THE ATOMIQ LEVEL

Host: Chris J Snook
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Investing
  • Updated Daily

The show that rehumanizes wealth management for clients and advisors—decoding the matters of wealth one insightful conversation at a time—so you can grow and protect both your net worth and net happiness. For the advisors, investors, and families mastering business growth, estate protection, and alternative assets like Bitcoin and private deals—all while staying sane, compliant, and fulfilled. The mission: NetWorth + Net Happiness rising together as we navigate the next world order. www.wealthmatterstome.com

  1. 1d ago

    What If Your “Guaranteed” Money Isn’t? The Hidden Insurance Risk That Could Cost Your Family Millions

    Rod Dubitsky’s first day on Wall Street was October 19, 1987. If you know the date, you already know the punch line. Black Monday. He had just finished his MBA at Duke and joined the mortgage-backed securities trading desk at Bank of Boston. He spent years learning that markets are efficient, capital is rational, and sophisticated institutions are sophisticated for a reason. Then his first day at work coincides with what was, at the time, the largest one-day percentage collapse in modern U.S. stock-market history. That is one hell of an orientation program. Rod told me that experience immediately started reshaping the way he thought about capitalism and financial markets. It wasn’t that markets did not work. It was that markets could work extraordinarily well right up until incentives, leverage, liquidity, and human behavior caused the machinery to behave in ways the textbooks had not prepared you for. Then his career kept putting him in the room when the machinery malfunctioned. After briefly relocating to Los Angeles—where he crashed on a friend’s couch, played the horses to help make rent and did some acting at night—he decided an MBA probably ought to produce something resembling a conventional job. He landed at the Federal Home Loan Bank in the middle of the savings-and-loan crisis. From there he became chief investment officer of an S&L that actually survived the period intact, managed mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds for Bank of America, and eventually moved to Moody’s. That is where the story starts becoming particularly relevant to what he sees today. At Moody’s, Rod worked around mortgage securitizations and watched lower-rated mortgage assets get bundled into new securities. In one part of the organization, junk and near-junk mortgage bonds might support something in the BB or BBB range. Then another product emerged—the asset-backed CDO—where similar underlying risks could be transformed through financial engineering into securities carrying AAA ratings. Rod remembers looking at that process and asking the question that sounds almost embarrassingly obvious in hindsight: How are we getting AAA out of this? That question eventually followed him to Credit Suisse. By the mid-2000s, his research platform was tracking the deterioration in mortgage underwriting: no-income/no-asset loans, silent second liens, option ARMs and many of the structures the rest of the world would learn about only after they became toxic vocabulary. He wasn’t watching The Big Short. He knew some of the people who became characters in it. And when his research told him the rating agencies were badly behind reality, he said so publicly. Rod recalls publishing work arguing that roughly 90% of a group of subprime bonds deserved downgrades at a time when only about 3% had been downgraded. Bloomberg picked it up. Shortly thereafter, S&P began downgrading hundreds of mortgage securities, disrupting the origination machine that depended on those ratings. This matters because anybody can tell you after a crisis that leverage was too high. Rod’s professional biography is mostly a story of repeatedly finding himself inside the plumbing before the pipe bursts. * Black Monday. * The savings-and-loan crisis. * Mortgage securitization. * The rating agencies. * The subprime buildup. * The Global Financial Crisis. * Post-crisis advisory work with major governments and central banks. Then, in an almost absurd career pivot, nearly a decade working in global development in places such as South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Myanmar before returning to his analytical roots and building The People’s Economist alongside an independent investigative-journalism practice. So when Rod Dubitsky tells me he thinks another structure deserves scrutiny, I didn’t automatically conclude that he is right. But I definitely paid attention with both ears. And this time, the structure is much closer to your kitchen table than most people realize. It sits inside the insurance industry. It connects annuity premiums, life-insurance reserves, private credit, collateralized loan obligations, private-equity ownership, offshore reinsurance and—now increasingly—some of the capital being mobilized around the enormous AI infrastructure buildout. Which brings us to the question I kept coming back to during our ATOMIQ LEVEL Episode 60 conversation: If your retirement income or your family’s death benefit depends on an insurance company making good on a promise twenty years from now, how much do you actually know about the company making the promise? Connect With Rod Dubitsky Rod publishes investigative financial work on Substack and through The People’s Economist / TPE Hub. Part of what makes his work useful is that he is willing to go where most financial commentary does not: statutory insurance filings, ownership structures, affiliated transactions, and the footnotes underneath the headline. Near the end of our conversation, I encouraged listeners to follow and subscribe because this kind of pattern recognition is difficult to manufacture. Rod spent decades inside the institutions and products he now analyzes independently. Subscribe to Rod on Substack → Click Here The People’s Economist / TPE Hub https://www.tpehub.com/ Disclaimer: This article is educational and is not individualized investment, insurance, legal, or tax advice. Life insurance and annuity contracts can be highly specific. State guaranty-association rules vary. Replacing, surrendering, exchanging or borrowing against an existing policy can produce surrender charges, tax consequences, loss of guarantees or new underwriting requirements. The goal here is not to make you afraid of insurance. It is to make you a more informed owner of it. Because if you have spent your life building wealth, the word guaranteed should not end your due diligence. It should begin it. Five Things to Do Before You Continue 1. Hit the ❤️. It helps signal that this kind of independent, long-form work deserves to stay in your feed instead of being buried under whatever the algorithm decided you were supposed to care about today. 2. Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody in your network owns an annuity or a meaningful life-insurance policy and has probably never once thought about the insurer’s balance sheet. You may be the reason they do. 3. Hit 📤 share. Text it. Email it. Send it to the advisor, parent, business partner, or family member who needs to see it. Information is only valuable when it reaches somebody in time to use it. 4. Drop a comment. Tell me what this makes you want to investigate in your own financial architecture. I read the comments because the collective intelligence underneath these conversations is often as valuable as the interview itself. 5. Subscribe. Wealth Matters is reader-supported and independent by design. I love doing this in service of the people who value what I, my collaborators, and my guests are trying to build here. Thanks for subscribing, upgrading, and engaging each and every time. The Product You Bought Is Not the Asset That Backs It This is the mental shift I want you to make first. When somebody buys an annuity, they tend to focus on the annuity. * What is the rate? * What is the cap? * What is the participation rate? * What income does the rider produce? * How long is the surrender schedule? * When does income begin? Those are legitimate questions. But the annuity is a liability on somebody else’s balance sheet. Likewise, when you buy life insurance, you think about the death benefit, premium, cash value, or estate-planning purpose. The insurance company thinks about something else too: How do we invest the money backing that liability? That is where the research accompanying my conversation with Rod becomes difficult to ignore. My research estimates that U.S. life insurers held approximately $807 billion in private and illiquid credit at year-end 2025, representing about 20% of the industry’s roughly $4 trillion fixed-income portfolio. That was up from approximately $685 billion only one year earlier. U.S. insurers also held $276.8 billion of CLOs at year-end 2024, with life insurers accounting for roughly 82% of that total. Put differently, the safe-looking product sitting in your retirement plan may be connected several layers downstream to assets that look nothing like the brochure. That does not make the product bad. It means there is a second layer of analysis. What is behind the promise? How Insurance Became One of Private Credit’s Most Important Sources of Fuel The relationship between large alternative-asset managers and insurance companies did not emerge by accident. It is strategically elegant. Insurance companies need long-duration assets to support long-duration liabilities. Private-credit managers need large, stable pools of capital. Annuity customers provide capital that may remain inside the insurance system for years or decades. That makes insurance extraordinarily valuable to an asset manager. The supplemental research estimates that insurance capital now provides roughly 43% of credit assets under management at the seven largest alternative managers, compared with 32% in 2021. It also estimates that private-equity-backed carriers have grown from less than 20% of the fixed-indexed-annuity market a decade ago to roughly 37%–40% today. The ownership map now includes relationships such as Apollo and Athene, KKR and Global Atlantic, Carlyle and Fortitude Re, Blackstone-managed insurance platforms and Ares-backed Aspida. The research describes a broader model in which the alternative manager, insurer and potentially an affiliated reinsurer become economically connected. Again, I am deliberately resisting the easy headline. Private-equity ownership does not automatically make an insurer unsafe. Private credit does not automatically mean bad credit. Sophisticated asset management can improve investment capabilit

  2. 4d ago

    The Middle-Class Millionaire Has a Bullseye Problem

    I went to Scottsdale thinking I was going to spend a few days around investors. I did, but I came home thinking about lawsuits. That was not exactly the souvenir I expected from the Limitless Expo 2026 Conference. The conference was tremendous overall. There were roughly 2,500 people there, many of them with seven figures or more in assets. The conversations were what you would expect: real estate, investing, entrepreneurship, capital allocation, taxes, and opportunity. Then one talking point in a session put on by the Asset Protection Council grabbed me by the collar: Litigation as an emergent asset class. Not litigation as an unfortunate byproduct of doing business. Not litigation as something lawyers deal with after two parties stop getting along. Litigation as something capital allocators are actually funding at a double-digit compound annual growth rate (CAGR). In the discussion I brought back to Matt Meuli for our latest Shields & Succession / Matt Chats session, I referenced figures I had been reviewing that put organized litigation-finance capital well into the billions, with significant growth over the past decade. The simple observation bothered me more than the precise number: When professional capital discovers that lawsuits can generate attractive returns, somebody on the other side of those lawsuits becomes the underlying opportunity. If you have spent twenty or thirty years doing what Wealth Matters readers are supposed to do—building businesses, buying real estate, accumulating securities, owning intellectual property, saving money and creating something worth passing on—you have also done something else. You have created something worth pursuing. That is the part of wealth accumulation we don’t celebrate on social media. It is also one of many reasons why, for more than 8 years, I have had a very small social media presence outside of this newsletter and LinkedIn. The bigger your balance sheet becomes, the larger the potential target can become with it, and those who have been broadcasting their wealth or the illusion of it on social will likely find out the hard way, based upon this data, that the dopamine hit from random followers isn’t worth the cost. Matt put it more simply during our conversation. When you have very little, you can be functionally judgment-proof because there is very little to collect. As assets accumulate, that equation changes. The bullseye can get larger with the balance sheet. At that point, becoming judgment-proof is all about architecture, design, and proper maintenance. That led us into one of the most practical conversations we have had yet about what protecting wealth actually means. Not hiding it. Not cheating creditors. Not putting nineteen LLCs on a cocktail napkin because somebody on YouTube told you Wyoming is magical. Building an architecture before you need it. If You Want to Talk With Matt Matt Meuli is an attorney. He is not necessarily your attorney, and this article is educational—not legal advice. For Colorado residents seeking representation, Call 970-820-0090. For asset-protection inquiries through the Wyoming office, call 307-463-3600. Matt also made the point that listeners are welcome to use these discussions simply as education and take the questions back to their own counsel. Disclaimer: Matt is a licensed attorney, but he is not yet your attorney, so anything you learn or hear in this article or broadcast should not be considered legal advice and is for entertainment and information purposes only. TL:DR Summary The biggest lesson from this conversation is that asset protection should not begin when somebody threatens to sue you. By then, many of your best options may already be compromised. Start by knowing what you actually own and what it is worth. Then understand the risks attached to each asset. Build the estate plan. Size the insurance correctly. Decide what should be separated from what. Determine who quarterbacks your advisors. Only then should you layer more sophisticated asset-protection structures around the wealth that warrants them. Privacy and asset protection are related, but they are not the same thing. Your CPA, RIA, insurance professional, banker, and attorney may each be excellent at their individual jobs while still producing a terrible family architecture if nobody coordinates them. The $2 million to $30 million family may be one of the most underserved groups in wealth management: wealthy enough to suffer a catastrophic loss, but historically not wealthy enough to justify a traditional family office. Perhaps most importantly, asset protection works best when there are nothing but blue skies on the horizon. That is when you build the roof—not after it starts raining. Five favors before you continue. * Hit the ❤️. The algorithm is a validation machine that needs your cheap dopamine to keep us in the top of your feed. * Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody’s life will change passively today, and you can get the credit for bringing it to them from both of us. * Hit 📤 share. You know exactly one person in your email list or text stream who needs something on their playlist or reading wire today. * Drop a comment. Have you been sued frivolously? Are you concerned about your attack vectors? I read every comment, and I reply to the ones that make me laugh, make me think, or make me money. Preferably all three. * Subscribe. Upgrade for the year for under 16 cents per day or monthly for $1/day and receive access to the full Shields & Succession Playbooks and more. This newsletter and podcast are 100% reader/listener supported. I appreciate your attention and want to serve you at the highest level to get into action on these topics and not just be informed. The Part Nobody Tells You About Getting Richer We spend most of our financial lives solving for accumulation. We want to make more, save more, own more, invest better, compound longer, reduce taxes legally, and avoid panicking when everybody else panics. All of that is good advice. But somewhere along the road from having very little to having something meaningful, your problem changes. Accumulation is no longer the only objective. Retention becomes an objective. That transition probably happens earlier than most people realize. During this conversation, I described what I increasingly think of as the middle-class millionaire. This is the family with perhaps $2 million, $5 million, $10 million, or $20 million of net worth. They have won by almost any historical standard, but they frequently do not feel rich. A meaningful percentage of their wealth might be tied up in the company they built, several rental properties, retirement accounts, brokerage assets, insurance, perhaps some crypto and a home whose value increased far beyond what they ever expected. They do not have a private bank with twelve people sitting around a mahogany table every Monday morning. They may have a financial advisor, a CPA, an insurance professional, an attorney they called five years ago to create a revocable living trust and perhaps a banker. The problem is that none of those people necessarily know one another. That family is wealthy enough to have complicated problems but may not yet have the coordinated machinery traditionally available to the ultra-wealthy. I called that a financial desert. Matt’s observation was even sharper. Protecting $10 million matters much more to the family whose entire financial life might be worth $10 million than it does to somebody worth several hundred million or several billion. For that first family, losing $10 million isn’t a bad quarter. It’s everything. That is why I think the family-office model is moving downstream. AI and software are making institutional-quality coordination less expensive. Expertise can increasingly be delivered virtually. The administrative cost of organizing a family’s financial life should continue to fall. The historical question was: Am I rich enough to have a family office? The better question may become: Am I wealthy enough that continuing without coordinated family-office architecture has become irresponsible? A Word About Our Ecosystem Brand Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remote should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. If you want to remove the compliance headache and potential direct risk of HR lawsuits, then having a provider like PEBL that can serve as the Employer of Record is a great move. Hiring abroad or remotely can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 a month per employee—already a no-brainer for what you get—but right now there is a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. Privacy Is a Responsibility. Protection Is an Architecture. One of my favorite lines from Matt came during our discussion about public visibility: “Privacy may be a right, but it’s also a responsibility.” It is hard to spend your life broadcasting every asset you own, every property you bought, every car you drive, every investment you made, and every success your company has had, and then complain that people know you have money. The social-media economy changed this calculation. You no longer have to be Taylor Swift to have public visibility. A college athlete can monetize a personal brand. A dentist can build a six-figure YouTube following. A real estate investor can have 200,000 Instagram followers. A regional contractor can be

  3. Aug 20

    The Facts Are in the Footnotes

    TL:DR In ATOMIQ LEVEL EP58 — My conversation with Alexandra Damsker of The Damsker Report began with Michelangelo, detoured through an ambulance, Billy Joel, the SEC, blockchain, and the CLARITY Act, and eventually landed on something much bigger: why your ability to separate facts from feelings may be one of the most valuable assets you own. If you enjoy people who are willing to open the actual document, follow the footnotes, question the premise, and change their mind when the evidence changes, then Alexandra Damsker and The Damsker Report on Substack are a great resource. That is where Alexandra writes about markets, financial regulation, emerging technology, blockchain, AI, capital formation, and the underlying facts she believes investors should understand before somebody hands them an interpretation. Disclaimer: This conversation and article are for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing here should be interpreted as individualized investment, legal, tax, or financial advice. For Those Who Read Before They Press Play Alexandra Damsker is difficult to put in a conventional box. She is a lawyer, a Series 65 holder, a former SEC attorney, an entrepreneur who has built businesses, a former university art-history instructor, an early blockchain participant, and now the mind behind The Damsker Report. But the credentials are less interesting than the operating system underneath them. What I took away from nearly two hours together is this: * Knowing what you should not do can be as valuable as knowing what you should do. * Trust is not a substitute for verification—especially where your money is concerned. * Good regulation requires understanding how the thing being regulated actually works. * Financial literacy without financial access is incomplete. * Regulation should create gates people can learn to walk through, not permanent walls. * Ownership—not merely employment or income—is central to upward mobility in an increasingly automated economy. * Facts and feelings can coexist, but confusing one for the other is dangerous. * The people willing to change their minds may ultimately see more clearly than the people most certain they already understand everything. And maybe the most important one: You cannot make a good decision from a faulty premise. That sentence could apply to your portfolio. Your business. Your politics. Your health. Your relationships. Your estate plan. Your view of AI. Your view of Bitcoin. Your view of America. Or the story you have been telling yourself about your own life. That is why this conversation stayed with me. A Word From August’s Ecosystem Brand Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remote should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. Hiring abroad or remote can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 a month per employee — already a no-brainer for what you get — but right now there’s a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. It Started With Something Michelangelo Broke There is a moment early in my conversation with Alexandra Damsker that, in hindsight, contains almost the entire episode. She is in Florence. She is near Brunelleschi’s Duomo. She is trying to escape one of those flag-following packs of tourists that can somehow transform a centuries-old masterpiece into a human traffic jam. So she ducks into the museum associated with the cathedral. Inside are centuries of gifts, religious objects and artifacts—reliquaries among them, those beautiful containers that can hold something as strange and intimate as the bone of a saint. Then she comes upon a sculpture. It is one of Michelangelo’s Pietàs, his late Florentine work, damaged by Michelangelo himself and later reassembled. Alexandra stands in front of it and sees something profoundly human in the figures. Not theology as abstraction. Grief. Flesh. A mother. A man. Mortality. A lot of people encounter genius and become inspired to imitate it. Alexandra had the opposite reaction. She looked at the sculpture and essentially thought: I see how great this is. I see the beauty. I also know I cannot do this. So she stopped trying to make art her field. I loved that. Because we spend an extraordinary amount of time in the self-improvement world telling people to persevere. Push through. Try harder. Believe in yourself. Never quit. There are times when that is exactly the right advice. There are also times when it is expensive nonsense. One of the highest-return skills in life may be developing enough self-awareness to distinguish between something difficult because mastery requires work and something difficult because you are playing the wrong game. Alexandra did not look at Michelangelo and conclude she was inadequate. She recognized excellence and then recognized herself. Those are different things. Knowing what is not yours to become can save years of your life. That was our first real clue about how Alexandra thinks. She does not seem particularly interested in protecting the story she has already told herself. She wants to know what is there. Then she adjusts. That turns out to be important later when we get to securities law, blockchain, markets and regulation. But before any of that, there was another failed career. This one involved considerably more blood. The 16-Year-Old College Student Who Was Supposed to Become a Doctor Alexandra started college at sixteen. Not because she had some carefully designed Tiger Mom plan to become the youngest partner at a law firm or launch a hedge fund before she could legally drink. Her explanation was much less polished. She hated school. Her family moved frequently. By eleventh grade, she had already changed schools multiple times; another move was coming, and she essentially decided she was finished. She applied to several large in-state universities. She got in. So she left home and never looked back. She described herself as independent from the beginning, but she also gave one of the most thoughtful descriptions I have heard of what can happen when one form of development races ahead of another. A teenager may have unusual intellectual capacity while still being sixteen emotionally. An athlete can possess a professional body before having a professional’s experience. A founder can possess extraordinary technical intelligence while being socially immature. A young investor can understand derivatives while knowing almost nothing about loss. We like to compress people into labels—gifted, talented, mature, genius—but human development does not occur on a synchronized spreadsheet. Alexandra argued that education makes a similar mistake. We group people by age and march them through standardized grades when one child may be years ahead in one subject and years behind in another. Her preference is much closer to mastery: learn the thing, then move to the next thing. That idea matters well beyond education. The portfolios we build, businesses we own, and lives we design also do not mature evenly. * You can have a $20 million balance sheet and the financial literacy of someone with $20,000. * You can have a thriving business and an estate plan that hasn’t been touched in twelve years. * You can be brilliant at creating income and terrible at converting income into ownership. * You can be technologically sophisticated and emotionally vulnerable to every market narrative that confirms what you already believe. Net worth has grades. Net happiness does too. Neither necessarily corresponds to your age. Alexandra thought medicine would be her path. She earned a biology degree, took advanced science courses, and prepared accordingly. Then someone suggested the obvious test: Before committing your life to medicine, why don’t you become an EMT and see whether you actually like doing medicine? Great advice. Her training went fine. The first ambulance run went fine. The second did not. They arrived at an automobile accident. The injured man had apparently struck the windshield violently. Alexandra looked at him and blurted out something to the effect of: “I think I see brain!” The working EMT told her to stop talking and take the man’s vitals. Alexandra’s response was essentially: I’m not touching that. Could she at least check for a pulse? Nope. Too gross. They eventually put her in the front of the ambulance, delivered the patient to the hospital, returned her to the fire station, and advised her to talk with her academic advisor. The next day she did. “I don’t think I can be a doctor.” A professor happened to pass by, recognized her from a large freshman class, and gave her an alternative. “You should be a lawyer.” She took the LSAT. Did well. Went to law school. Career pivot accomplished. No five-year vision board. No childhood manifesto. No heroic mythology created after the fact. Just evidence>update>move. I find that refreshing. We have turned the phrase follow your passion into a cultural cliché when much of adult life works more like Bayesian updating. Try something. Observe reality. Learn something about yourself. Adjust the probabilities. Make another decision. Alexandra told me she never really had the grand design. Her basic philosophy was closer to: We’ll see what happens. That openness could sound accidental until you notice how much work she does to understand the evidence once something does happen. Four favors before you go. * Hit the

  4. Aug 14

    The GenXer's Guide to Avoiding the 4x Rise in Boomer Financial Abuse

    Connect With Matt Meuli This article is paired with our weekly Shields & Succession / Ask Matt Anything Office Hours with an estate planning attorney Matt Meuli on ATOMIQ LEVEL. As always, this conversation is educational. Matt is an attorney, but he is not automatically your attorney because you listen to this episode, read this article, or join the office hours. Nothing in this piece should be treated as individualized legal, tax, investment, financial, or fiduciary advice. The point is to give you better questions, better language, and better conversation starters for your own counsel, advisors, fiduciaries, and family. * Colorado residents can call 970-820-0090. * Residents from all 50 states who want to discuss Wyoming asset protection strategies, trust planning, and related preventive structures can call 307-463-3600. You will talk to a human, and if the issue is outside Matt’s practice area, the team can help direct traffic toward a more appropriate referral source. Disclaimer: Matt is an attorney but isn’t acting as your attorney in this article or AMA, so none of this should be construed as legal advice and is for educational purposes only. The Crisis Usually Starts Before the Crisis The hardest part about elder financial abuse is that it usually does not announce itself as elder financial abuse. It shows up first as friction. A weird withdrawal. A missing bank statement. A new person on an account. A parent who suddenly cannot explain why they needed cash. A caregiver who now seems to be managing the phone. A spouse who looks ten years older than they did six months ago. A parent who remembers childhood in vivid color but cannot remember what happened yesterday. A ring that is no longer in the drawer. A golf group that quietly stopped happening. A bank employee who asks a question nobody in the family wanted to hear. That was the center of this week’s Shields & Succession / Ask Matt Anything Office Hours. We were responding to audience questions submitted after a recent Shields & Succession piece about the financial and emotional vulnerabilities that show up before death. The questions were not theoretical. They came from the zone families dread most: that muddy, emotional, confusing period where Mom or Dad may not be legally incapacitated yet, but something is changing, someone may be taking advantage, and nobody wants to overreact until the proof is obvious. The problem is that by the time the proof is obvious, the damage may already be expensive. That is why Matt and I keep coming back to prevention. We are not doing these conversations to scare people. We are doing them because the families who get crushed are often not reckless. They are loving. They are busy. They are polite. They are conflict-avoidant. They assume the person who has been trustworthy for twenty years will remain trustworthy forever. They assume the spouse who has always handled everything will keep handling everything. They assume the parent who is still charming on the phone is still safe with checks, passwords, caregivers, bank accounts, beneficiary forms, and financial decisions. Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not. The real risk is not that every person around your parents is a predator. The real risk is that you have no system for noticing when the story changes. The Numbers Are No Longer Background Noise This topic deserves more urgency because the national data is moving in the wrong direction. The FBI’s 2025 IC3 Annual Report showed 201,266 complaints filed by people age 60 and over, up 37% from 2024, with $7.748 billion in reported losses, up 59% from 2024. The average reported loss was $38,500, and 12,444 older complainants lost more than $100,000. The FTC’s older-consumer reporting tells the same basic story from another angle. Reported fraud losses by adults age 60 and over increased roughly fourfold from about $600 million in 2020 to $2.4 billion in 2024, with much of the increase driven by six-figure losses, including investment scams, romance scams, and impersonation schemes. The most frightening growth may be in the “move your money to keep it safe” category. FTC analysis found a more than fourfold increase since 2020 in reports from older adults who lost $10,000 or more to business or government impersonation scams. Reported losses among older adults who lost more than $100,000 to these impersonation scams increased eightfold, from $55 million in 2020 to $445 million in 2024. And even those numbers may not fully capture the size of the problem. FinCEN reported that about $27 billion in suspicious activity linked to elder financial exploitation appeared in Bank Secrecy Act reporting over one year ending in June 2023. So when we talk about putting “locks” on the family financial house, this is not paranoia. It is not fear marketing. It is not treating aging parents like children. It is recognizing that a massive transfer of wealth is underway, aging adults are a prime target, and shame, confusion, isolation, caregiver fatigue, and family silence are part of the attack surface. The point is not to make your parents afraid. The point is to make the system safer before somebody tests it. A Word About August’s Ecosystem Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remotely should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. Hiring abroad or remotely can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 per month per employee — already a no-brainer for what you get — but right now there’s a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. The Warning Signs Are Boring Before Dramatic The first audience question was simple and brutal: What are the warning signs of elder financial abuse before a parent is legally incapacitated? Matt’s answer was honest. It can be hard to know. When someone has fallen for a scam or is being manipulated, embarrassment can become part of the problem. The victim may hide it. They may not want to tell their children. They may feel ashamed. They may defend the person exploiting them because admitting the truth would mean admitting vulnerability. That is why families often discover the abuse through activity rather than confession: unexplained withdrawals, a new person on a joint bank account, creditor complaints because bills are going unpaid, abrupt changes to a power of attorney, missing property, jewelry disappearing after a caregiver or cleaning person comes through the home, or a new person isolating the parent from the children and controlling the phone. That last one matters. Isolation is often the predator’s oxygen. The predator does not always need to steal first. Sometimes they separate first. They create emotional dependency. They interrupt communication. They become the translator, helper, rescuer, gatekeeper, driver, errand-runner, bill-payer, comforter, and complaint department. By the time money moves, the relationship has already moved. This is why families cannot treat financial abuse as only a financial issue. It is emotional, relational, logistical, access-based, and often made possible by loneliness, confusion, embarrassment, caregiver overload, and the silence families maintain because nobody wants to sound accusatory. Matt also pointed to cognitive signs that are easy to explain away. Short-term memory often goes first. A parent may remember stories from childhood with perfect emotional detail while losing track of what happened yesterday. They may not know the season. They may struggle to repeat three objects later. They may be thinking in old pictures while losing the things right in front of them. That phrase stayed with me. Thinking in old pictures. It is compassionate. It is also useful, because families often misread emotional vividness as capacity. A parent can tell a beautiful story about 1958 and still be unable to manage a scam call in 2026. They can sound like themselves and still be vulnerable. They can laugh, remember, charm, and bless the grandkids while losing the ability to track account activity, new forms, unusual withdrawals, or the motives of a new person who suddenly cares a little too much. Capacity is not one switch. It is a dimmer. That makes prevention harder. It also makes prevention more necessary. The Caregiver Can Become the Second Patient One of the most important parts of the conversation was not about the elder being exploited. It was about the spouse or family member trying to protect them. I described a pattern many Gen X children will recognize. A couple in their seventies may still seem highly functional. Both are healthy enough. Both are active enough. Nobody is in crisis yet. But slowly, one spouse starts carrying more of the daily load. One spouse now owns the passwords. One spouse now handles the bank logins. One spouse now answers the doctors. One spouse now schedules the appointments. One spouse now covers for the other. One spouse now quietly absorbs the stress of keeping the household appearing normal. That may not be a red flag by itself, but it is a signal. Matt put it plainly: you can watch the caregiver age before your eyes because of the stress, extra responsibilities, and decision burden. That is one of the quiet tragedies inside aging families. The person being cared for is visibly declining. The caregiver is silently eroding. And because the caregiver is the one still “holding it together,” nobody realizes they are becoming the next vuln

  5. Aug 12

    What Comes Next for Crypto Startups and VCs Without CLARITY?

    Today’s guest is back on Substack! Alon Goren is back on Substack and re-engaging here after years of building, investing, publishing, convening, and helping shape the blockchain and crypto ecosystem through Draper Goren Blockchain, LA Blockchain Summit, Security Token Summit, and his broader work across early-stage venture, fintech, tokenization, and startup formation. In the episode, I also mentioned that Alon has a significant LinkedIn presence and publishes there as well, but Substack is where he is beginning to restart a more direct writing relationship with his audience. Pitch Alon your idea at https://dgb.vc Disclaimer: This article and conversation are educational. Nothing here should be treated as individualized investment, legal, tax, trading, venture, digital-asset, securities, banking, or regulatory advice. Crypto, blockchain, venture investing, tokenized assets, private markets, and early-stage companies all involve risk. Do your own work, understand your own time horizon, and consult qualified professionals before making decisions with real capital. A Word About August’s Ecosystem Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remotely should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. Hiring abroad or remotely as a small business or startup can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 per month per employee — already a no-brainer for what you get — but right now there’s a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. The Question Is Not Whether Blockchain Survives The title question for this conversation was supposed to be simple: What comes next for blockchain without CLARITY? But by the end of my ATOMIQ LEVEL conversation with Alon Goren, I realized that the question is much bigger than whether one bill moves through the Senate on a timeline the industry likes. The better question is: What does the venture-investable crypto economy look like when the architecture is almost visible, but the boundary lines are still being negotiated? That is the tension of this moment. The industry is no longer asking whether digital assets need rules. That debate is mostly over. The adult conversation has moved into more interesting territory: who gets regulated, what gets classified, where the economic rents land, which activities count as genuine network use, where software ends and intermediation begins, and whether policymakers can separate legitimate consumer protection from incumbent protection dressed up as virtue. That is why Alon was the right person for the conversation. He is not a tourist in this space. He is not a late-cycle commentator who discovered crypto during the last bull market and learned three acronyms from Twitter. He has been around long enough to remember when the RWA buzzword was “security token,” when Crypto Invest Summit became LA Blockchain Summit, and when the people building in this industry were still fighting to explain why the rails mattered before the institutions wanted to put their logos on them. He also has the scars of early-stage venture. That matters because the next version of blockchain will not be built by regulators. It will be built by founders. Regulators may define the field. Banks may try to defend the moat. Exchanges may fight over stablecoin economics. Politicians may posture around ethics. Agencies may argue over jurisdiction. But the next useful products, protocols, rails, marketplaces, tokenized systems, wallets, settlement layers, identity tools, AI-agent transaction networks, and new financial experiences will still come from people obsessive enough to build in the fog. That was the human story underneath the policy story. The Auto Parts Shop Behind the Venture Investor I always like to start these conversations before the resume. Where did the worldview come from? What shaped the reflexes? What did the person learn before they had language for what they were learning? With Alon, the answer started in the back of an auto parts shop. His dad had a Southern California auto parts shop, but not the kind where people simply walked in and bought a packaged replacement off a shelf. They sold starters, alternators, gearboxes, axles, and parts like that, but they also rebuilt them in the back. Someone would bring in a starter or alternator that no longer worked, and the shop would rebuild the actual thing: new bushings, bearings, solenoids, wiring, parts, labor, grease, judgment. That image stayed with me. A kid watching adults rebuild broken machinery learns something that no pitch deck can teach. * He learns that broken does not always mean worthless. * He learns that a thing can be disassembled, inspected, cleaned, repaired, rewired, reassembled, and returned to service. * He learns that there is a difference between trash and salvage. * He learns that old parts and new parts can become one functioning thing. * He learns that the work is not theoretical. * At the end of the day, either the starter starts or it does not. That is a pretty good foundation for venture capital. It is also a pretty good foundation for blockchain. Because this industry has always been full of broken parts: broken payments, broken capital formation, broken access, broken custody, broken identity, broken bank rails, broken trust, broken settlement, broken incentives, broken regulatory categories, broken liquidity pathways, broken consumer promises, broken narratives, and sometimes broken humans chasing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. The question is what can be rebuilt. Alon’s background gives him a particular sensitivity to that distinction. In the conversation, we talked about the difference between knowledge work that can feel invisible and work with your hands where a raw piece of wood, metal, or machinery becomes something tangible. He spoke about the satisfaction of making something real and the way that kind of experience teaches people that execution is the point. That is the bridge from the auto parts shop to startups. Everybody has ideas. Fewer people build. Fewer still keep building after the first version breaks. Ideas Are Cheap. Execution Is the Asset. One of the cleanest lines from the episode came when Alon described the venture mindset around ideas. Ideas are not worth that much. People get offended when you say that because their idea feels precious. They think the insight itself is the magic. They worry someone will steal it. They believe the world will reward the cleverness of the thought because it feels novel inside their own head. The startup world is less sentimental. The idea matters. But execution is what separates the person with a thought from the person who becomes dangerous. Alon put it plainly: in venture and startups, people often have ideas and get offended when someone says, “so what?” because the real question is whether they can actually do it. That is not cynicism. That is respect for reality. The builder who can turn an idea into product, product into user behavior, user behavior into a business model, business model into distribution, distribution into capital formation, and capital formation into durable enterprise value is playing a different game than the person who only wants credit for recognizing the possibility. This is why Alon and I kept circling back to the human being. At the earliest stage, the technology is usually not enough to make the decision. The category is usually not enough. The white paper is usually not enough. The pitch is usually not enough. The founder is the signal. Alon said that with Draper Goren Blockchain, they try to be the first check into a company. He described the model as something like an accelerator without the formal accelerator program because they want flexibility. It is not about writing the biggest check. It is about spending time with the companies, getting in the door early, and helping them get established. That is intimate work. You are not passively buying exposure to a ticker. You are choosing who you want to be in the foxhole with before the market has validated them. That is why Alon said something every early-stage investor should understand: You have to fall in love with these people. Not romantically. Operationally. You have to want to spend time with them. You have to believe you can help them. You have to know that when things are bad, you will still answer the phone. You have to know that when they are raising money, stressed, wrong, early, undercapitalized, misunderstood, or about to run through another brick wall, you will not resent their name appearing on your calendar. That is a very different kind of capital. Four favors before you continue. * Hit the ❤️. The algorithm is a validation machine that needs your cheap dopamine to keep us in the top of your feed. * Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody’s life will change passively today and you can get the credit for bringing it to them from both of us. * Hit 📤 share. You know exactly one person in your email list or text stream who needs something on their playlist or reading wire today. * Drop a comment. Tell me your biggest insight, your greatest challenge, your counter-argument or gap in the conversation, or a recent related triumph. I read every one, and I reply to the ones that make me laugh, make me think, or make me money. Preferably all three. The Jockey Matters More Than the Horse I asked Alon whether he is more of a jockey investor or a horse inv

  6. Aug 9

    Learning to Read the Economy Beneath the Headlines

    A Quick Note About My Featured Guest: Matthew is one of the clearest data-driven financial journalists writing today. He has worked at The Economist, Financial Times, and Barron’s, spent years studying monetary policy and the global economy, co-authored Trade Wars Are Class Wars with Michael Pettis, and built The Overshoot into a serious home for readers who want macro, markets, trade, policy, and global economic complexity explained without being flattened into partisan noise or clickbait certainty. Disclaimer: This article and conversation are educational. Nothing here should be treated as individualized investment, financial, legal, tax, trading, policy, portfolio-construction, or economic advice. The point is to sharpen your framework, not outsource your judgment. The Man Who Reads the Footnotes & Transcripts There is a certain kind of person I love talking to because they do not merely have opinions. They have method. Matthew C. Klein is one of those people. Our ATOMIQ LEVEL conversation began with a small joke about middle initials. He goes by Matt, but he uses the C. because there are enough Matt Kleins in the world to make a financial journalist need a little disambiguation. I understood immediately. The J in Chris J Snook exists for a similarly practical reason. Sometimes the branding is not vanity. Sometimes it is simply survival inside the machinery of names, search boxes, podcast feeds, bylines, email addresses, and people who talk too fast. But that little opening was useful because it gave us the right door into the conversation. Names matter because clarity matters. And clarity is what Matthew has spent his career trying to produce. He did not start with a childhood plan to become a macroeconomics writer. In college, he was interested in ancient history. There are jobs for that, as he said, but not many. Then he got an internship at a macro hedge fund in the summer of 2008, which is a little like learning to sail by being dropped onto a ship during a hurricane. That timing mattered. The global financial crisis was not just an interesting puzzle. It was not merely a way to make money or a dramatic chapter in market history. It showed him that when economics and finance go wrong, real people get hurt. And when policymakers, investors, journalists, and citizens understand the system better, outcomes can be better. That is a very different motivation than wanting to be right on the internet. Matthew wanted to explain. He encountered Martin Wolf’s work at the Financial Times and thought, “This is what I want to do”. That became a kind of lodestar. Not a perfectly replicable career path, because the career paths of serious writers rarely come in a neat franchise model, but a directional pull. He wanted to make sense of the economy in public. Before he got to the journalism jobs that would put his byline in recognizable places, he worked as a research assistant for Sebastian Mallaby on a biography of Alan Greenspan. One of his jobs was to read every single FOMC transcript from Greenspan’s time as chairman — roughly eighteen years of material. That took about eleven months. On the surface, that sounds like a punishment. In reality, it may have been one of the better apprenticeships a macro writer could receive. Because when you read the transcripts, you are not just reading policy. You are reading how people in power talked to one another before and after they knew the record would be public. You are watching the difference between the polished public narrative and the messier private deliberation. You are seeing what people thought they knew, what they missed, what they feared, what they joked about, what they avoided, and how the language changed once the participants understood that history would eventually read over their shoulders. That is where ancient history and modern macro begin to rhyme. Ancient History With More Data The ancient-history thread was not a gimmick in this conversation. It was the key to understanding Matthew’s operating system. He made the point that ancient history forces you to work with imperfect sources. You may be able to read every surviving document from a given period and still not really know what happened. Different historians can read the same fragments and produce different interpretations. They must decide what is trustworthy, what is incomplete, what is biased, what is missing, and how to synthesize limited evidence into a coherent explanation. That is not so different from global macro. The modern economy gives us far more data than ancient history ever could. But more data does not automatically mean more truth. It can mean more noise. It can mean more revisions. It can mean methodological issues. It can mean unreliable narrators with spreadsheets. It can mean multiple reasonable interpretations of the same inflation print, employment report, current-account balance, investment trend, or policy statement. The question is not only: What does the data say? The better question is: What story can this data honestly support, and what story are we forcing onto it because we want the answer to be simple? That is the kind of question Matthew asks. He is not primarily a scoop journalist. He is not the reporter who gets someone powerful to whisper what they will not say publicly. He is not the correspondent flying to a remote location to witness something nobody else can see. Those forms of journalism matter. He respects them. But that is not his lane. His lane is looking at public data and asking: * Is that weird? * Why is this happening? * How do these pieces fit together? * What do these numbers actually mean? * What are people missing because they do not know how the sausage gets made? That is not less valuable because the data is public. In a world drowning in public information, the person who can interpret public information with discipline becomes more valuable, not less. A Word From August’s Ecosystem Brand Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remote should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. Hiring abroad or remote can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 a month per employee — already a no-brainer for what you get — but right now there’s a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. The Explaining Role After the hedge fund internship, the financial crisis, the Martin Wolf lodestar, and the Greenspan transcript apprenticeship, Matthew eventually moved into journalism. He worked at the Financial Times and Barron’s. He also had an internship at The Economist, where the editorial process helped teach him the discipline of writing clearly inside a defined voice. That part of the conversation mattered to me because it showed the craft behind the clarity. The Economist is famous for having a voice that feels consistent across the magazine, even though many people write it. That is not an accident. It is the product of layers of editing, a house style, and a ruthless commitment to making complicated things legible. Matthew described it as useful training. You learn how to write in the style. You learn how to get edited less. You learn that writing, like any discipline, improves with practice. His wife, he joked, would say some of the earlier pieces were not very good. Good. That is how it should be. The writer who thinks he arrived fully formed is usually unbearable. The writer who has been edited hard, forced to clarify, forced to rewrite, forced to learn where his own sentence gets in the way of the point, and then keeps going anyway is usually the one worth reading. By the time Matthew started The Overshoot in July 2021 after leaving Barron’s, he had already accumulated the kind of training that makes independence possible: market exposure, historical curiosity, policy research, journalistic discipline, data fluency, and an instinct for asking questions that matter more than they first appear. He did not leave Barron’s because he hated his editors. He said Barron’s was great. The moment was more opportunistic. In 2020 and 2021, many established journalists were leaving traditional publications and doing well independently. Matthew looked at the gap between what he was doing and what the best independent writers were doing and decided that even an intermediate outcome might be worth the attempt. He talked to trusted friends. They told him to try it for a year. If it did not work, he could likely find another job. It worked. That is one of the quieter lessons of the episode. Sometimes the leap is not romantic. Sometimes it is simply rational. Four favors before you go. * Hit the ❤️. The algorithm is a validation machine that needs your cheap dopamine to keep us in the top of your feed. * Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody’s life will change passively today and you can get the credit for bringing it to them from both of us. * Hit 📤 share. You know exactly one person in your email list or text stream who needs something on their playlist or reading wire today. * Drop a comment. Tell me your biggest insight, your greatest challenge, your counter-argument or gap in the conversation, or a recent related triumph. I read every one, and I reply to the ones that make me laugh, make me think, or make me money. Preferably all three. The Overshoot as a Thinking Room What Matthew has built with The Overshoot is not mass-market macro candy. That is a complimen

  7. Aug 7

    An Estate Tax Exemption Is Not A Plan

    A Quick Note About Office Hours This episode was part of our weekly Shields & Succession / Ask Matt Anything office hours with Matt Meuli. We do them each Wednesday. Matt is an attorney operating in Wyoming and Colorado with networks in other states. As we always say at the beginning of these sessions, Matt may or may not be your attorney yet. If he is not your attorney, this is not legal advice. This is educational content, a set of conversation starters, and a reason to take your own plan seriously with qualified counsel who understands your facts, your family, your entities, your state, your objectives, and your risk profile. Human beings answer the phone. Colorado residents can call 970-820-0090. For advanced architecture strategies, holding companies, Wyoming Asset Protection Trust planning, and small-business-owner planning across the 50 states, call 307-463-3600. The Most Expensive Plan Is the One Nobody Can Use The most dangerous estate plan is not always the one with the wrong tax strategy. Sometimes it is the plan that looks brilliant on paper and fails in real life because nobody knows where it is, what it means, who has authority, how the assets are owned, what the documents allow, which advisor to call, what the passwords are, how the business works, or why the plan was designed that way in the first place. That was the real center of this week’s Shields & Succession Office Hours with Matt Meuli. Yes, we talked about estate taxes. Yes, we talked about step-up in basis. Yes, we talked about probate. Yes, we talked about trusts, business valuation, installment sales, liquidity, long-term care, medical costs, creditor exposure, attorney-client privilege, Certificates of Trust, discoverability, public AI tools, family meetings, children, entitlement, prenups, and why closely held businesses are usually the most complicated asset to transfer. But underneath all of that was a simpler and more uncomfortable truth: A family does not lose wealth only because the tax plan failed.A family loses wealth because the human system around the assets was never built. That sentence is the reason Shields & Succession exists. Most families still treat estate planning like a document project. They think the job is to get the will, get the trust, get the powers of attorney, sign the binder, put the binder on a shelf, and then feel better because they did “the responsible thing.” That is better than doing nothing. It is not enough. Because a document is not a succession system. A trust is not a family governance strategy. A tax exemption is not an ownership plan. A beneficiary designation is not a continuity plan. A will is not a liquidity strategy. And a family meeting is not a one-time lecture before Thanksgiving dinner. The work is deeper than that. A Word About August’s Ecosystem Brand Partner Before we get into this topic further, I want to thank one of our Wealth Matters 3.0 ecosystem brand partners and Wealth CMDR PRO Subscribers: PEBL. PEBL is a company I personally use across my own portfolio companies and personal strategy because hiring abroad or remote should not require founders, operators, family offices, or distributed teams to spend months building employment infrastructure before they can bring great people into the business. Hiring abroad or remotely can take months when you do it on your own, but with PEBL you can hire in over 185 countries in minutes and have your new hire onboarded by Monday. PEBL is normally $399 per month per employee — already a no-brainer for what you get — but right now there’s a limited-time offer on their site that makes it even easier to get started. Go to hipebl.ai. Terms and conditions apply. The Great Wealth Transfer Is a Responsibility Transfer Matt had just returned from a conference in Denver with several hundred lawyers talking about the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. His biggest takeaway was not merely the size of the numbers. It was the responsibility attached to those numbers. That matters. We can throw around phrases like $124 trillion, $5 trillion a year, and “the greatest wealth transfer in human history” until the words become anesthetic. A trillion here. A trillion there. Eventually the scale becomes so large that it stops feeling personal. But it is personal. It is your parents. Your spouse. Your children. Your business. Your home. Your trust. Your IRA. Your real estate. Your operating company. Your digital assets. Your values. Your liabilities. Your advisor relationships. Your passwords. Your health costs. Your family conflicts. Your successor’s lack of preparation. Your spouse’s moment of grief. Your children’s first fight after the funeral. That is why Matt’s conference takeaway was so practical: families need to start sitting down and talking. Not once. Not as a deathbed data dump. Not after the stroke, the diagnosis, the dementia, the fall, the second marriage, the liquidity crisis, or the creditor event. Start now. Matt framed it as stewardship. The wealth owner should start meeting with the children and discussing what exists, how it is owned, why it is structured that way, how the assets are invested, whether the investments align with family values, and what philosophy or vision should continue after the transfer. That is the word people skip. Philosophy. Most heirs are not merely receiving assets. They are inheriting a philosophy, whether the founder names it or not. If the philosophy is never explained, the assets become objects. They get fought over, sold too early, mismanaged, consumed, neglected, or interpreted through the emotional residue of family relationships. If the philosophy is explained over time, the assets can become a continuation of stewardship. That is a very different inheritance. Four favors before you continue. * Hit the ❤️. The algorithm is a validation machine that needs your cheap dopamine to keep us in the top of your feed. * Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody’s life will change passively today, and you can get the credit for bringing it to them from both of us. * Hit 📤 share. You know exactly one person in your email list or text stream who needs something on their playlist or reading wire today. * Drop a comment. Tell me your biggest insight, your greatest challenge, your counter-argument or gap in the conversation, or a recent related triumph. I read every one, and I reply to the ones that make me laugh, make me think, or make me money. Preferably all three. The Money Moves Sideways Before It Moves Down The conversation was partly prompted by questions that came in after a piece I wrote with Ben Reinberg | Alliance Fund on the Great Rotation. (see embed below) One of the points in that work is that wealth often moves horizontally before it moves down. It does not always go directly from Mom and Dad to the children. It may move to the surviving spouse first. Then it may be re-underwritten by that spouse. Then it may move to children. Then it may move into trusts, charities, businesses, new marriages, new advisors, new jurisdictions, or new conflicts. At each step, the asset base can be protected, clarified, and strengthened. Or it can leak. It can be confiscated. It can be taxed inefficiently. It can be lost through medical costs. It can be exposed to creditors. It can be misvalued. It can be misunderstood. It can be forced into a sale. It can be destroyed because the family conversation never happened and the plan did not support everyone’s assumptions. That is the part most people miss. The transfer is not one event. It is a sequence. And every sequence has failure points. This is why the estate tax conversation can be so misleading. Families focus on the visible cliff and miss the hidden erosion. They think, “We handled estate taxes,” and assume the plan is done. It is not done. It has barely begun. The Estate Tax Is Not the Only Leak One audience question cut right to the point: If a family has already planned properly for estate taxes, what are the other risks that can still destroy family wealth? Matt’s answer was important because it reframed the entire planning hierarchy. Estate tax matters. At the time of this conversation, Matt referenced a federal estate-tax exemption level of roughly $15 million before estate tax becomes payable. That number can make many families feel like estate tax is not their primary problem. But the fact that estate tax may not be your problem does not mean you do not have a problem. Income taxes can be a problem. Capital gains can be a problem. Step-up in basis can be a problem if the planning accidentally gives away the wrong asset in the wrong way at the wrong time. IRA taxation can be a problem because inherited retirement accounts can create a meaningful tax burden as distributions are taken over the required period. Medical expenses can be a problem. Long-term care can be a problem. Dementia and Alzheimer’s can be a problem because Medicare may not cover the kind of long-term custodial care that can last years. Liability can be a problem. A car accident can be a problem. A lawsuit can be a problem. A creditor can be a problem. A predator can be a problem. Matt explained that gifting appreciated property during life can pass the giver’s basis to the recipient, while receiving certain assets at death may allow a step-up in basis to fair market value at date of death, potentially erasing a lot of built-in gain. He also pointed to inherited IRAs as a place where income-tax consequences can erode what beneficiaries receive. Then he went to medical and long-term care costs. He described families paying upward of $15,000 a month to care for parents and noted that long-term memory care can last for years, especially when the body remains relatively healthy while the mind is gone. That is not an estate-tax issue. That is a real-life issue. And real life is where most plans break. Where There Is a Will, There Is a Probate T

  8. Aug 6

    The Economy Is Too Strong for Its Own Good

    A Quick Note About My Featured Guest: Danny writes thoughtful macro work, publishes a weekly Sunday playbook, and hosts an active community where subscribers can engage around short-term market dynamics, macro frameworks, trading observations, and the forces shaping this very strange economic moment. If you are watching the livestream or replay on Substack, hit the subscribe button directly from the episode page. Danny specifically invited people to get in touch through Substack, join the community, and participate in the active trading chat room where short-term dynamics are discussed as they unfold. Disclaimer: This article and conversation are educational. Nothing here should be treated as individualized investment, financial, legal, tax, trading, portfolio-construction, or risk-management advice. Options, derivatives, leverage, equities, bonds, currencies, private credit, and macro trading all carry risk. Do your own work, know your own time horizon, and consult qualified professionals before making decisions with real capital. The Risk Nobody Wants to Admit The most dangerous sentence in markets is not always “everything is broken.” Sometimes it is: Everything is still working. That was the tension running underneath my ATOMIQ LEVEL conversation with Danny Dayan. Danny did not come onto the show to cosplay as a doom merchant. He did not show up with a one-chart apocalypse, a political rant dressed up as macro, or a clickbait prophecy about the exact date the system breaks. He came with a process. That is why I enjoyed the conversation. He thinks in time horizons. He thinks in risk. He thinks in the transmission between policy, markets, and the real economy. He thinks about demographics, financial conditions, derivatives, the bond market, the dollar, and the actual instruments through which an investor can express a view when the price of that expression makes sense. Most importantly, he understands that the economy can be strong and still be dangerous. That is the point many people miss. The economy does not always break because it is weak. Sometimes it breaks because policymakers allow strength to overheat into instability, asset prices to levitate into dependency, and financial conditions to remain too easy for too long. Danny thinks we might be watching a bull get loose in the metaphorical global china closet. That is a very different kind of risk. It is not the risk of obvious recession. It is the risk of pretending resilience means invincibility. Where Danny’s Lens Comes From I always like to start these conversations with the human operating system before we get into the market operating system. Where did the guest come from? What shaped the lens? What formed the reflexes? With Danny, the answer started in Montreal, Canada. He grew up as a competitive athlete, especially in tennis. He played internationally as a junior, was nationally ranked, and was on a path that might have taken him toward Division I college tennis before an injury at fourteen ended that track. That matters because the discipline stayed. Danny said something early in the conversation that revealed more than a resume ever could. In training, whatever you did today does not matter when you wake up tomorrow. You have to do the work again. That sentence is almost annoyingly true. It is also the foundation of a good investment process. Markets do not care how smart you were yesterday. They do not care how good your last call was. They do not care how much time you spent building the model, researching the trade, defending the thesis, or winning the previous set. You wake up tomorrow, and the market asks the same question again: What do you see now? Danny carried that athlete’s discipline into his education and career. He built his professional life around the intersection of macro and derivatives. He started in risk management for exotic options, advising institutional clients including pensions, endowments, hedge funds, banks, and C-suite risk leaders on complicated option portfolios and firm-level risk. He then went to the University of Chicago for his MBA, completed the CFA, lived through the education of the global financial crisis, moved onto macro trading desks, covered hedge funds on interest-rate volatility strategies, built an interest-rate platform at a broker-dealer, and later worked in the hedge fund world as a proprietary trader with his own research process, views, and portfolio. That is not a generic “finance guy with charts” background. That is a risk-first background. And when you are trying to make sense of an economy where equities can rise while yields are still high, where boomers are spending more than expected, where millennials are moving into peak productivity and family formation, where retail leverage has changed form, and where the bond market may be losing patience with policy, a risk-first lens is useful. The Intersection That Matters Within the first few minutes, Danny said his work lives at the intersection of macro and derivatives. That sentence gave me the episode. After more than fifty ATOMIQ LEVEL conversations with extraordinary investors, founders, writers, advisors, and macro thinkers, I had not spent enough time in that exact intersection. It matters because most everyday investors hear “derivatives” and immediately think 2008. * Weapons of mass destruction. * Counterparty risk. * Opaque balance sheets. * A system nobody understands until it is already on fire. That reflex is understandable. We are all scarred by the global financial crisis to some degree. But Danny made an important distinction. When he says macro and derivatives, he is not primarily saying derivatives are the hidden systemic bomb likely to take down the economy tomorrow. He is talking about how he researches the world, develops conviction, and then decides whether derivative markets give him an edge in expressing that conviction. That distinction matters for every investor, whether you trade options or have never touched one. Having an opinion is not the same as having an edge. Having a concern is not the same as having a portfolio action. Having a chart is not the same as having a trade. Having conviction is not the same as being paid properly for the risk. Danny spends most of his time researching. He is not sitting there firing off twenty trades a day for entertainment. He studies the macro economy across different time horizons. He starts with long-term structural forces like demographics, then moves into financial conditions for more immediate inflection points, then uses short-term models to identify rich or cheap expressions. Only after that does he look at the derivatives market and ask whether there is an edge in expressing the view. That is a grown-up process. And a grown-up process is what most people need more than one more hot take. Four favors before you continue * Hit the ❤️. The algorithm is a validation machine that needs your cheap dopamine to keep us at the top of your feed. * Hit the 🔄 restack. Somebody’s life will change passively today, and you can get the credit for bringing it to them from both of us. * Hit 📤 share. You know exactly one person in your email list or text stream who needs something on their playlist or reading wire today. * Drop a comment. Tell me your biggest insight, your greatest challenge, your counter-argument or gap in the conversation, or a recent related triumph. I read every one, and I reply to the ones that make me laugh, make me think, or make me money. Preferably all three. The Least Viral Work May Be the Most Important One of Danny’s strongest points was also one of the least fashionable. Demographics. He said when he posts about demographics, those are probably his least popular posts. Yet he also said demographics may be the most important work he has done. That is usually how the useful stuff works. The internet loves speed. It loves the chart that explains yesterday, the trade that explains tomorrow, the quote that makes people feel smarter in ten seconds, and the forecast that offers certainty to people who are anxious enough to pay for it. Demographics move slowly. Slow is boring. Slow is also structural. Danny’s point is that demographics do not tell you what GDP will do this year, what the market will do next week, or whether the Fed moves at the next meeting. What demographics tell you is the capacity and constraint of the economy. * How much labor is available? * Who is working? * Who is retiring? * Who is spending? * Who is saving? * Who is forming households? * Who is buying homes? * Who is entering peak productivity? * Who is leaving the labor force? Those questions do not produce easy dopamine. They produce context. Danny said he knew as far back as 2018 that this decade would be more inflationary than the prior decade because of demographics. The pandemic and stimulus turbocharged parts of the cycle, but the underlying demographic setup already pointed toward a different regime than the one investors had grown comfortable with after the global financial crisis. That is the part worth sitting with. The post-GFC decade trained people to expect low inflation, low rates, cheap capital, global labor abundance, central-bank rescues, and asset-price support without immediate inflationary consequences. That was not a law of nature. It was a regime. And regimes end. Boomers Did Not Stop Spending One of the most important demographic points Danny made was about baby boomers. Most models assume people retire and spending falls off. Danny pushed back. The basket changes. Spending does not necessarily disappear. Maybe retirees buy fewer cars tied to commuting. Maybe they spend less on certain work-related habits. Maybe the rhythms change. But healthcare, services, travel, family assistance, lifestyle, housing support for children, and other categories can keep money moving through the economy. In aggregate, Danny argued, boomers

See All (62)

About

The show that rehumanizes wealth management for clients and advisors—decoding the matters of wealth one insightful conversation at a time—so you can grow and protect both your net worth and net happiness. For the advisors, investors, and families mastering business growth, estate protection, and alternative assets like Bitcoin and private deals—all while staying sane, compliant, and fulfilled. The mission: NetWorth + Net Happiness rising together as we navigate the next world order. www.wealthmatterstome.com

Information

  • Creator
    Host: Chris J Snook
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    62
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Chris J Snook & Wealth Matters Media LLC
  • Show Website
    THE ATOMIQ LEVEL

You Might Also Like