Individual Economists

The New Socialists: Elite, Ungrateful, And Toxic As Ever

Zero Hedge -

The New Socialists: Elite, Ungrateful, And Toxic As Ever

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Win some blue-state and blue-city races, and the cocky new socialist Jacobins believe that they have either already taken over the Democratic Party or will soon absorb it. And in reaction to these new swarms, an increasingly terrified and ossified old Democrat guard either limps away from the hive or invites them in to take over more.

It is fascinating but ultimately depressing to watch old-style Democrats say or do anything to avoid the new mob of Robespierres. Democrat candidates who recently begged for a Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries endorsement now are telling them to get in line at the guillotine.

Jewish American Democrats are terrified that what happened to the primaried and defeated Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, an arch-Trump hater, could befall them. Goldman's obnoxious showboating hatred of Trump and championing of neo-socialist agendas offered no defense against the Jacobins' antisemitism and hatred of Israel.

A number of Jewish Democrat candidates, like wannabe California congressman Scott Wiener, are backing off from Israel and now join the "genocide!" mob. Wiener hopes that the throng will reward his new anti-Israel position by overlooking the now inconvenient fact that to the anti-Semitic Democrat base he is still Jewish.

Some of the rich, likewise, think they can escape the guillotine - the various proposed taxes on "billionaires" and "millionaires" on their net worth or unrealized capital gains or plans to confiscate private properties deemed "not in the people's interests." They will either flee to Florida or join the mob and hope their donations spare them from the blade.

The hard socialist agenda, which lacks even 50 percent popular support, is often recognizable despite efforts to conceal it until after elections. Given the clickbait lunacy of these socialists' mindset, their true views often trickle out from prior social media posts, hot mics, leaks, and occasional temper-tantrum outbursts (cf. Mamdani's "monsters" or Talarico's "I hate Christianity" or Platner's litany of unapologetic racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic outbursts).

In general, the socialist challenge is to "fundamentally transform America" into a statist, inert redistribution machine - nuttier than socialist Europe, a prescription for North Korean-style poverty, and completely unrecognizable to the Founders and most contemporary Americans. As far as we can distill, here are their agendas:

  1. The New Demography: Open borders, massive, unaudited new immigration ending the distinction between mere residence and citizenship.
  2. Dismantling the "System": Packing the court, destroying the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, bringing in new left-wing states, defunding the police, ensuring same-day registration/voting, no voter ID, foreign nationals residing here being eligible to vote.
  3. The Islamization of America: Ending America's traditional friendship with Israel and realigning the U.S. with the West Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their autocratic and illiberal, terrorism-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Restoring massive USAID subsidies to fund left-wing takeovers abroad and mainstreaming now overt harassment of Jews at home.
  4. Old Communism: The government takeover of housing and utilities, targeted expropriation of private property, new punitive taxes on net worth and unrealized capital gains. Wild talk of nationalizing airlines and all health care.
  5. Statism: Massive new entitlements, free college, canceling $1.7 trillion in student loans, more federal acquisition of private lands, rent freezes.
  6. Reparations: Compensation for victims of alleged "white privilege," institutionalization of radical identity politics, and racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation chauvinism. Third world hatred of supposed white oppressors, justifying reparatory preferences for the non-white "oppressed."
  7. Globalism: Pledging solidarity with socialist/communist movements abroad while despising Western civilization in general and the U.S. in particular.

Once "Mayor" Zohran Mamdani took control of New York, he began promising to confiscate rental properties from landlords and to focus on "white" neighborhoods, and he no longer disguised his innate hatred of Jews.

Governor Spanberger of Virginia dropped her moderate false face and began radically ramming through hard-left executive orders to ensure more DEI, higher taxes, and anti-ICE hysterics. After being elected, Seattle Mayor Katie Willson gushed "bye-bye" to the billionaire entrepreneurs who are fleeing from Washington state's new "millionaire's tax." She mocked their departure and cared not a whit that her now-socialist city would further descend into a West Coast Detroit or Baltimore.

Socialists hide their revolutionary anger with banal pleasantries. We have become well accustomed now to the "socialist smile," emblemized by the grinning Mamdani or the faux-happy face of James Talarico. Usually, the new touchy-feely socialists chuckle loudest when a rare reporter presses them on their past lunatic harangues, which are then laughed off as hysterias from paranoid right-wing minds.

Sometimes socialists embrace the hard commissar style, like the perpetually venomous Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, who ridicules journalists, lies flagrantly, and takes back none of his hate-filled rants.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) perpetually screams rather than talks, usually venting her monotonous hatred for the Jewish state. Her latest socialist champions are the Antifa criminals just sentenced to long prison sentences for their conspiracy to murder ICE officers.

The more Ilhan Omar is caught trafficking in antisemitic tropes, denying alleged immigration fraud schemes, or filing preposterous federal financial disclosure forms, the more defiant her shouts of "racist" become.

The newly emerging socialists, like recent congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier or Analilia Mejia, can never explain why their parents left socialist paradises in Latin America to come to cutthroat capitalist America.

Nor do they explain to us why and how such a supposedly toxic, racist nation would extend such generous scholarships and DEI preferences to both. They suffer from the Joy Reid/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib/AOC socialist syndrome: parents flee socialist paradises of indigenous peoples to ensure their children might thrive in a settler/colonialist and capitalist U.S. whose magnanimity they interpret as proof of guilt that is therefore to be reciprocated not with gratitude but with ever more venom.

And once the second-generation socialists joined the privileged elite classes of America, these boutique radicals decided to tear down the very system that nurtured them, without ever expressing a wish to return to the socialist paradises of their parents' homelands.

What drives the sheer hatred of the new upscale socialists, and why are they in vogue now?

There are three constants in all these new socialists, as we have seen recently from the recent nationwide primary elections, as well as the daily street theater.

One, they hate the United States - loathe its foundation, hate its maturation, and despise the current American nation. They detest especially the middle classes, who lack both the romance of the dependent poor and the supposed "refinement" and "culture" of their own elite socialist aristocracy. And the more they demagogue "white privilege" and "white supremacy," the more they feel that the river of exemptions, set-asides, preferences, and special considerations will flow to them from a supposedly guilty nation.

The socialists' hatred of America is becoming clearer as middle America embraces the 250th anniversary of the nation, highlighted by throngs of World Cup tourists who cannot praise highly enough the decency, amicability, and prosperity of America between the coasts. So, what is a perennial socialist PhD candidate, or a failed "community organizer," or NGO flack to do when millions happily suffer from "false consciousness" and have failed to listen to their Marxist handlers?

The socialist architects of the current Jacobin takeover see no contradiction in that, like moths harkening to flames, they cannot get enough of the American good life, conspicuous consumer consumption, and merit badges of success like their Ivy League-branded kids, letters and titles after their names, and the right zip code for their first and second homes.

Every socialist buffoon reminds us almost daily of Alexis de Tocqueville's droll warning that most people would prefer everyone to be absolutely equal and worse off than all better off, but with some better off than themselves.

The socialists' hatred of America is also revealed in their envy. Unlike the poet Hesiod's notion of a "good" envy - embodied in the American tradition of emulation and admiration of those richer than themselves - they buy into the "bad" envy of wanting to destroy those who are brighter, more successful, richer, and more essential to America than themselves, whether an Elon Musk, a Larry Ellison, or a Jeff Bezos.

Second, socialists still have little current power other than their control of institutions such as K-12 education, academia, the media, foundations, the bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms, professional sports, entertainment, and popular culture. Perhaps they wish to end up like the lifelong government employee, Bernie Sanders, who for a half-century shook his two upraised fists at America, screamed at the greed, and ended up with three homes and membership in the millionaire class.

Socialists and communists have no confidence in winning over the majority of the American people, at least outside blue-city and blue-state districts. Hence, their efforts to change balloting laws, destroy the border, import angry, poor, new constituents, stage violent street confrontations, and either celebrate or contextualize assassinations from the attempts on Trump to the killing of Charlie Kirk.

Sane Democrats would reexamine 2024 and conclude the party was far too left-wing and the antidote was a return to the winning formulas of Bill Clinton. But unhinged socialists and communists would claim that 2024 was lost because they were not far-left enough. So we are to believe that Americans scared of Harris's poorly disguised radicalism can be won over by scaring them even further? A communist in 2028 can win over America when a socialist in 2024 could not?

Third, Donald Trump has driven the Left so crazy that they have gyrated from Obama's four-mansion socialism to unapologetic hardcore Trotskyism. Why? Their pathological hatred transcends Trump's background, his appearance, his accent, his tweets, and even his appeal to the despised "clingers, irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs, and garbage."

Of course, Trump is a conservative, so he suffers the same left-wing slurs of "fascist" and "Nazi" that met Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But in his second term, Trump, quite unlike most Republican presidents, is not addressing just symptoms but also the causes and fuel of the socialist project.

Trump did not just jawbone the "fake news" but cut off subsidies to NPR and PBS, suing the media when they deliberately engaged in baseless character assassination. He did not just close the border but began deporting the criminal cohort of Biden's 10 million illegal entrants, sought to end birthright citizenship, made would-be refugees apply for entry in their home country, ended catch-and-release, and will wall off or electronically secure the entire southern border from the Pacific to the Gulf of America.

He did not just rhetorically critique DEI; he banned it from the federal bureaucracy. Unlike past Republicans, Trump did not merely critique elitist campuses; he leveraged them to behave like normal people - taxing endowments, banning racist DEI protocols, prohibiting grant surcharge scamming, and demanding they abide by the Bill of Rights. He slashed the left-wing USAID money machine rather than just whining that it subsidized America's worst critics abroad.

In other words, the socialists are enraged not just because they despise the U.S. and lack the power to turn America into Cuba or because they have not yet stabbed, poisoned, shot, decapitated, or blown up the hated Trump, as their followers, celebrities, and a few of their leaders have so often boasted.

The real rub is that Trump is their flip side - not a revolutionary but a counterrevolutionary. He seeks to overturn root and branch the entire 100-year progressive project and ensure America's insidious slouching toward socialism ends with his term - for good. The more they brag about our collective socialist tomorrow, the more Trump incessantly dismantles socialism today.

So far, they haven't stopped him yet - but their lidless eyes never close.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 16:20

Katz Says Israel Could Be Back At War With Iran 'Tomorrow'

Zero Hedge -

Katz Says Israel Could Be Back At War With Iran 'Tomorrow'

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Monday that the Israeli military was ready to restart the war against Iran and that it could happen as soon as "tomorrow".

Katz vowed that Israel would bomb Beirut's southern suburb of Dahiyeh if Hezbollah rockets were fired into northern Israel and that the IDF was prepared to respond if that prompted Iranian attacks on northern Israel.

Katz visiting Israeli troops in southern Lebanon on February 2, 2025. Israeli Defense Ministry photo

"There is no reality in which Israel will not respond to an Iranian attack," Katz said, according to Israel Hayom. "The equation stands – rocket fire on Israeli communities means an immediate assault on the Dahiyeh. The possibility exists that Iran will attack Israel not only in response to strikes in the Dahieh. We could find ourselves at war with Iran tomorrow."

The Israeli minister said that a second potential scenario that would lead to a renewed war with Iran would be if President Trump decides to restart the bombing campaign.

"There are two scenarios that would resume full-scale fighting – a decision by President Donald Trump or Iranian missile fire. This could happen in two days," he said.

Katz also insisted that Israel was ready to fight Iran on its own, which he called a "blue and white operation," despite the fact that Israel is extremely reliant on US air defenses.

"The IDF is just waiting for it. We have selected targets to strike in Iran, and the IDF is prepared and alert, but we will not interfere with the US President’s current moves vis-a-vis the Iranians," he said.

Katz also boasted about the destruction of Shia Muslim villages in southern Lebanon. "It was clear during Operation Silver Plow that the Shia villages along the contact line had to disappear," he said, using the codename for Israel’s recent operations in southern Lebanon.

"We are currently in a situation where there is nearly 100% destruction in the contact-line villages of the western and central sectors. In the eastern sector, we are at 73% of villages destroyed," Katz added.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 15:40

Trading Giant Susquehanna Lost Over $70 Million To Mystery Insider Traders

Zero Hedge -

Trading Giant Susquehanna Lost Over $70 Million To Mystery Insider Traders

Trading giant Susquehanna Investment Group said it was attempting to unmask the identities of individuals it claims made at least $100 million trading on inside information about a Chinese government crackdown on cross-border brokerages last month.

The Pennsylvania-based market-maker, which says it was the counterparty on most of the alleged insider trades, sued 100 John Doe defendants in Manhattan federal court on Monday. Susquehanna is seeking to recover more than $70 million it says it lost to what it believes is one of the largest insider-trading schemes in recent memory, Bloomberg reported.

While it’s unusual for a major Wall Street firm to sue as a victim of insider trading - which is normally policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors - in suing the dozens of unknown traders, aka "John Does", Susquehanna is using a tactic sometimes employed by the SEC to seek information it hopes will identify the alleged insider traders.

According to Susquehanna, many of the trades were made from accounts at Interactive Brokers Group Inc., as well as the platforms of two firms targeted in the Chinese crackdown, Futu Holdings and Up Fintech’s Tiger Brokers (we discussed this in May in "China Launches Crackdown On Cross-Border Stock Selling To Block Capital Outflows").

Susquehanna is seeking an order freezing certain accounts at those brokerages and authorizing subpoenas of them.

Susquehanna, which is one of the largest US market-makers and is active in options, stocks, energy, bonds and foreign exchange markets, said in an SEC filing that its equity positions in the first quarter totaled more than $893 billion. The closely held company based in the Philadelphia suburbs has made its co-founder Jeff Yass one of the richest people in the world with a fortune estimated at $92 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Susquehanna’s allegations focus on 200,000 short-dated put option bets placed in the two weeks before the Chinese government’s May 22 announcement that it would punish firms helping mainland Chinese clients illegally invest overseas. The statement was released by eight regulators, including the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the central bank and the public security ministry.

Almost simultaneously, regulators released a statement singling out Futu, Tiger and the unlisted Long Bridge Securities for operating in China without onshore licenses. Futu and Up Fintech’s shares plummeted in response.

In its suit, Susquehanna alleges several accounts engaged in a pattern of “high risk, high reward trading” designed to take advantage of the projected drops. In one example, a trader purchased the option to sell Futu shares at $102.45 — down from $124.58 — up to a week after the Chinese government’s announcement.

There was “powerful evidence” the traders were using material non-public information to inform their well-timed bets, Susquehanna alleges. It said the tips could have come from Chinese securities regulators or personnel at Futu or Up Fintech.

The traders collectively purchased $12 million in options, yielding a profit of more than $100 million and a return of more than 900%.

“By way of comparison, Raj Rajaratnam’s infamous insider trading scheme at Galleon Management yielded only approximately $53 million in profits,” Susquehanna said in its complaint, referring to the hedge fund manager convicted in 2011.

According to Bloomberg, the alleged insider traders’ use of Interactive Brokers could prove awkward for that firm. The suit doesn’t accuse Interactive Brokers of wrongdoing, but founder Thomas Peterffy, also one of the world’s richest men with an estimated $104 billion fortune, is an outspoken supporter of legalizing insider trading.

“I’m in favor of not having any rules against insider trading. I would like all the information out there as soon as it’s available,” he said in an recent interview on Bloomberg. “Because look, as a society, we are better off knowing as soon as possible anything that is knowable.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 15:00

Here We Go Again: Taiwan Raids Super Micro In AI Chip Probe

Zero Hedge -

Here We Go Again: Taiwan Raids Super Micro In AI Chip Probe

Taiwan has intensified its efforts to stop advanced AI hardware from reaching China, carrying out raids at the local offices of Super Micro Computer and several businesses connected to an investigation into the movement of servers equipped with NVIDIA chips, according to Bloomberg.

Investigators searched multiple business locations and the homes of six individuals as part of the inquiry. While prosecutors did not publicly identify those involved, a source familiar with the matter said Super Micro's Taiwan office was among the locations searched. The company said it is fully cooperating with investigators and emphasized that it works to safeguard its technology and ensure its products are sold in compliance with applicable laws. Shares fell about 8% following the announcement.

Bloomberg writes that the probe also reached Chief Telecom and Albatron Technology. Both companies acknowledged the searches, saying day-to-day operations were unaffected, although Albatron's shares dropped sharply.

The case marks another step in Taiwan's broader campaign to prevent restricted AI technology from being diverted to China. Earlier this year, authorities arrested three suspects accused of using fraudulent export paperwork involving Super Micro servers loaded with Nvidia AI processors. Officials believe at least one shipment ultimately made its way to China through Japan, while dozens of additional servers were intercepted before they could leave Taiwan.

Taiwan currently lacks a law that specifically criminalizes exporting AI chips to China, limiting prosecutors to pursuing related offenses such as document fraud. Lawmakers are now considering tougher export rules that would make such shipments illegal and give authorities stronger enforcement powers as Taiwan moves to more closely mirror U.S. restrictions on advanced semiconductor technology.

The latest developments also add to the uncertainty surrounding Super Micro.

Ever since Hindenburg Research published its report less than two years ago, "Super Micro: Fresh Evidence Of Accounting Manipulation, Sibling Self-Dealing And Sanctions Evasion At This AI High Flyer," the company has struggled to shake a steady stream of damaging headlines.

The short seller accused Super Micro of accounting irregularities, undisclosed related-party transactions involving family members, export control concerns, and other governance failures, allegations the company has disputed.

Since then, Super Micro has faced delayed financial filings, scrutiny from regulators and most recently one of its co-founders charged in a scheme to divert roughly $2.5 billion in advanced Nvidia chips to China, according to an indictment unsealed earlier this year.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:45

Trump Threatens 'Big Problems' For Gasoline Retailers If They Don't Cut Prices

Zero Hedge -

Trump Threatens 'Big Problems' For Gasoline Retailers If They Don't Cut Prices

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Tuesday demanded that gasoline retailers immediately lower prices at the pump, warning of “big problems” if they fail to pass along the benefits of falling crude oil prices to consumers.

In an early-morning post on Truth Social, Trump said gasoline prices remain too high despite U.S. crude oil trading at about $68 a barrel and continuing to decline.

“Gasoline Retailers must get their Prices down, IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote.

“They’re too high considering that Oil is now at $68 a Barrel, and heading south.”

[ZH: Perhaps Mr. Trump does not fully realize that it takes time for the energy supply chain to ripple down to pump prices]

He urged retailers to “start targeting around the $2.50 a Gallon number,” while accusing some stations of price gouging.

Price gouging “is totally illegal,” Trump wrote, adding that if gas stations don’t lower prices at the pump, “big problems lie ahead!”

Trump also singled out California, saying the state should reduce gasoline taxes that he argued are inflating prices for drivers.

“Soon the Tax will be higher than the Product itself,” he wrote, adding that Californians were being “abused” by their state government.

Trump’s warning comes less than a week after he said he had directed the Department of Justice to investigate whether gasoline retailers and oil companies were failing to lower pump prices in line with the sharp decline in crude oil prices following the U.S.–Iran ceasefire agreement.

At the time, Trump accused companies of “gouging” consumers and said retail gasoline prices were not falling quickly enough despite crude prices dropping “like a rock.”

[ZH: lower gas prices correlate well with higher approval ratings for Trump (and vice versa)...]

Gas Prices Continue to Ease

National gasoline prices have been trending lower in recent weeks as global oil markets stabilized following the easing of tensions in the Middle East.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the national average price for regular gasoline stood at $3.91 per gallon on June 29, marking the fifth consecutive weekly decline and the second straight week below $4 per gallon.

The average was down from nearly $4 a week earlier and more than 50 cents lower than one month ago, when drivers were paying about $4.51 per gallon.

AAA said declining crude oil prices and improving fuel supplies have helped push prices lower, although demand is expected to rise as a record number of Americans prepare to travel over the Independence Day holiday weekend.

The U.S.–Iran conflict disrupted crude supplies in the Persian Gulf, driving prices to multi-year highs.

However, since the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 17, agreeing to extend a ceasefire to give room for negotiations on a lasting peace deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, oil benchmarks have fallen sharply from peaks above $126 per barrel for Brent and nearly $120 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI).

After five straight monthly increases, analysts have cut their 2026 oil price forecasts for the first time since the Iran war began, following the U.S.–Iran deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing concerns over prolonged supply disruptions.

A monthly Reuters survey of 31 economists and analysts forecast Brent crude would average $84.50 per barrel in 2026, versus $90.44 projected last month. WTI was seen averaging $79.49 per barrel, down from May’s projection of $84.63.

However, some analysts said that lingering geopolitical risks mean that the potential remains for crude prices to rebound.

“We believe that the market is being too optimistic over the speed of the supply recovery as well as its sustainability,” Warren Patterson, ING’s head of Commodities Strategy, wrote in a Monday note.

“Furthermore, we have seen a significant tightening in global oil inventories since the start of the conflict, which leaves the market more vulnerable relative to the pre-war environment.”

Some energy experts have said that gasoline prices typically do not fall as quickly as crude oil prices due to factors such as delays in refining, transportation, and distribution.

Chevron chief financial officer Eimear Bonner said last week that lower crude prices should eventually translate into cheaper gasoline for consumers but noted that the process takes time.

“There is a lag between ... reductions in oil prices and when that shows up at the pump,“ she told CNBC on June 25. ”But we expect that prices will come down as things continue to normalize.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:25

JPMorgan Backs US Crypto Bill, But Puts Warning Label Front & Center As Senate Eyes August Deadline

Zero Hedge -

JPMorgan Backs US Crypto Bill, But Puts Warning Label Front & Center As Senate Eyes August Deadline

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

JPMorgan threw its support behind federal digital asset legislation Monday, but the bank’s message to Congress was as much a caution as an endorsement: get the framework right, or risk recreating the financial vulnerabilities regulation was designed to prevent.

In a joint op-ed, Umar Farooq, global co-head of JPMorgan Payments, and Peter Muriungi, CEO of Digital Assets and Blockchain Solutions, argued that the United States has a genuine opportunity to lead in digital finance — provided lawmakers pair regulatory clarity with durable safeguards. 

The piece arrived as the Senate race to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act before its August recess, with negotiators still working through sticking points on stablecoin yield provisions, ethics rules for government officials with crypto ties, and liability protections for decentralized finance developers.

“Regulatory clarity matters only if paired with durable safeguards,” Farooq and Muriungi wrote. “Clarity with gaps or loopholes can push activity into lightly supervised channels and weaken long-standing protections.”

The op-ed stands out less for what it celebrates than for what it warns against. Rather than leading with the promise of tokenization and programmable money, the executives spent much of their argument flagging how crypto innovation could go wrong without proper guardrails.

JPMorgan’s take on stablecoins, blockchain

On market structure, JPMorgan’s position was blunt: the blockchain on which a product is issued does not change its economic function. Assets that look and behave like securities should face disclosure, custody, and market integrity rules. 

Decentralized trading platforms that operate like brokers or exchanges should be held to the same standards. Tokenization, the executives argued, should improve how markets operate, not serve as a mechanism for bypassing the rules that have made U.S. capital markets the most trusted in the world.

The bank reserved particular focus for stablecoins, where JPMorgan sees both commercial opportunity and competitive threat. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits could enable faster settlement and reduce friction in cross-border payments, Farooq and Muriungi wrote. 

But when those products offer yield-like incentives or hold balances without meeting bank-level capital, liquidity, and consumer-protection standards, payments innovation becomes shadow banking by another name.

Features such as rewards or cashback on held balances lead many consumers to assume the product carries familiar protections. When it does not, the result is heightened run risk — a concentrated vulnerability that surfaces in the worst moments. 

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been among the banking industry’s loudest voices on the issue. “The banks will not accept it,” Dimon said last month, vowing to fight stablecoin yield provisions in the Clarity Act “down to the wire.”

The executives also pressed for strong anti-money laundering and law enforcement tools across the digital asset ecosystem. Broad exemptions for infrastructure that processes core transactions, they argued, can enable opaque arrangements that shield true ownership — a risk for both national security and market integrity.

The op-ed did not arrive without commercial context. Also Monday, JPMorgan announced the expansion of its Kinexys blockchain payments platform to eight currencies, adding the Australian dollar, Hong Kong dollar, Japanese yen, Chinese renminbi, and Singapore dollar to a system that already supports the U.S. dollar, euro, and British pound.

The platform has processed more than $4 trillion in transactions to date, with average daily volume exceeding $7 billion. Payoneer and Japanese energy trader JERA Global Markets are among the first clients using the new currency accounts.

Kinexys earlier this year also launched JPM Coin, a deposit token designed to give institutional clients near-instant, 24/7 settlement without stepping outside the regulated banking system. The token runs on a permissioned blockchain network operated by J.P. Morgan, where client deposits are represented digitally and transfers settle within the network rather than on public rails.

Earlier this week, Fidelity wrote that Bitcoin’s current crypto winter could end if one or more major catalysts emerge, including the continuation of the four-year halving cycle, clearer crypto regulation, Federal Reserve rate cuts, a new breakout crypto use case, or a fresh wave of institutional adoption. 

While none of these factors are guaranteed, the bank argued that history suggests major bull markets have often followed similar shifts in supply dynamics, policy, macro conditions, and investor demand.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:05

Blackstone Sells Stake In Three Virginia Data Centers Amid Grassroot Outrage

Zero Hedge -

Blackstone Sells Stake In Three Virginia Data Centers Amid Grassroot Outrage

Up until now, when it comes to real estate, Blackstone was best known in recent years for dumping many of its trophy office properties - which in the aftermath of work from home never recovered their projected cash flow potential - at a huge discount. Now, it may be pulling a page from its old, pre-Lehman playbook  by calling the top in yet another commercial real estate segment: data centers. 

According to Bloomberg, Blackstone is selling its stakes in a trio of data centers across Northern Virginia for $3.5 billion, cashing out of part of a bet it made less than three years ago.

Digital Realty Trust will pay $1.2 billion of cash and offer $2.3 billion of its shares to Blackstone funds, the firms said in a statement Monday. In exchange, the data center company will acquire Blackstone’s 80% interest in two 96-megawatt data centers in Manassas, Virginia, and a 50% interest in a 96-megawatt center in nearby Sterling.

The assets involved in this week’s sale were part of a joint venture that Blackstone announced it would set up with Digital Realty in 2023 as it sought to get ahead in the AI arms race that has engulfed Wall Street in recent years. Blackstone and Digital Realty will continue to work together on their remaining data center investments located elsewhere in Northern Virginia as well as in Paris and Frankfurt. 

“We have developed a strong partnership with Blackstone,” Greg Wright, Digital Realty CEO, said in the statement. “This transaction reflects the next phase of that relationship, allowing us to increase our ownership in a portfolio of fully leased, high-quality hyperscale assets.”

It does. The question is why did Blackstone decide to pull the cord now, just as fresh doubts are creeping whether the Mag 7s will continue funding the AI expansion with virtually unlimited capex.

As part of Wall Street’s broader push into data centers, investment has poured into Northern Virginia, which is considered the country’s largest data center market, and is better known as "Data Center Alley".

That includes Digital Gateway, an ambitious plan for a 2,100-acre corridor in the region that would house as many as 37 data-center buildings. 

Data center developers eyeing that land have faced strident opposition. Compass Datacenters, backed by Brookfield Asset Management, recently pulled out of a yearslong effort to build a key part of the development after facing intense pushback from local residents.  Blackstone’s QTS is also fighting in court to salvage a similarly sized development on adjacent parcels.

The increasingly vocal political and grassroots pushback against new data center construction may explain why Blackstone is getting cold feet just as the AI bubble is peaking.  A recent Gallup poll found that 7 in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area, including nearly half, 48%, who are strongly opposed. Barely a quarter favor these projects, with 7% strongly in favor.

Half of opponents mention data centers’ excessive use of resources, including 18% each mentioning their use of water and energy. Sixteen percent mention a related environmental concern of pollution, including noise pollution and air and water pollution.

About one in five opponents are concerned with the impact on local quality of life, including increased population, increased traffic and preferring that the land be used for other purposes. A similar share mention potentially negative economic consequences, including higher utility bills, cost-of-living increases, and the cost of building the data centers (which could involve the use of taxpayer funds).

Most of the remaining opposition stems from general or specific concerns about artificial intelligence.

Blackstone, which manages more than $1.3 trillion, bills itself as the largest global provider of data centers, and also owns some of the utilities that power them. It acquired QTS in 2021 and bought Australian computing provider AirTrunk in 2024. In May, the firm held an initial public offering for Blackstone Digital Infrastructure Trust Inc., its data center acquisition vehicle, which aims to buy already built and leased properties benefiting from the artificial intelligence boom.

The firm has more than $150 billion of data center assets, and it has identified an additional $160 billion worth of opportunities for its pipeline, CEO Steve Schwarzman said in April.  

Affiliates of Blackstone are already selling the Digital Realty equity they’re set to receive from this week’s deal, which is expected to be completed Tuesday. They’re offering the stock at as much as a 2.9% discount to Monday’s closing price of $190.58, Bloomberg reported citing people familiar.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 13:25

Apollo Chief Economist Delivers Scathing Rebuke Of AI, Finds Zero Margin Boost Outside Of Tech

Zero Hedge -

Apollo Chief Economist Delivers Scathing Rebuke Of AI, Finds Zero Margin Boost Outside Of Tech

In his market note published this morning, Apollo's chief economist Torsten Slok delivers a scathing review of the failure of AI to boost profit margins outside of tech... which of course is what AI is supposed to do since it is meant to boost productivity across the entire economy, not just a select group of chipmakers. 

As Slok shows in the chart below, so far there are no signs of profit margins rising outside the tech sector. He notes that "this is ultimately what we are waiting for, because the value of AI companies today rests entirely on the promise that margins in the S&P 493 will eventually climb."

As Slok notes, the promise of higher margins for all is the link to current (soaring) market prices, since implicit in the valuations of AI companies are assumptions about future earnings. That's why the current debate about token costs, model routing and token marketplaces is important. If token costs converge toward zero for most AI use cases, then there is not enough revenue for all hyperscalers even in a situation where compute demand surges higher, Slok cautions stomping all over the now traditional "but Jevon's paradox" counterargument. (for more discussion, Slok recommends reading this piece from his colleagues in Apollo Thematic Investing).

Going back to the matter at hand, the key issue is the length of the ROI runway outside the tech sector. In a handful of sectors, software and tech above all, implementation is nearly immediate, since these firms can fold AI into their own products and processes overnight (ironically, it is the same software sector that has been crushed in 2026 due to doubts over the terminal values of ventures which may well be made obsolete by the same AI that is meant to boost their margins).

But that is the exception. Across most of the economy, and especially in capital-intensive, heavily regulated sectors, deep process re-engineering and data governance requirements could delay structural productivity gains well beyond what the market currently projects. The list of slow-moving sectors is long, spanning health care, banking and insurance, energy and utilities, defense and aerospace, pharma and life sciences, manufacturing, transportation and logistics, construction and real estate, education, legal and the public sector.

This, according to Slok, creates a dangerous divergence between aggressive, front-loaded valuations today and a much slower cash flow reality, since equity markets priced for instant earnings growth will face a painful repricing if the productivity hockey-stick takes five years rather than five months.

Put differently, companies will slow their AI spending if they don't see ROI quickly, and the current focus on token optimization is an early warning that AI implementation could be a bumpier, slower road than expected.

Slok's bottom line is that a mismatch between current earnings expectations and the actual time firms need to generate ROI on AI investments could have significant implications for many AI company valuations today

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 13:00

Oman Is Playing Word Games On Iranian Tolls Through Strait: 'Service, Environmental Fees'

Zero Hedge -

Oman Is Playing Word Games On Iranian Tolls Through Strait: 'Service, Environmental Fees'

Iran has remained on message in the last several weeks despite a few serious flare-ups in tit-for-tat fighting and missile and drone exchanges with US forces, also including Iranian strikes on at least two foreign shipping vessels which refused to heed Tehran's 'rules'.

Hormuz will not return to its pre-war status, Iranian officials insist, even as negotiations are still happening, but are stalled in terms of direct interactions with the American delegation led by Witkoff and Kushner in Qatar. Tehran’s position is that US-Israeli war on Iran forever changed the rules of passage. Safe navigation can no longer be treated as a free service, when Iranian infrastructure is threatened, Tehran has maintained.

The Iranians have been in high level talks with Oman, the coast on the other side of the Hormuz chokepoint passageway, even while Washington brings immense pressure on its southern Arabian ally not to comply - threatening punishment and repercussions.

via Reuters

Concerning the (nuanced, shall we say) Omani position, its Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi has sought to clarify in a new interview that the Sultanate opposes imposing transit fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, saying it will uphold international maritime law.

However, it seems Oman is still largely in Iran's corner when it comes to jointly collecting "fees" of some kind, and like with much that we've seen of Iran-focused international statements and negotiations, some word games are being played - and wrangling over definitions:

FM Al-Busaidi said Oman opposes tolls on transit itself, which he said are “prohibited” under international law, but drew a “clear distinction between transit fees and maritime, environmental, and navigational services that may be discussed voluntarily with the benefiting states and companies,” the same distinction Iran has invoked to justify proposed “service fees.”

So the word "toll" might be nixed and replaced by talk of "environmental" and "navigational services" fees. It's akin to hotels in various Western cities charging hidden and ambiguous "city" and an "admin/hotel tax" or other ambiguous hard to nail down "fees" - which are often hefty and leave patrons confused and outraged.

The Omani FM claimed that Oman and Iran have agreed that any future arrangements for the strait will remain within international law and the "rights" of the coastal states. So clear enough 'legal loopholes' are being established here - enough to drive a truck through and raise the ire of Washington.

The fuller outline of the Omani plan:

But it could be that the Trump administration, eager to end the war - or that is, this little 'excursion' in the Middle East and thus bring oil prices back to permanent pre-war levels, might in the end play ball with the Iranians and Omanis on the issue.

After all, the alternative is resumption of full war and thus escalating crude and energy prices globally - and that's precisely the kind of economic and political leverage the Iranians are counting on. There might be plenty of US willingness to look the other way to get energy transit flowing once again.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 12:40

Deutsche Bank: Tesla's Q2 Vehicle Deliveries Tracking Above Consensus Expectations

Zero Hedge -

Deutsche Bank: Tesla's Q2 Vehicle Deliveries Tracking Above Consensus Expectations

Tesla could be on track to deliver a stronger than expected second quarter, according to a new research note from Deutsche Bank analyst Edison Yu and his automotive team.

The firm now expects Tesla to report approximately 416,000 vehicle deliveries during the second quarter of 2026. That estimate is about 10,000 vehicles above the company compiled consensus and sits modestly ahead of most Wall Street expectations, which generally range between 413,000 and 420,000 deliveries.

If Deutsche Bank's forecast proves accurate, Tesla would post delivery growth of 16% from the first quarter and 8% from the same period a year ago. The results would mark a meaningful rebound following a weaker start to the year. According to the analysts, international markets are doing most of the heavy lifting.

Europe is expected to be Tesla's strongest region, with deliveries rising nearly 40% from a year ago. Deutsche Bank believes improving demand across the region is the primary reason the company is on pace to outperform expectations.

China is also expected to contribute to the stronger quarter, although growth there is forecast to be much more modest at roughly 3% year over year. Registration data through May tracked close to 74,000 vehicles, while the bank estimates total second quarter deliveries from China will reach approximately 133,000 units. June order activity has also remained solid, with roughly 40,000 orders recorded through June 21. Deutsche Bank believes there is enough time left in the quarter for deliveries to reach its estimate.

North America remains the weakest part of Tesla's business. The bank expects deliveries in the region to decline about 21% from the same quarter last year. Even so, volumes are still projected to improve about 7% compared with the first quarter, suggesting conditions have stabilized somewhat despite softer demand.

Beyond the quarter itself, Deutsche Bank remains constructive on Tesla's full year outlook. The firm believes the company can deliver roughly 1.63 million vehicles during 2026, which would keep annual deliveries essentially flat even without a meaningful contribution from any new vehicle models.

The report suggests Tesla may not need a major product launch to stabilize sales this year. Instead, stronger demand in Europe combined with resilient performance in China could be enough to offset continued weakness in North America.

Investors will now be watching Tesla's official delivery report to see whether the company's international strength is enough to produce another quarter that comes in ahead of expectations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 12:00

Trump Suggests He May Not Sign Bipartisan Housing Affordability Bill

Zero Hedge -

Trump Suggests He May Not Sign Bipartisan Housing Affordability Bill

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump indicated on June 29 that he may not sign a bill that Congress passed that aims to make housing more affordable.

Trump told reporters at the White House in Washington that he has not decided whether to sign the housing bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which Congress approved in a bipartisan fashion earlier in the month and targets permitting times, boosts financial incentives, and aims to make it easier to obtain mortgages.

“I think it’s so unimportant compared to the Save America Act,” Trump said.

“To me, compared to the Save America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

Trump had been poised to sign the housing legislation, but canceled those plans so as to try to force Congress to pass the Save America Act, which would require voters to prove they are American citizens to vote in federal elections.

The House of Representatives has passed the act, but it has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats oppose it over concerns that it could exclude voters who meet the standards but lack the necessary documents.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said over the weekend that the housing bill would be transmitted to Trump on Monday and that he was confident it would become law.

Johnson said the bill was a priority for Republicans because it would bring down housing costs and reduce regulation.

Trump has said that concerns about affordability are overblown.

“They say, ‘Oh, he doesn’t realize prices are high,’” he said in a speech in December 2025.

“Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. They always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.”

He said more recently that he does not consider the financial situation of Americans when deciding on next steps in the war with Iran.

Trump said Monday at the White House, where he signed a directive expanding Americans’ ability to repair their own vehicles, that the housing bill had not yet been sent to him.

“It’s coming, I understand,” he said. “And then I'll make a decision.”

Once Trump receives the bill, he has 10 days, excluding any Sundays, to veto or sign the legislation.

If he does not act within that period, the bill will become law automatically. If Trump vetoes the legislation, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 11:40

Democrat-Led States Sue Trump Administration Over Medicaid Work Requirement Rules

Zero Hedge -

Democrat-Led States Sue Trump Administration Over Medicaid Work Requirement Rules

Via American Greatness,

A coalition of 25 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration’s rules implementing new Medicaid work requirements. The suit claims the work regulations unlawfully restrict exemptions for medically vulnerable recipients.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks to overturn the administration’s rule governing eligibility exemptions tied to the work requirements.

The states contend the rule conflicts with congressional intent by making it more difficult for individuals with illnesses to qualify for exemptions.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration’s policy will “cause immediate and irreparable harm” to state Medicaid programs.

The lawsuit argues the rule “will further strain safety net providers, lead to more uncompensated emergency care, and raise other costs associated with newly uninsured, medically frail residents.

And it will cause rural hospitals to be even more likely to shutter.”

The legal challenge was brought by 23 Democratic attorneys general along with the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, both of which have Republican attorneys general.

The states also allege the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) violated administrative procedure laws by adopting a rule that differs significantly from earlier guidance provided to states on implementing the work requirements.

The Trump administration has defended Medicaid work requirements as part of an effort to ensure public assistance programs are directed toward eligible recipients while encouraging workforce participation.

Under the policy, Medicaid beneficiaries must complete at least 80 hours of work or other approved activities each month to maintain coverage no later than Jan. 1.

States must begin notifying Medicaid recipients by Aug. 31 about how they can comply with the new requirements.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 11:05

AeroVironment Erupts On "Asymmetric Warfare Boom"

Zero Hedge -

AeroVironment Erupts On "Asymmetric Warfare Boom"

AeroVironment shares surged the most in nearly two decades in early trading after the defense contractor - best known for its loitering munitions and unmanned systems - reported stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter results and issued fiscal 2027 revenue guidance that topped Wall Street estimates tracked by Bloomberg.

AeroVironment's fiscal fourth-quarter revenue jumped 31% to $642 million, well ahead of the Bloomberg Consensus estimate of $556.4 million, driven mostly by its autonomous systems unit and soaring demand for Switchblade, Red Dragon, and Titan.

Switchblade

Adjusted EBITDA of $140.1 million and adjusted earnings of $1.84 per share also beat expectations. Initial fiscal 2027 guidance was broadly in line, with revenue projected at $2.125 billion to $2.225 billion, implying about 10% organic growth.

A quick look at AeroVironment's fourth-quarter earnings, courtesy of Bloomberg:

  • Revenue $641.6 million vs. $275.1 million y/y, estimate $556.4 million
  • Adjusted EPS $1.84 vs. $1.61 y/y, estimate $1.41
  • Income from operations $56.9 million vs. $13.8 million y/y, estimate $39.4 million
  • Adjusted Ebitda $140.1 million vs. $61.6 million y/y, estimate $126.1 million
  • Gross profit $202.6 million vs. $100.3 million y/y, estimate $175.6 million

... and 2027 year forecast:

  • Sees revenue $2.13 billion to $2.23 billion, estimate $2.16 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)
  • Sees adjusted EPS $3.02 to $3.34, estimate $3.79
  • Sees adjusted Ebitda $305 million to $325 million, estimate $346.2 million

Stifel analysts noted AeroVironment's strength in the drone and counter-drone space:  

AeroVironment is a leader in several key areas in new defense, namely loitering munitions (Switchblade family of drones) that we believe will be critical as the entire industry undergoes a transformation.

The company's merger with BlueHalo provides exposure in space, counterdrone, and missiles, all of which are priorities for the DoD.

We anticipate a steep ramp in organic EBITDA in the legacy AVAV portfolio and BlueHalo.

Our Buy rating reflects AeroVironment's positioning as a pure-play new defense tech company with rapidly growing sales and earnings driving increased investor enthusiasm and multiple expansion.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Will Lee noted:

AeroVironment's fiscal 2027 sales targets seem achievable, fueled by expectations of robust demand across its loitering munition, drone and counter-drone, or C-UAS, portfolio. Still, sales are skewed toward 2H, and US budget delays might push them further out into 2028.

KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Michael Leshock noted:

AeroVironment is positioned to capitalize on the proliferation of UAS/cUAS and increased government spending in defense and space-related programs. Should geopolitical tensions intensify, AVAV is positioned among the top beneficiaries.

In early trading, AeroVironment shares were up nearly 31%, which would mark the stock's largest one-day gain on record if the move holds into the cash session. Year to date, shares are down 42.5% as of Monday's close. Short interest remains elevated, with about 13% of the float sold short, equivalent to roughly 4.8 million shares.

Perfect timing on AeroVironment. We recently laid out for readers how to capitalize on the accelerating "asymmetric warfare boom," a theme that appears poised to gain momentum in the quarters ahead. Read the full note here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:55

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Zero Hedge -

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 - Trump's attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present - violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority's constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute - leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

In response to the ruling, President Trump wrote that it was "too bad for our Country," but that Republicans can "easily make up for it in Congress through Legislation..."

Background

Birthright citizenship - the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen - has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

The Supreme Court's landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray's majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies "the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country," applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

The Modern Challenges

In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile - essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates "anchor babies," encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.

On January 20, 2025 - his first day in office for his second term - President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:

  • The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
  • The mother's presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.

The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment's original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as "blatantly unconstitutional." In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.

Today's SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is "Barbara," a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order - emphasizing historical sources, the role of "domicile" in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs' counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and whether the government's proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment's text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration's position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court's term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:40

Another JOLT: Jobs Opening Smash Expectations, Despite Another Drop In Number Of Hires

Zero Hedge -

Another JOLT: Jobs Opening Smash Expectations, Despite Another Drop In Number Of Hires

Another month, another whopping beat by the BLS JOLTS job openings report.

One month after the April JOLTS report came out with a whopping 9-sigma beat to estimates, when it showed that in April the US added a whopping 731K job openings to 7.618 million (and up 520K from a year ago), smashing estimates of 6.9 million, moments ago the BLS reported that in May, the number of total job openings printed at 7.594 million, almost as if it was designed to post another improvement from last month's downward revised 7.585MM (from 7.618MM), and once again smashed estimates of 7.296MM.

While not as historic as last month's record 9-sigma beat, today's print was still a solid 2-sigma beat to the median estimate.

It was also the 5th consecutive beat of estimates and 8th in the past 10!

Where did the openings come from? According to the BLS,the notable increase came from an increase in wholesale trade (+71,000), but as can be seen from the table below, there were also increases in manufacturing and leisure and hospitality; on the other side, openings dropped in financial services, and private education.

Notably, unlike last month's record increase in Professional and Business service job openings in April, May's increase for the category was a tame 12K to 1.485 million. Also of note, Federal government dropped by 14K to 83K, the second lowest print of 2026 and not much above the record low hit last August, even as the total number of government job openings rose driven by an increase in state and local.

The continued strength in job openings prints, coupled with the modest increase in unemployed workers means that after 9 months of labor surplus, we now have a second consecutive month of more job openings than unemployed workes, and in May the surplus was 287K, the biggest surplus since Jan 2025, and a reversal to the "deficit" regime observed since last July.

The latest JOLTS report also means that after falling back to 0.9x in March, in April the ratio of job openings rose over 1.0x and was the highest since January 2025.

But while the job openings number was very strong for another month, this month we saw continued weakness in hires and barely any improvement in quits, In May, the number of Quits dropped to 5.170MM from 5.215MM, again approaching the post covid lows; quits - or the "take his job and shove it" indicator - rose modestly to 3.065MM from 3.043MM, and followed the 183K plunge in March. 

It goes without saying that a surge in job openings while hires are dropping, and few people are voluntarily leaving their jobs, while payrolls are growing (as we will find out on Thursday), leads one to scratch their head just what is going on here, besides data massaging of course.

In any case, since this hires number feeds directly into the payrolls calculations (after netting out separations) this explains why the May payrolls report surged by 172K, even if the JOLTS implied number is barely a third as strong.

Overall, this was a very strong JOLTS report, and shows that after some significant weakness in late 2025, US labor market has continued to stabilize throughout 2026. Of course, the report also lags the payrolls report by a month, which is why it gives us little insight into what Thurday's jobs report will be, although if the hires less separations dataset is any indication, it suggests that the June print will come well below expectations. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:35

Supreme Court: States Can Ban Trans Athletes From Girls' Sports

Zero Hedge -

Supreme Court: States Can Ban Trans Athletes From Girls' Sports

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states can block biological transgender males from competing in girls' sports. In a 6-3 ruling, the court gave an iron-clad answer to the question. 

Writing for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires schools to carve out an exception for transgender athletes who've undergone hormone therapy or never experienced male puberty. States can draw the line at biological sex, full stop - no judge-administered athlete-by-athlete fairness hearings required. The ruling reverses both the Fourth Circuit (which sided with West Virginia's B.P.J.) and the Ninth Circuit (which sided with Idaho's Lindsay Hecox), and lands squarely in the wake of last year's Skrmetti decision, extending its "this is a sex classification, not a transgender classification" framework from medical care straight into the locker room.

Background

Roughly half the states - approximately 27 - have enacted laws in recent years restricting participation in girls' and women's school sports to those whose biological sex, as determined at birth, matches the team category. These measures, often titled "Fairness in Women's Sports" acts or similar, reflect concerns over competitive fairness, safety, and the preservation of opportunities for biological females amid rising participation by transgender athletes.

The two cases before the Court arise from Idaho and West Virginia.

Idaho's law (enacted 2020) categorically bars transgender girls and women from girls' and women's teams in public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools. It defines eligibility based on biological sex and requires sex verification (often involving invasive procedures) for athletes on girls' teams but not boys' teams.

West Virginia's law (enacted 2021) similarly requires that participation on teams designated for girls or women be based on biological sex.

Lindsay Hecox, a biological male, challenged Idaho's law after seeking to compete on Boise State University's women's track and cross-country teams - and later participated in club sports. Hecox's lawsuit alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and imposes unequal verification burdens.

B.P.J., another biological male who has identified as a girl since third grade and has taken puberty blockers and estrogen, challenged West Virginia's ban after competing on their high school's girls' track and cross-country teams. The suit claims violations of both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX (the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs).

Lower federal courts blocked enforcement of both laws. The 9th Circuit found Idaho's measure likely violated equal protection by intending to exclude transgender girls/women and by imposing sex-based verification only on girls' teams. The 4th Circuit held West Virginia's law likely violated Title IX by discriminating against B.P.J. on the basis of sex.

At oral arguments on January 13 of this year, the states and supporting parties (including the Trump administration) argued that the laws classify on the basis of biological sex - a classification long accepted in sports to ensure fairness and safety given average physiological differences in strength, speed, muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular capacity that emerge after male puberty. They contended that sex-separated teams are permissible and even required under Title IX regulations, that states need not create perfect individual accommodations, and that allowing transgender girls/women (even those on hormone therapy) into female categories undermines the very purpose of sex-segregated sports. They emphasized that transgender boys can generally compete on boys' teams, so the laws do not single out transgender status per se.

Challengers countered that the bans discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sex, that many transgender girls/women (especially those who never experienced full male puberty or who have undergone hormone suppression) lack meaningful competitive advantages, and that categorical exclusion stigmatizes transgender students, deprives them of athletic opportunities, and violates both constitutional equal protection and Title IX's promise of equal access. They urged individualized assessments rather than blanket rules.

Justices' questioning suggested a likely majority inclined to uphold the state laws, with conservative members emphasizing biological differences, state authority over education and athletics, and deference to longstanding sex-based categories in sports

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:20

Conference Board Consumer Survey Signals Ugly Job Market, Weakest 'Present Situation' In Over 5 Years

Zero Hedge -

Conference Board Consumer Survey Signals Ugly Job Market, Weakest 'Present Situation' In Over 5 Years

Amid a plethora of revisions (lower), The Conference Board's measure of Americans' Consumer Confidence rose very modestly in June (from 90.6 to 91.2 - a big miss on the headline print's expectation of 94.4).

However, while Expectations rose to their highest level of the year, the Present Situation tumbled to its lowest since March 2021...

“Consumer confidence inched up in June as falling oil prices in recent weeks provided some relief to consumer inflation fears,” said Dana M Peterson, Chief Economist, The Conference Board.

“Consumer appraisals of current business conditions were slightly more positive compared to last month.

However, perceptions of the current labor market softened measurably as the percentage of consumers saying jobs were ‘hard to get’ rose to 22.5%, the highest level since January 2021 (22.8%).

Moreover, consumers anticipate little change in the labor market six months from now.

This was offset by improving expectations for business conditions and incomes.”

Consumers’ average and median 12-month inflation expectations were less elevated...

Among age groups, confidence for consumers under age 35 remained the highest, but confidence for all age groups trended downward on a six-month moving average basis.

By income, on a six-month moving average basis, confidence was mixed or little changed across all categories.

By generation, confidence fell the most for the Silent Generation but was stable or lower for others on a six-month moving average basis.

By political affiliation, confidence among Independents and Democrats rose while Republicans were somewhat less positive on a month-over-month basis.

Consumers’ write-in responses on factors affecting the economy continued to skew towards pessimism in June.

References to prices and oil and gas eased in frequency but remain elevated. Mentions of war, geopolitics, and conflict eased, reflecting some easing of consumer concerns about the inflationary impacts of the war in the Middle East.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:16

Today Will Or Won't See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be "Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not"

Zero Hedge -

Today Will Or Won't See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be "Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not"

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Build 'em up or Burnham down?

In typical form, today will or won’t see a US-Iran meeting in Doha; which will be ‘perhaps important, perhaps not’; and either discussing the MoU or unfreezing $6bn of Iranian assets. So, the ‘peacefire’ continues, as expected, but with little chance this holds permanently. Likewise in Lebanon, where the US is pushing to disarm Hezbollah --which refuses-- and Israel won’t leave until that happens. And Gaza, where the Board of Peace is finalising its plans as the IDF warns Hamas is readying for war. And Iraq, which just set a September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm. And Libya, where Marco Rubio is fighting another crisis. To give an early Christmas present to Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Israel also says it’s developing space lasers.

That’s as South Korea announced a $1.3 trillion AI and IT investment plan to maintain an edge vs. China over the next decade – which is showing footage of a 6G fighter jet and conducting tests of a hypersonic ramjet that can change shape in flight; China has restricted dual use exports to Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Komatsu units; Supermicro’s Taiwan offices were raided in a chip smuggling probe; and a Rakuten-led group is set for state subsidies to build Japan's answer to Starlink. In short, what we see around us is as about massive, urgent investment in defence and AI as much it is about related energy (i.e., Hormuz), broader commodities, and supply chains.

That’s unbelievably expensive to address. For example, the US is pushing for a $1.5 trillion defence budget, while keeping up with South Korea alone would require Europe to invest $14 trillion to match it equivalently. Tellingly, the UK will today unveil its new defence strategy, which shifts to cheap drones from larger platforms --guided missile destroyers and frigates are cut-- as outgoing PM Starmer presides over a plan that will only reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, not the promised 3.0%; some say he wants to run NATO next (to tell his successor he must reach 3.5%).

So, we may soon require:

  • Creative book-keeping: Hungary’s new PM claims his predecessor hid half of the budget deficit, which is actually 8% of GDP.
  • Spending cuts: and good luck with that.
  • New taxes: France is now looking for EU-wide taxes to fund a planned €2 trillion commission budget, with the idea that foreign firms, like US tech and polluters, could pay more.
  • Tariffs: last week, US Treasury Secretary Bessent cited Hamiltonian economic statecraft; yesterday, White House macro-maven Miran penned a WSJ op-ed arguing for US tariffs. The EU just gave China an October deadline to address their huge --and predictable-- trade imbalance, kicking the can down the road, but pointing to a trade war and/or Hamilton (and Trump) moment ahead, which could prove transformative. Even Paul Krugman is telling the EU to tariff China.
  • Industrial policy: which is very much back in vogue, even if what this means is vague for many.
  • A compliant central bank: There, the Supreme Court just overturned precedent to allow the White House to remove heads of federal agencies, greatly empowering the executive. It kept FOMC member Cook in her seat for now until due process plays out but did not address whether “for cause” removals at the Fed are also constitutional or not, allowing Trump to restart the process of trying to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud and, in time, to potentially relitigate if the Fed is a special case or not.

The ECB’s Lagarde, who years ago said the Bank should work hand-in-hand with governments to overcome geopolitical crises, just stated Europe is getting better at coping with economic shocks due to a better financial framework and the green transition. European refineries’ flexibility on jet fuel helped; but China did more by not importing as much oil, and the US and Japan by draining their SPRs, all due to *their* economic statecraft. Now the risk is rising of a China cut-off of rare earths to Europe, which account for half its total (and Russia a quarter), and of more expensive Chinese imports across the board. What if that transpires from October onwards – and if we get more war vs. Iran after the US midterms?

In the UK, the question is ‘Build ‘em up or Burnham down?’ as the soon-to-be UK PM just called to “rewire” the UK economy. He’s talking about devolution - which hasn’t boosted growth in Scotland; equalisation across regions – which most countries want but fail to achieve; (expensive?) public control of utilities; and reindustrialisation – in a period of protectionism and bloc-based realignment. In short, is the UK going to tariff everybody, or the US, or Europe, or China? Logically, one should start from there, not locally, only to then hit a low tariff ceiling on the attempted way back up.

In short, political economy remains in flux. Markets don’t think things through in such detail or depth: whatever happens is an input into the ‘up or down from here’ binary. However, the scale on which things can move up or down based on how political-economy transforms shouldn’t be understated. JPY is at a 40-year low vs. the dollar at time of writing: where will other crosses go as things unfold?

Yet even as politicians --and central bankers-- try to relearn things from first principles, revolutionary change can reshape the architecture which they think they are operating in. For example, regular readers may recall that years ago I floated the idea of letters of marque as a way to channel private sector energies and capital into national security without busting budgets or political constraints like no boots on the ground. On that note, see the following proposal taken from X and think about it seriously:

“A durable solution to the Iran problem is pretty easy:

  1. Form the American Persian Energy Company (APEC)
  2. Give 25% to Exxon and Chevron, who will capitalize it and provide expertise
  3. Ground invasion of Iran, but only with volunteer troops who will be compensated with APEC stock
  4. US military provides air cover and logistical support
  5. Defecting Iranian generals will also be compensated with a quantity of APEC stock dependent on their rank and the number of soldiers they bring with them
  6. All oil and gas rights in Iran are granted to the APEC
  7. New $2 trillion American company is created out of thin air
  8. Iran temporarily governed by APEC CEO while a transition to a suitable civilian government is negotiated”

If you think this kind of thing doesn’t happen (anymore: it used to) then you haven’t noticed how 18th and 19th century thinking is not just back in vogue but is actively winning vs. the post-Cold War political establishment consensus; or how modern mercenaries like Blackwater operate.

Political economy is changing; it will change much, much more; and markets will change with it. The volatility we are seeing in the Hormuz ‘peacefire’ is just a taste of what’s to come. Some assets will be built up. Others will be burned down.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:00

Transcript: Carl Richards on Sketching Wealth Strategy

The Big Picture -



 

 

The transcript from this week’s MiB: Carl Richards on Sketching Wealth Strategy, is below.

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

~~~

Carl Richards on the Behavior Gap
A conversation with Barry Ritholtz

Guest: Carl Richards, author of Your Money: Reimagining Wealth in 101 Simple Sketches

[00:00]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: This week on the podcast, old friend Carl Richards joins me to talk about his new book, Your Money: Reimagining Wealth in 101 Simple Sketches. If the name sounds familiar, he created the Sketch Guy column in the New York Times — it ran there for a decade. He’s probably done more than anyone to expand usage of the phrase “the behavior gap,” the difference between people’s portfolios and what the results actually are. I thought our conversation was charming, and I think you will too. With no further ado, here’s me and Carl Richards talking about money. Carl, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:00]  CARL RICHARDS: So fun. I’ve been looking forward to this for years.

[00:01]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Same — long overdue. We’ve had you on At the Money, but we haven’t had you for the long sit-down. Let’s start out talking about your background. University of Utah School of Business, bachelor of science in finance. That implies finance, investing, money. Was that the original career plan?

[00:01]  CARL RICHARDS: No, not even close, really. I was an undeclared major, which back then meant you had no idea what you wanted to do with your life. I was the newest hire at a landscaping company, so I was literally digging ditches for a living. I come home one day — my wife and I had recently been married, this was ’95 — and she has the help-wanted ads open. She’s got a degree in finance, a job as the CFO of a small real estate company. So I said, “Hey Corey” — her name’s Corey — “what are you doing?” She said, “I’m looking for a job.” I said, “But you have one.” And she said, “I know, I’m looking for you.” I said, “What are you finding?” And she found what we both thought was a security guard job.

[00:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: At a little shop called Fidelity.

[00:02]  CARL RICHARDS: A security guard. I was like, I could work as a mall cop at night — this would be great, and I can still go to school full time. I went to apply. Nothing about kung fu, nothing about self-defense. They were asking about things I didn’t know what they were —

[00:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Securities.

[00:02]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly. I didn’t know the difference. And I got through —

[00:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I was gonna call BS on this, because — wait, how are you a finance major? But that happened afterwards.

[00:02]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s exactly right. So I get through the interview, which tells you a lot about the applicant pool. They had narrowed it down to slim —

[00:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: To none.

[00:02]  CARL RICHARDS: Two of us. And they offered it to the other guy, and the other guy said, “I don’t want it, you take it.” So that’s how I ended up at Fidelity’s national call center, just before the Netscape IPO.

[00:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s unbelievable. I started on a trading desk and I was told, “Hey, rookie — no trading the Netscape IPO.” So you and I started just about around the same time.

[00:03]  CARL RICHARDS: You know what was crazy about that? After I got clear that I wasn’t a security guard, I was like, what’s this job? I was looking around, and everybody was using calculators and math, and I thought, okay, this must be a math job. And then a couple weeks into training, they called us out onto the trading floor to answer phones — because back then you couldn’t get a quote, you couldn’t place a trade, unless you called. And it was the day of the Netscape IPO. And I remember thinking, this isn’t math. That was my first introduction to this idea. I like to say I got in by accident, but I stayed because of that moment — like, what is this crazy thing that we call money? Nobody was doing math in there. They were excited, mad, angry, upset. I always thought it was a mistake getting into finance. I always thought I would go off and do organizational behavior — the Stephen Covey thing at BYU. Because work is where people go to do things that matter. And then some of these early experiences opened the door to this idea: money is the ultimate portal to somebody’s soul. What do you really care about? I can find out pretty quickly by how you spend your money and how you spend your time. So that’s how I stayed. And afterwards I thought, maybe I should get a degree in this.

[00:04]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So then you switch, you get your degree in finance from the David Eccles School of Business. When do you go for the CFP, when do you become a certified financial planner?

[00:04]  CARL RICHARDS: I was looking at that the other day. All I remember is I got made fun of for taking it — remember, back in the day? I left Fidelity and went to work for a big brokerage firm — you know, the one with the bull, owned by a bank. I got my CIMA designation, because that’s what the cool kids did, the institutional consulting stuff. I thought, I gotta figure this thing out, this whole money thing. And then I started to get my CFP. This was back when people on that side of the business were like, “What are you wasting your time on that for?”

[00:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: This whole fiduciary thing. I mean, really —

[00:05]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s great. Seriously.

[00:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “Waste of time. What are you gonna do, not charge people commission? What are you thinking, Carl?”

[00:05]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s right. So fun.

[00:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So what I find fascinating about your career — and I’m now learning all the parallels between our careers — is you kind of reinvent yourself as a communicator, as an author, as a speaker. Is that something that helped you when you set up your own investment firm? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[00:05]  CARL RICHARDS: I can remember who was in the room and where I was when I first sketched something out. I wasn’t a doodler in school. It’s obvious I didn’t take any art classes.

[00:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I don’t know if I’d say it’s obvious, because these are really kind of interesting. Charles Schulz very famously drew Peanuts and said he didn’t have skill.

[00:06]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s a super generous comparison. Thank you.

[00:06]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Oh, I’m not making that comparison — I’m just saying someone else said something similar.

[00:06]  CARL RICHARDS: Somebody else said something similar. Good. But I just remember sitting across the table from some really smart clients — he was an ER doctor, she was a technology sales rep at EMC or something. I was trying to explain a concept, and I was just getting blank stares. You know the feeling. That had happened before, but this was the first time it dawned on me: wait, they’re really smart — this must be my problem. So out of an act of desperation, in the shared conference room there was a whiteboard nobody used. I stood up one day and was like, “No, like this,” and drew some boxes and arrows, like an estate planner would. And they were like, “Oh, oh.” At that moment I didn’t make a grand conclusion. I just remember thinking, huh, that was really interesting. So that started this idea: anytime I got asked a question more than once — the second time I got asked it — I thought, what if I just wrote down the answer and sent it to everybody who asked? And, I don’t know if you remember, but there were these things called blogs back in the day.

[00:07]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Not only do I remember —

[00:07]  CARL RICHARDS: You were one of the OGs.

[00:07]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I still am doing it. I have no interest in BeeHiiv or Substack. I learned early on, I don’t want to give my content to another company. I want to control it.

[00:07]  CARL RICHARDS: So I started putting those things up on the internet — an answer to a question, with some sort of diagram. And, by the way, the hand-drawn sketches were a flaw at the beginning. I went to download Adobe Illustrator, and the download said three hours. And I thought, anything that takes three hours to download, I should not be using.

[00:07]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Illustrator would ruin this. The whole beauty of your sketches — and I know most of you are listening to this and not watching me thumb through a book — is just how simple and informative they are, with just a few lines, a few circles, a few wiggles. It’s not a giant org chart. It’s, “Oh, he did that in 90 seconds, and look how much information is in it.”

[00:08]  CARL RICHARDS: Well, thank you. But early on it was like — I was only doing that because I couldn’t download Adobe Illustrator. I saw it as a flaw. So every couple of years, early on, I’d get them designed by somebody and post those, and people would be like, “Where are the hand-drawn ones?” So I finally learned — and I’m only telling you these stories because it’s so tempting for us to look back and create these beautiful narratives of the experience. But it turns out there was just a lot of random experimentation and playing, because the thing I thought was a flaw ended up being the feature.

[00:08]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Huh. That’s really interesting. I’m surprised you think of it as a flaw.

[00:08]  CARL RICHARDS: Not anymore.

[00:08]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: But how long did it take you to get to that point? To me, the beauty of your drawings is, first of all, it’s obviously not AI slop — you predate AI by 20 years. But more importantly, they look and feel human and personal. Someone has really put time into figuring out how to communicate a complicated idea in the least amount of letters, words, and images. So at what point did you think, hey, I could do something with these drawings — maybe publish them in the New York Times every week?

[00:09]  CARL RICHARDS: Never. What happened was, I was putting these up on the website. I tried to stop.

[00:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I love that.

[00:09]  CARL RICHARDS: It was like a compulsion.

[00:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Can’t help it.

[00:09]  CARL RICHARDS: I even had people around me who were like, “Just focus on building your business. What are you doing?” And they were right. But I kept putting it up there. And there’s a guy named Kent, who I did not know, who sent them to a guy named Ron — Ron Lieber — who I did not know at the time.

[00:10]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I know of Ron Lieber.

[00:10]  CARL RICHARDS: Kent didn’t know Ron. And Ron just sent a note: “Hey, I think you might like these.” I still have that email, because nobody believes me. The email was, “Hey, we love these. Could we try something?” And I knew enough from my security-guard background, as a kid in the hills of Utah, to say — I never thought, I was like, “Yeah, of course, what do you have in mind?” I’ve talked to Ron since: “Why did you open that email?” Because he gets stacks of things he’d love to reply to and read — that’s the kind of human he is — but he just doesn’t have time. So why did he open that one that day? I don’t know. I should still be sending Kent a gift every Christmas. I never thought maybe this could appear in the Times.

[00:10]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So from the late nineties — when do you launch the firm that you ultimately build up and sell in 2012?

[00:11]  CARL RICHARDS: I’m really, really bad with dates, but we were in —

[00:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Early two-thousands.

[00:11]  CARL RICHARDS: No, 2008 or ’09.

[00:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: After the financial crisis. So four years you build this up. Why sell it? You just like, “Hey, I’m gonna focus on the security-guard business”?

[00:11]  CARL RICHARDS: The first thing I should tell you is why I left and started my own firm. The impetus was two things.

[00:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: This is at Fidelity?

[00:11]  CARL RICHARDS: Fidelity? No, I was now working at the big brokerage firm, and I left to start my own RIA firm. I remember that cover — I can’t remember if it was Fortune or Forbes — it had Rex and David at DFA, and it said “How the Really Smart Money Invests.” I had that in the top drawer of my desk. Every time I opened the drawer — because I still had this “I’m just a kid from the hills of Utah” imposter-syndrome thing, like I’m supposed to be in jail — and I’m helping people make really important decisions with money. I needed to figure out: am I a security guard? Is this math? So this idea of how the really smart money invests — I called and said, “How do I get access to this?” They said, “Well, you can’t do it where you’re at.” So I left for that reason. And then the second reason ended up being one of the greatest disappointments in my career. I left because I thought it was really important to be able to tell everybody that I was a fiduciary, and that everybody would care. And one of the greatest disappointments was that nobody seemed to care. Of course you and I both know it’s incredibly important, but most people don’t. I just remember people looking at me like, “Fiduciary, what? Of course you put my interest first.” So that’s why I left to start the firm.

[00:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s fascinating. So you sell it in 2012. When did the Sketch Guy columns for the New York Times start? Before that?

[00:12]  CARL RICHARDS: Way before I sold the firm. Part of the reason I sold —

[00:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You sold the firm to concentrate on your doodles.

[00:13]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s right. The book came out in 2012, and I sold the firm about the same time. And I remember specifically having this conversation with my wife. I was like, “Oh, we’ll never sell the thing.” I always thought of it as a security blanket, like I’d never sell it.

[00:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s an annuity. It generates income every year, and typically you have a 10% year that you’re up, just due to the market.

[00:13]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s such a great business.

[00:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It is a good business. And especially if you’re a fiduciary and doing the right thing by your client, you not only make a decent living, you get to sleep at night.

[00:13]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s exactly right, all the things. So I never thought I’d sell it. But there was this increasing demand — the book was coming out, I was getting asked to speak all over the world. It was clear that I really, really liked that stuff. I had to make a choice. And in the end I was like, “This is security.” My wife said, “Hey, maybe it’s an anchor.”

[00:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You guys speak the same love language — it’s kind of fascinating. That’s a very insightful observation from your wife. She’s the one who tried to get you a hat and a shield and have you parade around the mall like Paul Blart. You guys are very much on the same page.

[00:14]  CARL RICHARDS: I know. She’s been amazing — 31 years, 33 really, amazing. And it’s the best it’s ever been, and I hope it’s better tomorrow. One of those two competing truths at the same time. I could have never dreamed of it, and I want it a little better tomorrow. I hope I never stop thinking that way. Anyway — I left, sold the firm, went full-time into this speaking and writing thing. For a little while I was at the firm that bought my company.

[00:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Another nameless firm.

[00:14]  CARL RICHARDS: That was Buckingham, back then.

[00:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Oh, okay. I kind of remember that.

[00:14]  CARL RICHARDS: Went to work for them in those days and loved it.

[00:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Who else did you work with there? There were some people I really liked.

[00:14]  CARL RICHARDS: Larry Swedroe — tremendous. That whole crew. Adam, the whole crew there. It was really, really good.

[00:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So we’re gonna spend a little time talking about behavior. But you came from several big shops — Fidelity, Merrill, as well as Buckingham. They all have PhDs and Monte Carlo simulations, and they run factor-model tests. And yet people still buy high and sell low. What is it about the human condition that is a permanent drag on performance?

[00:15]  CARL RICHARDS: That feels to me like the question I’ve been exploring for 20 years.

[00:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s why I asked it.

[00:15]  CARL RICHARDS: I almost left the business at first, because I couldn’t solve this problem. After I got my CIMA designation and came back —

[00:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Explain for laypeople what that acronym is.

[00:15]  CARL RICHARDS: The Certified Investment Management Analyst. It was for people doing institutional consulting work.

[00:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So not a CFA, but more than a CFP.

[00:15]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah — sort of like CFA light, that can talk to people. Back then it was taught in conjunction with Wharton, so I went to Wharton for two weeks. That was the whole reason — I’m always looking for external validation.

[00:16]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Goes hand in hand with the imposter syndrome.

[00:16]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s exactly right, and I’m not afraid to admit it. But I came back working with clients and realized: okay, now I’ve got this great system, the best training in the world — honestly, some of the best training at the firm. And yet I still had this repeated experience where we’d create really detailed spreadsheets of how to hire and fire managers. And then, over and over, the manager that showed up on our buy screen — we’d commit clients’ money to it; I thought that was our job, the search for the best investment — would go through a normal cyclical period of underperformance and show up on our fire screen. I repeated that two or three times over a three- or four-year period and thought, I don’t know what’s going on. Maybe it’s just me. And then I ran across some of that industry research around investor returns versus investment returns, where you see that the average investor underperforms the average investment.

[00:17]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Not only does the average investor underperform the average investment — the average investor underperforms their own investments.

[00:17]  CARL RICHARDS: I just remember being so excited that it wasn’t just me. Wait — this is an industry-wide, huge problem. What that research said to me was that I could own a mediocre investment, and if I behaved correctly, I would outperform 99% of my neighbors. And that’s all we care about in the first place, right? Outperforming our neighbors. That’s the whole goal.

[00:17]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “How is that idiot down the block getting rich, and I’m not?”

[00:18]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly — as if that’s the thing that matters. But that’s what we do.

[00:18]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s how people work.

[00:18]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly right. So digging into that a bit — I really think Buffett’s statement, that if you were to design a poor investor you would design a human, is as close as we get. We are hardwired. I think it was in one of Jason Zweig’s books where they hooked up scanners and had people open their brokerage statements — talk about a masochistic experiment. And if the statement was down, you process that in the same part of your brain as you do mortal danger — as if you’re being chased by a bear.

[00:18]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Breaking through the room — fight or flight, right there. My favorite Bill Bernstein quote is, “It’s all about your amygdala. If you don’t get your limbic system under control, you will die poor.” And it’s that exact same system.

[00:18]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s right. And if the statement’s up, it’s the same part of your brain as security and pleasure. I think it was in the book that for women that’s chocolate and for men that’s sex. I didn’t quite understand the difference in the book, but —

[00:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Between sex and chocolate.

[00:19]  CARL RICHARDS: Anyway. So if that’s what’s going on, it’s a little bit like the interaction we have with our phones now. On the other side of that interaction are 300 PhDs trying to get us to pay attention to what’s going on on Instagram. And I think we finally have to recognize: unless we put some serious guardrails between us and the big mistake, we’re gonna make the big mistake — because it feels like… I don’t care what you tell me, Barry; if my hand’s on a stove, I’m taking it off.

[00:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: A hundred percent.

[00:19]  CARL RICHARDS: So that, to me, is the work — worrying about what it means to be a real investor, a successful investor, versus what it means to find good investments.

[00:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Let’s talk a little bit about the behavior gap. I don’t know if you created that phrase, but you’ve done more than anybody else I know to popularize it. Tell us what the behavior gap actually is.

[00:20]  CARL RICHARDS: It started out as a very narrow thing — the difference between, the technical term would be, time-weighted rates of return and dollar-weighted. Because I’ve had to explain this so many times, maybe I’ll go through the explanation. Imagine you open a newspaper and there’s an ad for a mutual fund. It says the fund has returned 10% a year for the last 10 years. That’s the investment return. And just for a minute, forget taxes and fees — that’s the return you would’ve gotten if you had invested money at the beginning of the 10-year period and not added or taken anything away and left it there. But nobody invests that way, except your clients. We are always chasing whatever we hear in the news — the financial pornography network waves their hands, and we’ve got a list of 10 funds to buy. So we end up running around, and the average investment return is 10%, but the average investor return is always different from that.

[00:21]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Who does the annual report that everybody criticizes — that shows this differential?

[00:21]  CARL RICHARDS: That was one of the early reports I ran across — Dalbar. I spent the time years ago to understand it; I don’t really know that number well. I know Morningstar does a number, and it seems to be comparable — 80 to 100 basis points, not 6%.

[00:21]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And then what about the SPIVA numbers on manager performance?

[00:21]  CARL RICHARDS: For sure.

[00:21]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So you’re running across these behavioral errors on pretty much both sides — the manager who’s running their funds and frequently underperforming. And the longer that timeline is, the greater the percentage of managers underperforming. And on the other side, the buyers of those funds tend to not only underperform the benchmark, they’re underperforming their own funds. So if only there were an alternative way to invest.

[00:22]  CARL RICHARDS: Let me tell you a quick story. This is back during my institutional consulting days. We had this client; we do a manager search and selection, and we find the best large-cap value manager for this client and hire them. As I recall, it was Davis New York Venture, back in the day.

[00:22]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Chris Davis. Yep.

[00:22]  CARL RICHARDS: We go two or three years. Davis has one of those cyclical underperforming moments — value, as it’s going to do.

[00:22]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Value especially, which runs in and out of favor so frequently.

[00:22]  CARL RICHARDS: And it was even in comparison to other value managers, as they’re gonna do. So we fire Davis, not knowing any better, and we hire another — we’ll just call them X, Y, Z. And the client’s like, “Yeah, I understand.” Two and a half years in, we make this change. We go to X, Y, Z. Two and a half, three years later, X, Y, Z does the same thing — cyclical underperformance. We go through our manager screening, they’re up on our fire list, and guess who pops onto our buy list? Chris Davis.

[00:23]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Chris Davis.

[00:23]  CARL RICHARDS: I call the client thinking I’m so smart: “Hey, we need to fire X, Y, Z and hire this manager — it’s called Davis.” And he — this client’s name was Jeremy — was like, “Wait, wait, wait. Didn’t we just fire them two and a half years ago?” And I said, “Yeah.” And he said, “You know what I’d like? I’d like the return of Davis from the day we first hired them until now, and I’d like the return of X, Y, Z from the day you first hired Davis until now. And I’d like that compared to my account.” I was, of course, like, “That’s not how it works.” He said, “Yeah, that’s what I’d like to see.” And we all know the story — he underperformed both of those. He would’ve been fine in either one.

[00:23]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Just leave it alone.

[00:23]  CARL RICHARDS: Just leave it. And that was my first moment of, “I gotta get out of this business, I gotta go to law school or something.” And that’s when I discovered, for myself, this idea that maybe the investment process only matters to the degree that I can behave.

[00:24]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about what you call the financial pornography networks. They talk all day long about the 10-year yield and the Fed and credit spreads and geopolitics and earnings and news. And you spend most of your books talking about fear, regret, envy — what moves markets and, more importantly, what moves investors’ portfolios.

[00:24]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s such a good question. And I want to be careful about the term “financial pornography network.” I think that was originally the Jane Bryant Quinn term.

[00:24]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s right. Which I love.

[00:24]  CARL RICHARDS: Which I love. But I think it applies really broadly.

[00:25]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I call it the fire hose of financial noise. Is that a fair phrase?

[00:25]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah, that’s fine. Sometimes “media circus.” It’s a media business, and there’s nothing — I want to be clear — I live in the hills in Utah, I ride my mountain bike every day, the trails are out my backyard. I have a different hobby. Just because that’s my hobby doesn’t mean my hobbies are better than anybody else’s. I walk in this building and I see happy human after happy human walking through the halls — shiny happy people everywhere. Who am I, on three cappuccinos, to say? But what’s important is if we start to recognize what we’re doing it for. What’s the goal? Because if it’s something to talk about, there’s nothing wrong with that. If it’s entertainment, there’s nothing wrong with that. But basing your actual investment decisions on something you heard — even if it was secret, underneath the subway, and labeled… isn’t the Economist the one all the really smart people read anyway? You’re not the only one who’s heard it. So we have to be careful about making big investment decisions based on every wind of news or entertainment, versus linking — and this is back to how do we solve this behavior problem — the portfolio has to be designed to give me the greatest likelihood of reaching my goals. And my goals have to be carefully clarified, and they’re gonna change over time. So it’s this constant process of saying, are these investment decisions aligned with what I want out of my life? Both sides of that equation are really challenging. Getting clear about what you want out of your life is super hard. Making sure you have a portfolio built on data and evidence that’ll get you closest to that — also really hard.

[00:26]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So let’s break that into two pieces, because I feel like there are two distinct conversations. We’ll get to the goal portion in a moment; I want to stay with the media circus. Isn’t there really a very simple problem — the mismatch in time horizons? When you’re putting money away to save for retirement, or even a 529 for college, or to buy a house or a second house, you’re thinking 5, 10, 50 years. But all of the financial noise, that fire hose, is about the church of what’s happening right now. If we can simply readjust our media consumption into some context with the longevity of our portfolio goals, doesn’t that solve a lot of this? If I’m putting this money away for 20, 30 years, what do I care what happened on a random Thursday?

[00:27]  CARL RICHARDS: And gosh — what if we actually kept track of every single change of opinion, and how sure somebody was? Remember that old statement that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

[00:28]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Often wrong, never in doubt. That’s exactly it.

[00:28]  CARL RICHARDS: And that’s entertaining — and there’s nothing wrong with entertainment. We go to the movies, we go see plays, we ride our mountain bikes. I just think we have to understand what it is. What you’re saying is, that’s day-to-day entertainment. I like it because I can talk about it. Just don’t base my 5-, 10-, 20-year decisions on it.

[00:28]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And yet we continue to see people have that problem. So let me re-ask this question in a different way. How do you bridge the gap between what clients ask for — what they think they want — and what you know they actually need?

[00:28]  CARL RICHARDS: Barry, you’re super good at this whole job.

[00:29]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s all AI. It’s all I didn’t write.

[00:29]  CARL RICHARDS: Now you’ve layered in another problem, because the humans we call clients show up having been trained by us as an industry — speaking really broadly — that what matters is this day-to-day stuff. They think the job of an investor is to find the best investment, because we taught them that on television, waving our hands. So it’s no surprise that clients come in expecting that — we did this to ourselves. And that’s why I think clients who work with real financial advisors often go through a period of financial-pornography detox, where they wake up 18, 24 months into the relationship and go, “Hey, you know what? I’m not really paying that much attention anymore. All the stuff I used to think was critical has lost its urgency.” So we’ve got this problem where — back to the wiring in our bodies — it feels like we should be doing something. The news is saying we should be doing something. The guy at the club is saying we should be doing something. And I call Barry, and Barry says, “Hey, let’s hold on for a second. Let’s take a breath. Are these goals still the goals? Is this still what’s important to you?” Turns out, if that’s true, we’re okay here. And almost always we end up at the same place: diversified, low-cost portfolio, hold onto it for a long time.

[00:30]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: There’s this inherent bias toward action, which is the nature of that fight-or-flight response.

[00:30]  CARL RICHARDS: One or the other. Act.

[00:30]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “Don’t just sit there, do something.” And really the right way to do it is, “Don’t just do something, sit there.” But that causes a great deal of discomfort among people. Let’s take this to the next phase. Jack Bogle and Vanguard gave us low cost. Everything we’ve learned from Richard Thaler and the behavioral finance folks is about the importance of humility. What does the next generation of investors learn once they figure out diversified, low cost, and a little bit of humility? Where do you go next?

[00:31]  CARL RICHARDS: You know what’s so hard about that? This “everyone’s a gambler” thing that’s sort of slipped in —

[00:31]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Actually, today.

[00:31]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s slipped in. I don’t envy growing up as a 25-, 30-year-old trying to sort this out right now, because it just feels like everything’s a bet.

[00:31]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And it is.

[00:31]  CARL RICHARDS: And it is. To me — I’m careful with advice, but the observation I’ve noticed most frequently is that when I’m younger, if I can focus on human capital and then realize that the money over here does the job of compounding, my main job should be to earn a bit more. Raising my human capital — my ability to earn and save when I’m young — will far outstrip getting an extra 25 basis points by paying attention to some newsletter on the internet.

[00:32]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s funny you mention gambling being everywhere. We were talking before the podcast about Nine-Fingered Howie. He wrote a post and created an index called the Degeneracy Index, where he puts in all the various prediction markets and gambling apps — and it’s been outperforming the Nasdaq, which has been on fire, like two to one. And it’s a kind of warning.

[00:32]  CARL RICHARDS: What do we do with that?

[00:32]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s a warning. I understand the Supreme Court decision that says gambling can’t just be legal in one state — but maybe the decision isn’t to make it legal everywhere. Maybe the decision is to say an entire industry based on human foibles, cognitive errors, and innumeracy is kind of an evil industry.

[00:32]  CARL RICHARDS: I know. We’re the problem; we need to realize that we’re just not wired for it. It’s not that we’re dumb, it’s not that we’re bad. We can have any discussion we want about the morality of the whole thing, but underneath it all sits this idea that we’re not wired to handle it. And another piece that’s interesting right now: I don’t think we’re really wired to handle the level of uncertainty that we’re dealing with — the sort of change fatigue.

[00:33]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And it seems like a lot of what Wall Street sells is this illusion of certainty.

[00:33]  CARL RICHARDS: This false sense of precision. Certainty is so easy to sell — it’s impossible to deliver, but it’s super easy to sell because everybody wants to buy it. So I think those are the two: human capital, and learning how to come to grips with the reality that the world is uncertain.

[00:33]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So the quote of yours that always stays with me is, “Money is less about math and more about emotion.” That was your insight watching the Netscape IPO. Why is that so challenging for this industry, for finance, to accept?

[00:34]  CARL RICHARDS: It seems to me — and I’ve been in a lot of the rooms where this discussion takes place — that we have a deep sense of physics envy.

[00:34]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: For sure.

[00:34]  CARL RICHARDS: We just want the law of gravity for money. And when we understand that the systems that handle money — markets, economies, politics, and then humans — are a mix of complex adaptive systems… they’re not simple, and they’re not even complicated. They’re complex, adaptive, almost chaotic. And when you understand a complex adaptive system, you start to understand that even with the benefit of hindsight — you see this all the time — we look back and say, “Here are the seven steps.” It turns out that only works for that period of time. You replicate those seven steps and it doesn’t work again.

[00:35]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: All models assume the future looks like the past, and very often the future looks nothing like the past.

[00:35]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly. “All models are wrong; let’s make ours useful” is much more helpful. This idea of saying, okay, if that’s the reality I live in, then how do I navigate a complex adaptive system? And that gets us to the point where it’s more about — the problem is you, the problem is me, the problem is us. So I think that’s why it’s so hard. We have to say, “Oh man, we don’t know exactly what we’re dealing with here.” It’s so cute after a big crisis to see all the people who have very specific plans about how to avoid that exact same thing. We’re still taking our shoes off in airports.

[00:35]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You don’t have TSA Pre yet?

[00:35]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah, I do. I haven’t taken my shoes off in a while.

[00:35]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I’m gonna share one of my favorite random data points — I don’t know if this made it into the last book. Earthquake insurance sales go up tremendously right after an earthquake. And if you think about how the plate tectonics work — these two pieces sliding — the odds of an earthquake happening after that 10, 20, 30 years of pressure is released plummet immediately. The worst time to buy earthquake insurance is right after the earthquake. The best time is, “Hey, this is an earthquake zone and we haven’t had one in 20, 25 years — now’s the time.” I remember getting offered structured notes with downside protection in, like, October ’02, and I’m like, “Why do I need this? The Nasdaq is down 83%. Where were you in late ’99 when this might have been useful?” Down 83%, I’m a buyer — I want all the upside. Why would I give any of it away? I had that conversation in a room full of the salespeople pitching this, and got called into the chairman’s office: “What are you doing? We’re trying to set up a relationship with these people.” I’m like, “This is crap. Nobody should own this product. I know you want a relationship — tell them not to bring us junk that we don’t need.” I like dessert as much as the next guy —

[00:37]  CARL RICHARDS: This is what I came for, right here.

[00:37]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I remember several times getting called in as the market strategist — called into the vice chair, who was general counsel, or the chair. By the way, the firm was Lehman Brothers. So not only was I right over and over, but the counterparty risk was such that you would’ve gotten nothing anyway.

[00:37]  CARL RICHARDS: And we will go to the lengths we’ll go to make up stories about that after the fact. Do you remember — I’m gonna deeply paraphrase, and I’m sure I’m ruining the story — but after Long-Term Capital Management went under in ’98, there was some quote where one of those PhD Nobel Prize winners said, “Our models weren’t wrong; reality just refused to conform to them.”

[00:38]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I don’t remember who it was, but — When Genius Failed, that quote is somewhere in that book.

[00:38]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly right. And I only point that out to say that I will certainly go to great lengths to make up a cute story that protects me from dealing with uncertainty — because our nervous system takes uncertainty as a threat. And it turns out we are in a period of uncertainty, and I don’t think we’re going back, to be honest.

[00:38]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Let me — this is supposed to be about you, the guest — but you pushed my buttons. Whenever I hear people saying “markets hate uncertainty,” my knee-jerk response is always, “Markets thrive on uncertainty — it’s the whole point.” The only time there’s certainty is when everybody’s on the same side of the boat. In late ’99, everybody was certain trees grew to the sky. And in March ’09, everybody was certain markets were going to zero — except for the handful of people who stepped up and bought. The future is inherently unknown and unknowable. When people say things are uncertain, I always feel like what they’re saying is, “Normally I could lie to myself enough that I could BS you people that I have some idea what’s gonna happen — but goddamn, whatever’s going on is so crazy I can’t maintain that fiction anymore, so I default to uncertainty.” In reality, most of the time everything is inherently uncertain.

[00:39]  CARL RICHARDS: Can I — real quickly, I’m super interested in what you think about this. I feel like you and I came up in the financial planning industry, the financial advice industry, which really grew up during a period that was an aberration. For a certain group of people, there was a predictable path of progress.

[00:39]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Give me some years.

[00:40]  CARL RICHARDS: I’m seeing postwar. My grandpa got a degree, could afford a first-time home on one salary, stayed there for 30 years, retired with a pension. There was this window —

[00:40]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That was the aberration. The entire postwar period is the aberration.

[00:40]  CARL RICHARDS: Right — like the Roaring Twenties, the uber-rich and the rest of us. Things weren’t like that before, and they aren’t like that now.

[00:40]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And we falsely believed, “Oh, this is the new era.”

[00:40]  CARL RICHARDS: The problem is that was when we built all of our tools, our language, our planning tools, our Monte Carlo simulations — all around that aberration. Much more likely is, if you think it feels uncertain now, we’re not going back there.

[00:40]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “No, no, it’ll all settle down, this’ll all go away.”

[00:40]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly. Ain’t gonna happen. So to me, that leads to a really interesting discussion around how I learn — whether it’s a posture shift, instead of trying to defend an outdated map. Like confirmation bias — you know, “10 best days.”

[00:41]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Ten best days — it’s a great concept. And 10 worst days.

[00:41]  CARL RICHARDS: Anytime anybody’s scared of anything in the markets, we just parade it out. You saw this on Twitter back when it was useful — if anybody said anything bad, like “I’m scared” or “this market scares me,” a bunch of financial advisors would jump in and say, “Don’t you know, if you sell and miss the 10 best days, you may as well be in CDs over the 20-year period?” Or you miss the 10 worst days. And I think that was an effort to say “Don’t worry” — to spray people with facts and figures when they’re feeling irrational.

[00:41]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “I like the gun you hold.”

[00:41]  CARL RICHARDS: Spray people with facts and figures. Because when you’re feeling irrational, the last thing you want is somebody to try and reason with you.

[00:41]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Wait — you’re telling me that pure logic doesn’t satisfy emotion?

[00:42]  CARL RICHARDS: You’re trying it with a teenager, right? The last thing you want… what you want, metaphorically, is a hug first. We’ll get to the facts later — let’s never get to the lecture. So I think if we shift that posture a bit, where we’re like, “Turns out uncertainty is reality”… add in sequencing risk — are we gonna have a great market for the first five years of your retirement or the last five years? Who knows?

[00:42]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Not that useful in the last five years.

[00:42]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly right. It turns out we’re dealing with a very complex adaptive system, and the ability to make really important decisions in the face of irreducible uncertainty is the primary skill. If I was younger, I would be studying complexity theory. I’d be studying being resilient. I’d be studying how to make really important decisions when I don’t know — how to get comfortable not knowing. Like a mountain guide.

[00:42]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: But those are life-and-death decisions.

[00:43]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah. Some of my favorite people are really thoughtful — people who worked in distressed investing. Because if they’re on the ground with the company, they’re having to make mission-critical decisions, and they do not know how they’re gonna work out. I’ve got a really good friend like that, and he’s like, “Yeah, every day, some of these decisions are thousands of jobs, and I don’t know how it’s gonna work out.”

[00:43]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And you’re making these decisions in zones of intense uncertainty with incomplete information.

[00:43]  CARL RICHARDS: Right. And no amount of spreadsheeting will get you more information. The only way they get more information is to take an action.

[00:43]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Fascinating.

[00:43]  CARL RICHARDS: To me, that’s the skill. That’s what this market is calling for in terms of leadership — the ability to create containers for collective interpretation, rather than scream at people.

[00:43]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about this book. You describe it as a conversation grenade. Explain.

[00:43]  CARL RICHARDS: First of all, I think I first heard that term from Hugh MacLeod — Gaping Void.

[00:44]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Love his work. I have some of his stuff on my wall. And on the opposite wall, some of your stuff.

[00:44]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s cool. Thank you.

[00:44]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “Buy high, sell low, repeat until broke.” Number one. It’s on my wall. Full disclosure.

[00:44]  CARL RICHARDS: Well, thank you. I have some of your stuff in my office too. So, conversation grenades — this is the only reason I wrote the book. I’d sworn off writing.

[00:44]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Why?

[00:44]  CARL RICHARDS: Because I love audio so much. After I wrote the second book, I thought, “I’m just gonna speak.” And then podcasting came around and I was like, “This is amazing.”

[00:44]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Not mutually exclusive.

[00:44]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly right.

[00:44]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Between Bailout Nation and How Not to Invest — a solid 15 years. I needed to recover; that was my refractory period. I needed a decade and a half.

[00:44]  CARL RICHARDS: And it just took the pandemic to make me start thinking about it. I kept noticing that people like physical artifacts.

[00:45]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I agree. I don’t love a Kindle.

[00:45]  CARL RICHARDS: Same — I like other people to have it physically. Working with Harriman really allowed me to make everything about the book designed for that.

[00:45]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Think of it — we have the same publisher. I didn’t even notice.

[00:45]  CARL RICHARDS: I’m sure Craig helps you.

[00:45]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: He’s great, for sure.

[00:45]  CARL RICHARDS: So everything about that book is designed to feel like you toss it in a room and conversations break out. That’s the conversation-grenade analogy. You set it on the coffee table — an unpretentious coffee-table book. I’m gonna pick it up, I’m gonna mess with it. We talked about hardback; I wanted that soft cover. We moved the front matter, the legal stuff — you go to page one, there’s none of it in there.

[00:45]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You moved it to the back.

[00:45]  CARL RICHARDS: They let me move it to the back. And they said nobody’s ever asked.

[00:45]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Dude, I love that.

[00:45]  CARL RICHARDS: Nobody’s ever asked. I was amazed they let me do it. But that stuff’s in the back. Because what reader has ever said they want to see that crap? There it is, in the back.

[00:46]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I always assumed it was a legal requirement that it had to be up front.

[00:46]  CARL RICHARDS: They said nobody’s asked. So they let me do all sorts of things that allowed us to say, “No, this is in service of the reader.” We just want you to have this sit there. The number of stories I’ve heard — “I had it on my table, my son asked me a question,” or “I sent it out to clients.” It’s really meant to be a conversation grenade.

[00:46]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So we started out talking about your deceptively simple sketches. Is this simplicity a conscious act of rebellion? There’s so much complexity and arcane language — every profession uses arcane language to hold laypeople at arm’s distance. Was the simplicity in your sketches purposeful, or am I reading too much into it?

[00:46]  CARL RICHARDS: Deeply purposeful. Deeply. I think it’s maybe just the way my brain works — I only have enough RAM for one problem at a time. So I like to get into it, understand the nuance, the edge cases — and it gets like a giant ball. There was actually a sketch in there about this. It’s a simple question, and then: what about this? What about that? What about that edge case? And once I get in there, I’m like, okay. And you actually shared a quote one time —

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Investing is simple but hard.

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: No — “There are a lot of answers that are simple, elegant, and wrong.”

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I remember this. I don’t know where I stole that. That could actually be me.

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: I remember you shared somebody else’s quote.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “Simple, elegant, and wrong.”

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah. And I really worry about that, because when you’re in that ball of yarn and you decide to distill or edit, you have to make some conscious decisions about what to leave out. And I often get that wrong. And when I do, I hear about it, and it makes the work a little bit better. There are words and lines in some of those sketches I’ve been thinking about for over a decade. I removed a word that had been in there 15 years.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Which sketch?

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s the —

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: “People you love, experiences — spend the money.”

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah, that’s one of my favorite ones.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That is one of my favorites. You do like a good Venn diagram.

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: By the way, the Venn diagram police have come after me, so I just call them circle sketches.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: What?

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: Oh, dude. I used to get two-page emails from the Times readers about —

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I call these people Venn diagram police.

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: Picture-shapers, picture-straighteners. I used to send equal rebuttals, and then finally I just developed a template email. It said, “You’re right. I call them circle sketches.” So the Venn diagram piece is pretty loosey.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Wait — these are legitimate Venn diagrams.

[00:48]  CARL RICHARDS: They can make an argument, of course.

[00:48]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: No — if it’s this over here and this over here, and the overlap that you want to focus on. “Things that matter, things that you can control” is another one of yours.

[00:49]  CARL RICHARDS: What we should focus on.

[00:49]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And then the overlap. How is that not a Venn diagram?

[00:49]  CARL RICHARDS: I don’t know. Somebody will find — but my point really is that when you distill and leave things out, you get things wrong sometimes. And you asked which one —

[00:49]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: But you’re trying to communicate cleanly and simply.

[00:49]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s true. But some of that feedback’s amazing. The Venn diagram police weren’t particularly helpful, but some of the feedback is — like, “Hey, have you ever thought of this?” — and it makes me reconsider and adjust. There have been changes I’ve made. There’s one sketch that used to say “what’s important to you.” It was an alignment sketch — your use of capital aligned with what you say is important to you. And that word, “say” —

[00:49]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s implying that it’s not important, but you’re claiming it’s important.

[00:49]  CARL RICHARDS: That word “say” bothered me for a decade, before I was like, “No, no — we want to get to what’s important to you, not what you say is important.”

[00:50]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You were hinting at another problem with people not speaking —

[00:50]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s right. Stated versus revealed preferences. I’m more interested in the revealed preferences. What’s actually important to you?

[00:50]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s really interesting. So let’s stay with the concept of spending money, since I just flipped to whatever that was. Every advisor who manages money for people can tell you story after story. My favorite one I’ll share here. “Hey, Barry’s a car guy, he has a boat. You want to buy a boat and a car? Why don’t you talk to Barry?” So I speak to the client. He says, “I’m thinking about buying a 50-, 60-foot sailboat, and I’m thinking about buying a Ferrari.” I go, “That’s really easy. What’s your boating experience?” “Zero.” You don’t start with a 50-, 60-foot sailboat that requires a crew. It’s two and a half million dollars. You’ll take it out twice, and you’ll sell it for a 30% loss. On the other hand — by the way, this guy could buy a Ferrari a month for the rest of eternity and be fine — go buy the Ferrari. Take the whole family down to the Ferrari high-performance driving school. I’ll let you in on a little secret: all of these advanced driving schools are really defensive driving classes in disguise. You’ll learn the limits of the car, that you’ll get nowhere near, but you’ll also learn the limits of your own driving ability — and, more importantly, how to operate within your own skill set.

[00:51]  CARL RICHARDS: And so will your kids, if you bring them.

[00:51]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s right. So everybody becomes a better, safer driver. So he goes out and buys a Ferrari, they do the class, they love it.

[00:51]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah.

[00:51]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: He also buys the boat. A year later, he sells it for a 30% loss. Anytime Barry gets on the phone with a client, the advisor always says, “Do not mention the boat.” The only thing worse than being right is being wrong. And I can say this at the back of a podcast, because you can confess to murder at the end of a podcast and no one will know.

[00:52]  CARL RICHARDS: No one will hear.

[00:52]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So I’m very comfortable saying this here. But with that Barry digression — let’s talk about how you help people focus on what’s important, what matters, and what the purpose of money really is. What should they be doing with their money, especially later in life? They’ve accumulated a nice pile. Can’t take it with you.

[00:52]  CARL RICHARDS: Running experiments, practice. One of the things we see is that the very things that got you to that spot are working against you going forward. You were being frugal, saving aggressively, being very disciplined. And now you’re saying, “Hey, this delayed-gratification thing was really important — but it definitely got me to the spot.” You get to a point where you should no longer delay. There’s not gonna be time to delay.

[00:52]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s so tough for some people to make that switch.

[00:53]  CARL RICHARDS: Super. So you practice. Your boat example is great. I’ve literally had people who can’t spend any money — and, like you’re saying, have enough that they could spend it for the rest of their lives. “Go get a coffee with a friend, pay for theirs. Go on the trip and enjoy the trip.” One of my favorite stories is from Alan Smith in the UK — a great financial planner; he’s told this story publicly. He had a client whose relatives had moved. There was a bunch of people from Wales who moved to Argentina from mining, way back. She’d always wanted to go see the Welsh national rugby team play the Argentinian Pumas, in Argentina.

[00:53]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I know exactly where you’re gonna go with this.

[00:53]  CARL RICHARDS: And she was like, “I just can’t.” And he’s like, “You could do this every month for the rest of your life.” “Well, I can’t sit that long.” “You could have a lay-flat bed.”

[00:54]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Or you could go from Wales to New York, New York to Brazil, Brazil to Argentina. You don’t have to do it in one trip.

[00:54]  CARL RICHARDS: So he finally, over time, got her used to the idea. She went, and she said it was the best. “We’re never gonna get those things back. We’re never going.”

[00:54]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: AI is not gonna replace that.

[00:54]  CARL RICHARDS: No. So to me it’s like — I don’t know if I’d rather err on being irresponsible, but I know we should spend the money. Spend the money.

[00:54]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: But irresponsibility never comes into it. You’re looking at someone’s portfolio: you have $10 million, you live on $350,000 a year, and you want to bust out another $50,000 so you can take the whole family — take the kids on a trip to the old country and show them where your grandparents came from. Why not? It’s not even a hundred thousand.

[00:54]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah. And these are — by the way —

[00:54]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: These are very first-world problems.

[00:54]  CARL RICHARDS: Of course. But they are problems. Brené Brown got really clear that comparative suffering does us no good. So whenever I hear “first-world problems,” I’m always like, “Well, yeah, but this is a challenge” — and it happens to be the challenge that many of your clients and the people I’m talking to are facing. So why not just practice? Can we pick something small — something you’ve always wanted to do? It might be simple, like take the grandkids to the art museum this weekend.

[00:55]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I’m gonna share another line with you — not comparative suffering, but: “Comparison is the thief of joy.” Often falsely attributed to Teddy Roosevelt; it hadn’t been around till the late 1980s. What a great phrase. There’s always someone with a bigger boat, or a larger house, or a faster car — whatever you’re envious of. You have this car, you’re really happy with it — then who cares what the guy on the block has? That’s pointless.

[00:55]  CARL RICHARDS: Real quickly — one thing that makes it even harder is we’re never exactly sure: do we really want the boat?

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Well, if you’re not sure, then that’s easy. Don’t get the boat.

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: But you could go out for a day.

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You could rent a boat.

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: You could try little experiments. I just remember growing up — I grew up in the hills in Utah — we all had BMX bikes.

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I love this BMX story of yours.

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: I always wanted a slightly better BMX bike.

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Oh no, you wanted a really nice bike. And what did you end up doing?

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: Which one are you talking about — the road bike? The Moots? Yes, the titanium bike. There’s a Steamboat story, but that’s a different story. Are you kidding? Those things were — I think those were six or seven thousand.

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s nothing today, in terms of people who ride. You could drop 10 grand on a bike.

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: In a hurry. But still, that bike — per dollar, per unit of fun — unbelievable. I never made a better investment.

[00:56]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: What’s the BMX story?

[00:56]  CARL RICHARDS: When I was little, like eight, I had a slightly better BMX bike than some of my buddies, and some of my buddies had slightly better. That’s all I knew. I didn’t know at the time that I was supposed to want a private jet. And now I do — Instagram has taught me. So I think we have this problem of cultivating our comparison set. Now we’re even talking about getting clear about the word “goal,” which is hard — because you don’t know if it’s your mom’s goal, society’s goal, or Instagram’s goal. Five million dollars and a sailboat — when did that come from?

[00:57]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Let me share a fun private jet story with you.

[00:57]  CARL RICHARDS: I love private jet stories.

[00:57]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So whenever anybody used to ask me, “Are you gonna sell the firm? What’s your FU money?” — my answer has always been the same: whatever it takes to never step foot into a commercial airport ever again. And then I made the mistake of saying this in public somewhere, and all these Marquis Jet guys started sending me pitches. So out of curiosity, one day I said, “Run the numbers for me. What does this really look like?” It turns out East Coast is $6,000–$6,500 an hour; cross-country to California, $8,000; you want to go to Europe, it’s $12,000 per hour of travel. So do the math. I’m a numbers guy deep down inside, and I’m like, “Oh, this is a quarter million, half a million a year.” For that to be rational, you’d have to be earning $10 million gross — to spend a mere 5% of your annual income, after cap gains, on a PJ at half a million a pop. “PJ” — that’s from Succession; I never heard that phrase before that show. And all of a sudden I’m like, “Oh, I have no interest in that. I don’t ever expect to be pulling down $10 million a year.” And while it’s attractive — bypassing all the airports — I kind of learned: all right, I’m not gonna go on high-traffic days. We travel for Thanksgiving weekend, I’m the first flight out Thursday morning; we blow through security in five minutes. Two hours later it’s a zoo. So all right, I’m not gonna spend half a million a year. I could spend a little bit of brainpower trying to navigate around the worst. I won’t arrive at the airport at five o’clock, because I don’t want to get stuck in traffic, and I won’t take a nine o’clock morning flight. So I’m not flying private; I’m trying to fly a little smarter commercial. Even if you’re in the front of the plane.

[00:59]  CARL RICHARDS: But that to me is a really good example of thinking that something might be important, running a little bit of an experiment, actually running the numbers, and deciding. We’re just constantly narrowing in, for our whole lives — and those things change.

[00:59]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It would still be delightful to just show up at the airport.

[00:59]  CARL RICHARDS: And you made a trade-off decision about when you want to leave —

[00:59]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: And save a day of travel on each side. But is that worth half a million dollars a year?

[01:00]  CARL RICHARDS: To you, it’s not.

[01:00]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I’m gonna overshare one more thing. So some friends of my wife get a pied-à-terre in the city. They’re empty nesters, they downsize, they have a house and then the city apartment. And I started thinking about a pied-à-terre — we loved it when we lived down at Gramercy Park. I start looking at this and running the numbers, and I’m like, “Wait a second.” Just the monthly co-op fees are three or four grand a month, to say nothing of the insurance, the taxes, and the one-, two-, three-, four-, five-million-dollar purchase price. And I’m doing the math: this is like five grand a month, 60,000 a year, that I can’t spend. We take weekends in the city — I can’t spend $60,000 a year on hotels and restaurants. I can’t spend that much if I tried. We do a few weekends in the city; it’s a couple thousand bucks, certainly not 60 grand. Pied-à-terre makes no sense to me. And I’m explaining this to a very wealthy client, and I see this look on her face, and I go, “Oh — you’re saying if $60,000 is too much in co-op fees, you really can’t afford this pied-à-terre.” And she says, “Well, I wasn’t exactly thinking it, but you’re not wrong.” And what I was about to defend myself with was, “Well, the $60,000 just isn’t worth it to me.” But before I said that — yeah, but if you had 50 or a hundred million dollars, who cares? I just want a place I’m comfortable in, where the bed is, my clothes are in the closet, and I’m not dealing with checking into a hotel. That’s worth 60 grand to me if you have X dollars. She never said that, but I immediately saw the whole caveat.

[01:02]  CARL RICHARDS: I have a question for you on the heels of that. What’s the last thing you decided, “I’m gonna buy that,” and you didn’t run the numbers — you were just like, “I don’t care, I’m buying it, it doesn’t matter how much it costs”? Because in both those examples, you wanted a thing, ran the numbers, and decided not to do it. Is there a time when —

[01:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: When was the last time I decided not to —

[01:02]  CARL RICHARDS: No — you decided to do it. You didn’t even care what the number said, you didn’t even look — you just wanted to do that thing so bad you were like, “I’m doing it.”

[01:02]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: There are two answers: the Barry before he turned 60, and the Barry after he turned 60. When Barry turned 60… I think this is a function of immaturity. I never had a midlife crisis, probably because when I should have, I was still an idiot child — I was still 10, 20 years maturity level below where I should have been. And I turned 60 and very much woke up with a sensation: all right, fourth quarter, down by seven; if you want to win this game, you gotta get busy. Literally, that’s what I thought. I don’t know if I ever told this story on the podcast — and the spouse still survives, so I can’t really go into details. But a person about to sell a business for a ton of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, gets a diagnosis: six months to live. And you know this, if you’re managing money for enough families — the actuarial tables are such that people will begin to die. That’s just the normal human finite lifespan. So it’s easy to start to pick up that pattern: life is short, what are you waiting for? The combination of turning 60, soon after the pandemic ended — a lot of people lost a lot of people during that — I kind of said, “Money should never prevent anyone from experiencing joy.” So what I started doing is not saying no, and gifting a lot of stuff. My favorite thing in the world around Christmas is to pick a book and send it to 10, 20, 30 friends — the same book.

[01:04]  CARL RICHARDS: Same — good. 20, 30 bucks.

[01:04]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: This year it was The Uncool by Cameron Crowe.

[01:04]  CARL RICHARDS: Wow.

[01:04]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I was talking about this with somebody and I said, “Oh, I gave that book to a few people for Christmas.” And then I went through Amazon — oh, I gave 26 of these to various people.

[01:04]  CARL RICHARDS: So good.

[01:04]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s $300 — for anybody making a reasonable income.

[01:04]  CARL RICHARDS: I love that idea. By the way, you don’t have to wait until Christmas.

[01:04]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I know. I was just thinking about that. Carl’s secret book club.

[01:05]  CARL RICHARDS: Launching that.

[01:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: It’s so fun.

[01:05]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s really fun. There’s a little bit of a puzzle figuring out what’s the right book for the right person — not everybody gets the same book, because they’re different people. But this all comes back to —

[01:05]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Spend the money.

[01:05]  CARL RICHARDS: So — again, it’s the end of the podcast, so I can say stuff. Alexis, don’t cut any of this out. A 1987–88 911 Cabriolet I purchased three or four years ago for like 60 grand. It was an old, ratty car that needed to be restored, and the plan was to convert it to an EV. This car wasn’t right for that, so I ended up doing the EV conversion with an ’87 coupe with 300,000 kilometers on it. But the ’88 turned out to be this rare, matching-numbers M491 911, worth a ton more than I paid for it. So I put a bunch of money into it. My wife was complaining she doesn’t get to drive a stick anymore. So — “Hey honey, here’s your weekend car. I bought it for this reason, we’re just parking cash, and it’s worth double what I paid. Drive it.” And she’s like, “It’s loud, it smells, nice clutch, but no airbags, no ABS.” And I’m like, “So what are you saying?” By the way, this is my cross to bear: my wife is very unhappy that I got her an old 911, and she is forcing me to buy a newer Porsche. These are problems that most married men do not have. That’s how you know you married the right woman.

[01:06]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Well, if your wife says “nice clutch,” you’re onto something.

[01:06]  CARL RICHARDS: I taught her to drive a stick when we were dating. She drives a stick better than — so her daily driver is an unusual color, another great purchase during the pandemic. When everybody was freaked out, I got her a Panamera hybrid in amethyst metallic — super rare color, substantially less than it should have been. And one of the guys from my car group says to me one day, “You have the only amethyst-metallic Panamera on the island. I saw your wife driving it. I tried to catch her — she’s got a crazy lead foot. I couldn’t catch her, I was beeping, I was waving.” So I go home that night and I say, “Hey, how was your day?” She goes, “Crazy thing — this guy in a green 911 was haranguing me, chasing me, and I just put the hammer down and this guy couldn’t catch me.” And I said, “You know, that was Joe.” She’s like, “That was Joe? He was just swinging by, trying to catch up to say hi.” I’m like, “He said he couldn’t catch you. It’s a GT3 — the fastest street-legal Porsche, just below the turbos.” There’s only one other car that’s the fastest street-legal Porsche with a stick shift.

[01:08]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So good. So that’s what I’m talking about. So I’m in the process of swapping the ’88 for a 2024. I know exactly what I’m gonna replace it with — I found a bit of a unicorn. The only problem is the color is wrong. But with a relatively new car, you put a PPF wrap around it to protect the paint, and now they make those wraps in colors. I really like this paint-to-sample violet — that’s like a $20,000 upgrade when you order the car new. No — just put the plastic on, it’s six grand, and now you have a car whatever color you want. So she picked that color — she’s gonna be the purple. I found this: it’s a GTS, it’s a Cabrio, it’s a stick, it’s a chalk interior, which is even rarer, and rarer still, ceramic brakes. It’s just the wrong color, and I’m gonna fix that. This is an obscene amount of money, and I don’t care.

[01:09]  CARL RICHARDS: You’ll tell me that 20 years from now —

[01:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Nobody looks back and says, “Oh, why did I buy that?” We look back and regret the things we didn’t do.

[01:09]  CARL RICHARDS: Exactly — not the things we did. My version of that is, two months ago, I didn’t know that my 24-year-old son was gonna ask me to go spend some time on adventure motorcycles this summer. It wasn’t in my financial plan.

[01:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Do you have a license for that?

[01:09]  CARL RICHARDS: I actually do, because 10 years ago I was on a BMW 900 GS.

[01:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s a big bike.

[01:09]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah. And so we just got Yamaha Ténéré 700s — which is a great bike. But my son is the one who asked, and I didn’t know it’s costing me more money than I’d planned on spending. Who cares? I’m not gonna regret a second of it.

[01:09]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Isn’t that —

[01:10]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s the whole point.

[01:10]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: First of all, you have to stop — and I know you have gratitude drawings in here — the fact that it’s a realistic option for you and me to indulge in these ridiculous spending things… part of me knows how utterly ridiculous this is. So first you have to have some gratitude for that. But second, if not for that, what are you gonna do with the money?

[01:10]  CARL RICHARDS: And the fact that my 20-something son asked me to do it — he’s enthusiastic about it — the answer is yes. So what, I’m gonna look back five years from now, 10 years, 30 years from now, and regret it? No. We spent more money than we really should have on our four years living in New Zealand, and I would do it again.

[01:10]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: What years were you in New Zealand?

[01:10]  CARL RICHARDS: ’16 to ’20. We didn’t mean to do it — it wasn’t political. We went in ’16 for a year and ended up staying for four.

[01:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: 2016, I assume. It was fantastic?

[01:11]  CARL RICHARDS: Unbelievable. We spent way more — the whole thing was borderline irresponsible, even in this case. But it was a requirement. My wife was essentially like — after the financial crisis and everything that went on, I was just a broken human.

[01:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Really? I never thought of you that way.

[01:11]  CARL RICHARDS: Well, that’s nice of you. That was part of the problem — I was a superhuman out here, doing the job, master of it, but not inside, not in the house. It was a lack of patience, not deep presence. And she was like, “We’re going. Would you like to come?” And I was like, “Yes.” We ended up staying four years. It was hard money-wise — it was a bad decision financially.

[01:11]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Were you working there?

[01:11]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah. In New Zealand, different time zone, doing the same thing. My point really is, it probably wasn’t the best from a spreadsheet financial decision, but I would do it all over again. Same thing with a car spend. To the degree that you can find the things that align with your use of capital and your family — the experiences with the people you love — we know we will not regret spending time and money on experiences with people we love.

[01:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So we’ve been at this for a solid 90 minutes. Let me jump to my favorite questions, which I ask all my guests, otherwise I’m gonna keep you here through dinner. Starting with: who were your early mentors who helped shape your career?

[01:12]  CARL RICHARDS: I thought really carefully about this. The one that probably had the biggest shaping on me was Ron Lieber — Ron had a huge impact. So between Ron and Seth Godin.

[01:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Oh, really? Seth Godin’s stuff is really interesting.

[01:12]  CARL RICHARDS: I always saw Seth as somebody doing something in a narrow space that had broad application. He was a marketing guy, but it had broad application, and he did it consistently over a long period of time. Behavior Gap Radio was started because of Seth’s daily blog. He said to me, “Why aren’t you doing a daily blog?” I said, “I don’t like to write.” He said, “You like to talk.” And so I started — we’re at episode 1,500 now.

[01:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Unbelievable.

[01:12]  CARL RICHARDS: So Seth Godin and Ron Lieber had the biggest impact on me.

[01:12]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Let’s talk about books. What are you reading right now? What are some of your favorites? And I know when you’re writing a book, it’s really hard to read books.

[01:13]  CARL RICHARDS: Two really impactful books: Fooled by Randomness —

[01:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Nassim. Come on. I wanted to have him on the podcast — he told me to go pound sand.

[01:13]  CARL RICHARDS: He probably said that, exactly.

[01:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I’m giving you the polite version.

[01:13]  CARL RICHARDS: I’m sure. So that book, and then Pema Chödrön’s When Things Fall Apart.

[01:13]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s a really interesting combination.

[01:13]  CARL RICHARDS: They’re both related to this idea of the false sense of certainty that we talked about. So Pema’s work has had a massive impact on me. Reading right now — I just finished, literally last night, Homesick Nomad. I can’t remember her name — Brianna something. It’s a short memoir about a woman who drives her van around the desert of southern Utah. She has a Salt Lake connection, so that was really good. And Buffalo for the Broken Heart, Dan O’Brien’s book.

[01:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Someone else mentioned that.

[01:14]  CARL RICHARDS: I think I told Meb about it in his book roundup, maybe.

[01:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Really interesting. What are you streaming these days? Tell us what you’re listening to or watching.

[01:14]  CARL RICHARDS: Mike Birbiglia.

[01:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: So hilarious.

[01:14]  CARL RICHARDS: Working It Out.

[01:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: You know, he has a podcast also — Working It Out.

[01:14]  CARL RICHARDS: I thought that was the name of his stand-up on Netflix.

[01:14]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: I listen to it religiously. Mike, if you’re listening — I’ve been trying to get ahold of you for a long time.

[01:14]  CARL RICHARDS: So there’s a handful of comedians with their own podcasts now. Not just Seth Rogen, not just Joe Rogan. Tom Papa has a podcast.

[01:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Marc Maron — the original.

[01:15]  CARL RICHARDS: Marc is the OG in the space.

[01:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Who’s the guy — Pete Holmes? And who’s the guy who co-wrote with Dave Chappelle? Drawing a blank on his name. His pod is occasionally interesting.

[01:15]  CARL RICHARDS: Pete Holmes is actually really great too.

[01:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Why do I know the name Pete Holmes?

[01:15]  CARL RICHARDS: He’s another one of these Netflix comedians.

[01:15]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Good Hang with Amy Poehler — I was just watching her with Billie Eilish. That was really kind of fun. There’s a ton of them.

[01:15]  CARL RICHARDS: The reason I really like Birbiglia is it’s really about the process — testing bits, seeing how they land, paying attention to “that didn’t work quite the way I wanted.” Mike does a really good job of explaining that. And then I just finished The Dark Wizard — the story of Dean Potter, who was an El Cap climber long before El Cap climbing was this mainstream thing. And about his untimely passing through base jumping — it’s an amazing story.

[01:16]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: There are a lot of these hobbies — I don’t mind going fast on the track — where my brain does the risk-reward analysis and says, “Oh, there’s just way too much random risk in this.” Like base jumping.

[01:16]  CARL RICHARDS: He’s a wingsuiter.

[01:16]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Yeah.

[01:16]  CARL RICHARDS: He was driven by the fact that the only thing that made him feel alive was the death consequence.

[01:16]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: That’s a whole psychological issue.

[01:16]  CARL RICHARDS: It’s a whole other thing — that’s why it’s called The Dark Wizard. But it was super interesting.

[01:16]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: We’ll skip that. Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give a recent college grad interested in a career as a financial planner, an author, or an artist? And I know you sometimes don’t think of yourself as an artist, but you clearly are.

[01:17]  CARL RICHARDS: Just take the next step. I think getting too caught up in “How is this gonna work? What’s the narrative journey?” —

[01:17]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: A thousand-mile journey starts with the first step.

[01:17]  CARL RICHARDS: Try not to compare. There’s a Lao Tzu quote: “Be who you really are and go the whole way.” I wish I would’ve started that a little earlier. Take one small step. And if I was in finance, I’d get more comfortable — especially on the advice side — with learning to be deeply present with people. Curiosity, questions.

[01:17]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Deeply present.

[01:17]  CARL RICHARDS: I think financial advisors aren’t gonna be paid for solutions. They’re gonna be paid for presence — opening up the ability to have these conversations — because the solutions are table stakes at this point. It’s like self-driving cars. I was in the Waymo — it was safer than the Uber driver before.

[01:17]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Did it feel very weird?

[01:17]  CARL RICHARDS: But here’s the thing: I still have to tell it where to go. And even more importantly, on the journey, if I saw something — “Oh wait, what’s that park?” — that requires…

[01:18]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Could you do that in a Waymo? Could you ask it to stop?

[01:18]  CARL RICHARDS: Yeah, you can tell it to stop. I don’t know how you do it — on the app. So I’m a big fan of self-driving money, I can’t wait. And there’s still gonna be somebody there who needs to say, “Hey, is the boat really important to you? Go try the racetrack thing.” That, to me, is curiosity and presence. You’ve still gotta be a technical rockstar, but curiosity and presence is where the value will be.

[01:18]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Final question: what is it that you know about the world of investing or psychology today that might have been useful back in the 1990s, when you were first looking at that Netscape IPO?

[01:18]  CARL RICHARDS: That compounding does all the work. Stop spending time trying to find the best investment, and just own stuff. If it compounds — I don’t know who said this — if it compounds, let it compound.

[01:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: The line I use is, your job is to prevent yourself from interfering with your portfolio’s ability to compound.

[01:19]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s exactly right. Time is the thing that matters.

[01:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Absolutely. Carl, this has been an absolute delight. Normally I want to make this about the guest, but there’s something about you that just encourages me — that’s my whole goal. It’s your aura. You bring it out in people, which is probably why you were a good advisor — you get people to open up to you.

[01:19]  CARL RICHARDS: That’s a really high compliment. Thank you, Barry. It means a lot.

[01:19]  BARRY RITHOLTZ: Absolutely. Cheers. We have been speaking with Carl Richards, author of Your Money: Reimagining Wealth in 101 Simple Sketches. If you enjoyed this conversation, well, check out any of the 639 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at YouTube, Bloomberg, Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my very patient video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Carl Richards on Sketching Wealth Strategy appeared first on The Big Picture.

Pages