Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, CFA

Private Bank (Switzerland)

Fixed Income Advisor

ISFB - Institut Supérieur de Formation Bancaire

• I teach fixed income fundamentals and portfolio construction at ISFB as part of the Investment Advisor Certificate program.

Finance Lecturer

BNP Paribas Wealth Management

• Headed Switzerland’s Fixed Income Advisory Desk offering and product development
• Responsible for the active coverage of the Emerging Markets debt book exposure of Switzerland, Luxembourg and Monaco
• Permanent speaker of the “Weekly Investment Ideas” presentation, exposing to the Swiss Front Office the latest views and recommendations of the Fixed Income Advisory Desk
• Trained regularly the Swiss Front Office on Fixed Income concepts in the context of an initiative to award internal diplomas to Relationship Managers and Investment Counselors
• Collaborated with the Paris-based Global Fixed Income Advisory Desk in order to shape the investment strategy of the group, enhance client engagement and comply with existing and upcoming regulations

HSBC Private Bank

•	Managed actively standard and bespoke Emerging Markets Fixed Income advisory portfolios for clients based worldwide
•	Engineered and monitored the bank's Emerging Markets fixed income product offering, specializing in hard currency debt
•	Contributed to the generation of tactical and strategic investment ideas across asset classes
•	Participated in the Emerging Markets fixed income committee shaping the investment strategy of HSBC Private Bank
•	Presented to ultra-high net worth individuals, institutional clients and within the bank on current market conditions and trade ideas
•	Responsible for preparing and distributing on a daily basis the Emerging Markets Advisory Desk publications (e.g. outlooks, bond lists, new issues analysis, corporate actions, country/company ad hoc notes)

Emerging Markets Investment Advisor

•	Measured portfolio risk indicators and implemented remediation action plans
•	Prepared material for the “Sales Quality Standards” HSBC training program and provided support in the process of granting internal structured products licenses

Business Risk and Control Management - Graduate Analyst

•	Supported Investment Advisors by reviewing client accounts and proposing changes in their holdings in line with the bank’s views across asset classes
•	Created an interactive platform that filters HSBC’s selected bond universe and generates tailor-made lists

Investment Advisory Latin America and Europe - Graduate Analyst

•	Backed relationship managers in order to meet ultra-high net worth individuals’ requirements
•	Performed an exploratory study on how the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act regulation would impact HSBC Private Bank and its activities from 2011 onwards

Relationship Management Latin America - Summer Analyst

Praetorian Capital

•	Assisted Spanish and French publicly listed companies to raise capital through private placements 
•	Managed process from initial company screening until terms sheet signature

Country Manager Spain & France

Opinno

•	Evaluated business plans and technology feasibility proposals of Spanish start-ups seeking to obtain private equity and business angels funding
•	Contributed to the management of the MIT Technology Review magazine in its Spanish version overseeing both its content and the management of its partners

Summer Analyst

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 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 UHNW 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. 💸

The Swiss National Bank owns more Nvidia stock than most hedge funds. $11 billion worth.

But they're not a sovereign wealth fund. They're a central bank that accidentally became one of the world's biggest tech investors.

How? By trying to weaken the Swiss franc.

Every time investors flee to Swiss safety during a crisis, the SNB sells francs and buys dollars. Then they need somewhere to park those dollars.

Government bonds? Sure, they own plenty.

But 25% goes into stocks. And where does that money naturally flow? The biggest, most liquid names: Apple ($10B), Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia.

The SNB now holds $167 billion in US equities across 2,300 positions.

That's not a portfolio. That's a small sovereign wealth fund disguised as monetary policy.

The irony is beautiful:

Switzerland never wanted to be a major Silicon Valley investor. They just wanted a weaker currency.

But in trying to fight the franc's strength, they've built an $855 billion war chest that would make Singapore or Qatar jealous.

Some are calling for them to manage it more actively. Generate higher returns. Act like a real fund.

But here's the thing: The SNB doesn't care about beating the S&P 500.

They care about having liquid assets they can dump quickly when they need to defend the franc.

You can't do that if your money is locked up in private equity or actively managed strategies.

So Switzerland's conservative central bank keeps quietly accumulating the world's tech giants. Not because they believe in AI or the metaverse.

But because when you're forced to buy foreign assets to manage your currency, you end up owning a piece of everyone else's future.

And maybe that's the most Swiss thing of all:

Accidentally becoming one of the world's biggest tech investors while trying to do something completely different.

Sometimes the best investment strategy is having no investment strategy at all.

Just a currency to defend and $167 billion that needs a home.

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

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

Picture this: Nvidia writes a $100B check to OpenAI. OpenAI writes a $300B check to Oracle. Oracle writes a $40B check to... Nvidia.

The Silicon Valley money carousel spins, and everyone's stock goes up.

They're calling it "strategic investment." 

But when your biggest investor is also your customer's biggest supplier, some questions deserve asking. 👀

Here's the circular flow:

Nvidia needs customers for its chips → invests in OpenAI.

OpenAI needs computing power → pays Oracle.

Oracle needs hardware → buys from Nvidia.

The money travels in a multi-billion circle.

Oracle's stock recently jumped 36% on the news.

Larry Ellison (Oracle's co-founder) briefly became the world's richest man.

Nvidia added $170 billion in market cap. 

All from press releases and letters of intent.

Now, ecosystem building isn't new in tech.

Companies have always invested in their supply chains.

But when the same dollars keep cycling through the same three companies, creating valuations at each stop...

Well, that's worth examining more closely. 😅

The concerns mounting on Wall Street:

↳ Circular revenue dependencies
↳ Valuation inflation from internal flows 
↳ But what happens when the music stops?

Maybe this creates genuine value.

Maybe AI really does change the investment playbook.

I certainly want to believe so, as I'm an AI power user.

But history suggests when money flows in circles this tight, it's worth asking whether we're creating value or just passing IOUs.

So here's my question:

Are we witnessing the birth of a new tech ecosystem... or just the world's most expensive game of financial musical chairs?

What's your take?

♻️ Share to help your network
🔔 Follow me for more finance memes

The greatest investor insult of all time wasn’t about a CEO. It was about a metric.
 
In Poor Charlie’s Almanack (2005), Charlie Munger is quoted as saying:
 
"I think that, every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the words 'bull**** earnings.'"
 
Vintage Munger. No filter. No apologies.
 
To Charlie, EBITDA was the financial equivalent of measuring your height in high heels. 

Sure, you look taller. But can you actually reach that top shelf?
 
He saw it for what it was: earnings before all the expensive realities of running a business.
 
↳ Before taxes (the government's cut).
↳ Before interest (the cost of borrowing).
↳ Before depreciation (stuff wearing out).
↳ Before amortization (paying for past purchases).
 
Munger hated the pretence. 

“It’s not a non-cash item,” he growled about depreciation. 

“It’s a real cost. You’re going to have to replace that equipment.”

Wall Street embraced EBITDA like a new religion. PE firms worshipped it. CEOs preached it on earnings calls.

But Munger had a different view.

Businesses that looked profitable on an EBITDA basis often couldn’t generate real cash.

Deals were justified with “adjusted” numbers that ignored reality.
 
Multiples became meaningless. “I’ve never seen an EBITDA multiple that made sense to me,” he said.

↳ Because you can’t pay bills with adjusted earnings.
↳ You can’t buy back stock just by looking at EBITDA.
↳ You can’t compound wealth using accounting tricks.

What mattered to Munger was owner earnings: cash that actually hits the bank after you’ve maintained the business.

That’s why his words still resonate.

It wasn’t just about accounting. It was about truth.

Cash is real. EBITDA is not.

♻️ Share to help your network
🔔 Follow me

In 1999, the hottest tech stocks had a median P/E of 41x. Today, top tech names sit at 31x.

History doesn’t repeat, but it sure rhymes.

Back then: Cisco, Lucent, WorldCom.

Now: Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple.

The names are different. The valuations feel eerily familiar.

Are we looking at another bubble... or a revolution priced at a discount compared to 1999?

Choose your side:

“This is 1999 all over again” ⚠️ 

or
 
“This is the beginning of something bigger” 🚀 

On which side are you on?

♻️ Share to help your network
🔔 Follow me for more finance memes

The biggest scam on TikTok right now -> dating a finance guy.

On TikTok, it looks like:
↳ Champagne rooftops
↳ Tiffany rings
↳ Private jets

In reality, it’s more like:
↳ Red Bull at 1 am
↳ “Still at the office” texts
↳ Starbucks salads and credit card points

Turns out the Wolf of Wall Street is sometimes just... the Intern of Excel. 😜

Now, tell me: 

What’s the funniest “expectation vs reality” you’ve ever seen in real life?

Happy Friday, everyone!

PS. ♻️ Share this if “sorry, still working” has ever ruined your Friday night plans and 🔔 follow my profile!

Image source: wallstreetoasis

In 1964, a 30-year-old Stanford professor published 18 pages that would torture finance students forever.

William Sharpe did not just write a paper. He wrote the bible of modern portfolio theory.

The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) was not supposed to be revolutionary. Sharpe himself called it “embarrassingly simple.”

A straight line. A Greek letter. Some basic algebra.

That was it. That was the whole thing.

Yet this “simple” model birthed an entire industry:

→ Risk-adjusted returns became the holy grail
→ Diversification got mathematical backing
→ Beta entered every investor’s vocabulary

As a result, active managers suddenly had to justify their fees.

The beautiful irony?

Sharpe won the Nobel Prize for essentially proving that most people cannot beat the market.

His model showed that once you adjust for risk, the vast majority of “alpha” disappears.

Hedge fund managers hated him. Index funds loved him.

Sixty years later, we are still arguing about whether CAPM works.

Critics say it is too simple. Markets are not that efficient. Risk is not just volatility.

But here is what they miss:

The best models are not perfect. They are useful.

CAPM gave us a language to discuss risk. A framework to think about returns. A benchmark to measure against.

Before Sharpe, portfolio management was art.

After Sharpe, it became science.

Even if the science is not perfect.

Sometimes the most powerful ideas fit on a napkin.

In 1964, a 30-year-old with a ruler reshaped an entire industry.

The real lesson is that complexity is not always progress. Simplicity endures because it forces us to ask the right questions.

So what do you think?

Is CAPM still useful today?

Or is it time to move on to a new way of understanding markets?

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

Sharpe's Capital Asset Pricing Model

Gold hit $3,940 yesterday. The highest price in history.

But here's what's really happening: institutional investors are experiencing "gold-plated FOMO."

Think about that.

These are the same fund managers who preach discipline and long-term thinking.

Now they're piling into gold ETFs like teenagers chasing meme stocks.

The numbers are staggering:

↳ Gold up 50% this year (best since 1979)
↳ $13.6 billion in just the last four weeks
↳ $60 billion flooded into gold ETFs (annual record)

Morgan Stanley is now suggesting investors shift from the traditional 60/40 portfolio to 60/20/20.

That's right. They want gold to have the same weight as your entire bond allocation.

But here's the fascinating part:

This isn't about inflation anymore. Bond markets aren't pricing in hyperinflation.

Instead, gold has become the "tail hedge" for something darker:

What if the Fed loses its independence

What if politicians decide to inflate away our debt?

Nobody wants to say it out loud. But that's what they're hedging against.

And maybe that's the most telling sign of all.

When the smartest money in the room starts hoarding gold not because they think inflation is coming...

But because they're worried about who's driving the bus.

The irony is beautiful:

Gold produces no income. Warren Buffett called it "neither of much use nor procreative."

Yet here we are, watching institutions embrace an asset they spent decades mocking.

Because when bond volatility makes fixed income feel like equity risk, suddenly that boring yellow metal starts looking pretty smart.

Sometimes the best investment isn't the one with the highest return.

It's the one that lets you sleep when everyone else is panicking.

And right now, $60 billion worth of institutional money has decided gold is their sleeping pill.

The question is: Are they early or are they the last ones to the party?

Where do you see gold going? Does this rally still have legs?

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

Is the UAE really the hottest place in finance right now? I’m about to find out 🔥

Everyone keeps saying the UAE is THE place to be, and I want to see it for myself.

I’ll be moderating the panel “Investing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” at the CFA Institute MENA ICON Conference.

AI, markets, and the future of investing. It doesn’t get more exciting than that. ♥️

If you’re around Abu Dhabi or at the conference, drop me a message. Let’s meet up!

👉 What should I absolutely do during my Abu Dhabi stay?

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

Picture this: Microsoft can borrow money cheaper than the U.S. government.

Not because of some accounting trick. Not because of a crisis.

But because corporate bond demand has gone completely insane.

Right now, two Microsoft bonds trade at lower yields than equivalent Treasurys. Think about that for a second.

A company paying less to borrow than the government that can literally tax that company.

It's like your teenager getting a better mortgage rate than you.

The numbers are wild:

Microsoft sits on $95 billion in cash with only $40 billion in debt.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam owes $30 trillion and hasn't balanced a budget since 2001.

But here's where it gets interesting.

The spread between AAA corporate bonds and Treasurys has collapsed to just 0.3%.

During the last two recessions? It hit 2+ percentage points.

We're seeing the tightest spreads in history at exactly the moment when logic says they should be wider.

Three theories explain this madness:

1. Index fund zombies: Passive funds buy whatever's in the index. They don't care if Microsoft yields less than Treasurys. They just buy.

2. Yield blindness: Investors see 3.67% from Microsoft and think "good enough." Who cares about 2 basis points when you're holding to maturity?

3. The swap spread game: Pension funds hedge with swaps, making the Treasury comparison less relevant to them.

But the real story isn't about Microsoft or even bond math.

It's about what happens when supply and demand get this distorted.

The government is issuing Treasurys like confetti while top companies barely need to borrow.

Too many dollars chasing too few quality corporate bonds.

The result? A world where lending to a corporation is "safer" than lending to its government.

Markets can stay irrational longer than textbooks can stay relevant.

But when the safest assets in the world start yielding more than the companies they could tax into oblivion, maybe it's time to ask:

Are we witnessing peak corporate bond mania, or have the rules permanently changed?

Because if Microsoft really is safer than the U.S. government, we need new textbooks.

And possibly new definitions of reality.

Your turn:

What other 'impossible' market conditions are we accepting as normal today?

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

Abu Dhabi just reminded me why finance is still a people business.

I just spent two days at the CFA MENA ICON conference, organized impeccably by the CFA Society Emirates.

Hundreds of conversations, but two encounters stood out.

First, Pascale WAZEN PALPIED, MEA Region Head at FactSet.

The kind of leader who actually listens when you talk.

We explored how AI is transforming data providers. 

She explained how FactSet is racing to embed AI across its entire offering. 

Then Charles-Henry Monchau, CIO at Syz Group, with 250,000 LinkedIn followers.

You'd expect someone with that reach to be all ego.

Instead? Down to earth, sharing his views on the UAE and Swiss wealth management scenes.

But what struck me most wasn't their titles or follower counts.

It was this: In an industry obsessed with algorithms and AI, the best conversations still happen between humans over coffee (and humus).

During the conference, I learnt about:

↳ How AI is reshaping the finance industry
↳ The UAE's explosive growth in finance talent
↳ Why the next decade belongs to those who bridge East and West

And I also realized something else.

In conference rooms full of PowerPoints about AI and disruption, the real magic happens in the hallways. 

Where people drop their guard and share what actually keeps them up at night.

Technology will transform finance. No doubt.

But meeting these two reminded me of something fundamental:

Trust isn't built through screens.

Wisdom isn't downloaded.

And the best opportunities still come from a handshake and genuine conversation.

Sometimes you have to fly 3,000 miles to remember that finance, at its core, is about people believing in people.

And that's never going out of style.

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

Athletes spend decades mastering one skill. Then they retire and become terrible investors.

Except when they don't.

Serena Williams built a $300 million investment portfolio while winning 23 Grand Slams.

Kobe Bryant turned $6 million into $200 million with BodyArmor. 

Magic Johnson went from basketball courts to a billion-dollar business empire.

Think about that.

These athletes dominated fields that demand 100% focus. Total dedication. No distractions.

Yet they built second empires in completely unrelated domains.

The pattern is fascinating:

Athletes who succeed as investors share three traits finance professionals often lack:

→ They know how to lose (every champion has lost more than they've won)

→ They trust coaches (they're used to taking expert advice)

→ They understand compound gains (small improvements over time = championships)

Meanwhile, brilliant finance minds often fail at simple things outside their expertise.

We've been taught expertise means staying in your lane.

But the best investors I've studied aren't specialists. They're learners.

Warren Buffett reads 500 pages a day across every subject.

Ray Dalio studies history, psychology, and meditation.

Charlie Munger called it "worldly wisdom", competence borrowed from everywhere.

Athletes get this intuitively.

They've already proven they can master something from scratch.

So why not markets? Why not venture capital? Why not real estate?

The same discipline that creates a perfect serve creates a perfect portfolio.

Pattern recognition. Risk assessment. Emotional control. Long-term thinking.

These aren't finance skills or sports skills.

They're human skills.

So, if you ask me, the most dangerous belief in professional life is thinking "I'm only good at one thing."

Serena didn't think that way. Neither did Kobe. Or Magic.

They understood something most of us miss:

Excellence is transferable.

The habits that make you great at anything can make you great at everything.

Your expertise isn't a prison. It's a launching pad.

So what skill from your "unrelated" life could transform your investing?

And what's stopping you from finding out?

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

I discovered I was a boring writer after 15 years in asset management.

That's how James Eagle started our conversation on The Blunt Dollar podcast.

He'd just left Votobel with a comfortable Swiss salary and one burning question: 

Was anyone actually reading what he wrote?

The answer hurt. 

His first LinkedIn article bombed. Turns out, being grammatically correct doesn't mean being interesting.

Fast forward to today: 

James has nearly 200,000 LinkedIn followers.

His data visualizations go viral.

Major firms pay him to make their numbers dance.

What changed? He stopped writing for compliance and started creating for humans.

Some highlights from our conversation:

🚨 "Data pollution is silently killing us and could wipe us out as a species" (more dangerous than carbon emissions, he argues)

💡 His yield curve animations made non-finance people message him: "Don't know what it is, but I love it"

❤️ On vulnerability: "I told you I was a terrible writer. Does that make you think less of me? No. It makes you feel empathy"

His book "From Chaos to Clarity" explores how data visualization might save us from drowning in information.

But here's what struck me most:

After 20 years inside HSBC, Fidelity, and Vontobel, James realized the job he's doing today didn't even exist when he started.

His advice to young professionals? 

"The job you'll have in 20 years may not exist today. Just imagine how exciting that is."

Sometimes the best career moves aren't up or sideways.

They're into territories that haven't been mapped yet.

Full episode:

↳ Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eFUiTdGa
↳ YouTube: https://lnkd.in/ekMjR_rQ
↳ Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/eAhMNMgb

What finance job do you think will exist in 20 years that doesn't exist today?

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

Two professors scribbled equations on a blackboard in 1958. Within months, every CFO in America was questioning everything they knew about corporate finance.

Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller had just published "The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment" in the American Economic Review.

Their conclusion? In perfect markets, it doesn't matter if you finance your company with debt or equity. Your firm's value stays the same.

Wall Street laughed. "Of course capital structure matters! Debt is cheaper than equity!"

But MM had done the math. Under their assumptions (no taxes, no bankruptcy costs, perfect information) a company worth $100 million stays worth $100 million whether it's 100% equity or 90% debt.

Think of it like pizza. Whether you cut it into 4 slices or 8, you still have the same amount of pizza. The value doesn't change just because you slice it differently.

The genius wasn't that their assumptions matched reality. They didn't.

The genius was showing us exactly WHY capital structure matters in the real world.

Taxes? They make debt valuable (interest is deductible).

Bankruptcy costs? They make too much debt dangerous.

Information asymmetry? It explains why markets react to financing decisions.

Before MM, finance was rules of thumb and banker's intuition. After MM, it became science.

Every modern capital structure decision traces back to their 27 pages.

Every corporate finance textbook starts with their theorem.

Every CFO who optimizes their debt-to-equity ratio is building on their foundation.

They didn't tell us how the world works.

They showed us how to think about why it works the way it does.

Two professors. One blackboard. Zero fancy models.

Just the revolutionary idea that before you can understand complexity, you must first understand simplicity.

And sometimes the most powerful insights come from asking: "What if we assumed away all the messy bits? What would we see then?"

Because once you understand the ideal, you finally understand why reality is so beautifully complex.

That's not just good finance. That's how all great thinking works.

Strip away the noise. Find the core truth. Then add back the complexity, one piece at a time.

MM didn't just change finance. They showed us how to think.

And 67 years later, that's still worth more than any capital structure.

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

Modigliani & Miller (1958)

Markets just broke records on the same week the Fed cut rates. Something smells off.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq just hit all-time highs.

Small caps topped their November peak.

Even emerging markets are outperforming.

Everything keeps going up, but analysts are a little concerned.

We're living through the most concentrated rally in history.

A handful of tech giants worth multiple trillions are dragging the entire market higher.

The numbers are insane:

The top 7 stocks = 35% of the S&P 500

And Nvidia is now worth more than the entire British, French, and German stock markets. 

All while US credit spreads are trading at all-time lows.

Meanwhile, retail investors are "buying the dip" like it's a religious duty. 

Companies are plowing cash into buybacks.

And the Fed just cut rates because the economy (i.e., the labor market) is... weakening?

Make that make sense.

According to a recent GQG paper, the warning is brutal:

"Investors seemingly making a one-way bet on the AI mania, while appearing to ignore alarming fundamental issues."

What fundamental issues?

↳ Lofty earnings multiples
↳ Slowing revenue growth
↳ Rising investment needs of big AI firms

In short, we're betting on "productivity gains we've never seen before."

Some of the folks that lived through 1999 are warning this time it feels worse.

Back then, at least we had the excuse of not knowing better. 

The internet was new. Valuations were a mystery.

Today? We have the playbook. We know how this movie could end.

Yet here we are, watching the same plot unfold:

Retail euphoria ✓ 
Extreme concentration ✓
"New paradigm" thinking ✓

The difference this time? 

↳ The stakes are bigger
↳ The concentration is tighter
↳ And everyone's convinced AI changes everything

Maybe it does. Maybe this time really is different.

But when markets keep going up and nobody's asking questions, history suggests you already know the answer.

Back in 1999, optimism felt limitless.

In 2025, it feels familiar, but the ending hasn’t been written yet.

What'a your take?

How much of today's rally is due to innovation… and how much is déjà vu?

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

750,000 federal workers are caught in Washington's latest standoff.

The U.S. government shut down this week.

Democrats want healthcare subsidies extended.

Republicans want spending cuts. Neither side is budging.

The immediate impact? About 40% of federal workers won't get paid. 

That's three-quarters of a million people checking their bank accounts anxiously.

The numbers from history paint a clear picture:

↳ Last shutdown (2018): 35 days, $11bn economic impact
↳ Allegedly, only $3 billion of that was ever recovered
↳ Air traffic controllers calling in sick finally ended it

What makes this shutdown different is the stated approach.

Some government officials are talking about using it to identify positions for permanent elimination, not just temporary furloughs.

The practical effects will build gradually:

↳ National parks stay open but unmaintained
↳ Research projects pause mid-experiment.
↳ Federal data releases get delayed
↳ Passport processing slows

Markets typically shrug off shutdowns. They've seen this movie before.

The S&P 500 often barely moves during these episodes.

But for federal workers and contractors, this isn't about market movements. It's about mortgage payments and grocery bills.

The structural issue remains unchanged: 

The U.S. is unique among democracies in allowing budget disputes to halt government operations. Most countries either pass budgets or governments fall.

History shows these standoffs end when the political cost becomes too high for one side. Sometimes that's days. Sometimes weeks.

The 2018 shutdown ended when travel disruptions hit a breaking point. The 1995 shutdown lasted 21 days before resolution.

Until then, 750,000 Americans wait to see when their next paycheck arrives.

And the rest of us watch another round of a uniquely American political tradition.

What's your take on government shutdowns?

Necessary leverage or unnecessary disruption?

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

Adult fairy tales -> Santa Claus. The Tooth Fairy. The Easter Bunny. And now… G10 deficit reduction.

Interest rates have stabilised, but government borrowing costs keep rising.

The paradox is simple:

Governments borrowed cheap money for years. 

Now they’re refinancing at today’s higher rates. 

And deficits remain wide open, forcing even more borrowing.

Think of it like your credit card:

You enjoyed 0% interest for years.

Now it’s 20%.

Even if it drops to 15% next year, you’re still paying way more.

For the US, this is brutal -> sovereign debt rolls every 6 years on average.

But the bill always comes due.

And the escape routes? They don’t really work:

↳ Playing with maturities? Saves pennies.
↳ Cutting rates? Only helps if inflation behaves.
↳ Printing money? Worked in 2008… but probably not today.

Meanwhile, spending is locked in:

↳ Healthcare costs rising with demographics
↳ Pensions politically untouchable
↳ Defense budgets expanding

For over a decade, governments acted like zero rates were permanent.

Now the bond market is collecting, one rollover at a time.

So the question we face is:

Do we finally accept that deficits must shrink? 

Or keep kicking the can until markets force the adjustment?

Drop your thoughts below. 👇

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

Meme source: FT Alphaville

Every convertible bond is its own puzzle.

That's how a hedge fund manager Orlando Gemes from Fourier Asset Management LLC/LLP explained one of the most ignored corners of finance to me.

While everyone chases liquid trades, convertibles sit there. Mispriced. Misunderstood.

The market is tiny. 

Just 500 bonds in the US index. Maybe 200 you can actually trade daily.

Banks barely make markets. The spreads are wide enough to drive a truck through.

But that's exactly where the opportunity lives.

"When a stock moves 20%, the convertible should reprice immediately," he told me. "Often it doesn't. Not for hours. Sometimes days."

Think about that.

In 2025, with all our technology, parts of the market still move like it's 1985.

Convertibles are like the ugly ducklings of finance:

↳ Too complex for equity investors
↳ Too small for big credit funds
↳ Too illiquid for most traders

The big funds literally can't be bothered. Their models break. Their systems weren't built for this.

So while everyone fights over the same crowded trades, this forgotten corner of the market keeps throwing off inefficiencies.

Day after day. Year after year.

Sometimes the best opportunities aren't hidden in complexity.

They're sitting in plain sight, in markets too small for the giants to care about.

The lesson? Real edge doesn't always come from being smarter or faster.

Sometimes it comes from simply showing up where others won't.

Listen to the whole podcast here:

Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eFUiTdGa

YouTube: https://lnkd.in/ekMjR_rQ

Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/eAhMNMgb

What's your take on convertibles?

And what overlooked corner of markets do you have your sights on?

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

What if active management wasn’t really about alpha… but about self-actualisation?

That’s one of the bold ideas Stephen White, CAIA brought to The Blunt Dollar podcast.

Stephen’s journey is anything but conventional: from PR to fintech founder, from writing about music to building Markets Recon, a platform that cuts through the flood of research by aggregating fund managers’ insights worldwide.

Along the way, he’s learned how storytelling, strategy, and technology collide in finance.

In our conversation, we explored:

↳ How fintech is reshaping research distribution for allocators
↳ Why social media isn’t a side channel anymore. It is the new media
↳ The tension between visibility and competence when building a career
↳ The mix of technical skills, storytelling, and integrity needed for a durable career.

This episode isn’t just about markets. It’s about purpose, reinvention, and the future of how our industry connects with people.

Listen to the podcast here:

👉 Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eFUiTdGa
👉 YouTube: https://lnkd.in/ekMjR_rQ
👉 Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/eAhMNMgb

Now, tell me:

Is social media already more powerful than traditional marketing in asset management?

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

Would you rather have 10 minutes with Warren Buffett or a full-day seminar with top fund managers?

I spent my time in the corridors at the CFA Institute Live conference in Chicago back in May asking people this question.

Almost everyone picked Warren. And it wasn't even close.

Think about that for a second.

A full day of cutting-edge strategies, advanced portfolio techniques, insider insights...

Or 10 minutes with a guy who still uses a flip phone.

The fund managers would teach you about factor exposures, quantitative models, and risk parity.

Warren would probably ask if you understand the business you're buying.

The fund managers would share their proprietary screening methods and backtested strategies.

Warren would tell you to read the annual report. The whole thing. Including the footnotes.

The fund managers would explain their hedging techniques and downside protection.

Warren would remind you that his favorite holding period is forever.

Eight hours of complexity. Or 10 minutes of clarity.

And these weren't random people I was asking. 

These were CFA charterholders, portfolio managers, and analysts who eat and breathe modern finance theory.

They chose the 10 minutes.

Perhaps because, despite all the innovation and sophistication, we realize that the hardest part isn't finding new strategies.

It's sticking to simple principles when everyone else is chasing the next big thing.

The most sophisticated investors in those corridors understood something profound:

More information does not necessarily equal better decisions.

Sometimes the most valuable conversation isn't the longest one.

It's the one that reminds you what actually matters.

So I'm curious... what would you choose?

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

Half of people dealing with insurance claims say it damaged their mental health.

Not the fire. Not the flood. Not the accident.

The insurance process itself.

According to the FT, the UK numbers paint a concerning picture:

↳ Home insurance accepts only 63% of claims
↳ Travel insurance accepts 80%
↳ Motor insurance? 99%

Why the gap? 

Motor damage is clear-cut.

But when storms damage your roof, insurers question if it was windy enough to qualify.

Take Kaja Cordwell's case:

↳ House fire while 9 months pregnant
↳ 20 months later, still living with friends
↳ Three complaints filed with the ombudsman
↳ Ongoing disputes about all the contractor work

The insurer says delays stem from "disputes over additional work." 

The family says they're being worn down.

Which? has filed a rare "super-complaint" to the FCA, citing:

↳ Significant delays in processing
↳ Vastly different acceptance rates 
↳ Poor oversight of outsourced handlers

The industry response? Mixed.

The FCA says it's already "focused on raising standards" and secured £200m in motor insurance compensation.

Trade groups argue current regulatory work addresses these issues.

Meanwhile, thousands of families navigate a system where the cure feels worse than the disease.

The data suggests a fundamental disconnect:

Insurance is meant to restore normalcy after disaster.

Instead, it's creating a second crisis for those already vulnerable.

When an industry designed to reduce stress becomes a primary source of it, perhaps it's time to rethink the entire approach.

Not just the policies. Not just the processes.

But the basic question of what insurance is actually for.

Because right now, for too many people, it seems not to be working.

What is your take?

Is insurance doing the job it was created for, or has it lost its way?

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

Taplio

Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, CFA's Linkedin Analytics

What is Ignacio talking about?

's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Taplio

.css-1jgreyo{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39,43,72,1) 0%, rgba(33,47,183,1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, CFA's Linkedin Analytics

What is Ignacio talking about?

's Best Posts .css-qqfgvy{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);}(last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, CFA's Linkedin Analytics

's Best Posts (last 30 days)