In this issue:

• slow burn
• mental bet sizing for everyone
• sizing for real-life decisions

Friends,

Riddle me this:

Over the years, I’ve administered 2 reader polls to take the pulse of why you bother reading this newsletter. Both times I’ve asked the above question but with an open-ended fill-in-the-blank template. The answers come back in all shapes and sizes, but most of them can be boiled down to “smart” or “stupid”.

My reactions to the “stupid” responses:

My writing has a style that can be, at times, counterproductive. It’s often unfiltered and parenthetical. My wife constantly tells me that if I write more clearly, I’d have a bigger audience, and she’s, of course, right. The writing is not optimized for clarity. Scott H Young is my canonical example of such writing. I’m a big fan, but my lack of self-control forbids this common-sense approach.

My writing is aspirationally in the spirit of a Pixar movie where it serves 2 masters: the child and the adult who brought them to the theater. I’m trying to teach relatively basic or intermediate concepts while leaving Easter eggs for readers who arrive with more finance/trading context. This will leave the more basic readers feeling like they are missing a joke.

Fellow trader and writer RobotJames, once told me that Moontower is a “slow burn”. There’s no single banger that you could send to someone and say “this is why you should read this”, but reading it week in and week out leads to something more than the sum of its parts. My lament over never having a truly massive hit notwithstanding, I will not complain about the “slow burn” status. Many of my favorite things often took time to warm up to. Acquired tastes are rewards for crossing rugged terrain. (Except when they’re status cosplays. Our wants are even opaque to ourselves. There’s a thin line between appreciation and snobbery and its placement is up to the onlookers, not the admirer.)

To feel stupid when reading moontower would be natural. There’s technical or domain-specific minutiae mixed in with the meat and potatoes. This is further exacerbated by the cohort of readers who only show up for the personal sections and whose interests lie especially far from any of the material I cover. But if I read the blog of a doctor friend because it’s a way to follow along their life, the object-level material is gonna make me feel stupid.

And of course sometimes you feel stupid because I fail. The sequence of words fails to unlock the concept. Today I’m actively trying not to f this up. I want to teach you a neat topic. My goal is to really cement it for you. To make it accessible in real life for you in the same way multiplication tables are at your disposal.

If you don’t regularly read Money Angle, maybe see if today works for you. It’s long, but that’s because we are going to drill the concept. If you succeed in walking away with a new mental tool to practice, then the ROI on the reading time will look like a steal. If you’re not interested, then I’ll channel one of my college roommates whenever I tried to bail on hitting the gym, ”That’s cool man, I’ll just take you off my list of successful people for today” and leave you one of the OG memes that deserves annual visitation.

Commencing demystifications now…

Money Angle

One of the most important concepts in risk-taking is bet sizing. Which is unfortunate because people are quite bad at it, while the effort to be way above average is quite low.

A jarring and famous demonstration of this is the Haghani-Dewey Coin Flipping study, which showed how even college grads with business, economic, and technical backgrounds incinerated their capital or massively underperformed the expected profits presented to them by a game they knew was rigged in their favor.

You can read my synopsis in Bet Sizing Is Not Intuitive.

For a binary wager (ie win or lose), if you know the payoffs and the probability of winning, both of which were known to the participants, the solution is to use the Kelly Criterion.

The tragedy is that it is incredibly simple to compute and applies to many conventional gambles and decisions (the examples in the quiz will span various life situations!).

If something is both easy and widely relevant, it should be common knowledge. So let’s fix that today. I’ll show you how easy it is to use, and you’ll forever be able to do it in your head.

First, a succinct definition:

Kelly is the bet size, as a fraction of bankroll, that maximizes the long-run compounded growth rate of your wealth. It’s a mathematical solution to bet size that doesn’t seek to maximize expected profit per trial, but the size that optimally balances compounding rate and survival.

We will use this formulation of Kelly because it’s general:

The easiest way to learn it is just jump right in with a few worked examples:

Fair coin wager (even odds style bet)

p =50%

q= 50%

b =1 (ie even money, for a $1 bet you either lose a $1 or make a $1 profit)

f* = 50% – 50% / 1 = 0 → bet nothing, zero edge

Coin biased in your favor (even odds style bet)

p =60%

q= 40%

b =1 (ie even money, for a $1 bet you either lose a $1 or make a $1 profit)

f* = 60% – 40% / 1 = .20 → bet 20% of your bankroll

Roll a 6 on a die (underdog bet where you get odds)

p =1/6

q= 5/6

b =8 (for a $1 bet, you either lose a $1 or make an $8 profit)

f* = 1/6 – (5/6) / 8

f* =8/48 – 5/48 = 3/48 → bet 6.25% of your bankroll

If f* is 0 or negative, you have no edge, so not betting is prescribed

Sports moneyline (betting as a favorite where you lay odds)

A −200 favorite. You risk $2 to win $1, and the line implies 2/3, but you think it’s closer to 3 in 4.

p = 75%
q = 25%
b = 0.5 (getting 50% return on the amount you risk)

f* = 75% − 25% / 0.5 = 75% − 50% = 25% → bet 25% of your bankroll

Wait a minute, these are large bets?!!

If these bet sizes seem surprisingly large for the given advantages, then your senses are well-tuned. For most people, “full” Kelly is too big!

Kelly maximizes long-run growth on the assumption your probability is correct. Well, it probably isn’t because the world is messy. We can inject some humility by using a fraction of Kelly:

• “Half Kelly” gives up about a quarter of the growth rate and roughly halves the drawdowns. If you invert that, you see that the Kelly scaling law means as you bet bigger, you get diminishing returns per unit of risk. Extrapolating that logic, betting more than “full Kelly” is incinerating compounded wealth even if the individual bet has positive EV.
• “Quarter Kelly” or less is far more common in practice.

Please don’t let the equation scare you, it’s intuitive and easy to remember

Look at the equation again:

f* = p − q/b

It’s just “how often you win” minus “how often you lose.” It’s just that the second term incorporates the payoff. The loss term gets divided by b, which represents the return you collect when you’re right.

• When b = 1, you’re getting even money. A 100% return. Dividing by 1 leaves q alone, and the equation collapses to pure hit rate: p − q. That’s the coin case where you bet $1 to make $1.
• When b > 1, you’re getting long odds. The division shrinks the loss term. This is why the die works. You lose 5 out of 6 rolls. Straight subtraction says you’re down 66 cents on the dollar and should never play, but you’re paid 8-to-1, so that 5/6 becomes 5/48, and suddenly the 1/6 win percentage is the bigger number. Long odds forgive a bad hit rate.
• When b < 1, you’re laying odds. Now division stretches the loss term. The moneyline: you only lose a quarter of the time, but at −200 each loss costs you two units to earn back one, so that 25% loss percentage behaves like 50%. Being right three times out of four barely clears the bar. Lay enough odds and even a very good record is a losing proposition.

The graphic shows how you can think of the odds (the denominator) as shrinking or inflating q, as you collapse your thinking to a comparison of p vs q.

A word on b

b trips people up because “odds” is loaded gambler jargon. A wider interpretation of b is that it’s a percent return.

It’s what you make divided by what you risk. Even money is b = 1: risk a dollar, make a dollar. That’s a 100% return on the amount at stake. 3-to-1 is b = 3, a 300% return. Laying −200 is b = 0.5 because if you risk two to make one, it’s a 50% return.

[Return is a profit, while multiples don’t subtract your initial risk. It’s the difference between “I 2x’d my money” vs “I made 100%” or “I 10x’d my money” vs “I made 900%”. The percent return is the multiple minus one because we subtract our initial risk.]

The reason it’s a return and not just “the odds” is that Kelly assumes a loss wipes out the whole stake. The denominator is always the same number: everything you put up. b is comparable across a coin, a die, and a moneyline because it’s the return on risk, always measured against a total loss.

b = 1 is a natural reference point. At 100% return, a win exactly cancels a loss, so you need to win more than half the time. The breakeven hit rate changes with b.

Set f* = 0 and you get p = 1/(1+b).

Read the table as a menu of the hit rates you’re allowed to have. At b = 24 you can be wrong 24 times out of 25 and still be flat. At b = 0.25 you can be right four out of five and still be flat

Applying to real life: when is Kelly the right tool?

Kelly needs a few inputs: a bankroll, a payoff you know, and a probability estimate.

Which of these is a Kelly problem?

1. A prediction market contract trading at 30¢. You think it’s worth 45¢.
2. You’re all-in-or-fold on the river with a read that you’re good 40% of the time, getting 3-to-1 from the pot.
3. How much of your 401(k) to put in equities.
4. Writing checks as an angel investor across 30 startups.
5. Buying a weekly call on a biotech ahead of an FDA decision date.
6. Whether to take the new job.
7. Your buddy offers you 5-to-1 that it rains in Oakland tomorrow. The forecast says 30%.
8. Buying homeowners insurance. The premium is clearly more than the expected loss — that’s how the insurer stays in business.
9. Your neighbor doesn’t carry homeowners coverage. She banks the premium instead.
10. Your auto policy offers a $500 deductible or a $2,500 deductible, for a $340/yr discount on the premium.
11. You’ve got vested startup options. Exercising costs $40k out of pocket in strike, and you think there’s maybe a 15% chance the company gets somewhere that makes them worth $1M.
12. A merger arb spread. Target’s at $46, deal price is $50, and it trades back to $38 if the deal breaks. You think it closes 90% of the time.
13. Your agency spends 20 hours of unbilled time on a speculative pitch. You win about a quarter of them, and a win is worth 80 billable hours.

Money Angle For Masochists

Solutions to Kelly Problems

1. Yes. Cleanest case there is. Binary, known payoff, and the price provides b directly. Risk 30¢ to make 70¢, so b = 2.33. f* = 45% − 55%/2.33 = 21%.
2. Yes. This is the canonical one. p = 40%, b = 3, f* = 40% − 60%/3 = 20% of your stack. The wrinkle is that in poker your stack isn’t really your bankroll. There’s a whole literature on pros using Kelly for bankroll management across sessions rather than for a single river decision.
3. No. Not this version of it. Stock returns aren’t generally binary so there’s no p, q, or b. There’s a continuous analog called Merton’s Share, which is similarly rooted in reward vs variance. What Gamblers Can Teach the Buy-and-Hold Crowd can get you started.
4. Sort of. The structure is right: repeated, roughly binary, long odds. The problem is that p is a guess and b is a bigger guess, and Kelly is violently sensitive to overestimating your edge. Garbage in, garbage out.
5. Approximately. If you treat it as approve/reject it’s binary enough to size with. If the expiry aligns with the date such that you are betting strictly on the terminal intrinsic value, the option piece will inherit the binary modeling you imposed on the stock.
6. No. The variables are too opaque.
7. Yes. p = 30%, b = 5, f* = 30% − 70%/5 = 16%. Note, you’ll lose this bet more than twice as often as you win it, so your most likely scenario is losing 16%. You can shrink the Kelly fraction if this makes you uncomfortable.
8. Wrong side of the equation. Run f* on this and you get a negative number, because you’re buying a negative-EV bet.
9. Yes. It’s the same policy, so notice that the bet only exists on the insurer’s side of it! Every year your neighbor doesn’t buy, she collects a premium and writes a tail. Rebuild cost $500k, premium $3,000, call it a 1-in-500 chance of a total loss.

   p = 99.8%
   q = 0.2%
   b = 3,000 / 500,000 = 0.006 (risk $500k to win $3,000)

   f* = 99.8% − 0.2%/0.006 = 99.8% − 33.3% = 66.5%

   Positive, as expected since insurers price premiums well above fair value. In this case, her bet size is the $500k house. If the house is most of her net worth, she’s at 100% on a bet capped at 66%. Rather than overbet, she should buy the policy. If she’s worth $5M, she’s betting 10% when she’s allowed 66%, which puts her near quarter Kelly (~14%), and she could skip the insurance. If she’s worth $1mm, it’s a 50% bet, which is more than half Kelly. I’d say take the insurance but I’m a wimp. There are other considerations (would she have the liquidity to rebuild the home or maybe taking the insurance with a high deductible is a better fit), but just doing this exercise gives you a sense of how risky or conservative your choices are relative to the bet share that maximizes long-term wealth.

10. Yes. Raising the deductible is like you writing a $2,000 policy and collecting $340 a year for it. You’re the insurer again, so work out what you need to believe. Take the high deductible and save $340. Have a claim, and you’re out $2,000 more, but you already banked the $340, so the loss is $1,660.

    b = 340 / 1,660 = 0.205

    f* = p − q/0.205 = p − 4.88q

    Set that to zero, and you get p = 4.88q, which, with p + q = 1, means q = 17%. Your breakeven is a claim every 5.9 years. Anything less frequent and you’re the one with the edge.

    Let’s say real-world collision frequency is more like 6%. So p = 94%:

    f* = 94% − 6%/0.205 = 94% − 29.3% = 64.7%

    Which says risk at most ~65% of your bankroll. The risk here is $1,660. That clears as long as you have about $2,600 in liquid savings, which is to say the sizing check is trivially satisfied for almost everyone so you should generally opt for the higher deductible. For quarter Kelly, we’d need savings of $1,660/(.647 * .25) = $10,262.

11. Approximately. It’s not truly binary, but if you frame it in a way where you are comfortable with the no consolation prize of a medium outcome, you can see it as paying $40k for a 15% shot at $1M. b = 24, so f* = 15% − 85%/24 = 11.5% of your liquid net worth. This is quite sensitive to your estimate of p of course.
12. Yes, a classic example of binary-type risk in markets. You risk $8 to make $4, so b = 0.5 — you’re laying odds, same as the moneyline. f* = 90% − 10%/0.5 = 70%. That number is only as good as the 90%. Revise p to 75% and f* is 25%.
13. Yes, in a subtle way! Your bankroll is capacity, not cash. b = 80/20 = 4, so f* = 25% − 75%/4 = 6.25%. Twenty hours has to be 6% of what you’re working with, which means you can’t run this pitch out of a 100-hour month. If you’re the manager, you can put it in dollar terms by converting to wages.

    ---

Finally, I strongly recommend William Poundstone’s book Fortune’s Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street

Description:

In 1956, two Bell Labs scientists discovered the scientific formula for getting rich. One was mathematician Claude Shannon, neurotic father of our digital age, whose genius is ranked with Einstein’s. The other was John L. Kelly Jr., a Texas-born, gun-toting physicist. Together they applied the science of information theory—the basis of computers and the Internet—to the problem of making as much money as possible, as fast as possible.

Shannon believed it was possible for a smart investor to beat the market—and William Poundstone’s Fortune’s Formula will convince you that he was right.

And this is from my notes, Insights From Fortune’s Formula:

a gripping narrative full of 20th century trivia that ties together the birth of information theory, some of the greatest scientific minds of the 1900s, the rise of quantitative finance, and the role of organized crime. These topics come alive in a fresh, memorable way when discovered through the lens of its colorful characters.

It chronicles the history of the efficient market hypothesis (MIT, U Chicago, Paul Samuelson). You can organize its conclusion around this excerpt:

There is much truth in the efficient market hypothesis. The controversy has always been over just how far the claim can be pressed. Asking whether markets are efficient is like asking whether the world is round. The best way to answer depends on the expectations and sophistication of the questioner. If someone is asking whether the world is round or flat, as fifteenth-century Europeans might have asked, then “round” is a better answer. If someone knows that and is asking whether the earth is a geometrically perfect sphere, the answer is no.

Stay groovy

☮️

Moontower Weekly Recap

• “Achievement” is a fickle mistress
• betting on direction with short-dated spreads

In this issue:

• energy as the ultimate currency
• “middle manager” fiction

Friends,

A year ago I wrote a piece called Capitalism Is a Temporary Condition. Buried in it was a thought:

An investor in an age of acceleration watches as commodity prices, real things, hover in familiar territory while “future cash flows discounted” reward attention — in some cases because of optimistic stories, in some cases because the company exchanges cash for BTC (an act which adds no economic value), and in some cases for nostalgic lolz.

Today, it’s embarrassing to think of actual value. The most basic form is stored energy**. An obvious example is oil. Slightly more abstract —a building is a collection of atoms that took energy to arrange and provides utility. It’s proof of work. Same with a good reputation.

The ** footnote:

I increasingly think that a durable concept of a risk-free or least-risky rate is more likely to come from Vaclav Smil than U Chicago.

I knew about Smil from a profile piece that celebrated his suffer-no-fools rigor in making sense of the world.

I’m finally getting around to How the World Really Works, and I dig how quickly it’s zeroing in on what I anticipated to be the biggest muscle movement of all. I’ll let it unfold as he does the book’s intro.

Smil asks us to imagine an alien probe watching Earth, programmed to wake up whenever something important changes in the way energy is captured or used.

For a very long time, it sleeps.

Then life figures out photosynthesis: sunlight can be captured and stored as chemical energy. Much later, humans learn to control fire. Then agriculture. Draft animals. Wind and water.

The gaps are enormous. Billions of years. Millions. Thousands.

Then they start collapsing.

Coal gives humans access to immense stores of ancient solar energy. You can see a parallel to wealth in that phrase alone. Steam will turn that energy into mechanical work, replacing what he calls prime mover energy (human and animal labor). Oil makes enormous amounts of energy portable while electricity makes it transmissible and almost infinitely adaptable.

Smil puts numbers on this.

In 1800, the world had access to roughly 0.05 gigajoules of useful energy per person each year. By 1900 it was 2.7. By 1950, about 10. By 2000, 28. By 2020, roughly 34.

In a little over two centuries, useful energy per person increased nearly 700-fold.

The average person today commands roughly the energy equivalent of 60 adults working continuously, day and night. In affluent countries, the equivalent is closer to 200–240 permanent laborers.

And the averages hide enormous differences.

Measured in primary energy, someone in one of the world’s poorest countries may use less than 10 GJ a year. India is around 20–30. The global average is roughly 75–80. China is above 100. Western Europe and Japan generally sit around 120–160. The United States is closer to 250–280.

It sounds a lot like how GDP per capita is distributed. We measure GDP in dollars, but money can be printed, thus distorting its exchange rate versus the stored value of work. In that sense, energy may be civilization’s only uncorruptible currency.

If we continue pulling on the thread, wealth might be thought of as an account from which we can spend to hold entropy at bay.

• A 72-degree house in Scottsdale.
• Mango salad in during a Minnesota January.
• Clean water pumped up the Hollywood Hills.
• A sterile operating room.
• Skyscrapers defying gravity.
• Data centers (I couldn’t resist).

Much of the AI commotion revolves around what it means for humans to directly turn electricity into intelligence. That the product is intelligence which can recursively accelerate knowledge instinctively unsettles us because it violates our sensibilities around balance. Like energy is somehow not being conserved, leading to the type of divergence we associate with chain reactions.

I’m actually struggling to put my finger on the right analogy, which validates another point Smil makes. He argues that at precisely the moment when we have become capable of commanding extraordinary quantities of energy, most of us have become almost completely detached from how any of it happens.

Smil calls this our “comprehension deficit.”

Modernity is a black box. Light comes from a switch, and meat comes from a carton lined with a maxi pad. It’s all so effortless. Students of economics read I, Pencil to appreciate how capitalism’s profit-motive and competition actually lead to complex chains of cooperation. The side effect of the story is a (demoralizing?) inference that the world is so invisibly complicated now that you should feel good in your choice of major because it’s strategic to be a symbol-pusher since details are hopelessly infinite. (Sorry, did I go to far here? I’m an econ major, so it’s kind of like Chappelle using the n-word. Kinda? Nevermind.)

Smil’s punchy take on specialization:

You could meet real Renaissance men on Florence’s Piazza Signoria in 1500, but not for too long after that…By the middle of the 18th century, Diderot and d’Alembert could still assemble a group capable of summing up much of their era’s knowledge in the Encyclopédie…In 1872, a century after the appearance of the last volume of the Encyclopédie, any collection of knowledge had to resort to the superficial treatment of a rapidly expanding range of topics…today, it is impossible to sum up our understanding even within narrowly circumscribed specialties…experts in particle physics would find it very hard to understand even the first page of a new research paper in viral immunology …Highly specialized branches of modern science have become so arcane” that many practitioners must train into their thirties “in order to join the new priesthood.

All I’ve done is read the introduction to the book, but the “comprehension deficit”, which he’s fixin’ to remedy with respect to how the world works (at least from a physics/chemistry macro point of view), is just a fascinating idea of its own. Before the printing process and hyper-connectedness, it was hard to learn much of what was a relatively small body of knowledge, but since then, even though you could learn more in a lifetime, it was a smaller percent of what could be known.

But that I can sit here in an air-conditioned house on a 90-degree day typing contemplations about abstractions like how wealth is really the temporary abatement of nature’s randomness and how the accounting of such wealth should be denominated in units of work, which is traditionally measured by money and its continuously leaking exchange rate to said work is itself a wild collective achievement fueled by eons of carbon remnants from lives I never knew.

I guess I feel like I owe it to the universe to be curious about its ways even if it’s a Sisyphean fantasy to close the comprehension deficit. Looking forward to continuing:

A thought worth sharing more widely from hemispheres this week’s post about discretionary trading:

In this AI era, brains and consciousness are major topics du jour. I increasingly see us as technology centaurs with both a meat and silicon brain mediating structured and unstructured data, which in turn can be private or public.

On the private side, I have Claude connected to:

• my personal knowledge management or PKM (Notion)
• MCP to moontower.ai data
• git repos across work and personal
• email (which means it can access all my writing)
• project management software (Linear)
• Google drive
• Google calendar

And of course, the entire world of public info lives in the model’s training data and ability to go online.

You can be taking a walk with voice mode on spec’ing a prototype that will connect to data with nearly any context you want to provide from your private knowledge, the internet, or what’s in your head that moment.

The future is here for anyone who feels haunted by dozens of ideas a day that they previously couldn’t or wouldn’t act on.

And a discretionary trader is nobody if not someone who starts 50 sentences a day with “I wonder what happens if…”

Related:

Money Angle

I ask for your indulgence, for what follows is an informal word-wall connecting conversations I’ve had with some W2 friends.

Pick your favorite gospel on disruption. Schumpeter’s creative destruction, Christensen’s innovator’s dilemma. Most companies, sometimes even industries, will eventually recognize themselves as a melting ice cube.

In a great talk back in 2009, media investor Peter Chernin warned:

One of the things I always used to say to the people who work for me is that you can’t protect your business, and your job is not to protect your business. Your job isn’t to protect. Your job is to maximize your business at any given time, but your real job is to grow new businesses faster than the old ones decay.

He uses record labels as the cautionary example. They set out to protect their business, but “to the degree you’re going to try and do it you’re going to get killed because technology is going to liberate audiences in such a way that they’re going to get what they want regardless.”

It feels like there are only bad choices for companies that are now run-off businesses. Re-investment feels too speculative, but panic will preclude any chance of a soft or at least dignified landing. Navigating these moments well is a sign of grace, but if grace were easy we’d call it something else.

Instead we get to witness corporate pathology.

The ice cube is melting. But it started as a very big ice cube. Big enough to bridge a middle-aged middle-manager’s soft landing into an early retirement if they can claim a larger share of a shrinking cube. Welcome to corporate hunger games on steroids.

The middle manager is a risk-averse incrementalist. That’s WHY they are middle managers. They will do no such thing as grow new businesses faster than the old ones decay. They need an accomplice to secure their spot on the life raft. This accomplice comes from an unexpected place. The partners.

You see, entrepreneurs have deranged brain chemistry. My friend Jason Buck and I were drinking coffee in my backyard on Wednesday when he described an entrepreneur as someone who works 100 hours a week for themselves to not have to work an hour for someone else.

The entrepreneur, the founder, the partner is a delusional optimist. A melting ice cube can be refrozen if you just find the right segment to sell to, the one that somehow eluded you when things were going well. The middle manager latches on to this hope.

He crafts a business plan to do things “radically” differently. Of course, radical in this context is a mere gesture in comparison to the extinction-level shift in the business environment. The partners, never ones to back down from a fight, support this can-do attitude from the manager who stepped up.

The manager, energized and enabled, moves to consolidate influence. By promoting their plan, any plan, doomed as it is, they portray unsupportive colleagues as quitters by virtue of their dissent.

“If you’re not on board with my [dumb] plan, you clearly hate the company and are not a team player.”

There’s no serious appraisal of the dissenting argument’s merit. And that’s probably because the dissenting argument is “Umm, we’re f’d, so we should focus on retention, not growth, because [insert analysis that actually makes sense]”. Any analysis that maximizes EV in a losing game will be hard to sell against a bad strategy employed with hope. We gamble to get back to even and we’re risk-averse when we’re ahead.

Our middle-manager doesn’t just knife out the dissenters. They fully larp optimism with expansion. They hire loyalists, veterans of this obsolete-but-not-yet-obviously-so strategy. The loyalists are relieved. They, themselves, were cooked seeing the same writing-on-the-wall, but they just got thrown a lifeline by the last firm running the old plays. The only plays they’re familiar with. The reunion with their middle-manager buddy is as predictable as you expect, complete with brown liquor and nostalgia for those nights during training when they were chasing tail in Murray Hill and scarfing khati roll together if they struck out that night. Ah, Indian food before bed. To be young again.

The loyalist cluster is pragmatic. Every year of health insurance and private school tuition extends the polyester harmony that is their home life. But for the middle manager, the loyalist cluster is strategic. He’s like an old piece of tile covering himself in linoleum. It’s all wrong but a bigger nuisance to remove. Become hard to kill by entangling yourself deeper in a hierarchy that you created and from which you are a convenient buffer between partners and minions whose names they never want to know.

The misalignment, politics, and the waste of human life force in the name of self-preservation of an artificial environment (that’s a big one to unpack, but y’all might have to come have coffee or maybe something a bit stiffer for that convo) are regrettable.

But you know what I find worse?

That our middle-manager protagonist was not as cunning as he seems. That his primary offense was stupidity. That he sincerely mistook the situation for something he could fix instead of a noble impulse towards calculated self-preservation.

Stupidity is uncivilized. It’s unpredictable. “Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it’s an ethos. These guys are nihilists.” That’s how I feel about our manager if he is stupid. That’s a barbarian. It might be unpleasant, but you can reason with the merely deceptive.

I’m not sure if our middle-manager character (whose likeness to any real-life individual is purely coincidental) is sincere and stupid or just trying to survive, but those accomplices on high, blinded by desperate optimism, channeled the old guy at the club instead of having the courage to reinvent or the grace to just go home.

Then again, being who they are is what got them to giant ice cube status in the first place.

Money Angle For Masochists

A recommendation

Besides writing, part of my role here is to find good stuff to share with you.

One of my favorite online discoveries this year has been the X account of @SowingAlphaSeed. It’s an anonymous account that goes by “Farmer”.

The bio says:

Retail investor w/ a stretch goal of 2 Sharpe + 30% CAGR. Please DM me if you have fund recommendations. Live portfolio and track record on my website.

The main draw is that this account has steadily been learning and doing “in public”. It’s a constant source of interesting and smart ideas. It’s also focused on what it says in the bio, so the percentage of useful posts to total posts is extremely high.

Tip of the hat to Farmer (who I never met and don’t know).

An observation:

1-year collars in MU are close to the cheapest they’ve in the past year. If you’re bullish you can budget a trade that can offer multiples of return per dollar bet. If MU already made you rich, the cost to hedge is actuarially small.

Then again, you didn’t get rich by hedging amirite

This week:

Zooming in:

Moontower Weekly Recap

• a common marginal thinking blindspot
• hemispheres