Nevin Adams on PEPs, Fiduciary Rule 3.0 & State Plans

[0:00] JD: Web that it's a fashion faux pas to wear a hat on a zoom call. [0:04] Chad: Well, that explains why JD's wearing it. [0:07] JD: Yeah, well, in Martin, I wear a hat, like, every time. And it's. That's the thing, though. Doesn't really matter, right? We. [0:15] Chad: We do have a thing where I [0:17] Mark: won't let all three of them wear a hat or all four of them. And I'll, like, be like, okay, two [0:22] Chad: of you have to dump your hats. [0:24] Mark: Even when we did, like, the, you know, when we're all sitting on the couch, brand wouldn't let us all have a hat on. [0:30] JD: Got a series of hats up here. [0:32] Chad: Well, I've got a cool hat downstairs I can go get if I need to sort of fit in here. [0:37] JD: Remember this old one? The old retireholics trucker hats? [0:43] Mark: Back when I used to be able to make hats with that logo on there and the vendors wouldn't kick them back, saying, you can't infringe upon Coors Light, you know? Brandon and I stayed up all night before we went to Florida, Florida, Orlando, for that conference. And we made all this great Disney gear. Drunk one night at the office, like, it was flawless Disney retireholics merch. And we put in this huge order to bring to Orlando. And what was it, Brandon? Like, a couple days later, we got the email that was like, yeah, you guys can't do that. We're not printing. [1:20] Chad: Well, we thought because they had a license for Disney stuff, like, you could get Disney stuff and customize it. We're going to. [1:27] Mark: Maybe we'll squeak under that, you know, but, like, you could put, like, Sally next to the Mickey Mouse logo, you know, and we're like, okay, we could work with this. We're gonna make some cool shit. Nope. Is PCH here? [1:41] JD: Yeah, [1:43] Chad: Miss that. [1:46] Mark: Pch. Pch. Instagram is, like, to me, is like putting on a good record, you know, It's. It's a mood creator. It creates a mood. Not always the best mood, but it creates a mood. [1:57] JD: What's hard with pch, though, is I rarely, like, turn my volume on. So he's talking a lot of times, and I don't. I don't click the button to hear what he's saying. So I'm just watching. Nothing really. [2:09] Mark: You're missing out. He starts everything with, hey, guys. Hey, guys. [2:14] JD: I get hungry most of the time looking through his Instagram. [2:22] Mark: Here we go. I think we're starting. [2:24] Chad: We're good. [2:49] Mark: All right. [2:50] Chad: Nice one, Brandon. Nice one. [2:52] Mark: Here we come Walking down the street we get the funniest looks from every industry peep. Hey, hey. We're the retireholics. The people say we monkey around but we're too busy drinking Just like Mark to give a fuck what they say. We're just trying to be fiduciaries. Welcome to the show, Mr. Adams. We're the middle generation and we've got something to say. Welcome to retireholics, everybody. [3:31] JD: Wow. [3:31] Mark: My name is. Welcome to another episode. Thank you. My name is Mr. Carlson. I'm pleased to be here today with Mr. Johansen, Mr. Palmeni, and what's your name? What's the other dude's name? Mr. Justin McNeil. [3:49] JD: I had to do that since it was Nev on the post today. [3:53] Mark: Nev. We've got a special guest, Mr. Nevin Adams. He's such a 401k celebrity these days, many people refer to him in the one word name of Nev. He is the. He's here representing the American Retirement association, the ara which is also within the ARA is the ASPPA and the NAPA and the PSCA and the ASEA and the ntsa. [4:27] JD: Geez. [4:28] Mark: I'm not sure if repping that many companies is okay. [4:33] JD: You keep going on, you're gonna make Shannon's signature pretty jealous there, dude. [4:38] Mark: That's too many companys. I think [4:44] Chad: that's why we don't make hats, because it wouldn't fit. [4:47] Mark: Monkey, monkey, monkey. All right, let's go straight to Mr. Adams. We are so excited to have you here. We've got a lot of great things set up to discuss, and so that's going to be great. Holy cow. JD Got all the letters, right? Well, of course I did. How could I get them? [5:07] JD: Hold on. Let's just point out that Shannon did not get all the letters right in what she just spelled. And also she spelled her name right, which is not how we do it on the show. It's always Shannon S words. She's getting her nails done, Mark. [5:21] Chad: It's hard to hit the button or that. [5:23] JD: Or like J.D. always says, like butchering an animal in her backyard. [5:27] Mark: No, she's literally watching the show from the nail salon right now. [5:30] Chad: So Anna could actually be doing both of those. [5:34] Mark: Let's jump right into a little housekeeping. Housekeeping. Make sure. Make sure you're in gallery view. You know how to do that? Hover up there in the right or the left. And make sure you can see all of our beautiful faces at the same time. Yeah, of course there's going to be a chat bar champion. I believe the chat bar champion has already started on LinkedIn. There's already been some great comments made before the show even started. That doesn't count. Okay, doesn't count starts now. Chat bar champion. Be the wittiest. Be the funniest. Be the smartest. Be the most gregarious. I've never used that word before in my life. I don't think. [6:19] JD: What does that even mean? [6:20] Chad: Does spelling count? [6:22] Mark: No, I don't think so. [6:25] Chad: I just want to be sure. You know, Mark's very particular, I would think. [6:29] Mark: Well, Nevin, you could definitely discount votes for people who don't spell right, given your profession. I think that'd be fine. But we will all vote for a winner at the end of the show. So do your best, people, and don't hold back word of the episode. Prohibitive word. I don't know what the fuck it's gonna be. So I say let's go plan and let's go advisor, because those are the only ones that work. [6:57] JD: Geez, we're gonna do two. Right off the bat, I like what Greg's saying. Any acronym. [7:02] Chad: Ooh, any acronym. [7:04] Mark: Ooh. [7:05] JD: Okay, I'm a fan of that. Let's do it. [7:07] Mark: I'm with you, Justin. Way to go, Craig. And by the way, bonus cbc. Oh, that's gonna be rough. [7:15] JD: Yeah. Does JD count? Is that an acronym? [7:19] Chad: No. Yeah, it is. [7:21] JD: Yeah, we call him J.D. [7:22] Chad: that is. [7:23] Mark: Okay, Brandon, you got that? We're going acronym. Well done, Craig. [7:27] JD: Well done, James Douglas. [7:29] Chad: Right. And Josh. And Josh is right. [7:32] JD: No. [7:33] Chad: School employer plans Short form. [7:36] Mark: No. [7:37] Chad: Are you going to do that? [7:38] JD: I don't even know what those three words are without saying the acronym for it. [7:41] Mark: This is going to put a real wrench in things, but it's going to be fun. And I agree with Greg. It's going to be fun as shit. So let's get started. Yes, Mark, Is that. Are we combining all of that or [7:52] JD: is it just the acronyms? [7:54] Mark: No, just the acronyms. That's going to be hard enough. That's going to be hard enough. Let's dive right in. I asked you guys some things you want to talk about. Chad sent me. You all sent me an email. Justin gave me quite a few cool things that past articles you've written, Evan, that we may discuss today. Chad had some neat ones which are kind of like, gossipy. I'm going to start with one of Chad's. Mark wrote five minutes before the show started and he said, I just want to ask Nevin what his current 401k account balance is. So I guess we'll Start with that one. Nevin, Mark wants to know your account balance. [8:30] Chad: Which one? [8:32] JD: You're aggregating your 401k. You need to bring those all together, Nevin. [8:37] Chad: No, no, I consider it market research. See, I get statements from 5 different leading 401k vendors. I can see what everybody's doing in real time against my account. No fake demo stuff for me. [8:52] Mark: He's got. He's got 10. He's got 10 grand at the ARA, 20 grand at the ASPPA, 25 grand at the NAP. Oh, God damn it. [9:02] JD: How many times can you hit that? [9:08] Mark: I thought that was on a different screen. [9:09] JD: I was trying to hit it so many times. But you have to wait because it only leaves it at one. You have to give it a moment. I know. [9:16] Mark: Let's get right to it. Let's get Mark. [9:17] Chad: I'll answer your. I'll answer your question a smart way. I could retire tomorrow. [9:22] Mark: Nice. [9:24] JD: All right, me too. [9:26] Chad: Nevin, that makes. [9:27] Mark: That makes. [9:28] JD: Are you stepping on a Smirnoff? [9:30] Chad: Yeah. Yes. [9:35] Mark: Could retire tomorrow. He would. [9:41] Chad: I'm just warming up, man. [9:44] Mark: He could retire tomorrow, but he would live in a van down by the river, but everything would be just fine. All right, let's go straight to it. Chad, you said that you read something you saw out there. I have since pulled up an article. I have here. Oregon says the state run Oregon plan is already looking to boot a census and hire a new record keeper, which I think is pretty interesting because that relationship hasn't been around for too long. Is can Justin, can you see? Is Lisa Massena in attendance? Because I hope not. I'm about to talk some serious shit about state run plan. [10:23] JD: You're good to go. Hey, as soon as I mention something on it, though, she'll be on. I'll keep an eye. [10:30] Mark: Let's kick it out to our guest. Nevin, how does that strike you? You work this big deal, you're going to have a big state run plan. You pick your record keeper, you do all your due diligence, and now we're just a couple years in and you're already swapping out record keepers. [10:46] Chad: Well, they're three years in, right? [10:50] Mark: Yeah. [10:51] Chad: And three years in. Don't. You know, a lot of these lawsuits basically say you should be doing an RFP every three years. The other thing is, and I don't know if this applies to Oregon saves or not, a lot of the state plans, they are required to put the business out every either three years or five years or things like that. I don't know if that applies in this case, people have wanted to make a lot out of that because again, Oregon Saves was first and the census is not just doing it for Oregon Saves, but doing it for other programs as well. So people have wanted to make a big deal out of that. It might be a deal. I honestly don't know. It might simply be. It's been three years, folks. We're kind of up. We're running whatever. Let's just make sure. Let's see what else is out there. [11:33] Mark: Well, I'll tell you, I'm actually a little more pissed off about it than you are because I read article that and by the way, Hackler said that you said the acronym or request for proposal. So Nevin, you've got one drink on you. [11:48] JD: Oh, yeah, another one. [11:51] Mark: What I read is that a census, and I'm going to defend the census here. A census negotiated with Oregon Saves and had some, what would you call it? Like some terms where, hey, if we don't get to a certain amount of participants and a certain amount of assets by a certain time, we want to reserve the right to kind of come back to the table and tweak our pricing because it's built on this kind of unforeseen future. And they didn't hit those numbers. And so Asensus comes back to the table and says, hey, we need to reconfigure this. And then Oregon Saves says, now screw you, we're going to go find someone else now. That'll do it for less. I'm not a fan of that. I think that's not good business. And I also don't think that you run around switching out because that creates problems for your operations, problems for the flow, problems for the websites, who knows what. [12:47] JD: So anyways, every company is finding their contribution process to be different when you make those changes. You know where My mind went, J.D. dang it. James Douglas, you know where my mind went? No. Was. No, no, no. That counts. That counts. In the, in the pooled employer plan world, I wonder how many similar agreements will be made. Like a census made with Oregon Saves, which is, hey, we need to reach this number of plans and this assets and we need these number of participants in order for us to offer this multiple employer plan or this pooled employer plan. And when we don't hit those numbers, we're jacking up our costs because we're not going to be profitable on what we've tried to establish. And you've seen other advisors do it where they're talking about aggregating Books or migrating clients or a book transfer and then the numbers don't hit. And the 15 clients they did move over end up having a higher cost than what was proposed to them. That's where that went for me when I heard about Oregon Saves changing providers that I could see that happening for years to come. [13:51] Chad: It really was, it really was a brand new thing, guys. I mean the whole thing, I mean, who knew? I mean granted you've got a mandate sort of forcing the issue if you will. But the other thing is obviously Oregon Safes is a pretty, I mean as all the public plans are having a pretty high opt out rate now if you consider a lot of these people didn't have plans before, there's no employer match, there's, it's a 5% pull from your pay. [14:12] Mark: Just so happens I have some numbers here that I can share with y'. All. Lisa posted this on LinkedIn for I keep thinking to myself, am I using an acronym? Am I using an acronym? [14:24] JD: Yeah. [14:26] Mark: Of all the state plans, not all of these three. Oregon, California and Illinois as of very recently, like they meshed some numbers together. From November and December and October, total assets of those three state run programs, $138 million. And to me I'm thinking, I think someone sold a plan this week for $138 million. You know, and so I'm like, it's not that big of a deal and surely is not moving the needle like they had hoped. I consider that an. [15:05] JD: That's the unfortunate thing. [15:06] Mark: Yeah, I think that's a failure so far. [15:08] Chad: But the first jd haven't you guys pointed out that the existence of that program has actually been good for your business, bro? [15:17] Mark: Oh yeah, I'm a fan. [15:20] Chad: Shame. [15:21] JD: Shame on you, whatever your real name is. [15:25] Chad: Guy who pays me. [15:27] Mark: What? [15:28] JD: No, I mean that. [15:30] Chad: Shame on you. [15:30] JD: $138 million. What's the alternative? [15:34] Mark: It could have been zero if there [15:36] JD: was nothing available to those people. [15:38] Mark: Not true. Not true. [15:40] Chad: That's probably is. Yeah, Mark's right. The whole issue is when you look at the opt out rates and they're ginormous. I mean the opt out rates in the K world is like 7%, 9%. It's north of 30%. In fact, until recently it was up near 40%. [15:56] JD: Right. [15:57] Chad: It is declining, but it's still above 30%, I think. [16:01] JD: Yeah, it's very good. [16:02] Chad: And so it's a big, it's a big opt out rate. But the 70% of people who are still in those plans, arguably they are. They're Putting the money aside for retirement now. And they were not putting otherwise. [16:12] Mark: Okay, but let's be, let's be clear. In California you had to go into the Cal Savers program if you didn't set up your own 401k plan. So you had a choice. [16:23] Chad: Right. [16:24] Mark: And so it's not 1 in 38 million. Verse 0 Michael Webb. They had to make a choice and they chose, oh, I'm not going to set up a 401k. I'm going to go set up this one. So could it. They could have done a lot better in a 401k program is what I'm talk about. [16:37] Chad: Absolutely no question. [16:38] Mark: To Nevin's point, I am not anti state run plan. I'm not. No, I'm actually a fan of it and I'm totally behind it. I want to be very clear about that because at least the state run plans are actually trying to do what they set out to do, which is help the retirement plan gap. So I'll give them that. And unlike the pooled employer plans which claim to be trying to help the retirement plan gap but are really just after your millions of dollars. Let's move on. [17:09] Chad: You know what pooled employer plans really are? They're aggregators. [17:13] JD: Yep. We got from the start and completely agree with you. I will say Nevin, your point? There is not something I'd spent a ton of time in when evaluating the success of the state run plans, which is there's a lot of businesses, especially in California that are choosing not to go into CalSavers and makes it look like maybe they're not doing well. But truthfully, what it's done is encouraged groups to start 401ks or simples or other options. No, no, no. That counts. Yeah. Oh seriously, that's a very good point, Greg. It doesn't. [17:50] Chad: Mark, you are on top of it tonight. [17:52] JD: Oh yeah, I don't think so. Real quick, real quick. Greg is asking if. See that the chat that counts. I don't think California Savers is an acronym. [18:04] Chad: No, it's not. [18:05] JD: I don't think if you say the. [18:07] Chad: I don't think it's an abbreviate. It's actually the actual name. But beyond that it's pushing it worsted via an abbreviation, not an acronym. [18:16] JD: Which is what James Douglas really is that you guys made me drink for twice now. [18:21] Mark: Greg, if you can come up with a great acronym for CalSAvers, I'll drink. But take your time. Figure out what you can do. Let's go to litigation. I know Nevin, that I can't wait [18:33] JD: to see what Greg says. [18:35] Mark: You write articles all the time about different lawsuits, different settlements. I've seen some recent ones where you talked about a TDF suit. I think that. Oh shit, you're right. Target date fund suit that I think came out today. That one looked like it was more of a share class kind of thing and maybe you can talk about that a little bit. But I saw the one that you wrote earlier, that was the Freedom Funds one that was in litigation and I had some issue with that. So I want to talk about both of those. But before I do, let me ask you, what's the temperature of the water? How do you feel? What's going on with litigation lawsuits? What's your vibe on the current state of things? [19:20] Chad: It's picking up. And you're seeing a diverse group of plaintiffs attorneys getting into it, copying their own work. It's, it's no longer just Jerry Schlichter's ballpark anymore. They're not really going down very. I mean, everybody wants to proclaim the day when it's going to go all the way down market. Now, if you understand how contingency fees work and it's just math, small plans are never really going to be a target for that. But you've definitely got some other law firms that are involved in this now and they are rapid firing this stuff. Covid has. If anything, Covid has sped this activity up. I think there's more people on social media. A lot of these firms use social media as a way to line up plaintiffs to represent. So it's, I think, I think you're going to see more of that. It's not that the cases they're making are really any better. Some of them are actually pretty. I mean, of course the first ones that the Schlichter firm put out were kind of head scratchers too. They're going to learn. So people need to be on their toes. [20:28] Mark: Can I ask you guys? First of all, Greg, saying that Covid is an acronym is that. [20:35] Chad: I was just. [20:36] JD: I think it is. I think, yeah, it definitely is. [20:40] Mark: Craig's on top of his game tonight. It's going to be rough when he said it. [20:44] JD: I really minimize my screen and started [20:48] Mark: researching when we talk about these lawsuits, The Freedom Funds 1. When I read your article, Nevin, there was a quote from the people that were suing them that was saying that they were at fault because there was index lower cost index funds available. And I want to bring up this general concept to you when I Grew up in this industry, there was a really healthy debate about actively managed funds versus passive index funds. And I really didn't have a dog in that hunt. I didn't care. But it was fun to debate the back and forth of it all. I'm seeing in some of these lawsuits, not just one, where there's this concept now of like, and I want to get Nevin's opinion and Chad's and Justin's and everyone's, but is it, is it the prudent thing to choose index funds over actively managed funds as a fiduciary? That cannot be the case. We haven't gotten that far, have we Nevin? [21:51] Chad: Well, the plaintiffs bar would like to argue they want to make it sort of, I don't even have to argue this case. Basically what they throw and they throw it up in every case like you know how many. There's all these academic studies that basically say that actives never beat, not only they don't usually beat, but like they never beat the passive managed alternatives. It's ultimately a fee argument is what they're coming down to. And their argument is that a passive fund always will perform just as good if not better than an active fund. And the better than is because it's got cheaper fees. So it's a classic fee argument and so that's what it ended up being. But I'll tell you, the courts don't, don't seem to embrace that. So you're going to see a lot of settlements, a lot of people making that argument and you're going to see a lot of settlements and it's going to look like that's like standing law. But the ones that actually go to trial pretty much don't embrace that. Don't say that that's a given. But the plaintiffs bar would have you think otherwise. [22:51] Mark: Chad, are you and the guys selling all index fund menus these days, core menus? [22:58] JD: Well, first off, we're not selling anything. The advisors are. We're simply putting out the cost perspective of what these different providers are charging. But yes, the vast majority of the proposals that are coming from the record keeping community is all passive based sample lineup because they're trying to put in front of the client the lowest possible cost. So when it's spreadsheeted they get a chance. I don't blame them for it. We don't fall for that, but I don't blame them for it. But I will question Nevin. I don't necessarily think the active versus passive discussion is solely on cost basis. I do Believe that Active fails to be passive in the long run because they make jumps, they take risks to try to make up for further lack of performance at times that are too risky, that backfire. And in my mind, at least when I look at them, I think it is a cosplay for sure. But I also think Active has failed and in the long run because they take too much risk versus where they're supposed to be in their style box. [24:02] Chad: You know, again, I think that's the case that you make, but I think the standard as a prudent fiduciary is going to be you sort of take that all into account and you can make. I mean, the Wildman case that involved American Century, they not only use their own funds, which again, is a proprietary fund, is just kind of a big target, but they also went with active management, and they won that case because they had. They documented their reasons for going with that. And that's what I think is really important, that you have a process that you give it consideration and then, by God, you document it. And I think if you can stand it, you know, if you can write it out through court, I think you'll win nine times out of 10. [24:46] Mark: I just wanted to be clear and ask you guys that we're not in a world, are we, where the active managed fund no longer has a place and that now if you're a good fiduciary and running your plan properly, that you should be choosing the index funds over the actively managed funds. That's, to me is like shocking that that's a concept. [25:06] Chad: No, no, I think. I think the issue is if you've got an actively managed S&P 500 fund and you've got the opportunity that counts. Yeah. [25:16] Mark: You're standard and poor. Standard and poor. [25:20] Chad: It's not really an accurate. It's. [25:23] JD: But I guess we're using both. [25:25] Mark: Let's put it to the judge and jury. Craig. Greg, was that an acronym? Come on, buddy. You know it was. All right, all right, Drink says Greg. [25:34] Chad: Greg, I'm going to get you anyway. So I think that that ends up being sort of the issue here. Now, let me. Let me put something else on the table while we're dissing active management, you know, there's a very trendy investment option out there these days that does also have an acronym associated with it that I'm not going to repeat. But it starts with environmental. Yeah, and there you go. You can't really do that these days if it's not active management. So there. [26:12] Mark: Interesting. Yeah. Anyway, well, I just. I wanted to bring it up because when I read those articles, I get a little flustered. I'm like, wait a second. That you can't bring a lawsuit based on that concept. But when I say that if I was at the head of a committee of 12 people and we were choosing a core menu, I'm being really honest now with everyone, and knowing what I know, I'd be like, well, let's just take the safe way. I mean, we're not going to get sued for having index funds, but I think that's just really a shame. Or maybe you could, man. Maybe there's going to be that lawsuit down the line that's like, you lost us 10% because you wussies fricking invested in index funds for the last five years, and we're suing your ass off. [26:53] Chad: Well, for the most part, index funds really need active management to really sort of make their case. If the active funds all go away, the index funds are going to be groping a little bit. For what? What exactly are we supposed to follow? But anyway, that is. That is a case the plaintiffs bar is putting forth. As I said, I don't think. I don't think it wins you in court, but they're certainly killing a lot of trees to put that forth. [27:18] Mark: And your summary is. There's a lot more boogeymen out there. It's not just Mr. Schlichter. There's more coming, and I think advisors should. That's good news, man. It just means that your services are valuable and you can lead your plan sponsors to safer waters. And that's a good thing. Let's spin the wheel of Ice. Brandon. Spin that legit Wheel of Ice. Could be any one of us. I'm feeling like. Like Nevin's got Smirnoff in the house, [27:45] JD: but I'm on my. [27:46] Chad: I'm on my second. Y' all better catch up. [27:49] JD: I'm praying it doesn't land on me. B Commuted. Do you have the big one, Chad? No. [27:59] Mark: Please don't beat me. Please don't be me. Please don't beat me. Please don't beat me. Please don't beat me. [28:05] JD: Lovely. [28:09] Mark: Wait for it. Bring me everyone. [28:12] Chad: What do you mean, everyone? Everyone. [28:18] Mark: Random, right? Totally random. [28:20] JD: Silence we've ever had in our show, Greg on the green Apple. [28:25] Mark: Greg Greenfield, you're in charge of the show, buddy. Host away. [28:39] JD: Geez, that stuff is surprisingly good. Every time I chug it, I go, eh, it's decent. [28:46] Chad: I don't know about you guys, but it has like no carbs. It's very light. Anyway, [28:54] Mark: Chad, talk to him about the NAPA's 2021 top retirement plan advisors under 40. What's going on with all that? [29:03] Chad: You said one, you said. [29:05] JD: Oh yeah, he did. [29:08] Chad: Wow. [29:09] JD: Nevin, here was something I mentioned to James Douglas in this and I know I just said it a second ago. How come there are accolades or top 40 under 40, top 30, under 30, best wingman, our record keeper of the year, best looking, Nevin Adams. But there's nothing in this damn world for the TPAs. [29:36] Mark: Can I tell you why? [29:37] JD: Chad, that's another one. Come on. There needs to be something to distinguish that. We need an award. Shannon. [29:44] Mark: If there was, if there was, it couldn't be the top 40 under 40. It would have to be Aspas. I'll drink for that. Top, top, top 40 under 80 would probably be the more appropriate. [29:59] JD: We know that's not going to get in. [30:01] Chad: Guys, guys, literally. Will. Will break a little news here. I am actively contemplating a. An advisor based voting for the best third party administrator. [30:20] JD: I know we won't make the list, but it'd be super cool at least for. [30:23] Chad: Well, we'll have a, we'll have a subcategory for entertaining or something like that. But I actually, I have been, you know, we have been because it's true. We've been talking about this for a while. I know Shannon's been a part of this. We've been, been looking for ways to sort of build sort of more of the bridges and just in terms of the visibility. So keep an eye out. That's on my, that's on my radar screen. [30:50] Mark: Why, why did you guys rebrand it from Young Guns like two years ago to Aces? Because I think Young Guns was a really cool name. Are you telling me that some of these advisors come out and say, oh, I don't want to be branded as like novice and young and naive and we need a different name. I mean, why the change from Young Guns? Because it was fucking sweet. [31:14] JD: Yeah. Maybe it was the gun part. [31:17] Chad: Well, the guns. We were, we were aware that that's a, that's a point of sensitivity out there for some folks. That's true. We, we weren't. But we were aware of that for years and we didn't change it. Honestly. It had been called that since 2014. It was bored. We were bored with it. We, we wanted to do something better. My, my designer wanted do something. Yeah, I think it's pretty cool. [31:41] Mark: Does that stand for something or. [31:43] JD: No. [31:43] Mark: Just making sure here I don't think so. [31:46] Chad: That's an actual word. But no, because with young ones, I [31:50] Mark: mean, you end up. [31:50] Chad: All you do is Western crap, you know, I mean, [31:56] Mark: your design, you're saying, and everything can only be Western. I hear you. [32:00] Chad: Yeah, it was. [32:00] JD: It was limiting. [32:01] Chad: You know, we wanted to get. We want to get beyond that. Beyond. The other thing is, you know, despite the. The acronyms about young, remember, you can be up till 40 and still be in there. Some of these folks have been in this business 15 years. They're not exactly kids. So. So there. [32:15] Mark: All right, well, I'm with Chad. I think a TPA one would be fun. [32:19] JD: Oh, J.D. the James Douglas one is gonna murder me tonight. [32:24] Chad: This is tough. [32:25] Mark: I don't think that one should be on the list. [32:27] JD: But I had a conversation with the guru himself this past week around age and hiring folks. And I realized when I told him this is a young guy and he's 31, that you hired me when I was 26, 25. [32:46] Mark: What guru were you talking to? [32:47] JD: I'm talking about you. And then I realized that not only am I not very young anymore, but that that person is not young either, even though he feels very young to me. We're all just kind of old guys. [33:01] Mark: I think if you're. I. I think if you're. I mean, 30, in your 30s, you're young. You're young as all heck. [33:10] JD: Yeah, thanks. [33:12] Chad: All right. [33:13] Mark: Okay, so I'm not. I don't want to talk about pooled employer plans, and I don't want to talk about them in my soapbox, tinfoil hat way. Although, you guys know, I did really ruin myself this week by signing up for Transamerica's two day multiple employer plan, pooled employer plan virtual summit, which was basically like hitting my head with a brick for hours watching that. Like, I wanted to throw my laptop out the window. I was screaming at the screen so much. But I did hear a cool. Do you know who Nevin. You know who Kent Mason is? [33:56] Chad: Yes, I know Kent Mason. [33:58] Mark: So they brought. They brought him on the talk a lawyer, and he dived in briefly to pooled employer plans. And I want to talk about some of the highlights that he talked about. And then we'll kind of evolve this thing out of the pooled employer plans to the potential of a new fiduciary rule. Just to get your kind of brain going around that. Nevin, he said that the. He first said that the. Geez. The pooled plan provider application, he didn't like it. He thought it was A little too much. And I kind of sat and thought too much. Like, I think it should be a huge hurdle to get over to be one of those things. But apparently he thought it should be a lot simpler to do so. He was upset by that. He had mentioned, I think he's speaking on behalf of Transamerica, that they were really hoping for some type of prohibitive transaction exemption to come out of D.C. or the government. He has zero hopes for that. And then these are the two interesting ones. I thought pooled employer plans, the problems with the employee service, right. He thinks this is still a big deal. The fact that if you're a company in one of these pooled employer plans and you are, you leave that company, go to another company that's in the same pooled employer plan. Greg, thanks for this acronym thing. It's a lot of fun. [35:21] JD: Seriously. [35:22] Mark: Gee, that you know that you'd have the, you have service and eligibility vesting issues, right? Because you guys all know that, right? Like you get the same vesting eligibility because you're in the same plan. Does that make sense? Did I spit that out properly? Yeah, that's a big issue. They're hoping that maybe the government's going to come out and solve that for them in some way. And then the next one is these pooled employer plans. We all know their, their, their big hoax is, right, that they're going to help the retirement plan gap, but now they're having issues with the startup plan credits, right? So if you're a company and you're going to join this pooled employer plan, are you, are you able to get the startup plan credits? Because you're not starting a new plan, you're joining another one and that's an issue. And I was like, oh, that's fucking interesting. And so, and you know, I love ammo against the pooled employer plans, so I thought that was cool. [36:19] JD: Those are awesome. Not just. I have not thought about that at all. At all. [36:24] Mark: Well, they're going to try to get some solutions to that. Nevin, has this come across your radar? You guys will fight for the pooled employer plans, won't you? You're going to go to D.C. and you should. You should. I don't hate you for it. What? DC [36:42] JD: Twice? These are not acronyms. These are abbreviations. [36:46] Mark: Shut up, Chad. [36:47] JD: Words. [36:49] Mark: Navin, what's your. Any, any news on that front? [36:52] Chad: There, there are issues with. There, there are a lot of issues, not a lot of issues. There are issues with this, all of which need some help. And all of which have, despite all the clarifications, regulations, things that have been rolling out of the Department of Labor, you know, they're, we've still got some, still got some questions, some issues on that. I think the idea is that if you really want, if you, if you're embracing the idea that pool employer plans will in fact close some of that coverage gap, I don't happen to think they'll be a game changer, but I think they'll like the state plans. I think, I think they're going to work at some level and I think it's going to make it easier for providers to service the smaller end of the market, more profitable, if you will, to do that. So there's, if you want them to work. [37:42] Mark: Breathe, breathe. Continue on. [37:46] Chad: Trust me, trust me. The plans they're going to help are probably not the ones you want anyway, but they're people who don't, who don't have a plan now. They need to have a plan. If, if the pool employer plan is a design that can help some of that happen. Why not? Trust me, there's, where's plenty of plans, you know, employers out there without plans for you all to feast on. [38:06] JD: We all agree with that. Nevin, that's not, I don't think that's at all the argument. [38:10] Mark: I don't fucking agree with the bait [38:12] JD: and which being sold. Look with everybody is trying to preach. [38:17] Mark: I didn't want to go down this, I didn't want to go down this path. So we can, we can keep. I don't want to crash on pooled employer plans today, but I just do want to say for the record, I didn't believe any of that shit that just came out of Evan's mouth. I don't, I think it's a joke, but we'll move on. What I want to talk about is the fact that. [38:39] JD: Fantastic. [38:41] Mark: The. [38:42] Chad: You only want guests on here that are going to agree with you. Is that right? [38:46] JD: Just when it comes to the, the [38:49] Mark: pooled employer plan, to me is where I draw the line. It's just such a fucking joke. And I don't want to. And I don't want to go there. [38:55] Chad: But you think that aggregators in the RIA space are a wonderful idea. I know. [39:01] Mark: Yeah, sure. [39:02] Chad: It's the same thing. It's not the same. Yes, it's just not your space. [39:07] Mark: No, it's not at all. Here we go again. I have to move on. So I won't, I won't start the, I won't start the debate, but yes, [39:16] JD: I think the debate on a specific topic is okay versus debating whether or not pooled employer plans are sound but specific to an aggregator base of pooled employer plan or. [39:26] Chad: We don't know the answer on the pooled employer plans yet. We don't know the answer yet. [39:31] Mark: Hey, I even think, I even think this Kent Mason guy, he even said it on the Transamerica thing and I saw the Transamerica woman cringe. He said something to the effect of that there's nothing unique to a pooled employer plan and that you could really set up this type of efficiency and arrangement outside of a pooled employer plan. You didn't need it. And you know, Nevin, that's my argument. [39:58] Chad: I don't argue that. I don't argue that. You're exactly right, J.D. when you say there's no reason that there's no reason you have to have a pool employer plan to do this. You're exactly right. No argument. [40:08] Mark: Well, that's the basis for my bitching then. It's like there's nothing to it. It doesn't do anything different. So to me, that's why it's a hoax. But. So the guy was saying that he was concerned about the new. I shouldn't put words in his mouth. He said we're going to have a new president and that he thinks that a new version of a fiduciary rule is a big deal and that his clients should be concerned about. And he said, here we go again. He said that the pooled employer plans should be concerned because their sales force, their suits and ties out across the 50 states selling this stuff will have a conflict of interest if we go into this world of a fiduciary rule. And he thinks it's a very big issue that everyone should keep their eyes on. So twofold to you, Nevin, Fiduciary rule. Do I call it 3.0 now? I don't know what I call it, but it's a thing. Right. And what does the American Retirement Association. Oh, I'm getting good at this, Greg. Think about, think about it. The fiduciary rule. [41:14] Chad: We think the fiduciary rule, the last time we saw it. Bear in mind that it's, I think, been dropped off at omb, I don't think late November. Yeah, it's so we don't, we don't know what it's going to, we don't know what it's going to look like. We had a number of suggestions with regard to the, to the one that we did see and there are, we think, some issues with it. So. Yeah, and we think, I mean the return to the five part test is at least one test too problematic to do that. [41:48] Mark: This is the improving investment advice for workers and whatever that's the law that you're talking about or the. [41:56] Chad: Right. But we all call the fiduciary rule. But yeah. And so there's, I think, you know, we're hoping that there'll be some modifications there now almost certainly, although it's doubtless not going to be first on the agenda, you can expect that a Biden administration would probably, again, we don't know what the final rule is going to look like, but that at some point in time the Biden administration will probably have an inkling to kind of move it back in the direction of the one that came out in 2015. But we got. There are a lot of things between here and there to deal with, so we'll see. [42:33] Mark: Can I ask you guys, I know the rollovers have always been an issue, but if we're talking about conflicts of interest and see how calm I am right now. So don't you feel like pooled employer plans is another dangerous area for conflict of interest and prohibitive transactions and just. [42:50] Chad: Well, okay, look, just remember that one of the early proposals for the pooled employer plan basically said the employer could join up for one of those and would have like no responsibility at all whatsoever. Basically a blank check. We argued and lobbied against that because we do believe that although a part of that structure is the employer should get to offload some of that fiduciary responsibility, they needed to stay on the hook for making the determination, a prudent determination as to the selection and review of the pooled employer plan. Okay. So we pushed back, fought and won. Won that battle, if you will. But let's face it, a lot of the reason that employers out there, particularly small business employers, don't start, aside from the fact they don't know how to start a plan and they don't know how to where to go in order to start a plan, they don't know the first thing about it. Pool employer plans mostly, I think solve problems that a small business owner doesn't even know they have. [43:53] Mark: Okay, so like fiduciary services do. [43:56] Chad: Yeah, the whole thing, what the pool employer plan structure is going to do and one of the things that you all as trying to make money on an individual plan might not be able or willing to do because again, what do you, you're losing money on what the first three years when you bring in a startup plan, something like that [44:13] Mark: industry down the wrong. We're going on the wrong path again right now. [44:17] Chad: Okay, well, I'm sorry. No, my point is just that I think that there is a part of the market that even though you could do everything on a standalone basis, that you probably are not going to do on a standalone basis. [44:29] Mark: And the solution to that is, is not a pooled employer plan. The solution to that is a program that is going to create simpler design, that's going to create efficiencies, it's going to create the same core menu that's going to have a 316 fiduciary, that's going to have a 338 fiduciary, that's going to have less face time with the clients, that's going to. It's. There's solutions for that and they're not fucking Pepsi. And I'll drink for that. Okay, let's move on. Chad, let's talk. [44:58] Chad: Can I make one comment to a comment in the chat room, please? We do have record keeping partners who support the ARA with the money. You know what? We got TPAs that support the ARA with money. We've got, we've got advisors, we've got, I mean basically everybody who works with their retirement plan at some level is supporting ara. Do we have a conflict of interest? We're trying to represent all of those perspectives. [45:24] JD: Yeah. [45:25] Chad: So I want to be a damn fine job. [45:27] JD: That was my response back is that you're an advocate for this industry. AIA is an advocate for this industry. [45:35] Mark: Okay. But let's be clear and I get all that. You know how much I love what you guys do. Pooled employer plans is not a record keeper versus TPA debate. So I just want to leave it at that. So it's not as though you're defending the record keepers. I'm talking about a simple, simple thing. And it's legislation from the government about pooled employer plans. It's not a debate of TPA versus record keeper or this or that. So. Oh shit. So what do I owe? 3. Chad, build up this gossip on Fidelity putting a promo out to win over some of these mass mutual plans that are on their way to power. [46:20] JD: So again, I'm coming at you with the gossip. Nevin. [46:23] Mark: Love it. [46:24] JD: I don't know if you saw this. I have not seen a single thing. But this came to me directly from a relatively high ranking person at Empower. That empower's feathers were ruffled when Fidelity came out and said any Plan leaving massmutual and coming to us before the migration to Empower will get a year's worth of free record keeping. And I thought, number one, Empower or Fidelity is typically above that. They don't go down that road very often. Number two, I thought, well, why are you willing to offer a free years of record keeping? Because you're priced in a way in which you're going to make it back right away. Because most of the massmutual plans coming over, these are not large plans. These are not the ones Fidelity is typically aiming after. These are micro market TPA centric, under $2 million plans. So curious if you saw that. Curious what your thoughts were with it. [47:16] Chad: It's the long game. It's why, I mean, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when I was a record keeper and I lost a lot of business to people who were giving away plans for free because they weren't really free, because they make, they make money other ways. And because like a pack guys, there's, there are bad people and bad players around us everywhere. You're going to be one of the things, the arguments we made and yeah, another show hijacked by this topic. Exactly right. But, but there was one of these programs out there that famously. And you guys have talked about him before on the, on the show that was literally stealing money from people. There's no question you're going to see some of that out there. There's no question. Yeah, but, but it's. [48:06] Mark: And I would defend that, even if that happens, it's, it won't be unique to a pooled employer plan. It's just bad people. But when Fidelity does this. I was kind of taken aback. Can you imagine if one of my competitors tried to purchase another company? Which by the way, is just good business. Right. And you're just being a good business person. You're out there, you work a deal, you want to take on their book, bring it into your book, it's very professional. And then some third party that's got nothing to do with it raises their hand, says, hey, guess what? Come to us. If you're gonna go to them, fuck them, we're gonna do it for free. And you come on over to us like, how unprofessional is that? And has dog eat dog gotten to that extent that now you can just run promotional ads based on your competitor's acquisition of another company? I think that's a little fucked up. [48:58] Chad: I don't think that's new. What's the [49:03] Mark: phone companies do that. [49:05] JD: That's new. To fidelity. That's kind of my point. It was new to fidelity, but no, I don't think it's new. [49:11] Chad: I think. I think. I think that kind of thing has been out there for a long time. And honestly, let's face it, if you've got a plan sponsor out there and you've been working with a certain provider, maybe you've had a relationship with them for a long time and you've been very comfortable with them and with the people that have been servicing your plan, and now they're going to change that. You might very well. Maybe you hadn't been looking for a new plan because you were just happy, but now it's like, well, you know, we ought to see what we can do. And if you've got an opportunity to trade up, if you will, or maybe you're going to lose the people that you love working with anyway. I mean, it may feel a little unseemly, but I don't think it's new. [49:49] JD: You know what I didn't mind about? [49:50] Mark: It's aggressive. [49:52] JD: It is aggressive, and it's a little bit of a stab. What I didn't mind is that it encourages these plans to look at alternatives. Rather than just going with the move from massmutual to empower, it encourages them to say, hey, this right now, I don't have a choice. I am going from massmutual to empower. It does not matter unless I evaluate my alternatives, other products that I might choose to engage with. I like that. I think every plan being acquired should do that. They should evaluate whether or not the relationship with empower is the relationship they want to be with. [50:28] Mark: I guess I'm not being clear. I guess it's the. It's the person who runs a business in me, you know, that is like. Well, if I'm. [50:36] Chad: It's like. It's a crude analogy, but it's like the ambulance chaser kind of thing, right? It's the personal injury lawyer. Advertising late night. You know, it's. It. There is a tawdriness to it, if you will. On the other hand. A what? [50:51] Mark: Prudent tawdriness. [50:53] JD: He's a writer. [50:54] Chad: That is impressive. [50:55] JD: Can you please use that? Explain what that means. [51:02] Chad: You're. You're a. You're a tawdry person, Mark. [51:06] JD: I'm gonna say that that means sexy. That's what I'm gonna say. [51:12] Chad: No, you know, honestly, if. If you're under. I mean, if you've got to move anyway, all right? And no matter what, I mean, sooner or later, there's gonna be a platform change, an improvement. Whether, you know, might be a lot better. You might be better off with the move than not. But if you're going to be forced to move anyway, you know, and I [51:33] Mark: guess I should defend the acquirer builds that into their deal, right? When they purchase 20,000 plans, they say, hey, look, they're going to pay more for the ones that stick and less for the ones that don't. [51:44] Chad: Just like Oregon saves and the census just back all the way around. [51:48] Mark: Hey, Sneven. Nice. I have so much more fun, Nevin, talking with you. And we're not talking about pooled employer plans. My blood pressure has come down. Things are good. Justin, you were gonna say something. [51:59] JD: I was gonna ask you. So if. Am I hearing you right, your main problem is just kind of the morality behind it? Like, that's pretty dirty. [52:06] Mark: Yeah, Yeah. I just felt like, was it me? Were you asking me or him? [52:10] JD: You, Me, you? Both. How about both of you? [52:14] Mark: Yeah, yeah, it was just me. I was just putting a light, Justin. Imagine I came to you guys and I was like, hey, we're going to buy XYZ third party administrator and we're buying them for 2 million bucks. And then all of a sudden, one of our competitors locally was like, oh, screw Petey Plan Design Consultants. That's a check swing, check swing and come over to us because you have a choice. Now, I would be, I'd probably get a little flustered. I'd be like, wait a second, man. I tried to do a business transaction to tout that. [52:45] JD: Being truthful, our biggest competitor eight years ago, nine years ago, which was Nicholas Pension, they split. We saw our biggest competitor split. Sales team went one way, TPA Admin went the other way. Every single time I spoke to JD about it. Thanks, Mark. It was, hey, we're walking in. We're letting them know that they'll probably have a great experience wherever they end up. But we are here to support them and we're not splitting. And we're gonna, we're gonna be a sound resource. [53:19] Mark: What have I done? [53:20] JD: A moment of like, oh, they split. You're going with the sales team only. Oh, the admin is gonna be terrible on that side. [53:27] Mark: I'll self promote in front of the audience and everybody. I've always told you guys from day one, don't talk shit about your competitors. You know, like other third party administrators. When you're in a point of sale, when you're interacting with wholesalers, whomever, just don't go below the belt. I think that's a cheesy, immature move, and I don't think it's good for our industry as a whole. And Tony Davis agrees with me, so that validates me. That's all I needed. [53:56] JD: Yes, I would agree with that. Still. [53:57] Mark: Mark, can you do a quick, shortened, but really great version of your game? Sure. [54:13] JD: Or. [54:13] Mark: I don't care, Mark. Do it on your own terms. [54:15] Chad: Hey, hey. Stop talking and I'll be quick. [54:18] JD: Rapid fire this. I'm not even gonna set this up. Rapid fire. Nevin knows the drill. Nevin, you're the first one I'm gonna ask. Waving when you're leaving a zoom meeting. Lame or game? Nevin, you're first. [54:30] Chad: Lame. [54:31] JD: Justin. I do it every week. Jd. [54:36] Mark: Ah, I didn't. I didn't hear your question. I'm writing Michael Webb. [54:40] JD: All right, you're out, Chad. I'm game. I wave every time. I even wave at the end of the retireholic show. All right. Sending out holiday cards, Devin. [54:53] Chad: Hey, man. Gotta do it. Guy who pays my checks. [54:59] JD: CEO of this company. [55:02] Chad: By the way, that's an acronym. [55:04] JD: Oh, fuck. Way to go, Nevin. We finally got him. He's got one. [55:13] Mark: To the people that work for me. Every holiday year, my wrist falls off doing it. I'm game. Anyone else I don't have time for. [55:23] JD: I've never got one. Sorry, I'm specifically saying personal. [55:29] Mark: No. Baham bug. I'm over it. [55:31] JD: Yeah, [55:34] Mark: Kevin's shaking his head. [55:36] Chad: Nah, man, it's. It's. It's cool. I mean, it is a pain to do, but. But having. When they come in, I mean, some of these people, some of these friends we haven't seen in years. It's. It's just. It's nice to hear from them. [55:46] Mark: But, Nevin, have you seen the cool. Oh, this is an acronym. What's the acronym for gif? Shit. I was gonna say graphic interface. Have you seen the cool graphic interfaces you can send people for the holidays? I mean, they're just as good as a handwritten card. [56:02] Chad: Those are lame. Those are lame. [56:05] JD: Chad. [56:06] Chad: Chad. [56:07] JD: I'm game. For sure. I love our cards. Each year I got one today. Yeah, my brother. But do you send them justice? Yeah, no, I was gonna say. I didn't do that one. All right, next one. Next one. Virtual holiday parties. Evan. [56:35] Chad: God, man, they suck. I'm sorry. That's not one of the options, is it? It's lame, [56:43] JD: Chad. I had a blast at ours, so there's no better option. I'm game. 100%. [56:48] Mark: That's a liar. [56:50] JD: Justin. I won 75 bucks, so I'm totally game. Wait, hold on, J.D. is that getting delivered like, the swag? Justin finally said one. No, type one earlier. [57:04] Mark: It's got to come earlier. And, yeah, you won. I. Lance won like, 450 bucks. [57:10] JD: He got after it. [57:11] Mark: Do you know that that stupid little scavenger hunt game cost me like, eighteen hundred dollars? [57:16] JD: I was gonna say it's gotta be close to two grand. [57:20] Mark: So I'm game. [57:20] JD: I'm game. Last. Last one. This is, like, my theme, apparently is holidays for some reason, but wrapping presents, Nevin. [57:30] Mark: So let me set that up a little bit more. Wrap the present or just drop that [57:36] JD: in a bag with some paper on top. [57:40] Chad: Man, that doing. That's lame. You gotta wrap it. You gotta wrap it. Okay, I've covered up some very cheap presents with wonderful wrapping, so. [57:49] JD: Got it. I suck at wrapping, Chad. [57:53] Chad: Well, that's why I got married, so, you know, I'm game. [57:56] JD: I love. I love wrapping presents. Honestly, it's relaxing to me. The only thing I like about wrapping is when you get the scissors to slide through the wrapping paper, it makes that perfect rule. Oh, it's about the crisp lines, the perfect tape jobs. Justin. [58:11] Chad: Curl. [58:11] JD: In that ribbon game, you said something about a bag. What'd you say? Well, I'm just saying, like, I'm more of a bag guy where I just want to buy a bag. You see, you mix it up, you go with both, depending on the present. Some of you just can't wrap. [58:25] Mark: All right, but so let me just [58:26] JD: ask you then, is it lame or game to wrap a present? It's game. [58:30] Chad: Okay. [58:33] JD: Justin. Doug. [58:39] Chad: Justin. [58:39] JD: Doug. Geez. [58:41] Chad: No. [58:42] Mark: I suck at it. But I do try to do it, and I think my family forces me to do it because I asked them to do it for me, and they're like, no. Mom says you got to do them yourself. And I'm not good at it, but I do it game well. [58:58] JD: You know what they say. You know what they say? Is that quick enough? [59:03] Mark: See, we got a few minutes. That was good. That was great. That was awesome. Mark. That was awesome. Nevin, you may not have these stats, but what do you. What would your best guess be on the average start to finish time to get your qka? Oh, acronym shit. [59:25] JD: And Nevin say at least six months. It's gotta be north of six months. [59:30] Mark: I want an honest truth. And for the audience, all of these guys. Chad, Mark, Justin, Josh. If Josh has tuned in, I'm not. Have any of you gotten your qka? [59:42] JD: Yet another physical impossibility we figured out right now. Just so you know, we all are working towards our goal of getting that done. We're just really busy. We're busy selling plans. Go ahead, Nevin. Sorry. [59:59] Mark: What's the average completion time? [1:00:01] Chad: I don't have that. I'll. I'll research it and get back. [1:00:06] JD: He's trying to poke fun at us because it's been like, at least four months. No, no, no. It is. [1:00:11] Chad: It is serious. I mean, I literally was going to say. I was going to make a joke and say, well, it depends on the mental acuity of the people pursuing that. That's certainly part of it. [1:00:20] JD: But. [1:00:20] Chad: But honestly, work. Workload really does matter, too. And I don't know about you guys, but I. But I have found that during this period, I don't. I'm not having a bit of extra time. In fact, it's worse. Even though I don't have a commute to worry about. It's weird. It's just like the day fills up with other things. [1:00:38] JD: So. Yeah. [1:00:40] Chad: But I can look that up. [1:00:43] Mark: I think now we could run for. [1:00:44] JD: Go ahead, J.D. [1:00:46] Mark: i think Nevin could run for president. He's got a real knack for answering the question. Middle of the ground. Yes. I signed all these guys up. I paid for these guys to get it. And I'm just waiting for the day one of them gets their certificate. I'm kind of feeling like it's never going to happen. I don't know. We'll see. [1:01:07] Chad: Why don't you. You haven't set up a competition yet. Between that will get it solved. [1:01:15] JD: I don't give a shit if there's a competition. Last one to complete the gets fired. Is that what it is? Here's the truth, Evan. And kudos to you guys. I feel like I understand this business very well. Very, very well, including the compliance side. I took the practice test. I think I got a 92, 93 passing. No, there was shit I didn't know. There was a significant amount of stuff that I wrote the guys, like, hey, make sure you're spending some time figuring this stuff out, because there was a significant amount I don't know the answer to. [1:01:52] Chad: We got. We got sharp people putting that stuff together. They know their stuff. [1:01:56] JD: But there are a couple questions on there that we think are wrong. There's a few that I'm confident are wrong. I wrote in. I responded back to the quorum. [1:02:07] Chad: This is. [1:02:07] JD: This is why it takes so long. We're not just practicing and looking at the questions. We're actually determining if they're right or wrong. [1:02:16] Mark: I want to do a seat. I want to do chat bar champion vote. Uh, Greg, he's. Greg says, so you pass. And Chad, Greg. It's just one test of many that are in this thing. And how is Chad? Like, yeah, your tests are really hard, man. The stuff I got like a 98 and I missed two of them and I'm like, what the hell? Like, this is tough, tough stuff. All right, what's your. What's your chad? Who's your CBC vote for the day? [1:02:42] Chad: Boom. [1:02:42] Mark: Oh, God dang it. [1:02:44] JD: I was hoping you were gonna give me a little bit of time with that, but I think I have to. It's gonna be Greg or Webb. I think I'm going Greg. It's gotta be Greg. I think it's gotta be Greg for me. [1:02:56] Mark: I was going Greg too. So I think, Nevin, even though your vote doesn't count, who are you voting for? [1:03:02] Chad: Jeez, it's just like the presidential election. Got it. I mean, the point's well made, I think for the acronym suggestion alone, which is truly creative and outside the box. Nailed JD like repeatedly. So, yeah, we got to go with Greg. [1:03:18] Mark: Yeah, the acronym solidified it. But he was also had a phenomenal flow through the. Through the chat bar, the entire show. So it's becoming a real professional thing, man. If you want to win the cbc, you got to prep. You got to be so good at this. [1:03:36] JD: Jd, the entire show, you were so good. [1:03:40] Mark: Is Jesus an acronym? Okay, thanks for tuning in, everybody. We really appreciate it. We'll probably hang out for a little bit of an after show next week. Do you know who we've got coming next week, Chad? [1:03:56] JD: I have no clue. [1:03:57] Mark: It's an advisor. I believe she lives on the east coast. [1:04:01] JD: No, Kate's joining. [1:04:03] Mark: Yes, Kate Clark will be coming next week. [1:04:06] JD: Who is the rockstar? Who? Kate Clark. I wasn't paying attention. [1:04:12] Chad: Sorry. Okay, got it. [1:04:14] Mark: Next week's guest, a real advisor that we can talk to, which is always fun. Nevin, super appreciate you coming. We didn't mention you are the all time leader of guests on Retireholics. Yep. Hall of Famer Gene Fisher is close by the way. [1:04:32] Chad: Yeah. By the way, Brandon took care of us while ago. But let's not forget we got the Napa 401k summit. September 12th 14th, Las Vegas. [1:04:44] Mark: Drink nothing. [1:04:45] JD: Drink nothing. [1:04:47] Mark: I blew it. I was supposed to give Nevin like a platform deck. [1:04:52] Chad: I'll take it on my own. I don't need an invitation. [1:04:55] Mark: What a crappy host. We were gonna play Alex Astley's video that you guys have on the site. What's the website again? Summit. [1:05:04] Chad: Napasummit.org napasummit.org and. [1:05:09] Mark: Oh, shit. Okay. Yeah, yeah. [1:05:10] Chad: And yes. I'm planning on live event, guys. That's why we moved it back to September, because we figured we couldn't do live in April. [1:05:17] JD: Oh, they're gonna let us do anything we want in Vegas, for sure. [1:05:20] Mark: Chat. Chad, Justin, Mark. Do you know who the President Elect of Napa is? [1:05:28] JD: Oh, there's another. You do know this. I saw it, right? No. [1:05:37] Mark: Alex Astley. Alex. All right, Brandon, if you've got some music queued up, play that music and we can chat a little bit after that. Brandon's like, I don't have any music. [1:05:49] JD: Evan. Thank you. Gotta get a new soundtrack. [1:05:52] Mark: Yeah. [1:05:54] JD: Thanks, Evan. [1:06:02] Chad: I'm alone. [1:06:07] Mark: My old wall Follow me through my past [1:06:14] Chad: I was on a Paris train [1:06:16] JD: I emerged in London rain and you [1:06:19] Mark: are waiting there Swimming through apologies.