Rick Parmiter

Private credit rebel. I ditched rigid funds to bring retail investors stable, high-yield options. Sharing what I’ve learned along the way.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

I’ve come to a realization.

We’re an anomaly. A square peg in a round hole.

Over the past month, I’ve connected with a few people who are building platforms or apps to match accredited investors with private investment opportunities.

Right in our wheelhouse!

We're focused on engaging with accredited investors every day, educating them on the power of private investments, and introducing them to our exclusive opportunities.

Most firms in this space follow a well-worn path—real estate-heavy private equity, structured with an 80/20 split and a 2% management fee. And most are constantly chasing deal flow, hoping the next deal works out.

We’re different.

We don’t chase deals—we raise capital to put to work in high-quality opportunities we already have.

While others scramble to find investments, we’ve built strong relationships with a select group of partners, ensuring a steady pipeline of opportunities that meet our standards.

We don’t structure funds to generate management fees—we structure them to maximize investor returns. Many firms profit regardless of performance, but our success is directly tied to the success of our investors.

We don’t hand off capital and hope for the best—we maintain an active role in governance. Because we own a stake in our partners, we have direct influence over key decisions, adding an extra layer of oversight to safeguard investor capital.

We don’t rely on traditional private equity economics—we have a unique revenue model. Our partners, not our investors, pay our capital placement fees. This alignment ensures that investor capital is fully optimized for growth, not eroded by excessive fees.

We focus on consistency, not speculation. Many private investment firms depend on market cycles and unpredictable deal flows.

We operate with a long-term vision, leveraging our established relationships and structured investments to deliver stable, risk-adjusted returns.

Ballard Global has never lost investor capital, and our model ensures that we remain focused on performance rather than fees.

We’ve built a model that works, and we’re scaling.

There’s a better way to invest, and we’re proving it every day.

If you're an accredited investor looking for a smarter way to invest in private markets, I'm here to help.

[The Rational Animal 🤔 @theobjectivist]

I appreciate the direct response, Congressman @RoKhanna. You've raised a real question, so let me answer it seriously.

You're partly right, and I'll grant it fully: the Founders who established a government to protect individual rights performed an achievement no inventor can match, because they built the precondition for every other achievement. Jefferson and the framers created the framework of liberty. Lincoln preserved it and extended its promise to those wrongly denied it. On that we agree. The statesman who secures freedom is a hero of the highest order.

But notice the distinction that matters. Those men are great precisely to the degree they protected liberty, not to the degree they exercised power. The Founders' greatness was in handing power back. Lincoln's was in ending a violation of rights, slavery, the gravest in our history.

That is why FDR doesn't belong with them. He did the opposite. He expanded the state at the expense of the freedom the Founders secured: seizing gold under threat of prison, attempting to pack the Court, building the apparatus that treats your earnings as the government's to allocate. He used power; he didn't restrain it.

And here is the deeper point. You frame it as Rockefeller and Musk versus the statesmen, as if they compete. They don't. The statesman's whole purpose is to protect the conditions, namely individual rights, in which the producer can create.

The Founders, along with Locke and Aristotle, built the house. Musk, Rockefeller, Bezos, and Vanderbilt are examples of what free men do inside it.

If you fully understood the principle of individual rights, you would be fighting against men and women like Warren, AOC, Sanders, and the rest of these collectivist statists in both parties, instead of advocating ideas that deprive individuals of the very rights you claim to honor.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@theobjectivist @RoKhanna Brilliant!

[Omid Malekan @malekanoms]

Brian is correct. The other way to think about accredited investment laws is that gambling, where due to the houses edge people are guaranteed to lose in the long run, is legal.

How could it then be that startup investing, where people have some small chance of winning, is illegal, unless you are rich?

Throw in the fact that the worst odds in any gambling is the lottery, where the government maintains a monopoly AND markets it directly to the poor, the same people who the government bars from startup investing, and it’s obviously a bad policy.

Lastly I’ve always found the assumption that “rich people are sophisticated investors” rather…rich. Who invested in Madoff and subprime mortgages and FTX and pointless coins tied to corporate databases?

Not the poor.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Tells you everything.

Rather than: “let’s make sure many more Americans can become trillionaires”

Instead it’s: “let’s make sure that no other Americans ever reach that level of success.”

These people are parasites. Explicitly opposed to human flourishing. Amazing.

[Thrilla the Gorilla @ThrillaRilla369]

If you haven’t figured it out by now, our entire government is a huge mafia who launders our tax payer money right back to themselves through foreign aid and endless wars.
They all hate you and could care less if you suffer and die horrible deaths, as long as they get dirty rich.

[Cernovich @Cernovich]

Medicare fraud is a trillion dollar industry. Notice not one Democrat is trying to end this fraud and reallocate the money to serving the poor. That’s because they and their staff and friends and family are all in on it. Skimming and scamming.

[Cav Senpai @cavannastan]

Again for those in the back, Elon once offered to cut a check for $6 BILLION to the WFB to "eliminate World hunger" as they said the money could. His one condition was that the accounting was public.

They did not accept.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@SenWarren How many millionaires have you created?

[Shawn ₿ 🪐 @2ToneShawn]

Folks more mad about a trillionaire than the Federal reserve robbing them since 1913….

Make it make sense.

[Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas]

@GavinNewsom Yeah…the guy employing tens of thousands of people and providing goods and services for hundreds of millions of people is “rigging the system” but the guy who has blown billions on scam projects is our “defender” …ok Gav.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@EricLDaugh Then stop blocking recess appointments with proforma sessions.

[Seth Keshel @RealSKeshel]

Why is it the burden of the people to prove the fraud to the letter of the laws crafted to conceal the fraud, rather than on the government to prove the elections are legitimate and to offer maximum transparency?

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@DrJesseMorse I’ve got severe tinnitus and hearing loss. LMK when you start offering this treatment , and I’m in.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

The SAVE America Act is controversial only among Democrats in Congress

Everywhere else it’s common sense

Senate Republicans should focus on nothing else until it becomes law

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

No, that is a completely naive perspective. The WA brain doesn’t care about consultants, historians, or DEI advisors, they care about plausible deniability for their money laundering operation. How can we maximize complexity in order to increase costs and obfuscate the money trail?

[illuminatibot @iluminatibot]

If your country has enough money to give money to other countries, your taxes are too high.

[The Wolf Of All Streets @scottmelker]

Seeing a lot of panic about $STRC trading around $94.

A reminder: preferred stocks trading below par is completely normal. Many preferreds spend long periods below their $25 or $100 liquidation preference.

STRC’s $100 par value is not a price floor. It’s the stated value used for liquidation preference and certain redemption provisions.

What’s unique about STRC is that its dividend rate is adjusted monthly with the stated goal of encouraging the stock to trade near its $100 par value. That mechanism can influence demand, but it does not guarantee the stock will always trade at par.

A 5% discount to par is not evidence that something is broken. It’s evidence that investors are demanding a higher yield, pricing risk, or reacting to market conditions – exactly what preferred stocks do.

This is a preferred stock trading like a preferred stock.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@jimcramer But no problem when the Fed printers go brrrrr.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@TB_SportsGuru @VigilantFox @grok Provide some scientific data that shows the flaws and misleading nature of NDT’s claims.

[Rick Parmiter @RickParmiter]

@DutchRojas Haha - my wife exactly! Well said.