Let me save you thirty years of waiting.

No matter how good a stock picker you are. No matter that at thirty you only own an index fund. Unless you want to fool yourself, that road won’t get you to financial independence any time soon.

And there’s a cold reason why.

The correlation between liquidity and the market is roughly one. The index doesn’t rise because companies are worth more. It rises because there’s more printed money chasing the same assets. You invest there and, at best, you don’t lose. You hold your purchasing power. You run to stand still.

They can tell you inflation is 2%, 3%, whatever the number is this month. It doesn’t matter. The index doesn’t make you rich. It keeps you from getting poorer. That’s all.

So either you look elsewhere, or you’re badly mistaken.

Now let me tell you how someone actually did it.

October 1987. Black Monday. Markets collapsed around 20% in a single day. Almost every trader lost their shirt, their house and their mind that day.

Taleb made a fortune.

Not because he predicted it. This is the key part: he had no idea when it would happen. He held positions that paid brutally if something extreme occurred, and that cost almost nothing while nothing did.

That’s it. That’s the trick. The rest is philosophy.

Because there are basically three ways to get truly rich.

One: you inherit. Congratulations, you chose your parents well.

Two: you find an eighty-year-old widow with a Bordeaux vineyard and a weak heart. Viable, but it’s a thin market.

Three: you build convexity. You lose a little many times and win enormously a few times.

Only the third one is up to you. And it’s the one Taleb used his entire career.

He traded options at banks buying cheap insurance against catastrophes the market believed impossible. Then he started his own fund, Empirica. Later he partnered with Mark Spitznagel at Universa, a fund built to do one thing: explode when the world breaks. In 2008 and in March 2020, it exploded.

And all the while, he wrote. Fooled by Randomness. The Black Swan. Antifragile. The Black Swan sold millions of copies. That’s convex too: a book costs the same to write whether a thousand people read it or three million.

Look at who actually got rich with fully convex positions. Not the people who bought shares in the market. The entrepreneurs who built a company and took it public.

That’s where the asymmetry lives. Their stake before listing was worth almost nothing and could become a fortune. Limited downside, unlimited upside. That’s the pure convex position.

But notice the detail: the fortune is created before the IPO, not after. Nobody got rich being one more participant in the market. Unless they drew an extraordinary salary, of course.

Read more

Today I sat down to read Naval.

Not a book of his. He barely has any. His tweets. Loose lines, written over the years, that I filtered by concept to see what was left once you put them together. What was left was a way of looking at the world.

There are three people who have truly ordered how I think. Taleb taught me to respect the tail, the improbable, the thing that breaks. Saylor taught me what hard money is and why almost no one understands it. And then there’s Naval.

A lot of people ask me why I don’t put Elon on that list. Elon does extraordinary things. But Elon builds an optimistic future that doesn’t have to arrive. He promised self-driving cars and a fully electric world, and although he sharpened electrification like no one else, that extreme he envisioned still doesn’t exist. Naval doesn’t promise you a future. He hands you a tool to think about the present.

I started with Bitcoin.

There’s a tweet of his that says, more or less, that if you’re a small country and you want to be the richest in the world by income per capita, all you have to do is buy as much Bitcoin as possible in 2014 and announce your adoption. He wrote it years ago. Saylor would say the same later. And no state has done it.

Think about it. Switzerland, Singapore, some tiny country with discipline and conviction. Today they’d be absurdly rich. The opportunity was right there, written down, free, in plain sight.

No one took it.

That’s the first lesson of Naval’s that haunts me: asymmetry is rarely secret. It’s available. What’s scarce isn’t the information. What’s scarce is the conviction to act before it becomes obvious.

There’s another tweet I already mentioned last Wednesday and can’t get out of my head. Naval says Bitcoin is a tool to free humanity from oligarchs and tyrants, disguised as a get-rich-quick scheme.

Read that slowly.

Most people see the price. Naval sees the mechanism. For him the point was never the number going up, but who loses power over you the moment you own something they can’t print, freeze, or confiscate. Getting rich is the bait. Sovereignty is the hook.

Then there’s the tweet I’d tattoo on myself.

In 2018 someone asked him what the asymmetric opportunities to get rich were. Naval answered with a short list: invest in startups, start your own company, write a book, create a podcast or a video, buy Bitcoin, or tweet.

That was 2018. Since then Bitcoin has done nearly 900%. And the other paths: building something of your own, leaving a trace, accumulating an audience, have created more new fortunes than any job on the planet.

How does he see that? It’s not magic.

Read more

Today I’m going to write something that will probably cost me readers.

I know it, and I’m writing it anyway. I’ve been turning it over for years and I never find the clean moment to say it, so I’ll say it now, without dressing it up.

I want to talk about the monopoly of violence.

Think about how it all began. We were born to be free over the world, like any animal that opens its eyes without asking anyone’s permission. But fear is heavy. And over time people huddled together, first to defend themselves, then to farm, then simply because being together was easier than facing the night alone.

In every group, someone emerged as the one in charge. Someone who protected. And someone who protects ends up, sooner or later, deciding who to attack.

That’s how it went. One village took what another had stored. The winner grew stronger. The strongest won again. And the one who led those conquests was almost always the same man they’d appointed to keep them safe.

Rome, feudalism, empires. The mechanics never changed. They only scaled.

What did change was the spoils. At some point food stopped making sense as a target: it rotted, it didn’t last, it was useless for accumulating power over time. Then came gold. Something that didn’t spoil. Something that lasted, almost infinitely.

And here’s the detail few people look at straight on.

Whoever controlled the gold could pay for his own defense. He could pay soldiers. And with those soldiers he could force everyone beneath him to pay him too. Money bought violence, and violence guaranteed the money.

A closed loop.

There’s a question that won’t leave me alone: what would have happened if those soldiers hadn’t been bought with money?

Because in the end that’s what they were. Not an idea, not a homeland. A group of people insuring one another in exchange for incentives. Land promised. Gold promised. Favors.

Take money out of the equation and the whole thing wobbles. With no gold to buy loyalty, power could only have offered favors. Maybe there would have been small skirmishes, the law of the strongest on a small scale, a more chaotic world.

I’m not sure it would have been worse.

Sometimes I suspect that honest chaos is less violent than financed order. Because financed order has a capacity that the guerrilla never had: the ability to sustain itself over time, refine itself, and become invisible.

And that’s the part that truly unsettles me.

Today the monopoly of violence is no longer visible. There are no soldiers at your door. There’s something cleaner and more efficient: the tax.

It’s easy to impose on private property, because property doesn’t move and neither do you. If taxes go up, you stay quiet. If you leave the country, you pay for leaving. If you have a lot, you pay for having. If you spend, you pay for spending. If you donate, you pay for donating. If you inherit, you pay for dying.

You pay for every verb of your life.

And behind each of those payments, if you scratch the surface, the same thing is still there that stood behind Rome. Violence. Polished, bureaucratized, dressed in legitimacy, but violence all the same. Whoever doesn’t pay finds that out quickly.

I don’t write this from resentment. I pay what I’m asked and I sleep fine. I write it because I think you have to see things as they are before you decide what to do with them. And what I see is this: we were born to be free over the world, and the first thing the world did was draw borders around us.

Not to protect us.

To fence us in. To know where we are, how much we have, and how much can be demanded of us before we leave.

The border isn’t a wall against the outsider. It’s an enclosure for the one inside.

So the question I keep asking myself, the only one that really matters, is this: how do you live as free as possible inside a system designed for you not to be? How do you avoid the abuse without becoming a martyr, without fleeing, without breaking anything?

I have an answer.

But I’m not giving it today. I’ve thought about it for years and it deserves its own space, not a rushed line at the end of this piece.

Until then, sit with the discomfort. It’s more useful than it looks.

Two links first. Not out of vanity. For context.

In April 2024 I wrote that world orders last somewhere between 100 and 200 years and that ours was running out of road: Asymmetric Risks in US Economy. In March of this year, when Dalio posted that tweet that went past 70 million views, I said it again: The New World Order Has Already Begun.

Today I’m not here to tell you it’s coming. I’m here to tell you it’s here.

Sweden voted last Sunday. The Sweden Democrats lost ground for the first time in sixteen years. Sounds reassuring, doesn’t it? It isn’t. The right-wing bloc they belong to fell three seats short of keeping the government. And the explanation Swedish analysts are giving is the one that keeps me up at night: they lost votes because their positions on immigration and crime are now everyone’s positions. You don’t need the outsider once the outsider has already won.

One week earlier, Saxony-Anhalt. The AfD took 43.8%. More than double its 2021 result. Three seats short of an absolute majority and of forming Germany’s first far-right state government since 1945. Merz’s CDU collapsed to 17%. And Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern vote on September 20.

Shall I keep going?

Meloni runs Italy. Orbán has run Hungary for over a decade. Babiš is back in Czechia. Chega is the second-largest party in Portugal. The FPÖ won the Austrian election. Wilders topped the Dutch vote. Reform swept the British local elections and cost Starmer his job. Le Pen and Bardella lead every poll for 2027 in France. In Spain, Vox. In Argentina, Milei. In the United States, you know who.

I have no opinion on whether this is good or bad. That’s not my job. My job is to read signals. And this one, Dalio described with precision years ago: wealth and values gaps that can no longer be bridged by compromise, and democracies that fall into disorder because half the country stops believing in the rules. That’s stage 6. The last one.

The previous stage 6 started in 1929 and ended in 1945.

Now the uncomfortable question. What happens to money when an order ends?

What happened to the pound after 1945. It keeps existing. It stays in your account. But it stops being what it was, and nobody sends you a notice on the day it happens. You notice years later, when you look back and see what it used to buy.

Dalio says it plainly: in the 35 years before 1945, almost all wealth was destroyed or confiscated in most countries. We don’t read about it because the books were written by the survivors. Survivorship bias. The United States won, and that’s why you believe stock markets always go up.

What if this time the winner isn’t you?

My estimate, and I’ve held it for years, is that more than 95% of people will lose a meaningful part of their wealth in this transition. Not because they’re stupid. Because they’re positioned for a world that no longer exists. Deposits, their government’s bonds, an index fund and an apartment. All of it denominated in a currency that is going to foot the bill.

But there’s something worse than slow erosion, and this is where Taleb comes in.

The end of a cycle is not a straight line down. It’s an age of revolutions. And revolutions don’t send invitations. They arrive all at once, on a Tuesday, when nobody’s looking.

Think about how markets work now. News breaks in Tokyo and within milliseconds it’s in the order books in Chicago. There has never been this much leverage, this many short-volatility bets, this many strategies that make a little money every day as long as nothing happens. Taleb calls it picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. It works. Until it doesn’t.

August 2024. The Bank of Japan raises rates by a quarter point. A quarter. The VIX goes from 16 to 65 in a single morning. The Nikkei drops 12% in a day. Thousands of leveraged yen carry positions blow up. How many of the people inside them thought that was possible?

March 2020. A virus. The S&P loses a third in four weeks.

April 2025. Some tariffs. Markets in freefall, panic everywhere. That week our options position was up 300% to 400%, and I walked through it in detail at the time. Not luck. Structure, built months in advance.

And 1998. LTCM. Two Nobel laureates, perfect models, leverage of 25 to 1. Their system said what happened couldn’t happen once in the life of the universe. It happened in August.

This is the point from Taleb that almost nobody internalizes. The black swan isn’t the rare event. It’s the event your model said was impossible. And precisely because of that, when it lands, there’s nobody on the other side of the trade. Everyone tries to leave through the same door at the same time.

In an age of revolutions, that door is going to be very crowded.

Read more

How much does your bank pay you?

Ask it honestly. Look at the statement. Those digits after the decimal point. While real inflation eats your purchasing power at a pace no official figure fully admits, your money sits parked, collecting a handout that doesn’t even tie the loss.

Today I’ll show you how to collect, on a fixed basis, up to 18%.

And the word that matters in that sentence isn’t the 18. It’s fixed.

Because we’ve all lived the mirage of the bond. They tell you it’s the safe thing. The boring thing. And then you open the chart of a TLT and you see a “risk-free” asset that collapsed by nearly half when rates rose.

Or a SHY that barely moved but didn’t pay you anything worth remembering either. The problem with a bond bought through an ETF isn’t that it pays little. It’s that you don’t know what you’re going to collect. The market imposes the duration on you. The price fluctuates under your feet. You buy “fixed income” and end up with an asset whose value depends on what the next Federal Reserve chair decides to do.

What if you could keep the only good part of a bond, knowing exactly how much you collect and when and throw away the rest?

Read more

In 1494, two kingdoms split the planet with a line on a map. The Treaty of Tordesillas divided the undiscovered world between Spain and Portugal: everything 370 leagues west of Cape Verde for Castile, the rest for Lisbon. Nobody asked the people already living there.

That line is the origin of the modern world. Not democracy. Not the Enlightenment. A line.

Because everything that came after, Westphalia in 1648, nation-states, borders, passports, is the same idea refined: power is exercised by enclosing territory and coercing whoever stands inside it. The state is nothing more than a monopoly on violence over a parcel of land. It works because you, your house, your factory and your gold sit physically inside the parcel. You can’t flee carrying a factory on your back.

For five hundred years, that model captured everything. Every square meter of dry land today has a flag on it.

But two spaces were never enclosed.

Cyberspace and outer space. The two territories no Tordesillas line could divide. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states explicitly that no nation may appropriate the Moon or any celestial body. And cyberspace never had a treaty at all, only protocols. Nobody ever signed sovereignty over TCP/IP.

And here the interesting question appears: what is scarce in a territory without borders?

In cyberspace, almost nothing. A photo sent fifty times is fifty photos. Copying is free; abundance is the default. That’s why for decades nothing digital could be money, money demands scarcity, and the digital was infinitely replicable. Until 2009. Bitcoin is the first natively scarce object in cyberspace. Twenty-one million units, verifiable, unconfiscatable by territorial occupation. It is, quite literally, the first property that exists beyond the reach of Tordesillas.

In outer space, the problem runs in reverse. If we find gold on the Moon tomorrow, and it’s there, along with platinum in near-Earth asteroids, terrestrial gold stops being scarce by geology and becomes scarce only by extraction cost. Gold’s scarcity is an accident of depth. Bitcoin’s is mathematical. One of the two pillars of hard money has a technological expiry date. The other doesn’t.

Now connect the pieces. The state collects because it coerces, and it coerces because your assets sit inside its parcel. But every year a growing fraction of the world’s wealth migrates to where the parcel can’t reach: private keys, neutral networks, capital crossing borders at the speed of a block. Violence doesn’t work against twelve memorized words.

Does this mean the state surrenders? No. It means it changes prey.

When you can’t tax the asset, you tax the interface, the contact points between cyberspace and the physical world: exchanges, banks, fiat on-ramps, automatic reporting frameworks now spreading across every major jurisdiction. These aren’t taxes on Bitcoin. They’re tolls on the border between two worlds.

And when that isn’t enough, states will turn to what cannot flee:

• Land and property. The original hostage. Recurring property taxes, land value levies, reassessments. A house has no private keys.

• Consumption. Every economy taxes the act of living somewhere: VAT, sales tax, excise duties. You can hide capital; you can’t hide groceries.

• The body. Residency-based and citizenship-based taxation. As long as you physically stand inside the parcel, you’re the asset.

• Movement itself. Exit taxes on unrealized gains when you leave. The fiscal Berlin Wall: when you can’t retain capital, you charge it for leaving.

• Energy and infrastructure. Electricity, fuel, roads, bandwidth. Whatever the digital world needs from the physical one becomes a chokepoint.

• Inheritance at the border. Death is the one interface everyone crosses. Estates that touch the physical world get taxed on the way through.

The future I imagine isn’t the collapse of the state. It’s its transformation from hunter into fisherman. It will no longer chase your wealth across the hills; it will set nets in the rivers that wealth must pass through. And the individual game will consist of needing to cross the river as few times as possible.

That’s why the strategy isn’t hiding. It’s designing a life where almost all your wealth lives in the territories Tordesillas never reached, and only the minimum indispensable flow touches solid ground. Accumulate in cyberspace. Live on the smallest possible stream in the physical world. Let the state tax the interface and make the interface small.

The lines on the map are still there. They just no longer contain the whole map.

Now our portfolio…

Read more

Let me tell you something that actually happened.

Not a parable. Not a thought experiment dressed up as history. A real country, real people, real numbers you can still look up. Germany, the autumn of 1923. I want you to sit inside it for a minute, because almost everything you believe about money is hiding in this single episode, and almost no one who lives through their own version of it ever notices.

By the autumn of 1923, the German mark had stopped being money in any meaningful sense. Prices were not rising. They were detonating. A loaf of bread that cost a couple of marks before the war cost hundreds of billions by November. Workers were paid twice a day and ran to spend it at noon, because by evening the same wage bought half as much. People burned banknotes for warmth, because the paper was worth less than the firewood it could buy. Cafés posted prices that changed between the order and the bill. An entire society watched, in real time, the destruction of the thing it had spent …

Read more

I’m reading a book that I’ll reveal to you soon.

Honestly, it’s blowing my mind. I’m pulling out brutal ideas that anyone can apply to their financial system no matter how much money they have. But today, I want to share one concept that hit me like a brick when I read it.

It’s about a CEO who literally invented a new way to measure profits just to avoid paying taxes.

Before that, the only metric that mattered was EPS, Earnings Per Share. That’s what the market watched. That’s what the system rewarded. What every analyst cared about.

But there was a problem: the more profit you showed, the more taxes you paid. And this CEO, who wasn’t stupid, said: “Why would I do that?”

His name was John Malone. One of the most savage, visionary, and aggressive telecom executives in history.

He said, “I don’t want to optimize EPS. I want to optimize real cash flow. What I actually keep. Not what’s on paper. And I’ll do it using leverage, depreciation, amortization, and interest. Because all of that reduces taxes without killing growth.”

That’s how EBITDA was born. A metric designed to play a different game.

But that’s not even the most important part.

The real killer idea, the one I want to talk about, is a philosophy Malone shared with a handful of the greatest capital allocators in history. And it goes like this:

What happens if you never sell? Ever. You only buy.

Think about it for a second. Never sell. Just buy more. Buy when the system screws up. Buy when everyone’s dumping. Buy when assets are illiquid, unloved, forgotten.

And never sell. Not even to take profits. Not even to rotate into something “better.” Nothing.

Why does this idea change everything?

Because if you’re not going to sell, you don’t need to predict the future.

You don’t care whether the asset will go up tomorrow, or in a year, or in ten. You’ve already decided you’re not selling. So you only care about one thing:

Is it cheaper today than it was yesterday?

If the answer is yes, you buy more. Period.

Gold drops 40%? I buy

REITs crash 60%? I buy

Bitcoin falls 30%? I buy

Small caps hit five-year lows? I buy

You see what happens?

You make decisions based on the past, not the future. And the past already happened. It’s real. It’s visible. You can measure it. It doesn’t lie.

And if you’ve built an antifragile box with consistent flow, available margin, and a well-built portfolio, you can strike every one of those crashes without hesitation.

And never sell.

That makes your system radically simple. Radically robust. And increasingly powerful.

This isn’t theory. This is exactly what some of the greatest capital allocators of the last 50 years have done.

Let me give you two more examples.

First: Henry Singleton, CEO of Teledyne.

He didn’t do roadshows. Didn’t talk to analysts. Didn’t care about market opinions. He bought companies when they were cheap, bought back his own stock when it was dirt cheap, used debt with surgical precision, and never sold anything.

For 27 years, with no master plan, no written strategy, no slide decks, he multiplied shareholder capital by 180x.

His whole philosophy? Buy cheap, hold forever, don’t do stupid stuff.

Read more

I just finished a four-book saga and I sat staring at the wall for a long while.

I expected more of the same. I found something else.

The saga is Los trucos de los ricos, “The Tricks of the Rich”, by Juan Haro. The first book is over ninety tricks to multiply your wealth, protect it, and reduce your taxes legally. Structures. Companies. Entities abroad. The plumbing the rest of the world never sees, the kind people with real assets use every day. You can’t apply all of them. But there’s genuine material in there.

Read more

There’s a Japanese idea that has followed me around for years. Ikigai. The reason it’s worth getting out of bed in the morning. I’ve seen it explained a thousand ways. Mission. Vocation. Purpose. Talent. It’s almost always sold as something beautiful, almost spiritual.

Mine isn’t.

My ikigai is to escape the grip of the State. It isn’t a slogan. It’s the cold calculation of someone who has done the math and knows that, if he doesn’t pull it off, in two or three generations nothing of what he built will remain.

Let me explain why.

In ancient Rome, the tax on the harvest was called the decuma. The tithe. Ten percent of what the land produced. And even so, when the Romans tried to squeeze harder, the provinces burned.

Boudica’s revolt in Britain razed three Roman cities and left tens of thousands dead: Roman financiers, Seneca among them, had called in their loans and pushed the Iceni beyond what was tolerable. The First Jewish War ended with the destruction of the Second Temple and hundreds of thousands dead: part of the trigger was the tributum capitis, the poll tax that Jews considered a badge of slavery, and the Roman procurator’s plunder of the Temple treasury.

Ten percent. And people killed each other over it.

Now the uncomfortable part.

Today, across several Western jurisdictions, if your net worth crosses three million there is a 3% tax on your balance sheet. Not on your income. On what you already paid taxes to accumulate. Add the other tax, the invisible one, the one almost no one counts: the rate at which central banks expand the money supply. Global M2 has been growing at an average rate near 7% for decades. Ammous pegs it at 6.7% since 1971. Call it seven.

Three plus seven is ten.

3 + 7 = 10

That’s the number. To preserve purchasing power (not to win, not to get rich, simply to stand still) you need 10% real, net, sustained. Year after year. Decade after decade.

A savings account won’t get you there. A bond won’t get you there. Your cousin’s leveraged real estate won’t get you there.

What gets you there, with discipline, is

Read more

What an eight-year-old brokerage statement says about asymmetry and why I stopped picking stocks.

I dug up a PDF I hadn’t opened in years. My 2018 DEGIRO tax report. I opened it expecting nostalgia. I got a slap.

A list of names. Thirteen stocks. A junk drawer: a Portuguese builder, an Italian football club, a Polish toll road, a French miner whose thesis I can’t even remember. And buried in that noise, two lines that hurt to read today.

NVIDIA. And one line below it, Micron.

It isn’t that I owned them and forgot. It’s worse. I scrolled down to the transaction log, and there it was, in black and white: NVIDIA, bought in March 2018. Sold nineteen days later. At a loss.

Not a big loss. A small one. Less than the price of a lunch.

I held NVIDIA for nineteen days and let it go for pocket change.

So I ran the uncomfortable experiment. I took the thirteen positions I was holding at the end of 2018 and worked out what each would be worth today if I had simply never touched them. No trading. No “managing.” No genius. Just doing nothing for seven and a half years.

Native-currency price returns; dividends and currency drift excluded. Reference point: end-2018, except NVIDIA, measured from its actual 2018 purchase. Micro-cap valuations are approximate, May 2026.

Look at the multiple column. That isn’t a portfolio. It’s a power law.

Two names out of thirteen: Micron, and a Dallas pawn-shop chain called DGSE, now Envela, produced roughly three-quarters of the entire result. The other eleven, combined, after seven years, handed back about the capital they started with. Eleven stocks. Seven years. Net zero.

And NVIDIA (the one I sold) would be worth more on its own today than those eleven names put together.

This is exactly what Taleb describes. In fat-tailed systems you do not win a little on many. You win almost everything on one or two, and the rest is noise, dead air, or zeros. Batla, Ymagis, B Communications: delisted, restructured, wiped out. That is the tail too.

The easy conclusion would be: concentrate on the winners and you get rich. And it’s true. Had I put that whole account into NVIDIA and Micron alone, we’d be talking about a different number and a different life.

But that conclusion is a trap. It hides two problems the chart doesn’t show.

Read more

A friend forwarded me a podcast last week. A family office investor explaining, with the energy of someone revealing a magic trick, how he had bought a twenty-million-dollar company for one million in real cash.

The debt did the rest. The math was wrong in places. The tone was theatrical.

But what caught my attention wasn’t the deal. It was the voice. As if he had discovered something. As if this were forbidden knowledge.

It isn’t. It’s a 47-year-old technology.

And understanding who invented it, how it works, and why it rewrote the rules of capitalism is one of the most profitable financial education decisions you’ll make this year. Because the same architecture three men used to build an empire from nothing is the one you can apply today, at individual scale, if you understand what you’re looking at.

Here’s what happened.

In 1979, three men who had just left Bear Stearns put together $380 million to buy Houdaille Industries, a sleepy Florida machine tool manufacturer.

They put almost nothing of their own money in. Banks and insurance companies provided the debt. The company itself collateralized the transaction.

Within a few years, the equity multiplied. The deal was small by today’s standards. But the architecture was new. They had rewritten the relationship between capital and ownership.

Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts… K - K - R

KKR didn’t invent leverage. Leverage is older than money.

What KKR did was institutionalize a specific observation: in a tax code where interest is deductible and dividends aren’t, debt is a state-subsidized input.

If you buy a business with stable cashflow and finance most of the purchase with the company’s own debt, the equity becomes a convex bet on operational stability. Small base. Massive upside.

The math is humiliating in its simplicity once you see it.

By 1988 they were buying RJR Nabisco for twenty-five billion dollars. By 2025 private equity manages more than thirteen trillion dollars globally.

Every pension fund, every endowment, every sovereign wealth fund is invested in the playbook those three men formalized. The model that began as financial heresy became the dominant structure of capital allocation in the western world.

And here’s the part almost nobody sees.

Read more

People aren’t rich because they don’t do the math.

That’s been the lesson, again and again. Not bad luck. Not bad timing. Not bad genes. Just numbers, left unfinished.

You’re taught it backwards from childhood. Saving is virtue. Debt is vice. The bank exists to hold your money, not to lend you theirs. So you spend your life making financial decisions on instinct, on fear, on habits inherited from people whose balance sheets were never large enough for those habits to matter.

Then one day you sit down with a blank sheet and you run the numbers.

And you find out the difference between making it and not making it doesn’t live in your salary, your inheritance, or your timing. It lives in whether you can read a rate table.

Concrete example. The one sitting on my desk this week.

You hold €100k in pledgeable assets. The bank offers you two scenarios.

• Scenario A: borrow €50k at 3.5%.

• Scenario B: borrow €100k at 4.5%.

The maximum drawdown the bank requires is the same in both cases. If the collateral …

Read more

I met an American in Lisbon last year. He had been out of the United States for six years. Worked remotely, paid taxes in Portugal, lived disciplined in a small house with views over the Tagus. He said he had stepped out of the system.

He hadn’t stepped out of anything.

Every year, while drinking coffee in Alfama, he filed IRS forms with the American government. Every Portuguese bank account he opened was reported automatically to Washington via FATCA. Every European UCITS he considered investing in was destroyed by PFIC taxation. And the day he died, before his children inherited a single cent, the IRS would go first.

The United States is not a country. It is a fiscal capture network with a blue passport.

Only two countries in the world tax by citizenship rather than residence: the United States and Eritrea. That is the entire list. It means an American born in Boston who moves to Tokyo at twenty-two and dies there at eighty-nine pays the IRS his entire adult life on everything he produces, saves, or invests. It doesn’t matter where he lives. It doesn’t matter who he pays local taxes to. Washington follows him like a permanent second mortgage.

And here is the trap almost no one sees: citizenship is inherited.

If you have a child on American soil, that child is American forever. If they spend the next seventy years in another jurisdiction, they remain American. Their bank accounts get reported to the IRS. Their investments, if they are foreign funds, are PFICs. Their worldwide estate at death will be taxed by the federal Estate Tax of the United States.

The father who thinks he escaped the system passes the chain to his children without knowing it.

Percentages are what turn a theoretical principle into a clear vision. Let’s translate every scenario into real numbers, because that’s where the system stops being an abstraction.

Scenario 1 — American resident and dying in the United States, estate of 20 million dollars.

The federal Estate Tax exemption covers approximately fourteen million per person; above that, progressive rates climbing to a 40% marginal bracket. And this calculation ignores everything that estate contributed to the Treasury during sixty years of federal and state income tax on returns.

• Federal Estate Tax at death: ~2.1 million dollars

• State Estate Tax in NY, MA, OR: up to 10–16% additional depending on state, thresholds starting at 1 million

• Effective income tax on capital gains during life: 30–37% federal plus state

• Effective income tax on ordinary dividends during life: up to 40%

• Gross estate reaching the heir at federal succession: ~89%

• Net compounded wealth versus a neutral system over 60 years: erosion of 30% to 50%

Scenario 2 — American expatriate in a no-income-tax jurisdiction (Dubai, Monaco, Bahamas), estate of 20 million.

Read more

A few days ago I argued about this with a friend (I wrote about it). He’s convinced buying is the only sane move. I tried to explain why the numbers, when you actually look at them, don’t always agree.

He didn’t buy it.

Then over lunch I told my father-in-law I was considering renting a bigger place with Elena instead of buying another property. The reply came without thinking.

“But son, renting is throwing money away. Yours, at least, is savings.”

I nodded. But that sentence is where the problem starts. It contains a mistake. An expensive one.

Rent is money that leaves and never comes back. True. What almost nobody calculates is that buying a home also has a portion of money that leaves and never comes back. And in most major-city markets, that portion is bigger than the equivalent rent.

Canadian portfolio manager Ben Felix put numbers on that invisible portion. He called it the 5% Rule.

Read more

There’s an exercise I run from time to time, usually when some headline reminds me that the world isn’t quite what I thought it was at twenty.

I take a blank sheet of paper. I list, one by one, every single thing I own. And next to each one, I write the name of whoever holds the key.

The brokerage shares. The broker holds the key. Above the broker, a central custodian. Above the custodian, the regulator. Above the regulator, a state.

The apartment. The land registry holds the key, along with the jurisdiction where the property sits, and a tax or an expropriation that can change without warning.

Mutual funds. Pension plans. ETFs. Each one has a custodian. Each custodian has a state. Each state has a bad day when it needs liquidity.

The bank accounts. The keys aren’t yours. They belong to an interbank system that, in March 2013, in Cyprus, decided to seize 47.5% of every deposit over one hundred thousand euros to prop up its failing banks. They called it a bail-in. It’s in the manuals. They approved it over a weekend.

And at the end of the exercise, looking down at the list, you arrive at an uncomfortable conclusion.

You don’t own property. You hold claims on things that other people custody for you.

Then the logical question creeps in. What if I leave?

What if I change residency, find a friendly jurisdiction, put everything under a company in Singapore or the UAE. Do I break free?

No. Your assets don’t move with you. The only thing that moves is your body.

Read more

Huxley publishes Brave New World in 1932. He imagines a planet where nobody suffers because nobody remembers what suffering was. Soma to erase discomfort. Hedonic sex on schedule. Vacations distributed like medication. Castes biologically engineered so that the Epsilons feel grateful for scrubbing floors.

People are happy because they no longer know they could want anything else.

You read it in high school and it sounded like science fiction.

Look around.

Nobody in the West starves anymore. The “average poor” in any European capital carries in his pocket a smartphone with more compute than the Pentagon had in 1995. He flies to Cancún financed in installments. He has Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, Uber Eats, and a consumer loan approved in thirty seconds straight from his screen. He lives better (materially) than a nineteenth-century noble.

And the system tells him every day that he is free.

We’re heading toward abundance. Toward a world where everyone will have everything. Artificial intelligen…

Read more

Last week I watched a podcast interview with a guy named Juan Faro. People know him as a Spanish ex-cop turned influencer who spent years raffling luxury cars (Ferraris, Lamborghinis) for ten euros a ticket. He was arrested. Thrown into pre-trial detention. All his accounts blocked. Passport confiscated. Almost everything he owned was seized.

He spent 101 days in a cell. No conviction. No trial. No firm charges. Classified as a “flight risk,” partly because he was planning to move his tax residence to Dubai, something thousands of people do legally every year.

He walked out free. They gave him his things back. The presumption of innocence, intact on paper. His life, no longer.

His particular case has shadows. Dinners with people on police records for drug trafficking, which he himself acknowledges. I’m not here to judge the man, defend him, or turn him into a martyr. What interests me about his story is not Juan Faro.

It’s what his story exposes about what you and I, with extraordinary li…

Read more

I said no.

And I told him why, because it felt important. I’m increasingly convinced that the question almost everyone asks when they talk about investing is the wrong question. It’s not whether the next winner will be Nvidia or Tesla. It’s not which sector to rotate into. It’s not when the institutional money flows in.

It’s something else. Simpler. More uncomfortable.

When and how did you get the capital?

That question (the one almost nobody asks) accounts for 90% of the outcome of your financial life. Stock picking is noise. The real melody runs underneath. And it has a name, described by an Irish economist in the 18th century and buried by modern academic finance because it doesn’t generate fees.

The Cantillon effect.

The idea isn’t complicated. When new money is created and it’s created constantly, not as an exception but as a structural mechanism of the system, it doesn’t land evenly across the economy. It enters at the top. Through commercial banks. Through collateral holders. Through asset owners.

Then, much later, it filters downward. To consumers. To wage earners. To savers in checking accounts.

And by the time it reaches the bottom, the assets have already moved up.

The one at the top buys assets at pre-dilution prices. The one at the bottom buys the same assets at post-dilution prices. Both did what the textbook said. But one entered before the inflation and the other entered after.

It’s not picking. It’s positioning.

This is what an index fund doesn’t solve for you. An index fund solves the question of which assets to hold. It doesn’t solve the question of when to hold them. And in a system designed to dilute, the when is everything.

Let’s look at the numbers. Charts persuade. Numbers nail it down.

Two people. Same starting point: 100,000 euros today. Same conviction in the long term. Same asset mix, a serious blend of global equity, gold, and Bitcoin that we’ll assume returns 12% nominal annually. Same discipline.

The only difference is the architecture they choose to deploy that capital through.

Person A: Cantillon Level 2 (dynamic 50% LTV):

• Day 1: invests her 100,000€ at 12%

• Day 1: borrows another 100,000€ against her assets at 3% and invests it. Initial portfolio: 200,000€. Initial debt: 100,000€. Initial LTV: 50%

• Each year, as her assets grow, she rebalances: draws additional debt to keep LTV constant at 50% and reinvests it

• Mechanically, her equity compounds at 21% annually (12% on 2× assets minus 3% on 1× debt)

• Net worth at 30 years: ~30.4 million euros (gross assets ~60.9M, outstanding debt ~30.4M, debt being paid back in increasingly diluted money)

Person B: the disciplined saver:

• Day 1: invests her 100,000€ at 12%

• Saves and invests 333€/month over 30 years (another 100,000€ contributed across time, entering the market gradually)

• Net worth at 30 years: ~4.16 million euros

Same return. Same asset. Same own capital deployed: 100,000€ each on day 1, plus another 100,000€ over the 30 years. Person A isn’t richer at the start. She just understood earlier that the system rewards capital that is already working, not capital being slowly fed in.

Difference at the end: 26 million euros. Roughly 7×.

This model is idealized, sustained 50% LTV requires real discipline, real liquidity buffers, and the stomach for drawdowns that in the real world can trigger margin calls if your structure is sloppy. But the principle stands. The architecture itself is what compounds. And there, in those 26 million, sits the Cantillon effect applied to your life. Not to a country. Not to an abstract social class. To you, the individual, deciding how to organize your balance sheet today.

Read more

A month ago I went on a trip with some friends. One of them, someone I love deeply, had been chasing an apartment for weeks. He’d made an offer. The seller asked him to raise it by 5% or the deal was off.

He raised it.

The topic came up over dinner. I asked, without any intent to argue: “Do you really think this is better than investing and paying rent?” He answered what everyone in this country answers: “With a mortgage, you’re paying yourself.”

I nodded. I let it go. There are moments when pushing back is just an elegant way of trying to be right at someone else’s expense. And this friend doesn’t deserve that.

But the question stayed with me.

Two days later, scrolling, I came across a post from Knight Frank’s Wealth Report 2026. The question was simple: what does one million dollars buy you in the world’s prime cities?

In Monaco, 16 m². In Hong Kong, 23. In Geneva, 28. In London, 33. In New York, 34. In Paris, 37. In Madrid, 75. In Lisbon, 80.

A million dollars. To lock a family inside a b…

Read more