EndGame Macro
The Moment the Ladder Turns Into a Cliff

This chart is following a single mom as she earns more money and showing how her total resources change, meaning her paycheck plus whatever help she qualifies for. And the picture it paints is awkward but familiar. At very low incomes, the paycheck is tiny, but the support system is big. As she earns more, the paycheck grows, but the help fades. That part makes sense. The problem is how it fades…not smoothly, but in big steps. One program drops here, another falls off there, and suddenly a raise that should move her forward ends up barely moving her at all or even pushing her backward.

The chart highlights that moment around $29,000–$35,000 where she’s actually better off staying put than moving up the income ladder. It’s not because she’s doing anything wrong. It’s because the system treats every benefit separately. When those separate phase outs stack on top of one another, you don’t get a gentle slope, you get a cliff.

Why It Happens And Why It Matters

None of this is because anyone designed a trap on purpose. It’s what happens when you build safety net programs in different decades, with different rules, different income thresholds, and no coordination. Each program thinks it’s doing the logical thing…”If you earn above X, you need less help.” But when you stack five or six of those cutoffs together, you create moments where a family loses thousands of dollars in assistance right as they gain only a few thousand in wages.

You see this in real life all the time. Parents who want to take more hours but fear losing childcare. People who turn down a raise because it pushes them over the Medicaid line. Households that feel like they’re climbing a ladder where a couple of rungs are missing. And this isn’t all about laziness or gaming the system, it’s about stability. When a small jump in income risks losing healthcare, housing help, or childcare, the rational choice often becomes staying exactly where you are.

So the deeper message isn’t that help doesn’t matter. It’s that the way we phase it out can unintentionally punish progress. The chart is a reminder of something intuitive and human…upward mobility shouldn’t require stepping off a cliff just to reach the next step.

If the goal of the $140K Poverty Line/Valley of Death discourse is to highlight the cumulative effect of tax & benefit cliffs, that would be great! These are well-known among policy analysts, and you can literally find hundreds of charts showing this issue. Here is a famous one: https://t.co/DjBQoPbbgM - Jeremy Horpedahl 🥚📉
tweet

EndGame Macro
The Slow, Steady Undoing of America’s Drinking Culture

In the U.S. For decades, roughly two thirds of adults drank alcohol. It wiggled a bit, but it stayed in that band. Now it’s dropped to the low 50s, the lowest since the 1930s. That doesn’t mean America suddenly went sober. It means more people are deciding at the margin that they are good without it, and that adds up.

A lot of that is simple awareness. Younger people grew up hearing that alcohol isn’t just a harmless treat; it’s tied to cancer, heart disease, bad sleep, and worse anxiety. They’ve watched family or friends go too far with it. And because mental health is something they actually talk about, they connect the dots…“I feel worse when I drink a lot, so why build my social life around it?” So the social script shifts. Drinking is still common, but not drinking is no longer weird. It’s just another choice.

Control, Money, and Better Alternatives

The modern environment pushes in the same direction. Everyone knows that one bad night can end up online forever. That makes being obviously drunk in public feel riskier than it used to. People want more control over how they show up…at parties, at work events, on dates and alcohol sits right in the middle of that trade off between fun and reputation.

Then there’s the money side. For younger adults especially, budgets are tight…rent, loans, food, everything. Alcohol is an easy line item to cut if you’re trying to save. And unlike past generations, you’re not stuck choosing between drinking and staying home with water. There are non alcoholic beers and spirits that don’t feel childish and mocktails that actually taste good. If your goal is to relax, socialize, or take the edge off, you’ve got more options now than just a drink.

Add in a more diverse country, with more communities where alcohol was never central to social life, and the trend in the chart makes sense. It isn’t one big moral awakening; it’s a lot of small, practical decisions converging. People are looking at what alcohol costs them in health, in money, in control and a slightly larger share is deciding the trade off isn’t worth it. The line on the chart is just that quiet shift turned into numbers.

The percentage of Americans drinking is at the lowest since 1939 and I'm 100% here for it. Alcohol is poison. https://t.co/xjRNucr7ze - Markets & Mayhem
tweet

EndGame Macro
The Holiday Spending Boom Built on Tomorrow’s Money

People are trying to make holiday spending fit into a monthly budget that’s already stretched thin. BNPL becomes the workaround…not a splurge tool, but a pressure valve.

What stands out is the type of purchases driving the surge. Tech, cosmetics, travel, these aren’t emergency expenses. They’re the things people want to keep in their lives, even if their checking account says that they shouldn’t. So instead of scaling back, they spread the payment over four or six weeks and tell themselves it’s fine. It’s a way of preserving the lifestyle they’re used to without feeling the full hit upfront.

A Sign of Confidence But Also of Strain

Retailers love BNPL because it boosts conversions, and consumers love it because it softens the blow. But the bigger picture is that it functions like an invisible credit layer under the surface of the economy. It doesn’t show up on credit reports the same way. It doesn’t trigger the same psychological I’m in debt response. That’s exactly why usage explodes during times like this, it feels harmless even when it’s adding up.

My read is that this is a sign that people are out of clean options. Credit cards are expensive. Savings are thinner. Costs across the board are higher. BNPL fills the gap between the life people want to live and what their immediate cash flow can support. And when enough households rely on it at once, it props up spending numbers in the short run while quietly raising the risk that the future months get tighter.

BNPL is booming. But the boom is telling you the consumer is definitely straining and this is the tool they’re using to hold things together.

Buy now pay later usage surged to a record weekend from Black Friday thru Cyber Monday, with consumers deferring payments on technology, cosmetics, travel plans, and more

#MacroEdge - MacroEdge
tweet

App Economy Insights
$WBD Warner Bros. could be on the move again.

Netflix and Comcast only want Studios + Streaming.
Cable would need a spin-off.

The buyer pool is: $NFLX $CMCSA $PSKY

Who do you think ends up with Warner's IP vault? https://t.co/PGkVRndksD
tweet

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
RT @realroseceline: Where does your investing edge come from?

Most people have no idea what their actual edge comes from. They think it comes from finding some hidden piece of information or running fancy models. They think it comes from valuation spreadsheets or a unique angle on a company. News flash, it almost never does.

The truth is the entire world sees the same numbers and information. Everyone has access to the same filings, the same earnings calls, the same charts, the same news, the same Twitter threads, all the same info. Information is not where your advantage comes from anymore, no one has an information advantage nowadays. If everyone is reading the same thing you are not going to win by out reading them.

Your edge comes from something far more boring and far more powerful. It comes from temperament and how you behave when the market gives you a choice between pain and discipline. It comes from how you handle fear, greed, boredom, and uncertainty. It comes from your ability to sit still when every instinct tells you to act.

Most people lose not because they are stupid but because they cannot sit with discomfort and boredom. They sell winners too early, they hold losers too long, they chase predictions, they change strategies every six months. They let headlines dictate their portfolio. They copy whatever is trending. They do everything except build a durable emotional system that can survive volatility.

The irony is that investing is not really about being right. It is about staying in the game long enough for your decisions to matter. That is why temperament and emotional control become the greatest edge. If you can stay rational while others panic you automatically rise above the vast majority of participants. If you can hold a compounder without getting shaken out your results will look like genius even if your “analysis” was simple.

People love to talk about alpha but almost nobody talks about behavior. Yet behavior is where most investors fail. Your edge is your ability to think clearly when the market is trying to pull you into the madness of crowds. Your edge is the patience to let compounding work on its own schedule. Your edge is knowing who you are and refusing to trade away that identity for a quick thrill.

If you want an edge stop looking for secrets in numbers. Start looking for discipline in yourself. That is what separates the people who do well for a year from the people who do well for a lifetime.

So here is the million question, how do you build a real edge? You master yourself, learn to stay calm when everyone else panics, and stay patient when everyone else chases excitement. That inner discipline is the advantage almost nobody develops. If you want to build it the right way start with reading my upcoming book because the vast majority of it is about the psychological and emotional foundation that makes long term success possible and highly probable.

Happy Monday all!

🌹
tweet

Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
This couldn’t be more true — and coincidentally, I’ve been working on a post I’ll share tomorrow morning that highlights many of the same points in Rose’s post

Specifically:

“That is why temperament and emotional control become the greatest edge…

People love to talk about alpha but almost nobody talks about behavior. Yet behavior is where most investors fail. Your edge is your ability to think clearly when the market is trying to pull you into the madness of crowds.”

Where does your investing edge come from?

Most people have no idea what their actual edge comes from. They think it comes from finding some hidden piece of information or running fancy models. They think it comes from valuation spreadsheets or a unique angle on a company. News flash, it almost never does.

The truth is the entire world sees the same numbers and information. Everyone has access to the same filings, the same earnings calls, the same charts, the same news, the same Twitter threads, all the same info. Information is not where your advantage comes from anymore, no one has an information advantage nowadays. If everyone is reading the same thing you are not going to win by out reading them.

Your edge comes from something far more boring and far more powerful. It comes from temperament and how you behave when the market gives you a choice between pain and discipline. It comes from how you handle fear, greed, boredom, and uncertainty. It comes from your ability to sit still when every instinct tells you to act.

Most people lose not because they are stupid but because they cannot sit with discomfort and boredom. They sell winners too early, they hold losers too long, they chase predictions, they change strategies every six months. They let headlines dictate their portfolio. They copy whatever is trending. They do everything except build a durable emotional system that can survive volatility.

The irony is that investing is not really about being right. It is about staying in the game long enough for your decisions to matter. That is why temperament and emotional control become the greatest edge. If you can stay rational while others panic you automatically rise above the vast majority of participants. If you can hold a compounder without getting shaken out your results will look like genius even if your “analysis” was simple.

People love to talk about alpha but almost nobody talks about behavior. Yet behavior is where most investors fail. Your edge is your ability to think clearly when the market is trying to pull you into the madness of crowds. Your edge is the patience to let compounding work on its own schedule. Your edge is knowing who you are and refusing to trade away that identity for a quick thrill.

If you want an edge stop looking for secrets in numbers. Start looking for discipline in yourself. That is what separates the people who do well for a year from the people who do well for a lifetime.

So here is the million question, how do you build a real edge? You master yourself, learn to stay calm when everyone else panics, and stay patient when everyone else chases excitement. That inner discipline is the advantage almost nobody develops. If you want to build it the right way start with reading my upcoming book because the vast majority of it is about the psychological and emotional foundation that makes long term success possible and highly probable.

Happy Monday all!

🌹 - Rose Celine Investments 🌹
tweet

Quiver Quantitative
BREAKING: Representative Ro Khanna has said that there will be a bipartisan investigation into Pete Hegseth by the House Armed Services Committee

https://t.co/61oFiBZ4Oj
tweet

EndGame Macro
If you boil David’s point, it’s essentially this…people are suddenly terrified of Japanese long term yields now, after they’ve already exploded higher… but they weren’t terrified when those same bonds were yielding basically nothing. And that, to him, is backwards.

He’s reminding everyone that the real moment of danger was years ago when Japan’s 40 year bond yielded 0.04%. At that level, the price of the bond was insanely inflated. There was no income, no cushion, and almost unlimited downside if yields ever normalized. That was the setup that should’ve made people nervous.

Why Today Isn’t the Scary Part

Fast forward to now and the 20, 30, and 40 year JGBs are all yielding around 3–4% levels Japan hasn’t seen in decades. And getting from 0% to 3–4% absolutely wrecked anyone who bought at the bottom. The damage already happened. The losses have already been absorbed. The repricing is largely behind us.

So when people look at today’s high yields and say now it’s dangerous, he’s calling that out. High yields don’t mean just in time to panic. They mean the market has already burned through the risky part. Today’s yields actually offer something…income, cushion, and a much better entry point than anything you saw in the last fifteen years.

You should’ve been afraid when yields were microscopic and valuations were insane, not now after the crash has already happened. If anything, this is closer to the point where future returns start looking more attractive, not less.

He’s not giving advice, he’s just reversing the emotional logic. The real bubble was then. The fear is now. And he thinks that’s the wrong way around.

These yields reflect enormous damage. The idea that now is the time to be afraid is bizarre.

June of 2016 0.041 bp. That’s 1/25 of one percent and now people are worried that’s when you should’ve been worried now you should be greedy and that’s not advice. https://t.co/dCtR9hs9E0 - David Levenson. I am increasing low beta leverage.
tweet

EndGame Macro
The Fed Isn’t Reporting the Present It’s Preparing for What’s Coming

If you read Bowman’s statement straight through, it sounds like the usual banks are sound, capital is strong, everything’s fine update. But once you slow it down, the message underneath is very different. She’s not talking to Congress about how great the banking system is, she’s preparing them for a shift. The language she uses such as “tailoring,” “reducing burden,” “avoiding unnecessary constraints,” “empowering banks to compete” shows you exactly where her head is. Regulators only talk like this when they think the economy is going to need more credit, more flexibility, and fewer barriers. You don’t emphasize easing rules unless you think the current framework is too tight for the environment you’re heading into.

The Push for More Credit Flow

One of the clearest tells is her focus on mortgages. She basically says banks have been pulling back because capital treatment makes mortgages unattractive, and that this may be holding back access to credit. The Fed doesn’t bring this up unless they’re worried that housing, one of the biggest drivers of household wealth and economic momentum, is too frozen. By talking openly about recalibrating mortgage rules so banks can step back into that space, she’s signaling the Fed wants more participation from banks, not less. She does something similar with Treasuries, criticizing leverage rules that discourage banks from holding government debt. That’s a polite way of saying that the United States is issuing a mountain of bonds, and regulators don’t want capital rules getting in the way of banks absorbing them.

Loosening the Rulebook Without Saying It

She spends an unusual amount of time arguing that current rules were written for the big banks and shouldn’t be pushed onto smaller lenders. When a Vice Chair repeatedly calls rules “outdated,” “burdensome,” and “misaligned with reality,” that’s not a philosophical point. It’s groundwork for dialing them back. Her promise that this year’s regulatory review will lead to substantive change, something she notes did not happen in previous reviews is a quiet way of telling Congress that meaningful rollbacks are coming. And they’re not coming because the system is overheating. They’re coming because the Fed wants to make sure smaller banks are able to lend into a softer economy instead of getting smothered by G-SIB era rules.

The Digital and Political Subtext

The stablecoin and digital assets section is also revealing. She doesn’t frame these things as threats. She frames them as technologies banks need to be able to compete with. That’s a strategic move. It suggests the Fed isn’t trying to wall off traditional banking from new payment structures, they’re trying to bring those structures under the Fed’s umbrella before the next major shift in financial rails happens. At the same time, she goes out of her way to distance supervision from reputational risk and political pressure. That’s not about finance. That’s about protecting the Fed from becoming a political weapon as the economy slows. She’s trying to depoliticize the supervisory process before it gets dragged into the fights she can already see coming.

My Read

When you put it all together, the testimony reads less like a report on what has happened and more like preparation for what the Fed expects to happen next. They want banks willing to lend. They want smaller lenders freed up. They want mortgages flowing again. They want banks comfortable holding Treasuries. And they want fewer regulatory chokepoints that could make a slowdown worse. A regulator doesn’t talk like this in a booming economy. They talk like this when they see softness ahead and want to get the plumbing ready before the pressure hits. In my opinion Bowman is laying the groundwork for a more flexible, credit friendly regime because she knows the economy will need it.

Now available: Testimony by Vice Chair for Supervision Bowman on supervision an[...]

d regulation: https://t.co/7NdIa0EZDX

Watch testimony live tomorrow, 12/2, at 10:00 a.m. - Federal Reserve tweet