MEP Fiduciary Issues & Private Equity in 401(k)s

[0:00] JD: And everything we had, and it ended up being like $146 or something ridiculously low after three straight days of barely standing upright. [0:14] Justin: Hey, J.D. [0:15] Mark: mark. [0:15] JD: Let me tell you, though, when we finished the practice round and Mark realized that he qualified for the horse race, he went into like, nervous Mark mode. No more alcohol. He was chugging water in the cart. He was like, going through what club he's going to hit on each shot. Like he went into straight up. I'm terrified. Nerd mode. It was awesome. [0:45] Chad: You're going to have a really, really bad time, sir. [0:49] Mark: This. [0:51] Chad: Let me help me up. [0:52] Justin: You're going to have a real bad time. [0:55] Chad: Hello, everyone. The Dow closed today at 44,828, up almost 20% in the last three months. And Bitcoin is currently just under 110,000. Yes, an all time high and up over 30% in the last three months. And you, well, you are here. And welcome to Retireaholics, the longest running and best podcast in all of 401k. My name is Jay Dizzle. I'm joined by Silent J, everybody's favorite retireholic, rehobo guy, and of course, nerdy Chad. But let's all please take it easy on Chad tonight, okay? I don't want to get too personal, but Chad is going through a tough time and he's going to need the support of our community. You see, Chad and his wife Brooke have hit a bit of a rough spot in their relationship. You see, Brooke got access to Chad's computer and his laptop recently. His laptop and his phone recently. And she did a little snooping around and, well, it came as a shock to her. And it was a little upsetting the number of hours that Chad was spending on, well, Microsoft Excel. His obsession with spreadsheets has really gotten out of control. I'm sure they're going to amend this. They've got a great relationship. They'll get back to it. And Chad, I want you to know that the whole community is here supporting you. Brandon, I like that we have that one. On top of. This is a time where everyone wants to hear from some of the smartest minds in 401k about the current headlines. So let's. Let's do headlines. I got news for everyone. Our last show was on Juneteenth. This one's on June 3rd or July 3rd. Sorry, next shows on Christmas or Thanksgiving or something. But there's a difference between us and other podcasts, other things. We're committed. We're gonna do this like you can count on us to do the show when we're supposed to do the show. I don't care what fucking holidays popping up or what's going on. All right, I got that one. [3:35] Mark: We, a couple years back we, we jumped on on Thanksgiving. [3:40] Justin: Yeah, yeah. [3:41] JD: J.D. had his, his, his mother in law on, didn't he? That what it was? Yeah. [3:47] Chad: I'm just saying there's just a, there's a community here. There's a commitment to this and I don't want to let people down. If we say we're gonna do this, we're gonna do it. Gosh darn it. I got a late ad of a headline and I'd like to start a conversation with you guys about it. Our friend Mickey Murphy has announced that she has joined Prime Capital. That's Janice Stout and Scott Colonjo Colengio. I gotta get his last name right. He's a good dude. Big firm, big advisor firm. Why do I want to talk about this? Not just because Mickey's cool and she's an inspiration to everyone in the industry and maybe I'm looking a little too deep into this, but humor me. She's a third party administrator, right? That's her entire career. That's her skill set. But now Prime Capital, Tianya Scott, they're bringing her on board to their national financial advisor firm. This is a little different. I'm thinking this is actually kind of smart. If I'm a big national financial advisor firm, why wouldn't I want like an in house expert that's got the skill sets of a third party administrator? I like it and it makes sense. Am I, am I reading too deep into this? [5:03] JD: Well, let me ask where you think she is going to fit in there before I give you my response. [5:09] Chad: No idea. [5:11] JD: So we've been, I mean in, in full transparency, we have been approached by a few aggregators over the years, a few big national advisory shops over the years. That said we, we essentially want to buy you guys and come in house and be our in house administrators for bundled plans with our, our, our larger group of advisors as can. [5:35] Chad: I mean it's like a second layer to the bundled administration that's already getting done. Or to actually do third party administration. [5:41] JD: To actually do third party administration. I mean think about those conversations we had in Chicago. [5:46] Chad: Yeah, I definitely don't think that's what's happening here in any way, shape or form. And so, and that's why this is exciting to me. That so sense to me. But to go ahead. [5:56] JD: So your thought then is she's stepping in there to provide oversight for all of their advisors that want some sort of compliance support, conversation, insight. Think back to Nicole Hinman. I know she's, she's married and changed her last name, but Nicole Hinman was that at a larger broker dealer in the past before she moved on. So I could see Mickey doing a fantastic job in that role, but I'm not sure that's what they're bringing her in to do. [6:25] Chad: I think someone who's a lifelong third party administrator and the skill sets that they acquire over all that time just could be so valuable to a big advisor shop in a variety of ways. You know, even if it's just like helping with strategic kind of plans for the future or how they're going to educate their advisors more or how they're going to deal with bundled providers or unbundled providers. I just, I feel like, and maybe I'm just dreaming here, but I feel like Jenny and Scott with Mickey's help are kind of, are kind of paving a new path that to me seems very simple but also genius at the same time. [7:04] Mark: Did you see Kush's comment? Her job titles? [7:07] JD: Director of ERISA Compliance. Got me. Got me. [7:14] Mark: So that makes a ton of sense, right? I mean I, I liken that to hurry, you know, doing like. [7:20] Justin: Hey, it says there's a description of it right here in the article. If you didn't read it. No, there was an article. Yeah. You want me to, you want me to tell it literally? [7:31] Chad: Don't act like you. Yeah. What's she gonna do? [7:33] Justin: I'm reading it now actually, so I can go back a step. I saw Mickey's announcement that she was leaving her current gig and she retired. [7:40] JD: Yeah. [7:41] Justin: Getting into like speaking and then minutes later I see another post from John Sullivan. I was like, hahaha, tricky, tricky. But it says okay, is this corporate [7:49] Chad: googly goo or does it actually tell us what she's going to do? [7:52] Justin: Well, I'll, I'll just preface it, I'll just kind of go to the bottom here and I'll just say I'll start from this part. There's more, but it says Mickey's role will be to lead client communications and help them stay proactive on key deadlines while also assisting our 200 advisors and proactively running good plans. They'll also get involved when clients have mergers and acquisition transactions and similar matters to help with the plan. Her expertise and years of doing so are also valuable. And there's more there. [8:20] JD: I love that, I love that. [8:22] Chad: I Think Justin Neil. It's like a hurry and sorry for everyone listening in. Like true hurry is our VP of compliance. [8:29] Justin: Oh, that's not how you say her [8:30] Chad: name at plan design consultant. But yes, I do. I like this. So anyways, we'll probably learn more. I'm sure we'll have Scott back at some point. But in January. I like this. [8:43] JD: That's cool. I thought it was cool in, in full transparency. I've known Mickey for years. She's phenomenal. So don't take this negatively when I say this and she's going to crush it. But my initial thought when Justin and Mark started to describe what they thought the role was would be it was a fit for an attorney. But then as Mark red leading client communications and merging, she's more front lines, less okay. Tactical, more communication driven. So I see where she's gonna. [9:13] Chad: I like, I like you're saying this. I think this is a good end cap on this. Okay, so you say a fit for an attorney and I agree. I think that makes a lot of sense. I also think there are very experienced advisors that know a lot about design and compliance work. But can we just for a moment say that if you're a lifelong third party administrator, and especially like Mickey, because she's very knowledgeable, you know shit that attorneys don't know. You know shit that big time experienced advisors don't know. It's another level of nuance, detail and understanding that you're only going to get by working on the front lines like she has for so many years. And so that's, that's my whole kind of takeaway from this is yes, I'd love to see more third party administrator types being swooped up by a large financial firm that's saying, hey, we just want your intellectual capital over here, bro. Like just come over. We'll pay you big bucks. Come over here and help us do shit. You know. So that's my thought. Let's go to the next one. Hey, Mark, you want to do a new bit? Want a new bid on this show where I do the headline and then you guess what it's going to be about? I came up with this idea today. I thought it might be fun to try it out. [10:29] Justin: Yeah, you got a cool name for it too? [10:31] Chad: Not yet. [10:32] Justin: Is it called Drunk Headlines? [10:34] Chad: Not yet, but I will. The boogeyman strikes again. Pentagra settles multiple employer suit. What do you think? We're going to be talking about this one? [10:47] Justin: Okay, well that's, that's not a fun one to do. I'M not gonna answer that question. [10:52] Chad: Don't say my ideas are bad. [10:54] Justin: My segment idea, that's a really shitty idea. [10:59] Chad: First question. Something feels a little different about this one to me. Most of these lawsuits seem to focus on the plan sponsor or the employer that's who is named in the lawsuit. This is the vendor Pentegra. This is, by the way, an underhand. I'm just trying to tee up the conversation here. Why, why is Pentegra at the center of this suit? And why is Pentegra settling with this instead of the plan sponsor? [11:32] JD: And because they are. They are the plan sponsor in this situation, being a multiple employer plan set up under their pooled employer plan structure, [11:43] Chad: which that's exactly what I was looking for. And that very simple but very true. So, yeah, they're having to cough up 48.5 million because they are the fiduciary. They provide these, these fiduciary services. In the lawsuit itself, I'll kind of read from this, it says, this is from one of Nevin's articles in the past, not the one you're seeing here on the screen. But I did a little bit of research and he said, hey, for example, the suit invoked claims drawn from Pentegra marketing materials where they said that, quote, pentagra claims that its status as a Plan Administrator under 29 USA, blah blah, blah, blah, blah, 316 shifts Fiduciary responsibility away from participating employers. So that you think, and we talked about this last time on their website, it's all over. About how they're fiduciary and they do all this stuff. And then combined with that, what Chad said, that it's a multiple employer plan and not to be the hey, I told you so, but here we go. This is exactly what Schlichter's thinking is this is conflict of interest city and he needs to get in there and do something about it. And he did. Let me give you a little bit of number perspective here. Almost 50 million. That's a big number. Okay. Pentagra, I think, has about 50,000 clients. Somebody checked me if I'm, if I'm off base. So I don't know what their revenue is. But if it's 7,500 or something like that, it's like 350 million. If it's 10 grand per client, it's like 500 million. Let's assume it's half a billion. 500 million. 50 million is. That's. They're not stiped right now. That. That's a tough check. [13:24] Mark: Yeah. I mean, right. Is that the case though? Because it could have been a lot higher. Based on What? [13:28] Justin: True. [13:29] Chad: Yeah, true. [13:31] Mark: 15 million, hence 157, I think 55,000 clients. [13:36] JD: 155 million. Hey, the question I had when I looked at that was I think sometimes these lawsuits open up the hood of how easy it is for these financial institutions to soak up that kind of. And it just tells you how freaking profitable they actually are in some. In some of these spaces. Like, we're all complaining about squeezing of margins, yet they're clearing hundreds of millions of dollars a year, providing 401k administration and record keeping and squeezing in some sort of asset management in there. Like that's a ton of money. 48 million is a lot. [14:15] Chad: But you're kind of countering my point because I honestly think that they sat in a boardroom and someone said, fuck, this is not going to be good for us financially right now. I think this is a. [14:27] Justin: For sure, [14:29] JD: for sure. But again, the fact that they have enough revenue to soak it up. Like we've seen a few of these now, right, where it doesn't even. You look at year end, year end stock value, often for some of these publicly traded companies that have been hit, there's been no real damage to them. Like they can absorb it fairly easy. We'll see how Pentagra does with it. But it just tells you the upper echelon of record keeping providers are clearing a lot of money right now. [15:00] Justin: Echelon, that's a good one. I like that. [15:02] JD: Echelon. [15:04] Justin: No, no, you can't say that. [15:06] Mark: Can we just talk real quick about how much the council is going to be paid versus how much the actual whistleblowers are. [15:15] Chad: Yeah, like Jesus Christ. In mil for the boogeyman. [15:18] Mark: Right. Versus 25, 000 for the three named plaintiffs. [15:23] JD: Well, that's what they're getting on top of the class action, Justin. Those three name plaintiffs are getting more than everybody else because they stood up is what it's saying. [15:34] Chad: Well, those are tiny checks for them, but yeah, fair enough. There's making a ton of money, by the way. So he pulls in 16 million on this one. [15:46] Mark: Five years to get through it, though. [15:48] Chad: I think Nate Moody said something. What? It's open season on multiple employer plans. Yeah. What do you think Schlichter's doing? He gets back to the home office and is thinking about, hey, where do we set our radar next? Like, who do we want to set our sights on our targets? I think he's thinking, you know what he says to his team, he goes, hey, how big are those pooled employer plans getting? Name a few of those that are getting nice and juicy, because we can. [16:11] JD: Let's find them. [16:12] Chad: Let's find them. [16:13] Mark: Evan made that comment earlier. Do you see that thing about the conference when you're. At first, Andrew, he's like, hey, is this going to become a thing where they're, you know, doing all three roles there? It's gonna be conflict of interest, and he's gonna go start those guys. [16:26] Chad: Hell, yeah. [16:27] JD: Jd, I. I'll give you a not very proud moment here recently, but, you know, we. We are a longtime client, good advisor, partner of ours. We've done their combo plan for years. They've decided they're going to move adps. Dang it. Automatic Data Processing is becoming hard at them. And he's decides, all right, we're going to give him a shot, like, it'll integrate with our payroll. So we're going to give him a shot. So I'm having a call with him, and he tells me that Automatic Data Processing can run their combo plan. And I said, that's not true. They can't. They're not going to do the actuarial side of the cash balance. He says, well, you're right. The cash balance will be with Pentegra. And I let it slip right? Then I'm like, you mean the group that's being sued for 50 million or just lost a $50 million lawsuit? [17:12] Chad: I'm like, dirty. You're dirty. [17:14] JD: I did it. But he and I are tight. Like, we're good friends. So it was okay that I did it, but I still felt dirty as I said it. But that stuff needs to be. That stuff needs to be leaked out there. What also bothered me is that Automatic Data Processing is pitching that they're doing the work. Like we are going to do the compliance work and the actuarial work. And then when you look at the contracts, it's actually Pentagra doing it. [17:37] Chad: Well, I don't want to defend the multiple player of the pulled employer plans, but I will try to defend Pentagra for a moment here in that you could pretty much look up any major record keeper and they're going to be involved in a lawsuit at one point, if not several. So it kind of just goes with the gig. So just to say, oh, you mean the one that got sued by this or that, by the way, is it my Internet that sucks, or is it Brandon's Internet that sucks? [18:04] Mark: Everything's clean on my end. [18:05] JD: Everything's Clean on my end. [18:07] Chad: It's gotta be me. I see. Like, the article is blurry behind you right now. Is it me? Is it me? I want to go back to a segment we've done. Hopefully Brandon saw my email, gets a shot of confirmed with him. We'll roll the dice. I was hoping to do a little retireholics throwback where we go back to a past show. I believe this is episode eight. And at the end of these shows, we do our little sign off and then a little something funny would happen. Oh, this is episode number eight, the first one of season two. [18:43] JD: Oh, my gosh, we're so young. [18:46] Chad: Changing the 401k industry. One beer at a time. [18:50] Justin: One billion good. [18:53] Chad: All right, I think we all end with one beard. [18:59] Justin: We'll get our flow real quick. This is a limited time off. [19:03] Chad: God, Mark, you look like a baby. [19:05] Justin: 30 seconds to react to this. There will be a number on the bottom of the screen or a website or a Twitter handle or. I don't know what's gonna happen here because my editor is gonna do something. This picture. If you want this in your office, me every day. Look at. I would want it. You want this up? And we will autograph it all four to Mark. I don't know the other guy's three names. So if you want me to autograph it and you want in your office. 29.95. That's literally. We're losing money by selling this to you. If you want it, call email. What have you order it. [19:40] Chad: Jesus. [19:40] Justin: What are you waiting for? [19:48] JD: Love it. Mark. Miami. Mark, baby. [19:51] Justin: Miami. [19:51] JD: Mark. Oh, look at PDC statistics back on the wall too. Remember that? [19:55] Chad: In. In chalk. In chalk. Yeah. A little throwback. By the way, when you go back, I want to say that maybe I've said this before, so I apologize, but I go back to, like, find something old. That'd be cool. So I'm clicking through some old episodes. I'm nostalgic. Nostalgia. Nostalgia. [20:15] JD: You're nostalgic. [20:17] Chad: It's telling me like, well, we did some really cool funny shit. And I'm trying to find the cool, funny shit. And then I'm like, yeah, I remember that time we, like, tased Chad because of quizlet death. Let me go find that. And then I watch him like, it's not that funny, bro. [20:33] Justin: JD it's not fun to you because you know what's gonna happen. [20:37] Chad: Maybe I'm just thinking we thought we were a lot better than we were. [20:42] Mark: Hey, it got us to here. [20:44] Chad: Wasn't very good. [20:45] Justin: Don't Know how I know? [20:48] Chad: When I gave this one out, Mark was drooling. Let's talk about what is, is it July 1st? Is that the day, Mark, what's July? When I say that we're going to talk about July 1st, what are we talking about? [21:04] Justin: It's the first day of the second half of the year. [21:08] Chad: What is it, Justin? [21:10] Mark: Bobby Bonilla Day. [21:11] Chad: It's Bobby Bonilla Day. [21:13] JD: Bobby B. [21:14] Mark: You should have asked Chad that. [21:16] Chad: Did you all get a chance to watch the short video that features. [21:21] Justin: So that was part of the prep. I only saw it because Chad was sitting next to me watching it and then he turned his laptop and I watched it with them [21:29] JD: while we were having a Corona or a Coors Light. Yeah. [21:33] Chad: Teachers Institute of American. I don't know what, I don't know what it's called, but they did a little four to five minute clip with Bobby talking about this deal. And so this ties into retirement because he had 5.9 million left on his Mets contract. And for whatever reason the Mets did not want to pay that all in one lump sum. They had voiced their concern with that. So Bobby and his agent work out this deal where they could push the payment out for 10 years. Kind of put it on pause, but it would, it would compound with interest at 8% and then at that point they would pay it out over a 25 year period. And in that 25 year period it would also be compounding interest, you know, amortization schedule. And so it turned that 5.9 million into I think almost 30 million, $29.5 million. And so he gets 1.2 million a year for 25 years. It ends in 2035. But my questions to you are, let's go to Mark. Do you think that's a good deal for the Mets? Why didn't they just pay him the 6 mil instead of 30 mil? [23:00] Justin: I mean, I don't know what their financials look like way back in the day. And 6 million lump sum probably seem like a astronomical amount, especially with payrolls and trying to have a, that was [23:13] Mark: the highest paid contract at the time. [23:15] Justin: Competitive team on the field. So I'm sure the numbers didn't look good then for them to do that, but I mean, did it work out for them or like paying a guy a million dollars a year? You're the Mets organization with a billionaire owner. It's like chump change. So I don't think they're really, they're not, they're, they're paying guys 10, 25 times that a year that are on the field. It just seems weird that you're paying a guy who's like literally doing nothing related to baseball at all, has kids that are like 20 years old. So it's. It seems good for him. [23:50] JD: I don't know this to be true, but I have to imagine that part of that conversation was, was where they were butting up against the salary cap and the penalties that they would have had if they paid him. That 5.9 million would have ended up costing them, you know, 10.2 million or something, let's just say, because the salary cap hit. And so they looked at it saying, we can take this money, it's 10 year deferred and we get next 10 years, we can make a shit ton of money off of it and then we'll see. Yeah, we'll pay him more in the long run, but we'll make money over these next 10 years and save by not hitting the salary cap. I have to imagine that was the discussion. [24:28] Chad: In the future. They have a massive budget right now, don't they? [24:33] JD: Yeah. [24:34] Chad: Justin, let me ask you what's. What's. I'll drink for this because I don't know what they're called. What's Tiaa's motivation here? What's the corporate motivation? Like, why are they trying to showcase this? Bobby Bonilla one pointies, bro. [24:51] Mark: Right out for him. You should do it too. [24:56] JD: Yeah, there was, there was even a comment of that in the video too where I looked over at Mark, like, oh, God, for. There's probably a lot of people that didn't realize what just happened right there. But yes, [25:08] Chad: that's exactly what they're trying to do. So, Chad, let me bring it to you, the math guy, that my original question to Rogue guy, which you kind of elaborated on a little bit, there might have been some financial stuff we didn't understand there, but when it comes to guaranteed payments or annuities that are inside of retirement plans, who's the winner? Is it the. Is the person getting the payments or the TIA Craft. I'll drink. That's setting it up. [25:38] Mark: How long they live, huh? [25:40] Justin: Yeah. [25:40] JD: It's potentially both, right? It's potentially both that could make out. But there's a reason why these financial institutions sell these annuities and these guaranteed income is because they know they can make more money off it in the short term than what they're going to pay out in the long term. I mean, they're not going to sell them if that's not the case. Now, in this specific Scenario if you have someone like Bobby B. Who has lived for a long time or retiree who's, who's going to end up getting a lot of money out of it, that could be a win win for both of them. [26:13] Justin: Okay. [26:13] JD: Win for the user and win for the institution. [26:15] Justin: The, the only thing I'll say there, and I kind of said this out loud as the video is going on, is I'm like, this is not everybody's reality. Right. Because Bobby Bonilla also had millions of dollars at the time. When he signed this contract, he was already mega rich. Yeah, it's very different for other people to be like, oh, you know what? That $5.9 million, I don't need that right now. I could just extend it out over time, like again. So totally makes sense in somebody in his position who financially has the luxury and the flexibility to allow for that much money staring them in the face to be like, yeah, just let me that out over time. [26:56] Chad: But that is a nuanced thing that happened in this particular sit. I think the producers of this video actually sat Bobby Bonilla down and they did ask him. He made the statement of just seems, it seemed very rehearsed or whatever. But he's like just really good to know that every year in July I'm gonna get 1.2 million. It's. It's that, that helps me sleep at night kind of thing. You know, I can take care of me and my family. And that was the pitch to regular people of like, yeah, if I, if I knew I was. I like money. [27:30] JD: Let me ask the question to each of you guys here. You win the lottery and you win 20 million and they say, hey, I'll give you 20 million right now. It's going to be taxed. It'll carve down to 13 or 12 million, whatever it's going to be and you walk out the door. Or I'll annuitize it and I'll pay you a million dollars a year for the next 35 years. Which one are you taking? [27:53] Chad: I take it up front. I put in the rogue guy exchange traded fund and I just ride it out. [28:00] Justin: No, give me the, give me the money now. I don't know if I'm gonna get hit by a bus tomorrow. I need that money. [28:06] Chad: Respond to hack. [28:07] Mark: He is going off on the whole mad off thing. That's why they did it. [28:11] Chad: What's going on? Why is he off? [28:12] JD: Yeah, I don't know. The mad off thing. [28:14] Mark: So the Mets in were tied up with mad off, right? [28:18] Justin: So the 8% interest return. [28:20] Mark: They're like, we don't give a. It's gonna cost. [28:23] JD: Piece of cake. [28:24] Mark: So much money. [28:24] Chad: I didn't read that part. [28:25] JD: Yeah, I didn't know that either. I don't think it was in there. I didn't know that at all. I have to research that. [28:30] Mark: It was in it. Oh, so that's why they did it. [28:33] Chad: Well, we should apologize to Hackler. He's right. That's a big point of it. They're like, oh, 8% pizza cake, bro. Yeah, no worries. We got a guy. We got a guy who's crushing it. All right, well, yeah, I'll tell you what. I think we'll be talking about this subject, not Bobby Bonilla, but quite a bit more. Because if you watch LinkedIn, you watch the press, this is the big push right now. They want it, they're continuing to push for it for obvious reasons, even though they haven't really got traction. They're not letting up. So I. We will be discussing this more so. [29:10] Justin: Well, and Chad mentioned it earlier, I'm stealing from him a little bit. But that just so we're clear, a lot of other big name athletes are negotiating contracts that have this same look and feel as Bobby Bonilla. Like, and they're incredibly higher in terms of dollar amount. So this ideology of what he's done is now going into. But it's being done. [29:33] Mark: Back to your point, Mark. [29:34] Justin: No, but it's being done strategically. For these teams to go out and win games. Like, it's not because of a financial mishap. It's because these teams are just doing shit differently now. [29:46] Mark: Yeah, but to your point, the athletes can afford to do it. [29:49] Justin: Yeah. [29:49] Mark: He's making $2 million a year on his contract. [29:52] Justin: That's what he said. [29:52] Mark: Yeah. [29:53] Justin: Yeah. [29:53] Chad: Did you see the small print at the end of the video? [29:55] Mark: 35 million in endorsements. [29:57] Chad: Oh, two little takeaways. Small print at the end of the video. They paid him 60k to do the commercial. And then 2. Did you see his son's golf swing? [30:08] JD: Did he, did he. [30:09] Justin: Did he defer that, though? Did he say, I'll take that 60 12%. I hope he bought an annuity with that. [30:19] Chad: That would have been funny if he said that. Yeah. I'll take the 60K. Let's defer it out 10 years. Let's. I hope this is okay. I have an orange version, but it's fair enough. Brandon, you know what to do. Unless you're sleeping. [30:38] Justin: I still think this is rigged. [30:41] JD: Mine's cold right now. I hate it. [30:43] Justin: When it's cold. Yay. [30:49] JD: Chad just got done saying it's cold and I hate it. It's cold. [30:53] Chad: We know you hit bombs, Chad. We know you hit bomb. You're gonna three putt. Okay. I thought this was juicy. We had talked a bit about Empower and the chief executive officer there, Ed Murphy. Can you guys hear that? I can't. [31:12] JD: Nope. No audio. [31:16] Chad: And we had talked about that on this show and had a great debate. And I think in the show after that, I had let you guys know that. Wow. I didn't know this was such a controversial subject, this kind of private equity or private markets inside of 401k plans, because I'd seen a lot of LinkedIn stuff where people were going at each other and is getting pretty heated. And then I saw that Elizabeth Warren. Senator. Yeah, Senator. Yeah. Sent a letter to Ed Murphy and in power, basically, like calling him out on this. I think I have one quote from it. Here's a highlight from her letter. She says, quote, while you claim that this partnership will help clients better secure and prosperous futures, there are many reasons to believe that 19 million workers she's calling out, the ones at Empower whose retirement funds you safekeep will be more at risk as a result of their exposure to private equity and private credit. You know, her concerns are about weak investor protections, lack of transparency, expensive management fees, and unsubstantiated claims of high returns. So, wow, that really elevates the conversation and the debate when now it's not just in power, coming out with a press release, but it's a senator and a pretty famous senator calling them out for that. And now to put the end cap on this, the securities and Exchange Commission has said in 2026 they will be taking a much deeper dive into, into this and the appropriateness of it, et cetera, et cetera. Funny thing is this is going to tie to another subject we're going to talk about tonight, but I don't know, we don't have to go deep on this, but thoughts about this drama. [33:14] JD: I struggled with this one a little bit and I think I said this last time we talked. Private equity is. I don't think I have a really good understanding of what that means and where the access point is going to come from and what happens to the hedge funds and the larger, larger groups that are currently accessing private equity and using it as a selling point as to why people should put large sums of money with them because they do get this access. If the average working American now gets the same Access those guys and gals are going to play hardball, I would think push back to stop something like this from happening universally across the state. So I don't know. I'm as confused by it as I ever was. I do what bothered me in that article or it might have been the securities and Exchange Commission article. [34:04] Justin: Yep, that was tough. [34:06] JD: That was tough. Where he, where someone was quoted. If a portfolio can get an investor or the portfolio will likely. I think he even said get an Investor an extra 50 basis points a year in return over what a portfolio without private equity would generate. My immediate thought went the extra risk, the unknown, the overhead because you're going to be charging more for these and you're saying that the rate of return is an extra 50 basis points a year. I'm not sure as a long term investment vehicle like a 401 that that would be worth it to me. [34:42] Chad: You're quoting. Sorry, go ahead, Justin. [34:44] Mark: I would say that was her argument too was like hey look, the risks don't outweigh the benefit. They're just narrowly beating, you know, everything else. [34:52] Chad: So I, I, I don't think that that's true. Her, her saying that. Let's, let's back up first Chad's point in that. And you were, you were referencing, I think the guy who we had on this podcast, Rob Barrett Barnett. God damn it. The guy at Great Gray we had on as a guest on our podcast. By the way, how cool are we? Like we have, we literally have a guy who's running this company was on our show here. [35:21] Justin: We're not cool at all, buddy. [35:23] Chad: He had mentioned that that 50 basis points but as a very conservative number. And he was talking about it being involved in a target date fund and it being a sleeve or a percentage of it. And the 50 basis points you're referring to is, is that Target Date fund. So it's the actual private markets or private equity investments have far outperformed regular standard importers Dow Jones over the last five, 10 years. And then to Chad's other point, if you saw hedge funds getting upset about this and trying to fight against it, that to me would be proof is in the pudding. Like oh my God, why are they getting upset? Because they think this is a lever they can pull poll that is effective for their clients that they don't want other people to have access to. This would further back Great Gray and BlackRock and Empower and the people that are pro this are saying we want these types of investments in 401k to help our participants Potentially get higher return. Now no one can predict higher returns. We can only look back and we all know the saying, you know, those past performances are not predicated of future returns. But, but I still feel like that this is a very hot topic. It's going to go back and forth when we talk. Did we already jump to great Gray that wasn't my brand, just threw it up. [36:42] JD: Hey, hold on. [36:43] Chad: Yeah. [36:43] JD: Before, before you leap to the next part of this conversation, you see Ron Sir's comment up there? Like the why now? That's always the question I like to ask. [36:55] Chad: Underperforming, who's losing defined benefit endowment money, private equity. Oh, you think this is a push from private equity to get people to buy into their shit? I don't think private equity made this, this the move here. I think this was us coming to private equity. And, and Chad, to answer your question earlier, you do understand what this is? It's not that complicated. Right now we can only invest in publicly traded companies, right? All these stocks that are then all part of mutual funds. But there are all these other companies that are not publicly traded that do great things, have great business models, have bigger futures, you know, are going to 10x. Their business already are conservative and doing great profits every year. And you want, and people want to tap into those as investors and they need money to grow and invest and evolve. And that's where the hedge funds and all these, you know, high level investors have gained access to these types of investments. So why not? [37:58] JD: That was my lack of understanding really right there, JD is where are they gaining access? That's what I didn't really understand. Where will the. I guess I threw in power. I'm just saying in general, where is private equity traded? If plan design consultants wanted to go into that world as a privately held company and start to sell stock to someone in a private equity holding, how would they access you? [38:26] Justin: What's the market? [38:26] Chad: Where do they find you at 5 million in revenue? They come to me all the time, all the time as smaller private equity firms. But I get emails constantly, little packages in the mail. [38:37] JD: And so if someone wanted access to plan design consultants, they would go through one of these private equity firms and say, I want you to target plan design consultants. [38:47] Chad: Oh no, I think you'd be investing. [38:48] JD: That's the part I don't understand. [38:49] Chad: I think you'd be investing in the private equity firm that's supporting plan design, that's supporting you. [38:56] JD: Okay. [38:56] Chad: They'd be the one that Rock would be tying to or Empower would be tying to, and again, I would imagine it would be very diversified. It would be spread across different private equity type investments. And let's not forget in our particular case, no one's saying let's let the participants. Oh, maybe that was to Chad's point there. No, no one's saying let's let the participants choose what little companies they want to invest in. [39:21] JD: No, I get that. [39:22] Chad: We're saying let's build a Target Date fund. This is what Great Gray and, and blackrock is saying let's build a Target Day fund and then let's put a sliver in it that's private equity. And in that private equity, I'm now, I'm making up shit. We'll have 15 different private equity firms that do this in different spaces. Tech, healthcare, who knows what. I'm really just riffing now. And, and that'll kind of spread it out and, and we'll boost up the returns of this Target Day fund. This brings me to my next question. This great gray BlackRock deal that to me, I think this is bigger than it looks on the surface. This is Rob, who I thought by the way was like a. I'm just gonna be bad because none of this political stuff happened at the time. I think at the time I called him like elon Musk of 401K. He was very like drab and, and maybe drabs on the right word, very calm and steady and boring and, and whatever. But he's smart as, he's like a genius. And Great Gray has done massive things. They've got like over 200 billion in assets under management. They're the big player in collective investment trusts and pushing it into our industry in a big way. And, and those collective investment trusts are taking over mutual funds in our industry. We've discussed this before and so now what are they saying to themselves, hey, what if we get into this Target Date fund game? Like, what if we could get market share in Target Date funds? I'm assuming there'll be collective investment trusts. We'll slap this BlackRock logo on it for a little bit of brand awareness. Because BlackRock's going to create the glide path here and do a couple of other things. And I'm thinking this could be genius. You might turn around, sorry, and I left out the private equity. And our kind of shiny fishing lure will be a 20% sliver in private equity. I don't, let me go look at the numbers in terms of how big that they intend that to be. But I think it's possible in five or 10 years. We'll look back and be like, oh, my God, those guys are so smart. They invented something new. It's cool to have Ron Sers here in the chat bar. They invented a new type of target date. Something a little different that could take off. Advisors could sell this stuff all over the country, especially if it starts doing well. I don't know. I'm stirring the pot, am I? I think that's real. I don't think I made up too. [41:48] JD: I think it's real. I think it's real. And I think everybody's looking for something different to differentiate. And I think that this certainly could be the next phase, right? The next piece that people are going to go get market share with. [42:02] Chad: Here's what he says. BlackRock said it believes the portfolio of the future will be made up of 50% public equities, regular stuff. We're used to 30% public fixed income and 20% private markets. So did I guess 20. 20%. That's what he's saying in this new kind of model. Now, is this a aggressive, moderate conservative? Is this a 2065 or a 2035? I don't know. I'm sure there's, there's details there. But we are going to have Ron Sers on this show at some point. He wants the timing to be right, but we'll dive deeper into this target date. Fun stuff, but I thought this was huge. I thought this was a big, big deal. And I think if you're looking at it and you don't recognize that you're missing something because I think you should, [42:53] JD: I think you should push, push out some commentary on LinkedIn. JD on it. [42:58] Chad: Rob Barnett is no joke. Do you guys remember him? [43:02] Justin: Yeah, he. [43:04] Chad: He's no joke. And I would, I would definitely put my money behind that guy and his brain and obviously BlackRock. BlackRock, Justin, they run the world, right? [43:16] Mark: Them and Vanguard. [43:19] Chad: Stay straight. Okay, well, we can't just leave them. We can't just leave the money getting. We can't just leave the money getting to blackrock And Rob at Great Gay. Great Gay. Okay? We need to get some of that money ourselves. You need to get some of that money yourself out there listening in. How do you do that? You listen to a smart guy in a robe. Drunk stock tips. Let's do this. Good point. Tony. Where's his patches? On the road. [44:12] Justin: Oh, man. I was gonna, I was gonna make some manual ones. [44:15] Mark: Is that Brooks robe? [44:17] Justin: Is it Brooks? [44:18] JD: No, that's my robe. [44:20] Justin: It's Chad's rope. I'M at Chad's house, so there you go. I didn't bring mine. [44:24] Chad: Rule number one, you always pack the robe. Come on, we know this. [44:29] JD: He's got a robe in a safe. It's in the safe right now at home, locked up securely. He doesn't want to let the. The folks at American Airlines deal with it. [44:38] Justin: When I. When I. It's like when things need to fly separately, right? Because if one goes down, they both go down. So then I. I asked for that church and state. [44:48] JD: They. [44:49] Justin: They wouldn't. They wouldn't accommodate that. So I. I left the primary Robin home Plus. I mean, that thing, that's my retirement right there. I'm gonna sell that to some fan like Will Hackler for his Bobby Bonilla annuity one of these days. It's gonna be awesome when we. [45:04] Chad: When we shut this show down, we're gonna send Hackler all of our paraphernalia. You know, that robe is so sought after. Justin and I and Devin are doing a surfing event at a wave pool for advisors down here in Palm Springs, and someone signed up. I don't know who. So I apologize. Off to go look. And they signed up, and in the question box, they said, I'm only coming if robe guy will be there surfing in his robe. And I'm like, okay, all right. J.D. [45:40] JD: got jealous. J.D. was jealous. [45:42] Justin: We had that also happen at a event Chad and I did. Someone said, I'm only going if he wears the robe. And so I brought it with me. [45:50] Chad: Okay. I wanted to research. Well, I thought it was a fun group text the other day when I talked about Rogue Guy picking stocks, and Brandon sent a picture of a cheesecake and then a plane crashing. And it took me a few seconds to realize that what he was referring to as rogue. I got Cheesecake Factory wrong. And I don't know if everybody knows this. [46:11] Justin: Go ahead, make sure Brandon said cheesecake. I sent the. The plain one. Okay. [46:16] Chad: Okay. [46:17] Justin: Well, by the way, Boeing's doing just [46:19] Chad: fine, so let's just taking from my presentation. Yeah. [46:22] Justin: You're not the only one who talk here at the show. Four guys who talk. [46:25] Chad: No, but this is. This is the truth. [46:27] Justin: I went, sorry. [46:29] Chad: And I said. I said to myself, hey, when. When did. When did we do Boeing? I know the plane crashed the very next day, but I'm like, okay, was that the Shimano show? And I went to look, and I got to the spot, and I hit play. And it is so eerie and weird, because now that I know, the very next day, a Boeing plane is going to crash. You say something to the effect of I don't need to be a good company. I just need the planes to get up in the air and then land. And then Justin chimes in and goes, buddy, these are the ones that are falling out of the sky. And I'm sitting there going like, oh, okay, so two takeaways here. One is, there is something very mystical about drunk stock tips. I, I cannot explain it, but there's something in there. I am not suggesting that somehow this show made that plane fall on. Those people died. That would be the last thing predict the future. [47:28] Mark: But. [47:28] Chad: But there's something happening here. And then Jerobi's point, by the way, stocks up from that day. It dropped off horribly the next day, but it has since rebounded. And that's because when Robey tells you to buy something, you should listen. [47:45] Justin: Okay, here's market's also been obviously on a massive tear. So like everything's up. So let's just. [47:51] Chad: I think you play a role in that. I honestly do. [47:53] Justin: I don't know that I think there's things out there. [47:57] Chad: This company has trailing 12 month revenue of 4, 4.265 billion. In 2023. It did 5 billion 2022, 5.8 billion. So it's been trending down a little bit. They have approximately 5,000 employees, a price earnings ratio of 25.56. But I know you don't care about that. [48:19] Justin: I don't know what that means. [48:22] Chad: Let's see, the ticker is has. And they're known for brands like Monopoly, Play doh, Hasbro, My Little Pony, Nerf. Take it away, Nerf. [48:42] Justin: Well, I, I didn't realize that they were involved in so many of these other brands as you were going through them. Because my first thought when you said Hasbro were board games. And I think board games suck. Board games are lame. I don't like them. I don't play games. I do get forced to play them from time to time. I don't enjoy them. But, you know, it's a part of what families do when they're trying to hang out. So whatever. And it's a holiday weekend. Lots of families are getting together, probably playing games, having a good time. I don't know, this seems like a fun one to just say don't do it just because I feel like I want to go against the grain a little bit, you know, because I don't know the full portfolio of this brand, but that's forever. You said Nerf. I don't know, man. Something about you like Nerf? No, I don't, but I watched Justin have Nerf wars with Chad and I's kids, and it's like I called Disneyland [49:46] Mark: the out of them. [49:47] Justin: Yeah. Cocaine for kids. I mean, this is like steroids for Justin. So you know what? You just gotta buy it. I don't. There's no reason not to. It's. It's fun. Hasbro, I don't know. They're gonna be around. [50:05] Mark: Strategy cotton. [50:06] Justin: Yeah. [50:07] Chad: I mean, [50:10] JD: they're going into applications, so. [50:14] Justin: Okay, well, licensing agreements. I will say that. You know, there's a good point. I was at Costco months ago, and they had this big board. Like, it was like a giant iPad. It was like. It's a board game board, but it's all, like, a big iPad. Technology and all that. And I was like, well, that seems cool. It's got, like, thousands of games. No, of course not. Like anything. It comes with, like, 20. And then you gotta buy the other ones. And I'm sure Hasbro owns probably 80% of that marketplace. So, yeah, if that's where we're going, to the technology side. And also games, like, on your phone, I guarantee they're involved in that somehow. So, yeah, you buy it. You just go for it. Jump in back. You know what? Take 80% of your money that you have in the bank right now and go buy it. [51:01] Chad: I like where you're going now. [51:04] Justin: 80%. So. Hackler. Hackler. Take out 80 cents. Get it in there, buddy. I know you got it, you cheap son of a. [51:13] Chad: Well, I would just like everyone to know, listening in that not only do I have a fancy toilet, I also have a Monopoly board game that would put yours to shame. So, my. Mine's built out of wood. It's got these fancy drawers. It's 3D. [51:28] JD: It's called Jumanji. [51:30] Chad: Very expensive Monopoly, but you would expect nothing less. Okay, let's finish the last subject and get the out of here. I've got fireworks to prep. It's not true. I live in San Diego. We're not even allowed to do fireworks. We have a drone. Shows we have drones. [51:47] JD: I thought you were gonna blow up an M80 in your office tonight. [51:50] Chad: I tried that. It wouldn't work. That was a bad answer. Wouldn't work. The fuse. Fuse is broken on my M80. Okay. Yeah, I had a moment. This is. This is the kind of subject that Chad should love, because it's real, and it's about selling in the front lines. I've been sitting alongside my son in our Southern California office. And so I get to hear little things and kind of peek my head into little things. And he does not like our current presentation. He likes our older presentations, which has now come to my attention that some people use older presentations like you, Justin. When people ask for it, I know the advisors ask for it. And anyway, so Tristan, I get in this conversation, and he starts spouting to me stuff that my father used to spout to me 25 years ago. He's saying to me, but don't you think going into a 401k sales meeting that you almost want the consumer, the person buying it, to. To be confused by some of the words and the acronyms and the graphs? And then they look to you as the professional who understands this very complicated thing. And so you're the savior. They trust you. They buy from you because it's something that they'll never understand, but you can do it for them at a good price. And I was like, that is how my father sold plans. And in the 70s, 80s, 90s, I was hoping for a new world where things. You'd go in and be like, this can be very easy. We've got technology. This can be low cost. Like, don't worry about it. So you got. When's the last time JD Sold a plan? Where do you sit in this camp of complicated versus easy? And I want to be specific here. As a successful sales strategy is what we're talking about now. What's right or wrong? What will close you more business? [54:00] Mark: I admire his tenacity, but there's a reason why the guidelines of the world are beating the shit out of the rest of the industry. It's because they're making it easy to understand. And do. [54:13] Chad: I love that you use that analogy? That. Yeah, that's where my head's at. The guidelines of human interest. Yeah. Yeah. [54:19] Mark: And not to. I mean, I've combated you on the show, too, when you're talking about Secure 2.0, and I'm like, make it easier. Like, no, make it complex so we can still have a job, you know, And I get that part, but I'm not a fan of it. Don't make it. [54:33] Justin: Not on the sales side. Not on the sales side. I think there's a typical answer from a sales guy. I think there's a natural blend that can occur. I think, personally, the complex side and the knowledgeable side comes from us in how we present materials. I think the materials need to be simple. Looking at some of the. Even the webinars and things that we go through that are just slides with words on it. Annoy the ever loving out of me. I think the materials need to be simplified, but the presentation should come with commentary that is knowledgeable with value. [55:19] Mark: It's a skill set. [55:20] JD: Go ahead, let me ask the question. Let me ask the actual question. [55:24] Chad: Before you do that, can I just real quick say, Kevin, if. If I hear one more person in this industry talk about complicated plans are for tpas, I'll drink and easy plans are for bundled. I will reach through this screen and grab you guys a goddamn throat. That is such an old school, stupid thing to say. I'm over it. Okay, go ahead, chat. [55:48] JD: I was going to ask the question. When. When you're presenting something that is complicated. Guys, let's say you're getting into cross tested with everybody in their own allocation group. Do you think the client actually understands? Even when you simplify it, Even when you. So do you think they understand how cross testing actually works? [56:12] Mark: I think the way we present, I'm. I believe we do. And I think that's what. [56:16] Justin: What's. No, they don't. They don't understand it. They don't. Yeah. No, I. [56:22] Mark: Okay. [56:22] JD: They understand the time and value of money and the concepts around it, how [56:27] Justin: we get to that point because we're explaining the steps. They don't understand how it actually happens. [56:33] JD: Right. And so my point would be. My point would be in every sales. And this is what I'd say to Tristan if he was sitting right here in every sales position that I've ever been in, both inside this industry and outside side. What clients want is to trust the person that they're being sold from. And usually the way that you build trust, the vast majority of time is to be relatable. And if you go in there and you talk in jargon and code, you're not relatable. Yes, they may think you're super smart, but you're not relatable. They don't want to buy from you. They're not excited to join your team. Now if you can take the complicated and simplify it, and now they like you and you're relatable and you're understanding with them, then they will buy from you. So, jd, to answer your question, I will bob and weave. I think that that is probably the greatest strength that I have. If I'm presenting to a nerd that likes spreadsheets, I will be the nerd that likes spreadsheets. If I'm pretending to a guy that's tattooed from head to toe and, and is very loose and conversational, then I'm going to present in a way that he loves and can adjust to. That is the nature of sales. And you gotta be able to do both. So there's times to be nerdy, but our. Our ethos cannot be nerdy. We can't be the guys that come in and over things. [57:45] Chad: What I heard from you and Mark was there is a slight nod to the fact that this is complicated and detailed stuff. You just think there's a nice magic trick happening where you kind of let them know that, but you don't drag them through it. And then to Chad's point, you also are letting them know that obviously you're skilled and an expert in this area and you can take care of that for them. That seems like the obvious answer. Like it's a. It's a blend. But I do just want to say it one more time. This was the way this used to be sold. You would go into a room and you would confuse them with how complicated this shit was, and they'd be like, fuck, we need you, because this is serious. That was also. [58:30] JD: Nobody else can do it. [58:31] Chad: I want to bring that up one more time. And my son might be referring to my beard and the long hair and my company's brand. And again, this is a very friendly conversation, or I should say respectful conversation. I think my son is enamored with suit finance. You know, high end stuff like, Chad, [58:56] Justin: fucking fire him immediately. [58:58] Chad: I think he thinks there's. There's like, value in that and that if we somehow push that all to the side, we're losing that. You know, that everything that comes with [59:09] JD: that logic there, There is some logic there. And we all in full transparency and the friendly conversation we're having here, the three guys sitting with you did push back on some of the rebranding when we went from very. We. We went from very corporate in terms of how our materials looked to being very modern and very loose. And it was hard for us as a sales team to make the leap. We. I've. You guys have heard me say this for years. I overdraft. [59:38] Chad: Right? You guys are right. I think it was. I think it was too much, too heavy. We dialed it back a little bit and now just. I don't want to spoil the surprise, but Tristan's working on dialing it back a little more towards the corporate side. [59:52] JD: So anyways, I think that there is a perfect blend there, and I think you guys are sniffing it right now. I think your recent reiteration that you sent to Devin before Tristan came on board gets us pretty close. [1:00:02] Mark: Yeah, I love that. [1:00:04] JD: But there are advisors that I step in to rooms with especially larger plans with like, this is, this is good for a, for a plan design consultants proposal. It's good for maybe one pagers that you're handing out to be some edutainment. But it's not good to say, let me be your compliance nerds. [1:00:24] Chad: And you know what's funny is to Justin's original point of who was the North Star for making things easy and simple? It was the guidelines in the human interest. They were a bit of the inspiration in, in our new materials was like, okay, how can we kind of take a feather from their cap, right? Like, like and make this look a little more modern and easy and not so complicated. And I just think that, and this is why I wanted to have this conversation. We'll end it now. But I think that was a mistake where you lose some of the cool stuff of the old school, complicated stuff. And you need to like, you guys are saying, find that we love, like, we love that. [1:01:07] Mark: There's a lot of value in that, right? That to, to be able to, you know, showcase how good we are and what we know. But the reality is the consumer doesn't want that. They want to make it simple. [1:01:18] Chad: And by the way, different for a startup versus a seven million dollar takeover. Right? [1:01:25] Mark: I mean, how many times have you guys heard over the years too, like when you're presenting to them, they're like, hey, I've never understood this. And the way you presented this, it makes perfect sense now. Like, yeah, get some hook. [1:01:38] JD: First thing that came to mind jd when you launched. This is an email from an advisor from this morning. He writes to this prospect and says, here's, here's Chad. Here's bio. And he says, chad is our go to on all things retirement planning. Speaks in retirement language clients understand while helping provide significant tax savings. That's the general ethos that we give off [1:02:00] Chad: of someone telling him cool. Chad was. [1:02:04] JD: Yeah, he did this guy right here. [1:02:06] Chad: All right, we're ending on that. The, the, the chat bar champion for tonight is Chad and [1:02:16] Justin: Hey, Chad, this [1:02:16] JD: is your first time. [1:02:17] Justin: Do you have a speech? [1:02:18] Mark: Hey, can we get back to proper chat bar champion? [1:02:21] Justin: No, no, please, I'm over it. [1:02:24] Mark: No, I miss it. [1:02:25] Chad: I'm over it. We gotta find a new way. [1:02:27] Justin: Chat bar champions done. [1:02:29] Chad: Like, we gotta find a new way. I think what we'll do is we'll, we'll like, we'll give them a text, a mobile Number that they can text an image to and then the best image that gets texted to us. We will decide who. [1:02:43] Justin: So. Nope. [1:02:46] Chad: I could get fun. I could get rid of how many [1:02:48] Mark: fish hacks gonna throw away? [1:02:51] Justin: One. [1:02:51] JD: One last thing, jd. Gwen called us out. That and I can't go back up quick enough to find it. But that. [1:02:57] Chad: Why would we listen to anything Gwen says? She has two in her name. How inefficient. [1:03:02] JD: It was a legit call out for our use of a weapon that fires little foam things. That. That is actually an acrocin. [1:03:12] Justin: What? [1:03:12] Chad: What did we do? [1:03:13] JD: I'm gonna say, when you were talking about Hasbro companies and you used the term a company that fires little foam things. [1:03:20] Justin: Yeah, It's Nerf. [1:03:22] Chad: Holy shit. [1:03:23] Mark: Non expanding recreational film. [1:03:26] Justin: How many times did I say that? [1:03:28] JD: Like five, Mark. Thank you, Gwen. I appreciate it. [1:03:32] Justin: So I'm gonna let. Yeah, Gwen's still here, Glenn. [1:03:35] Mark: I'm gonna get there. [1:03:36] Justin: It's your choice. You make the choice. Either I take an entire spoon off ice and chug it, or I drink the entirety of a pickle shot. Or both. You have three choices. [1:03:47] Mark: I mean, the answer is both. [1:03:48] Chad: That's an easy choice. Gwen. [1:03:50] JD: It's her choice. [1:03:51] Justin: It's only. No, that's Kevin. Okay, Glenn. Glenn, no, not you. [1:03:54] Chad: No, not you, Devin. Not you. Kevin. Kevin, you know, I need to have a talk. [1:03:59] Justin: No, I thought you were gonna be kind. You know? You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna pour the picture. [1:04:05] JD: Pour the pickle shot in there. [1:04:08] Mark: That's gonna be. [1:04:08] Chad: What's the. What's the next big holiday that comes next in the calendar? Labor Day. Okay, Monday. Our next show will be on Labor Day. We'll see you all then. We are the retireaholics. We are changing There. [1:04:23] Mark: He got to watch him chug this. [1:04:27] Chad: Did he mix it? [1:04:28] JD: One pickle bomb. Yes, Tony, it's a pickle bomb. [1:04:32] Chad: At a time. Hey, Gwen, love you. [1:04:35] Justin: Thanks a lot. [1:04:36] Chad: Peace out. Hold it right in front of you, Mark. [1:04:40] Mark: Chugging.