The Private Bubble, NFL Scoring & Spam Texts

A few highlights from one of the best articles I’ve read this year discussing the private equity/credit bubble:

The golden age of Private Equity – at least from the standpoint of investor returns (FUM and thus fees to sponsors were significantly lower) – was during 1980-2000, and at a slight stretch, to around the time of the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. During this era, PE delivered legitimately good returns – in some cases outstandingly so. What enabled it was that it was still a niche industry where there was a limited amount of capital chasing deals, while the backdrop was conductive.

In contrast to the 1980-2000s, private equity funds from the 2010s began paying a premium to public market valuations for (typically) small, subscale and illiquid businesses. The problem was that the same thing that always happens when too much money floods into an area happened – bidding competition heated up, target prices rose, and the opportunity that previously existed rapidly disappeared (though the vehicles’ high fee structures of course remained firmly intact). Not surprisingly, since the 2010s, and perhaps as far back as 2006, outcomes have dramatically changed, and PE has delivered generally disappointing returns and underperformed listed equities, and the magnitude of that underperformance has significantly worsened since 2022.

Warren Buffett has scrutinized PEs return calculations and found them to be “well, they’re not calculated in a manner that I would regard as honest.” All kinds of tricks can be and are used to inflate apparent relative returns. PE will often lock up commitments from investors years in advance, and only “call” the funds much later after a deal is done. The IRR calculations only include the period during which the funds are working, but investors need to keep cash in reserve as it can be called at any time, meaningfully diluting effective returns to investors.

The much bigger elephant in the room – the PE industry is currently “marking to model” and is sitting on a vast number of assets it is unable to sell – even in a bull market – because the marks are unrealistic. This will be meaningfully inflating claimed trailing returns, which remain mostly unrealized.

If you look at who private equity companies hire, it is typically ex investment bankers. These guys are deal makers and spreadsheet jockeys, not operational people, and there is no reason to believe they have any unique insights on the intricacies of running small, niche businesses, where specialized skills and decades of domain experience generally count for a lot more than general smarts.

Not to mention that as the industry has mushroomed in size, the average quality of the average hire has meaningfully degraded. Investment bankers also generally lack investment acumen. They are deal makers – a different skill set entirely.

Going even a step further – it’s probable that private equity ownership not only fails to deliver operational improvements, but very likely on net makes the operational performance of companies worse, particularly in the long term. The most obvious means by which this occurs is by saddling investees with significant levels of debt, as well as implementing wholesale asset stripping (such selling and leasing back real estate) and cutting operational costs and capital expenditures to the bone. They frequently don’t just cut the fat, but the muscle as well.

If you are apt to under invest and run the business for maximum cash extraction in the near term, jacking up prices, lowering service quality, squeezing employees, alienating customers and opening the door to competitor inroads – it may improve near term cash generation, but it often comes at the cost of long-term value degradation.

PE has now taken over a large portion of Las Vegas, for instance, and visitors routinely complain of high prices, poor customer service, and the removal of perks such as free drinks that previously endeared visitors to the strip. Visitation has been waning, and people complain Vegas has lost its charm, and has become overpriced and soulless, a victim of “corporate greed.” 

This is far from the only example. Employees and customers of PE backed hospitals and dental practices often complain of declining service standards, high prices, and a significant increase in unnecessary treatments unethically prescribed to boost near term utilization/billing.

The fair value of the combined $5 trillion of assets held in the US Private Equity/Credit industry is probably worth only about 60% of that in reality – a $2 trillion hole. When that hole is exposed, it will change economic behavior, and likely to a noticeable degree.

Private Equity/Credit: The Bubble & Its Implications

________________________________

Great article from Nate Silver this week on reasons why there is more scoring in the NFL:

(1) The number of 55+ yard field goals has increased by 3x since just 2022:

(2) Between longer field goals and the dynamic kickoff, the field has basically been shortened by 10-15 yards.

(3) Quarterback passer ratings are tied for their highest-ever at 93.6:

(4) For the first time in NFL history, quarterbacks as a collective are gaining enough rushing yards to outweigh the yards they lose from sacks:

(5) Analytics have teams successfully attempting and completing fourth down conversions:

(6) Rushing plays on 4th-and-short are being attempted (and succeeding) at extremely high rates. The tush push effect:

_______________________

If you’ve ever received a spammy text falsely alerting you to an unpaid toll or failed delivery, it might have come from a so-called Phishing-as-a-Service network that Google is now trying to take down. In just 20 days, Google alleges, Lighthouse was used to spin up 200,000 fraudulent websites to attract over a million potential victims. It estimates that somewhere between 12.7 million and 115 million credit cards in the US were compromised by the scam.

In this alleged scheme, the text would link to a spoofed USPS page asking a user to enter their personal and payment details. The page tracks users’ keystrokes, according to the complaint, so the information is compromised even if the user has second thoughts before submitting. 

__________________________

When Will We Make God? The key driver of the AI Bubble:

Hyperscalers (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, IBM) believe they might build God within the next few years. That’s one of the main reasons they’re spending billions on AI, soon trillions. They think it will take us just a handful of years to get to AGI—Artificial General Intelligence, the moment when an AI can do nearly all virtual human tasks better than nearly any human. 

They think it’s a straight shot from there to super-intelligence—an AI that is so much more intelligent than humans that we can’t even fathom how it thinks. A God. The arguments to claim we’re about to make gods are:

  • AI expertise is growing inexorably. Threshold after threshold, discipline after discipline, it masters it, and then beats humans at it.
  • We’re now tackling the PhD level.
  • In the current trajectory, we should reach AI Researcher levels soon.
  • Once we do, we can automate AI research and turbo-boost it.
  • If we do that, super-intelligence should be around the corner.

Chatfishing & Poorly Defined Problems

Why Aren’t Smart People Happier?

A good name for problems on tests that determine someone’s level of intelligence is “well-defined.” Well-defined problems can be very difficult, but they aren’t mystical. You can write down instructions for solving them. And you can put them on a test. In fact, standardized tests items must be well-defined problems, because they require indisputable answers. Matching a word to its synonym, finding the area of a trapezoid, putting pictures in the correct order—all common tasks on IQ tests—are well-defined problems.

People differ in their ability to solve well-defined problems, they’re not the only kind of problems. “Why can’t I find someone to spend my life with?” “Should I be a dentist or a dancer?” and “How do I get my child to stop crying?” are all important but “poorly defined” problems. Getting better at rotating shapes or remembering state capitals is not going to help you solve them.

One way to spot people who are good at solving poorly defined problems is to look for people who feel good about their lives; “how do I live a life I like” is a humdinger of a poorly defined problem. The rules aren’t stable: what makes you happy may make me miserable. The boundaries aren’t clear: literally anything I do could make me more happy or less happy. The problems are not repeatable: what made me happy when I was 21 may not make me happy when I’m 31.

This is why the people who score well on intelligence tests and win lots of chess games are no happier than the people who flunk the tests and lose at chess: well-defined and poorly defined problems require completely different problem-solving skills. Nobody agrees on the rules, the pieces do whatever they want, and the board covers the whole globe, as well as the inside of your head and possibly several metaphysical planes as well.

Over the last generation, we have solved tons of well-defined problems. We eradicated smallpox and polio. We landed on the moon. We built better cars, refrigerators, and televisions. We even got ~15 IQ points smarter. How much did our happiness improve? None.

We haven’t yet defined the problem of “living a happy life”. We know that if you’re starving, lonely, or in pain, you’ll probably get happier if you get food, friends, and relief. After that, the returns diminish very quickly. You could read all the positive psychology you want, take the online version of The Science of Wellbeing, read posts on hacking the hedonic treadmill, meditate, exercise, and keep a gratitude journal—and after all that, maybe you’ll be a smidge happier. Whatever else you think will put a big, permanent smile on your face, you’re probably wrong.

We fawn over people who are good at solving well-defined problems. They get to be called “professor” and “doctor.” We pay them lots of money to teach us stuff. They get to join exclusive clubs like Mensa and the Prometheus Society. 

People who are good at solving poorly defined problems don’t get the same kind of kudos. They don’t get any special titles or clubs. There is no test they can take that will spit out a big, honking number that will make everybody respect them.

And that’s a shame. My grandma does not know how to use the “input” button on her TV’s remote control, but she does know how to raise a family full of good people who love each other, how to carry on through a tragedy, and how to make the perfect pumpkin pie.

If you don’t value the ability to solve poorly defined problems, you’ll never get more of it. You won’t seek out people who have that ability and try to learn from them, nor will you listen to them when they have something important to say. You’ll spend your whole life trying to solve problems with cleverness when what you really need is wisdom. And you’ll wonder why it never really seems to work. All of your optimizing, your straining to achieve and advance, your ruthless crusade to eliminate all of the well-defined problems from your life—it doesn’t actually seem make your life any better.

_________________________

‘I realized I’d been ChatGPT-ed into bed’: how ‘Chatfishing’ made finding love on dating apps even weirder.

Standing outside the pub, 36-year-old business owner Rachel took a final tug on her vape and steeled herself to meet the man she’d spent the last three weeks opening up to. They’d matched on the dating app Hinge and built a rapport that quickly became something deeper. “From the beginning he was asking very open-ended questions, and that felt refreshing,” says Rachel.

One early message from her match read: “I’ve been reading a bit about attachment styles lately, it’s helped me to understand myself better – and the type of partner I should be looking for. Have you ever looked at yours? Do you know your attachment style?” “It was like he was genuinely trying to get to know me on a deeper level. The questions felt a lot more thoughtful than the usual, ‘How’s your day going?’” she says.

Soon, Rachel and her match were speaking daily, their conversations running the gamut from the ridiculous (favourite memes, ketchup v mayonnaise) to the sublime (expectations in love, childhood traumas). Often they’d have late-night exchanges that left her staring at her phone long after she should have been asleep. “They were like things that you read in self-help books – really personal conversations about who we are and what we want for our lives,” she says.

Which is why the man who greeted her inside the pub – polite, pleasant but oddly flat – felt like a stranger. Gone was the quickfire wit and playful rhythm she’d come to expect from their exchanges. Over pints he stumbled through small talk, checked his phone a little too often, and seemed to wilt under the pressure of her questions. “I felt like I was sitting opposite someone I’d never even spoken to,” she says. “I tried to have the same sort of conversation as we’d been having online, but it was like, ‘Knock, knock, is anyone home?’ – like he knew basically nothing about me. That’s when I suspected he’d been using AI.”

Rachel gave her date the benefit of the doubt. “I thought maybe he was nervous,” she says. But she’d been “Chatfished” before, so when the gap between his real and digital selves failed to close on their second date, she called it off. “I’d already been ChatGPT-ed into bed at least once. I didn’t want it to happen again.”

In a landscape where text-based communication plays an outsized role in the search for love, it’s perhaps understandable that some of us reach for AI’s helping hand – not everyone gives good text. Some Chatfishers, though, go to greater extremes, outsourcing entire conversations to ChatGPT, leaving their match in a dystopian hall of mirrors: believing they’re building a genuine connection with another human being when in reality they’re opening up to an algorithm trained to reflect their desires back to them.

_______________________________

Youtube is eating everything:

Comparison, Survivorship, Reciprocity & War

The Federal Reserve did a study that looked into the financial habits of Canadians whose neighbors won the lottery. The neighbors of people who struck it rich were more likely to increase their spending, take on more debt, put more money into speculative investments, and eventually file for bankruptcy. And the larger the winnings, the more likely that others in that neighborhood would go bankrupt.

It’s in our flawed nature to compare ourselves to others, particularly people we see and interact with every day. Money insecurity leads us to compete and not appreciate what we have. Also true, though, is that the research shows one thing for certain: The Joneses aren’t very happy.

An examination of 259 different independent samples found that materialism was “associated with significantly lower well-being” and was a poor way of meeting psychological needs. The researchers’ findings suggest that this association holds across different demographics, participants, and cultural factors. Another meta-analysis of 92 studies found that those pursuing goals of growth, community, giving, and health experienced significantly higher levels of well-being than those pursuing the Jones-y goals of wealth, fame, or beauty.

You’ll never be content trying to keep up with the Joneses because there is an endless supply of them to keep up with. There are always people spending more money, taking nicer trips, buying bigger houses and making more money than you are.

There was another classic psychological study that compared lottery winners with people who were paralyzed in an accident. Surprisingly, the lottery winners weren’t significantly happier than the average person and actually reported less enjoyment from everyday experiences. The big win seemed to raise their expectations, which made small daily pleasures feel less satisfying.

In contrast, many accident victims rated themselves as moderately happy, despite their life-altering injuries. While thinking about their past lives sometimes made them feel worse, they still found deep meaning and enjoyment in ordinary things because they appreciated them more. After major life changes, people adjust their expectations. Lottery winners adjusted upward and felt less satisfied. Accident victims adjusted downward and found more value in the little things.

It’s expectations all the way down. Finding contentment is probably a better goal than finding happiness.

________________________

Many of the behaviors that have made humans such a successful species, also make it difficult to be good, long-term investors. Our overreaction to short-term, visible, in-the-moment risks, is just one of them. It was important for our ancestors to run first if they heard something in the bushes that could be hungry tiger. The investment issue that we are currently worrying about is very unlikely to be as vital as we believe it to be, but it is very human to act as if it is.

_________________________

Nothing was the same after June 28, 1914. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered a chain of events that led to WWI and closed the NYSE for months. One month to the day of the assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war. Three days later, Henry Noble, president of the NYSE, closed the exchange. Other regional U.S. exchanges in Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and other cities followed suit. Most major exchanges around the world closed too.

Noble knew that wars demanded funds. Foreign investors could make a run on the exchange, selling securities to raise cash. The cash could then be converted into gold and shipped back to Europe. That put the U.S., being on the gold standard, in a tricky spot. Depleting the U.S. gold reserves would put faith in the dollar and adherence to the gold standard at risk.

  • June 28, 1914 – Archduke Ferdinand assassinated. Dow closes the next day at 57.9.
  • July 28, 1914 – Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia – World War 1 begins: Dow closed 55.3.
  • July 30, 1914 – Dow closes 51.7.
  • July 31, 1914 – NYSE & regional U.S. exchanges close the markets
  • December 12, 1914 – NYSE reopens stock market with trading limitations.
  • December 14, 1914 – Dow closes 56.8.
  • December 14, 1915 – Dow closes 98.3.

When the stock market reopened December 12, 1914, investors had four and a half months to reassess the business environment in war time. And business was good. Over the next 12 months, the Dow soared 73% (Dec. 14, 1914, to Dec. 14, 1915, not including dividends). The U.S. became the main food and war supplier for the Allies war effort. Companies like U.S. Steel and DuPont saw profits explode 5x and 10x respectively, in a year. Dividend payments did the same. WWI is the perfect example of why geopolitical events are hard to predict. The market reacts in unexpected ways during scary confusing times. 

______________________________

Reciprocity is a deeply human thing, and it applies directly to the nature of interest. If you show someone that you’re interested in them, they will reciprocate that curiosity by revealing what makes them so interesting. Believing that someone is boring is a failure of recognizing jthat fact. Boredom is almost always the result of a lack of curiosity, or the inability to see anything or anyone through the lens of a question. In a way, boredom is arrogance. It’s the acceptance of the belief that nothing is worth your interest because you already know what you need to about yourself, others, and the world. A curious mind is a humble one, as a prerequisite for curiosity is the acceptance that there is more to life than what you think you already know.

____________________________

We are a story-driven species. From cave walls to balance sheets, we look for narratives that explain the world and our place in it. And nowhere is this tendency more dangerous than when we only learn from the winners. When we allow survival alone to imply superiority. When the fact that someone or something made it through becomes enough proof that they knew what they were doing.

This is the essence of survivorship bias, and in the world of investing, it distorts almost everything. Consider the stock market, which is full of visible winners. We often hear stories of stocks that went 20x, fund managers who outperformed for a decade, companies that pivoted into success, and investors who became celebrities.

What about the others? The ones who didn’t make it? They’re barely mentioned, rarely studied, and almost never remembered. And so, the narrative we inherit is hopelessly incomplete.

Then there’s the most seductive arena of all: success stories. Business books, biographies, and podcast interviews are all proudly built on the same question: “How did you do it?”But that question, when asked only of survivors, creates a dangerous narrative. It turns randomness into wisdom and luck into method.

A founder who succeeded against all odds is praised for her vision, her grit, and her intuition. But what about the 100 others who had the same qualities and failed? What about the timing, the macro conditions, the investor interest, the random tailwinds that no one could have planned? None of that gets included in the final story. And so we start to think: this is how success works. This is the roadmap. Just do what she did.

Survivorship bias also affects how we view risk. When risky behaviour pays off, it’s reframed as boldness or foresight. But when it doesn’t, there’s no reframing…just silence. The lesson that reaches the public, though, is clear: take bold bets. It worked for him, it could work for you. But that’s the equivalent of watching five Russian roulette winners and deciding the game must be safe.

_________________________

Foreigners have steadily increased their holdings of US equities and currently own 18% of the US stock market, see chart below. This is the mirror image of a trade deficit. Foreigners selling goods to the US receive dollars in return, which are then used to purchase US assets, including US equities. If the trade deficit is eliminated, there will be fewer dollars for foreigners to recycle into the S&P 500.