Healthmaxxing, Marriage & Stock Valuations

At its best, having an Oura ring makes you fitter, happier, and, sure, even more productive. You may walk more, lift more, sleep more, and drink less. You will be hard-pressed to find a physician who thinks there’s anything amiss in the previous sentence.

However, the obsession with winning the measurable games of health can encroach on the less measurable games of life. The best way to sleep more is to see fewer friends in the evening. The best way to lift more during the week is to eliminate social lunches to protect your midday gym time. To become a measurably enhanced self often means eliminating your less quantifiable sources of meaning and happiness.

The ring can improve your life. But its form of self-improvement often pulls you away from other people. This left me with a nagging question. At what point is it unhealthy for me—for anyone, for all of us—to be this obsessed with health?

The share of people who drink hit an all-time low last year, according to Gallup, whose data go back to 1939. While many social changes happen slowly, the attitude shift against alcohol has been quite sudden. The decline of drinking is one part of a larger cultural phenomenon, the rise of the Enhanced Self.

The Enhanced Self is the evolution of medicine, technology, and consumer culture from an emphasis on curing illness to an obsession with optimizing normal, healthy life. We see this with the rise of GLP-1s, the explosion in biohacking with peptides, and the continued growth of supplements.

More Americans are using therapies not only to cure what is wrong with them but also to improve what is not wrong with them. At the layer of leisure, the tendrils of the Enhanced Self touch the white-hot rise of fitness in American life.

At the layer of biology, the Enhanced Self incorporates the belief that the human body is akin to a single-issue hardware device, whose owner should obsessively seek to extend its operating life beyond its scheduled date of obsolescence through relentless work and eagle-eyed neuroticism.

At the layer of sociology, the Enhanced Self is inseparable from the decline of socialization. While running clubs and morning workouts are booming, nightclubs are closing and parties are withering. Young Americans spend about 35 percent less time socializing and 70 percent less time attending or hosting parties than they did at the beginning of the century.

The age of the Enhanced Self is different from health movements of the past, not only because many of its elements are distinctly of the 2020s, including peptide shots, social media, and biometric scanners, but also because it does not particularly seek to build anything outside of the self.

For a long time, abstinence was associated with religion or personal histories, such as addiction recovery or pregnancy. But in the new health culture, abstinence is not about faith or addiction; it is about bodily perfection. On health podcasts and videos, influencers and science communicators talk about alcohol’s association with sleep scores, skin clarity, energy levels, cardiometabolic biometrics, and executive function.

The fruits of the Enhanced Self movement will include fitter people, with less disease, who live longer lives. But what are the costs? Young people, who are seeing the highest increases in exercise time, also say they have fewer friends than any cohort ever; that they spend more time alone than any generation on record; and that they are more anxious and depressed than previous groups.

Our bodies want us to be social. Research finds that “super-agers” (individuals over 80 with the cognitive function of people decades younger) shared little in common except for an unusually robust history of friendship and other social connections. A 2025 analysis of 500,000 participants in the UK reported that living with a partner and frequently visiting family had roughly the same relationship with longevity as exercise.

While the pursuit of health does not have to cleave us away from others, the project of delaying mortality is often a solitary undertaking.

Adam Mastroianni notes that over the past few decades, high schoolers have steadily drunk less, smoked less, and fought less. In the same period, serial killers have all but vanished, blockbusters have grown less original, design has grown less distinctive, and cars have gone monochrome. Mastroianni ties these together with a theory he calls “the decline of deviance.” As people get richer and the world gets safer, deviance falls, because “life is worth more now.” When people think that they might live to be 100, the strategy for every life-game is the same: play it safe.

Bryan Johnson’s wellness company, book, and Netflix documentary are not called “Live Better” or even “Live Forever.” It’s called “Don’t Die.” The moment-by-moment obsession with death may extend our lives, but when we cannot stop practicing this lifespan arithmetic, many of us will slip out of the thick appreciation of the here and now and approach life with all the verve of a lonely risk-assessment officer at a life insurance firm.

___________________________

In general, women tend to live longer and healthier lives than men for a variety of reasons, including greater health consciousness and a tendency to avoid risky behaviors, but also genetic and hormonal factors. At 65 years old, U.S. women are expected to live for an additional 19 to 21 years, while for U.S. men, this number only stood at around 16 to 18.5 years.

However, married men aged 65 gain almost 2.5 years of life expectancy over their unmarried counterparts of the same age, boosting their outlook on life significantly. The role women play in marriages as planners and facilitators of medical care as well as advocates for healthy habits becomes clear when looking at divorced and widowed men’s life expectancy.

Married and never-married women, on the other hand, have a more similar expected lifespan. But even if a women is divorced or widowed, her life expectancy is still somewhat above that of a never-married woman, highlighting how women benefit from the overall advantages of marriage rather than just their spouse. These come in the form of so-called marriage protections, like adopting better habits, better mental health outcomes and better social connectedness. They are also often explained by so-called marriage selection, the idea that those individuals who manage to get married are already starting out with a better outlook on life.

Of course, this data depends on the quality of a marriage. A poor marriage has the opposite effect on lifespans due to increased stress and burdens.

____________________________

Some insights about the wealthy, from 20 years working in wealth management with high-net-worth clients:

Money doesn’t really change people. It magnifies what’s already there. Anxious people become more anxious. Generous people become philanthropists. Spenders ramp up spending on a never-ending hedonic treadmill of delights. Sibling disputes become expensive multi-year legal battles.

The children of successful, wealthy families often internalize enormous pressure to excel and perform at high levels. They know they have no excuse to fail and every opportunity to succeed. They also learn that no one will ever extend them a lick of sympathy.

Wealthy people aren’t better at managing money. They struggle to save; they get scammed; they don’t stick to a budget or know how much they spend. They have no special investing prowess.

They still worry about money – about running out, about spoiling their kids, about making the wrong investments, about not making the most of it. Wealth does not alleviate money anxiety; in fact it can exacerbate it.

They are very susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink. This applies to lifestyle choices and investing trends. The most popular conversations and think pieces were inevitably along the lines of “what our other clients are doing.”

Rich people mostly own the same ETFs and index funds as the rest of us. There are no inside investing secrets. They don’t time the market or trade actively – if they listen to their advisors. Some love a flashy PE fund or venture capital stake to talk about on the golf course, but alternatives are generally more status flex than return enhancement.

Wealthy parents worry unnecessarily about hammering a “strong work ethic” into their kids. Whether childhood is rough or smooth, some people develop it, and others just don’t. Similarly, some kids have a tendency to over-save, while others spend or give too much. This happens in poor and rich families alike.

____________________________

Almost every metric of U.S. stock valuations are at or above their 2000 bubble high peak:

____________________________

The price to earnings ratio of emerging market stocks were over 100% higher than U.S. stocks in 2006-2007. Today emerging market p/e ratios are almost 50% lower than the U.S.

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index captures large and mid-cap representation across 24 emerging-markets countries, with roughly 1,200 constituents, and covers about 85% of the free-float-adjusted market capitalization in each country. The country roster includes places like China, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and South Africa, among others.

It’s “free-float-adjusted market-cap weighted,” meaning constituents are weighted by the share value actually available to public investors, and larger companies carry more weight.

Korea and Taiwan now account for nearly half of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, roughly double their 2020 weight, making the index increasingly sensitive to U.S. tech dynamics. As a result, EM equities have become more correlated with the U.S. AI cycle, diminishing their role as a portfolio diversifier.

_____________________

AI summaries are the likely driver of search’s decline as an online traffic source and the recent uptick in zero-click searches.

An increasing share of searches ends in no links being clicked.

Temporal Chauvinism, Attractiveness & Germs

It’s difficult to escape “temporal chauvinism,” which is the feeling that the time we’re living in now is the most significant or terrifying one ever, simply because it’s the one we happen to be around to experience.

Everything about our situation as humans pushes us to overrate the importance of our own era. Apart from anything else, present-day unknowns feel the scariest, because all previous unknowns eventually resolved themselves into knowns (every prior prediction of the end of the world turned out to be wrong) while future ones haven’t occurred to us yet.

It is very, very, very, very unlikely that the literal apocalypse is coming anytime soon. We’re almost certainly not living at the end of human civilization. Frankly, it’s pretty unlikely we’re even on the cusp of unprecedented levels of disruptive change. The truth is that we’re probably living through times that future historians will think of as broadly normal.

The point is not that life is safer and more secure than the heralds of the apocalypse would have us believe. It’s the opposite: that human existence is intrinsically unsafe and insecure, all the time. Anything could happen at any moment, the future is unknowable, one day you’ll die, and some people end up having vastly more traumatic encounters with these realities than others.

Yet there’s a stunning bit of good news hiding in all this, because if radical insecurity about the future is just how life is, then by definition, we’re already coping with it. Look back at your life to date, and you might even conclude that, so far, you’re handling it all rather brilliantly.

________________________

The graph below shows what people say they want or what is important to them in a partner (red line). The “X” marks show how much each trait correlated with people’s actual romantic evaluations or how important it was in real life.

The biggest discrepancies were in (1) being attractive, (2) being a good lover, (3) being sexy, (4) having a nice body, and (5) smelling good. Perhaps people are simpler than we realized once we look beyond surveys.

The discrepancies run the other way too. Being (1) a good listener, (2) patient, and (3) calm and emotionally stable were all overrated in stated preferences.

It’s a little confusing that the red line rises from left to right, suggesting increasing importance, but since these are rankings, a higher number actually means less important (1 = most important).

_________________________

Research has consistently shown that younger siblings fare worse than firstborns on lifetime earnings, educational achievement, mental health and, for women, teen pregnancy. The later the birth order, the worse the stats get. Why?

(1) Less Quality Time with Parents

First-born children average 20 to 30 more quality minutes each day with parents compared with a second-born child of the same age. The deficit amounts to about 3,000 fewer hours spent on reading, playing, talking or other activities with at least one parent for younger siblings. That’s roughly comparable to more than a year of schooling between the ages of 4 and 13.

The gap only widens as more kids enter the picture. That means the youngest siblings get far less quality time overall because whatever is available gets split among more children.

(2) Germs

Studies find that the tiniest organisms have a profound impact on a child’s future. Exposure to respiratory viruses before a baby’s first birthday, when immune systems are immature and before most childhood vaccinations, consistently predict reduced earnings, education and health decades later.

Researchers estimate that half or more of the gap in life outcomes between older and younger siblings can be attributed to pathogens inadvertently brought home by older siblings.

The disparity is stark: Younger siblings are two to three times more likely to be hospitalized for acute respiratory conditions than their older siblings during their first year of life. After that, when younger children generally begin attending group child care, the hospitalization gap disappears. Older siblings, the data suggested, bring home viruses to vulnerable infants with no other significant sources of exposure.

To show that higher disease exposure causes harm later in life required more work for researchers. They had to control for parental income, education and employment across municipalities with higher and lower infection rates. Yet the pattern was clear: earnings, education and mental health outcomes all declined as community disease exposure rose.

In the first months of life, roughly 85 percent of an infant’s calorie intake goes toward neural development. A serious infection can reduce how much a baby eats and divert calories away building a brain. If a child is very ill during that time, it might impact brain development by diverting biological resources to fighting an illness.

RSV was singled out as a key pathogen. It caused roughly one-third of all respiratory hospitalizations among second-born children with no protective immunity from first-year exposure against RSV hospitalization during later childhood.

____________________________

Attraction, Losers’ Games & Land

Money is less of a factor in attraction than people think. What matters more is your ambition. The academic literature on evolutionary biology supports this. In a study across 37 cultures, evolutionary psychologist David Buss found that, on average, potential partners valued “ambition and industriousness” more than “good financial prospects” when choosing a mate.

In evolutionary terms, this is known as Resource Holding Potential (RHP), or your ability to acquire resources in the future. A husband signals high RHP while working, but signals low RHP if he retires early, gets high and plays video games with friends all day; even if he worked unbelievably hard to get to that point. Why is ambition more attractive than money?

Because money says, “I was useful,” while ambition says, “I am useful.”

People care about the future. People care about the genes they pass on to their offspring. And they want to pass on traits like industriousness because those traits will help their children acquire future resources, and so on. Having money makes you more attractive. But it’s not the money that’s actually appealing, only how you acquired it. The potential to collect more resources is the draw from potential mates.

______________________

Wise Words From Charley Ellis:

On Winning By Not Losing

A loser’s game is any game, contest, or activity in which the ultimate victor is determined by the actions of the loser. These contests are not won; they are lost.

In tennis, pros can be aggressive. They have the skill, precision, and experience to place shots just outside their opponent’s reach. They play a winner’s game. The match goes to the player who earns the most wins. Amateurs, however, often lose by trying to play like the pros, because it leads to unforced errors. It’s a loser’s game. Amateurs win in tennis by volleying until their opponent hits it into the net or out of bounds. They win by not losing.

There are two different games being played in the stock market. The game the experts play differs from the game the amateurs play. The game amateurs should play, and many experts too, is built on a foundation of avoiding errors. Essentially, not losing. Fewer errors lead to better results.

Luck

Every investor should recognize the powerful potential impact of luck — not good luck, but bad luck. We can all live through good luck. But bad luck — the apparently random occurrence of adversity — is equally prevalent, and its consequences can be far greater.

Getting Excitement Out of the Market

Go to a continuous-process factory sometime — a chemical plant, a cookie manufacturer, a place that makes toothpaste. Everything is perfectly repetitive, automated, exactly in place. If you find anything interesting, you’ve found something wrong.

Investing is a continuous process too; it isn’t supposed to be interesting. It’s a responsibility. If you go to the stock market because you want excitement, then sooner or later you will lose. Everyone who thinks the stock market is a game loses — everyone, to the last man, woman, and child. So, the purpose of an investment policy is simply to ensure that your continuous process never breaks down.

On Over-Confidence

A rapidly rising market makes you forget that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make confident. The more you know, the higher the odds that you’ll make a serious mistake. That’s why it’s not the beginners who tend to die at skydiving and why most car accidents happen within a few miles of home. There’s a saying in the British Royal Air Force that investors need to remember: “There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.”

As human beings, particularly if we are successful in other parts of our lives, we are notoriously unable to accept the obvious reality that, on average, we are average, and that our normal experiences will usually be about average because we are, as a group, captives of the normal distribution of the bell curve. Studies all the time show we think we are above-average drivers, above-average parents — and above-average investors. And we do tend to take it personally when our stocks go way up or go way down, even though, as Adam Smith admonishes, “The stock doesn’t know you own it.”

________________________

Land Appreciates. Homes Depreciate.

The value of a home (excluding land) declines over time unless it is updated to break even. Think of it in the context of not updating the home for 30 years, which makes the concept much easier to understand. The house will slowly fall apart. Meanwhile, in most housing markets, land values eventually rise over a 30-year period, and the cash-poor homeowner can sell for more than their original purchase price.

__________________________

Social media has become less social.

__________________________

State level reading scores have dropped dramatically over the last 10 years.

__________________________

Based on an average the average of the valuation metrics below, the U.S. stock market has now become more expensive than both the 1929 and 2000 bubble peaks:

Trailing (P/E) Price to Earnings
Forward (P/E) Price To Earnings
Cyclically Adjusted Price To Earnings (CAPE)
Price to Book (P/B)
Price to Sales (P/S)
Enterprise Value (EV) to Earnings Before Interest Depreciation & Amortization (EBITA)
Market Value to Replacement Cost Of Physical Assets (Q Ratio)
Market Cap to GDP

_________________________________

U.S. households are far more invested in stocks relative to the rest of the world:

Luck, Loneliness & Drones

Loneliness as we think about it today is a new phenomenon. In the past, people often talked about being alone, but there were lots of benefits to it : spiritual connection, getting to know yourself, emotion regulation. For most of human history, there was a sense that you were never truly alone; God was around, or you were one with nature. Our modern notion of loneliness is a 19th century concept that emerged as culture became more secular and more individualist.

In Robinson Crusoe, from the early 1800s, being stranded was a moment of spiritual enlightenment, a chance to find yourself. In Cast Away with Tom Hanks, the whole point is that Hanks went crazy because he had no one to talk to. There’s a real difference in what we think alone time does.

Psychologists have started asking whether our construal of loneliness is actually creating the feelings associated with it, and people talking about the loneliness crisis could be making them more lonely. Studies have been run where some people read a typical news article about the loneliness crisis and others read about the benefits of solitude. That simple intervention changes how people experience being alone. Your perception of how bad it is to be alone is making loneliness worse when you actually find yourself alone.

Some people’s deepest moments of loneliness can be at a party where they felt disconnected, physically surrounded by people but experiencing real loneliness. So being physically alone or with other people doesn’t map cleanly onto whether you feel connected. But how we think about it matters enormously. If you’re excited to be alone, if you frame it as solitude rather than aloneness, research shows even those linguistic choices make a difference.

_____________________________

Two years ago, it was clear that in a direct confrontation, the U.S. military would walk all over Russia’s clumsy, outdated post-Soviet army. Now, the reverse is probably true; the Ukraine War has forced the Russian army to learn how to fight with drones, while America is still mostly inexperienced with the new kind of warfare. Russia may not be quite as good at drone war as the Ukrainians, but the U.S. has so far made only incremental changes to how it fights. If the U.S. were to fight Russia today, it would be in for a rude surprise.

Of course, the same is true of China. Its military, like America’s, is still focused mainly on expensive high-performance platforms — aircraft carriers, hypersonic missiles, submarines, and so on. But there’s one big difference between China and the U.S. here — China’s peerless industrial base would give it the ability to construct an overwhelming drone-based force very quickly, while America’s withered industrial base would make it impossible to adapt in time.

Interestingly, the U.S. is still #2 here — albeit a distant second. But worryingly, the U.S.’ traditional allies — Germany, Japan, France, Korea, etc. — make very few drones at all.

Even if they want to, the U.S. and its allies will have an incredibly hard time scaling up indigenous drone production. The reason is that drones are built using a set of technologies that the U.S. and its allies have mostly decided to forfeit to China. Drones use lithium-ion batteries and rare earth electric motors, both of which are almost entirely manufactured in China.

China is now capable of manufacturing a drone armada that can easily outmatch that of every other country on the planet combined, if it wants to. And except for Ukraine, Russia is now the only country on Earth that has first-hand experience of how to fight a modern drone war.

_____________________________

If you want to find the smartest person in the room, find the nicest person in the room.

The smartest person in the room is probably fighting back against the natural tribal urge so many of us have to compete, suppress, and insert ourselves above other people. It takes a lot of mental horsepower to suppress those emotions and realize that if you’re actually nice to people, you can get ahead.

The smartest people in the world know what they don’t know, or they know how little they know. They’re much more likely to say, “Hey, that idea you just talked about, maybe it’s right. I don’t know. I know how uncertain and difficult and complicated the world is.”

The smartest people know the world is not zero-sum. They know that I can get ahead and you can get ahead and we can both win. It takes much less intelligence to think every debate and every interaction is zero-sum, where there is one winner and one loser.

The luckier you are, the nicer you should be. Whether it’s finance, career, relationships, where you’re born, whatever it might be. There are elements of your life that make you lucky. One of the ways to deal with that—the sign of higher intelligence—is that the luckier you are, the nicer you should be to other people, particularly people you know were not as lucky as you were.

________________________

Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs were initially understood as a metabolism breakthrough: medicines that act like hormones to control hunger, blood sugar and weight. But as researchers probe deeper into how the drugs work, early evidence suggests that GLP-1s may also be reshaping parts of the brain.

Tens of millions of people are now taking the medications worldwide, turning what began as an obesity and diabetes treatment into what could bemodern medicine’s largest unplanned neuroscience experiments.

Some users have reported a type of brain fog and others something broader and harder to define:a strange emotional flattening. People describe less pleasure, less motivation, diminished interest in hobbies and even reduced sexual desire.

Those accounts are beginning to raise deeper questions about what, exactly, these drugs are changing. If GLP-1s alter the brain systems involved in reward, craving and motivation, researchers wonder, where is the line between quieting a person’s destructive impulses and reshaping personality itself?

______________________________

The chart below shows the relationship between starting valuations and subsequent 10 to 15 year real equity market returns across 16 countries, with U.S. data going back to 1881.

At a Shiller CAPE of 39 or above, there is no historical period since 1881 that was followed by attractive long-term real returns.

The CAPE ratio in the United States moved above 42 this week, inching closer to the all-time peak of the tech bubble high in March 2000 when it hit 44.

The Fascinating World Of Prediction Markets

Part 1: The People Making Enormous Money (For The Moment)

Polymarket is sort of like the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange, except instead of buying and selling shares of publicly traded companies like Apple or Microsoft, the platform allows you to trade on what will happen in the future.

Polymarket and its main rival, Kalshi, are the two largest prediction markets in the world. The two platforms processed $25 billion in trading volume in April, up tenfold from a year ago.

On Kalshi, sports wagers are the largest betting category, accounting for roughly 70 percent of all revenue on the platform. But users on both platforms can wager on just about anything: the price of Bitcoin; the duration of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping’s handshake; whether the headlines on the front page of this newspaper will use the word “stupid” in a given week. Unlike a sports-betting app or a casino, there’s no house, just other bettors on the other side of each trade: Every dollar you lose is a dollar won by someone else.

Traditional financial markets (stocks, bonds) have thousands of sophisticated players battling over trillions of dollars. This means that market prices usually reflect reality, and it’s incredibly difficult for even the most seasoned Wall Street traders to find an edge. Prediction markets, on the other hand, are so immature and so illiquid — there’s just not enough money moving around in them — that the price may not reflect reality.

An army of “sharps” (a loosely coordinated group of traders who are each making six- and seven-figure annual returns) have built a system to exploit it by figuring out what other people don’t yet know. Like Wall Street analysts, they get their edge from research: Hours scouring public voter data, building financial models and even contacting professors, journalists and actual Wall Street analysts to get a leg up. Right now, they are getting very, very rich.

A 25-year-old sharp who goes by the username @Frosen; “I really am just taking money from people.” Frosen is a graduate student, and he turned $200 into nearly half a million dollars last year. “Every dollar that I gain is someone losing, and there’s just a lot of people joining, betting, losing and leaving,” he said, laughing nervously. “And then there’s a group of a couple hundred people consistently winning, and that’s the story.”

A better named Fean noticed Kalshi had 98 percent odds of Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars’s “Die With a Smile” topping the Billboard Hot 100 chart. No, he thought, it’s going to be Travis Scott. He then discovered that Scott had sold more than 100,000 singles by inspecting his website’s source code. He was right. Within an hour, Fean had made a 1,000 percent return on his $80 wager.

Most of the sharps ask to be identified by one of their usernames out of fear of being hacked or even “crypto kidnapped.” @JesterTheGoose, a college student studying computer science, deployed an open-source machine-learning tool to predict the outcome of the Chess World Championships. He has turned $2 into more than $150,000.

@PrinceHal, a struggling screenwriter turned full-time Kalshi trader, has been trading for about a decade. He builds inflation-forecasting models that consistently outperform major financial institutions to the tune of $3.7 million in lifetime profits.

The best traders often work alone and try to hide their edge. @Domer, who is widely regarded as one of the most successful prediction market traders on Polymarket, having put money on Robert Francis Prevost’s election as pope and JD Vance’s selection to be vice president, will sometimes email Bloomberg reporters or university professors to try to get a leg up. “It’s every man for himself,” he said; he’s made nearly $5 million.

Some say that @RememberAmalek, who is up more than $750,000, scraped the Nobel Prize Committee website hours before the Peace Prize announcement in order to bet on María Corina Machado.

In the private chat rooms sharps coordinate the best way to buy up ignorance. Recently, after President Trump announced he would nominate the financier Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, a conspiracy theory spread online that he would instead choose Judy Shelton, who was an economic policy adviser during his first campaign. The market saw $127,684,065 in Shelton trades on Polymarket. Warsh was nominated; the “dumb money” lost millions; and per usual, the sharps won big. “You can’t stop the “noobs,” the newbies, “from buying literally worthless shares, over and over and over again, every single day. You can’t stop them.”

Part Two: The High Speed Algorithmic Bots Are Coming For Everything

There’s a lot of predation in prediction markets: 1% of participants on Polymarket earn 76.5% of the profits due to high speed algorithmic bots that reprice prediction contracts based on breaking information faster than the average person. Prediction market profit concentration is much higher than in online poker, day trading, horse racing and other gambling platforms shown below.

These gains accrue overwhelmingly to automated traders (bots). Joshua Della Vedova at the University of San Diego performed a fascinating analysis of over 200 million Polymarket trades from November 2022 to February 2026. Vedova found that profits are more closely linked to execution timing than to directional accuracy.

Automated traders (bots) achieved 49.9% aggregate directional accuracy (no better than a coin flip), yet earned the only positive aggregate return in the sample at $133 million. Active retail traders achieved 51.3% accuracy but lost $79 million, and other non-bot bettor categories had negative returns as well.

The reason is execution, not forecasting: bots win by providing liquidity and entering markets early (about 10 bots account for 70% of bot profits), while bettors that arrive after prices absorb relevant information pay entry prices that leave no room for profit, regardless of accuracy.

Della Vedova also identifies a subset of accounts whose accuracy and execution are consistent with trading on private (inside) information stripping those profits out would make the non-bot returns shown on the right look even worse.

If a Polymarket bet does not have a clear outcome, it moves to a third-party token-based voting system called Universal Market Access. Any individual, not necessarily Polymarket users, can purchase tokens from crypto exchanges and cast votes in resolutions, influencing the outcome of resolutions they’re actively betting on. For example: a Polymarket bet on whether Ukraine would agree to a critical mineral deal with the US before April 2025 was resolved via UMA. A single voter cast 5 million tokens (25% of votes) and swayed the decision to “Yes” even though the deal was not signed until April 30, 2025.

Looksmaxxing, Calf Injuries & The Passage Of Time

Welcome to the weird and twisted philosophy of looksmaxxing, the online subculture devoted to optimizing male appearance through gym routines, skin care, jawline exercises and surgery. They advocate bonesmashing, or hitting one’s face repeatedly with a hammer to change the face shape.

Looksmaxxers may not be aware of it, but they are optimizing themselves not for attraction from women, but for respect from men. That is the hidden logic of “looksmaxxing”. Men respect signs of dominance and toughness. A heavy jaw, sharp cheekbones, a hard stare. These features impress other men because they signal strength. So when a young man imagines an attractive male face, he tends to imagine an exaggerated version of those traits. He then sets out to build it.

Women, generally speaking, want something different. They tend to prefer a face that is softer than men assume. When masculine features get too extreme, they stop registering as attractive and begin to appear bizarre or even frightening. The looksmaxxer who has carved himself into a comic book caricature has pushed past the point where most women find him appealing. (Relatedly, some women make a parallel mistake, assuming men prefer extreme thinness when many men actually prefer healthier, curvier female bodies.)

A man who spends hours every day fine-tuning his face and body exudes qualities women tend to dislike. He can come across as vain, high-maintenance and self-absorbed — less like a secure partner than someone perpetually scanning for the next option.

The basic version of looksmaxxing is good for almost everyone: exercise, a decent haircut, clothes that fit, better posture, a reasonable diet. The looksmaxxing protocol the manosphere tells them to adopt gives women the ick.

__________________________________

In 2010-11, there were 18 documented calf injuries across the entire NBA season. Last season, there were 60. This season, 86. Why?

Basketball used to be a two-footed sport. Nowadays, the game is a one-footed sport. Most players are making every move off of one foot. The modern NBA is a pace-and-space machine—100-plus possessions a night, built on rapid ball movement, floor spacing, and the core principle that any player must be able to create offense off the dribble from anywhere. The epicenter of NBA offense has migrated from the low block to the perimeter, where endless drive-and-kick sequences stack on top of one another.

Today’s game of relentless one-on-one creation; guards, wings, and increasingly centers attacking closeouts; and transition offense requires a different kind of movement. It requires rapid changes of speed and direction. And almost all of it happens off one foot.

Muscle damage isn’t caused by how hard a muscle works, but rather by how far it stretches while it’s working. The muscle almost always has to be activated to really be injured, and it almost always has to be stretched. When both of those things happen at once, that’s when injuries can happen.

The calf is particularly vulnerable to that combination because of our anatomy. The calf muscle has short fibers, and when the ankle rotates and the knee extends at the same time, it puts immense strain on the muscle.

That strain is amplified for taller people. The fibers don’t scale with the body. The bones—the levers—do. So a bigger person, when they rotate their knee joint or their ankle joint 20 degrees, they stretch their muscles relatively more. The same move, performed by a larger body, is more dangerous. Not because the player is weaker, but because the geometry is worse.

____________________________

I recently tuned into an episode of “The Diary of a CEO” podcast. The guest was an Irish comedian by the name of Jimmy Carr. The host asked Jimmy a pointed question: “What is the meaning of life?” Jimmy responded, “I’ll do it in five words.” What were the five words?

“Enjoying the passage of time”

Remember that trip you took with your friends to that warm weather destination? You enjoyed each other’s company and the days were filled with friendship, camaraderie, and wonderful moments of joy and happiness? You were absolutely enjoying the passage of time, and it had nothing to do with money or the state of the stock market and the world. You were living your best life.

All of this is to say, if we constantly worry about the national debt, the dollar, politics, how much money we have, or what someone on the news is saying, we are trapped in a prison of our own design. Now I know this isn’t a black or white thing; there are times when we won’t be enjoying the passage of time. We might be sick, or a family member may be struggling, or something is really impacting us.

Build for the long-term. Be thoughtful and patient. Have a plan. But enjoy the passage of time. Focus less on the things that can make us miserable. This life is all we’ll ever get.

___________________________

Three companies — SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic — are expected to go public in mega-IPOs in the second half of 2026. The posited numbers are simply staggering compared to the largest IPOs in recent history, as the following figure shows.

In inflation-adjusted terms, SpaceX alone would rank as the second-largest IPO in history, just behind Saudi Aramco. All three together would exceed the entire dot-com IPO wave of 1995–2000. They will be at least half the value, inflation-adjusted, of all US IPOs since WWII.

But people aren’t focused on the right things. That much new equity supply hitting in a few months creates a math problem: the money has to come from somewhere. Most of it will come from existing holdings. Passive funds will be forced buyers once these names join the indexes, which will happen much faster than usual, given recent index rule changes. That means mechanical selling pressure on whatever many funds currently own, which is mostly the same large-cap tech stocks everyone else owns.

_______________________________

Taiwan and Korea are close to overtaking China’s stock market in size, largely due to only three stocks:

The gap between the United States (blue) and the rest of the world (green) based on their Price To Earnings ratios remains enormous: which means the U.S. is far more expensive.

Small cap stocks continue to become less expensive relative to large cap stocks around the world:

Rating Dates, Risk Appetite & A.I. Fear

The Argentine app some women use to rate dates before going out started in Buenos Aires eight months ago as a private project among friends. Today it has 22,000 users, and it works like this: you upload screenshots of the chat of the guy you’re talking to, and an AI analyzes patterns of manipulation, narcissism, passive aggression, love bombing, likely lies, and chances of being ghosted. Then it returns a score.

“Emotional risk: 78/100”
“High probability of infidelity”
“Profile compatible with emotional dependency”
“Language similar to men previously reported”

Premium users can even connect the guy’s Instagram and let the model analyze follows, likes, activity times, and changes in behavior. The creator is 27 years old and studied psychology at the University of Buenos Aires. She says the idea came about after a friend ended up hospitalized due to domestic violence.

The app is called FirstRedFlag and has a waiting list.

__________________________

Your appetite for risk should decline in middle age as your liabilities increase (e.g., children, aging parents, etc.). I would apply the same line of thinking to those who have built some wealth. As your net worth increases, preservation becomes more important than chasing increasingly expensive luxuries.

Why is this the case? Because once you’ve won the game, the value of gaining a dollar plummets while the pain of losing a dollar soars. This is the fundamental principle behind prospect theory. Prospect theory states that people react to gains and losses asymmetrically. In other words, the pain of losing $100 is larger than the pleasure of winning $100, at least for most people.

If you’re wealthier, it’s like prospect theory on steroids. If you had a $2M net worth, the pain of losing $1M is significantly larger than the pleasure of gaining an additional $1M. It might even be larger than the pleasure of gaining $4M. While these amounts are arbitrary (and will vary from person to person), they exemplify the impact that wealth can have on risk-taking.

Another reason to reduce risk if you’ve built some wealth is the amount of time it takes to recover from a significant loss. If someone with $1,000 in a brokerage account lost it all, they could likely earn it back relatively quickly. But if someone lost $100,000 in their retirement account, it could take years to save that amount of money.

Unless your income can keep up with your wealth over time, you’ll have to decrease how much risk you take. Why? Because as your portfolio grows it becomes harder to replace future losses with future earnings. If you can save $50,000 a year, you can replace a 20% loss on a $1M portfolio in under 4 years (assuming a 5% return on your money). However, to replace a 20% loss on a $5M portfolio it would take over 14 years.

_____________________________

We’ve experienced a massive decline in reading scores for students over the last decade:

_______________________________

The fear over AI is palpable. So, it’s time for an optimistic take.

Why the AI doom-and-gloom story is missing the bigger picture. A lot of people hear “AI” and immediately think one of two things: it’s just Google search on steroids, or it’s a magic machine coming for everyone’s job. Both miss the bigger picture.

A job is not one single task; it’s a bundle of tasks supported by a massive, fragmented software stack. Email, spreadsheets, presentations, Slack, CRM platforms, and, in finance, a Bloomberg Terminal, FactSet, and market data feeds. For millions of jobs, the cost of software to provide basic tools for these tasks can run to $1,000 a month, and more for complicated roles.

Much of the modern workday is consumed by the friction of this stack: moving data between systems, cleaning spreadsheets, searching for files, and summarizing meetings.

AI is emerging as the new interface for enterprise software. Think about the iPhone. It collapsed cameras, GPS devices, and music players into one simple, powerful device. AI is doing something similar for workplace software, turning 10 clunky programs that don’t talk to each other into a single conversational prompt.

Just as we stopped buying standalone cameras and tape recorders once the smartphone came around, companies will happily pay for an AI layer. It will be far cheaper and eliminate the bloated costs of that fragmented software stack that requires you to perform endless, mundane tasks because these programs do not talk to each other.

The immediate fear is that if AI lets three people do the work of five, companies will fire two people. But that ignores economic history. When the electronic spreadsheet was invented, the cost of calculations plummeted. But accounting jobs didn’t vanish; demand for complex financial modeling exploded. Accounting clerks became financial analysts, a more in-demand role.

Jevons Paradox suggests that making a resource more efficient actually increases total demand for it. By absorbing the drudgery, AI allows the employee to focus on judgment and strategy—making the human element more valuable, not less. In this framework, demand for high-output workers doesn’t shrink; it explodes.

Does this justify the mind-numbing capital expenditure currently pouring into AI infrastructure? If AI fulfills this promise of enterprise-wide productivity, the investment isn’t just justified—it’s a bargain. That said, we are clearly near the peak of a hype cycle, just like the internet was in 1999.

But remember: the dot-com crash did not mean the internet was a bust. It simply meant the hype outpaced the infrastructure. After the wreckage cleared, the optimistic predictions about connectivity and productivity were not only fulfilled—they were exceeded.

The same path can lie ahead for AI. And instead of the fear that AI will replace workers, it’s the joy of replacing soulless busywork, making jobs more fulfilling… and more profitable for employers.

_____________________________

____________________________

It’s remarkable how many independent, secular trends are anti-alcohol right now.

GLP-1s
post-1970s rise of helicopter parenting
reaction to the binge-drinking spike in late 20th century
phones killing teenage partying
surge in young adult fitness (dancing clubs down, running clubs up)
general rise of healthmaxxing culture

______________________________

_________________________________

Price’s Law, Colon Cancer & Nike’s Strategy

In 1963, a physicist named Derek Price was studying scientific publications, trying to understand why some researchers dominated their fields while others published and got zero attention. He found that the square root of the number of people in a domain does 50% of the work. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

In a company with 100 employees, 10 people produce half the output
In a field with 10,000 scientists, 100 produce half the meaningful research
On a team of 25, 5 people carry the entire operation

It wasn’t exclusive to research papers—this pattern showed up everywhere he looked.

Of the 30 million businesses in the United States, about 5,500 (the square root) generate half the total economic output.
Spotify has about 11 million artists, but 50% of all streams are generated by only 3,300 artists.
In astrophysics, the square root of stars in a galaxy produce half the light.
In creative fields like YouTube, very few channels account for the vast majority of both views and ad revenue.

Price’s Law violates our egalitarian instincts. We want to believe everyone contributes equally, that effort equals outcome, that hard work is the great equalizer, but reality is far from it.

You need (1) skill, (2) consistency, (3) opportunity, and (4) luck all compounding in the same direction. Most people have one or two of those ingredients. The square root has all four.

Price’s Law reveals that equality of outcome and equality of opportunity cannot coexist in complex systems. Even if you give everyone the same resources, the same training, the same chance, outcomes will still stratify eventually. Some people will compound their advantages. Most won’t.

What does this mean in practice?

You have dozens of skills, but √n of them drive half your value in the marketplace. The reason why we spend so much time trying to be “well-rounded” is because we’ve been lied to.
If you work 40 hours a week, about 6 of those hours actually matter. The other 34 are maintenance, “busywork,” meetings that could’ve been emails, and a whole lot of goofing around.

The paradox (why we still need to do the other 90%): you can’t know which skills are your multipliers without trying a bunch of skills. You can’t know which relationships matter without meeting a lot of people.

The early game is exploration. You’re planting seeds everywhere, seeing what grows. Price’s Law hasn’t kicked in yet because you don’t have enough data.
The middle game is identification. Patterns are emerging. “Oh, this is what works.” That’s your √n.
The late game is exploitation. You double down on the winners. You cut out the losers. You focus your energy towards the best bets.

Explore the noise until you have signal. Then exploit that.

_______________________________

As of April 2026, Nike stock sat below US$45 – a market capitalisation of US$68 billion, its lowest level in over a decade, and a fall of more than 75% from the US$280 billion the company commanded at its 2021 peak.

How does what was once considered one of the widest consumer brand moats in the world, built over half a century, erode over the course of a few short years?

A good starting point is January 2020, when John Donahoe took over as Nike’s new CEO. The board wanted a digital-first operator, and Donahoe had the résumé – ServiceNow, eBay, and Bain – even if he was one of the few leaders in Nike’s history not to have risen through its operating ranks.

Several major strategic shifts followed, each departing from what had worked for Nike for decades – yet each looked like a logical transformational move to take Nike into the 2020s. The financial pay-offs were immediate: gross margins expanded, SGA came down, and return on ad spend looked sharper quarter by quarter. Wall Street loved it.

Yet each of these moves shared a common mechanism: they improved short-term financial metrics by drawing down assets that had taken decades to build. In effect, Nike was not just transforming its business – it was monetising its moat. We will examine each in turn.

______________________________________

The number of patients in their 30s and 40s with late-stage cancer in their lower digestive tract is surgin. It’s not just that these patients are decades younger than what had been typical for colorectal cancer; the tumors themselves are also more stubborn to treat.

Even though young patients are treated with more aggressive chemo or more surgery, patients’ outcomes are not necessarily better. The disease has become the top cancer killer among people under 50, even as death rates decline in older age groups.

Doctors suspect that the gut’s microbiome is a key actor behind these forms of cancer in particular. Patient advocates say it’s critical that more people, especially young adults with a family history of these cancers, get diagnostic testing.Genetics plays some role in colorectal cancers; as many as a fifth of patients have hereditary markers. But genetics do not explain what drives the vast majority (80%) of cases.

Thirty-plus years ago almost zero patients were in clinics under the age of 50 with colon cancer. Now it is almost half. There are other changes in disease pattern with earlier onset tumors that tend to show up differently; more tumors are found near the rectum, lower in the tract.

Experts suspect several factors may be leading to these more frequent, virulent cancers:

Ultra-processed foods
Plastics and chemicals that can leach into water and our bodies
As a population, we are not as active as we used to be.

All of these factors act on our gut, the composition of our microbiomes, and the bacteria and myriad microorganisms living there.

_________________________

This, of course, has consequences. Here are six:

Monetary policy transmission is direct. When the Fed lowers (raises) rates, US households buy (sell) stocks. No other central bank has this much control over consumer sentiment and spending via markets. The wealth effect makes policy both more powerful and harder to control.
Markets and politics. When 60% of households own stocks, markets drive elections. Politicians and central bankers in the US hate crashes almost as much as they hate high gas prices. This holds down volatility and encourages wacky risk-taking.
Passive indexing makes it worse. Most of that 60% own stocks through 401(k)s and IRAs invested in index funds. This means a huge share of American household wealth is concentrated in the same ~500 companies, weighted by market cap. Diversification is an illusion at the aggregate level. Everyone is long NVIDIA, whether they know it (or want it) or not.
Retirement security is market performance. The US shifted from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions over the last 40 years. A sustained bear market is no longer just a financial event — it’s a retirement crisis.
Inequality is amplified. The 60% figure is misleading because the bottom half of that cohort owns virtually no stock. The top 10% hold ~90% of equity wealth.
Contagion from US markets is a virus. Because US households are so deeply exposed, a domestic equity crisis hits consumer spending, which then spreads worldwide through trade. The US market is the world’s risk-off/risk-on switch, and the household exposure ratio is part of why.

Time Perspective, Deficits & Dementia

When the average person graduates from high school, they’ve already used up 93% of the total in-person time they’ll ever spend with their parents. They’re already in the tail end.

The same often goes for old friends. In high school or college, you hang around the same group of friends about five days a week. In four years, you probably rack up 700 group hangouts. Now, scattered around the country with totally different lives and schedules, you’re probably in the same room at the same time only 10 days each decade. The typical person leaving college is already in the last 7% of the time they’ll ever spend with their friends.

What do you do with this information? There are three main takeaways:

1) Living in the same place as the people you love matters. You probably have 10 times the time left with the people who live in your city as you do with the people who live somewhere else.

2) Priorities matter. Your remaining face time with any person depends largely on where that person falls on your list of life priorities. Make sure this list is set by you—not by unconscious inertia.

3) Quality time matters. If you’re in your last 10% of time with someone you love, keep that fact in the front of your mind when you’re with them and treat that time as what it actually is: precious.

_______________________________

U.S. corporate profits and stock market valuations are at historic highs, but the kind of real, productive investment that’s supposed to create those profits (building factories, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) has been falling for decades. Why have U.S. corporate profits and equity valuations reached historic highs despite a concurrent secular decline in net domestic investment?

In the mid-20th century, profits came from companies investing money to build things, sell more, and earn returns. Today, profits keep climbing even though companies aren’t really investing more in the real economy. So where are the profits coming from?

Federal budget deficits are the source. The government is essentially borrowing money and pumping it into the economy through programs like Social Security and Medicare, and that money flows almost dollar-for-dollar into corporate profits — which then get recycled into the stock market, inflating share prices.

Net Corporate Profits = Net Domestic Investment + Government Deficit − Household Saving − Foreign Saving.

This is just bookkeeping — it has to be true by definition. A government deficit is negative saving. When the government spends more than it takes in through taxes, it stimulates income and profits.

Here’s how it works in plain terms:

The Treasury issues bonds and uses the money to send entitlement checks (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) to households
Those households (mostly middle and lower-income, who spend nearly everything they get) go out and buy goods and services
That spending shows up as revenue at corporations
Because the spending didn’t require companies to spend more on production, most of it drops straight to the bottom line as profit

The wealthy people who originally bought the Treasury bonds basically just swapped cash for a Treasury bond — they didn’t lose anything. But the Treasury’s spending stimulates real consumption, which becomes corporate profit.

There’s a nearly one-for-one long-run relationship between fiscal deficits and corporate profits. In other words, every additional dollar of deficit roughly translates into a dollar of corporate profit over time. However, if you just look at quarterly correlations between deficits and profits, you’ll see a negative relationship — that’s because during recessions, profits collapse and deficits spike at the same time. But that’s a short-term cyclical effect that masks the long-term structural relationship.

The “natural experiment” occurred when the U.S. government briefly ran brief budget surpluses in the late 1990’s, withdrawing net spending from the economy. During this period of declining deficits and brief surpluses, corporate profits fell too. But with the recession in 2001, fiscal deficits returned and profits immediately resumed their upward climb.

What Happens Then?

Once corporations have these excess profits, what do they do with them? Here’s where the second half of the financialization story kicks in.

In a healthy economy, companies would reinvest profits into expanding production. But for decades, the returns on real investment haven’t been attractive enough to justify it (due to global competition, especially from China, weak domestic demand, etc.). So instead, firms returned profits to shareholders through dividends and buybacks.

Those distributions go mostly to wealthy households — and wealthy households don’t spend most of that money on goods and services. They reinvest it in financial markets, often through passive index funds. Mandated to remain fully invested, these funds then recycle the inflows to purchase stocks in proportion to their market capitalization indifferent to valuation, thus bidding up prices without any change in fundamentals.

In other words, an index fund doesn’t ask “is this stock cheap or expensive?” — it just buys mechanically. So when more money flows in, prices get pushed up regardless of underlying fundamentals. Research shows that each $1 of inflow increases market value by roughly $5 — meaning passive flows have an outsized impact on valuations.

How Did We Get Here?

1. The collapse of national saving. In the 1950s and 1960s, net domestic investment, funded entirely by national saving, averaged 11% of GDP. But then structural fiscal deficits started to offset private saving, and national saving has now collapsed to nearly zero.

2. The long decline in interest rates. Two big forces pushed rates down: China joining the WTO in 2001 (which created huge trade surpluses that flowed back into U.S. Treasuries) and the post-2008 era of zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing. Cheap borrowing costs let the government run big deficits without “crowding out” private investment.

3. The shift from tangible to intangible investment. Gross domestic investment ebbs and flows with the business cycle, but its longer-term average has held relatively steady, only slipping from about 23% of GDP during the 1950s to 1980s to about 21% in recent decades. Net domestic investment has declined from nearly 11% of GDP in the mid-twentieth century to about 5% in recent years. Over the same period, depreciation rose from roughly 12% of GDP to more than 16%.

The reason: today’s “capital” is software, data, servers, and R&D — which depreciates and goes obsolete much faster than the factories, machines, and infrastructure of 50 years ago. So companies have to spend more just to replace worn-out capital, leaving less for genuine expansion.

4. The financialization of profits. As deficits soared from near zero in the 1960s to 8% of GDP by the 2020s, the profit share grew in parallel, from 6% of GDP to more than 10%. Over this same time, national saving collapsed from 11% of GDP to near zero.

5. Growing inequality as a consequence. Because the profit share of GDP grew, the labor share necessarily shrank. Even as social transfers soared by 10% as a percentage of GDP, the labor share of national income entered a prolonged decline, falling from near 68% in the early 1980s to 62% by the mid 2020s. And because the rising profits accrue mostly to wealthy households, who don’t spend much in the real economy, this further fuels the cycle of recycling profits into financial assets.

There are competing theories for why corporate profits have grown so much — the “superstar firm” hypothesis (industry consolidation gives dominant firms pricing power), globalization (cheap foreign labor crushed wages), and the rise of high-margin tech companies with intangible-heavy business models.

While part of the equation, these factors operate within the larger macroeconomic environment established by fiscal and monetary policy. In other words: those theories explain which companies win, but the deficit story explains why the total pie of corporate profits has grown so much faster than the underlying economy.

What This Means Moving Forward:

The foundation supporting U.S. corporate profits and equity valuations has weakened, leaving the market increasingly fragile. Profits now depend on large-scale fiscal deficits, a sharp departure from the mid-century model when profits were generated by private investment of retained earnings.

Today’s stock valuations rest on continued (and growing) fiscal deficits. If at some point the U.S. is forced — by the bond market, by political will, or by a debt crisis — to reduce deficit spending, the entire mechanism that’s been propping up profits and stock prices could go into reverse.

Reversion to a healthier macroeconomic environment of declining deficit spending and greater net investment may cause sharp declines in both corporate profits and valuation multiples and likely trigger a financial crisis with politically toxic consequences. Ironically, the more palatable option may be to remain on the current path until a financial crisis imposes on us the discipline that we are unwilling to impose on ourselves.

Either path leads to a painful adjustment; it’s just a question of whether it’s by choice or by crisis.

_______________________________

One of most exciting longevity trends right now is the decline in dementia. At a given age—70, 75, 80, etc.—the prevalence of dementia is down compared to what it was decades ago. Today’s 90-year-olds have less than half the risk of dementia that ones in 1984 did.

Memories, Cash Flow & The Happiness Crash

Your hippocampus doesn’t encode days that feel identical. If this Tuesday looks like last Tuesday, your brain files them as a single compressed memory. The second day never gets its own folder.

This is why decades feel like they disappeared. The hippocampus uses novelty as its filter for “worth storing.” Repetitive routines trigger temporal compression. Same commute, same desk, same dinner, same bedtime: the brain deduplicates the whole sequence into one entry. You lived 365 days. You filed 40.

As people move through continuous experience, the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex fire in discrete bursts at moments the brain flags as “something changed.” Each burst becomes a retrievable memory later. In stretches with no boundaries, the bursts flatten. Participants with more boundaries in a given period remembered more of it afterward. Segmentation literally builds memory.

Sleep is the second mechanism. During slow-wave sleep, the hippocampus replays the day’s episodes and transfers them to the neocortex for long-term storage. This is when memory actually gets filed. Cut sleep short and encoding efficiency drops. Chronic sleep debt means experiences you had never complete the transfer. The memory existed. It just never made it to disk.

The third mechanism is where dopamine meets attention. Novel stimuli trigger the ventral tegmental area to release dopamine into the hippocampus, which gates what gets encoded. Mind-wandering does the opposite. When your default mode network takes over (phone scrolling, rumination, email during dinner), the hippocampus stops tagging the present. You were at the wedding. Your hippocampus was in your inbox.

The fix comes straight out of the mechanism. New locations, new food, new people, new routes home. The brain needs boundaries to build memories. Go to bed earlier so replay actually runs. Put the phone down when something is happening so the dopamine signal can fire.

The more forgettable the day, the shorter the decade.

__________________________

Traditional valuation metrics like the Shiller CAPE (price-to-earnings) ratio have been screaming “overvalued” for most of this century, but there has been almost no mean reversion since 2008 for U.S. stocks:

Why?

When you swap earnings for free cash flow (sales minus input costs, labor, taxes, and capex — basically what’s actually available to pay owners), the picture changes dramatically. Until recently, the price-to-free-cash-flow ratio bounced around but had no long-term upward drift:

Two structural shifts explain the divergence:

Labor share has declined ~8 percentage points of GDP since 1980. Less of the pie goes to workers, more goes to firm owners. This boosted earnings.
Capex has been relatively weak as a share of firm value. Firms (especially big tech) generated massive earnings without heavy reinvestment, so cash flow grew even faster than earnings.

However, that clean free-cash-flow story is under pressure right now. Some of these companies have gone from huge positive FCF to zero or negative FCF, taking on debt to fund it. Big tech has flipped from cash-generating machines to massive spenders on AI data centers, chips, and energy infrastructure.

The chart below is the same as above, but extends the data adding the last few years:

Bullish case: This is 1-2 years of heavy investment that will produce a new plateau of even higher cash flows, and AI further reduces labor share.

Bearish case: AI isn’t “free money” — even adopter firms (not just the hyperscalers) will need serious capex to implement it, and the payoff is uncertain.

Full podcast discussion on this topic on an episode of Odd Lots this week.

__________________________

There was a sudden, sharp and historically unprecedented decline in self-reported happiness in the US population. It occurred during 2020, the year of the Covid pandemic, and mainly persists through 2024.

This happiness crash spread across nearly all typical demographics and geographies. The happiest groups pre-Covid (e.g., whites, high income, well-educated and politically/ideologically right-leaning) tend to show the largest happiness reductions.

The glaring exception is marital status, which has consistently been an important marker for happiness. The already wide happiness premium for marriage has, if anything, become slightly wider. With both married and unmarried reporting large declines in happiness the country has become segregated: slightly over half-the married adults-remain happy on balance; the unmarried, nearly half, are now distinctly unhappy.