In conversation with Ron Diamond of Diamond Wealth

Transcript

Kristin Fox:

Family offices have, for many years, run stealth, and people knew very little about them. But with the great wealth transfer and hyperbolic headlines, there’s a lot of information out there that wasn’t there before. We brought together Jacob Miller Miller, our co-founder and chief strategy officer, and Ron Diamond, head of Diamond Wealth, to have a conversation about what do family offices really look like? And what are they doing that’s different?

Ron Diamond:

First of all, it’s great to be here. Ron Diamond. I basically run a syndicate. We have about 124 families, anywhere between 250 million to 30 billion, and we invest in the private markets. And that’s the main thing that I do, which is private equity, venture capital, real estate, hedge funds, sports teams, etc. The other three pillars are I sit on some advisory boards, I run the family office group for Tiger 21, and I put together the Family Office initiative at Stanford and University of Chicago, and we’re in the process of doing one at Oxford.

Kristin Fox:

What do family offices look like? Who are they?

Ron Diamond:

You asked me the most difficult question first. You know, it’s interesting. I gave a talk at Stanford, and I had multibillion dollar families on the podium. And I just said to them, I said, what’s a family office? And why did you guys create it? Literally had five completely different answers. And nobody was wrong. Nobody was right.

But the interesting thing is, this is such an inefficient market right now. Understand also, with family offices, only 25 percent of families make it to the second generation, 10 make it to the third, and five make it to the fourth. So the model itself doesn’t work. It’s fragmented, it’s inefficient, and it’s siloed. And also understand this is a very new industry. Sixty-eight percent of the family offices that exist started since 2000, and half of those started since 2008. So this is a very new industry. You’ve got huge amounts of money in very inefficient hands.

And I’ll just end by saying, currently there’s $10 trillion in capital in family offices. To put that in perspective and level set, there’s about $6.5 trillion globally in the entire hedge fund universe. So those are bigger than the entire hedge fund universe. But more importantly, in the next 20 years, we are about to experience the largest transfer of wealth in history. It’s $124 trillion that’s moving downstream from the baby boomers to the next gen. So this market will be larger than private equity and venture capital. It’s massive, it’s inefficient, and it’s ripe for disruption.

Jacob Miller:

Now it occurs to me, with that breadth and fragmentation and the so-called decay function of G1 to G2 to G3, one of the pieces I think we can appreciate from the allocator side is the benefits you get to scale. Whether that just be seeing more deals, being able to write bigger checks, or operational efficiencies because a lot of costs are dollar costs.

Without a plan, you’re going to see that G1 fracture into two to three G2s, then fracture into seven to fifteen G3s. Each one of those is not going to have the resources it needs to operate at the level it did when it was all concentrated. And I’m not sure people get that as it’s being passed down—where you might lose from the splits.

Ron Diamond:

No, it’s a great point. And the answer is that you’re right. You’re spot on. They don’t. Right now, it’s not really an industry. I mean, there’s certain families like the Pritzkers, the Crowns, the Dells, the Balmers, the Gates—they’ve institutionalized this. They can compete directly with Blackstone or Carlyle. They’ve got all the top equipment and all the top analysts.

But the vast majority of family offices—85 to 90 percent of them—are in over their heads. Many of them either shouldn’t exist and should be part of a multi-family office or need better technology in order to exist. And that’s one of the things I love about what your company does.

Jacob Miller:

If you’re going to have to try and be a GP and compete with these firms whose only job is to put capital to work, what are the benefits of being a family office that you need to lean on? And what’s the sort of minimum viable solution set to show up to the table?

Ron Diamond:

Well, the biggest advantage that we have as family offices is patient capital. That’s the first, second, and third most important thing. The way the model works today is a private equity firm is going to buy a garage door company in Des Moines, Iowa. And when they purchase it, I can tell you pretty accurately when they’re going to sell it—not because I’m so smart, but because I know how they’re compensated. They’re going to sell it in about five years.

They’re going to sell it to either a strategic or to another private equity firm—typically another private equity firm. And I can tell you about when they’re going to sell it again, which is going to be in about another five years. So over the course of 20 years, if you look at the taxes, the friction, and the disruption in the business, this company is going to change hands four times. Those disruptions are massive.

A family office has the ability to buy a company, hold it for 20 years, and let it compound. The results aren’t even close. This is objectively a better model. The problem is that very few family offices can execute.

Jacob Miller:

Look, we’re seeing it right now across private markets, and it’s especially acute in venture. For a private equity firm, it’s five years. For a venture capital firm, eight to ten. But liquidity has dried up in a lot of sectors, and you’re not getting the distributions that you needed to, one, pay yourself your performance fee, and two, have those LPs—many of which are family offices—put that back into your next fund. It’s pulling the wheels off in a lot of spaces.

Are you seeing that? I mean, patient capital would get rid of that headache. You can weather a three-year clog in the markets, and you’re probably still cash flowing 100 percent.

Ron Diamond:

And again, it’s not subjective. It is objectively a better model because you don’t have a shot clock. The day that a private equity firm or venture capital firm buys a company, the shot clock starts, and they count down. Whether it’s five years or seven years, they need to sell it.

I remember I was at a lecture that Jeff Bezos gave, and what he said—which is quite spot on—was that if most of the world is competing on a four- to five-year time frame, and you have the ability, like Amazon, to compete on a seven- to ten-year time frame, that difference is massive. And that’s the difference. Family offices have patient capital and the fact that they’re not constrained by a time frame.

I graduated from Northwestern in 1987, when private equity was just getting started, and it really disrupted the public markets because it was a better model. I used to run a hedge fund, and if you’ve got to report to me or someone on Wall Street every 90 days, it’s a hard way to run a company. You’re basically managing your earnings.

So private equity was a better model. Two percent covers the overhead. Twenty percent—I make money when you make money. What happened in general—and I’m correct, and many of the private equity firms won’t necessarily say it publicly, but they’ll all say it privately—the companies get too big. The funds become too big.

Jacob Miller:

So I’m curious on that point—what you’re seeing in terms of competition for deals between fund sponsors and families. Because what’s going through my head is, you know, the other side of being patient capital is you probably want to be entering at a reasonable valuation so you can compound on that.

But if I’m a private credit manager and I have to put my $10 billion fund to work—maybe I over-raised—I might start writing a lot of loans with weak covenants and low yields. So how do you compete with someone who might not have the right alignment model?

Ron Diamond:

It all has to do with the alignment of interest. What’s happened in the family office market is they look at things, and IRR is almost a moot point for many family offices, because they don’t have to return capital to investors as quickly as possible.

I put together a syndicate of maybe 20 families. Maybe we were going to buy a company for $100 million, and a private equity firm came in and spent two weeks. Now, there’s no chance the company is worth that much money, but what are their options? They have two lanes. The reality is private equity firms have two options. One, they can return the money to the investors—that will happen 0.0 percent of the time. Two, they can overpay because they’ve got a lot of excess capital.

When the market’s overheated—and we saw this right before COVID—that’s the problem with the model. I think objectively, what I’m saying, people will realize that the family office model is a better model. But there’s so much work that we still have to do in the family office. Right now, even though it’s a better model, if we can’t execute, it’s a moot point. Some families can. More and more will be able to.

Jacob Miller:

Yeah, I think there’s a big distinction. We could call it capital-F Family Offices and lowercase family offices. There are folks that you work with who are actually able to do sourcing and diligence in partnership with what you do and with other families in that group. But there are a lot that are basically reliant on their fund manager relationships for access.

Maybe they do some co-invest, but it’s primarily through the primaries. How does that change? How do you move from a model where you’re sort of beholden to impatient capital and two-and-twenty and more focused on gaming IRR because that’s how you get access to deals? How do you graduate to the level where you have your own criteria, you’re looking at the market, and you’re able to find those deals that haven’t been inflated?

Ron Diamond:

We’re at an inflection point in family offices. More and more, people who are looking for access to money are looking to partner with family offices.

One of the things I would also tell you is that in order to create efficiency and really create alpha, in my opinion, you need to operate. And family offices are operators. If you look at venture capital and private equity firms—and again, I’m a finance guy, so I’m not saying anything negative against finance—but to create true alpha, you can’t do it through financial engineering. You need to do it by operating.

If you look at most of the top private equity and venture capital firms—not all, but many—they’re finance guys. You can’t have finance guys doing this if you’re going to do something long term that’s going to benefit the company. You need to operate. Family offices, at some point, operated something, and they understand that. And that’s a huge differentiator.

Jacob Miller:

Within the fund world, of course, there are people who take both their fiduciary duty and being the best seriously, and others who more often play the “maximize my management fee” game. We often talk about investment managers versus investment gatherers, but we see the same distinction within private equity funds and venture capital firms.

It’s the former operators who know what it means to build and grow a business who are winning more deals these days. I think as capital gets tighter, it’s not just the biggest check that wins. It’s “how are you going to help me grow sales?” “How are you going to help me refinance in this difficult period?” If you’ve been there before, you’re going to have a lot better answers.

So we really like that distinction. We focus on operators. I guess my question is, how do you identify spaces where you’re not going to be competing against the asset gatherers? Of course, sometimes they’ll be ideal partners too. But I think, as you’re saying, it’s also about leaning into where, as a family, you might have unfair advantages you can give to a CEO or a founder. So how do you think about that—almost like the sourcing edge you can bring by being an operator?

Ron Diamond:

Well, remember, money is a commodity. Money’s plentiful. There’s a lot of money in the market, and if you’re good at what you do, it’s not hard to raise money.

What family offices offer—and I think their biggest advantage—is strategic capital. Capital itself, to me, doesn’t really do much. Strategic capital does a ton. These families, at some point—Greg Wasson was the CEO of Walgreens at one point. So let’s say you’re in the health care space. I’d kind of rather be with him doing something in health care than with somebody who has even more money but doesn’t understand health care and just knows how to financially engineer a company.

Tim Callahan was Sam Zell’s partner and made a fortune. He’s a brilliant guy and a friend in the family office market. Well, if you’re going to be investing in office real estate—which is a risky category right now—I’d kind of rather be with him than with somebody who just has a lot of money.

We’re at an inflection point. Right now there’s a lot of pain in private equity and venture capital. Everything’s getting called. Nothing’s coming in. So even family offices have liquidity constraints. It’s very hard to raise money right now. I would argue—and many people would agree, certainly in early-stage venture—it’s probably as hard to raise money today as it was in 2008.

So you’re in a very challenging time. I think what family offices are going to do is become the next iteration of an asset class. It’s going to be more efficient.

There’s a lot we have to do, and I can get into the details. But I’ll give you one quick example. One thing we don’t do right yet is compensation. If we want to compete with Carlyle and Blackstone and KKR, we have to hire the best talent.

Today—and again, I’m generalizing—but I’d say 85 to 90 percent of families, if they pay a kid out of Stanford or Wharton or Kellogg $250,000, they look at that as a cost. In other words, this person costs me $250,000.

I can promise you, if Blackstone or KKR or Carlyle hires that same person for $250,000, they don’t look at it as a cost. They look at it as a potential $20 million profit center. It’s nuanced, but that’s just one small example of what family offices have to get right.

We need to professionalize. We’re not there yet. I used to think we were in the third inning. Then I thought we were in the second. The more I get into it now, I almost think we’re in the first inning.

Jacob Miller:

I’d love to dig in there. I’m a huge geek for incentive structure stuff, and I won’t get into specifics, but I saw some horror stories from my previous life surveying more institutional investors. The classic three-year evaluation period in the pension and endowment world, I think, has created a lot of very bad decision making.

So what does that look like for patient capital? How can you attract the best talent and reward the best talent in line with what you expect patient capital to do? Because unfortunately, young people are often impatient as well. I know I can be sometimes.

Ron Diamond:

I’ll give you a perfect example. Paul Carbone is a close friend. He runs a family office for Tony and J.B. Pritzker. He was a very successful private equity guy at Baird and doing great. Now, how was Tony Pritzker able to lure him over? Well, he was making a lot of money already, but what Tony had to do was give him incentive.

And incentives mean things like lines of credit, part of the carry. Because again, the family office wants to make money, but the CEO also wants to do very well. What some of the smarter family offices, like the Pritzkers, have done is they’ve incentivized these people. They give them part of the carry. They give them lines of credit. They give them forgivable loans or different things that help them participate in the upside.

It’s not just about making money for yourself as a family. If you make people under you wealthy, it will make you wealthier. You have to look at it from an abundance mindset. That’s kind of how I look at the world. If you look at it from a scarcity mindset, it’s not going to work.

Jacob Miller:

Yeah, I love that. If you look at some of the greatest sources of value creation in finance historically, it’s been things that—even if they didn’t call it that—essentially operated like a partnership model. You could eventually become part of it.

You could say, sure, the first person in gave up too much of the equity, but they wouldn’t have created that firm if people hadn’t seen a path. “Here’s my place in that in ten years if I work hard enough.”

So I like the abundance mindset and getting people to that point. It’s a tall task, but getting people from a cost mindset to an R&D or profit center mindset—I hope it would also help shift what you’re looking for in talent. You’re not just looking for someone to slide the deck from the left column to the right column and say it’s ready for review.

If that person has material participation in whether the company does well or poorly, they’re going to look a lot more closely.

Kristin Fox:

As the money is changing hands with this great wealth transfer, what’s going to be different as the next gen takes over? What are they going to invest in? How are they going to look at their money? What kind of stewards are they going to be?

Ron Diamond:

There’s something called impact investing, which has become very popular over the last ten years. That didn’t come from the older generation down—it came from the younger generation up. So I think you’re at a point now where the next generation is going to be investing in things they care about.

It’s not just philanthropic, but they don’t want to invest in companies that pollute the world. They don’t want to invest in companies that do bad things. That’s something my generation didn’t typically take into account. We had two buckets—we had the for-profit bucket and the philanthropy bucket. Now they want to kind of merge those together.

So I’m very optimistic with the next gen. I think they’re going to be much more comfortable with technology companies. They’re going to be much more comfortable with things that make a difference and have a bigger impact long term. I’m extremely optimistic about the next generation.

Jacob Miller:

I’m curious to dig in there. It’s a topic I’ve thought a lot about, and I’ve seen—let’s say—a mixed bag of actors, especially in the ESG and impact space. They’re different things, but you’ve got a cottage industry of firms where you pay them $500,000 and they’ll give you your ESG stamp.

But thinking about what a family office can do with that patient capital and the change they want to see in the world… I’m thinking about participatory capitalism. How do you see that done well versus poorly? What advice do you have for people if they want to be impact-oriented?

Ron Diamond:

Well, look—my father, who was my hero, passed away at 57 of prostate cancer. My first boss was Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham. He also developed prostate cancer around the same time. What my dad did is what I would do, or you or most men would do: you go to two, three, four, five doctors. You go to the best doctors you can afford. He did that, and he lived three and a half years, and then he passed away.

What Milken did—and this is to answer your question—he went to three or four of the best doctors he could afford, which is anybody. But he also built a sort of venture capital firm. He put $250,000 in this crazy idea, $3 million here, $2 million there, $4 million over there. Because of Michael Milken, Jacob Miller, you and I and most male listeners will die with—but not of—prostate cancer.

Fast forward 30 years. Irrespective of what you think of Bill Gates, he did more for COVID than the U.S. government. Eric Lefkofsky—his wife developed breast cancer. Tempus was a company that was started not to make money, but to solve the problem. Sergey Brin has a predisposition for pancreatic cancer. He donated $1 billion. Is he going to solve it? I don’t know, but I’d put my money on him over the American Cancer Society.

So to answer your question, I think you can’t run a philanthropy exactly like a business. But I think a lot of these family offices are going to solve—not all—but many real-world problems. Because it’s not going to come from the government. They’re not good at that. And it’s not going to come from corporate, either. I think it’s going to come from family offices that have been touched by something.

If you’re touched by something, and you’re the family office and you’ve got the means to do something, I think they’re going to take that passion—if their kid has diabetes, they’re going to do everything they can. Not just write a check. They’re going to figure it out.

Jacob Miller:

It’s not just patient capital. It’s patient mission as well. These are large problems. You might not solve them in five years or ten years, but they’re worth solving.

Very few institutions—even dedicated philanthropies—can necessarily back that up. They have to go raise their contributions every year, and their investors are going to look for their annual report with metrics and results. But sometimes, results take a little bit more time and effort.

Ron Diamond:

It’s a great point. And in general, philanthropy is not run well. My North Star is this: it’s never a good thing, from a societal standpoint, for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. And that’s where our country is going right now. The disparity in wealth is huge, and that’s a bad thing.

But the positive thing is, I do think that with the wealth a lot of these family offices are going to inherit, they’re going to use it for good, and they’re going to solve a lot of these problems. Like I said, it’s not a panacea, but these family offices—who’ve been touched by something, who have the means—are going to run things more entrepreneurially than just writing a check every two to three months.

That’s my North Star. And that’s why I’m most optimistic about the next gen.

Jacob Miller:

I’m going to ask a kind of philosophical question here, but I think you’ll have a meaningful answer to something I’ve thought about a lot.

I think there’s a core problem in our country and globally right now that’s sort of at the root of a lot of populist movements—on all sides of the political spectrum—which is this idea that the world is zero-sum. At the end of the day, if someone is better off than me, then that must make me worse off, and vice versa. And yes, the disparity has increased.

How do we get back to a world—maybe through private markets or actions family offices can take—where people actually believe the pie can grow? What can we do, as people who believe in investments and capitalism, to restore that belief?

Ron Diamond:

I think a lot of it has to do with an abundance mindset. That’s really critical—having an abundance mindset.

We’re all in this together. I’ll give you a perfect example. My daughters went to a great overnight camp called Agawak. At the camp, they divide everyone—ages 7 to 15—into a green team and a white team. During the year, the green team tells secrets and doesn’t talk to the white team. And the white team doesn’t talk to the green team. They’re opponents. They’re opposites.

But at the end, when they have the awards, everybody comes together. And they say, we’re not green or white anymore—we’re Agawak. That, to me, is a microcosm of what’s wrong.

The right and the left are fighting. But our country is not actually far-right or far-left. We’re center-right or center-left. At the end of the day, we shouldn’t be Republican or Democrat. We should be Americans.

And to me, that’s the biggest problem. Without getting political, the world—and certainly our country—has become very divisive. That’s a bad thing. And in order to get back, we have to realize we’re all in this together. Period.

We’re not just Republicans or Democrats. We are—but what transcends that is we’re all Americans. And I like that.

Jacob Miller:

Here’s a question that might be over-indexing, but how much do you think that—if you play back the last 15 years—you enter post-crisis, you enter your interest rate regime, you have QE, capital is extremely abundant. But because capital is extremely abundant, I think a lot of actors tilted towards the financial engineering side that we talked about earlier.

How do you make money? You borrow at zero and you buy things and markets go up and you look smart, right? But to your earlier point, that might not be—we can call it alpha, we can call it value creation. Is that somewhat to blame for the growth of this mindset? Because so much of the growth has been sort of more mechanical versus real growth and innovation? Or are they both reflections of a deeper theme here?

Ron Diamond:

So I blame it on greed and ego. And here’s what I mean by that. Post-crash, pre-COVID, I don’t care what you invested in—private equity went up, real estate went up. I’m not saying it was easy, but it was certainly easier to make money with interest rates at zero. Venture capital went up, Bitcoin went up, the stock market went up. Whatever you invested in went up.

So the family office said, well, wait a minute, why should I pay this expert two and twenty if I can make money and pay zero? And they were right—until they were wrong. Then about three years ago, when they started jacking up the interest rate, all of a sudden, not only were family offices not making money, they were actually losing money. And now you’re going to see a backlash.

So I think the greed part, which I said initially, is—why pay fees if you don’t have to, if you can still make money? That’s a very myopic way to look at things. And then the ego part again—and this is the biggest obstacle in my opinion for many family offices. I say this all the time and it offends some people, but the biggest obstacle that many of the family offices have is actually the ego of the matriarch or patriarch.

Because at the end of the day, Ty Warner was a brilliant businessman and he created Beanie Babies, a business that I could never have created. And he made billions of dollars. Well, then he decides to be a hotel guy—and by the Four Seasons, they got clobbered.

So you’ve got huge amounts of money in inefficient hands. I’m good at a couple things. I’m really bad at a lot of stuff. And I think that’s true with most people. But when you have a liquidity event and you’re now worth $1 billion, and everyone’s coming up to you and giving you a high five and patting you on the back—it gets to you.

And I think ego is something that’s going to be studied and learned a lot more. And I think part of the reason that many of these families don’t make it literally has to do with ego. And I think that’s going to change.

Jacob Miller:

Good answer. I like that. Maybe we’ll switch gears here a little bit to more forward-looking. We talked a little bit about AI and just the shift generationally. Obviously, if we’re first innings in family offices, we’re first pitch. So a lot more to be discovered and unfold than we know.

But where are you seeing that matter the most right now? Are families picking this up? Are they shying away from adoption? What are the most important changes you’re maybe not even seeing yet but can see on the horizon with the technology shift?

Ron Diamond:

Well, what AI does in general—and even what your company does in particular—is going to change the game for a lot of family offices. Because what’s happening is, right now pre-AI, you needed more people, more bodies, you needed to pay more money. AI can replace that. So you don’t necessarily need a team of 65 people. You could use AI to supplant many of these people.

And what that does is it levels the playing field. So now you don’t have to be a $20 billion family office to compete. You could utilize tools and AI like what your company offers and be a much smaller family office, but still be just as efficient—because AI is so efficient.

So I think we’re at a point right now where all family offices are looking at it. Some family offices are implementing it. I think over the next 3 to 5 years, almost every family office will utilize it. Even the largest—the family offices we invest alongside, the $30 billion families—many of them are bringing in a director of AI. And they don’t even know what his role is going to be yet. They just know they need that.

So that’s on the big side. On the smaller scale side, what it’s going to enable is, if you’ve got a $500 million family office—and again, everything I say is relative, $500 million is a tremendous amount of money—but it’s the bare minimum you need to have a family office. Now they’ll be able to compete.

Because now, through AI and with technology—with companies like what you guys are doing—you have the tools to compete against the larger firms, whereas previously you couldn’t. So I think what it’s doing is it’s going to level the playing field, and I think it’s going to be hugely impactful.

Look, I think AI will change the world more than you. I mean, you know more about tech than I do, but AI is going to change the world more than the internet.

Jacob Miller:

The way it can fit into human worKristin Foxlows is much more natural. So a little bit more on what we’re doing: we use AI in a lot of different parts of our firm. But one of the most exciting applications right now is in what we’ve been talking about a lot—diligence, sourcing. How do you find the right investments that service your portfolio and your long-term goals as patient capital?

To your point, a lot of firms—even above $500 million, even above $1 billion—they’re not going to be able to afford ten investment analysts at the senior level. Those are big paychecks. Maybe they can get one or two. But if those people can see 20 times as many deals every week because the tool is doing the screening step for them—that’s usually the most time-consuming and manual—just to even get to the point of knowing if you want to go in person, do the on-site.

How do you get from a pitch deck and a schedule of investments and a track record to “yes, we’re going all in”? We talk to our clients about this all the time. They say, look, it’s probably five data analyst hours—and so, call it a day basically. Well, if you only have two people, you can screen two deals a day.

And that’s not even taking into account the last 20%—where you need to go do the onsite, write the full memo, call the auditor, all the important final checks. If you can only do two a day, you can only do, with holidays, 600 a year. If you’re a big family office, you’re going to get a lot more than 600 deals a year. That’s just the inbound.

It’s not about replacing the human—it’s about making that human in the loop 20 times as efficient. How do we make one person look like 30 people—senior plus mid-level plus junior—right on your desktop?

Ron Diamond:

Right. And this is what your company does. But the beauty of what AI does is I can now say, okay, I have a family office worth $3 billion, and we invest in lower-middle-market private equity, which I’ll define for this example as $5 to $10 million EBITDA.

Well, I see thousands of deals. And it takes a lot of time just to look at the deals. If I can cut out the ones that aren’t $5 to $10 million in EBITDA, that aren’t lower-middle-market companies, that aren’t located in the geographic area I want, or that aren’t in the industry I want—that’s going to save us countless hours of time.

I can’t even imagine—it’s not two, three, five, ten—it’s a hundredfold amount of time saved. Because it’s going to screen out 150 companies we don’t even have to look at. And that, to me, is what’s going to happen in the family office space.

That’s why I’m so excited about companies like yours. What you’re doing is basically leveling the playing field. And AI is enabling people to compete against the Carlyles and the Blackstones.

And if you know what your niche is, you set your perimeter, you say, “This is what we do. We invest in these types of companies. It can be this, it can’t be that. It can be cyclical, it can’t be cyclical”—it’s going to rule everything out. And by ruling everything out, that’s pretty much 90% of the diligence that people do.

So it’s going to be a game changer. And that’s why I’m so optimistic about what you guys have created and the industry in general.

Jacob Miller:

And hopefully, if all that keeps going, we will fund the best ideas—and we will prove to a large swath of the population that abundance is real.

Ron Diamond:

Yeah. Look, I think we need an abundance mindset. And not only is it important, it’s also a lot healthier way to live your life.

Jacob Miller:

Not only healthier—but maybe my closing thought—it’s one of those things that if you believe, it makes itself true. So it’s a healthier mindset and it’s one that becomes self-fulfilling if you really live it.

Ron Diamond:

I completely agree.