Subscribe now

Let me tell you about the most frustrating conversation in my professional life. I have it constantly. It goes like this.

Someone comes to us. They’ve read the research. They’ve attended the conferences. They understand the thesis cold... they can describe the coming crisis with a precision that would embarrass most economists. Deficits, debasement, capital controls, pension raids... they’ve got it. Chapter and verse.

Then they want to do something about it.

They want to move capital offshore. So they consult their domestic bank. They want to restructure their pension exposure. So they call their pension administrator. They want to diversify into real assets outside their home jurisdiction. So they check with their local financial regulator.

The tsunami is visible on the horizon. The water is already pulling back from the shore. And they are standing there, looking for a lifeguard who works for the ocean.

The gap between knowing and doing

Here’s what I’ve learned running money for people who, by definition, have enough of it that these risks aren’t hypothetical. They’re existential.

The gap between what sophisticated investors intellectually understand and what they’re actually willing to do about it is astonishing.

People nod. They find it alarming. They share the piece with friends. Some write to say it changed how they think. And then... in ninety percent of cases...they do precisely nothing. The article gets filed under “important” in some mental folder that never once triggers an action, and the thumb goes firmly back where it was.

This isn’t stupidity. I want to be precise about that, because it would be lazy and wrong to call it that. These are intelligent people. Many of them are accomplished, formidable in their own fields.

What they’re suffering from is paralysis. The particular paralysis that comes from decades of being conditioned to outsource every consequential decision to an institutional intermediary. They know, intellectually, that the intermediaries are compromised. They simply cannot bring themselves to act as though it’s true. The dissonance is too large. The implications too unsettling. The steps required sit too far outside the established routines of a life built around quiet compliance.

Seeing clearly and acting on what you see are different skills. The second one is much, much rarer.

History doesn’t grade on effort

And history, unfortunately, does not hand out participation medals for understanding the crisis correctly.

Consider the Portuguese who left their retirement savings in state-managed pension funds after 2011. They didn’t lack information. They lacked the activation energy to move.

Consider the Cypriots who left deposits above €100,000 sitting in Bank of Cyprus in 2013, right up until the morning those deposits were “bailed in” and nearly half of the balance above the guarantee was simply converted to equity in a broken bank. They had read the same reports everyone else had read.

Consider the Argentines who kept dollar savings in domestic banks in 2001, when the corralito froze the accounts and converted dollar deposits into devalued pesos by decree. Many of them had lived through previous cycles. They knew the pattern. They stayed anyway.

In each case, the price of compliance was paid in full. In cash. Without recourse.

Notice the through-line. In none of these episodes was the fatal error a failure of analysis. The information was public. It was on the record, with dates and mechanisms and precedent. The fatal error was behavioural. It was the decision to wait for someone in authority to grant permission to act... permission that, by the very nature of the situation, was never going to come.

You do not get advance notice from the institution that is about to gate you. The institution is the ocean. It does not employ lifeguards for your benefit.

What diversification actually is

So let me reframe something that gets dismissed as a rich man’s indulgence.

Diversification across jurisdictions is not a luxury for the ultra-wealthy. It’s the absolute minimum rational response to the demonstrated willingness of Western states to freeze assets, suspend civil liberties, and enforce compliance with policies ranging from the merely misguided to the actively destructive.

And I do mean demonstrated. These aren’t hypothetical risks I’m conjuring to frighten you. In the last handful of years we watched Canadian banks freeze the accounts of protestors and the people who donated to them. We watched an Australian government build quarantine camps and put citizens in them. We watched financial transactions surveilled without warrant. None of that was a tail risk on a slide. It happened. It’s on the record.

Once you accept that, the second principle follows naturally. The optimal jurisdiction isn’t the one with the lowest advertised tax rate. It’s the one with the most predictable actual treatment.

A 20% rate under genuine rule of law and low political risk beats a 10% rate somewhere the rules can be rewritten retroactively, where confiscation is a live possibility, and where the regulatory apparatus can be turned into a weapon against you the moment it becomes politically convenient. A low number on a brochure means nothing if the brochure can be reprinted overnight. We wrote about this the day the contrast became impossible to ignore, in When Capital Smells Freedom... one set of countries moving to presume your innocence, another set moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Which brings us to what we actually own, and why.

Real assets, held in politically stable but regulation-sceptic jurisdictions, are the most robust store of value available in a world of monetary debasement and expanding state claims. Farmland priced in distressed-country terms but producing globally priced commodities isn’t merely a commodity play. It’s a position in a jurisdiction where the apparatus has historically lacked the capacity... or the inclination... to enforce the full menu of claims that Western states now make on their productive class as a matter of routine. Argentina is the one we keep coming back to, and we laid out the size of that opportunity in The $40 Billion Bid for a sub $100 Billion Market.

I won’t name individual positions here. That’s what the Insider Service is for, and you can do your own research on the category. But the shape of the thing is not complicated. Own what a government cannot conjure at will, in a place where the government is either friendly to you or too disorganised to be effectively predatory.

Agency is the rarest asset

Here’s the part almost nobody wants to hear.

The people who navigate these episodes intact are not distinguished by superior prediction. The future is genuinely unknowable in its specifics, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. What distinguishes them is superior optionality.

They hold assets in multiple forms and multiple jurisdictions. They keep relationships across more than one network. They’ve retained the cognitive independence to update their models when the evidence demands it. And they have not surrendered the one asset that underwrites all the others... the capacity to act on their own judgement.

That capacity is precisely what the whole apparatus is designed to extinguish. The captured universities, the curated feeds, the credit-financed comfort... all of it engineers a population that doesn’t exercise independent judgement because it has been trained not to trust its own.

The most valuable people I know, from a purely practical standpoint, are united by a single unglamorous attribute. It isn’t wealth and it isn’t cleverness. It’s that they never forgot how to say no.

So I’ll leave you where I always seem to land. The comfortable will manage their risk by surrendering to the system and calling it prudence. The independent will manage their risk by retaining the ability to walk out of it.

The tsunami is on the horizon either way.

The only question is whether you’re still waiting for the lifeguard.

Everything above is the free version. The part where we tell you what we actually own, and what we’re doing about it, sits on the other side.

This week’s Insider, Issue #332, is where the argument turns into positions. Inside it:

• Why the richest woman in Australia just quietly took a billion-dollar stake in something the peasants are now stampeding into... and what that stampede always signals.

• The poison pill hiding inside a new class of ETF that could force buying by law, and the developed-market bond chart that explains why the whole thing is primed to detonate.

• The pre-IPO junk-debt reveal that tells you exactly how the smart money is funding the mania while pretence holds.

• The Big Five. The names, the sizing, the reasoning. Not the category... but good positions to consider.

• Plus much more…

You’ve read the map. The subscription is where you get to move on it.

Upgrade here. Take it or leave it. But the water is already pulling back, and the lifeguard still works for the ocean.

Subscribe now

Everyone Just Bought the Same Rocket

The richest woman in Australia, twenty-eight thousand retail punters, and an index fund you probably own... all crowded into the same trade in the same fortnight. That is not a signal you ignore.

Gina Rinehart is the 104th richest person on the planet. She built a fortune digging iron ore out of the Pilbara and selling it to India and China...a real business, real dirt, real cash flow. Last month she wrote a cheque for over a billion dollars for a slice of SpaceX. It is the single largest investment her company has ever made outside of iron ore.

Read that again. A woman who got rich owning the ground looked at a rocket company losing four billion dollars a quarter, trading near a hundred times revenue, and decided that was where the next billion should go.

She was not alone. She was early to a stampede.

CommSec, Australia’s biggest retail broker, had four times as many customers bid for SpaceX shares as for any float in its thirty-year history. Four times. For a company with no local listing, in a foreign currency, with zero management presentations, no dividends, and, in the broker’s own words, no certainty about its future revenue or even its products. Twenty-eight thousand retail accounts piled into an offshore IPO. Thirty-seven thousand more opened accounts just to get in.

When the cleaning lady and the mining billionaire are reaching for the same red-hot stock at the same moment, you are not looking at a market. You are looking at a mood.

We have seen this mood before. We wrote about it when the giants of one era became the fossils of the next...back when Schlumberger, an oil service company, was the fourth most valuable business on earth and nobody could imagine it any other way. We wrote about it again when we pointed out that the hyperscalers had quietly stopped being software companies and become capital-hungry utilities wearing a software multiple. The market did not notice then either.

Here is the number that should stop you cold.

Fifty-one percent of the S&P 500’s entire market cap now sits in stocks trading above ten times sales. Half the index. Not half the companies...half the money.

Ten times sales is not a valuation. It is a confession. In 2002, after his own stock had already crashed ninety percent, the CEO of Sun Microsystems explained exactly what you are agreeing to when you pay it. At ten times revenue, to get your money back in a decade, the company has to pay you every single dollar of revenue as a dividend for ten straight years. Zero costs. Zero R&D. Zero taxes. Zero employees. He asked his own investors, flatly, what on earth they had been thinking.

Today half the index trades there. And the crowd thinks it is being sensible.

This is the part where somebody usually tells you to short it. Don’t. We are not going to hand you a rope to hang yourself with, and inside the issue we walk through exactly why...a story about the greatest investor you have probably never heard of, a man who saw the last mania with perfect clarity, called it precisely, and was very nearly destroyed for the crime of being right too early. His investors screamed at him. His money fled. He quit the exact month the top came in. The lesson buried in that story is the single most useful thing we can teach you about the months ahead, and it is not the lesson you are expecting.

So if you don’t short it, what breaks it?

Because something always does. Manias do not die of old age or of common sense. They die when the plumbing seizes... when the one input the whole tower is quietly resting on gets pulled out from underneath it.

We think we know what that input is. It is not earnings. It is not a scandal. It is not even the Fed.

It is a single number on a single screen, one we have circled for readers before, back when we told you why five percent was the level that mattered more than any headline coming out of Washington. That number is compressing into the tightest coil we have seen in years. A range this long, wound this tight, does not resolve gently. And when it breaks...and we are talking about when, not if...it moves further and faster than almost anyone positioned in that half-of-the-index is prepared for.

The MANGOS have a poison pill baked into them, and almost nobody buying the rocket has read the label.

Then there is the other thing about that SpaceX float. The part the twenty-eight thousand retail accounts did not see, because it was never meant to be seen from the cheap seats. Musk folded a pile of old debt from his other companies onto the rocket’s balance sheet in the months before the listing. Billions of it. Due for repayment within six months of the float.

Which means a good chunk of the money the crowd just handed over for Mars...isn’t going to Mars.

We laid it all out this week...where that money actually goes, the number that breaks the whole trade, and the one lesson from the last bubble that determines whether you come out the other side richer or wiped out.

The full Insider issue is below. It is not comfortable reading. It was never meant to be.

If you haven’t done so already, join us behind the paywall.

Read more

Subscribe now

A man at Uber recently said the quiet part out loud, and almost nobody noticed.

Andrew Macdonald, Uber’s president and COO, told a podcast that he could no longer draw a straight line between what the company was spending on AI and what it was getting back. The phrase he used was the kind of thing finance people say when they’ve stopped pretending. “That link is not there yet.” Ninety-five percent of Uber’s engineers using the tools every month. Seventy percent of committed code now machine-written. And the man whose job is to justify the bill cannot tell you whether any of it produced a single feature a customer would notice.

This is not a man saying AI doesn’t work. Read it again. It’s a man saying he’s been handed an invoice and can’t find the thing he bought.

His own engineers had already blown through the entire 2026 budget for their AI coding tools four months into the year. Uber capped them. A company that spent $3.4 billion on research and development last year...a company that does not flinch at big numbers...looked at the meter and flinched.

And here’s the thing about a meter. It only feels free when someone else is paying.

The Token Trap

There’s a logic to how the smart money fell into this, and it’s worth understanding because it’s the same logic every time.

AI feels cheap when you’re one person experimenting on someone else’s subscription. It feels free, even. It only becomes expensive when the company sees the bill, and the bill, it turns out, can run higher than the salary of the person you fired to pay for it. Token costs for running these agents are now outpacing the headcount savings they were sold to deliver. And when the tokens run out, the thing simply stops. No workaround. No continuity. The employee you let go knew what to do when the system broke at two in the morning. The AI just sends you an invoice for the outage.

Uber isn’t an outlier. It’s the one that admitted it.

OpenAI is carrying a $60 billion annual cloud bill against something like $25 billion in actual revenue. Starbucks reportedly built an AI that can’t reliably count coffee cups... so perhaps Jose gets his job back after all. Microsoft, the company that has staked its entire valuation on this stuff, quietly pulled the plug on using one of these coding tools for its own internal engineering teams.

The pattern is consistent enough now that it deserves a name. Call it the gap between what AI costs and what AI does.

But the spending gap, as ugly as it is, isn’t the part that should keep you up at night. The spending gap is just bad business. What sits underneath it is something closer to alchemy, and it’s being run at industrial scale by the largest companies on earth.

The Mark-Up Mechanism

Here’s a number that should stop you cold.

In the first quarter of 2026, Alphabet reported a record $62.6 billion in profit. Up 81% on the year. A blowout, the headlines said. A vindication of the AI bet.

Except nearly half of it, about $28.7 billion, didn’t come from search, or YouTube, or cloud, or Waymo, or anything Google actually sells. It came from Alphabet revaluing a stake it owns in a private company. On paper. Without selling a single share.

Amazon did the same thing the same quarter. Of its $30.3 billion in net income, $16.8 billion was a paper mark-up on the same private AI company. More than half its profit. Meanwhile, and hold this number next to the last one, Amazon’s actual free cash flow collapsed 95% to $1.2 billion, because $44.2 billion in real money walked out the door to build data centres it doesn’t yet have the power to run.

Real cash out. Paper profit in. Genius, isn’t it.

So how does a company book tens of billions in profit on an asset it hasn’t sold? You need to understand the mechanism, because the mechanism is the whole story.

When a private company raises a new round, even a tiny one, the share price set by that round becomes the benchmark used to re-value every existing share held by every existing investor. Own 10% of a company last valued at $100 billion, and some new investor drops a million dollars in at a valuation implying $300 billion? Your stake just went from $10 billion to $30 billion. Overnight. Whether or not the business changed in the slightest. And under the accounting rules, you don’t just get to record that...you’re required to. It flows straight onto your income statement as profit.

That’s normal private-equity accounting. What’s new is the scale, and who’s holding the pen.

Incestuous Circular Financing

Follow the money around the loop once, slowly. It’s worth it.

Google put early money into Anthropic, a few hundred million in 2023 for roughly a tenth of the company, building to around 14% by this year. In February, a new funding round re-rated that AI company from $183 billion to $380 billion. Google’s stake jumped from about $25.6 billion to $53.2 billion. A $27.6 billion paper gain, straight into the P&L, nearly doubling reported pre-tax income for the quarter.

Now here’s the part that should make your jaw tighten.

Google itself committed $10 billion to the round that drove that new valuation. But the cash didn’t actually move until April...the next quarter. So Google engineered the valuation uplift in Q1, deferred its own cheque to Q2, and booked the full mark-up gain in Q1.

In other words: the investment that created the profit hadn’t even been made yet when the profit was recognised.

And the gain is only half of it. The AI company then takes the capital it raised, including Google’s money, and spends it buying compute from Google Cloud. Google’s cloud revenue jumped 63% in the quarter, much of it AI infrastructure spend. A good chunk of that is the startup spending Google’s own money back with Google, at a fat margin. So Google books the paper gain, then collects the cash back as revenue, then earns another few billion in margin on top of the money it just got returned.

I think I’m going to call this ICF...incestuous circular financing. Though incestuous circular fraud might be the more honest label, if only it were illegal.

Because it isn’t. That’s the whole trick.

We’ve Seen This Movie. It Was Called Global Crossing.

None of this is against the rules. The accounting is permitted. The auditors sign off. And if that reassures you, you weren’t paying attention in 2001.

Back then, telecom carriers traded identical lumps of fibre-optic capacity with each other and booked each swap as a sale, manufacturing revenue out of thin air. Qwest sold capacity to Global Crossing; Global Crossing sold roughly the same capacity right back. Both pointed at the transaction and called it growth. A Qwest spokesman at the time called it “common practice” in the industry, which it was, right up until it wasn’t.

Qwest ended up restating roughly $950 million in phantom revenue. Global Crossing went bankrupt owing $12.4 billion, leaving thousands of miles of fibre dark and unused. Investors... ordinary American families... lost $54 billion. Nearly 10,000 people lost their jobs.

The difference between then and now? Those swaps were eventually ruled illegal. Today’s loop is fully compliant with every accounting standard on the books.

That is not reassuring. That is the warning. Legal doesn’t mean stable. It just means no regulator can stop it before it unwinds.

Strip out the equity mark-ups and the recycled cloud revenue, and Google’s underlying business is growing at a perfectly respectable 16%. Not 81%. A fine number for a company that size. The other 65 points are machinery. And the valuation of the private company at the centre of it all is set not by any open market, but by the same handful of giants who get richer every single time it ticks up. A closed loop, painting its own marks, printing its own profits.

And you already know who’s standing underneath when it comes down. Same as always. Joe Sixpack, whose 401(k) is run by some mindless desk drone in a suit who calls it “managing.”

The headlines say record profits, AI vindicated, the bet is paying off. The footnotes...the paper mark-ups, the deferred cheques, the circular cloud revenue, the 95% cash collapse...say the profits aren’t profits at all.

So what happens when the loop stops spinning, and more to the point, where do you want to be standing when it does?

Here is what waits on the other side of the paywall below. The four-stage hype curve that tells you exactly where in this cycle we are right now...not where the pitch decks claim, but where the engineers who’ve lived it say it actually breaks. Why the AI tools are real and worthless at the same time...the Camry-versus-Ferrari distinction that separates the work that gets cheaper from the work that can’t. And the specific corner of the market we are positioned in for exactly this...the cheap, unloved, physical thing the entire AI fever depends on and refuses to pay for...the trade that wins not when the chatbots get smarter, but when the crowd realises the profits were marks in a ledger all along.

If you have read this far you already feel the shape of it. The rest of this one is for paid subscribers...the part where the argument stops being interesting and starts being actionable.

Upgrade to the Insider Newsletter Level to keep reading →

Read more

Subscribe now

As of the writing, Brent just had its worst week in a month. The tankers are hesitantly moving through Hormuz again, the peace memos are teetering, and the screens are bleeding red across the energy complex. And you can almost hear the exhale from every macro desk on Wall Street at once...thank god, the oil shock is over, the inflation scare with it, back to your regularly scheduled rate cuts.

I want you to hold onto that exhale, because it is one of the most expensive mistakes you will see priced into a market this year.

Here is the thing the relief rally is quietly assuming. It assumes that the inflation was the oil price. That the two are the same animal, that when crude rolls over the inflation rolls over with it, and that a falling pump price is the all-clear. It is a tidy story. It is also a category error, and a costly one, because it confuses the spark with the fire.

So let me ask the question I have put to every economist who has ever sat across from me and forecast deflation out of a war. And not one of them has ever answered it.

Show me a war that was deflationary.

The question nobody can answer

Go and look. Genuinely, go and look...I’ll wait.

You will not find one. Not the Napoleonic wars, not the American Civil War, not either of the two big ones in the twentieth century, not Korea, not Vietnam, not the Gulf. Every major conflict in recorded financial history runs the same way on the price level, which is to say up, and frequently up in a manner that does not politely reverse when the shooting stops.

The reason is not complicated, and it has nothing to do with the price of a barrel. It is this. Wars have to be paid for. Nobody finances a war out of the petty cash drawer. You run the deficit, you blow out the debt, and then...because the bond market will only swallow so much before it gags...you monetise it. You print, or you let the central bank do the printing on your behalf and call it something more respectable. That is the inflation. Not the missiles. The financing of the missiles.

And here is the part the relief rally is missing entirely. That financing has already happened. The deficits are already wider. The monetisation is already in train. None of that unwinds because a ceasefire holds and a tanker clears the strait. You cannot un-print money. The spark may have gone out. The fire is in the walls.

We have actually been here before, you and I, on this very page. A few weeks ago in Countdown to Shortages I showed you that oil had quietly split into two markets...a jumpy spot price whipsawing on every peace headline, and a forward curve that kept right on pricing the structural shortfall underneath, indifferent to the diplomacy. That piece was about the oil. This one is about something larger and slower-moving that sits behind the oil, and it is the thing that actually empties your wallet.

Because watch what the official numbers are doing while the crowd celebrates cheaper petrol.

The data is not cooperating with the relief rally

US consumer prices rose at 4.2% in the year to May. That is the highest reading in three years, and it is the third month in a row that the number has accelerated. Above four percent for the first time since 2023, climbing, not falling, in the very window everyone now wants to declare the inflation finished.

“Ah,” says the pointy-shoe brigade, “but that’s the energy spike, and energy is rolling over now, so May was the peak.” And they are half right, which is the most dangerous thing to be. Headline inflation may well have topped for the moment, because the gasoline line will drop as crude drops. Fine. I’ll grant them the headline.

But look one layer down, at the number the energy noise can’t explain away. Core inflation...stripping out food and energy entirely... rose to 2.9% in May, its highest since last September. The bit that is not the oil price is still climbing. Which is precisely what you would expect if the inflation were being driven by something other than a barrel of crude. Something like, oh, I don’t know, the financing of a war.

And the bond market, which is a great deal less sentimental than the equity desks, has noticed. The talk now is not of the rate cuts everyone penned in back in January. Traders have started pricing the Federal Reserve’s next move as a hike. A hike. Into a “peace rally.” Sit with that contradiction for a moment, because it is the whole article.

The screens say peace, cheap oil, all clear. The actual machinery...the deficits, the monetisation, the core number, the rate path...says something it would very much rather you didn’t hear yet.

So what happens next, and more to the point, what do you do about it?

Here is what waits on the other side of the paywall below. The three things a falling oil price will not fix, and why they keep the inflation alive long after the war is a memory. The historical case in full...what actually happened to prices in the decade after the big conflicts, not during them, because the “after” is the part that should frighten you. And the specific corner of the market we are positioned in for exactly this...the trade that wins not when oil spikes, but when the crowd realises the inflation was never about oil in the first place.

If you have read this far you already feel the shape of it. The rest of this one is for paid subscribers...the part where the argument stops being interesting and starts being actionable.

Upgrade to the Insider Newsletter Level to keep reading →

Read more

There is a particular kind of comfort that comes from a number nobody has tested. You see it on a brokerage statement, on a fund report, on the glossy annual letter from an endowment that has spent two decades being held up as the smartest money in the room. The number sits there, serene and unbothered. One times cost. One-point-two. Marked, audited, signed off.

And it is, in many cases, a complete fiction.

I want to talk about that fiction today, because it has just walked into the open at the one institution the entire pointy-shoe establishment spent twenty years trying to copy. Harvard. The endowment held up as the cathedral of sophisticated investing is now neck deep in the same private equity and private credit garbage we have been warning about for the better part of a year. And the dolts running the money are discovering, in slow motion, what happens when a fiction is asked to become a fact.

The trick only works while nobody asks for the money

Here is the mechanism, stripped of the jargon designed to keep you from understanding it.

Private equity funds report the value of their holdings themselves. They mark their portfolios to comparable public multiples, then apply a liquidity discount at the manager’s discretion. That phrase, “at the manager’s discretion,” is doing an enormous amount of work. It means the person whose bonus depends on the number is the person who gets to pick the number. Whowouldathunkit.

This works beautifully, right up until something trades.

For the last few years the exit door has been welded shut. No IPOs worth the name. No strategic buyers stepping up to pay 2021 prices. No secondary sales clearing at par. And as long as nothing trades, nothing prices. The valuations float along, untroubled by reality, because reality requires a transaction to assert itself and there have been no transactions. A portfolio marked at one times cost is worth one times cost in exactly the way a house is worth whatever Zillow says...until you actually try to sell it.

The denominator does the dirty work

So why is the spell breaking now?

Because Harvard needs cash. The endowment funds more than a third of the university’s operating budget, the federal money is under attack, and a tax increase on endowment income is bearing down. Roughly seventy percent of the portfolio sits in private equity and hedge funds. Four percent sits in bonds. That is not a balanced portfolio. That is a bet, dressed up as prudence, that the music would never stop.

When you need cash and your money is locked inside illiquid funds, you have two doors. You can sell your fund stakes on the secondary market, where buyers happily take them off your hands at a discount to the reported value. Or you can sell the liquid things you still own, which shrinks the whole portfolio and mechanically pushes the private equity percentage even higher, which trips your own allocation limits, which forces still more selling. Either door leads to the same room.

And the moment a single secondary stake changes hands at, say, sixty-five cents on the marked dollar, something irreversible happens. A price exists. A real one. Stakes have been changing hands at a discount to net asset value, and the auditors who waved through the self-reported marks now have a transaction to point at. They start asking why this fund says one dollar when a willing buyer just paid sixty-five cents for the same thing. The discretion evaporates. One trade contaminates every mark around it.

This is the part nobody at the cocktail parties wants to discuss. The marks were never wrong in a way you could prove. They were just untested. The selling is the test.

The credit piece is the real kicker

The equity fiction is bad. The debt underneath it is worse.

A vast slug of the deals stitched together between 2020 and 2022 were levered to the eyeballs on floating-rate debt, against businesses valued at peak multiples. Then rates normalised. The cost of capital went up and the multiples came down, squeezing the equity cushion from both ends at once. In plain economic terms a lot of that equity is underwater, and in some cases it is simply gone. But the self-reported mark doesn’t show that, because the self-reported mark doesn’t have to.

Until the debt matures.

A company bought at six or seven times leverage in 2021 eventually has to refinance. When it shuffles up to the window in 2025, 2026, 2027, it does so at rates two to three hundred basis points higher, against earnings that may have gone nowhere, into a lending market that has rediscovered the concept of risk. And the lender, unlike the fund manager, has no incentive to be polite. The refinancing process mechanically surfaces what the equity is actually worth. Often that number is somewhere between “very little” and “nothing.”

That is not a mark anyone chose. It is a covenant breach. It becomes public. And it is precisely why you have been watching fund after fund quietly gate its investors, slamming the redemption window shut and telling people who were promised liquidity that, terribly sorry, the money will come back to you eventually, through periodic distributions, at a pace of our choosing.

We have seen this movie. The PE world’s valuations were slow to move in 2008 too. They sat there looking calm while the world burned, and then the refinancing cycles arrived and the bank lenders stopped extending and the numbers moved all at once, violently. The difference this time is the sheer scale of the thing. When the most sophisticated institutional capital on earth is running forty percent and more of its book in private markets, you are not looking at a niche problem in a corner of finance. You are looking at a systemic concentration that has been marked to a story.

What this actually tells you

Step back from Harvard for a second, because Harvard is not the point. Harvard is the tell.

When the cleverest, best-resourced, most envied allocators on the planet start quietly building an armour of liquidity, issuing bonds and dumping fund stakes at a haircut rather than touching their marked-to-perfection private book, they are voting with their feet on what those marks are worth. They will not say it out loud. They will talk about portfolio optimisation and duration management and rebalancing into a generational opportunity. But the action underneath the words is unmistakable. They want out, and they want out before everyone else works out the same thing.

Between the private equity overhang, the private credit gating, and the small matter of the AI bubble inflating in the same sky, the odds of the next couple of years chugging along without a violent speed bump look slim. Sooner or later a concrete barrier gets hit. It always does.

Which brings us, as it always does, back to the only question that matters. What do you actually own, and what is it actually worth when somebody is forced to find out?

A barrel of oil is worth what a barrel of oil is worth, every single day, in a market that prints a real price every second the sun is up. An ounce of gold the same. A tonne of coal, a bushel of grain, an acre of dirt that grows food. These things have the inconvenient and deeply unfashionable property of being priced continuously, in daylight, by people actually transacting. There is no manager’s discretion. There is no liquidity discount applied at someone’s convenience. There is no number waiting to be exposed by the first honest trade, because every trade is honest and every trade is now.

For twenty years the clever money paid a premium to own things that never had to prove what they were worth. It is about to find out what that premium costs.

Before you go

What you have just read is the why. It is the part I am happy to put in front of the whole world, because the world ought to hear it and most of the people who should be saying it are too busy collecting fees on the marks I just described.

But the why doesn’t make you any money on its own. The money is on the other side of the trade...in the specific, named, continuously-priced assets that win when the fiction collapses and capital comes stampeding out of the dark and into things it can actually value. That part we keep for the people who want to do the work alongside us.

If that is you, here is where it lives.

Upgrade to the Insider Newsletter. It lands in your inbox roughly twice a month, and every issue carries The Big Five...five deep-value trade ideas, fully worked, the kind of macro intelligence most analysts won’t touch because it sits in energy, commodities, and geopolitics, the three corners of the market where the real asymmetry has been hiding while everyone crowded into the Bag 7. Full access to the Asymmetric Investing Course comes bolted on. Thirty-five dollars a month on the annual plan, which works out ten percent cheaper than paying month to month.

The free tier gets you roughly two market posts a week, and they are good ones…The Newsletter is simply where the why turns into the what.

Click Here to Upgrade to the Insider Newsletter →

As always, none of the above is financial advice. We are not telling you what to buy. We are telling you what we think. Do your own research, and size yourself so the speed bumps don’t end your race.

I had a conversation recently where I said something out loud that I have been chewing on for a while, and it landed harder than I expected. I said that within five years we are going to be calculating net worth in kilojoules and calories.

People laugh when I say that. Then they stop laughing, because they start to think about it.

Here is the uncomfortable little exercise. Pull up your brokerage account. Look at the number. Now ask yourself a question that almost nobody asks, because the system is designed so that you never have to. What is that number actually denominated in? It is denominated in a liability. A unit of account that a central bank can create at the press of a key, in any quantity, at any time, answerable to no one. You are measuring your life’s work with a rubber ruler...and the people who own the ruler can stretch it whenever it suits them.

So let me walk you through how I have come to think about this. Because once you see it, you cannot unsee it, and it changes what you choose to own.

The Rubber Ruler

Most investors think entirely in fiat terms. What is the IRR in dollars. What is the EBITDA multiple. What did the portfolio return this year, in dollars. And those are not stupid questions. But they all share a hidden assumption, which is that the dollar is a fixed thing you can measure against. It is not. It is the thing being measured, and it is shrinking.

Go back to August of 1971. On a Sunday evening, Richard Nixon went on television and closed the gold window. Foreign governments could no longer hand the United States dollars and receive gold in return. Up to that moment, every dollar was a claim on something real. After that moment, every dollar was a claim on...another dollar. A promise backed by a promise.

The history books file this under monetary policy. I file it under the largest unilateral default in human history. Overnight, the world’s savings were quietly redenominated from hard-asset claims into sovereign promises, and almost nobody noticed, because the number on the statement did not change. The digit stayed the same. Only the meaning of the digit changed.

And then the ruler started stretching. Since that night, the broad money supply has expanded something like fifty times over. Gold has gone from thirty-five dollars an ounce to north of four thousand. That is not gold becoming more valuable. That is the ruler getting longer. Same bar of metal. Same weight, same shine, same atoms. Just measured against a unit that means less every single year.

In other words...the thing you are using to keep score has been losing the game the whole time.

What You Own Versus What You Control

Here is where it gets personal, and here is the distinction that matters more than any chart I could show you.

There is what you own. And there is what you control. We have been trained to treat these as the same thing. They are not.

Think about the pension. Most people look at the statement, see a number with a comfortable amount of zeros, and feel wealthy. They will tell you, with total confidence, that they have a million dollars. Do they? Go and read the fine print on what you are actually permitted to do with “your” money. There is a great deal you cannot do. You cannot, in many cases, take it out without penalty. You cannot move it where you like. And increasingly, governments around the world are deciding what it must be invested in...mandating allocations into government securities, into “national priorities,” into whatever the parasite class has decided is patriotic this quarter.

The moment a politician tells you what you should be doing with your assets is the moment you should be wide awake. Because what they are describing is not your asset. It is their asset, with your name on the spreadsheet.

Contrast that with something you genuinely control. A farm. Cattle in a paddock. A store of grain. Energy you physically hold. Nobody can press a key and dilute the herd. Nobody can mandate that your wheat be reallocated into government bonds. You can walk outside, put your hand on it, and if it comes to it, you can eat it. That is ownership in the oldest and only unbreakable sense of the word.

I am not telling you to go and buy a farm tomorrow. I am telling you that the gap between “the screen says I have it” and “I actually control it” is the single most underpriced risk in modern finance...and it is about to get repriced for a lot of people who never knew the gap existed.

Subscribe now

The Hierarchy That Actually Matters

So if the dollar is the wrong unit, what is the right one?

This is where the calories line stops being a provocation and becomes a framework. When you strip away the fiat layer and ask what actually sustains a society, you arrive at a hierarchy of real things, and they rank in a very particular order.

At the base sits energy. It is the master resource, the one that prices all the others, because nothing moves, grows, smelts, or ships without it. A barrel of oil contains roughly four and a half years’ worth of human manual labour, compressed into a form you can pour. You cannot print that. You cannot legislate it into existence. You can only find it, lift it, and burn it...and right now the world is doing far too little of the first two while complacently assuming the third will always be cheap.

Above energy in monetary terms, but woven through the whole structure, sit the monetary metals. Gold and silver. Not as inflation hedges, which is the lazy framing, but as the thing capital flees to when faith in the paper version finally cracks. Then agriculture, the most underappreciated tier of all, because it is the literal base of social stability...hungry people do not stay calm, and you cannot restate a failed harvest with a press release. And finally the industrial metals, copper above all, which functions as a real-time vote on whether the world is actually building anything.

Energy. Metals. Food. The materials. That is the hierarchy. And here is the part that should make you sit up...every single tier of it is, in both absolute and relative terms, about as cheap as it has been in a generation, precisely because the entire investing world has spent fifteen years measuring value with the rubber ruler and concluding that the unprintable things were boring.

The unprintable things are never boring for long.

Systems, Not Stories

Let me take this one level higher, because the same logic that reframes your portfolio also reframes the map.

I try very hard not to think in ideologies, because ideologies make you tribal, and tribal makes you stupid with your money. I try to think in systems. A system is just a set of rules that produces outcomes, and you can assess it coldly...what does it produce, at what price, and what is it priced at right now.

Run that lens across the world and you get an answer that offends a great many people’s instincts, which is usually a sign it is worth listening to. You can compare two systems, and one of them might genuinely be more productive than the other. But productivity is only half the trade. The other half is what you are paying for it. If the more celebrated system trades at a hundred times earnings and the less celebrated one trades at six, the cheaper system can grow more slowly and still hand you the better return, because you did not overpay for the privilege of owning it.

I cannot afford to be ideological about that. My job is to make money for clients and for myself, which means I have to be realistic rather than righteous. And realism keeps pointing at the same uncomfortable conclusion. The unloved, the cheap, the structurally starved, the things sitting at six times earnings while the crowd piles into the hundred-times story...that is where the asymmetry lives. It always has.

We have written before about why the most hated sectors on the board are the ones set up to pay. This is the same argument, told from the top down. When the next monetary architecture emerges...and it is when, not if...it will be anchored to something real, and the entities holding the physical nodes of that system will be standing on the right side of the reset. Everyone else will be holding digits, insisting the screen still says they are rich.

So What Do You Actually Do

You do not need to move to a farm and start churning your own butter. This is not a survivalist sermon. It is a portfolio instruction, and it is a fairly simple one.

You tilt the denominator. You move weight, at the margin, out of the things that are priced in fiat and into the things that price the fiat. And you can do it with the most boring instruments imaginable. If you want a single one-stop way to own the upstream producers of the real economy, a fund like GUNR holds the lot in one line. If you want energy specifically, the producers sit in XOP and the beaten-down services end sits in XES. The gold miners live in GDX. And for the sector the whole world keeps trying to bury and cannot, the coal names...we have said it before and we will say it again, own coal...with something like Yancoal as the example everyone loves to hate. None of that is exotic. None of it requires a passport or a numbered account. It just requires you to decide that you would rather own a claim on something real than a claim on a central bank’s good intentions.

Now, I am naming those as illustrations of the categories, not as a shopping list...do your own research, because what suits our positioning may not suit yours, and every one of them carries its own risk and its own timing. But the principle underneath them does not change with the ticker. Own the unprintable. Underweight the conjurable. Measure your wealth, increasingly, in the units that cannot be summoned from nothing.

Because the casino does not stay open forever. And the question that matters when the doors finally close is not what your chips were worth on the screen. It is what you walked out holding.

Where This Goes Next

What you have just read is the philosophy. The positioning is a separate thing, and it is where the real work lives.

The full breakdown...which tiers of the hierarchy we are weighting most heavily right now, the specific energy and metals and agricultural names we hold and why, the sizing and the rotation discipline that turns a good idea into an actual return...runs in the latest Insider Newsletter, where we lay out the Big Five for the month. The individual holdings, with entry logic and position sizing, sit one tier further up, in the full Insider Service at capitalistexploits.at. Three products, three jobs. The article gives you the frame. The Newsletter gives you the analysis. The Service gives you the names.

If you have spent this whole piece quietly recalculating what you actually own versus what you merely have a number for, that is the right instinct. The next step is deciding to do something about it.

The screen tells you what you are worth today. The dirt tells you what you will be worth when the screen stops working.

Sincerely,

Chris MacIntosh Founder & Editor In Chief, Capitalist Exploits Independent Investment Research

Subscribe now

Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice. Do your own research. All investments carry risk. This is what we think...it may not be suitable for you.

Nobody believes the giants of one era become the fossils of the next. Then it happens anyway.

There is a chart we keep coming back to. It ranks the ten biggest companies on the planet by market capitalisation, and you can drag a little slider along the years and watch the kingdoms rise and fall in real time. It is the single most humbling thing you can look at as an investor, and I would recommend everyone spend ten minutes with it before they buy another share of anything.

Let me walk you through what it shows. Because it tells you almost everything you need to know about where the next decade of returns is hiding.

The Companies Everyone Knew Would Last Forever

Run the slider back to 1972. The biggest company in the world was IBM. The second biggest was Eastman Kodak. Then AT&T, then Exxon, then General Motors, Sears Roebuck, General Electric, Procter and Gamble, Coca-Cola, Texaco.

Now. At the time, the idea that Kodak might one day be a punchline...that it could file for bankruptcy and have its name turned into a business-school cautionary tale...was simply unthinkable. Kodak was film. Film was photography. Photography was forever. You may as well have told someone in 1972 that water was about to go out of fashion.

IBM was the bluest of blue chips. The phrase “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” was not a joke, it was corporate religion. These were not companies. They were institutions. They were the furniture of the modern world, and the modern world does not throw out its furniture.

And yet here we are. One of them went bankrupt. The other spent two decades as a slow-motion cautionary tale about missing every technology wave that mattered. Few ever thought they would fall from their greatness. They fell anyway.

In other words...the things everyone agrees are permanent are usually the things about to be repriced.

Now Drag It Forward to 1980

This is the part that stops people in their tracks.

By 1980 the top of the table looked like this. AT&T at the top, around 49 billion dollars. IBM second, around 43. Exxon third, around 37. And in fourth place, at roughly 25 billion dollars...Schlumberger.

Read that again. The fourth biggest company in the entire world was an oil service stock. Not an oil major. Not a household name. An oilfield services company...the outfit that shows up to log your well and measure what is down there in the dark. The plumbing of the plumbing of the oil business.

And it gets better. Look down the rest of that 1980 list. Standard Oil of Indiana. Chevron. Royal Dutch Shell. Mobil. Texaco. Of the ten most valuable companies on earth, seven were energy. The shiny stuff and the black stuff between them owned the entire podium.

What makes the Schlumberger story so delicious is the asset base it pulled this off with. The company sat fourth in the world on something like 5 billion dollars of invested capital. Its market-cap rivals were carrying six to thirty times more capital on their books to justify roughly the same valuation. Schlumberger was, in the scheme of these titans, almost tiny. It was a generational valuation stretched over a sliver of hard assets, because the market had decided that finding and producing hydrocarbons was the most important thing a company could possibly do.

This was 1980. The second oil crisis had just torn through the decade. Oil and gas exploration and development was not a backwater, it was the main event. Capital flooded in. The best engineers in the world wanted in. And the market did what the market always does at the end of a long, powerful trend...it extrapolated. It looked at a decade of rising prices and exploding demand for energy services and said, this is the future, pay any price.

Can you imagine? An oil service stock, the fourth most valuable enterprise on the planet. Today that sentence reads like a typo.

And Today

Drag the slider all the way to the right.

When the chart was captured, the table read: Nvidia, around 4.2 trillion. Microsoft, 3.8. Apple, 3.2. Amazon, 2.4. Alphabet, 2.2. Meta, 1.8. The exact figures have only stretched further since...Nvidia has since punched through 5 trillion and the order at the top reshuffles by the week. But the figures are not the point. The composition is. Six names, every one of them technology, every one of them riding the same single story. There is not one energy company anywhere near the top. The sector that owned seven of the top ten slots in 1980 has been so thoroughly forgotten that the average investor genuinely struggles to name a single oil service company. Do they not know they exist?

And the valuations being paid for the new royalty are not modest. They are 1972 IBM. They are 1980 Schlumberger. They are the furniture of the modern world, priced as though the world will never rearrange its living room again.

We have written before about why we think energy is the most hated, most ignored, most uninvestable-looking sector on the board, and why that is precisely the setup that pays. This chart is the long-memory version of that same argument. You do not need a forecast. You just need to know that the table has been turned over before, and that it was turned over hardest precisely when one story had become so dominant that paying any price for it felt like common sense.

The Quiet Part

Here is the thing nobody wants to say out loud. There is nothing...nothing...stopping this from happening again.

Well, almost nothing. All it would take is higher-than-expected oil and gas prices for the next decade, and an exploration and development boom to go with them. That is the entire list of preconditions. And if you have been reading us for any length of time, you will know exactly how probable we think both of those are.

We are not going to give you a price target. We never do. The denominator is fiat, and fiat can be conjured at will, so the number is meaningless and the direction is everything. What we will tell you is that the cheapest, most loathed, most structurally starved sector on the board is the one that has form for marching straight to the top of this very table. It did it in 1980. It did it on a tiny asset base, against a backdrop of a tight oil market and a capital-starved industry that could not bring on supply fast enough.

Squint at the present and tell me what is different.

We romance the idea of dragging this slider forward ten years and finding an energy name back in the top five. Stranger things have happened. In fact, the entire history of this chart is nothing but stranger things happening to people who were certain they would not.

Where We Go From Here

What you are reading is the surface argument. The full analysis...the energy supply math that has us this confident, the sector mechanics walked end to end...runs in the latest Insider Newsletter, Issue 331, where we also lay out the Big Five for the month. The actual names being held to play this, with the sizing and the rotation discipline... the offshore service companies trading at a fraction of where the last cycle took them, the producers sitting on reserves the market is pricing at close to zero...sit one tier further up, in the full Insider Service at capitalistexploits.at.

If you have been circling the energy trade and want to see how we are actually positioned for the decade this chart keeps hinting at, the Insider Service is where to go.

The giants of every era looked permanent right up until the slider moved.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Most Honest Fraud in History

A rocket company that loses money on rockets wants $1.75 trillion. The accounting underneath it is legal, which is the scary part.

There is a particular kind of document that should make you sit up straight, and SpaceX just filed one.

When a company goes public, it files an S-1. Normally it reads like a sedative... pages of risk factors, revenue recognition policies, and the kind of prose that exists to be skimmed. SpaceX opened theirs with fourteen pages of rocket photography and a warning that investors should not want humans to share “the same fate as dinosaurs.” The word “AI” appears over two hundred times. The word “profit” appears rather less often. There is a reason for that.

We have spent the better part of two years on this Substack arguing that the market is long the story and short the math. We laid out the mechanics in The AI Bubble’s Smoking Gun. We watched the private-credit plumbing start to seize in No Cash, No Yield, No Exit. And we keep coming back to the same uncomfortable conclusion... the most spectacular numbers in this market are not coming from businesses. They are coming from accounting.

Issue #331 is where it all comes together. And I’ll be honest with you, this one was almost fun to write.

The trick is legal. That’s the warning.

Let’s start with the part that should be a national scandal and is instead a footnote.

Google reported an 81% profit surge last quarter. Amazon posted 77%. The financial press waved at “booming cloud businesses” and moved on. The reality is far more interesting, and once you see the mechanism you cannot unsee it.

Here is the shape of it without giving away the full anatomy, which sits below the paywall. A hyperscaler invests billions into an AI lab. The contract requires that money be spent on the hyperscaler’s own cloud. The hyperscaler books that spend as fresh revenue. The lab’s valuation then gets marked up... and the hyperscaler revalues its own stake to the new number and books the paper gain straight into profit. The same dollar does three laps and generates a headline each time around.

We gave it a name in the issue. I won’t spoil it here, but it rhymes with “incestuous.”

The part that matters for your portfolio is this. Strip out the equity mark-ups and the circular cloud revenue, and the underlying business is growing at something like 16%. A perfectly respectable number for a company that size. Not 81%. The gap between those two figures is the entire story of this market.

And you already know who ends up holding the bag when the music stops. Same as always. The pension fund. The 401(k). Joe Sixpack, whose retirement is being “managed” by some desk drone in a suit who has never once asked where the profit actually came from.

Meanwhile, the inventory runs out in July

While everyone stares at the AI carnival, the thing we have been pounding the table on for months is quietly reaching its moment.

Oil has stayed oddly calm in the $90 to $110 range despite the largest supply disruption in history. We explained the buffers absorbing the shock in Countdown to Shortages and the chokepoint mechanics in The Toll Booth. Those buffers are not permanent. They are borrowed.

In #331 we map the buffer-depletion timeline week by week, and it points at one cliff. The floating storage is nearly gone. The emergency reserve releases run dry around the start of July. After that, every temporary cushion is exhausted and the full shortfall... roughly 16% of global crude trade... hits a market with nothing left to absorb it.

This is not us spinning a yarn. An Exxon executive went off script at a Bernstein conference and said the quiet part out loud about where dated Brent goes once inventories hit the floor. We reproduce his exact words in the issue. The number he gave is the kind of number that reorganises a portfolio.

Markets have been buying time with borrowed inventory. That borrowing has a maturity date.

What else is in here

A lot, as it turns out. This is one of the meatier issues we have put out.

We get into the private-equity reckoning now landing on the dolts running Harvard’s endowment, and why a forced mark-to-market event in slow motion is the most predictable disaster in finance. We look at why we are not buying puts on semiconductors even though every instinct screams to... the option writers, it turns out, are not the idiots in this trade. We walk through resource nationalism arriving exactly on schedule, with the world’s largest coal exporter making our point for us. And we revisit the great parade of market caps over time, where once upon a time an oil services stock was the fourth biggest company on earth. Could it happen again? We romance with the idea.

Then there is The Big Five. Five deep-value, contrarian ideas with the potential to do 300% or more. Not recommendations... ideas to explore, sized small, held with patience. This month’s names sit right across the seam of everything above... energy, value, and a couple of things the market has left for dead.

We do not put the individual names out here above the paywall, and you would not want us to. That is the part you are paying for. The Insider Newsletter gives you the full analysis and the reasoning. The full Insider Service over at capitalistexploits.at gives you the actual portfolios... the Asymmetric, the Dividend, and the holdings we are buying with our own money, not just talking about.

The carnival will end. All manias do. The only question that has ever mattered is whether you are positioned before the lights come up or after.

The inventory runs out in July. The accounting runs out whenever someone finally asks where the cash is.

Scroll down. It’s all in here.

Sincerely,
Chris

Subscribe now

Read more

Subscribe now

Let me offer you the best trade in the world. A crystal ball.

I’ll tell you, right now, exactly where the price of oil will be on any future date you choose. Not roughly. Exactly. You’ll know the wars, the supply shocks, the Strait closures, the OPEC cuts, the demand collapses...every wiggle, years in advance, to the dollar. Most people would tell you that’s all they’d ever need to get rich in energy.

It isn’t. In fact, I can show you stretches where that crystal ball would have bankrupted you.

The Stock That Wouldn’t Cooperate

Take TechnipFMC, ticker FTI, one of the larger subsea oil-services names. We’ve owned it, and it’s been a cracker. But forget the outcome for a second and walk it forward with me, the way you’d have lived it.

Start in early 2021. I hand you the crystal ball. It tells you that over the next year or so, oil is going higher...a lot higher. Brent was sitting around $50 to $60 then, and you now know with certainty it’s heading north of $100 as Russia invades Ukraine and the energy world loses its mind. Easy money, right? You buy the best subsea name you can find and wait for the gusher.

Here’s what you’d have collected for being exactly right about oil: a drawdown. Into the back half of 2021, with oil climbing, FTI fell. Not a little. You’d have been sitting on a meaningful loss while the one thing you “knew” would happen... oil going up... was happening in front of you, right on schedule.

Now spin the ball forward again. It’s the middle of 2022. Oil has done exactly what you knew it would, well over $100. And the ball now tells you the next leg is down... oil is going to roll over hard, shedding something like half its value into late 2023. So you do the sensible thing. You sell the oil-services stock, because why on earth would you hold an oil stock into a 50% oil decline?

That’s the moment FTI decided to triple and then some. Through the very window where oil fell by half, the stock didn’t just hold...it went vertical, eventually running to fresh all-time highs above $77 by the spring of 2026. The thing reached its highest price ever after a multi-year span in which oil went nowhere in particular.

In other words...perfect knowledge of the commodity would have had you buying before a fall and selling before a moonshot. The crystal ball didn’t help you. It actively hurt you. (And do your own research here, obviously...FTI has split its stock twice over this stretch, so any back-of-the-envelope “it did X percent” needs adjusting. None of this is advice. It’s an illustration.)

Read more

Subscribe now

Brazil’s stock market ran to multi-year highs this spring before pulling back over the past few weeks. The iShares MSCI Brazil ETF (EWZ) is still up on the year even after that slide, the real has been one of the better-behaved currencies on the board, and Brazil is sitting on some of the highest real interest rates of any major economy on earth. So naturally, with the tape softening, the pointy shoes have decided this is the moment to start worrying about Lula.

Let me offer a different frame.

The Two Lists

Sit down and write out everything that is wrong with Brazil. It’s not a short list. Lula’s administration leans left and has rattled the cage on agricultural land use in the Cerrado. He’s cosy with Beijing, which is awkward if your whole pitch is “Brazil is the West’s way around China.” Every election cycle stress-tests institutions that never fully healed from the Lava Jato years. Corruption isn’t a bug you can patch...it’s woven into the bureaucracy, top to bottom, under every administration anyone can remember. The currency can shed 20 to 30% in a single risk-off cycle no matter how well the underlying business is run. And then there’s the famous “custo Brasil”...the aggregate drag of red tape, logistics, and tax complexity so severe that it can cost more to move soybeans from Mato Grosso to the coast than to ship them from the coast to Shanghai.

Now write out the second list. The things that are right about Brazil.

It holds more unused arable land than any country on the planet, and it can roughly double the area it farms without touching the Amazon, using technology that already exists, on pasture that’s already degraded. It controls something like 12% of the world’s renewable freshwater. Unlike California, unlike Punjab, unlike the North China Plain, its agriculture is mostly rainfed...it isn’t quietly draining an aquifer that will never recharge inside any timeframe you’d care to invest across. Its electricity is the cleanest of any large industrial economy, the bulk of it hydro, fed by rivers that aren’t running dry. It’s a serious oil producer whose pre-salt crude sails out across the open Atlantic, touching no strait controlled by anyone hostile or unstable. And on the minerals the entire Western world is currently scrambling to source from anywhere that isn’t China...Brazil controls roughly 90% of global niobium, sits in the global top five for nickel, graphite, lithium, manganese, and rare earths, and has surveyed less than half its own ground.

Two lists. Look at them side by side, because the relationship between them is the entire trade.

Institutions Change. Geology Doesn’t.

Here’s the thing nobody on the worried side of the table seems to notice.

Every item on the first list is institutional. Political cycles, governance quality, fiscal management, currency policy, bureaucratic friction. Every item on the second list is physical. Soil, water, sunlight, geology, geography.

Institutions change. They can rot further, or they can heal. Physical endowments do not change. The Amazon basin will carry the same volume of freshwater in 2075 regardless of which podium donut is sitting in Brasília. The pre-salt fields will hold the same barrels. The niobium will still be sitting in Araxá. You are being asked to accept institutional volatility...which is real, which will hand you drawdowns, which deserves genuine respect... in exchange for physical advantages that compound in exactly the world now arriving.

In other words, the risks are the reason the assets are cheap. If Brazil had Singapore’s governance, its farmland would trade at Iowa multiples. It doesn’t, so it doesn’t. The discount exists precisely because tolerating the dysfunction takes conviction, local knowledge, and patient capital. Those are the barriers to entry. Those barriers are what create the return.

This is our shtick, really. Buy what’s cheap and unloved, and the reason it’s cheap is usually something uncomfortable that everyone else has decided not to stomach.

A Country That Could Close the Door and Survive

Put the pieces together...food surplus, water abundance, clean and secure energy, chokepoint-free oil, mineral dominance, and a domestic market big enough to sustain its own demand...and you get something rare. Brazil is one of the only economies of meaningful size that could function in near-autarky if it were ever forced to.

That’s not an argument for autarky. It’s an argument about pricing. In a world that is increasingly paying a premium for supply security... food security, energy security, mineral security... Brazil’s bargaining position appreciates continuously, and it doesn’t have to lift a finger to make it happen. Every Red Sea disruption, every Hormuz anxiety, every Bab el-Mandeb incident reprices Brazilian energy and Brazilian food upward without Brazil doing a damn thing. We’ve been hammering on the supply-security repricing theme for a while now, and Brazil is the cleanest expression of it we’ve found.

Compare that to the alternative. Look at the absolute clustafuk that is Europe right now... or the United States, for that matter, if you fancy a serious conversation about institutional corruption. Suddenly the discount you’re getting on Brazil looks rather generous.

How You’d Actually Play It

We are long EWZ and have been for a while. It’s been better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. But pull up a longer-term chart and the more important point lands...even after the run to the spring highs, we are still nowhere near the old peaks. This is a market getting off the mat, not one that’s run away from you. And the recent pullback hands you a better entry than chasing the high would have.

Now, the standard caveats apply, and they matter. The currency risk is the most immediate threat to dollar returns...Brazil’s fiscal trajectory means the basis for periodic real weakness simply persists. But you’re buying an export economy. Your costs sit in real, your revenue arrives in dollars. Not a bad shape for profitability. And currency risk is global now anyway...the whole point of owning hard assets is that they hold value while the paper doesn’t.

So if you were going to structure this properly, you wouldn’t treat it as a binary in-or-out call. You’d size for the currency. You’d favour export-oriented assets...agribusiness, oil-linked names, mineral royalties priced in dollars. Think soybeans sold to China, crude sold to Europe, niobium sold to the carmakers. And you’d treat the whole thing as a long-duration position, because the thesis plays out over decades, not quarters. Political cycles will turn against you at times. The currency will punish you at times. The investor who sizes correctly and holds through those episodes is the one who captures the compounding.

Do your own research, obviously. None of this is advice. It’s how we’d think about it.

The Discomfort Is the Point

Brazil is not a comfortable trade. It isn’t meant to be. Honestly, think about most of the things we buy when we buy them...the average Joe Sixpack would look at the lot and call it reckless. That’s how it’s supposed to feel. The political noise, the currency swings, the institutional friction... none of that is incidental to the opportunity. It is the opportunity. Strip the discomfort out and the discount goes with it.

The full Brazil case study runs in the most recent Insider Newsletter, Issue #330...the complete endowment breakdown, the risk framework walked end to end, and where it sits alongside the rest of the commodity-supercycle positioning. Go read it. What you’re reading here is the surface argument. The named companies behind the themes, with the sizing and the rotation discipline, sit one tier further up in the full Insider Service at capitalistexploits.at. Three different things...this article, the Newsletter, the Service. Don’t confuse them.

Everyone’s busy counting the votes. The dirt doesn’t vote.

Nothing here is investment advice. This is what we think and what we own. Do your own research.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Here is a number that should stop you cold. Amazon’s free cash flow over the trailing twelve months collapsed to $1.2 billion. A year ago it was running around $38 billion. A $59 billion surge in infrastructure spending swallowed nearly all of the $148 billion in operating cash the business generated. Same company, same dominance, a fraction of the cash left over at the end.

And to bridge the gap, the hyperscalers have been queuing at the bond window. In March, Amazon raised something like $54 billion. Weeks earlier, Alphabet sold a 100-year “century bond”... the first by a tech company since Motorola in 1997... as part of a roughly $32 billion multi-currency offering.

Let that sit for a second. The most cash-generative businesses in the history of capitalism are now borrowing money on hundred-year terms to keep the lights on in their data centres. Something has changed. Most of the market hasn’t noticed yet.

The Greatest Business Model Ever Invented

For two decades, the Bag 7 ran on the best business model anyone has ever dreamed up... asset-light software.

You write the code once. Whether you then sell it to a million people or a billion, the marginal cost of the next customer is basically nothing. No factories. No raw materials. No union labour. No physical plant. Just pure operating leverage... scale the revenue, barely scale the cost. That is precisely how you end up with companies trading at 30x, 50x, 60x earnings. The market wasn’t paying for the earnings. It was paying for the compounding... the belief that returns on capital would stay sky-high indefinitely because there was no heavy physical anchor dragging them back down to earth.

It was a wonderful machine while it lasted.

Then AI blew it up.

When Software Companies Start Looking Like Utilities

The hyperscalers...Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta...are now projected to spend somewhere between $600 and $700 billion on capex in 2026 alone. Two years ago that figure was around $250 billion. It isn’t plateauing. It isn’t even climbing in a straight line. It’s going vertical.

And it isn’t just the chips and the buildings. It’s the energy underneath all of it. When Microsoft re-signed Three Mile Island, it locked in a 20-year forward purchase agreement at more than $100 per megawatt hour...nearly double the going rate for wind and solar in the same region. That is a long-dated liability now baked into operating cash flows for two full decades. That is not what an asset-light software company’s balance sheet is supposed to look like. That is what a utility’s balance sheet looks like.

This is the part the multiple hasn’t caught up to. When a company is asset-light, investors pay a premium for the lightness... the 30x reflects a faith that capital-efficiency stays high forever. But when Google is locked into 20-year power contracts, carrying a debt load it never used to carry, and spending close to half its revenue on physical infrastructure, the rational multiple has to compress. You don’t price a utility at 30x earnings. You price it at 10x, maybe 12x. Bank of America reckons hyperscaler capex now eats roughly 94% of operating cash flow after dividends and buybacks. These businesses can no longer self-fund their own growth. That’s why the five biggest raised $108 billion in bonds in 2025, and why BofA now sees $175 billion of issuance in 2026 alone...more than six times the annual average of the prior five years.

Companies that spent twenty years as net cash hoarders are now queuing at the debt window like everyone else. Term loans, revolvers, structured facilities, century bonds. That’s fine. Businesses borrow. But a business that borrows to fund physical buildout does not deserve to trade like a business that prints cash from thin air.

We’ve Read This Page Before

History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme, and this particular rhyme is getting loud.

Go back to the height of the energy boom in 2013 and 2014. You couldn’t give Microsoft away. Energy could do no wrong. That was the exact moment to own tech. Then tech took a bottle of Viagra and shot the lights out for the better part of a decade while energy got decimated and left for dead. The way these things always work is that the last clutch of investors in a sector lose their shirts, swear off it for years, and miss the entire turn. Recency bias, dressed up as prudence.

Now flip it around. AI-related equities are something like 45% of the S&P 500. The energy needed to power the entire world...including all of that AI...is less than 4% of the index. The US is pouring more capital into AI data centres over six years than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Marshall Plan, the Apollo programme, the Manhattan Project, and the Interstate Highway System... combined. We’ve laid out why the energy side of that trade pays from here at length. The mirror image is the side most portfolios are still crowded into.

The market is overweight the thing that needs the power... and underweight the power.

Read more

Subscribe now

Greetings, friends!

Your fellow Insider member Jon took this shot on a long equator crossing in the Indian Ocean between remote Maldivian atolls. Nothing but water for 3,000 km straight west to Sumatra.

Brad’s farm in Victoria, Australia. Yes, it is Autumn...a beautiful time of year. Flies, snakes, heat, bushfires, and dust are largely gone and the colours are out.

There were virtually no trees here ten years ago. What a bit of imagination and time can achieve! I romance with the idea of what this frame will look like in five years from now.

And lastly, subscriber Gordon and Deborah’s sunset over the Gariep Dam in Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Lots going on in the world right now. We recorded a short video covering the big stuff in this issue. Watch it above.

In This Week’s Issue

• The Commodity Supercycle

• Brazil: Case Study

• Asset Light to Asset Heavy: The New Face of Tech

• Government Bonds

• Energy Stocks Defying Logic

• Surprise, Surprise: An Oil Exploration Boom

• The Bullish Case for Energy

• A Lesson in Markets

• Ticks

• South Korean Stocks Now Available on IBKR

• Benjamin Graham Would Roll Over in His Grave

• The Big Five Four:

Read more

Subscribe now

Everyone’s celebrating the numbers.

Record US energy exports. A surge of 2.5 million barrels a day above recent averages, unprecedented volumes flowing out to Europe and Asia, and the administration taking a very public victory lap. Making America great again, energy edition. The headlines are ecstatic. The commentary is effusive. You’d be forgiven for thinking the cavalry had arrived.

There’s just one question nobody seems to be asking.

Where, exactly, is the oil coming from?

Drilling Down

Here’s the part the victory speeches leave out.

The surge isn’t coming from production. It’s coming from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The US is drawing down its emergency stockpile...the buffer built precisely for moments of global supply disruption...and presenting the numbers as if they represent new domestic output.

That distinction is not a minor accounting quibble. It is the entire story.

The reserve entered 2026 at roughly 411 million barrels. That sounds substantial until you remember it peaked at 727 million in 2009 and has been drawn down repeatedly since. The Biden administration drained nearly 180 million barrels in 2022 alone. It was still being slowly rebuilt when the current conflict started. And now it’s being tapped again, at scale, to support the export surge.

A finite buffer being treated as a production stream. That’s what the victory lap is actually about.

And the underlying production picture? Considerably less impressive than the export figures suggest.

The Treadmill Has a Speed Limit

The shale revolution genuinely changed the game. That’s not in dispute. From roughly 2010 onwards, US tight oil production surged in a way that surprised nearly everyone, including us. But shale is not one undifferentiated resource. It’s a collection of distinct basins, each with its own depletion curve and its own ceiling.

The Eagle Ford and Bakken...two of the largest shale plays outside the Permian...have already contracted from roughly a quarter of total US crude production in 2017 to about 19 percent today, per EIA data. The trend is not ambiguous. Every major shale basin outside the Permian crossed into structural decline between 2018 and 2019.

That left one basin carrying the whole story: the Permian, in west Texas and New Mexico. The EIA’s own January 2026 forecast projected US crude production falling from a record 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025 to 13.3 million by 2027 as Lower 48 declines outpace modest offshore growth. That projection predates the conflict and the well shut-in dynamic now underway. When you cap wells because the tankers that normally take the output can’t move, you damage future production capacity. Sometimes permanently. The longer the shut-in, the harder the reopening. And you rarely get the same volumes back.

Conventional oil, for its part, has been in structural decline for decades. The IEA has documented this in depth. Shale made the numbers look better than the underlying geology warranted. Now the shale basins are peaking too, one by one.

The Permian was always the last holdout. It may have just joined the others.

The Bond Market Wearing an Energy Costume

If the underlying production base is declining, why accelerate SPR drawdowns now? What’s the actual logic?

Dollar demand. Bond market support.

US Treasury yields have been climbing. The deficit is running in the trillions annually. Foreign appetite for long-duration US debt has been eroding for years and the conflict has accelerated that trend sharply. The US needs buyers for its bonds. One mechanism for generating global dollar demand is to flood the world with energy sold exclusively in dollars. Even if that energy comes from a strategic reserve rather than the ground.

In other words, the SPR release isn’t primarily an energy policy. It is a bond market operation wearing an energy policy costume.

The dollars flow back. Treasury demand gets a short-term boost. The export figures look extraordinary on the quarterly report. And the reserve gets a little thinner each week.

Clever in the short term. Not a durable production strategy.

What Comes Next

The math that follows from all of this is not complicated.

Conventional oil in a structural long-term decline. Shale basins outside the Permian already past peak. The Permian itself tipping into year-over-year decline as capital expenditure collapsed after 2014 and the green-policy regime made replacing it politically difficult. Global supply destruction from shut-in wells that won’t come back at full capacity even if the conflict ended tomorrow. And a strategic reserve being drawn down to fund the optics of a victory lap.

The EIA’s January 2026 production forecast was built before any of the conflict disruption entered the calculation. The actual forward numbers, looking out 18 months, are likely worse than any pre-conflict model suggests. There is no large new supply coming to replace what’s being burned through. Building a refinery takes years. Drilling a replacement well takes months. The SPR drawdown takes weeks.

The timelines don’t line up. That’s the problem.

Three Cents on the Dollar

Energy as a share of the S&P 500 sits at roughly 3.3 percent. In 2008, when oil was making headlines for the opposite reason, the sector was nearly 15 percent of the index. The sector most directly positioned to benefit from the largest supply shock in modern energy history represents three and a third cents in every dollar of America’s benchmark index.

Sheesh.

We’ve covered the forward supply picture in Countdown to Shortages. We’ve covered the incentive structure keeping the conflict from resolving in Follow the Incentives. The physical picture keeps getting harder each week the reserve draws down and the treadmill slows.

We are heavily positioned in energy. We have been for years, well before the current conflict confirmed what the underlying supply math was already telegraphing. The specific names, the recent portfolio moves, and where the asymmetry still sits within the sector...that’s in the full Insider program. Find it at capitalistexploits.at.

Do your own research. Understand your own risk tolerance. But don’t let a victory lap become a reason to miss the question underneath it.

A reserve is not a well. One of those runs out.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

On Friday, Moody’s stripped the United States of its last remaining triple-A credit rating. The downgrade from Aaa to Aa1 makes it the third of the three major agencies to formally acknowledge what the bond market has been pricing for years. The Treasury Secretary called it a “lagging indicator.” He’s right about the lagging part. Probably not in the way he meant.

The downgrade isn’t the story. The yield is.

They cleared at 5.046%...the first time a 30-year Treasury auction has cleared at 5% or better since 2007. Demand was described as “middling.” That’s a polite way of saying the world’s most important sovereign debt market is running short on enthusiastic buyers.

By Thursday, the 30-year was at 5.13%.

We have been watching this range for three years. And we have been saying for eighteen months that the range was compressing. Compression breeds violence. The direction of the break was never really in question.

The Range That’s Been Coiling

The 30-year Treasury yield has been consolidating since roughly 2023. Not a stable range...a compressing one. Each successive high lower than the last, each successive low higher than the last, the spring getting tighter with every pass.

Eighteen months ago, that compression was already visible. We made the call explicitly in the last Insider issue: the breakout would “surprise everyone in duration and magnitude.”

We don’t know exactly when a compressed range breaks. That’s the nature of the beast. What we do know is that the longer it coils and the tighter it compresses, the more violent the resolution. Three years of coiling. Eighteen months of tightening. Now it’s through 5%.

The pointy shoes will tell you this is about Moody’s. That the downgrade spooked the market and yields spiked in response. That the move is temporary. That there’s a mean reversion back below 4.5% somewhere in their models.

Good luck with that.

What 5% Actually Means

Most people watching yield charts are watching the wrong number. The number on the screen is not the story. The story is what that number does to everything else.

Three transmission channels. All running simultaneously.

Read more

Subscribe now

At the time of this writing (Friday May 8th) Brent crude had closed at $114.4 on Monday. And by Thursday it had fallen to $96.9.

Same week, same war, same blocked strait.

The market spent four days trading a one-page memorandum supposedly threading through Pakistani intermediaries to get Iran back to the table. In that same session, the 6-month forward Brent contract jumped to $91.99... its largest single-day move since March 2022.

Spot oil oscillated wildly on the prospect of peace. Six-month oil traded the prospect of structural pain regardless of peace. The market is two markets right now. One trades the headline. The other trades the maths. Today’s piece is about the second one.

The wave is now hitting shore

Here is the structural fact that nothing in the headline cycle changes.

When the Strait of Hormuz went effectively dark on February 28 following the US-Israel strikes on Iran, an enormous quantity of crude was already on the water. Tankers that had loaded out of Ras Tanura in early February were sitting somewhere in the South Atlantic with three or four weeks of voyage still ahead. Cargoes that had cleared Jubail two weeks before the strike were already most of the way to Singapore. The Asian sour blends that traded at $153 in early March did so partly because the inventory machine looked normal at the receiving end. The water in the pipe was already there.

The water in the pipe is no longer there. We are now arriving at the moment when what gets unloaded at LOOP, at Fujairah, at Ulsan, is what was loaded after the shutdown. Which is a much smaller number.

This is what Goldman Sachs is talking about when it warns of easily-accessible refined-product buffers depleting rapidly. Global commercial refined-product stocks have fallen from about 50 days of demand pre-war to about 45 days now. Total global oil stocks sit near an eight-year low. Naphtha storage in UAE Fujairah has dropped 72% since late February. The Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp hub is down 37%.

That’s the wave. It is hitting the shore now.

Why this is just math

Let’s do the math.

A VLCC moves at roughly 11.5 mph. Slower than Usain Bolt jogging. These beasts of the seas are four soccer fields long and carry around two million barrels of crude. The standard Saudi-export route to the US Gulf Coast for a laden VLCC, with Suez avoided because most VLCCs cannot transit it laden anyway, runs around the Cape of Good Hope. Call it 28 to 35 days at sea, plus port handling. Traders model 30 days as the working assumption. The Singapore run from Saudi is shorter but still the better part of two to three weeks.

Now stack the costs. With Brent above $100, a single VLCC is carrying roughly $200 million of floating inventory. At $112 you get the $224 million figure from last weeks Insider Newsletter math. Financing cost on $224 million held for 30 days is several million dollars per voyage before freight... and freight has moved. VLCC day-rates hit an all-time record of $423,736 on March 3 and have stayed in the $400,000 to $800,000 per day band since.

Then add the insurance. Within 48 hours of the February 28 strikes, Lloyd’s Joint War Committee redesignated the entire Arabian Gulf as a conflict zone. War-risk premiums went from 0.15-0.25% of hull value to 1-7.5% and higher. On a $250 million VLCC that is between $2.5 million and $15 million of additional premium per transit before you have moved a barrel. Major P&I clubs cancelled cover outright. Tanker traffic through the strait collapsed by more than 80%.

We covered the insurance mechanism at length in The Toll Booth...the point worth repeating here is that the Hormuz closure is not enforced by a missile. It is enforced by an underwriter in London who declined to renew. That decision is not reversed by a memorandum of understanding from the White House.

Stack all of that into the cost of a barrel at the receiving terminal and the cost layer is structural. This is just math. The math says it is going much higher. And the math would still say that if everyone laid down their arms, decommissioned their drones, and sang kumbaya together tomorrow.

Even if peace breaks out

Suppose the memorandum gets signed. Suppose Tehran agrees, the strait formally reopens, and the headlines tomorrow read “deal ends the war.” What changes? A few things. None of them fast.

The IMO is reporting roughly 20,000 seafarers stranded on around 2,000 vessels in and around the strait. Iranian mines reportedly need clearing. Insurers need to retrocede new cover. Crews need to consent to sailing...and many simply will not, until they see other ships make the run unscathed for longer than a few weeks. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE shut in oil production after the February strikes; restart sequences are themselves slow and dangerous, and damaged refineries take months to recertify. And even if barrels start moving on day one of an armistice, those barrels still take 30 days at 11.5 mph to reach the US Gulf Coast around the Cape. Five to six weeks before they hit a refinery. Eight weeks before refined product hits a tank you can fill from.

The “deal” headline buys you nothing on the calendar. Goldman has pencilled in its assumption that Gulf exports normalise by the end of June, not mid-May, and has the global oil market shifting from a 1.8 million barrel-a-day surplus in 2025 to a 9.6 million barrel-a-day deficit in the second quarter of 2026. That is a 12 million barrel-a-day swing. There is no way to wash that out in a quarter.

The thing the headline traders haven’t priced is that the math doesn’t care about the headline. It cares about how many fully-loaded VLCCs are within ten days of a refinery and how much refined product sits in tank at the receiving end. Both numbers are going down. They go on going down for several months even on the most optimistic deal scenario. This is not an end-of-the-world piece. It is a pacing piece. The inflection has happened, not been theorised. We are inside the window now.

The cascade we already wrote

The reason we are not walking the cascade in detail again here is that we already walked it. The fertilizer leg...why a closed Hormuz cuts global ammonia, sulphur and urea flows, why planting seasons in import-dependent regions get materially compromised, why food shortages follow on a calendar lag of months not years... runs in Bearer of Bad News and You Can’t Print Fertilizer. If you have not read them, do that first. The piece you are reading is the upstream of those two cascades. It is what makes them a calendar problem rather than a price problem.

What is fresh here is the timing. The cascade has shifted from “incoming” to “arriving.” Goldman’s petrochemical-feedstock numbers...naphtha and LPG acutely tight in Asia, jet fuel cushions thin enough that Wirth at Chevron is publicly saying the question is whether you can get the fuel, not what you pay for it...those are the first wave. Diesel and heating oil follow. Refining margins follow. Refined-product price spikes follow. Final-demand destruction follows. We are at step one of that sequence right now.

What rotates into what

For a portfolio, this is a rotation question, not a forecast question.

The rotation is from things priced on narrative...AI multiples, growth-stock optionality, anything trading on a discount-rate assumption that no longer holds at $112 oil... toward things priced on physical throughput. Producers with free cash flow at current prices. Energy-services names whose order books finally fill after a decade of capital starvation. Deepwater drillers with multi-year contracted day-rates. Refiners with complex configurations that can capture distillate cracks. Pipeline and terminal owners who collect a toll on every molecule that moves through the system.

The denominator helps too. When oil holds above $100 for a sustained stretch, energy producers earn that revenue in a currency the central banks are still actively debasing to fund the deficits the war has accelerated. The income is real. The denominator is variable. The asymmetry sits in the gap between the two.

“We have written extensively on the energy-services thesis...why a decade of underinvestment, idle rig capacity at 80-90%, and a structural shift from just-in-time to just-in-case inventories combine to produce demand for vessels, rigs, and oilfield equipment that is not in the published forecasts.

If you want the long-form thesis and the next idea before it gets crowded, the Insider Newsletter is on Substack at $39 a month. If you want the actual portfolio (the Asymmetric Portfolio, the Dividend Portfolio, the Skeleton, and the Big Five contrarian picks each fortnight), the full Insider Service is where the names live.

Nothing here is investment advice. This is what we think and what we own. Do your own research.

If this resonated, you’re reading the free version.

Paid subscribers got the full picture last week…specific position ideas, entry points, and the reasoning behind every allocation. Not general thesis. Actual allocation setups that make sense.

The macro setup doesn’t care whether you acted on it. If you want to move from understanding it to doing something with it, that’s what the Insider Newsletter is for.

Upgrade to Paid

No spam. No fluff. Twice a month, when it matters.

The window on these setups doesn’t stay open forever.

Subscribe now

Australia just announced it is going to fund a missile factory with pension savings.

That is not creative interpretation. The Australian Financial Review reported on 3 May that Defence Minister Marles is delivering an additional $53 billion of military spending across the decade, of which roughly $15 billion will come through what the official press release describes as “alternative financing where appropriate.” The “private investors” the Government has in mind are not Goldman Sachs. They are sitting on $4.5 trillion of mandatory employee retirement contributions known as superannuation.

The Albanese government did not describe this as pension capture. They described it as “off-budget structures” and “special government investment vehicles.”

Of course they did.

One Australian defence analyst reading the same press release used the phrase “Enron-level creative financing.” We would have settled for “the lucky country has discovered the largest immobile pool of capital it has access to and is gently moving the goalposts on what that capital can be directed toward.”

In other words... the pot has a lid on it, and the hands have arrived.

This Is a Pattern, Not a Surprise

Governments do not raid pensions because they are cartoon villains. They raid pensions because the alternative is doing something politically harder. Selling more bonds at yields the market actually demands. Raising taxes to a level the electorate will not accept. Reducing public spending to match revenue. None of those are compatible with re-election cycles.

Pension capture is.

Walk over to London. From 6 April 2027, unused defined contribution pension funds and most lump-sum death benefits will be pulled into the deceased’s estate for inheritance tax purposes. Effective rate above the nil-rate band: 40 per cent. The nil-rate band is frozen at £325,000 until 2030 to 2031, which means rising property values pull more estates into the net every year. New analysis estimates 152 additional UK local authorities will cross the IHT threshold once pensions are included.

The kicker is the withholding notice. Pension scheme administrators can be instructed to withhold up to 50 per cent of pension funds for fifteen months from date of death while HMRC works out what it is owed. In other words... your spouse cannot access half your pension for over a year after you die while a tax bill is calculated on the rest.

Effective 40 per cent. Frozen threshold. Half the pot impounded for fifteen months. This is what the soggy island calls pension reform.

We covered the American version of the same playbook in No Cash, No Yield, No Exit. Trump’s executive order opening 401(k) plans to private credit and private equity, just as the largest funds in those asset classes were beginning to gate redemptions on the existing investors. Ninety million American savers and roughly $13.8 trillion of defined contribution assets are about to become a distribution channel for an asset class whose existing retail customers are currently being told to stand in line. Three jurisdictions, three flavours, the same playbook running on the same week.

And This Has Happened Five Times Already

For anyone tempted to think this is a unique feature of our particular financial moment, allow us to walk through what governments have already done when they ran out of less politically inconvenient options.

Hungary, 2010 to 2011. Orbán’s government issued an ultimatum to citizens: transfer your private pension assets to the state, or forfeit your state pension entitlement entirely. Around 97 per cent “elected” to transfer. Roughly $14 billion in private pension assets were absorbed into general government revenue and used to meet EU deficit targets.

Argentina, 2008. The Kirchner government nationalised approximately $30 billion in private AFJP pension funds, ostensibly to “protect” retirees from the Global Financial Crisis. In reality the funds plugged a fiscal hole and gave the state large equity stakes in private Argentine companies. Pensioners received government bonds in exchange. Argentina subsequently defaulted on those bonds.

Ireland, 2011. The government raided the National Pension Reserve Fund, around €5 billion, to recapitalise banks and meet the conditions of the EU and IMF bailout programme. The retirees whose money it was had no vote.

Poland, 2014. The Tusk government seized $50.4 billion in Polish Treasury bonds held in private pension funds and transferred them to the state ZUS system. The bonds were promptly cancelled. Reported national debt fell from 57 per cent of GDP to 49.9 per cent. Pensioners received a state-guaranteed pension liability in return for their privately-held assets, which is a polite way of saying they received an IOU from the same entity that just confiscated their savings.

Cyprus, 2013. Bank deposits over €100,000 were bailed in directly. Pension funds with bank exposure were wiped. The mechanism was presented as a condition of the EU bailout, which is the Brussels-approved euphemism for “we have run out of options and have decided that this money is now ours.”

Five jurisdictions. Five rationales. One pattern. The phrase changes. The mechanism does not.

The Australian model fits the Polish-Portuguese template most closely: shift defence spending off the formal balance sheet while the economic cost is borne by retirees who do not yet realise they are silent partners in a missile factory.

Why Now

The reason these moves cluster in time is not coincidence. Governments are reaching for pension assets now because the bond market is no longer giving them what they need at prices they can afford. Yields on the long end are testing multi-decade highs across the developed world simultaneously. The fiscal arithmetic does not work. The political arithmetic does not allow tax rises. The retirement assets sit there, regulated, accessible, and politically defensible because most of the people whose money it is have not yet noticed.

Pensions are the path of least resistance. They always have been.

What You Cannot “Pension-Tax”

Which brings us to the question every investor with a pension in a Western jurisdiction should be asking: what cannot easily be pension-taxed, withholding-noticed, redirected toward “productive finance” mandates, or quietly shifted off-balance-sheet?

The honest answer is: things you can hold outside the regulated retirement architecture entirely. Hard assets in jurisdictions where the enforcement reach is weaker than the seizure ambition. Physical commodity exposure that does not require a custodian to honour your claim. The dividend-paying real-asset companies we have been writing about for years. Argentina, where capital is currently smelling freedom and the regulatory environment is moving in the opposite direction to most of the developed world.

We addressed the structural risk in the retirement channel itself back in October 2025, before the pieces had quite fallen into place. The architecture has hardened since then. The Australian announcement was the next domino in a sequence we have been describing for the better part of a decade. The Brits will follow. The Americans are already there.

If you want the analytical case for what we are doing with our portfolios, the Insider Newsletter on Substack is where the analysis lives. The actual holdings, position sizing, and ongoing rotation work are not inside the Newsletter. Those sit one tier up, inside the full Insider Service at capitalistexploits.at, which is a separate product. Two different products. The Newsletter carries the why. The Insider Service carries the what.

The pension is not your savings.

The pension is a database of assets the government has not yet decided to claim.

If this resonated, you’re reading the free version.

Paid subscribers got the full picture last week…specific positions, entry points, and the reasoning behind every allocation. Not general thesis. Actual trade ideas.

The macro setup doesn’t care whether you acted on it. If you want to move from understanding it to doing something with it, that’s what the Insider Newsletter is for.

Upgrade to Paid

No spam. No fluff. Twice a month, when it matters.

There is a particular kind of fear stalking the markets right now. Fear of AI hollowing out the economy and concentrating power into half a dozen hands. Fear of the Strait of Hormuz never quite reopening. Fear of governments seizing pension funds, of windfall taxes, of conscription, of the crypto-collateral trojan horse, of digital serfdom dressed up as “modernisation.”

We understand where it comes from. The algorithm rewards alarm. Podcasts that traffic in apocalypse get clicked. New X personalities arrive every week with a microphone, a thesis about the end of civilisation, and a Patreon link.

What none of them ever have to answer is the question that actually matters...given all that, what are you doing with your money?

That is the question we keep getting asked. So we answered it. At length. In this issue.

We Said These Things Out Loud

A few months back we wrote that the war in the Middle East was not going to resolve, because none of the major actors had a rational reason for it to resolve. That piece on the incentive structure of the conflict has aged better than anyone in the Capitalist Exploits offices would have wanted...and we would much rather have been wrong about it.

We wrote that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was not a six-week story. We did the twelve-order cascade through copper, fertiliser, and the global grid. We wrote a planting-season piece warning that the disruption to fertiliser flows had a clock attached to it, and that clock did not care about diplomacy.

The market is still acting like the second half of that cascade is not coming. The math says otherwise. There is a section below that walks through actual transit times for Saudi crude bound for the US Gulf Coast, vessel by vessel, with a working assumption of about thirty days laden. The point of doing the maths is to identify when the flow actually reduces. That is when the price story stops being a price story and becomes a shortage story. We are arriving there now.

Half of the rest of the issue is a list of long-running calls now showing up on the front page of newspapers.

The US Selective Service System has just confirmed automatic registration of the draft pool starting in December. We told subscribers this was coming. The rebuttal at the time was the cliché that the youth were too lazy and too soft to ever go along with it. We argued, then, that this was beside the point. It is.

Australia’s Albanese government is openly tapping the country’s $4.5 trillion superannuation pool to fund $53 billion in defence spending. The UK is pulling pensions into estate tax from 2027 and converting “productive finance” into the polite term for redirecting your retirement savings into government priorities. We have written for years that pension funds are too big a pile of money sitting in front of too desperate a parasite class for that pile to remain untouched. Hungary did this in 2010. Argentina in 2008. Ireland in 2011. Poland in 2014. Cyprus in 2013. The full playbook is below.

ESG has already begun its quiet retreat. Recent Australian polling shows more than 70% of voters supporting new refineries and oil and gas drilling in the wake of the Middle East war. We said years ago that energy security would oust ESG once the price of oil broke a particular line in the sand. That line was crossed quietly some months back.

All of this falls into the same pattern. We were not predicting black swans. We were reading the incentive structure of debt-saturated democracies. The incentive structure has not changed. Which is why the list is not done.

Three Things Worth Pricing

Three numbers landed our desk this month and earned their own sections inside.

Semiconductors are now 14% of the entire US stock market. At the dot-com peak the figure was 7%. The chip sector then crashed 80% over the next two years and took twenty more just to claw back to that level. AI has carried the weighting from 4% to 14% in five years. Either the demand justifies it...or what we are watching is the largest single-sector concentration since the dot-com mania, and arguably since 1929.

The US 30-year Treasury yield has been compressing inside a three-year trading range, just below 5%. Long ranges and tight compression do not break gently. We are sticking our necks out below with a number for where the 30-year is headed inside five years. The number is high enough that a great deal of corporate America’s capital structure does not survive it. We have done the working through what that does to a stock trading at 50x earnings. The result is not pretty.

And there is a third thread, more philosophical than tactical, that has been quietly bothering me for months. If a fiat currency is the unsecured liability of a central bank...and if the next monetary architecture is going to be anchored to something real, as the BRICS payment discussions, the central bank gold buying, and the commodity-backed settlement structures all suggest...then the entities that hold the physical nodes of that system will be on the right side of the reset. The piece below begins to sketch what owning a stake in that infrastructure could actually look like, using a financial instrument that pre-dates fiat by roughly seven hundred years.

Below the Line

Below the paywall sits the rest of Issue #329. Five names in the Big Five this month, including one down 90% since 2023 and a pair we have written about repeatedly that have already done 200% off the lows but still trade beneath their 2014 levels. Two option structures on the OIH ETF for the readers who want to play the bullish oil services thesis with leverage built in. The pension-raid playbook, country by country. The 30-year yield framework. The treasury reframe in full.

If you are a paid newsletter subscriber, keep scrolling. If you are not, this is the kind of issue where the gap between watching things happen and knowing how to position for them is at its widest.

The Insider Service...the portfolios we actually run, the entry levels, the position sizing, the named companies behind the themes...lives at capitalistexploits.at.

The portfolio does not require an apocalypse to pay. It only requires history to keep rhyming with itself.

Read more

The Heritage Foundation’s 2026 Index of Economic Freedom landed in February. Singapore is number one, again. Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, and Taiwan fill out the top five. China sits at 154th, in the “repressed” tier. The single largest improvement of any country on the list is Argentina, up 3.2 points under Milei... a story we have been long for years and intend to stay long for considerably more of.

But the top of the list is the part that should make most Western readers uncomfortable. Singapore is the country a Westerner pictures when they hear “strict regime”... chewing gum bans, judicial caning still on the books, a political opposition that lives in defamation court more often than in Parliament. Australia, fourth, is the country that locked its own citizens inside their homes for the longest stretch in the developed world during COVID, ran a literal quarantine camp in the Northern Territory called the Centre for National Resilience, destroyed roughly 650,000 firearms after Port Arthur and announced a fresh national gun buyback in December 2025, and now operates a federal eSafety regime with the legislated power to issue takedown notices to individual citizens and fine them six figures for non-compliance.

These are not countries Western political commentary uses the word “freedom” to describe. They sit at the top of an index titled exactly that.

Heritage isn’t measuring what most readers think the word means.

Subscribe now

The Same Highway

The freedom most Westerners are trained to talk about is political freedom. Which is to say, voting. Voting for X. Voting for Y. Cheering or weeping, depending on the result. Then doing it again three or four years later when nothing has materially changed.

If the last decade should have taught anyone anything, it’s that the vote does very little. Different administrations across the West have promised quite a lot. They have delivered the same fiscal trajectory, the same regulatory ratchet, the same monetary architecture, and roughly the same foreign policy. The driver changes. The car changes. The road...does not.

The British example is the freshest one going. Since Rachel Reeves's October 2024 Budget, Capital Gains Tax on shares for higher-rate taxpayers has gone from 20% to 24%. The Business Asset Disposal Relief rate...which lets entrepreneurs pay a lower rate on the sale of their business...has nearly doubled, from 10% to 18%, with the final step taking effect 6 April 2026, just thirty days ago. Voters in 2024 did not vote for that, specifically. They voted for "change." They got it.

And Britain is the easy case. Across the Channel, the rules are not even being set by anyone the public votes for. The European Commission...the body that proposes nearly every piece of EU legislation...is not directly elected. Its President is nominated by national heads of state and rubber-stamped by Parliament. Ordinary citizens never see a Commissioner’s name on a ballot. Patrick Bet-David ran a useful interview with Professor Richard Werner and Luke Gromen recently, and Werner walked through the architecture in some detail. His description of the system...an unelected legislative body setting policy for elected national politicians who lack real authority to refuse it... is one most Westerners do not realise applies to them.

Whatever you call that, “democratic” is not the obvious word.

Where The Rules Actually Bend

Economic freedom is a different animal. It is the practical question of whether you can keep what you earn, transact with whom you want, move money where you want, and live your life without first asking permission. Singapore does not run free elections in any sense Western publics would recognise. It also tops the 2026 Index with 84.4. The state is constraining as a political matter and permissive as an economic one. Most Westerners cannot picture this combination because they were not taught to.

Hong Kong was the world’s freest economy in every edition of the Heritage Index from 1995 through 2019. The national security law changed that, and Heritage now folds it into China. But the underlying point...that political constraint and economic latitude are different variables, not the same one...still holds. Plenty of useful capital still flows through both Hong Kong and Singapore for that reason.

Argentina is the more interesting case because it offers something neither Singapore nor the Gulf does. Not just economic freedom on paper, but a population that has spent eighty years immune to its own state. We have worked with Argentine partners for years, and the response we get any time some new piece of legislation drops out of Buenos Aires is the same. Not “let me check what I have to report.” Not “do I need a new licence.” Just: how do we get around this?

That is not a temperamental quirk. It is the conditioned reflex of a populace that has watched government after government wreck the currency, gate the banks, and confiscate the savings, and concluded the rules are not its friends. The Westerner’s instinct...but how do I report this...is the inverse. We have been told, all our lives, that the people writing the rules are basically benign and the procedures basically work. Most of us have lived inside that assumption for so long that the alternative reflex is unfamiliar.

It is, dare I say it, the mindset of a free person. And it is the mindset most Westerners do not actually have.

Why It Matters Now

The reason this distinction has stopped being academic is that the West is now running stress tests on its own paper rights. Capital controls in functional form already exist in parts of the EU, where some investors are quietly being told their wires cannot be processed. Frozen tax thresholds and quarter-after-quarter rate creep are doing the same job through a different door. And the real shocks... the planting-season fertilizer cascade we wrote about three weeks ago, the bond market that has been compressing for two years and looks ready to break out...are still in front of us.

When a stress event hits, it does not matter how loudly you can complain about it. It matters whether the ground you are standing on bends in your favour, or does not. That is a question of jurisdiction, not party.

The Portfolio Already Knows

This is a thesis that does not stay theoretical for very long once you look at how money is actually arranged. Our Asymmetric Portfolio and our Global Dividend Portfolio are both jurisdictionally weighted by deliberate choice. The names cluster where economic latitude is real regardless of how the political-freedom league table reads. The absences are exactly where you would expect them...Western European jurisdictions running the most aggressive tax-and-control programmes.

That is not an accident, and it is not a comment about the people who live in those places. It is what happens when you stop weighting jurisdictions by political-freedom score and start weighting them by economic-freedom score. By where the rules actually bend in your favour. Not by where the ballot looks the most familiar.

Both of those portfolios sit inside the full Insider Service, not inside the Insider Newsletter on Substack. Two different products. The Newsletter carries the analysis. The Insider Service carries the actual holdings... the named positions, the sizing, the rotation. If you want the why, the Newsletter is where it lives. If you want the what, that is one tier up. Do your own research, as always.

The vote is theatre. The room you are standing in is the substance.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

On April 15, 2026, the European Commission quietly published a study titled “Wealth Taxation, Including Net Wealth, Capital and Exit Taxes”. Two volumes. Case studies across seven jurisdictions. A methodological framework for how EU member states can design wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, exit taxes, and related instruments to extract more revenue from the holders of concentrated private wealth. Commissioned in 2024. Quietly delivered nine days ago.

The Commission’s own framing is that the study is neutral analysis, not policy advocacy. Read it anyway. What it actually represents is the shared technical manual for a set of policies that are no longer being debated one country at a time. They are being coordinated.

I have been saying capital controls were already here. That was two years ago, and at the time it sounded slightly paranoid to polite company. Polite company has updated.

The Playbook Is No Longer One Country

The Dutch 36% tax on unrealised capital gains is the loudest story, because the House of Representatives passed the bill on February 12 and the mechanism is genuinely startling...a government taxing you on paper profits you haven’t actually cashed in. If your Dutch portfolio rises by ten thousand euros on paper, you owe three thousand six hundred in tax even if you sold nothing. If it falls the following year, you carry the loss forward and hope to offset it against gains that may or may not come. The Dutch Supreme Court had ruled the prior wealth-tax regime unconstitutional in 2021. The replacement regime is worse, not better.

But that is one country. The story has moved on.

On April 3, Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives formally approved the country’s first-ever capital gains tax on financial assets. The headline is a 10% rate on realised gains with a €10,000 annual exemption. Moderate by European standards. The footnote matters more. Belgium’s new CGT includes an exit tax... when a Belgian tax resident moves abroad, the law treats all their appreciated financial assets as if they had been sold at that moment. Any unrealised gains accumulated since January 1, 2026 are taxed on departure. The deferral extends only to certain EU destinations, and only for 24 months.

In other words, the first country to introduce a CGT after Belgium now makes leaving the country a taxable event in itself.

Norway tightened its exit tax in 2024 specifically to prevent wealthy residents from realising gains elsewhere. The current charge sits at 37.8% on unrealised gains above NOK 3 million, levied at the point of departure. Norway also raised its wealth tax... individuals worth $54 billion then fled Norway, costing the treasury $594 million in foregone wealth tax revenue. Net result was a $448 million annual revenue decrease, achieved by a tax that was supposed to raise money. The Commission’s study examines Norway as a case study. It does not conclude that the lesson is to not levy the tax.

Italy raised capital gains tax on crypto from 26% to 42%. Denmark sits at 42% on realised capital gains, the highest headline rate in the EU. France levies a real estate wealth tax at €1.3 million of net real estate holdings. Spain levies a net wealth tax plus a “solidarity” wealth tax on assets above €3 million, introduced in 2022 as a temporary measure and already made permanent. The UK saw 257,000 millionaires leave last year, more than three times the number the Office for Budget Responsibility had forecast.

According to the European Central Bank, the top 5% of eurozone households own 45% of the region’s net wealth, and the top 10% own 57.4%. The Commission study cites this figure as the political motivation for the policy architecture it then describes. The political class has identified its target and formally published a manual for reaching it.

The Mechanics Matter

A capital gains tax on realised sales is a tax. You dislike it, you plan around it, you time your sales. A tax on unrealised gains, an exit tax on departure, and a wealth tax on static holdings are something else entirely. Together they form a system that makes your ownership of capital conditional on remaining within the jurisdiction that levies them, in the state your government approves, held in the assets your government is willing to recognise. Which is adjacent to another trend we’ve been tracking...the formal shift in which sovereign claim on private property is presumed, not exceptional.

Take the Dutch mechanism as the template. Your portfolio rises ten thousand on paper. You owe three thousand six hundred. You have not sold, so you have no cash to pay. You are forced to sell part of the position to cover the tax. So is every other Dutch investor holding the same stock. The most held Dutch stock is ASML. When forced selling of ASML becomes the annual April ritual, every European ETF with a material ASML weighting transmits that pressure into portfolios held in Frankfurt, Paris, Madrid, and Dublin. Balaji Srinivasan framed the cascade as an Iron Curtain of wealth. The first ones out might get to freedom, while the slowest may be stuck behind a new Iron Curtain, spending a century paying off the debts their states incurred over the last century.

The framing is not hyperbole. The mechanism is the same. What changes is who runs the fence.

The Exits Are Already Closed

The polite fiction in all of this is that taxes will be announced, citizens will have time to restructure, some will leave, life goes on. That fiction breaks down the moment you examine what is already operational.

A hedge fund called Subvertere Capital, run by respectable regulated European investors, has reported that their bank will no longer wire money on their behalf to counterparties in jurisdictions the bank has internally decided to deprioritise. Not counterparties that are sanctioned. Counterparties the bank has quietly decided it does not want its name associated with. The investor’s money, in the investor’s account, sent to a destination the investor has approved. The answer is no. Sorry, peasant. You are banned from doing that.

This is not a future risk. This is how EU retail banking works in 2026. The official story is always something about anti-money-laundering compliance. The functional reality is that your capacity to move your own capital across borders is now conditional on your bank’s internal risk committee agreeing with you.

Belgium’s new exit tax is the same mechanism applied to your entire person. If you decide Belgium has become uninvestable and you would like to leave, the Chamber of Representatives would like a conversation. That conversation will be expressed as a percentage of the net worth you are attempting to remove. The Dutch have had an emigration tax proposal pending since October 2024. Norway’s was tightened in 2024. The Commission’s April 15 study treats exit taxes as a standard policy instrument, alongside net wealth taxes and capital gains on unrealised appreciation.

The pattern is clear. The capital controls are not being drafted, debated, and announced. They are being drafted, debated, and implemented, with the debates conducted in language deliberately boring enough to ensure that most citizens do not notice what is being built around them. Unrealised gains tax. Emigration tax. Correspondent banking restrictions. Wealth tax. KYC-driven transfer refusals. Each of these, in isolation, sounds like a technical adjustment. Taken together, they are the operating manual.

The Pushback Matters Less Than You Think

On February 25, the Dutch Finance Minister announced the Dutch 36% unrealised-gains bill would be amended before Senate ratification because the backlash was real. Investors, business leaders, and the King’s brother Prince Constantijn publicly criticised the measure. Emigration inquiries from Dutch high-net-worth residents surged. Dubai, Singapore, Portugal, and Andorra were cited as the top destinations.

Good. The bill may be amended. It may be delayed beyond 2028. None of that changes the thesis. The Dutch political class proposed the mechanism in the first place because they needed the money. They will need the money tomorrow and the day after. What gets amended this round gets reintroduced next round under a different name. The Commission’s April 15 publication ensures the template circulates through every finance ministry in the union.

Where Capital Actually Goes

The honest answer is out of the system that’s built to trap it.

The UAE does not have a personal income tax. Singapore does not tax capital gains. Argentina, having endured capital controls long enough to fully discredit them, is now under Milei’s Principle of Fiscal Innocence Law, which reverses the traditional assumption that taxpayers must justify every guilder. Dubai has become the de facto finance and lifestyle capital for European and Asian high-net-worth families who no longer trust their home jurisdictions to leave them in possession of their property.

Inside the liquid portfolio, the answer is the same as it has been. Gold, silver, oil producers, energy services, farmland, emerging markets where the monetary authorities can only steal from their own population rather than from yours. The shiny stuff works in a debasement because the denominator cannot be created at will. Farmland works because the crop grows regardless of who holds the paper. Emerging markets work because when the system you live in starts taxing what you haven’t earned, the system that has already been through collapse starts looking like a reasonable place to park capital. The rotation into hard assets has been quietly underway for two years.

Pampa Energía (PAM) anchors our Argentina exposure for exactly this reason. An Argentine integrated energy operator with hard-asset cashflows in a jurisdiction that has already been through the wealth-confiscation cycle and come out the other side. The country that learned the lesson the hard way is now the country that does not need to learn it again.

If you want the long-form thesis and the next idea before it gets crowded, the Insider Newsletter is on Substack at $39 a month. If you want the actual portfolio (the Asymmetric Portfolio, the Dividend Portfolio, the Skeleton, and the Big Five contrarian picks each fortnight), the full Insider Service is where the names live.

Nothing here is investment advice. This is what we think and what we own. Do your own research.

If you think this stops with the Commission study, or that the mechanisms it describes do not get progressively tightened over the coming decade, you’re betting against hundreds of years of history.

If this resonated, you’re reading the free version.

Paid subscribers got the full picture last week…specific positions, entry points, and the reasoning behind every allocation. Not general thesis. Actual trades.

The macro setup doesn’t care whether you acted on it. If you want to move from understanding it to doing something with it, that’s what the Insider is for.

Upgrade to Paid

No spam. No fluff. Twice a month, when it matters.

Subscribe now

On April 7, Moody’s revised its outlook on the entire US business development company sector from “stable” to “negative.” The same day, it downgraded Blue Owl Capital’s flagship private credit fund. Three months after Blue Owl first capped retail investor redemptions, the ratings agency that most institutional allocators take their cues from has formally acknowledged what the market was already pricing...this is no longer a single-firm story.

When you see one cockroach, there are probably more.

The Gates Are Spreading

Here is the Q1 2026 retail withdrawal tape that the industry was hoping you wouldn’t total up.

Blue Owl Credit Income Corp...21.9% of shares tendered for redemption. Blue Owl Technology Income Corp...40.7%. Between the two, investors tried to pull roughly $5.4 billion. BlackRock’s HPS Corporate Lending Fund...9.3% tendered, $1.2 billion requested. Apollo...11.2%. Ares Strategic Income Fund...11.6%. Blackstone’s private credit fund...8%. Morgan Stanley’s North Haven Private Income Fund...10.9%.

Every single one of those funds capped withdrawals at the 5% quarterly ceiling. In plain English, investors asked for their money back and were told they’d get a fraction and wait for the rest. Blue Owl went further, putting its OBDC II retail fund into wind-down and switching from tender offers to “return-of-capital distributions”...which is a polite way of saying the fund no longer offers redemptions at all.

Goldman Sachs Private Credit Corp, for its part, met its first-quarter redemption requests...at 4.999% of shares. One thousandth of a percentage point below the cap. The margin by which they avoided gating is itself a statement.

This is what a slow-motion bank run looks like when it hits a structure designed to suppress the visible symptoms of one. The withdrawal window is quarterly. The redemption is capped. The manager controls the valuation. The investor cannot mark the holding to a real bid. Every feature of a non-traded business development company is an engineering choice to make panic invisible. When that many funds hit the cap simultaneously, the engineering has failed.

The New Century Clock

On April 2, 2007, a subprime mortgage originator called New Century Financial filed for bankruptcy. The industry consensus at the time was that the problem was contained. An isolated blow-up in a corner of the mortgage market that serious people didn’t invest in anyway.

Four months later, on August 9, 2007, BNP Paribas froze three of its investment funds, citing an evaporation of liquidity in US mortgage-backed securities. Thirteen months after that, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. The gate at New Century to the collapse of Lehman was eighteen months.

Is every credit shock a Lehman? No. Most aren’t. But the sequence... first a niche lender has a problem, then the largest funds gate redemptions, then the ratings agencies downgrade the sector, then the containment takes proliferate, then the dominoes... that sequence rhymes across forty years of financial history. You see it because it’s there.

Step one was Blue Owl in February. Step two was BlackRock, Apollo, Ares, Blackstone, and Morgan Stanley joining the queue through March and into early April. Step three was Moody’s negative outlook on the entire BDC sector three weeks ago.

That’s not a containment sequence. That’s an escalation sequence.

The Disease Beneath the Symptom

The private credit market is roughly $1.8 trillion. When you count the shadow lending it touches... the leveraged loan market, the CLOs that package the loans, the BDCs that sell them to retail, the insurance companies that hold roughly 8% of their assets in this paper... you’re looking at something materially larger than the subprime mortgage market was in 2007.

Underneath all of it sits three structural problems.

Opacity. Private credit assets don’t trade, so the valuations are whatever the manager marks them at. BlackRock recently wrote down a private loan from 100 cents on the dollar to zero within three months. That’s not a gradual loss discovery. That’s a valuation that was fiction the day it was set, carried at par until the fiction became unsustainable, then marked to what it actually was. The CRS report that flagged it is Congressional language for “we have noticed.”

Payment-in-kind. PIK loans... where the borrower “pays” interest by issuing more debt to the lender rather than sending cash... are now 11% of BDC income across the industry. When your borrowers pay you in IOUs, “income” earns its quotation marks. The 11% is what the funds disclose. The unofficial number, including distressed borrowers who get quiet accommodations to keep the loans classified as performing, is almost certainly higher.

Default rates. The US private credit default rate has now reached 5.8%, up from 4% last year. The CRS paper flagged that some observers expect it to hit 8% as AI disruption continues to gut the software companies that form the single largest borrower concentration in the asset class. Private credit’s exposure to SaaS borrowers alone is roughly $500 billion. When AI is compressing the revenue of every business-software company on the list, that concentration becomes the story.

And then there’s the charming fiction that illiquid assets can offer liquid redemptions. That fiction worked for fifteen years because interest rates were at zero and risk appetite was buoyant. Now it doesn’t.

The Peasants Get the Garbage

Here is the part that should focus the mind.

In August 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14330... “Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors.” The order directs the Department of Labor to reduce the regulatory barriers and litigation risk that had historically kept private credit, private equity, and related alternatives out of the average American’s retirement account. We flagged the structural risk in the retirement channel last October, and the architecture has only hardened since.

In March 2026, the Department of Labor issued the proposed rule implementing the order. Sixty-day comment period, then finalization. The comment period closes in May. The rule is expected to take effect before year-end.

Now take a step back. Private credit managers spent a decade loading the retail channel with product. Non-traded BDCs, interval funds, semi-liquid credit vehicles. The retail channel is now full. The same month the largest funds in the asset class start gating redemptions on the product they’ve already sold, the executive branch of the US government proposes a rule designed to funnel 90 million additional Americans’ retirement savings into the same asset class.

Ninety million savers. $13.8 trillion in defined-contribution plan assets. The proposed distribution channel for an asset class where the existing retail investors are currently being told to stand in line and wait for their money.

Remember Trump’s executive order to open 401(k) plans to private credit. That was because Trump is a podium donut for the ruling class, and the ruling class needed to offload their garbage onto the public before the gates finished closing. Retail investors are queuing for their own money at Blue Owl while the co-CEOs contemplate hockey trades on the side. Noblesse oblige.

Where We Sit

We don’t own private credit. The geometry of it never worked. You cannot offer daily or even quarterly liquidity on ten-year loans and expect that to survive a single downturn. The fact that the industry got away with it for fifteen years was a function of zero interest rates and buoyant risk appetite, not a function of clever structuring.

What we own instead are things with a physical identity. Oil and gas producers with free cash flow at current prices. Energy services names that were beaten to death for a decade. Gold and silver miners trading at forty-year lows relative to the S&P 500. Farmland in jurisdictions where your ownership is actually yours. Emerging markets where valuation is measured in cash flow rather than narrative.

Tidewater (TDW) sits in our portfolio as the cleanest example of the type. A pure-play offshore service vessel operator with $710 million of debt and $263 million of free cash flow, capitalised on a market cap that the private credit industry could not have underwritten because the steady-yield profile is wrong shape. Public, traded, marketable to a real bid. The opposite of opaque.

The tell is in the denominator. A barrel of oil is priced on whether somebody wants to buy it at the dock. A bar of gold is priced on whether somebody will hand you dollars for it. A hectare of farmland is priced on whether it grows food this year. The denominator in each case is physical. The denominator in private credit is a spreadsheet that has now been tested, that six major funds have simultaneously had to defend, and that a Congressional Research Service paper is now formally examining.

Spreadsheets get tested in gates. Gates get tested in bankruptcies. Bankruptcies get tested in contagion.

We’re past step one. The Moody’s sector downgrade on April 7 was step two. Nobody watching the tape should expect step three to be long coming.

When credit-fuelled equity multiples start rerating downward and capital begins looking for things that exist in the physical world, the names that get bid first are the ones the private credit industry would not touch because they did not produce enough “yield” for the pension funds on the buying side. The energy services book, the producers, the shipping names, the gold and silver miners ... that’s where the rotation lands.

If you want the long-form argument and the next idea before it gets crowded, the Insider Newsletter is on Substack at $39 a month. If you want the actual portfolio (the Asymmetric Portfolio, the Dividend Portfolio, the Skeleton, and the Big Five contrarian picks each fortnight), the full Insider Service is where the names live.

The canary hasn’t stopped singing. It’s started to fall off the perch.

Nothing here is investment advice. This is what we think and what we own. Do your own research.

Refer a friend. Get paid in research.

If you’ve found Capitalist Exploits useful, odds are you know two or three people who would too…investors who are tired of consensus finance coverage and want a thesis they can actually build a position around.

Here’s how the referral program works:

Share your personal referral link (find it in your account settings under “Refer a friend”). When someone subscribes using your link, it counts. Hit the thresholds below and we add comp months to your subscription automatically…no action required on your end.

• 5 referrals → 1 free month added

• 10 referrals → 3 free months added

• 15 referrals → 6 free months added

There’s also a leaderboard on the site if you want to see where you stand.

No complicated signup. No affiliate dashboard to manage. Your link is already active…you just have to use it.

Refer a friend