Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Global venture capital returns are highly skewed: 62% of deals lose money, more than half lose 50–100% of invested capital, but fat-tailed outliers drive overall returns. This pattern mirrors historical whaling voyages, where payoffs were similarly variable and driven by rare outsized outcomes.

Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan Morgan Stanley
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Btw the mid-90s and 2018, 62% of global venture capital investments lost money, and more than half of the deals lost 50–100% of invested capital. Yet US VC returned ~40% higher mean wealth btw 1984 and 2020 than a parallel investment path in the S&P 500.

Does venture capital's extreme inequality in returns justify its economic role?

Core argument: Across 31,000+ global venture capital deals from the mid-1990s to 2018, 62% lost money and more than half destroyed 50–100% of invested capital, yet fat-tailed winners generate returns sufficient to offset the majority of losses.

Exhibit 8 shows in excess of 31,000 observations of returns, measured as multiples of invested capital at the beginning of the period, for global venture capital deals. These results are from the mid-1990s to 2018. 62% lost money and more than one-half of all deals lost 50 to 100% of invested capital. The offset is that the tails are much fatter than those for buyouts or public equities. Public market equivalent (PME) is generally reflected as a ratio between private equity and public market returns. A ratio above 1 reveals relative outperformance and below 1 means underperformance. Here’s an example of how PME works. Say a fund drew $200 million from its investors in January 2021 and paid out $470 million in December 2025. An investor could have invested the $200 million in the S&P 500, which returned $392 million over the same period. The PME would be 1.2 ($470/$392). For venture funds, the average over [1984-2020] was about 1.4.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Across 31,000+ global venture capital deals from the mid-1990s to 2018, 62% lost money and more than half destroyed 50–100% of invested capital, yet fat-tailed winners generate returns sufficient to offset the majority of losses.
  2. Harvard Business School professor Tom Nicholas finds venture capital return distributions mirror those of historical whaling voyages, where payoffs were determined by highly variable oil and whalebone yields — confirming that extreme skewness in risk capital is a durable structural feature, not a modern anomaly.

Related Articles:

AI Summary. US government bond yields have returned to near two-decade highs despite a buyback program targeting long-dated debt, indicating that investor concern over rising government borrowing remains unresolved.

Michael MacKenzie and Alice Gledhill Bloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The 30-year yield rose ~7bps to as much as 5.27%, and the 10-year yield hit 4.71%, erasing “almost all” the gains that followed Treasury’s surprise decision to increase buybacks of longer-dated bonds.

Does government debt buyback activity actually reduce long-term borrowing costs?

Core argument: The 30-year Treasury yield surged 7 basis points to 5.27%, erasing virtually all gains from the Treasury’s surprise buyback announcement and signaling the intervention failed to calm investor concerns over fiscal sustainability.

US Treasuries erased almost all of the gains that followed the Trump administration’s surprise decision to increase buybacks of longer-dated bonds, signaling the move has done little to alleviate the angst about the surging government debt that has pushed some yields to the highest in close to two decades. The 30-year yield on Thursday rose over seven basis points to as much as 5.27%, where it was just ahead of the US Treasury Department’s announcement early Wednesday, before paring the gain. The 10-year yield touched 4.71%, just shy of its highest level since early 2025.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The 30-year Treasury yield surged 7 basis points to 5.27%, erasing virtually all gains from the Treasury’s surprise buyback announcement and signaling the intervention failed to calm investor concerns over fiscal sustainability.
  2. The 10-year Treasury yield reached 4.71%, approaching its highest level since early 2025, as surging government debt continues to pressure long-duration bonds.

Related Articles:

  • Bessent Boosts Debt Buybacks After Climb in Treasury Yields — The US Treasury doubled the size of its buyback operations for long-dated government debt to reduce upward pressure on yields, which had reached their highest level in nearly two decades.
  • The Coming Great Repression? — Higher public debt is historically associated with lower, not higher, government bond returns, as financial repression forces banks to hold low-yield bonds and cheap reserves, suppressing borrowing costs. This mechanism reduced British public debt by ~91% of GDP in 1945–55, dwarfing the contributions from inflation or budget surpluses.
  • The United States Capital Structure — Government bondholders hold the riskiest position in the U.S. fiscal structure, absorbing adverse shocks through inflation or financial repression, while entitlement recipients function as senior claimants whose payments are politically protected.

AI Summary. Paper wealth — asset price gains detached from real investment — drove nearly 60% of global household wealth growth in 2025, up from one-third historically. Only 20% came from net new real investment, compared to a 30% historical average.

Rebecca Anderson, Jan Mischke, Arvind Govindarajan, Sylvain Johansson, et al. McKinsey
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

A McKinsey analysis finds global wealth is increasingly composed of “paper wealth,” driven by the rise of US equity values to 2.4x the book value of net corporate assets, and the debt of Chinese corporations, which grew to 80% of their real asset value.

Is global wealth growth becoming increasingly disconnected from real economic activity?

Core argument: Paper wealth drove ~60% of global household wealth growth in 2025, nearly double the one-third average from 2000–2024, as asset price gains increasingly decoupled from underlying economic activity.

In 2025, global wealth growth was driven to a greater extent by paper wealth, or nominal asset value growth decoupled from the real economy. Only 20% of household wealth growth was based on net new investment (real assets including machinery and equipment, homes and buildings, infrastructure, and intellectual property, less depreciation), compared to 30% on average from 2000 to 2024. Nearly 60% came from asset price growth above and beyond general inflation and negative net worth positions from other sectors. [For example, this includes equity value growth above net assets for corporations as well as government bonds greater than the book value of government assets]. This was a marked increase over the average from 2000 to 2024, when paper gains drove one-third of global wealth growth.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Paper wealth drove ~60% of global household wealth growth in 2025, nearly double the one-third average from 2000–2024, as asset price gains increasingly decoupled from underlying economic activity.
  2. Net new real investment—spanning machinery, buildings, infrastructure, and intellectual property net of depreciation—accounted for only 20% of household wealth growth in 2025, down 10 percentage points from the 2000–2024 average of 30%.

Related Articles:

  • The Next Crash: Why This Time Might Not Be Different — U.S. stocks are historically expensive, with the gap between earnings yields and inflation-adjusted bond yields at 1.4% — well below the 4.7% long-run average. When this gap is this narrow, 10-year stock returns have historically been poor.
  • The Summer I Turned Pretty — Capital spending booms historically peak when end-demand companies stagnate while equipment suppliers still thrive; today, semiconductor profits are rising even as the large cloud companies funding AI infrastructure see earnings and cash flow decline, raising doubt over who will sustain AI investment.
  • One Hundred Years in the U.S. Stock Markets — Btw January 1926 and December 2025, 60% of US firms had negative total returns relative to T-bills. 46 firms accounted for half of the $91T in net wealth…

Michael MacKenzie and Ye Xie Bloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

So far this year, the US 30-year has traded beyond 5% for 27 days ~19% of trading days, the most since 2007.

The US 30-year bond yield is trading above 5% for the longest stretch since the dawn of the financial crisis, echoing investor concerns about a growing debt pile and sticky inflation. So far this year, the 30-year has traded beyond 5% for 27 days — or about 19% of all sessions, the most since 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It traded above that level for 50 days that year.

Related Articles:

  • How Sky-High Deficits Threaten the Bond Market — Long-term U.S. government bond yields are rising faster than short-term yields, signaling growing investor concern about deficits and inflation. Dealers now buy only 10–15% of bonds at auction, down from 40–50% in 2010, reflecting reduced willingness to hold government debt on their own balance sheets.
  • How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence? — A 0.5% annual productivity growth boost would reduce publicly held federal debt by 39% of GDP over 30 years, cutting roughly half of the projected rise from 101% to 175% of GDP, through higher tax revenue, slower spending growth relative to GDP, and debt dilution that outweighs higher borrowing costs.
  • The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 — CBO projects a deficit of 5.8% of GDP in 2026, unchanged from 2025. Outlays, at 23.3% of GDP, will exceed their 50-year mean by 2.1pp; revenue of 17.5% is just…

Tan Kai Xian Gavekal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In Q1 2026, US after-tax non-financial margins were estimated at 7.6%, just short of the post-1949 high of 8.2% in Q2 of 2021. Tan Kai Xian argues US corporate profits may not mean revert due to increased automation as the workforce shrinks relative to the economy.

US corporate profit margins remain elevated by historical standards. In the first quarter of 2026, US after-tax non-financial margins were estimated at 7.6%, only just below the post-1949 high of 8.2% reached in the second quarter of 2021. The second-quarter earnings season has also begun strongly, according to FactSet data. Employee remuneration as a share of gross value added for US non-financial corporate businesses declined from 66% in the fourth quarter of 2001 to 56% in the first quarter of 2026. [Will Denyer argued] "When strong demographic growth powers rapid demand growth, companies concentrate on expanding capacity and sales—on growing along with the growing market. That means they tend to focus less on their margins—less on getting the biggest profit they can out of every dollar of revenues. In contrast, when demographic growth is subdued, and hence there is less potential demand growth, companies are not so bent on expanding capacity as fast as they can, and are far more interested in squeezing the maximum possible margin from every dollar of sales."

Related Articles:

AI Summary. A 0.5% annual productivity growth boost would reduce publicly held federal debt by 39% of GDP over 30 years, cutting roughly half of the projected rise from 101% to 175% of GDP, through higher tax revenue, slower spending growth relative to GDP, and debt dilution that outweighs higher borrowing costs.

Karen Dynan, Douglas Elmendorf and Louise Sheiner National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

CBO baseline projects debt-to-GDP rising from 101% in 2026 to 175% in 2056. Dynan et al. study how AI might modify that projection. In all but their most optimistic scenario, TFP grows 0.5pp faster, and AI offsets 39–49 pp of that 74pp increase.

Does productivity growth from artificial intelligence solve the federal debt problem?

[In the Base Case], faster economic growth [improves the federal budget and debt outlook] through four channels. First, [higher] incomes increase federal revenue, [while] the progressive tax system [modestly] raises revenue relative to GDP. CBO [estimates] that a [permanent] 0.5 pp increase in annual TFP growth would raise revenue after [30 years] by 0.14% of GDP. Second, [although] faster growth increases [some] federal spending, spending rises [more slowly] than GDP, [reducing noninterest outlays] relative to GDP. Under our [assumptions], discretionary spending falls from 6.1% of GDP in 2025 to 4.5% in 2056. Third, because faster growth does not [change the stock of] existing debt, that debt becomes smaller relative to GDP. Fourth, [stronger] growth generally raises interest rates, increasing the [cost] of new borrowing and [refinancing] existing debt. This represents a partial offset to the [fiscal gains]. [On balance], additional annual TFP growth of 0.5 pp would lower publicly held federal debt after [30 years] by 39% of GDP relative to CBO’s extended baseline. CBO’s extended baseline shows federal debt rising from 101% of GDP in 2026 to 175% in three decades, so this hypothesized increase in growth would offset roughly half of that projected rise.

Related Articles:

  • Can AI Avert the Impending Federal Budget Crisis? — Higher economy-wide productivity growth raises incomes but also accelerates healthcare inflation, so a productivity surge from 1.8% to 2.7% raises GDP per capita from $102,000 to $110,000 by 2035 while pushing healthcare spending from 21% to 21.7% of GDP.
  • U.S. Treasury Investors Are Long in AI — U.S. government debt acts as a leveraged bet on long-run productivity growth, because tax revenue rises automatically with faster growth while spending commitments stay flat. Each 0.1 percentage point increase in permanent productivity growth raises the fundamental value of government debt by $1.3tn, implying a 71 basis point decline in
  • The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 — CBO projects a deficit of 5.8% of GDP in 2026, unchanged from 2025. Outlays, at 23.3% of GDP, will exceed their 50-year mean by 2.1pp; revenue of 17.5% is just…

AI Summary. Taxing unrealized capital gains reduces average founder ownership at exit by ~25% but raises the share of entrepreneurs with positive payoffs from ~16% to ~47%, because tax credits on failed ventures provide insurance that partly offsets dilution costs.

Eduardo Azevedo, Florian Scheuer, Kent Smetters and Min Yang National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

~84% of venture backed founders end with zero exit value, while the top 2% capture ~80% of total exit value. Accrual-based taxation would reduce mean founder ownership stakes at exit by ~25%, but with fully refundable tax credits, raise the share of founders with >0 payoffs to ~47%.

Does taxing unrealized gains help or hurt entrepreneurial risk-taking?

Core argument: Accrual-based capital gains taxation reduces founder ownership by ~25% at exit vs. realization-based taxation, yet increases positive payoff probability from.

This paper examines how taxing unrealized capital gains affects entrepreneurship, combining a dynamic career-choice model with new evidence on all U.S. venture capital backed startups. Figure 1a plots a histogram of the positive company exit values. The distribution spans several orders of magnitude and is relatively similar to a lognormal, but with a right skew and fatter right tail. A stylized model highlights a key trade-off: accrual-based capital gains taxes dilute successful founders by forcing additional share sales before exit, a well known concern, yet they also provide insurance through tax credits to founders whose ventures fail, an aspect often overlooked. Quantitatively, advance taxation substantially reduces founders' ownership at exit: average founder shares fall about 25% under accrual-based taxation relative to realization based taxation. At the same time, accrual taxation increases the fraction of entrepreneurs with positive payoffs from around 16% to nearly 47%. Embedding these outcomes in a career-choice framework shows that the insurance value of accrual taxation partly offsets dilution costs: less risk-averse founders favor realization-based taxes, while more risk averse ones prefer accrual-based taxes. The strength of this insurance channel depends on the highly skewed distribution of entrepreneurial payoffs and the design of loss provisions under accrual-based taxation.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Accrual-based capital gains taxation reduces founder ownership by ~25% at exit vs. realization-based taxation, yet increases positive payoff probability from.
  2. Risk-averse entrepreneurs prefer accrual taxation’s loss provisions despite ownership dilution, while less risk-averse founders favor realization-based taxation, driving heterogeneous career.
  3. Accrual taxation’s insurance channel partly neutralizes dilution costs by expanding the fraction of founders achieving positive returns, demonstrating that tax.

Related Articles:

AI Summary. US equity supply is turning positive for the first time in over two decades, as a surge in IPOs and large share sales by major technology companies outweighs the buybacks and privatizations that have shrunk the stock market since 2003.

Kate Duguid and Emily Herbert The Financial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Goldman Sachs estimates net US equity issuance in 2026 will be ~ flat for the first time since 2003, driven by the decline in buybacks and an increase in equity issuance.

Is the era of shrinking equity supply finally ending?

Core argument: The bank expects an even greater influx of new shares in 2027, as lock-up periods on this year’s IPOs expire.

Goldman Sachs estimates net supply of equity in the US — measured by new shares hitting the market less equity removed by buybacks or companies going private — will be almost flat in 2026, having been in negative territory since 2003. The bank expects an even greater influx of new shares in 2027, as lock-up periods on this year’s IPOs expire. Sixty US companies have gone public this year, raising nearly $40bn, the highest year-to-date deal value since 2021, according to data from Dealogic that excludes listings of blank-cheque companies. Goldman expects that figure to rise to a record $225bn this year following the raft of big listings. SpaceX is aiming to raise as much as $86bn in its IPO later this week. Share sales by companies already on public markets could represent a bigger shift. Alphabet last week raised nearly $85bn in a historic equity raise to fund its vast AI investment, a sale expected to turn the Google owner into a net issuer of stock for the first time in 11 years, according to George Pearkes, an analyst at Bespoke Investment Group.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The bank expects an even greater influx of new shares in 2027, as lock-up periods on this year’s IPOs expire.
  2. Goldman expects that figure to rise to a record $225bn this year following the raft of big listings.

Related Articles:

  • One Hundred Years in the U.S. Stock Markets — Btw January 1926 and December 2025, 60% of US firms had negative total returns relative to T-bills. 46 firms accounted for half of the $91T in net wealth…
  • Capital Allocation — The American corporate sector has been substantially self-financing since 2000. Net equity issuance is negative even after taking stock-based compensation…
  • Capital Is Making a Comeback — Btw 1985-2021 the capital intensity of the American economy was relatively flat as a rise in intangible investment was offset by a decline in tangible…