83 - The Future of TRAP

In this latest pile of TRAP, the Trap Pack discuss

• Topical Titbits
• Meat and Potatoes: The Future Of TRAP
• Culture Corner (take two) with Conor Cahalane: https://www.linkedin.com/in/conorcahalanepromethean/

Show links: http://tiny.cc/traplinks

============================
Take part in the conversation! We want YOU to suggest topics and questions you’d like the Trap Pack to answer. The best way to do this is to ask them here.

Help us to help you! The more followers we have, the more we can do stuff going forward. So please:

• Subscribe and Like our YouTube Channel
• Leave a 6/5 star review on iTunes
• Share TRAP with your peers and colleagues
• 'Enjoy' the Twitter chat at @AdviserPodcast.

Transcript

Unknown: 0:07

Matt, welcome to the real advisor podcast, T, R, A, P, trap. Please follow us and join in the conversation on Twitter at advisor podcast, where you can suggest ideas and themes you'd like the trap team to discuss. Also remember to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel and leave a six out of five star review on iTunes. Doing all this really, really helps us, which means we can do more to help you. Now, let's head over to the studio for the latest pile of trap.

Nick Lincoln: 0:41

Yes, indeed, dear TRAPPIST, welcome back to Episode 83 of the real advisor podcast, T, R, A, P, trap my name is indeed lick Lincoln, and joining me as ever in the digital studio of doom are the three other Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Carl, the voice still a voci, widger, Emmy Ultra heart and Alan the story teller. Smith, Now, gentlemen, we have a show packed full of app, absolutely nothing, so let's start unpacking it straight away with some more high energy review reads or read, read out by my very good friend, the right honorable Mr. Andrew Usain Hart,

Andy Hart: 1:17

thank you very much. Nicholas, the first review is has been left on podcast addict. Five stars. Chris sindens, I'm not an IFA yet, but as someone with But is someone with an interest in financial planning and investments, I've been listening to trap for over a year, including the back episodes, a mix of discussion information and mostly good natured banter. Together was very together with various recommendations for listening and reading from the Trap Team has persuaded me that I should proceed to the next stage in my journey, so I'm now studying ro one and Ro six with a view to joining the industry. Keep up the good work, guys.

Nick Lincoln: 1:59

What a way to start the show, fantastic.

Andy Hart: 2:02

And my final review is from James oak private wealth entitled, bloody good show. I've been a financial planner for 29 years, but I've learned lots from this podcast. They may be irascible, look it up. Boys irreverent and opinionated, but most importantly, they are passionate, unapologetic and fun. I don't agree with the twaddle they talk about, annuities, IKEA, wardrobes and Jesus wept. I'll never thank Nick for the month of my life I lost to Atlas Shrugged, but I'm so glad I found this podcast, and I've recommended to many others, keep going, chaps, you're awesome. Nick's bag there, but we'll take the two five stars. Thank you very much back. Sure you've

Alan Smith: 2:47

read that one out before. I've read that before. That sounds again, that's a good one. Yeah, we'll read that out every week, by the way. Andy, good. Quick question before we carry on. So that the first one was on, which is a podcast. Oh, yeah, podcast addict. So how are you finding? Are you trawling through all the platforms? That's a known one, isn't it?

Andy Hart: 3:11

Yeah, I've got a sort of link that shows me all of them, but sometimes it's a bit jumbled in terms of when they're left. But we've got enough now. But please do keep them coming. It adds to the ratings. We've got 228, on Apple, which is the main thing. I think we're 4.7 on average, which is superb, but yeah, please do keep them coming. With a couple of ones which dragged us down a bit, but that's nice. We like, we like a house,

Nick Lincoln: 3:33

yeah, isn't it? Rephonic.com I've got up here, which collates all the reviews from the various podcast apps. So thank God. It does very hard otherwise to see what's going on. Okay, moving on there. Let's put a timestamp on episode 83 with some 83 Jesus Christ, 166 weeks. Topical tidbits for episode 83 kicking off with Ultra this is gonna be a recurring theme, not just in this episode, but I think over the coming months, kick it

Andy Hart: 4:02

off, young man, yes. So I got an email from standard life, and I was just scrolling through it, as I normally do, and I picked up this news story. So Standard Life introducing private assets to their managed funds. A quick point on this. You've mentioned it before. Nick people, you know, divert their own funds, and can choose the funds. But this was the thing that I picked up on these managed funds, managed portfolios, which are huge, you don't get to choose the underlying asset allocation. Hence, the large investment houses can make these decisions. So this is the first of many decisions introducing assets that may or may not be wanted or required within certain client portfolios. But anyway, so Standard Life introducing private assets to their managed funds, I think they're in partnership, following from the link with Schroders, who have a huge fund called future growth capital. So that's part of the Schroders stable. Apparently, there's 77 billion market cap current. Me, and they said to the clients, or they said to the advisors, there's gonna be no change to the fees, the annual management charge. However, the performance fee will apply to the private asset allocation. 20% charge. They have given themselves a hurdle, but again, I don't really know the detail, but they're basically saying we're going to we're going to charge 20% on any growth over 5.9% and they've got an example of it. I don't know if that 5.9% is per annum, but anyway, this is quite big news. They're only initially going to be allocating a small amount of the fund to, I think it's two and a half percent ratcheting up to 5% the assets that is generally being exposed to are private equity, real estate, private debt, which is something that is bubbling at the moment, and venture capital. So quite an interesting story. I think from Standard Life. I'm sure the other large asset managers may follow suit, certainly if there is a nice, Lumpy performance bonus. But yeah, that standard life being quite transparent actually, with with advisors and the clients. But yeah, over to you boys to discuss. Remember, we have the put your hand up system.

Nick Lincoln: 6:16

It'll be interesting to see how the other insurance companies follow suit. Yes, the Scottish Widows who have gone out and limb said initially, sod you we're not doing this. However, if Standard Life and

Andy Hart: 6:28

XYZ, like Viva legally

Nick Lincoln: 6:31

general, yeah, picks up loads of money, we'll see if they stand by their principles. But yeah, well, you know my views on this, this is a disaster waiting to happen, and there's another reason not to use managed funds, and there's already a litany of those in existence. I don't know who's next. With the hands raised

Alan Smith: 6:47

Alan, you can tell it's me. We talk about this pretty much every week. And probably one of the reasons we talk about it because it's in the news every week. This is a this is a classic, you know, retail asset managers sort of bounding in after the horse is bolted. We've talked about it often. I think I've specifically talked about this. I've certainly posted something on, I think I posted on LinkedIn. But about this specific fund, Schroders are all over this, and they see retail as an opportunity. So they've come in the the the fee structure is kind of, it is complex. It's complicated. And they've got hurdle rates, you know, above a certain thing. But it's, to me, just smart. It's just not designed for, you know, the average client or the average financial planner. I mean, if their hurdle rate is, what do you say? 5.6 for example, 5.9 5.9 that doesn't seem particularly high. In order to beat that. You know, long term public equity market returns would be higher than that. I would have thought the only reason you'd want to allocate to this is you're going to get it. You're anticipating a higher return than you get from public market equities, predominantly so. And then when you tie in the I don't know whether liquidity is an issue for them, additional costs. It doesn't seem well, it always is. It always is. It doesn't seem appropriate. And here's the thing, not that I'm an expert in any way, but I know I do, and I think I think you do, Andy to an extent as well. I kind of follow the trails of private equity and VC investments in the US, you know, listen to all in podcasts, for example, every week. Not that that's an expert, but it does give you a flavor for how the real experts over in Silicon Valley and the BC world are thinking about this stuff. And the general theme is, this was a great place to be for the 1015, years when interest rates were zero, you can raise money at practically zero, and you can invest in it, and all sorts of things. Those days are gone, and that's the general theme from the experts. And now, as often is the case, that's drying up. They can't raise money anymore. They can't invest to the same degree. So they think, where else is the opportunity? I know there's trillions invested in retail investment accounts, pension funds, etc. Let's go after this. They don't know any better. We'll pile in, yeah, based on a 10 or 15 year historical track record that is unlikely to, frankly, ever be repeated. So the message from us, I think, is the same as it always has been, which is best avoided? Carl,

Carl Widger: 9:20

yeah, you absolutely nailed it. I had three points to make, and you mentioned two of them. So first of all, the like, the long term average returns of the stock market is greater than what their harder rate is. So their Hurd rate is kind of low. I guess the argument there would be, oh, you're diversifying, and markets are high. Blah, blah, blah. Number one. Number two, if you're tapping up the retail market for liquidity, it means you've run out of road elsewhere. You can't get it elsewhere, because it's much, much easier and much much tidier getting it from in big lumps, from institutional investors, etc. And the third point I was going to make, and I don't know the answer to this. This. But if you have a managed fund, whether it's standard life or any other company that has a managed fund, are there not, kind of, is not like a memo on arts or kind of, here's what we can invest in and and now all of a sudden, switch into something like, Oh, we're just going to bring in, you know, private equity. Is that not a bit strange? Is there no, is there no kind of protections for the consumer, for the investor around Well, traditionally, a managed fund is going to be equities and bonds, right? So this is a big change, like, what, what's next? Is cryptocurrency next, and we're just

Alan Smith: 10:33

going to know this would, this would fall under the fund, but this is equities and bonds, but it's just different. So I, when I've, when I've ever looked at these things, these sort of investment thesis and agreements that they're intentionally kept very broad, the important thing is liquidity. Could you because in these funds, people are moving money in and out all the time. Can I just, if I want to, can I just sell my fund to get all my money out tomorrow? That's, that's the key thing, and that's where a number of funds have got unstuck in the past, because we know, property funds and a bunch of others, and everything is fine. Everyone's moving around until the music stops. You try to get your money out of this. This is a serious correction coming up. You know, public markets struggle. So private markets where you've got to get access to that liquidity, they need to sell assets. These are private companies, or they are private private credit, private debt. These are cut businesses which owe you money. You say, Well, I want to get it back, because I've got now, you know, a billion of of withdrawals being requested. Yeah, exactly. Liquidity will dry up. So the the devil's in the detail be interesting to know what their liquidity because, as I say, property was the classic example in the past. Bricks and Mortar property funds, they all got gated. People couldn't get the money out, in some cases, for years.

Carl Widger: 11:48

Yeah. Why? Why introduce something like this into a traditional managed fund where people have an expectation of I owe its money? Yes, but the

Nick Lincoln: 12:03

these, these,

Carl Widger: 12:07

sorry, Andy, just final point, for a company that's kind of traditionally very conservative standard life, I would have thought, certainly in the Irish market, that's that would be the way I would view them. It seems like a, I don't know, a kind of a very innovative move. Should we just say it like

Alan Smith: 12:24

that? But be necessary. I can't imagine that their investor, their clients, are knocking the door down saying the only thing that's wrong with this portfolio is I can't get access to private credit instruments.

Andy Hart: 12:38

Private assets are private assets are the flavor of the month. You know, the previous one has died down. They're just finding something new. You know, they're a marketing business, not a financial planning advice business. These four asset areas are certainly not going away. Private equity is going nowhere. Real estate is going nowhere. Private debt will run into some issues, and ventures always been here. These four areas are huge at the moment, and they'll be huge going forward. That doesn't mean that we will be putting any of our clients live savings in it, but these four areas are not going anywhere. It's not as if they've run out of money elsewhere. They'll be constantly getting topped up. So yeah, we'll have,

Alan Smith: 13:12

yeah, that's That's true.

Carl Widger: 13:13

That's a different later on with Nick is, Nick is going to talk about it, but the private credit stuff, so yeah, anyway, yeah, car work. Well, next point

Nick Lincoln: 13:23

is I'm gonna talk about later on. I had to be, yeah, I understand it vaguely. Smithy magazine covers.

Alan Smith: 13:29

Well, this, this, this, I think, follows on quite neatly from what we've just been talking about. I was, I think all advisors, we have clients who refer to a news, a newspaper or a magazine article, and it will be, you know, very pro or very against a particular theme or investment or structure. And you might get sent it, and your client might say, What do you think about this? This journalist has written this thing, and, you know, the more, going back a few months, it was all about gold, wasn't it? Why haven't we got gold in our portfolios? This magazine, this economist article, says that gold is the best thing since sliced bread, and it was one I got recently, was actually, they've moved on from gold is now silver. Silver's got all the attributes of gold, but it's, it's a, you know, the price is far more depressed, and therefore the potential is significantly great, etc, etc, then we have all our lives. So I came across a really an interesting piece of research which was done, was done a couple of years ago, but it it compared and contrasted front page articles in The Economist and Time Magazine. And they looked all the ones, yeah, obviously there's a lot of neutral, a lot of not specific, but the ones that but the ones that had come out either strongly for or strongly against a particular asset class, and, you know, you name them, and then they would go on to track, you know, six months, one year, two years, three years afterwards, how that asset class performed. And it's an absolute cost. Contra indicator. If the magazine says, buy silver, for example, that is the time you own it to sell silver. And they just, I've posted a link to the article in the show notes, because I just think it's quite useful when clients call you up and say, I've just read this. You know this? This is what we should be doing. So hang on a minute. Based on some historical track record of magazine articles. I think we should do the opposite. There's, you know, the chances are we're probably going to do better than what they what they say

Andy Hart: 15:28

interesting wasn't, wasn't Sam bankman, fried time, Person of the Year. And then, yeah, a year later, oh, you know, that's,

Alan Smith: 15:35

that's the, there's a brilliant one. I think it's, it's Fortune Magazine, you know, top superstars under 30 or under 35 or something, and you name a career freeze in it was which? Elizabeth Holmes, yeah, she's in it, yeah, every one of them, most of them licenses.

Andy Hart: 15:53

Where do you get the email with earmarked you as the Time Person of the Year? Alan Smith, you're like, you know that

Alan Smith: 16:02

that is a direct indicator, but the other one are, as they say, Contra indicators. If, if a magazine says it's a great time to invest, it's not the magazine says it's a great time to sell, then fill your books and buy it. That's that's the history. But it's useful just to refer clients to that and just say this, this article may be correct. Who knows that based on some historical other magazine articles, it's unlikely to be, I

Nick Lincoln: 16:26

would say, for our younger Trappists who maybe haven't heard of this one, the most famous one example I've got of that of magazines is, of course, the Business Week One from the 13th of August 1979 and the Business Week cover was the death of equities, the US magazine, and it was saying the stock market is over. Inflation's killed equity. The equity premium is gone. This was two and just over two and a bit years before the greatest bull run in American equities in history. So if you've taken that and chased value on Yeah, that's an absolute classic. And I would suggest if you get emails from clients where they're referring you to content to stuff in the media. So magazines, you just you can find images that is so on the internet, so many images that Business Week article from 1917 I just copy that. Stick it back in the email. Don't even say anything and just right, be my way of doing it. Carl, your hands raised, but I think it's just through inertia, rather than

Andy Hart: 17:18

you actually want to say something. Yeah, correct. Just picking up, just picking up on that point you mentioned Nick I in my younger years have experienced that. I'm sure others on the on the podcast have to change. What I mean by this is they used to just be the Sunday money section, whereas now everyone is just, you know, just inundated everywhere you look, with different publications, everything online, a billion different opinions. So now it's just overload, and clients already don't really know what to focus on, but it used to be a very common thing. Advisors wake up on a Monday morning, let's open their inbox, and they've got five emails from clients saying, this is in the Mail on Sunday. This is in the ft. This is the, what should I do? Yeah. Whereas we sort of moved on from that now, clients send us a whatsapp link to some Grant Cardone, you know, data newsfeed now is

Nick Lincoln: 18:13

a constant drip. As you said, it used to be like a case of a Sundays, you know, you'd read The Sunday Times money section, yeah? Or the comic section, as I called it, just to, just to be aware of the filth that was entering the minds of our clients. So we were kind of on the front foot when they found out about it on Monday or Tuesday. But it's just constant.

Alan Smith: 18:28

Drip, drip, drip. Yeah, he's correct. He's the other thing, first of all, it's good. This is played into

Andy Hart: 18:32

hear us now,

Alan Smith: 18:36

yeah, up to a point

Andy Hart: 18:38

there is, well, we don't get as much now, because they'll read one, they'll read one article at 9am in the morning saying, buy silver. Then they'll read an article at 5am saying, sell silver. So you know what? I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna not bother contacting Andy. It's a wider subject. Nick mentioned it for the younger advisor. I didn't lower my hand. Guys. Anyway, right? Alan, you can speak now. God, thank you.

Alan Smith: 18:59

I was just gonna make another obvious point. There's other studies which have been done which say it's just news in general, positive news versus negative news, and the weight of negative news versus positive is like 95 five or something you and why is that? Because, again, you've got to remember the business that the publication is in whether it's a website, a newspaper or magazine, they're there to get downloads, clicks, eyeballs, because the the model is an advertising model. It's not back in the day, used to buy a newspaper, walk down the high street and physically hand your money across and get a newspaper, and it was there was less necessity to capture your attention in that second. But now all those models have moved across to an advertiser or not, the vast majority of them, so they need to capture attention really quickly. And what we know is the human psyche, the way that the brain operates, is that we pay attention to drama and to danger and to negativity. If the front page says everything's good a globally diversified portfolio of equities. Is still good as it was last week. No one's buying, no one's interesting, no one's clicking the advertising. So that's that's another underlying theme here. The predominant sort of quality of the news, or type of news and headlines are going to be negative and sensationalist, because that is the business model that exists.

Nick Lincoln: 20:18

Okay, right? We're 20 minutes in. We've done two topical

Andy Hart: 20:21

tidbits, so watch,

Nick Lincoln: 20:23

be careful of AI,

Carl Widger: 20:26

yeah, just very quickly, I've attached the link. There's a six minute YouTube video about Deloitte in Australia. We're commissioned to do a report for the Department of Employment and somebody in Deloitte, it seems, popped it into chat GPT and just reproduce the report. And it was found that the report had references, footnotes, names of books, names of authors that were either incorrect or just did not exist. So a big furore in Australia about this. Deloitte had charged 440,000 Australian dollars, and they had to only refund the last batch, which I think was about$90,000 or something like that. But look, everybody is even, I'm using AI these days, right? Chat, GPT, etc, you just got to be really careful and kind of following on from the last point there. You know, knowledge is, our information is everywhere, but you know, wisdom is, is, is harder come by, and that's where we can excel, and that's what we should be using AI for. So look, just be very careful in what you produce, if it's all being produced via chat GPT or something similar. And look, not to get too morbid about any of this stuff, but there's some. There's a really sad story in the news at the moment about chat GPT giving answers back to somebody, and it was like an echo chamber, and that was a young person, and that story did not end well at all, and I would say no more about it, but it's just be careful of AI, of chat GPT and the likes, because, Yeah, they're echo chambers, and they'll just churn stuff out. So just be careful.

Nick Lincoln: 22:25

So I've been thinking, were Deloitte? Was their report based? They weren't. They were quoting things that weren't exist, exist, or what did AI right? So I did a I picked, picked them apart, then did a good thing. No, no.

Alan Smith: 22:39

I watched it. I watched a video call,

Andy Hart: 22:42

$50,000 Nick, and they produced the report, but they used assistance via AI, but AI boxed it up, but then they still issued the report,

Alan Smith: 22:51

something like as as XYZ author said in her book, blah, blah, blah. And she goes, hang on, yeah. We got it. We got it. Yeah.

Carl Widger: 22:58

So, so the likes of governments now going forward, are going to all have, you know, insist in the terms and conditions that you disclose your your usage of AI, when you're bringing in consultants to do reports. And look, I suppose it's the whole, it's the whole innovation versus integrity, and is there, is there a clash there? I think if you use it properly, there's not. But if you're just, you know, saying, hey, chat. GPT create this report for me, and then you charge it for 440,000 Yeah, that's done wrong. Has that done significant damage to Deloitte reputation, certainly in Australia, I bet it has. And the fact that I'm, they're just,

Andy Hart: 23:39

they're just they're just the canary in the coal mine, aren't they? Everyone's up to it, but they're the first one to

Carl Widger: 23:43

get caught. Yeah, but yeah, it's that's at the at the base of all this, it's Alan was just wrong. What they did,

Alan Smith: 23:52

very quickly, bang on. Well, this is the thing I was, I was drafting a newsletter, newsletter article for our clients. And, you know, pop it into chat GPT, just to check make sure everything is okay, embellish it or add to it, whatever. And I just put into it. How many words? This was this morning. How many words is this? I could have just done it on Word or Google, but it was in chat GPT. How many words? And it says, very confident. This is 742, words, which is the kind of optimum size to capture attention and cute and to keep reading. People reading to the end. I thought, yeah, that's that is true. But it looks, it doesn't look, it looks shorter than 742 words. So I just said, again, are you sure? Can you check again? I went, Oh, whoops, my bad. It literally says, my bad. He said, No, it's 336 words. Is like completely different number, just because I intuitively knew, just by looking at it, it was shorter, saying otherwise, I

Carl Widger: 24:49

was in a rush to move on to something

Andy Hart: 24:54

else. Your question, like, seriously? Alan, just on that I'm using grok way more than chat. GBT. Now I go to both of them and ask the question to both. It's staggering the different answers that come back, which should just be data on the internet. So I'm I'm wailing towards grok, which is Elon's AI,

Alan Smith: 25:11

yeah, I've tried both, and it depends. And those two, plus perplexity for more deep research, seems to me to be the better one. So

Nick Lincoln: 25:21

use all right. Interesting. Okay, hand lowered, please, Alan. And now a quick word from her indoors, and now a word from our sponsors.

Unknown: 25:35

We love doing this podcast, and we want to involve as many Trappists in the conversation as we can which means growing our audience. To do that, we've partnered with a little known startup called Vanguard, an investment manager that we really like and whose values strongly resonate with ours. Vanguard pioneered low cost diversified investment portfolios for and now through their advisor Alpha framework, they're 100% aligned with the trap community in helping advisors demonstrate the value of financial advice. So thank you, and welcome to Vanguard, who are sponsoring trap to help us extend our reach to include more advisors in the conversation.

Nick Lincoln: 26:23

There we go. Exciting times with trap and the Trappists and our audience and Vanguard and Nicola and the team there, who we've got a load of time for leading nicely into watch this superb survey that Vanguard had just

Carl Widger: 26:37

done. Yeah, it is kind of cool, the Vanguard advice survey, 2025, I think this is their first version. I could be wrong, but I think it is a comprehensive report, and it's a survey based on answers from over 1000 advised clients and 200 financial advisors. So this is a this is a significant amount of people with various answers coming through. And I suppose the big kind of news from this is what advisors think the clients want versus what the clients value and want. There's a little bit of a disconnect there, you know, and advisor alpha, you know, the way you'll see loads of marketing about, oh, if you have an advisor, you're, you're, you're going to get more than 3% a year. The clients think it's actually much more than that, which is, which is very interesting. But, uh, there's kind of two things that I honed in on from the report. Now, the report is 17 pages long. I would encourage everybody to go and download it. There is a link in the show notes too to do exactly that, the things that the clients really value are the trust that they have built up with their advisor. Now, if we link back to gold or silver or sending in magazine articles or whatever, once you build up this trust, they actually will follow the advice, and they become much more comfortable that they're going to be able to retire comfortably, that they're not going to run out of money, that kind of stuff. But also then the they really do value the behavioral coaching. Now, I thought this was really interesting. You know that that the calming them down conversations when there is market volatility, and we've spoken a lot that, really, you know, we've been 1516, years into very little market volatility, that that's, you know, of a prolonged nature. So, but, but, yes, this is going to be talking to Trump, tariffs, covid, all that kind of stuff. So they really do value that. And look the check ins as well that clients want versus what advisors think. Like Nick, I don't know. Did you read it in detail? Yeah, clients, they do. They do like the face to face, and they probably do want more check ins than we actually give them, which is interesting. And I don't think if you, if you drill down into some of the survey answers, it's not necessarily full review meetings they're looking for. It's just to check it. Are you okay? Everything? All right. You know, haven't spoken to you in a while, and for me, I was only talking to my own team about this this morning, and I was saying, Guys, you know, this could be any way of the pod structures that we spoke about. It could be anybody in the pod just picking up the phone. Hey, we haven't been Yeah, everything okay is written on your mind, and then we need to do and as I said to my own team this morning, said the vast majority of the time they'll say, No, all, good boy. Really appreciate the call. And that's how trust is built, and that's how they you'll find people won't necessarily be bringing, you know, gold versus silver or pushing back on advice. They'll probably they'll tend to, I trust this person, I trust this advisor. I'm going to go with his or her advice. And you can't do that in one meeting, as we know that's that. Stone over time. But yeah, really, really good report, really good survey, and I like the fact that they've identified this disconnect, because really what we think doesn't matter. It's what, what did the clients think anyway? Over to you guys,

Nick Lincoln: 30:14

yeah, six of one half dozen or the other on this. You know, our value is from the behavioral coaching side of things, and stopping class, making the big mistake, and I think having meetings for their own sake, having meetings set by the clients. You know, when we're not here to give them what they want, we're here to give them what they need. And part of our behavioral coaching is not inundating them with meetings, not inundating them with messages about the markets and so forth. So I'm quite glad there is a disconnect, because we're the special we're the advisors, we're the doctors dispensing the medicine, and they're the patients. If they if they can, if they knew exactly what they needed, they maybe wouldn't come to us. So that's no problem with that. I thought a couple of things I took out in the report. They're quite interesting. This is a quote from the report. The most common reason that investors end their relationship with an advisor is not poor investment outcomes. It is a neglected relationship. Amen to that. And I totally, totally get that. I think that's the most reason why complaints come in from clients. It's not because they necessarily feel they've been given particularly bad advice. It's because they feel unloved and neglected. What was interesting that quote wasn't from the clients, it was from advisors. According to the survey, 24% of advisors cited a neglected relationship as the primary reason their clients just engaged with their service. Very odd for advice, I wouldn't admit to that. I'd love to know it's not in the report because I scoured it. I'd love to know what percentage came from clients. Nick 24% came from clients that 24% claim came from clients. No. 20% of advisors cited a neglect. They don't, they don't quote the clients if they were asked, and that's what clients poor investment returns was the second most cited reason for clients walking away. And as you alluded to Carl, you know, 16% of advisors said that clients walked away because of poor investment returns. I'm thinking, we've this is, this is the golden age. I mean, Jesus Christ, they're walking away now because of poor investment returns. Investment returns. God help us when we get at the next prolonged, temporary, temporary decline. But, yeah, very interesting point of court. You know, very, very well put together. They're really on top of this stuff. The advisor Alpha staff has been going now, what since 2008 nine? It's a long time, and they're just building on it all the time. Who's Smithy?

Alan Smith: 32:25

Yeah, that's just to frame this. This was Vanguard surveyed. It says over 1000 advised investors and 200 financial advisors. So it's a reasonable sample set you do get sort of themes and trends when you start speaking to 1000 plus people doing it. Yeah, and just to put a number on that as well, the Vanguard historical advisor, alpha. And candidly, I think I have, and others have questioned a couple of points on that in the past, in terms of putting a number on behavioral coaching and what have you, because it's hard to put a number on it. But as then Carl said this is, it doesn't really matter what we think is what the client thinks, what the client's perception is. And the data is that, well, 94% of investors say their advisor adds value, estimating an average 6.5% to put a number on it. So clients in general, if you ask them, how much additional investment returns you get through behavioral coaching, asset allocation, etc, etc. That's the perceived number six and a half percent a year. Interesting feedback. The key theme throughout this, and it doesn't come as a huge surprise, really, but the key theme is it's all about trust. People need to trust their advisor. They need to trust them at the outset, trust them on an ongoing basis. And how do you create and retain trust? It is, it is front of mind. I hear what you say, Nick I hear what you say that you know, give clients what they need, necessarily what they want, but in any relationship, in any professional relationship, personal relationship within reason. If you see people and engage human to human a little bit more, then that tends to add another deposit in the Trust Bank. Bottom line, if the default is, which seems to be in UK, Ireland, financial planning right now, we default to one annual planning meeting, which, in your case, Nick, because you told us about 20 minutes. And maybe that's a blessing, but often these are a couple two out two hours a year. It doesn't feel like a huge investment in the long term. Trust, bank, I know they're getting newsletters and updates and what have you, but I just think, and they do refer within the within the piece as well, about leveraging technology, you know, outsourcing investment solutions, so you're not spending half your life building investment portfolios. And obviously, Vanguard have got a very elegant outsource solution in terms of their life strategy, etc, but the whole point there is creating more time. And the question is, what do you do with the time? Well, if you can create a little bit more face time, and whether that moves from an annual. A full fat financial planning, annual planning meeting, plus every six months, a check in, a quick zoom call, a quick teams call, just touching base, seeing how you're doing. And that is literally a 20 minute, 510 minute call. That's not a bad thing. Clients are saying that. The clients that were surveyed Nick are saying, we would prefer that we don't see our advisor quite enough. And by the way, the interim, the interim meeting, isn't all the other stuff. It's more of a How are you what's going on?

Carl Widger: 35:29

Yeah, like, I can I give you a good example of that, our company solicitor. I haven't had any reason to speak to him in a good while, and I met him at an event, and he went, Hey, we haven't, we haven't met up in a while. Let's have lunch. And we sat down, we had lunch, and he was going to Orlando with his kids, and I had done that, and we basically chatted over lunch about exactly that trip. So there was very little or no work discussed, but it definitely forged the bond stronger. And if I ever need a company solicitor, it'll be harder. It would, it would be more difficult for me to even consider anybody else. So look these touch points. They do matter, and this report has just told us that,

Andy Hart: 36:13

just to confirm, Carl, listeners can click the link in the show notes, and they if they have an account with Vanguard, they can download this. If they don't, they don't. They just set up a quick account. They can download it. That's what I'm looking at. Client, connect

Carl Widger: 36:25

super so I did it right.

Andy Hart: 36:27

Okay, yeah, link in the show notes right onwards. What's next

Nick Lincoln: 36:32

on what's next is, oh, very quick one on this one, Smith, the SGPs, new charges.

Carl Widger: 36:38

And be careful. Make sure you get it right. You're

Alan Smith: 36:43

I didn't start speaking, though, to be fair, I noticed I was unmuted. Having yourself muted. Now I'm unmuted anyway. Content. It is a quick one. We have been tracking the fate of the mighty St James's place for several years on this podcast now, from the from the high highs to the low lows of last year, when the share price collapsed, and everything went kind of wrong for them for a bit. And it was either it was going to go one of two ways. They were either going to go into oblivion or they're going to make, you know, a heroic return to success. And it looks like it's the latter. The numbers more recently, are incredible. They're, you know, they're sort of new assets in in the last quarter, just reported, are at a record breaking level, and they're flying again. They've gone through a very painful process, but specifically what I noted their new pricing charging structure, which I don't think is quite out yet, but it's imminent, is extremely competitive, because you can now access low cost index funds. And of course, with their scale, I can't remember, is it State Street or one of the huge like institutional, is a Straight Street. So they have got to deal with state, State Street, paying, you know, pennies. So the whole thing now for advice and custody, tax, rapids, etc, and investment, if you use a low cost index funds, the figure quoted that I saw was 1.27% now that's punchy in terms of a composite, if you're doing proper financial planning and tax structuring, advice and investment manager and everything else. So all of a sudden, the company that we're always pointed to as being the crazy so expensive no one's going to pay that. They're now seriously credible. If price is you're a differentiator. They're not competing with the best any of us. Quite frankly, I thought that's quite interesting. So their fortunes be interesting to track over the next year or two.

Andy Hart: 38:28

The bulk of the detractors did focus on price. But obviously, SJP is huge. Their famous in house 100 fund ranges called Polaris, Polaris active, which are slightly higher fees. These are now their Polaris passives, keep it simple. And insiders, I mean, advisors that work there, they're delighted about this is telling, you know, they're telling me, Andy, this is great news. And they're saying it's going to be interesting to see the performance differentiation between the Polaris active and the Polaris, you know, passive. And I'm like, I'm pretty sure I know how this story is going to end. You know, however long you push this timeframe out, the passive funds, should. I wouldn't put my life on it, but almost closely they will, massively, I'll put your life on it. The active funds, it's a pure maths it's a pure maths Excel problem, but but we will see. But, yeah, it's pretty competitive. All in ongoing fee for a human advisor.

Carl Widger: 39:26

Yeah, bloody brilliant company. I said it way back. This is going to trigger so many people. Oh, yeah, Trappists, if you remember back, I said when the share price collapsed, I said they are taking the pain. They are making changes. They're doing the hard stuff. They went up front, yeah, and and they did. They just went straight out. They put held their hands up and said, We're doing this, this and this. And I said, if I was an investor, I would buy their share. Now, they're a fantastic company. And now all the people who said, Oh, they're so dear, that's the only reason not to. To invest with them. Let's hear how they change their tune.

Alan Smith: 40:03

So yeah, finally, focus on the final point here has got to be so therefore, if, as often happens in mature industries and professions, if price no longer is a differentiator, and frankly, if you want to hire a London lawyer, one isn't three times the price of the other, without good reason, they all sort of congregate around a certain price. So they're now congregating around the sort of the pricing of the independent sector. It says. So, as should always happen, the focus should be on what you get for your money. Do you get comprehensive, full fat, financial planning, behavioral coaching? What sort of experience? Because that's the differentiator. If you're just getting pension consolidation, switching funds around for the same price, then it's bullshit. So all of a sudden, we're in the world now where everyone's competing and what they actually deliver and the value they deliver to the clients, which is a good thing for for clients and for investors.

Andy Hart: 40:54

Yeah, good point. Alan, the whole industry, over time, I think it's going to accelerate a lot quicker now to full fat financial planning and focusing on the behavioral coaching. It's good news for end consumers. Yeah, great stuff. Nick, should certainly

Nick Lincoln: 41:06

got the 1.27 Correct. There'll be a deadly coming our

Andy Hart: 41:10

way. It can be lower. They've got a fund at 0.09% it's staggering, an international equity fund. Okay? Anyway, sorry,

Nick Lincoln: 41:18

Nick, thank you. So moving on from the invulnerable SJP to vulnerable clients. And just forgive me for this, but I've got to spend a few moments just setting the setting the picture on this one. I've got a client who I've known. He's been a client since 2002 2003 ish, and he came with me to values division when I set up in 2008 he was like a seed client. I needed a handful of clients to come with me with the ongoing trail commission. Ongoing trail commission, just to make my business, just like you have some cash coming in in the early days. And he was the CEO of two big proper blue chip PLC companies in his time. He was a big thing. He was a big thing in the city, and he was a non exec on the boards of other big brands, and he was someone who was once a thing and was listened to. And now he's 88 he's living at home, nice home in the home counties. His his wife has got dementia. He's effectively a carer for his wife. He's still got most of his faculties, but he's bored, witless. No one cares anymore what he thinks about anything in terms of business. His his time is gone, but he's struggling to adapt this so, and I don't look after all this client's wealth, he's got money with a well known wealth manager, slash DFM I never know quite what the crossover is, but you know the kind of people I'm talking about. You know the posh, posh brigade, and I'm not getting these emails from this client. Let's call him Derek. I'm getting these emails I'm writing. So the other day, I was at my desk at 630 in the morning, there was already an email from Derek in my inbox saying, Nick, I want to move 5 million pounds from my GIA over to over to your low cost evidence based portfolios with, with, with with the platform that he's been on since forever, because over time, he's realized that posh DFM just can't, as you alluded to there, and it's just a spreadsheet thing. Over time, it's really difficult for posh DFM to keep up with a low cost, evidence based equity portfolio. So I get this email thinking, Christ on a bike. He wants to move five minutes. He's 88 years old for a star. I don't really want to be taking money off an 88 year old. I don't care how compos mentis they are from. A GIA, which means an enormous capital gains tax situation, and I'm getting more of these emails from him. So what I've done, and this is where it gets a bit hazy with vulnerable clients, because we've all got a duty of care, not because the legislation says we have to, it's because it's baked into us, right? Because our clients are our income, we've got a duty of care to these kind of clients. And so what I've done is two of his sons were also clients of mine, and the younger one, David, I've kind of brought him in now, and I said, Listen, when dad sends me an email like this, I'm going to forward it on to you, okay? And then we're going to triage it. You're going to go round to your dad's house, go through his emails and pretend to see this email you've sent to Nick and then we're going to have a three way conversation about it, and sort of massage your dad out of that decision, which I think is a very bad decision. Now obviously this break this because the dad is a proud man, okay? And he would, I think he would be, he wouldn't be overly happy if he knew that I was sharing emails with his son. And I'm sure this breaches all kinds of GDPR stuff, I'm sure it bridges all kind of data confidentiality things, but that's what I'm doing now. This is how I'm managing this client. So I just wanted to know how the trap pack would deal with this kind of thing, and how the TRAPPIST deal with it. Because by the book, I'm sure I'm not supposed to be sending client emails from one client to another, despite the fact they're blood and strong blood. It's a very tight family. And also, just to tie a bell on this, I told the platform the client's on, in this case, it's transact. But I'm sure any fit for purpose modern platform, the transact, the fundments would, they'd all be the same. I sent a security mode to transact. So listen, Derek is showing signs of He's just acting a little irrational. He's sending out these emails now that are out of the blue and kind of. Not me for six he never normally contacts you, direct, transact, but if he does in future, can you please bear in mind to contact me and to their credit, on their website, on the Client Profile section transact, have a vulnerable client box, and if that's ticked, they'll put in there exactly what you tell the client and what the situation is. So I log on now, and I can see that for Derek, they put all these things down. He's liable to send these emails. He's bored, he's a bit depressed, blah, blah, blah. Now anyone at transact can see that as well. So credit to them. It's a really slick way of doing it. So I imagine there are compliance people out there thinking, oh my god, Nick, you cannot do this. You cannot involve a third party without the client. Yeah, maybe I can't technically. You tell me a better way to take care of my clients and doing that. What are your thoughts, guys, right?

Alan Smith: 45:43

So this is a classic example of where you're actually breaching the regulations in order to do good by your client. That's the reality that. I mean, you know, candidly, Nick, you have breached all sorts of rules there, client, confidential, GDPR, etc, by sharing confidential information shared by a client with you, with a third party who happens to be a relative, this case, his son. But you've done it with the right intentions. You've done you've done absolutely the right thing. So you between a rock and a hard place, because the alternative is you don't do anything at all because of that. Let the whole thing just sort of roll on and and let whatever happens and then you can you be criticized for that as well. Overall, you've done the right thing. We've had similar situations in the past when, particularly when people are elderly, and was an elderly mama member a few years ago, we just picked up the phone, spoke to daughter in this case, and just said, this is what's going on. What do you think we should do? How are we going to navigate this? It's really tricky, and this is why you can't put everything in a box and say, This is what we do. This. Don't do that. There is no black and white answer. Every situation is different. But I'm inclined sometimes just to pick up the phone and get get some honest feedback from the family members and say, How would you how would you think? And obviously document that, because they may say, No, Dad's fine. You know, far as I know, Dad's absolutely fine. Please crack on with his instructions. Because ultimately, this, you know, what do you do if someone who hasn't been medically diagnosed as having dementia or anything else gives you a formal instruction as a client, do you literally just say, I'm not going to do it,

Andy Hart: 47:20

so destructive.

Alan Smith: 47:23

But, yeah, but what he said there is necessarily self destructive. It's not. It's not, obviously, yeah, I want to take the money out and give it a phone. I've met in you.

Nick Lincoln: 47:31

He's just, you know, we're all living

Alan Smith: 47:36

well, maybe he wants to see you a bit more often. Nick, as was previously discussed

Nick Lincoln: 47:40

in the vanguard. So I saw him last year in November, and with his Son, actually, all three of us went from meal, went from meal. So it was a Cuban I mean, I was sat here having my Pot Noodle, but they were in a different part of the zoom thing. We had a meal together and but anyway, we're all getting older. We know this, right? But so our bodies are getting older and lasting longer, but our brains, I think, are still deteriorating at the same rate. They haven't been upgraded. So the bodies are going on another 1015, years, but the brain is still degradating at the same rate it has done for the last 2000 years. So this is going to become more and more of a problem. And I would just like to know how. So you've mentioned you do pretty much the same sometimes when you have to Alan, the son, by the way, is so grateful for this. He's got no

Carl Widger: 48:17

he's sure yes, because you act with integrity when no one is looking right now, obviously everyone is looking now, because you've just announced it on the podcast, right but, but this is the point that life is not black and white and there is gray all the time. There is gray. You didn't do anything wrong at all. It would be my view. I think you could say, on a technicality, you breach GDPR. Surely, there are times when GDPR just has to be breached, and you have done the right thing by your client. You're also doing great stuff for your own business, I would say, because that son is going to be a client of yours till the day you die, and he will refer other people into you because you've done the right thing. And I think the crucial part of all this is that the client was trying to move the 5 million to you and not away from you. So like, this is, this is more proof, if anybody who wants to take you up on a technicality that you did the right thing, I think this is, you know, doing the right thing. This is what we this is what we should this kind of stuff. Is the stuff we should be talking about all the time on this podcast, because this is why we started this podcast. We didn't start this podcast for you guys to pitch about Rachel Reeves every single episode, right? Or me to talk about prsas and the tech. We didn't, but, but, but we've, but we've, we've, we've seen the real issues. Yeah, this is the and this is what, if you're doing it, that your job right, and you're doing right by all of your clients, all of the time, you will do something like this. We had something similar enough Nick It's, it's, it's kind of very recent experience for us. So. Go into the details, and we did exactly what you did. We involved his grown up son, but like, bravo, my friend. And you know, to say it when you're kind of going technically, maybe I'm in breach, and to say it here, because hopefully, if we can get one other person, one other advisor somewhere to do exactly what you've done right well, now we're on the road to a profession and not an industry. Now we are doing the right of our clients. Thank you. Matty Ultra

Andy Hart: 50:32

I mean, I've, yeah, I echo exactly what these guys have said. And obviously you're struggling with this, because you're in the thick of it now, and it's, it's ongoing, so it's going to be tough with you and the family try and work out what's what you went for lunch with the client and the son. I mean, surely you've got collective permission. So whenever I have a situation where I'm dealing with mum or dad and Sons involved, I'd get clear permission from the mum and dad. Am I okay to discuss everything openly with XYZ son, etc. That's the first question did you get that is that something was

Nick Lincoln: 51:07

kind of, kind of tacit, you know, when we finished the lunch by saying that dad, Derek, you know, I'd like David to be at these lunches going forward, if that's okay, because I think he's my okay to discuss everything with kind of that. But I never said, Oh, by the way, if you send me an email at 530 in the morning, it wasn't that, it wasn't that blood,

Andy Hart: 51:28

but just from the behavior is quite clear that they all want everyone to be involved. And my next point is, did you call the client immediately when you get these weird emails? I'd call the client. Immediately call the client. I immediately forwarded the email on to his son and said, I've had this from your dad. It's 630 in the morning. He might have gone back to bed. He's 88 I don't is caring for his wife with him. I don't know what the situation is. I just but I forwarded on the son and say, Can we have a chat this morning? I've got this from your dad. Okay, you reacted immediately. Yeah, you reacted immediately. I would, I would have called him and discussed it quite a length, and I would have got permission then for them to speak to their son and children? Yeah, I've had various things with clients over the years. Immediately, I'd refer them to call the sons and daughters. And yeah, okay. But meaning

Alan Smith: 52:11

thing, if you got power of attorney

Andy Hart: 52:15

in place, is there an LPA in place via son? That's the next step

Nick Lincoln: 52:18

or not. They have got this pride thing, you know, it's this, we all get older, they want to give away less and less and less, and they get more stubborn and set in their ways. And this guy was once a high flying captain of industry. And I think it's just a pride thing, you know, anyway, so I think we've given that good thank you for your

Carl Widger: 52:35

input. Just go have another lunch. Go and have another lunch with the son and the dad. Yeah, and, you know, get it implied then. So okay, anyway, fair play. That's brave

Andy Hart: 52:45

behavior of the family. It's clear that they're happy for things to be discussed. Nick, so that's in your

Nick Lincoln: 52:50

favor? Yeah, yeah. And they're all bit tight. They're all even though they're money, they're not money, some money. Families have loads of underlying issues, and I don't much know anybody. I've known these people for 20 years. They don't have that. They are, they are very simpatico with each other. They're looking out for, for mom and dad. And then it cascades off that, okay, we're and by the way, TRAPPIST, if you want to comment on this or any subject that we comment on, we put these episodes out on x we put the episodes out on our LinkedIn track page. There's not often, quite a good commentary section on the list, comment chain on there. So do comment do add in, because it's always nice to know what, what, what you are doing out there as well.

Andy Hart: 53:22

Andy coaches at that point, Nick, we've, we've upped our game, haven't we? Now we've got partners. We need to, you know, grow up. So we've got a new Contact Us page on our website. Our website is the real advisor podcast, calm, and we have a contact us page on there. So please do go there. The real advisor podcast, comments in the show notes, links and yeah, fill in the contact out section, which is at the bottom of the page. Okay, it's over to me now, Nick, is it? So it is bringing energy around minor point. First of all, humans under management, which is next Thursday. It's that time of year again in London, and Wednesday, isn't it next Wednesday? Sorry, I had bloody biggest,

Alan Smith: 54:15

the biggest months.

Andy Hart: 54:22

Yes, so humans, under management London. You are hearing this on Thursday. It's the following Wednesday. It's Wednesday, the 12th of November. I am fully sold out now. 450 of awesome. Humans, amazing. These boys will be there. It's been a huge amount of increased work switching venue. I won't bore you with it. Very excited to put on a great show. So hopefully we're gonna see lots of the Trappists there, and there's lots of aligned brands. We've got an evening gig as well, by the way, five to 10 music, cocktails, drinks. Is all going ahead. Okay, so on to my next point. This is the Berkshire Hathaway quarter three earnings. It sounds incredibly dull, but I think there's a lot that we can take from this. Have you boys seen this latest article?

Alan Smith: 55:17

No, tell us more. Funnily enough, no, I did see. Okay, let's

Andy Hart: 55:23

just talk about it. Berkshire. Yeah, Berkshire. Berkshire is sitting on an insane amount cash assets, 381 billion. It's the highest cash position they have ever had. But most importantly, just to get some indicators here, he's a net seller of the great companies of the world. So he sold more great companies than he bought. He's done no share buybacks, which is what he's famous for, which he believes still at the slightly declined price, his own company is not worth buying, and he's holding more cash than he's ever held before. I am 100% invested, 100% at the time. Obviously, Buffett has a different remit, and it's very interesting all the numbers, and it's very interesting all the numbers and the revenue that Berkshire Hathaway bought in, he bought in 95 billion last quarter with a net profit of 30 billion. But a huge amount of that 30,000,000,020 1 billion, has come from investment gains. So have you boys seen this? You boys not interested in this articles?

Alan Smith: 56:32

Yep, I saw it. And of course, the headline of all these things is that, because the last quarter, as you're right, he sold another lawyer, how many billion of stock in the last quarter. Hence, he's now sitting on the highest, the biggest cash pile ever. So naturally, everyone's thinking, well, he is the greatest living investor.

Andy Hart: 56:51

He thinks the market is punishing, choppy. Yeah, is the is

Alan Smith: 56:54

this a serious indicator? And I don't know. This is who they have. What the hell do I know? Nothing. But yeah, I just think that it's like the work things is a transition that's going on. His whole philosophy is of the kind of, you know, the complete the value stock, long term buying. Generally, buy and hold value undervalued stocks, etc, hold them forever, traditional industries, businesses, American Express, Coca Cola, Apple. If he wasn't for buying Apple, his returns wouldn't have been anything as good as they are. But if you look right now, it's a bit like it reminds me a little bit of our conversation, and I'm conscious of not being, you know, this time, it's different. But, you know, maybe the world is slowly changing. A conversation before about there was a time to invest in venture and private equity. If you look at the returns, you know, he's basically invested in US businesses. If you look at the returns, as we know, the mag seven are driving 90% of the returns. The s and p4 193 basically flat line over the last several years. He is, by definition, outside of the the Nvidia's, the Microsofts and what have you. He doesn't, he's not participating in that. Maybe he's playing a different game. I mean, do you see as well? And video have gone through 5,000,000,000,005 markets. I mean, just and so those organizations, because this is just a huge bet on the future, which is basically an AI play. And who knows, maybe it will all come off, maybe it will generate the returns that the markets are saying are justified. But Berkshire Hathaway is clearly outside of that, that bubble right now and maybe over the long term. You know, if things do correct, he was also outside of the tech bubble in the 1999 2000 etc, and then so he significantly underperformed the s, p around that time, and then, and then, when that crashed, he recovered. So I don't know, is this like a is this a sort of generational shift in that Buffett is clearly extraordinary in terms of his investment parts, but it's the world. As the world moved on, he's

Andy Hart: 58:57

basically sitting on 40% of his assets in Berkshire, Hathaway and cash. It's incredibly conservative. He's always wanted to have a cash buffer, but when you've got a cash buffer of $100 billion

Alan Smith: 59:12

do you need more? Like, well, this is a percentage, but he's in a few months, yeah. But years ago, he had a billion, a billion dollars. Then it was 10 years in the last 380 1 billion, yeah, but he's had like 200 billion for, you know, a couple of years or something now, and the meantime, obviously, what have the markets done? Driven by the mag seven, they've absolutely powered ahead. So he has given up that return in in markets generally, by sitting in cash. I mean, it's a brave play. I wouldn't bet against him, but it is interesting. What's where, what's going on with them right now?

Nick Lincoln: 59:50

Okay, guys, I'm just conscious that we're now in and we still got one topical tidbit to go, and that'll be Skipper toco Island at a crossroad. This, this. This is we waited for this. Yeah, yeah.

Carl Widger: 1:00:08

RSA corner, no. Well, it's not, it's not PSA corner. It was based on, there's going to be a bit of a theme here, an article that was written by John Collison of stripe for the Irish Times. And I was also at the Dublin chamber annual dinner, and the President of the Dublin chamber, guy called Owen Quigley, did a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant talk on what we need to support Irish business, you know, on the premise that, well, maybe these huge corporations, US corporations, and the tax take we have is going to come to an end, so we probably need to foster some, you know, kind of startups here, and look after ourselves.

Andy Hart: 1:00:51

Disrupt yourself, disrupt yourself. And it's

Carl Widger: 1:00:55

like, what's that phrase that I was just trying to think about while I was talking there? You know, the best time to fix the roof with the sun shining here, right? Because we are in look every list you look at at the moment Ireland is like, it's all happy days, right? But yeah, there are, there are creeks, there are cracks. And you know, for in terms of we don't have enough we don't have enough homes for ourselves. You know, our infrastructure is sadly lacking, and there's lots of reasons for that, and it's a lot of it is around quangos, that kind of stuff. The Collison article is brilliant because it calls it out, and the politicians have all kind of went, that's a that's a food for thought. That's very interesting, because they can't diss him, because he's not a politician, and he is this, you know, hugely respected businessman who's made good over in the state. So look, I think this is the kind of conversation we need to be having. It is the it is to challenge each other and to make, can we make this wealth that we have created sustainable? There's loads of things we need to do, but in order to do that, we do need to make some hard decisions and or take some hard decisions. And, yeah, I just think, you know, the more the more of this kind of stuff that's challenging will kind of make people sit up and go, Okay, this is actually real, and we need to do some things now, whilst we have the opportunity to do it. So just very interesting. And I will talk about John Callison again a little while. So

Alan Smith: 1:02:23

the theme, have you got, Carl, is, is there a new I don't know. We could president, prime minister. So just recently, I was reading about presidents, reading about her. I suspect that, like Lincoln, may not share her views. Her and Nick Lincoln don't read the same books. But what I read,

Carl Widger: 1:02:41

perhaps, perhaps, anyway, I don't like talking about politics, as you know, so I knock on it now. I love shrugged. She read, read that one. Perhaps I don't know.

Nick Lincoln: 1:02:52

Okay, right enough. Draw a line under a line. 63 minutes in Episode 83 of the award winning, the award winning wheel advisor podcast, the award winning and now proudly sponsored by Vanguard, and there's another sponsorship lurking in the background. We can't wait to talk about that as well, but we're going to talk about it in due course, when it's all nailed down. So let's move on to now what many people call the meat and potatoes of the show. This is where we take a subject and basically, without any preparation, talk around it for about 15 minutes. So obviously, things are happening with trap. We've had a great it's just been great. We've loved it. We've got it. We had a great response from our audience. We love our audience. It's so you're so involved. We think we're adding significant value to the advice community, and we're making a real change that might sound a bit vainglorious, but I just have to go with what I see and the reactions that we get, and the comments we get, and the stuff coming into us all the time. And so we're looking to take track forward to the next degree. And no, it's not because we're old. Look, they're looking to monetize it. This was always the plan. No, it's not that at all. But we put a heck of a lot of stuff into these shows. We give a heck of a lot of way free, and we want to make sure that when we're doing that, yes, we get, we get some compensation for it, but also that we do in a structured manner, so that you get the very best of what we have to offer, and we take the very best from you as well, just steal it back. And there are various ways that we can do this, obviously, with the tech and so forth going forward. Yes, we got the sponsorship from Vanguard that brilliant, by the way. We haven't really talked about what that involves, but there's going to be content videos and so forth coming through Vanguard and trap, which is going to be super exciting. We've got a day's filming coming up in London. God help Vanguard. What else can we be doing? So each of us now are gonna take an idea, we're gonna put it out. We can Anderson. We can

Andy Hart: 1:04:27

also, sorry, we can also mention our other partner is funman, but we've got need to, didn't we didn't need to. Partners are now Vanguard and funman, just to get that in.

Alan Smith: 1:04:38

And they're delighted that there's that we all get on so well together, and we never argue or dispute live, and

Carl Widger: 1:04:45

our other partner, clearly, is humans under management.

Andy Hart: 1:04:51

Now, have you got retirement event coming up soon?

Unknown: 1:04:54

Cole, no, I do not hiring. No. Us right now, not yet. Not yet. Okay, no, anyway.

Andy Hart: 1:05:04

Have you got another podcast? Alan, I have

Alan Smith: 1:05:07

fantastic by the way, bulletproof entrepreneur, you do need to sign up for my next episode going out next week. Incredible, incredible, right back into the matter of that day, because if I just follow on from Nick and you're right, this the origin story for those that didn't listen to the first couple of episodes. This was came about from the four of us being on a walking trip hiking in Ireland three years ago, and we all ended up in a restaurant sitting around talking about talking about our industry, our profession, good, bad and ugly. And then we all said this would make a good podcast. And we and everything was a mini experiment. Let's let's launch. Let's do three episodes, see where the feedback is. It will probably die in its feet. Won't get any further, but it didn't, and it's done nothing other than grow and it's grown and it's grown. And you're right, as Nick's just said, it's we are clearly one way or another, adding some value. Because we all get inbound. We get DMS, email emails, WhatsApps, connections from whole people. I had one this morning. Quick side. One young lady who wants to go out on her own. She's been working for this other financial planning business, wants to go out on her own. Bit of feedback. So there is things going on. There are movements. So the point of this is, we've all been chatting online and offline, the four of us about, what should we do now? Where do we take it from here? Do we want to really kind of double down? Do you want to create more value for this community? Do we want to carry on as we are? We even thought, Should we just jack it in? It's achieved everything we wanted to, and we've gone through all those conversations, and we've we've concluded that no we want to to grow this because a we enjoy it, it's good fun and and we know that from the feedback that we get that we are helping people, and people are making decisions, and people are connecting with each other, with each other. So we now have a bit of funding behind us, so we can be a bit more serious and sensible about this. And so there's an entire range of things that we can do. What we want to be clear is we're always going to have a significant part of our content for free. It's going to be out there the podcast generally that you know the past episodes, 8283 now, past episodes are out there. They're available. Within those there are some absolute gems of wisdom. You might have to look quite hard, but there are some good comments, some good insights, some good, you know, ideas and suggestions for anyone working in our profession. But what else do we want to do? The way that I see these things, and, you know, I've consumed, I've bought lots of programs and developments myself over the years. And there's a natural kind of hierarchy that goes from, you know, free content, download, knock yourself out, YouTube, etc, it's all there, and the next one up, I suppose. And maybe Nick wants to sort of explain this in a bit more detail, the idea of having an online digital community, right? So where we can add some content. We can we can hold we can post video there. We can invite people into it. Now that obviously takes more time. They just even registering for these things. And these some digital platforms cost money, so this would be a paid for service at some level, it wouldn't. It's designed not to kind of break the bank of the community, but it's the kind of the next, the next level up. Nick, this is more we were kicking around the idea of the trap Academy. Why don't you say a bit more about our thoughts on the trap Academy? Wow.

Nick Lincoln: 1:08:31

Okay, so, yeah, I mean, you've said a lot of there, really. So there, one of the thoughts we have was that there are these subscription models now, and the tech is there where we can build a really nice, online, modular course for the Trappists, where you take it at your own pace. There'll be a series of videos how to script experiences. There'll be an active area for members of trap Academy to communicate with each other, channels and so forth. So it's not slack or anything like that. It's a proper platform as a learning resource, a paid for monthly subscription amount. We don't know what it would be or what have you, but I think that would be as an initial entry point, just to get a bit more from trap and to engender a greater sense of community. It wouldn't be a massive outlay. And the other things that the other track packs will talk about that will have, perhaps more of an investment, more of a tuition fee involved, but just having having an online community where we can offer you guys regular content, constantly updated in a modular format you take at your own pace, we could have Q and A sessions for sure. Maybe one of the trap packs sits in every month. Or have you haven't really scanned out, but it's there. I'm quite keen on that, because that's how that appeals to how I like to learn. So I'm probably projecting my own, my own, my own value system on that, but that's something I'd like to pursue, and I think it's something that you that especially the younger Trappists, will get a lot of value from. But even at the start of the show, when anyone at the review, what. Know the guy who's been advising for 29 years finds value in the nonsense that we that we knock out. So that's what I'm leaning towards. And I'm quite happy to sort of run with that on behalf of the Track Pack initially, and to build something up as a demo version and then trialing it. But I think that, I think we get a lot of buy in

Andy Hart: 1:10:18

with that. Carl to go to expert,

Carl Widger: 1:10:19

yeah. Okay, so I it's funny that you said, Nick, that that's kind of the way you like to learn. So I've done, I've signed up for various things over the years, and I go on for the first one, maybe the second one, and then I don't bother. That's I'm way too busy. I can't do that. So for me, I spoken on, on, on this podcast before, about the course that I went on that had the most impact on my my professional but also my personal life, to be fair, right? And it was the Monster High Performance leadership course. And that was a kind of a three day intense event whereby there was lots of different modules, lots of different kind of strands to it. And it was absolutely, it was life changing for me, frankly. So I've been, you know, kind of floating this idea with you guys quite a bit. I would say that, you know, what about doing this? What about we go to somewhere, I don't know, in the south of Spain, and we get a nice venue, and we say, right, we're going to go over there for three days, and we're going to have an intense workload for the three days. We're going to not only do financial planning, you're not only just going to get stuff from us. We might introduce other stuff around it as well. Importantly, you know, the idea here isn't that we're all, you know, going on a boozy trip away. You know, of course, we will have maybe a final dinner and have a few drinks and wine and kind of have our connection there. But there's real work and intense work so that we can deliver something like I was delivered, whereby we can say, yeah, that people would say yeah. That was actually that changed the way I run my practice. That changed my professional life. That's what I would love to do. Now, obviously this is a much bigger ticket price, and I don't think this is a, this is a mass market kind of thing. I'm thinking is this 15 people maximum? It's probably, you know, you need, you need that many people to kind of share stories and help each other, you know. I think the community that that spends money on this is a community that, like us, that went on the Monster High Performance. Course, we are still together, still all these years later, bouncing ideas off each other, you know, but this is a, is this an eight grand kind of a price tag? It could be that's, that's kind of around what I paid to do the Munster course, and it was the best eight grand ever, but I didn't have it at the time. So it was like, you know, I clearly, I did have it, but it was, it stretched our business to send me on that course. So look, it's, it's, it's, that's just another idea, but, but we would need commitment from, you know, 10 to 15 people to make this work. And then obviously, if it works, we could, we could repeat so for me, as Alan says, right, and I'll apologize out loud here that we do get people reaching out all the time, I ignore the vast majority of them. So if you're the one person that I've ignored, or you think you're the one person I've ignored, I ignore everybody because I'm just really, really, really busy and I and my commitment is to the podcast, so I give the show, I do my bit of prep work for the show. But, but, you know, if, if people wanted to get Now this, this next comment is going to trigger lots of people, because a little bit like SGP, there's people watching SGP just to slag SGP off. There's definitely people listening and watching the trap podcast just to slag us off, right? So prepare to be triggered those people, right? If you want to get exclusive access to the four of us for a very short and intense period of time. Well, here's, here's, here's an idea that might work. I love the idea of it, and I'll be totally straight up. I love the idea of it because it's three, four days I can just mark out of the calendar. Say, I'll give it my best. I'll give it 100% for those few days, but then after that, I'm done. The whole idea of doing ongoing content just makes me a little bit nervous, but I'm sure we can schedule that as well. So look, today is just about throwing out some ideas. And if you go on our website, there's a Contact Us Part to the website now, and if you are saying I am totally in well then, you know, right, just put it down there. I think it'd be fair to say I'm probably the only one of the four of us believes that this idea can work, and I but I do think it can work, and I do think we can add significant value to a small group of people, and I think we can change lives. I really do.

Andy Hart: 1:14:58

I. I think, I think a lot has been said already, but I'm just going to mention a couple of points. There's various things that we can do here, and we've got to be careful of not encroaching on other businesses in our space that are already doing this, maybe better than us. So for example, if you've got an online community, there might be better online communities out there. At the moment, if you're going to create content for client, for advisors, there might be better companies out there already. You know our real value is, you know ourselves, our experience having those conversations. So the online trap Academy is an obvious one for us to do, and it's not a huge amount of additional work. Because the good thing about an online academy community is it sort of compounds. So when we first launch, it will have X amount of content. Then we add 2345, things, you know, the following month, and that just compounds. So the later and later, people join it, let's say the more, the more content they get. Something else that crops up quite a bit, and I think Alan's working on it, but a jobs board is something that we can look at, because we often get contacted by younger advisors saying, I want to do full fat financial plan. And we get contacted by people that run firms and say, we do full fat financial plan, and we need more advisors. That's an obvious, you know, matchmaking service that we need to explore. The other one that is maybe something we could do is paywall podcasts, but we obviously want to keep the two that we do each month free for everybody. That's our gift to the community. But we could add further nichey certain subjects, one or two of us chewing the fat about a paywall podcast. But again, it's a little bit tricky to try and do that Carl's right, if we go away for 234, days, and it's a highly priced retreat, it doesn't want to be, let's say, a, you know, a piss up. But we could introduce trapped lunches that are very much light hearted, you know, maybe 234, of us. There eight people around a table, 10 people around the table, and it is a bit more relaxed, you know, intentionally, but people sort of know what they're getting. Some people are great at a three day retreat. Some people that's That's hell. Some people are fantastic at lunches. Some people That's hell. So we'll offer, you know, a few, a few different options. Our challenge is, there's four of us, there's four leaders. When there's four leaders, there's no leader. However, we're obviously getting slightly better at that. We're giving each one of us, you know, one remit, to do one thing. So it is interesting. Yeah, we have been going, we have been going for about, is it about two years we've been going for? Is it a lot longer?

Nick Lincoln: 1:17:40

Six weeks. So two, two and a, yeah, three years.

Andy Hart: 1:17:43

Three is okay. About launch. Three years. Wow. A lot has happened in that time. So it's exciting, yeah, so our first step is our partners, so that we're doing lots of stuff with them. And now, how do we build this out? But we're for busy business owners, and we've got lots of stuff bubbling in the background. We obviously give trap the respect it deserves, but we want to find something that adds the most amount of value, that requires the least amount of our work, that not that's not said in a lazy way, that's just, that's just how

Alan Smith: 1:18:16

this we want to be the most effective, effective, the most effective with our top which is, which is why we're raising this. This is why this is the meat and potatoes on this episode, in that, as Nick often says, this is, you know, this is for the community, by the community, for the community. This is a symbiotic relationship. We don't just dictate. We ask for feedback constantly from people, and we get it. We get people's art. Well, we get, as we'll show in a minute, you know, the TRAPPIST questions and what have you. So we're really there's no point in us launching some fantastic product or service. We've got this three day intensive mastermind retreat in Spain, and no one's interested, like zero. So in every other version of that, what we do know is that, based on our downloads and our numbers, that people are interested. They consume the podcast, the trap live is a sellout. We've done it twice. It's a sellout, no doubt. When we start promoting that again, for next year, we'll sell out a room, so there is demand. But now we're looking at doing something a little bit different, a bit dynamic. So please, as you say, I'd invite anyone who's listening or watching this podcast to go to the website, which is WWE, Sorry, go on the real advisor podcast.com. Right.

Andy Hart: 1:19:26

Nick with an E, the real advisor podcast with an e.com, as an

Alan Smith: 1:19:30

advisor, not advisor. Advisor the moment. I mean, if we had our act together, we'd give sort of a survey or something, but just send a message, please, because we can create, if, the if, the if the market requests, that we can create something that hopefully is valuable to the audience. So please do get in touch once you listen, valuable and

Andy Hart: 1:19:51

unique. Sorry, that's the do. What everyone else is doing, that other people are doing stuff really well, that we don't need to close. That model, because it would just be, you know, additional for people that are part of both communities, the something unique, the

Alan Smith: 1:20:07

differentiator. The differentiator is where we continue to we're practitioners one to one degree or another. Role still at the coalface there is, don't look at me like that. Nick, I am. I'm still out there. This is not this is not a knack. This is not a never advise the client conference. This is real life experiences, real life stories, raw, honest, whatever you want to do. So please get in touch, drop a message, give us your thoughts via the website is the best way to do it, and hopefully we can build something that's is valuable for all of us.

Nick Lincoln: 1:20:45

Okay, right? We've left that there, really. I think this could easily become an internal dialog that might be, might be less, less interesting to our audience. We've given that good I think what the ideas are thrown out there, we'd love to hear your feedback. Do let us know we're obviously progressing things with trap. We're not going away. As Andy said, the bi weekly podcast will remain. Haven't killed each other, but we're just looking to do other things, all right. And everyone benefits, all right? Everyone is it's, you know, win. Win is a thing because it does work in the real world. Okay, right? What about Jesus Christ? 81 minutes. Shoot me. Let's go on to TRAPPIST questions. There she goes. There's Posty hauling the bulging sack of TRAPPIST questions on my drive. If you want to have a question answered, do click on the link the pinned tweet, or next the pinned X on tweet, there's a link there. You can leave your question in the hopper. We'll get around to it. Also in the so called show notes, there is a link as well. Let's have a look and see who this this one is for others. Letters been open before this letter was opened, was sealed down again with sellotape and resent to us, and we had to pray the posters on this one. And this is from a guy who, in the last episode, we didn't give him quite the respect he deserved. And I'm not going to butcher his name either. I've been told twice by Connor kahalan Kahala shit. Connor kahalan, sorry, with a very silent E, get Connor. Get rid of the E's pointless. So Connor six times. Connor was the same thing as last week. Hi. How do you all model for later life care and home costs? Do you use any products like Lifetime Care annuities, or do you just set aside some capital? And if so, how much I know? Andy's going to go on this. I'm quickly going on this. I suppose you're not here Connor, because I'd love to ask you how you do it, and maybe in the YouTube channel where you left a comment, you could tell us in there how you do it. I would just say the times I've done it and it hasn't been that great. I have not done as much as Andy has done it. But when I've done it, cash flow has to be integral to it. I mean, at the very worst, at least a spreadsheet. But if you're not, you know care costs, the unknown how many years you're going to live against the known the outlay for the care annuity that's going to fund the care costs and cash flow. With the pretty graphs, right picture says 1000 words. Where the lines intersect is that, do you think Mr. And Mrs. Client, or the client, the family of the person going to come? How do you feel about that outlay now, to cap it here, or we just run, run with it. But every case is different. It's a very nuanced question, as I'm sure Andy's about to Andy's about to elaborate on now. Cole's gonna go

Carl Widger: 1:23:05

next? Am I that was not get

Nick Lincoln: 1:23:09

used to these, these things that's very slick, good stuff. Yeah, yeah.

Carl Widger: 1:23:12

No, look what I would have answered last week, but it was all a little bit all over the place. So what we used to do was, at age 85 we turn off indexation on the basis that in a 40 year plan, you know, at 85 you're probably not going to be spending, you know, as much as you had done

Nick Lincoln: 1:23:31

any indexation. Expenditure, yeah.

Andy Hart: 1:23:34

Expense, yeah, yeah. He's well,

Carl Widger: 1:23:38

so we will, so we will do that and but we will then show, look, if clients bring up, well, what about long term care? We go, Well, if we turn it back on, you know, we think we have more than catered for it. But to Andy's point last week, which he he did mention, for clients in their 40s or 50s, doing financial plans and putting in long term care costs. I don't think it's actually that relevant. But when you start talking with clients who are in their 70s, or even late 60s and into 70s, I think it becomes a big part of the discussion at that stage. And I think then at that stage, you just put a number on it. Well, that's, that's what we would do anyway. We'd say, Okay, is it going to be, you know, is it going to be a grand a week? Is it going to be 1200 a week, something like that? And you put those numbers in and you give some comfort around it, I suppose the tricky bit is, you don't know how long, long term care is going to go on for. So it's kind of hard. But yeah. I think there's lots of different ways that you can do it, but for sure, it's something that when you have more elderly clients, it becomes something you've got to focus in on a lot more. I would say,

Andy Hart: 1:24:58

Alan, you've raised your hand, yeah. Well.

Alan Smith: 1:25:00

Thought you were, you were the expert. I didn't think I was gonna wait a few guys just rambling, for the amateurs to get out of the way. So, right, the so that the data is car last time I looked at it, the average stay in a care home is two years across the country, but

Andy Hart: 1:25:22

more two and a half years in council, three and a half years private, right?

Alan Smith: 1:25:25

That's, we're gonna say, two years and then three years in a private so you can model that, and you can allocate the funds, etc. And the difference is, of course, modeling is one thing. You might be, your mum, yourself, your grandmother, whatever might be the outlier who lives eight years in the care home. So this is, I mean, the the annuities is really for peace of mind, isn't it? That's got to be the thing. You can model your cash flow so you've got enough to more than cover the cost for the next five years, let's say. But what if they live to be another seven years in the care home? Once again, it's an art as well as a science. Over to the expert though

Andy Hart: 1:26:04

we've covered quite a bit in order to comprehensively answer this question, it will take me a long time, but I'm just going to give some high level points. So Carl's correct. If you've got 40, 5060, year old client, early 60s and care home is not a direct issue, then you don't really need to model it. I don't think so for young clients, and also, if they're very high spenders, sometimes clients going to care home their their total cost of life reduces. If you've got a client family that's been 150 grand a year in the care home, 60 grand with Irish numbers, maybe then obviously, their overall cost of living goes down. If they're low spenders, then the care home will have a big impact on it. I've got clients in their sort of early, mid 80s, and care home is going to be a potential issue for health reasons. I do create what if plans and purchase immediately care annuities. But I also do a lot of work where someone's actually gone into a care home. I know all the finances. Then we need to build the forecast. Then the last three that I've done, the average price of care. Now, all three of them was 120,000 so the UK, now, London, south east, we used to say 1000 pounds a week was a lot. Now we've reached 2000 pounds a week pretty quickly since, since we hit 1000 a week. So it is a huge cost. I believe Connor is based in Northern Ireland, the numbers will be slightly reduced, maybe. So again, it does depend on the age of the client, the impact of the care cost, the current assets that they've got. It's an art, not a science, as Alan Smith said. So yeah, good question. Hopefully we've given it a damn good thrashing this week.

Carl Widger: 1:27:40

Thank you, Connor, for the question. Thank you Connor.

Alan Smith: 1:27:45

Nick, you're muted, you amateur. Sorry you got

Nick Lincoln: 1:27:51

last week. Let's move on to

Carl Widger: 1:27:57

culture. John Collison has a podcast called the cheeky pint. Yeah, it's quite good with some very high profile guests, but I committed to continuingly, committing to learning about cryptocurrency. He interviews Brian Armstrong, who's the CEO of Coinbase. And one thing I said was I'd start taking this stuff more seriously when it becomes more mainstream. Well, that's what Coinbase, this mission is. It's a really good it's an hour and a bit. So it's a wide ranging conversation. You will learn about Coinbase, you will learn a little bit more about cryptocurrency. He's obviously very bullish about it. But you know what it's it's kind of, there's a startup story there. So the amount of times that they were that people tried to hack Coinbase and get into them at the start, and it was all going a bit and people succeeded, and they were able to kind of wind back and all that kind of stuff. So it's very interesting. I know stripe, obviously are, you know, looking at stable coin so then when you learn about a little bit more about Coinbase, yep, this stuff is here to stay. It's going to become more and more part of our normal life, normal financial life. So I would encourage everybody to listen or watch this podcast our YouTube video, to learn a little bit more. But this call these Collison guys. Wow. They're genius, very

Alan Smith: 1:29:32

impressive. Good old Limerick boys, yeah, just on that. I don't

Andy Hart: 1:29:36

know if Alan's got a point on that as well. That is the problem with crypto exchanges. The people trying to get in are the smartest people and computers on planet Earth. Yeah, you know, the crypto people are 10 steps ahead of, you know, normal, normal punters. So I can imagine the security levels on the crypto exchanges, yeah, getting better and better every single day because the people trying to get in are the smartest hackers on Planet bloody Earth.

Carl Widger: 1:29:59

Yeah. He does. He does tell a couple of stories. Andy about that, so it's, it's very interesting stuff, and you're exactly right. You're exactly right.

Alan Smith: 1:30:07

That's great. Carl, I am. I'm going to check that out. Sounds good. Sounds good. Yeah, I listened to over the weekend probably two of the most popular podcasts out there. Number one was Joe Rogan, and the other was Tim Ferriss. So Joe Rogan, once again, has invited Elon Musk back three and a half hours long. You know, whatever you think about Elon Musk, my God, you know, just, you know, living and observing him in real time, what he's doing, what he's up to, it is just off the scale. I mean, there's just so many things. It's a long podcast. Listen to it or watch it over a period of time. It's entertaining, wide ranging. They speak about the UK quite a bit, but just talk about the technological revolution that he is driving, and he's all these various companies. The one thing he's talking about is when they released the new Tesla Tesla Roadster, which is going to be, he said, this year, when this year has almost finished, he said it's going to be the biggest product release, the most mind blowing product release ever in history. So imagine the iPhone. Imagine every product has ever gone that, in Elon's opinion, there's a suggestion that we might be it might be able to fly the new Tesla car. So yeah, I just the whole thing is just mind blowing when you when you listen and watch that and the other one on a slightly different tack, in a much more kind of sedate, but nevertheless quite impressive and inspiring way. Tim Ferriss, who's a podcast he's been around forever, and he's got nearly 1000 episodes out there, and he just interviews really good people, and he's just interviewed, had a conversation with a guy called Jack Canfield, if you guys have come across famously, the author of Chicken Soup for the Soul back in the day, which became one of the biggest best sellers ever. But it's just the gut. So Jack Canfield is 8080, something now. So imagine that his whole kind of life story, upbringing, entrepreneurial journey, is really quite inspiring. What he did, and the hard work that he put in, and his sort of how he got his business off the ground, and sort of how he had to be creative and all these things. It's a and that's just over an hour, and it's just, I just found it really, really good, very positive and very inspiring. So check out Joe and check out Tim Ferriss. Really good stuff.

Andy Hart: 1:32:14

Thanks for your two recommendations. Alan should have been one, but hey, ho right. Might one. Keep it short and sweet. I listened to the Elon Musk podcast. It is amazing. I mean, it's three and a half hours long. I wish it was a 13 and a half hours long. Yeah, awesome. Check it out. Next up, my recommendation is Chris Williamson, modern wisdom, slightly off beat guest, but he's a UK, British rapper or businessman and actor, Bugsy Malone, two and a half hours long. Again, it is amazing. Really, really, really good. Check it out. Over to you.

Nick Lincoln: 1:32:52

Nicholas, okay, I'll be quick on this, because we're way over time, really. My podcast is from the FT behind the money series. Quite a good podcast, normally, well put together, well researched. Obviously, the FT is still vaguely credible sometimes. And this is about this company called first brands group in America, which has collapsed with lots of dodgy finance. But again, it's private involved. This is now private credit, as opposed to private markets. But there's this whole swathe of credit being given to companies that, since the financial crisis, couldn't get credit through the more conventional banks, and they got into other routes to get it, but the other banks are kind of involved. It's like all these things. There's layer upon layer upon layer, but there are people like Jamie diamond are talking about this, and people at HSBC talking about this. This could have a ripple effect. Again, I'm not suggesting, I'm not forecasting, but just keep an eye on this, because it is a thing, and it's just part of this thing, this, this whole private thing. It's just, I don't know, Carl, you quite enjoyed this,

Carl Widger: 1:33:47

didn't you? Yeah, I did, and I loved your man. Jamie diamond said, if you see one cockroach, it's likely there

Alan Smith: 1:33:53

are more. There's more. Yeah, I actually mentioned this and that company on the last episode, or couple of episodes ago, so the FTA podcast as well. I think I was, yeah, right. Okay,

Nick Lincoln: 1:34:06

excellent. Okay, sorry, you can clearly validate my point. Okay, there you go, dear TRAPPIST, Episode 83 of trap comes to a close and slides down the U bend of Father Time. Thank you, dear TRAPPIST, for your time. Please do leave reviews and comments like and subscribe to our YouTube channel, but until the next time it's adios from me, take care of there, adios from the Track Pack, and we'll see you on the other side.

Alan Smith: 1:34:25

Goodbye. Bye. Bye. Don't forget simple suggestions. How long was that? Long?