Logan Weaver
@LogWeaver • 23,970 subscribers
Modernizing investment management. Founder @surmountinvest, Owner @quantbase_, @forbes Business Council, @WBJonline 25 Under 25
Videos
Elon Musk just quietly launched a bank inside X. 6% APY on deposits. 3% cashback on purchases. But almost no one understands what this actually means... Here's what everyone is missing about the June 25 update, and why PayPal, Cash App, and Venmo just got put on notice: X started rolling out X Money to a small group of U.S. Premium+ users. This is the product Musk has been talking about since he bought Twitter: The "everything app." Social, payments, transfers, eventually broader banking. Peer-to-peer transfers powered by Visa Direct for near real-time settlement. A metal Visa debit card. For context, the national average savings rate in the U.S. is well below 1%. The highest yield on the typical big-bank checking account is roughly 0%. X is offering 6%. That number alone is enough to make every consumer fintech CFO in America uncomfortable. Now look at the regulatory groundwork most coverage skipped. X has secured more than 25 money transmitter licenses across U.S. states. That is the legal foundation for operating payments at national scale. It takes years to assemble and millions in legal and compliance work. Musk has been quietly doing that work for two years while critics insisted X was a dying ad business. Here's what the media keeps missing: X Money is designed to make X the place your money lives. Once your paycheck lands in X Money, your savings earn 6%, your card lives in the app, and your transfers happen inside the same feed where you read the news, the math of leaving gets ugly. PayPal doesn't have a feed. Cash App doesn't have a social graph. Venmo can't offer 6% APY without bleeding cash. X is the only consumer platform on earth that can run a social network and a banking product through the same login. For 20 years, you've logged into your bank, your brokerage, Venmo, and your social apps separately. X is collapsing all of that into one login. This is the WeChat playbook. Payments, transfers, commerce, and social all inside one app. WeChat now processes trillions in payments annually inside China. Musk has said publicly that WeChat is the model. Most people dismissed it as hype. Retail investors look at headlines and react. The wealthy look at the rails and position. A 6% APY launching inside a global social platform is a signal about where consumer finance is going. You can scroll past it and assume it doesn't matter to your portfolio. Or you can run a system that pays attention to structural shifts instead of headlines. Surmount helps you automate your investments with rules-based strategies built on data, not narratives...
Logan Weaver257,597 views • 1 month ago
Ray Dalio just released 500 years of data showing exactly how empires collapse. His conclusion? America is in Stage 6 of 9. The dangerous stage. Here's what his math actually says about where we're headed: Dalio studied every major empire collapse since 1500. Dutch. British. American. The pattern repeats with machine-like precision every 50-100 years. Not because of politics or ideology. Because of math. The "Big Debt Cycle" has nine stages. We're currently in Stage 6. The dangerous one. Here's how it works: Stages 1-4: The Rise Countries borrow to build infrastructure. Debt is productive. GDP grows faster than debt service costs. Everything feels sustainable. This was the U.S. from 1945-2000. Low debt-to-GDP. Strong productivity growth. Borrowing made sense. Stage 5: The Top Debt service hits 15-20% of GDP. Interest costs start crowding out productive spending. But everyone's too comfortable to notice. Markets boom. Wealth gaps explode. The U.S. crossed this threshold around 2008. Stage 6: The Crisis This is where we are now. Federal debt exceeds 120% of GDP. Two choices: Let interest rates rise and crash the economy. Or print money and create inflation. Both destroy wealth. Just differently. In the 1930s, we chose deflation. In 2008, we chose money printing. In 2026, we're doing both at the same time. Stages 7-9: The Reset Either massive restructuring through negotiation. Or war. History shows wars resolve 90% of these cycles. Not because humans are violent. Because debts become mathematically impossible to service. Dalio's data is clear: When internal inequality peaks AND external rivals emerge, conflicts become inevitable. The U.S. has both right now. Wealth inequality hasn't been this high since 1929. China's GDP grew 6-8% annually while we borrowed to maintain consumption. Dalio's advice for Stage 6 is simple: Sell debt. Buy gold. Not because gold produces anything. Because governments print money to escape debt traps. Gold has risen 3x since 2020. Exactly as the model predicted. But here's what actually matters for regular investors: You can't stop the Big Cycle. But you can position for it. Dalio's framework identifies five big forces that drive every transition: 1. Productivity growth 2. Debt cycles 3. Money supply 4. Wealth gaps 5. Geopolitical power shifts When all five align in the same direction, the cycle turns. Right now, all five are pointing toward Stage 7. Productivity growth is slowing. Debt service costs are rising faster than GDP. Money supply expanded 40% since 2020. Wealth concentration is at century highs. China is building parallel financial infrastructure. The math doesn't lie. So what does positioning actually look like? Dalio's research across 500 years shows three consistent patterns: Pattern 1: Fiat currencies lose value during Stage 6-7 transitions Every time. No exceptions. Governments print to escape debt traps. The dollar, pound, and euro all follow the same path. This is why gold and hard assets outperform during these periods. Pattern 2: Geographic diversification matters more than asset class diversification When one empire declines, another rises. Dutch to British. British to American. The cycle doesn't end. It relocates. Portfolios concentrated in declining empires get crushed. Pattern 3: Volatility spikes 3-5x during Stage 6 The 1930s saw 50%+ market swings. The 1970s stagflation created wild inflation volatility. 2008-2009 saw daily 5% moves. Stage 6 isn't calm. It's chaos punctuated by brief stability. Here's the data that should terrify you: U.S. debt-to-GDP: 120% (highest since WWII) Annual interest costs: approaching $1 trillion China's GDP growth: 6-8% while U.S. averages 2-3% Time between 1929 inequality peak and crash: 8 months Time since current inequality peak: We're in it now
Logan Weaver1,071,185 views • 5 months ago
5:01
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
BREAKING: Bill Ackman just IPO'd his hedge fund. He targeted $25 billion two years ago. He raised $5 billion yesterday. And the retail investors he spent two years courting on X didn't show up. Here's what actually happened, and why it matters for every investor who thinks following a famous name is a strategy. Wednesday, April 29. Bill Ackman rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Two listed entities hit the market. Pershing Square USA (PSUS), the closed-end fund. Pershing Square Inc. (PS), the asset manager. PSUS priced at $50 a share. It opened at $42. It closed at $40.90. Down 18% on debut. One of the most famous hedge fund managers on the planet went public, and his fund lost nearly a fifth of its value in a single trading session. Now look at how the money actually came in. Of the $5 billion raised, $2.8 billion came from a private placement. Family offices took 30% of that. Pension funds took 25%. Insurance companies took 22%. Ultra-high-net-worth investors took 12%. Institutional investors accounted for over 85% of total orders. The remaining $2.2 billion came from a public offering of 44 million PSUS shares. Some of that was retail. Most of it was not. Ackman has 2 million followers on X. He spent two years marketing this fund as a way for regular people to access hedge fund returns at $50 a share. He even said it on CNBC the morning of the IPO: "Hedge funds are sort of known for managing money for rich people. And now we have the opportunity for someone with $50, could be a long-term shareholder. Usually, the retail gets cut massively back, the institutions are favored. We did the opposite." The retail audience he was talking to didn't believe him. The institutions did. Two years ago, the original target was $25 billion. Yesterday, the final number was $5 billion. That's an 80% downsize. This is one of the most watched investors in the world. He gets booked on every major financial network. He posts daily to millions of followers. He has been pitching this exact deal since 2024. And the deal still came in 80% smaller than planned. Here's the part nobody is connecting: The retail audience for hedge fund products is fundamentally different from the retail audience for personality content. Ackman built a following by being loud on X. Loud on takeovers. Loud on politics. Loud on universities. Loud on ETFs. Loud on macro calls. Followers love that. They follow. They reply. They retweet. But following someone is free. Wiring money into their closed-end fund at NAV with no performance fees and a fee structure most retail investors can't even read is an entirely different decision. The market just made that distinction for him. Now zoom out, because this is the structural lesson. The $2.8 billion private placement was wrapped up before retail even saw the deal. Family offices. Pension funds. Insurance companies. Sovereign wealth. These are the buyers who get the call before the IPO is announced. They get the term sheet. They negotiate. They commit. By the time the public sees the listing on a Wednesday morning, the institutions have already locked in their allocation. The retail investor sees the same news, gets the same prospectus, and reads the same ticker. Different game. Same name on the door. And then PSUS opened down 16% and closed down 18%. Every retail buyer who put in $50 at the IPO price was sitting on a $9 paper loss before lunch. The institutions had locked in better terms in the private placement. Same fund. Same manager. Two completely different starting positions. This is how the structure of capital markets actually works. Every. Single. Time. The brochure says democratization. The cap table says the institutions got there first. This is the same lesson the Blue Owl and BlackRock private credit stories taught us last year. When a famous money manager opens a vehicle to retail, the fine print and the fee structure and the timing of the allocation all favor the people who already have access. You can have a manager with no performance fee, with bonus shares attached, with two million social followers, and a stage on CNBC. The math of who gets in first and at what price is still the math. So what does this mean for you? It means a famous name on the cover is not a strategy. It means following an investor on X is not the same as being invested with them. It means the retail audience for entertaining finance content is enormous, and the retail audience for actually deploying capital into a complex product is not. The wealthy don't pay famous investors for personality. They build systems that don't depend on a single human being having a good year, or a good fund debut, or a good narrative on social media. Ackman's reputation got him on the front page. It didn't get the stock above its IPO price. The math always catches up. The personality doesn't change the math. Boring? Yes. Effective when a $25 billion vision becomes a $5 billion raise that opens down 18%? Also yes. This is exactly why we built Surmount. Automated, rules-based investment strategies. Built for the retail investor who doesn't want to bet a portfolio on whether a famous fund manager has a good debut:
Logan Weaver220,797 views • 3 months ago
By staying private, they could make moves no public company could: - Long-term investments without quarterly pressure. - Aggressive acquisitions without shareholder approval. - Global expansion without public scrutiny. Family decisions made in boardrooms, not headlines.
Logan Weaver228,662 views • 11 months ago
The family split into two branches: Cargills and MacMillans. About 90 family members own the company. 14 of them are billionaires, more than any other family on Earth. They've built the ultimate invisible empire, controlling necessities while avoiding attention.
Logan Weaver201,019 views • 11 months ago
BREAKING: 10 days into the job, Trump is already throwing his new Fed Chair under the bus. The market priced his confirmation as a guaranteed rate cut. Hours after the swearing-in, Trump was on Truth Social demanding cuts that aren't coming. Here's why the entire 2026 rate cut thesis just broke: For most of 2026, Wall Street traded on one assumption. Trump replaces Powell with his own guy. The Fed delivers the cuts the President has been demanding for two years, and risk assets rip. Every long-duration asset on the board priced it in. Warsh's Senate confirmation passed 54-45 in May. The closest Fed Chair vote in modern history. The political fight was taken as proof Warsh would be loyal to the man who picked him. Then everyone read his actual Senate testimony: Warsh has been a public critic of the Fed's bloated balance sheet for over a decade. His pitch was what he called "regime change" at the Fed. He's philosophically closer to Paul Volcker than to a yes-man. Volcker pushed rates above 19% in 1981 to break inflation. Wall Street hated him at the time. History celebrates him today. That's the model Warsh has been studying for years. Not the easing playbook Trump wants. Then the macro data turned on him before he even took office. The May 28th PCE reading was the highest in nearly three years. WTI crude jumped almost 6% on June 1st to $92.54 a barrel. Iran had just suspended indirect talks with the US. Tariff costs from Trump's own February executive orders are still working through goods prices. Sticky inflation from policy decisions Trump made himself. Warsh walked into the worst possible setup. Hot inflation, an energy shock, and a President demanding the one move that would make inflation worse. Yesterday, June 2nd, Trump went back on Truth Social to attack Warsh for not cutting fast enough. 10 days into the job. From his own hand-picked Chair. This is where retail investors get trapped. The narrative all year was simple. Trump installs his guy. Cheap money returns. Buy everything that benefits. That trade required three things to be true at once. 1. Warsh has to be a puppet. 2. Inflation has to cooperate. 3. There has to be political room to cut. Right now, zero of those three are true. Markets have already priced out 2026 rate cuts entirely. A rate hike by year-end is now considered more likely than a cut. Retail positioning hasn't caught up. Most portfolios are still leaning long-duration tech and rate-sensitive assets that work in a cutting cycle and bleed in a holding cycle. Institutional positioning has caught up months ago. Berkshire sits on a record $397 billion in cash. Hedge funds rotated into commodities and short-duration. The S&P sits at all-time highs while the smart money is positioned for the cuts not arriving. A Fed Chair who believes in inflation credibility doesn't cut into rising prices regardless of who appointed him. The investors who win stopped trying to predict the next Fed move years ago. The market will reprice when it stops pretending otherwise. You can guess which week that happens. Or you can run a system that doesn't have to guess. Surmount automates your investments with rules-based strategies built on data, not political headlines...
Logan Weaver39,785 views • 1 month ago
Japan has one of the world’s oldest populations, with over 28% of citizens aged 65 or older. This creates significant challenges: 1. Healthcare & pensions require more funding 2. Fewer workers mean less tax revenue Therefore, the government relies heavily on borrowing to fund its obligations.
Logan Weaver219,022 views • 1 year ago
Trump's wealth started with his grandfather Friedrich Trump. In the 1890s, while others were digging for gold, Friedrich did something smarter: He opened restaurants and hotels for the miners. Instead of gambling on finding gold, he sold picks and shovels to the gamblers...
Logan Weaver99,854 views • 1 year ago
In 2018, Warren Buffett called Elon Musk's strategy a mistake: "You need a moat. Pace of innovation isn't enough." Eight years later, Musk just became the world's first trillionaire. And it came from ONE play Buffett would never have touched: December 24, 2008. 6 PM. Elon Musk had one hour left to save Tesla. The financing round was scheduled to close at the end of the business day. If it didn't, payroll would bounce two days later. Three months earlier, SpaceX had finally launched Falcon 1 into orbit on its fourth try after three straight failures. Days before Christmas, NASA had awarded SpaceX a $1.6 billion cargo contract. SpaceX had survived. Tesla had not. Musk was getting divorced. The Great Recession was tearing through the economy. Tesla wasn't profitable and was burning cash faster than it could raise. He took the last of his cash from the PayPal sale and put all of it into Tesla. Every dollar of his liquid net worth. Into a pre-revenue car company in the middle of the worst financial crisis since 1929. He didn't own a house. He was borrowing money from friends to pay rent. This is the bet Warren Buffett's entire framework is designed to prevent you from making. Diversify. Margin of safety. Never bet the farm. Wait for the fat pitch. Buffett's playbook has produced one of the great fortunes in history. 19.8% compound annual returns from 1965 to 2023. A track record nobody else in modern investing can touch. But Buffett's playbook would have told Musk to fold Tesla that night. Take the loss. Live to fight another day. Musk did the opposite of every Buffett principle in one transaction. The Tesla round closed at 6 PM. Tesla survived. The compounding started. 17 years later, Musk rang the bell at the Nasdaq for the largest IPO in history. SpaceX closed up 19% on Friday at a $2 trillion market cap. His personal net worth crossed $1 trillion. For context, Berkshire Hathaway took 60 years to reach a $1.05 trillion market cap. Musk did $1 trillion in 17 years. By ignoring almost every rule Buffett wrote. Buffett wasn't wrong. His framework is one of the great achievements in investing history. What Musk proved is something different. Conviction in a single asymmetric bet, sized to the limit of survival, can outperform 60 years of perfect diversification. Musk has openly said he gave SpaceX less than a 10% chance of working when he founded it in 2002. He put $100 million of his PayPal money in anyway. Six years later, on Christmas Eve 2008, he doubled down by putting the rest into Tesla. A 90/10 bet, twice, with 100% of his liquid net worth on the table. While his marriage was ending and the world was burning. The world's first trillionaire was made by a man who broke every rule of investing in one December afternoon. For the rest of us, the system is the edge...
Logan Weaver14,321 views • 1 month ago
BREAKING: Berkshire Hathaway just filed its first 13F after Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO. Wall Street spent a decade asking what happens to Berkshire when Buffett is gone. We just got the answer: On May 15, the first 13F of the Greg Abel era hit the SEC. Abel took over from Buffett on January 1, 2026. This filing covers his first full quarter in the chair. It is the most aggressive structural rebalance Berkshire has run in years. And almost nobody is reading it correctly. Here is what the filing actually shows: Berkshire trimmed its portfolio from 40 positions down to 26 in 90 days. 16 stocks fully exited. Amazon, gone. UnitedHealth, gone. Domino's Pizza, gone. Chevron cut by 35%, roughly $8 billion sold at peak energy prices. Visa, Mastercard, and Aon all sharply reduced. Then on the other side of the book: Alphabet position increased 224%. From about 18 million shares to nearly 58 million. The stake is now worth roughly $23 billion. One of Berkshire's seven largest equity holdings. A new $2.65 billion position in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire's first airline holding since they sold the entire sector in April 2020. Total stock sales for the quarter: $24 billion. Total stock purchases: $16 billion. Net selling: $8 billion. And the cash pile? $397.4 billion as of March 31. A new all-time record. Read those numbers again. This is not a passive handoff. This is a CEO clearing the decks and concentrating capital in a small number of high-conviction names while sitting on the biggest cash position in corporate history. Now here is the part the financial media is missing. Everyone is treating this like a referendum on Greg Abel's personality. "Is he as good as Buffett." "Will he be too cautious." "Does he have the killer instinct." Wrong question. The right question is why the system kept executing in exactly the way Buffett would have run it. Because that is what actually happened here. Concentrate in dominant businesses you understand. Check. Buy when valuations get attractive. Check. Alphabet was trading at a forward P/E in the teens when Abel was loading up. Sell when valuations get rich. Check. Chevron got cut at a peak. Visa and Mastercard got trimmed at all-time highs. Hold cash when nothing else qualifies. Check. $397 billion. This is not Greg Abel inventing a new philosophy. This is the Berkshire operating system continuing to run, the way it was designed to run, after the founder stepped away. That distinction matters more than anything else in this filing. Here is why. For 60 years, retail investors have tried to "follow Buffett." They scan the 13Fs the day they drop. They buy what he bought. They hold what he held. They sell when the headlines say he sold. And they almost always underperform. Because following Buffett the person was never the strategy. The strategy was Buffett the system. The patience to hold cash for years when nothing was cheap. The discipline to concentrate when something finally was. The structural willingness to look wrong for long stretches because the math eventually wins. Most retail investors have none of that. They have a phone, a brokerage app, a Twitter feed, and an attention span measured in headlines. They buy when Buffett buys. Then they sell three weeks later when the position is down 8% because they panicked. That is not following Buffett. That is using Buffett's name as a permission slip to make emotional decisions. The Q1 filing makes this point in a way no Berkshire annual letter ever could. The man is gone. The trades still look like Buffett trades. Because the system was the asset all along. The system was the moat. Now look at the Alphabet decision specifically. This is the part that should stop you. Alphabet generated $64.4 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year over year in Q1 2026. Operating income from cloud tripled to $6.6 billion. The company is sitting on a near-monopoly in search, a top-two cloud platform, the best AI research lab in the world, and a balance sheet that prints money. And it was trading at a discount to the S&P 500 multiple when Abel was buying. That is not a hard call. It is the easiest call a value-oriented institutional buyer can make. But it requires you to ignore the entire narrative that Wall Street had been running for six months. The narrative was that AI was eating Google search. That ChatGPT was a Google killer. That the search monopoly was structurally broken. Retail investors bought that narrative and sold Alphabet at the lows. Abel ran the math and bought 40 million shares. Same company. Same fundamentals. Two completely different decisions, because one was driven by data and one was driven by narrative. The Alphabet position is already up 38% since the end of Q1. Six weeks of gains. Roughly $8 billion of paper profit in 42 trading days. That is what systems do. They do not predict the future. They wait for asymmetric setups, take large positions when the math says to, and let time do the work. Now the $397 billion cash position. This is the number that confuses retail the most. Why would the largest holding company in America be sitting on $400 billion in cash while the S&P sits at record highs? Because cash is not a position. Cash is optionality. Cash is the ability to act when everyone else is forced to sell. In 2008, Buffett had cash when Goldman Sachs and General Electric needed capital. He cut deals at terms no retail investor could ever access. In 2020, Buffett had cash when the COVID crash hit. He took advantage. Greg Abel is doing the same thing. He is loading the rifle. He does not know when he will get to fire it. He knows that having it ready is what separates Berkshire from every fund that has to be fully invested all the time. Most retail investors cannot do this. They look at $397 billion in cash and see "missed opportunity cost." They think holding cash is the same as losing money to inflation. It is not. Cash held by a disciplined system is a weapon waiting for the right target. Cash held by an emotional investor is a temptation that gets spent on the next hot trade. Same dollar. Two completely different outcomes. Here is the lesson the entire financial press is missing this week. Berkshire is not interesting because Greg Abel is a genius. Berkshire is interesting because it is the rare proof point that an investment process can survive its founder. The most important investor of the last 60 years is gone. The portfolio still looks like a Buffett portfolio. Because the rules were the asset. The personality was the wrapper. Most retail investors got the wrapper and missed the asset. They watched the documentaries. They read the books. They went to the Omaha meeting. They bought the personality. They never built the system. That is why they keep losing to the market over 20 year holding periods, while a holding company with the same playbook for six decades keeps quietly compounding. The question is whether you spend the next 20 years doing the same thing. Or whether you finally build a system that runs without you. Most retail investors will never have $397 billion in cash to deploy. But every retail investor can build the same kind of structural discipline Berkshire just demonstrated. Rules that execute regardless of headlines. Rules that buy when the math says to buy. Rules that hold when nothing qualifies. Rules that do not need a famous founder to run. That is exactly why Surmount exists. Automated, rules-based strategies that execute the same way every single trading day. No panic selling. No FOMO buying. No "what would Buffett do" guessing. Just systematic execution built on the same principle that just kept Berkshire running without its founder: The system is the asset:
Logan Weaver20,503 views • 2 months ago
They made every wealth-destruction mistake possible: 1. Stopped working the business 2. Lived off capital instead of income 3. Confused lifestyle inflation with success 4. Never taught kids about money or work 5. Treated wealth as an entitlement, not a responsibility
Logan Weaver64,017 views • 1 year ago
BREAKING: Elon Musk is about to force everyone in America to buy SpaceX stock. Even if you don't want to, you will own something of it. And the three biggest pension funds in the country are trying to stop him. Here's why... On Wednesday, three of the largest public pension systems in the United States sent Elon Musk a letter. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. New York City Comptroller Mark Levine. CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost. Together, they oversee more than $1 trillion in retirement assets for teachers, firefighters, nurses, and public workers. They asked Musk to scrap the governance structure SpaceX is planning to use for its IPO. Their exact words: it would constitute "the most management-favorable governance structure ever" at this scale. Here's what's actually in the filing. SpaceX is targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation. It plans to raise $75 billion. That makes it the largest IPO in human history. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. Roughly the size of the entire GDP of South Korea. Twenty-one investment banks have been assembled to underwrite it. The target listing month is June. Now look at the share structure. There are two classes of stock. Class A is what gets sold to the public. One vote per share. Class B is held by Musk and a handful of insiders. Ten votes per share. Musk owns 42.5% of the equity. He controls 83.8% of the voting power. After the IPO, he keeps more than 50% of voting control. The only person who can fire Elon Musk from SpaceX is Elon Musk. Then there's the litigation structure. SpaceX reincorporated in Texas. New Texas laws say shareholders must hold up to 3% of outstanding stock to pursue derivative lawsuits. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that's $52.5 billion in holdings. This is the package. All of it, in one IPO. Voting locked. Courthouse locked. Boardroom locked. And here's the part that should stop every retail investor reading this. SpaceX has applied for early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100. That means as soon as the listing clears, every passive index fund that tracks the Nasdaq 100 has to buy the stock. Every S&P 500 fund that picks it up has to buy the stock. Every target-date retirement fund that holds those indexes has to buy the stock. Every 401k allocation that defaults to "diversified index exposure" has to buy the stock. The American Federation of Teachers, whose members participate in retirement funds worth roughly $3 trillion in assets, has already filed a formal objection. Their argument is that index rules will "force" their members to invest in SpaceX at a proportion that has nothing to do with the company's fundamentals. You will own SpaceX through your 401k. You will own SpaceX through your pension. You will own SpaceX through your index fund. This is the structural innovation of the whole deal. Most IPOs ask you to buy the stock. This one is engineered so you buy it whether you ask to or not. That's why the pension funds are panicking. They wrote the letter because that's the only lever they have left. Now zoom out. The wealthy have always understood something most retail investors haven't. Passive investing is not neutral. When you buy an index fund, you're not making a neutral bet on America. You're buying whatever the index committee decides to admit. In whatever weight they decide to assign. SpaceX is the best example yet. It's about to land in millions of retirement accounts in June. Whether anyone asked for it or not. The lesson is not "don't buy SpaceX." The decision has been made. The lesson is to actually look at what you own. They picked the default 401k option years ago and never looked again. They think they own "the market." They actually own a committee's decision about what the market should be. The wealthy don't operate that way, they know exactly what they own. They build deliberate, rules-based allocations. Not because they're smarter. Because they decided a long time ago that owning something by accident is not the same as owning it on purpose. The question is which group you want to be in. Surmount was built for the second one. Rules-based strategies you actually pick....
Logan Weaver15,945 views • 2 months ago
