Strategic
Dashboard
Indigenous Wealth Management Fund
Internal Working Document
$10.0M
$200K / yr
-$30K
$170K / yr
by equity %
Scenario A: Vesta as Equity Partner (25%)
Scenario B: Vesta as Service Provider (No Equity)
Partner Pulse
Where each partner stands — tone, leverage, and intent — based on all available context.
Jean-François Laurin is a registered Dealing Representative under Pinnacle Wealth Brokers, based in Eastern Canada. He has been in financial services long enough to have operated at TD Bank with a formal mentorship programme, moved to Pinnacle, and built a practice around Indigenous investor relationships in Quebec and Northern Canada. He is articulate, professionally experienced, and genuinely connected to the Indigenous financial world in his geography. He is not a fraud. He is not incompetent. Those things should be stated plainly before anything else.
He also mentors someone currently, without compensation, because people mentored him when he was young. He said that on the April 2 call, unprompted. That is real. It matters.
And yet the full picture that emerges from the record is of a person whose natural orientation — not his strategic one, his natural one — is to optimise for himself and rely on the goodwill of others to absorb the difference.
Real and non-duplicable: He is a registered DR under Pinnacle — can prepare complete KYC packages and investor documents for Jared to review and sign. He has an Eastern Canada network — Quebec, Northern territories, Idle Quebec communities — a geography Mike and Michelle cannot reach from the West. He has a Cree nation contact — a former BMO branch manager with a relationship to the CFO of a pooled fund holding over $1 billion in assets from multiple Northern Quebec Cree nations. He has five-plus years working with Indigenous investors and understanding the specific sensitivities around trust, community reputation, and the long, patient rhythm of relationship-building in that world. He already mentors a junior advisor without compensation.
Overstated or unproven: He cannot sign subscription documents for LTC's Reserve LP. His dealer is Pinnacle. The signing authority belongs to Jared under Vesta's EMD licence. Jared confirmed this explicitly on multiple calls. This is not a procedural footnote — it means JF's single most critical licensed function in this specific structure is one he legally cannot perform.
The Cree nation contact is not a deal. He has not yet secured a meeting with the CFO. He needs to pay a referral fee out of his own pocket to get the introduction. The contact exists. The opportunity is real. The conversion does not yet exist.
His five-year deal story on April 2 — used to argue for the value of long-cycle relationship work — was about his existing Pinnacle clients, not anything he has delivered for LTC. It is evidence of his general worth as a relationship builder, not evidence of contribution to this specific venture.
The questionnaire: JF opened the April 2 all-parties call by questioning the intent of the due diligence questionnaire — saying it felt "very directed at me" and he wasn't sure if it was "a tactic for negotiation." He did not answer the form. He reframed the questionnaire defensively before Mike had said a single word about equity.
He then preemptively argued against changing the split before anyone had proposed changing it: "Don't base your discussion on a point in time, because right now the MVP is Michelle. But maybe next month it will be JF the MVP." He anticipated what was coming and tried to neutralise it before it landed.
The compensation contradiction: His most revealing statement of the April 2 call: "It took me five years to build one relationship for them to trust me." He used this to argue that his contribution cannot be measured on results delivered, only on effort invested. He then, in the same conversation, resisted the idea of a performance-based compensation model.
Tiffanie identified this in real time immediately after the call ended: "JF saying that he really doesn't want to be paid based on contribution of capital is a very big red flag for his position within the company. That is his role."
He wants equity because equity is permanent and does not require him to keep proving himself. But equity also means he would earn on Michelle's relationships, on Mike's community standing, on work he had no part in building. That is the irreconcilable tension at the centre of his position.
The April 5 separation: On April 5, Jared told Mike privately: "I haven't talked to JF. This is your thing, yours and Michelle's. I don't want JF and I to come pitch you guys on what this looks like at all." He was putting distance between himself and JF, unprompted.
The April 6 email: Forty-eight hours after Jared told Mike he did not want to present a joint position, JF sent an email that begins: "Following last week's meeting, me and Jared had a conversation around percentage splits."
He proposed 55% on-reserve / 45% Vesta, with Vesta defined as Jared and JF together. He anchored the negotiation before Mike could establish a baseline. He grouped himself with Jared despite Jared privately distancing himself. And he included a 2x dilution clause — meaning every future Indigenous partner LTC brings in dilutes Mike and Michelle at twice the rate it dilutes JF and Jared. Permanently.
That clause was not careless. It was designed to ensure that no matter how LTC grows, no matter who else joins, JF and Jared's combined proportional position is protected more aggressively than the Indigenous founders' position. It tells you what JF's fundamental concern is: protecting what he has claimed, not building what could exist.
The dinner: During the AFOA conference week, when Mike and Michelle were in town and the group went to dinner, JF suggested the venue — a restaurant belonging to his neighbour that he had been wanting to try. Mike agreed, as he always does. The food was unremarkable. The bill was $180 for four people. JF asked to split it four ways. Mike took the bill for the group.
This is not about the money. It is about the instinct. He chose the experience, then distributed the cost. It is a small thing that would mean nothing in isolation. In the context of the full record — the pre-emptive equity email, the 2x dilution clause, the resistance to performance accountability, the questionnaire defensiveness — it is the same pattern expressed in an unguarded moment, when no one was watching for it. He took the benefit and let someone else absorb the cost.
The April 8 reply: One sentence, forty-three minutes after the reschedule email arrived. "Any day after 4h30pm PST works with me." Composed, brief, no comment on substance. He is not rattled. He is waiting.
JF occupies a contradictory position in this venture and appears to know it.
His actual function in LTC's legal and operational structure is: prepare investor packages, build relationships in Eastern Canada, and support the closing process up to the point of signature. That is genuine, necessary work worth compensating well.
But he cannot sign the documents. He cannot conduct AML/KYC as the responsible party. He is registered at the wrong dealer. The single most critical licensed act in each investor cycle requires Jared, not JF.
He is therefore a relationship-builder and package-preparer who has positioned himself as a 45% equity partner in a structure he cannot legally operate at its most critical point. That gap between his actual function and his equity claim is the centre of gravity of this entire negotiation.
The five-year deal story is the most honest thing he said in the April 2 call. He has spent years building relationships that someone tried to diminish at the moment of execution by saying "all you did was sign a form." He has lived that injustice and does not want to live it again here.
That is understandable. It is even sympathetic. But the way he has responded to that fear is to seek equity-level protection against a performance-based outcome — which is exactly the opposite of how he should be compensated for a role that is entirely about performance. He wants the permanence of equity without the accountability that should come with it.
Michelle read this clearly on the night of the April 2 call: "JF's reaction is telling to us. Money brings out funny things in people, especially when you're doing it for the money only."
She is not wrong.
JF is the right person for the wrong agreement.
As a profit-sharing partner — 25% of the net spread generated by every client he personally introduces, permanently, with no expiry — he would be generously compensated for what he actually does, with uncapped upside if he delivers. That model aligns his incentives correctly. If the Cree nation contact converts at $500M, his annual income under that structure would dwarf what flat equity on a smaller fund would produce. It is more generous than equity if he performs.
As an equity partner at 45% — or even 25% — he is overcompensated for licensed functions he cannot perform, underaccountable for results he needs to deliver, and positioned in a way that would permanently dilute Mike and Michelle's ownership of something they created and bear all the reputational risk for.
The 2x dilution clause is the single most important signal in everything he has submitted. It is the dinner bill in contractual form — distributing cost asymmetrically while claiming equal partnership. It was designed to ensure that LTC's ability to bring in additional Indigenous partners costs Mike and Michelle twice as much as it costs JF. That clause alone tells you everything you need to know about how he thinks about this partnership when he believes he has the leverage to shape its terms.
The fit question has a precise answer: JF as a service provider with performance-based profit-sharing is a reasonable fit. JF as an equity partner is not — because the equity model activates the wrong incentives in him, and those incentives are already visible across the full record before a single dollar has been raised.
Jared Wolk has been trading markets since 2001. He was employee number one at what is now Vesta Wealth Partners — a firm that started as a multi-family office under the name Genn Investment Council, was acquired by a single European family in 2019, and now manages their capital and runs investment funds for other institutional clients. Vesta runs 16 funds, uses PwC as its auditor, SGG Fund Services as third-party administrator, and is registered as an Exempt Market Dealer, Investment Fund Manager, and Portfolio Manager. The firm has invested in Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX. Its annual operating costs run between $4.5M and $6M. Jared bills at $1,200 per hour.
He is not a broker. He is a fiduciary. That distinction matters because it shapes everything about how he approaches relationships, advice, and structure.
Irreplaceable in the short term: The three licenses — PM, IFM, EMD — took fourteen years and significant capital to build. Jared confirmed the EMD alone requires a $250K bond, a qualified compliance officer, and $300–400K per year in operating infrastructure just to maintain. The IFM requires another $400–500K bond. The PM designation requires either a CIM plus four years of experience at a registered firm, or a CFA plus two years. There is no shortcut. There is no equivalent available in the Indigenous finance world. Jared is, for the foreseeable future, the only person in this structure who can make the fund legally operate.
Beyond the licenses: He designed the entire fund architecture — the GP/LP structure, the Reserve LP mechanics, the Vesta Holding LP that converts market growth into a fixed known rate, the CRA connecting factors compliance. He built the spread model calculator that underpins every financial conversation LTC has had. He introduced Norton Rose Fulbright — Tommy Wong for fund formation, Barry Segal for tax, described by the firm's insurance broker as "probably the best tax lawyer in the country." He carried all Norton Rose legal fees on tab until capital enters the fund. He manages the PwC audit relationship and SGG Fund Services across 16 existing funds — LTC's Reserve LP can plug into that infrastructure at marginal cost rather than building it from scratch. He brought the BlackRock OCIO relationship as a future pathway for full-service wealth management for the nations.
The value of what he brought is not theoretical. Nathan — the independent expert with no Vesta relationship — assessed Jared's function and said: "With fairly deliberate effort, one could easily replace those elements within a year." But he also said that was about the back-office compliance and signing functions over time. The structural design work — the intellectual property that makes a Section 87 tax-exempt fixed-rate note possible — that is already done. You cannot un-receive it.
The April 2 all-parties call: Jared entered the meeting after JF had already opened defensively. He did not match JF's energy. He did not co-present a position. When Michelle asked about double compensation — whether Jared would be paid twice as both a Vesta service provider and an LTC equity partner — he was direct: "It's like, I'm not allowed to take money on the side for deals like that. That would be a conflict of interest."
When Mike raised the Indigenous ownership vision and the eventual goal of replacing Vesta with Indigenous-trained talent, Jared did not flinch. He said: "If that's your goal, then, you know, that's my job now is to help build that out." He then offered, without being asked, to hire Indigenous candidates at Vesta so they could get the licensed experience they need before taking over.
When the conversation turned to compensation models, he reframed it clearly — finders, minders, grinders — and proposed the J-curve framework: all the work is at the front, the payoff comes from the backend. He said if the goal is to eventually transition away from Vesta, then the model needs to be designed around that from day one — either pay us for time as a service provider, or pre-agree a buyout number. Both are clean. Both are fair.
He then said the most honest thing anyone has said in this entire negotiation: "I don't have an exit button on this. Once it's launched, it's yours. I can't take it back from you anything." That is the acknowledgement of a person who understands his own structural vulnerability and is proposing a solution to it rather than trying to hide it.
The April 5 private call with Mike: This is the most important single piece of evidence on Jared's character and intentions. Mike asked him, directly and on a private call, every question he needed answered about licensing, fees, costs, and exit paths. Jared answered all of them completely and honestly — including the information that, if used, would reduce his own leverage.
He told Mike the EMD costs. He told Mike the IFM bond. He told Mike the PM timeline and exactly how to get there without him. He described how to hire an Indigenous candidate, how to get them registered at Vesta, how to move them to LTC when they're ready. He said: "When's the best time to plant a tree? Yesterday." He told Mike to start the independence process immediately.
He also explicitly distanced himself from JF's position: "I don't want JF and I to come pitch you guys on what at all, like, how this looks. I think you guys should come to us and say here's the deal. And we go, okay. Like that should be a filler kill on our side."
He was saying: your business, your terms, come to us. That is not the posture of someone trying to extract maximum value. That is the posture of someone who has calculated that a fair deal they can live with is worth more than a winning negotiation that poisons the relationship before it starts.
He described his own role with unusual clarity: "For this particular structure, all we're doing is signing the paper and giving you the pieces of the puzzle that make this work."
On April 5, Jared told Mike he did not want to co-present with JF. "I'm not going to spend too much time with JF trying to fine-tune this."
On April 6, JF sent an email that begins: "Following last week's meeting, me and Jared had a conversation around percentage splits." The email proposes a joint position — Vesta would be "Jared and JF."
These two things are not fully reconcilable. Either Jared spoke to JF after his call with Mike and softened his position, or JF's email overstates how aligned he and Jared actually are. The former is possible — Jared is diplomatic and may have said enough to JF to not burn the relationship while privately telling Mike something different. The latter is also possible — JF may be using Jared's name to give his proposal more weight.
This ambiguity is the single most important thing to resolve before any agreement is signed. If Jared and JF have a formal or informal arrangement between themselves — if accepting Jared means accepting JF as a package — that changes the entire calculus. Mike needs to ask Jared directly, in a private call, whether he considers himself bound to JF's proposal or whether he is genuinely open to being engaged separately.
He is not trying to take over LTC. He said explicitly he does not want a control stake or a vote. He said LTC should come to him with the proposal.
He is not withholding information to create dependency. He provided Mike with the complete roadmap to not need him anymore. He did this on a private call without being asked.
He is not aligned with JF's framing. He distanced himself from it unprompted and told Mike to arrive with his own proposal independent of what JF was preparing.
He is not overcharging. The $25K flat fee for both funds — confirmed from his own mouth in the April 5 call — is a fraction of what this structure would cost anywhere else. At Norton Rose's billing rates alone, the legal guidance he has provided informally would be worth more than his total proposed fee for year one.
Risk 1 — The JF dependency. This is the real risk. If Jared and JF are operationally or personally entangled in a way that makes them a package deal, accepting Jared means accepting JF's equity ambitions alongside him. The April 6 email suggests JF believes they are aligned. The April 5 private call suggests Jared does not. Until this is clarified directly, the risk is real.
Risk 2 — Secondary priority within Vesta. LTC is one of 16 funds Vesta manages. The flat fee of $25K per year is not a meaningful revenue line for a firm with $4.5–6M in annual costs. Jared is engaged and enthusiastic now. But what happens in year two or three if Vesta has competing demands on its bandwidth? There is no contractual urgency mechanism that ensures LTC gets timely attention.
Risk 3 — Independent legal review of the buyout clause. Jared proposed that Norton Rose set the buyout price at "industry standard." Norton Rose was introduced to LTC through Jared. Mike identified this himself after the Nathan call: "Norton Rose — I know they're objective, but it's still a Vesta contact ultimately." For the specific question of how to value and structure a buyout of Vesta's role, LTC needs independent counsel. Not because Norton Rose would be dishonest, but because the appearance of independence is itself a structural requirement for this kind of agreement.
Jared is the right partner in the right structure with the right agreement.
He is genuinely the most strategically aligned external party in this project. His value is foundational and currently irreplaceable. His character reads as honest across every interaction on record — and more importantly, he has been honest specifically about things that reduced his own leverage, which is the strongest possible signal of authentic intent.
The service agreement model — founding fee of $50–75K, flat annual platform fee of $25K, per-investor signing fee of $150–500, and a pre-agreed buyout clause set with independent legal input — is the right structure for him and he has essentially proposed it himself. He is not looking for equity. He is looking for certainty about his exit and fair compensation for his contribution. Both are reasonable. Both are giveable.
The gap between Jared and a good outcome for Mike and Michelle is much smaller than the gap with JF. It is not about whether to work with Jared. It is about whether to work with Jared separately from JF — and that question needs to be asked directly, privately, before the Wednesday call.
If Jared is genuinely separable from JF's equity position, this deal is close. If he is not, the entire structure needs to be reconsidered from first principles.
Nathan Grandjambe is an Indigenous wealth management professional who built and ran a $350M AUM practice at an average fee of 1.18%. He has no relationship with Vesta or JF and no commercial stake in how LTC proceeds. He helped set up the Kahnawake Self Sovereign Wealth Fund. He is considering re-engaging his securities license. He spoke freely.
Nathan confirmed that Vesta's core functions — compliance, signing authority, fund administration — could be replaced within a year with deliberate effort. He laid out a realistic licensing roadmap for LTC to operate independently over time. He validated the Section 87 structure and praised the team's preparation. He also proposed an alternative path: building an Indigenous wealth management team inside one of the big five banks, which he framed as a parallel option if the Vesta/JF structure doesn't work out.
Nathan is willing to sign an NDA but not a non-compete. He is thinking about re-entering the industry himself. Michelle and Mike identified this as a potential conflict — he could, with full knowledge of LTC's model, build something similar independently. The team agreed to keep future conversations high-level until the NCA question is resolved, and to frame the next contact as a direct ask: is he interested in working with LTC, or pursuing his own path?
Tim Huot is a retired tax lawyer who spent decades at Dentons in Montreal. He is one of a tiny number of lawyers in Canada who has actually worked on Indigenous business taxation — not band governance or litigation, but the business side: how to use Indian tax status as a legitimate tax shelter in investment structures. He represented Kahnawake gas station owners in a landmark tax case and has worked with Mike for years. He has no commercial interest in LTC.
Section 89 liability is not a concern for native-to-native transactions. The LP structure is correct — it preserves the Indian tax exemption and provides limited liability. A corporation would immediately lose the tax exemption ("a corporation is not an Indian"). A unit trust is a valid and potentially simpler alternative worth considering. Band councils are effectively non-taxable. Norton Rose is the wrong firm for this work: too expensive and no real expertise in Indigenous business taxation.
Tim is retired and cannot provide formal written opinions himself. But he offered to identify and coach a practicing colleague — someone he has worked with for years who would take the file, with Tim pointing him in the right direction. His read: "All the legalities are not much of a deal. The hard part is the business side — getting investors and launching." He praised the brief without prompting, calling it better written than most lawyers could produce.
Who Does What — and What They Get Paid
($5K + $20K per fund)
+ $50–75K setup in Year 1
Vesta keeps ~30%
of Vesta's tiered mgmt fee (0.5%–2% by AUM)
One-time, no cap
Only if JF does the work
$100K cap, from his own cut
Year 1 Waterfall — Net to LTC: --
Year 2 Waterfall — Net to LTC: --
7-Year Projection (with decaying growth)
| Equity Partner Model | Service Provider Model | |
|---|---|---|
| Vesta annual take (at current AUM) | -- | -- |
| JF annual take (at current AUM) | 25% of net spread | Performance-based only |
| Annual cost to LTC | -- | -- |
| 10-year delta | -- | $0 extra |
🔒 CLIENT OWNERSHIP (Critical)
Every investor introduced through LTC's relationships is an LTC client. Vesta is dealer of record for regulatory purposes only. If Vesta is replaced as EMD, the clients must transfer. This must be in the signed agreement before anything else.
🛡 NON-COMPETE (Critical)
Vesta and JF cannot approach, solicit, or enter any commercial arrangement with any Indigenous nation, band council, trust, or individual investor introduced through LTC — during the agreement or for three years after it ends. This must be in the signed agreement before anything else.
Data Sources
All numbers on this dashboard are sourced from real conversations:
- 1.25% commission rate: Jared Wolk, private call with Mike David, April 2026 — "if someone brings in $20M, you pay them $250,000"
- 0.25–0.30% RM rate: derived from Jared's spread model (15% RM cost on 2% spread = 0.30% of AUM)
- Sub-referral 25% / $100K cap: JF Laurin, group call April 2, 2026
- $150–$500/investor signing fee: Jared Wolk, private call April 2026 — exact words: "What do you want to call it? Like, 150, 250, $500, whatever the fee is"
- $5K + $20K fixed fund fees: Jared Wolk, private call April 2026 — "I think this one's 5,000. I think this one's 20,000. That's not per person. That's for the whole fund." (Previously mis-sourced to Norton Rose meeting March 4, 2026.)
- 70/30 referral split: Jared & Mike, private call April 2026 — not yet finalized. Jared: "something around that I think." Mike confirmed as ~70/30.
- Signing authority (Jared only): confirmed every meeting
- JF cannot sign for Reserve LP: confirmed by Jared April 2026
- Reputational risk framing: Michelle Bryant, March 5, 2026
Meeting Timeline
Formal touchpoints since engagement began
Initial conversations between Jared, JF and Mike David. Structural concept introduced; roles and interest levels explored informally.
First formal session on record. Fund structure, strategy, and partnership roles discussed. Spread model foundation established.
Multiple working sessions focused on educating Mike and the team on fund mechanics, LP structures, compliance pathways, and the lending spread model. Norton Rose Fulbright introduced as legal counsel.
Jared builds out the full spread model calculator. JF begins pitch deck work and Eastern Canada LP strategy. Cree Nation connection flagged as priority relationship.
Key meeting establishing reputational risk framing and confirming Jared's sole signing authority for Reserve LP. Critical alignment checkpoint.
Jared conducts insurance research for fund protection. JF commits to travel for LP meetings in Eastern Canada and Western US. Conference strategy finalized. AML/KYC process and LPA still pending.
Structure is designed. Legal counsel is engaged. Model is built. No capital raised yet — the hard foundational work is complete. Execution phase begins.
Contributions by Party
What each partner has invested in the first 5 months
- Structural Architecture
Designed the entire fund architecture — GP/LP structure, Reserve LP mechanics, lending vehicle design, and inter-party roles
- Education Across 7+ Meetings
Taught Mike and the team fund mechanics, LP structures, compliance pathways, and the economics of mortgage spread lending from scratch
- Norton Rose Fulbright Intro
Introduced and onboarded NRF as legal counsel; structured the legal engagement specifically for a fund of this type
- Built the Spread Model
Created the full lending spread calculator (the tool on Page 1 of this dashboard) that forms the financial foundation of the fund
- Travel Investment
In-person meeting attendance in support of relationship-building and deal validation — on his own time and at personal cost
- Insurance Research
Researched insurance structures appropriate for protecting fund assets and LPs, a non-trivial and specialized undertaking
- Pitch Deck Contributions
Contributed to pitch deck strategy and materials for LP outreach in coordination with JF Capital
- Pitch Deck Work
Developed LP-facing pitch deck materials and presentation strategy for investor outreach
- Eastern Canada LP Strategy
Mapped and is actively pursuing LP relationships across Eastern Canada — a geographic region LTC/Vesta does not have existing coverage in
- Cree Nation Contact
Identified and initiated contact with a Cree Nation representative as a priority LP target — a unique and high-value relationship
- Conference Strategy
Established a conference attendance and networking strategy for LP acquisition across targeted financial and industry events
- Travel Commitments
Committed to travel for LP meetings in Eastern Canada and Western US — time and cost not yet incurred but formally committed
What Has NOT Happened Yet
Pre-revenue reality check — honest accounting of where the fund stands
The Nature of This Work
Understanding the front-loaded effort in fund creation
The work is all up front — getting it set up and going. Once it's launched, it's yours. I can't take it back from you.
Front-Loaded Value
Fund creation is unlike a service agreement with ongoing deliverables. The structural, legal, educational, and modeling work required to launch a compliant LP fund happens almost entirely before a single dollar is raised. That work has been done.
What "Yours" Means
The architecture, the model, the legal framework — once established, these belong to LTC. Jared and Vesta's role is permanent value creation in the setup phase. The ongoing upside accrues to the fund and its LP/GP structure.
The Current Risk
The fund is at maximum vulnerability right now: maximum work invested, minimum capital secured. The next 60–90 days — getting an LPA signed, AML/KYC complete, and a first LP commitment — transforms pre-revenue risk into momentum.
What Execution Looks Like
Finalize LPA. Complete AML/KYC. Execute first subscription. Originate first loan. Everything prior has been in service of reaching this moment — one signed LP agreement converts 5 months of work into an active fund.
Work to Date
November 2025 — April 2026 · ~5 Months of Pre-Revenue Development
Meeting Timeline
Formal touchpoints since engagement began
Initial conversations between Jared, JF and Mike David. Structural concept introduced; roles and interest levels explored informally.
First formal session on record. Fund structure, strategy, and partnership roles discussed. Spread model foundation established.
Multiple working sessions focused on educating Mike and the team on fund mechanics, LP structures, compliance pathways, and the lending spread model. Norton Rose Fulbright introduced as legal counsel.
Jared builds out the full spread model calculator. JF begins pitch deck work and Eastern Canada LP strategy. Cree Nation connection flagged as priority relationship.
Key meeting establishing reputational risk framing and confirming Jared's sole signing authority for Reserve LP. Critical alignment checkpoint.
Jared conducts insurance research for fund protection. JF commits to travel for LP meetings in Eastern Canada and Western US. Conference strategy finalized. AML/KYC process and LPA still pending.
Structure is designed. Legal counsel is engaged. Model is built. No capital raised yet — the hard foundational work is complete. Execution phase begins.
Contributions by Party
What each partner has invested in the first 5 months
-
Structural Architecture
Designed the entire fund architecture — GP/LP structure, Reserve LP mechanics, lending vehicle design, and inter-party roles
-
Education Across 7+ Meetings
Taught Mike and the team fund mechanics, LP structures, compliance pathways, and the economics of mortgage spread lending from scratch
-
Norton Rose Fulbright Intro
Introduced and onboarded NRF as legal counsel; structured the legal engagement specifically for a fund of this type
-
Built the Spread Model
Created the full lending spread calculator (the tool on Page 1 of this dashboard) that forms the financial foundation of the fund
-
Travel Investment
In-person meeting attendance in support of relationship-building and deal validation — on his own time and at personal cost
-
Insurance Research
Researched insurance structures appropriate for protecting fund assets and LPs, a non-trivial and specialized undertaking
-
Pitch Deck Contributions
Contributed to pitch deck strategy and materials for LP outreach in coordination with JF Capital
-
Pitch Deck Work
Developed LP-facing pitch deck materials and presentation strategy for investor outreach
-
Eastern Canada LP Strategy
Mapped and is actively pursuing LP relationships across Eastern Canada — a geographic region LTC/Vesta does not have existing coverage in
-
Cree Nation Contact
Identified and initiated contact with a Cree Nation representative as a priority LP target — a unique and high-value relationship
-
Conference Strategy
Established a conference attendance and networking strategy for LP acquisition across targeted financial and industry events
-
Travel Commitments
Committed to travel for LP meetings in Eastern Canada and Western US — time and cost not yet incurred but formally committed
What Has NOT Happened Yet
Pre-revenue reality check — honest accounting of where the fund stands
The Nature of This Work
Understanding the front-loaded effort in fund creation
The work is all up front — getting it set up and going. Once it's launched, it's yours. I can't take it back from you.
Front-Loaded Value
Fund creation is unlike a service agreement with ongoing deliverables. The structural, legal, educational, and modeling work required to launch a compliant LP fund happens almost entirely before a single dollar is raised. That work has been done.
What "Yours" Means
The architecture, the model, the legal framework — once established, these belong to LTC. Jared and Vesta's role is permanent value creation in the setup phase. The ongoing upside accrues to the fund and its LP/GP structure.
The Current Risk
The fund is at maximum vulnerability right now: maximum work invested, minimum capital secured. The next 60–90 days — getting an LPA signed, AML/KYC complete, and a first LP commitment — transforms pre-revenue risk into momentum.
What Execution Looks Like
Finalize LPA. Complete AML/KYC. Execute first subscription. Originate first loan. Everything prior has been in service of reaching this moment — one signed LP agreement converts 5 months of work into an active fund.
The Path to Full Indigenous Ownership
What it takes to replace JF, then Vesta — completely.
Based on Jared Wolk's own words in a private call with Mike David, April 2026.
No university degree is required for any step in this roadmap, with one exception noted in Phase 4.
Today, LTC owns 100% of the GP and LP but depends on two external parties: Jared/Vesta for all licensed functions (signing, compliance, fund management) and JF for business development and investor package preparation.
Full self-sufficiency. LTC registers its own licenses, hires its own compliance officer, manages its own fund, and runs its own investment strategy. Vesta and JF become optional.
5 years minimum. That assumes the CFA path and someone starting immediately. The realistic number is 5–7 years. This page shows why.
This is the first step for Mike or Michelle personally. It gives them the legal right to prepare and sign investor subscription documents — the core thing JF does today.
| Step | What It Is | Who Provides It | Format | Study Time | Exam | Cost (CAD) | Degree? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Canadian Securities Course (CSC) | Entry-level securities knowledge — markets, products, regulations, investment fundamentals. The mandatory foundation for everything that follows. | CSI (Canadian Securities Institute) | Online, fully self-paced | 200–250 hours. Typically 3–6 months part-time. | 2 separate exams (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2). Pass mark: 60% each. | ~$1,385 | NO ✓ |
| 2 — Exempt Market Products Exam (EMP) | Specific knowledge of exempt market securities — the exact category that the LTC 6% Reserve LP note falls under. Required for EMD registration specifically. | CSI | Online, fully self-paced | 30–50 hours. Typically 4–8 weeks. | 1 exam. Pass mark: 60%. | ~$325 | NO ✓ |
| 3 — Dealing Representative (DR) Registration | Official registration with the provincial securities commission as a Dealing Representative, sponsored by a licensed EMD. This is the license itself — what makes you legally able to sign subscription documents and conduct KYC/AML. | Provincial Securities Commission via NRD. Jared confirmed Vesta would sponsor Mike or Michelle. | Application process — no additional exam. Requires a sponsor (Vesta). | 2–6 weeks processing after application submitted. | N/A | ~$500–800/year ongoing | NO ✓ |
This removes the need for Vesta's dealer license entirely. LTC signs its own documents under its own regulatory registration. No Vesta required for execution.
"$250,000 in a bond posted with the securities commission and you just need to have a compliance officer. You could probably do it with a $400,000 budget a year to run an exempt market dealer."
| Step | What It Is | Time | Cost (CAD) | Degree? | Key Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 — Complete Phase 1 | All DRs working under LTC's EMD must first be individually registered. Phase 1 is the prerequisite. | 5–8 months (do this first, in parallel) | See Phase 1 | NO ✓ | Mike and/or Michelle complete this before LTC can be registered as a dealer. |
| 5 — Hire a Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) | The EMD must have a qualified CCO who reviews all transactions, ensures regulatory compliance, and signs off on the firm's compliance obligations. They cannot be a first-year person — they need proven experience at a registered firm. | 1–3 months to recruit externally; 2–4 years to train internally |
$80,000–$150,000/year salary | CCO typically holds CIM or CFA — not required of Mike/Michelle personally. NO ✓ | Jared: "It's not just you and Michelle. You need full-time people to be your compliance officer. They need to be trained, they need to have experience." This is the biggest practical barrier in Phase 2. |
| 6 — Post the Capital Bond | A financial bond posted with the securities commission as a mandatory condition of EMD registration. This is a deposit, not a sunk cost — you get it back if LTC stops operating. | 2–4 weeks once capital is available | $250,000 (confirmed by Jared) | NO ✓ | Jared: "you don't need two and a half and five separately — you can just have the five and it covers the two and a half." Registering as both EMD and IFM at once means one larger bond covers both. |
| 7 — Apply for EMD Registration | Formal registration of Little Tree Capital as an Exempt Market Dealer with the provincial securities commission. Requires a compliance manual, governance documents, and legal support. | 3–6 months for application review | $5,000–$20,000 in legal fees | NO ✓ | Must register in each province where LTC wants to operate. Start with one, add provinces as AUM grows. |
| 8 — Ongoing Annual Operating Costs | Compliance software, regulatory filings, legal fees, CCO salary, technology, and annual audit. The cost of running LTC as a licensed dealer — a real business with real overhead. | Permanent — annual recurring | $250,000–$400,000/year | NO ✓ | Viable when LTC generates enough spread to cover it. At $200M AUM with 2% spread = $4M gross, this is ~10% of revenue. |
- Mike or Michelle has completed Phase 1 (Dealing Representative registration under Vesta)
- AUM exceeds $20M — a 2% gross spread of $400K can absorb Phase 2’s annual operating costs
- LTC has 12+ months of operating history and at least one active LP subscription on record
- A qualified CCO candidate has been identified (external recruit or internal groom)
LTC creates and administers its own fund LP — the Reserve LP, the Holding LP, and any future funds — without needing Vesta's IFM license.
| Step | What It Is | Time | Cost (CAD) | Degree? | Key Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 — Complete Phase 2 | IFM registration builds on EMD. In practice, LTC can apply for both simultaneously to save time. | Overlapping with Phase 2 | See Phase 2 | NO ✓ | Applying for EMD and IFM together at the same time is the efficient path. |
| 10 — Designate UDP and CCO for the IFM | The IFM requires an Ultimate Designated Person (UDP) personally accountable for fund compliance — this would be Mike. The CCO from Phase 2 can serve this role if they have fund management experience. | Concurrent with Phase 2 CCO hire | No additional cost if existing CCO qualifies | NO ✓ for Mike as UDP. CCO may need designations. |
Mike as UDP means Mike is personally accountable to the securities commission for the fund's compliance. This is real legal responsibility. |
| 11 — Post the IFM Capital Bond | Higher bond requirement than the EMD bond. If registered as both EMD and IFM together, one single bond covers both requirements. | 2–4 weeks | $400,000–$500,000 (Jared's estimate: "I think it's 400,000 or 500,000 — this is my guess") |
NO ✓ | This replaces the smaller EMD bond from Phase 2 — it is not in addition to it. |
| 12 — Apply for IFM Registration | Formal application to register LTC as an Investment Fund Manager. More complex than the EMD application — requires demonstrated fund governance policies, valuation procedures, and operational controls. | 3–6 months | $10,000–$30,000 in legal fees | NO ✓ | Once approved, LTC can form, administer, and operate its own fund LPs without Vesta's involvement. |
| 13 — Retain a Third-Party Fund Administrator | Even as a registered IFM, LTC still needs an independent administrator for NAV calculations and record-keeping. Jared uses SGG Fund Services. | 1–3 months to onboard | $20,000–$50,000/year | NO ✓ | This is not something to build in-house. SGG or equivalent is the professional standard. |
- Phase 2 (EMD registration) is complete and has been operating for at least 6 months
- AUM exceeds $50M — the IFM bond and legal costs are easily absorbed at this scale
- LPA governance policies are mature, documented, and audited for at least one fund cycle
- The CCO from Phase 2 has fund management experience or a second qualified person has been hired
The final and hardest step. LTC manages the actual investments inside its own funds — including running the call option strategy that generates the 8% return. This is what Jared calls full self-sufficiency.
"If Little Tree was registered as a portfolio manager, investment fund manager, and exempt market dealer — that would be the golden ticket. That's when you guys are fully self-sufficient."
There are two qualification paths. The CFA path is faster but requires confirming work experience eligibility.
| Step | Detail |
|---|---|
| 14A: CSC | Already completed in Phase 1. ✓ |
| 14B: CIM — Chartered Investment Manager | The Canadian designation specifically designed to qualify for PM registration. Taken after CSC is complete. Format: Online, self-paced with multiple exams. Study time: 12–18 months. Cost: ~$3,500–$5,500. NO ✓ |
| 14C: 4 years experience at a registered PM firm | Mandatory. The securities commission requires this before approving PM registration. Must be at a firm that is already a registered Portfolio Manager. Jared's offer: "The people can come, they can work for Vesta, they'll get their experience at a registered entity." Cost: Salary during employment (you are working, not paying). NO ✓ |
| 14D: Apply for PM Registration | After 4 years experience. Time: 2–4 months processing. Cost: $5,000–$15,000 legal fees. |
| Step | Detail |
|---|---|
| 14A: CFA — Chartered Financial Analyst | International gold standard. 3 levels, 3 separate in-person exam sittings, approximately 300+ hours of study per level. Format: In-person exams at designated testing centres. Study time: 3–4 years. Cost: ~$3,500–$5,500 USD total. ⚠ DEGREE NOTE The CFA formally requires either a bachelor's degree OR 4,000 hours of relevant professional work experience. Mike's background as a founder and operator of multiple businesses may qualify — but this MUST be confirmed directly with CFA Institute before assuming it applies. |
| 14B: 2 years experience at a registered PM firm | Mandatory, but only 2 years rather than 4. The CFA's prestige reduces the experience requirement. Jared: "If you have someone with a CFA, then they can do it with two years of experience inside a firm." Cost: Salary during employment. NO ✓ (beyond the CFA requirement itself) |
| 14C: Apply for PM Registration | After 2 years experience. Time: 2–4 months processing. Cost: $5,000–$15,000 legal fees. |
- Do not wait for Phase 2 or 3 to complete. The 5-year clock doesn’t start until someone is working inside a registered PM firm — every year of delay is a year added to the independence timeline.
- Begin candidate search now: identify an Indigenous person already in finance, ideally with or close to a CFA designation
- Have Jared formally confirm in writing that he will sponsor the candidate at Vesta when ready — this should be included in the service agreement, not left as a verbal understanding
- Starting the candidate search in 2026 vs 2028 is the difference between full independence in 2031 and 2033
The Full Roadmap — All Four Phases
From first course enrollment to complete self-sufficiency
| Phase | Goal | Key Requirement | Time from Start | Replaces | One-Time Cost | Annual Operating | Degree? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Dealing Representative | CSC + EMP + DR registration under Vesta | 5–8 months | JF entirely | ~$2,500 | ~$600/year registration | NO ✓ |
| Phase 2 | LTC as EMD | Hire CCO + post $250K bond + apply | 12–24 months | Vesta's dealer license | $250K bond + $30K legal | $250–400K/year | NO ✓ |
| Phase 3 | LTC as IFM | Post $400–500K bond + apply | 18–36 months | Vesta's fund management | $500K bond + $40K legal | Covered by Phase 2 ops | NO ✓ |
| Phase 4 | LTC as PM | CIM (4yr exp) or CFA (2yr exp) + registered firm | 5–7 years | Vesta entirely | $5–6K designation | Absorbed into ops | Verify CFA ⚠ |
| Full Independence | 100% Indigenous-owned & self-licensed | All four phases complete | 5–7 years minimum | No dependency on Vesta or JF | $500K+ in bonds | $400K+/year | NO ✓ |
What Jared Actually Recommended
Jared said clearly: "If we want to work towards that, I shouldn't say if you could fast track it, you could do it in three. But like, it's going to take some time. And might as well start now. When's the best time to plant a tree? Yesterday."
Mike and Michelle doing the CSC course is something Jared said is worthwhile — not because the license is essential today, but because it removes operational friction as LTC scales and begins to have direct conversations with investors.
Jared's specific suggestion: find an Indigenous person who is already in finance — ideally with or close to a CFA — bring them into LTC's orbit, have them complete the experience requirement at Vesta, then move them to LTC as the registered Portfolio Manager. "If you can find someone, I'm happy to hire them at Vesta. They can get the licensing, they can get the time they need at the firm."
Jared's words: "By moving this forward, you're not making a decision that has any optionality that's reduced. You're not taking away anything. All you're doing is putting yourself into a situation where you're going to get some more real, tangible experience." Starting with a service agreement with Vesta today does not prevent LTC from building toward full independence tomorrow.
Jared said "at least five years minimum" for the PM path. The table above shows why: the designation takes 1–4 years, and the mandatory experience clock doesn't start until you're inside a registered firm. The earliest realistic scenario — a person with a CFA starting at Vesta today — would produce a registerable PM in 2031. More realistically: 2032–2033.
An Independent Assessment
Nathan G is an Indigenous wealth management professional who built and ran a $350M AUM practice. He has no relationship with Vesta or JF. He spoke freely. What he said changes the negotiation.
Meeting Recording
Fireflies transcript of the call between Nathan, Mike, and Michelle.
Correspondence
Full exchange with Nathan — NDA, scheduling, and his response. Newest first.
Legal Documents
Documents sent to Nathan in connection with the April 10 engagement.
Jay's Read on Nathan's Response
How Jay Abraham would interpret Nathan's non-compete pushback — and the strategic move that follows.
Nathan just told you exactly who he is — principled, self-aware, and still interested. That's not a rejection, that's a negotiation opening.
Nathan isn't saying no to LTC. He's saying no to a clause that threatens his optionality in a field he's about to re-enter. That's rational, not hostile. Jay would ask: what value does Nathan actually bring, and is there a structure that captures it without the friction?
The non-compete was designed to protect LTC's capital relationships and fund architecture. If Nathan operates without access to sensitive investor identities and proprietary fund structure, the risk the non-compete was meant to address largely disappears. He's already proposed that model himself.
Take the offer he already put on the table. A scoped NDA — confidentiality only, no non-compete — in exchange for a clearly defined, limited advisory role. You get his knowledge and network credibility. He gets to stay clean for his own return to the industry. No one loses.
Servicing on the back end, navigating compliance, explaining fiscal instruments to clients — it's a fungible thing. It's easily commodified. I can say from personal experience it's one that with fairly deliberate effort, one could easily replace those elements within a year.
What Nathan's Assessment Revealed: Who Holds the Real Value
Based on Nathan's April 10 call with Mike and Michelle — his independent read on what is replaceable versus what LTC actually owns and cannot be taken away.
- Compliance and back-office processing
- Document signing and AML/KYC
- Fund administration and reporting
- Access to existing fund products
- Portfolio construction methodology
"Over time it gets increasingly commodifiable, it gets increasingly easy to replace."
— Nathan G- Trust relationships with band councils and nation leadership
- Cultural legitimacy — Indigenous to Indigenous
- Access to capital pools no outside firm can reach
- Reputational equity built over careers and generations
- The ability to convene decision makers in the same room
"That's not replaceable in the short term, and I would argue not even close in the midterm. And I'll use long term very loosely — it would take years, maybe a decade plus, to regenerate what you already have. If they even could."
— Nathan GLTC's Negotiating Position
How Nathan's call reframes LTC's leverage — pulled directly from what he said on April 10.
Negotiate a declining share for Vesta over time — a "ladder" built into the contract from day one. As LTC builds capacity and relationships deepen, Vesta's proportional take should decrease automatically. They will resist this. That resistance is the proof it matters.
The Exact Line on Dealer Activities
Norton Rose flagged this issue. Jared described it in technical terms. Nathan gave the clearest plain-language explanation of exactly where the legal boundary sits.
- Talk about LTC's mission and values
- Explain why you care about Indigenous wealth sovereignty
- Describe what you're building towards
- Talk about your team's approach and philosophy
- Host events, speak at conferences, present your vision
- Build and maintain relationships with band councils and trusts
- Introduce investors to the team
- Describe the specific product (the 6% note)
- Quote the interest rate or return
- Say "here's what this investment does"
- Ask a specific person if they want to invest
- Walk through the fund mechanics with a prospective investor
An Alternative Structure Nathan Named
Nathan described an alternative path that LTC has not yet considered publicly. It is worth understanding — not as a recommendation, but as negotiating context. The existence of this alternative changes LTC's leverage with Vesta immediately.
Big Bank Path vs. Vesta Equity Path
| Factor | Big Bank Path | Vesta Equity Path |
|---|---|---|
| Client ownership | LTC owns all client relationships — contractually | Unclear — must be negotiated in writing |
| Mobility | LTC can move banks and take all clients | Constrained by equity agreement |
| Compliance cost | Bank absorbs entirely | Paid from LTC's spread (reduces net to LTC) |
| Revenue split | LTC keeps 54% of management fee | LTC keeps what's left after equity share and fees |
| Equity given up | None | Up to 25% discussed |
| Exit complexity | End employment arrangement | Full buyout negotiation required |
| Time to start | Weeks (no fund formation) | Months (fund formation, LPAs, etc.) |
| Indigenous ownership | 100% from day one | 50–75% depending on equity split |
Michelle said after the call: "What's great about Jared and Vesta is that they are a family boutique with proven history. That's kind of the value add and flexibility." That is correct. The big bank path trades Vesta's flexibility for institutional trust and simpler client relationships. Both matter. The point is that LTC has options — and Vesta knows it.
Nathan Updated the Phase 1 Timeline
On the April 10 call, Nathan — who has passed the CSC himself — described exactly how long dealer registration realistically takes and what the milestones look like.
"From scratch with retrospect, I could probably clock that out in two months if I was really just only doing that. And that's with no previous knowledge of it."
— Nathan G"I was working a full time job raising young kids and I got it done in like six months. And I could have done it faster."
— Nathan G"Especially with the sort of tools that AI tutoring could provide. Really easy to generate quizzes and flashcards and all kinds of stuff. The barrier of entry that I faced is going to be even lower for you."
— Nathan GNathan confirmed: "It'd be really easy to get and also only one of you would need to get it. You'd only need someone on the team for the purposes of handling the sales side piece." Mike and Michelle agreed to study together and hedge the bet. One passing is sufficient.
IIROC and MFDA merged in 2023 into a single regulator: CIRO. Nathan: "It's CIRO securities. And I think they still have the CSC embedded within them. So actually not much has changed. They just kind of combined houses." The correct license to pursue is: CIRO Securities.
A Flag on Norton Rose
Something Mike said after the Nathan call that is worth tracking.
After the Nathan call, Mike said: "Norton Rose — I know they're objective, but it's still a Vesta contact ultimately."
This is worth noting in the context of structuring the partnership agreement. Norton Rose was introduced to LTC through Jared. They do work for Vesta on other matters. Their legal advice on the fund structure is high quality and their lawyers (Tommy Wong, Barry Segal) have been transparent and helpful throughout.
However: for the specific question of how to structure LTC's partnership agreement with Vesta — including client ownership clauses, non-compete language, and equity terms — LTC should consider engaging independent legal counsel who has no relationship with Vesta or JF.
Nathan was proposed as an advisory resource for this purpose. Mike said: "I'm willing to pay Nathan for a block of hours just to compensate him. I think he's got an objective perspective."
Who Nathan Is — and Why It Matters
Context on Nathan's background — why his April 10 assessment carries weight that a typical advisor's opinion would not.
- Boots-on-the-ground teller at a credit union through to founding a wealth management firm
- Integrated with compliance teams around fund creation
- $350M AUM under management at peak — split 54/46 with dealer
- 1.18% aggregate fee across client base generating ~$3M annually
- Left wealth management ~4 years ago — still manages investments for friends and family
- Deep knowledge of fund structuring, compliance, and dealer relationships
- No financial relationship with Vesta, JF, or any LTC partner
- Can assess the Vesta deal structure independently
- Can advise on the wealth management team alternative
- Has built what LTC is trying to build — from scratch, indigenously
- Shares LTC's values around Indigenous economic sovereignty
- Available for paid advisory hours — confirmed by Michelle
"He knows a lot about what we need right now. He has the same values as us in terms of wants that wealth generation. I think he would be a worthy person for us to have on our side."
— Michelle Bryant, post-call"There's no gatekeeping. There's only possible synergies, which I love."
— Mike David, post-callA Strategic Nuance on the 6% Note
A detail Nathan raised on the April 10 call that changes how LTC should think about the fund product itself.
Nathan raised a point that is not widely discussed in the LTC materials to date. It belongs on the record.
The 6% tax-exempt note is a powerful instrument. But it is not always the optimal long-term strategy for every investor.
After Nathan Left the Call
Tim Huot — Tax Law Consultation
Tim Huot is a retired tax lawyer from Montreal who spent decades advising Indigenous business owners, including representing Kahnawake gas station owners in a landmark tax case. He has no commercial stake in the outcome. He reviewed the brief and spoke freely.
Meeting Recording
Zoom call with Tim, Mike, Michelle, and Tiffanie. Tim reviewed the brief and addressed our key legal and tax questions.
Introduction to Éric Gélines — Lavery Law
Tim introduced Mike and Tiffanie to Éric Gélines, a 30-year tax lawyer and full professor of taxation at Lavery (Montreal). Éric has direct experience with the Bastian decision and advising indigenous clients in Quebec. He is Tim's former mentee — Tim was his boss when he started 30 years ago.
Key Findings
What Tim confirmed, flagged, and suggested — in plain English.
Next Steps from This Call
What Tim committed to and what the team agreed to do.
Norton Rose Fulbright — Legal Correspondence
Full email exchange with Norton Rose. Elizabeth Pierman (Associate), Michael Bunn (Partner), and Barry Segal (Partner). March–April 2026.
Hi Mike and Michelle,
I hope you are both doing well.
We wanted to touch base regarding the formation of the fund's on‑reserve entities – Little Tree Capital, Little Tree GP, Reserve LP, and Holding LP. Do you have a preference regarding the jurisdiction of formation for these corporations and limited partnerships? As a reminder, each new entity will be required to maintain its registered office on-reserve within the province of incorporation/formation. We understand that Québec and British Columbia are both viable options as one or both of you have connections to reserves in those provinces. In our experience, British Columbia tends to be a more straightforward jurisdiction for establishing these types of entities; however, we are happy to proceed with Québec if that is your preference.
Once we confirm the jurisdiction of formation, we will follow up with the information we require from you to complete the formation process for the on‑reserve entities. Once Little Tree Capital is incorporated, we will open a new client file in its name.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Best,
Elizabeth Pierman
Associate · Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you again for the kickoff call on March 4th. Very helpful to get everyone aligned on the structure. We have a few follow-up questions we'd like your guidance on before we finalize the incorporation and move forward with the partnership agreements.
1. Personal Liability Exposure — Investor CRA Challenge Scenario
As discussed on the call, Barry noted that if the CRA challenges the Section 87 exemption, they would typically come after the investor — not Little Tree directly. We understand that. Our question is about the next step in that chain: if an investor (whether a band council, trust, or individual) receives a CRA reassessment and chooses to pursue Little Tree Capital, what would our personal liability actually look like as the owners of Little Tree Capital and Little Tree GP?
- How would the BC incorporation structure (Little Tree Capital Inc.) shield Mike and Michelle personally from any claim brought by an investor?
- Are there additional steps we should take — in how the corporate entities are structured, how compensation flows, or how the investor agreements are written — to minimize personal exposure?
- Is there a meaningful difference between liability exposure at the Little Tree Capital level versus the Little Tree GP level?
2. Incorporation Structure — Optimizing for Liability Protection
We've confirmed BC as our preferred jurisdiction for incorporation of Little Tree Capital, Little Tree GP, Reserve LP, and Holding LP. We want to confirm that the current structure — where Little Tree Capital owns Little Tree GP, and the GP manages Reserve LP — is the most defensible arrangement from a personal liability standpoint for Mike and Michelle as the founding shareholders.
3. Personal Tax Treatment — Referral-Style Compensation Without an Advisor License
As discussed on the call, Mike and Michelle do not hold dealer or advisor licenses. The licensed dealing functions will be handled by Vesta and JF. Our role sits closer to capital introduction and relationship management.
- As the call confirmed, compensation from the 2% spread would flow from Reserve LP → Little Tree GP → Little Tree Capital → 50/50 to Mike and Michelle. Tommy suggested that paying out through salary from the on-reserve GP could minimize corporate tax. Can you walk us through how that salary structure would work for each of us?
- If the income is characterized as compensation for capital introduction rather than active management or advisory services, does that affect how it's taxed at the personal level?
- Are there considerations around HST we should be aware of?
4. Michelle's Condo Address — Does It Qualify as "On Reserve"?
Michelle's residence is a condo unit within a development situated on Tsleil-Waututh Nation reserve land in North Vancouver. The Nation designated the land to a developer under a long-term lease, the developer built the condominium, and Michelle purchased her unit within that development.
- Does the developer's leasehold interest change the reserve status of the underlying land for CRA connecting factor purposes?
- Would using Michelle's condo address as the registered office satisfy the "financial institution located on reserve" condition?
- If this address is acceptable, what documentation should we retain to support its reserve status?
Thank you,
Mike David & Michelle Bryant-Gravelle
Hi Mike and Michelle,
Many thanks for your email. I hope you both are doing well.
Confirming that we are reviewing and considering the various questions you raised below. In the event a call would be the most efficient way to address your questions, could you please provide your availability for early to mid next week?
Best,
Elizabeth Pierman
Associate · Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
As promised, we have discussed with our Indigenous law partner and our insolvency partner the question of whether on-reserve personal property is protected from seizure and execution.
Section 89(1) of the Indian Act prohibits the seizure of "real and personal property of an Indian...situated on a reserve."
However, the issue of whether any specific personal property is protected by s. 89(1) will depend on where the property is situated — for example, if you have a bank account or an investment account it would need to be determined if that is "situated on a reserve" (and we would need to look at factors like whether the account was opened on reserve and the terms of the agreement with the bank/broker to determine where the account is situated).
In summary, it may be that your personal property is protected from seizure and execution but it would require a fact-specific analysis with respect to each specific personal property to provide comfort on this point (which would likely be an expensive undertaking).
Regards,
Michael Bunn
Partner · Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Hi Mike and Michelle,
On our last call, you asked me to summarize how a Band may qualify for a tax exemption.
1. Exemption. A Band that qualifies as a "municipal or public body performing a function of government" under paragraph 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ITA) is tax-exempt on all of its income, regardless of the source or location of that income, even if earned off-reserve. Note that this exemption does not apply to income earned by a corporation owned or controlled by a Band (since a corporation is a separate person from the Band for tax purposes).
2. Band Created under Indian Act. The Canada Revenue Agency (the CRA) accepts that Bands created under the Indian Act will qualify for the exemption. The CRA has written:
"There is no definition of 'a municipal or public body performing a function of government' in the Act. However, it would seem logical, based on the wording, that it would appear to be an entity that is similar in nature to a municipality and governs people in a particular area... As a result, it is our view that all bands created under the Indian Act meet the criteria to be considered municipal or public bodies performing a function of government in Canada for the purpose of paragraph 149(1)(c) of the Act and are therefore exempt from income tax."
3. Other Bands. We understand that many Indigenous groups are not formally recognized as a band under the Indian Act. In such cases, a detailed examination of the functions of the Band will be required to determine it satisfies the ordinary meaning of a "public body" that is "performing a function of government."
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Barry Segal
Partner · Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Hi Mike and Michelle,
I hope all is well.
We wanted to touch base to see whether you had any follow-up questions or comments regarding the tax and liability information shared below and attached.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Many thanks,
Elizabeth Pierman
Associate · Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Path to Full Dealer Independence
Tracking progress toward CIRO registration, deal closure, and internal wealth management buildout.
Recorded Calls — Fireflies
All recorded LTC meetings, newest first. Open each call in Fireflies for the full transcript. Older entries may include an optional local Word copy.
Project Phases
Milestone Tracker
Active Task Board
Key Dates & Deadlines
Ownership & Accountability
Partnership Scenarios
Four proposed structures compared side-by-side. Adjust the global inputs to see real-time earnings across all scenarios.
The Fund Architecture
This is the structural diagram Jared originally sent — the plumbing that all four partnership scenarios below are built on top of. The dashed line is the on-reserve / off-reserve boundary. Everything above it is on-reserve and eligible for Indian Act tax exemption.
Michelle & Mike take 55%, JF/Jared take 45%. Mike and Michelle cut increases to 60% at the $40M AUM milestone. Includes a dilution clause for new partners.
100% LTC equity. Vesta is paid for their work at $1,200/hr plus a startup fee. JF is paid for his work as a contractor — no equity for either.
Company A: Wealthy Indigenous entrepreneurs — the first agreed-upon structure. 25% equity split for all four partners (Mike / JF / Jared / 4th slot), $20M target. Company B: Band councils & trusts, $100M+ target — 100% owned by Mike & Michelle. Vesta and JF are paid for their services. Investor type determines which company.
100% LTC equity. Vesta service agreement. JF receives 25% of net profit from personally-introduced clients — permanently. Attribution rule: first introduction = permanent ownership. Optional $2,500/mo draw floor.
Why Scenario 4 is the best option for all parties.
Creating a win-win solution that has flexibility.
The only scenario where 100% Indigenous ownership is real from day one. No equity to unwind, no future buyout conversation. The structure is clean permanently.
He gets paid for what he actually does. The $60K founding fee covers the year of structural work. Ongoing service fees match every other Vesta client relationship. Pre-agreed exit terms give him the certainty he asked for.
His 25% is entirely his own — earned on clients he personally sources, permanently. If he closes the Cree Nation at $100M, that's ~$493K/year, every year, from one relationship he built. That is a business.
The only scenario that reflects what she actually brought. Her words on March 5: "Someone getting immediate equity on something they didn't help create — it doesn't make sense." Scenario 4 is that principle in practice.
The compensation principle is the same for everyone: you earn on what you build. Nobody rides on someone else's relationships. And 100% Indigenous ownership is not a goal to negotiate toward — it is the starting point.
Critical Legal Clauses Required
Regardless of which scenario is chosen, these three clauses must be drafted in writing before any agreement is signed.
Mike's Pitch — Full Script
Italics = stage direction. Regular text = what Mike says.
[Opening — after greetings]
"JF — thanks for sending that over, seriously. Me and Michelle read it carefully and we really appreciate you and Jared taking the time to put something together. It shows a lot of good faith and honestly it got us thinking even harder about how to make this right for everyone.
So we want to come back with something. And I think when you hear it, you're going to see that we actually kept the spirit of what you proposed — we just want to show you a version that we think pays out better for everybody.
Can I walk you through it? And then let's open it up — I want to hear your reactions as we go."
[Natural pause — let them say yes, go ahead]
"Okay so here's how we're thinking about it.
Me and Michelle want to keep LTC 100% Indigenous owned. That's not us being greedy — that's the mission. That's literally what we're selling to the nations we're going to talk to. We need to be able to look a band council in the eye and say this is ours. If we can't say that, we lose the thing that makes this whole product different from what the banks are already offering.
So that's the starting point. Everything else builds from there."
[Pause — short. Check the room.]
"Does that land? Like, does that make sense as a starting point?"
[Let Jared or JF respond briefly.]
"Good. So from there — the question we kept asking ourselves was how do we make sure everybody who's building this with us is genuinely rewarded for what they bring. Not just a flat split. Actually rewarded for their specific contribution.
And that's where we landed on something that I'm really excited about — especially for you JF.
Your 25% stays. We didn't touch that number. What changes is what it's attached to."
[Pause. Let that land. JF will likely ask what that means.]
[JF asks — "what do you mean?"]
"JF — you're coming in as a profit sharing partner. That's how I want you to think about your role in this.
Not a contractor. Not a commissioned salesperson. A profit sharing partner.
Here's what that means in practice. Instead of 25% of everything — including clients Michelle brings, including clients we bring through the nation relationships — your 25% is tied to every client you personally open the door to. Every single one.
And it's not a one-time thing. It's not a commission that pays out once and disappears. As a profit sharing partner, every year that client stays in the fund, you get 25% of the net profit from their capital. Permanently. No expiry. No ceiling.
So if you close the Cree nation — and I genuinely believe you will — and let's say they come in at $100 million. That's roughly $500,000 a year, every year, straight to you. Just from that one relationship. That you built."
[Pause. Let the math land.]
"And that grows with the fund. If they add more capital, your share grows with it. That's what a profit sharing partnership looks like — your effort, your relationships, your income. The bigger you build, the more you make.
Does that make sense so far, or do you want me to keep going and we'll do questions at the end?"
[Let them choose. Give them control of the pace.]
[If they say keep going — continue. If questions start, answer them and re-enter here.]
"Jared — for you and Vesta, we want to do this the right way. You've put a year into this. The structure you built, the Norton Rose relationship, the knowledge you've shared with us — that has real value and we want to honour it properly.
So we're proposing a founding fee that covers that work. A flat service agreement going forward for the platform, the signing, the compliance — all the things Vesta does. And a pre-agreed exit number for the day we eventually bring those licensed functions in-house. Clean, agreed upfront, no surprises.
The way I see it — you get paid accurately for what you do, which is a lot. And you have a defined, honourable exit when the time comes."
[Pause.]
"What's your gut reaction to that Jared?"
[Let Jared respond.]
[After Jared responds — close the pitch.]
"Look — here's the big picture for me.
What we're building is genuinely historic. There is no Indigenous-owned investment fund in Canada doing what we're doing. The nations are ready. The capital is there. Michelle's relationships are there. JF, your Eastern Canada pipeline and your role as a profit sharing partner — that's real. Jared, the infrastructure is there.
The only thing that can slow this down is us not being clear with each other. And this structure — everybody earns on what they build, nobody earns on someone else's work — that's the kind of alignment that actually keeps a partnership together long term.
So I'm not coming to you with this as a take it or leave it. I'm coming to you because I think this is the version where we all win. And I want to hear what you think."
[Open the floor. Don't fill the silence.]
How JF Will React — Beat by Beat
Based on everything shared across all calls. This is the honest read.
This is not a hostile question. It is a smart one. He needs certainty before he accepts. His entire career has been built on protecting his book of business from reclassification — he mentioned the Bitcoin story on April 2 where someone tried to cut his fee after five years of relationship work. The answer is clean: first introduction is his, full stop.
This is the most emotionally loaded question he will ask. He is not being greedy. He is asking whether the months he invested before today are recognised or written off. The answer has to be yes — they count, grandfathered in from day one. If Mike hesitates on this, JF will feel the structure was designed retroactively to take his best cards.
He will not say yes or no on the call. That is not his style — he said on April 2 he needed to talk to Jared privately before responding to anything. He will say something like "I need to think about this" or "let me sit with the numbers."
But his tone by the end will be different from his tone at the beginning. If Mike delivers this cleanly — acknowledges the email, keeps the 25%, names the profit sharing partner title, says the Cree nation number out loud, and confirms the existing pipeline counts — JF will leave the call calculating upside rather than defending against loss.
That is the best possible outcome for this meeting. A yes comes in the follow-up. The goal of this call is to send JF away doing math, not nursing a grievance.
If JF asks directly: "So Jared — are you okay with this? You're not getting equity either?" and Jared hedges or expresses any ambivalence, JF will use that to reopen the equity conversation.
Mike should ideally have a brief, private conversation with Jared before this meeting to confirm alignment. Not to script Jared — just to make sure Jared is not hearing the full proposal for the first time at the same moment JF is. Jared being genuinely settled and positive when he speaks will do more for JF's acceptance than anything else in the room.
Known Risks — and How to Mitigate Them
Five scenarios Mike has to be ready for. Identified, mapped, and planned against before the April 9 meeting.
JF collects his first year’s profit share, then walks — taking his client relationships and approach activity to a competing fund. His pipeline becomes someone else’s revenue.
Nathan’s brief and JF’s pipeline reference significant capital in band council accounts — but no LP subscription has been signed. The Cree nation relationship exists; the capital commitment does not yet.
Vesta introduces AUM-linked fees or increases its annual platform cost as the fund grows — eroding LTC’s net spread at exactly the point when it’s most valuable.
JF and LTC both claim sourcing credit for an LP. The Cree nation, for example, was flagged by JF — but also sits within Mike’s existing network of nation relationships. Who gets the 25%?
AML/KYC processes, LP subscription documents, or the LPA take longer than expected. Every month without capital deployed is a month without spread revenue — and a month where JF’s pipeline cools.
Email Thread
Every communication between LTC, Jared, and JF — in sequence. April 2026.
Partnership Correspondence — April 2026
JF's proposal, Tiffanie's response, Jared's public break from JF, and the service provider offer. Newest last.
To: Mike David, Michelle Bryant · CC: Jared Wolk
Following last week's meeting, me and Jared had a conversation around percentage splits.
Here is what we discussed: 55% on-reserve / 45% Vesta.
Vesta = Jared and JF.
When you bring new Indigenous partners in (future), Vesta will dilute at 2x the rate of on-reserve partners.
Let me know your thoughts.
JF
Hi JF,
Thank you for sending this over — Mike and Michelle appreciate you putting your thinking in writing and want to make sure the response it deserves gets the attention and preparation it needs.
Mike is currently in Bali for an AI Mastermind event and is several time zones ahead. The timing of this email means he won't be properly available to review and respond until he's back in a working window tomorrow. Michelle has a full day tomorrow as well.
Given that, they've asked me to let you know they'd like to reschedule this week's call — not to delay the conversation, but to make sure they come into it fully prepared to engage on the substance of what you've proposed. A conversation this important deserves the right conditions.
Would sometime next week work for you? Mike and Michelle are both available Monday through Wednesday after 4:30 PM PST. Let me know what works and I'll send a calendar invite.
Thank you for your understanding,
Tiffanie
Any day after 4h30pm PST works with me
Hi Tiffanie,
I don't see JF's email as a serious considered proposal, but more as a starting point for a discussion. I think meeting sooner rather than later and talking through the issues is going to get us going quicker. The trick here is not to have everyone develop a hardened stance and then come together to hammer into a partnership — the point of these calls is not to negotiate but to discuss the issues, make sure we put an agreement together we all want to partner into. I would suggest we keep the meeting time and make the most out of discussing the issues and if we don't settle on a plan, at least move incrementally closer to that goal.
Any evenings works for me
Monday at 430 PT/730 ET can work for me.
Hi Jared,
Thank you for this. The spirit you are describing is exactly the one Mike and Michelle want to bring to the table and it is genuinely appreciated.
Before Mike went to sleep last night (this morning our time), he and I connected and he asked me to make sure this conversation gets the runway it deserves. Given the time difference in Bali, he will not see any of these messages until early tomorrow morning his time and I know he would not want to walk into a meeting of this importance without proper preparation and advance notice.
Mike's calendar is clear tomorrow at the same time, and I would have loved to make that work. But I know that tomorrow does not work for you, and I do not want to schedule something that requires your presence without your availability.
With that in mind, the earliest we could bring everyone together properly is Monday. If that works for you and JF, I will lock it in today and make sure Mike and Michelle are fully prepared and ready to have exactly the kind of conversation you are describing. No hardened stances, no hammering. Just the right people, in the right room, with enough clarity to move this forward decisively.
Could you confirm if Monday after 4:30 PM PST works for you and JF? I will coordinate on Mike and Michelle's end and send a calendar invite as soon as I hear back.
Thank you for your patience and for keeping the energy of this exactly where it needs to be.
With appreciation,
Tiffanie
To: Mike David · CC: JF Laurin, Tiffanie Rothwell, Michelle Bryant
Here is an updated model with the Service provider option available to be enabled or disabled.
I've added a service provider module here:
The market we've seen for fund admin ranges from 20–35bps. So you can play with different numbers and see what works for you. If you want to go the service provider route, we can negotiate bps you think are fair, but we would not go below 10bps — have to have a $100K minimum and a minimum term — or we can charge a setup fee instead of a minimum term.
This minimum fee would cover all the fund administration (sub docs reviews, compliance, regulatory filings) and coordination of 3rd party providers, but not their fees. For example we would oversee the production of financial statements for the fund and tax slips, but the fund would have its own accountant and fees for filings. We would oversee the audit and liaise with the auditors, but the auditor fees would be the expense of the fund. The fund would get the opportunity to leverage our economies of scale and secure preferential pricing with our service providers if LTC GP decides to use them, but the decision of who to use for what would be at the GP level. I've left all the fee categories as dynamic, like sales fees for new capital, so if you want a very modular experience you can price anything out individually.
To keep things simple, if you don't want a minimum cash drag on the fund to begin with and want Vesta to invest our resources to set up and run the fund we can go back to the "equity" model and leave you with an open option to cash us out for $1MM anytime you want. This isn't modeled, but you can just run 2 scenarios and chain them together, one with the equity split, pay the $1MM, and then one scenario with our equity set to 0.
Let me know when you have a business plan in mind and want to discuss further. Or circulate a couple scenarios you think work for you and we can see if we can make it work.
Regards,
Jared
What Would Jay Do
Tactics, analysis, and strategic positioning — based on the Abraham Method and the full record of this negotiation.
Updated to April 22nd
Mike David coaching call with Jay Abraham — pre-negotiation strategy session covering the Vesta service agreement, fiduciary framing, and JF separation.
Mike laid out the full LTC picture: JF has values misalignment and his license can be replicated with a few months of study. Jared and JF have publicly confirmed they are not affiliated. Michelle has brought a different order of magnitude — one trust settlement alone holds $213 million in GICs, with potentially a billion dollars in reach across multiple councils. The original three-way equity split was built around a $20–50M individual high-net-worth strategy. This is now a completely different business.
Mike asked Jared to reset the conversation — "if you were coming to us fresh off the street with access to potentially a billion dollars of capital, what would you pitch?" Jared responded with a service agreement: $150K/year floor, or 30 basis points on AUM, whichever is greater.
Jay's first and most important reframe: Vesta takes no risk. LTC takes all of it. That asymmetry means equity was never the right structure.
Mike told Jay he felt anchored to the equity model because he had given his word early on. Jay dismantled this directly.
This is the most powerful reframe Jay gave Mike. LTC cannot give Vesta permanent captive equity because doing so would breach their fiduciary duty to the councils. It's not a negotiating tactic — it's a structural truth.
Jay was explicit about what the deal should look like. Not equity. A finite term service agreement with right of first refusal and a clean exit clause.
Jay addressed JF directly. His advice was not strategic — it was moral. And he showed how the moral argument is also the strongest negotiating argument.
Archive — April 1–20
Analysis and strategy developed during the initial negotiation phase — Jared's public break from JF, communications analysis, and the Jay Abraham positioning framework applied to this specific deal.
He publicly downgraded JF's proposal. Not privately to Mike in a one-on-one call. In front of the entire group — JF included. "I don't see JF's email as a serious considered proposal, but more as a starting point for a discussion."
JF's email opened with: "Following last week's meeting, me and Jared had a conversation around percentage splits." JF framed it as a joint position. Jared has now, in front of everyone, separated himself from that framing and reduced JF's carefully constructed 55/45 proposal with a 2x dilution clause to a casual starting point.
That is not a small move. That is Jared publicly confirming in writing exactly what he told Mike privately on April 5.
The private Jared call on April 5 told you Jared was separable from JF's equity position. This email confirms it in writing, in front of JF, with JF's name on the email chain. That is a significant gift to Mike's negotiating position. If JF comes to the next meeting still defending 55/45, he is doing it over Jared's stated public objection.
The dynamic on the next call just shifted. JF and Jared are no longer a unified front — and everyone in the thread now knows it. JF will have read this email. He knows Jared distanced himself. That creates a tension between them before the call even starts.
Do not reverse the reschedule because Jared asked. The week Mike and Michelle are buying is genuinely valuable — for alignment, for preparation, for the Nathan consultation, for the counter-offer to be clean and considered when it lands. Jared's preference for sooner is understandable from his perspective. It is not a reason to give up the preparation time.
The response to Jared should be warm, acknowledge his framing generously — because his reframing of JF's email is genuinely useful — and hold the reschedule without friction. Something like: "Really appreciate this, Jared, and the collaborative spirit is exactly the right frame. We want to make sure Mike and Michelle come to that conversation ready to move forward decisively — Tiffanie will confirm the day this week."
That response takes his framing and uses it to justify the preparation time he was trying to prevent.
Jay would not reschedule. Jay would not counter-offer. Jay would not negotiate at all — not yet.
Jay would reframe the entire game before anyone picked up a piece.
Jared just handed Mike something extraordinarily valuable and nobody in the thread has used it yet. Jared publicly called JF's proposal "not a serious considered proposal." In writing. With JF on the copy. That means JF is now negotiating without his anchor. His 55/45 has been publicly demoted to a starting point by his own supposed co-presenter.
"You are not in a negotiation. You are in a positioning moment. The person who defines the frame wins before a word is spoken."
Not to negotiate. Not to discuss numbers. To do one thing: confirm the separation.
Jay's principle — know your true allies before you walk into any room. Jared has now signalled publicly that he is not joined at the hip with JF. But signalling and confirming are different things. The call is short. It is warm. The only real question is:
That call does two things. It confirms Jared's real position. And it makes Jared feel respected and seen as an individual — which makes him a quiet ally in the room rather than a neutral party.
Jay's principle — never let your offer arrive before you do. The reschedule holds. The response to Jared is generous, warm, and says nothing about what is coming. It uses his own language — collaborative, exploratory, no hardened stances — and turns it into a reason to prepare properly.
He has now told them what he wants the meeting to feel like. Mike agrees with that feeling. Mike just disagrees with the timeline. Hold the reschedule. Use his framing. Deny him the urgency.
This is the most important Jay move and the one most people miss.
Jay never leads with what he wants. He leads with what everyone in the room gets. His concept of the Strategy of Preeminence — the advisor who acts in everyone's best interest, including people who are technically on the other side — applied here means: Mike opens the meeting not by saying "here is our counter to your 55/45" but by painting the picture of what this becomes if the structure is right.
He has now made the pie so big that arguing over percentages of a small pie looks embarrassing to everyone in the room.
Jay's core insight: "People do not resist what they help create, and they do not fight what they can see is in their own best interest."
He would not say: "We are countering your 45% with a profit-share model." He would say:
He is not taking equity away. He is showing JF why the profit-share model makes him richer if he performs. That is Jay's leverage — not confrontation, but clarity of interest.
Jay would say Jared is the easiest conversation in the room if handled correctly. Jared has already told Mike what he wants: a founding fee, a defined service agreement, and a pre-agreed buyout number. Jay would formalise that as a gift, not a concession.
Jay's principle — make the exit as attractive as the entry. Jared already said he would accept this. Mike gives it to him with warmth and generality first, and Jared becomes the social proof that the deal is fair, which softens JF's resistance.
"This is not a complication. This is the opening you needed. Jared just publicly broke formation with JF. He told you in writing that JF's proposal is not his position. Use that. Not against JF — for Jared. Call Jared today, confirm the service agreement, and walk into that meeting with one partner already aligned. The social proof of Jared accepting will do more to move JF than any counter-offer you could write."
The question was what Jay would do. What Jay would do is refuse to play the game that JF set up, reframe the stakes to a size that makes percentage arguments feel small, lock in Jared privately before the meeting, and walk into the room as the person who is building something — not the person who is responding to someone else's proposal.
He would make the pie so undeniably large that arguing about the slice feels like the wrong conversation to be having.
- Sign any subscription document — JF's dealer is Pinnacle Wealth Brokers, not Vesta. Different EMD. This is a hard legal constraint confirmed by Norton Rose in every meeting.
- Conduct AML checks on Vesta's behalf — mandatory EMD obligation, Vesta only.
- Present specific product terms (note rate, LP structure, return calculation) without Jared present. LTC and JF can present general company information only.
- Replace Jared Wolk at investor presentations where securities terms are discussed.
Jared is giving LTC a choice between two fundamentally different business relationships with Vesta. This model lets you compare them side by side.
Vesta runs the fund as a vendor you pay for services, not a co-owner who shares profits. They charge an annual fee based on your AUM — a percentage of total capital (basis points), subject to a minimum dollar floor so they're covered even when the fund is small.
What the fee covers: subscription document reviews, compliance, regulatory filings, and coordinating third-party providers (auditors, accountants, etc.). It does not cover those third parties' own fees — the fund pays those separately.
The upside: Vesta has no ownership stake. Every dollar of spread revenue above the service fee belongs entirely to LTC's partners. The larger the fund grows, the smaller the SP fee becomes as a percentage of revenue.
The catch: There is real cash going out the door from Day 1 — the $150K annual minimum kicks in before the fund is large enough for the bps to exceed it. That's the "cash drag" Jared references.
Vesta takes an ownership stake in the fund in exchange for building and running it. They receive their share of every dollar of spread revenue — forever — proportional to their equity percentage.
There's no cash fee leaving the fund. Instead, Vesta is compensated through their slice of the profits. On a small fund this feels manageable, but as AUM grows, the compounding cost of that equity is enormous.
The upside: No minimum cash drag. The fund doesn't need to generate enough revenue to cover a service fee before Vesta gets paid — their compensation is purely a function of results.
The catch: Vesta's equity claim is permanent and grows with the fund. Jared's offer to let LTC buy them out for $1MM at any time is the escape valve — but it requires having $1MM available to execute.
Okay, imagine Vesta is a babysitter for your money.
The deal is: LTC pays the babysitter the higher of two numbers every year:
Number 1 — the percentage fee: 30 bps means "$3 for every $1,000 you have." So if the fund has $15M, that's $45,000. Not much.
Number 2 — the minimum: $150,000. No matter what. Even if the percentage comes out lower, Vesta still gets $150K just for showing up.
So in Year 1, you do the math:
- $3 per $1,000 on $15M = $45,000
- The minimum = $150,000
$150,000 is bigger, so that's what Vesta gets. The percentage didn't even matter.
The "crossing point" is just: when does the fund get big enough that the percentage finally beats the minimum?
$150,000 ÷ 0.003 = $50 million
Once the fund hits $50M, 30bps finally produces more than $150K, and from that point on Vesta's fee grows naturally with the fund instead of sitting at the flat floor.
The simple version: For the first ~3 years, LTC is basically paying Vesta a flat $150K/year no matter how the fund performs. It's only once the fund is big enough that the fee actually reflects how much money is being managed.
$10.0M
$200K / yr
-$30K
-$150K
$170K / yr
by equity %
Meeting Prep
Follow-up with Mike and Michelle from yesterday's call. This page answers the three questions Mike left open, recaps Jared's offer, and lays out the commitment-letter pivot Tiffanie proposed.
What Today's Meeting Needs to Resolve
Mike was explicit on the call: it's not clear to him what LTC is actually responsible for once Vesta is paid the service fee, what LTC is offering JF, and where Nathan lands. Each question gets a direct answer below.
- Sign any subscription document — JF's dealer is Pinnacle Wealth Brokers, not Vesta. Different EMD. Hard legal constraint confirmed in every Norton Rose meeting.
- Conduct AML checks on Vesta's behalf — mandatory EMD obligation, Vesta only.
- Present specific product terms (note rate, LP structure, return calculation) without Jared present.
- Replace Jared Wolk at any investor presentation where securities terms are discussed.
- Earned on closed commitments only. No fees owed on warm leads that don't convert to signed subscription documents.
- Paid out of LTC's actual received revenue. JF is paid as LTC collects the spread — quarterly or annually, not upfront. Aligns cashflow: JF only gets paid when LTC gets paid.
- 5-year sunset on Tier 1. After Year 5, JF's claim on that deal ends. No perpetual trail, no lifetime economics.
- Tier 2 is work-contingent, deal-by-deal. Uplift only applies on deals where JF actually does the on-boarding. LTC decides per deal whether to use him or handle in-house.
- No rights on deals JF didn't source. Michelle's introductions, inbound investors, and pre-existing LTC relationships are out of scope entirely.
- Clawback on rescinded commitments within the first 12 months, pro-rata. Standard protection if a council walks back after close.
- No equity, no salary, no exclusivity obligation from LTC. JF may run his own separate business. LTC may hire additional introducers.
Marketing First, Company Second
The biggest shift from yesterday's call: slow down Norton Rose on the company creation, lead with marketing and commitment letters, and only flip the switch on Vesta's $150K once the demand is already in writing.
Before a franchisor approves a new location, the franchisee has to prove they already have signed commitments from clients. The same logic applies here: LTC can build the website, the marketing assets, the presentations, and the brand presence — all without opening the legal entity. The 30 bps / $150K clock only starts when the company is registered.
This solves the chicken-and-egg problem Mike raised on the call: "we need the fund open before somebody will invest." We don't. We need the fund ready to launch before somebody commits. Soft commitment letters can arrive months before Norton Rose files anything.
Jared's Offer — Quick Reference
Full calculator lives on the Jared's Proposal page. Here's the shape of the deal for today's conversation.
Threads Feeding Into Today
Indigenomics
Impact Conference
away
Indigenomics IMPACT · Event Details
All keynotes and panels happen inside the planetarium dome. Mike + Michelle will be standing under a 360° projection surface — the only true dome speaking opportunity at a Canadian business event this year.
Photos: Indigenomics Institute / HR MacMillan Space Centre.
Full agenda for both event days. Mike + Michelle's keynote slot is highlighted in gold. Most main sessions happen in the Star Dome.
22 speakers across both days. Click any card to expand the full session and bio.
Ancestral name K'ANA. Squamish Nation member, former Squamish Nation Councillor (2005–2025). Descendant of 'Na̱mg̱is (Scow family) and Shíshálh Nations (Jeffries). MBA (SFU), BA (VIU).
Cowichan Tribes member, raised in Tsawout.
Co-founder of Nuez Acres (pecan-oil beauty brand); founder of MetisPrint.ca.
Cree/Métis. MBA.
Kwakiutl (Kwagu'ł) First Nation. Multiple-term former elected Chief Councillor.
Snuneymuxw First Nation citizen; traditional name Yaatqumtun.
Fourth-generation settler descendant of a BC coastal United Church marine missionary family.
Nuxalk Nation (Bella Coola). Author of children's book "The Sixties Scoop".
35+ years in federal land management, governance, and economic development. Former CEO of a First Nations development corporation.
Zoom: Indigenomics Impact Event Coordination
Tiffanie + Mike on the LTC side. Kurt Archer (Indigenomics) and Dan Tell (HR MacMillan Space Centre · Planetarium Consultant) on the venue side. Everything that was decided on the call, organized for the prep team.
Dome system was fully replaced in the past 9–10 months. Nothing from last year carries over.
Dan builds navigation buttons for targeting specific coordinates. Robert (or another team member) navigates live during the keynote — not Tiffanie.
Standard 16:9 PowerPoint runs on a separate data projector — Kurt's laptop on a podium. This is the slides you control directly.
The dome acts as backdrop: ambient imagery, terrain, star fields — while the projector handles slide content on top.
Best content types: imagery, graphics, video. Avoid heavy text on the dome. Capabilities: star fields, high-res satellite flyovers, 360° spheres, 3D data layers, GIS overlays.
Dan asked us to send him an outline or example PPT — he'll suggest dome visual additions that complement what Mike is saying.
That's fantastic :)
Thanks so much!!
We'll make sure to respect those deadlines and we appreciate all of the help :)
Have a great rest of the day and week!
Likewise! Excited to have you join us!
For the regular projection (16x9 aspect ratio), my deadline is the 19th.
Let me know if that works for you?
Kurt
Hi Kurt & Dan,
Thanks for meeting with us today – much appreciated. Really cool seeing what you and your team have put together – we are really excited to attend, support and experience this event!
I forgot to ask you an important question – what is the last day to submit the slides over to you? Michelle and Mike need some time to prep, and I'd need some time after for their slides – could we send them over next week?
Thanks again!
Decisions and findings from the call:
- Dome content deadline: Thursday, May 14 (360° + assets)
- 16:9 PowerPoint deadline: Tuesday, May 19
- Keynote slot: 11:10 am – Noon, Day 1 (50 min inc. Q&A)
- Attendees: ~100 registered, target 150
- Dome navigation: Dan builds pre-set buttons; Robert operates live
- Whova app: not live yet — book discount, attendee messaging on the way
- Booth: TBD — Kurt confirming vendor table availability
- Swag bag: LTC can include 120–150 items; deadline day before
- Venue access: 7am day-of only
- Coffee sponsorship: Moccasin Joe Coffee via "Indigenous Roots"
Hi Kurt,
Thanks so much. Mike and I can do 2PM. I will send over an invite to everyone on this thread.
Thanks again!
I can join at 2.
— Dan Tell, Tau Immersive (Space Centre Planetarium Consultant)
Hi Tiffanie,
I can do 11:30am or 2pm today. I'm coping Dan, because I think at this point he may be best to advise on what's possible given the short turn around. Dan, can you make either of those times today?
Kurt
Hi Kurt :)
Hope you are well! My name is Tiffanie, I work with Mike and Michelle. I am helping them with their graphic needs for this event. I was informed today that we have two days to get you everything you need – would we be able to get on a call with us today to walk us through the dome set up and other marketing materials we will bring? We will make ourselves available when you are.
Thanks in advance!
— Tiffanie Rothwell, Project Manager, Little Tree Ventures
Thanks Kurt,
Hi Dan, nice to meet you.
I'm connecting you with my project manager Tiffanie who has a better sense of what we will need. We look forward to working with you on such an exciting event. Have a nice weekend.
Best, Mike
Hi Dan,
Introducing you to Mike and Michelle, who would like to use dome content. I have provided a brief overview of what is capable. Mike, perhaps you could explain your vision for activating the dome? Or what questions you might have?
Kurt
Hi Mike,
The photos on indigenomics.com/events/impact/ are all of the Dome.
Do you mean setup for Dome Projections?
Essentially, the Space Centre team will build out the presentation, what you can provide is a storyboard with assets for them to build. Assets include 360 degree footage, scenic drone footage, or other 3D graphics. We can also layer a traditional PPT projection onto a space that we cut out if you wanted more control of the presentation.
Happy to jump on a call with you and I can invite Dan, the Dome tech with the Space Centre also, though time is getting tight, as he would like all Dome content in by the 13th. (Updated to May 14 on the May 11 call.)
Re: Timing, we are looking to have you in the morning of May 27th. Just before lunch. (Confirmed: 11:10am – noon)
Mike, here is a link to your profile in Whova: 🔗 Mike's Whova
Michelle, likewise: 🔗 Michelle's Whova
Thank you both for your quick responses. Kurt
Hi Kurt,
This is fantastic news. Michelle's email is michellenicolebryant@gmail.com. My project manager, Tiffanie, asked if you have any pictures of the setup for keynote speakers from past events and any info that might be useful for preparing marketing materials in advance of the event.
Best, Mike
Wonderful, here are a couple of options:
- We might have a vendor table left — adding Tylynn here for both 1 and 2
- We are happy to add swag to our conference bags if sent earlier enough.
Tagging Kurt here — who will be assisting on stage / speakers and Tylynn who is doing overall coordination.
CA
Hi Carol Anne,
I hope your 2026 has been a beautiful and inspiring one so far! Mike asked me to reach out to see what marketing materials we would need / should be prepared to have for the conference. Can you please let me know so I can get the ball rolling on our end.
Sincerely, Leah
— Leah Stewart, Executive Assistant to Mike David
An earlier touch-base meeting on immersive experience and dome activation — context for how Mike and Michelle approach the Indigenomics dome opportunity.
Mike and Michelle want to model this book for the May 27 keynote. Below is every chapter that matters for the stage — translated into specific moves for the keynote, the room, the booth, and the follow-up. Read this as your speaking coach, not as a book review.
Sales
Machine
Author of Guerrilla Marketing
Read it. Then read these notes.
You have 35 minutes of talk + 15 of Q&A. That is 50 chances to make one move each. Plan the keynote as six big beats, not as a slide deck. Every beat earns its place.
Open the prep doc and write the six beats before writing slides. Then build slides to support beats — not the other way around. The dome is for the two biggest beats only.
Two keynote speakers, one voice. Mike and Michelle must rehearse together at least three times before May 27. Holmes calls it "drilling the script." Same energy, same transitions, same answers.
Pre-write 10 hard questions BMO or a chief might ask, and decide who answers each. Practice the handoffs out loud — silence on stage between co-speakers is the most expensive mistake you can make.
The Q&A portion is the workshop. Treat it like one: open with a planted question if the room is shy, use names if you can, and end every answer with a return move ("…which is exactly why we're inviting you to coffee after this").
Brief Tiffanie or Leah to stand in the audience with one strong opening question if Q&A starts cold. The first question sets the tone — never let it be a hostile one.
Holmes is unambiguous: the core story is not about you. It is about a threat the buyer has not yet named. For LTC, the core story is:
Holmes calls this "education-based marketing." It works because you never sell. The audience sells themselves to themselves. Mike opens with the 150-year frame; Michelle delivers the turning point; together, they close on the choice. LTC is mentioned by name only twice: once at hello, once at goodbye. That's the discipline.
Do not pitch the 6% note. Do not name LP terms. Do not say "minimum investment." Every one of those triggers the licensing line — and Jared and JF aren't in the room to handle it. The speech ends with "come find us at the booth", not "sign up to invest."
Not about hiring on stage — about which version of Mike and Michelle shows up. Holmes' superstar profile: high ego strength (unshakeable), high influence (not pushy), high empathy. That is the on-stage posture. Confident, not loud. Warm, not soft.
Before walking on, both speakers run a 60-second power posture drill backstage. It sounds silly. It is not. Holmes was militant about pre-game rituals.
~150 attendees expected. Stop treating them as one audience. Inside that room are perhaps 10–20 chiefs, trustees, and EDC leaders with serious settlement capital to deploy. Those are LTC's Dream 100 for the day. Everyone else is wonderful background — Holmes calls them "all buyers." Different attention budget.
From stage, scan for the listeners leaning in. They sit forward, take notes, don't check phones. Mike makes eye contact with three of them per beat. After the keynote, Michelle works the room toward those three faces first. Tiffanie or Leah gets their cards. Everyone else gets the booth.
You will not get a pre-event attendee list of decision-makers vs. advisors (Kurt confirmed). You'll have to read the room live. Holmes says this is a skill. Practice it on the Day 0 walk-through if possible.
Of Holmes' seven, the keynote is pure market education + trade show + personal contact in 50 minutes. Three of the seven, executed at once. That's why this event is leverage-rich. Don't waste it on the others (no ads in the room).
The booklet in the swag bag is direct mail. The post-event email sequence is direct mail #2. The Whova message Kurt can send is PR. Stack all seven around May 27 — the keynote becomes the anchor, not the event.
Dan's confirmation: imagery, video, 3D terrain, satellite flyovers. No text on the dome. Every fact you cite, the dome shows visually. The 150-year wealth destruction is a slow zoom across a map. The turning point is a single, breathtaking image of land. The choice is a wide pull to the night sky over Indigenous territory.
Holmes: "If your visual aid would survive without your voice, it's wrong. Visuals support the voice." Send Dan the outline by Tuesday so he can build dome visuals that complete what Mike is saying — not duplicate it.
Slides with bullet points kill the room. The 16:9 projector slides should be one image, one number, or one sentence — never all three. If a slide has more than ten words, cut it.
The keynote's measurable outcome is not "applause." It is booked follow-up calls with named decision-makers. Calendly link in the booklet, QR code on the booth, and a soft on-stage CTA: "If your community has settlement capital and you want a 30-minute conversation about what real stewardship looks like, scan the code — we'll book the time directly."
Holmes: track the number. The KPI for May 27 is: how many qualified booked calls came out of those 50 minutes. Anything else is vanity. Target a minimum number before you walk in — discuss with Mike + Michelle.
On stage, you execute only steps 1–4: rapport, need, importance of the need, solution at the category level. Steps 5–7 (selling the company, the product, the close) happen only in licensed follow-up. Holmes warned that compressing all seven into one touch kills the deal. The license rules force the right cadence here.
Write the speech with this checkpoint at every beat: "Am I still in steps 1–4?" If the answer drifts toward "we offer X% on Y product…" — back up. That sentence is Jared's job, not Mike's, and not on this stage.
Because Mike and Michelle cannot close on stage, follow-up is the entire revenue mechanism of this event. Holmes' standard: 24h → 1 week → 3 weeks → quarterly. With Jared looped in starting at touch two (the licensed conversation).
The three follow-up email templates are already on the action list (Task 43). Coach's addition: add a fourth touch — a handwritten thank-you card in the mail for the top 10 Dream 100 contacts. Holmes specifically called this out. In an inbox era, paper wins.
The handoff from Mike/Michelle to Jared has to feel seamless, not transactional. Brief Jared on every Dream 100 contact before he calls. Holmes: "Bonding is a chain. Don't drop a link."
Concrete targets for May 27, written and agreed by Mike, Michelle, Tiffanie, Leah before walking in:
- 10 Dream 100 conversations captured (name, community, capital range)
- 5 booked Calendly follow-up calls before the event ends
- 1 standing ovation moment (or its equivalent — a hush, the right kind of silence)
- 0 mentions of specific securities terms from stage
Set the numbers, put them on the dashboard, debrief against them on June 2. Holmes is religious about this: "What gets measured gets done. What does not get measured does not get done. There is no third category."
📕 Open the full PDF inline (for reference / scrolling) ↓
- Reply to Kurt — request call today with graphic designer on the line
- Kurt + Dan call: 5pm EST / 2pm PST — confirm dome format & specs
- Mike fills out Whova profile (photo 1469 + bio)
- Leah texts Michelle for bio + headshot
- Praveen gift research begins — get mailing address from Kurt
- LinkedIn business page confirmed (created in meeting) — verify admin access
- Facebook business page setup — Mike logs in, adds Tiffanie + Leah as admins
- Mike sends SVG logo to Tiffanie ✓ (done in meeting)
- Meeting with Michelle — keynote messaging, dome content vision, Holmes marketing plan
- Confirm dome storyboard format (360°, drone, 3D, or PPT cut-out)
- Send Dan an outline / example PPT — he will suggest dome visual additions
- Tiffanie has domain access; begins landing page build
- Leah confirms Higgs Field AI capabilities; sends report
- Social media research (last year's event) delivered to Tiffanie
- Storyboard + all dome assets delivered to Dan at the Space Centre
- Tiffanie operates dome slides live during speech — she needs to know the speech flow
- Vistaprint order placed: pull-up banner, display stands, swag items
- Premium print order: booklets (master pitch doc, one-pagers), business cards
- Padfolio order placed — confirm quantity once Kurt provides attendee count
- Event landing page (littletreecapital.ca/indigenomics) goes live
- Lead capture QR code + survey built and tested
- Pre-event social media post drafted: "Looking forward to Indigenomics Impact"
- All print materials shipped to Michelle in Vancouver
- Social media content published (12 pieces) across LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram
- Engagement service activated (Tiksta-equivalent — legitimate accounts)
- Beyond Connected dinner: venue booked, guest list finalized, invites sent
- Coffee booth logistics confirmed with Sam (MJM Ventures)
- Michelle confirms all materials received and approved
- Roundtable flow rehearsal — Mike + Michelle run through Q&A; agree on hard answers
- Speaker notes finalized (role-defined for Mike and Michelle separately)
- CRM "Indigenomics Impact 2026" tag set up; follow-up email templates approved
- All decks backed up: USB drives × 3 + cloud
- Pre-event LinkedIn post published (1–2 days before)
- Flights + hotels confirmed ✓ (booked by Leah)
- Travel to Vancouver
- Keynote: Mike + Michelle present — 11:10am–noon (Day 1, right before lunch)
- Dome presentation live — Dan's team navigates via pre-built buttons (live)
- Booth / table presence active — padfolios, QR codes, tablet for sign-ups
- Moccasin Joe coffee booth (if confirmed with Kurt)
- Lead capture running all day — tablet backup for in-person sign-ups
- During-event LinkedIn post published
- Beyond Connected dinner (if hosted adjacent to event)
- Continued networking — follow every warm lead from Day 1 in person
- Collect remaining business cards; confirm all leads in CRM
- Warm leads: personal email within 24 hours — on-brand, prospect-focused
- Post-event LinkedIn post: reflection or insight, not a sales pitch
- Week-after follow-up sequence continues (1-week, 3-week touchpoints)
- Debrief meeting on the calendar — what worked, what to improve
- All leads tagged in CRM and assigned follow-up owners
Not enough time for artisan commission
Sign up → receive when complete
Recommended by Mike; Leah to validate
Do not bring on the plane
Separate vendor → booklets + biz cards
Artful re: banks — BMO speaker in room
Not a MJM expense; confirm with Kurt first
All items below are drawn from the Chet Holmes event playbook and Kurt's logistics requirements. Current cost: $0 per item — every cost is being absorbed or covered through existing relationships (Vistaprint credit, MJM Ventures, internal design, Mike personally).
Wealth as Medicine — The 30-Minute Keynote Arc
This keynote lands because it sits at the intersection of truth-telling, economic literacy, identity, and future-building. The audience is hearing a lot about reconciliation, Indigenous economics, and sovereignty already. What differentiates Mike and Michelle is grounding economic sovereignty in lived Indigenous experience while making wealth-building emotionally, historically, and practically accessible.
The biggest strategic risk is trying to cover too much in 30 minutes. This is not the whole book. This is a shift in perspective powerful enough that people:
- emotionally connect
- intellectually understand the problem
- see possibility
- trust the credibility
- want to continue the conversation through the webinar
The keynote should feel less like a "finance talk" and more like a historical reckoning, a mindset reframe, a declaration of possibility, and an invitation into a new era.
Alternate options ↓
- Wealth as Medicine: Reclaiming Indigenous Sovereignty 150 Years After the Indian Act
- Rewriting the Next 150 Years
- From Economic Containment to Economic Sovereignty
- The Next Economy: Indigenous Wealth, Ownership, and Sovereignty
- Wealth as Medicine: Indigenous Economic Sovereignty in the Next 150 Years
0–5 min Opening · Create Emotional Gravity ⌄
"For 150 years, Indigenous people were systematically restricted from fully participating in the economy of this country.
And yet somehow, we're often expected to explain why wealth gaps exist today as if history had nothing to do with it."
"This isn't just history.
It shaped how our grandparents survived. It shaped what our parents feared. It shaped how many of us think about money, ownership, risk, success, and security today."
"But something is changing. For the first time in generations, Indigenous people are entering a period of unprecedented wealth creation, land restoration, economic participation, settlement capital, procurement opportunity, entrepreneurship, and intergenerational transfer.
The question is: Are we prepared for it?"
5–12 min Part 1 · Economic Containment ⌄
The Indian Act was not only social control — it was economic containment.
- Reserve system
- Pass system
- Inability to hire lawyers
- Restrictions on mobility
- Restrictions on commerce
- Bans on ceremony and governance
- Land dispossession
- Residential schools
- Disconnection from traditional economic systems
"Many Indigenous people inherited survival strategies — not wealth strategies. And survival intelligence is different than long-term ownership thinking."
12–18 min Part 2 · Scarcity & Trauma ⌄
If your family experienced instability, loss, displacement, or systemic exclusion, then caution makes sense. Scarcity thinking didn't come from nowhere.
- Spending quickly because resources were unstable
- Fear of investing
- Fear of losing money
- Guilt around wealth
- Over-sharing financially
- Distrust of institutions
- Staying small to stay safe
"Survival strategies can become limitations if we never update them."
- helping family
- buying back land
- funding language revitalization
- creating Indigenous businesses
- influencing systems
- protecting future generations
18–25 min Part 3 · The Shift · Pain → Possibility ⌄
- Land settlements
- Impact benefit agreements
- Procurement
- Indigenous-owned business growth
- Trusts
- Nation-to-Nation economies
- Resource revenue
- Equity participation
- Indigenous investment
- Entrepreneurship
- Indigenous-led capital
Do NOT pitch. Educate. Frame the fund as: infrastructure · access · education · participation · long-term thinking · pathways.
"Part of what we're building is not just a financial vehicle. We're trying to help create Indigenous participation in systems that historically excluded us. We're trying to bridge the gap between opportunity and readiness."
You are building credibility and trust here — not urgency.
25–30 min Part 4 · The Invitation · Webinar CTA ⌄
"Our ancestors fought for survival.
Our generation is being asked to build stability.
The next generation deserves sovereignty."
"The next 150 years cannot look like the last 150 years."
"That requires more than inspiration. It requires education. Ownership. Strategy. Discipline. And a willingness to think generationally."
"This conversation is much bigger than a keynote. So we're hosting a deeper educational webinar where we'll continue talking about Indigenous wealth-building, economic sovereignty, long-term thinking, and some of the frameworks we believe Indigenous people and communities need to understand in this next era.
If this conversation resonated with you, we'd love to continue it there."
- QR code
- Simple URL
- Minimal-friction signup
- Compelling webinar title
+20 min Q&A · Stay Educational, Grounded, Compliant ⌄
- "Is capitalism compatible with Indigenous values?"
- "How do we pursue wealth without losing culture?"
- "How do we avoid repeating harmful systems?"
- "Why aren't more Indigenous people investing?"
- "What does Indigenous ownership look like?"
- "What is economic sovereignty to you?"
It should sound anti-extraction.
You are not advocating individual accumulation disconnected from community. You are reframing wealth as sovereignty · stewardship · responsibility · continuity.
That framing is what makes this keynote powerful and differentiated.
Dome Visuals — 14 Visuals + Companion Website
Every visual confirmed in the Mike + Michelle + Tiffanie planning call (May 12, 2026). Mapped to the 4-Act arc, with timing slots, source notes, and status. Deadline to Dan at the Space Centre: Thursday May 14.
The 1990 Oka Crisis photograph — army soldier and Mohawk warrior face-to-face. Mike: "probably one of the more iconic pictures." Full-dome, no overlay text. Hold long enough to register.
Anchors the whole talk. "Indian Act" lightly set in the background. Michelle: "very simple, we can just talk to that."
Headline clips from the historical record. Must include Oka Crisis coverage. 3-second snippets each for fair-use compliance. Black-and-white where possible, period-appropriate. Tiffanie: "I've already done a lot of research for that."
A handful of high-impact still photographs from the Oka era to layer over Mike's origin story. Held longer than the news clips. Cinematic.
Pivot into the internalization section. Bold dome text. Held in silence for a beat before the next image.
Moving historic → modern: lining up for rations, being checked, displacement, systemic exclusion, communities without access, instability, "staying small to stay safe." Tiffanie: "painting that picture in a respectful but real way." Documentary photography. Not exploitative.
Same treatment as V5. Use only if pacing allows.
Equal sign with a slash through it before "greed" and a clean equal sign before "capacity." The math symbols carry the meaning. Opening visual of Act 3 — the reframe moment.
Old photos of the Squamish Nation site before the project → current Sen̓áḵw infrastructure photos. Mike: "that's happening live. That's present." Michelle: "And right outside the door of where we'll be." — they are literally standing on the proof. Side-by-side or dissolve transition.
Built on Michelle's real Squamish Nation trust numbers (rounded):
- Starting point: ~$26–28M trust settlement
- Locked-in bonds line — original low yield (Michelle: "it was piddly") — Mike will say the original rate from stage
- Actual trajectory after the 2019 strategy change → $30M+ today, projected to $400M over 75 years at 4%
- 6% comparison line projected over 150 years (Mike: "use that frame of the last 150 and the next 150")
Why it works: Mike: "whoever witnesses that slide will anchor that 6% in their mind, and then they'll do the math." The 6% bakes in Little Tree Capital's offering without naming it.
Three pillars or three connected objects: financial product (no specifics) + financial empowerment platform + the upcoming book. Mike: "a suite of, like an ecosystem of assets." No "AI" anywhere.
Present-day wealth drivers: settlement agreements · procurement · Indigenous business growth · Nation partnerships (MST) · ownership & participation (Sen̓áḵw) · infrastructure trusts · investment participation. Investment participation highlighted as the one most underdeveloped — that's where LTC enters.
Each line held alone on the dome, quiet weight between them:
- "Our ancestors fought for survival."
- "Our generation builds stability."
- "The next generation deserves sovereignty."
Then Mike's verbal line follows: "The next 150 years cannot look like the last 150."
Last visual of the talk. Minimal. Black + gold. Single CTA.
- URL: littletreecapital.ca/indigenomics
- QR code — large, scannable from the back of the dome
- Webinar date if confirmed
- Book mailing-list opt-in line
Not on the dome — built in parallel. Mike: "a calculator on there, so we invite them to do their own calculations." Tiffanie green-lit "super simple" to build.
- Exact starting trust amount + bond interest rate for V10 growth chart
- Two-three high-quality Sen̓áḵw before/after photos for V9
- Confirmed webinar date for V14 (if locked)
