Brad Johnson: Welcome back to another episode of Do Business. Do Life. Excited to have Lindsey Lewis here with us today. Welcome to the show, Lindsey.
Lindsey Lewis: Thank you so much for having me, Brad.
Brad Johnson: Well, serendipitous, we’re both at Future Proof. I don’t remember who was on stage. I think Gavin Rossdale who comes to mind. I think it was BUSH that was up there. And Daniel Crosby and I are roaming through the audience. We run into you, and Daniel does like the briefest introduction with a bunch of loud music in the background, “Lindsey, Brad, Brad, Lindsey, you guys should be on each other’s podcast. See ya.” That was like the extent, and here we are today. So, I’ve got my whole Lindsey Lewis all the details here in front of me. I’m excited to dive into all the cool work you’re doing, but that’s a first to be introduced on a podcast that way. So, welcome.
Lindsey Lewis: It was the, yeah, fastest, most streamlined version I think I’ve ever experienced, so thank you, Daniel.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, he’s the man. A big fan of him. And so, anybody in his network that he vouches for it’s an automatic let’s get on the show and have a conversation. So, as we get in, you have such a cool background. You’re at the American College of Financial Services today doing some really cool work. We’re going to get into some of that research, but also, you started out as a senior financial advisor at Vanguard and built a book of business up to 200 million in your first 12 months, which is wild. So, this audience is advisors. Before we get into all the cool work you’re doing around women in finance, next-gen advisors, let’s start there. How did you do that?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. So, I like to joke that I’m a recovering advisor, and sometimes I’m like, “I think I might relapse back into advice.” But prior to joining Vanguard, I worked at an RIA in the state of Utah. So, I did a CFP-registered undergrad program. And so, I became a CFP and I had an MBA series license before age 25. And so, at that RIA, I did a lot of work with institutional plans, so building defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans, fund lineup, participant design. So, I did a lot of participant meetings when I worked there. So, I probably met with thousands of different individuals. And what was really interesting is that I would meet with folks, because I would go on site to these companies, and I would meet with folks with garnish checks in one day to people that had equity comp and defined benefit plans.
And so, I had to be able to be relatable to a lot of different, a big spectrum of plan participants. And I geographically relocated from Utah to Charlotte area, where I was a personal advisory service at Vanguard, as a flagship advisor. And so, the beauty of the Vanguard model is that you have a lot of warm leads, right? So, you have people that have large Vanguard accounts that are there. And so, it really was understanding their needs and then bringing them into the investment model that made sense for them and then put them into the financial planning service. So, the beauty of it was that you had a lot of these, like easy pitches, all of that stuff to bring them over as clients.
But what I learned is that I didn’t own the business. And that’s why a lot of the work that I do is educating new advisors or even experienced advisors around the landscape of the industry, and if they own their clients or not. So, Vanguard has an excellent model, great investment options, et cetera, but I didn’t have full discretion on the accounts. So, if I needed to send an RMD, I would have to call a client and be like, “Hey, can I sell two shares of VOO so that I can send you your check?” And I slowly started to learn the pros and cons. So, even though I went through a CFP-registered program, I didn’t understand being affiliated with a protocol firm or a non-protocol firm or discretion, non-discretion at the beginning of my career.
So, a lot of the work that I do now is educating folks around the landscape, right? So, if I build a $200 million book on my own, the compensation that I would have is very different than I’m at a firm that pays me a salary and they’re only charging 30 basis points. So, that is kind of where the pivot towards academics and helping women in underrepresented groups within financial services came from, because a lot of people are like, “Hey, if you did this, like why did you leave advice?” And so, I pivoted because I had this deep passion, especially for women, to make sure that they’re educated going into their profession here in financial services.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. Well, it’s interesting. I see I’ve worked in the independent space almost two decades now, and you see this theme of most people, how they arrive into finance is similar to you, where you work for a big company, typically captive is the word that’s thrown around a lot and you’re flying somebody else’s flag, but you don’t really understand how it all works. And then once you start to figure it out, or maybe you grow and want to do something differently, I see this natural pivot, almost like this gravitational pull to independence. I’m curious if you look through, you focus a lot on women in finance, and we were talking before we hit record here.
Back in 2007, when I got in this business, you’d have a conference with 100 advisors in the room. There might be one or two women in the entire room that were advisors. We were just at Future Proof together. There was all kinds of women. It looked like just a normal crowd of people, half guys, half girls, sort of deal. What has led to that change? Like, what has drawn women into finance, and how does it work differently for them? Or are there different hurdles in the way for women to get into finance than men?
Lindsey Lewis: I think there has been a lot of work that has happened over the past two decades to get women more interested. When you look at some of the percentages, it’s sometimes disappointing because you’re like the percentage of women who are CFP professionals hasn’t really changed in two decades, but the number of professionals has changed exponentially. So, we have such a large denominator of folks who’ve been in this industry a long time. And so, really, what I look at is tracking the newly minted financial professionals and the gender ratio there. So, a lot of the wire house firms, or some of those bigger firms, actually have pretty good gender parity coming in.
It just happens around like the three to six-year mark when you start to see perhaps there are more men who are staying within the profession versus women. And I think where we have some opportunity for improvement at the industry at large, and for professionals who are listening to this, is really understanding the value proposition for a woman advisor versus a male advisor, right? So, women love money. They definitely want to earn money, but they might have more of a give-back mentality, or they’ve experienced something in their own life where perhaps someone was financially exploited. Maybe it was their auntie, their grandma, their mom, their cousin, their dad, whomever, right?
And so, they want to make sure that the people that they love are taken care of. Or maybe it’s more of this time autonomy piece, right? I’m a parent of two young children so time autonomy is so important to me. And so, what we find, especially right now with a lot of the return to office, it changes the whole dynamic, where if I’m working from home and my commute is to daycare and back, and that’s only 15 minutes, versus if my commute is to an office and back and it’s one hour one way and one hour another way. So, perhaps like four hours of my day is taken instead of 30 minutes. It really changes the whole dynamic. So, I know a lot of women are getting into this profession because it does have those things where they can take care of those that they love, and also take care of their clients, and also experience that time autonomy.
And so, I think what I see within the space is that when people are trying to hire new folks, their job description is very like quantitative-based or it’s like you need to have the skillset, which you absolutely need to have the competencies necessary, the education, like I’m always a big proponent of that, but the American College did a research study around the traits of successful financial professionals, and 60% of them said that they got into the industry to help and serve people. But when you look at some of the roles, like how much of the job description is around, like, “We’re going to help and serve people,” it’s like, “Please use e-money to build a financial plan or whatever.” So, I think that we’re doing better.
Brad Johnson: Or like, what’s your closing ratio, right? Like, what’s your closing ratio? That’s very different from helping and serving people, which Sales 101, you still have to sell to be in business and make revenue.
Lindsey Lewis: Absolutely.
Brad Johnson: But let’s go to the female side of the spectrum. And when you look at skill sets, and I don’t know, maybe you have the analytics and the studies from the college for this, what are traits that women bring to the table as advisors? So, let’s just say I’m a founder. I’m listening to this. I’m trying to build a business bigger than me, which takes recruiting great talent into the future next-gen advisors, which I know you also have studied a lot of. If you were to say, and I know everybody’s different, but if we’re saying, “Hey, here’s like some traits that guys tend to bring to the table as an advisor, here are some traits that ladies tend to, and here’s why you want some of each,” what would you say on the ladies’ side of it?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. I’m going to start rooted within what clients want. So, clients, when they’re looking at their financial plans, the two main traits that they want is personalization and empathy. So, both, I think men and women can help clients achieve those two things. I think some of the skill sets of the empathy side come more naturally to women, and they are relatable. I would say you talked about sales. Yes, everything in financial services, like we’re all selling something. I think a woman’s sales cycle looks different than a man’s sales cycle in the sense they might be more education-based, it might take a little bit longer, but they are really great at getting referrals, right?
So, you take care of someone, and then it’s, “I have a nail girl.” “Oh, let me get that.” “Now, I have a financial planner.” “Oh, you need to meet with her.” So, I think that client connection is really, really important. In the study of the traits of successful advisors, what was interesting is that we looked at the male respondents, and a lot of them said that it’s like hard work, goal setting, et cetera, but the men that perform the best are the ones that were on larger teams. So, they like attributed individual efforts and like goal setting as what makes them successful, but they were also on large teams, which was interesting, versus the women that were like, “It’s marketing, it’s my team, it’s this environment.”
And so, it’s just interesting to see the perceptions of success between men and women using the system. So, I think that both men and women can have all the different skill sets that are necessary. I just think women tend to have empathy a little bit more naturally. And part of the work that I’m like exploring is to help more women get into the profession. Are there parallel professions that have more women than men that also have empathy standardized testing? So, like, could we bring healthcare workers, could we bring educators, could we bring realtors or social workers into this profession? Because they are service-oriented, they have competencies. A lot of them have advanced degrees. A lot of them are undercompensated for the work that they do.
And so, that’s kind of my moving forward is how can we infuse this profession with more folks? Because we know that 100,000 financial professionals plan to retire in the next 10 years, which is 30% to 40% of the entire workforce. So, we’re going to have this huge of hiring…
Brad Johnson: 30% to 40%…
Lindsey Lewis: Of financial advisor workforce is retiring within the next 10 years.
Brad Johnson: Wow.
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. So, you think you have a rush for talent now. Think of it when you have people who are trying to sell their books, people that are trying to hire. So, you have to think outside the box. So, the firms that are being more proactive about this, they’re probably going to have less of a hard time in the future.
Brad Johnson: I want to go back, you said when you survey clients, the two most important factors they’re looking for are personalization, makes a lot of sense, a custom plan built to them, not just fit me in a cookie-cutter product.
Lindsey Lewis: Yep.
Brad Johnson: And then empathy. So, on empathy on that piece of it, to me, a big piece of empathy is listening, seeking to understand before just spewing out whatever’s in your head. Do you have any studies that show, from a listening aspect, guys versus girls?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, there’s an amazing Merrill study, and it tracked advisors’ eyes. So, regardless of the advisor’s gender, men, women, non-binary, if they’re working with a hetero couple, they would spend 60% of their eye contact on the man versus the woman. And so, it’s just like little pivots there, where if you’re taking a cognitive effort of like, “I need to make sure I spend time on her,” because there are the studies out there that say that widows fire their financial advisor within 24 months. Like, 80% of them fire within 24 months. And I think some advisors are like, “That’s a future problem. Not going to think about it.” But really being honed in and spending time on both partners is really important.
I know for like a man-to-woman dynamic that I recently heard advice was like, “Just meet with the woman alone.” And I’m like, “Oh, for a guy that might be a little bit uncomfortable.” So, perhaps it is tailoring one of the conversations more towards the woman client and have that conversation of like, what’s important to you? What lights you up? Sometimes, in my experience, some of the women in hetero couples might be checked out in the financial fund, or they don’t even show up. So, it’s like, how do we talk about it? And that active listening, it’s like we might have to listen to them about their grandbabies or their dogs or whatever, because that’s what is important to her. But there actually might be other things that are important to her.
She could be like, “I’m actually interested in sustainable investing.” You’re like, “Whoa. Thank you.” So, yeah, just that one takeaway of like just making sure that even your eye contact within your client meetings, that you’re trying to space it between both partners equally. Or maybe even over-weighting the woman for a period of time.
Brad Johnson: So, it’s interesting. I kind of nerd out on some of this stuff, and I’ve literally been in the trenches with advisors for 20 years, so I’m like, “Okay. I got 10 appointments on the calendar this week. Oh, but none of them converted.” So, like you kind of break down the funnel from top all the way down. And I think a lot of finance is really built on this like 1950s version of traditional families. It was the man goes to work. He makes the living. The wife stays at home. She raises the kids. And so, there was this natural divide of financial provider and take care of the home. Obviously, it’s very different today. But some of those, dare I say, stereotypes or behaviors still continue.
And that right there, the 60/40 eye contact, if you just think about I always like just try to take myself out of the world of finance and just how do humans behave, if I’m hosting a dinner party at my house with a friend, couple, husband, wife, and I just talk to the dude the whole time, but I’m hosting a dinner, like, how weird and awkward is that? And it’s like advisors do that all the time in their meetings without realizing it. So, if you were going to, let’s get the ladies’ side of the perspective. Any advisor, male or female, if you were in an appointment, what sort of things could an advisor do to better connect with women besides obviously talk to them an equal amount or even more? What sort of questions or things might you infuse into that meeting to make a better connection there?
Lindsey Lewis: I think you have to zoom out on your client intake process, too, right? Because we want to make sure that some people, it is not just like vocally, right? Like some people might be more analytical or less extroverted, right? So, regardless of partners, you’re going to have these differences. So, when you’re thinking through your intake process, are there opportunities to garner more information in that process? And can you go through like a series of questions? And really just asking kind of the why. But I do think a lot of it is like spending time with her. When you think of it, yeah, you’re right. We have like the stereotypical environment, cultural upbringing. But what’s fascinating, if you study financial services in other countries, so for instance, Japan.
Japan, they have way more women who are in financial advice than there are men. It is like opposite effect. And that was because post World War II, a lot of the women got really interested in insurance, after all of the events that happened within the world. And so, they’re like, “We’re trying to bring men into the business.” So, there are other parallel places that have like the opposite problem. But when you’re thinking about clients, you really want to make sure that there are opportunities and different modalities to communicate. So, perhaps for a woman, she might be written, so like understanding their communication style. So, like an in-person meeting where she has to talk up if she’s introverted might be really uncomfortable, but she could fill out a client intake form or send you a voice memo or whatever.
You just have to like cater to what their preferences are and really, get to know the client. Because I think sometimes you’re just like, you get inundated with like, this is the portfolio performance, and this is where you’re at financial plan, and this is your probability of success, and yada, yada, yada. But like, if we’re with a typical hetero couple, typically the woman’s going to be younger than the man. She’s going to outlive the man. We’ve got to understand like her health concerns, right? Like, how many financial advisors understand all the nuances with menopause? I don’t know. Or how many times have your advisor…
Brad Johnson: I’ll throw myself. Not me.
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, right? Like, have you asked healthcare questions as it relates to that, right? We’re able to talk about like, “In the unlikely event that you would die…” But like, “Hey, what perimenopausal symptoms are you experiencing that are impacting how you view life right now?” Like, so many things shift for women within that period of time, but not necessarily comfortable talking about it. So, like, there’s a new book that you could read, it’s like, How to Menopause. Men and women could read it. Non-binary people could read it. So, you can understand the hormonal changes that women experience. So, it’s like things to make yourself more relatable and understand their perspective.
Because when we look at how AI is going to disrupt financial services, essentially, what it’s going to do is it’s going to help make efficiencies within the menial tasks. So, it’s going to make efficiencies. Where you’re going to have the spectrum is people are going to want more of that human connection, right? And there’s an amazing Morningstar study that came out of like from firms that leverage AI and the most appropriate ways to do it, but personalized emails that are written by AI, clients really hate that. They don’t like it. So, spending more of your time, like writing the actual email, would pay larger dividends than leveraging AI to do that. But you could leverage AI to do something else.
So, long story short or long story long, I think it’s really trying to understand that client and meeting them where they are and trying to find different modalities and really thinking through your client intake process to make sure that she has a voice in the process.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. I’ve got a super successful friend, and like multi-multimillionaire, and he basically was telling me his side of it when he met with an advisor. And he said when they left the meeting, his wife turned to him and said, “I want to work with him.” And it was simply because, to your point, he included her in the conversation where the other advisors ignored her and talked to the dude like, “Oh, this is finances. Guys talk over here.” And so, I really think a great advisor’s almost like a couple’s therapist because you think about it, like, I mean, I’ve been married 20 years and my wife and I think very differently. We know each other very well, but we think very differently on certain topics.
And so, I just even think like a basic, like give them each their own separate intake form because now they each have a voice, they’re going to have some different opinions, and your job is to synthesize those opinions in a plan that serves them both. And so, I think that’s just a really simple way to do it. It’s like, “Hey, I value your opinion too. They can be different. That’s okay. Let’s talk through that.” And the other thing, just as a leader, like whether you’re leading a team or a family, if only one person has talked the entire time, maybe turning to the other person saying, “Hey, I’m curious. What do you think? What’s your take on that?” And so, you’re almost like trying to extract it if you’re truly going to build a plan that serves them both.
So, I think that’s really good insight, Lindsey. Anything on the female side of just, whether it’s ladies in finance, some opportunities that founders out there might have, before we get to the next-gen, because I want to make sure we hit on that as well. That’s a huge coming wave in finance, but anything on the ladies’ side of the equation?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, definitely have some stuff on the ladies’ side. One last comment around like the couples. I think one of the most fascinating questions to ask couples is, how much could the other person spend without checking in with the other person? So, it could be like $300, then I need to call my husband like, “Oh, Costco is going to be like $500 this time. Is that cool?” But for couples, it can be very different, right? So, there’s like one couple I was coaching, and the spouse is like, “$50,000 before I have to call my spouse,” versus like $1,500 for the woman. So, I think that’s a really interesting question just to understand some of the…
Brad Johnson: Oh, one said 50, the other said 1,500?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah.
Brad Johnson: On the same couple?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, without having to call.
Brad Johnson: Wow. That’s wild. That’s some discrepancy.
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. So, it’s like someone can buy a new car without ever talking to someone. So, I think it’s just interesting. And so, just like trying to understand the money dynamic, because like each human carries their own money story, their own money narrative, their own trauma with money. And so, like you mentioned, it really is a meshing those two things together and creating a collective plan. But as it relates to women within the profession, there are so many efforts of folks trying to continue to champion women, underrepresented groups within financial services. I would say we’ve experienced some headwinds this year, right?
Because women get placed within like D&I buckets, and as firms are reducing perhaps some of those budgets or their initiatives or how much they’re spending their time there, they’re also reducing some of those women’s initiatives, which is very fascinating when you think at least 50% or even more of the population are women. It’s just like within financial services, we have this gender skew, right? And then as you get more narrow into like private equity or venture capital, it gets smaller and smaller. So, for whomever, I think it’s really understanding how to advocate for women within the process and then not making assumptions about women.
I think one thing that happens is what is called in academics is called benevolent sexism. So, it’s someone that’s trying to help out a woman in like a kind way, but it’s not letting her have a voice. So, I’ll give an example, right? So, I’m a parent of two kids, and let’s say they want to bring me in on a project, and my leader says, “You know what? Lindsey has a family. We shouldn’t loop her in because, I don’t know, she has like this and this and this.” So, it’s like they’re trying to do nice things. However, I was taken out of that equation without being able to say, “You know what? Like, no, I can reprioritize my schedule, or like my spouse’s work schedule change and he can take a larger responsibility with the kids. I’d love to be looped in this project,” like letting me have, or letting the woman have a say within that process.
So, just like being aware of some of these biases, there’s an incredible bias quiz on Harvard’s website where you can see where you’re biased with all different types of things, whether it’s gender, race, identity, sexual orientation, et cetera. So, I think we all go in there and we’re like, “We’re not biased. I’m understanding,” and then you take this quiz and you’re like, “Oh my God, I didn’t even recognize I had this unconscious bias in this way.” But I think it’s realizing…
Brad Johnson: What is that? Is there a link to that or is there a…?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, I’ll send you the link.
Brad Johnson: We could throw it in the show notes. Okay. Cool. Yeah. The benevolent sexism, that’s interesting. It goes kind of back to that 1950s stereotype of, “Oh, the female is in charge of the family dynamic.” We can call the guy into the project, no problem. He can fly across the country. Is that what you think it stems from oftentimes, or what’s the cause behind that?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. I mean, I’d have to go into like the academic research, but it really is just trying to do a good thing for a woman or a man. It could go vice versa without them having a voice.
Brad Johnson: So, just don’t cross people off the list before you ask if the skill set is there.
Lindsey Lewis: Correct.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. Yeah.
Lindsey Lewis: Let me or let the woman decide if I have capacity or not. Don’t determine that capacity without looping me in on the conversation.
Brad Johnson: Makes sense. I wouldn’t want to be crossed off the list that I wanted to be a part of before I have a say so, you know?
Lindsey Lewis: Yes.
Brad Johnson: So, we were talking, and apparently, you have a cool study coming out here in the near future around Gen Z research, which I had to ask. I don’t know, it’s like 18 to 27, but that upper echelon is this next generation of advisors. So, if I’m a founder, and the best analogy I’ll make, it’s like I’ve been running my own store with one cash register. So, if I leave, the cash register shuts down. I’m not running appointments. So, one of the things we coach out a lot at Triad is how to scale a business bigger than yourself. So, Do Business, Do Life, a big aspect of that is how do you create freedom? Well, you have to build a team around we and us, not I and me, and that way your revenue doesn’t go on vacation when you do.
And so, as you add additional cash registers, additional advisors to the team, many of which are that age range, if I’m a founder, what should I be thinking about? How do they think differently? What sort of ways do I communicate the opportunity in front of them so that they’re actually attracted to it and want to be there long term, versus just put in a couple of years and then go do their own thing?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. Being around advisors over the last decade, you really see that financial planners sometimes don’t have their own financial plan or succession plan. And so, it really is such an important piece when you’re thinking of like continuity of business, right? So, if you build this book of business and you want your clients taken care of, what does that look like if in the event that I’m not here or I have diminishing capacity or something like that? So, that’s where you really look at these next generation of financial planners. And I remember coming into the business, I’m a millennial, and I went to a lot of conferences and events, and they’re like, “What do we do with millennials?”
And if you actually go through the data, they’ve said this around every rising generation. They’re like, “We don’t understand them. They’re not going to be good for the workplace environment,” but they really are. And what’s fascinating about this Gen Z study, so the American College, we conducted a Gen Z study. So, that’s individuals born from 2007 to 1997. And so, we’re like, we’re really looking at those that are entering the profession. They’re in college, so we surveyed over 1,400 respondents, and part of them were individuals who are working in financial services with fewer than three years of experience, and those that are aspiring to be in financial services.
And what’s really fascinating, especially with the digital tools that are in place, Gen Z’s most preferred profession is actually within financial services. So, it tops technology, it topped medical, and they’re very curious. And a number of Gen Z folks, their first interaction within financial services with a crypto asset or some sort of coin. And so, they’re very curious. They want to learn more. But then when you look at job opportunities, there’s a misalignment. Like, you have to have three years of experience before you can even apply, but nobody has three years of experience. So, it’s like we have to provide some of those opportunities.
But what was really fascinating is that for the folks that have been in financial services, about one in four of them said that their training was ineffective. And that means that they did not feel like they were onboarded very well. And then add that in there, if they had ineffective onboarding and training, then they wanted to stay in the industry fewer than seven years. Versus if they had effective onboarding and training, they could see this as a profession and a career. So, really understanding that first iteration and that first touch, right? So, like, you have a little bit of weight and responsibility as that financial advisor to do some of that training and development.
What happens is when you’re on an independent team, the last thing you’re doing is like really thinking about like, “Oh, what is my HR handbook and how am I going to do this?” So, I think about my experiences that I’ve had at an RIA and a broker-dealer and the different training models. So, it’s like, “Here’s e-money. Figure it out,” versus like how do you create a hands-on approach so they feel comfortable? Or how do you create opportunities? The other thing we found is that for both subsections, so people aspiring to be in the industry and those in the industry, they’re hungry and they want to get promoted and they want clear paths, career paths.
And so, I mean, this is really ambitious, but a lot of them want to be within the C-suite within like six years starting in the profession, which I’m like, we got to recalibrate this. Or maybe they can do that, right? But if they don’t have career clarity, and I think that’s what’s challenging for some independent advisors is really coming up with a compensation structure that is attractive for an aspiring professional that also is profitable for you. And what is also challenging is a new hire for a firm can take them anywhere between 12 to 24 months before they’re considered profitable to the business. So, it’s an investment in someone. And when you see some of this rising generation, you see a lot of “flight risk.”
You see them job-hopping, moving around. Like, if I can get $5,000 more moving from company to company rather than staying internally, there’s like less of this loyalty to a company. So, you really have to reshape and retool how you’re thinking of investing in someone, right? So, if you see them as a line item versus if you see them as an investment. And that’s the reframe that
And that’s the reframe that we’re frequently talking with kind of the leadership at firms. This is an investment piece. So, do you want this to have a long-term dividend? Or are you just expensing this and then you’re going to have to replace it? So, that reframe with aspiring talent.
Brad Johnson: A lot there.
Lindsey Lewis: I know.
Brad Johnson: Thanks for breaking that down. No, that’s awesome. 1,000,000% on investment versus expense. I don’t care what business you’re in. People feel that. And they also, it goes back to, I’m actually surprised the statistic is that high that only one in four find their onboarding or their training ineffective. I thought it would be higher because being a guy that’s been in finance 20 years, it tends to be a lot of kind of quick start sales type of people, not a high attention to detail. which works great when you’re the only one, right, and you’re building your book. But the moment that translates to team and having to pass lessons and verbiage or whatever that is in your sales process down to the next level, the next advisor in line, a lot of people just don’t have patience. And a lot of founders, they’re like, why can’t you just get this? Why? Oh, this person burned these many leads and all of that. And in reality, they need to be looking in the mirror and saying, I didn’t have the right tools in front of them. How was I when I was 22, 23, 24, just getting into the industry?
And so, what I’m taking away from this is if you want to scale and you want to attract Gen Z talent, you better have your training dialed in. You better have a career track that shows what’s in front of them to where, do this well, go here. And you better have some patience to allow them to mature and grow inside of your organization. Anything I miss? Like, if you were coaching a founder on how to create a career track that not only attracts great Gen Z talent but keeps great Gen Z talent around, any other factors that you would put in there?
Lindsey Lewis: The other thing I would add is just the compensation, right? So, you can get, like even with large organizations, they have perhaps promotion limits, right? So, like, you can only get a 10% bump in pay or something like that. So, as an independent advisor, you have much more autonomy of how to make those compensation attractive, and so, perhaps, it is a salary at first, but maybe, it eventually has some variable comp or maybe there’s some equity components or they’re getting skin in the game in some way. But if you’re just like flat salary, maybe a 10% bump, right, it’s a different model versus if they’re feeling more collaborative or more in like a partnership.
So, you have to think about how compensation is attractive because there is the flight risk. That is an absolute thing, right? Like, if I get paid $60,000 here and I can move here and I get paid $65,000, but I can only get a 5% bump, right, I think people lose out on some great talent over like thousands of dollars, which it is super expensive to replace someone, right? Talking like tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands to replace someone. And so, spending a little bit more, even though it’s like, but this is the reframe of like, it’s an investment, not a line item. So, I think those things and that they’re really hungry and they’re really eager.
I think what’s also interesting around this specific generation because we also have the Alpha gen, which is the kids below that, so my kids are Alpha gen, so they have their own different nuances, is that every other generation does digital. And this generation is digital, right? They grew up in an environment, they’ve always known the internet existed, right? Like, they don’t know a dial-up sound. They don’t know, like– so they have a lot of value-add to companies around being digital natives, right? And so, perhaps, there’s the reverse mentor that can happen where they can help you with, maybe a social media presence or leveraging technology or 84% of our respondents want a leverage AI within their job within financial services, right? And so, there’s some perhaps like scarcity mentality with AI or like, I’ve done it always in this Excel spreadsheet, but perhaps, there’s opportunities there.
So, they’re definitely in digital. They have a lot of quantitative skills. What is interesting is that a number of these folks experienced COVID at pivotal points of their life. And so, perhaps, some of them don’t have as much soft skills as what they need, right? So, there might be some more coaching that has to happen on the soft skills side, right? If I didn’t leave my house for two years and didn’t have interactions and some of that growing and wisdom that comes from experiencing levels of conversation, they might have not had that. So, there could be opportunities to do more coaching for them as it relates to the soft side. And having that knowledge, right, like, if you experience something traumatic in your life like 9/11, when you’re going into the financial services environment, that might shape you a little bit. So, you have to keep that context as you’re onboarding folks in this generation.
Brad Johnson: All great points. Kind of goes back to empathy that you were talking about earlier, right?
Lindsey Lewis: It does.
Brad Johnson: So, one of the things that I want to circle back on is compensation. That is one thing I just think in business, in general, if you screw it up, it’s hard to recover from. And I’ve seen that happen a lot where firms start hiring advisors before they really have a vision for where they’re headed. It’s like, oh, I’m really busy. I need help. Hey, random advisor, can you come on? And it’s almost like a bunch of roommates living together versus an actual business with structure. And one of the things like, and I’m not saying Triad has the only way to do it, but some of the themes we’ve seen is how do you take young hungry talent?
And I will say, I completely agree. We’ve got a bunch of 20 somethings running around Triad. The energy it brings into the business is awesome. And it’s fun. Like, I love the fact that here’s my movies and my music and they don’t know half of them. So, then I’ll give them a hard time, like, you haven’t seen the movie Dumb and Dumber? You’re missing out on an opportunity of life here, right? But then they’ll infuse their music and their movies. And so, it’s like, it’s just a really fun generational dynamic that can happen if you allow it to.
But to unlock that growth potential, you have to pour in and you have to have a structure. And I completely agree, if the compensation isn’t right, the analogy we make a lot around here, a lot of finance was built on an antiquated higher, almost like a pyramid scheme, let’s just be real, where it’s like, oh, here’s the old school insurance hierarchy and this person’s three levels down and they don’t know it. But then when they find out, they’re upset and all of that. It’s kind of like this old school agency model where the firms that I see thriving today have built it a lot more on almost like in a law firm, where here are the partners that have been here a long time and earned their way, and now, here’s the young talent. And if you follow this track 3, 5, 7 years, you too can be invited into partnership. And that might be earning into part of the revenue. It could be equity to your point.
But that’s the sort of thing, like, if I was 24 years old and I wanted to go work my butt off for a firm I want to be at a long time, I want to know what is that thing at the end of this that I’m going to benefit accordingly, right? So, are there pay structures? And I know there’s a million of them out there, but have you seen common themes in your studies or research of, hey, here’s the sort of structure young talent’s looking for, obviously, earned over time, but are there different models you’ve seen out there work well?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. I’m going to zoom out for a second because I agree with you and I have kind of a cynical viewpoint on the structure of compensation. So, the more traditional models where you call up a hundred family and friends and you get them onboarded, I think some firms look at that as a less expensive client acquisition cost because if I can get this hungry person and they end up leaving and I get to keep those clients and that puts more on my plate eventually and then that person leaves, it’s way less expensive than buying leads or doing prospecting.
Brad Johnson: The hire is the buying of leads. It’s like, we hire 100 kids fresh out of college, only five of them are going to make it, and all the rest of them sold their grandma and their aunt and uncle and then you just keep them with the ones that stuck around, yeah.
Lindsey Lewis: Correct. And then of those that stick around, so you have to think of that model. So, I’m like, yeah, I think it is. Traditionally, you said pyramid scheme. I just think it’s like a cheaper client acquisition cost for a firm.
Brad Johnson: Interesting.
Lindsey Lewis: And they are wanting attrition is like the thought process that I think. But you see this giant shift of financial professionals moving more towards independence, whether it’s an independent broker or dealer or it’s an RIA or a hybrid RIA structure. This really data will show you, right? Like, more folks are moving that direction. And I think that comes through like education, right? Education of understanding the landscape, education of personal compensation, right? Like, if I’m in a captive firm and I’m only getting a 70% payout and I can go fully independent or I can hop on this other chastity and I get a 90% payout, I’m going to make more money and do more, like do better for my clients and be able to have an open architecture of products.
Brad Johnson: 100%.
Lindsey Lewis: So, like, you see that happening. But then when you look at compensation, right, so it’s interesting because we survey those Gen Z folks and those that are aspiring to get in the profession, majority of them want some base compensation, right? But it’s interesting of the folks that…
Brad Johnson: Are there ranges of that that you see, like, here’s the safety net?
Lindsey Lewis: I mean, it is just so variable on state specific, job market specific, right? So, like, an aspiring professional in California could be compensated different than someone that’s in Oklahoma, right? So, they just want fair and competitive for their job market. And the CFP board has great studies of compensation ranges, things that you can think about when building comp structures. But those folks that had about three years of experience, then they wanted to move to variable comp or have a component of variable comp.
Brad Johnson: Interesting.
Lindsey Lewis: Correct. Yes, so I think we get in the mindset of like, oh, they just need a flat salary, but it’s like, no. Once they hit a certain threshold or they gain that confidence or they’re getting more client facing, they’re open to more variable comp. But I think what the model looks like is you start completely variable and then they’ll become consistent once they get enough assets or enough insurance products or whatever. So, it’s like start out with some sort of base and you could have a little bit of variable, and then eventually, have an inflection point where they could go more variable comp.
And I think it really is around that mentorship and sponsorship. And those are things that are talked about a lot, right? Because it’s like, you need to mentor someone or you need to sponsor someone. And it’s like, what does that even mean? So, I look at mentorship differently. That’s like an ongoing relationship, right? You have a mentee/mentor. You can determine the length of it. It could be three months, it could be one year, it could be four years, it could be 10 years, right? And you’re determining the cadence that you’re meeting, versus sponsorship is like being willing to write a check or being willing to stand up for that person when they’re not in the room. So, a sponsor for me is like, you know what? I’m going to pay for your education or I’m going to send you to this conference so you could draw and paint or you can learn this, I’m going to send you to this client meeting, right? It’s going to cost me 500 bucks out of a flight and 500 bucks for a hotel, but then you get to experience that client meeting, right? So, it’s like, how will we frame those two things and that every person needs to be a mentee, needs to be a mentor, and needs to have a sponsor. And so, it’s like how do you create that system in play?
And the other thing that’s important to this generation is they’re eager to learn and they want an ongoing learning. So, part of your compensation could be like a learning and development budget, whether that is getting them a professional coach or if that’s getting them more licensure and designations, whether that is sending them to a conference or an event because it is showing another investment in them as well, which would ultimately pay dividends within your business too, right, but having that compensation structure. So, yes, initially they want the salary and perhaps some variable comp, but then once they hit a certain threshold, they’re open to variable comp.
But it also depends on the person, right? Because we talked about money and people have different money scripts and money narratives, and where I find most of the misalignment happens is I call it income risk tolerance and income risk capacity. So, as an individual, my income risk tolerance is how comfortable am I if my paychecks vary. Do I want $2,500 every two weeks and I feel comfortable with that? Or if I get paid $10,000 and then I have a couple weeks of zero and then I get paid $20,000 and a couple weeks of zero, like as an individual, how comfortable? And that’s the contingent on my personal money story, my money narrative, how I grew up, my whole perspective.
And then I have income risk capacity where if I miss a paycheck, what responsibilities do I have to cover? So, I always compare and contrast myself and my younger brother. I have a younger brother that lives at home. He’s 18 years old. He has more income risk capacity than I do, right, as a parent of two kids and want to provide childcare, health insurance, et cetera. So, if I miss a paycheck, that could be much more disruptive than if he missed a paycheck and my parents could help cover it. So, I think it’s understanding those, and for individuals, themselves, to understand their own capacity and then finding alignment to different roles.
So, where I feel like attrition happens is there’s a misalignment with their income risk tolerance and their income risk capacity and what the role is offering from a compensation model, right? So, if I don’t have a lot of income risk tolerance and I don’t have a lot of capacity and you put me on variable comp, I’m out, versus if I have a lot of income risk tolerance and a lot of income risk capacity and you put me on a salary, I’m also out. So, I think you have to understand that.
And one business that I partner with is called Advisor Launch Lab. And we have an advisor risk tolerance assessment that takes us through and we can see where an individual ranges on a spectrum and what makes sense for them from a compensation level because people can also shift over time. That is the other thing, right? I’ve always been, like, I want to be a W2 model because that’s what my dad told me. And now, I’m like. I want variable comp, put me on whatever model. So, it’s like…
Brad Johnson: That’s the athlete in you, the former athlete in you.
Lindsey Lewis: It is. I know I’m now just like, if I do a better performance and I get paid the same as other people, I don’t like that.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. Well, so that is such a cool breakdown. It actually reinforces. I’m curious because we have a model here that we’ve put together, we call it our Triad Advisory Model. And most of it’s just been built over years of seeing what worked and what didn’t. And to your point, first off, old school, and I’m sure it was on the wealth management side too, but I think it really stemmed from the insurance side of the business where it’s like, let’s go hire a class of 20, 50, 100. Here’s the class they sit in. Here’s how you call grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles. And I really think it was– it’s a client acquisition model for the company knowing that most won’t make it, some will that are willing to just grind their way through. And at the end of the day, as long as those clients stay at the firm, the firm wins. It was more about the firm winning than it was about the individuals, right?
And one of the things I’ve seen over the years is advisors hire too late. They’re redlining out, they’re overworked, and they’re like, I got to get help. So, then they just throw somebody in the fire, just like they were, and then they get upset when they’re burning leads because they have no skill set developed yet. And so, the Triad Advisory Model, how we laid it out, sales, service, planning, three very distinct, different versions and types of advisors. And we essentially say never hire a salesperson. Like, don’t hire somebody directly into sales because you think about your firm, back to the training track you laid out earlier, ideally, you do things a certain way that makes you distinct and unique in finance.
And so, here’s how we build a plan. Here’s our belief system. Here’s why we exist. Here’s our clientele we serve. And if you can hire them in that service role riding shotgun with a great sales advisor where they learn the ropes, they understand the language, you can do an after-action review after every meeting, hey, why’d I say that? Why’d you ask that? What didn’t you understand? Hey, this is why I went this way versus that way. Mentoring, to your point, and that giving them the safety net of salary there while they’re in that service role, and then we’ve seen that kind of be the fork in the road to where some people just end up loving service. They’re like, I just love to help people. I don’t want the weight of having to close a deal and the variable comp. I just want structure and certainty and being able to love on people. Some people just stay in the service role. Some people gravitate to planning because they geek out on e-money. They’re like, I just like spreadsheets more than people.
And then some people want the variable comp, like, I want to go there. I love this. And so, it’s kind of this path that allows them to bloom and grow into who they want to be as an advisor with the pay structure that matches. And so, it’s really interesting to hear kind of the academic side of it because I’m like, wow, that really matches a lot of what I see play out in the real world from the frameworks that actually work versus the ones that just recycle advisors every couple of years as people leave and go out the back door.
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah. There’s a lot of turn, and especially with the attrition or the number of advisors that are retiring, at current attrition rates, we’d have to hire over a million different folks in order to meet current client demand, and we’re going to have increasing demand.
Brad Johnson: With the stat you said earlier, with the 30% and 20%…
Lindsey Lewis: 100,000 financial advisors. But if there’s a 70% to 90% fail out, right, you’re going to hire a million folks to replace those folks. Like, that’s a lot of individuals. What I will say for women, so any female listeners here, is that frequently, I see that women are perhaps more risk aware or they’re like, I’m unsure if I could be this rainmaker advisor. But women actually, definitely have that ability. And I think for female advisors, they do have the ability to take on more risks, but they don’t. And I think that’s the counterpart between some of the male advisors or female advisors that I see is that women might be unwilling to move broker-dealers for a check. But if your male counterpart is doing that, then they’re infusing more cash into their business and they can grow and scale at a larger level. Or they like servicing advisors or some firms put women in a track and then they’re like, oh, you’re going to be operations forever. And that might suit their lifestyle when they have young kids, but perhaps, they could migrate moving forward. And so, I think it’s having that open dialogue, and for women advisors is that you do have the ability to take on more risks.
When you think of, like, I’m big into education and designations and all of this, right, so individuals that have designations credentials are going to have higher client retention rates, higher client referral rates, and a higher bottom-line profit. But especially for women, you see that increase and the confidence in credentials. But if you take the CFP designation at large, right, there are 25% that are women, there are 100,000 CFP professionals. And then of that 25,000 that are women, a very few percent of that are the rainmaker client, sales gatherer, right? So, there’s a huge opportunity there.
Brad Johnson: What is the majority? So, just to repeat the numbers, make sure I got them right, 100,000 CFP professionals, of which 25% are females, so 25,000, that subset of 25, very few are sales….
Lindsey Lewis: There’s not specific data numbers, just like what we see within the industry. But I would say it’s like anecdotally, probably 25% or fewer that are these rainmaker financial advisors. So, then if you take it, the industry at large, 400,000 financial advisors of the CFP women, right, there’s like a huge opportunity there, especially with that is $80, $20 of wealth going to the hands.
Brad Johnson: Why do you think that is? Is it because, just back to what, I’m circling back and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’m just curious, we talked about personalization and empathy. If I think about the skill set, sales, and service, just dividing those two different types of advisors, the way we define it very roughly, sales, they’re going to be the ones that are responsible for kind of running the first, the second appointment, converting a prospect into a client. So, there is going to have to be some ability to take on risks there because typically, their compensation is tied to that, where service tends to be, in most firms, more of a base salary type of role with more of like a year-end bonus structure based on goals of the company, so a little more secure pay structure. And back to empathy, asking about the grandkids, loving them, hey, how was it? You just have to have great relationship skills there, high attention to detail, follow through. Do you find females tend to stay in that world more than sales? Like, what if you were to divide them or what’s happening there?
Lindsey Lewis: I think it has to go with the alignment of their personal skill sets, what the firm has to offer, their income risk capacity, their income risk tolerance. But it’s also like a ton of these cultural, subcultural, conscious bias/unconscious bias, right? So, there’s this amazing book called Ladies of the Ticker, which goes through the inception of the stock market and how women, when they were allowed on the trading desks and when they got their first seat.
Brad Johnson: Ladies of the Ticker.
Lindsey Lewis: Ladies of the Ticker, it is very fabulous. It’s very much academic, but what’s interesting is like frequently, you’ll hear that women are more risk averse and signing contracts like they’re more risk aware. But you go through this inception of the stock market and investments at large, right? And it goes back to female heiress and male heirs back in the day, how they would invest their stock portfolios or their portfolios was different, right? They would put the women in a bond structure and the men in an equity structure. And so, this money narrative that gets passed down, right, like, we got to keep money in bonds, we got to keep it secure, we got to do this. So, you have that.
And then you have a bunch of cultural things that happen. So, girls’ confidence in math peaks at age 9 in the United States. So, the one they feel the most confident around their skills as it relates to mathematics is in the third grade. And then they start self-selecting out of STEM-related fields, as soon as they became teenagers. And then, they’re just culturally like, I’m bad at math, I’m confessions of a shopaholic. Like, there’s so many things around women and that skill set. And so, it is really shifting their brains and really pushing against generational things that have been brought down as it relates to money.
So, yes, women are going to be great at maintaining relationships over time. And so, perhaps, the model of the rainmaker is less attractive because they’re like, I want to keep up with my clients, but it’s like, there are ways that you could keep up with your clients. Maybe there’s one of the annual meetings that you hop in there, right? There’s ways to think about it, but I think it is that skill sets, you have these money narratives. You have their capacity, right? So, 70% of caregivers are women for aging parents, right? So, it’s like they’re going to have roles, especially if they want to have children. You have children, then you have a period of time, and then you’re taking care of your parents. So, perhaps, a servicing advisor makes sense because I can still do all the things, but there are options and opportunities where you can create that autonomy and still be a rainmaker.
So, I think it’s like having that confidence and that’s what I find with a lot of female advisors and even within myself, right? It’s less likely to take on risks, but in order to get the big reward in the long term or have a book of business or have an exit strategy, and I think that’s what some advisors miss is when I enter the profession, I’m not thinking about when I exit. But for any other business owner, that’s what they’re thinking about, right? Like, if I’m building this, I want an IPO, I want to sell, I want to phase out within 20 years. So, when you’re entering a business, what is your succession plan or your exit strategy?
And if you put it in that framework and it’s like, hey, if I own my clients and I own this book of business and I grow it to X amount and I get anywhere between a 2x and 6x multiple on my book of business and I am generating a million dollars of revenue and I’m going to get a $6 million check down the road, that’s attractive versus like a flat salary. So, I think it’s that education component, which is a lot of the work I do is really helping them understand what’s available out there.
Brad Johnson: I love that breakdown. There’s so many factors and dynamics, but there’s so much opportunity. It’s interesting because you mentioned a couple times, females might be a little more risk averse. Oftentimes that’s why they tend to be better investors. They don’t have, dare I say, these ego-driven stock picks. It’s like, no, let’s just do this the academic way and what do you know? Weird, how that works out a lot of times.
Okay, we’re about at time. I don’t want to keep you from the rest of your day, but we do have to hit a little life. So, we’ve talked a little bit about Triad’s approach, Do Business, Do Life, and what that means, and that’s build a business that blesses your life. Life doesn’t become your life. So, it’s more the integration of the two versus the tug of war of the balancing act of the two. And you shared you’re now a yoga instructor. I know you were a track athlete in college pole vault, which is wild. So, let’s talk about the do life side. If you were to define, like, what does do business, do life mean to Lindsey, how would you share?
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, it’s probably threefold. So, one is a mantra that I have with a dear friend, business partners, make more money, have more fun. So, love to subscribe to that. Business, not as usual, right? There’s things that we do. Let’s think of how we could do business differently. And then the third one is just weaving in your entire life. So, there was actually this amazing financial planning software. I’m unsure if it still exists, but it’s called Lumiant. It was out of Australia.
And in the planning software, they actually had eight dimensions of different goals. So, you would have a spiritual goal, you’d have an occupational goal, you’d have financial, you’d have emotional, social, and environmental, right? So, when you logged on to your financial plan, you might’ve missed the mark on the financial side, but you had really great outcomes relationally. So, I have subscribed that to my own life, and now, I have nine dimensions. So, it’s like, I’m setting goals spiritually, I’m setting goals intellectually, I’m setting goals occupationally, fun goals, financial goals, emotional goals, so that I show up as my whole self, right? Because when we get hyperfixated, and this has happened to me within my life, I put a lot of weight into one capacity of my life. And every other goal seemed to like hop in there. And when that like went away, I got really sad, depressed, all those things.
And so, it’s like diversifying your life, it’s like diversifying your portfolio, it’s like putting it into this different capacity. So, it’s like, I don’t believe in work-life balance. I believe in work-life harmony or work-life integration. Like, sometimes we’re going to get the note wrong, sometimes we’re going to be like overweight in our work and maybe we need to spend more time with our kids. So, it’s like having that sliding scale, but looking at life in different ways. And so, that’s why I set these goals. And it’s like, I remember I was sitting at my previous job and this is why I part made a pivot. I was like, I loved athletics. I love lifting and working out and doing yoga and all these things. And I had like an hour commute one way, hour commute back and had all this time that I was like sitting in a car and I’m like, I just want to be at the gym. So, how can I restructure how I work or what I do so that I could spend more time doing that? And that made me feel better emotionally and that made me feel better within my relationships.
And so, I think it’s that recalibration that happens and it’s just how frequently can you recalibrate and really being intentional. And because I do a lot of travel for work and for fun and all these things, it’s like every quarter, I’m same for a business review. I’m doing a personal review here. I’m setting goals, I’m recalibrating, I can make adjustments. You know what? That used to be really important to me. Not important to me anymore. Or my time is telling me it’s not important to me anymore. So, is it really important to me?
And I think that what’s really important is like understanding yourself and your identity and looking at all those different dimensions because that’s where health or other concerns happen, is like when we can’t calibrate. And that’s why it’s important to me to spend time doing the things that you love because time is the commodity, right? And so, like, let’s just do the things, make a lot of money, have a lot of fun, look at the different dimensions of your life and if that’s in yoga namaste.
Brad Johnson: Well, I love the make more money, have more fun. That’s a cool version of DBDL, right? But you took me back where you talked about kind of the eight, nine different dynamics of your life and where you’re looking at goals and balance. I think it was Darren Hardy’s Compound Effect, which is a book I read 15 years ago. And there’s a lot of personal development books out there, but it had almost like this grid where you gridded yourself. And it looked like a wheel. And if you took that, yeah, and you think about it, like if you over-indexed, like you killed it in business and you killed it in having fun, doing fun trips, but then you sucked with personal relationships or other things that, if that was a wheel, it’d be a super bumpy ride. And so, the way I look at it is if you can have balance where it’s like, oh, this would be a smooth ride if it was on a car, that’s the idea that came to mind when you were just talking about, hey, I’m just making sure I’m not too far out of whack in any world where it would just be a bumpy ride if I was riding around. So, I love that approach. That’s really cool.
Lindsey Lewis: Yeah, that’s the wheel of life mentality. I just do it in like matrix because I think in Excel spreadsheets, but that’s me.
Brad Johnson: That’s the financial advisor. And do you have a I love spreadsheets coffee mug by chance?
Lindsey Lewis: It actually says, freak in the sheets, but it has like Excel spreadsheets on it.
Brad Johnson: That is great. That is good. That’s the less PG version right there.
Lindsey Lewis: I know, I know.
Brad Johnson: Well, such an awesome conversation, Lindsey. Thanks so much for hopping on here. I’m excited to get this one out to the world and look forward to the next time we cross paths in person. Hopefully, it’s more than five minutes at a random concert, but really enjoyed the chat today.
Lindsey Lewis: Thank you so much for having me.
Brad Johnson: All right, till next time. See you, Lindsey.
