Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast series is kindly sponsored by Evanston Capital. For over 20 years, Evanston Capital has had a key focus in identifying early-stage investment managers it believes are capable of generating long-term value-added returns in complex, innovative strategy areas. The series is also sponsored by Alvine Capital. Alvine Capital is a specialist investment manager and placement boutique with a particular focus on alternative assets, a significant presence in London and Stockholm.
Matthew Rice: So as an investment advisor, our role has oftentimes been mediator too, trying to find compromise and bridge gaps between people that have different views. Those are the kinds of nuances that are important.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people and their stories. I’m joined today by Matthew Rice, who is Chief Investment Officer of VistaMark Investments LLC, where he leads the creation and execution of innovative research-driven investment strategies anchored in disciplined portfolio management. He launched the firm in June of 2025 after a long career at fiduciary advisors. Welcome, Matthew. Thanks for joining me today.
Matthew Rice: Thanks, Ethan. It’s great to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, we’ve known each other a little bit with our overlap, mine at Moneta, yours at Fiducient, and it would be great to just talk a little bit about your background and entry into finance.
Matthew Rice: Yeah, if you go back, oh boy, to the late 1990s, I had the opportunity to play college football at Northwestern University and then sort of expected my future was going to be as an NFL football player. Actually played for the Arizona Cardinals briefly in the late 1990s and then realized that for an NFL player, I was undersized but slow. And so that ended, ended my career rather quickly. And then essentially having an economics degree from Northwestern to fall back on wasn’t a bad way to start. And so really started really quickly in the financial services industry as an investment advisor at AXA Equitable. Sold Got an insurance license, got my securities license early on, and it was a very sales-oriented role in the very early days. And it was very interesting and exciting and had a chance to have some really good mentors early in my career. And then right around 2000, made a decision to move from Madison, Wisconsin, which is where I grew up and moved back after college, to Chicago. And then really, really early had the great fortune of meeting Bill Schneider, who, became my mentor. He was the co-founder of DeMeo, Schneider and Associates, which later became Fiducient Advisors.
Aoifinn Devitt: Actually, Manetta used Fiducient, formerly DeMeo, Schneider. I’d love to hear more about them.
Matthew Rice: Bill Schneider was a true Renaissance man. He was an artist, a musician, a finance expert. Yeah, I think he was in Mensa, although he never talked about it because he thought it was pretentious and just truly remarkable individual. And it’s funny, I look back at that. I had some great mentors early in my career and I took that for granted, I think, looking back on it because there’s just not a lot of people out there, I think, who are willing to do that and willing to invest that kind of time, energy, and love into folks. And he encouraged me from an early day. And I remember one, like early on, I was a snot-nosed kid in my 20s and we were in the middle of an investment committee meeting and he made a calculation error on bond duration or something. I corrected him in front of everyone and I was like, oh boy, I shouldn’t— like the second that I did it, I was like, I shouldn’t have done that. And then Bill, right after the meeting says, hey Matt, I want to talk to you. And I’m like, uh-oh. And he pulls me aside, takes me into a room and he’s like, Matt, great job correcting me on that. That’s exactly what you should do. I made a stupid mistake and you did it really well and we got us right back on track really fast. And that stood out to me immediately that At that point, he’d forgotten more than I knew about investing at that point. And he was sort of egoless when it came to making sure we did the right thing. And it was just really an important moment for me early. And it was like, as I became chief later on, I became the Bill and the chief investment officer, I just encouraged everyone. I would actually grade them higher in their performance reviews the more they disagreed with me about things because I thought that if you’re not having a devil’s advocacy, about everything, you’re leaving stones unturned. And so that really became the beginning of it. And Bill, he retired about a dozen years ago and I still stay in contact with him. He’s traveling with his band and he’s teaching art painting all over the world, and he’s just been a great mentor. And we’ve come full circle, had a chance at really at Fiducia and slash DeMeo with Bill Schneider to become a partner in that business in my late 20s, early 30s, become Chief Investment Officer, probably before I should have been in hindsight. And we grew that business from really a startup to about $260 billion in, in assets. And when we got to 2023-ish or so, you know, I was really the largest shareholder under the age of 50. And, you know, some of my other partners just wanted to do a private equity transaction. I understood, didn’t want to really stand in the way of that, but I wasn’t quite ready to go work for somebody else. So I did the whole 2-year non-compete arrangement and I sat out. And to Fiducian’s credit, they let me work at a firm out of state and I got them to sign off on, I will not have any business development responsibilities and all of that. And I agreed to kind of provide free investment consulting to them for a year afterwards just to kind of maintain that transition. So really some wonderful people over there at DeMeo Schneider/Fiducia, just really great people that I’ve stayed in contact with and just wonderful. But they’re kind of in the process now of going through the whole M&A. Once you get on the private equity transactions, it becomes a whole different deal. And I understood that, but I, I really enjoyed really that first decade at Fiducian or Dimeo Schneider, where it was very entrepreneurial, like-minded partners and mentee-mentor relationships and where you could be a little bit more nimble. You could, I think, customize things a little bit more for clients. And I think when you get into a large investment business, it becomes much more about how do you scale the business. When you’re in a smaller boutique, it’s how do you help the client? And I think those are the two different dynamics, and I’m really enjoying being on this side of it again, where we get to roll up our sleeves, work with our family office, institutional clients, and, and really solve problems on their behalf. And that’s, that’s much more fun than trying to shoehorn somebody into a box.
Aoifinn Devitt: Wow. Tons of threads to pull on there. I love your reflection on mentorship. I think it’s wonderful to hear how rewarding that can be on both sides. I think we don’t often think about that upward effect that the being a mentor can have. I also just love to go back to— before we move to the VistaMark focus, which is fascinating to see you again on the entrepreneurial side, having been a professional football player and a college football player, I always like to ask somebody who’s played sport at a high level what they have taken out of that in terms of their approach to teamwork, approach to work, to coaching, and what effect do you think that had on you in your professional life?
Matthew Rice: Oh, that’s a great question. I was fortunate enough when I was at Northwestern, we won 2 Big Ten championships. I had a chance to play against Peyton Manning in the Citrus Bowl. And we played in the Rose Bowl too. And it was just a wonderful experience. And we were, for those that aren’t familiar, we I think had 20 losing seasons at Northwestern before we became champions. And so we were kind of the Cinderella story. We were the Indiana of the late 1990s. And I think the sports aspect, there’s a couple things. One is it’s very hard to have an ego in a sport because you’re watching, everything is videotaped. And unlike other aspects of life where you’re not quite sure if, you did a good job or you didn’t do a good job. In sports, it’s pretty objective. When you watch a sport, it’s like you got beat, you did well, and there’s kind of that immediate feedback that comes in sports. And if you’re really, really good, you win 70% of your matchups, and if you, you know, and you still lose 30% of them. And so there’s that built-in humbling part. And you’re also in a sport like football, you’re going to get knocked on your butt and it’s more about getting up and responding. And so there’s kind of that element. And I think kind of underscored is like preparation and communication with your teammates. I mean, especially as a team sport where you have 11 people, we all like if the secondary is playing man or zone coverage as a defensive lineman, you better understand that because if they’re in man coverage, you better get to that quarterback really fast because those guys are out on an island back there. And so just that need to instantaneously communicate with each other and kind of to be to be able to trust that I’m going to do my job, that person’s going to do their job, and when there’s a breakdown, immediately understand it and try to fix it and correct it the next time. And so we played at a really high level and I sort of, I think I got head faked a little bit that I thought in life, businesses were always, that everything was going to function like that, that teams were always going to be looking out for each other and that everybody would understand that if we play together, we’re going to do better as a whole. And maybe I got a sense that the world was more egoless than it really was because you get into financial careers, you suddenly realize there are some big egos around and sometimes not everyone is always looking out for the team’s interest, the group collective. It’s much more me, me, me, me. And I think in a business environment, I think the businesses that are much more successful, look, everyone has obviously got to take care of themselves, but I think when people work together and are really focused on a team goal, and a team priority, that that’s when a business really, really does well. And I think that’s, you know, if you’re advising clients, that’s when clients do really, really well, when people are more interested in team success. And if something goes wrong, they’re more willing to point the thumb than the finger, I guess is the way— that’s an old sports method— that what could I have done to improve that rather than blaming other people for it? And I think those are the healthy dynamics that you see within strong functioning teams. And whether you’re in sport— and you learn that in sports, the camaraderie, the communication, the chemistry that comes together. And I think part of it too is people have different skill sets. And like in sports, you really value that skill set. Like that corner is not going to be able to chase the quarterback like I can, but I’m not going to be able to run with that wide receiver like the corner does. And you need that in business too. You need people that have very different skill sets and overlapping skill sets is nice too. That Venn diagram of this is the area that I know and understand, this is the area you know and understand. And if we just have that little bit of overlap where we can communicate about something and we can really expand that circle of understanding for the entire company, that’s really a wonderful effect there.
Aoifinn Devitt: Pressure. Because we think of ourselves in the financial industry as living with a certain amount of pressure, stress, you know, volatility. How do you think the pressure in this role compares to the pressure you would’ve felt playing at the level you were?
Matthew Rice: You know, it’s a great question. I mean, I’ve got some really good friends who are coaches at the college and professional level in sports. I think It’s a different kind of pressure because I think for better or for worse in sports, you feel like you have more control over the world because you can always try harder. And if you get beat, there’s always a next play and all of that. And I think sometimes, you know, I lived through 2008, I lived through the 1999 to 2002. There are certain areas there where you feel like you’re trapped in a storm drain and you’re getting sucked down and, you know, you’re the chief investment officer. So everyone is, coming to you in 2008, like, when is this going to end? And during COVID was another big one. And sometimes I would feel like, I guess the similarity was that I would adopt my sports mindset, which is when I’m faced with tremendous uncertainty, all I can do is prepare and study and try to best understand what I can. I remember during COVID for example, I sort of concluded that the economy wasn’t going to be able to bottom until the cases flattened out in terms of new COVID cases. And so I sort of switched into creating a daily COVID report. I became a virus expert because you had to kind of be a virus expert to be an economic expert at that particular moment in time. And sort of by planning and understanding, and I think sometimes by— it would give you that maybe that false sense of control that if you could predict it, that you had a little bit more control over it. And I remember doing that. I got within a few days of when the curve flattened in the United States and sort of realized maybe a few months later that that wasn’t quite as important as I thought it was at the time, that there were a long tail to things. But I think the preparation that comes with the pressure and, you know, trying to control the things that you can control and try to develop the best understanding that you can is good. And then I think part of it’s just humility, understanding that you’re not going to get everything right. You’re just not. And all you can do is try to be better the next time. And people are forgiving. And when you do make mistakes, as long as you did everything you possibly could and you left no stone unturned, if you make a mistake, hey, that’s okay. You move on and you try to make it better the next time around.
Aoifinn Devitt: We’re going to take a quick break to hear from Evanston Capital Management, one of the sponsors of this podcast series. I sat down with Adam Blitz, CEO and co-CIO at Evanston Capital Management. And asked them about some of the nuances of their portfolio construction and why they sometimes like to select specialist or smaller managers.
Matthew Rice: We spend a lot of time on implementation and just simply when you’re a smaller manager, your footprint in the market is less. If you change your mind on a name, you can get out of it generally more easily. And again, most of these specialist managers tend to be smaller in terms of the assets. Under management, and they kind of go hand in hand with one another. And that flexibility, if you’re wrong on a name or you just want to get out of a name or you change your mind or you want to size up a smaller-cap name in your portfolio, just have more ability to do that if you’re a specialist manager who’s not managing a ton of money.
Aoifinn Devitt: And now back to the show. Definitely accords with Bonetta. Our approach is more, rather than predictions, preparation. And I think that old adage of what, uh, failing to prepare is preparing to fail, I, I think that is certainly especially in these markets. And that brings me to VistaMark now and your investment beliefs. I’m presuming most of these have carried over in terms of the preparation focus, your long-term view. But how would you say your investment beliefs now could be characterized now at VistaMark and what are you seeking to achieve for your clients?
Matthew Rice: Yeah, I mean, I built 25 years ago, I built the proprietary asset allocation system and rebalancing systems at Fiducient. And I’ve carried those forward. Obviously, they have a different name associated with them. I don’t own the trademarks to those names, but I own my brain. But I think if there’s one kind of migration that I’ve made in evolution is I used to feel like, I think when I was younger, I had to prove everything quantitatively, that if you couldn’t prove it quantitatively, it didn’t exist. And I’m sort of more of a recovering quant now, I guess is the way you’d explain, is that I certainly, I go about my first step is always the quant, try to build a model to try to understand the world and to understand, you know, as a starting point. But I view it more as a starting point. And then you really need that more qualitative analysis, debate, discussion before you actually implement. So it starts off, it’s still, I think at my roots, I’m still quant in nature trying to understand things mathematically and very kind of old school in that regard. But I think I put more value now on the qualitative, the discussion, the debate, the disagreement. And I think part of that just comes with, you either stay humble or the world will humble you eventually. That’s sort of what I learned in this business. And yeah, nobody’s going to bat 1,000. And the more input you have from other smart people, the more perspectives you have, sometimes those perspectives can add more value than some sort of number on a page telling you to do A or B.
Aoifinn Devitt: I suppose if you were to maybe characterize the DNA of a VistaMark portfolio today and Do you look at the OCIO model? Is it more of an advisory or collaborative model? And are there any asset classes you avoid? Is there any kind of hallmark, maybe such as global diversification or use of alternatives? What would be the DNA of a VistaMark approach?
Matthew Rice: Yeah, I think it, you know, at the end of the day, my mindset is really unchanged, is unchanged in that at any given risk budget that a client has, our goal is going to be maximize return at that risk budget. And so, think about it simplistically. If it’s a 90/10 mix, an 80/20 mix, a 70/30 mix, it’s going to be to kind of budget the risk right around where that client’s— whether it’s ability to take risk, whether it’s willingness to take risk, there’s usually some combination of both those. And if it’s a university endowment with a 100-year, 1,000-year time period, it might be on the high end of that spectrum. And if it’s somebody like my mother, it might be on the lower end of that time spectrum. But the process is the same. And it’s how do we maximize return at that risk budget level? And that’s sort of how we always think about things. So any asset that we can put in a portfolio that improves the risk-adjusted return, we will. And I think that there’s certain elements now, and we’re very well diversified. So we believe really in taking a 10-year view on how we look at things because when I’m trying to predict what’s going to happen next week, next month, or even the next year, I’m probably not any better than anyone else at that. And I really don’t think there’s anyone that’s any good at that. I’ve been around long enough to know that people that predict things correctly 2 or 3 times in a row and start bragging about it get it really wrong the 4th time or the 5th time, and especially when you’re talking about short windows. And so when we look at forecasting, we’re trying to do a window where there’s a reasonably high R-squared prediction where you can get to north of 50, 60% in terms of an actual model and an actual outcome, and you can’t really get there over a short period of time. And so that stayed the same. So that’s why we typically take a look and try to build most of our strategies around a 10-year our outlook. And so every year we essentially ask the question, if we couldn’t change the portfolio for 10 years, how would we invest today? We don’t wait 10 years though. We ask that question every year. And so every year there’s kind of a rolling 8-year overlap of the time horizon and year over year things shift. And of course, we don’t always wait a year. There are some years where we might do a 10-year projection multiple times, like during COVID in January of 2020 versus March of 2020 versus like August of 2020. All 3 of those in time were It might as well have been a decade between those three from where the markets were, where interest rates were, where credit spreads were, where the markets were. And so, we would actually dust off a 10-year projection even there, 3 times within a 1-year period. If we’re doing that, we hope to not do that in most years because that means that there’s a lot of stress. But yeah, that’s sort of how we think about things.
Aoifinn Devitt: And how about assets that you might consider out of bounds?
Matthew Rice: In terms of off-limit assets, We don’t have a lot of those. I think there’s assets that we’re a little skeptical of and ones like, I’m still trying to get my hands around crypto. I’m sorry, maybe I’m old, maybe I’m too old. Maybe I’ve written too many chapters on naturally occurring Ponzi schemes and other things. But I sort of kind of believe when you invest in an asset, it should be valued based on the present value of future cash flows associated with that asset. And when you look at something like a currency, a cryptocurrency, it’s just, It is what it is. It’s just this thing. It doesn’t have like, it doesn’t kick off a dividend. It doesn’t have like an internal growth rate. I just still don’t understand it other than through the Greater Fool theory of somebody’s going to be willing to pay a higher price for this next year than this year. And that seems to be okay until it’s not okay. And so I’m a little skeptical of certain assets like that. In terms of certain trading strategies around crypto, I’ve become a little bit more open-minded to that. But in terms of just strategic crypto allocations, I’m not there. I’m not there.
Aoifinn Devitt: And any views on other assets such as private equity?
Matthew Rice: When we look at private equity, we’ve been big investors for private equity for a long time. Really believe there that with differentiated strategies, long time horizons, there’s value to be had there. Believers in venture capital to a certain degree. I mean, it’s a real hit and miss. Gotta make sure if you’re investing in that space, you’re with the right people because if you’re with the wrong people, it’s a very expensive miss. And then of course, across the globe, everything from short-duration fixed income to emerging market equities we’re invested in from a public markets perspective. And really the difference being if it can add incremental risk-adjusted return to the portfolio, we’re in it. If it doesn’t, we’re out of it. It’s that simple. I mean, some of the best moves we’ve made in the past have been, call it 2006 when we put out a paper called REIT Valuations Approaching the Stratosphere. Happened to kind of get out of real estate at the right time in 2006, 2007, in that era. And I remember in 2009 very clearly saying, “Well, you should put half your money in canned foods and ammunition and the other half in high-yield bonds because one half of that trade is going to work really, really well.” And that really came back to January of 2009, looking at the stock market was sort of priced for a severe recession. The credit market was priced for the end of the world. I mean, you could get to high double-digit default rates and low recovery rates and still get to pretty nice rates of return in high-yield bonds. And so, those are the kinds of things we would look at and really try to always take that sort of top-down view associated with it and try to always allocate and make those shifts. And people think about, “Well, a 10-year time horizon, that’s too long.” It’s like, well, For something like real estate, no, it wasn’t in 2006, ’07. I mean, we were having a hard time getting to a positive rate of return in real estate for the next decade, and that’s why we trimmed it. In 2009, we were getting the double-digit returns in credit. And so these are the kinds of things that you can look at and make these kind of well-timed bets on and get to that higher predictive response and really try to be, you know, get the emotions out of it and just focus on it very quantitatively. And I’m back to my quant roots and talk about all the ways you be wrong. And if you kind of talk about every possible way you could be wrong and you don’t really have a good explanation for how you’re wrong, then maybe you’re right and move forward with that.
Aoifinn Devitt: So interesting that you mentioned the crypto and not being able to model that necessarily. And that gets back to the preparation point. I think it’s hard to prepare, and we would tell this view at Moneta, when you don’t know necessarily how something’s likely to behave. And I think we are still at that discovery phase when it comes to crypto. My last question on the investment side is around any other objectives that your clients might have or that you would help them achieve besides return? And I know you mentioned risk management, kind of the flip side of that coin, but I’m thinking of things like mission-driven investing, impact, just other aspects that maybe certain kinds of clients might also have as maybe twin objectives.
Matthew Rice: No, absolutely. I had the interesting example, like the first billion dollar, I think it was the first billion dollar plus Catholic organization that wanted to divest fossil fuels about 15 years ago. I got to figure out how to do that the hard way because at that At that point, it wasn’t super common to do it. So how do you take a billion-dollar-plus university endowment and remove fossil fuels from it? Well, I figured it out and it took a while and it was hard to do. And obviously that’s not Matt Rice’s view, that’s not VistaMark’s view, and who cares what Matt Rice or VistaMark’s view is? If you have a client that believes in a certain, whether sustainability or certain ESG driven, it’s our goal is to figure out how to help the client solve that particular problem of theirs. How do they build the highest risk-adjusted return portfolio? Portfolio they can that aligns with their mission, aligns with their objectives. I had the opportunity to work with some Catholic institutions, nuns who didn’t want to invest in US treasuries because the US government did nuclear weapons. And so we have to figure out how do you build a well-diversified, moderately aggressive portfolio or conservative portfolio without any treasuries? And you have to solve for that and figure that out and come up with your second, third best solution. That ends up optimizing that particular client’s viewpoint. So we’re very good, I think, at implementing the goals. I think the hard point that I’ve had when I’ve worked with university endowments and other nonprofit organizations is when you have an investment committee that hasn’t quite figured out what they’re all about yet. They think they do, like they might have a religious background that helps inform that, and that’s easier to a certain extent. You know, they’ve got the Catholic playbook or they’ve got the Methodist playbook or whatever it might be. From an ESG perspective. And then there are some other institutions that are where you have an investment committee that doesn’t quite agree on what the definitions are and helping those committees navigate those differences. And in some cases, the universities are really worried about the students and the students throwing tantrums on campus. And how do we do what’s consistent with doing well from an investment return perspective, but maybe get these kids, these college kids, to stop beating on our doors and marching in the streets? And, and so it’s figuring out and balancing some of these kinds of soft items that can be the most challenging sometimes. And so as an investment advisor, our role has oftentimes been mediator too, like when you’re working with institutions on how to handle these types of situations where, okay, I think you’re really saying this and I think you’re really saying that. And at the end of the day, trying to find compromise and bridge gaps between people that have different views on specifics. I’m talking more the nuances of ESG sometimes or sustainability, like is it no fossil fuels or is it just the dirty fossil fuels? Which ones can we live with or live without? And those are the kinds of nuances that are important.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love to hear that because I think it really just illustrates how the advisor role is so much more than a quant as your starting point, and then how you really started to sort of evolve beyond that. And that’s something certainly on the private wealth side that I sort of realized about 4 or 5 years ago when I entered the space, that again, this role is so much more than an investment advisor. It is advisor in the broadest sense. I’d love to now just turn to a quick reflection. We’ve gone through a lot of it with people who’ve motivated you as well as some of the highs and lows, I think, of your career. I suppose just to conclude, is there any kind of word of wisdom, creed or motto or anything, maybe advice that you might have given to your younger self or anything you can leave us with in terms of a thought piece?
Matthew Rice: Oh yeah. You know, I probably, in terms of my younger self, I probably would’ve been easier on my younger self than my younger self was on me. I really held myself to a high standard. I still do, but I probably would’ve forgiven myself earlier for not being perfect. I think that’s a problem with being a perfectionist. Sometimes you’re your own worst critic and you got to figure out how to— if you’re good at forgiving other people, you should be good at forgiving yourself too when you’re not perfect. And that’s probably the advice I would give the younger version of myself. The advice I’d give to youngsters in this business is say what you’re going to do and then do what you’re going to say. Be nice to people, but be honest with people and don’t be afraid to be brutally honest with people too. And, you know, at the end of the day, be yourself, be who you are. Don’t try to pretend to be something you’re not to try to make somebody else happy. You know, at the end of the day, you get one shot at this life, as far as I know. And you want to be your highest and best self. You need to be who you are. And find people that generally align, at least at a very, very high level with your values. Associate with those people, partner up with those people, and work as a valued member of a team. And you’re going to get really, really far in this business. And be honest when it comes to working with clients. First and foremost, you know, we’re all fiduciaries, but I kind of believe in that true fiduciary, which is go above and beyond for your clients. If you take care of a client, you’re brutally honest with that client all the time. Be long-term greedy. That client will keep you as a client forever. If you’re honest with that client, you work your butt off for that client, you do everything you can to try to help that client, that client will stay with you through thick and thin. And so it’s kind of old school in that regard. Take care of the client, they’ll take care of you.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love that. I love reflecting on the old school truths. Last kind of sneaky question is football. Does it still form a big part of your life? Are you still a fan of and a spectator, or have you moved on to other interests?
Matthew Rice: I still love football. I love college football in particular, Big Ten football. I don’t have as much time as I used to to watch the game, so I, I try to focus as much on my alma mater, Northwestern, as I can. I don’t go to every game anymore like I used to. I, matter of fact, I don’t think I went to one this year. Didn’t really have time. But no, I did go to one this year. But NFL, my son— I grew up in Wisconsin, so I kind of grew up a Packer fan. My son is a diehard Bears fan, and so I’m trying to reconcile that. Talk about having tolerance. Bears and Packers are like mortal enemies for those that aren’t from the Midwest. And so with the Bears beating the Packers in the playoffs this year, and it really puts the love of your children at the test, you know, it’s like, yes, Michael, I’m smiling. I’m very happy that the Bears beat the Packers. Yes, I am. But no, I don’t have as much time for it. I do enjoy the sport. I kind of view it more as an art form now, and I kind of appreciate it without being the fanatical fan that I perhaps used to be early on.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, even I know a little bit about the Bears and the Packers rivalry, and I would by no means be a football aficionado at all. But so I think that that’s pretty much it. If you live in the Midwest, you’re going to pick up on that. Well, thank you so much, Matt. As I said, I picked up on wanting to have this conversation when I saw the announcement on LinkedIn about Vistamark. I thought it was very exciting to see this new chapter open, and I love to gather here your philosophy and your approach to clients, which really is unchanged over the years. And very best of luck as you embark upon this next chapter, and thank you for sharing your insights with us.
Matthew Rice: Thank you so much for having me, Aoife, and really appreciate it.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces Podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors on their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
Aoifinn Devitt: This podcast series is kindly sponsored by Evanston Capital. For over 20 years, Evanston Capital has had a key focus in identifying early-stage investment managers it believes are capable of generating long-term value-added returns in complex, innovative strategy areas. The series is also sponsored by Alvine Capital. Alvine Capital is a specialist investment manager and placement boutique with a particular focus on alternative assets, a significant presence in London and Stockholm.
Matthew Rice: So as an investment advisor, our role has oftentimes been mediator too, trying to find compromise and bridge gaps between people that have different views. Those are the kinds of nuances that are important.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt, and welcome to the 50 Faces Podcast, a podcast committed to revealing the richness and diversity of the world of investment by focusing on its people and their stories. I’m joined today by Matthew Rice, who is Chief Investment Officer of VistaMark Investments LLC, where he leads the creation and execution of innovative research-driven investment strategies anchored in disciplined portfolio management. He launched the firm in June of 2025 after a long career at fiduciary advisors. Welcome, Matthew. Thanks for joining me today.
Matthew Rice: Thanks, Ethan. It’s great to be here.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, we’ve known each other a little bit with our overlap, mine at Moneta, yours at Fiducient, and it would be great to just talk a little bit about your background and entry into finance.
Matthew Rice: Yeah, if you go back, oh boy, to the late 1990s, I had the opportunity to play college football at Northwestern University and then sort of expected my future was going to be as an NFL football player. Actually played for the Arizona Cardinals briefly in the late 1990s and then realized that for an NFL player, I was undersized but slow. And so that ended, ended my career rather quickly. And then essentially having an economics degree from Northwestern to fall back on wasn’t a bad way to start. And so really started really quickly in the financial services industry as an investment advisor at AXA Equitable. Sold Got an insurance license, got my securities license early on, and it was a very sales-oriented role in the very early days. And it was very interesting and exciting and had a chance to have some really good mentors early in my career. And then right around 2000, made a decision to move from Madison, Wisconsin, which is where I grew up and moved back after college, to Chicago. And then really, really early had the great fortune of meeting Bill Schneider, who, became my mentor. He was the co-founder of DeMeo, Schneider and Associates, which later became Fiducient Advisors.
Aoifinn Devitt: Actually, Manetta used Fiducient, formerly DeMeo, Schneider. I’d love to hear more about them.
Matthew Rice: Bill Schneider was a true Renaissance man. He was an artist, a musician, a finance expert. Yeah, I think he was in Mensa, although he never talked about it because he thought it was pretentious and just truly remarkable individual. And it’s funny, I look back at that. I had some great mentors early in my career and I took that for granted, I think, looking back on it because there’s just not a lot of people out there, I think, who are willing to do that and willing to invest that kind of time, energy, and love into folks. And he encouraged me from an early day. And I remember one, like early on, I was a snot-nosed kid in my 20s and we were in the middle of an investment committee meeting and he made a calculation error on bond duration or something. I corrected him in front of everyone and I was like, oh boy, I shouldn’t— like the second that I did it, I was like, I shouldn’t have done that. And then Bill, right after the meeting says, hey Matt, I want to talk to you. And I’m like, uh-oh. And he pulls me aside, takes me into a room and he’s like, Matt, great job correcting me on that. That’s exactly what you should do. I made a stupid mistake and you did it really well and we got us right back on track really fast. And that stood out to me immediately that At that point, he’d forgotten more than I knew about investing at that point. And he was sort of egoless when it came to making sure we did the right thing. And it was just really an important moment for me early. And it was like, as I became chief later on, I became the Bill and the chief investment officer, I just encouraged everyone. I would actually grade them higher in their performance reviews the more they disagreed with me about things because I thought that if you’re not having a devil’s advocacy, about everything, you’re leaving stones unturned. And so that really became the beginning of it. And Bill, he retired about a dozen years ago and I still stay in contact with him. He’s traveling with his band and he’s teaching art painting all over the world, and he’s just been a great mentor. And we’ve come full circle, had a chance at really at Fiducia and slash DeMeo with Bill Schneider to become a partner in that business in my late 20s, early 30s, become Chief Investment Officer, probably before I should have been in hindsight. And we grew that business from really a startup to about $260 billion in, in assets. And when we got to 2023-ish or so, you know, I was really the largest shareholder under the age of 50. And, you know, some of my other partners just wanted to do a private equity transaction. I understood, didn’t want to really stand in the way of that, but I wasn’t quite ready to go work for somebody else. So I did the whole 2-year non-compete arrangement and I sat out. And to Fiducian’s credit, they let me work at a firm out of state and I got them to sign off on, I will not have any business development responsibilities and all of that. And I agreed to kind of provide free investment consulting to them for a year afterwards just to kind of maintain that transition. So really some wonderful people over there at DeMeo Schneider/Fiducia, just really great people that I’ve stayed in contact with and just wonderful. But they’re kind of in the process now of going through the whole M&A. Once you get on the private equity transactions, it becomes a whole different deal. And I understood that, but I, I really enjoyed really that first decade at Fiducian or Dimeo Schneider, where it was very entrepreneurial, like-minded partners and mentee-mentor relationships and where you could be a little bit more nimble. You could, I think, customize things a little bit more for clients. And I think when you get into a large investment business, it becomes much more about how do you scale the business. When you’re in a smaller boutique, it’s how do you help the client? And I think those are the two different dynamics, and I’m really enjoying being on this side of it again, where we get to roll up our sleeves, work with our family office, institutional clients, and, and really solve problems on their behalf. And that’s, that’s much more fun than trying to shoehorn somebody into a box.
Aoifinn Devitt: Wow. Tons of threads to pull on there. I love your reflection on mentorship. I think it’s wonderful to hear how rewarding that can be on both sides. I think we don’t often think about that upward effect that the being a mentor can have. I also just love to go back to— before we move to the VistaMark focus, which is fascinating to see you again on the entrepreneurial side, having been a professional football player and a college football player, I always like to ask somebody who’s played sport at a high level what they have taken out of that in terms of their approach to teamwork, approach to work, to coaching, and what effect do you think that had on you in your professional life?
Matthew Rice: Oh, that’s a great question. I was fortunate enough when I was at Northwestern, we won 2 Big Ten championships. I had a chance to play against Peyton Manning in the Citrus Bowl. And we played in the Rose Bowl too. And it was just a wonderful experience. And we were, for those that aren’t familiar, we I think had 20 losing seasons at Northwestern before we became champions. And so we were kind of the Cinderella story. We were the Indiana of the late 1990s. And I think the sports aspect, there’s a couple things. One is it’s very hard to have an ego in a sport because you’re watching, everything is videotaped. And unlike other aspects of life where you’re not quite sure if, you did a good job or you didn’t do a good job. In sports, it’s pretty objective. When you watch a sport, it’s like you got beat, you did well, and there’s kind of that immediate feedback that comes in sports. And if you’re really, really good, you win 70% of your matchups, and if you, you know, and you still lose 30% of them. And so there’s that built-in humbling part. And you’re also in a sport like football, you’re going to get knocked on your butt and it’s more about getting up and responding. And so there’s kind of that element. And I think kind of underscored is like preparation and communication with your teammates. I mean, especially as a team sport where you have 11 people, we all like if the secondary is playing man or zone coverage as a defensive lineman, you better understand that because if they’re in man coverage, you better get to that quarterback really fast because those guys are out on an island back there. And so just that need to instantaneously communicate with each other and kind of to be to be able to trust that I’m going to do my job, that person’s going to do their job, and when there’s a breakdown, immediately understand it and try to fix it and correct it the next time. And so we played at a really high level and I sort of, I think I got head faked a little bit that I thought in life, businesses were always, that everything was going to function like that, that teams were always going to be looking out for each other and that everybody would understand that if we play together, we’re going to do better as a whole. And maybe I got a sense that the world was more egoless than it really was because you get into financial careers, you suddenly realize there are some big egos around and sometimes not everyone is always looking out for the team’s interest, the group collective. It’s much more me, me, me, me. And I think in a business environment, I think the businesses that are much more successful, look, everyone has obviously got to take care of themselves, but I think when people work together and are really focused on a team goal, and a team priority, that that’s when a business really, really does well. And I think that’s, you know, if you’re advising clients, that’s when clients do really, really well, when people are more interested in team success. And if something goes wrong, they’re more willing to point the thumb than the finger, I guess is the way— that’s an old sports method— that what could I have done to improve that rather than blaming other people for it? And I think those are the healthy dynamics that you see within strong functioning teams. And whether you’re in sport— and you learn that in sports, the camaraderie, the communication, the chemistry that comes together. And I think part of it too is people have different skill sets. And like in sports, you really value that skill set. Like that corner is not going to be able to chase the quarterback like I can, but I’m not going to be able to run with that wide receiver like the corner does. And you need that in business too. You need people that have very different skill sets and overlapping skill sets is nice too. That Venn diagram of this is the area that I know and understand, this is the area you know and understand. And if we just have that little bit of overlap where we can communicate about something and we can really expand that circle of understanding for the entire company, that’s really a wonderful effect there.
Aoifinn Devitt: Pressure. Because we think of ourselves in the financial industry as living with a certain amount of pressure, stress, you know, volatility. How do you think the pressure in this role compares to the pressure you would’ve felt playing at the level you were?
Matthew Rice: You know, it’s a great question. I mean, I’ve got some really good friends who are coaches at the college and professional level in sports. I think It’s a different kind of pressure because I think for better or for worse in sports, you feel like you have more control over the world because you can always try harder. And if you get beat, there’s always a next play and all of that. And I think sometimes, you know, I lived through 2008, I lived through the 1999 to 2002. There are certain areas there where you feel like you’re trapped in a storm drain and you’re getting sucked down and, you know, you’re the chief investment officer. So everyone is, coming to you in 2008, like, when is this going to end? And during COVID was another big one. And sometimes I would feel like, I guess the similarity was that I would adopt my sports mindset, which is when I’m faced with tremendous uncertainty, all I can do is prepare and study and try to best understand what I can. I remember during COVID for example, I sort of concluded that the economy wasn’t going to be able to bottom until the cases flattened out in terms of new COVID cases. And so I sort of switched into creating a daily COVID report. I became a virus expert because you had to kind of be a virus expert to be an economic expert at that particular moment in time. And sort of by planning and understanding, and I think sometimes by— it would give you that maybe that false sense of control that if you could predict it, that you had a little bit more control over it. And I remember doing that. I got within a few days of when the curve flattened in the United States and sort of realized maybe a few months later that that wasn’t quite as important as I thought it was at the time, that there were a long tail to things. But I think the preparation that comes with the pressure and, you know, trying to control the things that you can control and try to develop the best understanding that you can is good. And then I think part of it’s just humility, understanding that you’re not going to get everything right. You’re just not. And all you can do is try to be better the next time. And people are forgiving. And when you do make mistakes, as long as you did everything you possibly could and you left no stone unturned, if you make a mistake, hey, that’s okay. You move on and you try to make it better the next time around.
Aoifinn Devitt: We’re going to take a quick break to hear from Evanston Capital Management, one of the sponsors of this podcast series. I sat down with Adam Blitz, CEO and co-CIO at Evanston Capital Management. And asked them about some of the nuances of their portfolio construction and why they sometimes like to select specialist or smaller managers.
Matthew Rice: We spend a lot of time on implementation and just simply when you’re a smaller manager, your footprint in the market is less. If you change your mind on a name, you can get out of it generally more easily. And again, most of these specialist managers tend to be smaller in terms of the assets. Under management, and they kind of go hand in hand with one another. And that flexibility, if you’re wrong on a name or you just want to get out of a name or you change your mind or you want to size up a smaller-cap name in your portfolio, just have more ability to do that if you’re a specialist manager who’s not managing a ton of money.
Aoifinn Devitt: And now back to the show. Definitely accords with Bonetta. Our approach is more, rather than predictions, preparation. And I think that old adage of what, uh, failing to prepare is preparing to fail, I, I think that is certainly especially in these markets. And that brings me to VistaMark now and your investment beliefs. I’m presuming most of these have carried over in terms of the preparation focus, your long-term view. But how would you say your investment beliefs now could be characterized now at VistaMark and what are you seeking to achieve for your clients?
Matthew Rice: Yeah, I mean, I built 25 years ago, I built the proprietary asset allocation system and rebalancing systems at Fiducient. And I’ve carried those forward. Obviously, they have a different name associated with them. I don’t own the trademarks to those names, but I own my brain. But I think if there’s one kind of migration that I’ve made in evolution is I used to feel like, I think when I was younger, I had to prove everything quantitatively, that if you couldn’t prove it quantitatively, it didn’t exist. And I’m sort of more of a recovering quant now, I guess is the way you’d explain, is that I certainly, I go about my first step is always the quant, try to build a model to try to understand the world and to understand, you know, as a starting point. But I view it more as a starting point. And then you really need that more qualitative analysis, debate, discussion before you actually implement. So it starts off, it’s still, I think at my roots, I’m still quant in nature trying to understand things mathematically and very kind of old school in that regard. But I think I put more value now on the qualitative, the discussion, the debate, the disagreement. And I think part of that just comes with, you either stay humble or the world will humble you eventually. That’s sort of what I learned in this business. And yeah, nobody’s going to bat 1,000. And the more input you have from other smart people, the more perspectives you have, sometimes those perspectives can add more value than some sort of number on a page telling you to do A or B.
Aoifinn Devitt: I suppose if you were to maybe characterize the DNA of a VistaMark portfolio today and Do you look at the OCIO model? Is it more of an advisory or collaborative model? And are there any asset classes you avoid? Is there any kind of hallmark, maybe such as global diversification or use of alternatives? What would be the DNA of a VistaMark approach?
Matthew Rice: Yeah, I think it, you know, at the end of the day, my mindset is really unchanged, is unchanged in that at any given risk budget that a client has, our goal is going to be maximize return at that risk budget. And so, think about it simplistically. If it’s a 90/10 mix, an 80/20 mix, a 70/30 mix, it’s going to be to kind of budget the risk right around where that client’s— whether it’s ability to take risk, whether it’s willingness to take risk, there’s usually some combination of both those. And if it’s a university endowment with a 100-year, 1,000-year time period, it might be on the high end of that spectrum. And if it’s somebody like my mother, it might be on the lower end of that time spectrum. But the process is the same. And it’s how do we maximize return at that risk budget level? And that’s sort of how we always think about things. So any asset that we can put in a portfolio that improves the risk-adjusted return, we will. And I think that there’s certain elements now, and we’re very well diversified. So we believe really in taking a 10-year view on how we look at things because when I’m trying to predict what’s going to happen next week, next month, or even the next year, I’m probably not any better than anyone else at that. And I really don’t think there’s anyone that’s any good at that. I’ve been around long enough to know that people that predict things correctly 2 or 3 times in a row and start bragging about it get it really wrong the 4th time or the 5th time, and especially when you’re talking about short windows. And so when we look at forecasting, we’re trying to do a window where there’s a reasonably high R-squared prediction where you can get to north of 50, 60% in terms of an actual model and an actual outcome, and you can’t really get there over a short period of time. And so that stayed the same. So that’s why we typically take a look and try to build most of our strategies around a 10-year our outlook. And so every year we essentially ask the question, if we couldn’t change the portfolio for 10 years, how would we invest today? We don’t wait 10 years though. We ask that question every year. And so every year there’s kind of a rolling 8-year overlap of the time horizon and year over year things shift. And of course, we don’t always wait a year. There are some years where we might do a 10-year projection multiple times, like during COVID in January of 2020 versus March of 2020 versus like August of 2020. All 3 of those in time were It might as well have been a decade between those three from where the markets were, where interest rates were, where credit spreads were, where the markets were. And so, we would actually dust off a 10-year projection even there, 3 times within a 1-year period. If we’re doing that, we hope to not do that in most years because that means that there’s a lot of stress. But yeah, that’s sort of how we think about things.
Aoifinn Devitt: And how about assets that you might consider out of bounds?
Matthew Rice: In terms of off-limit assets, We don’t have a lot of those. I think there’s assets that we’re a little skeptical of and ones like, I’m still trying to get my hands around crypto. I’m sorry, maybe I’m old, maybe I’m too old. Maybe I’ve written too many chapters on naturally occurring Ponzi schemes and other things. But I sort of kind of believe when you invest in an asset, it should be valued based on the present value of future cash flows associated with that asset. And when you look at something like a currency, a cryptocurrency, it’s just, It is what it is. It’s just this thing. It doesn’t have like, it doesn’t kick off a dividend. It doesn’t have like an internal growth rate. I just still don’t understand it other than through the Greater Fool theory of somebody’s going to be willing to pay a higher price for this next year than this year. And that seems to be okay until it’s not okay. And so I’m a little skeptical of certain assets like that. In terms of certain trading strategies around crypto, I’ve become a little bit more open-minded to that. But in terms of just strategic crypto allocations, I’m not there. I’m not there.
Aoifinn Devitt: And any views on other assets such as private equity?
Matthew Rice: When we look at private equity, we’ve been big investors for private equity for a long time. Really believe there that with differentiated strategies, long time horizons, there’s value to be had there. Believers in venture capital to a certain degree. I mean, it’s a real hit and miss. Gotta make sure if you’re investing in that space, you’re with the right people because if you’re with the wrong people, it’s a very expensive miss. And then of course, across the globe, everything from short-duration fixed income to emerging market equities we’re invested in from a public markets perspective. And really the difference being if it can add incremental risk-adjusted return to the portfolio, we’re in it. If it doesn’t, we’re out of it. It’s that simple. I mean, some of the best moves we’ve made in the past have been, call it 2006 when we put out a paper called REIT Valuations Approaching the Stratosphere. Happened to kind of get out of real estate at the right time in 2006, 2007, in that era. And I remember in 2009 very clearly saying, “Well, you should put half your money in canned foods and ammunition and the other half in high-yield bonds because one half of that trade is going to work really, really well.” And that really came back to January of 2009, looking at the stock market was sort of priced for a severe recession. The credit market was priced for the end of the world. I mean, you could get to high double-digit default rates and low recovery rates and still get to pretty nice rates of return in high-yield bonds. And so, those are the kinds of things we would look at and really try to always take that sort of top-down view associated with it and try to always allocate and make those shifts. And people think about, “Well, a 10-year time horizon, that’s too long.” It’s like, well, For something like real estate, no, it wasn’t in 2006, ’07. I mean, we were having a hard time getting to a positive rate of return in real estate for the next decade, and that’s why we trimmed it. In 2009, we were getting the double-digit returns in credit. And so these are the kinds of things that you can look at and make these kind of well-timed bets on and get to that higher predictive response and really try to be, you know, get the emotions out of it and just focus on it very quantitatively. And I’m back to my quant roots and talk about all the ways you be wrong. And if you kind of talk about every possible way you could be wrong and you don’t really have a good explanation for how you’re wrong, then maybe you’re right and move forward with that.
Aoifinn Devitt: So interesting that you mentioned the crypto and not being able to model that necessarily. And that gets back to the preparation point. I think it’s hard to prepare, and we would tell this view at Moneta, when you don’t know necessarily how something’s likely to behave. And I think we are still at that discovery phase when it comes to crypto. My last question on the investment side is around any other objectives that your clients might have or that you would help them achieve besides return? And I know you mentioned risk management, kind of the flip side of that coin, but I’m thinking of things like mission-driven investing, impact, just other aspects that maybe certain kinds of clients might also have as maybe twin objectives.
Matthew Rice: No, absolutely. I had the interesting example, like the first billion dollar, I think it was the first billion dollar plus Catholic organization that wanted to divest fossil fuels about 15 years ago. I got to figure out how to do that the hard way because at that At that point, it wasn’t super common to do it. So how do you take a billion-dollar-plus university endowment and remove fossil fuels from it? Well, I figured it out and it took a while and it was hard to do. And obviously that’s not Matt Rice’s view, that’s not VistaMark’s view, and who cares what Matt Rice or VistaMark’s view is? If you have a client that believes in a certain, whether sustainability or certain ESG driven, it’s our goal is to figure out how to help the client solve that particular problem of theirs. How do they build the highest risk-adjusted return portfolio? Portfolio they can that aligns with their mission, aligns with their objectives. I had the opportunity to work with some Catholic institutions, nuns who didn’t want to invest in US treasuries because the US government did nuclear weapons. And so we have to figure out how do you build a well-diversified, moderately aggressive portfolio or conservative portfolio without any treasuries? And you have to solve for that and figure that out and come up with your second, third best solution. That ends up optimizing that particular client’s viewpoint. So we’re very good, I think, at implementing the goals. I think the hard point that I’ve had when I’ve worked with university endowments and other nonprofit organizations is when you have an investment committee that hasn’t quite figured out what they’re all about yet. They think they do, like they might have a religious background that helps inform that, and that’s easier to a certain extent. You know, they’ve got the Catholic playbook or they’ve got the Methodist playbook or whatever it might be. From an ESG perspective. And then there are some other institutions that are where you have an investment committee that doesn’t quite agree on what the definitions are and helping those committees navigate those differences. And in some cases, the universities are really worried about the students and the students throwing tantrums on campus. And how do we do what’s consistent with doing well from an investment return perspective, but maybe get these kids, these college kids, to stop beating on our doors and marching in the streets? And, and so it’s figuring out and balancing some of these kinds of soft items that can be the most challenging sometimes. And so as an investment advisor, our role has oftentimes been mediator too, like when you’re working with institutions on how to handle these types of situations where, okay, I think you’re really saying this and I think you’re really saying that. And at the end of the day, trying to find compromise and bridge gaps between people that have different views on specifics. I’m talking more the nuances of ESG sometimes or sustainability, like is it no fossil fuels or is it just the dirty fossil fuels? Which ones can we live with or live without? And those are the kinds of nuances that are important.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love to hear that because I think it really just illustrates how the advisor role is so much more than a quant as your starting point, and then how you really started to sort of evolve beyond that. And that’s something certainly on the private wealth side that I sort of realized about 4 or 5 years ago when I entered the space, that again, this role is so much more than an investment advisor. It is advisor in the broadest sense. I’d love to now just turn to a quick reflection. We’ve gone through a lot of it with people who’ve motivated you as well as some of the highs and lows, I think, of your career. I suppose just to conclude, is there any kind of word of wisdom, creed or motto or anything, maybe advice that you might have given to your younger self or anything you can leave us with in terms of a thought piece?
Matthew Rice: Oh yeah. You know, I probably, in terms of my younger self, I probably would’ve been easier on my younger self than my younger self was on me. I really held myself to a high standard. I still do, but I probably would’ve forgiven myself earlier for not being perfect. I think that’s a problem with being a perfectionist. Sometimes you’re your own worst critic and you got to figure out how to— if you’re good at forgiving other people, you should be good at forgiving yourself too when you’re not perfect. And that’s probably the advice I would give the younger version of myself. The advice I’d give to youngsters in this business is say what you’re going to do and then do what you’re going to say. Be nice to people, but be honest with people and don’t be afraid to be brutally honest with people too. And, you know, at the end of the day, be yourself, be who you are. Don’t try to pretend to be something you’re not to try to make somebody else happy. You know, at the end of the day, you get one shot at this life, as far as I know. And you want to be your highest and best self. You need to be who you are. And find people that generally align, at least at a very, very high level with your values. Associate with those people, partner up with those people, and work as a valued member of a team. And you’re going to get really, really far in this business. And be honest when it comes to working with clients. First and foremost, you know, we’re all fiduciaries, but I kind of believe in that true fiduciary, which is go above and beyond for your clients. If you take care of a client, you’re brutally honest with that client all the time. Be long-term greedy. That client will keep you as a client forever. If you’re honest with that client, you work your butt off for that client, you do everything you can to try to help that client, that client will stay with you through thick and thin. And so it’s kind of old school in that regard. Take care of the client, they’ll take care of you.
Aoifinn Devitt: I love that. I love reflecting on the old school truths. Last kind of sneaky question is football. Does it still form a big part of your life? Are you still a fan of and a spectator, or have you moved on to other interests?
Matthew Rice: I still love football. I love college football in particular, Big Ten football. I don’t have as much time as I used to to watch the game, so I, I try to focus as much on my alma mater, Northwestern, as I can. I don’t go to every game anymore like I used to. I, matter of fact, I don’t think I went to one this year. Didn’t really have time. But no, I did go to one this year. But NFL, my son— I grew up in Wisconsin, so I kind of grew up a Packer fan. My son is a diehard Bears fan, and so I’m trying to reconcile that. Talk about having tolerance. Bears and Packers are like mortal enemies for those that aren’t from the Midwest. And so with the Bears beating the Packers in the playoffs this year, and it really puts the love of your children at the test, you know, it’s like, yes, Michael, I’m smiling. I’m very happy that the Bears beat the Packers. Yes, I am. But no, I don’t have as much time for it. I do enjoy the sport. I kind of view it more as an art form now, and I kind of appreciate it without being the fanatical fan that I perhaps used to be early on.
Aoifinn Devitt: Well, even I know a little bit about the Bears and the Packers rivalry, and I would by no means be a football aficionado at all. But so I think that that’s pretty much it. If you live in the Midwest, you’re going to pick up on that. Well, thank you so much, Matt. As I said, I picked up on wanting to have this conversation when I saw the announcement on LinkedIn about Vistamark. I thought it was very exciting to see this new chapter open, and I love to gather here your philosophy and your approach to clients, which really is unchanged over the years. And very best of luck as you embark upon this next chapter, and thank you for sharing your insights with us.
Matthew Rice: Thank you so much for having me, Aoife, and really appreciate it.
Aoifinn Devitt: I’m Aoifinn Devitt. Thank you for listening to the 50 Faces Podcast. If you liked what you heard and would like to tune in to hear more inspiring investors on their personal journeys, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, and all views are personal and should not be attributed to the organizations and affiliations of the host or any guest.
