The post Jesse Jackson: A Tribute appeared first on CEPR.



 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Douglas and Heather Boneparth, Money Together, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

Interview with Doug Boneparth and Heather Boneparth Podcast Transcript

[00:00:02] Announcer: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:00:16] Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast I have an extra special guest. Guest, plural Heather and Doug Boneparth. I’ve known Doug for, I don’t know, 10 years. Yeah, maybe something like that. And Heather, for a couple of years when I went to their book party and dragged my brother-in-law, ’cause he was in the neighborhood, he was there, we sat and had a conversation and I’m like, yeah, a book about couples money. This is gonna be, you know, it is what it is. And as we were chatting, I’m like, son of a gun. This is a really interesting topic for the podcast. I have to have them on. And I thought this conversation was absolutely fascinating. Not just about power dynamics within a relationship, but everything from budgeting, prenup agreements, inheritance communication. Really. This was really fascinating. I found it super interesting. And I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth. Thanks for

[00:01:16] Doug Boneparth: Having us. Thanks for having us, Barry.

[00:01:18] Barry Ritholtz: So I’ve been excited to have you come talk about this since your book party. ‘Cause it is not the usual financial book. It is a lot of stories. You guys have interviewed hundreds of couples. But before we get to the book, I wanna just dive a little bit into your backgrounds. Heather, you went to law school at, at my alma mater, Benjamin and Cardozo School of Law in New York City. I didn’t

[00:01:45] Heather Boneparth: Know

[00:01:45] Barry Ritholtz: That. Yes, we both went there. Oh, I love that. Not, not at the same time. And Doug, you got your MBA from NYU Stern, very different career paths. Tell us what, what were the original plans?

[00:01:57] Heather Boneparth: Well, the original plan for a, for an elder millennial like myself, I think got thrown out the window, you know, during the Great Recession in 2008. So I was in law school when that happened. Ooh. Yeah. And so I graduated in a very different labor environment than the one I entered school in. So my expectations were not met. I mean, that’s an understatement. So, you know, I, I ended up in the world of commercial insurance, which shouldn’t surprise you that that was not exactly what I went to school for.

[00:02:25] Barry Ritholtz: I thought you loved commercial insurance.

[00:02:27] Heather Boneparth: You know what, I, I, I ended up having, you know, having a fine career in that for over 13 years. And I, I really like learning a lot about risk, which we write a lot about in the book. But that was certainly not the path and the reason that I went there and, and so much of my earliest money stories as a young adult were really wrapped up in the shame that came from graduating law school with six figures of student loan debt to a labor environment that was not welcoming to, to young lawyers.

[00:02:54] Barry Ritholtz: And, and the studies show you graduate into a recession, your lifetime earnings are actually lower than people who graduate into a boom, which is really interesting sort of thing. Doug, MBA from NYU Stern, what was the plan?

[00:03:08] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. So by the time I made it to grad school, I was still focused on building my own wealth management firm and building a book of business. I grew up the son of a certified financial planner. So I’ve done nothing else in my professional life. That

[00:03:19] Barry Ritholtz: Was always the plan from start

[00:03:21] Doug Boneparth: Was always the plan. That’s what I was doing during college. Undergraduate, went to New York City as a love story, wanted to be with Heather. And that was October, literally October, 2008. I’m getting off a plane. Nothing was really

[00:03:33] Barry Ritholtz: Going

[00:03:33] Doug Boneparth: On. Nothing was happening. Nice and chill, watching it all.

[00:03:37] Heather Boneparth: He moved to New York City with a duffle bag and a dream. Absolutely. Like straight out of a movie.

[00:03:40] Doug Boneparth: I shipped up three boxes and went to Sleepy’s on fifth to get a bed that day. Random roommate on Craigslist.

[00:03:45] Barry Ritholtz: My, my wife and I watched a whole bunch of rom-coms over the holidays. And this is like, this is setup

[00:03:53] Doug Boneparth: For one of them. We’re

[00:03:54] Barry Ritholtz: We’re leaving out, you two meet as freshmen at the University of Florida. So you guys have been together since freshman year, is that right?

[00:04:02] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, since 1918. 19.

[00:04:04] Heather Boneparth: Since 1819.

[00:04:05] Doug Boneparth: 1819. Since 1819.

[00:04:06] Barry Ritholtz: So it’s a hundred, 130 years

[00:04:08] Heather Boneparth: Going on, you know, and, and, and I think we make this point too, then, and, and we’re, we’re transparent about this. We’re not perfect. I mean, Doug and I, I would say lived the lifecycle of some marriages before even getting married. Right. I mean, we had to figure out what it would look like to, to be adults and grow up together or apart. I mean, they were a couple years there where we didn’t know whether we had a future together. When I went to New York City, he moved home to work for his father and, and and where’s home?

[00:04:36] Doug Boneparth: South Florida. Boca Raton.

[00:04:38] Barry Ritholtz: Okay. Oh my god. Boca Raton. Wow. So, so wait, so you meet when you’re 18 or 19 years old? Yeah. Just about when did you first start talking about money with each other? Was that way off in the future or was that an early conversation?

[00:04:54] Heather Boneparth: It was not a conversation for a long time. I don’t think we really started talking about money together until we came back together and said like, it was really after law school that we took a hard look at, at each other and where we had been and where we were. And we said, we wanna give this a real shot. We wanna start our adult lives

[00:05:11] Doug Boneparth: Together. Our adult shot together. Yeah. But we were observing money behaviors for our entire time dating throughout. That’s right. Undergraduate. And probably me observing Heather more than Heather observing me. You’re an only child product of divorce. Her story is shared in detail in the book. So I was, as the son of a financial advisor and working in an advisory practice, probably getting a lot more observation points on Heather than her on me. But to Heather’s point, when we ultimately had decisions, joint financial decisions to make, such as sharing rent, the typical stuff that couples come together for, I would say because we had those observation points around each other, and obviously being together for so long before we needed to make decisions, it played in our favor and helped us navigate it. Although I don’t think you or I anticipated multiple six figures of graduate student loan debt. Right. As this big boulder. We had to figure out how to move in our financial puzzle.

[00:06:09] Heather Boneparth: And I don’t think that he could have anticipated the weight that the debt would have on me. And, you know, it, it is so interesting and, and, and we interviewed a couple for the book, and I would say the same for Doug too. Like, there’s people who view debt, especially like debt from higher education as you know, this is an investment in myself. It’s an opportunity. It was a necessary evil to get where I need to go. That was not the message that I was telling myself. My debt was not a, some outside, you know, hurt financial hurdle. My debt was me. It stood for everything that I wasn’t really,

[00:06:42] Barry Ritholtz: I’m so shocked to hear. I mean, having read the book, and I know you not as much as I know Doug, but I know you, I’m, I’m really kind of surprised at that. I can compartmentalize things like that. And just like, I remember when we were young and broke and my wife used to sit there Sunday nights writing checks out and she’s like, we don’t have enough money to send all seven checks. I’m like, that’s easy. Send the check, don’t sign it to whichever one. And they’ll bounce it back and, you know, try again. Just remember which one you could do. You could rotate through seven and by then hopefully we’ll have a little more money. She was aghast at that. I could not possibly care less. It,

[00:07:23] Heather Boneparth: It, it’s so interesting. And there, there were elements of it that we were totally okay with. Like I remember we first moved in together on the upper West Side. We would go to Fairway to the grocery store and we had like our set of like, of of very affordable meats that we could get every week. Yeah. Every week we ate the same things and I packed us lunch every single day. Yeah. To go to work. And I was completely okay with that. But anytime there was a major financial decision we had to make, or anytime there was even like the smallest hiccup with my student loan debt repayment. Oh, oh. I mean, I would, it would send me into these like deep emotional spirals. And they were not just about the money. It was like, I am worthless. I’m never going to get anywhere in my career. I can’t believe I did this to myself. Like it really ran so deep I was punishing myself.

[00:08:09] Barry Ritholtz: So there’s a line in the book that I, I wanna bring up here. ‘Cause it very much relates to what you’re saying. Quote, most money conflicts aren’t really about money. Explain what, what are, what are they actually about? Yeah,

[00:08:24] Doug Boneparth: It’s, so we have a whole first section of this book that touches on our beginnings, right? Who we are in our relationship with. Money starts long before you meet your partner. It is the meals you shared with your family where you went on vacation. Maybe it’s some trauma you experienced or the socioeconomic status both from the side of being privileged all the way to food insecurity or housing insecurity. Our cultures, our religion. It is almost endless the amount of touch points in our past that shaped the way we feel about money that we bring into our relationships that we bring into our adulthood. So when we are having an emotional response to money, it’s usually not the number on the screen or the check you’re writing and the bill you can or cannot pay. It is something you’re fixing it to that you’ve experienced. And if you can get to the bottom of that, if you can create that relationship, you’re gonna be that much better off in evolving and having a better financial relationship. Because now you gotta bring all that to your partner who also has all of that in their own unique way. And I think that right there shows you how difficult this particular topic is around love and money.

[00:09:38] Barry Ritholtz: So when you guys sit down with a couple to talk about money and financial planning, what’s the biggest mistake you see? What do most couples, what’s the biggest error that that comes up? Time. And again,

[00:09:50] Heather Boneparth: They’re not communicating, they’re not communicating either substantively about these issues, about, they’re not going deep enough to understand why they feel the way they feel in a very surface level, very surface level. And they’re getting caught in these surface level disagreements, right? It’s, it’s these behaviors that happen over and over again because we’re not taking the time to dig deeper to understand what’s actually going on, like what Doug just said. Because that’s how you build empathy for one another. You may not agree with the way your partner approaches it, but if you don’t even understand why they feel the way they feel, you’re never going to get past those squabbles over spending or about what you’re saving for and being misaligned on your goals unless you’re taking that extra step to really understand empathy builds that bridge in people

[00:10:35] Barry Ritholtz: Communication. Doug, you you wanna say something else? Yeah, I

[00:10:37] Doug Boneparth: Like putting examples and stories behind that. You have someone who does the shopping in a household, they come home with an extra bag of rice or we already have that item. The other partner gets very upset. We already have four chicken broths and you bought two more. Maybe, you know, is it that they spent the money on two more boxes of chicken broth or is it because there were some issues with food security growing up and that is plaguing their identity around money. So they fight about the chicken broth.

[00:11:05] Heather Boneparth: Not we did interview. Yeah, yeah. We interviewed someone who came from, and it’s, I think it’s a great example, came from extreme adverse childhood experiences. They experienced homelessness, abuse,

[00:11:17] Barry Ritholtz: Living in the car, I remember.

[00:11:18] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. Living in the car. And one of the ways that played out in his young adult life was always overstocking his fridge and always overstocking that his pantry, because you never wanted to feel the safety, you feel safety in being over con over consumptive as an adult. So just one example of how that shows up. I, I’m

[00:11:37] Barry Ritholtz: Not a prepper, but we had plenty of paper towels and toilet paper heading into the pandemic, which you write about. One of the things that shocked me in the book was the whole debate about joint accounts, separate accounts, hybrid. I mean, to me, this is partnership blasphemy. I had to ask my wife this morning, Hey, when did we set up our joint account? And she’s like, don’t you remember we were leaving for our honeymoon. We got married on a, on a Sunday afternoon, we got home a Sunday and knew we got home at like six, seven o’clock. We signed all the checks, gave it to our neighbor to deposit. That was our opening deposit in our joint account. Anybody I know that doesn’t have a, everybody I know who’s married disproportionately has joint accounts if they’re still married. And we went over the other day talking about this over all the couples we know that are divorced, how many of them did not have joint accounts and a disproportionate number that we knew about because she’s usually friends with the wife. I’m friends with the husband. Sure. Sometimes we, after divorce, you inherit one side or the other. I don’t choose. I don’t, I don’t understand how you could get married and not pull your assets, pull the financial responsibility or at least the discussions about what are we spending, how much is a vacation, what are we spending on shoes or watches or whatever. And I I I’m genuinely shocked. That’s a debate. What did you guys find?

[00:13:15] Heather Boneparth: I would start with the caveat that I think that there are legitimate reasons why people are apprehensive to join and pool all of their finances together. If it’s a second marriage or if somebody came from maybe an abusive family, like there could be legitimate reasons why

[00:13:29] Barry Ritholtz: Or come from a lot of money

[00:13:30] Heather Boneparth: Or come from a lot of money, which, you know, there’s,

[00:13:32] Barry Ritholtz: Well, they may have a separate trust or a separate account, but at the very least isn’t there a households account you’re paying the mortgage and rent, you’re paying for vacations, clothes, food. Oh, we’ve, its entertainment. We’ve

[00:13:43] Heather Boneparth: Seen it all. We

[00:13:44] Doug Boneparth: Completely agree. Completely agree with you on this. That having a joint account puts you in the best position to work as a team.

[00:13:50] Barry Ritholtz: You’re partners. Right? Exactly. Yeah.

[00:13:52] Heather Boneparth: Communication, again, playing team again. And also just the transparency, right. Of of being able to see what comes in and out and save for joint goals together. I mean, we talk about this, there’s of course there might be reasons why you don’t. Yeah. But there’s no question that you’re gonna, all the data work, it’s gonna work better

[00:14:07] Doug Boneparth: At the all the data points to that your relationship will work out better in general and financially. If you are taking a team approach to your finances, imagine, you know, playing the same game on two separate fields. That’s insane. Right? Right. What are you doing here? But there is one thing, regardless of how you set it up, and I think in practice we always encourage clients to do what works for them. But the thing you need to have is transparency. You wanna have your own individual account, you wanna have your own individual account. You wanna chop up the expenses. By the way, that scales horribly. Right? When you start bringing family into it, having

[00:14:43] Barry Ritholtz: Children, yeah. Whatcha

[00:14:44] Doug Boneparth: Gonna do pay 25% of the formula because they make 25% of the household income for the baby. This isn’t, this is crazy stuff, right? But if you have transparency and everyone has access to each other’s bank accounts and you’re doing these reviews and everyone knows where everything is, sure, I could see pathways for that working. But again, I don’t, and we would all agree this is not the most effective way to manage a household financial situation. And what

[00:15:09] Heather Boneparth: We found in speaking to so many relationship coaches and couples, therapists and psychologists, is that this, this money, this money topic actually translates to couples therapy as well. The idea of yours, mine and ours. No one is saying that you need to come together as some like homogenous blob. And now you’re just one person and all your assets are pulled goals, all

[00:15:29] Doug Boneparth: Your goals are the same.

[00:15:30] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. Pulled

[00:15:31] Doug Boneparth: No, you are supposed to maintain your individuality and have individual goals, whatever that may mean. If that could mean individual financial goals, we take no issue with that. Yours, mine, and ours. It’s, it’s the same in couple’s work.

[00:15:43] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My guest today are Heather and Doug Boneparth. They are the authors of the book, Money Together, How to Find Fairness in Your Relationship and Become an Unstoppable Financial Team. So communication and transparency, pretty straightforward. And with a little hindsight obvious, what was the biggest surprise? What did couples say to you where you kind of looked across each other and said, what the hell is that about? Like, what shocked you?

[00:16:47] Doug Boneparth: Heather would always say, and I would agree with her, often the things that shocked us were the things that were not being said. For example, you would ask a very forward question, or rather you would pick up, I would do a lot of this over Zoom. You’d pick up body language. You would see one partner zoning out or spacing out or not engaging. So those were all tells that there was something greater going on. On that particular topic.

[00:17:14] Barry Ritholtz: What sort, what sort of topics engender that sort of response? Is it the full spectrum or were there things that were like, I could imagine credit card debt and reckless spending being an issue. That’s obvious. What what surprised you?

[00:17:32] Heather Boneparth: You know, where I saw this come up and I, and I, it, it always caused me to kind of tilt my head and and wanna know more was when you would see one spouse, it was typically a, a man who was running his own business or an entrepreneur. And it really felt like it was, was his show and, and the risks that he were to be taking, and this happened more than once, felt like they really did not consider the family as a whole. It felt very, very much like, well this is my plan and if it doesn’t work, burn it all to the ground. And you could see his wife sitting next to him aghast, like aghast, but silently aghast. Like you could see that it was like, she’s like, you’re right. Like this is, this is his ride. And, and we are all, I would say along with it, but being held hostage by it.

[00:18:20] Heather Boneparth: Wow. And that, that was where we saw this, the silence and the body language play in. And I’ve set Doug, like we interviewed a a couple folks who like had been in bankruptcy for business ideas of theirs. And that’s fine. But like, just the, just the, the lack of accountability to the rest, to his partner and to his children and just saying, well, and I’ll try again and I’ll, and I’ll keep trying again. Like, what kind of rollercoaster are you bringing your family on if she doesn’t feel like she has a voice to even be part of this discussion that we’re having right

[00:18:49] Barry Ritholtz: Now. Seeing someone without agency. Yeah. Is not a good thing to look at. It doesn’t look good. And you can see it if you’re asking the right questions or you’re a financial professional and you’re looking at that situation. Yeah. It’s, it’s pretty ugly. And I have to ask about this since we were talking earlier about dividing some household work and, and responsibility. How did you do this work together? How did each of you contribute? You work together as writing together a different experience?

[00:19:21] Heather Boneparth: It’s a journey. Yeah, it was a journey, Barry. This was something. So I, writing is a huge part of my life. I was a journalism major in undergrad. I, there was a very long time of my life where I had only hoped to get back to a moment like this where I could use my words and my storytelling ability and my, and my question asking ability, which was honed three years as a lawyer to write something like this, to find a way to help people through my writing. So the, we always kind of knew that I would be taking the lead when it came to writing. Yeah. The words on the page of this book. But Doug and I sat together on 90% of these interviews. Of the couples. Yeah. Many of the experts. And the way that we would do this is we’d have like a big picture meeting.

[00:20:02] Heather Boneparth: We would talk through different chapters. Eventually they all fell into the five sections of the book. And then I, I would draft it and I would put it to him. And I would say, does this one make sense from a, from a practitioner standpoint? Like, are we covering enough of the basis from a practitioner standpoint and two from a, from a male lens, we wanted to write a book. I think one of the greatest challenges in writing this book was not us working together. We’ve worked together in many different ways over the course of our careers, but how do we write something that resonates with all genders?

[00:20:34] Barry Ritholtz: So I know Doug’s voice, which is kind of snarky and funny. And I got the sense that you did most of the writing in this, at least in terms of, I don’t wanna say feminine, feminine, but it’s a gentle se sensitive, the right word. Like, like

[00:20:53] Heather Boneparth: Empathetic,

[00:20:53] Barry Ritholtz: Empathetic tone. Yeah. Which I don’t get from Doug’s tweets. No, but here’s the, the more interesting question. When you guys went through the whole process of drafting and editing and writing the book, did it change at all how you guys talked about money with each other? How you thought about it? Yes. Like reading the book might affect some people. How did writing the book affect you two as a married couple?

[00:21:18] Heather Boneparth: Oh my goodness. In

[00:21:19] Doug Boneparth: Profound ways.

[00:21:20] Heather Boneparth: In profound ways. In so many ways. I mean, I, I will tell you that some of the couples we interviewed completely changed my perspective on what it means to have enough. Yeah.

[00:21:31] Barry Ritholtz: Really.

[00:21:32] Heather Boneparth: And, and, and that it was, these were perspective shifting relationships that we’ve made with some of these folks.

[00:21:39] Barry Ritholtz: Give, give us an example.

[00:21:41] Heather Boneparth: Well, on one hand we interviewed many couples who objectively on paper live a very different socioeconomic life than we do. They live in a, in a lower cost of living area. They make it work on a lot less. And they, they have love, they have family, a roof over their head. Have they have a roof over their head? And they have enough. We asked every couple that we interviewed, do you have enough? And the answers said so much. And they gave us such perspective. So like there are couples that on paper are, are, are living a very different life. Sure. Than we are, you know, objectively of less privilege. And they just were so happy and content and proud of where they were. And I think sometimes when you’re an ambitious, Doug and I are both,

[00:22:24] Doug Boneparth: We’ll flip it, we’ll flip it around, right? We interviewed a lot of people who are highly successful entrepreneurial building their second, maybe third business. And we asked that same question, don’t have enough. It was never enough.

[00:22:36] Heather Boneparth: Brought them to tears

[00:22:37] Barry Ritholtz: Really

[00:22:38] Doug Boneparth: So serious when, when they realized like, Hey, we just reflected on all this amazing stuff you did. You know, you’re telling us you, you don’t have enough. And then kind of that moment, that pause where they realized like, oh my God, what is my enough? Or they look at, I mean, it ran deep sometimes the, the family, they didn’t start the second child. They maybe didn’t have the time. They didn’t get with their spouse to enjoy something in their life.

[00:23:01] Heather Boneparth: I think that maybe one of the greatest things we learned. And it, and it made its way into the book, not only through those conversations, but we had conversations with folks who were dealing with life threatening sickness or terminal illness. And we realized that time is the greatest currency that we have. Of course. And I know we can say it, but to really believe it and feel it. And I think that we embody that now in our life.

[00:23:25] Barry Ritholtz: Let, let me float a theory at you about enough. I think if you’re in middle class or upper middle class or lower middle class, the range is pretty tight. Like upper middle class is a lawyer, an accountant making a couple hundred grand bottom of that group is somebody in civil service making 40, 50, 60 grand. That’s the range. Once you’re in the top 10, 1.1%, it’s from a million a year to billions. And no matter how much money you have, there’s always a tier above it that seems to be, gee, you know, if I just made another million dollars a year, I could fly private move from

[00:24:06] Heather Boneparth: Succession. The fi. Didn’t Tom say that in Succession?

[00:24:09] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Tom says it to Greg. Oh, 5 million, you know. Yeah. It’s, you know, the worst kind of rich there is not, not enough to retire. Right. You know, too much to do nothing, you know, whatever. Too know

[00:24:21] Doug Boneparth: Too much to do. Nothing. Not enough to retire.

[00:24:23] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. You know, I love that show. But going back to what this process did for us in our relationship, you have thought, and, and I will chime in and say, for me personally and selfishly the amount of work that needed to be put into myself in order to, because this, this book is a product of major life decisions Heather and I made three and a half years ago to leave 13 years of being a corporate attorney, which was the very reason that’s stability, the, the benefits, the salary. That was the stability I needed to grow and be the entrepreneur. And I, I

[00:25:07] Barry Ritholtz: Have, I have to interrupt you. I have the exact same experience. My wife was a teacher for 35 years. The firm launched in 2013. I didn’t feel like it was a risk, but at the very least, hey, healthcare is covered. Yep. All these things you don’t have to worry about. And I had the conversation with my wife, are you okay, first of all, changing careers from a lawyer to finance, but then, hey, I know I’m making a decent salary, but I want to go do this on my own. Yeah. I think there’s an opportunity here. And she was like, go for it.

[00:25:37] Doug Boneparth: Not to spoil the book, but I got very comfortable after having reached certain goals in building the firm, that I probably would’ve kept feeling comfortable and having Heather continue being an attorney at her job forever

[00:25:56] Heather Boneparth: Burying the lead here. Yes. That in that moment in time was also the time that we had two very small children. COVID hit. COVID hit when we had an 11 month old and a 4-year-old. Wow. At

[00:26:06] Barry Ritholtz: Home. So you’re stuck at home. That’s time.

[00:26:08] Heather Boneparth: That’s tough. Yep. I’m working a corporate job, corporate legal job in a GC’s office of a Fortune 100 company from home taking care of our two children and also moonlighting as Doug’s business associate for the firm, which I’ve basically helped to build from the ground up, you know? Yeah.

[00:26:21] Doug Boneparth: There’s never been a day that I haven’t been doing that she wasn’t my co-pilot helping me make critical decisions. I was, she’s working three jobs

[00:26:27] Heather Boneparth: Here, but I was working three jobs and I was being stretched so thin that I felt like I had completely lost myself in trying to stay above water. And there was a moment where we said, you know, we formed this whole cruise ship of our life around servicing the risk that you were taking in starting this firm. But when is it about me again?

[00:26:48] Barry Ritholtz: So let’s, let’s talk a little bit about. Sure. The stories from your marriage, and I have to ask, it’s all narrative, no spreadsheets. Why did you decide to tell this story in a narrative format?

[00:27:02] Doug Boneparth: There’s been too, there’s enough books on budgeting and spreadsheets. Tons. Yeah. Enough people have tried to do it. And I, and also,

[00:27:09] Heather Boneparth: Also also a perfect budget’s not gonna solve much for the dynamics of your relationship with someone.

[00:27:16] Doug Boneparth: That’s right. There’s a reason that folks have not read this book before and it’s because doing this stuff is emotional work. It’s personal work. It requires understanding stories and hearing things you may not want to hear. That goes way, way, way deeper than the numbers. So we wanted to do something that we felt like would really uncover the things that weren’t being said. Like there were so many invisible moments that I, I hope we made visible in this book.

[00:27:44] Barry Ritholtz: So you bring a lot of therapists and psychologists. Yes. And, and couples counselors into the book. The question that was running through my head as I was going through that is, hey, at what point should any couple get professional help? Be it working with a financial planner or go into a couple’s therapy or, or a shrink to help them work out their emotional issues?

[00:28:09] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. So, you know, probably self-serving statement here all along on people using professionals to help them find the time and the space and the agency to talk about things that need to be discussed. But, you know, there’s never a bad time. I think if you can first recognize that you’re going to need help finding the space, finding the time, right. Self-starting is, for me personally, one of the hardest things that I struggle with. So I’m always open to finding people who can help me do that. But I think in practically speaking, if you are both wanting to improve and not being able to get past step one, like every conversation you’re having, Hey, let’s, let’s sit down and have our, you know, money date, our conversation and every time you’ve attempted to do that has resulted in, you know, a fight

[00:28:58] Heather Boneparth: Or, or you avoiding it for two months afterwards. So you didn’t get anywhere

[00:29:01] Doug Boneparth: Or you’re not develop. So what we want you to do is develop a practice around talking about money with your partner to Heather’s point, it’s been eight months, you were supposed to talk three months after that first one. You’re not creating practice and discipline and consistency. If this is happening you two over and over again, and the frustration, is there time to start finding other solutions? Maybe outsourcing that to a professional is the way to go. That could be a financial professional, that could be a therapist, that could be a marriage counselor of

[00:29:26] Heather Boneparth: This or a financial therapist. I mean, correct. There, there are some folks that are carrying such deeply rooted shame around money into their relationship. That’s not something your partner can unwind by themselves. It’s

[00:29:38] Doug Boneparth: Not their job to fix it either.

[00:29:39] Barry Ritholtz: You, you talk about money stories that people bring into a marriage or a relationship. Right. What are some of the ones that you know really resonated with you?

[00:29:48] Heather Boneparth: The stories that we heard? Yeah. You know, I think stories that were steeped in people’s culture, the cultural messages that they brought into their relationship. There was a woman from Taiwan who, who received a higher education here in the US and she brought into her marriage these scripts about what she, what she could, what she felt like she deserved, and what she was allowed to strive for in her life.

[00:30:20] Barry Ritholtz: Is this the woman who had to go home to settle her father’s estate?

[00:30:23] Heather Boneparth: No, no. Different, different woman. We heard a little bit about her story in the, in the culture chapter of the book. But I just remember her talking to us about how she was always taught not to live a small life, but to live like a demure life. To not showcase her wealth, to not strive for too much wealth. Perfect example. She graduated with a grad degree from Columbia and she was waiting tables at the restaurant down the street from her, her dorm. And she was eating the leftovers off people’s plates. She felt like that was what she deserved. Deserved. Yeah. Like i i the, these are stories that she carried into her relationship and trying to find a way to like marry those messages with one somebody else’s, but two, to like build a life that reflects both of your values when you’re kind of questioning what place those values even have in your life. Right. So somebody, one of the financial therapists that we spoke to, my friend Asia Evans, I remember she said, people who carry that into their adult relationship have to be asked, are the circumstances in which you were taught those things actually even present in your life today? And if you’re answering that question, no, well, there’s stuff that needs to

[00:31:32] Barry Ritholtz: Change to let go.

[00:31:32] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. So, so how do you have couples that have never really had this money conversation? How do you have them take the first step? Where should they be beginning?

[00:31:42] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, so we are very long on, we call them money dates. You can call them whatever you like, but you have to have a forum in which you first are sitting down to discuss things relating to your financial life. And we talk about the best practices of having to do this. Right. You don’t start with the numbers typically. That’s a great way to get someone to flee the scene right then and

[00:32:02] Heather Boneparth: There. And, and that’s why at the end of each section in the book, we offer a list of like eight to 10 conversation starters. You don’t need to do them all at once. You don’t even need to do them all ever. Yeah. But the point being conversation starters on how we start to learn a little bit more about what’s bothering the other person, what they’re carrying into the relationship. Sure.

[00:32:18] Doug Boneparth: And what you do here, instead of focusing on numbers and talking about, here’s another one you don’t wanna do. Talk about what went wrong this quarter or what’s not working. Flip both those things around. What did work? What are the wins you should be celebrating? We wanna build momentum here. Talk about the goals that you both share. I know if I say, Hey, can we talk about that vacation? We wanna go on that chair’s pulling right up. We’re sitting down and I got a nice way to then talk about the budget and get into the numbers. Right? We almost do this categorically backwards. And what we need to do is understand the rule book for creating those consistent conversations that we need to be having regularly. Little things, time and place matter, right? We call it family rush hour. The time the kids come home from school to just shy of going to bed. This is probably the absolute worst time to conduct anything having to do with our lives, let alone our financial lives. You loved

[00:33:11] Heather Boneparth: That, that was your favorite time to talk about money.

[00:33:13] Doug Boneparth: I, I would run out of my three o’clock appointment when we were marooned in our house. Heather, guess what? And she’s like, kids throwing food all over the place. One kid, she’s like, what do you got for me, Doug? This is a great time to talk about this. It was the worst. A spaghetti hanging on you. Yeah. She would return the favor. We’re exhausted. It’s 10:30 at night, she wants to get into all the serious stuff. We’re gas. I’m like, I, I can’t, I can’t even keep my eyes open, let alone follow along. So time and place matter. What do you like to do together? Can you carve that out? Put it on the calendar, set the reminder, pre-schedule those meetings, do stuff you like to do. So I say can’t wait to go do that. And you’re not canceling that. These are little things that when you build a practice around them, go a very long way.

[00:33:56] Doug Boneparth: Because if you’re doing this quarterly and we suggest you do speak comprehensive or not the data, you’re gonna talk day to day about money, week to week about money. We’re talking comprehensive view of your financial life on a quarterly basis. That’s not a lot of cracks at that during the year. Right. You’re getting four. Great. We now can divide by four. So over multiple years, right? Two years. Eight, 12, count by four here. That’s not a lot, but it’s going to take a very long time. These are long games. Do you go to the gym one time after not working out and find yourself in the best shape of your life? No. You will be sore. Go to the gym four times a week for six months. I can almost guarantee you will be in the best shape of your life. Do these quarterly meetings over three years. You should have this figured out and you should be getting there with your partner. I

[00:34:40] Barry Ritholtz: Love this quote from one of the chapter titles. Being prepared is better than trying to predict what will happen. Is that preparation, is that planning, is this all part of the same concept of getting people to talk, having them focus on this? Yeah,

[00:34:54] Heather Boneparth: Absolutely. I, I think that one of the hardest things for people to do is accept that we don’t know what’s going to happen. Right. And I spent years dealing in risk for, for work. And I think it’s just really hard to accept that you could do everything right and it, things still may not pan out the way that you wanted them to. But when we embrace that, we embrace that there’s 10 different ways to get to the goal. You want not just the one that you guys locked in on five years ago and you hoped this was the one way we would get there. ‘Cause disappointment looks for space closest to home. Right? So if you are not making it there, you’re not, those expectations aren’t being met. We can’t take those five steps to get to that one financial goal. And then you’re taking it outta one another. You’re beginning to to resent one another. But when you embrace this idea that life is fickle, things are unexpected, we don’t know what’s going to be required of us next year. We don’t know whose job is going to be stable two years from now. Even though it feels great today. Everything’s gravy today. We don’t know two years from now when you embrace that idea of flexibility, fluidity, and being nimble in your relationship, you’re able to work better together as a team and pick up slack for one another when you need each other.

[00:36:03] Doug Boneparth: Do you wanna know, you know, when people say, oh, enjoy the journey, you know, you’ll get to the end goal, but enjoy the journey. The people that are capable of actually enjoying whatever journey they’re on are the ones that have put themselves in flexible enough of a situation that when life inevitably hits you across the face. And I guarantee you it will, it does it every single time. Those who are more proactive in their response versus those who are reacting and running around as if this is the worst thing that ever happened. Those are the people that are enjoying their journey. Hey, we knew something, you know, something wild was gonna take place. We have a plan for that. Let’s go. Well great.

[00:36:39] Heather Boneparth: Change it up. Great example from our own lives. We always knew that someday I had hoped to work at the firm and that we were gonna do our business together. But the time in which that came about was because my corporate job very pretty suddenly wanted us back in the office four days a week. It kind of came outta the blue. We weren’t prepared for it from a childcare standpoint. And instead of, you know, we could have solved for it, we could have solved for it. I could have gotten a babysitter, I could have gone back. We looked at each other and we said, is this the moment to accelerate this goal that we’ve always had? Do we take this as a sign from the universe? It was a little, it was a little backwards from what we were planning. We thought we had a couple more years of runway before we would take this leap together. But we took it and, and you know what, like it was unexpected, but it worked out for now, you know, everything’s for now. ‘Cause we don’t know what two years from now will bring.

[00:37:29] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. I mentioned there’s a lot of narrative letter storytelling in the book, but there was a data point jumped right outta the book and grabbed me 15% or more of marriages today involve a prenuptial agreement 20, 25 years ago that was less than 5%. Oh yeah. That’s a shocking change. What’s behind it? Why is this changed so much?

[00:37:54] Heather Boneparth: I think that there’s lots of ways to obtain a prenup now. I mean there’s even companies now that are offering more of a prefab, there

[00:38:01] Doug Boneparth: Are platforms for this right

[00:38:02] Heather Boneparth: There, there are platforms solving, solving

[00:38:03] Barry Ritholtz: There forms for a prenup. But

[00:38:06] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. But now we’ve made it. Yeah, we’ve made it frictionless. Now

[00:38:10] Doug Boneparth: You took the word outta my mouth. This has become a, a frictionless process for a lot of folks.

[00:38:14] Barry Ritholtz: A prenup app. You just work your way through it. Yes.

[00:38:16] Heather Boneparth: That’s it. Yes, there are several, but I think also the way that millennials feel about prenups is that they’re starting. I think also when this is anecdotal, I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think a lot of us are products of divorce. I think you have, you have a generation. Yeah, yeah. Right. You have a generation aging into adulthood and, and into marriages where we’ve seen our parents, half

[00:38:35] Doug Boneparth: Marriage, millennials have watched their parents, you know, go through divorce and they’re saying, well, I don’t wanna witness or be a part of what I just saw them go through.

[00:38:44] Heather Boneparth: And I, and I think so much now, people understand that a prenup is not setting your marriage up to fail. It is outlining expectations for certain situations happening. It’s just a contract. Right. It can also outline certain expectations for during the course of your marriage. It doesn’t have to just be limited to the dissolution of your marriage. And I think that our generation. Yeah. In particular is very, is is very keen on opportunities to have our expectations managed even with the people that we love the

[00:39:15] Barry Ritholtz: Most. So there’s a quote in the book that I was kind of never really thought about, but you made me think about it. Quote, when you marry into money, the privilege might come with strings attached. Oh yeah. Explain that.

[00:39:25] Doug Boneparth: Absolutely. So speaking of expectations here, so when you’re the married in, the person who is marrying in a family of, you know, substance or, or wealth, right? You’re probably gonna get to experience a number of things that are a product of the family that you’ve married into. It could be vacations, it could be here’s your house or a down payment on your house. And you would think, well that’s really wonderful. Go give your in-laws, you know, a hug and a kiss for that on

[00:39:56] Heather Boneparth: It. And it is really wonderful. It is.

[00:39:57] Doug Boneparth: Yes it is. It is. But I hear a but coming. But in many cases, this sets up expectations now that this family has for this person. It could be how they raise their kids. It could be how you act and behave on vacations. How you spend the idea that maybe your financial household isn’t even your financial household. It’s there. So where’s your agency? Where’s your independence? It sets up a lot of what ifs. Right? What if this doesn’t work out? Where does that leave me? What if I might lose my husband due to really sad state of affairs? Then what am I going to be supported? So setting expectations around this is critical to the married in otherwise they’re going to, through the entirety of their marriage, find themselves asking what if and will I be okay? It’s not a great way to go into a long-term committed relationship.

[00:40:57] Heather Boneparth: And I think some of this is really difficult to talk about because you’re not just, yes, you can set certain expectations in terms of the mechanics of some of these things, but like some of this is you have to observe how is your spouse with his parents, how much have they financially supported him or her over the years? How, what, what level of control have you observed them trying to exert over that adult child of theirs in exchange for the wealth and generosity that they’re giving your family? We’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. I, I, I think, you know, it’s, you

[00:41:31] Barry Ritholtz: You wrote write in the book about, and I

[00:41:32] Barry Ritholtz: Have it all caps, the family sort of a Succession like yeah, wealthy family that wants to control everything, control the relationship. They’re holding all the, all the cash and they’re manipulating everybody to get what they want. Not just outside in the world of whatever acquisitions are going on, but within the family dynamics itself. How do you deal with that?

[00:41:56] Heather Boneparth: It’s not easy. It is not easy. And we keep coming back to the obvious answer of communication, transparency. It does require the person you are marrying to, the family member that you’re marrying. You have to find a way to become transparent and open and honest about your relationship with them. This is not the time to just sit there quiet and let this happen to you. You have to be able to advocate for yourself in some way because it is your life and it’s gonna be a life that you share together with someone. These are probably uncomfortable questions and conversations, but what’s more uncomfortable is when you don’t address them and something happens five, 10 years down the road or you have two, three kids. You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point.

[00:42:43] Doug Boneparth: And it’s not to say that you should not accept the generosity. Right? This is a wonderful thing and there’s many benevolent parents that just wanna see their child and their child’s spouse and their family succeed and they want to offer that generosity during the course of their life. It can be a beautiful thing. But having the conversations upfront about what this means, do they wanna have they wanna offer to help you buy a house? Do they believe that they’re entitled to help you look for that house? Are there stipulations on around where that house needs to be? Does it need to be in the town in which your, the mar which the adult child grew up in? Are there certain expectations there? They wanna help pay for the grandchild’s college? Are there stipulations there as well? But I think that one way to also, you know, kind of pose and gauge how, how enmeshed the adult child is with his parents is saying, I would like for us to have our own financial advisor. I would like for us to grow our independent wealth as a family. How do you feel about that? Say that to your spouse. How,

[00:43:42] Barry Ritholtz: How do these big wealth gaps, and it doesn’t have to be Succession, it could just be reasonable wealth gaps. How do they distort the power dynamics inside the relationship? Forget the relationship of the couple to the in-laws or the parents within couples, how does that dynamic play out and, and what’s, what should be done about these sort of gaps?

[00:44:08] Heather Boneparth: Well, I think that privilege cuts both ways and that’s what we, we like to, we write about privilege and, and the many angles of it so that you can understand also, like socio you are socioeconomic conditions could have been great, but your perception of them is what matters. We can’t say, oh, you grew up with more money than me, so you had it easier. You had a silver spoon in your mouth and your life was gravy and I had a terrible life. And so none of your feelings around it with your family matter, that’s something we dispel as well, right? Your story is your story. You don’t know if your partner who yes, may have objectively grown up with greater privilege than you. You don’t know if they’re carrying deep rooted expectations like the long shadow of the family name. It’s, that is, that is a heavy load to bear for some people.

[00:44:51] Heather Boneparth: So I think there are ways, like different ways this shows up in a relationship for another example would be like how that privilege plays out in terms of your values. You know, what, what are you trying to accomplish together as a couple? That may not be something that if you didn’t grow, if you didn’t grow up with privilege, maybe your goals and expectations are, are I, I don’t wanna say more limited, but maybe they’re more proximate. Like, I wanna build a life that just involves not being strapped for cash. Us being able to afford that roof over our heads. Then you have a, a partner who grew up with such privilege, they didn’t even have to consider their salary when they chose their career because they knew that there would always be kind of this existential safety net available to them. How do you marry those two, those two belief systems. Yeah. Together to kind of find a life that, that, that can identify the meaning for both of you.

[00:45:44] Doug Boneparth: I, I would also add in these situations, it’s easier to assume that these conversations will go down a road of upsetting the family or something bad or negative. And I just want for a minute to throw in the possibility of it working out well that a family would appreciate the fact that their child and the person they’re marrying are forward thinking enough to make sure they’re okay. That everyone is comfortable. You know, the family isn’t always oh, the evil rich family, right? A lot of times, in fact, I would argue most of the times, this is all out of love. This is all I love. And if you don’t approach and you don’t ask, you’ll never know. We just

[00:46:24] Heather Boneparth: Assumed you were very happy with

[00:46:25] Doug Boneparth: All this wonderful stuff we’ve been doing for you and Ryan. We didn’t know it made you feel uncomfortable every time you came on the cruise ship.

[00:46:33] Heather Boneparth: Last,

[00:46:34] Doug Boneparth: Why didn’t, why didn’t you say anything

[00:46:36] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together, talking about writing a book as a team. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My guests today are Heather and Doug Boneparth. They are the authors of the book, Money Together, How to Find Fairness in Your Relationship and Become an Unstoppable Financial Team. Last, last prenup question. I mean, it’s a given that the person who’s marrying into the wealthy family should have their own legal counsel, is it fair for them to ask the wealthy family to pay the bill? Ooh, for the lawyer?

[00:47:40] Heather Boneparth: Oh my goodness. I mean, I I if you off the cuff, I think it’s fair. Okay. I think it’s fair. What’s

[00:47:47] Doug Boneparth: The, what’s the worst that could happen?

[00:47:48] Heather Boneparth: What’s the worst that can happen in asking? I think, I think you prove a very good point because again, like when we’re talking about negotiating power and power dynamics,

[00:47:56] Barry Ritholtz: Disparity can be giant.

[00:47:58] Heather Boneparth: You know, there’s, there’s the lawyers who handle, you know, Beyonce and Jay-Z’s prenup, and then there’s Joe Schmo down the street and whatever. I, I don’t think that it would be unreasonable to ask that if we are entering into this and that this is something that impacts not just me and my spouse, but also your family as well, that maybe you’d be willing to subsidize a piece of this on

[00:48:16] Doug Boneparth: Heck of a way to broach the conversation by saying, Hey, we’ve been doing all this work here, pay the legal bill versus I want you to know we’re gonna do some work here so everyone’s comfortable, we’re taking care of ourselves, that you’re comfortable. By the way, would you pay the bill?

[00:48:30] Barry Ritholtz: Very, very different way you’re phrasing it. So let’s talk a little bit about estate planning. Quote. People go on a journey when they inherit money. I never really thought of that, but explain what, what’s the inheriting money journey?

[00:48:45] Doug Boneparth: Well, first and foremost, we love stats, right? Like most inheritances are five figure numbers.

[00:48:52] Barry Ritholtz: 10 grand. Yeah. The book, the numbers you have, the median was like $45,000, but it’s totally skewed. Oh yeah. Yeah. By the very wealthy inheritances.

[00:49:02] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. The big, big ones.

[00:49:03] Barry Ritholtz: And the average person’s inheritance is five grand. Little or nothing.

[00:49:06] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. Yeah. So then you have to ask yourself, so what’s really being inherited here? What’s really being transferred from, you know, the decedent to, to the children or the heirs? And typically it’s obviously memories and the experiences both good and bad, that end up in the possession of the, of the child, of the heir.

[00:49:30] Heather Boneparth: There there’s a quote and I I it’s slipping my mind, but it’s something like, inheritance inheritances are the numeric symbolic delivery of all you have left from someone and you wish you had more time, you wish you had more memories, you wish you had more moments. And one more chance for one more conversation. And so for people that $12,000 as a bonus from your job is very different from $12,000 from your mother.

[00:49:58] Barry Ritholtz: So let, let’s talk about what I think is the most interesting trend I’ve seen in estate planning over the past few decades. I know what you’re, which is invos

[00:50:09] Doug Boneparth: Giving gifts. Yeah. During lifetime.

[00:50:10] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Doing this while you’re alive so you can enjoy it with each other.

[00:50:13] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, I love it. I love it. That was a big Wall Street Journal article a handful of years ago. I absolutely love it. I see it show up in practice quite a bit. Probably one of the nicer, you know, boomer mechanics in estate planning that I’ve seen happen over the last few years. Yes, you should, you should get to create these experiences while you’re alive. You know, and everybody can enjoy that. You see your hardworking millennial children dealing with the high cost of home prices and they can’t get ahead or settle down with their family, and you wanna step in and do some gift things that they can afford it. I think it’s probably one of the most beautiful things out there. Wish that happened to us here. It didn’t happen. All right. If you know, guys, if you know anyone, let let us know.

[00:50:52] Doug Boneparth: But you’re seeing this trend emerge and I’m seeing it show up in practice. It’s, it’s really a beautiful thing. And also perhaps a sad, I don’t know, the, you know, particulars of these situations, but good planning’s, good planning, right? You know, as a financial advisor where the rubber meets the road and all of the topics that we cover in comprehensive planning, estate planning’s the one, it’s the biggest piece of all of it at the end of the day. And what you’re doing here, it’s about legacy, right? So now you have children and you have their parents creating these experiences knowing they helped. Let me back up for a second, just to give you an idea of, of how I truly feel around the other way that this typically happens. It is, we’re not gonna talk to our children about money. It’s taboo. You know, you’ll figure it out. Or the worst one. We don’t want to burden them today with this. And it’s so ironic

[00:51:44] Heather Boneparth: That it gets really on one

[00:51:45] Doug Boneparth: About this. I really, it’s so ironic because what you’re going to do is exact, is the exact opposite of what it is you just said. You, you don’t clue them into the estate planning. Now you’re dead. And not only did you leave a burden to them, the whole

[00:51:59] Heather Boneparth: Estate process, whether you’re a beneficiary or the executor,

[00:52:03] Doug Boneparth: By the way, even

[00:52:03] Heather Boneparth: The, it’s a lot of work. That’s a lot.

[00:52:04] Doug Boneparth: Even the best plans are a ton of work, right? You see this all the time. Like, oh man, my dad did a really good job of laying this out. Five weeks of go, you know, it it’s insane. While you’re

[00:52:15] Heather Boneparth: Grieving top, while you are grieving, you’re grieving.

[00:52:17] Doug Boneparth: All of thi all of this is happening here. And, and it’s just such a joke to take the line that I don’t wanna burden my kids and then literally burden them, you know, to no end. And you’re dead. You don’t even get to see, you know, thank, thanks mom. Thanks dad. That was great. And it’s a, it’s a disaster. It’s a disaster. So that’s how I truly feel about it. That’s why these gifts during the lifetime I think are just absolutely wonderful. Great.

[00:52:44] Heather Boneparth: But it just goes to show that it works both ways, right? Like we just spoke about the family where wealth, two things can be true, wealth can be used to control people, and to can be used to show that you love someone and to create legacy and, and, and deepen the love that you have for your family. Two things can be true.

[00:53:01] Barry Ritholtz: So before I get to my favorite questions, I ask, well, my guests, I, I just have to ask, what, what are the red, other red flags we haven’t gotten to? What do you think is the biggest issue that we just haven’t spoken about over the past hour?

[00:53:16] Doug Boneparth: Holding mistakes over your partner’s head. A lot of people do a lot of foolish stuff early in their adult life. In your twenties, you make some mistakes. You carry a little bit of consumer debt for in

[00:53:28] Heather Boneparth: Your forties, in your fifties. Yeah.

[00:53:29] Doug Boneparth: But, you know, whatever. Like, you, you, it happens. You YOLO’d it in your twenties and you had 10 grand in credit card debt. Then you met their, you met your spouse, they helped you pay it off. And now all they ever talk about is how were not money of it. They remind, remind them of it because I helped you pay off your debt. So I guess my point is not getting over things that are just missteps. They’re not mistakes in your life. Holding them over your spouse’s head. Because what that does is it erodes their confidence and it pulls them away from being a meaningful participant in their financial lives. Huh.

[00:53:58] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really interesting. All right, let’s jump into our favorite questions. We ask all our guests. Starting with, and this is like our speed round. We only have about five, six minutes. I love it. Who were your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:54:11] Doug Boneparth: I’ll give you a hot take. You know, Heather and I maybe still agree with me on this one. We really had a lack of mentors in the beginning of our career. We, we found ourselves really having to figure a lot out for ourselves. And this isn’t a flexer look how, you know, I, I look, look what a big boy I am.

[00:54:25] Heather Boneparth: We’re in the market for mentors. Yeah. So if anybody listening would like to be our individual mentors, we would love that.

[00:54:30] Doug Boneparth: For me. For me, they became, they came mid-career into where we are today. Friends of ours for sure. But early on it was, it was lacking. I do view it as something where, you know, it, it built me up. It built some character here. But if I’m being honest, I really wish I had someone there to sit younger, professional Doug down regularly and say, how

[00:54:49] Barry Ritholtz: Are doing could save some time and effort.

[00:54:51] Heather Boneparth: I had one woman, one female attorney who was always one grade level above me and has been a driving force in my legal career and even brought me back to a job in a soft landing after a tough situation. She was good. So I had one mentor in my career, so

[00:55:07] Barry Ritholtz: You could give her name if you wanna give a shout.

[00:55:10] Heather Boneparth: Oh, her name’s Julia. Hey

[00:55:11] Barry Ritholtz: Julia. Let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

[00:55:16] Heather Boneparth: You know, it’s really hard. I have to say. I love to read. But this past year, when you’re writing a book and promoing a book, kills it kills you,

[00:55:22] Barry Ritholtz: Kills you. Other than the research you’re doing, there’s no pleasure reading.

[00:55:25] Heather Boneparth: Every book I read was a personal finance book. Yeah. Although I love cultural commentary because again, like journalist’s brain, I read What Happened to Millennials by Charlie Wells, which I really enjoyed as somebody who,

[00:55:37] Barry Ritholtz: He’s a Bloomberg guy.

[00:55:38] Heather Boneparth: Oh, it’s, it’s a, he, he basically tells the story of, of where we were post nine 11 through the eyes to present day through four different folks, like, and followed them on their journey. It was just, I thought it was a, a brilliant commentary on, on where we were and where we find ourselves. And it was, it found a way to like frame it all very positively on, on our future. And I just, I, I loved it. But I’m actually looking forward to reading more nonfiction or more fiction this year. And should I say it, I’m about to read the Heated Rivalry books. Rachel Reads. Rachel reads books. If you know, you know,

[00:56:13] Barry Ritholtz: I hear heated rivalry. I think of Doris Kearns Goodwin, I don’t know. There

[00:56:17] Heather Boneparth: Is Residence if you know, you know,

[00:56:22] Doug Boneparth: Last book I read. I have to go fiction. I have to go sci-fi. I have to escape the world of business and finance. I, you know, we, we write these books and, and I know all our friends who write them as well, but I like to escape. Like if I’m gonna read, I’m gonna enjoy them.

[00:56:34] Barry Ritholtz: You you’re talking to a sci-fi guy hit me.

[00:56:36] Doug Boneparth: It was long overdue. I read Snow Crash was the last one I read, which if you know was the first. Did

[00:56:41] Barry Ritholtz: You read Neuromancer

[00:56:42] Doug Boneparth: Also? No, no, not yet. But it’s a little geeky here. It’s okay. I’m, I’m here for it. But you know your first, you know Wow. Calling the Metaverse before the Metaverse. Right. That, that was really cool. Finally got it. Took two more.

[00:56:53] Barry Ritholtz: I’m trying to remember which book The Future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed. Is that Snow Crash?

[00:56:59] Doug Boneparth: I don’t think so.

[00:57:00] Barry Ritholtz: Okay.

[00:57:00] Doug Boneparth: No, but that was great for a video game guy who always dreamed of a world that was, you know, alt reality. That was super cool.

[00:57:07] Barry Ritholtz: And I, and you read, I’m assuming you read Ready Player One, right?

[00:57:11] Doug Boneparth: No, I actually have Get Out, I haven’t even watched the movie so before because I wanted, ’cause I wanted to read Snow Crash before it, so

[00:57:18] Barry Ritholtz: I was flying on a plane. Yeah. And sat down with that book and we landed and I was done. Yeah, yeah. It

[00:57:23] Doug Boneparth: Was that. Yeah. I’m told it. I’m told It’s amazing that that’s next flight. That’s

[00:57:26] Barry Ritholtz: Your assignment for

[00:57:27] Doug Boneparth: Today. Next. Well, that’ll be my next flight book.

[00:57:29] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Absolutely. 30 seconds. What are you streaming or listening to these days?

[00:57:33] Doug Boneparth: Landman. Awesome. Show

[00:57:35] Heather Boneparth: Next on our queue. That’s

[00:57:36] Doug Boneparth: Next. You have to watch it. The Pit of course.

[00:57:38] Heather Boneparth: Pit massive.

[00:57:39] Doug Boneparth: It’s a little too grizzly.

[00:57:40] Barry Ritholtz: Oh, fair enough,

[00:57:41] Heather Boneparth: Fair enough. My life was like watching like this fall

[00:57:43] Doug Boneparth: Out.

[00:57:43] Heather Boneparth: We watch a lot of sci-fi. Yeah. Fallout is our, is our comfort.

[00:57:47] Barry Ritholtz: Have you guys seen Three Body Problem? The book?

[00:57:49] Doug Boneparth: No. I, I caught it. I didn’t, we didn’t go there. We love a lot of postapocalyptic type stuff. We watch

[00:57:55] Heather Boneparth: A lot

[00:57:56] Doug Boneparth: Of apocalyptic Silo, Fallout. Those types of shows really, really take us there. I know.

[00:57:59] Barry Ritholtz: Try, try Three Body Problem. I think it’s Apple TV. I don’t remember. But it was really, it was really worth seeing. Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in fill in the blank? Journalism, legal practice, financial planning.

[00:58:17] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. If we’re talking personal finance and financial planning, you’re playing a long game here. Give yourself, like, if you’re gonna figure out how to get this career going, figure out how to survive for like five, seven plus years. It’s just gonna take that kind of time to actually mature as a person in your life. So find out how to do that. Play long game. This isn’t a 1, 2, 3 year learning curve. It’s like a five to seven year learning curve.

[00:58:40] Heather Boneparth: Huh? Keep a list of your wins, keep a, keep a running list of everything good you do. And all the value that you bring to your organization. Carry that with you because being your own self-advocate is more important now than ever.

[00:58:53] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. And I, I have heard women say that’s especially important for them. Critical versus men blundering into things full of self, undeserved, self-confidence. And women often don’t apply. Let me mansplain sexism to you. Women also often I’ve had a lot of women tell me they haven’t applied for things ’cause they think, yep, I don’t check every box. Yeah. Out of 10 I have eight. And a dude

[00:59:19] Heather Boneparth: Tell is

[00:59:19] Barry Ritholtz: Like, I have three, but how hard can it be,

[00:59:21] Heather Boneparth: Be I can’t tell you how many men I know have fallen up in their careers. Right. While women have told themselves that they aren’t qualified for a position. So yes, keeping a running list and finding a way to art, to, to really articulate package that and show your value.

[00:59:34] Barry Ritholtz: And, and our final question, what do you know about the world of financial planning, investing couples money therapy today might have been useful. You know, back in 20 years ago when you guys were really first ramping up,

[00:59:49] Heather Boneparth: Understanding that time and money are inextricably linked concepts and how we spend our time is a currency when we talk. So much of this work that we did is about how we allow for couple equity at home to create greater, greater, sorry, greater equity for women out in the world in particular. And the link between time and money I love that is, is critical.

[01:00:10] Barry Ritholtz: I love that.

[01:00:11] Doug Boneparth: Fair doesn’t mean equal.

[01:00:13] Barry Ritholtz: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Solid

[01:00:14] Doug Boneparth: 50 50. Probably not a practical approach to everything you do in life. Find out what your split is. There are many couples out there who are happy with 80 20, 70 30. It works for them. What doesn’t work is when you’re not talking about it, to find out what fairness is in your relationship. That has helped us out a great deal in the last few years. Guys,

[01:00:32] Barry Ritholtz: This has been absolutely fascinating. We have been speaking with Heather and Douglas Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together. If you enjoy this conversation, well check out any of the 600 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get your favorite podcast. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack staff that helps with these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: Douglas and Heather Boneparth, Money Together appeared first on The Big Picture.

Nuclear Reactor Transported By Air For First Time In 60 Years

In coordination with the Department of War and the Department of Energy, Valar Atomics has transported their high-temperature gas-cooled reactor from California to Utah via C-17. 

The event marks a major turning point for the nuclear industry, as reactor developers had been seen until this point as just another group of boring construction teams and quiet operators. But the more glamorous side of venture capital funded efforts is starting to make its way into the world of fission.

Today, the Department of War will execute Operation Windlord, the first C-17 airlift of a nuclear reactor, in partnership with the Department of Energy and Valar Atomics.

Three C-17s Globemasters carrying the 8 modules of the Ward250 reactor will fly from March ARB to Hill AFB. pic.twitter.com/uIL7LMxACQ

— Isaiah Taylor - making nuclear reactors (@isaiah_p_taylor) February 15, 2026

Nuclear energy has suffered from decades of neglect and atrophy, and it appears the newest generation of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are finally taking interest in the nuclear industry again. 

Coverage of the event has been provided by all the major outlets including Reuters and Wall Street Journal, but there is a lack of understanding for what's actually going on. None of the news agencies reporting on the event have provided any added context to the history of reactors up in the air, what Valar Atomics is trying to do, and frankly what was even inside the plane.

Valar constructed their Ward250 gas reactor in their facility in California. There is no fuel added to the reactor core yet, as shipping that through the air would be a regulatory nightmare in today's environment. To put out the fires of some of the fear-mongering that has been going around about the event, which will come off as underplaying the advanced engineering and fabrication that went into the production of the components, all Valar did was ship a complicated piece of metal in a cargo plane. 

To be sure, the company has made significant progress toward meeting the July 4th criticality timeline set by last year's nuclear executive orders. Taking a reactor critical means the reactor goes from a dormant, shutdown state to the point where the uranium inside the core is undergoing a sustained, controlled rate of fission (atoms splitting apart and releasing energy) on its own. 

And this latest milestone with government agencies was a phenomenal exercise in complicated logistical coordination, private-public partnerships, and capability demonstrations. 

One of the biggest errors in most of the reporting is that this is the first time a reactor has been put up into the sky. This can unfortunately not be further from the truth, even though Secretary Wright tries to make the same claim.

President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance.

Today, this administration advanced that mission by moving a nuclear reactor by air for the very first time. pic.twitter.com/l3kNFHUapa

— Secretary Chris Wright (@SecretaryWright) February 16, 2026

Scrolling all the way back to the 1950s, as the world was proving nuclear energy could be used for other than weaponry and destruction, President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace initiative sent a nuclear reactor across the Atlantic to Geneva, Switzerland. It was a pool-type research reactor built and tested in Tennessee. The reactor was dismantled and flown to Geneva where it was rebuilt and taken critical again.

Also in the 1950s, the U.S. pursued nuclear-powered long-range bombers before cruise missiles were developed. The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program developed the Aircraft Shield Test Reactor and flew it in the air with fuel while operating under a multi-year test program. The reactor was never used to directly power an aircraft and the program was eventually shut down. 

The third major “reactor in the air” was the PM-1 reactor developed under the Army's nuclear program in the 1960s. After initial construction in Maryland, the TM-1 was disassembled and shipped through the air to South Dakota and then to its final destination in Wyoming where it was assembled and operated. 

All things considered, the event is a huge win for the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy is finally getting some of the attention it needs to make further strides in public approval and federal support.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 08:40

Futures Fall As AI Selloff Resumes

US equity futures woke up after President's Day and chose to resume their selloff (after a modest bounce on Monday's holiday failed to hold) dragged by Tech, as the risk-off moves on AI disruption fears continue. As of 8:15am ET, S&P 500 futures were down 0.5% with Nasdaq 100 contracts falling 1.0%. In premarket trading, all Mag 7 stocks are lower and Semis are being pressured with AVGO / NVDA lower by more than 1%. Pockets of outperformance (and higher absolute returns) can be found in Energy, Fins, Indu, and Defensives. Overseas markets mixed with UK up 70bps, Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, Korea all closed. Lunar New Year Kicks off. Bond yields are low by 1-3bp as the yield curve bull flattens; the USD is bid higher. Commodities are weaker with WTI rising modestly on geopolitics and Ags / Metals for sale. Spot gold dropped toward $4,900 an ounce. Bitcoin, as usual, dumps. This morning we will receive the weekly ADP, Empire State manufacturing survey and NAHB housing market index for February. We will also hear from Fed Governor Barr and San Francisco Fed President Daly; key macro prints come on Friday with PCE and Flash PMIs. 

In premarket trading, MAg 7 stocks are all lower (Amazon -0.3%, Apple -0.2%, Microsoft -0.5%, Nvidia -0.9%, Meta -0.6%, Alphabet -1.5%, Tesla -1%)

• AeroVironment (AVAV) gains 3% as JPMorgan initiates coverage with a recommendation of overweight following a selloff in the the drone maker’s stock.
• Fiserv (FISV) rises 4% after the Wall Street Journal reported that activist investor Jana Partners has built a stake in the fintech company, citing people familiar with the matter.
• General Mills (GIS) falls 3% after the packaged foods company cut some forecasts for the full year.
• ImmunityBio shares (IBRX) gains 6% after the drugmaker said the Saudi Food and Drug Authority encouraged the company to submit a regulatory package for its bladder cancer therapy to expand access in Saudi Arabia.
• Masimo (MASI) jumps 34% after the Financial Times said Danaher is closing in on a nearly $10 billion deal to buy medical technology company, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter. Shares of Danaher (DHR) fall 6%.
• Norwegian Cruise (NCLH) rises over 7% after the Wall Street Journal reported that activist investor Elliott Investment Management has built a more than 10% stake in the cruise-ship company.
• TripAdvisor (TRIP) inches less than 1% higher after Starboard Value LP announced plans to nominate a majority slate of director candidates for the 2026 annual meeting.
• Veeva Systems (VEEV) rises over 1% as Morgan Stanley upgrades the the application software company to equal-weight, saying competitive risks are “better understood.”
• Warner Bros Discovery Inc. (WBD) rises over 2% after agreeing to temporarily reopen sale negotiations with rival Hollywood studio Paramount Skydance Corp., setting the stage for a potential second bidding war with Netflix Inc. Shares of Paramount Skydance (PSKY) gain 3%.
• Zim Integrated Shipping (ZIM) surges 35% after Hapag-Lloyd AG said it’s buying the Israeli shipping company.

In other corporate news, WSJ reports that activist Elliott is said to have built a large stake in Norwegian Cruise Line. Apple will hold a product launch on March 4. Anthropic’s talks to extend a contract with the Pentagon are said to have stalled on surveillance concerns. The Pentagon is also said to be seeking voice-controlled, autonomous drone swarming technology, with SpaceX among companies competing. 

US traders are returning to their desks eying firms’ swelling AI budgets, while also wary of the technology’s potential to hurt industries outside the tech sector. Meanwhile, Brent crude erased losses as Iran talked up military drills near the Strait of Hormuz — at the same time that the country is undertaking a fresh round of indirect nuclear negotiations with the US.

There’s “lingering anxiety about whether AI spending will be profitable enough, concerns about competition, and a broader de-risking from the most crowded trades after a very strong run,” said Aneeka Gupta, macroeconomic research director at WisdomTree.

The search for stocks on the right side of the artificial intelligence trade is front and center for investors at the start of a shortened week — with a backdrop that may benefit selective buyers. The “perception of AI seems to have changed completely from the angel of mercy to the kiss of death,” said Stephan Kemper, chief investment strategist at BNP Paribas Wealth Management. Concerns as to whether hyperscalers can monetize ever-growing investments in AI are back while “the fact that AI can often be a tool to enhance profitability is completely ignored,” Kemper added. Two opposing fears are evident - one that AI is poised to disrupt entire industries, the other that investors are skeptical of whether the huge capex outlays will deliver Alibaba unveiled a major update of its flagship AI model, ahead of a much anticipated release from DeepSeek. AI even gets into the Fed’s narrative with Barr due to speak on AI and the labor market, and Daly on AI and the economy later today.  returns. And AI is dominating conference calls.  

A record number of investors say companies are spending far too much, according to Bank of America Corp.’s latest fund manager survey. A quarter of participants saw an “AI bubble” as the top tail risk to markets, while 30% said capital expenditure on AI by the big tech companies was the most likely source of a credit crisis.

Meanwhile, two-year forward earnings estimates for software stocks have risen over the last three months, undeterred by the selloff over AI disruption worries, according to Goldman analysts, while RBC strategists say equity market is witnessing a type of “sentiment unwind” on AI jitters that likely has more to go. 

Over the weekend, Rubio spoke at the Munich Security Conference and emphasized the important of the deep ties between the US and EU, but also echoed the Trump administration’s talking points about the threat of Western decline (WSJ). RTRS reported the Pentagon preparing for the potential for a weeks-long campaign against Iran should Trump decide to launch another round of strikes which comes as the IRGC was conducting "smart drills" near the Strait of Hormuz. Also over the weekend, Trump said Rubio is in talks with Cuba as the island nation faces worsening economic conditions. Trump also said he’s speaking to China’s XI Jinping about weapons sales to Taiwan. Iran’s foreign minister met the UN nuclear chief before the next round of negotiations with the US. 

Brent traded 0.1% higher to $68.75 a barrel in London after Iranian state TV in the Islamic Republic reported that parts of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil-shipping lanes, will be closed for “several hours” on Tuesday as part of Iran’s military exercises. The drills, announced previously, come as Iran and the US start a second round of negotiations in Geneva.  Trump has threatened to strike Iran unless it agrees to a deal curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. He’s mobilized warships and fighter jets near Iran in response to a recent deadly crackdown by the regime there following mass protests.

Looking at earnings, out of the 371 S&P 500 companies that have reported so far in the earnings season, 76% have managed to beat analyst forecasts, while 20% have missed. Medtronic, Genuine Parts and Vulcan Materials are among companies expected to report results before the market opens. Medtronic’s organic revenue growth for fiscal 3Q is likely to exceed the consensus estimate of 5.5%, driven by strong sales of pulsed field ablation products used to treat atrial fibrillation, reflecting robust demand seen at peers like Boston Scientific and Abbott, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Earnings from Palo Alto Networks and Toll Brothers follow later in the day.

European stocks holding firm with Stoxx 600 up by 0.1%. The utilities sector outperforms as artificial intelligence worries linger and tensions in the Middle East drive a risk-off mood among investors. Miners lag as precious and industrial metals prices drop. On the data front, UK employment data surprised to the downside where the unemployment rate rose to 5.2%, above consensus and the BOE's forecast of 5.1%. Following the print, odds for a BOE cut in March cut rose to ~80% (vs ~70% Friday). Here are some of the biggest movers on Tuesday:

• Avolta shares rise as much as 5.7% to the highest level since 2021 after UBS upgraded the travel retailer to buy, citing an improving business model focus and favorable industry trends.
• Genmab shares climb as much as 2.7% after Jefferies resumed coverage on the stock with a buy rating, highlighting the Danish biotech company’s attractive valuation and “catalyst rich” 2026.
• SSP shares surge as much as 11%, touching the highest level since December. UBS raised its recommendation to buy from neutral as analysts expect the catering firm’s focus on cash flow generation to ease concerns.
• Mol shares drop as much as 4.1%, down for the third day. The company said it is seeking a release of Hungarian strategic oil reserves to keep refineries operating.
• BFF Bank shares fall as much as 12% to a record low after confirming a report that Italian prosecutors opened an investigation into the specialist lender.
• Qiagen shares slide as much as 4.8% following a Financial Times report that Danaher could announce a roughly $10 billion deal to acquire US medical technology firm Masimo.
• Antofagasta shares sink as much as 5.2% in London. The copper miner’s earnings and dividend payout underwhelmed some analysts, while it kept its guidance unchanged.
• Hensoldt shares slip as much as 4.7%. Mediobanca initiated the stock with an underperform rating on valuation concerns. It leads a drop in European defense stocks ahead of new rounds of Russia-Ukraine peace talks and US-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva on Tuesday.
• Truecaller shares plunge as much as 26% to a record low after the Swedish developer of a caller ID and spam-blocking app gave what JPMorgan analysts called “disappointing” commentary on advertising and the firm’s Truecaller for Business segment.

Earlier in the session, stocks fell in Japan, offsetting gains in India and Thailand, on a day when most of the region’s markets were closed for Lunar New Year. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index was steady, while Japan’s Topix slid 0.7%. SoftBank Group and Hitachi were among the biggest drags, while BHP Group gained. Stocks also retreated in New Zealand, while shares edged higher in Australia, Thailand and India. Volumes were thin, with bourses closed in markets including China, Hong Kong and South Korea. Japanese stock investors extended profit-taking after last week’s post-election gains, as concerns about disruption from artificial intelligence linger.

In FX, the pound weaker but off the low. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index little changed with DXY $97, yen and the kiwi outperforming. The yen, historically seen as a haven, strengthened 0.2% against the dollar.

In rates, the risk-off mood and last week’s slower inflation print buoyed Treasuries, lowering the yield on the 10-year note two basis points to 4.03% and sharply lower than beginning of the month and basically at one-year lows; gilts outperformed in Europe after weak jobs data firmed up bets on BOE interest-rate cuts in 2026. In the US, treasuries hold small curve-flattening gains as US trading resumes after Monday’s holiday, with yields having reached new lows for this year, at 4.016% for the 10-year. Most sovereign bond markets also have gains, led by Japan’s, following strong demand for an auction of five-year notes. Yields remain lower by 0.5bp to 2.6bp following the market’s biggest weekly gain since August, driven by softer-than-estimated January CPI data released Friday and volatility in risk assets including US stocks. For IG corporate new-issue calendar, underwriters anticipate weekly supply totaling about $24 billion; about $40 billion was priced last week, with roughly half in the form of Alphabet’s jumbo offering. Treasury coupon auctions this week include $16 billion 20-year new issue Wednesday and $9 billion 30-year TIPS new issue Thursday

In commodities, crude moving higher with WTI $64 up 150bps after Iran said military drills will close part of the Strait of Hormuz for several hours; the rest of the commodities complex lower led by front month gas off 3% to $3.15. Gold weaker, down about $69 to $4,922/oz, and silver sinking to about $74/oz. 

The US economic data calendar ADP weekly employment change (8:15am), February Empire manufacturing (8:30am) and February NAHB housing market index (10am). Fed speakers scheduled include Governor Barr (12:45pm) and San Francisco Fed President Daly (2:30pm)

Market Snapshot

• S&P 500 mini -0.2%
• Nasdaq 100 mini -0.6%
• Russell 2000 mini -0.2%
• Stoxx Europe 600 +0.2%
• DAX +0.3%, CAC 40 +0.2%
• 10-year Treasury yield -2 basis points at 4.02%
• VIX +0.7 points at 21.85
• Bloomberg Dollar Index little changed at 1183.25
• euro little changed at $1.1844
• WTI crude +0.9% at $63.44/barrel

Top Overnight News

• German investor optimism fell in February, with the ZEW institute's expectations index decreasing to 58.3 from 59.6 in January, in blow to recovery: BBG
• Traders cemented bets on two BOE rate cuts in 2026 after UK unemployment approached the highest level in five years and wage growth cooled: BBG
• Iran and the US met for a second round of nuclear talks in Switzerland as they seek to avoid renewed conflict in the Middle East. Iranian officials have expressed willingness to discuss their nuclear-enrichment activities, but have tied any concessions to the potential easing of American sanctions: BBG
• A growing number of Wall Street pros say now might be the time to get greedy as AI fear runs amok in the US equity market. Investors are selling entire industry groups when a new AI tool threatens to upset an industry, presenting a chance to buy, according to money managers and analysts: BBG
• Spanish PM Sanchez said the Council of Ministers will invoke Article 8 to ask the Public Prosecutor to investigate Meta (META), X and TikTok.
• EU privacy watchdog opens probe into X over sexualised AI images: FT.

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

APAC stocks traded mixed amid the extremely thinned conditions due to the Lunar New Year holiday and in the absence of a lead from the US, where markets were closed for Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day. ASX 200 was led higher by outperformance in miners as BHP shares surged after the mining giant reported a 28% jump in H1 net, although gains in the broader market were capped by weakness in tech and real estate. Nikkei 225 retreated shortly after the open with SoftBank and heavy industry stocks leading the declines, as the post-election euphoria petered out following the recent underwhelming GDP data.

Top Asian News

• Japanese PM Takaichi to unveil a sweeping budgeting reform, placing strategic investments under a ringfenced multi-year framework to enhance predictability and attract private capital, Nikkei reports citing a draft
• Japan PM Takaichi considers multi-year budget for growth and crisis management, according to Nikkei citing her draft policy speech for Friday.
• Japanese Finance Ministry estimate indicates annual bond issuance could rise 28% three years from now amid increasing debt financing costs, according to Reuters.
• Indian Government Minister said we are discussing age-based social media ban with firms.

European bourses (STOXX 600 +0.2%) initially started on the backfoot but have reversed earlier losses and are now trading mostly in the green. The SMI (+0.7%) leads, while the AEX (+0.2%) lags, weighted on by losses in ASML (-1.3%). FTSE 100 (+0.5%) sits near the top of the pile, aided by softer-than-expected jobs and wages data, increasing the likelihood of BoE rate cuts. European sectors are mostly firmer. Utilities (+1.3%) and Insurance (+1.2%) reside near the top, with insurance names helped by a broker upgrade for AXA (+1.8%, initiated with outperform at RBC) and a sector perform rating for Allianz. Basic Resources (-1.4%) is the clear underperformer, weighed on by metal prices (XAU -1.3%, XAG -2.4%).

Top European News

• The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce raises its 2026 GDP growth forecast from 0.7% to 1.0%.
• Swedish Finance Minister said they are not expecting to join the Euro in the coming years.
• UK government quietly shelved a programme to build a frictionless post-Brexit trade border, after spending GBP 110mln on a contract with Deloitte and IBM for the project, according to FT.
• EU officials held a constructive meeting to strengthen the international role of the euro on Monday, according to EU's Dombrovskis.

FX

• DXY trades flat intraday but at the lower end of a tight 97.072-97.247 range as US participants gear up to return from the long weekend. Focus has been on geopolitics as US-Iran talks look to continue through to the afternoon, whilst US-Ukraine-Russia trilateral talks have now been moved to tomorrow. On the data front for the day ahead, weekly ADP jobs data are due (prev. showed an average of +6.5k/week over the four-week period). Elsewhere, the Empire State Manufacturing Index for February, and the NAHB housing market index for February are scheduled.
• JPY gained as risk sentiment in Japan deteriorated shortly after the open, while there were some recent comments from former BoJ board member Adachi, who sees a likelihood that the BoJ will hike rates by 25bps in April. During European hours, the JPY remains the outperformer as US yields fall, but overall, the pair remains within the ranges of the last four trading sessions, with today's current parameters between 152.70 and 153.75. Note, JPY could also be seeing some haven flows against the backdrop of the US-Iran talks today.
• GBP fell in the aftermath of a dovish jobs report: unemployment unexpectedly rose to 5.2%, just below the BoE’s 5.3% peak forecast (raised in February), while wage growth slowed across both measures, especially including bonuses. GBP/USD have recovered off its worst levels with the pair currently around the middle of a 1.3552-1.3633 intraday range at the time of writing.
• EUR marginally trickled lower, but with price action kept within tight parameters near the 1.1850 level amid light newsflow from the bloc and the recent mixed EU Industrial Production data. Some risk was taken out for the EUR (for today) as the US-Ukraine-Russia trilateral meeting has been pushed back to tomorrow. A modest four-pip immediate dip was seen as German ZEW disappointed, with EUR/USD currently in a 1.1828-1.1852 range.

Central Banks

• RBA Minutes from February meeting stated that members agreed that prevailing uncertainties meant it was not possible to have a high degree of confidence in any particular path for the cash rate. Board concluded inflation would stay stubbornly high if it had not hiked interest rates as it did this month. Members agreed that the data received since the previous meeting had strengthened their concern that without a policy response, inflation would remain persistently above target for too long.
• NBP Member Dabrowski says April would be safer to cut rates than in March, a policy rate of 3.5% in 2026 is achievable.

FX

• USTs move higher this morning by around 7 ticks, currently trading within a 113-03 to 113-14 range. From a yield perspective, the 10yr is now eyeing the 4% mark (currently 4.025%), and trading at lows not seen since late Nov’25. Much of the upside can seemingly be attributed to the muted risk tone, in an environment clouded by geopolitical uncertainty, with US-Iran and US-Ukraine-Russia talks taking place. The former arguably holds added risk, given there is some chance that the US could strike Iran if talks break down – though analysts believe that the most likely outcome is not a full deal today but a decision to keep talks alive. (Full analysis piece can be found on the Newsquawk feed)
• Bunds follow the global fixed income complex higher. In reaction to the UK’s jobs/wages data, Bunds spiked higher from 129.30 to 129.41. Currently trading higher by around 15 ticks and at the upper end of a 129.13 to 129.36 range – the 10yr yield is trading well outside recent ranges, around 2.733%. Further pressure could see the 10yr test 2.70%, which happens to be the trough from the 1st of December 2025. Following the softer-than-expected ZEW series, Bunds rose from 129.37 to 129.41 - the peak for the day. Demand for German debt remains tepid, with the 2yr Schatz demand sub-2x b/c.
• Gilts gapped higher by 38 ticks before climbing another two to a 92.32 peak, in reaction to the latest unemployment and wage data. If the move continues, resistance comes into view at 92.51, 92.56 and 92.95. Upside spurred in a dovish reaction to a report that showed a further deterioration in the labour market, as the unemployment rate ticked up to 5.2% and is just a tenth shy of the BoE's 5.3% peak forecast (a view that was increased in the February MPR). Furthermore, wage data showed a moderation from the prior for both metrics and markedly so for the measure incl. bonuses. Sparking a dovish reaction in BoE pricing, however, the next cut remains priced for April, but March is now up to -21bps (-20.3bps pre-release) while the timing for a second 2026 cut has been brought forward to November from December.
• JGBs firmer, with upside of just over 50 ticks at best, hitting a 132.60 peak. Upside was a function of the negative risk tone in Japan overnight, where conditions were very limited due to numerous APAC closures. Furthermore, participants continue to digest the policy implications of recent weak GDP data. Note, there was fleeting JGB pressure to a broadly in-line 5yr auction.
• Germany sells EUR 4.59bln vs exp. EUR 6bln 2.10% 2028 Schatz: b/c 1.77x (prev. 2.1x), average yield 2.02% (prev. 2.14%), retention 23.5% (prev. 22.8%).
• UK sells GBP 500mln 0.125% 2028 Gilt via Tender: b/c 4.05x (prev. 3.77x), average yield 3.336% (prev. 3.443%), tail 0.7bps (prev. 0.6bps).
• Japan sold JPY 1.9tln 5yr JGBs; b/c 3.10x (prev. 3.08x), average yield 1.640% (prev. 1.639%).

Commodities

• WTI Mar'26 and Brent Apr'26 are trading around the lower range of USD 62.84-63.87/bbl and USD 67.85-68.62/bbl, respectively. Focus for oil traders is on meetings between the US and Iran and the trilateral talks between Russia, US and Ukraine. At the time of writing, the trilateral talks have concluded, with talks set to resume tomorrow. Much of the action this morning has been spurred by Iran-related commentary; some pressure in the complex on reports that Iran approved IAEA visit to nuclear facilities, but soon reversed after hawkish commentary from Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, who suggested that the US army needs to be "slapped" so hard it cannot get up. Most recently, reports suggest that Iran announced its readiness to reduce uranium enrichment, and are now at the stage of discussing technical issues. Ultimately, very choppy action given the mixed newsflow.
• Precious metals have stalled following prior day gains, with the yellow metal slipping below the USD 5,000/oz mark and silver falling by 4.5%, though off worst levels seen during the APAC session. Analysts note that liquidity remains thin, particularly across metals. Focus now turns to US ADP employment figures, which could trigger volatility. Weaker jobs data could trigger a weaker USD, spurring the yellow metal and vice versa.
• Copper prices remain subdued, largely amid the mixed global risk tone and the closure of the Chinese market due to the Chinese holiday. 3M LME Copper currently trades in a narrow range of USD 12,695.08-12,849k/t.

Geopolitics: Ukraine

• Russia's Kremlin said the three-way talk with US and Ukraine in Geneva will continue tomorrow with no news expected today.
• Russian Defence Ministry said Russia carried out a massive strike on military targets in Ukraine, IFX reported.
• Russian President Putin advisor Patrushev said Russia is preparing measures to respond to seizures of its trading vessels, IFX reported.
• Ukrainian long-range drones hit the Ilsky Oil Refinery in the Krasnodar Krai region of Russia and the refinery is on fire, according to Visegrad 24.

Geopolitics: Middle East

• Iran is ready to stay for days and weeks in Geneva in order to reach an agreement, Al Jazeera reports citing the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman.
• US-Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva have entered the stage of discussing technical issues, Al Jazeera reports citing Iranian TV.
• Iran announced its readiness to reduce uranium enrichment, Al Hadath reports citing Iran's ambassador in Cairo; adds "The contradiction of the US statements is proof of its lack of seriousness in the negotiations."
• Iran's IRGC are holding military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman at the same time as US-Iran nuclear talks, Iran International reports.
• Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei says, in relation to the US, "The strongest army in the world may sometimes be slapped so hard that it cannot get up."
• Indirect talks between the US and Iran have begun with a message exchange process, according to reported.
• Senior Iranian Official said Iran's approach to US talks are positive and serious, but holds no preconception about the outcome.
• "Iran approves IAEA visit to nuclear facilities", Al Arabiya reported.
• Russian President's Aide said Russia, Iran and China sent ships to the Strait of Hormuz to participate in the "Security Belt 2026" exercise, Al Jazeera reported (as expected).
• US officials say they expect Iran to come to Geneva talks today with concrete concessions regarding its nuclear program, according to Axios.
• US President Trump said he will be involved in the Iran talks indirectly and that Iran wants to make a deal. Iran are bad negotiators and he hopes they will be more reasonable in talks.
• US delegation led by Special Envoy Witkoff leaves for Geneva for talks with Iran.
• Palestinian media reported Israeli army conducts bombing operations in deployment areas within Beit Lahiyah and the Northern Gaza Strip, according to Al Qahera.

Geopolitics: Others

• US President Trump said Secretary of State Rubio is talking to Cuba right now and that they want to make a deal, adds will see how it all turns out with Cuba and the US talking.

US Event Calendar

• 8:30 am: Feb Empire Manufacturing, est. 6.2, prior 7.7
• 10:00 am: Feb NAHB Housing Market Index, est. 38, prior 37
• 12:45 pm: Fed’s Barr Speaks on AI and the Labor Market
• 2:30 pm: Fed’s Daly Speaks on AI and the Economy

DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

Without wanting to put you off reading any further, this may be the most boring EMR of the year so far, as yesterday was unusually calm compared with the pace of events so far in 2026. However there were a couple of new big AI disruption stories in the European session to report of below. But it was quiet due to the combination of the US holiday and the Lunar New Year in China, offering markets a chance to pause, and the subdued volumes suggested many participants took the opportunity to have a lie down... or watch the Curling or Ski Jumping. Chinese markets remain closed until next Tuesday, with Hong Kong set to reopen on Friday and Korea on Thursday. US markets reopen today, and S&P (-0.58%) and Nasdaq (-0.96%) futures are both trading lower after having edged higher for most of yesterday's session. 10yr Treasury yields (-2.5bps) are also creeping lower again, trading at 4.025% this morning. After last week’s sizeable rally in US yields, attention is firmly on the bond market as investors look ahead to Friday’s core PCE and Q4 GDP releases. Today starts the US data week quietly, with the February NY Fed Empire State Survey (+0.5 expected) and the NAHB Housing Market Index (37 expected) due.
The rates rally is spreading across Asia with 10-30yr JGBs -6 to -10bps lower as I type after a slightly better than expected 5 year auction. The Nikkei is down -0.92%, continuing its decline from the previous session helped by disappointing GDP figures for the fourth quarter.

Meanwhile, the S&P/ASX 200 is experiencing a slight increase of +0.26%, primarily supported by gains from the mining giant BHP Group (+4.75%), which reported robust earnings for the first half of the fiscal year. That's one company AI will struggle to disrupt, although as an aside I just asked our AI tool if it could be disrupted and the one way is if AI allows exploration and discovery to get faster and cheaper for challengers! Is nothing safe! However this is probably also a case where the company could also use such analysis.

Regarding central bank developments, the minutes from the Reserve Bank of Australia’s most recent monetary policy meeting indicated that the rate increase was prompted by stronger-than-anticipated data, ongoing widespread inflation, and relaxed financial conditions. Nevertheless, the central bank expressed uncertainty about the future trajectory of inflation and the economy, resulting in a lack of a “high degree of confidence in any particular path for the cash rate.”

With the US out yesterday, European markets were similarly subdued. Equities saw only modest moves, with the STOXX 600 (+0.13%) and FTSE 100 (+0.26%) finishing slightly higher even with a dip into the close. But beneath the surface, AI related concerns continued to simmer. In Germany, Siemens fell sharply (-6.41%) amid growing worries that industrial software could be another area exposed to AI disruption. That decline weighed on the DAX, which closed -0.46%. Likewise, France’s Dassault Systèmes slumped (-10.44%) on similar concerns, although the CAC 40 (+0.06%) still managed a marginal gain. It’s clear that the market hasn’t yet shaken off this theme.

Across Europe, the news flow remained light as EU leaders returned from the Munich Security Conference. Reports from the FT and Bloomberg suggested the UK is considering increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2029—something that was largely expected, given the concessions needed to secure improved access to SAFE (Security Action for Europe) and more favourable EU trade terms. With no formal announcements likely before the Autumn Budget, investors appeared unbothered by any perceived fiscal implications. Gilt yields edged lower, with the 2yr down -0.7bps and the 10yr down -1.6bps. Elsewhere in fixed income, front-end European yields drifted slightly higher as renewed concerns over oil-driven inflation returned. The 2yr bund was up +0.2bps, while moves along the curve were more uneven, leaving the 10yr bund marginally lower at -0.1bps.

Oil prices rose as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East resurfaced, including reports that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard had begun military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude moved higher on the headlines, adding +1.33% yesterday. However it's down around -0.6% this morning. Markets will keep a close eye on developments as US–Iran talks are scheduled to resume today. Despite the renewed tensions, gold prices slipped yesterday, falling -0.74%. It is another -2% lower this morning with silver over -3% down, now trading $7 below its real adjusted price in 1790!

Looking to the day ahead, data releases include the US February Empire Manufacturing Index, the NAHB Housing Market Index, UK December average weekly earnings and unemployment, Germany’s February ZEW survey, the Eurozone ZEW survey, and Canada’s January CPI. Fed speakers include Barr and Daly, while today’s notable earnings releases feature Medtronic and Cadence Design Systems.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 08:39

When Cash Disappears, So Does Something Else

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Last Sunday, I held a book signing at Pearl in San Antonio, the kind of place magazines love to feature. Old brick buildings have been transformed into beautiful restaurants, boutiques, apartments, and bookstores. It feels curated yet charming, historic yet modern, a vision of how we’re told that cities should look and feel.

My signing happened during the farmers market, so there was music in the air, families strolling, dogs on leashes, linen dresses, and heirloom tomatoes. It was lovely. Before I sat down, I stopped into the trendy grocery store nearby. Everything inside looked like how food should look: thoughtfully sourced, artfully displayed, and priced closer to what real food actually costs when someone grows it with care. I ordered a coffee and a pastry and pulled a $20 bill from my wallet.

“We don’t take cash,” the cashier said politely.

I nodded. I’ve worked in restaurants, and I understand the argument. With employees, cash can be seen as a liability, with risks of theft, accounting errors, and end-of-day discrepancies. Cards feel cleaner, easier, and more trackable. Still, something in me tightened. Every time we stop accepting cash, we normalize a world where every transaction is recorded, categorized, stored, and potentially scrutinized. Every purchase becomes a data point. Every cup of coffee leaves a digital trail.

I took my coffee, found my seat at the bookstore, and started signing books. Between conversations, I could hear the sizzle and chatter from a nearby empanada booth at the farmers market. The smell of warm pastry finally got me. I walked over, cash already in hand.

“Can I get a potato empanada?” I asked.

The woman at the booth said, with an apologetic smile, “We don’t take cash.”

Not a brick-and-mortar store with layers of management, a pop-up tent at a farmers market. That’s when it really hit me. This isn’t just about convenience or speed at checkout. Cash itself is becoming strange, inconvenient, outdated, and almost suspicious. We’re being trained to accept that every exchange must be mediated, approved, and recorded by a third party, and that third party isn’t free.

Most of the vendors there were using Square to process payments. The typical fee is about 3 percent to 4 percent per transaction. That might not sound like much, but that percentage is shaved off every single time money changes hands digitally.

If I hand $20 in cash to the empanada vendor, and he hands that same $20 to the barber who cuts his hair, and the barber gives it to a babysitter, and the babysitter uses it to buy a pizza, that same $20 bill keeps moving through the community at full value. No one skims anything off the top.

But in the digital system, that cut happens again and again, and the effect compounds. At a 3.5 percent fee, after one transaction, that $20 becomes $19.30. After two, $18.62. After three, $17.97. After four, $17.34. After five digital transactions, only about $16.74 remains in circulation. More than $3 of the original $20 has quietly disappeared in just a handful of everyday exchanges. That money didn’t go to the farmer, the barber, the babysitter, or the pizza shop. It left the community entirely.

It’s a quiet drain on small communities, a friction we barely see because it’s spread out, invisible, and normalized. There’s also a common belief that businesses are required to accept cash because it’s legal tender. The truth is more complicated. In most places, private businesses can choose what forms of payment they accept unless a local or state law says otherwise. So no, they aren’t necessarily breaking the law. But legality and wisdom are not the same thing.

Every digital transaction comes with processing fees and interchange costs. Small businesses quietly lose a percentage of every sale, and customers pay more over time as those costs are baked into prices. In return, we give up privacy, independence, and the simple resilience of being able to transact even when systems go down. Cash works during power outages. Cash works when the internet is down. Cash works without a corporate intermediary. Cash is anonymous, direct, and final.

When everything becomes digital, spending can be tracked, restricted, frozen, or flagged. We may not feel that pressure today when we’re buying coffee and pastries in beautiful spaces, but systems built for convenience can easily become systems of control.

What struck me most that morning was the irony. I was at a farmers market, a place that represents local food, small producers, and community resilience, and yet even there, we’ve accepted the idea that every transaction must flow through the same centralized financial rails. We tell ourselves that it’s about ease, but what we’re really trading is privacy, resilience, and a small but meaningful piece of our sovereignty over how we spend the fruits of our labor.

It happened so gradually that most of us didn’t even notice. Until one day you’re standing at a farmers market, cash in hand, and realize that the future has arrived quietly, and that it doesn’t include the simplest form of freedom we used to carry in our pockets.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 08:05

BHP's Copper Pivot Pays Off With Surprise Dividend Bump, Record-High Stock Price

Shares of BHP Group, the world's largest miner, jumped to a record high in Australia after it posted earnings at the top end of Wall Street expectations. The miner's pivot into copper, aided by a surging rally in industrial metals, offset softer conditions in its iron ore unit.

BHP chief executive Mike Henry reaffirmed to investors earlier on a call that the miner is pivoting toward "future-facing" metals. In other words, he explained that the world's largest miner's shift away from operations focused on serving China's steel mills has paid off, as copper has soared.

Henry said that acquisitions began to bear fruit, as did the improvements at Escondida, the world's largest mine, all of which were helped by a record surge in the price of the industrial metal used heavily for power grids and AI-related applications. 

"This is the result of our deliberate actions to grow our copper business," Henry told analysts, adding, "Now, BHP is, by design, a diversified miner rather than focused on a single commodity."

At the time of writing, iron ore futures on the Dalian Commodity Exchange were trading at depressed levels below $100 per ton, while copper on the London Metal Exchange was trading around $12,850 per ton.

BHP earnings highlights:

• Underlying attributable profit rose 22% to $6.2 billion for the six months to end December. Shares in Australia jumped as much as 7.6% to a record.

• Copper contributed more than half of the profit for the first time, motly because of higher copper prices and steady output. Copper division underlying EBITDA climbed 59% to $8 billion.

• Iron ore earnings edged 4% higher and still make up close to half of the total, though BHP is dealing with "tough" negotiations with China's state buyer, China Mineral Resources Group.

• The Jansen potash project in Canada remains on track for first production in the middle of next year, though first-phase capex has risen to $8.4 billion.

• On M&A: Recent gains include the 2023 purchase of OZ Minerals and the Vicuna joint venture with Lundin Mining. Attempts to buy Anglo American (and efforts around its tie-up with Teck Resources) were unsuccessful, so BHP is emphasizing organic growth and being more disciplined in deal-making.

• Reiterated its plan to unlock up to $10 billion through asset sales and other transactions. It announced a $4.3 billion long-term silver streaming agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals tied to byproduct silver from the Antamina mine in Peru (BHP owns 33.75%). It also recently sold a $2 billion stake in the power network supporting Pilbara operations.

• Declared an interim dividend set at 73 cents, equal to a 60% payout ratio

UBS analyst Dominic Ellis commented on BHP's earnings, indicating "BHP Surprises With Dividend Bump."

Ellis told clients:

BHP's EBITDA beat by 3% in the first half of its financial year while EPS beat by 4%, but the surprise was the 16% increase in the dividend, on a 60% payout versus the baseline of 50%. Net debt stood at $14.7 bn, at the midpoint of the guided range, capex in line and guidance unchanged. Group EBITDA from copper was 51%, more than half of EBITDA for the first time. The stock has been a funding short for specialists, and while shares are performing well on these resutls, feedback from clients recently has been on the disconnect between iron ore (down sharply, now below $100/t) and iron ore equity resilience. BHP's spot free cash flow yield is 3.5% this year versus Rio Tinto on 6.4%.

Reminder about the copper market:

• Copper's Breakout Is Built On Much More Than Fundamentals

• Copper Hits Record High; Goldman Warns A "Circular Melt-Up" Is Now Driving Global Market

Strong earnings and a copper-led pivot that's cushioning a softer iron ore business have rewarded shareholders with record-high share prices in Australia.

"In the last five years, the BHP CEO has set the business up with options," said Glyn Lawcock, head of metals and mining research at Barrenjoey Markets Pty in Sydney. "Clearly, growth to 2030 is really potash and iron ore, but you hit the start of the new decade, it's pretty much all copper."

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 07:45

My back-to-work morning train WFH reads:

• Three economists grabbed a beer. A multibillion-dollar industry was born. The origin of the predictive markets business can be traced to an Iowa City bar in 1988. (NBC News)

• Why a ‘K-Shaped’ Economy Means More Risk for Stock Investors: Analysts say a stumble in the stock market could spell trouble for consumer spending and economic growth. That makes for a fragile balance. (Morningstar) see also Gen Z, Locked Out of Home Buying, Puts Its Money in the Market: The share of young people transferring funds to investment accounts has climbed steeply over a decade (Wall Street Journal)

• Box Spreads as a Borrowing Alternative to Margin Loans and SBLOCs: Kitces breaks down how sophisticated investors are using options box spreads to borrow at near-Treasury rates — and why it’s becoming a serious alternative to margin loans and securities-backed lines of credit. (Kitces)

• Yale’s Famed Investing Model Falters at a Fraught Time for Colleges: Many copied the Ivy League school’s bets on private equity and other illiquid investments. Now, plain old stocks and bonds are outperforming. (Bloomberg)

• Target makes drastic workforce shift to fix customer experience: Target is making major workforce changes to improve the customer experience after recent controversies and CEO transition. (The Street)

• The Existential AI Threat Is Here — and Some AI Leaders Are Fleeing: Some of the people building the most powerful AI systems are starting to quietly step away, spooked by what they’re seeing. When the builders get scared, maybe the rest of us should pay attention. (Axios) but see Meet the One Woman Anthropic Trusts to Teach AI Morals: A profile of Amanda Askell, the philosopher shaping how Claude thinks about ethics. It turns out teaching an AI right from wrong is less about rules and more about judgment calls — not unlike raising a very fast child. (Wall Street Journal)

• The Robot Revolution Is Real. Tesla Stock and More Ways to Play It. Once the purview of science fiction, automatons are getting closer to reality. Humanoid robots are moving from sci-fi to factory floors, and Barron’s lays out the investment case across Tesla, Nvidia, and the automakers. (Barron’s)

• EPA Reverses Long-Standing Climate Change Finding, Stripping Its Own Ability to Regulate Emissions: The EPA reversed its endangerment finding on greenhouse gases — the legal foundation for virtually all federal climate regulation. The agency essentially declared it no longer believes its own science. (NBC News) see also Renewables Soar Globally Despite US Climate Pullback: The rest of the world is racing ahead on clean energy even as the U.S. pulls back. Global renewable capacity surged to record levels, and the economics keep getting harder to argue with. (Semafor)

• “You Up???” Inside Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein’s Disturbingly Close Friendship The Epstein files reveal an 18-month alliance between Bannon and the disgraced financier built on mutual interest in shaping world events and politics, complete with hours of recorded interviews for a documentary that never materialized. The surprisingly cozy relationship between MAGA’s chief strategist and the convicted sex trafficker — including the texts. (Vanity Fair)

• The Lost Art of Sharing a Bottle: “When we opt out of rituals that foster closeness, we’re not just avoiding alcohol, we’re often avoiding connection itself. If staying home and not going out is weakening your social ties, that hurts you physiologically in other ways.” (Wine Enthusiast)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this week with Heather & Doug Bonaparth, a married couple who work together and wrote a book on the financial challenges couples face: “Money Together: How to find fairness in your relationship and become an unstoppable financial team.” Our discussion sits somewhere in between financial planning and couples therapy, built around real stories that try to help couples find a healthier approach to money.

 

A bullish broadening, in which the mega caps take a rest while the broader market breaks out

Source: Jurrien Timmer, Fidelity Investments

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Asians More Optimistic Than Most For Their Countries' Future

A recent Ipsos survey of 25,000 people across 30 countries shows Asians are on average more optimistic for the future of their countries than people from the rest of the world.

When asked whether they believe things in their country are headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track, 82 percent of respondents in Singapore said they think the city-state is on the right path, the highest percentage of all the countries included in the survey.

In second position came Indonesia, where three quarter of respondents felt their country was headed in the right direction, followed by Malaysia (69 percent), India (62 percent) and South Korea (58 percent).

The first non-Asian country, Argentina, came in sixth position with 57 percent.

As Statista's Valentine Fourreau shows in the infographic below, all the Asian countries included in the survey scored higher than the 30-country average, which stood at 41 percent.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Amongst the least optimistic countries were France (10 percent), Peru (21 percent), Hungary (24 percent) and Great Britain (24 percent).

The survey, which focused on what worries people around the world, found that the most common worries across all 30 countries were crime and violence (mentioned by 32 percent of respondents), inflation (30 percent) and poverty and social inequalities/unemployment (both 28 percent).

Ipsos notes that severe flooding caused by Cyclone Ditwah in parts of Southeast Asia led to increased level of worry about climate change in the region.

Thailand's level of concern about climate change now stands at 26 percent, 11 percentage points higher than the year before.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 05:45

Asians More Optimistic Than Most For Their Countries' Future

A recent Ipsos survey of 25,000 people across 30 countries shows Asians are on average more optimistic for the future of their countries than people from the rest of the world.

When asked whether they believe things in their country are headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track, 82 percent of respondents in Singapore said they think the city-state is on the right path, the highest percentage of all the countries included in the survey.

In second position came Indonesia, where three quarter of respondents felt their country was headed in the right direction, followed by Malaysia (69 percent), India (62 percent) and South Korea (58 percent).

The first non-Asian country, Argentina, came in sixth position with 57 percent.

As Statista's Valentine Fourreau shows in the infographic below, all the Asian countries included in the survey scored higher than the 30-country average, which stood at 41 percent.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Amongst the least optimistic countries were France (10 percent), Peru (21 percent), Hungary (24 percent) and Great Britain (24 percent).

The survey, which focused on what worries people around the world, found that the most common worries across all 30 countries were crime and violence (mentioned by 32 percent of respondents), inflation (30 percent) and poverty and social inequalities/unemployment (both 28 percent).

Ipsos notes that severe flooding caused by Cyclone Ditwah in parts of Southeast Asia led to increased level of worry about climate change in the region.

Thailand's level of concern about climate change now stands at 26 percent, 11 percentage points higher than the year before.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 05:45

Germany's Climate Policy Has Moved From Politics To The Courts... And The Economy Is Paying The Price

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany is the political engine of the Green Deal, yet it continues to fall short of its own CO₂ reduction targets. Now Germany’s Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig has ordered the federal government to tighten its climate targets by the end of March. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by the German Environmental Aid (Deutsche Umwelthilfe), aimed explicitly at increasing political pressure. Germany is tightening the screws on its own catastrophe.

Germany in 2026: the economy has entered its eighth consecutive year of industrial decline. Companies are shutting down, and hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been lost in the core sectors of the country’s former prosperity—chemicals, mechanical engineering, and above all the automotive industry.

Climate change has struck—or rather, the ideologically skewed and socially unprecedented self-destructive frenzy of German politics has begun to shred any remaining hope of a return to normal economic conditions.

The attempt to free the country from conventional energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal through a rapid transition to CO₂-free energy—politically and psychologically inflated into a moral crusade to “save the planet”—has failed.

Given the devastating competitive position of the German economy, which now pays energy prices roughly three times higher than competitors in reference locations such as France or the United States, any rational observer would urgently recommend consigning the entire transformation agenda to the dustbin of failed political hubris and collective delusion.

What remains is damage control: a rapid return to a market-based energy system, an end to destructive environmental and social experiments, and an unavoidable restructuring of the welfare state to reflect new economic realities. Germany is getting poorer, productivity is falling, and GDP per capita is declining—realities that even the federal government’s massive debt-financed spending programs can no longer conceal.

Yet Germany in 2026 is no ordinary country. Its political elite, supported by an affirming media ecosystem, has entrenched itself in a self-referential system of emissions-centered economic control—a system now reinforced by judicial authority.

In its ruling, the court mandated that the government sharpen its environmental targets. Under current conditions, a gap of at least 200 million tons of CO₂ would remain by 2045, which must now be eliminated across Germany’s entire economic structure.

Judges who effectively substitute political objectives for democratic deliberation are now setting the framework for Germany’s continued decline.

The lawsuit was brought by the German Environmental Aid—an organization already known for launching the first serious legal assault on Germany’s automotive industry during earlier battles over particulate emissions in city centers. The pressure on Germany is now coming from within: from a taxpayer-funded NGO complex that appears determined to politically delegitimize key industries, with the state apparatus firmly on its side.

According to Deutschlandfunk, a leaked draft from the SPD-led Environment Ministry outlines a new climate program aimed at achieving climate neutrality by 2045. Spanning more than 330 pages, it appears the government anticipated judicial escalation and preemptively prepared the groundwork for a revised climate law. Political conflict has been outsourced to the courts, to the relief of Berlin’s climate hardliners amid worsening economic conditions.

Among the core measures is the intensified “heat transition” in the building sector. The ministry proposes increasing subsidies for low-income households—up to 40 percent of costs—for heating replacements and heat pump installations. A generous solution for the climate-policy establishment, conveniently rolled out during an election season.

The leaked strategy signals a general increase in transformation pressure. No fundamentally new instruments are introduced; instead, property owners are placed under tighter time constraints to replace heating systems.

Climate policy and financial affordability are colliding ever more sharply. Amid a prolonged recession, the government is deliberately provoking social conflict while attempting to pacify it through ever-expanding subsidies.

Germany’s public debt, at roughly 65 percent of GDP, still appears moderate by European standards. In Berlin, this is interpreted as ample room to finance the transformation through rising debt while simultaneously increasing pressure on the private sector.

Environment Minister Carsten Schneider speaks optimistically of new “climate jobs.” The overall picture, however, increasingly resembles political farce. A state that secures public consent for its transformation agenda through debt, subsidies, and higher taxes acts obscenely and invites long-term economic damage.

Plans even include methane measurement programs for livestock, modeled after New Zealand—yet another blow to farmers. German emissions policy is entering a manic phase, blurring the line between real policy and political satire.

The subsidy machine continues to spin. The government plans to support 800,000 electric vehicles in the coming years. Credit resources remain abundant after Chancellor Friedrich Merz effectively neutralized the constitutional debt brake with the previous parliament. By 2040, electric vehicles are supposed to account for 70 percent of Germany’s car fleet—despite the absence of any credible plan for supplying the required electricity.

Artificial, technocratic necessity has replaced political debate. From the outset, it was clear that the supposed softening of the combustion-engine ban was mere political theater—a sedative for citizens gradually awakening to the scale of the green ideological disaster.

The energy sector faces further tightening. Dozens of reserve gas power plants are to be added, while existing plants are to be converted to hydrogen capability. Offshore wind projects abroad are being accelerated. These measures amount to desperate rescue attempts for a failed energy transition—an assessment implicitly acknowledged even by the Environment Ministry itself. Model-driven hope has replaced rational judgment.

Germany’s climate policy, entangled in a feedback loop with Brussels, has ossified into an auto-referential system marked by a narrow temporal vision and growing argumentative poverty. Looming over it all is the threat of further litigation by the German Environmental Aid should the final legislation fail to meet its standards.

Germany now finds itself in the grip of green ideologues who have subordinated all parties behind an ideological firewall. The environmental lobby’s greatest success came when it elevated the Net Zero target to constitutional status.

How much greater must the economic pressure become before a majority forms—even in front of this firewall—to dismantle this manifest political folly?

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 05:00

Germany's Climate Policy Has Moved From Politics To The Courts... And The Economy Is Paying The Price

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany is the political engine of the Green Deal, yet it continues to fall short of its own CO₂ reduction targets. Now Germany’s Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig has ordered the federal government to tighten its climate targets by the end of March. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by the German Environmental Aid (Deutsche Umwelthilfe), aimed explicitly at increasing political pressure. Germany is tightening the screws on its own catastrophe.

Germany in 2026: the economy has entered its eighth consecutive year of industrial decline. Companies are shutting down, and hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been lost in the core sectors of the country’s former prosperity—chemicals, mechanical engineering, and above all the automotive industry.

Climate change has struck—or rather, the ideologically skewed and socially unprecedented self-destructive frenzy of German politics has begun to shred any remaining hope of a return to normal economic conditions.

The attempt to free the country from conventional energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal through a rapid transition to CO₂-free energy—politically and psychologically inflated into a moral crusade to “save the planet”—has failed.

Given the devastating competitive position of the German economy, which now pays energy prices roughly three times higher than competitors in reference locations such as France or the United States, any rational observer would urgently recommend consigning the entire transformation agenda to the dustbin of failed political hubris and collective delusion.

What remains is damage control: a rapid return to a market-based energy system, an end to destructive environmental and social experiments, and an unavoidable restructuring of the welfare state to reflect new economic realities. Germany is getting poorer, productivity is falling, and GDP per capita is declining—realities that even the federal government’s massive debt-financed spending programs can no longer conceal.

Yet Germany in 2026 is no ordinary country. Its political elite, supported by an affirming media ecosystem, has entrenched itself in a self-referential system of emissions-centered economic control—a system now reinforced by judicial authority.

In its ruling, the court mandated that the government sharpen its environmental targets. Under current conditions, a gap of at least 200 million tons of CO₂ would remain by 2045, which must now be eliminated across Germany’s entire economic structure.

Judges who effectively substitute political objectives for democratic deliberation are now setting the framework for Germany’s continued decline.

The lawsuit was brought by the German Environmental Aid—an organization already known for launching the first serious legal assault on Germany’s automotive industry during earlier battles over particulate emissions in city centers. The pressure on Germany is now coming from within: from a taxpayer-funded NGO complex that appears determined to politically delegitimize key industries, with the state apparatus firmly on its side.

According to Deutschlandfunk, a leaked draft from the SPD-led Environment Ministry outlines a new climate program aimed at achieving climate neutrality by 2045. Spanning more than 330 pages, it appears the government anticipated judicial escalation and preemptively prepared the groundwork for a revised climate law. Political conflict has been outsourced to the courts, to the relief of Berlin’s climate hardliners amid worsening economic conditions.

Among the core measures is the intensified “heat transition” in the building sector. The ministry proposes increasing subsidies for low-income households—up to 40 percent of costs—for heating replacements and heat pump installations. A generous solution for the climate-policy establishment, conveniently rolled out during an election season.

The leaked strategy signals a general increase in transformation pressure. No fundamentally new instruments are introduced; instead, property owners are placed under tighter time constraints to replace heating systems.

Climate policy and financial affordability are colliding ever more sharply. Amid a prolonged recession, the government is deliberately provoking social conflict while attempting to pacify it through ever-expanding subsidies.

Germany’s public debt, at roughly 65 percent of GDP, still appears moderate by European standards. In Berlin, this is interpreted as ample room to finance the transformation through rising debt while simultaneously increasing pressure on the private sector.

Environment Minister Carsten Schneider speaks optimistically of new “climate jobs.” The overall picture, however, increasingly resembles political farce. A state that secures public consent for its transformation agenda through debt, subsidies, and higher taxes acts obscenely and invites long-term economic damage.

Plans even include methane measurement programs for livestock, modeled after New Zealand—yet another blow to farmers. German emissions policy is entering a manic phase, blurring the line between real policy and political satire.

The subsidy machine continues to spin. The government plans to support 800,000 electric vehicles in the coming years. Credit resources remain abundant after Chancellor Friedrich Merz effectively neutralized the constitutional debt brake with the previous parliament. By 2040, electric vehicles are supposed to account for 70 percent of Germany’s car fleet—despite the absence of any credible plan for supplying the required electricity.

Artificial, technocratic necessity has replaced political debate. From the outset, it was clear that the supposed softening of the combustion-engine ban was mere political theater—a sedative for citizens gradually awakening to the scale of the green ideological disaster.

The energy sector faces further tightening. Dozens of reserve gas power plants are to be added, while existing plants are to be converted to hydrogen capability. Offshore wind projects abroad are being accelerated. These measures amount to desperate rescue attempts for a failed energy transition—an assessment implicitly acknowledged even by the Environment Ministry itself. Model-driven hope has replaced rational judgment.

Germany’s climate policy, entangled in a feedback loop with Brussels, has ossified into an auto-referential system marked by a narrow temporal vision and growing argumentative poverty. Looming over it all is the threat of further litigation by the German Environmental Aid should the final legislation fail to meet its standards.

Germany now finds itself in the grip of green ideologues who have subordinated all parties behind an ideological firewall. The environmental lobby’s greatest success came when it elevated the Net Zero target to constitutional status.

How much greater must the economic pressure become before a majority forms—even in front of this firewall—to dismantle this manifest political folly?

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 05:00

EU Prepares €4 Trillion Eurobond Push As Russia Eyes Dollar Comeback

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The European Union is steering purposefully toward the introduction of Eurobonds. At the preparatory EU summit at Alden Biesen Castle in Belgium, numerous signs suggest that the multi-billion-euro Draghi plan could soon be set in motion. At the same time, geopolitically, a possible Russian comeback is emerging as fresh trouble for Brussels.

The ability to analyze mistakes and rationally weigh realistic courses of action belongs, in evolutionary terms, to our conditio humana. Experience teaches us: those who repeatedly slam their heads against the same wall may not qualify as evolution’s preferred leadership model. Headaches should be understood as a warning sign — not as motivation for the next assault. This preliminary remark serves to highlight a fundamental problem in present-day Europe.

Our political elites are conducting a socialist field experiment: they repeatedly hurl themselves against the same wall — that of the European economy, its businesses, and some 450 million citizens — without allowing persistent failure or pounding headaches to deter them.

One might assume this is a highly complex structure. From the perspective of European policymakers, however, it appears primarily as a challenge to be met with the fatal toolkit of central planning and stubborn ignorance.

We were able to assess the condition of this collective “head” on Thursday in Belgium at the EU summit. Brussels’ inner leadership circle around Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, along with its two political standard-bearers Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, had correctly diagnosed the issue in advance: the EU economy lacks competitiveness. China and the United States have surged ahead technologically — and they have the audacity to position themselves diametrically opposed to Europe’s ideology of centralized control and transformation logic. The two superpowers flatly refuse to smash their heads against the wall of European delusions — CO₂ elsewhere helps plants grow and herds graze, while here “flutter power” is generated alongside deliberate landscape devastation.

Instead, they have moved to radically deregulate their markets. The Chinese did so earlier; the Americans are now following at full speed, embracing what appears evolutionarily sound: entrusting the social fabric of their societies once again to markets, individuals, and the principle of personal responsibility.

Meritocratic values, a revival of bourgeois culture, perhaps even religion — Europe wants none of it. Everything here remains woke, carefully curated by the supreme censor in Brussels. On the very day of the summit, the European Parliament declared that a trans woman is a woman — full stop.

So much for the “rules-based order” and European values. An order that could be grounded in many things — but apparently not in reason and biological reality. Europe postures as post-Enlightenment, beyond the bounds of common sense.

Back to the summit and the question of how to solve the Eurozone’s economic dilemma. An old acquaintance, former Italian prime minister and ex-ECB chief Mario Draghi, delivered the blueprint for a supposed European comeback two years ago — and may now define the EU’s framework for action.

To deflate the suspense: Europe’s debt club will likely choose the same old wall for its next act, once again demonstrating its skeptical stance toward cognitive progress. If Brussels resorts to the Draghi plan in its economic distress, a trillion-euro debt package would be activated — public credit designed to catapult the continent in green tech, artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, and even military technology to the level of its geopolitical rivals by 2030. Hubris executed on the bond market.

The financial framework outlined by Draghi is enormous: over five years, €800 billion annually would flow into Eurobonds — unless a few reasonable politicians manage to halt this risky undertaking. €800 billion corresponds to roughly five percent of the EU’s GDP. This additional borrowing alone would, under current conditions, raise member states’ total debt by around 25 percent.

A fiscal gamble whose test phase already occurred during the issuance of NextGenerationEU bonds in the Covid era — at nearly identical volume. €750 billion was raised, and in the end the European Central Bank had to absorb much of it. Demand for European debt appears lukewarm; the money has since flowed into Southern European welfare budgets and selected green prestige projects.

Brussels must literally plant its political beacons across the landscape so that even the last EU citizen remembers who transformed cultural scenery into a kind of Hollywood dystopia filled with wind parks.

You will recall Mario Draghi: once Italy’s technocratic — that is, unelected — prime minister, and earlier the architect of the OMT program (Outright Monetary Transactions), the instrument that empowered the ECB during the 2012 debt crisis to purchase unlimited sovereign bonds of distressed euro states to regulate yields. “Whatever it takes,” declared Mr. Bombastic Draghi at the time — and now his heavy fiscal artillery may once again fire at problems whose causes lie less in the monetary sphere than in the microeconomic fabric and cultural climate of our societies.

These difficulties will not be solved through debt-financed state macro-management. What is missing is entrepreneurial spirit. The continent is overregulated, capital markets are impaired, and Europe’s ever-growing state apparatus consumes vast sums. The private sector struggles to develop viable business models while administrative burdens and fiscal appetites continue to expand.

The self-inflicted energy crisis born of the green transformation frenzy is only one of several nooses tightening around EU citizens’ necks. An even more bloated state apparatus would not loosen these nooses — it would tighten them. Of that there can be no doubt.

For Germany, the simultaneous introduction of Eurobonds alongside the Draghi maneuver would mark the end of any remaining hope for fiscal stability. The current government’s chosen path would drive public debt up by at least five percent annually. Adding Germany’s proportional share of newly issued euro debt, one can already foresee that by 2030 Germany could easily breach 110 percent debt-to-GDP.

In other words: the welfare state would henceforth be financed directly from the printing press.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz demonstratively enjoyed summit unity with French President Emmanuel Macron. As so often, they agreed on the decisive questions, Merz explained, sharing a sense of urgency: Europe must act now and become competitive again — especially in industry.

Precisely the sector most heavily damaged by the very policies now overseen by the chancellor: higher CO₂ levies, supply-chain legislation, and an energy policy that levels industrial ambition.

In the end, it was the usual summit folklore — nothing more.

A “Buy European” rule is meant to guide the way, with supply chains to be more firmly centered in Europe. One may wonder how this resource-poor continent intends to achieve such ambitions. Especially in international trade and in Russia policy — precisely where abundant and affordable resources would be available — Europe has largely abandoned sober assessment. Toward its declared arch-enemy Russia, one of the most resource-rich nations on earth, Europe remains locked in maximal defiance.

The pre-summit ahead of the March gathering offers initial hints that joint debt financing may indeed become serious. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — facing debt around 130 percent of GDP in the homeland of joint borrowing — may find the idea of shared liability, particularly by the German taxpayer, not entirely unappealing.

While Brussels dances around the golden calf of the transformation agenda and attempts to buy time with massive debt programs and well-sounding pseudo-reforms, decisive developments may unfold behind the scenes.

According to an internal Kremlin memo seen by Bloomberg, Russia is reportedly considering a return to the US dollar payment system. After years of European sanctions, American embargoes, and exclusion from SWIFT, such a move would be a geopolitical shock of the first order — further isolating the European Union while potentially fueling secessionist tendencies, particularly in Eastern Europe.

The memo outlines several areas of overlapping Russian-American interests: energy and raw materials cooperation, as well as possible integration of dollar-based financial instruments into Russia’s banking system. Reuters has confirmed a corresponding contact channel between Washington and Moscow.

Against the backdrop of increasingly coordinated activity among the three major actors — the United States, China, and Russia — Brussels’ strategy appears in a different light. Perhaps this explains its efforts to seek strategic partnerships with classic geopolitical swing states such as India or the MERCOSUR bloc.

For one thing unites the three great powers: all stand in increasingly strained relations with Brussels and the leading capitals of the European Union.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 02:00

Voyages To The End Of The World: The Moral Costs Of Techno-Utopianism

In their highly read First Things essay “Voyages to the End of the World,” Peter Thiel and Sam Wolfe use Francis Bacon’s utopian “New Atlantis” to argue that modern faith in unlimited technological progress has subtly redefined salvation as a human-controlled achievement rather than a divine gift, displacing religious understandings of human destiny with promises of security, abundance, and mastery over nature.

They warn that this Baconian project - disguised in Christian imagery - risks creating a seductive but spiritually impoverished civilization where technological power outpaces moral wisdom, potentially leading to an end-times trajectory of false salvation unless reintegrated into a framework that respects natural and spiritual limits.

Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Founded in 1990 by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, First Things magazine strives to promote a well-informed public philosophy in the Christian and Jewish traditions.

Last year, one of the most read essays in First Things was titled: “Voyages to the End of the World” by Peter Thiel and Sam Wolfe. Thiel is a tech entrepreneur, investor, and author. Wolfe is a writer and researcher at Thiel Capital.

These thinkers offer a probing examination of our modern technological ambitions. Using Francis Bacon’s unfinished 17th-century work “New Atlantis” as a point of departure, Thiel and Wolfe suggest that modern faith in scientific progress is corroding the religious understanding of human destiny. They contend that Bacon’s utopian tale about knowledge and prosperity contains a warning about the moral costs of unlimited technological mastery.

Thiel and Wolfe’s central claim is not that science itself is evil or that technological progress must be rejected. Rather, they argue that Bacon’s scientific project—and the modern world that has adopted it—rests on a redefinition of salvation. Whereas Christianity views redemption as a divine process that transcends history, Bacon relocates it firmly within human control. In doing so, modern technological civilization risks mistaking power for wisdom. This could have grave consequences as we enter an epoch defined by unprecedented technological advancement.

At the heart of their essay is a close look at Bacon’s fictional account of the island society of Bensalem. On its surface, Bensalem appears harmonious, pious, and benevolent. Its inhabitants are devout, orderly, and humane; its institutions promise healing, abundance, and stability. Its governing institution, Salomon’s House, is dedicated to the systematic investigation of nature for the “relief of man’s estate.” Bacon presents scientific inquiry as a quasi-religious vocation, cloaked in Christian imagery and moral restraint.

Thiel and Wolfe warn that this superficial harmony conceals a radical transformation of the human relationship to nature, knowledge, and God. They argue that Bacon’s true ambition was not merely to advance science but to replace the classical-Christian understanding of limits with a project of total technological mastery. Knowledge, in Bacon’s vision, is not ordered toward moral formation but toward domination and control. Nature is no longer something to be understood within an inherited moral order; it is something that can be conquered and redesigned.

This shift has profound implications. Bacon’s scientific method implicitly promises what religion once offered: security, healing, abundance, and even a form of immortality. By embedding these promises within a framework that appears Christian, Bacon disguised the degree to which his vision subtly marginalized the hand of God. In New Atlantis, God remains present, but increasingly as a symbolic guarantor of human progress rather than as the ultimate judge of human action.

Thiel and Wolfe interpret this displacement through an eschatological lens. Drawing on biblical imagery, they suggest that Bacon’s utopia resembles the deceptive peace promised in apocalyptic literature—a peace achieved not through repentance or divine reconciliation, but through human ingenuity and centralised power. The danger is not tyranny in its crudest form, but something more seductive: a world so efficient and secure that it no longer recognizes its spiritual impoverishment.

One of the essay’s most troubling conclusions is that modern technological civilization may be better understood as an end-times trajectory rather than a benign accumulation of new tools. Scientific progress does not merely extend human capacities; it reshapes human expectations about the future. When technology promises to eliminate scarcity, suffering, and even death, it inevitably assumes the role once played by theology. In this sense, modernity reconfigures the religious impulse by substituting technique for grace.

The authors argue that this substitution is inherently unstable. Technological power expands far more rapidly than moral wisdom, and the belief that every problem has a technical solution blinds societies to questions of meaning, responsibility, and restraint. The more humanity relies on systems it only partially understands—artificial intelligence, biotechnology, etc.—the more it risks becoming subject to forces it can neither fully control nor morally justify.

A further conclusion concerns the cultural conditions that allow this dynamic to persist. Thiel and Wolfe suggest that widespread biblical and philosophical illiteracy leaves contemporary society unable to recognize the spiritual dimensions of technological ambition. Apocalyptic language, once central to the Western moral imagination, is now dismissed as superstition.

Yet without such language, we lose a critical framework for discerning the difference between genuine progress and false salvation. The result is not rational clarity, but naivete—a readiness to accept sweeping promises of safety and efficiency without asking what is being sacrificed in return.

The relevance of “Voyages to the End of the World” becomes especially clear as we move deeper into the 21st century. Humanity now possesses technologies capable of reshaping life itself, from genetic engineering to autonomous systems that make decisions once reserved for human judgment. Political and economic leaders increasingly speak in utopian terms, promising that innovation will solve social conflict, environmental degradation, and even moral disagreement. These assurances echo Bacon’s vision of a world governed by knowledge rather than virtue, technique rather than tradition.

Thiel and Wolfe suggest we correct our course. They invite readers to reconsider whether the goals of technological civilization are as harmless as they appear. The question is no longer whether we can build more powerful tools, but whether those tools are shaping a conception of life that is ultimately compatible with human well-being.

The authors do not advocate withdrawal from modern life or a rejection of scientific inquiry. Their argument is one of discernment. Technological progress, they assert, must be reintegrated into a moral framework that acknowledges the natural limits of human power. Without such a framework, progress becomes self-justifying, and power becomes an end in itself. We are reminded that the future we build should not be merely technical. It should also be moral, spiritual, and ultimately related to the destiny of human souls.

As the second quarter of the 21st century unfolds, “Voyages to the End of the World” offers a timely caution.

The greatest danger facing technological civilization may not be catastrophe, but success—the achievement of a techno-managed world that no longer knows why or for what it exists.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 23:35

US Air Force Moves To Quickly Restock 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters

With tensions between Washington and Tehran soaring, the US Air Force has moved to restock its GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-buster bombs, which is the same weapons used in June during Operation Midnight Hammer, when several - some reports say over a dozen - were dropped on three Iranian nuclear facilities.

Along with the ongoing US military build-up in the US Central Command (CENTCOM) region of responsibility, this is another big sign that Trump-ordered military action could be imminent, despite that the Iranians have not attacked the United States or its bases abroad. On that, the below is where things stand in terms of deployments...

After the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group transits the Atlantic, the U.S. will have 2 aircraft carriers and 15 destroyers (plus a few subs) to work with across combatant commands.

Approx. 33% of the deployed U.S. Navy fleet is represented below, which can carry 600+ TLAMs. pic.twitter.com/1vPf9akqTY

— Ian Ellis (@ianellisjones) February 16, 2026

A partially redacted federal notice posted last week confirms the Air Force awarded Boeing a sole-source contract to replenish the depleted stockpile.

The Air Force stated the move was necessary because "this procurement and sustainment activity is critically needed to replenish the inventory of GBU-57’s, ended during Operation Midnight Hammer (21 June 25)."

The notice further explains the Pentagon bypassed a competitive bidding process because Boeing has "uniquely acquired expertise over a period of 18 years of adapting this specialized weapon to meet evolving mission needs as MOP transitioned from proof-of-concept to Full Operational Capability." Also, any alternate decision might have resulted in delays.

Boeing is the only manufacturer of the 30,000-pound GBU-57 MOP, the deep-penetration bomb designed to destroy hardened underground targets.

"No delay in award is acceptable for this effort. Delaying this requirement would undermine force readiness and efficient acquisitions for this key weapons program. A delay undermines Combatant Commanders’ capabilities, jeopardizes force readiness and strategic deterrence, hinders nuclear proliferation prevention efforts, and could result in loss of life," the notice stated.

That is one big bomb...

 US Air Force photo

One remaining key detail from the June war which has been shrouded in contradiction and ambiguity is whether the initial bunker busters really obliterated Iran's nuclear development capability. President Trump certainly claimed this several times soon after the fact, and yet now warns the Iranians against moving forward with their nuclear program.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 23:00

China's Debt Model Creates Danger Of Stagnation

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The latest social financing figures from China show an economy that is increasingly relying on government debt while private demand for credit remains weak. The strength of the Chinese technology sector and its exporting companies gives enough room for leverage. However, behind the weak private sector credit demand lies an evident economic slowdown that the Chinese government acknowledges, challenging consumption patterns, a significant overcapacity problem, and the depth of the housing crisis.

The current economic model, focused on delivering 5% real economic growth, requires larger doses of debt to achieve smaller increments of growth, especially productive sector growth. The government has focused on reducing debt and overcapacity imbalances while reorienting its exports and financial system to lessen dependence on the US dollar; however, the main challenge for the Chinese economy remains boosting consumer demand, despite rate cuts and easing financial conditions.

To understand the intensity of debt of the Chinese model, we must go to the year 2000 and see the acceleration in the flow of debt, not just the current stock. At that time, real GDP growth was around 8–9%, so each percentage point of growth came with roughly 13–16 points of debt‑to‑GDP. Government debt was very low, at around 25% of GDP, and most leverage sat in the state-owned corporate sector with modest household debt. China was able to deliver near‑double‑digit growth with a total non‑financial debt ratio barely above 120% of GDP.

By 2023, non‑financial sector debt had risen to about 285% of GDP, more than doubling its level of 2000. Chinese think‑tanks and official commentators put the “macro leverage ratio” closer to 300% of GDP by 2025, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The macro leverage ratio rose by 11.8 percentage points to 302.3 percent in 2025, exceeding the 10.1-point increase reported in 2024.

Over the same period, the trend of real GDP growth has slowed to roughly 4–5%, so each percentage point of growth now requires around 60–75 points of debt‑to‑GDP, more than three times the debt per point of growth required in 2000. Furthermore, it comes mostly from government debt.

In January 2026, aggregate social financing jumped by 7.22 trillion yuan, significantly higher than in the same month of 2025 and above market expectations, consistent with 5% annual GDP growth and a larger composition of the public sector in the mix. Outstanding social financing reached 449.11 trillion yuan at the end of January, rising 8.2% year‑on‑year, while money supply (M2) rose by 9%.​

New yuan bank loans were 4.7 trillion yuan, about 420 billion less than a year earlier and significantly below consensus, showing the weak private‑sector credit demand and the prudent approach of Chinese customers and businesses to debt addition. RMB loans outstanding stood at 276.62 trillion yuan, up only 6.1% year‑on‑year, clearly below the pace of overall financing and money growth.

The driver of credit growth in China is no longer households and private firms but the government and state-owned companies.

The real estate problem has impacted Chinese families in numerous ways. Not only did most of them see the value of their homes decline, but many families invested in the attractive yields of real estate developers’ commercial paper, which led to large losses and even the wipe-out of savings for many. Additionally, despite the excess in supply of houses, prices have not fallen enough to warrant enough appetite for new mortgages, as affordability remains an issue and the traditional prudence of Chinese citizens when it comes to consuming and borrowing adds to the challenge.

Beijing plans to issue 4.4 trillion yuan in local government special‑purpose bonds in 2025, 500 billion more than in 2024, looking to boost government investment and a “proactive fiscal policy,” knowing that raising taxes would be exceedingly negative for growth and consumption.

Local governments are expected to issue more than 10 trillion yuan in bonds in 2025, including refinancing, general bonds, and new special bonds.

The Chinese government knows that it can manage more debt but also sees the weak investment and household spending and acknowledges that large tax increases would be counterproductive.  However, to prevent future debt-driven stagnation, a focus on productivity is necessary.

The official budget sets a deficit of 4% for 2025. However, once all budget items are consolidated, including government funds, special bonds, and off‑budget vehicles, this true fiscal deficit in 2025 is closer to 9%, up from 7.7% in 2024, according to Rhodium Group and JP Morgan. China increasingly relies on hidden or almost fiscal borrowing to support growth.

With outstanding social financing now around 449 trillion yuan and real growth around 4–5%, each incremental point of GDP is increasingly linked with a much larger stock of debt than a decade ago. This rising credit intensity of growth may prevent a significant slowdown but may create a significant fiscal challenge in the future. The Chinese model demands high growth and low taxes; any change to the fiscal system will be negative.

For years, local governments relied on the sale of land for property development to collect tax receipts. Thus, the drag from real estate is evident in the economy and in fiscal sustainability. Real estate development investment fell 13.9% year‑on‑year in the first three quarters of 2025, with residential investment down 12.9%, the steepest drop since 2021, according to official figures. Property investment and sales both posted double‑digit declines in 2024, and forecasters expect real estate investment to fall another 11% and sales to drop 7.5% in 2025, according to Reuters, with further declines in 2026 before stabilizing only in 2027… if it happens as fast as consensus estimates.

The property sector, once a key engine for economic growth and tax receipts, absorbs new credit to stabilize its accounts without boosting growth or creating a multiplier effect.

Additionally, China’s industrial capacity utilization remained at 74.9% at the end of 2025, well below the 78.4% peak reached in 2021. Overcapacity is clear in steel, autos, legacy chips, and parts of sectors like green tech, where expansion has surpassed domestic and external demand. Thus, the purchasing managers’ indices show weak new orders and foreign demand, while bankruptcies and insolvencies have risen, although not to levels that would indicate a financial crisis.​

The Chinese economy needs to reopen, improve investor and legal security and allow the housing slump to materialize fully to see the type of productive economic growth it needs to avoid much larger increases in debt. Otherwise, the risk of stagnation will likely be elevated as population growth stalls, overcapacity remains, and the stock of unsold property becomes a larger liability.  

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 22:25

Kremlin's Surprise Overture: Ready To Halt Airstrikes On Election Day If Zelensky Allows Vote

Moscow just potentially created a big opening for Ukrainian elections to actually happen, with an unexpected overture:

Russia is ready to ensure that there will be no airstrikes on election day in Ukraine if Kiev decides to hold elections, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin said an interview with TASS.

However, the big question remains of if President Zelensky decides to actually proceed with an election. Given that months ago he didn't even cave to Trump pressuring him to do so, it's very up in the air whether he wants to actually see this through, or if martial law will continue to be used as an excuse to block a vote.

via Reuters

Russian President Vladimir Putin himself has floated willingness to halt airstrikes deep into Ukraine on election day if elections are held there - but he's also also recently said that the millions of Ukrainians currently living in Russia should have the right to vote.

These are mostly Russian-speaking Ukrainians who lived in the Donbass - as well as Crimea - before war broke out, or who are still there amid the conflict.

"Of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin's statements remain relevant. But, as I earlier noted, there is no talk yet of the practical organization of voting in Ukraine," Galuzin said.

"I would like to draw attention to our experience. In March 2024, presidential elections were held in Russia, and polling stations - even taking into account the ongoing military operations -were opened in close proximity to the combat zone. Kiev tried every way possible to disrupt the electoral process in the frontline regions, not shying away from resorting to terrorist means and sabotage. However, it proved unable to achieve its goal," Galuzin added.

He then emphasized that Russia "will not stoop to Kiev's practices and will allow the people of Ukraine to fully exercise their constitutionally enshrined electoral rights and independently determine the future development of their country."

"Of course, if the Kiev regime finally decides to take this democratic step," the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister added.

Ukraine has said a parliamentary committee is still studying the issue, and that the total safety of all citizens would have to be guaranteed - also by international powers - while the vote proceeds.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 21:50

Indonesia To Send First 1,000 Troops To Gaza By April For 'Stabilization Force'

Via Middle East Eye

Indonesia is readying 1,000 troops to be deployed in Gaza as early as April as part of the UN-mandated International Stabilization Force, an army spokesperson said on Monday.

A total of 8,000 Indonesian soldiers will be ready for deployment by June, while the final decision will be made by Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto. "The departure schedule remains entirely subject to the political decisions of the state and applicable international mechanisms," the spokesman said in a text message to news agency Reuters.

via AFP

Indonesian Army Chief of Staff Maruli Simanjuntak previously estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 military personnel could be deployed, with final numbers "still being negotiated". 

On Saturday, Indonesia's foreign ministry said that its military's participation in Gaza as part of the peace plan devised by US President Donald Trump should not be interpreted as a normalization of political relations with Israel. 

"Indonesia consistently rejects all attempts at demographic change or the forced displacement or relocation of the Palestinian people in any form," the ministry said.

The deployment, which has a non-combatant, humanitarian mandate, could only be carried out with the consent of the Palestinian Authority, the ministry said.

"Indonesian troops will not be involved in combat operations or any action leading to direct confrontation with any armed group," the statement said. Indonesian troops would also have no mandate to demilitarize any party, it added.

However the mandate of the stabilization force includes ensuring "the process of demilitarizing the Gaza Strip" and "the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups". The resolution authorizes the force to "use all necessary measures to carry out its mandate".

$5bn to rebuild Gaza 

Indonesia confirmed last week that President Prabowo Subianto will attend the inaugural leaders’ meeting of Trump’s "Board of Peace", whose members have pledged $5bn toward "rebuilding war-ravaged Gaza". 

Indonesian foreign ministry said that Prabowo would use the forum on 19 February to advocate for the protection of Palestinians and push for a sustainable peace based on a two-state solution, which envisions the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Prabowo is also expected to sign a tariff agreement with the United States during the trip, the government said. "We are just preparing ourselves in case an agreement is reached and we have to send peacekeeping forces," Prabowo told journalists.

The president also said he will seek to negotiate the board’s reported $1bn membership fee. Indonesia’s foreign ministry said that its troops' participation in Gaza would not be aimed at imposing peace, but would instead focus on humanitarian objectives. 

Indonesia is one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping operations globally, with more than 2,700 personnel deployed in missions across Africa and the Middle East.

Indonesia's largest deployment is with the United Nations Interim Force is in Lebanon. Public support for Palestine is strong in Indonesia, where mass demonstrations have taken place against Israel's genocide in Gaza. 

On August 3, thousands of Indonesians gathered at Jakarta's National Monument, waving Palestinian flags and holding placards demanding justice for Gaza.

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, has consistently called for an end to Israeli genocide in Gaza and has pushed for a two-state solution through international forums. Its government has also provided humanitarian aid, medical support and diplomatic backing for Palestinian institutions.

In November, Indonesia's defense minister announced that its military had trained 20,000 troops for healthcare and construction efforts in Gaza. Jakarta has also provided humanitarian aid, including the delivery of 10,000 tonnes of rice in August last year, and has launched a long-term cultivation initiative in Sumatra and Kalimantan to support Palestinian food security.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 21:15

Kim Jong Un Gifts New Apartments To Families Of Soldiers Killed In Ukraine War

Last summer North Korea began for the first time airing footage which provided public confirmation that it was receiving many of its soldiers home in coffins after they served alongside Russian forces in the context of the Ukraine war.

It's believed that the some ten to fourteen thousand DPRK troops dispatched to assist Moscow had primarily fought in Russia's Kursk province, where they helped repel the previous six-month Ukrainian occupation of the southern border oblast (in 2024-2025).

On Monday, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un unveiled that families of soldiers killed in the battle abroad would receive free new housing. He presided over a ribbon-cutting ceremony marking the completion of a new block of apartments for that purpose, state media reported Monday.

KCNA/Yonhap

"The new street has been built thanks to the ardent desire of our motherland that wishes that... its excellent sons, who defended the most sacred things by sacrificing their most valuable things, will live forever," Kim said in a speech, as cited by the Korean Central News Agency.

This comes after Kim last week having publicly declared he's ready to "unconditionally support" all of Russian President Vladimir Putin's policies and decisions.

"Before their death, the heroic martyrs must have pictured in their mind's eye their dear families living in the ever-prospering country," the North Korean leader said.

via KCNA

KCNA images also showed Kim touring the new apartments alongside his teenage daughter Ju Ae, believed to be the most likely future successor to Kim.

International reports based on South Korean intelligence estimates say that around 2,000 North Korean soldiers have been killed while fighting alongside Russia so far.

The apartments for families of fallen soldiers is a program clearly intended to create incentives for the military to support Pyongyang's foreign adventurism on behalf of Moscow, and to deflect potential criticism.

Kim Jong Un opens new Saeppyol Street housing in Pyongyang

Homes built for families of fallen soldiers, KCNA reports

Ceremony marks what he called a 'heroic era' pic.twitter.com/kBxdAtm564

— RT (@RT_com) February 16, 2026

Ukraine has bitterly complained about the foreign contingencies helping Russia, and in previously claimed that North Korea could send up to 30,000 - though there's been little evidence of such a high figure.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 20:40

A Venezuelan-Like Oil Blockade Against Iran Could Enable The US To Divide-And-Rule RIC

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The cascading consequences of such a blockade, which might not ultimately be imposed due it entailing a high risk of war with Iran, could simultaneously weaken Russia, India, and China.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump 2.0 is considering imposing a Venezuelan-like oil blockade against Iran. It hasn’t yet done so due to concerns that Iran might attack the US’ regional military assets and/or seize its Gulf allies’ oil tankers, with either scenario destabilizing the global oil market and spiking the risk of war, so it might never ultimately happen. If the US were to successfully impose such a blockade, however, then it might be able to adroitly divide-and-rule Russia, India, and China (RIC).

“The US Wants To Replicate The Venezuelan Model In Iran” by coercing Iran into subordinating itself and its energy industry to the US. The “Trump Doctrine”, which is shaped by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby’s “Strategy of Denial”, seeks to deny strategic resources to the US’ rivals. Accordingly, it has an interest in cutting off China’s average import of 1.38 million barrels of Iranian oil per day last year, which could hit its economy hard if they’re not replaced (and that might be difficult).

These exports could then be redirected to India, thus enabling India to more than replace its average import of 1 million barrels per day of Russian oil last month, with the revenue placed in an escrow account per the Venezuelan precedent for release to Iran if it cuts a nuclear and missile deal with the US. Through these means, India could zero out its import of Russian oil while raising the US’ role over its energy security exactly as Trump 2.0 wants, with the end result dealing incredible harm to RIC.

Russia’s budgetary revenue from such sales would be reduced and could only realistically be replaced in part through more sales to China, though that might not be as easy as it sounds. The UK is preparing a campaign to seize Russia’s “shadow fleet” in the English Channel after being emboldened by the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker near its coast. If Russia doesn’t impose unacceptable costs on the UK, and it didn’t impose any on the US for doing this, then its Baltic Sea tankers might never reach China.

Those from the Black Sea might not reach it either if the UK allies with Greece and Cyprus to cut off Russia’s “shadow fleet” from that vector too. Pipeline exports, which have limits to how much they can be scaled, would then be the only means for replacing part of Russia’s lost oil exports to India with China apart from relatively minimal tanker exports from the Far East. The resultant economic pressure on Russia and China might make them susceptible to lopsided deals with the US on Ukraine and trade.

As for India, it already entered into a partially lopsided deal with the US as regards the informal quid pro quo of it agreeing to zero out its import of Russian oil in exchange for their trade deal, and the US’ growing influence over India’s energy security could curtail its hard-earned strategic autonomy. This might then be leveraged for coercing a reduction in India’s purchase of Chinese goods and services so as to place more pressure on the People’s Republic to agree to its own lopsided trade deal with the US.

This worst-case scenario of the US’ dividing-and-ruling RIC can be averted by Iran deterring or breaking a US blockade on its oil in parallel with Russia doing the same with respect to any British one against its “shadow fleet”. These options require immense political will since they entail the potential cost of a hot war breaking out between Great Powers so it’s unclear whether they’ll be implemented, but likewise, so too might the US and UK ultimately back off from their possible blockades for the same reason.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 20:05

Pelosi Appears To Have Picked Their Candidate For President In 2028

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may be retiring from Congress at the end of this term, but she's not done trying to shape presidential races. The 85-year-old former House speaker has turned into what one former aide calls "a Gavin fan-girl," deploying her legendary donor network and political capital to boost California Gov. Gavin Newsom as a 2028 White House contender. The move lands as a calculated slight to Kamala Harris, who polls ahead of Newsom nationally but appears to have lost Pelosi's confidence after the 2024 debacle.

According to a report from Axios, Pelosi has spent months publicly and privately vouching for Newsom.

 "From the standpoint of leadership, vision, and values, knowledge of the issues, strategic thinking about how to get things done, he's masterful," she told The New Yorker. She told Vogue earlier this month, “I’ve seen him grow politically, I've also seen him have this beautiful family, and for all of us who love him, seeing him evolve has been wonderful to behold.”

She’s even trying to help Newsom shed the perception of coming from privilege, telling The Atlantic, "Everybody thinks of Gavin and a silver spoon. But that isn't right. He was a very hard worker in everything that he did, whether it was personally, professionally, and then civically."

This week, Pelosi told Politico that Newsom "would make a great president," though she added Democrats have many strong potential candidates. 

The hedge shouldn’t fool anyone. 

Pelosi isn’t likely to gush unless she's decided. Former aides say she's been eager to publicly vouch for Newsom whenever asked and has privately admired how he's navigated Trump "with a combination of defiance and charm." One former staffer said Pelosi "doesn't crush on many people" and added, "She's hardly ever wrong. When she says she sees something, it's a real thing."

Of course, Pelosi’s connection to Newsom isn’t limited to politics. Her brother-in-law was married to Newsom's aunt, and Pelosi frequently says she knew Newsom before he was born. Politically, they’ve been connected for years, as she's mentored him since his days as San Francisco mayor, watching him rise through California politics like a puppet master or a kingmaker.

While Pelosi is reportedly focused on helping Democrats retake the House in November and making Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaker, she’s clearly looking to the future and sees Newsom as the next leader of the party who will bring Democrats to the White House. This may be a significant vote of confidence for Newsom, but it’s also an undeniable betrayal of another California Democrat, Kamala Harris. 

Pelosi endorsed Harris quickly after Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race, reportedly frustrating Barack Obama, who wanted a more open process.

“The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told ABC’s Jonathan Karl for his book Retribution. 'This person summed up Obama's message to Pelosi as, essentially, "What the f*** did you just do?"' 

Harris lost badly to Trump, spending more than a billion dollars in the process, leaving many major donors deeply disillusioned with her. Pelosi’s support would have gone a long way to repair the damage, but Pelosi appears to have moved on. 

Harris leads the 2028 field with a 27.5 percent national polling average, according to Race to the White House, while Newsom trails at 22.7%. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sits at 9%, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at 8.7%, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro at 4.9%, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker at 3.4%.

Neither Newsom nor Harris has publicly announced their intent to seek the presidency, but both are reportedly considering, which makes Pelosi's public courtship of Newsom a calculated snub. Pelosi's endorsements carry weight with the donor class and party elites who decide primaries long before voters cast ballots. By elevating Newsom now, she's signaling to those constituencies where the smart money should flow.

Whether Pelosi's bet pays off depends on factors beyond her control. Newsom has baggage from California's struggles with homelessness, crime, and out-migration on his watch. Harris, meanwhile, carries the weight of a failed campaign but has name recognition and institutional support, and isn’t a white male — a huge plus for a party that has gone all in on identity politics. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/16/2026 - 19:30