Retirement Income Crisis: Insurance & Fiduciary Design

[0:00] Chad: Jd, you're saying it wrong because my wife is from there. [0:03] JD: It's Nicaragua. [0:06] Chad: Niharawa. [0:07] JD: Come on. [0:10] Mark: Okay, Barney, Mark, your pension probe patch looks like a weed leaf, marijuana leaf sitting on your shoulder. Wrong side. [0:21] Chad: I can't even remember this. [0:26] Mark: I need a bottle opener. [0:27] Justin: Here we go. [0:29] JD: It's game. Hey, everyone, this is J.D. carlson, author of the book how to tell if your advisor is an alcoholic. And you're listening to the Retireholics podcast where we share the latest information on corporate retirement plan trends, ideas and best practices. On the show, we feature industry experts across multiple disciplines that give their unique perspective and actionable insights about what it takes to navigate the complexities of ERISA and provide a great retirement plan for their employees in a rapidly changing world. If you're a retirement plan decision maker for your company or retirement plan professional, this podcast is for you. [1:43] Mark: First off, copyrights. There's copyrights on that intro. [1:48] Chad: And also, my buttons don't work. Brandon, jd, you said a bunch of acronyms there, dude. And you told us last week that we were starting from the get go. [2:02] Speaker E: Did anyone count how many I say, [2:05] Mark: or should we just assume three? [2:06] Justin: Does anyone know what that comes from? [2:08] Chad: Yeah, I'm gonna say 401k Fridays or. Or the other. [2:14] Justin: The other. Ah, you did it. [2:16] Mark: You did it. You did it. You said Joshua's name. [2:19] Justin: You have to drink for that. [2:23] JD: You have to drink. [2:24] Speaker E: I said Mitso. [2:25] Justin: Yeah, that's two. [2:27] Mark: When did that become a thing? [2:30] Justin: Hey, Justin, suck those down. And then what I would like you to do is introduce our guests. [2:36] JD: And you out there in the audience, you're gonna rate Justin on a scale of 0 to 10. And I'm thinking he's gonna suck shit because his last few introductions have been phoned in. [2:45] Speaker E: I disagree. I thought last. [2:46] JD: Go ahead, Justin. [2:47] Speaker E: Anyways, she's a 20 year vet, born and raised in Mafia Center, Brooklyn. She's got a bachelor's degree from Wesleyan University and a master's in management and finance from the prestigious Columbia University where she graduated magna cum laude. She was also a tennis phenom, having been inducted in Columbia hall of Fame. For all you tennis fanatics out there, she's currently plays at a 4, 5 level. And for the rest of you, I have absolutely no clue what the hell that means, but I hear it's good. She's a founder of Fiduciary Insurance Services and executive director of Institutional Retirement Income Council. Ladies and gentlemen, Michelle Richter. [3:21] Michelle Richter: Thank you very much for having me. It was mostly accurate. [3:26] JD: He makes up a few things from Time to time. That was really, actually really good, Justin. It was concise, it was free flowing. It was just very well done. I'm gonna give you a 9 5. Let's see what the audience. [3:39] Speaker E: Oh, I get the high scores when I lie. Okay. [3:41] Mark: 6.4. [3:44] Chad: That was a little. That was too short and too serious, Sam. [3:47] JD: Okay, Michelle, we're going to be playing some games today, and I want you to be aware of these games. We're going to be playing chat bar champion. [3:56] Justin: Keep your eye on the chat bar and you're going to vote someone into [4:01] JD: the finals at the end of this show. [4:03] Justin: And then the audience out there, you [4:05] JD: know the deal, you're going to pick the winner. Right now, Tony's at the top of my list for his JD Equals script reader. So that was a good one, Tony. Thanks for that because it was true. You know what the. [4:18] Justin: You want me to memorize? You want me to memorize Josh Ito's intro to his podcast? [4:22] JD: Yes. I'm drinking. [4:24] Justin: I'm not going to be able to do that. We are also going to play. Well, we are playing acro sin. So if you say any initialism, any acronym, or the name of the gary V of 401k must drink from your penalty drink. [4:42] JD: And then I got another little fun game lined up for you. It's an oldie but a goodie that we're going to play today. So get ready for that. [4:50] Justin: Let's dive right into it. In case you didn't know, Michelle, I'm [4:55] JD: a professional journalist person. So, Brandon, let's play headlines. Guess what, Mark? [5:12] Justin: What? [5:13] JD: Millennials have figured out the retirement plan crisis. [5:19] Justin: It's solved. Get this. One in four millennials say they're relying [5:27] JD: on crypto to fund their retirement. Chad, are you a millennial? [5:32] Mark: I know. [5:33] Speaker E: Yes, you are. [5:34] Justin: You not? [5:35] Mark: Justin, in my heart, I'm not a millennial. [5:39] Speaker E: Hey, I'm not gonna go there. [5:41] Justin: There's an article. Brand's got it up there. Foreign case specialist talking about millennials. It's pretty interesting to look at this [5:51] JD: and I thought Chad would have some great. [5:54] Chad: In what world have we started caring about 25%? I don't. I would get like it's more news if it's a majority. If it's like 65%. [6:06] Mark: Oh, it's still news. [6:08] Chad: One of one in four. We're really pulling out strings here to write an article. It sounds to me it's a lot [6:13] JD: of people that have a new viewpoint on how they're going to fund their retirement. [6:18] Justin: Michelle, what percentage of you is relying on crypto to fund your retirement. 00%. [6:28] Michelle Richter: Yeah, I kind of see it like you remember like the Dutch tulip craze of like a million years ago. Like, I mean, assets, you know, have the value that people will pay for them. Right. But I'm sort of really concerned about this phenomenon. [6:45] Justin: Chad, come on, put the end cap on this. [6:48] JD: I'll set you up. [6:50] Justin: A lot of these young smart people [6:53] JD: believe in decentralization, believe in smart contracts, think that the world is going to look very different In Zuckerberg's metaverse, 3.0, Internet 3.0, all these things that could be 10 years out, 15 years out, 25 years out. And therefore investing in cryptocurrency might be a smart move for them. [7:16] Mark: I think it is a smart move for a small portion of your assets and not necessarily your retirement place assets. Now, am I disappointed in people that say they're only savings? Right now, these young millennials is retirement assets and they want to use a portion of that for a high risk potential, high return asset class. Go for it. But you can't say that you're depending on cryptocurrency to fund your retirement at this stage. It's not stable enough to make that statement. Do I believe that it is the future of smart contracts? Do I believe that is future of the ledger system? Do I believe it is the future of the financial space? Yes, yes and yes. Do I believe it is the future of the investment space? Not yet, I don't. [8:00] JD: Don't be boring and bring diversification into the conversation. That's no fun. [8:05] Justin: Let's go to the next headline. I got this one from Tony Davis. [8:09] JD: Thank you, Tony, for finding little things out there and sharing them with us. Brandon, it's the hyped San Francisco startup article titled, well, there you go. Startup abruptly shuts down after raising $100 million in 2021. No, my understanding is this is not a 401k company. But you know what I'm gonna say, right? Heads up, human interest, heads up, guideline, heads up all you fancy venture capital, private equity back to disruptors. If you don't start making some profit sometime soon, you' investor is going to be like these guys and saying, look, we're shutting this shit down because it's leaking too much oil out the back. I'm just making up stuff. But Tony must have sent it to me because he believes that. [8:58] Justin: So anyways, well, in all reality, this can happen. [9:01] Chad: See, see, this is what's hard about these headlines because I read that differently Than I think how some read it like share. So you one might read it the way you're saying it is like, hey, over time this company hyped, raised $100 million. This could have been over the course of five years, I don't know, right. And then, and then shut down. But I hear they shut down abruptly after, which means to me, directly after getting this money. So where the fuck did it go? Where does money go? They're partying in the Caribbean. [9:34] Mark: Like what are they doing? [9:37] Michelle Richter: Honestly, that's how I read it too. [9:39] Mark: Thank you. [9:40] JD: And some of these other companies that I just mentioned earlier scenario, Mark, it would be they get these hundreds of millions they hire. [9:48] Chad: Nice, Greg, nice. [9:49] Justin: They hire people in the hundreds, you know, multiple hundreds. And they spend a lot of money [9:55] JD: on stuff because they're gearing up to take over the world. And if it doesn't work out eventually, here's, here's another thing. And I don't know, I'm not smart enough. I didn't go to Columbia. Higher interest rates, inflation, a volatile stock market, these are all things that did not exist when these hundreds of millions of dollars were being funded to these disruptors. As the world gets a little sketchier, some of these people that are investing in these companies are gonna pull back some of their, you know, confidence and say, shit, maybe I need to kick out of this one and shut it down and move on to something else. So anyways, yeah, a couple of thoughts [10:36] Mark: on that JD first is most of the VC money is a one time kick, right? So in terms of the money that came in, they're looking. Thanks, Mark. They're looking for, they're looking for return [10:47] Michelle Richter: over the long haul. [10:50] Mark: Long haul maybe being three years or so. So I don't think that the venture capitalist groups are the ones pulling the plug. I think that the business is looking and saying that what we created, our minimum viable product, proved to not be a minimal viable product. People don't want it, it's not working. We're not going to get over that hump of making money. And so we have to pull the plug now to your point with this disruptors. We all know the business well enough, Michelle, I'm sure you know it better than all of us. The margins on what they are currently doing are not enough to sustain the rate of return that these investors, these venture capitalists want. So there's something else there. So you're right, J.D. if they keep operating like they are, eventually they're going to run out of funds to continue to stay afloat because their margins are too tiny right now. [11:38] JD: Chad, I think you got one thing a little off there is that they do keep going back for more money. They go to their series B and their series C and whatever it is like, they keep going back for money. [11:50] Mark: Not the same investors, though, because they know fine. [11:54] Justin: Because this first suckers aren't going to do it again and reach deeper into their pocket. [11:58] JD: They got to go find some other ones. [12:00] Justin: But I also don't think that it's the people running the company that are going to decide to shut it down. It's the other, see investors that are going to say, we're no longer giving you any money. You know, similar to the big investor at WeWork that kind of made that thing all blow up. Great documentary to watch, by the way. [12:17] Chad: Documentary or the movie they made. [12:19] JD: Sorry, you're right, movie. [12:21] Justin: The one with Leto. [12:23] JD: Yeah, it's pretty fun. [12:25] Justin: Let's go to the next headline. I this is Pantera and Mutual Group launch new partnership. I don't even know either of these two companies, but I was on PlanAdvisor.com [12:40] JD: and look at Michelle. What's that? [12:43] Michelle Richter: Yeah, that's okay. So, yeah, I think that's such an interesting setup, you know, because it opens up the world to wealth managers, you know, to manage plans directly without taking client credentials. [13:03] Justin: So Michelle's right on this. [13:04] JD: So she's aware of this. [13:05] Mark: Fill me in, please. [13:06] Justin: Yeah. So remember the old Bloom bloo? [13:11] Mark: Yeah. [13:12] JD: And how they could access a 401k participants account whether they are with Voya or Principal or Empower or whomever? [13:19] Speaker E: Yeah, they just need login credentials. [13:21] JD: Yeah, we thought that was pretty interesting. So this is technology that will allow financial advisors to almost act like Bloom, but on an independent basis and to access a 401k participants account and manage it. [13:36] Chad: That's great. Can we let Michelle tell us about it, though, please? Much rather hear from her. [13:43] Michelle Richter: Yeah, yeah, I do. I think it opens up the universe for wealth managers, like I said, to be able to effectively manage 401k assets. And we all know that they've been giving advice on that and for years. I'm doing their best to try to help clients affect those transactions without breaking the law. But, you know, this does make it quite a bit easier and fully compliant. [14:08] Mark: Is it scalable, though? Like, I don't understand what's happening. That makes it more reasonable to think If I've got 300 private wealth clients, that I'm going to be able to help them manage their 401k in a scalable way? [14:21] Michelle Richter: I think it's more of a recognition of that. You know, with the convergence of those communities that is already. There is already a massive population of wealth managers who surreptitiously provide that advice. I think it's like bringing above board of what's already occurring. Like their client base already has most of their assets in their 401ks. [14:45] Mark: And do you think most of the advisors, Michelle, when they're helping clients that aren't their 401k clients, they're their private wealth clients and they're helping them invest 401k assets, that they're doing it as a one time or maybe a once a year at most. Look. Because it's not, it's not active, right? [15:05] Michelle Richter: Well, that, that does depend on whether they're an advisor or a salesperson. Right. So a person who's acting in the capacity of advisor is doing that on an ongoing basis or should be under the regulatory. [15:18] Mark: That can't be scalable though. [15:20] JD: I want to tackle that with you later. I want to tackle that because that's. [15:23] Michelle Richter: What's the price point? What's the price point? I don't know. I think it's north of 20 basis points. [15:28] Justin: I don't know. [15:28] Michelle Richter: That's what's like potentially not scalable. [15:31] JD: I'm not sure. But I think I was more interested in showing it to everyone and then almost like tackling Vita's question in the chat bar of like, well, how do they get into my account? My take on this was, look, there's new safe technology that will allow for this. So it doesn't have to be that old school way of hey, why don't you text me your password to. In your username to your account. It's kind of like banks these days. Like you can go online and apply for a loan and, or a home [16:02] Justin: loan and it can be, it can all be figured out within minutes because it's scaling through all these accounts through [16:08] JD: kind of secure technology, which in a bit sounds scary but to me it's very like modern and kind of the future of the world. So that's why I wanted to bring it up. It's like, hey, look at this. This is a potential new pathway that we haven't been down before that could open up all kinds of creativity and ideas and, and services and solutions. [16:26] Speaker E: So the, the headbutting though against. [16:29] Mark: You got the plan advisors and they [16:30] Speaker E: hear, they got that, you know, private wealth going there like that. Private wealth trying to go after the whole plan itself. [16:35] Justin: Here we go. [16:35] Speaker E: Imagine if you have multiple. [16:37] Chad: Love it. [16:37] Mark: That's awesome. [16:38] JD: Got this world. [16:39] Speaker E: Yeah, yeah. But now they have direct access to it, right too. They're going to see everything they want. [16:43] Justin: We got this world, man of that. And that's well put, Justin. [16:47] JD: We talked about this ad nauseam where we've got this world where these participants can get services from all kinds of vendors now, right? Record keepers, third parties, the advisors, and now even an independent wealth manager that's on the outside. And by the way, who's not to say that a 401k advisor wouldn't use this technology for their clients down the line so it doesn't have to be a competitor. So anyways, yeah, I don't. Hey, just food for thought. [17:18] Mark: Jd, on the topic of bridging the private wealth and the 401k guidance relationships, did you see the post that I threw up from Brian from 401K Specialist Magazines? Right up on the four takeaways from the national association of Plan Advisors. Almost skipped into that one. I'll give you the short abbreviation. I put it up on there. I shared it. He essentially said one of the advisors shared her. One of her biggest ways of creating new revenue is to send out a birthday card to every committee member that she's on the 401k committee with that says, hey, happy birthday. Happy to be a part of your team. Want you to know that I work with other members of your committee. I can help on the private wealth side. There's a lot more that I could do to be a resource for you. And we've talked about that for years. The whole hashtag, can I ask? [18:11] JD: So the innovative tool was to send a birthday card. [18:15] Mark: It might be innovative. [18:16] Michelle Richter: It's actually really clever. I saw this for sure. [18:21] Mark: It's not a tool. It's not a tool. [18:23] Justin: Sorry, wrong choice of words. Wrong choice of words. The innovative concept idea was to send a birthday card. [18:30] Mark: JD for the last 20 years, your approach for bridging 401k advisors to get the private wealth of the committee is to be really good at the 401k side of things and then over years chip away and get that relationship. [18:44] Justin: Never mentioned a birthday card though. [18:45] Mark: Doing that quicker, easier way of doing [18:48] Justin: that sounds stupid to me. Was there something else they said? [18:52] Mark: No, you're wrong. [18:53] Justin: You're just. [18:54] Michelle Richter: That's how effective it was. [18:56] JD: Chad, guys. Guys in black and white suits 30 years ago were saying birthday cards to people wanting to do business with them. [19:04] Mark: It's specifically the committee members that they already have relationships with. They have their birth dates, they have access to. I don't see people marketing in that way. [19:14] Justin: Michelle, you seem. Michelle, you seem. [19:16] Michelle Richter: You see how effective it is? [19:18] Justin: Michelle, you seem to be pro birthday card. Is that your vote? [19:21] JD: Your pro birthday card? [19:22] Michelle Richter: I'm not saying it's genius move. I'm just saying it's relationship, you know, like. And there's something to that. For. To the extent that you already have one. The acknowledgment that it's there is important. [19:36] Justin: Yeah. And I'm just. [19:37] Mark: That you are there is important. [19:40] Michelle Richter: Right. [19:41] JD: And I'm just an asshole. [19:42] Justin: If you send me a birthday card, I'm just like, what a dick. [19:45] JD: Why you send me a birthday card? [19:48] Justin: Michelle, let's move on. I would like for you if it's okay. [19:54] JD: Yes. Oh, beer of the episode. [19:58] Justin: Mark, you are the beer of the episode guy this week. Tell everybody what you're drinking and how you like it. [20:05] Chad: Well, first off, I've finished my beer of the episode pretty much. And I don't get a cool graphic like Justin last week because nobody told me I was doing this. But I've got Dust Bowl Brewing Company and yeah, everybody, it's a fruit beer, okay? It's watermelon, if you can see that. And if you don't like watermelon, you're lame. Okay? It's delightful. It's got hints of watermelon and beer. [20:34] Mark: Beer tastes good. [20:36] Justin: How many. [20:36] Speaker E: I like how you tried to got so defensive because you knew what people's thoughts were going to be on if you. [20:42] Chad: I aggressively defended myself for no reason. [20:45] Mark: Yes. [20:46] Justin: Out of. Out of five rubs, how many rubs do you give it? [20:50] Chad: 2.7. [20:51] Justin: 2.7 rubs. [20:53] JD: Okay, look. Sounds like a good one to look for people at your local store. [20:57] Justin: Michelle, Institutional Retirement Income Council. [21:04] JD: It's not a new thing. It's been around for a little while. [21:07] Justin: I. I mistakenly thought it was something new and I thought with kind of the. [21:12] JD: The research. The resurgence. Yeah, the. The new kind of push for guaranteed income and retirement plans that this was like this new group getting together to help kind of push this concept. But I think I missed it. So let me know and let everyone know, what is this sucker and what's going on there? [21:30] Michelle Richter: Okay, well, the Institutional Retirement Income Council is a nonprofit think tank. It was formed by Prudential about six years ago, I think, or is initiated by them. And IT currently has 12 sponsor members and about an equal number of invited advisor members meet six times a year and we advocate for income derived from defined contribution plans. We're not in a formal advocacy group. We're not a lobbying group. We're not something. We're not an official giant industry organization. We're an aggregation of sponsor members and advisor members who care about deriving retirement income from defined contribution. So we publish papers. That's a lot of what we do. We share thoughts in the room. And it's incredibly important to my board that we keep it a space where it's safe to discuss controversial topics and that it stays sort of an intimate group, if you will. There are other things that I'm involved in that you might have mistaken for that organization's work, which is a great organization's work. But so I wear a couple of hats, as you mentioned before. So I serve as the executive director for that organization and I also run my own strategic consultancy to the financial institution industry, to insurance companies, and to academics. [23:11] JD: It sounds like I wasn't too far off on that group then, which I think is smart. If. And tell me if this is kind of the push for this group is if we think income and 401k is important, which I think most people do. The debate just centers around how and kind of the details of it. [23:34] Michelle Richter: I don't think that most people. People do. [23:36] JD: You don't. Okay, well, I want to talk more about this, [23:40] Justin: but it's. [23:41] JD: If the industry wants it, which I would think the industry would, because if you're record keepers, you'd love to hang on to those assets and plans. But to. To do that, we almost have to kind of start working together a little more to make sure that it's a. It's a plug and play kind of thing that works on a universal level. And therefore you would need think tank and people from different areas that get together as opposed to. I think what we've seen historically is just products competing with each other and in 401k failing. So anyway, so that is the goal of this, this think tank, this group, is to move this whole initiative forward. Okay. [24:19] Michelle Richter: The goal of that group is to enact what was intended by the Employee Retirement Income Security act of 1974, as amended. [24:35] Mark: Cheater. [24:37] Michelle Richter: Which is literally retirement income is in the stinking name. So that's what it's for. Okay? And it is not meant to be an accumulation only vehicle. It has historically occurred that way. But the concerning element for those of us who work in this space all the time is that. And so I look at this incredibly scary graphic that was put together by Boston College's center for Retirement Research, and it articulates the percentage of households that had DB plans historically relative to those that do today. And I look. [25:21] JD: Finish your thought. Keep finishing your thought. By yellow. [25:26] Michelle Richter: So, so if you look at that, you see. So I'm looking at this from my own selfish perspective as well as from our member organization's perspective. And I, and I see, you know, in my father's birth year, which was 1945, more than 50% of American households had a defined benefit pension recipient in it. And as you look even 10 years later, which was when my, my mother was born, that percentage dropped to under 40% of households. And once you get to my birth year, 1979, you're at under 10% of households. [26:06] JD: God damn. [26:07] Justin: The 401k. [26:08] JD: The 401k. [26:10] Michelle Richter: No, you have to understand that when this occurred. So when, when corporations hosted defined benefit pensions, they did asset liability management because they were responsible for that. [26:24] JD: Sure. [26:24] Michelle Richter: Now it is the case that the liabilities that used to be recorded on a balance sheet around retirement income, they were recorded on corporate balance sheets, but they were somewhere. [26:36] JD: Sure. [26:37] Michelle Richter: Is now the case that those liabilities are not recorded anywhere. They've been pushed to. The participants don't pay project their own individual balance sheets. [26:50] JD: So I like. [26:51] Michelle Richter: No, I like this lack of awareness of the liabilities. [26:54] JD: Let's unpack this. I'm going to drink for both of these. Let's unpack this. D being of the D.C. world because [27:02] Justin: this is not a new concept. [27:04] JD: Like we've been talking about this for a long time, you know, two decades probably. Where have we gone wrong? And your opinion historically, and what are we going to do different in the future? Because a lot of people don't think we're doing anything different. [27:21] Michelle Richter: Even today, I think there's still work to do. And the way that I see, in order to integrate the communities where insurance has historically played and the defined contribution space, record keepers you pointed out are the gatekeepers to. In a lot of cases, they're the gatekeepers to the consumer experience. And so from my standpoint, the environment has evolved in the way that it has because of this lack of recognition of the liabilities that didn't go away. From my standpoint, what the insurance industry is, is the liability management industry. It is not the case that there has historically been that perception. My industry, the insurance industry, has always been perceived as the expensive asset management industry. Right. But that's a mistaken notion because inherently when you think about products, I'm just [28:29] Justin: happy I understand what you're saying. You speak in such eloquent terms and so fancy college But I'm getting it. Every word. Keep going. [28:36] JD: Your language is very beautiful. It means nothing. [28:40] Justin: I'm fully understanding it. I'm so proud of myself. [28:44] Michelle Richter: So, okay, so my industry is not the expensive asset management industry. We're the efficient risk pooling industry. Okay. So what we do is we make it possible to manage the liabilities that no individual consumer could know exactly what they are because none of us knows what our individual life expects expectancy is. We know only what the population distribution might look like. The insurance industry can on average project. [29:16] JD: Are you telling me I'm not gonna die at 72 and a half years old or whatever? [29:20] Michelle Richter: You're not. You're not. Statistically speaking you're not going to die on that day. [29:25] JD: I made up that number. People I know. But actuary number. [29:29] Michelle Richter: But no, your literal number is. But that's the number at which 50% of the population dies before and dies after. [29:40] JD: I think what I heard from all of that is the employers used to bear responsibility. They no longer do. Therefore there's a lack of motivation on behalf of the employers to deal with that balance sheet and that liability that you're talking about. [29:55] Michelle Richter: There is also a lack of advantage to the asset management industry in general to acknowledging the point that I'm making. Right. Because the asset management industry governs the left hand side of the balance sheet whereas the insurance industry speaks to the right hand side of the balance sheet. [30:13] JD: The insurance industry has the toolkit, the ability is the business models to solve that. But I believe what I heard from you is. Which is very true. But there's a stigma around insurance and annuities as it relates to fees. And we all know why that is. But. But it's been hard for insurance. Do we go ahead? [30:34] Michelle Richter: Do we know? Because I don't think we do. [30:37] Mark: I feel like we do. [30:39] Justin: Do we know what? [30:40] Michelle Richter: Do we know that insurance is expensive? Do we know that that's an accurate perspective? I don't agree with that. [30:48] JD: Logic would tell me that. Yes, yeah, yeah. Logic. I don't know logically. [30:55] Michelle Richter: Tell me if you're going to view the world. [30:57] JD: You're right. [30:59] Michelle Richter: Do you view the role of the, of the plan to provide for the accrual of wealth and the ability to sustain one's lifestyle in retirement? Or do you view the necessary role of the plan as minimizing costs associated with asset management, which is not wealth management? [31:22] JD: Am I hearing from you that you think there's almost a battle between Wall street and insurance? I shouldn't say Wall street because insurance companies live on Wall Street. But asset management and insurance is kind of fighting for. I get that. I get that. What do you think of things like income America? Matt Wolnowitz, Are those the types of solutions that you're hoping for? [31:44] Michelle Richter: I'm hoping for all solutions that cost efficiently make it possible for income to be derived from the defined contribution space. [31:55] Justin: I love the way you talk. [31:57] JD: Okay, so. [31:59] Michelle Richter: And that includes that solution. Right? You know what? I, my viewpoint is that I'm not specifically advocating for any one noun relative to another noun. I'm advocating for a change in framework. And that's the work. [32:16] JD: Go Chen. [32:16] Mark: So advocating for a change in framework. What I'm hearing, and forgive me, I'm trying to read through the lines, but I'm hearing two different things. One being some sort of stable insurance based wealth accumulation within the 401k and one insurance based decumulation on the back end of the 401k so that people don't run out of money. And you're saying as a solution that we have a problem right now in the decumulation phase because the stock market has shown there is not a problem over a long period of investing. Now timing of investing can be different, timing of decumulation can be huge, but long term investment not. So we've proven that accumulation is not the issue within the 401 space. Are you saying that decumulation is. [33:04] Michelle Richter: Yes, it doesn't occur. People roll over at the time of decumulation. [33:11] Mark: How does that fail in the 401k space? That's what I'm missing. [33:16] Michelle Richter: So. Well, it's, it's a failure of the ecosystem, broadly. Right. Because. And this Department of Labor almost said it really readily communicates that perspective that it would be better for consumers to, in, in certain cases, in some consumers, it's better for them from a cost perspective to remain in plan relative to rolling over into an individual retirement account. And so thank you very much. So, you know, so there's so much regulatory change that's occurring because that perspective exists. And that's also the reason why the organization that I, that I'm communicating about exists because we perceive that there can be a lot of value added on both sides. I feel like I appreciate retail wealth management just as much as I appreciate institutional. But I do perceive that the viewpoint right now is a viewpoint around asset management. And I do view that as a discipline distinct from wealth management. My opinion is that I like that statement. Wealth can accrue only to those humans who manage their assets to outgrow their liabilities so. Because that's true. An institutional asset manager that builds on a whim. Which is. [34:48] Chad: Which is you finally did it. [34:54] Mark: That was a fantastic point. [34:56] Chad: How you got to that point. [34:58] Michelle Richter: Damn it. [34:58] JD: But you know what's funny is [35:02] Justin: Michelle nails her points, and she's obviously, you know, a thinker. [35:06] JD: And I spent a lot of time looking at this from all angles. I'm stupid, you're smart. But she gets. She gets a lot of pushback in the. The chat bar. Not everyone agrees. And that's fine. I love that, by the way. Not everyone always agrees with me either, Michelle. But Chad. Chad, you're kind of like my dad. My dad didn't. No, my dad didn't like this stuff either. My dad thought buying these annuities and insurance was a stupid idea. But that's because my dad thought. [35:40] Chad: Chad, Chad, JD's calling you his daddy. That's great. [35:43] JD: Believe that he could manage his own money and that he could do that over time, and he understood the risks of the up and down the accounts. But my point, and I think Michelle's point, is 95% of people are not Chad or my dad. Like, they have no fucking clue how to manage this. [36:02] Chad: I want to make shirts out of [36:03] Mark: everything you're saying to Michelle's point. J.D. and you. You said it right there. My dad believed he could manage his money. To Michelle's point, we're not talking about managing assets. We're talking about managing wealth. We're talking managing. I know, but that's. The general premise, though, is that we all look at this as an investment. [36:26] Justin: Bill. [36:26] Mark: Necessarily balancing wealth. Bill. That's what I heard. [36:30] Justin: Bill Shore is in the Q and [36:32] JD: A, said, michelle, do you think more people are looking for a set monthly income, or do you think more people are concerned about running out of money? So. So to Chad's point, you know, oh, [36:43] Michelle Richter: I have to pick one. I mean, I. I think they're concerned about both at a high level. I mean, all of the data suggests that that's the case, and rightfully so. [36:54] JD: Yeah, I think they def. I think. Yeah, I think the running out of money part is the. Is the complicated one that we're talking about because there's so many variables involved. I think the survey. [37:05] Mark: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. [37:06] Speaker E: I think. [37:06] Mark: Wait, wait, wait. [37:07] Chad: You can run out of money? [37:09] Michelle Richter: You can. If you don't retire into a secular bull market. [37:14] JD: I think. I also think that the surveys that tell us that participants want guaranteed income are a little bit of bullshit because they're so. They're always like, would you like to have guaranteed money every quarter? [37:29] Justin: And the participants go like, yeah, I want. And they're like, oh, 99% of participants said they would like to have guaranteed income stream. No shit. You know, the question is, when Hancock [37:41] JD: came out with guaranteed income for life and. And principal had their solution and Prudential had their solution. Why. Why did all we hear was crickets and nobody wanted to sign up for it? [37:53] Michelle Richter: Record keeping. [37:54] Justin: Record keeping was not waving the flag, promoting it, pushing it, nor would it. I don't know if that could be true. Chad, do you agree that John Hancock did not push guaranteed income for life? [38:07] Michelle Richter: Did. Proprietary. Proprietary. [38:09] Mark: Let's say Prudential did. Empowered it. [38:11] JD: Fair enough. [38:14] Michelle Richter: But the challenge comes because humans change jobs, right? And then when they do, they don't desire to lose the benefit for which they paid. Right. So when it comes to be the case that only one record keeper supports a given noun, it can't be the case that that noun takes over the, you know, the landscape. Right. [38:35] JD: This is. I was about to move on and. And we're going to spin the wheel, Brandon, in a second. But Josh Rundle, that's. That's an interesting question. I'm not an insurance guy or an annuity guy. I'm definitely not going to say all of those acronyms. But Michelle, can you see that in the chat bar? Variable annuities, Fixed income annuities. Like which. What chassis is going to win? Just take a guess and an educated guess. I believe Josh is talking about obviously in the 401k space, like, what vehicle is going to be the. The winner? [39:08] Michelle Richter: Don't think it's a vehicle. That's the winner. I don't concede the framework to the nouns. [39:14] JD: Wow. [39:15] Justin: Not only do you use fancy words, I like more that you go deep, you go hippie deep. [39:21] JD: That's good. [39:21] Michelle Richter: Okay. [39:22] Justin: All right. Let's spin. Let's spin the wheel of Ice. Let's spin the wheel of Ice. [39:27] JD: The wheel of Ice. [39:30] Mark: I feel like it's gonna be me today. I just have a feeling. Damn it, Justin, do you have hockey tonight? [39:39] Speaker E: I think. [39:39] Justin: Yes, you do. [39:40] Mark: I hope it's a froze. I hope it's a froze. [39:42] JD: Hope it's a froze. Yeah, [39:46] Justin: solid. Solid. Okay, well, Justin pounds and mix it with a red one. What did you. [39:52] Speaker E: Oh, I'll be with vodka with these. For these. [39:54] Mark: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're not. Yes, it is. [39:57] JD: Can you just have makers? Is it so hard to have makers on? [40:00] Speaker E: Oh, I have makers. I just don't Feel like mixing it with this? [40:03] JD: Well, that's kind of the rule of the game. I thought. [40:08] Chad: What? [40:08] Mark: Michelle's got makers too. [40:09] JD: A froze maker is the shot of makers into a pint glass of stirn off ice. Okay, let's Michelle pressure. [40:18] Justin: You've in a lot of your LinkedIn posts and by the way, anyone out there, you should follow Michelle on LinkedIn because I went through a history of [40:28] JD: your post just case in prep for this show. [40:30] Justin: And you spend a lot of time on them. You do some solid ones and a lot of them are just the way you talk. [40:36] JD: It's really hard for the surfer in me to understand the whole thing. [40:39] Justin: I got to really slow down and read through it all. But they're deep, they're really educated. I know words. [40:45] Michelle Richter: I have the best words. [40:48] Justin: They're deep and they're good. You refer to this. You've already, you've already referred to it on this show and you referred to it in a lot of your writing. An advisor can sell a verb or they can sell a noun. [41:00] Michelle Richter: An advisor can only sell verbs. [41:02] Justin: Oh, oh, we're gonna. [41:03] JD: Oh, I love this. [41:04] Chad: Jaden didn't actually read then. [41:09] Justin: Just so you know, Michelle, in my world I consider a registered rep an advisor. But regardless of that. Yeah. In my world I do. And you can't tell me no, in my world that can exist. Okay, now I want you to tell the audience what are you talking about? Verb, noun. Verb noun. [41:26] Michelle Richter: So my view is that registered representatives and agents are authorized to sell products which are nouns, whereas registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisors act of 1940 as amended, authorized to sell verbs, which requires ongoing meeting with the client and such. Right. So the Investment Advisors act of 1940 authorized for the first time financial professionals to, rather than sell nouns to be able to sell their services which are verbs. And so because that's how I see the world and because historically it's been the case that insurance has only been understood from the lens of the noun, the product. That's the reason why there is no there. There has historically not been value to intellectual property designed in the insurance arena. And that's the reason why I launched the consultancy that I did and that I do the work that I do. From my point of view, I sell verbs. I sell my ongoing hourly services in advising institutions and academics on how to develop intellectual property to be able to profit from it. But because there is no Investment Advisors act of 1940 for the liability management space, investment is in the name of the law that governs the left hand side of the balance sheet and verbs sold upon it. Because that's the case. That's the reason why product concepts have had no value in the insurance space historically. And that's the reason why I'm advocating for understanding of liabilities through the lens of those who provide advisement. [43:41] JD: I love that insurance salespeople were some of the worst kind, right? They would rank down below used car salesman on a list of who you trusted that industry. [43:53] Michelle Richter: Why do you think it's okay to. Doesn't that seem to you like an ism, right? To put all insurance professionals into a bucket of non trusting. Doesn't that seem to you similar to racism or sexism or any other form of ism? [44:12] JD: Sure, but I would then challenge. [44:13] Michelle Richter: I'm an insurance professional. [44:15] JD: Let me finish. I would say to you that, that, that racism exists. Therefore if you're an insurance person, then you should know that that's how people view you. Okay? [44:28] Justin: Don't go walking [44:32] JD: analogies to this stuff. So. [44:33] Chad: No, please don't. [44:34] JD: The same is true of Michelle. The same is true of Wall street suit and ties that could be registered investment advisors. They are also are ranked low on the trust meter. And so what I liked about what you said was that this needs to change and that insurance needs to be looked at as more of a financial, you know, a serious financial tool that needs ongoing maintenance and consulting, which it does versus the way we look at it from 15 years ago is just, oh, someone's going to sell you this policy and you'll never see them again. And so for sure that needs to change. [45:10] Michelle Richter: Absolutely the case. And if it were the case that financial planning were a codified discipline where financial planning means wealth management, then it would be the case that insurance would be viewed differently. But because there's no codified framework for verb sales in the liability management space, there can be no concept of a reputable person. Right. Selling insurance premises without selling a container. [45:38] JD: Let me ask you this, Chad. I'll counter you on that. Unless in your world of insurance and more in my kind of world of 401k, because I don't, I don't have your insurance knowledge or your history there at all. But there are registered reps, Chad, that do not legally act as a fiduciary. Right, because they're not a registered investment advisor. But they should I say sell? I won't say sell. They use verbs. Their whole business model is about working their ass off for their clients and protecting them in an ongoing manner. And they're a registered rep, not an Ari Am I. Crazy Chad. [46:16] Justin: No, you're not. [46:17] Chad: Oh, that was close. [46:19] Mark: You did it. That's not the most. [46:23] Chad: He was good. He was good. [46:24] Michelle Richter: Just like there can occur, you know, ethical humans in my field, they're her ethical humans in the registered rep field. And it's, you know, so it's. We can't use those isms, Right. To know that a given person is a bad person. Right. But that doesn't mean that the regulatory framework is correct in how they view this. I don't agree with FINRA's interpretation of the advisor. [46:56] Mark: And I'm, I'm not saying I disagree with. [46:58] JD: You have to use so many cuss words. [47:02] Mark: Sorry, I'm, I'm not saying I disagree with any of your statements. [47:08] Chad: Well, I disagree. [47:10] Mark: I do believe JD's comments are correct. And if I, from an outsider perspective go back to before I really understood this industry and had a tainted view of folks selling insurance, Let me tell you what my tainted view was. The folks who are selling insurance were trying to make insurance fit into every financial plan. And I think that that still exists. These guys know I run into many advisors who come and say, I want insurance in the 401k, I want insurance in the cash balance. I want insurance. And they're trying to find every way they can to push a product that they believe in, but into every vehicle that they can. [47:48] JD: Well, can I add to your. Can I jump on your doggy pile? [47:51] Justin: They would many times be motivated to [47:55] JD: do that because it paid a shit ton of money. [47:58] Mark: Paid a shit ton of money. And it paid it quickly. It was early, it was up front. [48:02] Michelle Richter: But for the people who understand insurance, there doesn't exist another compensation framework until. [48:09] Speaker E: Understood. [48:09] Justin: Yeah, I got it. The whole thing is broken. Understood that you're saying that, but I have to live in the world of, of what exists right now. And that's that framework. And, and that was the motivation and that is why there's a stigma in retirement plan around insurance. [48:26] JD: And so it just. But that's why. [48:28] Michelle Richter: But the, the work that is going to come to light and that has been facilitated by myself by, can I say a corporation's name? If it has initials in it? [48:39] Justin: Yeah, do it. [48:41] Michelle Richter: 360. [48:42] Mark: Oh, you're fine. [48:43] Speaker E: Oh yeah. [48:44] Michelle Richter: Okay. And Canex. And there are nine sponsoring organizations that are signed on, four of which are named. There'll be a press release later this month or perhaps early in May that will communicate the work that's being done to create frameworking tools for advisors that can introduce safely fiduciary advisors that can safely introduce lifetime income solutions. [49:12] JD: And I think it's the right thing for our industry. I agree a million percent with your. The decumulation problem that we have. And I see a better 401k future if we can tackle that and work on it. And I see a lot of opportunity if you. For advisors and for vendors and for it to do good things. So I hear you. The system's broken. [49:31] Michelle Richter: So that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. Because the system has historically been broken. But we don't have to see that it always will be broken because there are people like me and like the good people at Fi360 and Canex and the nine organizations that have signed on to create this educational framework and this evaluative framework that can make it possible to understand liability management and work it into a fiduciary process and plan. [50:00] JD: We love Fi360 and no, I'm going to a fucking game. What do you want to say? [50:08] Mark: Ask a question, and I can ask. [50:09] JD: I got 10 minutes left. [50:11] Mark: I'll put it in the after show. [50:12] JD: All right, this. This game is called One of these Things is not like the Other, and it's been brought to you by fi360. Not really. One of these Things is Not like the others. Doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the other by the time I finish this song? You don't have to do it. [50:41] Justin: By the time we finish the song. [50:43] JD: This is a specific one. [50:44] Justin: We're going. Awards show night. [50:47] Michelle Richter: So this is 1986 Monte Carlo. [50:52] Mark: What is it? [50:53] JD: Nightmare Alley. [50:54] Justin: What's going. [50:55] JD: So we've. Are you laughing at the chat bar or. Okay, Best Picture. One of these movies won best picture at the Oscars. Don't look up. Nightmare Alley. Licorice Pizza. [51:10] Justin: I've seen all of these. [51:13] Chad: What's the other one called? [51:14] Speaker E: Any of them. [51:15] Justin: I've seen all of them except for the one that won. So do you know which one of these won? Michelle, you're on the spot. [51:24] Michelle Richter: I literally have never seen. I don't even know that these are real movies. [51:29] Justin: And you. [51:30] Michelle Richter: Sorry. [51:32] JD: All right, well, so the answer is no. [51:34] Justin: Did you. [51:34] JD: You didn't watch the Oscars, I'm assuming. [51:36] Michelle Richter: No. No. [51:38] Justin: Did you. [51:38] JD: Do you know that someone slapped someone else? [51:41] Michelle Richter: No. Oh, yes, I did hear that. [51:42] JD: Yeah. We'll move on. [51:44] Justin: The winner was. [51:45] JD: Is this Stanford? [51:47] Justin: The winner was the one to the far right. [51:49] Speaker E: I thought it was licorice pizza. [51:52] JD: No. [51:52] Mark: Do I have to drink for that? [51:54] Speaker E: I didn't watch it. [51:55] Justin: You don't remember the whole audience going. They go like this. Okay, let's go to the next one. We'll just bang through a couple of these. [52:02] Chad: I'm confused. [52:05] Justin: At the Grammys, this will make more sense to you, Mark. At the Grammys, these four people and some others were nominated for Best Rap Album. Chad, can you name each of these rappers? [52:19] Mark: No, I know Kanye. [52:22] Michelle Richter: Kanye is the only one I know. [52:24] Justin: I'm getting a feeling Michelle cannot either. [52:26] JD: That's Kanye West. [52:28] Justin: You've got Nas, then you've got Tyler the creator, and you've got Drake. [52:31] Mark: Tyler the creator. [52:32] Justin: You got Drake. [52:33] Mark: Okay, Drake. Because he's on NBA basketball floors all the time. [52:36] Justin: I'm just gonna go to you because I know Michelle. [52:38] JD: No, Michelle, take a guess who won Best Rap Album. [52:43] Michelle Richter: Kanye. [52:44] Justin: No, it was Tyler the creator, Brandon. All right, this is a great one. [52:50] JD: We're gonna. [52:51] Justin: We're gonna retire this game after tonight. [52:53] Chad: Wait, Tyler the creator won again this year? Wow. I didn't even know that. [52:58] Justin: Yeah, last one. This is Best New Artists. You know, in the past, you're talking about artists like Britney Spears, Taylor Swift. Chad, can you name any of these? Chad? [53:12] Mark: I think I feel like I know the girl in the second box. [53:18] Justin: What's her. Oh, you don't. Okay, to the far. [53:22] Chad: Isn't that Olivia Rodriguez? [53:24] Justin: I thought. [53:25] Mark: Oh, it is. [53:26] Justin: Olivia Rodrigo, you've got Olivia Rodrigo. You got Saweetie, you've got Billie. Eilish's brother Phineas comes up with his name. And then the kid Leroy is the one with little horns on his head. [53:40] Speaker E: Okay, that's what I recognize. [53:42] Justin: And. Yeah, good guess, Michelle. Olivia Rodrigo won Best New Artist. Well done. One out of three. Let's move on to the next subject, shall we, please? Fucking games. [53:55] JD: These fucking games. [53:57] Chad: Wow. J.D. [53:58] Mark: hey, can we. [54:00] Speaker E: Game was on every week. [54:01] Chad: Can we. Can we rate this game, please? Chat bar, please. [54:05] Mark: Game. But it's got to be relevant for our audience. [54:10] JD: This is kind of. Kind of ties in what we just talked about. But you wrote a post that caught my attention about six months ago. I even privately messaged you because I thought it was. I thought it was such a. Like, punk rock kind of just highly confident, just super cool move on the Internet. And you do a few of these from time to time. You said, dear Fisher Investments, and then [54:40] Justin: you literally added them so they would know that you're talking to them. And you said, please consider edifying. I don't know what that means, but yourselves. I'm kidding. I'm joking yourselves. Regarding how index annuities, which you are [54:54] JD: not yet qualified to analyze work by [54:57] Justin: reviewing this piece from David Blanchett, who's [55:00] JD: a past guest on our show here. [55:02] Justin: You went on to link it and, and went on and on and on and, and. But then you want to say many [55:07] JD: more errors in your annoying analysis are exposed in this article. Thank you for your consideration of this education material. [55:13] Justin: Like just really like holding their feet to the fire saying, hey, you guys need to learn about what you're talking about. But it was at the end you [55:21] Michelle Richter: said David Blanchett, like he's like the, my LinkedIn like devil on my left shoulder who like gets me to say like terribly controversial things. [55:33] JD: I could see how you and David would get along. You might be the number one and number two nerdiest people we've had on this show, I think is you and David Blanchett. [55:43] Justin: You said, you said at the end, [55:45] JD: sincerely, and I quote, an educated woman who avoids both conferences and bars because [55:55] Justin: the recorded conduct of men like Ken Fisher. And that's where I wrote you him because, oh, you didn't tag him. [56:01] Michelle Richter: I'm not connected to him. [56:03] Justin: And I was like, holy, that was baller. So I got a two part question. One, what is Fisher Investments getting wrong about index annuities? Because I don't pay attention to like their kind of propaganda. And then we'll talk a little bit about Ken Fisher. [56:21] Michelle Richter: Max. I'm sorry, Max is my attorney at Max Chat. I told him I wasn't going to do this, but I'm doing it. So my concern is that because that kind of organization does not understand annuities, in fact they advocate for. Because Ken hates annuities, so should you. When in fact the data demonstrate that about 65% of the population has a preference for the attributes that include annuities. So in so saying he is actually gaslighting people into believing that they don't want what it is that they do want. But moving on from that, when he communicates about the particular analysis that I was referring to was erroneous in a number of ways that David communicates in that article. But importantly, as things about the product features change, when the market conditions change, like participation rates and fees associated with it. And so when they produce an analysis on an asset class on which they're not regulated and on which they're an expert, they fail to acknowledge these attributes that are essential to understanding. [57:42] JD: Well, worse. Worse, Michelle, aren't they doing it because they have a conflict of interest and they're, you know, push. They're trying to. [57:50] Michelle Richter: Yes, but it's not regulated that way. You know, from my standpoint, an organization like that is performing effect, may very well be performing effective asset management, but is not necessarily performing effective wealth management because they're going to experience their revenue. You know, if they're able to effectively market to more people who might then have liabilities that cause them to need to make withdrawals from their portfolio. As long as they're able to keep marketing to more individuals whose assets then come into that shop, they'll be able to maintain their revenues. So they perform asset management, not wealth management. [58:31] JD: But Michelle, haven't you seen their TV ads? They're not. [58:36] Chad: They're so. They're so good. [58:38] JD: Yeah. [58:38] Justin: They're not like other money managers. [58:40] Mark: The argument. [58:42] JD: They're the good kind of. [58:44] Michelle Richter: They're the kind that, you know, specifically the conduct to which I was referring occurred at the Tiburon conference several years ago where what occurred was that, you know, the communication was that wealth management, which means the same thing as financial planning, was an ineffective means by which to get into the pants of your asset managing clients. That's the offensive comment. That was the Ken Fisher comment around the world when we, when we focused on the offense that we experienced as women. When he said that. And it's valid. I'm offended as a woman. [59:23] JD: As you should be. [59:24] Michelle Richter: Right. But I'm even more offended on behalf of the financial planning, which means wealth management industries because in this audience he's communicating, he literally said financial planning is an ineffective way by which to get into the pants of your asset managing clients. Right. Doesn't that seem to you equally offensive to women as it is to financial planning industry? And, and doesn't that immediately make you feel suspicious of the motivations of that person? [59:58] JD: Go ahead. [59:59] Mark: I. Well, no, J.D. i have, I have quite a few things and I'll continue to write them down. So now we're going 5:30. [1:00:05] Chad: It's 5:30. [1:00:06] Justin: Well taken to the after show. I'm with you, Michelle. I. Fisher Investments. To me, Mark was making the joke about the ads and I was, I [1:00:13] JD: was kidding is they've got this ad where it pisses me off because they're basically talking shit on financial advisors and talking about how they're different than these money managers. [1:00:24] Justin: And I love their, I love their slogan. [1:00:26] JD: Yeah. [1:00:26] Justin: Fee based Chad. Their slogan is we do better when you do better. Which isn't that just code for as [1:00:35] JD: your assets grow, my fees grow. [1:00:37] Justin: Like I make more money than like. It's so funny that they've turned that into like some like feel good statement or something. [1:00:46] Mark: Timing of that, by the way, if you acknowledge timing of that was when Schwab came out and said we will essentially return commissions if we're not making you money. And then Fisher came out and immediately said, we make money if you make money. They were trying to play off Schwab statements, Schwab's commercials that were getting a bunch of. Of airwaves. And they're not, they're not returning commissions when the market goes south. But that's what they were trying to play off of JD which means they're not fee based, by the way. Right. Because the other part of that commercial is about them being fee based. But if they're attached to the assets and making more money as the assets grow, then they're likely still charging an asset based charge. They're charging a percentage based fee and not a flat fee. [1:01:30] Justin: And they go nuts. They go to Jim's point in the chat. [1:01:33] JD: They go nuts on the fiduciary thing, which does bother me sometimes. [1:01:36] Michelle Richter: Fiduciary of what? Fiduciary of asset management, not fiduciary of wealth management. [1:01:41] Mark: But that's what I want to talk about in the after show. [1:01:43] Justin: And that they're a fiduciary and that your. Your manager is not or something like it's. [1:01:48] JD: It's funny, but that's advertising. [1:01:50] Justin: Let's go to chat bar Champion. Justin, I go into you first because I always do and you can't pass this time. [1:01:58] JD: Jesus Christ. [1:01:59] Speaker E: You act like I do it all the time. [1:02:00] Mark: I'm going with Lauren. [1:02:02] Justin: Lauren. [1:02:03] Mark: Yep. Educational night from Lauren. [1:02:06] Speaker E: It's good to have him back too. [1:02:08] Justin: Well done, Mrs. Brandrup. Chad, your vote for Chat Bar Champion. [1:02:13] Mark: I wrote down a few. I'm sticking with my early one which was Brian Williams supporting me on the B Day card but specifically saying send me a card that says my wife's birthday is in a week, so I know I need to go get her something. [1:02:26] Chad: He's not here. He's not here anymore. [1:02:28] Mark: Okay, well then I'm changing my vote to actually I had. I had Doug tan man with JD is gonna die at 72 being eaten by a shark. Comment. [1:02:39] JD: Tannis. Man alive. Tannis Advisor live. Mark your vote for a chat bar champion. [1:02:44] Chad: Mrs. S words. [1:02:46] Justin: Mrs. S words. Michelle, your vote. Send someone in the final. [1:02:51] Michelle Richter: Webby for Sheepshead Bay. [1:02:53] JD: Webby. [1:02:54] Michelle Richter: Some BNT guy. [1:02:55] Justin: Well, this is going to be a big one. [1:02:56] JD: Okay. I'm going to throw Tony Davis in the mix. [1:03:00] Mark: Tony was solid all night for yeah, he started strong. [1:03:03] JD: He finished strong. Brandon. [1:03:05] Justin: Sorry about that. [1:03:06] JD: That's five candidates for Chat Bar Champion. Throw it up. And you out there in the audience, you're going to vote. Then I'm going to say thank you for tuning in. Then Bran is going to play a [1:03:17] Justin: song and then we're going to go to the after show and get in [1:03:20] JD: all kinds of trouble. Here comes the votes. [1:03:27] Justin: It's Mrs. S words. [1:03:28] Michelle Richter: Oh, I can't vote. [1:03:30] JD: No, you can't. [1:03:31] Mark: No, you cannot. I love that he spelled Lauren. L, A, U R e, n. Sorry, Mrs. Brandrup, it's been too long. [1:03:42] Chad: I guess it's become a thing. [1:03:45] JD: It's close. Sort of. [1:03:49] Justin: Can you guys see the votes come in or just me? [1:03:51] Mark: No, no, only you can see. [1:03:53] Justin: The winner is Mrs. S Words. Mrs. S Words. You know what's funny? Mrs. S Words. [1:04:05] Chad: Oh, Brandon, Brandon, you're so creative. [1:04:08] Justin: Mrs. S Words already has four mugs. She was the first one to get all four mugs for Don. Relating to Jania Stout's. Yeah, little charity thing she did that [1:04:20] JD: make her a winner at this back in the day? [1:04:23] Justin: No, because she didn't get them the right way. She got them for free. Okay, all, so we're about to send you something else, Shannon, because you've. She's got so much tyrannic. She doesn't need anything. We'll have to send her something of actual value. [1:04:39] JD: Yeah, something without a Retireholics logo on it. [1:04:42] Justin: Okay, thank you to everyone. [1:04:45] JD: I told you I was going to say this for tuning in. We really appreciate it. And Michelle, thanks for the back and forth and thanks for being our guest. We're hoping you can hang out with us in the after show. If you don't then we just talk a bunch of shit about you. So you should probably stick around. [1:05:02] Michelle Richter: I'm not scared. [1:05:04] JD: And Chad apparently is going to play drums. Okay, so let's play us out some music. Brandon, we'll head to the after showing [1:05:24] Michelle Richter: the Grammy how I can use acronyms hearts.