Jack Sharry: Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us on this week’s very special edition of WealthTech on Deck. As you look around, firms across the industry are building comprehensive advice platforms, let’s define what those are. So over the course of history of financial services, wealth managers built systems focused on managing single investor accounts, a brokerage account, an IRA, a 401k, all managed independently and really without much thought given to the other other than to be aware of it. But investors’ wealth and their ability to transform it into income in retirement is the sum of all of those accounts. Comprehensive advice platforms are capable of incorporating the entire scope of an investor’s or household’s accounts and then identifying and implementing strategies to minimize tax drag and produce better outcomes. We are embarking on a special series of our WealthTech on Deck podcast with today’s program. We’re calling it WealthTech in the Weeds. Our plan over the coming months is to get into the weeds around what it takes to build an effective, productive and comprehensive advice platform. I’m excited to have a longtime friend and colleague, Eric Lordi, join us for our show. Eric is a Managing Director at JP Morgan. Prior to that, he held a similar position to Morgan Stanley. Eric is one of the few folks who have been part of building a comprehensive advice platform. Also joining the conversation is my colleague, Martin Cowley. Martin is the Chief Product Officer at LifeYield. Martin and the product team at LifeYield have more experience building comprehensive platforms than anyone in the industry. So for today’s discussion, we’re going to focus on lessons learned from building advice platforms that both of these gentlemen have actively been participants in, in Eric’s case at two firms, and in Martin’s case with many firms, they’re going to share what they’ve learned as they’ve built systems with improved user experience and enhanced financial outcomes for clients, advisors, and firms. Eric and Martin, welcome to WealthTech in the Weeds. So Eric, you were an integral part of building what is considered to be the industry’s leader in comprehensive advice platforms at Morgan Stanley, you’ve been at JP Morgan now for nearly two years and now, and you are now doing it again there. So if you would describe at a high level what you’ve been working on, building, addressing, and changing in building both of these platforms as you build comprehensive advice platforms.

Eric Lordi: Yeah. So I think challenges are similar, just different section or chapter of the movie or the book, however you want to say it, I think the march is consistent, right? It’s to build a modern wealth management system or operating system where we can meet the clients where they are on that journey to advice and deliver the firm and drive better client outcomes and embrace goals based. That’s a lot, right? So what that really means, though, is, you know, a lot of it is, we’re currently in an acronym soup world, right? Where there’s lots of products and programs that have been built over time, built vertically. And then how do you start to think horizontally from an advisor standpoint, right? I think the biggest mental shift is just moving from an account based structure to a relationship based one, right? So that’s probably like tenet number one. And I think that’s the biggest transformational concept, because then once you move to relationship level, you start to think about optimizations at the household level, better implementation of portfolio management, construction ideas, and solutions, the scale part of this, which is huge part of that conversation, and then probably the most important part too for clients, is personalization, right? So how do you really get to that level of preferences, knowing the client, knowing their particular situation, knowing their balance sheet, not just the individual account or implementation, and stitching all those things together. So I think we’re certainly, we’re on that journey to building that modern wealth operating system, and it’s exciting.

Jack Sharry: Yeah. So for our audience, I just want to… don’t want to gloss over there. Eric talks about this as someone who’s been doing for many, many years. This is not easy or for the faint of heart. There’s a lot that goes on. A lot of interoperability, that new term I’ve been picking up with some of our guests of late. The idea of having it all work together is no small challenge. And Martin, you’ve been at this for at least 13, 14, 15 years, something like that, building these sorts of systems at various firms. What say you on the topic at a high level? I know you’ve spent a lot of time with a lot of firms, figuring this whole thing out.

Martin Cowley: Yeah. Well, I think Eric stole all my buzzwords, but, but yeah. I mean, we’ve been, we’ve been working with lots of different firms. And I think if you look back at the history of LifeYield, back to the beginning. We came into this thinking about householding and thinking about multi account management, and there’s a few roadblocks in the way. There’s a few speed bumps, at least, that we didn’t anticipate when we started, and that we’ve learned along the way. So we’ve had to kind of circumnavigate an awful lot of speed bumps in terms of existing systems, existing processes that have been around for decades, in some cases, and every firm that we work with, that situation looks slightly different. So we, I think what we’ve learned is that we’ve got to be flexible. So our stance on the product side is, how do we build something that’s flexible and reusable in lots of different ways by lots of different firms, and recognizes the reality that there’s a lot of existing workflows and systems that you have to interoperate with.

Jack Sharry: Yeah. So we’re going to get into that, some of the dynamics of that. Because it’s, again, no small feat. Since systems, as Eric and I have talked about over the years, the systems weren’t built for interoperability, pardon the expression, but coordination. They weren’t built that way, and so you have to figure a way to do an overlay. Martin will get into it. I’m sure Eric will get into it. So Eric, as you well know, the key benefit of building a comprehensive advice platform is tax savings, since it’s controllable, and that managing taxes across the portfolio significantly, it could significantly improve outcomes. That means more money for the client, more money for the advisor and firm through tax savings, a common conversation I have is in helping people understand the critical importance of multi account management means that addressing taxes during accumulation, rebalancing, transitions, and then making withdrawals are all very important. So can you explain the dynamics at hand of multi account management for our audience and why it’s so important?

Eric Lordi: Yeah. So I think goes a little bit back to the idea of, you got to start thinking at the relationship level. And I think also to the idea of a lot of the tools that are built today are very purpose built, right? You’re really starting to expand that to, I won’t steal your phrase, I’ll call it integration, right? The integration of the applications that needs to occur, right? So you can have a great proposal engine, but it may only work for one product, right? Or you could have a great analytic but it only sits in isolation in a white paper portfolio system, right? So I think the idea is that you’re trying to drive to a single experience and have it be household based, to discover opportunities around tax, risk, exposures, but do that in a multi dimensional way, right? Because that really, this comes down to measuring portfolio health at the relationship level to then drive those solutions with clients. So if you think that is the starting point, then things start to fall into line, right? Then you’re talking about, okay, we have these separate tools today. How do we think of this as more of a strategic workflow for advisors and clients to work through, okay, what is my tax situation across location, right? So thinking about my taxable, my tax deferred, tax exempt, and that becomes like a rudder for thinking about how we’re looking at the balance sheet and their overall assets, and encouraging things like asset aggregation to get to those conversations, right? Because one necessarily starts to file the other. And I think the… just going on tax alone, the amount of benefit we can really offer clients there, is very tangible, right? So that coordination across account types is super important. You know, again, I’m coining the phrase as like a portfolio health system that’s looking through these things to make these suggestions, that then is embedded on some of these bedrocks of location being paramount, that is obviously tied to planning conversations, right? And asset aggregation and these other things. But once you do those x rays, right? You’re not going to operate until you do the x ray. So you get that x ray in place to then take advantage of those systems, but you need an integrated application toolkit to get there.

Jack Sharry: Yeah. So I think both you guys probably have seen this in the news. This is the year that’s being called Peak 65, more people turned 65 this year than at any point in history. So when you think about that baby boomer that’s assembled all these assets somewhere between three and eight for these kind of clients we tend to work with, different accounts, typically held at different places with different purposes over time, and by the time they hit their retirement age, or close to it, they’ve got to figure out, how do I make all this stuff work together? So, Martin, you’ve been… and the team at LifeYield have been at this for a very long time. So talk about the dynamics of multi account management. You’ve been at it for at least, I don’t know, 13, 14, 15 years, whatever it’s been. So please weigh in on the importance and some of the things that you do to to make that work. Because our job at LifeYield is to make it easier for the firms we work with to make all the stuff coordinate and to optimize across multiple accounts holding some products.

Martin Cowley: Sure. So ultimately, the way we’re looking at it, that set of accounts that somebody has built over time, you’re turning that into an income stream, or potentially you’re gifting some of it, either way, it’s being used for something. And when you think about how LifeYield first started looking at the multi account problem. It was all about decumulation, and somebody, as you said, has a bunch of different accounts that they’ve accumulated over time of different types in different places. And that becomes a problem not just because they’re in different places and they’re of different types, but if I’ve got my accounts spread across a bunch of different firms, I’ve probably also got them managed in different ways. Even if I’ve got more than one account with the same firm, they’re probably managed in different ways because they could be in different programs. So just that reality of the fact that coordinating isn’t just about getting the sum of the parts, and then working with the sum of the parts, it’s recognizing that some of those parts fit together better than others, and that’s what we’ve spent a lot of time working on. We, I think, when we first started looking at the householding challenge and with the two main aspects at the time being, how do you do asset location? How do you minimize taxes? That’s valuable from an asset location perspective, when you’re trying to boost after tax returns to get as much out of that portfolio as you possibly can on the way down. But as we learnt later on, there’s no reason not to do that on the way up, too. So asset location is kind of a universally beneficial thing when it’s done well. There’s things that people are well aware of, like our tax loss harvesting and doing that on an ongoing basis is better than doing it once a year. So there are all those benefits too on the tax front. And then withdrawal sequencing. How do you both tap into all of those different account types. What’s the best order to draw from? And when you’re doing that drawdown, which account goes first? If I’ve got three different taxable accounts, where do I draw from? And how do I figure that out when I’ve got three different accounts in three different programs, on different systems, running different models potentially, or running no model at all. So that’s the kind of complexity that we’ve dealt with and making sure that we’ve kind of got a library of functions that can fit with the way in which an account’s being managed. So we can do all of those tax efficiency… apply all of those tax efficiency methods across those different accounts.

Jack Sharry: So I want to dig in there a little bit, Martin, and Eric with you, I’d like to ask about this thing called asset location. We all toss it around like everybody knows what we’re talking about. My experience is very few actually understand it. You know, it’s one of those terms. So when they think of tax alpha or generating tax efficiency, they think tax loss harvesting, which is great and should be done, and as Martin indicated, probably over time, as opposed to once a year. But that’s one of many. And asset location is so critical to the exercise, both during accumulation and withdrawal. So talk a little bit about that in terms of the benefits of that, because, as our studies show, it has the ability to cause the biggest sense of improvement is, is by managing asset location in a productive way. So why don’t you talk a little bit about the importance of location on top of allocation, which are obviously quite different.

Eric Lordi: Yeah. So I’ll just jump in really quick. So the… I think our and look, we have a number of providers. You’re yourselves, LifeYield, we are currently working through the implementation, integration of that around location. But also comes down to, how do you then rebalance and work with the UMA that we’re building, and we’ve got some incredible partners there as well, within the firm, 55IP. And as you guys know, it’s this classic, how do you make these things work together, right? So that the tax management that’s happening and trading and rebalancing within that account, and that model is also sequenced with the optimizers that we’re building to look across accounts, right? So it’s kind of like in a very interesting time, because ultimately, you’d love for this orchestration all to happen at this household level and then seamlessly cascade down across whatever trading systems, account types, so that we make this really easy for our users, right? So users can stay at that level, and we handle the hard work of the pipes and plumbing to go figure that out and scorecard it. That’s really where we’re focused on, like the ease of use and having that frame of the toolkit to work that way. So I do think it’s those two things talking to each other. Obviously, to… I don’t think you can have one without the other, to be honest. I guess that’s kind of where I’m going. Like, you know, the idea of tax management isn’t just tax lots, it’s the location and then having a machine that is not dependent on underlying trading systems or things like that, but that’s looking across, looking at these things as holdings that we can score anywhere, right? Because that’s the power of this. And then to make these advice suggestions, and then us figuring out, how do we implement this in a straight through process, and really evolve portfolio management technology past the UMA to these UMH type concepts, where we’re really scaling the business, you know? And there’s always those blurry lines between brokerage and advice and things like that. But I do think this is like a, you know, another mantra where we’re pulling out is like, always on advice, right? So as we build these containers and we’re looking across the household, we can put this guidance out there in a very integrated way, very easy way, for the advisor, to show them the path forward.

Jack Sharry: So, Martin, you’ve worked with many different firms on this topic. You see lots of different systems. There’s all sorts of legacy systems, all sorts of issues for each firm. There’s all sorts of priorities that are a little bit different depending on the firm. And in the case of Eric, his job is not only to have it all work in the back, so to speak, which is where your domain largely rests, but also on the front in terms of the experience with the advisor and the client, so they can understand what’s being demonstrated and so on. So talk a little bit about that sort of back office aspect of as you provide guidance to people like Eric and his team, what are some of the things you encounter? How do you help in the understanding of rationalizing or coordinating or integrating with these various systems so the outcome is really all that we’re describing, which is where you’re cognizant of risk, you’re aware of tax optimization opportunities. Why don’t you talk about that dynamic, because that is no small feat, that what you work on with the clients we work with.

Martin Cowley: Yeah, so I think asset location and anything that’s looking across accounts, it’s really a coordination problem. It’s an overlay problem. So a lot of what we’re having to look at, when you consider that a lot of the accounts might be managed in somewhat of a silo, just through the nature of the way in which the programs are built and the systems that support them, there’s a lot of silos, and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s kind of the way, the way things are. So where you add benefit from asset location is superimposing another level of tax efficiency across all of those existing systems. And I think there’s a couple of things that happen with that. One of them is that if we’re aware of how those different systems operate and how those programs are run, then we can help direct the traffic down to those individual accounts, with the obvious example being withdrawals. If we know what the impact is going to be for the relationship, and by relationship I mean everything from taxes to the overall asset allocation for the client, what’s going to happen if, I say, direct a $10,000 withdrawal to taxable account one, taxable account two, tax deferred account three, and so on. And there could be quite a large number of accounts that we’re thinking about, and they could all work in different ways. So trying to figure out the ramifications of directing a withdrawal is very difficult for an advisor to do, so that’s one of the overlay functions that we’ve found is very valuable where we’re being careful to stay in our own lane, and it’s not necessarily our own lane. We’ve kind of built up a new lane, I suppose, which is the overlay management. So we’re not disrupting anything that’s happening with those individual account programs, we’re adding benefit on top of them. We’re helping to coordinate. We’re aware of how those accounts are being run. So that gives us a lot of additional benefit. Gives us scope for additional benefit. And it has to be, to Eric’s point, this has to be personal… has to be personalized. The personalization is a huge benefit with something like asset location. There’s a lot of rules of thumb out there about asset location, and not all of the rules of thumb agree with each other, but the one thing that they do agree is it’s pretty much one size fits all. When we get into the type of asset location that LifeYield and JP Morgan are working on. It’s highly personalized. It’s aware of client time frames. It’s aware of the way in which the accounts are managed. It’s aware of the marginal tax rates that the clients have, and also, clearly the account balances that they have to work with, and potentially the strategies that are available for assignment into those accounts. So all of those things lead to a very highly personalized investment portfolio that spans multiple accounts in much the same way that a UMA would within a single account.

Eric Lordi: Yeah. I would just say too, like just the idea of those multi dimensions is a change in thinking, right? So you’re talking about very discrete data that used to just reside in certain places you’re bringing together intentionally to make an informed decision, whether it’s withdrawal, location. These are all forms of rebalancing, right, essentially, that we’re getting into, but we’re trying to do it in a much more informed way to drive these outcomes.

Jack Sharry: So let’s talk about the operational aspect of what we’re describing. Because you guys know well the benefits. You understand how critical it is to pull all this stuff together, because really what the desire is to maintain the risk parameters for the client that they seek yet to maximize, largely around tax. And there’s some other benefits as well, but the idea is to make it all work. Now it starts, asset location starts, typically on the front end with during the accumulation phase, but it becomes as important in the decumulation phase and the withdrawal phase. So, Eric, if you would, talk a little bit about taking what you guys know well, the dynamics of what needs to happen, and then you have to operationalize it. That’s where it gets, I guess fun? I don’t know, maybe I’m overstating. But that’s the challenge is how do you make this stuff real? So maybe talk a little bit about that, Eric, because that’s where it gets challenging.

Eric Lordi: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So look, it’s always easy to do things on a white paper basis, right? Like you could publish your aspirational model or your shift in money movement, but when you talk to the implementation side, things get dicey, right? So I think the one of the quick learnings that we’ve had here and over time, right, is just that these optimizers need to talk to each other. So the optimizer you’re using on the front end to put something in front of a client actually has to be the same one you’re using on the back end when you’re doing implementation. So once you have that aha moment that, again, don’t build in the silos, let’s do this as an integrated path, and not just to check the box that we, you know, have an exhibit that we put in front of the client, right? It’s really more about the turnkey part of this, and that’s hard for sure, right? Because you’re, you’re typically dealing with multiple portfolio management systems or program types. But you know what it does encourage, I think, just the same way that we’re house cleaning for clients. And thinking of, I think Martin your phrasing of, like, how clients, you know, they build up all these things over time, and then we’re here left with figuring out how to look at them all together. It’s very similar within these firms, right, in the way that technology has been built up. So it’s a kind of a long overdue house cleaning that, how do you scale these things to really get to the integration that we want, the advisor experience that we want, and these client outcomes. So, you know, I think, Jack, just to cut to the chase in the operational piece, a lot about the portfolio management trading end of it, having the common optimizers and playing nice with each other and recognizing that these are just phases in a process of delivering advice, not discrete. So that’s kind of the way I think of it.

Jack Sharry: Yeah. So Martin, the most fun is the when it comes to making withdrawals, that’s where it all comes together. It’s one thing to accumulate on a relative basis. It’s easier than the decumulation basis. Both are important, because if you accumulate tax efficiently and in an appropriate, risk smart way, you have more money. And then if, when you go to withdraw, you want to do so on the reverse, if you will, on how you draw down, so why don’t you talk a little bit about the dynamics of that withdrawal, because that’s really where it gets challenging in terms of, at least the operational aspect. There’s a great benefit to it, but still, there’s a lot to it in terms of making sure that works right and at a customized level for the client.

Martin Cowley: Yeah. So this isn’t just the way that we look at withdrawals, it’s really the way things work when you’re looking across multiple accounts, there’s three general types of withdrawal that you can make, I’d say, largely due to there being three different ways in which accounts are managed, three levels of detail. So in one respect, you might have a brokerage account where you’re completely free to sell pretty much anything. There’s no allocation that’s being followed. It’s pretty much anything’s up for grabs. So directing withdrawals down to a brokerage account is relatively straightforward in that we’ve generally got more control over the tax lots that we’re able to select. We don’t have to worry about maintaining allocations. But even then you get into a few little nuances. In some cases, you’re able to sell lots versus purchase date and select individual lots. In other cases, you might have to follow high cost because that’s what’s implemented on the custody side. And there’s no way of transmitting specific lot selections back to the custodian. And if you look at any of the custodians, they’ve got, I don’t know, whether it’s a dozen different lot disposition methods, but there’s a lot of lot disposition methods. So it quickly gets complicated, even for something that’s apparently simple and flexible, like a brokerage account. And then if we get into the next level of detail, we’re perhaps looking at maintaining an asset allocation within an account. So you may have an allocation level model where there’s some flexibility in the underlying securities, but the allocation is really being focused on. We’ve worked with plenty of firms where it may be advisors who were working in more of a rep as PM setup, where they may describe an asset allocation that they want to follow and we’ll be informed about that. We’ve got flexibility in what we sell across multiple securities within a given overweight category, but we’ve got to maintain the category weights. That’s kind of the middle ground. And then the lowest level is kind of what you’d expect, an SMA. And if you flatten out a UMA model, and it’s a more of a traditional SMA/UMA, as opposed to something that’s using full optimization, then that is the most constrained type of withdrawal that you can really make. So if you think about combining all of those different levels, then those are three different ways in which withdrawals need to operate. And a lot of the time what we see, and I’m sure Eric has plenty of stories about this. But when you see somebody process a withdrawal, they may be eyeballing a bunch of different accounts trying to figure out, well, what if I pull 10 grand from this one? What’s going to happen? And it’s often still in that silo. It’s not necessarily looking at the relationship. It’s very difficult to get to a split that says, well, the best way to run this withdrawal for this client is to pull $3000 from one account, $7000 from another, because that’s going to do the best thing for the overall allocation at the relationship level, and the best thing for taxes, and maybe it gives asset location a bit of a boost for a bit of a bonus. So those are the things that we’re having to work through as we’re directing withdrawals. And there’s more complexity to it than just figuring out the tax lots. It’s all of the rules around the way in which the accounts work. How do you slice those accounts up so that you’re looking at something that is realistically going to get implemented by the time that withdrawal hits the system that runs the account and getting into the weeds?

Eric Lordi: That’s a good one, right?

Jack Sharry: So we’ve named, we’ve named this podcast series appropriately by calling it WealthTech in the Weeds. And Martin is just giving you at the highest level. Eric, why don’t you weigh in? Because you have to deal with stuff all the time. Why don’t you just talk about the…

Eric Lordi: Yeah, no, you’re, you’re, you’re digging precisely to where the most work is, right? So the idea of we have model management systems that have their own behaviors. And then, how does it interpret when we do these types of withdrawals or location rebalance to those underlying models, right? And being aware, and also your, the LifeYield optimizer being aware of those models and their L1 down to whatever L level where you want to go, and security positions, right? So, you know, I think it’s to make this, it’s all that fine tuning, right? That has to happen. And to your point, Martin, like brokerage is an easy thing compared to the managed wrapper and figuring out how do you take those instructions. So, yeah, account type gives you your kind of directional, and then you have to figure out the next level down. And also, you know, but it’s, look, I think, at the end of day, though, this is how the sausage is made. But I think we want the users to feel like there’s integrity of the process, and we made it easier, right? Because it certainly is not easy today, right? Like you’re talking, you know, a lot of work to do and figure that out. We’re using these optimizers to make this a very easy user experience that has that integrity that we’ve thought through how those things work and operate. So I feel good that those days are here. So that’s good. We know what it takes, and that we’re focused on that.

Jack Sharry: Martin, anything to add on this?

Martin Cowley: No, I mean, just on the integrity. The integrity also means that it’s repeatable. It’s consistent. So it doesn’t matter which advisor you go to with your $10,000 withdrawal request, you’re going to get exactly the same answer. And we’ve definitely seen that without that kind of traffic cop that’s figuring out, how do we flow those withdrawals down to the underlying accounts? You get a different answer each time, which is obviously problematic.

Jack Sharry: Eric, anything to add there?

Eric Lordi: Yeah, just the orchestration is super important. So I think, Martin, you’re spot on for sure. Yeah, I think the only other thing that just comes to mind, it’s less the operational piece, but more, you know, it always seems to be more point in time, we’re really moving to an always on concept of, hey, if this is part of the proposal and part of the value prop that’s being positioned, this is now something that’s alive with the client as a part of their adopted proposal, right? So this is something you want to refresh over time. You want to show the progress and the benefit, and it’s not just a static piece of paper at the time of sale, and it kind of goes to everything we just talked about, right? That this is connected to the trading. We have an integrity to the process, and this is something that’s measurable for the client, the benefit. So…

Jack Sharry: That’s great.

Eric Lordi: Super important.

Jack Sharry: Well, this has been a great conversation. Really appreciate this. We could, we could go deeper. Just for our audience, we’re only scratching the surface in terms of the complexity and challenge. And these guys know what they’re doing, and represent teams that are busy working at making it work for in this case, JP Morgan, to make sure it has that integrity and provides kind of results. One of things we haven’t talked about is that the capability has been developed where this can be quantified so the benefit can be realized in dollars, cents, and basis points, in terms of what that incremental value is really to help the investor understand what they’re doing. Eric, you want to weigh in on that?

Eric Lordi: Yeah, no, it’s exactly my point, Jack. So I think the idea is that this isn’t just some super tech just to be super tech, like, the idea is you’re driving a better client outcome, and that dimension of tax management with performance that you’re really realizing an additional benefit for the client is real. The alpha is real. You know, the tax alpha there is something that is quantifiable, and we’re putting processes around, and I think we just really want to make that apparent for clients, right? So there’s dimensions around the portfolio, and you guys know what that is around how we look at different analytics. This is just an additional one that’s super important for driving those better client outcomes.

Jack Sharry: For sure. So this has been a great conversation. I wanted to see if you guys had any final thoughts in terms of takeaways you’d like to leave with our audience. You want to kick it off, Eric?

Eric Lordi: Yeah, I think I definitely win ugliest background. But no, so I think with the total tax management story, location story is very, very important to where we’re going with this household journey, embracing goals based, having an integrated ecosystem that works and plays nice together. So, you know, we’re really focused on the practice advice. I know that’s an old mantra, but it’s a new one, once again, and I think that’s how we’re thinking about these dimensions, and that location is super important to that story.

Jack Sharry: Great. Martin, want to add anything?

Martin Cowley: Well, some of this is going to be selfish from a LifeYield perspective, but…

Jack Sharry: Oh, go ahead.

Martin Cowley: Everything we’ve done has to be flexible, and that’s because we’re looking across multiple companies, multiple client firms. But even within a firm, as I said earlier, there’s a lot of different systems in play. So really, what works for one firm kind of works across firms, we’ve found. And the other thing that we always say is that it can be very tempting to jump in at the deep end with all of this, something like asset location or withdrawals. When you see the benefits, it’s very tempting to try and jump in at the deep end. But ultimately, there are some things that you can do, like the 80/20 rule applies, where you can do, you can get 80% of the benefit with 20% of the work, and then it incrementally improves as you get deeper into the integration. So that’s certainly how we’ve worked, and we’ve built all of our software to make that as easy as possible, to get some quick wins, because it doesn’t have to all be stitched together tightly day one. You know, those silos aren’t, the walls aren’t going to break down overnight. So we’re just building little tunnels between the silos.

Jack Sharry: Gotcha. You know, it’s a number of firms, Envestnet, Vanguard, Morningstar, EY have all done studies on what we’re describing. All have come up with numbers around the same but the numbers for improved outcome are real and quantifiable. The difference is writing about it and talking about is one thing, doing it is quite another, and what these gentlemen are doing is they’re actually making it real, making it happen. They’ve done it, they’re doing it, and continue to do so. So I want to thank them for spending this time on the podcast, it’s been great fun to catch up with you guys. We talk often and talk about these things, you guys, especially in a far more detailed way. For our audience, this podcast is part of a series we’re calling WealthTech in the Weeds. We’ll be doing a bunch of these over the coming months, where our guests describe the benefits and lessons learned from building multi account financial advice platforms. We hope you’ll share this podcast with colleagues and come back to it again and again. There’s a lot of wisdom here. If you’ve enjoyed our podcast, please rate, review, subscribe, and share what we’re doing here at WealthTech on Deck. We’re available wherever you get your podcasts. Eric and Martin, thanks so much. It’s really been a pleasure.

Eric Lordi: Thanks, Jack.

Martin Cowley: Thank you, Jack.

Eric Lordi: Thanks, Martin. Good to see you.

Martin Cowley: Yeah, and you.