“…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
“…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
“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 should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“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 fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
AI Summary.Deep-tech investment outside AI has exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the $133bn invested across the entire prior decade. Falling valuations for traditional software companies and outsized returns from early bets on capital-intensive ventures are pushing investors toward riskier, science-driven deals.
Tim BradshawFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.
Are investors abandoning software for capital-intensive science bets?
Core argument: Deep-tech investment excluding AI exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the entire $133bn deployed across the prior decade (through end-2019), as falling valuations for traditional software push venture capital toward capital-intensive scientific bets.
The AI boom is fuelling a resurgence in ambitious “moonshot” bets, as early SpaceX backers’ huge returns and falling valuations for traditional software companies force tech investors to embrace riskier and more capital-intensive dealmaking. Excluding the giant sums ploughed into AI start-ups, global investment in “deep tech” — companies whose products are rooted in big scientific or engineering advances — has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn in the entire decade to the end of 2019, according to Dealroom. This year’s deep-tech investments have not yet surpassed 2021’s peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for the likes of Rivian and Northvolt — many of which turned sour, highlighting the risks involved in moonshot dealmaking.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Deep-tech investment excluding AI exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the entire $133bn deployed across the prior decade (through end-2019), as falling valuations for traditional software push venture capital toward capital-intensive scientific bets.
The 2021 deep-tech peak — driven by battery and electric vehicle deals including Rivian and Northvolt — has not yet been surpassed, and the subsequent losses from those deals underscore the capital destruction risk inherent in moonshot dealmaking.
Related Articles:
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…
Public to Private Equity in the United States: A Long-Term Look— 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.
Gross and Net US Investment— Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciating assets. The shift toward faster-depreciating information technology assets requires larger gross investment increases to achieve any given gain in productive capital per worker.
AI Summary.Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciating assets. The shift toward faster-depreciating information technology assets requires larger gross investment increases to achieve any given gain in productive capital per worker.
Timothy TaylorConversable Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.
Does faster asset depreciation explain slowing productivity growth?
Core argument: Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment now merely replaces depreciating capital rather than expanding the productive stock.
The figure divides net investment by gross investment. Back in the 1970s, net investment was often around 40% of gross investment, but the share has been slumping over time. For the last decade or so, net investment has been about 25% of the gross–that is, about three-quarters of gross investment is just making up for depreciation of the pre-existing capital stock. The likely reason for the growing gap between gross and net investment is that modern investment is more likely to be related to information technology [which] depreciates more rapidly and thus needs to be replaced and updated more often. If we want the average US worker to be using a greater amount of capital on the job–which was one of the key drivers of rising labor productivity in the past–it now takes a bigger rise in gross investment to lead to a given rise in net investment.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment now merely replaces depreciating capital rather than expanding the productive stock.
The shift toward information technology — which depreciates faster than physical machinery — is the primary driver of the widening gap between gross and net investment.
Raising capital per worker, a historic engine of labor productivity growth, now requires a substantially larger increase in gross investment than it did several decades ago.
Related Articles:
US Stock Market To Stop Shrinking For First Time In 23 Years— 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.
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…
The Transition to a Higher Cost of Capital— Bridgewater Associates co-CIO Karen Karniol-Tambour expects 10-year Treasury yields to rise from the current ~4.5% to compensate for structurally higher fiscal…
AI Summary.Global institutional investors hedge only 41% of their foreign-currency exposure — the lowest rate since at least 2015 — leaving portfolios heavily exposed to dollar depreciation. A sudden shift in sentiment could trigger a self-reinforcing dollar selloff as unhedged holders rush to reduce exposure simultaneously.
Ruth Carson, Masaki Kondo, and Anya AndrianovaBloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
A Bloomberg analysis finds only 41% of global investors’ foreign-currency exposure is hedged in six major markets, the lowest level since 2015. Foreigners now hold almost $40T of American assets.
Are unhedged dollar positions setting up a market crash?
Core argument: Global institutional investors hedged just 41% of their foreign-currency exposure as of June 30—the lowest share since at least 2015—leaving dollar-denominated assets acutely vulnerable to a sentiment-driven selloff.
Sift through the filings of pension funds and insurers around the world and one thing stands out: some of the biggest holders of US assets have little protection against a weaker dollar, leaving the currency at risk of steeper declines if sentiment suddenly turns. Across markets [Canada, Denmark, Australia, Taiwan, Japan and Finland for which data is available] investors hedged just 41% of their foreign-currency exposure as of June 30 — the lowest since at least 2015. While not a complete picture, it offers a glimpse into how the sudden rush last year to hedge against dollar losses triggered by President Donald Trump’s global tariff rollout has faded as the US currency slowly stabilized.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Global institutional investors hedged just 41% of their foreign-currency exposure as of June 30—the lowest share since at least 2015—leaving dollar-denominated assets acutely vulnerable to a sentiment-driven selloff.
The retreat from peak hedging activity reflects fading demand for dollar-loss protection after the U.S. currency stabilized following the tariff-driven shock, compressing a key buffer against renewed depreciation.
Related Articles:
Financial Innovation and the International Monetary System— The U.S. dollar accounts for 59% of international payment values routed through SWIFT and ~90% of global foreign exchange turnover, while the Chinese renminbi has risen to 9% of foreign exchange turnover by displacing other major currencies, not the dollar.
The Global Balance Sheet 2026: Imbalance And Divergence— 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.
Momentum, Rotation and the Value in Growth— Noting US underperformance relative to the world since the start of 2025, and the fact that the 5 largest US stocks now have a P/E only marginally above that…
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 CallahanMorgan 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
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.
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.
The Deep End: 2025 Alternative Investments Review— For venture funds vintage 2018 and later both the mean and median investor have underperformed the S&P 500 as of 2025. While the top quartile has…
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…
AI Summary.54 percentage point yield increase since 2022. The shift reflects reduced Federal Reserve absorption of long-duration debt, forcing private investors to demand greater compensation for interest rate risk.
Hanno LustigThe Two Cents
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Lustig presents a decomposition that attributes 156bp of the 254bp rise in the 10-year yield since March 2022 to an increase in the term premium, which he associates with the additional duration risk borne by investors as the Fed reduced its balance sheet.
Does reduced Fed demand for long-duration debt explain rising Treasury yields?
Core argument: Term premium accounts for 1.56 percentage points — nearly two-thirds — of the 2.54-point rise in the 10-year Treasury yield since March 2022, dwarfing the 98-basis-point contribution from rising expected short rates.
I plot a decomposition of the increase in the 10-year yield into a term premium component and a future short rate component. According to this measure, a big chunk —1.56 pps (or nearly 2/3 rds)— of the 2.54 pps increase in the 10-year yield since March 2022 is actually due to an increase in the term premium. That premium (the red line in the figure) turned negative around 2015, and [when] it bottomed out in 2020, yields (black line) were trading 135 bps below the path of future short rates (blue line). That’s not entirely surprising: The Fed was absorbing a large share of Treasury issuance at the long end of the yield curve —as well as MBS issuance— effectively removing a great deal of interest rate risk from the market.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Term premium accounts for 1.56 percentage points — nearly two-thirds — of the 2.54-point rise in the 10-year Treasury yield since March 2022, dwarfing the 98-basis-point contribution from rising expected short rates.
The term premium bottomed at -1.355% in 2020, when Fed absorption of long-end Treasury and MBS issuance stripped duration risk from the market and pushed yields 135 basis points below the expected path of short rates.
The term premium’s steady climb since 2022 signals that investors now demand compensation for bearing interest rate risk rather than paying for the privilege, reversing a multi-year structural distortion created by quantitative easing.
Related Articles:
What Are Bond Markets Telling Us?— U.S. bond market indicators, including long-term inflation expectations and default insurance prices, show no meaningful rise in concern about government insolvency or debt sustainability.
America’s Risky Debt: What Markets See That Policymakers Don’t— The safety premium that investors historically paid for US government bonds over equivalent alternatives has compressed toward zero and, at longer maturities, reversed — with global investors now pricing foreign government bonds as safer than US Treasurys.
AI Summary.Corporate profit margins have expanded ~250 basis points over the past year, approaching all-time highs, as 23% profit growth far outpaced 8% growth in corporate value added. Labor's share of income is hitting new lows, confirming that margin expansion—not faster economic growth—is the primary driver of record profit levels.
Abiel ReinhartJ.P. Morgan
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
US corporate profit margins rose ~250bp y/y in Q2 and are approaching an all-time high. Reinhart notes that tech and communications services drove ~58% of recent S&P 500 profit growth, even as the sectors have been “steadily losing employment since late 2022.”
Are record corporate profits driven by growth or margin expansion?
Core argument: Corporate profit margins expanded nearly 250 bps over the past year and are approaching all-time highs, as domestic profit growth of 23% dwarfed the 8% rise in corporate value added, compressing labor’s share of income to record lows.
Nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national income and product accounts (NIPA) were very robust in both 2Q (41% [annual rate]) and over the last year (23%). Excluding post-recession spikes, we haven’t seen a year this strong since the mid-2000s. Higher margins [were] the key driver [of profit growth], as 23% y/y domestic profit growth was far in excess of the 8% increase in corporate value added. Profit margins (pre-tax profits divided by value added) increased close to 250bp over the last year, and are approaching all-time highs, whereas the labor share is hitting new lows.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Corporate profit margins expanded nearly 250 bps over the past year and are approaching all-time highs, as domestic profit growth of 23% dwarfed the 8% rise in corporate value added, compressing labor’s share of income to record lows.
Related Articles:
US Corporate Profits Surge To Record As Worker Payouts Wilt— U.S. corporate pre-tax profits reached an annualized $4.8tn, or 18% of national income—the highest share since the post-WWII era—while workers' wages and benefits fell to 60% of national income, the lowest since the 1950s.
Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High?— 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…
The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker Pay— Labor's share of national income has fallen to 51%—its lowest recorded level—while corporate profits have reached 12.1% of national income, their highest share since 1950. Inflation-adjusted hourly wages have risen 3% since 2019, while inflation-adjusted corporate profits have risen 50% over the same period.
AI Summary.U.S. corporate pre-tax profits reached an annualized $4.8tn, or 18% of national income—the highest share since the post-WWII era—while workers' wages and benefits fell to 60% of national income, the lowest since the 1950s.
Myles McCormickFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Corporate profits have risen to 18% of national income, their highest share since 1947, while labor’s share has fallen to 60%, a low not seen since the 1950s. The decline in labor’s share has accelerated over the past year.
Are record corporate profits coming at workers' expense?
Pre-tax earnings hit an annualised $4.8tn in the second quarter, or 18% of national income, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the highest share since the aftermath of the second world war. Employees’ share from wages and benefits fell to 60%, the lowest level since the 1950s. “Regardless of what measure you look at, workers, in terms of employee compensation, have been receiving an increasingly small share of national income over time,” said Abiel Reinhart, an economist at JPMorgan. The decline in labour’s share of income has gained pace in the past five years and especially over the past 12 months.
Related Articles:
The Post‑COVID Decline in the Labor Share— The labor share of income has fallen 1.6 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, reaching an all-time post-war low, driven by within-industry dynamics rather than shifts in activity across sectors.
Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High?— 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…
Why the Labor Share Keeps Falling: Taxes!— Tax code changes account for roughly one-third of the decline in the worker share of U.S. business income since 1978, as firms shift from corporate to pass-through structures to reclassify wages as profits and reduce tax burdens.
AI Summary.Heavy corporate investment in new technology can shift businesses from net savers to net borrowers, absorbing household savings and widening the current account deficit, as occurred during the early-2000s technology boom.
Robin BrooksRobin Brooks Substack
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Brooks argues, “The AI buildout isn’t why government bond yields are rising,” noting the US non-financial corporate sector was a net saver as of Q1 2026, which suggests government deficit spending is driving up long yields.
Does massive technology investment shift corporations from savers to borrowers?
Core argument: Government dissaving—not corporate capital expenditure—is the primary driver of U.S. domestic savings consumption and current account deterioration.
The chart shows quarterly data for the US saving-investment balance going back to 1990. This is an identity that apportions the current account balance into net saving in various sectors of the economy. Households tend to be net savers, as is the financial sector and non-financial corporates. The government tends to be a net borrower. The last time we had a lot of excitement about technological innovation and higher productivity growth was in the “IT bubble” of the early 2000s, which saw non-financial corporates flip from being net savers to borrowers, i.e. the capex buildout at the time was very large and - for a few years - accounted for the entire current account deficit. Nothing like that’s happening now. It’s government dissaving, i.e. the budget deficit, that’s eating up resources, while the non-financial corporate sector stayed a net saver in data through the first quarter of this year.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Government dissaving—not corporate capital expenditure—is the primary driver of U.S. domestic savings consumption and current account deterioration.
Related Articles:
AI Is Driving Up Treasury Yields: ‘It Just Touches Everything’— Heavy corporate bond issuance driven by AI investment has reduced demand for long-term government debt, pushing 10-year Treasury yields up ~0.3 percentage points as investors rotate into higher-yielding corporate bonds.
The Other US Capex Question— Weak non-AI business investment in the U.S. is driven primarily by near-zero labor force growth from tightened immigration policy, not by AI spending crowding out capital, since corporate savings are sufficient to fund both simultaneously.
Corporate America Is Minting Money—and Not Just in Tech and Finance— S&P 500 earnings per share are growing above 13% year-over-year for the sixth consecutive quarter, with sales rising at the fastest pace since late 2022 and margins expanding across most sectors. The gap between earnings-per-share growth and net income growth has narrowed to under 1 percentage point, indicating profit gains
