How does market cap affect investing decisions in the current economic environment?

Host: When it comes to large, mid and small caps, what market perspectives are agreed upon, and which are limited to each asset class? Coming up, we share some insights.

From Thrivent Asset Management, welcome to Advisor’s Market360^TM, a podcast for you, the driven financial advisor.

Thrivent Asset Management has built a reputation for its expertise in value investing. Value investing comes in several market capitalization sizes including large, mid and small cap. And while the fundamentals of investing tend to be consistent regardless of size, there are nuances that can drive investing decisions depending on market cap.

We assembled three Thrivent Asset Management experts to look at the situation of today’s markets through the lens of market capitalization. They are Kurt Lauber, Senior Portfolio Manager, Thrivent Large Cap Value Fund, Graham Wong, Senior Portfolio Manager, Thrivent Mid Cap Value ETF and Chris Parker, Senior Portfolio Manager, Thrivent Small Cap Value ETF.

Let's get into it…

AI and mega-cap stocks have been driving the market for a while. We wanted to know if the market is broadening and if we might be entering a market environment where stock selection matters more than simply owning the largest growth companies. Here’s Wong:

Wong: Yeah, so on market broadening, we're definitely seeing some of it, but our outlook is it's not gonna be a straight line. In the near term, broadening could take a break because of inflation fears and interest rate hikes, which is really driven by high energy prices. So, from here, the path really depends on where energy prices go.

Longer term, I think we are early in the AI adoption cycle. So, market broadening will continue as AI-driven economic growth and productivity improvements impact more sectors going forward.

Host: We asked Wong for some examples of how AI might have a positive impact on other sectors:

Wong: The health care sector, we think that AI adoption is very positive there. For example, driving faster drug discovery.

In financials, there's massive back office and other cost savings opportunities that could flow through.

Lastly, even within the tech sector, we think there's broadening going on there as more companies catch up on the opportunity.

So, the first phase of AI was the model training. So, a handful of companies benefited. Now, as we're going to the next phase—or we're in the next phase of inference or running the models, a second group of tech companies are starting to benefit.

So, I'll give an example. Qualcomm. Qualcomm owns a lot of power-efficient IP (intellectual property) from their smartphone portfolio over decades. And recently they won contracts from Meta and Amazon to use that technology to develop low-power chips that supply into the data center market.

Host: Parker has a slightly different take on market broadening.

Parker: I'd argue that the market has been broadening for some time now. What we've seen over the past few quarters is a combination of price performance and earnings growth has caused those valuation differentials to really migrate more toward normal. And so, we've seen some dispersion in performance that's indicative of the market broadening.

I think one of the other dynamics is beyond that, it became clear that economic activity was robust and, in some cases, accelerating. And along with that, investors began to question in some cases the sustainability of growth in returns for the various components of AI. And performance in a number of sectors then began to catch up to those companies and stocks that were originally anointed as AI winners.

I would say additionally, as Graham mentioned, that within AI or within technology, performance has clearly been broadening. We've moved past that point where you just needed to pick the most obvious beneficiaries to having to do more digging, if you will, to find the winners.

Host: We asked Lauber for his large cap perspective on broadening:

Lauber: Since I manage the large-cap space where these mega-cap growth names play, I want to give you a little different perspective. We did see the market broaden at the beginning of the year, but we've seen it broaden, we've seen it narrow. Also inside of AI, we've seen those exposures also move around a lot.

And I would argue that this volatility is the reason that you need active stock selection. And one more important thing that I think investors need to know is how AI is impacting the economy and how the AI is impacting the exposures in large-cap value.

What we're seeing right now is those large-cap, mega-cap growth names like Microsoft, Amazon and Google, they're actually some of the largest names and holdings in the Thrivent Large-Cap Value Fund and the large-cap value indexes. Also, the economy is being really driven by the strength in AI. So, we really need to see the return on this AI spending. So, we need to see companies come out with good products. We need to see the efficiencies roll through.

Host: Beyond AI, we wanted to hear about other areas of the economy where we are seeing growth and the headwinds that could hinder that growth. Here’s Parker:

Parker: We have seen other areas of the economy kind of start to generate their own growth and have their own kind of engine, if you will. I think when we're thinking about the future outlook though, we're at a really interesting point in two respects.

I think one could argue that the Fed really didn't bring down inflation truly under control before easing during the first tightening cycle. And if they do push much more aggressively to reach their target level of inflation, we could be in an environment where AI-sensitive names and AI-sensitive areas of the economy are slowing at the same time that interest rate-sensitive areas of the economy may be slowing as well.

I think that each of us would argue, given that outlook and given the compressed valuations, that finding idiosyncratic company-specific operational improvement is becoming an increasingly important factor in terms of driving investment performance and driving opportunities.

Host: Next, we wanted to hear our experts’ thoughts on the valuation gap between growth and value. Is it too extreme? And how much future success is already priced into today's market leaders? Here’s Lauber:

Lauber: I can understand people's interest in this area and worries just because we've had such strong market performance—double-digit for the last four years annual performance out of value stocks. And then this year, large-cap value is beating large-cap growth.

And it's interesting this year too, because usually value outperforms growth when the economy is doing well because we have more sectors that are economically sensitive—like financials, industrials, materials. And usually when tech does poor—actually, this year what we're seeing why value is outperforming growth is really inside of tech.

So, inside of value, we have more names that are kind of spending beneficiaries. We have semis, and especially memory semis, and hardware names, kind of the hardware names that were left for dead. While large-cap growth has more software, some of those companies that are being challenged or displaced by AI. And they also have more of the heavy spenders like Microsoft and Amazon and Google. So, we have more of the spending beneficiaries inside value, and that's why we've done so well this year.

Now, it is true, value is still cheaper than growth, 20%, but over the last seven years, value has traded a lot cheaper than 20%. So, we're at the high end relative to growth. And the last thing I want to mention on this extreme, what we've seen this year, we've seen all companies or many stocks do well. But what people don't understand is the underlying earnings have done even better.

So, we've seen valuations compress. So, we're actually cheaper, 15% cheaper than the overall market right now than we were at the start of the year, just because those underlying earnings have done so well, even with the stocks doing well.

Host: Parker had this to add…

Parker: Maybe to think about the question slightly differently, when those spreads were exceptionally wide, the market was very clearly communicating, “We believe there are a distinct camp of winners and a distinct camp of losers.” That was true in terms of valuation spreads between growth and value, and it was true in terms of valuation spreads between large-cap and small-cap.

To Kurt's point, those spreads have compressed, so I wouldn't say that that's too extreme at this point. But also, the idea of just making a bet on small-cap or on value purely based on cheapness is no longer as compelling a value proposition, to be perfectly honest. And so, I think now is the time to be a little bit more discerning with regard to, you know, which companies can drive better than expected operational improvement and can drive execution.

Host: The U.S. Federal Reserve, or Fed, is working to control inflation and recently raised rates. We wanted to understand what might happen if rates remain higher for longer? Here’s Parker:

Parker: If rates were higher for longer, that realistically would be because inflation has remained persistently high and sticky. And that's likely to mean upward pressure on cost structures and expenses for a lot of different businesses.

I personally think that one of the more appealing aspects of investing in small caps is that we can often find those types of situations earlier on in their evolution and earlier on in their development before that improvement becomes fully recognized in shares.

Companies that have high debt loads and potentially large maturities coming due in the short term, they could be under increased pressure. Additionally, companies with weak profitability or potentially those that are loss-making can face challenges. And one of the risks for those types of companies is very much that those management teams might make decisions that trade short-term performance at the expense of long-term success.

For Thrivent Small Cap Value ETF and for our mid- and large-value strategies, sound capital structure and demonstrated profitability are really core to how we think about things and how we select stocks and evaluate companies.

Host: Wong had some thoughts about the types of companies that could weather higher interest rates.

Wong: So, Chris covered a lot there in terms of picking stocks in a higher rate environment. I'm going to add some sector color. So, I think it really depends on the impact of higher rates on the economy and the shape of the yield curve. So, if the economy stays strong and the curve steepens, we think financials and cyclicals are likely to outperform. So, banks would benefit from wider interest spreads. Insurance companies would benefit from higher investment income.

Now, if the higher interest rates drive an economic slowdown, sectors like tech and industrials that are tied to more long-term mega themes like AI, power and electrification could outperform. For TMVE (Thrivent Mid Cap Value ETF), we're focused on investing in the best ideas under either scenario.

Host: Energy prices have been of the drivers of sticky inflation. Lauber believes this presents an opportunity:

Lauber: Energy in large cap value is 7% of our index when it's only 1% in growth. If rates stay high because of energy prices staying high, we like companies like Conoco, Devon, ExxonMobil and Halliburton.

What Graham also said is, the tech group is not immune from higher interest rates, but it does have a lot of companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon that are spending, and they're less interest sensitive. They have stronger growth. And they have the ability to raise capital. So, we also think that the AI trade would keep going.

There's also some sectors that are just less tied to the interest rates and the macroeconomy, like defense stocks. They're tied more to the election and government budget cycles. So, we like General Dynamics and L3Harris in that area.

And there's also cycles like the ag cycle. It's just been weak for many, many years, and that's just tied to more cyclical crops and weather. And so, we like names like CNH and CF Industries in those areas.

Host: The economy has shown a lot of resiliency over recent years. We wanted to learn which value-oriented sectors are best positioned to benefit from continued expansion in the economy. Wong mentioned a few…

Wong: We like materials, energy and industrials around three themes. We like materials and energy because of a strong supply and demand setup. There is demand pull from not only the AI buildout, but just in electrification in general. So, think EVs and industrial automation.

But even more importantly, we see a lot of discipline on the supply side. So historically, think the energy sector. This sector really suffered from a lack of supply discipline, but they really seem to have learned from it and probably forced to do so because of this constant terminal value risk overhang from all the green energy talk.

Given the recent wars, the Strait of Hormuz challenges, countries want to diversify their sources of energy. and become more self-sufficient if they can't. We think oil service companies and engineering and construction firms will benefit from this theme.

We also like defense companies. Warfare is changing rapidly with the rise of drones, unmanned vehicles and robotics. There's a lot of innovation that benefits defense companies. They recently sold off on fears of de-escalation of the wars and election fears.

However, just inventory replenishment of what's used in the wars will take multiple years. So, we don't think we're at a peak on defense companies yet. Lastly, our allies want to be more self-sufficient in this area as well. So, I expect international sales to be very positive for the defense companies.

Host: We asked Lauber what has been driving growth…

Lauber: I think the theme here, as you can hear, is AI. So, we're still focused on tech if the economy stays strong, but we have moved a little bit more to the enterprise as we're now deploying AI into the enterprises and rolling out these agentic models.

Different companies should benefit. Some of those companies are like TD SYNNEX that have their feet in both sides. They provide products to the large cloud providers, but they also provide products to enterprises.

Enterprise switching and storage should also benefit. We like companies like NetApp and Cisco that provide their products to the enterprise space and not just the cloud providers.

Tech is the second-largest sector in value now, so we need to keep an eye on that. The largest sector is financials. If the economy does stay strong, financials should do well because they'll be able to expand their bank lending. Credit should stay strong. We should have a recovering IPO market.

Host: We asked Lauber for some companies he likes in the financial space and if there were other names on his radar.

Lauber: There, we like Wells Fargo and the large diversifieds. We like Morgan Stanley in the capital markets. We like Schwab [Charles Schwab]. Schwab in wealth management. If credit does stay strong, then Cap One [Capital One] should do well. Now, if the economy improves because energy comes down, we get a little more interested in the consumer discretionary spaces, especially housing.

Housing has been pent-up demand there. We like D.R. Horton and Lowe's. We just haven't moved in there fully because we're having a hard time seeing how rates can come down. We also would like more some of the consumer discretionary names in travel, like Delta Air Lines and Wyndham, and also in the transportation space in J.B. Hunt and CSX.

Host: Here are some sectors and companies that Parker likes in the small cap space…

Parker: We like AGCO in that space that not only has the potential for a bottoming to improving overall cycle but has some company-specific market share opportunities as they've launched a number of products and they've changed how they go to market and interact with farmers. They also have a really interesting and somewhat unique retrofit opportunity that does create a lot of value and a lot of stickiness for farmers as well.

Staying within the industrial space, we like a company called Terex that historically has been a construction machinery business. They've evolved their portfolio to areas that are much more consistent, higher margin, just solid growth, things like fire trucks and refuse. And that migration is really underappreciated by investors at this point. But that's something that we think is interesting.

I would also argue that there are some opportunities in the consumer space as well. If we think about a robust economy and what that means, even in the context potentially of higher interest rates, that probably means a stronger labor market and potentially a stronger skilled blue-collar labor market. And we think that that can create opportunities in certain types of consumer names.

We like Levi's, the blue jeans company, I think we all kind of know. They have a number of programs that they're working through to improve structural profitability, to increase their margins. And we also believe that we're early on in the idea that denim is becoming a little bit more fashionable.

It's not all about athleisure in terms of what consumers are wearing at this point. And not only that, but the types of jeans and the use cases, the occasions if you will, are really broadening out. And so rather than you having two or three pairs of jeans in your closet, you may have five or six because you want different silhouettes and different fits. And that's something that we think is early on in its evolution and something that we think will benefit Levi's.

Host: Next, we wanted to know more about what separates a temporarily mispriced business from a company facing permanent challenges. Lauber explained his process:

Lauber: That's what we do every day is our fundamental analysis. We're just trying to look at what's challenging a company and are they going to be basically what we call in value, value traps. And we do that through our analysis, bottom-up stock picking. And we're seeing a lot of opportunities now because of the fear of AI. It's disrupting a lot of business models. It's disrupting the software sector, the services companies, wealth management, freight and logistics and even the music industry.

Host: Parker offered his team’s process for evaluating mispriced companies.

Parker: For us and the way that we approach that for Thrivent Small Cap Value ETF, we have five things that we tend to focus on when we're trying to assess this.

The idea of duration. Is this clearly something that's short-term in nature, or is it something that's more structural and secular? We prefer to look at more short-term in nature. We will dig into secular every once in a while, though.

The idea of recognition. Is the management team realistic in understanding that there is a challenge and really formulating a plan to address that potential issue and potentially capitalize on challenges?

Third item would be the idea of control. Is this something that the company can realistically respond to, where actions that they take can influence the outcome? Or is it an external factor, quite frankly, where they may not be able to control their destiny at this point? Those are very hard to assess if you can't control your destiny.

The fourth item would be the idea of capability. Does the company that we're looking at have the capabilities, the tools, the resources, the internal talent to address the challenges?

Finally, would be the idea of impediments. What are the internal or the external factors that might prevent a company from being able to address the difficulties? That might be a difficult balance sheet. Sometimes it's hard to fix the business, face a challenge and fix the balance sheet. It might be a cost structure that's sticky and hard to move off of.

Host: We asked Wong about his process and an example of a company he and his team felt was mispriced. Here’s Wong:

Wong: I think Chris did a really good job of talking about his framework on how to analyze potentially broken companies. I'm going to give a quick example for us.

Simon Property Group is a shopping mall REIT. We tend to see opportunity when people start talking in absolutes. Now, in this case, people were saying malls are dead. So, our job was to figure out whether malls can pivot their strategy in a challenging retail world.

So, for example, can they pivot to focus on experience to drive traffic? Can they pivot to add value in an omnichannel world?

Our non-consensus view after our research was that A malls would survive and consolidate traffic from the dying B, C malls. And Simon Property Group would be a big winner from it. So here, the important is understanding the assets, the quality of the assets.

Host: Thrivent Asset Management is a proponent of active management. We wanted to know if active management is still a benefit for investors. Here’s Parker:

Parker: I think small cap is a place where there's a somewhat persistent argument for active management. If you buy a small-cap index, about 30% of that index at any point in time is comprised of companies that are not profitable and probably haven't been profitable over the past three years. And that statistic is somewhat consistent over time. And those non-earners in the small-cap universe tend to underperform earners over time.

So, as an active manager with an investment process that does focus on better-quality companies with a track record of profitability, we think that there's a clear benefit over time to an active approach in small caps. I think beyond that, there's a really strong case that can be made for active management in small caps during particularly dynamic environments.

Host: We asked Wong for his thoughts on active management in value investing:

Wong: There are many different shades of value investing. I would describe ours as value with a catalyst. So, we buy undervalued companies, but with catalysts to unlock that value, so to avoid the value traps. We measure value relative to the business model, which we assess based on the ROIC, or return on invested capital, of the company.

The last thing I would differentiate us is we do a lot of cyclical investing. I think some of our peers might avoid it from a risk perspective, but cyclical sectors make up a big portion of the value benchmark, and we don't shy away from it. We see it as an opportunity.

So, we're constantly looking for industries or companies that are near a cyclical trough to invest in, with a preference—now, this is important—on stocks where we think the next cycle is going to be better than the prior cycle.

Host: Next, we got the perspective on active management for large cap. Lauber explains:

Lauber: At Thrivent Large Cap Value, we look at value a little differently than other value investors. We look at the return-value trade-off. While some value investors say, “I just won't buy a stock or a company that's not below an index average,” we look at the future returns of that company.

We think a company with good returns, deserves a higher value. Therefore, we're looking for that mispricing between future returns and value, and we'll buy anything really, we look at below that curve, anything that looks like there's opportunity where other value investors don't see it.

I'll just give you a quick example, two quick examples. Delta Air lines— everyone really thinks airlines is a poor return business. And right now, Delta Air Lines is trading at a similar value that it has over the last six years because its returns are the same.

Many other airlines are operating below their cost of capital. The operating free cash doesn't meet their capital expenditures. Delta has found a way to really manage this business that has been seen as a poor business. Right now, it's being pressured by higher fuel prices and things like that. But we think going through the cycle, they will earn higher returns than they ever have in the past. Therefore, they deserve a higher valuation.

As Graham mentioned, we do a lot of cyclical investing. Right now, we've seen that the ag cycle, it's just been very poor for many years. And we know that it's just a cheap stock on low returns. We look out further and we think that the inventory now has been down to a level that from this point on that they can grow and earn returns higher next cycle just because of all the technology advances that are needed in the ag sector. So, we like CNH Industrial and CF Industries in this space.

Host: To wrap up the episode, we wanted to get insights into each of our experts’ execution strategy and framework for picking value investments. First up, we asked Wong about mid cap:

Wong: Our process is valuation operating in sentiment, but we really spend 90% of our time studying the operating bucket, which is the industry itself and the company's competitive positioning within the industry.

We really scrub the industry dynamics hard in terms of understanding, is the industry changing, supply and demand factors and things like that. And then lastly, as I talked about earlier, digging into the catalyst for operating improvement.

Now, on valuation, just to give a little bit more color, we focus on analyzing and getting to a reward-to-risk metric. So, we look for stocks that have an acceptable downside—call it 15% to 20%, usually—and then for a reward-risk of about three times or more.

And then lastly, on the sentiment bucket, what's important here is, as value investors, we avoid the consensus view. If everybody likes something, that's when we run away.

Host: Next up we asked about Parker’s small cap execution.

Parker: For Thrivent Small Cap Value ETF, we share the core drivers of the idea of valuation, operating and sentiment or catalyst. I think we express those a little bit differently.

When we think about valuation, we think about the idea of margin of safety, as I mentioned, and what we term as substantial undervaluation and really asymmetric risk-reward. The idea of heads I win, tails I don't lose that much. And when we're thinking about that, we're very much intrinsic value type of investors. So, we're thinking about that price that we can pay relative to what we think the discounted value of the cash flows are for the company or some multiple-based version that expresses that.

Host: And finally, we asked Lauber about his strategy for large cap.

Lauber: Our framework in large cap value is very similar to Graham's, mostly because we worked together for many years, but it's very helpful as we overlap about 30% of the companies we can invest in.

So, I just discussed about large-cap values investment process, how we're focused on return on invested capital. We also have very experienced analysts who we also require that they have their own investment process to how to make money in their sectors. And when the two overlap is when we find the best stock opportunities.  

Now, how do we execute on that? Graham kind of mentioned, we ask the analysts to rank their companies on valuation, operating performance and sentiment, and then catalysts to unlock the value.

So, valuation, we discussed, it's returns versus value. Operating performance is 90% of what we do. Where are our operating metrics for this, for the companies differ from other investors?

And lastly, sentiment. We do like companies that have been neglected, but that's why we also look for catalysts. They can stay neglected for a very long time and be value traps. So, we ask our analysts to have a catalyst to unlock that value.

Host: We hope you gained some valuable insights about value investing in different market-cap segments. We would like to thank Kurt Lauber, Graham Wong and Chris Parker for sharing their insights. What did you think of this episode? Email us at podcast at thriventfunds.com with your feedback or questions for our experts. Want more episodes of Advisors Market360 and other market and investing insights? Visit us at thriventfunds.com, where you can learn how we can partner with you, the driven financial advisor. Bye for now.

Host: All information and representations herein are as of 10/14/2026, unless otherwise noted.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

The views expressed are as of the date given, may change as market or other conditions change, and may differ from views expressed by other Thrivent Asset Management, LLC associates. Actual investment decisions made by Thrivent Asset Management, LLC will not necessarily reflect the views expressed. This information should not be considered investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or product. Investment decisions should always be made based on an investor's specific financial needs, objectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance.

This podcast refers to specific securities which Thrivent Mutual Funds and Thrivent ETFs may own. A complete listing of the holdings for each of the funds is available on thriventfunds.com.

Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain more complete information on the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the fund, and other information, which investors should read and consider carefully before investing. Prospectuses and summary prospectuses are available at thriventfunds.com or by calling 800-521-5308.

TSCV (small cap value) Prior to close of business on 11/14/2025, this ETF operated as an open-end mutual fund with the same investment objective, strategy, and investment adviser. The mutual fund’s inception date was 03/31/2022.

TMVE (mid cap value) Prior to close of business on 11/14/2025, this ETF operated as an open-end mutual fund with the same investment objective, strategy, and investment adviser. The mutual fund’s inception date was 02/28/2020.

Medium and small-sized companies may experience greater price volatility, lower trading volume, and less liquidity compared to larger companies. Large companies can be volatile and unable to respond quickly to new competitive challenges and may not be able to attain a high growth rate. Value investing includes undervalued securities whose value may not rise as quickly as anticipated if the market doesn’t recognize their intrinsic value. Securities may be affected by company performance and market conditions. These and other risks are described in the prospectus.

Thrivent Large Cap Value Fund’s top 10 holdings as of August 31, 2026, excluding derivatives and cash, together accounted for 27.59% of the fund. They are:  Microsoft Corp, 3.82%, ExxonMobil Holdings Corp, 3.04%, Amazon.com, Inc., 2.98%, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, 2.95%, Bank of America Corp, 2.65%, Merck & Co, Inc., 2.62%, Wells Fargo & Co, 2.56%, Cisco Syst, Inc., 2.52%, Alphabet, Inc., Class C, 2.36% and Johnson & Johnson, 2.09%.

Thrivent Mid Cap Value ETF’s top 10 holdings as of August 31, 2026, excluding derivatives and cash, together accounted for 19.60%  of the fund. They are: M&T Bank Corp, 2.17%, Intercontinental Exch Inc, 2.15%, U.S. Bancorp, 2.08%, Crown Holdings, Inc., 2.01%, PPG Industries, Inc., 1.95%, Capital One Fin Corp, 1.92%, American Int'l Grp, Inc., 1.88%, General Dynamics Corp, 1.88%, STERIS plc, 1.80% and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, 1.76%.

Thrivent Small Cap Value ETF’s top 10 holdings as of August 31, 2026, excluding derivatives and cash, together accounted for 23.74%  of the fund. They are: Small cap Korn Ferry, 2.58%, Ashland, Inc., 2.53%, Valley National Bancorp, 2.44%, Cushman & Wakefield Ltd, 2.42%, Old National Bancorp, 2.40%, SharkNinja, Inc., 2.38%, UMB Fin Corp, 2.34%, Matador Resources Co, 2.25%, SouthState Bank Corp, 2.22% and Gulfport Energy Corp, 2.18%.

Thrivent Distributors, LLC, a registered broker-dealer and member FINRA, is the distributor for Thrivent Mutual Funds. ALPS Distributors, Inc., member FINRA, is the distributor for Thrivent ETFs. Thrivent Distributors, LLC is the marketing agent for Thrivent ETFs. Asset management services for the Thrivent Mutual Funds and Thrivent ETFs are provided by Thrivent Asset Management, LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser. Thrivent Distributors, LLC and Thrivent Asset Management, LLC are both subsidiaries of Thrivent, the marketing name for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. ALPS Distributors, Inc. is not affiliated with Thrivent or any of its subsidiaries.