Growth Tribe

Practical guidance to help you take control of your personal brand and attract paying customers.

Founder

International Air Transport Association (IATA)

Spearheaded CX/Marketing programs including:
1. Customer Journey Mapping for Airlines, Travel & Cargo Agents (+100K Customers)
+50 Main touchpoints identified, +14 Moments of Truth &+90 improvement opportunities.
 
2. Customer Lifecycle Management Proof of Concept for Travel Agent Customers (B2B):
+$300,000 in MRR, 8% Reduction of Churn,+40% Increase in CAV & +9% increase in CSAT.

3. Voice of the Customer (VoC) Stream Lead:
Creation of a Strategic NPS marketing research methodology for all Products (Psychology & drivers).

4. Global Process Owner, Customer Mass Communications OPS for:
+100,000 Customers, ~3,000 Communication pieces annually, 4 team members across 3 locations.

Customer Experience / Growth Marketing

Program Manager for IATA Settlement Systems Business Development:
Led +120 team members for the deployment of 4 Settlement Systems Operations in Rwanda, Sudan, Lebanon and Nigeria:
+$450M new processed transactions through IATA Settlement systems
+$0.5M ARR in additional revenue
+1,000 new B2B customers (Airlines, Travel & Cargo Agents)

Marketing Specialist, Financial & Distribution Services 

Frontera

Strategic Growth Marketing Advisor (Part-time).

Advisor - Growth Marketing

 أكاديمية هاي لفل للطيران High Level Aviation Academy

Technical Trainer for Aircraft Maintenance Program.

Engineering Trainer

EgyptAir

Engineer on Job training - Aircraft Line and Base Maintenance  within EgyptAir MRO.

Maintenance Engineer

I help you attract & convert your true fans through magnetic content.

👋 I’m Sohaib, An aviation engineer turned Growth Marketer.

Over the years, I spearheaded multiple growth programs.

I helped scale products across both corporate & startup environments.

Here are some of my results:

→ Scaled products to a total of $450M in sales.
→ Built audiences for multiple startups & founders.
→ Total Growth of +$1.5M in annual revenue for brands.
→ Received 5 industry awards (marketing & creativity).

But I also made many mistakes along the way.

This year, I decided to go on a journey to build a $1M personal brand & one-person business.

I plan to do this by:

• Building a Personal Monopoly (Differentiate myself)
• Decentralizing my Income (Productizing myself)
• Forming a Personal Cartel (Replicate myself)
• Creating Infinite leverage (Multiply myself)

If you want to learn more about my journey:

→ Join Growth Tribe Newsletter: growthtribe.beehiiv.com
→ Follow me on Twitter: @albadawee
→ Email: albadawee@hotmail.com

Sohaib Albadawee

Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, CFA

I’m a fixed income advisor by day, a finance nerd by nature, and someone who genuinely loves making complex stuff easier to understand.

I’ve spent the last decade and a half working with three large private banks in Switzerland, helping clients navigate bond markets, portfolio strategy, and global macroeconomic shifts. From building fixed income advisory platforms to advising ultra-high-net-worth clients globally, I’ve been lucky to work at the intersection of markets and people.

But there’s more to me than bonds.

I host The Blunt Dollar, a weekly podcast where I get to ask big questions to some of the smartest minds in finance. We delve into the human side of money, exploring the stories behind the strategies and what truly drives decisions in this industry.

I also teach finance courses, speak at industry events, and jump into creative side projects whenever I can. I believe finance doesn’t have to be dry or intimidating. It can be personal, curious, even fun if you tell it right. 💖

I’m especially fascinated by how AI is changing the game in finance, not just in portfolio construction and research, but in how we tell stories with data. I’m always exploring where human judgment and machine intelligence can work together.

Originally from Spain, I now live in Switzerland, having called eight countries home. I’m a CFA charterholder and hold two Master’s degrees. However, what really drives me is learning something new and sharing it in a way that sticks.

If you want to chat markets, fixed income, content creation, or throw around some random finance ideas, my DMs are always open.

P.S. I post daily about markets and all the weird and wonderful stuff happening in finance. If you're into money with a personality, hit follow. Expect charts, takes, and plenty of emojis along the way. 💸💪🔥

Fixed Income Advisor

Ignacio Moreno

Hollywood almost always gets finance wrong. But every once in a while, a film actually nails it.

Here's my list of the best finance films ever made.

Some are classics. Some are cult favorites. Some are criminally underrated.

My personal favorite is The Big Short.

Why?

Because it did something almost impossible.

It made CDOs, credit default swaps, and synthetic mortgage bonds entertaining.

And it didn't dumb it down. It respected the audience.

But beyond the creative storytelling, it captured something real:
↳ The arrogance of Wall Street
↳ The blindness of regulators
↳ The human cost of greed

And that ending. Where the guys who "won" still feel sick about it.

Most finance films miss this: the moral weight.

Now I want to hear from you:

What's the best finance film ever made?

Is it The Big Short? Wall Street? Margin Call? Something else entirely?

Drop your pick in the comments.

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Full list:

Arbitrage (2012) https://lnkd.in/encqXHXX
Bank Error In Your Favor (2009) https://lnkd.in/ent8QGNm
Barbarians At The Gate (1993) https://lnkd.in/erXPZZmY
Becoming Warren Buffett (2017) https://lnkd.in/e-NdNUKU
Betting On Zero (2016) https://lnkd.in/eZ2vC5BC
Bitcoin: The End of Money As We Know It (2015) https://lnkd.in/eyWj5rff
Boiler Room (2000) https://lnkd.in/eUgsZrpA
Carbon (2017) https://lnkd.in/ewJtFHVg
Cryptopia (2020) https://lnkd.in/euPaH-bg
Dealers (1989) https://lnkd.in/ergFcUS3
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room (2005) https://lnkd.in/eRZ54JaK
Inside Job (2010) https://lnkd.in/ezGjemq4
Inside The Meltdown (2009) https://lnkd.in/eydDArSd
It's A Wonderful Life (1946) https://lnkd.in/exQuKv9U
Krach (2009) https://lnkd.in/ebJEBbgX
L’Argent Des Autres (1978) https://lnkd.in/e_5FCRSB
Le Sucre (1978) https://lnkd.in/ebtQi6TP
Madoff (2023) https://lnkd.in/eEeMcqtN
Margin Call (2011) https://lnkd.in/ep7YsJJ4
Rogue Trader (1999) https://lnkd.in/eBhF-h6i
The Big Short (2015) https://lnkd.in/e2ru6cKE
The China Hustle (2017) https://lnkd.in/eTE3Pqcy
The Hummingbird Project (2018) https://lnkd.in/e_euMbHG
The Wolf Of Wall Street (2013) https://lnkd.in/eMxygEQA
Too Big to Fail (2011) https://lnkd.in/euhV3_Gs
Trader Games (2010) https://lnkd.in/emcUbzVf
Trading Places (1983) https://lnkd.in/eH-3tkBS
Wall Street (1987) https://lnkd.in/eZExDdh2
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010) https://lnkd.in/epTXrBXH

Finance nerd 🤓 | Host of The Blunt Dollar Podcast 🎙️ | Investment Week 15 Industry Talents 🏆 | Posts daily about financial markets 📈

Just discovered a Bloomberg function that made my inner chart nerd lose it.

It's called CHRT.

And if you're into financial charts, this is basically paradise.

Here's what it does:

↳ Shows you every chart Bloomberg publishes. Every. Single. Day.

↳ Each chart links back to the original article or report.

↳ Sort by topic, region, asset class, whatever you want.

It's like having a curated gallery of market visuals at your fingertips.

I've been using Bloomberg since 2012.

That's 13 years of staring at this terminal.

And somehow I keep finding new gems like this. 😅

For anyone who thinks in charts, who saves screenshots of good visuals, who sends graphs to colleagues just because they're beautiful...

This one's for you.

What's your favorite Bloomberg function?

Drop it in the comments. Always looking to discover new features. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Now that Maduro is gone, what happens with Venezuela's debt?

Here's the reality bondholders are waking up to:

↳ $57bn in unsecured eurobonds outstanding
↳ $98bn when you include past due interest
↳ That's 119% of GDP only to pay back debt

The economy is 30% smaller than eight years ago. Oil production has nearly halved.

Recovery values? Analysts are throwing around 35-45 cents on the dollar.

But here's the catch: even in the best case, this restructuring will take years.

And the real questions haven't even been answered yet:

↳ How fast does the US normalize relations?
↳ Who gets paid first when oil revenues recover?
↳ Will new oil investment subordinate legacy bondholders?

The U.S. wants billions in private investment to rebuild Venezuela's oil sector.

Companies like ConocoPhillips have outstanding claims.

If they get priority treatment for new capital, bondholders could find themselves at the back of the line.

And then there's the Iraq precedent.

After the 2003 invasion, the US used executive orders and UN resolutions to immunize Iraqi assets from creditors.

Creditors couldn't attach a thing.

Could Washington do the same in Venezuela? Prioritize reconstruction over legacy debt?

The tools exist. The precedent exists.

My two cents: If Washington decides reconstruction comes first, recovery values could disappoint even the optimists.

What's your take on Venezuela debt? Is there upside from here?

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

My coach asked what kind of support I need in my life.

I showed her this chart.

She didn't laugh.

But you know what? That support line held beautifully at the 200-day moving average 😜

This is what 13 years in finance does to your brain.

Normal people see two colleagues comforting each other and think "emotional support."

I see a candlestick bouncing off a key level and think "that's the support that matters." 😅

If you've ever:

↳ Called a chart "beautiful"

↳ Felt genuine relief when support holds

↳ Explained technical + fundamental analysis at a dinner party (and watched everyone's eyes glaze over)

Welcome to the club. We don't have therapy. But we have charts. ♥️

Tag someone who gets it. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

I just finished The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt.

Two things genuinely shocked me.

First: the direct correlation between social media use and teenage mental health.

The data is brutal:

↳ Teen anxiety rates started climbing around 2012

↳ Depression among girls nearly doubled in a decade

↳ Self-harm hospitalizations spiked with smartphone adoption

The timing isn't coincidental.

It all went haywire when smartphones became ubiquitous among teens and image-based, algorithmic social media took off. 

Second: the paradox we've created as a society.

we bubble-wrap kids in the physical world:
↳ No unsupervised play
↳ No walking to school alone
↳ No climbing trees without helmets

But in the digital world? We hand kids unlimited access to algorithms designed by the smartest engineers on the planet to maximize engagement and addiction.

We overprotect where the risks are manageable.

We underprotect where the risks are invisible.

That contrast is ridiculous.

We've essentially run a massive experiment on an entire generation.

And the results are coming in. 😟 

Haidt's solutions feel almost too simple: no smartphones before high school, no social media before 16, smartphone-free schools.

But maybe simple is exactly what we need.

I think these suggestions make tons of sense.

Have you read the book? What's your take?

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Just found the best free resource on ETFs I've ever seen.

It's called "A Comprehensive Guide to ETFs (2nd Edition)" from the CFA Institute Research Foundation.

And it's not your typical surface-level explainer.

This thing goes deep:
↳ An overview of the full ETF ecosystem
↳ Why ETFs trade at premiums and discounts
↳ How creation and redemption actually work
↳ The role of authorized participants & arbitrage
↳ Fee compression trends and what's driving them

Here's the thing:

Most people own ETFs without understanding the plumbing behind them.

They don't know why SPY charges 0.09% while VOO charges 0.03%.

They don't understand why bond ETFs became price discovery tools during the 2008 crisis.

They've never heard of "in-kind redemptions" or why they make ETFs so tax-efficient.

This guide explains all of it.

Written by Joanne Hill, Elisabeth Kashner, CFA, and Dave Nadig, three people who actually built this industry.

It's 50+ pages of pure education. No fluff. No sales pitch.

Whether you're a CFA candidate, a financial adviser, or just someone who wants to understand what you actually own, this is the resource.

And it's completely free.

My two cents: If you're serious about markets, understanding ETF mechanics isn't optional anymore. These products now hold over $11 trillion globally.

Have you read it? What's the best ETF resource you've come across?

Drop it in the comments. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Follow me @ Ignacio Ramirez Moreno CFA

Europe's pension systems are a ticking time bomb. And young workers are the ones holding it.

According to an excellent recent FT piece, here's what the numbers look like:

↳ 47% of EU social protection spending goes to old age benefits

↳ Workers in Italy pay 33% of their earnings into the system

↳ France's pension deficit could hit €30bn by 2045

↳ Italy spends 15% of GDP on pensions
↳ Workers in France pay 28%

And the demographic math is brutal.

By the mid-2050s, Spain and Italy will have 75+ people aged 65 for every 100 working-age adults.

Fertility rates? Around 1.2 children per woman. You need 2.1 just to maintain the population.

The result?

Italy already has higher poverty rates among young people than older people.

Let that sink in.

The generation paying the highest contribution rates is also the generation least likely to receive comparable benefits.

A recent YouGov poll found something fascinating:

Most people in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy believe their pension systems are already unaffordable.

Yet there's net opposition to every obvious fix: raising retirement ages, increasing taxes, means-testing, or immigration.

Everyone knows the system is broken. No one wants to pay for the repair.

Politicians keep kicking the can down the road because pensioners vote. And young people don't.

Macron tried to raise France's retirement age from 62 to 64. It nearly burned Paris to the ground. And it was reversed a year later anyway.

The uncomfortable truth?

If you're under 40 in Europe, you're funding a system that probably won't exist in its current form when you retire.

Your options:

↳ Assume you'll work longer than your parents did

↳ Build your own retirement savings outside the state system

↳ Hope for economic growth that hasn't materialised in decades

The pension promises made to previous generations were based on demographics that no longer exist.

And someone has to pay for that mismatch.

Right now, that someone is you.

What's your take?

Is this a crisis that can be fixed, or are young folks just going to have to accept a different deal?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

And if you have access to the FT, read the article "Can Europe still afford its generous state pensions?"

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

What's your hairline's asset allocation?

→ Savings account? Full head of hair. Stress-free. Boring, but beautiful.

→ Government bonds? Slightly receding. You've seen some things.

→ Blue-chip stocks? Thinning at the temples. Earnings calls are taking their toll.

→ Private equity? Noticeable bald spot. The illiquidity premium hits different at 2 am.

→ Crypto? Denial phase. "It's just a cycle." Sure it is.

→ Leveraged options? Full Mr. Clean energy. You've seen things no portfolio should see.

I'm a fixed income advisor.

My job is literally bonds. The safe stuff. The "sleep well at night" asset class.

But my hairline? It says I've been trading 3x leveraged ETFs since 2008.

Something doesn't add up. 😅

Where does your hairline fall on this chart?

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

The biggest LinkedIn change I made in 2025 wasn't my content. It was showing up on low-energy days.

That consistency resulted in:
↳ ~20 million impressions.
↳ 4.7 million people reached.
↳ 98% growth vs. the year before. 

When I look at that chart, I still can't believe it.

But what those numbers don't capture is the people I've met through this platform.

Podcast guests who became friends. 

DMs that turned into collaborations.

Conversations with people way smarter than me who somehow decided to reply.

To me, that was the real ROI: Impressions < Relationships ❤️

And now I'm setting a goal that my 2024 self would laugh at:

40 million impressions & 100k followers 🚀

Is it ambitious? Absolutely.

And I don't know exactly how I'll get there. 😅

But I know the formula: keep sharing what I learn, and keep engaging with this awesome community (i.e., each of you).

To everyone who read, liked, commented, or shared this year: THANK YOU.

You made this happen.

Now let's see what 2026 brings. 👀

What's your big goal for this year? Drop it below. Let's hold each other accountable. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

The dollar won't collapse tomorrow. But its dominance is quietly fading.

For 80+ years, the greenback has been the backbone of global finance.

57% of global reserves. 90% of FX transactions. 54% of global trade.

But here's what's shifting:

↳ The Fed's independence is being questioned publicly

↳ Policy unpredictability is making central banks nervous

↳ Tariff threats swing markets weekly

↳ Gold is surging as investors hedge

Plus, the US administration has openly said they're happy with a weaker dollar

That last point is new.

For decades, "strong dollar policy" was the official line.

Now? The opposite.

A weaker dollar helps US exports and manufacturing. But it also signals something deeper:

The US is prioritizing short-term competitiveness over long-term reserve currency status.

This isn't de-dollarization. Not yet.

But it's definitely showing de-risking.

Central banks aren't dumping dollars, but hey're diversifying. Slowly. Quietly.

The euro holds ~20% of reserves. The renminbi just 2%.

Neither is ready to replace the dollar. But that's not the point.

The future isn't one currency dethroning another.

It's a multipolar system where the dollar shares the stage.

Think decades, not quarters.

And the "exorbitant privilege" that lets the US borrow cheaply, sanction effectively, and export inflation?

It erodes when trust erodes.

And trust, once lost, compounds in the wrong direction.

What's your take?

Are we witnessing the beginning of a slow unwind, or is dollar dominance still unshakeable?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Despite all the drama, markets are having their best start to a year since 2010.

Global stocks up 1.5%. Commodities up 2%. Crypto up 3.5%. Bonds in the green across the board.

Everything is rallying.

And yet:

↳ Fed independence is under threat

↳ Japanese government bonds are in a 33% drawdown

↳ The U.S. is banning defense companies from paying dividends

And the list goes on.

Powell just said the following:

"The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president."

That's not a normal headline.

But markets? They're acting like it's a non-event.

We are seeing:
↳ Risk-on everywhere.
↳ Cyclicals are beating defensives. 
↳ Small caps are beating large caps. 

Even countries "in the eye of the storm" are rallying. Venezuela's stock market is up 145% YTD.

I'm not saying a crash is imminent.

but the disconnect between headlines and price action is striking. 🥵

When everything rallies despite escalating political interference in monetary policy, you have to ask:

Are investors pricing in the risks? Or ignoring them?

History suggests complacency doesn't end well...

What's your read on this?

Is the market right to shrug off these headlines?

Drop your take below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Hedge funds made $543 billion last year.

Retail investors made enough to cover their Netflix subscription. Maybe. 😅

The numbers are striking:

↳ Top 20 hedge funds: $115.8 billion in gains

↳ Industry returns: best year since 2009 at 12.6%

↳ Top 20 managers control 16.6% of assets but made 41% of profits

The biggest winners?

TCI Fund Management made $18.9 billion.

That's the largest single-year gain in hedge fund history.

Bridgewater added $15.6 billion. D.E. Shaw made $12.7 billion.

But here's what stands out to me:

The top 20 managers control just 16.6% of industry assets.

Yet they made 41% of total profits.

In hedge funds, like most industries, the biggest keep getting bigger.

Scale attracts capital. Capital enables better talent, better data, better infrastructure.

And better infrastructure drives better returns. Which attracts more capital.

It's a flywheel that's hard to compete with.

The gap between the top and the rest isn't closing. It's accelerating.

Can smaller funds still compete, or is the game already over?

Is this consolidation healthy, or should we be worried?

Drop your take below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

$280 million triggered a $41 billion wipeout.

This story was bigger than Greenland this week. And almost nobody noticed.

Japan's bond market just had a meltdown.

The world's third-largest pile of government debt. A $7.2 trillion market.

And it took just $280 million of trading to send it into chaos.

The butterfly effect in real time. 🦋

Here's what happened:

↳ Ultra-long Japanese bonds plummeted on Tuesday

↳ Yields hit record levels (e.g. 40yr JGBs rocketed past 4%)

↳ US Treasury Secretary called it a "six-standard-deviation move"

That's the kind of move that's supposed to happen once every few million years.

But the scariest part isn't the move itself.

It's the ratio.

$280 million in trades. $41 billion in losses.

That's a 146x amplification.

For years, the Bank of Japan suppressed volatility with massive stimulus.

Life insurers and the central bank were the reliable buyers.

Now both have pulled back.

And what's left is an illiquid market that can turn a small ripple into a tsunami.

This is the hidden fragility in global finance.

And something we tend to forget about bond markets.

Markets that look stable until they're not.

Liquidity that exists until you need it.

And small trades that can move mountains when nobody's on the other side.

The butterfly flapped its wings in Tokyo.

The shockwaves reached Washington.

What's your take?

Are we underestimating how fragile global markets have become?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Credit spreads are so tight my skinny jeans are jealous.

U.S. investment-grade spreads just hit 73bps above Treasuries.

The lowest since June 1998. The tightest this century.

And companies are piling in.

$172bn raised in the IG market this year alone. The fastest pace since 2020.

But here's the catch.

Nobody cares about spreads anymore. Everyone's buying the "all-in" yield.

Here's what's happening:
↳ Rates are elevated
↳ All-in yields still look juicy
↳ Investors need long-term returns
↳ They're buying bonds like it's Black Friday

I understand the rationale. On an absolute basis, the math checks out.

But here's what makes me nervous:

Spreads are supposed to compensate you for credit risk.

And when they compress this much, you're essentially saying:

"I trust corporations almost as much as the US government."

With erratic policymaking in Washington, some see tight corporate spreads as a feature, not a bug.

Corporate fundamentals are solid, but government credibility appears shakier by the day.

But there's something of an illusion in those tight spreads.

I'm a fixed income advisor.

My job is to obsess over basis points.

And right now, it feels like markets don't care about super-tight spreads.

That makes me a little uncomfortable.

Because spreads always matter.

The danger is when investors are oblivious to it, and by then, the damage is often done.

What's your take?

Are we right to focus on all-in yields, or are we ignoring risk that's hiding in plain sight?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

52% of global stocks are trading at all-time highs.

Because of that, you may be thinking:

"It feels so toppish."
"I don't know what to buy."
"Everything looks expensive."

The irony? Markets keep broadening out:

↳ Small caps have outperformed large caps
↳ Value stocks are finally breaking out
↳ Silver is up 30% this year

Risk appetite is everywhere. Except in investor confidence.

This is the paradox of all-time highs:

When everything rallies, nothing feels safe to buy.

You're stuck between FOMO and fear of catching the top.

The data says "buy the breakout" but your gut says "this can't last."

And those that wait watch the rally continue without them.

Some are comparing this to 2007.

But 2007 also had a very different setup: housing leverage, bank exposure, credit excess.

Today it's the US administration easing financial conditions ahead of the Midterms.

Different drivers. Different risks.

My two cents:

Paralysis is also a position. And it's usually the wrong one.

What's your read?

Are you buying, waiting, or sitting this one out?

Drop your take below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

When everyone copies each other, the only way to compete is on price.

I recently sat down with Andrew Spence for The Blunt Dollar Podcast.

Andrew is the founder and CEO of Aspen, one of the UK's fastest-growing model portfolio service (MPS) providers.

MPS providers build and manage portfolios that financial advisors plug their clients into. It's a huge growth area.

When I asked Andrew what's broken in the industry, his answer was blunt:

"Everyone has the same range of model portfolios. They're graded risk categories. The only differentiator is who can get to the bottom on pricing."

Sound familiar?

It's the "me-too" problem. And it's everywhere in asset management.

Something works, everyone copies it, and suddenly you've got 50 near-identical products fighting over basis points.

But Andrew's approach was different.

He quoted something he read about Elon Musk:

"If you're entering a competitive landscape, you can't just be a little better. You need to be genuinely, usefully different."

So instead of reasoning by analogy (what is everyone else doing?), he built Aspen from first principles:

↳ Goal-based investing instead of risk-profile-based investing

↳ Portfolios as building blocks, not one-size-fits-all buckets

↳ Technology that makes the advisor-client experience enjoyable

↳ Exceptional service in an industry racing to commoditize

It's a simple shift in thinking. But it changes everything about how advisors structure client wealth.

The MPS industry is crowded. But Andrew's bet is that differentiation beats commoditization.

And so far, Aspen's growth suggests he might be right.

What's your take?

In a world of commoditized products, where is the moat left?

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Jamie Dimon just warned that attacking the Fed will backfire.

His words on JPMorgan's earnings call:

"Anything that chips away at [Fed independence] is probably not a great idea. It'll raise inflation expectations and probably increase rates over time."

This comes after the DOJ served grand jury subpoenas to the Fed over Powell's congressional testimony.

Dimon's logic is simple:

If markets believe political pressure can influence rate decisions, they'll demand higher yields to compensate for the uncertainty.

The very thing the administration wants, lower rates, becomes harder to achieve.

It's a self-defeating cycle.

↳ Attack the Federal Reserve credibility
↳ Markets price in political risk
↳ Borrowing costs start rising
↳ The economy suffers

We've seen this movie before (e.g. Turkey).

When central bank independence erodes, inflation expectations become unanchored. And once that happens, it takes years to rebuild trust.

Dimon also made a point of defending Powell personally:

"I do have enormous respect for Jay Powell, the man."

When the CEO of America's largest bank feels the need to publicly back the Fed chair, it tells you something about the temperature in the room.

My two cents: Markets are shrugging this off for now. But Dimon's warning shouldn't be ignored.

The institutions that keep borrowing costs stable aren't invincible. They require trust.

And trust, once lost, compounds in the wrong direction.

Is the market underpricing this risk?

Drop your take below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

The U.S. administration wants to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

The headline sounds bold. The market reacted. Blackstone dropped 5.6%.

But here's the thing:

Institutional investors own 0.5% of single-family homes in the U.S.

That's it. Half a percent.

Even if you banned every single one of them tomorrow, you'd barely move the needle on affordability.

The median first-time home buyer is now 40 years old. That's an all-time high.

And it's not because Blackstone bought the house down the street.

It's because:
↳ Mortgage rates doubled in two years
↳ Construction costs have skyrocketed
↳ Zoning laws restrict new construction
↳ Wages haven't kept up with home prices

Banning institutional buyers might be good politics.

But is it good policy?

I'm genuinely curious what you think.

If this ban won't solve affordability, what will?

↳ Zoning reform?
↳ 50-year mortgages?
↳ More housing supply?
↳ Something else entirely?

Drop your take in the comments. I want to hear the ideas nobody's talking about. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

Could Europe weaponize its $12.6tn pile of US assets?

Headlines are floating this idea as leverage against the US.

FT Alphaville just wrote an excellent piece on this (thanks Robin and Toby!).

Their verdict? Not really.

Here's why the "leverage" argument falls apart:

1️⃣ Most of these assets aren't owned by governments.

They're held by pension funds, insurers, banks, and millions of ordinary people.

You can't just force them all to sell.

2️⃣ Who would buy?

US markets are the deepest and most liquid in the world.

Reallocating $12.6tn elsewhere isn't feasible.

There's simply nowhere else to put it.

3️⃣ Mutually assured destruction.

European banks are stuffed with Treasuries.

A fire sale would trash their own balance sheets.

And a soaring euro would probably tip Europe into recession.

It's the same reason China never actually dumped its Treasury holdings despite years of threats.

If you owe the bank $100, you have a problem.

If you owe the bank $100 billion, the bank has a problem.

But if you're both holding each other's assets? Nobody wants to pull the trigger.

A quieter "Sell America" trade might be happening at the margins.

But the idea that Europe can weaponize its Treasury holdings? The math doesn't work.

What's your take?

Is this leverage real, or just a headline?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 follow my profile!

40 years in finance. One piece of advice I wasn't expecting.

I recently sat down with David Hawa for The Blunt Dollar podcast.

His resume is ridiculous: Morgan Stanley, Nordea, Fortis, Robeco. Fixed income PM managing €3 billion. Client-facing roles across Europe and Asia.

But when I asked him what advice he'd give to young people entering finance, he didn't talk about certifications or networking.

He said: "Know what you don't want to do."

And then he told me this story:

A colleague of his became the global head of sales at a major firm. Hugely successful career.

But when he first started? He was an options trader.

He hated it. Absolutely hated it.

The point isn't that trading is bad. It's that he had to figure out what wasn't for him before he could find what was.

David's take:

Young people see the trading floors, the bonuses, the prestige. They follow the crowd into roles that look exciting from the outside.

But finance is massive:
↳ Portfolio management
↳ Institutional sales
↳ Family offices
↳ Private credit
↳ Insurance
↳ Pensions
↳ Retail

There's no single "right" path. There's only YOUR path.

And sometimes the fastest way to find it is by eliminating what doesn't fit.

This resonated with me more than I expected.

Because I've seen it too.

People grinding in roles they hate because they're "supposed to" want them.

But knowing what you don't want saves you years of grinding in the wrong direction.

What's the best career advice you've ever received?

Drop it below. 👇

PS. If you made it this far, ♻️ share this with your network and 🔔 subscribe to the Blunt Dollar podcast on Spotify, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts.

taplio

The Battle

Sohaib Albadawee

Ignacio Moreno

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreIgnacio Moreno's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Sohaib Albadawee

Ignacio Moreno

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Ignacio Moreno's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreIgnacio Moreno's LinkedIn Performance