The Zakir fee reconstruction delivered — 2026-09-04

JT built the answer to Derek's morning ask through the day, ran it past Brandon first, then posted it to the JT/Derek/Brandon group chat at 2:41 PM ET and forwarded it to Jamar and into the Derek 1:1. Brandon worked the agreement history with JT in their 1:1 from 12:02 PM to 3:08 PM.

Summary

• JT told Brandon at 12:02 PM he was wrapping a fresh Zakir fee analysis for Derek and wanted Brandon's eyes on it first; Brandon agreed and JT sent it at 12:08 PM. Brandon's read at 12:24 PM: "That's what I figured..."
• JT's own summary of where the Firm stands: "Ended up on the right side of it really... followed the contract to a T."
• Posted to the group chat at 2:41 PM: Derek's recollection confirmed on three of four points, corrected on one — the post-decant rate was 2.20%, not the 2.00% Derek assumed, because the Dual MAP signed October 15–17, 2018 set a flat 2.20%. "The rate went up 20 bps across the move."
• The four answers: distribution October 18–22, 2018 (five transfer legs, plan emptied October 22, a $7 residual closed March 19, 2019); 2.00% on three original accounts April 2016 – October 2018 at $21,983, then 2.20% on the two Olive Branch 401(k)s November 2018 – August 2026 at $65,994, with the joint account at 1.00% since April 2023; the 1.25% look-back worth $28,497 over 94 months; and the 1.00% paperwork instructed internally April 20, 2026 and completed August 31, 2026 — 133 days, with five client follow-ups in between.
• The two adjustments were kept separate as Derek asked: the $28,497 look-back is discretionary, and an earlier effective date for the 1.00% would cost $2,038 back to April 20 or $1,034 back to July 1 — not additive to the $28,497.
• JT asked Derek and Brandon to check his work, and asked what they need from him for the follow-up.
• Brandon then walked JT through the agreement history in the 1:1: JT had worried a client agreement was missing, Brandon confirmed the 2015 DB-plan agreement is the earliest and nothing is absent. Brandon's verdict: "Everything actually looks clean and good - guy just didn't know what his fee was even though he signed 5 client agreements along the way."
• Brandon explained the MAP language problem: the client may have signed the 2023 agreement believing it superseded the earlier MAPs and covered all accounts, because pre-2026 MAP language was not explicit about which accounts an agreement governed. He added the account-scoping section to the MAP afterward for exactly this reason — "but that's only from 2023 on....prior to that crystal clear."
• Brandon considered calling the client, then held off: "going to wait and see what Derek puts together as a response." JT confirmed the dates for him: the package on 2026-09-11, the written reconciliation on October 2.
• Brandon supplied the Box filing location at 2:09 PM: Box\Triumph Capital Representatives\Derek Eichenwald\Client Files\Zakir_Raya_Rob. JT filed the workbook under a new THE ZAKIRS - FEE HISTORY AND CALCULATION subfolder there.

Decisions

• JT: the analysis goes to Brandon before Derek, and to all three in the group chat once checked.
• Brandon: the fee record is clean and the agreements support what was billed; the only gap is client understanding, not documentation.
• Brandon: no direct client call yet — he waits for Derek's response first.
• JT and Brandon: the Zakir fee reconciliation material files under Derek's Box client folder for the household, not a Branch Files or RIA path.

They asked me for

• Brandon Drespling: the oldest client agreement on file, to test whether one was missing.
• Brandon Drespling: confirmation the joint account was billed 1.0% from 2023 to present.

I asked them for

• Derek Eichenwald, Brandon Drespling: check the work for issues — "CHECK MY WORK for any issues please."
• Derek Eichenwald: after reviewing and choosing a route, say what is needed for the follow-up.
• Brandon Drespling: whether a client agreement was missing from the record, and where the reconciliation material should be filed.

Concerns and frustrations raised

• JT: spent significant time hunting a client agreement he believed should exist — "It felt like there should have been another one back a few years ago, but I couldn't find anything else." Resolved; nothing was missing.
• Brandon Drespling: the pre-2026 MAP language was not clear about which accounts an agreement governed, which is how the client could sign five agreements and still not know his fee.

What they are focused on

• Brandon Drespling: whether the paper trail holds and where the ambiguity sits, rather than the credit figure; he is waiting on Derek's response before any client contact.
• Derek Eichenwald: silent in the chat on 2026-09-04 after his morning ask; the analysis was delivered to him but not acknowledged in the window.

Doable / not doable / needs a decision

• Derek's four questions → answered in full, with figures and dates, same day.
• The credit decision → still needs Brandon's call as CCO: the contract difference is $0, the discretionary 1.25% look-back is $28,497, and the earlier-effective-date options are $2,038 or $1,034.
• Direct CCO contact with the clients → Brandon is holding it until Derek's response is drafted, though Derek promised the Zakirs in writing that Brandon would reach out.

Action items

Mine

• Deliver the Zakir fee reconstruction answering Derek's four questions — done 2026-09-04 2:41 PM (Notion: not pushed)
• File the workbook in the Box client folder Brandon named — done 2026-09-04 (Notion: not pushed)
• Produce whatever supporting detail or views Derek's client response needs, once he picks a route — (Notion: not pushed)

Theirs

• Review the analysis and check it for issues — Derek Eichenwald, Brandon Drespling — before the 2026-09-11 package
• Decide the credit route as CCO — Brandon Drespling — before the 2026-09-11 package
• Explain his thinking on the fee history to JT when they next talk — Brandon Drespling — "I'll explain to you my thoughts when we talk"

Suggestions for me

• Brandon's MAP-language point is the strongest thing in the record for the client-facing explanation: five signed agreements, but pre-2026 language that did not say which accounts each one governed. It explains the client's confusion without conceding a billing error, and it should be in front of Derek before he drafts.
• Brandon has now twice deferred direct contact with the Zakirs, but Derek told the clients in writing the CCO would reach out. That gap is still open and belongs in front of Brandon before 2026-09-11.
• The 20-bps correction is the one place Derek's recollection was wrong, and it moves the look-back figure by $5,999. Make sure he registers it rather than reading past the "confirmed" bullets.

Notable quotes

"Everything actually looks clean and good - guy just didn't know what his fee was" — Brandon Drespling

"even though he signed 5 client agreements along the way" — Brandon Drespling

"he may have signed that new agreement in 2023, thinking it applied to all of the accounts and superseded the previous MAPs....the language isn't crystal clear. Since then we added the additional section to the MAP to specifically show which accounts that agreement pertains to..." — Brandon Drespling

"Ended up on the right side of it really... followed the contract to a T." — JT

"The commitment is as you remember it. What the paper and the billing actually did is the correction: the Dual MAP signed October 15–17, 2018 set a flat 2.20% ... The rate went up 20 bps across the move." — JT

"J/k....going to wait and see what Derek puts together as a response" — Brandon Drespling