the last 10 years. Like, I just seems lunacy to me that you could even bring a case like this. [17:12] Eric Dyson: So let me start out by addressing Nate's question in the chat chat saying, hey, fidelity's in the top, whatever. I'm just saying what I see as comparator funds. So. So, J.D. in my opinion, and when I say my opinion, this is opinion I've given in other litigations on target date funds. You are right. The question is, did they follow Department of Labor guidance or not? Right. So if we can go and we, we can look and there was a process that they determined a certain glide path. And there are a couple issues in this lawsuit, in this International Business Machines target date. I'm trying to avoid my penalty shots here. There are a couple issues, but if we just look at target date funds, the real issue is did they follow the guidance from the Department of Labor? So you're right. I'm looking at the complaint. It goes back to 2014. These litigation cases typically have a six year, what's called the class period. So from the day the plaintiff's attorney file, you can look back six years now that that date six years ago holds as the case moves on, meaning 2013 Department of Labor guidance was already in place. So you're right. You cannot just do a rate of return comparison. Now that could come into play. What if I read the investment policy statement and the investment policy statement says this is the benchmark that should have been used and they in fact are trailing by, you know, a percent and a half over the entire class period. [18:46] JD: Didn't we see, didn't we see in this lawsuit that they were somehow using kind of a home cooked benchmark of some kind or something like that? [18:53] Eric Dyson: And interestingly enough, my podcast from last Friday, and it's the short version, this is this coincidentally, the specifically specific topic I addressed is these custom benchmarks, okay? And the intent of the custom benchmark is to give the fund manager a mandate on how to manage the fund. Okay. It is not the end all be all. So here's the example I've given in expert reports I've written and in testimony. What if someone designs a target date fund and by design it has 80% fixed income in the 2060 fund? Just in case anybody didn't catch that, [19:31] JD: that's way too conservative. [19:35] Eric Dyson: So if we have a very, very poor asset, all we will design a very, very poor benchmark. And when you, you measure the fund against its really stupid poor benchmark, it will meet the benchmark. [19:51] JD: Let me give you a more reasonable example in using a different benchmark or kind of a custom benchmark, if you will. Maybe I do have a Target Day fund that's a 2060 that is a tad more or less even say moderately more conservative. Bad choice of words. Again, I'm on a roll tonight. But not the 80% that you said. But, you know, maybe in a 2060, it's, it's maybe. Let's just make up numbers and say that the average target date and the 2060 suite or vintage has 15% in conservative investments and mine has 30. Well, then God damn right I'm going to compare it to a different benchmark because it would be ridiculous for me to compare it to the classic benchmark. But as a company or as a prudent fiduciary, I decided that based on my demographic, my people or whatever, that I want to have a more conservative slant towards this target date. I would feel like in some cases that could be a decent decision. So a custom benchmark is not inherently bad if it makes sense. [20:54] Eric Dyson: It cannot be the only one, though, because it's not. And if you look at this from. And this is kind of on the edge, but Department of Labor guidance on participant notifications. Okay. And I'm being very specific. There's. If that custom benchmark is put on the notifications to participant, it cannot be the only one. They have to include an independent benchmark. So I've always given the opinion that that should carry over to the analysis. So, JD let's go over your example that someone picks a very conservative Target Date Fund suite. There are five Target Date Fund benchmarks out there that are used regularly. Dow Jones S and P, Morningstar Aggressive, Morningstar Conservative and Morningstar Aggressive. Right. They should pick the morning, oh, what did I mess up on Standards and Poor. Okay, I got it. Here we go. [21:45] JD: Finally, Little Woodford Reserve for the Snitch. [21:49] Eric Dyson: All right, so if it's very conservative, they should be going toward a benchmark that matches what the Target Date Fund is. And, and it's really going to go back to the process. So for an example, in this complaint for Archega versus International Business Machines, the plaintiffs attorneys are specifically quoting the Standard and Poor Target Date Fund as the comparator that may or may not be the appropriate comparator. I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I don't know at this point. [22:20] JD: Well, I just think that unless it's something that's totally off base to your original kind of Example and that's not what's happening here. This just seems silly. Like you've picked a prudent fund that has general asset allocation that follows a normal glide path within reason and you're just cherry picking performance. I'm just going back to my original stance of like we can't allow this to happen. And I hope these courts, judges, or however you're supposed to describe it, swat this stuff down and mutumbo it because it makes no sense to me and it's definitely not a, a great place to, for fiduciaries to have to. To follow and be in fear of this type of stuff. [23:03] Justin: Did I miss you guys mentioned for those listening in that that the target date fund that is in question or suite that is in question is actually their own. That's a created proprietary target risk. Risk tolerance. [23:19] JD: Probably. It's investment. Yeah, it is. That's probably. [23:22] Justin: We didn't address that. Right, so now you've got your own methodology grading your own investment that you have created. Created. I mean this. It seems like it's a double edged sword there. [23:31] JD: Good point. [23:32] Eric Dyson: And Chad, you need to take it one step further. This is not something that Callan or NEPC or AON or Mercer created. They created it themselves. Yeah, right. So everything that we looked at in Cunningham vs Cornell and oh, are we overstepping prohibited transactions? I think that's going to come into play in this because they're using their own money manager. [23:54] JD: You guys remember Jack Torinicki who was on the show a couple months ago? Remember he was talking about that type of strategy being kind of a good thing. But I think Chad is a nail on the head there. If you could look back as this plan sponsor and think where maybe I misstepped it would be, why didn't you just pick a big mutual fund family like T Rowe or Fidelity or someone? It would have seemed so much more innocent than building your own. [24:20] Eric Dyson: Well, no. By the way, they also have Fidelity target date funds in the plan as well as an alternate choice. [24:25] Justin: Okay, do they really? [24:27] Eric Dyson: Yes, they do. But guess what the default is. The default is their own target funds. [24:33] JD: I also thought the lawsuit was funny in that of all fund families, they also don't like three regular funds and how they performed. And they were Vanguard funds. I feel like now they're going to rip on. Here's the next shoe to drop, Eric. When passive index funds, which the industry has perceived as not the industry lawyers, plan sponsors, the outside world our industry have perceived as safe and prudent. Oh, I'm In. I'm in an index fund. Jack Bogle was a God. We're doing the right thing. When those things start getting sued because the market's taking off and doing great and these little. These index indices aren't. Aren't keeping up with the actively managed funds. God forbid you're getting sued for having an index fund, which in a sense is part of this lawsuit for those three outside funds. Am I reading that wrong? [25:25] Eric Dyson: No, you're not reading it wrong. And let's add one thing to what you said that kind of exacerbates it a little more is that we all, and all the listeners, all the audience we could debate with different opinions. You know, should you have active management or passive management? Now, what I want to throw in there, different judges, different U.S. circuit Court judges will have different opinions on this. And trust me, the plaintiffs attorneys, depending on which. The nature of the case, they will try to find. Name plaintiffs. Right, the persons whose name is on the lawsuit. So they can file this suit in the state and under the judge that they want it. [26:02] JD: Oh, yeah, of course. That's how it works. That's fun stuff. That's fun stuff. Well, we'll keep our eye on this one, see how it plays out. And yeah, I don't know how I feel about all this litigation, but I'm sure you have fun being an expert witness at these things. You little snitch. All right, let's spin the wheel of ice. Let's spin the wheel of ice. [26:25] Eric Dyson: The wheel of ice. [26:26] JD: The wheel of ice. Stand on rogue guy. Come on, chat. Are you still on the drug? On drugs? Or can you. [26:40] Justin: No, I am. After that experience that I had, I am 100% narcotic free and I will never touch them again. [26:50] JD: Well, pound that smear knife. [26:51] Mark: Cocaine's a hell of a drug, buddy. [26:53] JD: Your shoulder's gonna feel great. And if my audio's not coming in, great. I don't know what you're talking about. I sound phenomenal to myself on this end, but I'm in a. I'm in a little hotel on my iPad. So I apologize. A little. [27:07] Chad: A little hotel? You're not at, like a bed and breakfast, dude. [27:12] JD: Yeah, yeah, I'm definitely in a suite. Yeah, there's multiple. I'm not gonna lie to you. O. Hey, let's go to the Voya and empower pooled employer plans, because you know me, I'm a hater. I've been talking a lot. Let's try something different. Assuming you guys did. [27:30] Mark: Yeah, you're not going to an industry conference next week with any of these guys. Are you. [27:34] JD: Hey, you ready for this, everyone? I don't think I'm gonna shit on this. Oh, I think there's some interesting stuff [27:42] Mark: position that had me thinking otherwise. [27:43] JD: But let me, let me, let me hand the, the baton. Baton. Off to you guys. And you, have you guys looked at this? Have you talked to your local wholesalers? And what, what lay this out for the audience. What are we looking at here? I can do it if you haven't done your home. [28:02] Justin: Let me, let me at least tee it up by saying how it was introduced to me originally, which, which gives me some frustration. And then we can kick it to the guys to go into a little bit about what they're doing. Doing, but. So Tristan and I are sending out some proposal requests for plans that don't look good from a startup pricing standpoint. And the feedback we got multiple times by a specific wholesaler was, you should push this into our new multi third party administrator pooled employer plan because it [28:35] Chad: will look well done. [28:36] JD: Because it'll look better. [28:38] Justin: Because it will look better. And what, what they're leaning on is that it was a very low, it would be a very low FL from a bunch of participants. Bunch of participants being like 80, 85. So not an audited plan. [28:51] JD: Their aka oh, I'll drink their record keeping me was juicy. Yes. [28:58] Justin: But so here was my fight back. So that was his thought. Like, this will look better. You guys should push it there. So my rebuttal was, well, why will it look better? You're talking about adding more services and doing more for the plan. Are you saying it's going to look better because you think they need these things? Are you telling me it's going to price out less? And the response was essentially, well, it's not going to price out less. Oh, well, then why don't you put it on the chassis that we're requesting here. And so I don't know if they're getting pushed or incentivized or what it may be. Why there's. There has been in the last week this heavy push. My trusted, really trusted close friends that are wholesalers at these providers that I reach out to and say, well, give me the rundown. A couple of them came back and said the same thing, which is it's not ready to be sold yet. We've just been given some marketing materials and given a little insight as to what it is, but we can't even sell it yet. [29:53] JD: Okay, well, I had a Southern California wholesaler who Actually got into a nice debate with me. Actually enjoyed it on the phone. And he is very pro this and gave me a lot of great points on why he wants to sell it and be active. But let's set it up for the audience real quick. It's and I hate to put Voya and Empower in the same category here because these are their own products. Voya is called the Total Flex third party administration pool and employer plan and Voya's is called something else. Where's my notes? I don't know, it's but something. Oh, sorry, Total. Oh, wait. And Empowers is called Total Plan Alliance. Interestingly enough, they're Both using American TCs. [30:45] Justin: I didn't know if that was one or not. Is it correct me? Is American TCS the one that bought Pension Pro? [30:52] JD: Yes. Correct. [30:53] Mark: I believe so. [30:54] JD: Okay, so they're both using them as the pooled plan provider. And Eric, pay attention because I want to get your thought as like an expert witness here. As a pooled plan provider, they're both using envestnet as the338. And then the twist here is, hey, choose whatever third party administrator you like. We'll snap them on to this pooled employer plan as well as whatever local financial advisor that you want on this thing. We'll snap them on. And at least in the Empower one, I heard they can pretty much dial up their comp however they want. I mean we can get into the weeds here. But Eric, I've been very anti pooled employer plan because of a lot of conflicts of interest that I see in these things and a lot of kind of not hidden fees. But we've kind of the lack of transparency that we've grown accustomed to after all these great fee regulations for AB2,445 that came out. I feel like this is kind of a, a grab back to the old days of more proprietary revenue and stuff like that. I like that. This one is obviously as a third party administrator myself, gives you that choice there and gives you the choice as well in the Advisor. But let me ask you, pooled plan provider, how would you, if you were in a court of law and they asked you like, okay, what is the role of that entity and how independent should it be versus part of some type of partnership with Voya and Empower, what have you? Give me your flow on a pooled plan provider in its purest sense or what you think it should be. [32:39] Eric Dyson: Well, let me start with this. My take on pool employer plans and pool plan providers. I'm Very neutral toward it. And people ask me, well, what do you think about people using them? And I categorize it into what I've always said, a third, a third and a third meaning a third just don't care. And whether it's a third. [32:57] Mark: Right. [32:57] Eric Dyson: It's some percentage, percentage of advisors, a percentage of plan sponsors. They don't care. There's a percentage that no way ever are they going to do it because they've lost control and a third are going to do it for all the right reasons. So I'm not, you know, trying to be a politician and, and pass on the continuing resolution here and not answer the question. But, but, you know, the whole idea. And let's think what the purpose was is just to delegate all the administration. Right. In my opinion, when we start adding choices on we've polluted the whole idea of there's one decision that the plan sponsor makes and that's a fiduciary decision to outsource their 401k plan. [33:41] JD: Yeah. [33:41] Eric Dyson: That should, now they do have to do some due diligence and that should be it. So I think we're getting into some dangerous ground. And, and I'm not, I, I'm not blaming Empire Voya of any widespread conspiracy. [33:52] JD: Eric, let me, let me go further. I was going to try to be somewhat positive on these products tonight, but how do you do your role as a pooled plan provider? If any old TPA across the country I'll drink can be on it. And, and any old financial advisor, I would feel like that choice is under the scope of the pooled plan provider. So if FOIA and empower just letting anyone do it, like plan design consultants or whomever, like, where's the oversight? [34:24] Eric Dyson: No, and I, I really, I tried to say that probably didn't use a good choice of words is that's when we're. If this is in fact something where every employer gets to make that decision, then we've defeated in my opinion. And again, I'm neutral. We've defeated the purpose of the path because I don't have a ton of experience. I mean, let me give that as a disclaimer here. But everything I've said. Oh, I wonder what I said. What did I say? [34:46] JD: Old employer plan. [34:48] Eric Dyson: Well, I use. [34:49] JD: And you can always continue your thought and just catch up. But. [34:53] Eric Dyson: All right, I'll remember that. I lost my train of thought anyway. [34:58] JD: Well, I wanted to say Jason Roberts is here in the chat bar and from what I understand of his firm in a general sense, like their mission I'll say this publicly. I agree with Jason and his firm's pooled plan provider concept and that they're an independent firm that's doing that role for the most part the way it was designed to be done. My bigger problem with, and I'm not talking about Empower and Voya right now, but with pooled plan providers all over the country and these pooled employer plans is that they're part of some kind of relationship, some kind of business that they shook hands on. And so how do you expect the pooled plan provider to properly review and look over and audit the record keeper and, or some national advisor when they're in cahoots with them, for lack of a better term? Chad, you had some thoughts, looks like. [35:54] Justin: Well, I mean I could argue back and say JD that responsibility falls in the shoulders of the plan sponsor. How do you expect them to do that outside of a pooled plan arrangement? But my comment back is we have these discussions about these different setups and let me just ask the question straight out. We know that group plan systems, we know that American TCs can do the work of a third party administrator. So what is the purpose of bringing in marketing our role? [36:29] JD: Chad, that's all you are. You're a sales guy. You little. [36:32] Justin: No, I'm not. But you try, you're trying to figure out why they're doing these things. There's only one reason why Voya and Empower open it up to the world like this of third party administrators. It's distribution. That's the sole reason 100 the sole reason why they will do it with multi TP any. [36:49] JD: And by the way, there's something, there's nothing wrong with that. When you look at their marketing materials, they're saying, oh hey, third party administrators are running up against this stuff and, and they called solution. And so we want to, we work with them, we partner with them, we do a lot of business with them. We want to give them a solution. Fair enough. I think they're taking a good crack at that. But becoming full circle again where I just, I never see where these things work out right in terms of the way they're supposed to be built. Like everything we pitch to the government and the whole reason why they wanted to do all this stuff and, and how we told them that it was going to be built, I just feel like we're pulling a whole, like a whole thing on them. [37:31] Justin: You know, let's acknowledge JD that the way this is built and the way some of the other pooled employer plans have been built, have been done to accomplish what we said it was going to accomplish. Some of them to, to bridge the coverage gap, to go after small plans, to try to create efficiencies and operations. [37:54] Chad: So. [37:55] Justin: So let's acknowledge that there is a space for this. [37:58] JD: Yeah, but Chad, that space, that's a drop in the bucket of the drop in the bucket of pooled employer plans like the great majority. Yeah, I still hear guys telling me that it's about the audit cost and I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? The audit cost? Jesus Christ. This is for startup plans and coverage gap and all this kind of stuff. So the good, pure of heart pooled employer plans, Chad, are a drop in the bucket of a drop in a bucket. So great. [38:30] Justin: So let's break it down just a little bit more before we move on. I asked the question earlier if this is the group that owns Pension Pro and as I dove into the materials that you sent over, which I had not seen yet, and they talk specifically about the third party administrator and your, your pooled plan provider will do the notice fulfillment and all of the other necessities that are difficult in the unbundled world. And then I see right below there the Pension Pro relationship with them. I have to imagine what they're doing is going specific specifically after third party administrators that are with Pension Pro and that document system so that they can then sync those things together. Is this going to work with people who are not with third party administrators who are not on Pension Pro? [39:19] JD: Yeah, you don't have to be on Pension Pro as far as I understand. But you hit a great point which is going to be boring for a lot of our audience, but I believe you have. The document has to be on FT Williams. Someone, someone checked me in the chat bar, but. So the, the document cannot be on Actuarial Services Corp. And you're right, Roby the F, it's got to be for something. So yeah, there's some nuances there. [39:50] Justin: It's not feasible for all third party administrators then like let's acknowledge that. [39:55] JD: Well, no, they're not saying no. I think they're giving you, I think Empower and Voyeur are actually going to give you the tech to put it on that dock and everything. Yeah, yeah, it's really weird. [40:09] Justin: So they're okay. [40:10] JD: They're really pushing it to make it work. We'll have to keep our nose. [40:14] Justin: I'm open. I've been open all along to these solutions. I just haven't found one that I felt like Was right. And Eric, you were asked in the chat bar, what are the right reasons for going to a pooled employer plan? [40:29] Eric Dyson: Well, to me, I, to me, the right reasons. And I thought. So let me go back to what I saw Shannon and Brian say. Brian said everybody's taking the easy button away and Shannon says they're not doing what they're supposed to. To me, the, the reason is a plan that wants to just outsource it. Okay, so let's take a little different side of it. There are people out there that are 402A fiduciary. Right. You hire the 402A fiduciary to do everything. But that's going to be on a single plan. Right. It's kind of the, the multiple plan version of the 402A fiduciary. The plan sponsor is going to make one decision. It is a fiduciary decision. I'm going with this solution and, and I'm relying on them. And the only thing I have to do is let them know when I hire somebody, let them know when they depart and push the payroll button. [41:16] JD: Well, but correct me if I'm wrong, Eric, it's not a one time decision because you still have to monitor that. [41:23] Eric Dyson: Excellent point. Yes. [41:24] JD: And which is kind of weird when you even say that out loud. Like, so what does that even mean? Like, so I'm going to monitor the pool plan provider. Obviously I do all my due diligence to hire them, but then I'm going to monitor them. Well, let's think about that. How do I monitor them? I got to monitor their actions. How are they looking over the record keeper? How are they auditing the advisor? How are they auditing the fees? Well, now I'm, now I've jumped right back into my fiduciary role from the beginning. Like nothing's changed. It's like, Right. [41:52] Eric Dyson: Two parts to that. First of all, it, it is different, but not much different. And we've got plan sponsors out there that when they hire somebody is an ERISA 338 investment manager. They think I've gotten rid of all my fiduciary responsibilities. Okay. And they do that. All right. But one of the questions, for example, I ask when I'm doing an advisor search, say to the advisor, we have, we meaning the client. We have a continuing duty to monitor you. How will you help us to monitor you? Whether it's a fiduciary decisions report or what they're going to do for benchmarking. But I think in that decision, for For a plan for it. For a plan sponsor to get in a pooled employer plan, they should be asking that question, J.D. that you're ringing up. How are you going to help us keep ourselves honest? [42:43] JD: Yeah, you know, it's going to be fun for you. Like it sounds like you already have a pretty good base and all this stuff. But I would imagine in the next few years because we're going to reach this. Who do we have on the show that told us these pooled employer plan lawsuits will be happening a couple years from now? Because you got to get like a certain, certain many years under the belt. But this is where the, the push is going to come to shove. I'm doing bailiwick. I'm doing all kinds of. What's going to happen is we're going to see lawsuits go down and then we're going to see where these pooled plan providers and these vendors where they stand in terms of whether they're actually taking responsibility for these things. Because even these. I've seen a lot of pooled employer plan contracts where there's caveats and there's, there's little nuance to it in terms of what they're actually going to be responsible and what they're not going to be responsible for. For. So it's going to be really fun to watch it all kind of play out. I'm going to finish this subject with this though. I do and you know, I give, I give these record keepers a lot of shit all the time. And I do think I'm getting a little golf clap for Voya and empower for like trying something creative, something a little different and putting a spin on a pooled employer plan. So I'd like to see. [44:07] Justin: I like it more, more than what I've seen. [44:09] JD: Yeah, look at stuff like this. [44:10] Chad: But I, I was just real quick, I, I have to say this. I was at an empowered dinner on Monday and I was told on the. I won't name names to mention that they were the first for the multi third party administrator old employer plan. [44:30] JD: Also first to market. [44:32] Chad: First to market. [44:33] Justin: So I just, I had to, I [44:34] Chad: had to mention that. So shout out to you know who [44:37] JD: you are, also known as Voya is copying us. Allegedly. Kind of funny. We didn't even talk about that. Very funny that they literally have the same. Not literally, but their products built very much the same way. Kudos to American TCs for, you know, working those deals. You little sales people. Okay, let's. Eric, I know that times are tough these days. Why did I Say that times aren't tough. I don't know. But we all got to make money, man. We all got to make money. And there's no better way to make money than to invest in the stock market and listen to Rogue Guy and his advice for us. So let's do drunk stock tips. [45:35] Justin: Oh, jeez. [45:36] JD: I had to. I'm in a hotel room, so I had to, like, do my notes on this stuff. Yeah, I prepare. I got notes. I just wrote them so small I can barely read them. Let's find a drunk stock tips. Okay, Roby. If anyone's new out there, Rogue Guy's a genius. The stock market flows through his arteries like blood. He just. He knows this stuff. He lives it. It's natural. He's a phenomenon. Okay, Robi, this stock is. I'm going to give you the ticker because I know. You don't even know it. It's ttwo. It's got a market cap of 46 billion. The current stock price is at $252.40, or it was at some point today, and the last two years, it's had an 85% return. [46:30] Chad: Grand theft Auto. Just buy it. Just buy it. I just did a quick little Google search there, and. Yeah, you know, here's all I'll say is I don't play video games at all. Not even a little bit. But, boy, do a lot of people play them. And they are obsessed. Matter of fact, the entire sales team besides me gets together and plays these weird games. And so my son. Yeah, I see at the line of sight. Yeah, right. Chad is joystick. Yeah, it's. These things are never going away. The. The kids nowadays, they don't go outside. They don't do anything. They're immersed in their gaming. Especially like Grand Theft Auto. [47:17] Justin: You just. [47:18] Chad: I don't know if that game should be legal. It's like you go around and just do some crazy shit. So, yeah, they're gonna. [47:24] Justin: They're gonna skyrocket, right? [47:27] Chad: What? [47:27] Justin: How terrible. It's like Purge in a video game format where people get to do crazy. [47:32] Chad: How would you know, Chad? [47:33] Justin: I've never played that game. Not one. [47:35] Chad: Oh, I'll show you. [47:36] Justin: All right. [47:37] JD: Okay. [47:37] Justin: I know what it is. [47:40] JD: I'm not gonna ask Eric about it. [47:42] Eric Dyson: So you're. [47:44] JD: You're a buyer. [47:45] Eric Dyson: It will be a pat. It will be a hard pass. All right. [47:48] JD: You are a buy on this stock, by the way. The only reason I think Brandon's showing us, like, a very, like today or the last week or something. The only Reason it's down is because they pushed out the new Grand Theft Auto. It's been pushed to a later date in November. Something. Everybody got all upset about it, but just shows you how. How much people love it. [48:07] Justin: It's crazy how much artificial intelligence learns who you are as an individual. So I asked, should I buy or sell ttwo? And it came back. It's like, as a 401k consultants, this is what I think about what you should be doing inside your retirement plans for your clients and goes into this full breakdown of how short term I should sell, long term I should buy. Hey, here to Mark's point, here's a stat I heard this week 72% of women play video games. [48:37] JD: Well, yeah, [48:41] Mark: that's like Candy Crush, right? [48:42] JD: Thank you, Justin. You sexist. Yes. [48:45] Chad: Yeah, you're an Justin. [48:47] Justin: Hold on. [48:48] JD: Yeah, that's. [48:49] Mark: I'm just speaking facts right now. [48:51] JD: That was exactly what I was about to say, but then you said it. So. [48:54] Mark: I'll never forget when I saw the level your wife was on on that game a couple of years back, I [48:58] JD: was like, holy shit. Yeah, I don't think 77% of women are playing Mortal Kombat or Call of Duty at home with their headphones on. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. If they are, God bless them. But yeah, I think, Mark, I like your. Like your take care. I mean, I always like your takes, except for Cheesecake Factory, but. Because I don't think video games is going away and I think these big brand names continue to impress and people get addicted to certain games and they'll play them for decades. You know, they always want the new version. Oh, yeah, it's. [49:32] Chad: Yeah, I was gonna say. And they're gonna evolve and things are gonna change, but will always remain true, is that people want to live a life that they don't usually live and they want to sit on their couch and steal cars and do drugs and go visit whorehouses. Funniest thing, you chat. You said a statistic. When I typed in that ticker, the first it came up was Grand Theft Auto Studio says fired employees were leaking information. So it's perfect little, you know, Venn diagram to what we've been talking about for employees at Human Interest and guideline and all that. [50:08] JD: Are they leaking it to guideline? Probably. Chad, your. Your little artificial intelligence inquiry sets us up perfectly for the next subject which we can get Eric involved in. [50:23] Chad: A Cheesecake Factory is going back down. See, I'm telling. That's. [50:26] Justin: Oh, yeah. [50:27] JD: Come on. Oh, yeah. Okay. It's eventually. Roby's always right. You derailed me. Where are we? Oh, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders letter to the Department of Labor and the securities and Exchange Commission very recently, within the last week, I believe, saying, hey, you know, this, this private equity, private markets and 401k crypto alternative investments, if you will, we're, we're serious about this is not a good thing. I'll go into the detail of it, but let me put Eric on the spot first. This has been a heated debate. I, I've got some email chains going on with some old industry guys that are going back and forth on this and fighting over it and it was some really smart stuff. But where do you stand? I'm not going to do alt investments. I'm even going to put crypto aside. Where do you stand on the private equity, the private markets and 401k? Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? I'm sure you've seen a lot of this. [51:34] Eric Dyson: Yeah. And I've written a couple newsletter articles on it. And let's start out by saying that the status right now is the executive order says the Department of Labor and SEC needs to come up with guidance. So I understand, I'm not trying to sidestep the issue again here, but I don't know that it's necessary. And here's why I say notice I hesitate a little bit over time. Right. The industry has proven that it works in pension plans. Right. And Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders concerned on the liquidity issues in pension plans. They don't apply because we can figure out pension plans if it's run well. I know exactly what I need for cash flow five years from now, 10 years from now, 15. [52:20] JD: And by the way, Eric, can I piggyback on you liquidity wise? When these record keepers build this into managed accounts or targeted funds, they're going to have the liquidity part solved at scale. So they're totally getting that wrong when they talk about that. But continue on. [52:36] Justin: No. [52:36] Eric Dyson: And so kind of similar and maybe there's a little bit more risk. Right. And just remember, mostly private equity, you're in addition to all that, there's the valuation question. And then they're typically more leveraged than other investments. But we're still going to give employers a choice. Right. And so for example, I know T. Rowe Price. I just had a gathering with them in Dallas and learned some stuff. They're going to launch a suite of target date funds that assuming this goes in the right direction, that will include private Equity and private debt. The biggest thing I learned was private debt's easier to manage than private equity. Right. So that's, that's a good sleeve for that potentially. But the thing that I don't think people remember is that we're not going to put, you know, Madison Dearborn stock as the choice. [53:29] JD: No. [53:29] Eric Dyson: Of a single investment. [53:32] JD: Although I would buy that up. I buy that. Madison Dearborn. No, you're right. [53:37] Eric Dyson: But it's only going to go in asset allocation funds. Right. We're going to have, let's, let's say hopefully professional managers doing it. So I don't know that it's necessary, but you threw crypto out because I got it in completely different opinion on crypto. [53:50] JD: Well, I did that on purpose. I wanted to isolate the private equity. Sorry, someone had a thought. [53:56] Justin: I have lots of thoughts. [53:57] JD: Okay, well, hey, go for it, Chad. [54:00] Justin: I'm well, so, jd, you know, I was on a fair share of those text messages of people writing in and essentially saying thoughtful comments as to why it's happening. My question would be initially, and I know the answer to this, has, has investment into the private equity space gone down in previous years? The answer to that is yes. They've been losing incoming flows by 20% or so year over year for the last three or four years. So is private equity at risk knowing that they're a deflating portion of investable assets? [54:38] JD: Simple question to you as you go on with this. Are you stating while you're about to tell us that either A, they're desperate for more and then two, are you also going to tell us that even their returns are not great and haven't been great? [54:54] Justin: I wasn't going to go to the returns. I was going, why now? Why now Is there this heavy push from private equity and the people who are heavily involved in private equity within our government system to get them inside a 8 trillion dollar business and it's because they're struggling. And when you're struggling and you need more assets, you need to find another way into investable assets. And the retirement plan system is the perfect, the absolute perfect outcome for that solution. [55:24] JD: You get. Let's go to use the guest. And so Chad's bringing up actually a note I had on my card says we hear the stuff from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, kind of silly about illiquidity and the lack of transparency. So put that aside. I hear some real industry pros on the financial side as well as kind of the government side kind of backing chat up and saying this looks more like a Desperate grab at participants, assets at, you know, we have, we've got a very big thing, this 401k stuff we got, and people want to get their hands on it. And so they see this as a way to get in and make some money. And then I hear some other smart people saying it's kind of bullshit when they tell us that they've had these great performance numbers and that us, the little guy, is not getting the opportunity to get this type of return, that they're kind of lying to us about all this. Any thoughts on those two points? [56:21] Eric Dyson: Yeah, the first thought I would give is, do we have a bunch of surveys that say plan sponsors and plan participants are begging for private equity? And the answer is no. Okay. And have we shown that the investment Lineup in a 401k plan largely determines the outcome of participants in a 401k plan money going? The answer is no. So I do agree that there is absolutely more of a push from the providers than there is a need or a request or demand demand in the marketplace. [56:53] JD: But Eric, If I asked 100 participants, hey, would you like some alternative investments in your target date funds or in your managed accounts that the big fancy pants people on Wall street and the institutional investors and the big colleges invest in these kind of private equity and crypto things to kind of supplement your investment? I think they, a lot of them would say, yeah, I want that. So I get that no one's clamoring for it, but if, but that's a silly question to ask because, no, they're not going to say that. But if you pull them aside and ask them, hey, do you want some more cool shit in terms of investments to put into your plan? I think they would say yes. [57:36] Eric Dyson: I think the answer to that question is how you ask the question. [57:40] JD: Sure. [57:40] Eric Dyson: And specifically, let's go and everybody. But let's go back to Income Solutions. Right? Go ask all those participants, do you want something that looks like an annuity? And they say, no. [57:50] Chad: No. [57:50] JD: What? [57:50] Eric Dyson: Would you, would you like to have a portion of your retirement income guaranteed? [57:53] JD: Yes. [57:56] Eric Dyson: So it's the same thing there. It depends on how you ask that. [57:59] JD: I know, okay, I agree with you. But then you just made the point that both those questions are irrelevant. They make no sense. Like even the fact that they're. I'm going to, I'm challenging you. The fact that they're not clamoring for it also is irrelevant. This is about what do we want to do for our participants in this industry and do we think creating more diversification and putting a sliver of 3%, 5%, what have you, and alt investments. And now we'll bring in the crypto and some other things into this conversation. Is that not a good thing for target date funds and managed accounts? And why not just let the voyagers and the empowers and the T Rose, let them do their thing. Like, why are we pitching about it? [58:39] Eric Dyson: And go ahead. Who. [58:41] Justin: No, please go, Eric. Please go. [58:42] Eric Dyson: I was gonna say let's. Okay. This is a quote from Don Tron, and probably most of the audience knows who Don is. Right. Let's remember that the people that have the most liability and the most risk in this business are the ones that have the least education, the least amount of time and the least amount of training, and that's the plan sponsor. So a lot of what you say, jd, still boils down to what is the sophistication level of a certain plan, a certain plan sponsor. I serve on a committee that I love working with them, but quite honestly, and I hope they love working with me, but honestly, they don't need me. They are very sophisticated. They ask all the right questions. I mean, there's nothing real difficult about their plan, but a lot of this has to do in those questions. You ask if private equity, private placements, you know, whether we call it private debt as well, if that's going to help a target date fund. I say if the plan sponsor understands that and they're willing to examine the risk. And let's remember the word risk means uncertainty of return. Yeah, I. And notice how I started out was, hey, I kind of lean towards. I don't know if we need it or not. [59:48] JD: You think the plan sponsor understands diversified emerging markets in their allocation or understands exposure to, like, commercial real estate or technology? They don't understand any of that. Why is it different? [1:00:03] Eric Dyson: I'm gonna put on my expert witness hat and say they have a duty to understand what's in there. [1:00:08] Chad: You said, you said duty. [1:00:11] JD: But what I'm trying to tell you is that nothing's changed. They currently have a duty to look over that. To me, this would be no different. Like, it's. It's just another sector that they're looking at multiple sectors. And we all know they rely on their professionals to guide them. And so that's what I said earlier. Rely on the professionals, rely on empower, rely on foia, who, by the way, are doing this. They're doing it. They've already made their partnerships. They're. They're putting this in place. So this is happening. No Matter how. I've said this many times on this show. We can debate it all we want, and Elizabeth Warren can write whatever letter she wants to write. This is happening right now. So can I think. [1:00:49] Eric Dyson: And let's. Like I said, I started with if it turns out the do Department of Labor. [1:00:54] JD: Oh, [1:00:57] Chad: you're gonna give him check. [1:00:58] Eric Dyson: Swing somebody else duty anyways. But if the answer is we. If the answer from the Department of Labor and the securities Exchange Commission is yes, we're gonna allow it. Here's the circumstances. I'd be like, okay, fine. I wouldn't be jumping up and down and saying, this is a really dumb decision. [1:01:16] Justin: I. Everything the two of you have said is intelligent and accurate, but I cannot stop myself from asking, why now? [1:01:27] JD: Yeah, yeah, it's been there. [1:01:29] Justin: It's been there. This has always been there. But now, why not 10 years ago? [1:01:34] JD: Like many things in life, this is. You're asking that because this is the opposition that you've heard. You've heard. No, I'm asking that this rumor that, oh, they're desperate. Desperate and they need to find assets. We don't know if that's 100 true. That's just the opposition saying that it could be very well true. But I think that it is in [1:01:53] Justin: my nature to figure out when something is pushing into what we have done and done well for quite some time. It's my nature to ask the why when it's not being asked for. Well, how much point. It's not being requested, it's being pushed. [1:02:07] JD: There's always. I don't think anyone requested all kinds of sectors and asset classes over the last 30 years. I think professionals are trying to figure out a way to make their funds maximize their returns at a lower risk and a better standard deviation and a better. [1:02:25] Justin: Who are these investors, JD because it's not the advisors we're working with. No, they're not the ones pushing alts. They're not the one. They're not the ones pushing these. These private equities. [1:02:36] JD: They are exactly the ones that are putting in their programs right now. What the Are you talking about putting [1:02:41] Justin: it in their programs? But they could introduced this long ago, Chad. [1:02:45] JD: There's no gun to their head. They didn't have to do this. Just because private equity have. You're saying is desperate doesn't mean that voice. Desperate doesn't mean that empowers desperate. There's no thumb to their head. [1:02:57] Justin: I'm not necessarily saying private equity is desperate. I'm saying they have a need. They have a need for Investment. [1:03:04] JD: Their need is not empowers me, nor is it Voya's need, nor is it T Rowe's need. Those companies want to do this because they think this might be a sexy flash. But. [1:03:14] Justin: Yeah, no, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing why the push is happening. The push did not start with Voya. The push did not start with Fidelity or Empower. The push started from private equity. [1:03:26] JD: Fair enough. Yeah, the push started. [1:03:28] Justin: And who stands to prosper in the private equity side if they get access to $8.7 trillion of investable assets, even [1:03:37] JD: if it is a sliver Power Envoy? And these companies didn't have to do this. And so they made decision because they wanted to. [1:03:44] Justin: It's legislators is what I'm trying to. That it's people that have the ability to say, yes, this is going to be allowed. They're the ones that are pushing. They're the ones that have to prosper in this situation. [1:03:55] JD: Was the devil. Go ahead, Eric. [1:03:58] Eric Dyson: No, I was gonna say if. If tomorrow. We live in a world where this has been approved, including cryptocurrency. Right. We need to remember the plan sponsor still has the right to say, we're not going to put this in our plan. They still have that ability to say no. [1:04:14] JD: Yeah, they do. But, Eric, if it makes its way into a Target Day Fund, I just don't think they're going to have that kind of scrutiny. And you really are going to take the decision out of their choice. Like every plan sponsor out there, they're going to say, yeah, I'll take this Target Day Fund. They don't drill deep into the asset allocation, the different sectors. And so I. I think that some of what you're saying is true, but I think if this happens the way the industry thinks it's going to happen, no, it won't be a decision of theirs. They'll simply go along with whatever's been packaged up for them. Tell me. [1:04:53] Eric Dyson: I say a good advisor's job is to make sure that doesn't happen. [1:04:57] JD: Seems true five years ago. It's true today. Boring. It's. Yeah, same thing. Nothing's changed. Just a different new sector, new asset class. Okay. Now, I still. I still think. I think that's totally accurate. Watch it play out. Fucking tell me I'm wrong. That's exactly what's. [1:05:15] Justin: What you're wrong is the governance around said asset class, it doesn't carry the same weight that other asset classes that have been pushed into our sec. This segment and sector have been this does it? You. You're not transparent in the private equity space. [1:05:33] JD: Okay, Elizabeth Warren, there's going to be transparency. This is going to be packaged totally different. Participants are not going to sit there as. As Eric said and choose Madison Dearborn or some private equity firm. [1:05:46] Justin: I'm talking about reporting on the back end, jd. I'm talking about what is publicly available underneath these investment options. [1:05:52] JD: Well, call me naive. [1:05:54] Justin: Not the same. [1:05:54] JD: Call me naive. [1:05:55] Chad: Naive. [1:05:56] Eric Dyson: You're naive. [1:05:57] JD: When they told me. When they told me to go get my vaccine, I did it. But I think that what's going to end up happening is that this is going to happen at a higher level. It's going to go into these things and it's not going to be their decision. It's the industry's decision. So I just don't. Some. I don't even understand what we're talking about, to be quite honest. Like, I agree with what Eric said in a bit. Hey, a good advisor should be smart about this stuff and should understand it the same way they should understand glide paths and current sectors and target funds. And no offense to any advisor in the chat bar, but a lot of you motherfuckers don't even get that shit right. So good luck with the new stuff. Hate on JD Ripping on my own audience. Not you guys. [1:06:43] Justin: Ready for Texas? You're so right. [1:06:45] Eric Dyson: Tony. [1:06:46] JD: Not you guys, of course. Okay, let's. We've gone long. Let's do. Let's do. Let's do a quick flash. Just quick flash. No for dope. Brandon. No for dope. We're gonna do the first ever rapid fire no for dope. At Eric Dyson and Maryland in the chat bar. I'll drink decepso. Thanks for. Great. Oh, that. Is that who that is? [1:07:26] Mark: Okay, I'm assuming it is. [1:07:27] JD: Great job. Thanks. And just so you guys know, don't tell anyone that this is between us. Like on the show here, just the five of us. I only go after you and challenge you for good tv. Like sometimes. I agree with what you're saying, but don't tell me on that. Don't tell me. Okay, no per. Dope. How this works, Eric, is I'm going to give you some kind of pop culture kind of thing. You need to tell me whether you're dope on it. Thumbs up. Or you're nope. On it. And then you're just quickly, in a sense, going to tell me why. Okay, nope. Or dope. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. [1:08:02] Eric Dyson: Oh, absolutely. Dope. [1:08:03] JD: Yeah. And why? [1:08:04] Mark: Only one right answer. [1:08:07] JD: Why? [1:08:07] Eric Dyson: Why not I mean, that's like asking about puppies and fields of flour and rain. Gang had a glass of milk on it and my gosh, you're just. [1:08:16] JD: There you go. I was gonna have Justin. [1:08:18] Chad: Okay, well, hold on, hold on. [1:08:20] Justin: Creamy. [1:08:21] Chad: Creamy smooth peanut butter or crunchy. [1:08:23] Eric Dyson: Absolutely creamy. I don't like peanut butter. Can you make a grilled peanut butter? [1:08:29] Chad: Oh, shut up, Justin. [1:08:31] JD: Good. [1:08:31] Justin: Grilled peanut butter and jelly. [1:08:33] Eric Dyson: Yes, absolutely. [1:08:34] Chad: Have you seen people put. People put uncrustables in the toaster? [1:08:40] JD: When I said, yeah, try that. Hello, audience out there. When I said rapid fire, I had. [1:08:46] Chad: No, no, no, no, no. [1:08:47] Justin: We didn't know you were gonna give us such a good one. [1:08:49] Mark: Yeah, that is right. [1:08:51] JD: You never know of this. [1:08:52] Eric Dyson: Hey, guys. [1:08:55] Chad: Ice cream sundaes. Like, what are you talking about, dude? [1:08:59] JD: All right, Eric. No, for dope Mouthwash. Do you use it? Yeah, it's good listering. [1:09:07] Eric Dyson: Total care. Absolutely. [1:09:08] JD: Okay. Use it. [1:09:09] Chad: Hey, no free ads, man. Come on. [1:09:12] JD: No, for dope. Oh, okay. This is a real one. Not that peanut butter and jelly sandwich wasn't. I'm an adult now. I'm 54. I. When I go to the restaurant, I order a margarita and it's always on ice. No one ever asked me if I want to blend it anymore, but I feel like that was a thing. And I always wanted to say, yeah, I want it blended. That was. That's so cool. Margaritas blended, Eric? Nope. Or dope. [1:09:40] Eric Dyson: I will say dope, but I think you should have the choice. [1:09:45] JD: Dope. Yes. Okay. They're fun. And the last one. And we'll go to chapter champion. And I've seen some comments in the chat bar. No for dope. Texas. [1:09:59] Eric Dyson: You mean. You mean Texas and the other 49 bitches? Is that what you're asking about? [1:10:03] JD: Yes. [1:10:05] Eric Dyson: Dope. [1:10:06] JD: Dope. I'm talking about buying a 30 acre ranch in Texas, which, by the way, if anyone's following along, they accepted my offer and I closed on that son of a mess. [1:10:18] Eric Dyson: And where is it? Where is it, J.D. [1:10:20] JD: just outside Austin. West of Austin. [1:10:22] Eric Dyson: Nice. Okay. You're in Hill country. Nice. [1:10:24] JD: Yes. Texas hill country. [1:10:26] Justin: Congratulations, J.D. [1:10:28] JD: yeah, well, hopefully it'll. Yeah, we're all good. We'll see. Congrats. Congrats. Thank you, everyone. Chapter champion, last episode. Chapter champion was Greg Greenfield, and he got 40 wings from Wingstop tonight and some. Some loaded french fries. I hope he enjoyed those. I. He got four different flavors. And. And by the way, Greg, four of those were their hottest motherfucker. So I don't know how that went. Down. Yes. J.D. bought a ranch. Your choice for chopper champion tonight. Silent J. I'm going. [1:11:02] Mark: Heather Hooper. [1:11:04] JD: Nice. Yeah, she's kind of been a force. [1:11:06] Mark: She's super active the whole night. [1:11:08] JD: Chadwick. [1:11:09] Justin: I'm, I'm in agreement with Justin. It was Heather on my taskbar. [1:11:14] JD: Everybody's favorite. [1:11:18] Chad: I'll third that. [1:11:20] JD: Wow. [1:11:20] Justin: Oh, damn. [1:11:22] JD: All right, Eric, be a dick and don't vote for Heather. [1:11:26] Eric Dyson: I mean, it doesn't matter now, but yeah, I'll go with Heather. Absolutely. [1:11:31] JD: Well, Heather, I'm going first. It's a sweep. Heather. Hoop. Are you kidding me? Hoops. Hoops. Part of the retireholics community now is a chat bar champion. [1:11:46] Justin: Well done, well done. [1:11:48] JD: And thank you, Heather. I don't mean this in a creepy way, but I will be sliding into your dms, getting your address even creepier and sending you some stuff. So it's been a another episode of Retire. Alex, thank you for tuning in. You out there, the audience, we love you, our community, you're awesome. And we will see you in two weeks on November 20th for an all new show. Eric, thank you for being a second time guest. [1:12:20] Eric Dyson: Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. [1:12:23] JD: Yeah, you were. You are awesome. And you also, you might have the strongest acro sin game. You're definitely in the top like quartile top 10, even top three maybe. I feel like if you put a real effort in, you could maybe even have a clean game. Maybe we'll try that again someday. [1:12:41] Eric Dyson: I did, I was trying to have a clean game but Look, I'm at 5, for crying out loud. [1:12:46] JD: Not bad. That's not bad. And obviously Mark, Justin, Chad, I love you too. Brandon plays out some music. We'll see you next time. Everybody. We are the retire. We're changing the retirement plan industry. One beer at a time. Peace out. [1:13:01] Justin: Good luck, Raiders.