Money in the Bank with Franck

Charity vs. Investing Is the Wrong Question

The more interesting question is: what if capital could do both at the same time—without compromising either? That’s the tension at the center of my recent conversation with John Parker, a pediatric-focused investor working at the intersection of philanthropy, venture capital, and measurable outcomes. John operates through the Charles Hood Foundation, an 84-year-old family foundation that supports pediatric research—and, unusually, also runs an internal venture fund. What makes John’s approach compelling isn’t just what he invests in, but how he thinks about capital itself. Investing for outcomes, not just returns John backs companies improving health outcomes for children—from birth through adolescence—across drugs, devices, and digital health. This isn’t charity in the traditional sense, and it’s not venture capital as most people know it either. Instead of asking, “Will this maximize returns?” the primary question becomes: “Will this measurably improve outcomes—and can it still be sustainable?” That framing unlocks a very different risk posture. As John puts it, foundations already know how to lose money—they give it away every year. That creates room to experiment, to invest earlier, and to back ideas that might otherwise struggle to get funded. The surprising part? Many of these investments do work financially—sometimes very well. Pediatric care: overlooked, not small There’s a persistent myth that pediatric healthcare is a “small market.” John challenges that head-on. Children represent roughly 25% of the population. Parents will move mountains to get their kids care. And when you think in terms of lifetime impact, investing earlier produces outsized returns—socially and economically—even if the system hasn’t historically priced that value correctly. That mismatch creates opportunity. John’s portfolio reflects this: early-stage pediatric companies, patient capital, smaller trials, faster regulatory pathways, and technologies that often expand into adult indications later. Recycling philanthropic capital One of the most powerful ideas we discussed is recyclable philanthropy. Using IRS program-related investment (PRI) rules, foundations can deploy charitable dollars into for-profit companies without violating their mission. The intent isn’t to make money—but if capital comes back, it can be redeployed again and again. That turns a one-time grant into a flywheel. Even getting principal back is a win. A home run exit is transformative. Donor-advised funds: capital hiding in plain sight This is where the conversation gets especially interesting. There are hundreds of billions of dollars sitting in donor-advised funds—money that’s already been given a tax deduction, but often sits idle in index funds or money markets for years. What if some of that capital could be put to work now—invested into outcome-driven companies aligned with donors’ values? John has already done this. In his for-profit fund, traditional LPs and donor-advised funds invest side by side. Same vehicle. Same companies. Different motivations. For donors, it’s a way to move beyond writing checks and toward actively shaping impact—while still preserving optionality. The real takeaway This isn’t about choosing between profit and purpose. It’s about expanding the toolkit. Whether you’re an investor, advisor, founder, or someone sitting on a donor-advised fund wondering what to do next, the lines between philanthropy and investing are becoming more porous—and more interesting. And in pediatric care especially, that shift couldn’t matter more. If capital is going to shape the future, we should be deliberate about where it starts. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit franckcushner.substack.com [https://franckcushner.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Future of Sports Broadcasting

I met Joel Feld by chance at a dinner in New York City. We were sitting next to each other, two strangers in a loud room, and I noticed the wristbands first — one from a venue, one from a festival. I asked about them, and within minutes we were talking about music, production, and how New York never really leaves you, even when you’ve moved on. He mentioned he was in a band that plays The Cutting Room and casually dropped that he’d once run production for ABC Sports. That’s when it clicked: this wasn’t just another dinner conversation — this was a guy who’d lived through the golden age of sports television and found a way to keep creating for the love of it. So when we sat down for this episode of Money in the Bank with Franck, I wanted to know how someone who started in the truck-filled, cable-dominated world of the 1970s ended up leading broadcast operations for the National Lacrosse League, a fast-growing, digitally native league that runs 126 live games a year across ESPN and TSN. And, just as importantly, how he still finds time to front a rock band on the weekends. The Dual Life of a Sports Executive When we talked, Joel described his career like a musician would describe a band: equal parts creativity, discipline, and negotiation. He’s lived through what he calls “the golden era of broadcast” — when the only way to get a signal out of a stadium was to roll up with a satellite truck the size of a house — to now, where entire productions run through the cloud for a fraction of the cost. “We used to spend hundreds of thousands just to deliver a program,” Joel said. “Now we can do it for about $350. The quality’s better, and we don’t have to fly 200 people to every game.” That shift has opened the door for smaller leagues like lacrosse, pickleball, and women’s soccer to innovate faster than traditional sports ever could. And Joel’s team is using that to their advantage. NIL Money, Education, and the New Business of Athletes But the part of our conversation that surprised me most wasn’t about fiber optics or cloud production — it was about money. Joel was among the first to point out that Name, Image & Likeness (NIL) deals have created a new class of earners: 18-year-olds with six- and seven-figure contracts, few of whom understand taxes, contracts, or compounding interest. “You’ve got kids making millions,” he said, “and when the tax bill comes, they’re shocked. They think, ‘Wait — I spent it all already.’” He sees it as both a challenge and an opportunity: a crash course in financial literacy that could either shape smarter professionals or bankrupt a generation before they ever go pro. For me, it’s another reminder that education around money — how to manage it, invest it, and protect it — needs to start long before the paycheck hits. From Cable to Cloud As we moved into the future of media, Joel described where technology is taking live sports: remote production, distributed teams, and AI-driven graphics that were once too expensive for anything but the Super Bowl. It’s a new ecosystem — one where YouTube, not ESPN, might become the next frontier for leagues like the NLL. “When you’re on YouTube, you have full control,” he said. “You own your audience. You don’t need a network executive telling you what to cut.” That democratization of production and distribution mirrors what’s happened in finance, music, and entrepreneurship. The barrier to entry is gone — but so is the safety net. Why This Matters Whether you’re running a fund, producing a podcast, or managing a team, Joel’s story is a case study in adaptation. He’s lived through the era of three networks and thousand-button remotes, and now leads a sport that’s growing through streaming, data, and accessibility. For me, the takeaway is simple:Technology will always change how we work. Financial discipline determines who survives it. #SportsMedia #NIL #Finance #Streaming #AI #Innovation #Leadership #MoneyInTheBankWithFranck This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit franckcushner.substack.com [https://franckcushner.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Sugar That Doesn’t Act Like Sugar

As GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic become more ubiquitous as solutions to everything from obesity to blood sugar issues, it is clear where America is right now: we’re medicating our way out of a nutrition crisis. But what if there were a molecule that could do what those drugs do naturally — lower blood sugar, curb inflammation, even feed the good bacteria in your gut — all while tasting exactly like sugar? That’s what my guest, Ed Rogers, CEO of Bonumose, claims Tagatose can do. “Tagatose isn’t too good to be true — but it’s pretty good” It looks like sugar. It bakes like sugar. But biologically, it acts more like fiber — and its benefits are backed by clinical studies that rival the results of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, without the side effects. So why is the FDA still forcing it to be labeled as “added sugar”? The Sweet Molecule with a PR Problem Tagatose is a rare sugar found in nature — in apples, pineapples, and dairy — that looks, bakes, and tastes like regular sugar. But unlike sugar, it acts like fiber. Clinical studies show Tagatose: * Lowers blood glucose and insulin levels in Type 2 diabetics * Promotes beneficial gut bacteria and boosts butyrate, improving colon and brain health * Protects teeth by reducing Streptococcus mutans, the bacteria behind plaque and cavities * Supports healthy liver function — lowering “bad” cholesterol and inflammation without the metabolic damage linked to fructose It’s even being studied for autism and Type 1 diabetes prevention due to its role in improving gut microbiome and oxidative stress response. So why isn’t Tagatose in every product on your grocery shelf? A Billion-Dollar Labeling Problem Bonumose won a federal court case last year against the FDA, challenging the agency’s decision to classify Tagatose as an “added sugar” — despite it not raising blood glucose or contributing to cavities. That labeling, Rogers says, is the main barrier keeping U.S. food companies from adopting it. “If something shows up on the nutrition label as added sugar,” he told me, “people put it back on the shelf — even if it’s healthier.” Meanwhile, in countries that classify Tagatose as a low-glycemic sweetener, sales are booming. Beyond Sugar Substitutes What makes Tagatose different from sweeteners like erythritol or aspartame isn’t just safety — it’s therapeutic potential. According to Bonumose’s data, Tagatose’s metabolic effects resemble those of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and SGLT inhibitors, but without the side effects. It reduces oxidative stress, promotes gut health, and may even complement pharmaceutical treatments — potentially lowering the required doses for those drugs. “You don’t need to choose between taste and health,” Rogers said. “Tagatose delivers both.” Why This Matters Diet-related diseases — diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease — cost the U.S. more than $1 trillion per year.Replacing even 25% of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup with Tagatose could prevent millions of chronic disease cases and save trillions in healthcare costs. And yet, one line on a nutrition label is keeping it from scaling. What’s Next As the FDA re-evaluates its stance post–court ruling, Bonumose continues to manufacture Tagatose in Charlottesville, Virginia — from American corn and potatoes, not imported ingredients — proving that “healthy” can also mean Made in the USA. If the labeling logjam finally breaks, this story could mark the start of a new American export: a sweetener that’s good for people and for farmers. 📄 Learn more (show notes): What do you think? Would you try a “healthy sugar” if it tasted just like the real thing — or do you trust the FDA label more than the science? #Nutrition #HealthTech #FDA #FoodPolicy #MoneyInTheBankWithFranck This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit franckcushner.substack.com [https://franckcushner.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Rise of the AI Agent Developer

A client texted me last week, confused. They’d just seen a headline about “AI agents taking over jobs” and asked:“Is ChatGPT about to replace me at work?” It’s a fair question. Tools like ChatGPT make headlines daily. But when I pressed my guest, Dmitry Shapiro — co-founder of MindStudio and former Google product leader — he cut through the noise: “ChatGPT is great for one-off tasks. But if you want consistency and control in business, you need a platform. That’s what MindStudio does — it lets anyone orchestrate AI workflows like Iron Man building his own superpowers.” The Productivity Shift Dmitry’s story starts in 1984, when a teenage “old nerd” walked out of the movie War Games and decided to hack. That spark turned into a lifelong obsession with software. He went on to: * Build startups — including Veoh, a YouTube competitor that raised $70M, and Akonix, a cybersecurity firm that raised $34M and served millions of enterprise users. * Run MySpace Music as CTO during its peak years. * Lead product teams at Google for more than four years, focused on social graph, content discovery, and abuse prevention. * Raise $36M to launch his current venture, MindStudio — a platform for building AI agents. That track record matters. Dmitry isn’t another “AI influencer.” He’s been in the trenches of every major tech wave since the 90s. The idea behind MindStudio is simple but profound:Most knowledge work is moving information from one system to another. Instead of humans playing translator, AI agents can now do it — reliably, at scale. As Dmitry put it:“Modern factories don’t have workers sweating on assembly lines anymore. They have supervisors optimizing machines. Knowledge work is the last frontier — and it’s about to look the same way.” Why MindStudio Isn’t ChatGPT Near the end of our conversation, I asked him directly: how does MindStudio differ from OpenAI’s agent feature? His answer was blunt: * ChatGPT agents pick their own steps. They’re non-deterministic — you get different outputs each time. * MindStudio agents let you define every step in a workflow. The result is control, consistency, and the ability to automate real business processes. In short: ChatGPT is a brilliant assistant. MindStudio is your operations team. From Fear to Opportunity What stood out most to me was how MindStudio empowers non-technical people. Franck: “I never liked trying to code. It scared me.”Dmitry: “You don’t need to. If you can articulate in plain English what you want, you can build an agent. Once you get the hang of it, it takes 15 minutes. And you walk away feeling like Tony Stark.” For business leaders, that means AI is no longer a black box. It’s a toolkit — a bridge between ideas and execution. Why This Matters Clients want efficiency. Companies want scale. Workers want to stay relevant. This episode reminds us that: * The real disruption in AI isn’t chatbots — it’s workflow automation. * Control and consistency matter more than flashy demos. * The winners will be those who learn to supervise the machines, not compete with them. 🎧 Listen to the full episode: From Coding Fear to AI Superpowers with Dmitry Shapiro (YouTube) Learn more: * MindStudio [https://get.mindstudio.ai/0vfoidrtga2r] * Free Workshops & Bootcamps — train as an “AI Agent Developer” [https://mindstudio-academy.circle.so/c/free-events/] * MindStudio University — self-paced tutorials and templates [https://university.mindstudio.ai/] What do you think? Do you see AI as a threat — or as the chance to build your own Iron Man suit? #AI #Productivity #MindStudio #ChatGPT #Automation #MoneyInTheBankWithFranck This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit franckcushner.substack.com [https://franckcushner.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The BlackRock Myth, Housing Shortages, and Due Diligence in Real Estate Investing

A client called me recently, frustrated. They’d just read another headline blaming BlackRock for buying up homes and making housing unaffordable. Their question: “Is this why my kids can’t buy a house?” It’s a fair concern. Stories about Wall Street gobbling up real estate make for great headlines. But when I pressed my guest, Ian Colville, on this during our latest episode of Money in the Bank with Franck, he didn’t mince words: “The real culprit isn’t BlackRock. It’s underbuilding. We need 1.5 million new homes a year just to stand still. We haven’t hit that number since 2008.” The Real Story Behind Housing Prices Yes, institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard own homes. But their footprint is small — single digits of the market, often closer to 2%. What matters more is the math Ian walked us through: * 1.2 million new households form every year in the U.S. * ~300,000 homes are torn down annually * That means we need 1.5 million new units a year just to keep pace. We’re nowhere close. And until we fix that, no single buyer — corporate or otherwise — explains the shortage. Risk, Return, and Reality in Real Estate Ian’s career started with $30,000 houses. Over time, he built that into a $40M portfolio and eventually launched Carpathian Capital Management [https://www.carpathiancapital.com?utm_source=chatgpt.com], now overseeing more than $400M in residential assets. But what struck me wasn’t his success — it was his view on failure. “Our worst-performing deal is on track for a 10% IRR. Compare that to a tech startup, where you might get nothing back.” That contrast highlights why real estate and private credit — the areas Ian focuses on — occupy a different space than high-risk “alternative investments.” They’re tangible, less volatile, and still capable of delivering double-digit returns. Due Diligence Isn’t Optional The most valuable part of this conversation? Ian’s framework for due diligence across private deals: * Track record & reputation: Who’s running the show? * Skin in the game: Are they personally liable or invested? * Organizational depth: Can the team survive setbacks? * Aligned incentives: How do sponsors get paid? * Exit strategy: Is there a realistic timeline and pathway? And one more critical safeguard: third-party administrators.Because after Bernie Madoff, if your manager isn’t using independent controls, you don’t have transparency — or trust. Why This Matters Clients want clarity. Advisors want confidence. Investors want results. This episode reminds us that: * Housing shortages are structural, not conspiratorial. * Real estate and private credit can be powerful tools — but only with discipline. * Due diligence is the difference between sleeping at night and chasing returns blindly. Listen to the full episode: The BlackRock Myth, Housing Shortages, and Due Diligence in Real Estate Investing (YouTube) [https://youtu.be/bCHmGg_JLTY?utm_source=chatgpt.com] Learn more: * Carpathian Capital Management [https://www.carpathiancapital.com?utm_source=chatgpt.com] * Development Fund III [https://carpathiancapital.com/ccm-development-fund-iii/?utm_source=chatgpt.com] – tackling shortages in high-demand markets * Free Due Diligence Webinar [https://webinar.carpathiancapital.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com] – monthly with Ian (1.5 hrs CE credit for CFPs) What do you think?Have you heard clients or colleagues cite the “BlackRock housing crisis”? Do you believe Wall Street is the villain — or do you agree underbuilding is the real problem? Let’s talk in the comments. #BlackRock #HousingCrisis #DueDiligence #PrivateCredit #RealEstateInvesting #MoneyInTheBankWithFranck This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit franckcushner.substack.com [https://franckcushner.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]