The Path of Least Resistance: Why Advisers Undersell IP

Why do advisers sometimes undersell income protection even when they know how important it is?

In this episode of Let’s Talk IP, Stevie and Matt look at the moments where conversations wobble. The price comes up, the recommendation gets softened, or a cheaper option is offered just to avoid an awkward pause.

They unpack why this happens, from adviser mindset and fear of pushback to the temptation to take the “path of least resistance”. More importantly, they explore how to hold your recommendation with confidence, handle objections calmly, and keep the focus on what clients actually need.

If you’ve ever felt that moment of hesitation in an IP conversation, this episode will help you recognise it and handle it better next time.

📣 For More Education, Collaboration and Insight:

IPTF Website
IPTF on LinkedIn
IPTF on YouTube
IP Task Force on Instagram
IPTF on TikTok

Produced and edited by SEA Studios

Transcript

Why Advisors Flinch On Protection

SPEAKER_00 0:02

So, Matt, why do advisors undersell income protection even when they know it matters?

SPEAKER_01 0:08

Quite frankly, Stevie, because they're managing their own discomfort, not the client's risk.

SPEAKER_00 0:17

Hello, this is Let's Talk Income Protection, practical conversations for advisors who want better income protection conversations, not more product chat. And today we're getting into the moments where advisors flinch, where the recommendation gets softened, the price comes up too early, or something cheap gets offered just to avoid an awkward pause. It's expensive. I'm already stretched. Can't we just do something smaller? If you've heard those before, this episode is for you. I'll be pressure testing this from the client side. And Matt's here to coach us through what actually works when those moments show up.

From Advice To “Selling” Mindset Shift

SPEAKER_01 1:03

That's right, Stevie. So what we're going to be doing in this episode is really tackling the biggest problem that I see when it comes to IP conversations. And that is when advisors take that path of least resistance, they default to a short-term plan because it feels confident and comfortable, and they're worried about the client pushing back or they don't like objections or resistance. And so naturally, what they do is they forego the client's needs to overcome their own fear of rejection and the discomfort of feeling that they've got to convince the client why it's so crucial. So today's going to be a really important episode for many people listening, and we're going to unpack exactly what they can do to stop that from happening and how they can always hold the line at that full-term income protection recommendation.

SPEAKER_00 1:39

For me personally, in my role and what I do day to day, the times that I maybe don't feel fully confident is when I maybe don't understand the need for it or a lack of knowledge there. Do you feel like that's that's one of the reasons advisors undersell even when they know the risk properly, or is it something else?

Income As The Bedrock Of Finance

SPEAKER_01 2:04

That's a great question. I think what happens, if I'm being really honest with you, Stevie, is advisors perceive that in most cases, particularly when they're talking about things like mortgages or pensions or investments, that they're giving advice. And the client's not going to object or reject that advice because that's what they've come to them for. And it feels very easy to own that conversation and to give quite clear, concise advice, full well knowing the client's not going to say no to the mortgage. They might disagree on the particular type of mortgage being used, but they're not really going to get any kind of pushback because, hey, the client needs the mortgage to buy the house, or they've come to you for specific financial advice. And as long as the numbers look good, they're likely to take it. But I think there's this misconception in the insurance industry or the advice industry that when we talk about protection, we move from giving advice into we're selling things the client doesn't need or want. And so there's that really innate discomfort and that innate fear of rejection. And so naturally that shows up in what I would call self-sabotage. So a bit like what you just said, you know, in those moments when you don't feel so confident or so comfortable about what you're talking about or the value or the importance of what you're talking about, that is then conveyed in the way you speak. It shows up in your body language and subtly in the way you communicate with people. And you almost downplay and undermine your own advice, right? And I see this playing out all the time where advisor will literally give customers what I call exit ramps. They'll literally just push them off over here and give them a door to walk through, rather than recognizing the importance of sticking to your guns and being clear and concise about your advice. If you remember in the last episode, we talked about that concept of a doctor giving a prescription. It's almost like when it comes to income protection or any form of protection for that matter, advisors almost just defaults. Well, I'm in a sales role now, so the temperature's changed in the room, client's not interested. I've now got to convince and persuade them, but I don't like doing that. So I'm just going to give them an easy out where, hey, something's better than nothing. That's how I kind of see it playing out in those conversations. I just think no one's ever truly shown them how to be able to do it in a way that doesn't feel overtly sales-y, where even if the client does push back, we need to get the client to own that decision and make them accountable for the choices they make.

SPEAKER_00 4:02

Yeah. I I want to pick up on something you just said there, Matt. You don't believe that advisors don't see the benefit there. I mean, there might be some advisors out there that maybe don't believe in this in this product and don't see the value in it. I mean, and obviously if you're trying to advise something you don't really believe in, it's not really going to work.

The Path Of Least Resistance Explained

SPEAKER_01 4:20

No, that's a very good point. And actually, I think that's the case for a lot of advisors that um, you know, particularly in, say, in the wealth space, they don't quite see the connection with a wealthy customer and a need for protection, maybe, or you've got a lot of mortgage advisors who maybe just don't see the value in protection and maybe are have had negative experiences, whether it's underwriting claims or even the advice process. And so I could I could truly understand where they're coming from. And I suppose for me, I always look at it from the point of view of income protection in particular is the bedrock of everything we do. It's the foundation on which you can build good financial advice. For me, income protection is the cornerstone of what we do because without income, you can't borrow, you can't raise credit, you can't pay bills, you can't invest. So, for example, if you don't feel confident or you don't believe in the importance of, say, full-term income protection, you're recommending a lot of short-term plans. Let me ask you a question as an advisor. Would you retire on two years worth of your income? And if the answer's no, you're probably underserving your customers, right? And so it's just about asking those basic formal questions around let's prompt a different way of thinking, which is if you don't see the value in something, let's look at the real world scenario that you might be exposing your clients to just because you feel uncomfortable about digging a little bit deeper with them.

SPEAKER_00 5:25

Okay. So, yeah, you mentioned this path of least resistance. I mean, what does that actually look like in a real advisor conversation?

SPEAKER_01 5:35

So I suppose the best example I can give you, Stevie, and it's not necessarily income protection related, although it does explain why there is not as many income protection products being sold alongside mortgages. A path of least resistance basically means because I don't really want any pushback or resistance, and I want this conversation to remain friendly and for us to continue building on the rapport that we've got together, and I want everything to be nice.

SPEAKER_00 5:56

So you can get the the you know, the sale, essentially, or you know, win win the climb.

Packages Anchor Price Not Need

SPEAKER_01 6:01

Potentially, or tick a compliance box. There's lots of reasons why advisors take the path of least resistance, quite frankly, mate. You know, maybe they're being governed or measured on um how many customers they actually protect alongside, say, a mortgage or a debt or something like that. So it's not always just because they're trying to make a sale. I don't believe all advisors are particularly sales-led or actually commission-led. I do believe that most of them want to help their customers. But I think you are right, you know, there are many of them who just go, well, some covers better than none, or I need to make a sale, or I'm need to hit my conversion quota based on number of mortgages to protection, for example. But the path of least resistance, you see this play out a lot in the mortgage world. So, for example, you've got mortgage advisors arranging a debt for someone. And then the logical thing is, well, we've now arranged your mortgage, we really need to protect you from the debt. Right? So then they started talking about mortgage-based protection solutions, which may include things like income protection, knowing that the easiest way to do it is to offer the client a cost-effective alternative, such as a short-term income protection product, because, hey, they're much more likely to say yes to that because the budget feels aligned and it feels a bit more like, okay, well, that's a reasonable level of investment for me. But what they haven't yet done is draw the connection, like we talked about in last episode, in episode one, where we're saying, well, actually, have you even got to this point of being able to borrow in the first place by leveraging the same income that you're currently not protecting? So I think for me, the path of least resistance means not doing the groundwork early on to create the value, not really drawing the line and connecting the client to how crucial their income is in all parts of this financial conversation and the goals that they've set aside for themselves. But in real advisor conversations, that plays out very nicely in that advisors are offering options. I see, I see this somebody, I don't know if this happened to you when you were doing yours, but I see advisors too and things like, well, here's a gold, silver, bronze package, or oh, here's a package with this in, and here's a package of this, and he's a package of this in. Because what they're thinking is they want to try and find a solution where the client goes, Well, I'll take that one because it's very easy to take that path of least resistance to put something on, right?

SPEAKER_00 7:55

Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, 100%. But you mentioned price there and you know giving options. Um, so let's talk about that. Why why does leading with something cheap put the client straight into that comparison mode, especially if you're you know trying to do a bronze silver gold, it's most more likely you're gonna go bronze or maybe silver. It's highly like unlikely, I think you'd go gold if you put that in front of us, you know, myself, I'd say.

Confidence Gaps And Optimism Bias

SPEAKER_01 8:24

So if you have, say, a gold, silver, bronze package, the vast majority of people, ironically, Steve, go for silver, not bronze and not gold. And the reason they do that is because they recognize it's probably in their best interest to do something. Most of them just want to tow the line and and be normal. Um there's a really weird concept that most people don't want to seem cheap, but why would you go for something that costs that? You've got a cheaper alternative that an advisor's told you is okay. And so what's really happening here is that we're commoditizing the solutions. We're making it all about price again, which is what we talked about in the previous episode, which advisors should be avoiding. We make it all about price. And then the strange thing is the minute you give someone what I would call an exit route, which is, oh, here's a cheaper option for you to go for, who is not going to go for it? Because no one wants to spend any more than they have to. No one wants to spend money unnecessarily. But there's something far more subtle at play here, Stevie, which is the advisors actually undermining the importance of this and the value of this by saying, Well, here's something you can do, whereas what they should be doing is anchoring to what the customer really needs. So this is a very delicate situation where what's happening here is the advisors almost imposing their own prejudices, concerns, fears of rejection onto the client, and they're actually driving the client towards an outcome that may not be in their best interest simply because of their own discomfort around things like discussing premiums and why someone should invest in a full-term plan.

SPEAKER_00 9:43

Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes complete sense. I feel like this whole under selling point comes, it's really amount around mindset. It's around, as we've been speaking about, that confidence, that uh understanding the product and also the the understanding that this is something that is giving people uh you know income resilience, financial resilience, it's something that is is wholly vital to support them for the rest of their life. Uh, you know, from a client's perspective, I can see how an advisor going in with not much confidence in these things will will affect the decision. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 10:23

No, you're spot on, mate. Absolutely spot on. Imagine for a minute you've got a mortgage conversation. I like I like using this one because I think a lot of the people listening probably will be either involved in a mortgage-based business. We've all have some wealth and financial planners, and again, we'll touch on those things as well. But they'll either be involved in a mortgage-based business, either receiving protection opportunities, or they'll be a mortgage advisor who can do protection opportunities. But the reality of it is this you'd never feel concerned about delivering mortgage advice, would you? So, based on what you've told me, I'm going to recommend a 32-year mortgage term with five-year fixed rate product, right?

SPEAKER_00 10:53

Yeah, it feels very binary, doesn't it? It's like, look, these are these options. This is the best rate I can get you. This is the best one based on what we've talked about. This is it. This is your top one. We will try and get you that.

SPEAKER_01 11:05

Absolutely. And so, of course, the customer, the customer's likely going to accept what you're doing because you, as the professional, have done your research, you've identified the best solution, and you present it as such. Yet for some reason, when it starts getting into a protection conversation, it's like the temperature in the room just changes. The advisor's confidence drains out their body, and suddenly they're already anticipating objections that haven't even materialized yet. They're catastrophizing a conversation that hasn't taken place yet. And it's so weird because what happens is when the confidence wanes, they're literally leaving the door open to objections and inviting them because the customer's thinking, hold on a minute, this guy's not speaking with the same degree of confidence that he did a minute ago. And he's making me feel that this is optional. And of course, if you lack confidence in your decision, how can you expect the client to get behind it? If you don't believe in what it is you're proposing, how could you possibly expect the client to buy into it? Does that make sense? It's really strange, isn't it?

Create Value Before Talking Price

SPEAKER_00 11:53

Yeah. And it's it makes me think about why is that that change? You know, because obviously, you know, a house and a mortgage, it's a it's a very defined, you know, it almost feels static. It's it doesn't feel like a living, breathing thing. Whereas you're talking, we're talking about your health and your your you know, your life and a and a person. So it becomes a bit more emotional. And you're also you're thinking about protecting someone if they were to unable to work. Most of the time, we we can't predict what's going to happen, but you assume I'd never really been sick in my life. I don't expect suddenly I'm gonna uh you know, I'm gonna be be injured. Do you think that is that that sort of bias is playing on advisors' minds when they go into it, perhaps?

Handling Cost Pushback Calmly

SPEAKER_01 12:36

I think that's very astute of you to notice that. And I think you're absolutely right. What you're describing there is something that we refer to as optimism bias. This idea that, oh, well, I got up yesterday morning and everything was fine. I got up this morning and everything is fine. So tomorrow morning, everything's gonna be fine. I'm not gonna have cancer, right? Nobody gets in their car and drives along thinking, well, this is the this will be the last time I get into this car, I'm gonna be killed on my journey. No one thinks that way. We have to have this optimism bias. But the the danger comes when what happens is the advisors assuming the client's thinking that way. And they've not done anything to prove that that's exactly what the client's thinking. And if you ask any customer you sit in front of, you must know somebody that's been seriously ill, you must know somebody that's got cancer. They will always say yes to you because we all have that issue. When you're unable to work, Stevie, you are going to need income every single month in order to pay your bills. Ergo, this is absolutely essential for you to be able to support yourself and live the lifestyle you want to live. So what we're going to be doing, and now I'm being assumptive in the way I'm doing things, right? I'm telling you what's going to happen because I have conviction in the advice I'm giving you. And that's the distinction for advisors. In all other aspects and areas of their advice, they feel very confident and very competent. The minute it gets to protection, they feel they're talking hypothetical risk that doesn't yet exist. And the problem I've got there is that that's great until it does happen. And you're on the end of a phone to a customer who says to you, Oh, yeah, did we set up that plan? You go, well, no, we didn't, because for whatever reason, that is the one of the most uncomfortable conversations any advisor is ever going to have in their lives, right? What you want to be able to do is to say, yes, we did. Don't worry. I'll take care of the claim. I'll make sure you've got income coming in. You haven't got to worry. But instead, what we're doing is we just lack this conviction because we feel we're selling something. We've convinced ourselves the customer's not interested in protection. So let's just put ourselves in a customer's perspective. Is there somebody in your life that you love, that you care for, that you would do anything to protect, both physically and financially? And they all go, yes, and go, right. So what's happening is it's not that the customers are interested, it's that you haven't yet found the right way to position it where you've created value, where you've understood what truly drives them and motivates them. And when you do, all of these things we're talking about in all of these episodes this year become secondary issues, including price, because what we're trying to understand is what is most crucial. So ultimately, it's a case of are you, are you bringing your biases into the conversation? And if you are, you need to stop because you're potentially producing terrible outcomes for customers who may have otherwise quite happily said yes to a full-term plan, but you drove into a short one because you made it a simple solution. You took the path of resistance, path of least resistance, sorry, and you made it an option that they're more likely to accept.

SPEAKER_00 15:17

Okay, fantastic, Matt. Yeah, we're gonna talk a lot more about some of these common income protection myths and other objections uh throughout this season. So stay tuned. Uh, and it would be remiss for me to not mention here the value of stories. Now, you had just talked about the values of stories there, and uh on the optf.co.uk there is the seven family stories, which is filmed over a year, and you can hear some incredibly powerful stories about how income protection really made a huge difference to people who went through completely life-changing uh injuries and life-changing moments. Okay, Matt, let's get back to the topic at hand. What should advisors do in a moment when a client pushes back on those costs? And let's take this from two points of view. Well, let's take it from the the the, you know, the you've given your best advice, you've you've really laid the groundwork. You spoke about all you've given them the the one the one offer, you know, this is what I recommend, this is going to cover your needs.

Collaborate Without Undermining Advice

SPEAKER_01 16:22

That's a great question. And I think, okay, let's assume that you've done your job properly in terms of expectation management, you've you've kind of captured a real sick expectation in the client's mind for what this is likely to cost, and then you run a quote and it's in invariably a little bit more than you're expecting. There's lots of different ways in which to handle this, and there's some very clever techniques, but quite frankly, you shouldn't be scared. What you shouldn't do, above all else, is start throwing in cheaper alternatives just to try and get the client back on side. What you should be doing is let the client sit in the moment for a minute, just let them sit. And the reason you should do this is because what we tend to do is when we present quotes like that, so let's say for example, you and I are having a dialogue, Stevie, and I've Dominic's personal goes, right, Stevie, so uh a Ford Sum Plan, the one I'm going to recommend to you, it's coming in at£186 a month, and you go quiet. Right? Now, if you go quiet, right, I should not interrupt you because what you're doing is you're subtly contemplating the value of that recommendation. You're assessing whether you need that level of income or not. Your mind's going into computing mode. The danger is because it goes a bit uncomfortable, I go, uh, well, listen, there is a cheaper alternative we've got, which so I come in and I start offering a short-term plan and I haven't even given you the chance to respond yet. So that's the first thing I'd say. The second thing is let's assume you have pushback, right? So my job now is to manage your expectations on the next level, which is you've told me this is more than you're willing to spend. So all I'd say is what's the minimum level of income you think you need every single month to maintain a lifestyle that you'd be happy with, Steve? You tell me that and we'll work off that instead. So what I was really doing there, Stevie, that the purpose of that particular way of handling the objection, so to speak, was because it's very easy for us both to focus in on prices being the main issue. Whereas what you're saying is, I haven't managed your expectations properly. You don't yet maybe see the true value of what I'm saying. So what I'm really trying to do is almost connect the dots for you and go, okay, but you still need this income every single month. So rather than kind of being aggressive or even potentially just dropping down to a short-term plan, the danger of me doing that and going to a short-term plan is that I'm ultimately then making that decision for you and potentially expose myself to a lot of risk because and liability, because I'm now almost encouraging you to take something that isn't going to deliver the minimum level of income you need each month for as long as you're going to need it for. So the idea here is I'm giving you another opportunity to revisit your process, to revisit what you need from the conversation and what you need in terms of income. And we can work it off your terms. So if you kind of come back to me with a figure that you think is going to be a more acceptable level of income, I can then do it in a more collaborative way with you rather than it being, well, it's this or it's this. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_00 18:54

That's how yeah, that's fantastic. And yeah, hopefully our listeners will yeah, really appreciate, you know, hearing from uh an income protection master as yourself. Fantastic. Um, okay, so let's let's just go on to our final uh uh question I've got a few here. And yeah, we're sort of continuing from what we've you've just said there. You know, how do you hold on to that recommendation calmly without sounding rigid or salesy?

Mindset Parallels With Mortgage Advice

SPEAKER_01 19:23

And I think that's exactly it, Stevie. It's about not panicking. I mean, the ironic thing is, and this is the genuine irony, that the minute you say to someone, so let's say let's play that scenario back again, you just said to me, Oh, a lot more than I was looking to spend. I really, yeah, I don't think that's gonna work for me. And I go, well, actually, do you know what we have got this cheaper alternative? Suddenly, what I've done is I've just actually become a salesperson. I've almost abandoned advice because I've abandoned the very agreement that we need your income for the rest of your working life. And I've almost gone, yeah, well, actually, now I'm just gonna switch into salesman's mode and go, hey, well, we've got this cheaper alternative, Stevie, that's gonna pay for two years because I'm making it about price, not about what you need. And so the R in the thing is the most the best way to deal with that calmly without sounding rigid or salesy, I'm salesy for one, the minute you start offering a cheaper alternative, you're just basically undermining the advice because either the client needs the income, either you need the income or you don't, Stevie. So what I'm trying to do with that that kind of that handling of the issue is like we said a minute ago, rather than me being rigid and difficult, I'm saying, I understand, I'm acknowledging where you're coming from. And ultimately, let me be clear, that was because I've not managed your expectations properly. If I was gonna do that properly, Steve, you wouldn't say that to me because what I would be doing is saying, right, you should anticipate to earmark around 5% of your earnings towards this, like we talked about in the previous episode. And then when we get to the presentation, I would be saying something like, before I present this to you, Stephen, I'm really pleased because I found a really cost-effective plan that I think delivers exactly what you need for the rest of your life. It's gonna give you a level of income that's gonna support yourself. And do you know what? It's amazing, it's coming in for as little as, and I'm gonna tell you the price. And you say, Do you know what? There are actually some plans that were£280 a month. And I'm gonna give you some context in terms of market price for the value I'm finding in the plan. And that point, I'm almost limiting your ability to come back and object to my price option because I'm recommending a plan that we have contextually created value around. However, let's say you do what you just did. The purpose of me asking you that secondary question around, okay, well, let's talk about what we can forego. I mean, I could look at all sorts of things. We've got so many dials to turn when it comes to good protection. We could say, okay, well, let me talk to you about this in Stevie. What we could do to help drive that to a level of investment that you feel more comfortable with is we could look at things like how quickly you might need the money. Now, if you're prepared to wait a little bit longer to get the money, we might be able to bring that level of investment down even further without compromising too much. If you're happy to drop the level of benefit to something which, let's say, for example, you said, well, I need a minimum of X per month and we bring it down, that's another way in which we can bring the investment in. So I start looking like collaborative options with you where we can tweak different things without sacrificing the actual advice, which is you need an income between now and the day you retire. So this is about stopping advisors from just Abandoning and undermining their advice, holding the line, but doing so in a way where I invite you to collaborate with me and we work together to find a solution that you're bought into. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_00 22:09

Yeah, that's perfect. Okay. So what I'm hearing from our episode today is you know, most advisors don't undersell income protection because they don't necessarily believe in it. They undersell it because they're they're trying to avoid that, you know, natural human discomfort when someone pushes back, or you know, they go cheap first and they soften their own recommendations or you know, retreat a bit as soon as that price comes up and probably have a bit of bias around going into the conversations about what the client may or may not think, um, and just maybe not just lack a bit of confidence and that just mirrors. And the fix isn't just better products or clever wording, it's holding that recommendation calmly, anchoring back to the goal, and not letting budget fear dictate that solution. Does that sound about right, G-Mat?

Tease Next Topic And Resources

SPEAKER_01 23:02

It sounds absolutely spot on, Steve. And do you know what's really interesting is he's you spark something in my mind a second ago that I say all the time, which is no advisor out there, no investment advisor, no financial planner, and no mortgage advisor would ever let the customer push back on their recommendations if they knew it would cause them detrimental harm. So, for example, if you had this example of someone who say wanted to invest all of their money into a high risk fund, but you knew that they couldn't and they were risk averse or they couldn't afford to lose it, you would never let them do so because it would go against everything you stand for. If you met a mortgage customer who said, I plan on selling my house in 12 months, I don't want to keep it, but I want a 10-year fixed rate mortgage, you'd never let them do it. Right. And yet this is really interesting because you have so much confidence and conviction in that part of your advice. But when it comes to protecting, it's like all the walls come crumbling down, you don't know what you're doing. Either the client needs the income or they don't need the income. All you've got to do in the same way you would adjust a mortgage recommendations, you know, around things like, oh, well, how long we do the fixed rate for and what deposit we're putting down and what's the loan to value. All you're doing there is just negotiating with the customer to find an acceptable solution where they get the outcome they need and you are able to stand by your advice, not undermine it, and know that you're not going to put them in a in harm's way or create detriment or risk further down the line. So you're absolutely right, Stevie. It's about having that mindset and that confidence.

SPEAKER_00 24:17

Incredible, Matt. Thank you very much. And that's it for this episode. Next episode, we go head on into full-term versus short-term cover, why the market defaults and how to hold the line without feeling salesy.

Share The Podcast CTA And Close

SPEAKER_01 24:36

Yeah. Looking forward to this one. I'm going to give you loads of top tips, exactly kind of the stuff we just touched on now, but going a bit more depth as to how to make sure you can hold that full-term recommendation line. And we'll give you real examples of where it's worked so you guys can know and with confidence go out there and have those conversations with the clients without feeling salesy and knowing that you're always going to do the right thing for them.

SPEAKER_00 24:54

Great, fantastic. Okay, that's it for the episode. Um, if you've not checked out episode one, which is all around why the income protection conversation falls apart, please do go back and listen to that. And also you have season one and season two, which is chock full of lots of other information and and uh industry chats and all sorts around income protection. It's worth diving into the back catalogue two while you wait for the next episode.

SPEAKER_01 25:20

Absolutely. And do me a favor, guys, if you're listening. If you're listening to this, you're one of those few advisors who've already done the understood the value of listening to these types of things, self-development, getting better, and the coaching that we're offering. But you must know other advisors out there who maybe aren't listening to the podcast, but who'd really benefit from listening to what we're talking about today and the tips that Stevie and I are giving and that would really help them have far more meaningful protection conversations. So do me a favor, share it with people you know, peers, other advisors you maybe you know aren't already listening to the podcast. It would really help us get the message out there and hopefully help lots more advisors have even better IP conversations. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 25:52

Thanks, Matt. Okay, that's it from us. So we'll see you next time. Goodbye.