MacAlpine Takes CI Financial Private to Scale $525B Wealth Partnership

MacAlpine将CI Financial私有化，以拓展5250亿美元财富合伙业务 传统财富管理之所以失败，是因为顾问壁垒和区域性盈亏核算导致团队与客户利益冲突，唯有推行统一的薪酬模式和仅收取费用的受托人标准，方能构建持久的平台。 Kurt MacAlpine深入解析了他如何将老牌加拿大资产管理公司CI Financial转型为Corient，从而打造出一家管理规模约5250亿美元的全球超高净值财富管理巨头。他解释了为何传统财富管理的激励机制存在根本性缺陷，并通过推行统一的损益核算、统一的薪酬方案以及严格的仅收取费用受托人标准，取代了各自为政的提成与内部竞争部门。讨论详细阐述了MacAlpine如何应对严峻的公开市场波动，在与Mubadala Capital执行私有化交易以护航长期扩张之前，坚决实施大规模股票回购。最后，MacAlpine概述了Corient整合50笔收购交易、打造品牌价值，并立足迈阿密建立持久世代合伙关系的严密方法。 Kurt MacAlpine将CI Financial从一家成熟的加拿大共同基金提供商转型为Corient，打造出全球规模最大、在15个国际司法管辖区管理约5250亿美元资产的联合家族办公室和仅收取费用的受托机构。 (0:02) Corient通过在约3,000名员工中推行单一统一的损益核算与完全相同的薪酬计算公式，消除了顾问与顾问之间以及顾问与企业之间的内部利益冲突。 (23:28) 在经受了公开市场的剧烈波动并大举回购股票后，MacAlpine与Mubadala Capital合作，在零新增负债的情况下完成了CI Financial的私有化，从而使其能够立即启动欧洲业务扩张。 (52:15) Corient并非为了让被购机构创始人套现退休而进行收购，而是要求加入的创始人将本地股权置换为母公司股权，并在第一天就全面采用该公司的品牌、技术和薪酬模式。 (27:58)

Corient CEO Kurt MacAlpine contends that legacy wealth management is structurally impaired by advisor silos, product-driven conflicts, and short-term capital pressures. By restructuring CI Financial into a unified, conflict-free partnership and taking it private with Mubadala Capital, MacAlpine scaled the firm to manage approximately $525 billion in client assets across 15 jurisdictions. Applying Professional Services Partnerships to Wealth Advisory (11:42) Traditional wealth management networks treat advisors as independent contractors competing for client books, creating friction between colleagues and treating specialized estate or tax experts as cost centers. MacAlpine argues that wealth advisory is fundamentally a human capital discipline requiring a balance of cognitive capability and emotional intelligence, similar to law, accounting, and management consulting. Drawing on his experience as a former McKinsey partner, MacAlpine structured Corient around a single firm-wide P&L with zero internal chargebacks and a uniform compensation model across its roughly 3,000 employees. Operating strictly under a fee-only fiduciary standard, Corient rejects broker-dealer suitability models and commission-driven structures. This unified architecture also resolves the jurisdictional siloing common at global money-center banks. When an ultra-high-net-worth client family holds assets across multiple countries, Corient manages the relationship through a single global balance sheet rather than fragmented regional entities, preventing advisors from fighting over localized fee splits. Shared Scale as an Institutional Service Platform (27:58) Independent wealth management firms encounter a structural ceiling between $3 billion and $5 billion in assets, a threshold where ultra-wealthy clients begin demanding sophisticated tax, trust, and family office functions that require substantial capital investment. Corient aggregates scale across hundreds of families to supply these capabilities directly. The firm supports advisory teams with in-house divisions, including 175 investment professionals managing portfolios split roughly 70% in traditional assets and 30% in alternatives, wholly owned trust companies in jurisdictions like South Dakota, and over 100 embedded full-time CPAs who actively participate in estate planning and tax harvesting. This institutional scale also enables Corient to operate non-traditional services without running them as standalone profit centers. In private aviation, Corient purchases aircraft onto its corporate balance sheet and absorbs monthly management fees, charging clients purely on a variable basis for flight hours. Because the firm operates under a fiduciary model, 100% of negotiated institutional pricing discounts and fee reductions from capacity-constrained asset managers are passed directly back to clients. Public Dislocation and the Mubadala Privatization (52:15) MacAlpine assumed leadership of the publicly traded Canadian asset manager CI Financial at age 39, inheriting an entity generating hundreds of millions of dollars in EBITDA that was heavily concentrated in legacy Canadian retail mutual funds. Confronting secular headwinds from exchange-traded funds and private alternative assets, MacAlpine redirected legacy free cash flow and raised fixed-rate, covenant-free debt at 3 to 3.5 turns of leverage to acquire wealth practices and repurchase CI shares. Public markets responded with volatile swings: CI Financial ranked among the best-performing financial services stocks in North America in 2021, before becoming one of the worst performers in 2022. This volatility was exacerbated by CI Financial's float dynamics, where 75% of active shares were traded by momentum hedge funds and value mutual funds undergoing client redemptions. Although management repurchased heavily discounted shares at $12 to $13 per share, Mubadala Capital noted that completing the repurchase plan would take nine years and divert capital from wealth management expansion. Consequently, CI Financial partnered with Mubadala to execute a take-private transaction with zero incremental debt, removing public quarterly scrutiny to focus on long-term expansion. Alignment-Driven Mergers and Long-Runway Partners (34:52) Over its initial six-year expansion, Corient completed approximately 50 acquisitions, prioritizing cultural, strategic, and financial alignment over top-line asset growth. MacAlpine applied an upfront binary filter: prospective partners either embrace full institutional integration—adopting the unified Corient brand, centralized technology stack, and standard compensation—or opt out. MacAlpine cautions that granting autonomy concessions creates operational friction and hidden complexity that degrades client service. Because the platform is engineered around continuous growth rather than monetizing retirement exits, Corient intentionally attracts younger professionals. The firm's median partner age is in the mid-40s—contrasted with an industry median in the early 60s—while the overall median employee age sits in the 30s. MacAlpine emphasizes that long career runways enable a permanent operating horizon, supporting upfront investments in live media advertising and anchoring global operations at its Miami headquarters. While Corient has scaled rapidly to oversee $525 billion, its long-term performance hinges on maintaining operational uniformity and cultural alignment across thousands of staff without stifling the local responsiveness ultra-high-net-worth clients expect. Privatization shields the firm from public equity pressures, but Corient must continue proving that its centralized partnership model can generate organic asset growth over generational timelines.

Corient 首席执行官 Kurt MacAlpine 指出，传统财富管理行业因顾问各自为政的佣金机制而深陷利益冲突；他通过重组专业合伙人制度、推行全公司统一部门核算与纯受托人标准，将一家成熟的加拿大资产管理公司转型为管理规模约 5250 亿美元的超高净值财富管理平台。 破除利益冲突：以专业服务合伙人制取代孤岛架构 (5:32) 传统财富管理行业普遍将顾问视作共享品牌的独立承包商，导致顾问之间相互防范客户资源，并将法务、注册会计师等后台专家视作侵蚀自身佣金的成本中心。此外，多数大型机构采用券商适当性标准，仅要求产品“基本适合”客户而非完全利益优先。曾在麦肯锡担任合伙人的 MacAlpine 指出，财富管理本质是高情商与高智商结合的人力资本行业，理应借鉴管理咨询、法律与会计师事务所的专业合伙人架构。 为彻底消除内部损耗，Corient 在全公司约 3000 名员工中推行绝对一致的治理纪律：实行纯受托人（fee-only fiduciary）标准，杜绝佣金与回扣；全公司仅设立单一损益表（One P&L），严禁跨部门内部转嫁结算；执行统一的薪酬方案且无任何例外条款。MacAlpine 强调，无论顾问来自哪次并购或身处何地，其报酬均取决于当下对整体业务的贡献，从而确保顾问有动力调用全公司资源共同服务客户。 共享规模效应：打造全自研超高净值服务闭环 (20:42) 传统独立财富机构一旦规模达到 30 亿至 50 亿美元，往往受制于高昂的后台成本而无力搭建完整的专业中台。Corient 将前端顾问定位为管理客户整体关系的“四分卫”，后台则配置 175 名专业投资人员（传统资产占 70%、另类资产占 30%）、全球终身财务规划与代际财富传承架构、南达科他州及海外全资信托公司，以及超过 100 名直接嵌入顾问团队的全职注册会计师，协同处理税务筹划与日常节税。 此外，Corient 将规模优势转化为类似开市客（Costco）的“共享经济飞轮”。公司凭借庞大的资金体量争取到顶级稀缺管理人的准入资格与批发级费率优惠，并将借贷与管理费折扣百分之百返还给客户。在非核心衍生服务上，Corient 甚至将私人飞机购入自身资产负债表并承担固定托管费，仅向客户收取实际飞行使用费，旨在以超越预期的综合服务绑定家族跨代忠诚度。 逆向资本运作：现金流再投资、股份回购与私有化 (39:21) MacAlpine 39 岁出任 CI Financial 首席执行官时，公司主要利润高度依赖面临 ETF 和另类投资挤压的加拿大传统零售公募基金。他力排众议，利用传统业务充沛的自由现金流并结合 3 到 3.5 倍的长期无契约固定利率债务，大举向美国超高净值财富管理领域扩张，同时在二级市场上以每股 12 至 13 美元的低价激进回购被严重低估的股份。 然而，公开市场对激进转型表现出剧烈震荡：2021 年该股位列北美金融股表现前列，2022 年却沦为垫底。这主要源于约 75% 的活跃流通盘被追求短期动量的对冲基金与遭遇持续赎回的价值型公募基金主导，股价波动与内部基本面严重脱节。最终，阿布扎比主权基金 Mubadala Capital 指出公开市场逐年回购需耗时约 9 年且会分散主业扩张资金，双方遂达成私有化交易，在不增加额外杠杆的情况下将公司带离公开市场，彻底解除了公募财报周期的掣肘。 零妥协整合与代际传承：以对齐而非规模为先导 (59:08) 在 6 年内完成的约 50 笔并购交易中，Corient 明确将企业文化、战略与财务对齐置于资产管理规模之上。MacAlpine 认为，允许被收购机构保留独立品牌或个性化考核体系的“灵活性”实质是推迟矛盾的妥协。在 Corient，新加入的机构必须自首日起全面切换为 Corient 品牌、统一接入技术平台并搬入共享办公室。这种极度严苛的整合路径构成了反向筛选机制，使公司成为认同合伙理念者的首选，或是固守领地者的末选。 与传统财富管理行业顾问中位年龄达 60 岁出头、并购多为创始人套现退休的现状不同，Corient 将重心放在拥有数十年职业跑道的合伙人身上，其合伙人中位年龄仅为 40 岁出头（全员中位年龄在 30 岁左右）。2020 年 4 月，MacAlpine 选择在一张白纸上从零起步，将总部设立在政商环境积极的迈阿密，并通过持续赞助高端商业财经转播建立持久的品牌心智，贯彻长期主义合伙运作。 MacAlpine 认为，传统财富机构大多受困于私募股权 18 至 36 个月的短期退出周期或上市公司的季报压力，难以在品牌沉淀与长线合伙人机制上坚决投入；Corient 试图以彻底一体化的无摩擦架构解决这一顽疾。不过，随着管理资产规模突破 5250 亿美元并跨越 15 个司法管辖区，这种高度集权的单一考核与全方位整合模式能否在未来的全球深度扩张中持续兼顾执行效率与本土合伙人积极性，仍有待市场长期检验。

[62:37] Kurt MacAlpine: The only reason that we should work together is if two things are true. I make you better and you make me better. [23:28] Kurt MacAlpine: Once you start to put silos in place, once you start to segment your P&L, once you start to run chargebacks, you're inherently creating underlying friction in the business. [5:32] Kurt MacAlpine: The big loser is the client because the client doesn't get access to the full benefits of the firm. The client is marginalized down to the individual person or team that originated the relationship with them.

[0:02] How do you describe what you do? Um, [0:05] >> so I'm a partner and the CEO of Corant, [0:07] which is the largest multif family [0:09] office in the world and the largest [0:11] non-bank wealth manager serving ultra [0:13] high worth clients. So today we're [0:15] managing about $525 billion of assets on [0:18] behalf of clients across 15 [0:20] jurisdictions globally. [0:21] >> We hung out in Miami a few weeks ago and [0:24] at the end of that meeting I was like, [0:26] damn it, I wish we would just recorded [0:27] this. would have been one of the best [0:29] episodes I would be capable of creating [0:32] because it's not only that you're the [0:33] largest in the world. You have 525 uh [0:36] billion of asset center management for [0:37] client assets, right? But it's the fact [0:39] that you came from almost the outside [0:42] and re-engineered the incentive [0:46] structure of an existing industry and [0:47] the way you thought about doing this was [0:49] fascinating. I would step back too. It's [0:51] like at 39 years old, I don't think [0:53] you'd ever been a CEO at that point. [0:54] Correct. Correct. So can we start the [0:56] story from you're 39, you're getting [0:58] recruited to be the CEO of this Canadian [1:00] company and then bring us up to where [1:02] you are today? [1:03] >> Sure. So um CI was a publicly traded [1:05] Canadian asset manager trading on the [1:06] Toronto Stock Exchange had been public [1:08] for about 25 years at that point in [1:10] time. the primary business was Canadian [1:12] asset management. Um and essentially [1:14] economically and there was a small [1:16] wealth management business in Canada uh [1:18] or or small relative to the size of the [1:20] asset manager but economically the [1:22] entire um profitability of the firm was [1:26] derived effectively from the Canadian [1:28] mutual fund business [1:29] >> and they were making how much at the [1:30] time? [1:31] >> Several hundred million a year of Ebida. [1:33] >> Okay. And so why did they need a new [1:34] CEO? the mutual fund industry like like [1:36] all industries kind of go go through [1:38] through es and es and flows and I think [1:40] that the um go forward growth prospects [1:43] for mutual funds as a structure in [1:45] particular rise of ETFs you know [1:47] increasing importance of alternatives um [1:50] just the expected growth uh or the [1:53] growth kind of the trends around growth [1:54] that we were seeing in mutual funds [1:56] started to taper off relative to to [1:58] other areas. So the company was looking [2:00] for a new strategic direction for the [2:03] business at that point in time. Decided [2:05] to do an executive search. I was [2:07] fortunate enough to be the candidate [2:08] they had selected as as part of that [2:10] search process. [2:10] >> But you come in with a rather like [2:12] aggressive plan. Like where did that [2:14] aggressive plan come from? [2:15] >> A couple of different things. One um I I [2:17] had an opportunity to to spend I spent [2:20] my entire career in the industry through [2:22] a couple of different lenses. So I spent [2:24] 10 years in a advisory capacity working [2:26] as a management consultant. spent about [2:28] four and a half years post that four to [2:30] four and a half years as an operator uh [2:32] inside of an asset management business [2:34] and and through that you you kind of [2:35] build points of view and perspectives. [2:38] You see things that work really well. [2:39] You see things that you think uh are are [2:42] ripe for improvement. And in the case of [2:44] this particular business, I saw [2:46] tremendous benefits towards globalizing [2:49] and diversifying the company. And I had [2:51] a very strong point of view that I [2:52] wanted to do that by launching an ultra [2:55] high net worth wealth management [2:56] business first in the US hopefully [2:59] generating enough success to be able to [3:01] globalize that business. [3:02] >> Why was that the most interesting idea [3:04] to you? [3:04] >> It was interesting for a few different [3:06] reasons. So I think that um there were [3:08] really kind of three things that stood [3:09] out to me. The first one was in wealth [3:12] management and ultra high net worth [3:14] wealth management in particular. Um you [3:16] know industries have headwinds or [3:18] tailwinds. Obviously, I believe wealth [3:20] management has a tremendous amount of [3:21] tailwinds. There's more wealth being [3:23] created today than ever. That wealth is [3:26] more concentrated than ever. There's [3:28] more complexity tied to that wealth than [3:30] ever. It's transitioning generations [3:32] faster than ever. And it's more global [3:35] than ever. All of those things support [3:37] the underlying need for advice. So, that [3:39] was kind of the first piece. [3:41] Second piece was I felt like it was an [3:44] industry that was ripe for disruption [3:46] along a couple of different dimensions. [3:48] So the first one is around the industry [3:51] structure. So think of it as our [3:53] industry as a giant barbell. So on one [3:55] end of that barbell you have large banks [3:58] that theoretically can do everything for [4:00] clients or certainly have the resources [4:02] to do so. But whether it's governance, [4:04] bureaucracy, internal conflicts, in my [4:07] opinion, they give give back a lot of [4:09] the scale benefits that clients should [4:11] ultimately be benefiting from. [4:13] >> Wait, what does that mean? [4:14] >> From a size perspective, you know, they [4:16] have access to capital, they have access [4:17] to resources, they can theoretically [4:18] make strategic investments. It's [4:20] challenging sometimes to align and [4:22] mobilize all of those things where [4:24] clients ultimately benefit. So companies [4:26] over time whether it's the governance [4:29] whether it's internal policies whether [4:30] it's bureaucracy just prevent clients [4:32] from getting the full underlying [4:34] benefits of the firm that could be as a [4:37] result of how the business is structured [4:39] how compensation plans work which I'll [4:40] come back to or just how information [4:42] flows or how teams are ultimately [4:44] constructed. On the other end of that [4:46] barbell though you have small local [4:49] firms that exist all throughout the [4:50] country literally all all around the [4:53] world. Many of those firms are doing [4:55] exceptional things for clients. The [4:57] challenge is scale becomes a challenge [5:00] because that may limit your ability to [5:02] get access to world-class managers that [5:04] have capacity constraints. It may limit [5:06] your ability to negotiate purchasing [5:09] power on behalf of your clients and it [5:11] may limit the services that you're [5:12] ultimately able to to provide to them. [5:14] So you start to run into limitations [5:16] around what you can do for clients as a [5:18] result of the scale. in between kind of [5:21] these two ends of the barbell there's a [5:22] tremendous amount of white space that [5:24] just creates opportunities for [5:26] disruptive new entrance. So, so that was [5:28] the second piece and then the third [5:30] piece is [5:32] I felt very very strongly that the [5:35] industry was built on a flawed structure [5:37] and I'll explain to you what I mean by [5:39] that. So effectively, regardless of the [5:41] firm, regardless of the market, almost [5:43] all advisory businesses are built the [5:45] same way. Wealth advisory businesses, [5:47] advisers are independent contractors [5:50] sharing somebody's brand, somebody's [5:53] technology, and somebody's office space. [5:55] Those advisers not only compete with one [5:58] another for next new client, but they [6:00] can literally take clients from one [6:01] another inside of the same firm, which [6:03] creates a tremendous amount of [6:05] isolation, uh, not collaboration. So if [6:07] I'm a customer of JP I'm just using [6:10] example JP Morgan wealth management I'm [6:13] I'm tied to one person right but I'm [6:15] actually a customer of that person not [6:18] JP because they're not working as a team [6:20] correct correct in the sense that [6:22] depending upon the firm the advisor the [6:24] client's experience is tied to the [6:27] adviser that originates the relationship [6:29] with them so think of it as most wealth [6:32] businesses are built to serve advisors. [6:35] We wanted to build a wealth business [6:36] that was built to serve clients and the [6:39] adviserss and the firm and the resources [6:41] support those underlying uh support the [6:44] underlying clients. [6:44] >> Yeah. And there's all this like [6:45] incentive misalignment. When we were [6:46] talking in Miami, you were saying like, [6:48] you know, let's say you need an expert [6:50] >> to come to a meeting and that expert one [6:52] hour of that expert's time is $10,000. [6:55] Can you tell that like that story? [6:56] >> Yeah. So that so that was the first so [6:57] the first piece is you have this adviser [6:59] to advisor tension which creates silos [7:01] or isolation. So that starts to limit [7:03] the expertise that can be delivered to [7:05] the end client just due to the structure [7:07] of the business. The second piece is the [7:09] adviserss and how the other front office [7:11] capabilities or services uh work with [7:14] those adviserss. That could be tax [7:16] professionals, it can be financial [7:17] planning, it can be wealth transfer, it [7:19] can be family office and in most [7:21] instances those services act as a cost [7:24] center to the adviser. So we're ideally [7:27] the client would benefit from the full [7:29] expertise. there's a limitation around [7:31] the adviser sitting there saying do I [7:34] need to bring this person because it's [7:36] going to have a negative impact on me [7:38] personally to bring them to the [7:39] conversation or can I work around that [7:42] conversation right so there's tension in [7:43] my opinion between the adviserss and the [7:46] front office staff that ultimately [7:48] supports them and then the third area of [7:50] tension is effectively you have advisers [7:52] who are paid effectively for doing two [7:55] things generating as much revenue as [7:57] they can or commissions as they and from [7:59] clients. That's the first step. The [8:01] second step then is how much of that you [8:03] can hoard and not share with other [8:05] people because when you're paid under [8:07] those structures, you're incented to not [8:09] only aggregate, but the more that you [8:11] share, the less that you ultimately [8:12] earn. So, so that creates obviously the [8:15] tension as I mentioned between [8:16] adviserss, but everybody that supports [8:19] the adviserss typically gets paid on the [8:21] financial success of the business and [8:23] often those two things don't converge [8:25] and it creates a lot of underlying [8:27] tension. So my whole view was if you [8:29] step back and say your advisers have [8:31] tension, your advisers in front office [8:33] have tension and your advisers in middle [8:35] and back office have tension, the big [8:37] loser is the client because the client [8:39] doesn't get access to the full benefits [8:42] of the firm. The client is marginalized [8:45] down to the individual person or team [8:47] that originated the relationship with [8:49] them. The second big loser in my opinion [8:52] is actually the firm because these [8:53] businesses don't end up becoming [8:55] companies. They become platforms where [8:57] individuals plug into the businesses for [9:00] for some sort of period of time. But [9:02] you're not really building a team, a [9:04] culture. You're not collaborating and [9:05] problem solving together across the [9:07] firm. That's limited from a based upon [9:10] the silo that you ultimately work in. So [9:12] when I step back and look at those three [9:13] things, tremendous amount of tailwinds, [9:16] an industry with a barbell like [9:17] structure that's ripe for disruption and [9:20] and an operating model, call it, which I [9:23] believe to be fundamentally flawed. It [9:25] just creates an opportunity in my [9:27] opinion for for somebody to come in and [9:30] and disrupt that with the goal of doing [9:32] more things for clients. [9:33] >> I want to tell you about the presenting [9:34] sponsor of this podcast, RAMP. I have [9:36] been reading a lot about SpaceX lately. [9:38] SpaceX is one of the most valuable [9:40] businesses in the world and one of the [9:41] main themes in the history of SpaceX is [9:43] constantly attacking and questioning [9:45] your cost. Ramp helps many of the most [9:47] innovative businesses in the world do [9:49] exactly that. The median company running [9:51] on ramp cuts their expenses by 5%. And [9:54] one thing SpaceX has demonstrated is [9:57] that a religious dedication to [9:58] controlling costs can help actually [10:00] increase revenue because you can pursue [10:02] opportunities you couldn't otherwise. [10:04] And we see that in the ramp data, too. [10:07] The median company running on ramp also [10:09] grows their revenue by 16%. So when [10:12] you're running your business on ramp and [10:14] your competitors are not, you have a [10:16] massive competitive advantage that [10:18] compounds over time. Ramp is the only [10:20] platform designed to make your finance [10:22] team faster and happier. Many of the top [10:24] founders and CEOs I know run their [10:26] business on ramp. I run my business on [10:28] ramp and you should too. Go to ramp.com [10:30] to learn how they can help your business [10:32] save time, save money, and grow revenue. [10:35] That is ramp.com. [10:37] I found one of my all-time favorite [10:38] quotes when I was reading the book 0ero [10:40] to1. The quote says, "The single most [10:42] powerful pattern I have noticed is that [10:44] successful people find value in [10:46] unexpected places and they do this by [10:48] thinking about business from first [10:50] principles instead of formulas." That is [10:52] exactly what Apploven has done with [10:54] their advertising platform. Apploven [10:56] connects you with over a billion [10:57] potential new customers in mobile games. [11:00] Apploven allows you to capture undivided [11:02] attention. Apploving ads are full screen [11:04] videos that are watched for an average [11:06] of 35 seconds. That is retention that [11:09] blows other ad platforms out of the [11:11] water. And you can launch on Apploven in [11:13] minutes. You set the goal and Apploven [11:16] achieves it. No complex setup, no [11:18] expertise needed. And Apploven scales [11:20] quickly. They can put your ads in front [11:22] of over a billion potential customers. [11:24] Other businesses have seen immediate [11:26] results scale to hundreds of thousands [11:28] of dollars of spend per day and increase [11:30] their revenue by millions. So you want [11:33] to get started quickly before all of [11:34] your competitors are on Apploven and you [11:37] can do that by going to apploven.com [11:39] that's apploven.com. [11:42] So before we get back to going into this [11:45] existing structure with these ideas and [11:47] this understanding where did this flawed [11:51] like the difference between you're not [11:53] building a company you're building so [11:54] you have a platform like what is the [11:55] history of this then where did this come [11:57] from? Why was it set up that way to [11:59] begin with? It's a great question. Uh, [12:00] and I don't know the answer to why it [12:02] was set up that way to begin with, but [12:04] it's it's the business model that all [12:07] large wealth managers seemingly have [12:09] taken. And when I look at that and if I [12:12] step back for a second and say, put [12:14] aside the structure of wealth [12:15] management, but what are wealth [12:17] adviserss ultimately doing for clients [12:19] and what service are you providing? And [12:21] I think about the role that wealth [12:22] adviserss play as kind of the ultimate [12:24] human capital business, right? In order [12:25] to be good at the job, you need a [12:27] tremendous amount of EQ, a tremendous [12:29] amount of IQ. How those advisers pair [12:31] that together to work with clients is [12:33] ultimately what defines success. So if I [12:36] park the structure that the industry has [12:39] chosen and and look at, well, how are [12:42] other human capital businesses [12:43] structured? They all kind of have the [12:46] same underlying structure. So as I [12:47] mentioned, I was a partner at Mckenzian [12:49] company. Every single management [12:50] consulting firm is a partnership. Every [12:52] law firm is a partnership. every [12:53] accounting firm, many of the most [12:55] successful investment businesses, [12:57] advisory businesses, uh, operating [12:59] companies are partnerships. [13:00] >> But wait, the wealth managers weren't [13:02] >> weren't. So, effectively to wildly [13:04] overly simplify the corient structure, [13:07] we created the first true professional [13:09] services partnership and applied it to [13:11] the wealth management industry. And the [13:14] goal was to use that structure to create [13:17] a fundamentally different experience for [13:19] clients and ideally a much more [13:21] attractive collaborative environment uh [13:24] for colleagues and given it's a [13:25] partnership ultimately owners of the [13:27] business as well. [13:28] >> Okay. So let's go back. You have this [13:29] idea. You're like I'll take the job but [13:31] I have a super aggressive plan. Y [13:33] >> what's the response to the company? So [13:34] that was part of my pitch as part of the [13:36] interview process to the board was they [13:37] had asked my opinions obviously as part [13:40] of that on the future how I saw the [13:42] future direction of the company. I [13:43] outlined a strategy probably the one of [13:46] the the core pillars of the strategy was [13:48] to to effectively launch the business [13:50] that's that's core today. Um fortunately [13:53] for me I had a phenomenal board. Uh the [13:56] board was comprised of significant [13:58] owners of the business who had a [13:59] tremendous amount of vested interest in [14:01] the company. Um, but we're also great at [14:04] delegating but also collaborating and [14:06] providing advice. So, it was it was very [14:07] very welcomed and because we had such a [14:10] transparent conversation around what the [14:13] strategy will look like as part of my [14:15] interview process, we were able to hit [14:17] the ground running from the day that I [14:19] started. [14:19] >> Weren't you running a similar idea or [14:21] playbook to the original founder of that [14:23] company, too? [14:23] >> You know, so it's interesting. Um, so [14:25] you're probably referring to Bill [14:26] Holland who was a previous CEO who was [14:28] the chairman of the company. [14:29] >> Okay. So, Bill um Bill and and and Ray [14:33] Chang and Ray's Ray's daughter was uh on [14:35] the board with us ultimately as well um [14:37] had done a tremendous job of effectively [14:40] building scale in the Canadian asset [14:43] management industry. So at the point in [14:45] time they saw an industry that was [14:46] subscale ripe for disruption um and and [14:50] took advantage and [14:51] >> they did that through acquisition [14:52] >> through acquisition through a series of [14:53] acquisitions in the Canadian marketplace [14:55] focused on uh on the mutual fund [14:57] industry and and did an amazing amazing [14:59] job with it and a lot of that kind of [15:00] put CI in in in the privileged position [15:03] that the company was in uh at that point [15:05] in time. And so something we um you [15:07] repeated when we we spoke previously is [15:09] like I I don't remember the exact line [15:10] but basically you think the most [15:12] dangerous thing that you can do is stand [15:13] still. Like the biggest risk is taking [15:15] no risk. [15:16] >> Yeah. [15:16] >> So they're in a dwindling what sounds [15:18] like a dwindling business. Yeah. [15:20] >> So are you going to just sit here and [15:21] and just take less money every year or [15:23] you going to do something drastically [15:24] different? [15:25] >> Yeah. And I think that that that to me I [15:27] always tell people you know often times [15:29] people get comfort when things aren't [15:31] changing. That's when you should be the [15:32] most uncomfortable. I mean, look at the [15:34] business you're in, right? It's just [15:36] everything is changing around us at all [15:38] times. And so, I'm the most nervous when [15:40] things aren't changing. And ideally, the [15:42] change is happening. So, then the [15:44] question is, are you leading the change? [15:46] Are you participating in the change? Or [15:47] are you disrupting the change? And I [15:49] think you're always better to be the one [15:51] pushing the change forward on behalf of [15:53] the firm or the industry. Before we get [15:56] into how you go from CI to corant, [16:00] >> you seem wildly ambitious. Every time [16:02] I've talked to you, you say like you [16:04] want to be the best in the world at what [16:05] you do. [16:06] >> Yeah. [16:07] >> If you were never been a CEO up until [16:08] 39, right? Did that ambition come later [16:11] in life? Were you like that younger? [16:13] >> No. [16:13] >> That's very unusual to be like, [16:15] >> "Hey, I've had two decades of [16:17] professional experience and I'm going to [16:18] jump in and like Gangask Khan, try to [16:20] take over this industry." Yeah, I've [16:22] always um I've always been personally [16:25] ambitious. I'm also a huge proponent of [16:27] doing things you're genuinely passionate [16:28] about. I love the wealth management [16:30] industry. I love human capital [16:32] businesses. Again, I thought there was a [16:34] tremendous opportunity for disruption. [16:37] So my whole thing is, you know, as you [16:39] mentioned on change is one, you should [16:41] feel uncomfortable if you're not [16:42] changing, if you're not constantly [16:43] pushing yourself. The other firm belief [16:46] that I have is people really benefit [16:48] from deep specialized expertise. I think [16:50] Matt just think of all the folks that [16:52] that you're interviewing and and having [16:53] conversations with they have positioned [16:56] themselves to be deeper and better at [16:58] something whatever that ultimately is [17:00] and that typically leads to outsized in [17:03] um returns uh and outcomes for them. I [17:06] think in many in many instances human [17:08] nature guides people towards [17:11] optionality, right? So people get a [17:13] little more comfort in optionality. I [17:14] want to be able to do this this this and [17:16] then this. And you can be fine at a [17:19] bunch of those things, but it's very [17:20] very hard to be world class ultimately [17:22] as something. So really the focus was [17:24] how do we push ourselves to build the [17:28] best business for clients in ultra high [17:30] net worth management globally and that's [17:33] been the aspiration for the business [17:34] since we since we started. [17:35] >> Okay. So you you become CEO of this [17:38] company. You have this plan. You've [17:39] clearly thought about all the like what [17:41] you want to do which you just laid out [17:42] for us. [17:44] >> What are the assets that you have? you [17:45] have a couple hundred million in cash [17:47] flow that you can deploy and then your [17:48] idea is like we're going to essentially [17:50] empty the the tank. We're going to take [17:52] all that money and [17:54] >> lever up day one on the job. What are [17:55] you what are you doing? [17:56] >> There's a couple things that I guess [17:57] you're doing. So as it relates to to [17:59] building the Cororean business so I had [18:01] this point of view around both the [18:04] opportunity set in ultra high worth [18:05] wealth management and then call it the [18:07] disruptive structure that we wanted to [18:09] put in place uh from an industry [18:11] perspective. So really the first thing I [18:13] guess like any idea or business that [18:15] you're trying to get off the ground is [18:17] is what you're proposing going to [18:19] resonate? Does this structure it is [18:21] fundamentally different how we operate [18:23] the business from other wealth managers? [18:26] Is this going to resonate with great [18:28] entrepreneurs in wealth management who [18:30] who see and align with this vision? So [18:32] really kind of the first objective is is [18:35] this really filling a void in the [18:38] marketplace both for clients and wealth [18:40] advisory professionals that is going to [18:42] resonate where this business is [18:44] ultimately going to going to generate [18:45] success. And then you know on the back [18:47] of that as the concept starts to take [18:49] off then you start to think about [18:51] capital prioritization trade-offs things [18:53] like that. Actually, you know what? [18:54] Let's let's talk about the way your [18:57] business is structured and run and then [18:58] we'll talk about how you did it because [18:59] that that that this is what I was I was [19:01] like, well, why you were explaining like [19:03] all these little the barbell strategy to [19:05] me before and I was like, well, why are [19:07] all these cuz you're growing by [19:08] acquisition. It's like why would they [19:09] sell anyways and you were explaining the [19:11] benefits and and then what you do. So, [19:13] if you just want to lay out like you you [19:14] had a disruptive idea, what is that [19:16] disruptive idea and you explain that? [19:18] >> Yeah. So again, I thought there was a [19:20] tremendous opportunity for somebody to [19:22] come in and disrupt the ultra high worth [19:23] wealth management industry. And the way [19:26] that we sought out to to to achieve that [19:28] was effectively we wanted to get the [19:30] structure right. Again, I've said I felt [19:32] like the industry was built on a [19:33] fundamentally flawed structure that does [19:36] not facilitate the best outcomes for [19:38] clients, nor does it facilitate [19:39] collaboration internally. So I felt like [19:42] if you could get the structure right [19:44] then you could you could actually start [19:45] to optimize the business in a way that [19:47] that starts to make sense for clients [19:49] and ultimately employees. The way that [19:51] we want to position ourselves to be the [19:53] best is we want to be the most [19:54] comprehensive provider of wealth [19:56] management services to ultra high worth [19:58] families globally. So, you know, shortly [20:00] after launching the business, as we were [20:02] kind of trying to prove out the [20:04] structure and the concept around the [20:07] partnership model relative to the [20:08] industry norm, we were thinking about [20:10] what is the what does this business look [20:12] like as we ultimately start to scale. [20:15] And you know, you have a you set a high [20:16] bar for yourself around we want to be [20:18] able to do more. And I anyone who's [20:20] joining Corey and I have this [20:21] conversation with them by you joining [20:24] you should make us better. We should [20:25] make you better. and we should [20:27] collectively be able to do more for [20:29] clients than both of us running on our [20:32] independent paths. So the way that we [20:34] kind of set out to build that was we [20:36] wanted to build this more comprehensive [20:38] servicing service offering for all China [20:40] worth families. And so you know it's [20:42] very quickly what we've ultimately built [20:44] out. So we have a wealth advisory [20:45] component uh or function which is the [20:48] individuals that oversee and manage the [20:50] client relationships. So think of those [20:51] as the relationship quarterbacks. They [20:53] are supported by the following [20:55] capabilities. We have global financial [20:56] planning capabilities. Think about [20:58] planning for everything associated with [21:00] your your lifetime. Uh we have a global [21:03] wealth transfer capability. So think of [21:04] that as everything that extends beyond [21:06] your natural life. We have 175 people in [21:09] our investment team split about 70% on [21:12] traditional investments, 30% on [21:14] alternative investments. Um we own and [21:16] operate several trust companies. We use [21:18] South Dakota here in the US, but lots of [21:20] different jurisdictions around the [21:21] world. Uh we have a tax practice. We [21:23] have over a 100 full-time accountants [21:25] working at Corient that not only do tax [21:28] advice for clients and tax [21:30] implementation, but we literally embed [21:32] those experts on the wealth advisory [21:34] teams. So, they're working on everything [21:36] from the financial plan, the wealth [21:38] transfer conversations, the trust [21:39] structuring. Uh they're actively [21:41] involved in the investment conversations [21:43] around harvesting losses. Um and it [21:45] really starts to show how when you [21:47] mobilize these resources, you can [21:49] ultimately do more for clients. We have [21:51] a full family office. We pay people's [21:52] bills. We do outsource CFO. We do [21:55] customized reporting, concierge lending. [21:57] We manage complex residential real [21:59] estate projects. We have an aviation [22:01] business. We have an art management [22:02] business. And and really the goal was [22:04] how do we do more for clients across the [22:08] firm given that we have no limitations [22:10] to collaboration internally and I think [22:13] it's a huge competitive advantage for [22:14] us. [22:15] >> Say more about the aviation business. We [22:16] were talking about this before we [22:17] started recording. As I mentioned, we're [22:19] serving ultra high net worth clients [22:21] across a variety of different different [22:22] markets uh around the world. So, we have [22:24] tremendous scale in terms of the the [22:27] size of the business, but also the [22:28] relationships and the families that we [22:30] ultimately have access to. And we [22:32] thought that there was an opportunity [22:33] for us to provide a service to them or [22:35] multiple different services, aviation [22:36] being one example, where through just [22:39] the size and scale and the relationships [22:41] that we have at Coran through perhaps [22:42] taking a different approach, we could [22:44] provide them a relatively unique [22:46] service. So we effectively have an [22:47] aviation business where we own aircraft [22:50] on behalf of our clients for their [22:51] collective use. Um so think of it as we [22:54] take the balance sheet risk from buying [22:56] the asset. We take the um uh the risk [22:59] associated with the monthly manager fee [23:00] and then clients effectively pay uh uh [23:03] for the use of the aircraft um uh you [23:06] know depending upon how they use it. So, [23:08] it's really given us a unique opport [23:10] >> but not this is not a profit center for [23:11] you. This is the most interesting thing [23:13] cuz like I was trying to you know wrap [23:15] my head around all this the last time we [23:17] met and the the the model I had in my [23:20] mind was like you you're kind of you [23:21] have this like Costco shared economy [23:24] scaled to what you're doing. [23:26] >> Yeah. [23:26] >> So, can you go into that a little bit? [23:28] >> The way that I like to position the [23:30] businesses I think that we've built what [23:33] I deem to be the only truly [23:34] conflict-free business in wealth [23:36] management. But let me define that. I [23:38] think businesses get conflicted two [23:40] different ways. The first way that they [23:42] conflicted get conflicted is based upon [23:44] the structure of of the business or how [23:46] they ultimately govern themselves. So [23:48] think of it as two different standards [23:49] of care. Fiduciary standard of care. [23:52] You're operating in the client's best [23:53] interest at all times. You're obligated [23:55] to do so because of that standard or or [23:58] a suitability standard which is [24:00] effectively is is the product or the [24:01] service that you're offering good enough [24:03] to extend ultimately to the client. We [24:05] have built the entire business to be a [24:08] fee only fiduciary business. So [24:10] operating essentially at the highest [24:11] standard of care. We're the largest [24:14] business in the world that operates [24:15] under that standard of care. So anyone [24:17] larger than us has the ability to [24:19] operate at a lower standard of care. So [24:21] that's the first piece. Second piece is [24:24] um in terms of the business model that [24:26] you ultimately put in place and this [24:27] ties to how we ultimately serve clients [24:30] and how we work together. And so the [24:33] goal when we launched the business was I [24:35] wanted to make sure that there were no [24:38] structural impediments to collaboration [24:40] from the onset. So if you think about [24:42] every possible decision that you could [24:44] make that would prevent something from [24:46] collaborating, we've effectively in my [24:49] opinion removed it um at the launch of [24:52] the business. So I'll give you two [24:53] examples. So we have about give or take [24:56] 3,000 people inside of the Corant [24:57] business today. We have one compensation [24:59] plan. We have no exceptions to the [25:01] compensation plan. And the reason for [25:03] that is once you start to put exceptions [25:04] in place, let's say you and I work [25:06] together, you're paid one way, I'm paid [25:07] another way. It is very very hard for us [25:10] to objectively serve a client with [25:12] different outcomes or different [25:13] objectives. And that is kind of true [25:15] across the different elements of the [25:16] business. The second example I'll give [25:18] is I run one P&L across the firm and I [25:20] don't do any form of chargebacks. So [25:22] again, you think about getting great [25:24] experts in front of clients as quickly [25:27] as possible with relevant expertise. [25:29] Once you start to put silos in place, [25:31] once you start to segment your P&L, once [25:33] you start to run chargebacks, you're [25:35] inherently creating underlying friction [25:37] in the business. So effectively, you [25:39] know, by operating the business that [25:41] way, fee only fiduciary standard uh a [25:44] structure in place that maximizes [25:46] collaboration with no restrictions [25:48] towards it ultimately happening. It [25:50] allows you to think about delivering [25:52] services for clients that are that are [25:54] different and outside of call it the [25:56] norm of just traditional wealth [25:59] management or wealth advisory. [26:00] >> This is what I was trying to get to [26:01] where it's like you're not concerned [26:03] about what other people in your industry [26:05] are doing. Your northstar is like we [26:07] just want to keep serving clients [26:08] better. [26:08] >> Correct. Exactly. [26:09] >> So if that ser if we can offer a service [26:12] that ultra high net worth people would [26:13] benefit from it doesn't matter if other [26:16] people in the industry are not doing [26:17] that. [26:17] >> Correct. [26:17] >> That is the only thing we're focused on. [26:19] Absolutely. We want to be the best in [26:20] the world at serving ultra high worth [26:22] clients and we think we can do that [26:23] through deep specialized expertise. So [26:26] the adviserss again I mentioned people [26:28] love to play on optionality. I can serve [26:30] a tech entrepreneur. I can serve a small [26:33] business owner. I can serve a corporate [26:35] executive. Those are all very different [26:36] skills. So so we push ourselves deep [26:39] specialized expertise that starts in [26:41] terms of the clients that you ultimately [26:43] serve. And I'm always encouraging people [26:45] be as specialized as possible. the more [26:47] specialized you are, the more relevant [26:49] you are, the better advice that you can [26:51] ultimately uh give to your clients and [26:53] then it extends beyond the service [26:55] offering. And the goal is by pairing all [26:58] of these pieces together, we can do more [27:00] for clients because we're helping to [27:01] connect the dots. Like a lot of the [27:03] services that I had mentioned are [27:05] services that clients need or want or [27:08] ultimately use. And if we're not piecing [27:11] it together for them, we're putting that [27:12] burden ultimately on them. So by being [27:15] able to manage somebody's financial [27:17] plan, somebody's wealth transfer, [27:20] managing their investments, overseeing [27:22] their tax, executing their trusts, by [27:24] thinking about that as a collective [27:26] problem as opposed to, you know, five or [27:29] six individual decisions, I think it [27:31] leads to meaningfully better better [27:33] outcomes. But again, you can't do it if [27:35] you have a structure in place that [27:38] prevents you from from being able to [27:40] achieve that. And that's why it was so [27:41] important launch the private partnership [27:44] to align objectives and create a [27:46] fundamentally different experience and [27:47] then audit every possible area of the [27:51] business model to ensure that there's [27:53] nothing internally that would create [27:55] these tensions or silos or conflicts [27:57] that would limit the client experience. [27:58] >> Okay, I'm glad you said it cuz it's like [28:00] 45 minutes into our last conversation [28:01] where I was like, "Oh shit." I started [28:03] to grasp like this flywheel that you [28:06] have. What I found interesting is like [28:08] okay this I'm I'm going to extend this [28:11] like shared economy scale metaphor. [28:13] You're doing that for your customers. [28:14] It's like I'm taking care of your [28:16] aviation or art management or all these [28:18] other things that you can go to other [28:19] places for. It's like I don't need to [28:20] make money off that. like I just want to [28:21] serve you better and I know you'll stay [28:23] with me and therefore like the the [28:25] compounding effect of that like not only [28:27] there's very low turnover like turn with [28:29] customers in some cases it goes into the [28:31] next generation which is very [28:32] interesting multiple generations [28:34] >> but then you also do shared economy [28:37] scale with the the wealth managers [28:39] you're acquiring where it's like if [28:40] you're like a little boutique like [28:42] explain the benefits of how you're [28:44] taking the scale that you have at [28:45] Corient and you're approaching somebody [28:46] that you know there might be two guys or [28:48] three guys in an office, but you want to [28:51] acquire them. Why would they come and [28:52] agree to do it with you? [28:54] >> A lot of different reasons, I guess, [28:55] that people would contemplate [28:56] transacting. If you're looking at it [28:57] strictly from a client perspective first [28:58] and then you can kind of work your way [29:00] back. So, from a client perspective, [29:03] scale creates benefits if applied in the [29:06] right manner. So, our scale creates a [29:09] number of different things for us. So, [29:10] I'll just give a few examples. Access to [29:13] certain managers, right? So, you think [29:14] about some managers are capacity [29:16] constrained. They're harder to get [29:17] access to. having scale and being a a [29:20] more meaningful investor for them [29:22] creates opportunities and access points [29:24] that otherwise might not have existed. [29:25] >> I don't think I understand that point. [29:27] >> On the investment side, there's kind of [29:28] two things. One is are you able to get [29:31] invested in the best managers in a [29:33] respective, you know, discipline or [29:34] asset class? And the second piece is [29:36] does your scale create purchasing power [29:39] benefits? So, literally the volume under [29:41] which you're investing, does that allow [29:43] you to negotiate better rates on behalf [29:45] of your underlying clients? as a fee [29:47] only fiduciary. On on that second point, [29:50] whenever we negotiate better rates for [29:52] our clients, we pass those rates on to [29:54] the clients for their collective [29:55] benefit. And then that that extends a [29:58] lot of different ways. The lending rates [29:59] that we're able to get for clients tend [30:02] to be better because of the size and [30:03] scale and the broader institutional [30:05] relationships that we have. Um the [30:07] services that we offer. So the m if [30:10] you're a five or 10 or 15 billion dollar [30:12] wealth manager, your ability to offer [30:14] things like tax and trust and family [30:17] office and aviation and art management [30:19] at scale virtually impossible. So [30:22] clients will then ultimately benefit it [30:23] as well. [30:24] >> More products and services to give to [30:25] their client. Yeah. [30:26] >> And a better way better cost structure [30:28] than they can get themselves at the [30:29] business level. [30:30] >> So you're getting better access ideally [30:32] better access, better pricing and more [30:35] services. And then if you're sitting in [30:37] the shoes of the entrepreneur running [30:40] the business, like what's in it for [30:41] them? The way that I think about Corant [30:44] because I don't think of it as us buying [30:46] people's firms. People are coming to be [30:48] partners at Cororeans. They're coming to [30:49] own and operate the business alongside [30:52] myself and the other equity partners of [30:54] the firm. So this is about founders [30:57] continuing on the entrepreneurial or [30:59] partners continuing on the [31:00] entrepreneurial journey they've already [31:02] been on. It's just we're doing it [31:03] together than us doing it independent [31:06] with one another. [31:06] >> Do they see everything? Like let's say [31:08] you want to acquire me, correct? Yeah. [31:10] >> And we're going through this [31:10] conversation like I see access to all [31:12] your books. I see everything. [31:13] >> Yes. [31:14] >> Okay. There's a great historical [31:16] equivalent. I think I mentioned this to [31:17] you when we we spoke previously, but [31:19] like [31:19] >> Rockefeller essentially built a company [31:21] of founders. Like if you look at the [31:22] partners in Standard Oil, he did largely [31:25] acquisition and part of it was just like [31:26] opening up his books. He's just like [31:28] >> this is what I can do. [31:30] >> They're obviously superior to what you [31:31] can do. you can enhance this and I'm [31:34] willing to exchange your stock for mine. [31:37] What would you rather have? [31:38] >> Is that a similar situation here? [31:40] >> Uh it is. Yes, it is. And also there's a [31:43] natural inflection point that businesses [31:45] hit, right? So, so I think you can and [31:47] I'll make up the numbers, but just I [31:49] think you can scale a wealth business to [31:52] three or four or five billion with a [31:54] limited set of services. And by by [31:56] limited, it's not overly limited, but [31:58] it's wealth advisory and investment [31:59] services. Once you start to be to to [32:02] push kind of through that scale [32:04] threshold, clients start to demand more [32:07] services from you which start to create [32:09] real um real challenges. Right. [32:12] >> Let me let me ask you real quick. Is the [32:14] demand for more services tied to an [32:17] increase in wealth? [32:18] >> It is in many instances. Yes. And also [32:20] expectations of clients grow as the [32:22] firms continue to grow and evolve. But a [32:24] lot of it is tied to to increase in [32:25] wealth. [32:26] >> Okay. Continue. So once you start to hit [32:28] this inflection point and then the the [32:30] the the investments that you need to [32:32] make. So think of it as this. You can [32:33] grow and scale your business up to a [32:35] certain level. Let's just say it's three [32:37] or four or five billion. Then the [32:39] required investments to get that three [32:41] or four or five billion business to a [32:42] $50 billion or hundred billion business [32:44] require a significant amount of [32:46] investments. So in my opinion for many [32:48] entrepreneurs in the space that's where [32:50] the riskreward trade gets out of [32:53] balance, right? The incremental risk [32:55] associated with building all of these [32:57] services on the hope that the assets [32:59] will ultimately come in the future [33:01] creates the imbalance. So for us, [33:03] someone can continue on that same [33:04] entrepreneurial journey that they've [33:06] been on, continue to have a phenomenal [33:08] wealth creation event for themselves and [33:10] their families while immediately [33:12] benefiting from all of these underlying [33:14] services that we've already ultimately [33:16] built together anyway. So literally on [33:17] day one instead of say someone saying [33:20] I'm going to stay on my own path make [33:22] these investments and you know kind of [33:24] see how it evolves over the next you [33:26] know one to two decades tomorrow I can [33:29] literally have access and uh to all of [33:31] these services extend them to my clients [33:34] and continue on that journey myself. So [33:36] as a result of this we skew as a [33:38] business very very young um from a [33:41] wealth management perspective. So yes, [33:43] we're doing M&A, but we're not doing M&A [33:45] to fund effectively retirements. We're [33:48] doing M&A to bring on partners to [33:50] continue to grow their business. [33:51] >> That's an important distinction. Say [33:52] more about that. [33:53] >> Yeah. So, so [33:54] >> what would typically happen and then [33:56] from our industry, I don't have the [33:57] exact number, but I think the the median [33:58] adviser is probably in the like early [34:01] 60s. Our median partner, so our our most [34:04] senior title is in their mid-40s and our [34:06] median employee age is in their 30s. And [34:09] and so when you look at that and you'd [34:10] say, well, how did that come to be? A [34:13] lot of that's deliberate on our part in [34:14] terms of who we're targeting, but al [34:16] it's also deliberate on the part of the [34:18] individuals that are joining us because [34:20] they're joining us with a long runway, [34:22] right? They want to continue to be [34:24] owners. They want to continue to operate [34:25] in what I think is a fun, dynamic, [34:28] unique environment and spend the next [34:30] couple of decades collaborating with [34:32] great clients as we all build the [34:34] business together. So there's a bit of a [34:35] self- selection bias that is kind of [34:38] present both in the structure that we've [34:40] put in place via the partnership [34:42] relative to others and then also in [34:44] terms of who we're targeting inside of [34:46] it. [34:46] >> But isn't it beneficial to you as the as [34:49] the owner of the company? I know they're [34:50] everybody has equity in this cuz like if [34:52] they're younger, you know, you have low [34:54] churn on your customers and you want you [34:56] want to build a business that compounds [34:57] like I know you well enough you're not [34:59] stopping here at 525. You're like no [35:02] we're cool guys we're going to stop [35:03] here. You want to compound [35:13] more effectively. Correct. [35:14] >> Correct. So it's a combination of call [35:15] it the runway that the individuals have [35:17] and then also the ambitions around [35:19] building. Right. Cuz again the industry [35:21] is almost entirely oriented one way. Um [35:25] we're oriented a different way. So [35:26] there's there's this natural if I'm [35:28] having a conversation with somebody [35:29] who's interested in joining the [35:30] business, it's really, you know, the way [35:33] I would describe it is we tend to be [35:34] someone's first choice or their last [35:35] choice, right? Do you believe in [35:36] partnership? Do you want to be an owner [35:38] of the business? Do you want to [35:39] collaborate with your colleagues for the [35:41] ultimate benefit of our clients or are [35:44] you looking to recreate kind of the silo [35:46] that you have at whatever firm you're [35:48] ultimately contemplating uh leaving [35:50] from. So, so when we're having [35:52] conversations, think of it as like the [35:54] ultimate screening mechanism is people [35:56] will understand and gravitate toward it [35:58] and latch on and we'll be their absolute [36:00] first choice or they'll say that's just [36:01] not for me and we're not going to be the [36:03] first choice. But it's rare that we [36:05] would come in second just given the [36:07] structure is so different which which is [36:09] fantastic because it creates this [36:11] ultimate selection bias or this [36:14] mechanism around who's interested in [36:15] joining. And again, because we're [36:17] oriented and structured the way that we [36:19] are, like I need strategic, cultural, [36:23] and financial alignment across the [36:24] business in order for us to be able to [36:27] achieve the ambitions that we've put in [36:29] place for the company. [36:30] >> That decision is so important because it [36:32] fuels every sing every single other [36:34] advantage that you have moving forward. [36:35] >> It does. And and one of the challenges [36:37] is again, I think people get comfortable [36:39] in optionality, right? So, just as an [36:41] example, we have a fully integrated [36:43] business. [36:43] >> I find optionality disgusting by the [36:44] way. [36:45] >> Yeah. because it it but it starts to [36:46] create complexity that people I don't [36:48] think understand. So if if you're [36:51] proposing to acquire a business and then [36:54] you start to compromise in terms of the [36:56] structure, the service offering, how [36:58] people collaborate, you are effectively [37:00] over time compounding a lot of smaller [37:03] problems that create a lot of underlying [37:05] complexity and at some point businesses [37:07] get too complicated where it's very very [37:09] hard to reset. So we've been very very [37:11] disciplined again the structure the [37:13] compensation model how people operate [37:16] like it it all has to naturally fit [37:19] together and my view is that if we're [37:21] not advancing towards achieving our [37:25] objective of being the best in the world [37:27] at serving ultra high worth clients I [37:29] don't want to create optionality to get [37:31] there. I want to focus on well what's [37:33] not resonating and how do we [37:34] continuously improve those areas so we [37:36] can get on that pathway. So call it all [37:39] of our complexity that we create is how [37:42] advisors serve clients. It is not in [37:44] terms of how we govern ourselves [37:45] internally. Hence the one compensation [37:48] system incredibly important one P&L no [37:50] chargebacks incredibly important [37:52] partnership structure everybody [37:53] important one brand one offering. So as [37:56] you really unpack all of these decisions [37:58] there's a lot in the structure in the [38:01] design that I think uh positions us well [38:05] to achieve what we're trying to do. [38:07] Deal is how the best founders turn the [38:09] world into their talent pool. I've been [38:11] studying how history's greatest founders [38:12] operate for a decade and one thing they [38:14] all have in common is they understand [38:16] that recruiting and hiring the very best [38:18] talent is your most important priority. [38:20] A players recognize other A players [38:22] which is why top companies like Ramp, [38:24] Shopify, 11 Labs, Uber and Door Dash all [38:27] use deal. Many of the top founders I [38:29] know have personally invested in Deal [38:31] after using their product. And what they [38:33] discovered is that deal is the best [38:34] company in the world at building [38:35] infrastructure for global hiring. Deal [38:37] will help your business hire, pay, and [38:39] manage any worker anywhere in the world. [38:41] So you can retain the best talent [38:43] anywhere and spend the rest of your time [38:45] focusing on what you do best, delivering [38:47] value to your customers. The founder of [38:49] 11 Labs has a great description of the [38:51] value deal can give your company. He [38:53] said, "We built 11 Labs to break down [38:55] language and communication barriers. [38:57] With deal enabling us to hire and [38:59] support exceptional talent anywhere, we [39:02] can accelerate our innovation and bring [39:04] more voices, stories, and ideas to every [39:06] corner of the world. Deal is trusted by [39:09] over 40,000 companies and growing fast. [39:12] Learn how they can help your business by [39:13] going to deal.com/enra. [39:16] That is deal.com/enra. [39:19] >> I think we have an overview of Corant [39:21] now. We'll come back to there's a couple [39:23] other things I want to talk about which [39:24] again is this [39:25] >> the day you do the acquisition the [39:27] branding everything is completely [39:28] integrated but the story of how you [39:30] built this is so wild I want to go back [39:33] to when you took over the company [39:34] >> and then we're going to launch into [39:35] Coran the acquisition you did the fact [39:37] that the stock market hated what you [39:39] were doing and you were just resolute in [39:41] the the the face of this drastically [39:44] falling stock price so if we go back [39:46] it's like okay I laid out this plan to [39:48] this like sleepy Canadian company [39:50] >> I'm going this this is what I want to do [39:52] then can you bring us from that point [39:54] until and basically how you've been [39:56] building cor [39:57] >> yeah so there's a couple things so one [39:59] you know kind of the first thing is you [40:00] have to have conviction in the business [40:01] the idea as we've talked about a lot I [40:03] had a tremendous amount of conviction in [40:05] both the opportunity for the business [40:07] and in tune ultimately what we could do [40:10] for clients the second piece as you [40:11] mentioned is volatility so so you have [40:13] to kind of put that uh a little bit in [40:16] in in context as well is is can you you [40:19] know public companies don't typically [40:20] love transformation stories. [40:22] >> Well, hold on. We got to define volat [40:24] volatility. How volatile was your stock [40:26] when you're doing this? [40:26] >> Sure. So, like in in 2021, we were I [40:29] think the the best or second best [40:31] performing financial services stock in [40:32] North America. 2022 the second worst, [40:35] right? And so you see a lot of [40:37] tremendous politics. So then you can [40:39] start to unpack I mean so so there's a [40:41] couple of layers to that, right? So so [40:43] one layer is public markets don't [40:47] necessarily love transformation stories. [40:49] Now to be fair to the public markets, we [40:51] were taking effectively a Canadian asset [40:55] management business and using the cash [40:58] flow to build and launch a new ultra [41:01] high net worth global wealth management [41:02] business. So pretty meaningful [41:03] >> it's a hard right turn. [41:04] >> It is a pretty meaningful meaningful [41:06] departure. Now if you think about the [41:07] underlying benefits, you're effectively [41:09] creating diversification. You're [41:10] diversifying from asset management to [41:12] wealth management, from more mass [41:14] affluent to ultra high net worth, from a [41:16] single country to to multiple different [41:18] geographies. So the the merits of doing [41:20] it make sense but kind of call it the [41:22] journey from the starting position [41:24] around the conviction of the idea and [41:26] how public markets you know ultimately [41:28] respond takes take uh you know different [41:31] turns and uh in different courses. The [41:33] second thing is when you're looking at [41:35] public markets a lot of it ties into the [41:37] underlying composition of your [41:39] shareholder base right and um and I'll [41:42] tell you what I mean by that. So we had [41:44] a series of strategic investors. Let's [41:46] just say somewhere you know 15 16 17% of [41:50] the entire float. Um we had a very small [41:53] uh index inclusion uh just given this [41:56] company that we had the market that we [41:57] traded in. So let's just say 25% of our [42:00] float was call it locked up by strategic [42:04] investors that didn't have intentions of [42:06] selling and then um indexes that [42:08] effectively had to hold the stock. And [42:10] that creates 75% of your float that's [42:12] active. that is an unusually high active [42:15] uh active share. So you say well what so [42:18] who comprises the active share? It's [42:19] hedge funds uh and it's mutual funds. So [42:22] hedge funds obviously are looking to [42:25] optimize performance. So a lot of the [42:26] volatility comes the reason 2021 was [42:29] such a good year from a share price [42:31] appreciation standpoint is obviously had [42:32] a lot of hedge funds piling in 2022 a [42:35] lot of the hedge funds ultimately uh [42:37] leaving and that creates a tremendous [42:38] amount of volatility in the stock. And [42:41] then on the mutual fund side, so the [42:43] mutual fund holders of the public [42:45] company tended to be valueoriented [42:47] mutual funds that have been in net [42:50] redemptions from a call it a category [42:52] for a number of years. So think of it as [42:54] every single morning people wake up [42:56] having to sell your shares to fund [42:58] redemptions in their underlying mutual [42:59] fun [42:59] >> because there's headwinds in that [43:00] >> inside of the unders underlying mutual [43:02] fund. So again, there's a lot of [43:04] different factors you can attribute to [43:06] it, but the reality is you have a series [43:08] of things happening at once. building a [43:10] brand new business, creating a massive [43:12] transformation story inside of a public [43:14] company and then calling it h having a [43:16] composition of your shareholder base [43:18] that doesn't it's not like you have 85% [43:20] of your shares locked up in a small [43:22] float that dampens volatility. You kind [43:23] of have the opposite. But look, you have [43:25] to stay true to the convictions that you [43:28] ultimately have. And the part that gave [43:31] me a lot of confidence was I had a [43:32] tremendous conviction in the [43:34] opportunity. I was able to see the [43:36] business and the strategy taking off [43:39] relatively quickly. So there so you know [43:41] once you start to launch the strate [43:43] >> What do you mean you were able to see it [43:44] taking off relatively? [43:45] >> Just I mean just kind of to walk back [43:46] from it. So I launched Corient in April [43:49] of approximately April of 2020. Um you [43:52] know fast forward 6 years north of $500 [43:55] billion of assets. We have 3,000 [43:57] employees. We're operating in 15 [43:58] different jurisdictions. And so like the [44:00] underlying strategy resonated really [44:03] well early on. it was not tracking with [44:05] share price appreciation. So if you kind [44:07] of think about it, you're seeing [44:10] all of this progress in the underlying [44:12] business, right? The partnership [44:13] structure that we put in place starts to [44:16] resonate. People want to join. You're [44:18] starting to build momentum. So you're [44:19] seeing the business itself start to form [44:22] in a way that you had hoped that it [44:24] would, but the share price ultimately [44:26] isn't tracking. And then at that point, [44:27] you just have [44:28] >> and so you're just focusing on the [44:29] internal measure because you can see the [44:31] business evolving. So this happened with [44:34] Bezos because like I forgot the number [44:35] was like his stock in the early days of [44:36] Amazon went some something from like [44:38] $180 to like six or something like that [44:41] and he talks about in his shareholder [44:42] letters he's like yeah the stock is [44:43] dropping but all the internal metrics of [44:45] the business are fine and then he would [44:47] quote like Ben Graham you know he's like [44:49] I'm just focused on this eventually the [44:50] stock will be where it needs to be but I [44:52] don't I can't worry about this [44:54] short-term drop. [44:55] >> Yeah. and and and you get confidence [44:56] again in just seeing the business evolve [44:59] like and and obviously as your business [45:00] continues to evolve, your expectations [45:03] on success ultimately change and you're [45:05] constantly continue to continue to push [45:06] yourself. [45:07] >> Okay. But are you strangling the [45:09] earnings of the company? [45:10] >> I was using the cash flow and leverage [45:13] that the business generated to build [45:15] Cory. So if you [45:16] >> they did not like the market did not [45:17] like how much you were doing like what [45:18] was going on. [45:19] >> Yeah. Look, um the part that I think [45:22] people didn't understand is in my [45:24] opinion, uh the business needed to [45:26] change and transform, right? A a [45:28] business that was entirely focused [45:30] economically on Canadian mutual funds [45:32] was an incredibly vulnerable uh [45:35] vulnerable business. Um given the [45:37] historical success [45:39] of the company in building a Canadian [45:41] mutual fund franchise, it was very [45:44] meaningful earnings, right? So in order [45:45] to make a dent in those earnings and [45:46] drive diversification, it required a [45:48] pretty meaningful pivot. There was a [45:50] period of time at CI Financial where a [45:53] lot of strategic investments ultimately [45:55] weren't made. So in my opinion, there [45:57] was like there was an incredible run of [45:58] the company. There was a challenging [46:00] period of time. I was coming in as [46:03] during that challenging period of time [46:04] with ambitions to ultimately transform [46:07] it. So in order to get to achieve the [46:10] objectives that we saw in order to [46:11] capitalize on the momentum that we were [46:13] building, we were doing two things. [46:15] Using the free cash flow that was [46:17] generated from the Canadian business and [46:19] putting uh putting debt on the business. [46:21] >> How much debt on the business? [46:22] >> Um we ranged probably three to three and [46:24] a half turns uh three and a half terms [46:26] of debt. [46:26] >> Okay. [46:27] >> Look, so so depending upon how you think [46:29] about it, um our industry from a public [46:31] market compensate comp perspective. So [46:34] we would be comped as an asset manager. [46:36] Most asset managers, kind of the rule of [46:38] thumb for debt is about two turns of [46:39] debt. Um, wealth managers tend to have [46:42] more debt than asset managers. It's less [46:45] about the debt that you have on the [46:46] business and it's more about the [46:48] composition of the underlying debt. And [46:50] this is the part that I would I would [46:52] have conversations with investors on. [46:54] It's not like we were having floating [46:56] rate debt with covenants. We're having [46:57] fixed rate debt without covenants, [46:59] right? And typically long duration like [47:02] we had debt extending out to 30 years, [47:04] right? 30 years fixed uh fixed coupon no [47:08] covenant debt. So so how you think about [47:10] debt composition in my opinion was we [47:12] weren't you know creating a lot of [47:14] vulnerability from a business [47:16] perspective. Yes we were walking up the [47:17] leverage but that was very deliberate to [47:20] capitalize on the opportunity that we [47:22] saw uh in terms of building building [47:25] corn. So I was I was comfortable at at [47:27] all times I was comfortable with where [47:29] we were both from a capital allocation [47:31] policy perspective and where we were [47:33] from uh from a decision. [47:35] >> But when you read about this part that [47:36] that's what you hear it's like it's [47:39] almost like you're being hated but [47:40] you're right where like your comfort [47:43] level seemed to not change. [47:44] >> Correct. [47:45] >> Right. Were you surprised at the [47:47] blowback that you got or did you go into [47:49] like I know they're going to be pissed [47:50] off? [47:50] >> It's a good question. I would say I [47:52] would have assumed that the underlying [47:55] business success and the benefits of [47:57] diversification would have been [47:58] recognized faster in the share price but [48:01] at no point during the journey did I [48:03] change my conviction on the opportunity. [48:05] >> This is what I find one of the most [48:07] admirable things. [48:08] >> You can see in the M&A and the [48:09] sequencing is we've kind of continued to [48:11] stay uh to stay in and hold the course. [48:14] And look, I think looking back on it [48:16] now, we're still very early in our in [48:17] our journey, but you know, I think the [48:19] diversification benefits that we've been [48:21] able to to generate our for the business [48:23] are are tremendous. [48:25] >> How many years into this like, hey, [48:26] maybe we should find a partner and go [48:29] private. [48:30] >> So, we were always going to go private, [48:33] which I was very, very transparent about [48:35] with the market. Um, and and the way [48:37] that I was assuming we were going to go [48:39] private was through a share buyback [48:41] program. So during the course of my [48:43] entire tenure at CI we were doing two [48:45] things. We were building Corient [48:48] diversifying and globalizing the [48:49] business while at the same time reducing [48:51] our share count. And again I thought in [48:54] the way I've described in the media many [48:55] times is I felt like our shares were my [48:58] opinion criminally undervalued. I [49:00] thought there was a tremendous [49:01] disconnect between the underlying value [49:03] of the company and what we were [49:05] ultimately trading at. Part of that like [49:07] I mentioned was tied to these underlying [49:08] dynamics. It's like if every single [49:10] morning you wake up with somebody having [49:11] to sell your shares um for you know [49:14] things outside of your or their control [49:17] that creates a tremendous buying [49:18] opportunity. And then the question is do [49:20] you have conviction or not in yourself [49:21] and what you're doing to actually [49:23] transform the business and buy the [49:25] shares and and we did. So that's what [49:27] you saw us buying a tremendous amount of [49:29] shares back while at the same time as [49:31] transforming the business. [49:32] >> What was the the financial um outcome of [49:35] those share buybacks? [49:37] >> So we took ourselves private. So I know [49:39] but like how much [49:40] >> it depends. I mean we were buying over a [49:41] period of time but it was a significant [49:43] return and we were buying a lot of those [49:44] shares back at 12 or 13 uh dollars a [49:47] share right so it was very very [49:49] meaningful return from a from a [49:51] shareholder perspective. The reason I [49:52] bring that up is because my friend Adam [49:54] who's the founder of Apploven and one of [49:55] my biggest partners, he was sitting in [49:57] that chair where you are today and he [49:59] has the same kind of conviction and um [50:01] that you do and his whole thing was like [50:03] he went public [50:05] >> told the story in the podcast I think [50:06] every day for like 200 days his stock [50:08] price just dropped. I think he went from [50:09] like 28 billion down to three and then [50:12] he's just like well I'm not running a $3 [50:13] billion company. He's like either this [50:15] either I think at the time he thought it [50:16] could be like a hundred or $200 billion [50:18] company. Now I think he thinks he can [50:19] get to a trillion but he's like this [50:21] thing is you know 100 200 billion or [50:22] it's nothing [50:23] >> then he's just like this makes no sense [50:24] my stock price is 3 billion we're doing [50:26] a billion of so he winds up taking all [50:29] the cash flow from that buying back the [50:30] stocks and I think he borrowed like [50:31] another 5 billion or something and [50:33] everybody around him is like you're [50:34] crazy dude [50:36] >> and he goes and he says very nonchalant [50:38] on the podcast he goes yeah that worked [50:39] out very well for the company we made [50:41] like 50 or 60 billion from that [50:43] >> but here's the interesting thing between [50:44] the disconnect between public and [50:46] private markets so what you're [50:47] describing in a public market people [50:50] have this visceral reaction to. If you [50:53] describe that to a private equity [50:54] investor, they would say that is the [50:56] standard blueprint under which we [50:58] operate business and extract value. So [51:00] it is amazing to see the underlying [51:03] disconnect between how people think [51:05] about the business as an owner and an [51:07] operator of the business versus how [51:09] people think about the business through [51:11] am I going to buy some shares of this [51:13] public company or not as well. And [51:15] oftent times when you're going through [51:16] these transformation stories, you have [51:18] to think about the endgame, right? [51:20] Again, we were sitting on in my opinion [51:22] very vulnerable earnings entirely driven [51:24] by the Canadian mutual fund industry. [51:26] That is a like yes, it was a lot of [51:28] earnings, but that is a very very [51:29] >> but it's not going to be a lot of [51:30] earnings in the future. [51:31] >> Correct. And that's the thing. So then [51:32] the question is everyone wants it to [51:34] instantly be diversified without the [51:36] time or the investments or the capital [51:37] required to do it. That's just not [51:39] practical, right? So, so you need to [51:41] effectively like the example you just [51:42] described, you just need to have [51:44] conviction in yourself. So, for us, we [51:45] said, look, we want to do two things. We [51:47] think there's a tremendous opportunity [51:48] in building Corin while at the same [51:50] time, we're not letting these shares [51:53] trade the way they are without buying [51:55] them. There's no way. And so, we were [51:57] buying and buying and buying and buying. [51:59] So, the the the notion of got back to [52:01] your initial question of going private [52:03] was so I was approached about two years [52:05] ago right now actually by Mubata [52:07] Capital. In fact, I received an inbound [52:09] call and the message was, "We love the [52:13] business. We love the strategy. We [52:15] understand exactly what you're doing and [52:17] why you're buying the shares. We think [52:19] it's going to take you about 9 years to [52:22] effectively buy the shares remaining [52:24] that you ultimately want. also think [52:26] that so so they said effectively we [52:29] think it's going to take about 9 years [52:30] and we think along that journey there's [52:33] going to be trade-offs around your [52:35] ability to execute the core strategy [52:37] just given the capital requirements on [52:38] both sides I had agreed with 100% of [52:41] that and so we really hit it off and had [52:43] conversations from there was around how [52:45] do we take this business out of the [52:48] public markets deliver a great return [52:50] for the shareholders of the business and [52:52] then put the business in a private [52:54] context where we could kind own and [52:56] operate it um outside of a public [52:58] company and I and I felt like CI never [53:00] belonged even before I showed up like a [53:02] Canadian mutual fund company never [53:04] really belonged in the public markets [53:07] anyway and this just created a [53:08] phenomenal opportunity for us to do it. [53:10] The context by which we went private I [53:13] think is also equally unique. So again [53:15] that was kind of the message. So we took [53:17] ourselves private with no incremental [53:20] debt on the business. There was actually [53:21] deleveraging or an equity infusion tied [53:24] to it. There were no cost synergies, no [53:26] change of strategic direction. In my [53:28] opinion, I picked up the best strategic [53:31] partner on the planet with an equal [53:33] amount of ambition uh to see this thing [53:36] forward. And I think from their [53:37] standpoint, look, if you take a look at [53:40] the Mubala Capital or just Abu Dhabi [53:43] Inc. more broadly, it is an incredibly [53:45] ambitious place, right? They they have [53:47] done a a phenomenal job of creating [53:50] wealth, building wealth, diversifying [53:52] wealth. And fortunately for me, the [53:54] entire team at Mubatala saw what we saw [53:57] from a business perspective, saw the [54:00] endgame, saw a lot of similarities, I [54:02] think, in terms of how they were [54:03] building mubata capital. It was [54:04] effectively started inside of Mubato [54:07] Investment Company as sovereign, built [54:09] it into this phenomenal business and [54:11] just just saw, I guess, a lot of, you [54:14] know, us in in them strategically and [54:17] ambition wise, and it's been it's been [54:18] absolutely amazing. So, we took [54:20] ourselves private. We announced it in [54:21] November of 2024. We completed it in [54:24] August We completed on August 12th of [54:26] 2025. On September 3rd of 2025, [54:30] September 2nd or September 3rd, we [54:32] announced we were buying on the same day [54:35] the largest ultra high net worth wealth [54:36] manager in Europe and the second largest [54:38] ultra high net worth wealth management [54:40] business in Europe. And as an example, [54:42] if we were still a public company, back [54:44] to how people respond in a public [54:47] context, that would have been an [54:48] impossible transaction to execute just [54:51] given a lot of the dynamics that you've [54:53] mentioned. In a private context, in my [54:55] opinion, it was the best possible thing [54:57] we could have done for the company. And [54:59] the reason I say that is everything that [55:01] I said about the opportunity in US ultra [55:04] high worth wealth management is equally [55:06] true in the rest of the world. I firmly [55:08] believe that there are no global ultra [55:11] high net worth wealth managers that [55:12] exists in the world today outside accent [55:14] and to me that was a tremendous [55:17] opportunity for us to go capitalize on. [55:20] >> Why do you think no one else pursued [55:21] that strategy because it seems obvious [55:22] in hindsight? [55:23] >> So I think um I think people would [55:25] disagree potentially disagree with my [55:27] statement and say well of course there [55:28] are other ultra high net worth or global [55:31] wealth managers that exist. My push back [55:33] would be they're not. There are a [55:36] handful of multi-jurisdictional wealth [55:38] managers that exist. By that I mean [55:41] banks that operate in multiple different [55:43] jurisdictions. The reason I say mult [55:44] multi-jurisdictional not global is if [55:47] you think about it through a client [55:48] lens. So let's just say you're a client [55:50] of a firm that has offices in multiple [55:52] different jurisdictions. You're one [55:54] those are all a series of regional P&Ls [55:56] right? So the client relationships get [55:58] mapped into an underlying region and the [56:00] compensation system and the structures [56:02] that people have in place create or [56:05] limit or eliminate the ability to [56:07] collaborate. So I'll just give an [56:08] example. Let's just say there's a [56:10] billion dollar family that exists and [56:12] they have money across four different [56:14] jurisdictions and they happen to have [56:15] those assets at one firm and the family [56:17] says, you know what, I'm going to take [56:18] all billion dollars and I'm going to [56:19] consolidate those assets in Miami. So [56:22] what happens in practice internally is [56:24] three of those P&Ls that are losing [56:26] assets inside of those organizations are [56:29] negatively impacted. One of the P&Ls is [56:31] very positively impact and then at the [56:33] individual advisor level almost all of [56:35] those people tend to be commission or [56:37] revenue share generating adviserss. So [56:39] three of them pay goes to zero on [56:41] serving the client. One of one person's [56:43] pay probably quadruples on the back of [56:46] serving the client. So the thought of [56:48] saying that they are putting all of that [56:50] aside and serving clients um regardless [56:54] of those internal tensions or conflicts, [56:57] you know, ma makes for an impossible [56:59] situation. So you know, a lot of the [57:01] stuff that we touched on earlier, the [57:03] private partnership that we initially [57:04] built for the US marketplace, we've [57:06] globalized it. Again, I have one [57:08] compensation plan that is not only true [57:10] for the US, it's everybody around the [57:11] world and one P&L. So instead of [57:13] thinking about clients in terms of what [57:16] regional silos do they access us, we [57:19] think about clients how do we serve them [57:20] all around the world anywhere. [57:22] >> Okay. The way I think of you in my mind, [57:24] tell me if you disagree is like you're [57:25] kind of obsessed with incentives. [57:28] >> I'm obsessed with alignment. So if I [57:30] think about it this way, again, it's [57:32] very simple what we want to do. We want [57:34] to be the best in the world at serving [57:35] old China worth clients. I in a human [57:38] capital business it is imperative that I [57:41] have strategic cultural and financial [57:43] alignment to achieve that and so [57:46] incentives are a huge component of that. [57:48] Incentives drive a lot of behaviors [57:51] tremendous amount of behavior. [57:52] >> Charlie Mer has this great language like [57:53] in incentives rule everything around us. [57:55] >> Yeah. So, so then if you think about [57:57] that once you start to create fractures [58:00] in the incentive like I I feel very [58:02] strongly that every single client of [58:03] Coran regardless of where you live or [58:06] how you've entered the business should [58:08] have the same opportunity for an equal [58:10] elevated experience. So similar to [58:12] clients I want to make sure that all of [58:13] our employees have the same opportunity [58:15] regardless of how they've entered the [58:17] firm. So, as an example, if you were [58:19] entered via direct hire in Seattle or an [58:21] acquisition in San Diego, I want to make [58:24] sure that every single person here is [58:25] treated fairly. And and you need to make [58:27] sure that in order to treat somebody [58:28] fairly, you should be paid for what [58:30] you're delivering for the business, not [58:32] whatever historical, you know, entry [58:34] point or position that you ultimately [58:36] had. It's equally imperative that you [58:38] are paying people for things that drive [58:40] collaboration and better outcomes as [58:43] opposed to things that drive you know [58:45] personal or independent or or siloed uh [58:48] siloed behavior. So we've been very very [58:50] adamant to ensure that one clients can [58:52] always get the elevated experience and [58:54] in turn every single employee of Coran [58:56] is treated fairly. So by having one [58:58] compensation plan, I can literally walk [59:00] into any one of our offices in the world [59:02] and every single person knows that for [59:04] an equal level of performance, they're [59:06] going to be treated exactly the same as [59:07] all of their colleagues. [59:08] >> Okay. I love how you you summarize that. [59:10] You're obsessed with alignment. So I [59:11] want to talk about acquisitions. Since [59:13] you started, you've done how many [59:14] acquisitions? They're about 20 more. [59:16] >> Probably closer to 50. [59:18] >> Closer to 50. [59:19] >> As you have more AUM, do the size of the [59:22] acquisitions have to keep going up or [59:23] no? How do you think about this? [59:25] >> It's a great question. So, I'm not [59:26] looking for scale and acquisitions. I'm [59:28] looking for exceptional people who [59:31] align, again, I keep saying the same [59:33] thing, but it's important. Strategic, [59:34] cultural, and financial alignment. So [59:36] whether that is a $50 billion [59:38] acquisition, a $500 million acquisition, [59:41] or anything, you know, in between or on [59:43] either side of those parameters, that's [59:45] less relevant for me. Like in a [59:47] partnership model like the one that we [59:49] have, I need those strategic, cultural, [59:52] and financial alignment um things to be [59:54] true. So, so we don't never look at it [59:56] from aumum. We never look at it from [59:59] scale. We're looking at how is this [60:01] additive to the business that we're [60:03] ultimately aspiring uh aspiring to [60:05] build. And look, fortunate for us, I [60:07] think the given the scale, what we've [60:10] built is is at least currently [60:12] resonating really really well and you [60:14] know, we're excited to to take advantage [60:16] of. But again, it's an ultimate [60:17] screening criteria. So, if someone sees [60:19] our model and and they're looking for [60:21] something totally different, they're not [60:22] going to come here. So, it's great for [60:24] us because we're able to filter through [60:26] the structure and it's great for them [60:28] because they have total clarity in terms [60:29] of what they're what they're looking [60:30] for. [60:30] >> So, let's go back to this obsession of [60:32] alignment. Uh, explain you acquire my [60:35] company. Yeah. [60:36] >> What happens the very next day? You told [60:37] me the story in Miami. I thought it was [60:38] very fascinating. [60:39] >> Yeah. So, we've kind of let's just So, [60:40] the business is about 6 years old, a [60:42] little more than 6 years old. There's [60:43] kind of really called three phases of of [60:45] building the business to get to the [60:47] state that we're in. So, the first phase [60:49] was acquiring enough scale. Again, this [60:52] is a proof of concept. I thought there [60:53] was a tremendous opportunity. The [60:55] question is, was it going to resonate [60:57] and take off? And so there was call it a [60:59] period of time, let's just say the first [61:00] 18 months where we were focused on [61:02] accumulating the scale. And the reason [61:04] that's important is because the scale [61:07] drives how you think about integration, [61:09] the services that you're going to [61:10] integrate, the providers that you use. [61:11] If you're going to build a $5 trillion [61:14] company versus a $500 billion company [61:15] versus a $50 billion company, how you [61:17] think about integrating is very [61:18] different. So there was a period of time [61:20] where we were accumulating the scale to [61:22] start the integration journey. Second [61:25] piece was effectively starting down that [61:27] integration journey. So we had scale and [61:29] it was a matter of now how do we pick or [61:32] make the various decisions that [61:33] ultimately drive integration and morph [61:34] the organization. So some things come [61:36] faster than others. And then the third [61:38] piece was where we're at now which is a [61:41] fully integrated state. And I think [61:43] that's really really important. And if [61:44] you had asked me when I started again [61:45] because people love optionality, which [61:47] of those three phases were would people [61:49] be most comfortable with, I would have [61:52] said people would have been most [61:53] comfortable with the first phase, right? [61:54] Cuz it's the least amount of change at [61:56] the start. It's actually not true. [61:58] People are most comfortable with the [62:00] current state cuz they know exactly what [62:01] they're getting into, which is [62:03] interesting. So, you know, like if [62:04] you're selling a firm to us, here's [62:06] exactly what life is going to look like [62:07] on the other side. You're going to know [62:08] it two ways. One, because I can tell you [62:10] what it looks like from the [62:11] conversations. Uh but also there's a ton [62:14] of people now, 3,000 in total that you [62:17] can reach out to and interact with. What [62:18] is life like here? And the people who've [62:21] been through the journey with us, um [62:23] tend to be the greatest ambassadors. And [62:25] I think a lot of our success or the [62:28] reinforcement of the success comes from [62:29] people who've come, the clients and [62:31] themselves have had a great experience [62:33] and they become great ambassadors for [62:35] the business as we continue to grow. [62:37] >> But what does total integration look [62:38] like? [62:39] >> Everything. So on on day one, you're on [62:41] our brand, you're using our technology, [62:44] you're working in our offices, you're [62:45] collaborating together across the firm, [62:48] the collateral's been changed, you're on [62:49] our comp, you're on our benefits. So [62:51] it's effectively a full integration with [62:53] one caveat though. This business is all [62:55] about continuous improvement. And so I'm [62:57] a huge proponent of again constantly [62:59] changing, constantly evolving, [63:01] constantly pushing ourselves. So while [63:03] that state of being integrated is true, [63:06] every single acquisition that we make, [63:08] every hire that we make, every [63:09] conversation we have creates an [63:11] opportunity for us to think about how we [63:13] continuously improve the business. So [63:15] we're benefiting as well from these [63:17] acquisitions in the same way that the [63:19] acquisitions are benefiting from us. And [63:21] to me, that's the [63:22] >> explain a little bit more about that. [63:23] >> Yeah. Cuz I mean, if I think about like [63:24] if I'm looking at again, if you if you [63:26] have a business in the space, [63:28] >> the only reason that we should work [63:30] together is if two things are true. I [63:32] make you better and you make me better. [63:34] If those aren't true in my opinion, then [63:36] it becomes a financial transaction. And [63:39] that's fine, but that's not ultimately [63:41] the objective that we have in place. So, [63:43] we're looking what are you doing for [63:45] clients? How do we benefit from that? [63:47] What expertise do you bring? How does [63:49] that expertise translate to better [63:50] outcomes for clients that we have? Same [63:53] thing. There's hopefully things that [63:54] we're doing that benefit you. So, it [63:56] becomes immediately this mutually [63:58] beneficial uh experience. I'll give you [64:00] an example. So when you grow up in [64:03] management consulting right a lot of the [64:05] work that you do as a management [64:06] consultant tends to be um highlevel [64:09] strategic work that often skews more [64:12] confidential in nature and so you you [64:15] tend to do a lot of work let's just say [64:16] in a vacuum to some extent and then [64:18] there's an implementation phase. So [64:20] there's a lot of pros to that there's a [64:22] lot of challenges to that around driving [64:23] adoption. So I'll just you know kind of [64:25] tell you a story which is I think [64:27] relevant to how I think about [64:28] integration. So, we're building the [64:30] company. I need to pick a brand. And you [64:33] need to pick a brand for the business. [64:35] That can be an emotional thing for [64:36] people, right? Entrepreneurs oftent [64:38] times will name the business after [64:40] themselves, right? So, so there's a [64:42] there's a you know, it extends beyond [64:44] just the name. It actually becomes [64:45] personal. So, there's really kind of a [64:48] lot of different ways you can handle it, [64:49] but let's just say two extremes. One [64:52] extreme is you pick a name and tell [64:54] people what the name is, right? So, call [64:56] that the fastest pathway to an outcome. [64:58] But the least collaborative possible way [65:01] that you can do it or the other end of [65:03] the spectrum would be how broad can you [65:04] go. So I'll just tell you exactly how we [65:06] picked the name accordant which I think [65:07] is a pretty neat story. So I did a town [65:10] hall across the firm and said look we're [65:12] at a point now we're in an integration [65:13] journey. We need to name the firm and I [65:15] have no idea what the name's going to [65:16] be. I don't actually care what the [65:18] name's going to be but it's really [65:19] important to me that everybody here who [65:22] wants to be involved in the naming of [65:24] the firm has a voice in ultimately doing [65:26] so. So I said, 'Look, we're going to [65:28] hire a third party firm to help us with [65:31] this. Our chief marketing officer and I [65:33] are going to facilitate a series of [65:35] focus groups. Anybody who wants to [65:37] participate in a focus group can put [65:39] their hand up. And the goal is [65:40] ultimately taking an infinite list of [65:42] names and narrowing it down to [65:43] finalists. So firm was a lot smaller at [65:46] that point in time. We had like 75 [65:47] people participate in these focus [65:50] groups. So we get all the way down to a [65:51] list of finalists. We then had a firm [65:54] mock up the finalist names. I ran a town [65:57] hall across the the partner group. My [65:59] chief marketing officer presented the [66:01] names and branding is kind of [66:02] fascinating, right? Because if you like, [66:05] you know, uh a certain type of if you [66:07] like golf and you have a logo with a [66:08] golf course behind it, you're more [66:09] likely to vote for it than if you don't [66:11] like sailing and you have a logo with [66:12] sailing behind. So, we mocked everything [66:13] up under the same brand. I did a partner [66:15] town hall. We presented it and I did a [66:17] live vote and we named the firm [66:19] together. And the reason that was [66:21] important was on day one, every single [66:23] person who wanted a voice in the process [66:25] had a voice. It was totally transparent. [66:28] Everybody knew where we were going. So [66:29] on day one, when people were calling and [66:31] telling their clients about the firm, [66:33] anyone who was here had an opportunity [66:35] to name the firm and and be a part of [66:36] it. So that those little decisions, one, [66:38] it changes how people think about and [66:40] embrace change. And I try to take that [66:42] concept and apply it wherever we can. I [66:45] think it leads to way better outcomes [66:47] because you're just getting more people [66:48] providing the input and people embrace [66:51] the change better because they can see [66:53] their input reflected in what whatever [66:55] you ultimately decide. [66:56] >> Okay. I love that you just told a story [66:58] about branding and marketing because [66:59] that's one of the things I wanted to [67:00] talk to you about. I want to tell you [67:02] like give some background on like how I [67:04] actually found you which is kind of [67:06] hilarious and a twist of fate. Yeah. It [67:08] involves our mutual friend Rick Gerson. [67:10] >> So I get all these like inquiries into [67:12] my website all the time. Obviously, [67:14] there's a huge uh demand for corporate [67:18] speaking. Yep. [67:19] >> I So, people always I get a bunch of [67:21] inbound. Well, you come speak at this [67:22] company XYZ. And like I I don't do any [67:25] of this. It's like I have a very tight [67:26] partnership with, you know, my partners. [67:28] It's like there's one way to work with [67:30] me. If you work with me, it's through [67:30] the podcast. And it's like [67:31] comprehensive. It's not just ads on the [67:33] podcast. It's events. It's So, that's [67:34] the way to do it, right? [67:35] >> And so, I I got a few from this company [67:38] called Corient and they they like, "Hey, [67:41] we listen to your podcast. We're in [67:42] Miami, too. Would you do this?" And [67:43] like, yeah, I never responded. And then [67:46] I'm essentially like embedded into [67:49] Michael Dell's merchant bank. [67:50] >> Y [67:50] >> and I'm close friends with Gre Greg [67:53] Lmcow. Yep. [67:54] >> Who's one of the cos [67:55] >> and I love Greg. Like I just [67:58] absolutely love him. We hit it off from [67:59] from day one. [68:00] >> And he sent me They don't do much media. [68:03] And so he sent me this interview. He's [68:05] like, "Hey, check out this interview [68:06] that me and Byron did the other co. Tell [68:09] me what you think cuz we don't do much [68:10] media." And it's like I think it's like [68:13] CNBC's like wealth. I think the program [68:15] might be called wealth or something like [68:16] that. [68:16] >> And so I'm watching it and I watch the [68:18] whole thing and there's four ad breaks, [68:21] one sponsor [68:23] >> the entire time and it's Coran. [68:24] >> Y [68:25] >> and I'm like, "Oh, that's like it." I [68:27] was like I know that name. I searched my [68:28] email. I was like, "Oh, this is the same [68:29] company. That's interesting." So then [68:31] I'm having breakfast in Miami with our [68:33] mutual friend and I had already met you [68:35] at this time, but I didn't know that. [68:37] >> Yep. [68:37] >> And obviously Rick's in finance. So I [68:39] was like, "Hey, have you heard of like [68:41] it's very interesting choice to have [68:43] four ad breaks, one sponsor. I actually [68:45] like that a lot. I think it's really [68:46] smart for other reasons we don't have to [68:47] go into." And I go, "You ever heard of [68:49] this company called Coran?" He goes, [68:51] "Yeah, you met the CEO at my house when [68:53] we were doing jiu-jitsu." I was like, [68:55] "The the you're like a brown belt or [68:57] something, right?" It's like the guy [68:58] choking Ghee, [69:00] >> who Gee is our mutual uh instructor. Uh [69:03] me and Rex that is. And I was like, [69:05] "Oh." And then uh he's like and then he [69:07] was telling me that you're in Miami and [69:08] everything else and then that's how uh [69:10] you got connected to and then now ever [69:12] since I saw that I see Cory and on [69:14] Bloomberg and everywhere else. So like [69:16] I'm very curious one why sponsor you [69:20] know that program. How do you think [69:21] about it? How do you think about [69:23] branding? How do you think about [69:24] advertising and marketing given like and [69:26] how does it tie into like your entire [69:27] mission of like trying to build this [69:28] company? [69:29] >> Yeah, it's a great question. I mean [69:30] again the brand's by brand standards is [69:32] new. The company's 6 years old. the [69:34] brand's not even six years old. So part [69:36] of it is just creating awareness, right? [69:38] Awareness for clients, awareness for [69:40] potential colleagues, awareness for [69:42] potential partners and there's a lot of [69:43] different ways that we think about that. [69:45] So one is we do lean into marketing. We [69:47] think it is a very incredibly impactful [69:49] and powerful tool. How we choose to lean [69:51] into it is you know call it three or [69:53] four different different ways. One is [69:55] the advertising which is a lot of the [69:56] stuff that you've mentioned and you know [69:58] just given you know again every industry [70:00] is changing right how people consume [70:02] television how they watch things how [70:04] they engage with things is so totally [70:06] different. So um you know we're we're [70:08] kind of trying to respond and reflect to [70:10] that. So, we're trying to advertise [70:12] either in places where people are [70:14] watching something live, which is why [70:15] you see us on business television and [70:17] sports uh areas that people ultimately [70:20] uh choose to engage, where they're [70:21] sitting in in a in a in a in a [70:24] structured and focused setting. Uh we do [70:26] a lot around digital marketing. So, [70:27] really trying to be micro segmented [70:29] targeting individuals that we want to [70:32] build and establish relationships with. [70:34] And we do a lot around experiences, [70:35] around client experiences and convening [70:38] people across the business and [70:39] collaboration. And I don't think of them [70:41] as individual silos, right? Because [70:43] there's lots of different ways that [70:45] people come across Corant. And for me, [70:46] it's maybe the ad introduces them to [70:49] Corant, maybe it's a friend or a mutual [70:51] connection, maybe it's a referral, uh, [70:53] you know, maybe it's a business partner. [70:54] And the goal is to help bridge the gap [70:57] between who is Corient, what do we do, [71:00] and how can we be helpful to them and [71:02] their families ultimately as quickly as [71:04] uh as possible. And I think we've taken [71:06] by wealth management standards or at [71:08] least independent wealth management [71:09] standards a relatively kind of unique [71:12] but ambitious approach to advertising. [71:15] So today, I mean, we're advertising in [71:16] every market that we're in globally. [71:18] you'll see us on ads in the US, Canada, [71:21] UK, Paris or France or you know across [71:24] um uh across the world and we intend to [71:27] continue to do that and again it's it's [71:28] really kind of helped to short circuit [71:31] the discovery process from people saying [71:33] hey you're a new company yes you have [71:34] all this scale learn about us as fast as [71:37] possible and then hopefully we can start [71:39] to engage and provide value to you and [71:41] your families [71:41] >> it's shocking because these these are [71:43] not new ideas these ideas have been [71:45] documented for at least 120 years I've [71:47] Yeah, [71:47] >> I've read every single biography on all [71:49] the great copywriters, the great [71:52] advertising agency founders. They all [71:53] say the same stuff. They never It's like [71:55] repetition, repetition, repetition. The [71:57] idea that I didn't just see Cory in one [71:59] correct segment of the Greg Lmcow [72:01] interview. I saw it again and again and [72:03] again. By the time you get to it, I may [72:05] not use your services. I might not sell [72:06] my wealth management firm, but at least [72:07] I know you exist. Exactly. And so this [72:09] is what we're doing with our partners [72:10] cuz like in addition to all my partners [72:12] on both my podcasts, like I also run the [72:13] podcast strategies for these companies. [72:15] Yeah. It's just because I'm obsessed [72:16] with it and I like to do it. And it's [72:18] just like you you have you should you [72:20] know where your customers are paying [72:21] attention to all it's very simple just [72:24] there's there's 400 we just pulled the [72:26] numbers 446 [72:28] uh b uh podcasts in the business [72:30] category I think 300,000 something that [72:32] are still updating and there's five in [72:33] the world that matter. [72:34] >> Yep. [72:34] >> There's your strategy. It's very simple [72:36] like how to do this and then once you [72:37] partner with them you stay with them [72:39] forever. [72:40] >> Yeah. But it comes back to the theme [72:41] around conviction right? So a lot of [72:43] times advertising is one of these areas [72:45] where at least on a relative basis [72:47] you're investing a tremendous amount of [72:49] capital in advance of any sort of [72:51] underlying tangible benefit. And I think [72:53] you're right it is a proven strategy [72:54] over time but it depends upon how people [72:56] are thinking about their business. The [72:58] reason we have the ambitions we do the [73:00] reason we built the business in the way [73:01] that we have is I think this should be [73:04] the forever business in ultra high net [73:06] worth wealth management. So if you if [73:07] you think about it as a forever time [73:09] horizon, you're going to think about [73:11] brand building very differently than if [73:13] there's a temporary kind of lens or a [73:16] temporary owner to it. And look, in in a [73:18] lot of areas, a lot of industries, [73:20] financial services in particular, wealth [73:22] management specifically, there's a lot [73:24] of temporary owners. So they're thinking [73:26] about the business in 18 to 36-month [73:29] increments. They're not thinking about [73:30] it across generations. And and if you're [73:33] thinking about it in that period of [73:34] time, you're optimizing for a return and [73:36] an exit. You're not optimizing for a [73:39] client experience, an employee [73:40] experience, building a forever brand. [73:42] And I think that's probably how [73:44] >> that's the only thing I'm interested in. [73:45] >> Yeah. And how a lot of the like So, if [73:47] you were to kind of segment who you [73:50] ultimately engage with from your [73:51] business, it's probably people agnostic [73:53] of industry that meet those [73:55] characteristics. [73:56] >> My friend Sam Hickeyi has this great [73:57] line. He's like, "The person with the [73:58] longest term view in the room wins." [74:00] >> Yeah. because it goes also goes against [74:02] human nature. Um I got one another [74:04] question for you. You were in Chicago [74:07] for the majority of your career like the [74:09] last [74:09] >> mostly New York. So born and raised in [74:11] Canada. Most of my professional career [74:12] was in New York and then I moved to [74:14] Miami. [74:15] >> I want to get to Miami. Like why you're [74:17] so bullish on it? Why you the [74:19] headquarters? You're you have crazy [74:21] office space that I went to. [74:22] >> Yeah. [74:23] >> Um why Miami? [74:25] >> It's a great question. So um so again, I [74:28] launched the business. So if you think [74:29] about the timing I literally launched [74:30] the business at the start of co [74:32] >> you said April 2020 I was like oh [74:34] >> yeah so it's uh look that creates a [74:37] tremendous amount of challenges but also [74:39] a tremendous amount of opportunities [74:41] because effectively you know the world [74:42] stops everything about everybody's [74:45] normal schedule and agenda halted in [74:48] March of 2020 and that just gives so [74:50] either you know do you let that impact [74:52] you or do you take advantage of that so [74:54] that allowed us to really accelerate the [74:57] building of the business starting to [74:59] have those conversations and laying a [75:01] great foundation for the company. So as [75:03] we're building the business again [75:04] Cororean is a separate distinct [75:06] independent entity from CI. So I needed [75:08] a headquarters for the business and but [75:11] because of how I built the business I [75:13] had totally you know free reign in terms [75:17] of where do you ultimately put put the [75:19] headquarters. So there was there was no [75:21] kind of particular transaction no [75:23] corporate historical ties to any one [75:25] particular area. So, if you think about [75:27] it with a totally clean slate, where do [75:29] you want the headquarters for the [75:30] business ultimately to be? I picked [75:32] Miami. Uh, I picked Miami for a lot of [75:35] different reasons. I would say one of [75:37] the things about Miami that really stood [75:39] out relative. I think it makes Miami [75:41] unique, not only in America, but in the [75:42] rest of the world is how engaged people [75:45] are locally around creating positive [75:47] reinforcements for building a community. [75:49] So, uh, you know, one of my good [75:51] friends, one of our good friends is the [75:52] mayor or former mayor of Miami, Francis [75:54] Suarez. Francis was the ultimate [75:56] ambassador. I don't think that I've ever [75:57] seen a better ambassador for a city than [76:00] him. P take personal involvement, create [76:03] connections, build relationships. So, [76:05] you think about it, there's a decision [76:06] around where do you want the business to [76:08] be? And then there's a secondary [76:10] decision. Well, how do you actually [76:11] establish the business once you've made [76:13] the decision? And I find a lot of times [76:15] people will sell the ambition and leave [76:18] the second part up to the individual. [76:20] And I think what Francis in particular, [76:22] and it's true for the Miami ecosystem [76:24] that he really created under his tenure [76:27] there as mayor is it just created this [76:29] very incredibly welcoming environment. [76:32] So I chose to to pick the Miami as the [76:34] headquarters uh moved to Miami myself [76:37] and effectively built the business. And [76:39] it's been absolutely amazing because we [76:41] were by no means a pioneer of moving to [76:43] Miami. I picked the headquarters at the [76:44] end of 2020, but we were a little bit [76:47] early relative to the flood of movement [76:50] that's happened on the back of us. So, [76:52] the worry that I had at that point in [76:54] time was was there going to be enough [76:56] local talent to hire as the business [76:59] continues to grow. I mean, the answer [77:01] was yes, even in its current form when [77:03] we moved, but it's even more true now [77:06] given all the great migrations that [77:07] we've ultimately seen seen on the back [77:09] of it. And you know this from your time [77:10] in Miami, once you get there and spend [77:12] time there, it is an the quality of life [77:14] is unbelievable as well. So it becomes [77:17] again, you build momentum around around [77:19] something and continue to reinforce the [77:21] momentum. And you know, I think we're [77:23] still in the early days of of what we'll [77:25] see in uh see in South Florida. So it's [77:27] worked out significantly exceeded my [77:29] expectations uh across the board both in [77:32] terms of how we've been able to you know [77:35] establish a presence and operate the [77:37] business the employee uh and the [77:39] colleague satisfaction and what we've [77:40] been able to do. [77:41] >> I love how when I asked you where did [77:43] you picked your headquarters and then [77:44] how you designed your business it was [77:45] the same exact idea. I started from a [77:47] blank sheet of paper. You have to you [77:49] have to I mean look sometime again at [77:51] some point businesses [77:55] you end up too far down the path and [77:57] it's very very hard. So you have to push [77:58] yourself right is is if you're going to [78:00] build something from scratch. How do you [78:02] avoid pitfalls? You have to learn and [78:05] study mistakes you've made mistakes [78:06] other people have made. Just successes [78:09] you've had successes other people have [78:10] had. How do you really kind of draw on [78:12] the best of it? I mean it's we didn't [78:14] really cover it today but we talk a lot [78:16] about the partnership. One of the things [78:17] of the partnership when I launched the [78:19] partnership the goal that I had set out [78:21] for ourselves is I wanted the structure [78:23] and features of the Cororean partnership [78:26] to be better than the structure and [78:28] features of any partnership that had [78:30] come before us. And the reason I wanted [78:32] that to be true was we're building this [78:33] thing from scratch. [78:34] >> And you you want to be able to say look [78:36] I've drawn on all of these lessons [78:38] learned from all these other great [78:40] partnerships that existed in other [78:41] industries. how do I take the best of [78:43] them, improve on the areas that I think [78:46] are ripe for improvement and and really [78:48] kind of use that as a catalyst. So, not [78:49] only was it a partnership, when people [78:51] actually got in and audited the [78:52] partnership, they're like, "Wow, this is [78:54] really built in a way that's friendly [78:56] and it's done that way because again, [78:57] you just become a student of all of the [79:00] things that have come before you and try [79:01] to use it to influence your decision-m [79:04] >> and it should be if you're going to do [79:05] this forever." [79:06] >> Exactly. Exactly. [79:07] >> Perfect place. Thanks for taking the [79:08] time to do this. [79:09] >> Thanks, man. [79:10] >> Awesome. [79:10] >> Appreciate it. I hope you enjoyed this [79:12] episode. Please remember to subscribe [79:14] wherever you're listening and leave a [79:15] review. And make sure you listen to my [79:17] other podcast founders. For almost a [79:18] decade, I've obsessively read over 400 [79:21] biographies of history's greatest [79:22] entrepreneurs searching for ideas that [79:24] you can use in your work. Most of the [79:27] guests you hear on this show first found [79:29] me through founders.