Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

David Swensen took $1 billion and turned it into $16.7 billion using three ideas that fit on a napkin. He did not pick winning stocks. He did not time the market. He did not use a secret formula. He diversified, he rebalanced, and he never panicked. He ran Yale's...

andreysuperior's profile picture

Superior

13,865 subscribers

27,716 views • 6 days ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I told Howard Marks that I only invest in the index. He told me he did the research for one of his memos: - Yes, on average it has returned 10% a year for 100 years - But the annual return is almost never between 8% and 12% - "It kills it or it dies" - "The norm is not the average"
0:35

I told Howard Marks that I only invest in the index. He told me he did the research for one of his memos: - Yes, on average it has returned 10% a year for 100 years - But the annual return is almost never between 8% and 12% - "It kills it or it dies" - "The norm is not the average"

Sam Parr

122,533 views • 1 month ago

One man turned $20 million into $14 billion in thirteen years. he retired at 46. then he walked into the National Press Club and explained the entire method to a room of journalists. for free. the fund industry has spent thirty years pretending nobody recorded it. his name is Peter Lynch. he ran Fidelity's Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990. 29% a year. every year. when he started, the fund had $20 million. when he left, it was the largest mutual fund on earth. over a million shareholders. then he quit, walked away from billions in fees, and never managed outside money again. the first thing he says is the one rule Wall Street will never teach you. if you cannot explain to a ten-year-old in two minutes why you own a stock, you should not own it. he says 80% of people who own stocks cannot do this. then he explains why the number has not changed in thirty years. he did not use algorithms. he did not use quant models. he found stocks at the mall. at the grocery store. in his own neighborhood. he made more money on Dunkin' Donuts than on any sophisticated trade. the most boring companies with the simplest products, bought by a man who actually used them. the part nobody repeats: he says individual investors have a structural advantage over every institution on Wall Street. the funds are forced to follow rules that you are not. when they panic-sell, you benefit. when they cannot hold a small position, you can. he said this to a room full of financial journalists. not one of them ran the story. your financial advisor charges 1% of everything you own every year to underperform a method a retired fund manager gave away in one hour. there are 5,000 mutual funds competing for your money. the man who beat all of them told you exactly how. thirty years ago. the lecture is 61 minutes. it has been free since 1994. the people charging you to invest are hoping you never find it.
1:00:51

One man turned $20 million into $14 billion in thirteen years. he retired at 46. then he walked into the National Press Club and explained the entire method to a room of journalists. for free. the fund industry has spent thirty years pretending nobody recorded it. his name is Peter Lynch. he ran Fidelity's Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990. 29% a year. every year. when he started, the fund had $20 million. when he left, it was the largest mutual fund on earth. over a million shareholders. then he quit, walked away from billions in fees, and never managed outside money again. the first thing he says is the one rule Wall Street will never teach you. if you cannot explain to a ten-year-old in two minutes why you own a stock, you should not own it. he says 80% of people who own stocks cannot do this. then he explains why the number has not changed in thirty years. he did not use algorithms. he did not use quant models. he found stocks at the mall. at the grocery store. in his own neighborhood. he made more money on Dunkin' Donuts than on any sophisticated trade. the most boring companies with the simplest products, bought by a man who actually used them. the part nobody repeats: he says individual investors have a structural advantage over every institution on Wall Street. the funds are forced to follow rules that you are not. when they panic-sell, you benefit. when they cannot hold a small position, you can. he said this to a room full of financial journalists. not one of them ran the story. your financial advisor charges 1% of everything you own every year to underperform a method a retired fund manager gave away in one hour. there are 5,000 mutual funds competing for your money. the man who beat all of them told you exactly how. thirty years ago. the lecture is 61 minutes. it has been free since 1994. the people charging you to invest are hoping you never find it.

Tigerflow

253,294 views • 5 days ago

A codebreaker made $31 billion. he returned 66% a year for thirty years. Buffett averaged 20%. Soros averaged 30%. nobody came close. he gave one lecture about it at MIT. Wall Street has spent forty years trying to reverse-engineer what he said. he didn't hire traders. not one MBA. not one analyst. he hired physicists, astronomers, and Cold War cryptographers. he ran the fund from a strip mall on Long Island. his name is Jim Simons. the Medallion Fund made more money than Goldman Sachs most years. he never explained how. the part nobody talks about: the same pattern recognition he used to crack Soviet codes for the NSA is what he used to crack financial markets. he said it in this lecture. nobody in finance picked it up. a quant at a multi-billion dollar fund told me they play this for every new hire on day one. not a textbook. not a model. a 45-minute talk from a man who beat Buffett, Soros, Dalio, and every hedge fund alive. $31 billion. one formula. zero finance people. Goldman, JPMorgan, Citadel, Bridgewater. he beat all of them. from a strip mall. the lecture is free. he died the following year. it is in the video.
44:52

A codebreaker made $31 billion. he returned 66% a year for thirty years. Buffett averaged 20%. Soros averaged 30%. nobody came close. he gave one lecture about it at MIT. Wall Street has spent forty years trying to reverse-engineer what he said. he didn't hire traders. not one MBA. not one analyst. he hired physicists, astronomers, and Cold War cryptographers. he ran the fund from a strip mall on Long Island. his name is Jim Simons. the Medallion Fund made more money than Goldman Sachs most years. he never explained how. the part nobody talks about: the same pattern recognition he used to crack Soviet codes for the NSA is what he used to crack financial markets. he said it in this lecture. nobody in finance picked it up. a quant at a multi-billion dollar fund told me they play this for every new hire on day one. not a textbook. not a model. a 45-minute talk from a man who beat Buffett, Soros, Dalio, and every hedge fund alive. $31 billion. one formula. zero finance people. Goldman, JPMorgan, Citadel, Bridgewater. he beat all of them. from a strip mall. the lecture is free. he died the following year. it is in the video.

Tigerflow

17,111 views • 10 days ago

2026.4.2 The government says the number is $1.3 billion. But its own expert admitted he did not trace funds. Instead, categories were defined in advance, accounts were chosen by the government, and only selected transactions were counted. When the inflows and outflows did not match, prosecutors did not reduce the number. They expanded categories, added more entities, and inserted vague “other inflows” to make the model work. That is not a measured fraud loss. It is a constructed narrative. #FreeMilesGuo
1:01

2026.4.2 The government says the number is $1.3 billion. But its own expert admitted he did not trace funds. Instead, categories were defined in advance, accounts were chosen by the government, and only selected transactions were counted. When the inflows and outflows did not match, prosecutors did not reduce the number. They expanded categories, added more entities, and inserted vague “other inflows” to make the model work. That is not a measured fraud loss. It is a constructed narrative. #FreeMilesGuo

NFSC Speaks

4,528,903 views • 4 months ago

One guy built a wedding camera app in a month and it now makes him over $1,000,000 a year. No team, no investors, no marketing budget. 100,000 downloads in the first month. Zero dollars on ads. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing. You cannot use the app alone. The host has to pull every guest into it. One wedding is not one user. It is 200 people scanning the same code in one evening. The guest liked it at someone else's wedding. A month later he throws his own event and brings his own crowd. The loop spins for free. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift. So they install it gladly. $2 to $50 subscriptions. 5% pay. That is $100,000 a month. He did not win on budget. He sewed the growth into the product itself. Could you build the loop, or is it just luck?
0:23

One guy built a wedding camera app in a month and it now makes him over $1,000,000 a year. No team, no investors, no marketing budget. 100,000 downloads in the first month. Zero dollars on ads. He did not bolt marketing onto the product. He made using the product the marketing. You cannot use the app alone. The host has to pull every guest into it. One wedding is not one user. It is 200 people scanning the same code in one evening. The guest liked it at someone else's wedding. A month later he throws his own event and brings his own crowd. The loop spins for free. It does not look like an ad. To the guest it is a gift. So they install it gladly. $2 to $50 subscriptions. 5% pay. That is $100,000 a month. He did not win on budget. He sewed the growth into the product itself. Could you build the loop, or is it just luck?

Marlow

513,405 views • 1 month ago

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.
1:03:58

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.

Veles

48,073 views • 17 days ago

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.
1:16

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Dustin

247,138 views • 4 months ago

He is not just a liar. He is the MOST DANGEROUS KIND. A CALCULATED liar who told you EXACTLY what he was going to do to you. Who described the damage austerity does to the most vulnerable. Who proved he understood every word of it. Then looked you in the eye. And did it anyway. While STILL DENYING IT. That is not incompetence. That is not a broken promise. That is PREMEDITATED. That is who he is. His cuts to the welfare bill are FOUR TIMES greater than anything the Conservatives proposed. The Health Foundation confirmed it. Four times. The very austerity he called devastating and promised never to repeat. The average family will be £1,400 worse off by 2030. While his biggest donor Lord Alli was given UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to Downing Street. Hosted a party there for other Labour donors. The same Lord Alli whose name appears in the Epstein files. Cutting the most vulnerable people in Britain to the bone. While his donors party in Downing Street. That is not austerity. That is theft. Dressed up in a suit. Delivered with a straight face.
0:28

He is not just a liar. He is the MOST DANGEROUS KIND. A CALCULATED liar who told you EXACTLY what he was going to do to you. Who described the damage austerity does to the most vulnerable. Who proved he understood every word of it. Then looked you in the eye. And did it anyway. While STILL DENYING IT. That is not incompetence. That is not a broken promise. That is PREMEDITATED. That is who he is. His cuts to the welfare bill are FOUR TIMES greater than anything the Conservatives proposed. The Health Foundation confirmed it. Four times. The very austerity he called devastating and promised never to repeat. The average family will be £1,400 worse off by 2030. While his biggest donor Lord Alli was given UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to Downing Street. Hosted a party there for other Labour donors. The same Lord Alli whose name appears in the Epstein files. Cutting the most vulnerable people in Britain to the bone. While his donors party in Downing Street. That is not austerity. That is theft. Dressed up in a suit. Delivered with a straight face.

BanksyCat

87,806 views • 2 months ago

in 2008 Ken Griffin lost 55% of his investors' money - eighteen years later the man on the other side of that trade was Leopold Aschenbrenner - down 67% in a single month this is the full document - what Citadel lost, what Griffin refused to hand back, and what it cost him to survive it "we were losing hundreds upon hundreds in capital a week - if not more" when investors asked for $1.2 billion back, he suspended redemptions and locked them in for ten months rather than sell into a frozen market the funds returned 62% the next year - and were still down 27% across the two they crossed back above the 2008 high-water mark in January 2012, and he collected no performance fees the entire time save & read the full document ↓
1:45

in 2008 Ken Griffin lost 55% of his investors' money - eighteen years later the man on the other side of that trade was Leopold Aschenbrenner - down 67% in a single month this is the full document - what Citadel lost, what Griffin refused to hand back, and what it cost him to survive it "we were losing hundreds upon hundreds in capital a week - if not more" when investors asked for $1.2 billion back, he suspended redemptions and locked them in for ten months rather than sell into a frozen market the funds returned 62% the next year - and were still down 27% across the two they crossed back above the 2008 high-water mark in January 2012, and he collected no performance fees the entire time save & read the full document ↓

Сarm1ne

208,777 views • 17 days ago

Kamala Harris: It is a choice between common sense solutions, and the same old political games. In the four years that Donald Trump was president, he did nothing to fix our broken immigration system. He did not solve the shortage of immigration judges. He did not solve the shortage of border agents. He did not create lawful pathways into our nation. He did nothing to address an outdated asylum system. And did not work with other governments in our hemisphere to deal with what clearly is also a regional challenge. As overdoses went up during his presidency, he fought to slash funding for the fight against fentanyl. And what did he do instead? Well let's talk about that. He separated families. He ripped toddlers out of their mother's arms. Put children in cages and tried to end protections for dreamers. He made the challenges at the border worse. And he is still and he is still fanning the flames of fear and division. That not the work of a leader. That is not the work of a leader. And that is in fact, I think we all believe, an abdication of leadership. And so, on behalf of all across our nation who want to see these problems solved. I say we cannot accept Donald Trump's failure to lead. Let's not permit scapegoating instead of solutions or rhetoric instead of results.
2:31

Kamala Harris: It is a choice between common sense solutions, and the same old political games. In the four years that Donald Trump was president, he did nothing to fix our broken immigration system. He did not solve the shortage of immigration judges. He did not solve the shortage of border agents. He did not create lawful pathways into our nation. He did nothing to address an outdated asylum system. And did not work with other governments in our hemisphere to deal with what clearly is also a regional challenge. As overdoses went up during his presidency, he fought to slash funding for the fight against fentanyl. And what did he do instead? Well let's talk about that. He separated families. He ripped toddlers out of their mother's arms. Put children in cages and tried to end protections for dreamers. He made the challenges at the border worse. And he is still and he is still fanning the flames of fear and division. That not the work of a leader. That is not the work of a leader. And that is in fact, I think we all believe, an abdication of leadership. And so, on behalf of all across our nation who want to see these problems solved. I say we cannot accept Donald Trump's failure to lead. Let's not permit scapegoating instead of solutions or rhetoric instead of results.

Acyn

197,750 views • 1 year ago

Aravind Srinivas just described a future most founders are pretending they are ready for. One person. One machine. A company that runs itself. Srinivas: “Buy a Mac mini, set up a Perplexity personal computer, and run their business on that.” Not a side project. Not a pitch deck. A real business with real revenue while the founder is not in the building. AI runs the ads. Handles SEO. Integrates Stripe. Ships features. Answers customers. All of it executing without a single employee. Srinivas: “Have this all working while you can be sipping wine in Napa.” But before he sold the dream he killed the one most people are already chasing. Srinivas: “Everybody talks about this one-person one-billion-dollar company. It’s not truly moving the GDP by one billion. It’s not truly creating new value.” One researcher collecting a billion in equity does not grow an economy. It rearranges numbers between balance sheets. Nothing gets built. No customer gets served. That is not value creation. That is valuation creation. Srinivas wants no part of it. What he described is the opposite. The person driving Uber between shifts who has the idea but not the payroll. Not the engineering. Not the marketing. Not the support staff. That person gets a machine that replaces all of it. Hundreds of thousands in revenue. Millions. Generated by autonomous systems doing the work that used to require ten employees and a burn rate. Not paper wealth. Not valuation theater. Output that moves through an economy and touches real customers. That is what moves GDP. Not one person worth a billion dollars. A million people each building something worth a million. That math rewrites a country. Then Srinivas said the part that separates him from every hype merchant in the room. Srinivas: “Everybody thinks AI is already there. It’s not there yet. Someone has to do that hard work.” The vision is real. The infrastructure is not. The agents are not autonomous. The integrations are not seamless. The plumbing is not finished. Someone has to wire the APIs. Connect the billing. Build the bridge between what a founder wants and what a machine can deliver. That work is not a keynote. It is not a tweet thread. It is engineering that nobody wants to do and everybody will depend on. Whoever finishes it first does not just build a product. They hand every ambitious person on Earth a company they can run alone. The corporations that need five hundred people to do what one founder with the right infrastructure could do are not efficient. They are exposed. And the person building the thing that exposes them just told you exactly what it looks like. He also told you it is not going to build itself.
1:13

Aravind Srinivas just described a future most founders are pretending they are ready for. One person. One machine. A company that runs itself. Srinivas: “Buy a Mac mini, set up a Perplexity personal computer, and run their business on that.” Not a side project. Not a pitch deck. A real business with real revenue while the founder is not in the building. AI runs the ads. Handles SEO. Integrates Stripe. Ships features. Answers customers. All of it executing without a single employee. Srinivas: “Have this all working while you can be sipping wine in Napa.” But before he sold the dream he killed the one most people are already chasing. Srinivas: “Everybody talks about this one-person one-billion-dollar company. It’s not truly moving the GDP by one billion. It’s not truly creating new value.” One researcher collecting a billion in equity does not grow an economy. It rearranges numbers between balance sheets. Nothing gets built. No customer gets served. That is not value creation. That is valuation creation. Srinivas wants no part of it. What he described is the opposite. The person driving Uber between shifts who has the idea but not the payroll. Not the engineering. Not the marketing. Not the support staff. That person gets a machine that replaces all of it. Hundreds of thousands in revenue. Millions. Generated by autonomous systems doing the work that used to require ten employees and a burn rate. Not paper wealth. Not valuation theater. Output that moves through an economy and touches real customers. That is what moves GDP. Not one person worth a billion dollars. A million people each building something worth a million. That math rewrites a country. Then Srinivas said the part that separates him from every hype merchant in the room. Srinivas: “Everybody thinks AI is already there. It’s not there yet. Someone has to do that hard work.” The vision is real. The infrastructure is not. The agents are not autonomous. The integrations are not seamless. The plumbing is not finished. Someone has to wire the APIs. Connect the billing. Build the bridge between what a founder wants and what a machine can deliver. That work is not a keynote. It is not a tweet thread. It is engineering that nobody wants to do and everybody will depend on. Whoever finishes it first does not just build a product. They hand every ambitious person on Earth a company they can run alone. The corporations that need five hundred people to do what one founder with the right infrastructure could do are not efficient. They are exposed. And the person building the thing that exposes them just told you exactly what it looks like. He also told you it is not going to build itself.

Dustin

64,593 views • 4 months ago

Paul Tudor Jones predicted the 1987 crash and made $100 million shorting Black Monday. He is 71 years old and still trading. He just gave a new interview where he names the two things that will trigger the next 1987-scale event. Most traders are watching neither. Tudor Investment Corp, the fund he founded in 1980, has compounded at roughly 19 percent a year for 45 years. He is one of the four or five people alive who have done that continuously. The interview is with Patrick O'Shaughnessy. Jones's two warnings: One, the U.S. debt bubble. The government is running fiscal deficits at a pace historically reserved for wartime. He has seen bubbles before. He has never seen a debt structure that could not be reversed by a rate cut. This one, he says, is not reversible without pain that voters will not accept. It ends the same way every debt bubble in history has ended. Not this year. Not next. But it ends. Two, unregulated AI. He has been early on every major macro move for 45 years, and he says he has never been more concerned about a single technology in his career. He is not worried about AI taking jobs. He is worried about AI making mistakes at speeds no human can supervise. He has publicly called for regulation because he believes the alternative is a market event that makes 1987 look modest. His trading rule has not changed in five decades: "The most important rule of trading is to play great defense, not great offense." He does not try to be right. He tries not to lose. He sets stops tight. He cuts positions fast. He never averages down on a loser. His return record is not built on being clever. It is built on refusing to be dead. He also spent much of the interview talking about the Robin Hood Foundation, which he co-founded in 1988 to reduce poverty in New York. His advice for the next generation was to find significance outside of money. The last words of the interview are: kill them with kindness. A man who has shorted markets for 45 years ends every conversation with an argument for kindness. That contrast is the whole post. Greatness in markets is not a talent. It is a refusal. Refusal to be reckless. Refusal to be certain. Refusal to be indifferent. Tudor Jones has refused all three for half a century. The interview is free. The warnings are specific. Most people will scroll past both
1:00:51

Paul Tudor Jones predicted the 1987 crash and made $100 million shorting Black Monday. He is 71 years old and still trading. He just gave a new interview where he names the two things that will trigger the next 1987-scale event. Most traders are watching neither. Tudor Investment Corp, the fund he founded in 1980, has compounded at roughly 19 percent a year for 45 years. He is one of the four or five people alive who have done that continuously. The interview is with Patrick O'Shaughnessy. Jones's two warnings: One, the U.S. debt bubble. The government is running fiscal deficits at a pace historically reserved for wartime. He has seen bubbles before. He has never seen a debt structure that could not be reversed by a rate cut. This one, he says, is not reversible without pain that voters will not accept. It ends the same way every debt bubble in history has ended. Not this year. Not next. But it ends. Two, unregulated AI. He has been early on every major macro move for 45 years, and he says he has never been more concerned about a single technology in his career. He is not worried about AI taking jobs. He is worried about AI making mistakes at speeds no human can supervise. He has publicly called for regulation because he believes the alternative is a market event that makes 1987 look modest. His trading rule has not changed in five decades: "The most important rule of trading is to play great defense, not great offense." He does not try to be right. He tries not to lose. He sets stops tight. He cuts positions fast. He never averages down on a loser. His return record is not built on being clever. It is built on refusing to be dead. He also spent much of the interview talking about the Robin Hood Foundation, which he co-founded in 1988 to reduce poverty in New York. His advice for the next generation was to find significance outside of money. The last words of the interview are: kill them with kindness. A man who has shorted markets for 45 years ends every conversation with an argument for kindness. That contrast is the whole post. Greatness in markets is not a talent. It is a refusal. Refusal to be reckless. Refusal to be certain. Refusal to be indifferent. Tudor Jones has refused all three for half a century. The interview is free. The warnings are specific. Most people will scroll past both

Veles

90,941 views • 1 month ago

‼️UNSCRIPTED: Shedeur Sanders and the Rise They Never Saw Coming … There are athletes who play the game and then there are figures who shift culture. Shedeur Sanders has become the latter. Not because the world cleared a path for him, but because he rose above everything they said he could not overcome. From the moment his name surfaced in NFL conversations, critics formed their narratives. He is not ready. He cannot read an NFL playbook. He does not have the arm talent. He will not start this season. He will sit behind veterans. He will fold under pressure. They buried him on depth charts that were never meant to define him. But here is the biblical pattern. Every chosen leader is underestimated before they are elevated. Every David is measured by the armor he does not wear. Every Joseph is counted out before he steps into his palace. Every Daniel is doubted until he survives what should have destroyed him. And even Jesus walked through wilderness before walking into purpose. Shedeur’s journey mirrors that same divine blueprint. He did not rise because the critics supported him. He rose in spite of them. He rose above projections. He rose above narratives. He rose above the low expectations placed on him by people who never studied his preparation. And just like David he did not need public approval to prove he was ready. He just needed a moment. A moment to step into the pocket. A moment to command the huddle. A moment to show he can read defenses, manipulate safeties, extend plays, and deliver throws critics said he could not make. When God appoints someone no amount of opposition can block the assignment. Critics can predict it. Analysts can dismiss it. Experts can misunderstand it. But they cannot stop it. God has a history of taking what people overlook and turning it into what the world cannot ignore.
2:03

‼️UNSCRIPTED: Shedeur Sanders and the Rise They Never Saw Coming … There are athletes who play the game and then there are figures who shift culture. Shedeur Sanders has become the latter. Not because the world cleared a path for him, but because he rose above everything they said he could not overcome. From the moment his name surfaced in NFL conversations, critics formed their narratives. He is not ready. He cannot read an NFL playbook. He does not have the arm talent. He will not start this season. He will sit behind veterans. He will fold under pressure. They buried him on depth charts that were never meant to define him. But here is the biblical pattern. Every chosen leader is underestimated before they are elevated. Every David is measured by the armor he does not wear. Every Joseph is counted out before he steps into his palace. Every Daniel is doubted until he survives what should have destroyed him. And even Jesus walked through wilderness before walking into purpose. Shedeur’s journey mirrors that same divine blueprint. He did not rise because the critics supported him. He rose in spite of them. He rose above projections. He rose above narratives. He rose above the low expectations placed on him by people who never studied his preparation. And just like David he did not need public approval to prove he was ready. He just needed a moment. A moment to step into the pocket. A moment to command the huddle. A moment to show he can read defenses, manipulate safeties, extend plays, and deliver throws critics said he could not make. When God appoints someone no amount of opposition can block the assignment. Critics can predict it. Analysts can dismiss it. Experts can misunderstand it. But they cannot stop it. God has a history of taking what people overlook and turning it into what the world cannot ignore.

Dr. Amy Rucker

167,928 views • 8 months ago

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.
6:07

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

22,015 views • 3 months ago

🚨 WOW! Tyrus says it PERFECTLY on the Congressional Democrats viciously attacking Sec. Pete Hegseth: "The only thing I disagree with him was he said, 'who are you cheering for?' And I think the question should have been: 'who are you SPEAKING FOR? Who are they? Who is telling coming up with this ideas?'" "Why is America's success so enraging to other Americans that were elected to support our troops?" "That's what blows my mind. The fact that they clearly did not know whom they were going after because they're not qualified to do what they do." "So when they went at him, they didn't realize that this guy was born in this, molded by it!" "From the time he was his life, he wanted to be a soldier. He was a soldier. He came back." "He went through hard times. He found redemption. He's got a strong family. He's got a great wife. And now he's in a position to where he is protecting the men who walked the same trails he did." "So for them to say anything to him, they are vastly unqualified, uneducated, and not charming at all." h/t TV News Now Tyrus
1:06

🚨 WOW! Tyrus says it PERFECTLY on the Congressional Democrats viciously attacking Sec. Pete Hegseth: "The only thing I disagree with him was he said, 'who are you cheering for?' And I think the question should have been: 'who are you SPEAKING FOR? Who are they? Who is telling coming up with this ideas?'" "Why is America's success so enraging to other Americans that were elected to support our troops?" "That's what blows my mind. The fact that they clearly did not know whom they were going after because they're not qualified to do what they do." "So when they went at him, they didn't realize that this guy was born in this, molded by it!" "From the time he was his life, he wanted to be a soldier. He was a soldier. He came back." "He went through hard times. He found redemption. He's got a strong family. He's got a great wife. And now he's in a position to where he is protecting the men who walked the same trails he did." "So for them to say anything to him, they are vastly unqualified, uneducated, and not charming at all." h/t TV News Now Tyrus

Eric Daugherty

26,972 views • 3 months ago

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US
0:52

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Doc Malik

11,609 views • 6 months ago

Threadguy reveals the one trait every great trader he’s met shares “I’ve been having a lot of dinners with these CT legend trader guys, the ones who’ve really done well, and a lot of them are not that impressive. They’re not like these hyper genius guys. But the one common trait amongst all of them is they don’t lose money. Their drawdowns are tiny.” “It’s the same in the books. Druckenmiller’s whole bit is that he basically never had a down month, and they track it in months, not years. Paul Tudor Jones did this too, when he enters a trade, instead of thinking about how much he could make, he thinks about how much he could lose.”
1:11

Threadguy reveals the one trait every great trader he’s met shares “I’ve been having a lot of dinners with these CT legend trader guys, the ones who’ve really done well, and a lot of them are not that impressive. They’re not like these hyper genius guys. But the one common trait amongst all of them is they don’t lose money. Their drawdowns are tiny.” “It’s the same in the books. Druckenmiller’s whole bit is that he basically never had a down month, and they track it in months, not years. Paul Tudor Jones did this too, when he enters a trade, instead of thinking about how much he could make, he thinks about how much he could lose.”

Kai

55,251 views • 2 months ago

A Carnegie Mellon professor who spent ten years building rides for Disney walked on stage with ten tumors in his liver and spent 76 minutes explaining how to get what you want out of life. For free. Keynote speakers charge $30,000 for a thinner version of it. He opened with the scans and the doctors' prognosis: three to six months left. Then he did pushups on stage so the room would stop pitying him. No cancer today. No faith either. Nothing about his wife and children, because he would not get through it. His name was Randy Pausch, a computer scientist who spent his career building virtual reality. The whole method fits on a napkin. A wall that stops you is not standing there against you, it is standing there to stop the people who want it less than you do. Worry when the criticism stops, not when it comes, because silence means they gave up on you. Bring something to the table before you ask for anything. Ask in the one way the other person cannot refuse. Give people time and they will eventually show you their good side. Twice he got into places that had told him no, the same way both times. NASA barred faculty from its zero gravity flights but let teams bring a journalist. He resigned as faculty advisor, applied as press, and brought headsets his lab had built for the others to film. Disney rejected him after his PhD. When they started a secret virtual reality project he called back, not for a job but for materials for a briefing to the Secretary of Defense, and six months later he was working inside Imagineering. Early on he explains a trick he calls the head fake: you send a child to play football not to learn football but to learn persistence. In the last minute it turns out he ran one on the room. They came for a story about childhood dreams and got a manual for living. Then he pulls off the second mask. The room was never the audience. His children were too young to remember him, and a recording was the only thing he could leave them. Five hundred people sat in that hall while a father talked to kids he would not see grow up. A senior executive I know sends this lecture to every new person on his team. Not a handbook, not an onboarding doc, this video. The lecture was later turned into a book that sold millions of copies, but the video is the same thing in Pausch's own voice, in front of the people it was written for. He died ten months later, at 47. The lecture is free. Writing the five rules down takes a minute. It is in the video.
1:16:02

A Carnegie Mellon professor who spent ten years building rides for Disney walked on stage with ten tumors in his liver and spent 76 minutes explaining how to get what you want out of life. For free. Keynote speakers charge $30,000 for a thinner version of it. He opened with the scans and the doctors' prognosis: three to six months left. Then he did pushups on stage so the room would stop pitying him. No cancer today. No faith either. Nothing about his wife and children, because he would not get through it. His name was Randy Pausch, a computer scientist who spent his career building virtual reality. The whole method fits on a napkin. A wall that stops you is not standing there against you, it is standing there to stop the people who want it less than you do. Worry when the criticism stops, not when it comes, because silence means they gave up on you. Bring something to the table before you ask for anything. Ask in the one way the other person cannot refuse. Give people time and they will eventually show you their good side. Twice he got into places that had told him no, the same way both times. NASA barred faculty from its zero gravity flights but let teams bring a journalist. He resigned as faculty advisor, applied as press, and brought headsets his lab had built for the others to film. Disney rejected him after his PhD. When they started a secret virtual reality project he called back, not for a job but for materials for a briefing to the Secretary of Defense, and six months later he was working inside Imagineering. Early on he explains a trick he calls the head fake: you send a child to play football not to learn football but to learn persistence. In the last minute it turns out he ran one on the room. They came for a story about childhood dreams and got a manual for living. Then he pulls off the second mask. The room was never the audience. His children were too young to remember him, and a recording was the only thing he could leave them. Five hundred people sat in that hall while a father talked to kids he would not see grow up. A senior executive I know sends this lecture to every new person on his team. Not a handbook, not an onboarding doc, this video. The lecture was later turned into a book that sold millions of copies, but the video is the same thing in Pausch's own voice, in front of the people it was written for. He died ten months later, at 47. The lecture is free. Writing the five rules down takes a minute. It is in the video.

Lima

249,780 views • 7 days ago

A hedge fund returned 50% a year for ten years straight. In 2005 the man who ran it sat on a desk at Columbia and taught the entire method to 30 students for free. No bank, no fund, no business school has ever promoted the recording. His name is Joel Greenblatt. He ran Gotham Capital from 1985 to 1994. Almost nobody sustains 50% annually for a single year. He did it for ten. Then in 1995 he returned all outside capital, kept running his own money, and walked into a classroom. The first lecture is about corners of the market where the usual buyers are structurally forced to sell regardless of price. Spinoffs, restructurings, situations where an index fund must dump a stock the day it leaves the index. He does not teach a screener or a formula. He teaches why these corners exist at all, and why they keep existing after everybody knows about them. The uncomfortable part is what he says about diversification. He held very few positions. It runs directly against everything the business school teaches two floors down. Columbia charges $80K a year in tuition. The man upstairs gave away the method for free. Every screener is free now. Every filing is searchable. The constraint was never information. It was knowing which information to ignore. Filmed from the back row, audio uneven, students blocking the frame. He gave away 50% a year to a room of 30 people. Almost nobody traded on it. One classroom. One camera. The full lecture is free. It is in the video.
1:08:49

A hedge fund returned 50% a year for ten years straight. In 2005 the man who ran it sat on a desk at Columbia and taught the entire method to 30 students for free. No bank, no fund, no business school has ever promoted the recording. His name is Joel Greenblatt. He ran Gotham Capital from 1985 to 1994. Almost nobody sustains 50% annually for a single year. He did it for ten. Then in 1995 he returned all outside capital, kept running his own money, and walked into a classroom. The first lecture is about corners of the market where the usual buyers are structurally forced to sell regardless of price. Spinoffs, restructurings, situations where an index fund must dump a stock the day it leaves the index. He does not teach a screener or a formula. He teaches why these corners exist at all, and why they keep existing after everybody knows about them. The uncomfortable part is what he says about diversification. He held very few positions. It runs directly against everything the business school teaches two floors down. Columbia charges $80K a year in tuition. The man upstairs gave away the method for free. Every screener is free now. Every filing is searchable. The constraint was never information. It was knowing which information to ignore. Filmed from the back row, audio uneven, students blocking the frame. He gave away 50% a year to a room of 30 people. Almost nobody traded on it. One classroom. One camera. The full lecture is free. It is in the video.

Tigerflow

1,315,117 views • 14 days ago