Pooled Employer Plans & Fintech Disruption: Industry Reality Check

[0:00] JD: They tell me like, oh, I, I, that's the time I feed my children. Or I read, read them a story to put them to bed. And I'm always saying we'll get your priorities straightened out. You know, are you of your kids or do you love for 1k? Come on, be real with it. Your kids will get along just fine. You need to work on your 401k game. [0:22] Chad: I get the same comments every week. Usually it's from maybe five of the same people, but it, it'll rotate every once in a while, but it's. Hey, super interested in tonight's show. Can't make it, but I'll catch it the next morning. And then I start getting text messages at 6, 6:30 the next morning. [0:41] Charlie: I can't believe you guys said that. [0:43] Chad: Like the one I got in trouble for two shows ago. Which, damn if we bring that conversation back up about record keepers struggling on deconversions. [0:55] JD: Oh yeah, you called someone out. [0:57] Mark: Yeah, you did. [1:18] Charlie: I like that. [1:19] Mark: I like that. [1:21] JD: New little intro. The aliens are delivering cooled employer plans. All right. [1:27] Chad: Hello [1:29] JD: and welcome to 2024. Chat bar starts now, so ready, set, go. Ro's got his robe. Chad's still bald as I've got a sore throat and silent J. Well, he drives a truck. Grab your popcorn and your cold beer too. We got a big time guest and he's here just for you. Another episode of Retire Holics is here and it's brand new, just like the year. Justin, I'm going to go straight to you. Intro our guest for me, please. [2:11] Justin: He's a God amongst mortals. He, he may not have a Wikipedia page, but when you Google his name, the first thing that comes up is his annual salary. Let me tell you, Mark, we, we are massively underpaid. [2:25] Chad: I don't get, I still don't get paid. [2:27] Charlie: Dude, I don't know what you're talking about. [2:29] Justin: He can buy each of us a Lamborghini every year and he'd still have plenty of money to live off of. Just put it that way. He's been running the show for almost as long as PDC has been in business. He's a head honcho at one of our favorite record keepers, Voya. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Nelson. [2:46] Charlie: Thanks, guys. [2:48] JD: Mr. Nelson, I want to kind of do something a little different here. I want to mix it up and I added an agenda item, send you guys a little email. I'd like to tackle it right off the start here of the show. Let's get right into it. Brian Williams, who I think is in the chat bar tonight, wrote a post on LinkedIn kind of taking a deep stab at state plans and I Sorry, [3:17] Mark: a little behind schedule there. [3:18] Chad: Justin. [3:19] JD: I'm just going to read it for you and then we can let the conversation start. Brian says and he's reposting a very braggadocious if that's a word post from a in angel. Angela, come on. JD Antonelli stating that state run plans across country have now breached $1 billion in assets and what a success that this is. He writes state run individual retirement programs are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are now in a position where increased assets represents a mission failure. Whoa, strong words. Let me explain. The original mission was centered around providing low cost efficiently run solutions for small businesses to comply with these state mandates. At the time, seven or eight years ago they were a good alternative for small business who did not want a 4.1K. Fast forward to now 2024. We have seen competitive market forces, the rise in 360 payroll integration, upstart retirement plan disruptors which we'll talk about today. The introduction of the starter K and significant tax credits that can cover these plan expenses. Now saying these state run plans are now in one of the worst options on a spreadsheet in terms of fees and services. I haven't seen this argument yet. Basically saying hey, these things don't even compete from a fee standpoint anymore. They lack a lot of these things. We've got now all these great tax credits and all this stuff. I'm going to go straight to you Charlie. Have you ever heard a negative thing about state run plans like this? And what do you think about Brian's thoughts here? I think they're kind of interesting. [5:05] Charlie: I think they're very interesting. Brian's a very bright guy and does good things. I, I, I, the only thing I have, you know, to maybe pick out a little bit is the underlying premise that the plans were designed to be low cost and for small plants. Let's not kid ourselves. This was, this was all these what, 19 states or 38% of the states in the country. The reason they created these was strictly for political reasons. There were usually someone in the state legislature or the governor running for governor that was going to address the coverage problem in their, you in their, in their state. This was the way for them to do it. When our federal Congress could not address it in a way what's our federal Congress do they address it with tax credits. And I think Brian is point on, his main point is hey, we should do what's the right thing here. You know, focus people on, you know, on the value whether it's the services or cost. But that's just a couple of thoughts. Well, maybe one thing I want to leave you. One of the things I let I scratched my head about for, for many decades is how can states have such lowcost 457 plans, some of the lowest cost DC plans in the country of all, even 401k but yet they can't administer a, a state run IRA. Just a question. [6:30] Chad: Oh [6:32] JD: Charlie, I don't think we brought you up speed on the rules of the game here tonight but shocking when you say any acronyms which you've now said two you must drink from your penalty drink. So you owe us two, buddy. Chad, we've looked at these state run things that's like a positive because especially out here in California it was just a fuel to our fire of new business. But Brian's kind of got a point like as these things kind of grow and they're not very competitive and. Oh, I'm sorry we didn't really talk about this. He kind of makes this argument that even though these state run plans are not, they're not fiduciaries, they're not under the laws of the acronym. I'm not gonna say but he says but come on. They still have a duty to act in the best interest of their participants. And if these plans are not competitively priced, if these plans don't have the proper solutions then are they failing their duty act in the best interest of the very participants they're trying to get into these things? What say you Chad Johansen? [7:39] Chad: I'm going to say that all the argument there while I think is valid is no different than the world we've lived in since I started in this space. How many providers have overpriced drastically? How many plans do we look at now? They're not trying to sell away that business and they know that the solution they're offering is above market value. You look at how many plans do we take over that is a clear picture that the client is in the wrong design. Many. How many plans do we take over where the investment chassis is not structured correctly? In all of those situations there's better solutions out there and nothing changes for for CalSavers or any of these other state ran plans. There is a better solution out there for the vast majority of those programs for those companies. For some of them it fits restaurants, construction companies. I think that that's probably the solution that is the right position for them at this stage. But nobody on that side of the table JD has any fiduciary liability in making sure that the advice that they're given or not giving in this situation is indeed in the best interest of the participants. They're, they're a solution, right? They're a product. Someone comes and they're interested, they're going to set it up. I'm not running into state, state ran wholesalers that are coming out and doing good contribution or giving good guidance and saying are you a better fit for a 401k or a state rampant. No, they're selling a state ran plan. Whereas in the 401k space often we're having discussions of is it state ran, is it a simple IRA damn, Is it a savings incentive plan, is it a simplified employee pension, is it a 401k? And we're giving true advice consultation. That's never going to happen from a state level down. [9:18] JD: Okay, well you're just, in a sense you're backing them up but you're just saying, okay, great thing, it's not new. Brian's just providing more fuel to the fire of like hey, how to kind of compete against these things or let's [9:32] Chad: not completely sidestep of whether or not what they're offering or doing is, is good. We are trying to bridge the coverage gap. It is leading to an influx of 401k plans and other solutions that probably are a good fit for those businesses. Yes. Are they signing up plans? What are they? North of 1.1 billion now is what they're saying. [9:51] JD: Let me ask, let me, let me ask you guys this. They celebrate having north of a billion. But then in that same post she says that they have 800,000 participants in this billion dollars which means the average account balance is just north of a thousand bucks. Charlie, does that seem like a success? You should be waving a flag of that. You've managed to get people to have a thousand dollars in their, their savings plan. [10:17] Chad: These aren't takeover plans, guys. Sorry Charlie, go ahead. [10:21] Charlie: No, you know, Chad, I agree with a lot of what you said there and you know, you're right, they're not takeover plans. But let, let's be clear and I think I, I would hope you guys would agree but I know many providers would agree that the state run mandates have been good for the DC provider industry and for advisors broadly. We get more, we, we've had more startup plans. It, you know, they, they may incubate a plan and it may migrate to us, but they do ultimately get to. Or if they have to make a choice being mandated, they'll seek out an advisor or a tpa. So I think broadly they've been good. I know of my past employers, they helped me, they helped us as an organization get more new plans and startup plans. Yeah, that's what I don't know about your acronyms. You guys are nailing me on here. [11:08] JD: Define contributions. You owe a third. And Kevin, sorry for my math. I always exaggerate. I think it was like 1,250 bucks or something like that. But that's still really low average account balance. But okay, that's great, fine, we'll move on. I just thought it was an interesting take on them and we'll continue to watch these things evolve. [11:28] Mark: And I don't understand why you would think the account balances would be high though. They've not been around for very long and they can't save that much into it. And people who are saving typically aren't the higher wage earners because they can't even qualify for these things. So I, I disagree in some regard. I'm still on the side of like, that's okay, so what? The impact hasn't been massive, but that's 800, 000 people who would otherwise have [11:55] Chad: zero to their name. [11:58] JD: Maybe, maybe not [12:03] Justin: access to a plan though. And I agree with or. [12:05] Chad: Right. [12:06] Justin: And so that was. Or if part of the point behind this thing was to get free, would employees access to some type of savings through their employer? [12:14] JD: Well, two things to Mark's comment is one, I was saying. I wasn't saying that that was bad. I was saying it's not good enough to wave a flag of like, bragging about the fact that you're crushing it when you have all these tiny account balances. [12:26] Mark: You're also, you're also making an assumption that they're bragging. They're just saying, hey, this is where it's at. [12:32] Chad: Right? [12:32] JD: I mean, read the post. The chick's fully bragging. [12:36] Mark: This is what I wanted to mention to you earlier. [12:39] Chad: Okay. [12:40] Mark: 2024 is going to be very different for Rogue Guy. You know how I typically don't prepare for these shows? Well, let me tell you, I'm still not going to prepare for these shows. Just wanted to announce that. [12:55] JD: Let's, let's move on to another one, which is I am a peacock. [12:58] Charlie: You gotta let me fly. [13:01] JD: A favorite topic of mine, which these days I try to avoid, but Charlie brought this up, and I'm well aware that he's a. A fan of the pooled employer plan structure. Charlie, many people reference the success of paychecks and AON when it comes to pept, which I think is a little misleading, but we'll save that for another day. But we did see in Q4 of last year that census had announced success or, or rogue guy, they had bragged that they with their food employer plan, they had surpassed a billion dollars in plan assets. I know that. Charlie, you're a fan of this or a supporter. So can I ask you specifically, like how big of a deal do you think pooled employer plans are in the grander scheme of things? And then maybe kind of a two part question and then, and why do you think they'll be a big deal in the grander scheme of things? [14:00] Charlie: Well, jd, I know you like to kind of focus on this word success and it's a litmus test for you, it seems like at times. But buddy, I gotta tell you, success comes in different stages and you build upon it. And I, I, I'm not, I wouldn't necessarily call my, I call myself more of a surprised but also encouraged advocate for multiple employer and pooled employee plans and even the multiple trust plans, you know, like that existed. I think you guys had a podcast on one of these on this topic in the past. You know what's really surprised me is more how I thought when this came out it was going to be small plans. But you do see success with what AON has done and with some others where larger plans are going in there and you know, I think you have to take a step back and say why? Why are they going there? What are they not getting in? You know, in a non pooled employer type plan environment, I think they get additional comfort or fiduciary comfort. You know, I think the ease of the plan oversight, governance and management they're seeing is appealing to many employers. And there's some cost benefit. I don't think it's a cost play. There may be a little bit of benefit at the end of the day, but you know, I think the momentum is building and it's, it's probably, you know, the success is a measure, JD of what maybe our expectations were at the start. Some had expectations like these things are not going to go anywhere but oh wait, wait a minute. Some large plans have gone in there. Why are they going mid sized plans are going. We have what, over 500 different registered multiple employer pulled employer plans with the DOL. You guys pointed out. You guys pointed out. Yeah, you guys pointed out. In a previous podcast I saw that, you know, some of the, the legacy, whether it's the American Bar association, the, the car dealerships, associations where they have multiple trust, multiple employer type plans before they, they have been around a long time, but that also tells you how successful they've been. But I think the real story in the pulled employer plan market is, is the larger plans that have been moving in there. And I get your point, JD that they've moved from the right pocket to the left pocket, but they're also writing some new plans in there too. [16:28] Chad: Sorry, why though you started to ask the question in some of your statements there, Charlie. Why are they moving in [16:36] Charlie: fiduciary comfort, ease of plan governance and management? You know, I got someone else to kind of do I have to have these regular, you know, meetings and have someone take minutes and go through all the governance things that you need to do and should do, you know, in your plan. I think, you know, some tire of that and some just don't want to deal with it. They've got, you know, one of the keys is you got to think about Retirement plans are one of 18 average benefits that an employer offers. It's just one of them. They've got 17 others that they're dealing with. And so I think, you know, sometimes for some employers it appeals to them, but for many it doesn't. I would agree. Some it does not. [17:19] Chad: Can I, can I ask because I know where. Go ahead, J.D. [17:22] JD: well, I mean, I don't want to make the same on arguments, but my. Because I'm not here to like be anti pooled employer plan guide today. I've done enough of that. But I just feel like, Charlie, what you just talked about was fiduciary services. You talk about 316 services. Like these are things that were offered in standalone, regular 401k plans long before pulled employer plans were around. So to me it's just a mousetrap. And, and there's nothing new or different about it. You, everything that you just said could have been sold and pitched to someone without a pooled employer plan. So when someone asks you, Charlie, what's the value in it? And you give a bunch of things that are not unique to that thing, that becomes a buzzword. [18:07] Chad: People get excited that it's something new and they go after it. Even though all of that existed in the current marketplace. [18:13] JD: Yeah. Let me ask you this, Charlie. Do you think it's to the advantage of the recordkeeper because you ran these shops? So do you think that there's an advantage in efficiency, potentially profitability, to by offering a pooled employer plan as opposed to a bunch of standalone plans. [18:32] Charlie: No, it's not. I think it's a defensive move by record keepers. [18:35] JD: Okay. Oh, I wasn't trying to catch you in a thing. [18:39] Chad: I thought for the new shiny thing or what? What do you mean? What's the, what's the defensive strategy there? [18:44] JD: They want to be able to say they have that option. They want advisors say oh, if I want to sell a pool employer plan, I can go to Voya or I can go to Empower. I don't just have to go to Terrence Powers to do it. You know what I mean? That's a defensive move. [18:58] Charlie: Well, yeah, that, you're right JD on that and, but I, I, I, I was also going another dimension that it's defensive that hey, I've got to book a business, Tom. And they're all into, you know, think of them as individual plans and that drives my economics. But if the market starts to move towards multiple or pull plans and I don't have a solution, my revenue, my profitability, I'm going to be really challenged. So defensiveness in the per. From the perspective like hey, I don't know if it's going to take off. I got to kind of hedge my bets that I don't think too many full service record keeping retirement providers are really overly excited about multiple or pulled plans from a, from a profitability or economics. The average economics I believe to most record keeping providers is lower in a pooled or a multiple employer plan. So they're going to make less money. They don't want it, but they're doing it better. I better try it. [19:57] Chad: And for some of those options that are not as stable and as large as, as the empowers and voyagers of the world, they're going to use it as a, as a selling tool. Right. That's going to be the, the, the site. It's going to be market share that they're going to get that they otherwise would not. Kevin made an interesting point in the chat bar which is it makes it hard to Larkspur search and market and prospect these groups that get into these pooled employer plans which I wonder as time goes on and maybe Rob can chime in on this, is that going to make them stickier? I think it's got to, right? If, if less people are calling, less people have access to the data, if they're not pulling audit reports, you're probably going to see a longer tenure inside that, that program than you would stand alone. [20:45] JD: I think they're going to be stickier for a variety of reasons. But yeah, that could, but of course they're going to be stickier. You're going to feel like you're a [20:51] Chad: play from a record keeper perspective too, [20:53] JD: for lack of a better term. You're going to feel like you're stuck in it, even though that, that you're not. I love that. Rob Smith. It's, it's always the, the pro pooled employer people that say stuff like, well, we're doing all these proposals and we're doing all this stuff. Look, I understand that proposals are getting done and I love what Charlie just said because I also understand that there's a ton of what Charlie called defensive news where there's a lot of vendors putting these same things in place because they don't want to be left empty handed if they take off. But have they really taken off? No, Rob, just because you're doing a bunch of proposals, no offense to your little space that you're in, doesn't mean that they're taking off. And by the way, just because a census has a billion dollars doesn't mean that it's taken off. A census has hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management. That is a drop in a bucket for them. So that, so yes, you're going to see some. No one ever said, even me at my highest, angriest moment against pooled employer plans did I say that they were going to get zero assets. I just said everyone seemed to be saying that they were going to take over the world. And I was like, it's not going to happen. And I think that's been proven out. Even a lot of them are shutting their doors and so I don't know, whatever, we can move on. Charlie's got a last thought. You finish off the topic, JD you [22:15] Charlie: got to go back to the start of 401k and the Revenue act of 78 gets codified in 81, then track the growth of 401k. How long did it take? It wasn't immediate, but it did build over time. I think your point is bang on. We have to kind of wait and see. Even these early plans that adopted, will they stay there? Will they move back? Time will tell. But you know, it's just for me, it surprised me the how many, at least initially have moved and we'll have to see whether it continues and whether they stay. [22:47] JD: Well, I, I don't have time to talk about how it kind of upsets me about the, the takeover part of it, the conversion part, Because Washington and the politicians that represent us put these plans in place not for a $50 million conversion. This was put in place because they were sold on this concept that, by the way, Charlie, they were sold on economies of scale. They were sold on the very thing that you're saying is not even a relevant factor. They put these things in place because they thought they're going to be cheap for small and startup businesses. And that's the only reason really that these things went through politically. And for me to hear that now someone's surprised to see conversions happening and big blends are happening. I just get a little icky feeling inside about greed and money and all that kind of jazz. Charlie, how would you like to make some extra cash in life? I'm thinking that'd be a good thing for you, right? Why not? Everyone can have a little extra money. [23:56] Charlie: No, no, the best. [23:57] JD: The best way I've get extra money in your life is find an investment guru that can lead the way and show you what to invest in. And we just happen to have one right here on our panel. So let's do drunk stock tips. I promised you late last year that I would do a review of Mark's performance. And so I spent many hours accumulating all of the data. Are you ready for this, everybody? We started this in April of 2022, and we've had 21 stock picks that we put in front of robe guy. 21 times we've asked him to say buy or sell on a stock. And I'll mind you, little stats here, about a third of the time he says sell. So he doesn't always say buy. He says so fairly often about a third of the time. You ready for this? Out of those 21 times, he was right 18 of them. Justin did the math for me on that was 80 something percent, a high 80s percent. So he's been right 18 out of 21 times. He was wrong with Pfizer, he was wrong with Nike, and he was wrong with Levi's. Okay, you ready for this? Half of the time on those. Those recommendations end up driving a return that's north of 25%. So when he tells you to buy something, half the time that return is going to be north of 25%. Right? Here we go. I put it all together and his annualized rate of return is 35.84%. Mind you, over that same period, from April 2022 to today, the S&P 500 has returned about seven and a half percent. AKA oh, I drink for that. RO Two of them is almost five times the market. So, Charlie, pay attention to do that. You know when they used to say when. Cheese. I'll drink for this too. When EF Hutton speaks, need to listen. Well, Robe guy is the modern version of that. The stock I'd like you to review for us today is General Motors Roby. Let's see. The company has155,000 employees. They do annual revenue of almost 160 billion. And I know you could give a what their PE ratio is io3, but it's 4.93. The stock is currently at 35 and a half. It had a high of 66 back in December of 2021. It has companies like Chevy, Buick, General Motors, whatever the. My truck is called Cadillac. They also own OnStar. I personally, I pay right now for a Buick for my daughter, a Chevy for my son, a Yukon, a. I have a GMC truck. I'll drink. And so anyway, I think I got three or four of those I'm paying for right now. Rogue Guy, take it away. [27:21] Mark: First off, I. J.D. i need to commend you on pushing through. Like, you don't sound too good. They sound. Y', all, I don't think you're gonna have a voice tomorrow. So kudos to you for that now. [27:35] Chad: Yeah. [27:37] Mark: So we're talking cars, huh? Talking, talking vehicles. I mean, I think we can all agree that, you know. Well, I know not all of us live in the state of California, but I'm biased. I'm in California. I drive my kids to school every day, and I show up and there's 78 Teslas parked amongst my car. [27:56] Justin: That's not a Tesla. [27:58] Mark: We're going the way of electric vehicles. I don't really even know what General Motors fleet is in terms of the cars they offer in that regard. Man, this is just a shot in the dark for me. I mean, just going off of feel here. I've got no real backing to this. I don't drive. [28:19] JD: I think they have a bolt. [28:20] Charlie: They have a Volt. [28:22] Chad: Okay, great. [28:28] Mark: I'm just gonna say this is a cell. I don't. I don't feel good car. You know, I drive down the drive down the street. There's a lot of car dealerships, not a lot of cars on these car dealerships. And you think, oh, maybe it's because car sales are going so well. [28:45] JD: They're not. [28:46] Mark: You don't hear very good things. I mean, there's some. Some companies offering some pretty good manufacturer discounts on vehicles they can't get rid of you know, the Mustang electric vehicle or something, I don't know. So I'm not feeling American made right now. I guess they call me a hater. But like there's some other companies like Kias and Hyundai's that are sort of more appealing for their price points. And this is getting way too in depth for me and to. I'm saying too many words, trying to back myself up. So I'm gonna be done speaking here in a moment and just say nah. [29:24] JD: Okay. I saw Charlie, he kind of was phasing out there because I'm pretty sure he was accessing his, his E Trade account and putting a, a cell on, on General Motors. So good for you Charlie. You're going to make some money here. Roguy will not leave you in the wrong direction. He knows what he's talking about and clearly his numbers back it up. Thanks Ro Guy. Appreciate it. [29:50] Mark: I'm not gonna lie. I need to be wrong. You know what they say, I need to be wrong for a bit of a string here. And I feel like that's probably going [29:56] Chad: to be a wrong one. [29:57] Mark: I'm just gonna, I don't feel good about it. [30:00] JD: Another thing to do. Did you know like Roy can affect markets in a big way? So just pay attention to the volatility Tomorrow on General Motors in the stock market, I'm sure it'll be gangbusters. I know Nike went through some tough times after you talked about them. Let's. Let's spin the wheel of ice and everyone cross your fingers it's not me. Well, sometimes the alcohol soothes the throat. [30:33] Chad: I was sick last weekend, didn't get it, so I was due. [30:37] JD: And while Chad drinks his smear off ice Brandon. Let's do headlines, buddy. Let's do some headlines. I didn't realize we hadn't done that. Chad and I were on a call, just me and him, maybe two weeks ago, three weeks ago. We were talking about the email that I had to blast out to all of our clients about long term part time rules just to kind of let them know that they might need to do something about it. And we put up a frequently answered questions on our website, et cetera, et cetera. And it dawned on me at the time, do I send this notice to Solo Case? And Chad and I didn't have to think about it more than a couple seconds and we're like, of course we do. We got to send it to Solo case. And I had this moment of like, holy, this is gonna catch some people off guard. Like how many Plans are out there across the country that if you ask them about their plan, like oh I'm a solo K man, like I don't have to really deal with a lot of stuff. I don't have testing. I don't have to deal with all this stuff because we only have these part timers. Well, sure enough the national association of Plan Advisors on December 29 came out with an article written by Robert Richter talking about the impact of these long term part time rules on solo 401k plans. And it's just more shit piled on the shit show of this regulation that I think is gonna a lot of people up Charlie secure 2.0 and this long term part time employee rule. Do you, Fred Reese is very concerned about this. Do you have concerns of how many people across the country are simply not going to understand whether these rules impact them or not? I mean voya empower every third party administrator across the country. We can only make as many, send as many emails and send as many notices and, and have conversations with our big clients but we can't get to everybody. And I'm a little concerned that things are going to be really messed up. Do you agree or not? [32:53] Charlie: Broadly I would agree. I think you know the spirit again this is driven by regulators and politicians trying to address the coverage rule. Try or coverage, excuse me, not rule, the coverage issue in America. And you know, oh let's, let's make part time employees, let's you know, long term part time employees and then they create a regulation that is just difficult to track and monitor and for employers and you know, you can just make it simple gang. But I agree, I think these things they just compound the complexity compounds on them and people just end up throwing their hands in the air. [33:34] JD: Well I definitely, I think everyone can agree the whole switch from 2024 to 2025 on the, the three year look back to the two year look back was just ludicrous. Like are you kidding me? You're going to add like a whole nuance to this. But Chad, I mean you've got to be concerned. We don't do a ton of solo 4.1k plans but we've, we've done a fair amount over the years and I. Do you think they read the email that I sent to them? Because I don't have time to call them all and talk to them, buddy. [34:05] Chad: No, no. And you know a lot of our 401k solo 401k clients, which by the way I love that they pointed out in the bottom because we've been saying it for years that there's no such thing as a solo 401k. It's just a marketing term. You're a 401k claiming regular 401k. [34:20] JD: Yeah. With no employees. [34:21] Chad: But I won't say the majority. I have to say at least half of the solo Ks that we've written are document only clients. Meaning they didn't hire us for ongoing administration. Right. We're not, we're not involved for 5,500 filings. We just simply wrote them a document so they could go to an advisor's investment chassis and invest money. We let them know north of 250 you got to reconnect and we've got to take on some role in this relationship. Those folks are blindsided. I mean I think every solo K is but those folks especially that aren't even engaged with a third party administrator and have nobody looking at the compliance side of their plan when they get caught or when it is addressed. It's going to be a big issue for this one person company where they've got one or two or three long term part time. [35:13] Justin: Are we selling or sending out notices to the doc only clients to JD or do we not track? Yeah, we do. [35:18] JD: Yeah we send it to them. But like I said that's worth about as much as what Robey makes in a month. You know they're not going to look at it or act on it. And so I think that the problem is there's just going to be a mess of cleanup if we even find the messes in the first place. [35:36] Chad: Well and so I'll make, I'll make two comments for the advisors that are tuning in. One being sales technique and leverage this thing have these conversations with clients about long term part time. But even owner only businesses where they believe they're in a solo K use it as a bridge to talk about defined benefit owner only defined benefit because we can still carve those employees out of any employer contributions. I can't tell you how many times I run into a solo K request from an advisor. And the moment we bring up the defined benefit world they are hook, line and sinker in love with the options that we're giving them because nobody ever talks to these independent contractors, these folks sitting on boards about this option. And I think advisors who are steering clear of solo case because there's no revenue in it need to look at the defi the owner only defined benefit space and leverage this as a talking point. [36:29] JD: Well when my, when my daddy gave me his company and Let me take it over. He used to tell me things and he used to say this. He goes, he goes, son, the more complicated this is, the better it is for our family business. And so I would say the same thing out to the advisors in the industry right now. If clients are going to have problems with long term part time, then what a great opportunity for advisors, record keepers, third party administrators to get out there and find them and explain this to them. I mean, I mean opportunity in terms of winning new business. So you can flip it to a positive. But I do think it's going to be a shit show. [37:09] Justin: Yeah. [37:10] Chad: And I saw a couple comments. We'll just clarify because I don't think you did in the disclosure. J.D. you're no longer able to claim the exemption of filing a 5500 is what this really comes down to. So, so for those listening in the solo K is that you have no eligible employees that have worked over a thousand hours and therefore you wrote a plan, you have no testing and you're not filing a 5500 until the plan assets exceed 250k. What we now know with this is that if you have these long term part time people over 500 hours, less than a thousand, you have to give them access to deferrals. That takes you out of the exemption of not being subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. So now you have to file a 5500. There's going to be so many plans that don't do that, that get caught on the back end when someone comes in and chats with them. [38:01] JD: So let's move on to another headline. This comes from a company that I don't know the acronym, so I'm not going to say it. A big media company and they've got an article and I'm going to go straight to you, Rob Guy, and then we'll get Charlie S. Guess what everybody, we like, sometimes we like to keep you up to speed on things we talked about in the past. And the lawsuit over Nirvana's Nevermind album cover is back on the baby's back, shall we say Rogue Guy and, and is still trying to get their money. Did you read this one? [38:37] Mark: No, of course not. [38:38] JD: No. Well, what are your thoughts? That the baby is, is still back in court and still trying to get his money because he exposed his penis on the COVID of a, you know, album involuntarily. Yeah. [38:51] Chad: He didn't have. [38:52] Justin: His parents did. [38:53] Chad: Right. Yeah. [38:54] Mark: I, again, I didn't, I didn't look into this. And like we Talked about it last time. It's. I don't know what different angle they're taking at this. [39:02] Justin: Like it's the statute of limitations they're claiming is no longer valid. So it's a 10 year statute of limitations. Limitations. And because Nirvana released a remastered version of this in 21, a new judge or a district is stating that it is now within that statute. [39:16] Charlie: Okay, so. [39:17] Mark: So then I have a really simple thought. Pay this guy some money. Just. [39:21] Charlie: They already have. [39:23] JD: Yeah. [39:24] Chad: Oh yeah. Years and years and years. [39:26] JD: Charlie, Charlie, let me ask you. What sum of money would it take for you to float in a pool naked for an album cover like that? [39:37] Charlie: Would that be scary? [39:38] Mark: No. [39:39] JD: Do you think this baby has a right to this? Does. Should he. Should the baby who's now a grown adult by the way, that plays video games in his mom's basement, should he have a right to large sums of money because he's been like disadvantaged or hurt by this? Or should he just be like I'm the baby on the Nirvana album, like I'm famous. This is cool. What a great. [40:01] Justin: Let's be honest. He has not been hurt by this by any means. This is just a money play. [40:06] JD: What do you. [40:06] Justin: What would. [40:06] JD: If he came to you, Charlie, and was asking for advice, would you tell him to, hey, just be happy you're the baby. Or would you tell him to go get some money? [40:14] Charlie: No, I think I'd refer him to you, J.D. [40:17] JD: what's that? Okay, great. [40:21] Mark: Yeah. All I can say is had he never said anything, nobody knows who he is, but he has now shown everybody who he is and that that is him. So that's. I mean he didn't have to do that, but it's a, it was a money grab from day one. I don't. Yeah, I'm just like, it's. Come on, it's back. [40:41] Chad: We can move on. It's almost marked it to put it in your field. It's almost like the caddy for who is the golfer that went down to Mexico. His caddy didn't go with him. He picked up a local caddy. You normally get 10% of the of the earnings. He wins the tournament, he gives the 210 grand and the normal payout would have been like $2. It was Kusher Kutcher. Oh, that Kucher. Yeah. And he only paid the local caddy like 10 grand. And his normal caddy would have gotten a hundred thousand plus which would have been life changing money to. [41:11] JD: This was the local. [41:12] Mark: This is not about exposing a penis, Chad. That's No. [41:15] JD: Not even interested. Brought me back to real life. What does that have to do with anything? Let's move on. Okay. [41:23] Chad: Yeah. [41:24] JD: At the national association of Plan Advisors, there was an article that caught my eye on January 2nd called, the Department of Labor successfully sues employer for misuse of forfeitures. This might sound very nerdy to a lot of people listening in, but basically what happened here, if I remember correctly, is on the plan document. This. This plan had said, hey, with forfeitures, we will use them to. To offset plan expenses, but instead they're using it to offset the employer contribution, which you totally can do. But because their documents said they were supposed to do the previous and not the latter, the duo came in and stuck them for like 550,000 or 575,000 and penalties. And so the moral of the story or the discussion like, this kind of caught me off guard is like, wow, like, just because you can do something, you still have to look at your document and do it appropriately based on what your document says. And I guess I'll go to you, Charlie, when you're at the helm of Empower and Voya and you're dealing with tens of thousands pushing hundreds. I mean, combine the two. Hundreds of thousands of plans out there, do you think they're all using their forfeitures properly based on how their document says, or is this mistake happening a lot? Well, to pick on Empower Voyage record keepers in general, I don't need you to talk about your past employers. [42:59] Charlie: Well, it's kind. So, first of all, I think record keepers, you know, we. We all had lots of plans with these types of accounts, and largely the record keeper has almost nothing to do with other than to process the payment however they want our. Apply it in that way. So it really is something that goes back to the plan. And maybe the advisor consultant or TPA is in there helping and guiding them on these things, bring them up. So I can't necessarily say, you know, how prevalent it is, but, you know, I think your comment about it's. Yeah, it's not uncommon for people to have the ability to offset employer contributions with. With some of the forfeitures or use it different ways. You see, employers use it differently whether they have it documented appropriately or not. You know, I couldn't tell you. [43:54] JD: I just personally would have thought that if this was like a friend of mine, this. This plan sponsor, and they were going into court for this, I would have thought like, oh, you'll be okay. Like, you just. You kind of didn't do it. Right. But what you did wasn't illegal. Like, you could have easily just amended your document to allow you to do this. But as a third party administrator, I know better than that fallacy. That's not true. It was just interesting to see it actually go down like this and, and have the penalty come to fruition. So it's just a little lesson for everyone out there. We can move on. Is that there's nuances in this industry and if you're an advisor or obviously administrators understand this side of things. But a record keeper. Here's another little, little nugget that you could look at and talk to clients about to make sure that they're doing things properly as it relates to their forfeitures. Chad, give us the last thought to close this out because I want to move on to. [44:50] Chad: Yeah, the nerdy. The nerdiness in me goes, okay, well, whose responsibility does this fall to? Because in Charlie's example there, as a, as someone who's, as a business who's processing it, they're not reaching out to us asking us how to utilize the forfeitures. It doesn't require our attention as a third party administrator to approve it. So when they know they have these forfeiture dollars, they're going directly to the record keeper and making a statement of what should happen. I don't know. In our plan information forms that we submit to these record keepers, if we're declaring in there what the rules are around forfeitures, I'll look into that tomorrow. But my guess is they don't even know how the document. The record keepers don't know how the document is written for forfeitures. And they're getting requests from the client and they're doing it. [45:33] JD: Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't think that's a connector of data between many TPAs and record keepers, so I don't think so. I thought this was very interesting. [45:42] Justin: What's concerning is if, like, how many plans is this happening on? I'm kind of dumbfounded on why, and maybe you guys can educate me. Why in the world would you not select both boxes to be able to do both? Why only one? [45:54] JD: Yeah. Oh, good question. [45:56] Chad: Because you want a black and white process to follow and feel like you could step out of line if you made one decision versus the other. [46:02] JD: Let's ask Justin. Let's ask. Guideline, human interest. That question and you'll get Chad's answer. We got to simplify stuff, which. That's my little transition here. We've got a Chief executive officer and a president that basically ran in power for decades. And when I say ran in power, like the, the retirement plan side of things, and then ran Voya, same retirement, employee benefits. So this is a real treat for us. Like you've sat in a seat that. Well, I was going to say most of us have not, but all of us have not really. And so you have a very unique perspective. I'd like to dive into the concept of legacy record keepers versus these disruptors. The, the vessels, the human interests, the guidelines. I, I'd imagine you spent a lot of your career thinking about your competition as, as names that we would all know. Fidelity and, and Principle. And when you're at Empower, you're probably worried about Voya and, and Nationwide and John Hancock and all. And all these names. Did you ever, the first question is, did you ever back then think, and are you surprised now that there would be new names that you never recognize that came from outside of our industry and actually competed and won business? I mean, these, these companies are starting to, to build on a pretty decent chunk of business. Did you ever think that there'd be a human interest or a guideline when you were running those two companies? There were. [47:44] Charlie: If you. [47:44] JD: Well, not to this level of success. Guideline has, is approaching. Charlie, I want to give you some context. Guideline is approaching 50,000 plans. So don't tell me about little tech startups in the 2000s, 2010s or whatever, because they never came to fruition. Nothing ever really happened with them. These companies are actually on plans and selling more plans than the very companies that you led in the course of a year. [48:18] Charlie: Yeah, but how much money and how big are they. Are they gonna. Do they have. [48:21] JD: They're tiny. Tiny. Yeah. [48:24] Charlie: And they're probably not profitable and they're probably not going to have a viable business model to be, to be in business in 10 years. [48:32] JD: I mean, you know, God bless you. [48:34] Charlie: So it's like, seriously, you know, I think the, the robo 401k providers, and we've had a number of E401k providers over the last 20 years, none of them have really made a dent, any material dent, I should say, in the industry, you know, when you're, when you have an undifferentiated value prop and you're going in that, you know, we're cheap, we're transparent, we do payroll integration or fiduciary services. Okay, tell me a 401k provider that doesn't say that. You know, and they, and many of them are not embracing the advisor in that process as well and understanding the value that an advisor brings to helping an employer figure out, you know, plan design and things. So I think their differentiation is, is pretty low. You know most of them, you know what are they focused? If I remember right, a lot of them are like Vanguard, you know, Vanguard funds and different, you know, portfolio. So they don't have a lot. It's, it really is a, a kind of a vanilla type DC plan. So I, I don't see them as being long term viable. I don't see them as long term viable. I think there are now there some of the ones you mentioned like Vestwell. Vestwell's interesting. [49:53] JD: Different. [49:54] Charlie: Yeah, I put them in a different bucket. [49:56] JD: I do too. I've always said that Aaron Shum and basketball are definitely a different breed. I hate to lump them in with those other disruptors you had me at. Hello Mr. Nelson, I my next follow up question to you is going to be do you think that their, their businesses are viable in terms of profit? You know they were, they were funded with hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital, private equity funds. And Chad and I have done the math on this show numerous times by the way, we've had the them on this show and talk to them. The founder of Guideline who I was very impressed by and Chad and I math is kind of like how are they ever going to pay back the venture capital? And worse, venture capital doesn't want to just get paid back. They want to like 50x their money. And so we just haven't really seen that clear path yet. So it's nice to hear someone smart and experienced like you who's been in that business say those same same things. Chad, you have thoughts? [50:53] Chad: Can we ask Charlie, who knows this space better than any of us, why is that? These venture capitalists are not dumb. There has to be some sort of play margin or spread that they see in the future that, that the, the product is not doing now that will lead to money. What is it? What are we not seeing? [51:14] Charlie: Well first of all, look at the economic models that are viable. How do you, how can you be a profitable retirement provider? And you know, I, I've got a little experience in working with companies that were very profitable and very successful in that. And it's not just about record keeping only. You have to have something else. Whether it's investment management, proprietary. [51:36] JD: Proprietary target date funds. [51:39] Charlie: Well, investment management I'll say but you know, you're not doing it for record keeping only. Some will, will go into it and they'll say, you know what? I'm going to get my D.C. business because I want to, I to want, want to be big and I want to monetize the participant and roll it over. So if I roll over the money and I monetize it, they can maybe think of their DC business in a different economic value. So I, I would look at these guys and say the only way some of the private equity folks probably are looking at it is not the current business models. And so you should be thinking, where are they going with this? Are they going to start to try to monetize the participants in rollovers? Are they going to try to add some, maybe some health benefits alongside wellness? [52:26] Chad: That's what I'm asking you. That's because, because we all know that we see that convergence and we see that this is the play. And Nate mentions in the chat bar, like whoever owns the K relationship owns the holy grail because you have access to all of this opportunity. But I still don't see there being enough penetration there to make that profitable to pay back these, these venture capitalists and create this super large lifestyle company. So what is it? There's. [52:53] JD: I gotta respond to Nate Bell in the chat bar. He loves how much these traditional providers hate disruptors. I'm gonna back up Charlie here. I don't think he was fueled by hate there. He was fueled by mathematics and logic. And so Nate, that's. This is a reoccurring conversation we've been having on the show. The numbers don't add up, bro. Grow. And so it's not a hate thing. Like we'd love to see our industry thrive and improve and get better, but when you're selling something that's so cheap that it doesn't sustain itself. I've said this before, so I apologize. Now you're doing damage to the whole industry as a whole and not in a good way because you will cease to exist in five years and you have drawn everything down based on your gamble that didn't pay off and didn't work. So I think it's relevant to talk about that where their dumbers don't add up. And Chad, it's interesting to hear Charlie say, of course, Chad, they're going to have to something else and monetize this relationship. [53:54] Chad: And I guess My hope, J.D. was that Charlie would, would open up Pandora's box and say, this is what it is. Guys, we've asked that question of so many guests and, and I don't know, folks are holding back on us or if it's just not really known where we're going to step to. And, and Daniella says data, data, data. I know the data is going to lead to other lines of data. [54:17] JD: Data means monetize other areas. That's what that means. [54:20] Chad: I just don't know what the other areas are that are going to create enough margin, enough spread for these numbers to make sense. [54:26] Charlie: Oh, you want some ideas? [54:29] Mark: Yeah. [54:30] Charlie: One, certainly there's a belief by many that if I do the rollovers that will be a source of revenue. I think they overstate the real potential of that. Two is the convergence of health and wealth and other benefits. Again, you know, you say, hey, you're sitting on all this data, you're only one of 18 benefits for an average employer. What about all the other benefits? Now this is a foothold to maybe some other businesses. They can collect, they can bring together and leverage. You can take that one benefit and actually there's a lot more profitability in some other benefits than there is just in 401k. So they have to kind of, they're taking a leap of faith. And a lot of the pes, as you know, they're not on a, they're not on a 20 year program. It's three, five, seven years. [55:19] JD: They want it quick. They want it quick. But Charlie, I also, I'll jump on the side of, of why they would to pitch to a venture capital group that you have an idea that might be able to bring your startup company on level ground with companies on Wall street like Vanguard and Voya and empowered. You could give your examples that have been doing this for decades is very enticing. Like if I'm a venture capital, I will write you a check if you've convinced me that somehow in the course of five, seven, ten years, you're going to create a company that will actually compete with these legacy massive institutions. You've just given me a back door into Wall street and I'm very, very interested. And to your point, Charlie, what money can I make from that once I've established and got my foothold in that area? And I think that that's why the money's being given. And now we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak. Like, what are they going to sell? You know, we'll see. Well, let me ask you from a technology standpoint, the. When you talk to a disruptor, they will tend to publicly shame the legacy providers by saying that their technology is antiquated, their record keeping technology is antiquated. It's it's slow moving, it's not efficient and it doesn't do well with kind of change and updates. Whereas theirs, and this is Aaron Chum says this all the time, as does the guideline guy. Theirs is a modern day tech stack that can be updated, you know, in a second's notice and they can bring in Fintech and apply it on it and they can do all these kind of things that the old providers cannot do. Is there any validity in that statement? Because I think there kind of is. Right Charlie, but what do you say? [57:14] Charlie: There is a number of record keepers are working on antiquated record keeping platforms and I, I would use a, you know, a platform that was created 30 years ago and I, I could say it like, hey, at Empower, I was there when that system was created as part of that team that was in 1991 I believe. So you know, that's over 30 years ago now. They've done a good job at Empower and they've had a lot of success with it and being able to build and they've added different APIs and things around it, but the core architecture has not changed. And I think when you think of the architecture in technology, you know, I think what Aaron is saying and what they're doing at Vestwell is very interesting and should make a lot of people take and look at what they're doing. I think that the disruptors of the future are going to be those that are very much data driven and they use the data to drive a more hyper personalized employer employee relationship. [58:19] JD: Do you think Charlie, do you think the legacy record keepers are in the better position to accomplish that? Or is it these younger startup disruptors or is it some name we haven't even heard of yet who will benefit from new technology and then maybe even a little artificial intelligence talk here because I recently saw a picture of you, Rick Unser, Mitch Haber, a bunch of secret high society types hanging out at Shlomo's house. And I know you guys were planning the future of the world. So I'm going to ask you now who's in the best position to really benefit from new technologies and artificial intelligence? [59:05] Charlie: You know, I think it's if you just looked at size and profitability, people that have the money to do it, it's the large providers. But the, the cost of entry to do these things today is much lower than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago when a lot of these systems were created. The barriers to entry, what AI and robotics and the cloud have done to drive down the cost have really helped make the barriers to entry into the dc, the defined contribution market much more economical. And there's a lot of money, as you say, with private equity and the private, the private markets looking to disrupt that. You know, the challenge that the big, the big retirement providers have that are publicly traded is that they're, they struggle each, every quarter. Hey, I got to make my earnings, I got earnings pressure. And so that, that pressure kind of is a tension against how much do I invest in AI in some of these new. [1:00:08] JD: They got to play it safer. They got to play it safer. Right. [1:00:11] Charlie: So, so why they say they have a lot of money to go do it. The real question is, can you disrupt it? And to take a, take a, a 30 year old platform, an old platform and say, I'm gonna, I'm, I'm, I've moved to the cloud. The cloud doesn't mean anything. It's really more in a lot of ways, in my mind at least, kind of more of the, the AI, the robotics, the AI, API integrations that you can do. That's where you drive value and these old systems, you know, think about trying to take a Model A and make it really fast. Today you're taking an old platform and trying to upgrade. That's so way up there. [1:00:48] JD: A lot of people, sorry. [1:00:49] Charlie: Yeah, I get a lot of people passionate on this. [1:00:52] Justin: Don't say sorry, it's just your liver. [1:00:54] JD: A lot of people reach out to me and ask me what the over under was on Charlie tonight on the show. And I thought it was nine and he's, he's blown that to smithereens. No, that was well said. I, I, I always ask myself if what Guideline has created is so impressive, well, why wouldn't a big legacy provider just say, okay, we'll make one of those lickety split. Like, we got the money to do it, we'll do it. And none of them have. [1:01:24] Chad: Yeah, but why would, why would they, I don't understand that that's in that scenario. That's not a profitable area of business. [1:01:31] JD: That's what Charlie One, it's not profitable and two, it takes their eye off the ball in the real game. Like they have to stay with what they're doing and keep improving and they can't sell. That's very, very interesting. And I think that's a, it's a dramatic storyline that we'll watch play out. Like, I can't wait to see the headline when guidelines were and I'm not trying to pick on Kevin and Guideline Like I said before, I was actually really impressed when he was here. But let's pick on human interest for fun. Like, what if we read the headline? It's like, human interest is venture capital. You know, funders have said, hey, no more money left, guys. The world's a different place now. You're on your own. And by the way, you're spending way too much money. You're not profitable. You open all your fancy offices in Colorado, wherever the fuck it was, and. And now we got to shut the doors on you, and then they got to sell to somebody, like a census or empower. I'm just playing. Might be an interesting headline. Who knows? We'll see. I don't know. Let's wrap it. We're going to do Chat Bar champion, the first chat bar champion of 2024. I would like to throw something out there to you guys and to the. To the audience. Instead of me buying, like, 100 hot dogs for the winter every week or whatever, maybe we can do a longer tally in 2024, like a leaderboard, if you will, of winners, and we could take our top three and have them come join us in California or Missouri or wherever we see fit for a nice day. You know, maybe it's golf, maybe it's not. Maybe it's dinner, some kind of competition. I don't know what it is, but I'm kind of leaning towards that right now. But I spent a lot of money last year buying people funny food, gifts, and. And [1:03:26] Mark: human resources. Give you a call today, JD Is that what happened? [1:03:32] JD: I'm saying we spent more. [1:03:33] Mark: Accountant, come out. [1:03:35] JD: I'm saying we spend more money. We just do it on a. On a grander scale. You know, some kind of. I don't know. Think about it. Everybody out there listening. Think. Let me know what you think. Justin, Silent Jay, your vote for chapter champion tonight. Going. [1:03:49] Justin: Nate Moody. [1:03:51] JD: Oh, okay. Good call. [1:03:52] Justin: Active. I liked it. [1:03:54] JD: Good call. Good call. Chad, your vote. [1:03:57] Chad: There was no question. Nate Moody. He had me chatting the whole night, and he even called me out and said, which Nate are you talking to? [1:04:04] JD: He was a bit of a boat rocker, was he not? Which. [1:04:09] Chad: Both content and boat rocker. Yeah. [1:04:12] Mark: Okay, but can I. Can I say something that actually will now negate one of his votes? He didn't chat to everyone, so. Hey, Nate, get your together. Okay, Minus one. [1:04:24] JD: Who's your vote? Roby. [1:04:26] Mark: Minus one to Nate. [1:04:28] JD: Okay. Wow. Minus one to Nate. I'm gonna. We can do. [1:04:31] Mark: We can do negative votes now. How about that? [1:04:34] JD: I'm gonna give Greg Greenfield My vote, because he came in in the 9th inning or the 11th hour with his. Not too moody either. So he's praising another competitor. And I didn't pay attention to the chat bar. So I make my decision in the last, you know, last minute. [1:04:51] Chad: I have to give kudos real quick to Charlie, though. Charlie, we have so many people on this show that try to keep up the conversation, and they get overwhelmed by the chat. You were chatting tonight. I saw a number of comments for. Kudos to you, sir. [1:05:06] JD: Wow, Chad, I love that you can give a guy you're a measly little sales director for a small TPA firm. I'll drink. And you can give a guy who is a powerful chief executive officer of large Fortune 500 companies a compliment. How nice of you. [1:05:23] Chad: He crushed it. [1:05:24] JD: Jd, Charlie, your vote for chapter champion tonight. Pick anyone in that chapter you thought was killing it. [1:05:33] Charlie: Well, you know, I, I, I like Brian's comments, you know, for especially he teed us up with the, with the opening question from his LinkedIn, but I also think Greg did a nice job as well. [1:05:47] JD: Brad Williams and. Or Greg. [1:05:52] Justin: Which one? [1:05:53] Mark: Oh, pink one. [1:05:54] Charlie: Oh, God. Well, I'm gonna go with Brian because he got us teed up. [1:05:58] JD: Good for him. All right, well, you, then you. That's a good choice because you don't know how this game works, and you just got them into the final. Okay, we've got Brian, we've got Moody, and we've got gg. I'll drink. Roby, you know how this goes. They need to finish the sentence, and then we'll let Charlie pick the winner tonight. Charlie, watch the chat bar. They're gonna finish the sentence that Roby says right now. Go ahead, Rob. [1:06:24] Justin: Oh, geez. [1:06:25] Mark: I should really prepare for these things. All right, in the spirit of the new year, I'm just gonna go with this to see what happens. [1:06:31] Charlie: Moody just won. [1:06:32] Justin: It's. [1:06:33] Chad: It's what? Yeah, he won. [1:06:34] Justin: He wins. [1:06:36] Mark: I'm with Rose. Dude, I don't think you could handle my sister, bro. I, I hope also, Mr. Moody, I hope you understand this is all in fun. Just. Just gonna put it out there. Like this is not supposed to be taken seriously. Negative two for you now. All right, in the spirit of the new year. So JD is sitting at his counter after drinking many of vodka drinks on New Year's Eve and says, I'm gonna write down my New Year's resolution. JD scribbles something on the paper, and it says, JD's news resolution is. And it crumples it up and you find that piece of paper on the floor and open it and read it. What does it say? [1:07:31] JD: What does it say? All right, here we go. I've been drinking a lot of vodka in my free time. All right, Greg Greenfield is in with have Fred Reese's baby Charlie. So that's one option. Have Fredericious baby. [1:07:51] Chad: Greg knows that speed counts for something. [1:07:54] JD: Yeah, true. Greg got it in quick. [1:07:57] Mark: Oh, that is a really good gif. [1:08:02] JD: Oh, we're still waiting on Moody. [1:08:06] Mark: I don't even have a penalty drink. [1:08:09] JD: Movie is fun as I met her at an enrollment question. [1:08:14] Chad: He's still on Mark's sister. [1:08:16] JD: But another strong comment. I mean, I don't know if Moody's gonna get Charlie's vote tonight. [1:08:21] Chad: Look at Brian. Invest in more rogue guy stock tips. [1:08:25] JD: Who are we waiting on? Brian Williams. Oh, that's it. Okay, sorry. Invest in more rogue guy stock tips. Okay, you got Moody. [1:08:32] Chad: You're still waiting on Moody? [1:08:34] Justin: No, here. [1:08:35] JD: No, I think Moody's. I think Moody's. [1:08:37] Mark: I met her at. [1:08:38] Chad: Oh, he's doubling down on the sister comment. [1:08:40] Mark: Okay, Charlie, I had a sister. [1:08:44] Justin: Do I know who? [1:08:45] JD: Can you pick a winner, Charlie? [1:08:46] Charlie: Well, first, I can tell Nate I can refer him to some people at Boya if he wants to talk to him. I no longer work there, so. Yeah, you know, I kind of like. I. I like Brian's invest in more Robi. Guy stock tips. [1:09:03] JD: Fair enough. I'm. [1:09:05] Chad: We'll. [1:09:06] JD: We'll give Brian a win, and then I'm going to. It's not an overrule. [1:09:10] Chad: See? [1:09:10] JD: It's a win. I'm gonna actually do something that's not normal. We won't do this on every show, but we'll give Nate Moody a win as well for his just crash rudeness in the end. So two ticks in the win column for Nate Moody, for Brian Williams, and it's been a great show. Says the guy who hosts the show. When you host a show, you can't say it's been a great show. I hear podcast people do that all the time. They host a show like, oh, this has been a really great show. Who the are you to say it's been a great show? It's your show. You can't. I think. [1:09:42] Mark: You know, I think. I think you're allowed to say that because you also know it's not. [1:09:46] JD: Yeah, I take that back. We will do one very quick after show. You do not to stick around, Charlie, if you don't want to. It will literally be a no for dope game and Then we'll shut it off. That's it. And everyone tune in. Thank you. Happy New year. We're looking forward to spending. [1:10:08] Mark: Thank you to everyone but Nate Moody. [1:10:12] JD: We've got some great guests lined up for the new year, so please continue to keep joining us on the first and third Thursday of each month, and you'll see some. Some twists in churn, some new things happening in the new year. Charlie, I got several private messages today that said, wow, how the hell did you get Charles on your show? They were literally like, didn't think I could make it happen. So thank you. You blessed us with your presence. We appreciate it. And I think you were a phenomenal guest. I'm allowed to say that. So thank you, sir. [1:10:52] Charlie: Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Have fun. [1:10:54] JD: Great to have you. [1:10:55] Chad: I don't. I think I can confidently say I've never asked this leaving a show. But, Charlie, you should join us again. So I'm asking you, at some point in the future, join us again. [1:11:04] Mark: Yeah. [1:11:05] Charlie: Happy to do it. You guys. Let me know. It's a lot of fun. All right, Take care, guys. [1:11:09] Mark: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. [1:11:12] JD: All right, everyone, thanks for tuning in. We'll see you next time. We're the retire Alex, and we're changing the retirement plan industry with Roby's sister. One show at a time. See, everybody? [1:11:26] Mark: See it. [1:11:26] Justin: Bye. [1:11:32] JD: Going to the bathroom? [1:11:33] Mark: Yeah, me too.