Transcript

Matt Heine: Hi, Carl, welcome to the show.

Carl Richards: Good to be here, Matt. Thanks for having me. I look forward to this conversation.

MH: Carl for the benefit of our listeners you're actually over in the UK. And how is it over in the UK?

CR: Things are great. Weather's been good. Things are good. It's exciting to be here. We miss New Zealand a lot, but we're excited to be here.

MH: And how long have you actually been in the UK for?

CR: Just since January.

MH: Right. So you arrived pre-pandemic, obviously.

CR: Yeah.

MH: How did you find arriving in a new country with everything that was going on?

CR: I mean, it's obviously been an interesting time everywhere in the world. Yeah, it made it a little harder since we didn't know a lot of people and my daughter just started making friends when things got shut down. So that's been a little challenging, but I mean, look, it's been challenging everywhere, so we have nothing to complain about.

MH: And you mentioned just before you've come from New Zealand where I think you lived for a number of years. And before that, you were in the US?

CR: Yeah. So lived sort of born and raised in the mountains in Utah. And what would that be? Almost four years ago, we decided to move to New Zealand for a one year trip and we stayed for three and a half and loved that place and plan on coming back for sure. And then came to London for my wife to study at interior architecture school.

MH: And I think we might come back to that just how best laid plans will inevitably change. And I know that's a topic that you're very fond of and certainly can talk to. But I'm interested also, how did you get into financial planning at the very start? Your career has evolved dramatically over the years. But what was it that first attracted you to the sector?

CR: Look, there's going to be a common theme, which is people make plans and God laughs, right? So I got into the industry speaking broadly, using that term industry. I got in by accident. I applied for what I thought was a security guard job. And it turns out the ad in the newspaper said securities, not security. And I didn't really know the difference at the time I was in college and undeclared major, had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. And I ended up getting the job through just whatever that tells you about the applicant pool that day. So I got into the industry quite by accident, but really shortly thereafter I was in a big call centre that was Fidelity Investments, big national call centre.

And there was one of the early tech companies. It was Netscape, which many of your listeners won't even know what that means, but Netscape went public shortly after I got hired and I was on the phone answering phone calls and realised real quickly that it clearly wasn't a security guard job, and then I had figured out it was a math job. And then I got on the phones with real people and realised, "Whoa, this isn't even a math job, right? This is about feelings and emotion." And so I got into this industry by accident, but I stayed because of that experience, that this was a uniquely human emotional behavioural thing. And that's what's kept me interested ever since.

MH: So when you say you fell into it by accident, so were you studying anything to do with finance or economics at uni before you applied for the security job?

CR: Not at that point. In the United States, they have this thing called an undeclared major, which means you just go and figure out what you want to study while you're at university. And I hadn't declared a major yet. I mean, I had a sense that it might be in business, but shortly after I got the job I was like, "Yeah, I may as well get." My wife had a degree in finance. I had a mentor who sat me down and said, "Look, if you're going to get a business degree, get it in accounting or finance." And then I got that job. So I was like, "You know what? I'll just get a degree in finance."

MH: Yeah. And Netscape was probably if not the first, one of the very early tech successes.

CR: Yeah. It was like the first shot across the bow I think of what we were going to see later in '97, '98, '99. It was a really fascinating time and a huge laboratory if you're interested in human behaviour as it relates to people's money. So it was a really fortuitous time. I mean, just a series of really cool events that led to me being interested in this field and particularly in the human, the art, the human element of financial advice.

Listen to more Between Meetings podcasts

In this podcast series Matt Heine, Joint Managing Director of Netwealth, chats to industry professionals and thought leaders on what opportunities and challenges they see for financial advisers and the wealth industry as a whole.

Listen to the episodes

 

MH: So you went from the call centre into a more of a client facing role as a financial planner. How did you go from there to drawing sketches for the New York Times?

CR: Yeah. And again, I'm a huge friend with luck and I'm super cool with luck. The only thing I can point to in terms of lessons from this experience... I'll tell you about the only thing I can point to afterwards. The origin story is I was sitting in a meeting with some clients, super smart, successful people like most of our clients. Most financial advisor clients are successful smart people. And I was trying to describe a concept that they really needed to understand. I felt like they really needed to understand in order to make this decision that we were trying to make together. And I was just getting blank stares and it wasn't their fault, right? This is a medical doctor and a technology sales rep. Two smart, successful people. So it was my fault.

And out of an act of desperation, there was a whiteboard in the conference room I was using and I had never used it before, but I jumped up and was like, "Oh, like this." And I drew some circles and a square and an arrow or something. And they were like, "Oh, I get it now." And that moment, I was like, "Oh, that's..." I don't know what that was, but that was pretty cool. So a couple of weeks later I did that again with a client, they laughed and they called afterwards and said, "Hey, that thing you drew on the board, could you redraw it and scan it and email it to me?" And when I saw it go out digitally, I thought, "Oh, that's interesting. I mean, I could send that to more people."

So I started just putting these up on this little blog and nobody was reading it. My mom and my sister maybe, but I just kept doing it. And despite there was no reason for it, I was just sort of addicted to the idea of taking something complex. And early on it started with, once I got asked a question more than once, right? If more than one client asked me a question, and often it was about the news or markets or whatever. Clients calling scared or whatever it was, if it happened more than once, I was like, "Okay..." That must mean if more than one person had a question, there's probably more people. So that's how I came up with the material. So I would just take the answer I gave, write it out and then draw an image, put it up on the blog.

I did that for a long time. And again, with nobody listening. And then one day I got an email from the editor of the New York Times. I'm not skipping a lot of steps actually. And the email said something like, "Hey, I love these, would you do them for us?" And I knew from my security guard background to say yes, and figure things out later. And that was over 10 years ago. I did that every week, that column went every week for the New York Times for 10 years.

MH: Amazing. And so the initial sketches were they always market or financial planning related?

CR: Yeah. They were heavily money. And yeah, I think even specifically they were heavily investment related. And then as my interest started expanding and I started realising that the problem I was trying to solve initially, and it was the name of the website and my company now behaviour gap was initially totally focused on the gap between investment returns and investor returns. And that gap I labelled the behaviour gap. And so I was really focused on how do we close that gap? And I thought, initially, that was just an education problem. People just didn't know. Naively, I thought, "Oh, the solution is we just tell people, we show them more charts and graphs and facts and figures." And that obviously doesn't work.

And then I started understanding behavioural finance and I start writing about that. And then I realised like, actually, this is all of this focus on investments and behavioural finance is really hacking at the branches of the problem. The root of the problem is a human problem. And then I even thought financial planning, and then I realised most financial planning is contributing to the problem, not helping solve it. Real financial planning helps solve it. And I realised that was really a giant human problem. So that's how the behaviour gap went from a hyper-specific investment return versus investor return to now, to me it means any well-intentioned behaviour, well-intentioned that you think it's what you should do, but it's producing a suboptimal result. Not only is it not helping, it's actually hurting you. And so you can follow that arc in the column as well.

MH: Okay. I might come back to that because I think that's a really interesting point. So you said you've been doing that for 10 years. That's over 500 give or take a different sketches or issues that you've identified on the journey which is mind blowing.

CR: Yeah. It's pretty interesting, and I think a good financial planner, advisor should be familiar with this concept, right? When you do consistent small, simple things for a long period of time, it compounds and you wake up one day and you're like, "Wow, there's two million words in a..." I mean, we recently spent a year cataloguing all my material and there's 60,000 data points in our air table spreadsheet. And you're like, "That's crazy." Right? It just happened one thought, one little idea, one little sketch at a time.

MH: So you mentioned before that financial planning is sometimes actually the problem, not the solution. What did you mean by that? What's an example?

CR: Yeah. I mean, I think you can go one step back real quickly, which would be investment advice is definitely often the problem, right? And it's interesting that data that we use to compare investment returns to investor returns is typically mutual fund data and mutual fund data historically, 60 to 80% of the money in mutual funds got there through an advisor, right? It was advised money.

And so if the data of mutual funds is showing, there's this suboptimal performance gap, then it shouldn't be very hard to take the next logical step, which is, that means somebody was giving that advice. And it's easy to understand this is the most popular subject I talk about among financial advisors. I mean, I actually gave this talk at Morningstar's big national events in Chicago, where we are the problem. What'd you say?

MH: I was going to say Morningstar's done a lot of research around Adviser's Alpha. Is that aligned to the behaviour gap or do you see them as being quite different?

CR: I wrote a column for Morningstar for five years and know them really, really well. And I think there's two pieces of data that are interesting. They put together any fund. I can't remember if it's five or 10 years, as soon as they hit five or 10 years, they have a number called investor return. So you can go on any of the Morningstar reports and you can see the fund return. And basically all it is, is dollar weighted versus time weighted rates of return, right? The time weighted rate of return is what the fund did because the fund shouldn't be penalised for people pulling money in and out. It's not in their control, but the dollar weighted rate of return is what the average dollar in the fund did while it was in the fund and it's fascinating to look at.

But then you look at their Adviser Alpha, which is saying, "Look, here's all the ways an advisor can add value." And one of those ways is by a predominant source of Adviser Alpha is in behaviour modification and closing that gap. But we're the ones that create it. And here's why we create it. We create it because again, we've got to keep in mind, this is well-intentioned behaviour. Financial advisors and planners think that our job is to find the best investment for clients. That's what we think our job is. And that's what the industry tells us. It's what the news tells us, it's what clients ask for because they've been trained by us.

Nobody woke up or nobody ever was born expecting a quarterly performance report. Nobody. We taught them that they should want a quarterly performance report. We taught them that they should watch CNBC or the financial pornography network because we put it on in our lobbies when they walk in to meet with us. We taught them that they should look at performance charts because we put that big Ibbotson's chart growth of a dollar up on the wall. So we taught them that. And then we go to conferences and we hear about the latest hot dot alternative investments, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right? And then we go home and we're like, "Oh geez, we should have..." So it's all well-intentioned, but that well-intentioned behaviour is leading.

The evidence is clear. The well-intentioned behaviour is leading to suboptimal results. We would be better off if we just listened to Warren Buffet and thought the hallmark, listen to this quote. It's crazy. The hallmark of our investment success is benign neglect, bordering on sloth. And it's nuts. The reality is our job is not to find the best investment. Of course, we should have a defensible investment process. I feel like I could look clients in the eyes and go, "Look, you're not going to find a better way to invest money." Right? I've looked under every rock for the last 17 years, I can go toe to toe with anybody on the way we invested money, but it doesn't matter if we don't behave. You get one behavioural mistake a decade, and you may as well have been in term deposits. You know? Anyway, that's how the investment part of our job contributes to that problem.

MH: It's probably a little bit too early. And we're still somewhat coming out of the pandemic, but presumably we're going to see some huge divergence to that point alone just between some of the robo-advisors in the US and also in the UK and those advice clients, have you started to see any evidence of that yet?

CR: Yeah, I don't know. I know that the only thing I've seen is Fidelity released a survey or a study around, and the number was pretty crazy. It was something like... I actually, I don't even want to go with it. I just remember the number being crazy. And it was the percentage of clients. And again, I can't remember it was over 50. So it was like the percentage of clients between 50 and 60 that went to cash in February and March. And the number was astonishing because I thought we had fixed this problem. I hadn't seen numbers like that in a long time.

I don't know. Look, some of the robo-advisors are amazing, right? That's not our job. I love some of the robo-advisor work like Betterment and Wealthfront. It's amazing. They're doing a great job and a real financial advisor should feel no threat at all because that's not the job. I know some people at some of those companies, because we have gone back and forth on Twitter over the years and become friends and still have healthy debates. There's not a lot of evidence showing that they had people massively misbehaving either, or that they did it any worse than "Advisors."

MH: And the interesting phenomenon at the moment is the Robinhood rally where we were saying, I think Robinhood brokerage had three million accounts opened over the course of the last couple of months, which is the next problem waiting to happen.

CR: Yeah. That's a whole another subject, right? Robinhood has just made cutting your own fingers off faster and cheaper, right? That's different than what a "Robo-advisor" has historically done where they're providing solidly well-built portfolios based on long-term academic evidence. But, yeah. Robinhood that's a whole another, that's just nuts.

MH: Carl, given those comments, what were the best advisors doing over the last three or four months. Who are the ones that have really shot the lights out from a behaviour perspective?

CR: Yeah. And I want to be clear, I've sounded like I'm harsh. I don't think you'll find a bigger fan or a stronger advocate of real financial advisors in the world than me. But the problem is we need to understand what that means, right? And I've spent the last 10 years all over the world meeting real financial planners or advisors, whatever you want to call yourself. And those people are the ones that have really understood that the job is not about writing prescriptions, right? The job is about diagnosing. And if you get really good at diagnosing, and I think of that as just aligning a client's use of capital with what they say is important to them. If you can get really good at understanding first, what's important to these people, why are they doing it? What's the underlying purpose?

Because most of us don't, and I'm speaking broadly as an industry. As an industry, we don't do that, we just chuck prescriptions at people and people know this, they expect it. They're like, "Okay." It feels like going in to buy a car. It feels adversarial from the beginning. That's why their hands are on their wallets when they walk into the office like, "You're not going to get this from me." But real advisors, and there are a lot of them in Australia, by the way. I almost feel like there was a higher concentration in Australia that have been doing it longer. And I couldn't sort out why maybe it was some early George Kinder influence, I think. Same thing here in the UK. But real advisors understand long before. I'm going to argue with you or suggest for you, whether you used to take a plane, a train, or an automobile on a trip long before that, we're going to get pretty clear about where you want to go.

And those are the ones that I think have also been able to. Because to me that's the only solution to the behaviour gap is, I've got to be able to pull you out of the branches of the latest this or the latest that. When you get nervous or scared or excited, I've got to be able to say, "Hey, hug first. I understand why you're nervous and scared. I get that way too if I watch the news. Real quickly, let's go back to what you told me in the first meeting and what we've talked about each meeting since. Do I have this right? That you told me that the reason you're doing this..." Reconnect them to the reason.

Because keep in mind what you're telling them to do when you say don't sell or don't buy Tesla or whatever the thing is in the news, when you're telling them no, to something they really feel like they want to do because of herd behaviour and just all the behavioural finance stuff we know. When you're telling them no, the only way to get them to stick with a no is to give them a bigger yes, and the bigger yes is this underlying, I like to think of it as financial purpose. I'm trying to insert in the industry right now. I would love to see everybody listening to this. Start crafting, the first document you should build, the first paragraph of your one page financial plan should be a statement of financial purpose. Why are we doing this?

I think a statement of financial purpose should become a standard. Because if you have that, you can help them say no to bad behaviour. It's the only shot you have. If you just spray them with facts and figures, like, "I want to get out." "Oh yeah. Look at the 10 best days chart." Whatever, it doesn't work. I just hit delete, delete, delete, sell. But if you can say to me, "Wait, wait, wait, wait. I know where you're at my friend. I understand why you're scared. I get that way top. By the way, you're there because you're human. It's what it feels like to be a human and an investor. But before we do anything." And then you pull them back to the foundation, then you've got a shot. Those are the financial planners right now that I know that have kept people safe during tough times.

MH: Carl what you're talking about sounds a lot like goals-based planning, but I think you have a strong view on that.

CR: Yeah. Look it's different than goals. Yes, goals-based planning is a good first step. Well actually, a good first step was crafting portfolios based on risk tolerance. We were doing that in the '90s, right? Awesome. It was amazing. Instead of have a hunch, buy a bunch, right? We were building portfolios on purpose. Then we moved to goals-based planning. And I think goals-based planning is great, it was revolutionary for its time. But I'm talking about something underneath that and there's a whole bunch of problems with goals-based planning.

Number one, clients don't like to ask what their goals are. They don't know. They tell me. I've been writing a column for humans for the last 10 years, they tell me, "I'm not going to go meet with a financial planner. They're going to ask me what my utility bills are going to be 17 and a half years from now." Right? "I don't know what my goals are." They don't even like the word. You use the word goals, you watch what happens to somebody. They tense up, their shoulders come down, they don't even know. And Shlomo [Berit 00:26:20], I always get his last name wrong. But Professor Shlomo at UCLA has done some amazing work around this. So we can start underneath that-

MH: Why do clients dislike the word goals? What's the negative connotation that it builds for them?

CR: Pressure. You've been asked that since you were a kid, what are your goals? Goals, goals, goals. It's like flossing, brush your teeth. But that doesn't mean we aren't going to identify them. We have to be more-

MH: Human.

CR: Yeah, human. And we have to engage in the craft, right? So if I ask you Matt, what's important or why is money important to you? And you say to me, just to fast forward this. I mean, I can tell you Jerry and [Veer 00:27:15], I remember asking Jerry and Veer. "Jerry and Veer why is money important to you?" And they said something like, "We really never want to be a burden to the kids, and we would love to also have an opportunity to be free to serve in our community." And then I asked more questions. Tell me more, tell me more. "And you know what else we'd love if we could, we'd love to leave some money to each of our kids to set them up." Okay, well see now I can say, "Well, Jerry, when you say not being a burden to the kids, let's put a little framework around that. What would that mean? And by the way Jerry, as we do this, we put some framework around this. Would it be okay if we call that a goal?"

That's a completely different experience than sitting in my lobby, I'm sorry to get a little grumpy about this. But sitting in my lobby with an intake form that says, "What are your goals?" It's a completely different experience. So we've taught Jerry what a goal is at that point. Then we put framework on it and then you're right. From there, the investment process, the only correct answer to why is your money invested the way it is, is because this portfolio thoughtfully constructed, gives me the greatest chance of meeting those things that we now call goals with the lowest risk, right? Now everything's linked.

"You told me you didn't want to be a burden to the kids and you wanted to serve in the community and you wanted to leave some money to the kids. Okay, cool. That's amazing. Is there anything else more important about money to you?" "No." "Great. Let's frame those up and call them goals." "Cool. The goals then will inform the portfolio. Do you see how we made that link to the whole thing Jerry? You're scared right now. Let's back up. You told me you didn't want to be burden to the kids. Is that still true?" "Oh yeah, yeah, totally, totally." "Well, when we talked about it, we framed that up as you wanted to check in the mailbox for $5,000 a month for the rest of your life. Is that still true?" "Yeah. That's still true." "Now, do you remember? We invested the money based on that." Now we have something to link. We can give Jerry a deeper yes, so that he can say no to this fear he's got right now. Does that make sense?

MH: It's a really good analogy. As you were saying that it made me think about me back at school and people ask you what you want to do at university. And you have no idea. Instead, you write, that's the goal, but if you start to ask them, "Well, what is it that you're interested in? What are you passionate about?" It's a very different conversation that you can then bring closer towards that final goal.

CR: For sure. That's a great example. When you asked why don't people like goals, that's a great example. Did you like being asked what are you going to study for the hundredth time by an adult? You know what I mean?

MH: So I think one of the big things you've touched on is and we saw this when we visited the US is just a shift away from being a wealth manager to a holistic financial planner and goals-based planning. Are you seeing big differences still between what's happening in the US and the UK and potentially to a limited extent what you've seen in Australia?

CR: No. I mean, I think everywhere I'm seeing way more commonalities than I am in terms of differences I think everywhere there is a select group of people who are really committed to this as a craft, to being a real financial advisor and they understand what it means, or at least they're sorting through what it means. When they find each other, no matter where they are in the world, they immediately recognise each other, which is super fascinating to me too.

So there's this core group and it's pretty small as a percentage. Then there's the rest of the industry, and I use that term specifically, and the rest of the industry are a mix of outright criminals, people who are doing things that they shouldn't be doing. And then you've got the people who are the equivalent of car sales folks. They're just selling product. And again, as long as that's all disclosed and legal, it's a job.

The dilemma of course is clients don't really know when they walk in, whether they're walking into a criminal's office, a sales person's office or a real financial advisor's office, they don't know. That's the big dilemma. When you go into a Toyota dealership, you know the person's going to try and sell you a Toyota. They're not going to say to you, you're under no false impression that if a Honda is better, they're going to tell you, right? You know the game. In our industry, no matter where you are in the world, it's still very hard to sort out what the game is and who's on your side and what conflicts you're dealing with.

So I'm not seeing much of a difference. I mean, in the UK, I've met some of the best financial planners I've ever met in my life, same in Australia. In the United States, obviously just because the percentages are bigger and some of the best financial planners in the world are in the United States, but I see the same problem. We're all trying to sort out what it means to be real. We're all trying to sort out what our real value is. I think that's the big question everybody's asking themselves. Like, "What's my actual job? And what part of my job is actually valuable?" And we've seen that landscape shift massively over the last couple of years, for sure. Just like, "What's the value piece?" Because pricing pressure is real. Really real if you don't know what your job is. I know real financial advisors with six to eight months waiting lists, they have no pricing pressure, but that's because they're super clear about what their value is.

The Netwealth Portfolio Construction Podcast

In this podcast series, our investment research team pick the brains of key wealth management professionals to uncover unique insights on the investment areas they are most passionate about.

Listen to the pocasts

 

MH: When we were in the US one of the advisor over there made an interesting point. He said when most advisors in the US are charging 1% and Vanguards come out at 30 basis points, how do you describe the value that you're creating for that extra 70? And it was a really interesting question that I think took a lot of our clients certainly by shock that they had to then think very hard about, which is, what is my value?

CR: Yeah, I totally agree. But I know real financial advisors who are charging 1% who they've never even have the discussion, they don't even have to have it because the client had an experience in the first meeting where they felt understood for the first time in their lives. I don't care how good and Vanguard is good. And I'm a fan. I don't care how good. Only a real financial advisor. And once you feel understood and thoroughly diagnosed, right? As long as the price you're paying for that service is in the ballpark of the industry. It's so valued. That process of feeling understood and being thoroughly diagnosed, it happens so rarely that when it happens to somebody, they understand that... It's not even the same job to them anymore. I don't even know what to call it. I've had this conversation with clients. They're like, "Look, I don't even know what to call it." When I say financial advisor to my friends, compared to what they hear when I say it, it's not even the same job.

MH: Globally, it appears the industry has the same problem. What do you think the key ingredients are for it to continue to evolve into a profession and for people to understand what the real value of a financial planner is?

CR: Yeah. So the profession piece I just notoriously stay away from. I don't know. I'm glad there's big organisations like the FPA and the CFP board and there are individuals fighting that fight and I'm a huge supporter of them, but I don't spend any time on it. What I spend the time on is, how can individual advisors and planners be professionals, act like professionals? Be fiduciaries in the states, right? And act like that.

And I think your second part of your question about how do they understand what the value is. I can tell you right now, I know exactly what the value is. I've been told a hundred times by clients, a thousand times. The value is in aligning people's use of cat... Well, actually, let me rephrase this a different way this time. The value is being, if you understand your job, real financial advisors are guides in a changing landscape and no longer defenders of an outdated map. If you understand what that means, you will have no pricing pressure. If you understand what that means, and you're able to give people the experience, I don't even care. If you're able to talk about it, you just have to give them that experience. They will talk about it if you give them that experience. Then that's what the value of a real financial advisor is.

MH: Carl you've painted a picture of the future and the skillset of a financial planner is very different to what it was 10 or 20 years ago. What do you say the key ingredients or the key skill sets for a financial planner in the future to make sure they deliver on that value?

CR: Know how to ask really good questions and then listen very carefully. Let's say it like, know how to diagnose thoroughly. That's the number one skill. Look, all the technical components of our job. Sometimes people think I'm downplaying this. I'm not, you have to be a rockstar, but it's table stakes at this point. You have to know how to do that stuff. You have to have a defensible investment process. You have to know how to use a calculator and a spreadsheet. You have to know all that, but that's no longer sufficient.

The real key now is knowing how to thoroughly diagnose, how to ask really good questions and listen, that's it. All of the problems, overcoming objections, marketing, sales, getting people... All of the problems are upstream. If you're having a problem overcoming objections, I think if you're having objections, you should immediately go, "Oh, the only reason I'm having objections is because I missed something." Because clearly, if I didn't miss something, the client and I would be on the same page and there would be no objections.

Just take responsibility for it and say, "Clearly I missed something." Go back upstream and say, "You know what? I'm sorry, I must've missed something. Can we start again?" Back to asking really good questions and listening to super carefully, because if the diagnosis is thorough, the prescriptions very, very easy, very, very simple. So that to me is the key skillset of a real financial planner is to know how to ask really good questions and listen.

MH: Carl, I think that's a very powerful point to leave on. Before you go though, we've covered a lot in a relatively short period of time. If our listeners want to find out more about the sketch guy or behavioural gap, where would they go?

CR: Well, there's two places since this audience is for advisors, you should join the fellowship and the only way to learn about... I'm not allowed to talk about it much, but the only way to learn what the fellowship is about is go to the societyofadvice.com, the societyofadvice.com and find a way to get your name on the wait list. And then we'll tell you more about the fellowship.

MH: Okay. And are you going to come and visit in Australia soon?

CR: Oh yeah, for sure. We love that place. I don't know when soon is, but we will be back. Yeah.

MH: Fantastic. Thank you so much for your time, Carl. I've really enjoyed that chat and some absolutely fantastic advice and insights there. Appreciate it.

CR: Oh my pleasure, man. Thank you.

You can subscribe to Between Meetings on iTunes, Spotify, Google podcasts or Stitcher.

Views expressed are of the interviewee and may not be the opinion of Netwealth or its related companies.