Seth Bradley's Break from Big Law's 'Golden Handcuffs to Real Estate

Imagine breaking free from a lucrative but unfulfilling career, a feat Seth Bradley esquire accomplished with finesse. In our latest episode, Seth opens up about his leap from Big Law's 'Golden Handcuffs' to the dynamic world of real estate syndication and entrepreneurship. Through his story, we unearth the realities of a high-income lifestyle that often leads to a cycle of excessive spending and personal dissatisfaction. Seth's legal acumen, once used to navigate complex transactions, became an asset in his pursuit of financial independence, enabling him to carve out a life aligned with his values and passions.

Navigating the regulatory maze of fund-to-fund investments can be as daunting as a labyrinth, but Seth and I provide a map to the treasure. In the heart of our discussion, we dissect the transition from joint ventures to structured fund-of-funds. We dissect the importance of complying with securities regulations and the nuances between Reg D 506(b) and 506(c) exemptions. For anyone curious about forming and managing investment entities, the episode highlights how to handle these challenges while cultivating meaningful connections with investors.

As we wrap up our conversation, Seth and I illuminate the strategies and exemptions for structuring investment funds within the constraints of complex legislation. We reveal how to make use of the 'rule of 99' and SPVs to navigate the Investment Company Act, and an exemption from the Investment Advisers Act that may provide relief for smaller-scale advisors. Seth's journey not only serves as a blueprint for financial liberation but also connects to his broader mission of sharing his knowledge. By delving into his ventures at SethPaulBradley.com and RaizeLaw.com, listeners can tap into his wealth of experience and embark on their own paths to entrepreneurial success.

More info @ www.raise.law and also www.tribevest.com

Follow David McIlwaine's Socials

YouTube | LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook

Join my newsletter @ MAC Assets

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:02

Hello everybody, david McWayne with Break it Golden Handcuffs. Today I'm excited to have with me a former Golden Handcuff wearer, seth Bradley Espyer. He's a former Big Law Securities Attorney and Real Estate Syndicator who slows billions of dollars in real estate transactions. Over the past decade he's a managing partner of Ray's Law, chief Legal Officer of TribeVest and host of the Passive Income Attorney podcast for Body World Class Counsel on Resources to real estate syndicators, fund managers and passive investors. Seth, welcome to the show.

Speaker 2: 0:35

David appreciate it. Man, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 1: 0:38

Yeah, I'm excited to dig in a little bit. So, as a former Golden Handcuff wearer, what can you tell me about your experience of how you broke your handcuffs?

Speaker 2: 0:49

Yeah, definitely man, I'll dive into it. I went down the big law career path so I went to law school, did pretty well, like most. I was advised to take the biggest law firm job you could possibly get and that was actually pretty good advice. It's easy to work your way down meaning size in law firm rather than work your way up. So it was good advice. But once I got in there I realized it's just a rat race, just like most W2 jobs are.

Speaker 2: 1:21

You make a lot of money but you end up spending a lot of money trying to keep up with your peers, trying to keep up with the folks that are above you, and being an attorney at a law firm that is paid in lockstep, meaning you know what you're going to make next year and you know what you're going to make the year after. That. You kind of get comfortable knowing what you have to spend and you end up just spending every single dollar you get. And especially when all those around you are doing the same thing, you know they're buying a bigger car, buying a bigger house, trying to keep up with the Joneses, that sort of thing.

Speaker 1: 1:55

It's really hard to drive a three-series. Yeah, I always thought it really hard to drive a three-series. Everybody else is driving a seven-series.

Speaker 2: 2:02

That's right. It's funny because I would say my first golden handcuff was a five-series. Basically, within the first two months of me getting my first big law firm job, I bought a brand new BMW 550i and it was just like all right, I made it, I deserve this, like you know. Whatever and get this, I still own that car. I still drive that car.

Speaker 1: 2:26

Yeah, so I wrote a check for a seven-series one day one year and I loved it, and then I had kids and sold that for an Escalade. Somehow I downgraded it, but such as life, so I no longer own my seven Okay.

Speaker 2: 2:45

But I can pull your leg, but it's ready to go. That was in 2013, so so, it's fully depreciated.

Speaker 1: 2:54

Yes, there's not much left.

Speaker 2: 2:57

It's at the end of its useful life, that's for sure. Awesome.

Speaker 1: 3:01

So how did you finally find, whatever it took you to decide, hey, this treadmill is tough, I want to get off of it. What was the originating problem or pain point or awareness moment where you said enough is enough?

Speaker 2: 3:21

Yeah, I mean as an attorney, you're billing. You know trading your time for money is what you do. I mean at its lowest point, I mean it is you're billing every six minutes, like you're writing down every six minutes what you're doing and billing for it. So that is the definition of trading your time for money, right? So I got used to that, I got tired of doing that, and then really seeing what quote unquote success looks like in a big law firm is what really turned me around and really had me kind of looking around to see what else was out there.

Speaker 2: 3:54

You know, seeing the older partners, you know they're in their 60s, they're in their 70s, they're still billing tons of hours, just like I was, if not more. They're in the office, you know, later than I am, maybe earlier than I am. You know they're working just as hard, if not harder, than I am as a young associate and they've quote unquote made it. You know, and that's kind of my future, If I do all the right things, if I, you know, kiss all the right butts, if I bring in clients, if I bill all these hours year after year, I'll make more money, but I'm still success is that's what success looks like and when I realized that that I didn't want that, that's when I started looking around and seeing what else was out there and luckily for me, you know I was a transactional attorney, so I did corporate law, I did real estate law and I was exposed to business folks, entrepreneurial folks, people buying real estate, and I started seeing kind of what it looked like from their perspective and I realized that that's where I wanted to be.

Speaker 1: 4:54

That transactional attorney value actually paid off in some ways, right, because you actually got to see the business going forward and see a different life.

Speaker 2: 5:02

That's right. That's right and I kind of it's funny because I went on a journey here and I'm still you know, we're always on that journey. I went on that journey as a syndicator, as a real estate owner, as a buyer, as an entrepreneur as well and other businesses. And now I'm kind of full circle back. I'm building my own law firm right now because I see the value in that, but it's a little. It's a lot different when it's your law firm and you're building it, compared to when it's somebody else's and it's part of this bigger, you know, this bigger machine.

Speaker 1: 5:35

Yes, it's funny how we go full circle. I, too, have gone down this journey and I am going full circle in some other ways. I'm actually adding an executive coaching business that focuses on sales executives and sales leaders, because that's where I was and there's great passion and what I did for 20 years, and so I understand that. And you did it to build the light differently when you broke on the handcuffs. So just curious, you know we're talking offline. You told me that the co GP model was challenging, and I think the phrase you used was the co GP model is dead. Now I have my opinions on this, but I want to hear your opinion, seth. So why is the co GP model Dead? Sure?

Speaker 2: 6:21

And obviously there's an asterisk there, right? I mean it's more of a oh wait, what do you mean? It's dead. It's not dead. I mean the Code GP model as it sits.

Speaker 2: 6:30

If you execute the Code GP model correctly and we're talking about, let's say, you get a group of people together to buy some real estate and you're raising capital from other people who are going to be past investors that's what we're talking about here. The Code GP model, as it should be executed, is perfectly fine. You get a few people together maybe somebody underwrites the property, helps with the due diligence, flies out there. They're really good at identifying a great asset, right. And then you team up with a guy who's really good at asset management say, after you close on the property, they're really good at executing the business plan and then you team up with another person who's really good at boots on the ground, being a property manager type or something like that.

Speaker 2: 7:15

There are different roles within that kind of a business structure where, if you are an active partner and you're a Code GP in that sense, that's perfectly fine. If you are an active partner, that's great. That's what that's designed to be. That's just like you and me getting together in a business, raising capital from some past investors and buying some real estate and you and I operating the property and we go about our business. That's a Code GP model. That's great.

Speaker 1: 7:39

Right, that's a traditional one. The SEC very much is in favor of.

Speaker 2: 7:43

Absolutely.

Speaker 1: 7:44

The assumption is you're going to say there's a lot happening that's not necessarily the SEC's choice.

Speaker 2: 7:51

That's right. It just gets abused, right. It's just like anything in life people push boundaries, push and push and push. And now it's gotten to the point where, because the real estate market has been so great for so long probably since like 2009 or so everything's been going up and up and up, and until you had a little bit of a blip there for COVID in 2020, but then after that it went up and up and up again and now you're seeing, last year it leveled out. We ran in some interest rate issues, right, but for the most part it's been going up. So the problem with that is that it covers all the wards. Nobody gets sued, investors are happy, Nobody's complaining, Everybody's getting their returns.

Speaker 1: 8:34

Everybody's happy. Exactly, the war has definitely hit him.

Speaker 2: 8:37

That's right. The other things that people have been doing wrong have been hidden and they haven't come to the come to fruition or come to light because everybody's happy. But what you're seeing now and starting in last year really because there are capital calls happening, there are properties going in foreclosure. If you're seeing investors lose their money and they're trying to figure out, we're in America, very litigious society. They're like well, who can we sue? You know what I mean. They're looking around to see what's going on and what has happened. We all know that it's happening.

Speaker 2: 9:12

These co-GPs aren't taking an active role. All they're actually doing is raising capital. So they're partnering with the active partners. They're actually executing the business plan and they're raising capital. That's all they're doing. They're saying, hey, I'm going to bring in my five investors or my 10 investors. If I give you a million dollars, you give me 10% of the interest. Or in the equity, if I bring in $500,000, you give me 5% of the equity. That is a black and white no-no to the SEC. It's black and white. People have been doing it for the last 10 years or so, but again those words have been covered up and now they're starting to come to light.

Speaker 1: 9:53

So what do you see, as a securities attorney, with the SEC deal with this, because this is really one of the things that I've been watching closely for a while. I'd love to hear your observations of that.

Speaker 2: 10:04

Sure, sure, I mean. The first thing that happens is it's either the what happens is somebody's not happy, so the investor is unhappy, maybe the property is in trouble, maybe they're losing money, maybe they lost money and they start whispering in the ear of the SEC, say, hey, check these guys out. It doesn't seem like something went on here. So they'll either say that to the SEC or, more likely, a state commissioner, someone in their state, on the state level. Those people will reach out to the syndicators, to the fund managers, to the capital or to the partnership that's owning the property and they'll start investigating. I've seen this firsthand. I'm not a litigator, but I do stay involved whenever these things start to happen.

Speaker 2: 10:50

It's not pretty. It's not pretty. It was just like a subpoena or something like that, where you have to turn over everything. You know what I mean. It's just this. Even if it's just one deal, they'll be like okay, well, give me these 100 documents, give me these email communications, these text messages, screenshots, everything, and you have to give it to them. And then, once you give it to them, they say oh well, I see that you did these other 10 deals in the last two years. Let me see the documents to those, and then they'll dig into those and they'll keep digging, keep digging and it turns into an absolute mess.

Speaker 1: 11:30

The exam right without the gentleman has said it. So we're recording this the day after Super Tuesday and obviously we now have a presidential election for 2024 nailed down. Do you see the SEC's focus and behavior changing if the administration changes? Because we're going to have it one of two ways Either the administration doesn't change or the administration is a Trump administration, and so we've now seen the SEC under both organizations which are forecast.

Speaker 2: 12:03

I don't know. I don't think I have a strong opinion either way. I mean you would think that if Trump got back in office that they would back off a little bit. You know he is more in favor of real estate, of anything that is business friendly. Just generally speaking.

Speaker 1: 12:18

Yes, we're Republican more deregulation, democrat more regulation.

Speaker 2: 12:22

Exactly so, just yeah. So big picture. You would think that it would swing in that way, but you never know. You never know.

Speaker 1: 12:31

So curious. You know, I've heard of tribe vest but I've never interacted with tribe vest, and you mentioned that you're the chief legal officer for tribe vest. Right yeah, chiefly CLO. So what is tribe vest and what do you do in that role as a CLO?

Speaker 2: 12:47

Yeah, so tribe vest traditionally. So most folks know tribe vest from what they've done in the last five years or so. They've been in business since 2017, 2018. They're a group investing platform where a group of individuals get together, basically form a JV. We all throw some money in and we invest in a, let's say, a piece of real estate or some sort of a syndication together. Maybe we need to invest full of our money together in order to get over an investment minimum or something like that, but the key there is that it's formed and it functions like a joint venture, meaning no one's really getting paid to raise that capital. It's just us putting some money together, starting a business, investing into a deal. The thing is that market has a cap and the problem is that there's probably going to be somebody that leads that group and at some point, they want to figure out how can they get paid to raise capital. Right, that's the question how can they get paid to actually group these people together, raise capital? And when you start getting paid to do something like that, sec gets involved. Right, many regulations are coming to the fold and you've got to deal with that. Hence why they brought me in and why we started a new product.

Speaker 2: 14:03

We whiteboarded and figured out the fund to fund is really the next thing, right Like the SEC is starting to come down on that CoGP model and people are recognizing that and the lead sponsors are recognizing that they don't want to expose themselves to that model any longer. And the answer for a long time has been fund to fund. I mean, it's not a new product, it's been out there, people have used it. The issue is that it's expensive. A fund to fund is really just another syndication, it's another fund. So it's one fund or one syndication that you form to invest into another fund or another syndication. So it's expensive because it's expensive to form those things and a lot of times it just doesn't make economic sense to do that, and so as a fund to funds.

Speaker 1: 14:52

Inherently, the way I understand it and I am not an accountant, I'm not an attorney, I'm not providing any advice I thought I'd leave from my own worldview the fund to funds is going to make money as a operating cost of the fund. You're going to create a fund and then the fund manager will take an operating cost to operate the entity. So in the SEC size, why is that not the same as raising cattle?

Speaker 2: 15:20

So you are raising capital but we're dealing with different regulations. You need to find exemptions. At the end of the day, even if so, at the lead sponsor level, you need to find an exemption to raise capital, because the issue or the person that's actually creating this indication of the fund at the lead sponsor level is raising capital. Right, they're raising capital from passive investors, they're putting it into their deal and they're buying a piece of property or, you know, investing into something, right? So it's not that you can't raise capital, it's that you have to find an exemption to be able to do it.

Speaker 2: 15:50

So at the lead sponsor level, there are certain exemptions Reg D, 506b, 506c. Those are typically the ones that you use at that level. We're talking about the 1930s securities acts, if you guys want to look that up. It gets even more complicated when we start dealing with fund of funds, because when we start dealing with fund of funds, we're not only dealing with the 1930s acts, we're dealing with the 1940s act, which is the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisor Act. So we need to find exemptions to those and you know, without diving too deep into it, you need to find exemptions within those regulations to be able to legally quote unquote raise capital.

Speaker 1: 16:32

And I do kind of want to dive in, if you're okay with that. I think it's good for our listeners to understand. There's a lot of noise in the marketplace about fund of funds. There's a lot of chatter about the CoGP model. A lot of guys are creating funds. There's a lot of energy around this and so when you go to the Reg D, 506b, 506c, 506b you know buddy, you got to be. Is it a substantive or substantial relationship? I never remember which one it is.

Speaker 2: 16:59

Substantive, substantive Right yeah.

Speaker 1: 17:02

And then an accredited investor obviously is a 506C. So when you get to the 1940s legislation, where does a fund of funds sit in the exemption world? Because I keep watching these things and I'm just thinking to myself is this just a different way to skin the same cat or is there some legitimate difference in the behaviors?

Speaker 2: 17:25

Well, again, it's more complicated because you need to find exemption under the 1930s acts as a fund of funds. So you will be using, most likely, those same exemptions of 506B or 506C. Right, you can use one or two of those Depends on, you know the lead sponsor and how that meshes over what you're actually investing into which one you can use or should use. There are pluses and minuses, obviously, to each and each situation is different. But then on top of that you need to find exemptions to the 1930s acts. So the easiest one that most people are using for their deals right now for the fund of funds, for the Investment Company Act, is the rule of 99.

Speaker 2: 18:08

Meaning you have to have less than 99 investors, or you should have 99 investors or less, and that's typically pretty easy to do, right, like, especially if we're talking about fund of funds, where we're forming, let's say, an SPV fund, where it's set up just to invest into one deal we're not talking about, as opposed to, let's say, a discretionary fund, where you set up a fund and you raise a bunch of money and you decide hey, investors, I want to decide where to put your money.

Speaker 2: 18:37

I'm going to put it in deal A, I'm going to put it in deal B, I'm going to put it in deal C. Spv, on the other hand, is just where you form a fund. The investor already knows where that capital is going to go to. It's going to go to one target deal and the chances that you're going to hit 99 investors pretty low, unless you're raising a really significant portion of capital. So that's the easy piece. There are other exemptions that you can get into, but that's really the one. I mean, that's the one, say, 99 investors are under and you won't be considered an investment company. Pretty easy.

Speaker 1: 19:09

Okay. So really you know you do an accredited investors only so you don't have to handle the sophisticated hurdle, and you do 99 investors or less and an SPV and you're pretty much flying clean.

Speaker 2: 19:23

That's right. So you're going to be an investment company act and then we get into the investment advisor act. We need to find an exemption there or try to figure out a way to not be an investment advisor. So as an SPV, you can make the argument that the investors know what they're investing into and you are not quote unquote advising them.

Speaker 1: 19:46

Because they're specifically making a decision that's based on a very finite set of parameters, correct?

Speaker 2: 19:52

That's right. It's something you need to tiptoe around. You definitely need to put up certain guardrails in your offering documents. You need to make specific disclosures that say, hey, investor we are not. You know, when I say we, I mean the fund manager is not providing advice. We're not an investment advisor. Here are all the specifics of the deal where your money is going to go. It's really a conduit into the target deal. So it's black or white, it's one or two. You know what I mean. You're not, as a fund manager, making any investment decisions.

Speaker 1: 20:26

So I've also heard. I had a guy on here earlier in my podcast who's doing a directed fund of funds where he's letting his investors pick which investment they go into. Is there any distinction in that from any of the other things you've talked about, or is that also pretty? 99 and down accredited and you're in the exemptions world and therefore you're fairly safe? Is that my making sense as a question?

Speaker 2: 20:55

Yeah, are you saying that the investors themselves actually make the decision whether they invest in something or not?

Speaker 1: 21:00

Correct Hill Offer he'll say I've got six different syndications at hand. Who wants to participate in A, who wants to participate in C, who wants to participate in E? And they go through and they pick them.

Speaker 2: 21:14

That's right If they are. As long as the fund managers are not giving advice and again, it's a narrow path to follow, which sounds like in the scenario that you've put out there that they are not then you can try to work your way around that investment advisor definition. Yeah, and another thing to note with the Investment Advisor Act is that on the federal level at least, if you stay under $25 million you're also exempted. So really, if you're under $25 million and then there's different levels, there's certain regulations you're under above $25 million. There's certain regulations you're above $100 million, but if you stay under $25 million you are exempted from and you're really not even allowed to really play in the federal level. At that point they don't care about you. So at that point you're really at the state level.

Speaker 1: 22:07

Now that's a fascinating thing, seth, because I've talked to a bunch of attorneys about this very thing and I heard all kinds of different feedback and thoughts and comments. That's why I'm kind of pushing you a little bit. And no one's mentioned the $25 million threshold, so that's an important element.

Speaker 2: 22:26

It is very important. So if you stay under $25 million, you are exempted from the federal as an investment advisor at the federal level.

Speaker 1: 22:34

Let's shift gears for a second here. Let's change our play, and I assume that $25 million is for the fund, not for the project. That's right, yeah, yeah. So let's change gears here. So, investor and we've both gone through these worlds why would you want to invest in a fund as opposed to directly with an operator?

Speaker 2: 22:57

Sure, I mean there's a bunch of different reasons, right? I mean, most of the time what happens here is that the fund manager has a relationship already with the past investor that's considering investing, so that investor feels comfortable investing with them rather than investing with the lead sponsor who they don't even really know. So that's usually the biggest thing. I mean it sounds kind of like well, who cares? But really it's meaningful because if it's like my sister or my brother or my cousin or my aunt's friend or whatever, they don't have exposure necessarily to the lead sponsor deal unless I give it to them, right? So a lot of times they're not even exposed to these different deals unless it's through that fund manager.

Speaker 2: 23:42

Other times, as a fund manager, you can create parameters around your fund that are more favorable for the past investor. Meaning, let's say, the investment minimum for the target deal is it can be $250,000, a million dollars. Right, that's really hard for one person to invest. But you can create a fund of funds that gets to that minimum threshold for the target deal. But to invest in the fund of funds maybe it's only $10,000. Maybe it's $25,000.

Speaker 1: 24:09

It's much less to get into the same deal and that can give you different share classes as well, with different press, with different waterfalls, all kinds of different advantages at that point in time.

Speaker 2: 24:17

You can exactly. The return profile can be different as well. I mean, the problem is that there's going to be two levels of splits and fees. Right, you're going to have the lead sponsor taking their fees and their split and then the fund of fund level. The fund manager is going to take. Potentially they don't have to, but they potentially could take a fee and could take a split of some sort. So there's got to be enough room in the deal to be able to handle that. But the fund manager can set it up in a way that's still more favorable. Maybe they give a higher press than you'd be able to get at the lead sponsor level, but they get a lesser split.

Speaker 1: 24:54

You can make the deal different. And I hear the word trust in all of the answers, because what you're really talking about is that the investor trusts his or her connection point. And that fund manager creates trust, and that trust is the most important thing in any financial transaction.

Speaker 1: 25:13

We've seen that time and time again. Well, this has been fascinating. So we're running closer to our half an hour. I try to keep this show at about half an hour. So tell me, I love to pick people's brains about their past experience. Knowing what you know today, what do you wish you had known 10 years ago that you now know?

Speaker 2: 25:35

I wish I would have been a little bit less stubborn and more open to getting a mentor or getting some sort of coaching, whether that's it doesn't necessarily need to be paid, but really just finding someone that's kind of already in the direction that I wanted to go. I think I was a little bit too too proud, a little bit too naive to kind of seek someone like that out at the time. So that would be. My suggestion is just, you know, got their final mentor or coach, whether it's paid, whether it's free, whether it's. However, you can get it, but get help, because you're not the smartest person in the room where you shouldn't be. At least I love that.

Speaker 2: 26:13

And you're in the wrong room if you are.

Speaker 1: 26:14

Do you mind it? I've heard this piece of advice from a lot of guys. I think they're all in the same age bracket. I'm assuming you're somewhere in your mid 30s to early 40s, right?

Speaker 2: 26:26

Yep and 40 on the you know, 40 on the dial.

Speaker 1: 26:29

Okay, well, you know they say that the first thing that goes to 40 is your vision, and I'm wearing glasses, so good luck Now.

Speaker 2: 26:37

I got contacted, so you see you've already experienced it. So and.

Speaker 1: 26:42

I'm wearing readers, which makes it even worse. So what I've heard from a bunch of people that are in their late 30s, early 40s, is that they realize this about a decade too late. And so if you're listening to this and about a third of my listeners are under this time horizon, pay attention, folks, because it's true that getting a mentor in your relationships, getting a coach in your relationships, really does change the world. Following up on that if that's a good piece of advice you wish you had known, that you could share to others, what's a bad piece of advice that you followed you wish you had ignored?

Speaker 2: 27:19

Yeah, I would say, well, this will go right along with your show.

Speaker 2: 27:25

Funny enough and I think this I've asked other attorneys, this too this is something that gets said all the time in big law firms it's by a house that you can grow into. So when I was looking for my first house, brad for I bought the BMW I was talking to some of the partners hey, I'm looking for a house, all these sorts of things, any advice and just chat it up and they're like, oh, that's too small, that you don't. I'm like, well, that's what I think I can afford right now based on what I'm making. And they're like no, you're going to make this much next year, five years from now, you're going to make this much and you're going to regret you bought that small house. You buy a bigger house and you can afford now because you're going to grow into it.

Speaker 2: 28:12

That's the most ridiculous advice I've ever heard in my life. It's so dumb and it's so like. It's so just dated, it's so just. You know, let me just spend all this money that I don't even have yet in anticipation that, five years from now, I'm going to be making more.

Speaker 1: 28:29

I mean, my heart kind of fell on my chest when you shared this one because I think you're absolutely right. I actually own a residence or brokerage real estate brokerage as well here in Colorado and I would say, oh my God, if I had a client tell me that's what they were planning, I would beat the crap out of them with logic to show them what the risk points are in doing that.

Speaker 2: 28:51

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like I'm just going to just base you know what you're going to be paying now off of what you think you're going to be making in five years.

Speaker 1: 28:59

It's like and what mortgage brokers are getting in trouble? What mortgage underwriters? Are going to agree to that Right. So, hey, is there a Falkberg post that moves you day in or day out, or some sort of axiom you'd like to share with us? Yeah?

Speaker 2: 29:18

You know there are different forms of this that come up, but it actually comes from the book Miracle Equation. It's by Hal Elrod, who most famously wrote the Miracle Morning Like that's his famous book. Then he came out with another book called Miracle Equation. The equation is Unwavering Faith plus Extraordinary Effort Equals Miracles. I love that because that's kind of what entrepreneurship is about. It's like I've got to consistently get up every single day, put in the work and you've got to have faith that is going to work out, because you don't know, there's no guarantee of success. So that's how miracles are created. That's how progress is created just unwavering faith and continual effort.

Speaker 1: 30:06

I really appreciate that when you were saying that my brain was going to do the work and let go of the outcome. More of a Buddhist philosophy.

Speaker 2: 30:15

There's many different ways to say the same thing.

Speaker 1: 30:17

But you do the work, you let go of the outcome, and the outcome will always surprise you to the positive. When you hold on to the outcome too aggressively, it crushes you. So, south, this is a great time talking with you. Tell everybody, if they want to learn more about you and they want to learn some of what you're doing, what are the best ways to connect with you?

Speaker 2: 30:36

Yeah, the best way is to go to SethPaulBreadlycom. That's the easiest way. I always update those links depending on what I have going on. Check out if you are interested in putting a fund of fun together. Tribevestcom would be the place to go for that. And then my law firm is Raize Law, so wwwraizelaw.

Speaker 1: 30:57

Awesome. Well, thank you so much, and if you like what you've heard today, go ahead and give us your review, hit a thumbs up and subscribe, and you've been listening to another episode of Break your Golden Handcuffs.