FT : Nearly 6,000 entrepreneurs quit UK in past two years, say wealth managers

Nearly 6,000 entrepreneurs quit UK in past two years, say wealth managers
Most work in tech sector with top destinations the UAE, followed by Spain and the US, according to Rathbones

Nearly 6,000 owners of high-growth businesses left the UK over the past two years following changes to Britain’s tax regime and concerns over economic competitiveness, research has found. 

Wealth manager Rathbones found that, of business owners to have left the UK, the greatest proportion work in the technology sector. It analysed filings to Companies House between January 2024 and 2026.

United Arab Emirates was the most attractive destination for those leaving the UK, followed by Spain and then the US, Rathbones said. 

The research comes as the FT’s annual bonus survey found four out of 10 respondents were considering leaving the UK because of high personal taxation rates, despite their expectations of a bumper bonus season.

The departures come after sweeping tax changes in the UK that have affected many wealthy individuals, including a more punitive inheritance tax regime for business owners, higher rates of capital gains tax and the abolition of the non-dom status. 

However, while chancellor Rachel Reeves restricted the amount of inheritance tax relief businesses can receive when passed down, she also made it easier for British people to avoid inheritance tax if they leave the UK for at least 10 years.

Michelle White, head of private office at Rathbones, said: “International mobility among business owners and wealth creators continues to accelerate and these findings show a clear shift in where UK entrepreneurs choose to base themselves.

“We are talking to more individuals and families — particularly younger business owners — considering relocation in search of better opportunities, more favourable tax environments and more optimism about long-term growth prospects.”

She warned that this trend underscored “the importance of ensuring that our economy, talent pathways and tax system remain internationally competitive”.

Over the past two years, 3,182 business owners came to the UK, resulting in a net exodus from the UK of 2,758, Rathbones said. 

The UK saw a net outflow of 16,500 millionaires last year, equating to $91.8bn in investable wealth, while jurisdictions such as the US and UAE experienced corresponding inflows, the wealth manager added. 

Ali Janoudi, partner and head of new markets at Lombard Odier Group, said Dubai and other jurisdictions have been “rapidly catching up” with the UK as a hub for entrepreneurs.

“Entrepreneurs think globally and are increasingly mobile, so they naturally look for the most efficient, advantageous and attractive jurisdiction from which to operate,” he said.

“Beyond tax efficiency, Dubai offers political stability, regulatory clarity and a business environment built around growth . . . At the same time, safety, education and overall quality of life matter.”

Eamon Shahir, co-founder of Taxd, an online tax filing service, who gives advice on tax to people moving from the UK to the UAE and other Gulf states, said he is seeing huge interest in people moving to the Emirates, particularly entrepreneurs and younger Britons.

“In the UK, the core market for the government isn’t business owners, that’s obvious,” he said. “Whereas in the UAE, there’s a lot of focus on entrepreneurs. When you come out to Dubai [as an entrepreneur], you understand that the focus is on you. The government wants high-achieving people setting up businesses and they’ve made the landscape for that.”

David Little, partner in financial planning at wealth manager firm Evelyn Partners, said that over the past decade, “a steady stream of entrepreneurs and business owners have passed through Heathrow on the way to Dubai, Lisbon, Milan or Miami, reflecting a broader unease about the UK’s direction”.

He noted that although “changes to the tax landscape are a factor, the motivations extend beyond that”.

“The UK economy has struggled to regain momentum since the pandemic. Growth has been weak, investment subdued and productivity stubbornly flat, and now the fragility looks like it’s extending into the jobs market. 

“For business owners, this is not merely a macroeconomic concern: it shapes hiring decisions, consumer confidence and the prospects for domestic demand. A softening labour market may relieve wage pressure in the short term, but it also signals a cooling economy, which is a disconcerting backdrop for risk-takers.”

However, Nick Ritchie, a senior director and wealth planner at RBC Wealth Management, said: “Many clients shelve relocation plans when faced with the realities of the upheaval of children in school, abandoning a social network and the friction cost of trading properties. 

“For younger, upwardly mobile business owners, it can be a different story. With fewer ties, they often feel less wedded to the UK and much more likely to go through with a move, particularly if they have a capital-light business without staffing and infrastructure in the UK.”

Fortune : New CBO report shows national debt spiraling into uncharted territory

New CBO report shows national debt spiraling into uncharted territory by 2035—and Trump’s tariff defeat will make the picture even worse

Plenty of observers already had doubts that, as Donald Trump put it on President’s Day, the U.S. has entered a “new golden age of prosperity.” Now, with the Supreme Court ruling negating a wide swath of the Trump tariffs, an already gloomy outlook has suddenly become much darker.

The new 10-year budget forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office, issued in mid-February, presents an outlook that’s considerably worse than the already dire scenario the agency issued a year earlier. The CBO’s bottom line: On balance, the tax reductions and spending hikes in the One Big Beautiful will increase the persistent shortfalls between revenues and outlays by amounts that swamp the extra take from tariffs, and the fleeting jump in GDP we’re witnessing right now.

The hobgoblin: Exploding interest expense on the national debt. The additional deficits make the future borrowing costs that are already leaving fewer and fewer resources for covering such essentials as Medicare and Defense much bigger. In less than a decade, that burden will reach half the size of the biggest monthly expense for U.S. households, their monthly mortgage payment.

The CBO issues its “The Budget and Economic Outlook” once a year. It presents detailed projections for all federal spending and revenue categories, the impact of new legislation, GDP, interest rates and sundry other economic metrics, and of course deficits and debt, over the current fiscal year and following decade. What’s so concerning about this update covering 2026 to 2036 is that it displays “primary deficits” that are even larger those posited in last year’s report. The “primary deficit” is the gap between what we collect in taxes and spend on everything from Medicare to national defense before interest costs.

Those big and widening chasms are so dangerous because they’re where the debt comes from. The U.S. must borrow 100% of the cash to cover spending-revenue gulf. That cycle keeps ramping interest expense and driving the total deficit ever higher.

The One Big Beautiful Bill will expand the primary deficit
In 2025, the federal government spent just over $6 billion before interest expense, and collected $5.2 trillion, forcing the Treasury to borrow the difference of $805 billion. That number gets tacked onto the debt, and so does the almost $30 billion in all new interest the one-year shortfall generates. The added “principal” plus interest spawns more interest in an ever-quickening spiral.

According to the CBO, the Trump 2025 Reconciliation Act, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), will make the spiral spin even faster. The bill contains sundry tax breaks, including no duties for overtime and tips, a $6000 deduction for folks at 65 and older, an increase in the Child Tax Credit, and of course the make-permanent of rate reductions enacted in Trump’s first term that were scheduled to expire. The measure also encompasses a number of significant spending increases, notably for defense and homeland security. All told, the CBO reckons that the OBBB on its own raises deficits through 2035 (it’s using a 9-year time frame) by a total of $3.4 trillion, and additional hits from the crackdown on immigration that curbs growth by shrinking the workforce, and the extra interest, hike the total to $4.1 trillion.

At the time of the report, the CBO reckoned that the Trump tariffs provide an offset, amassing $2.7 trillion over that span. The president’s policies overall were expected trigger a net increase in deficits of $1.4 trillion, or 9% over the 9 year interval. Of course, that number would now be far higher, though we’ll have to wait for a new estimate from the agency. Keep in mind that we’re starting with already high levels of primary deficits that are causing all the problems. So the Trump increases are adding extra weight that makes the climb to fiscal balance all the harder, and the possible downshift in tariff revenue would put the structural shortfalls, and resulting extra interest expense, on a faster track.

Deficits and debt will rise even beyond last year’s predictions, and so will interest expense
By 2035, the CBO expects the deficit to reach $2.96 trillion or 6.2% of GDP versus 5.8% today, and almost double the multi-decade, pre-pandemic average. Debt held by the public mushrooms from $30.2 trillion in 2026 to $53.1 trillion reaching 116% of GDP versus 100% today. Just 12 months ago, the call was for a 2035 deficit 10% lower than the current prediction at $2.7, and about 4% less in federal borrowings.

It’s important to note that the CBO doesn’t foresee a durable surge in economic growth. It did increase its estimate for FY 2026 significantly from last year’s 1.8% to 2.2%. But the agency then expects a downshift to 1.8% annual gains for each of the next nine years. It’s take: A slow-growing labor force due to both our rapidly aging population and tight immigration enforcement, and tariff policies that reduce purchasing power, will counter such positive forces as lower tax rates that enable higher consumer spending, and potential productivity gains from AI.

The speediest spending category by far: interest expense. Here, I’ll make an adjustment to the CBO’s baseline numbers. The agency can only make forecasts based on current law. Hence, it’s stuck positing that discretionary spending that includes defense, education and transportation doesn’t rise at all over the next decade. But the CBO also provides “alternative” numbers incorporating the budgetary effects if those outlays wax in line with GDP. So it’s realistic to include that extra spending and interest expense in a “revised” outlook, leaving all other numbers the same.

In this adjusted scenario, interest expense from 2026 to 2035 would jump from $970 billon to $2.2 trillion. That’s 115% or 8% a year. By then, carrying costs would nearly equal all discretionary spending, tower at two-times outlays for defense, and virtually tie Medicare as the second largest spending category after Social Security. The rise in interest costs would account for the entire increase in the deficit, and over half the increase in the debt.

At $2.2 trillion, interest expense by 2036 would amount to $15,700 for every household in America. That’s $1300 a month, as much as half the average of $2500 to $3100 families typically pay for the mortgage on a $500,000 house. Indeed, the U.S. government’s mortgaging its citizens’ future big time. Washington, in fact, should take its cue from America’s home owners who realize they can’t spend more than they earn, at least for long. Our thrifty citizens pay their mortgages every month. The U.S. just keeps effectively “refinancing” or taking out home equity lines to pay the interest, causing more interest and more debt. The folks are a lot more responsible than the leaders. Unfortunately, it’s the folks who will eventually need to pay.

The Information : OpenAI Plans to Price Smart Speaker at $200 to $300, as AI Dev

OpenAI Plans to Price Smart Speaker at $200 to $300, as AI Device Team Takes Shape

The Takeaway
  • OpenAI’s 200-person team develops AI devices, including a smart speaker.
  • OpenAI’s smart speaker, priced $200-$300, won’t ship until Feb 2027 at earliest
  • Jony Ive’s LoveFrom designs OpenAI devices.

OpenAI has more than 200 people working on a family of AI-powered devices that will include a smart speaker and possibly smart glasses and a smart lamp, according to a person with knowledge of the plans. New details are starting to emerge about the group and its development strategy.

The smart speaker—the first device OpenAI will release—is likely to be priced between $200 and $300, according to two people with knowledge of it. The speaker will have a camera, enabling it to take in information about its users and their surroundings, such as items on a nearby table or conversations people are having in the vicinity, according to one of the people. It will also allow people to buy things by identifying them with a facial recognition feature similar to Apple’s Face ID, the people said.

While some OpenAI executives have suggested the company will tease its first device later this year, Peter Welinder, a vice president and general manager who’s leading the device team at OpenAI, wrote in a court filing earlier this month that the company doesn’t expect the first device to ship to customers until next February at the earliest. Other devices, such as smart glasses, likely won’t be ready for mass production until 2028, according to a person involved in AI glasses development.

While the devices team has prepared prototypes for devices such as the smart lamp, it’s unclear whether they will be released. The company’s devices are still early and details around their design and release schedule could change. A spokesperson from OpenAI declined to comment.

OpenAI will be plunging into an increasingly crowded hardware market. Apple is reportedly planning a host of AI devices, including an AI wearable pin and AirPods with enhanced sensors, while Meta Platforms and Google are either already selling or planning to sell smart glasses with AI capabilities.

During a presentation last summer, leaders from the device team told employees the device will be able to observe users through video and nudge them toward actions it believes will help them achieve their goals, said a person who attended the presentation. You could imagine the device observing its user staying up late the night before a big meeting and suggesting that they go to bed, for example.

Growing Pressure

Competition from other tech firms is putting pressure on the devices team, formed nine months ago after OpenAI acquired Io Products, the device startup started by CEO Sam Altman and former Apple design chief Jony Ive. That startup had been discussing potential devices since at least September 2023.

Despite that deal, Ive’s involvement with OpenAI is complicated. He still runs his design firm, LoveFrom, as an entity independent of OpenAI, even though it is LoveFrom that is in charge of coming up with potential OpenAI device designs. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s internal devices team is in charge of making the hardware and the software powering it, as well as understanding how consumers will use the device.

That division of responsibilities has sparked tensions. Some OpenAI staffers have complained that LoveFrom has been slow to revise its designs and shares little about its process of coming up with new ones, even with others working on devices within OpenAI, two people with knowledge of the situation said. That secrecy and meticulous focus on design is par for the course for Apple, where a number of device staffers and leaders came from. Apple has strict rules around which employees are allowed to know about various projects.

In keeping with that approach, OpenAI’s devices team itself is separate from the rest of OpenAI. While OpenAI’s main office is in Mission Bay, the devices team works out of a downtown San Francisco office in the Jackson Square neighborhood, not far from LoveFrom’s office.

Ive makes the final call on most design choices, though he’s only in the downtown San Francisco office about once a week or so. Despite that, the device team still feels his presence very strongly, and staffers are known to refer to what they believe he would want frequently during conversations.

Mixed Group

While the devices team is led by Welinder, who previously helmed OpenAI’s new product explorations team, other leaders joined OpenAI through its Io acquisition. Those include Apple veterans and Io co-founders Tang Tan, now OpenAI’s hardware lead; Evans Hankey, who previously led industrial design at Apple and is now leading the same effort at OpenAI; and Scott Cannon, who leads supply chain for OpenAI’s device. Adam Cue, son of longtime Apple services chief Eddy Cue, joined OpenAI through the Io deal and is now developing the software that will power OpenAI’s future devices.

Several leads for the device previously hailed from other parts of OpenAI. Ben Newhouse is a product research lead who’s working to rewrite OpenAI’s infrastructure—largely written for text-based AI—for audio AI, as the company revamps its audio models for its devices. Houda Nait El Barj, a researcher who previously worked on the team managing the relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft, leads experience research on how consumers will use OpenAI’s future devices. Atty Eleti, meanwhile, leads engineering work related to privacy for the devices.

FT : Chart of the Week: Year of the equal-weighted S&P 500?

Chart of the Week: Year of the equal-weighted S&P 500?
The tide has turned against the cap-weighted index


It’s no surprise that the equal-weighted S&P 500 spent the past three years in the shadows of its cap-weighted sibling. With tech stocks accounting for a third of the cap-weighted index’s weight, the largest sector by far, the benchmark index and the tech rally went largely hand in hand. Historically, it has been a coin flip; the equal-weighted index has underperformed in 18 out of the past 36 years. 

But the tide is turning as a tech slump combined with a rotation into unloved sectors such as energy, industrials and staples reverses the trend of the last few years. 

The last time we saw a reversal this dramatic was in 2000, when the equal-weighted S&P 500 surged nearly 18 per cent against the cap-weighted index following years of underperformance during the dotcom bubble Is history repeating itself? It will depend largely on how the AI revolution plays out.  

Sam Stovall at CFRA argues the equal-weight index story is more than just sector rotation. Other tailwinds Stovall pointed to include the US Supreme Court’s ruling overturning tariffs, which Stovall forecasts will allow inflation to moderate in the months ahead, thereby justifying additional rate cuts. Looking at forward price/earnings ratios, the equal-weighted S&P 500 is also trading at about a 20 per cent discount compared to the cap-weighted index, indicating some comeback potential. Is there more potential for stocks outside of AI and Big Tech? Let us know your thoughts

CrunchBase : The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: World Labs Leads Another AI-H

The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: World Labs Leads Another AI-Heavy Lineup

This week’s largest U.S. funding rounds once again featured an AI-heavy cohort, along with sizable financings around fintech and energy tech. By far the largest deal was a $1 billion financing for World Labs, developer of AI models that interact with the 3D world, followed by a $385 million round for savings platform Vestwell.

1. World Labs, $1B, spatial AI: San Francisco-based World Labs, a startup founded by AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li that develops foundational models to generate and interact with the 3D world, raised $1 billion in fresh funding. Investors in the round include AMD, Autodesk, Emerson Collective, Fidelity, Nvidia and Sea.

2. Vestwell, $385M, fintech: Vestwell, an online provider of multiple types of savings accounts and tools, raised $385 million in Series E funding at a reported $2 billion valuation. Blue Owl Capital and Sixth Street Growth led the financing for the 10-year-old, New York-based company.

3. Temporal Technologies, $300M, workflow management and fault tolerance: Bellevue, Washington-based Temporal Technologies, a provider of tools that allow developers to make workflows more reliable and fault-tolerant, closed on $300 million in Series D funding. Andreessen Horowitz led the financing, which set a $5 billion valuation for the 7-year-old company.

4. Heron Power, $140M, energy tech: Heron Power, a developer of hardware designed to move electricity from renewable sources into the grid and data centers, picked up $140 million in a funding round backed by Andreessen Horowitz and Breakthrough Energy Ventures. The Scotts Valley, California-based company is founded by former Tesla SVP Drew Baglino.

5. Code Metal, $125M, AI coding: Code Metal, a provider of verifiable code translation tools, raised $125 million in Series B financing led by Salesforce Ventures . The round comes just three months after the Boston-based startup secured its Series A.

6. (tied) Render, $100M, cloud for developers: Render, a cloud provider for application development teams, secured $100 million in Series C extension funding. Georgian led the financing for the San Francisco-based company, which said it now has over 4.5 million developers on its platform.

6. (tied) Utility Global, $100M, clean energy: Houston-based Utility Global, developer of a technology to produce hydrogen and capturable carbon from industrial gases, raised $100 million in Series D funding. Ara Partners and APG Asset Management led the financing for the 8-year-old company.

6. (tied) ZaiNar, $100M, location tracking: ZaiNar, developer of a technology for wireless networks to sense the location of things without satellites, cameras or heavy compute power, emerged from stealth and disclosed that it has drawn over $100 million in investment to date and a valuation of over $1 billion. Backers in the Belmont, California-based company include Steve Jurvetson, Jerry Yang, Tom Gruber and Jaan Tallinn.

9. Jump, $80M, fintech: Salt Lake City-based Jump, developer of an AI agent for financial advisers and financial services providers, raised $80 million in a Series B round led by Insight Partners.

10. Braintrust, $80M, AI observability: San Francisco-based Braintrust, a developer of AI observability software for development teams, raised $80 million in a Series B round led by Iconiq Capital.

The Information : Longevity Treatments for a 91-Year-Old? A Bold Bet in Silicon

Longevity Treatments for a 91-Year-Old? A Bold Bet in Silicon Valley’s Immortality Race
Sam Altman, Brian Armstrong and other tech billionaires are pouring a fortune into anti-aging therapies that could take years to hit the market. One startup underdog is beginning to treat customers who may not have the luxury of waiting that long.

The Takeaway
  • Tech billionaires are pouring fortunes into cellular reprogramming to with the goal of extending life.
  • Mitrix Bio is offering mitochondrial transplants to paying patient-investors.
  • One 91-year-old patient has received treatments using his granddaughter’s mitochondria.

In Silicon Valley, some quests for the fountain of youth have most definitely won the backing of tech’s leading names.

Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, personally invested $180 million to launch Retro Biosciences, which is working on ways to rejuvenate aging cells. CoinBase’s Brian Armstrong co-founded NewLimit, which has raised over $200 million for a similar pursuit from investors that include Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund. And Jeff Bezos reportedly helped bankroll a startup focused on life extension therapies, Altos Labs, which has amassed $3 billion in funding.

Then there are longevity startups like Mitrix Bio, a Pleasanton, Calif.–based company that’s working with only $4 million in funding, none of it coming from the tech billionaires who lately have become enthralled by the idea of treating death like a correctable software glitch.

And while the higher-profile companies still have years ahead of expensive clinical trials to try to get possible Food and Drug Administration approval, Mitrix is testing its proposed anti-aging treatment today on customers willing to pay $50,000 for a small share of equity in the company.

“This is patient-funded medicine,” said Tom Benson, founder and CEO of Mitrix.

Those patient-investors include people like John Cramer, a renowned experimental physicist and the author of three science fiction novels. At the age of 91, Cramer has decided he simply can’t wait any longer for treatments that he hopes will improve the quality—and quantity—of his remaining years. His hearing isn’t great, and he has already had cataract surgery and a knee replacement. A cardiologist monitors his irregular heartbeat.

So in February, Cramer flew from his home in Seattle to a clinic in Dallas to receive the third of several longevity treatments from Mitrix at a pain management clinic located in an office building a short drive from the Dallas airport.

While most of Mitrix’s rivals are exploring ways to reprogram the body’s cells to be youthful again, Mitrix focuses on transplanting a single yet crucial component of cells—the mitochondria—from young people to older ones to rejuvenate them. Cramer’s mitochondria donor is Selena Shea, his 26-year-old granddaughter, who accompanied him to Dallas.

Inside the clinic, Cramer lay down on an examination table. The nurse hung a bag of saline on a pole. The liquids would help the mitochondria circulate throughout the body.

“If there are effects,” he asked, “when will I feel them?”

The startups seeking to crack the code of longevity are the latest representation of humanity’s longstanding pursuit of immortality. Medieval alchemists concocted life-extending elixirs. And in the 17th century, doctors gave the ailing king of France blood transfusions from young donors in a bid to extend his life.

The idea that properties in blood can rejuvenate people even entered popular culture as a ghoulish pursuit of wealthy CEOs. A 2017 episode of the show “Silicon Valley” showed a billionaire executive receiving transfusions from a “blood boy” in the vain hope of reversing aging. The 2025 Netflix documentary, “Don’t Die: The Man Who Wants to Live Forever,” filmed software entrepreneur Bryan Johnson receiving a plasma infusion from his teenage son (and donating his own plasma to his father).

The FDA has tried to quash enthusiasm for plasma infusions from the young as a therapy against normal aging, saying there is no evidence it has any health benefits. But other scientific advances over the past decade or so have made the dream of extended longevity seem more viable.

In 2012, two biologists won the Nobel Prize for showing adult skin cells could be reprogrammed and returned to a youthful state. The work ignited further scientific efforts, and many of the longevity startups backed by tech billionaires focus on using cellular reprogramming techniques to treat age-related diseases, including in the eyes and the brain.

“Reprogramming cells really speaks to people here,” said Sonia Arrison, founder of Menlo Park, Calif.–based venture firm 100 Plus Capital and chair of the advocacy group Alliance for Longevity Initiatives. “If biology has a code, which it does, then it can be engineered, and that is exciting to people in Silicon Valley.”

Still, with so many scientists starting companies based on promising early discoveries, it isn’t always easy to know where to draw the line between breakthroughs and hype. Eric Verdin, CEO and president of the Novato, Calif.–based Buck Institute for Research on Aging, calls longevity “a hybrid animal,” combining mainstream biology and scientific research with “a whole series of actors and Instagram medicine influencers that don’t have much to add to the debate except amplify the enthusiasm in the broad public.”

Mitrix’s anti-aging therapy—mitochondrial transplantation—is still awaiting the kind of buzz the cellular reprogramming startups backed by tech billionaires have generated. Benson, the Mitrix CEO, said one reason investors are more excited about cellular reprogramming is the goal of startups in that category is a pill or medicine that can potentially be mass-produced.

“Mitochondrial transplantation is harder to scale,” Benson said. “It requires doctors and hospitals.”

Still, Mitrix believes its approach is crucial to effective anti-aging. That’s because mitochondria are the energy center for the entire cell, powering the activities of daily life. Mitrix’s scientists argue that trying to reprogram cells when age has depleted that energy won’t work. Before attempting to fix cells, they say, you first need to get their power system working again.

“I have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea that if the battery is not working, nothing works,” said Ronjon Nag, an inventor and tech entrepreneur whose Palo Alto, Calif.–based venture capital fund, R42 Group, was an early Mitrix investor.

Other prominent figures have shown interest in mitochondria treatments. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has described mitochondria dysfunction as an important driver of chronic disease. Researchers are pursuing mitochondria-based therapies as possible treatments for stroke, heart attacks and Alzheimer’s disease, conditions that happen more as people get older. Bill Gates has personally funded mitochondria research for Alzheimer’s disease.

Benson says the current mitochondria procedure can be prescribed by a doctor and doesn’t require FDA approval. Mitrix’s goal is to cut out the need for donations from family members and instead grow large quantities of mitochondria in bioreactors—large stainless-steel tanks and centrifuges—located in clinics and hospitals. Those machines will be available whenever someone needs an energy boost to stave off age-related decline.

At least that’s the idea. Benson will likely need a lot more investment to realize that vision. Catching investment waves can be key to success in Silicon Valley, he said, and Mitrix hasn’t done so yet. “Can I survive until the wave crests and I am fashionable after years of being invisible?” Benson asks. The answer isn’t clear yet.

Other forms of survival are on his mind as well. Benson said he feels an obligation to help people like Cramer, his nonagenarian patient, right now. As someone in his 60s, he feels he has more personally invested than some of his startup rivals in trying to turn back time for older people sooner rather than later.

“Maybe Sam Altman isn’t in a rush,” Benson said. “He is only 40.”

So far, Mitrix has performed its mitochondrial transplants on two people: Cramer and a 71-year-old Houston-based lawyer, Clay Rawlings, whose nephew was his mitochondria donor. Both men are expected to get another injection soon, after which Mitrix will analyze safety data and make changes if needed. The company is hoping to treat three more older participants by the end of the year, according to Benson.

The FDA has not said whether it permits people to use mitochondrial transplantation for anti-aging. In response to a question about it, the agency sent a link to a published advisory that bars the use of donor mitochondria in a fertility procedure that prevents mothers from transmitting mitochondrial diseases to their offspring.

Mitrix’s willingness to perform its longevity treatments on older patients sets it apart from drug companies, which historically have been reluctant to allow people in their 60s into clinical trials, let alone those who are decades older. The fear is that older people are more likely to already have multiple health problems and may have a reaction that puts them and the clinical program in jeopardy.

The field of medicine has also developed extensive ethical rules designed to protect research subjects from overenthusiastic investigators who might take too many risks, either because they are convinced they are right or because they have a financial stake in a drug’s success. Those rules get blurrier when the people taking the experimental drug are also investing in it.

Benson said researchers in the longevity field still debate about how—or if it is even possible—to measure whether a therapy reversed someone’s age. Benson said they will consider the current experiment a success if they can show the treatment is safe and the men’s blood and urine tests remain normal.

Duncan Davidson, a 73-year-old San Francisco venture capitalist who is considering getting Mitrix’s treatment, said he isn’t trying to live to 130. Davidson has already taken steps to improve his longevity by losing weight, working out on his Peloton bike and cutting sugar out of his diet, and he would be content if the treatment could help him avoid major health challenges in the coming years.

“I’d like to go back to 10 years younger and sustain that for at least another 10 years,” said Davidson, adding that both of his parents died when they were 80.

For Cramer, getting mitochondrial transplants was the culmination of years of personal research into aging and experimentation with various methods to mitigate its effects.

He dug into papers about the biology of aging and wrote a book about anti-aging treatments. He reached out to other scientists and joined the many online groups where people shared their longevity regimens. Over the years, he tried vitamins and other supplements, and he still takes a daily dose of metformin, a drug prescribed to Type 2 diabetes patients to lower glucose production that has become popular among longevity enthusiasts. He has also experimented with spending time in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber.

Cramer felt comfortable being a guinea pig. He spent his career as an experimental physicist, teaching at the University of Washington, then traveling across the country to New York to conduct research on the origins of the universe at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. When thinking about the possible risks of getting mitochondria infusions, Cramer took into account his good fortune in making it to his 90s without any debilitating illnesses.

“I am not sure how much longer that will last,” Cramer said.

His wife of 64 years, Pauline, has not been so fortunate. A few years ago, she broke both of her hips over an 18-month period. Pauline, a scientist who had once worked in the aerospace industry, also suffers from advancing dementia. In 2023, their granddaughter Shea relocated to Seattle to live with the couple. The day after Christmas in 2024, Pauline moved to a small nursing home.

At the clinic in Dallas, Cramer’s spirits were high as he regaled nurses with stories of his adventures in life and science. But after the infusion, he looked tired. It had been a long day.

Shea and Cramer had already decided that after the procedure, they would go to a happy hour back at their hotel. Cramer planned to celebrate with a Scotch. First, though, the doctors at the clinic told them to wait a little longer to make sure he didn’t have an adverse reaction to the therapy, just to be on the safe side.

Shea remained by her grandfather’s side. The doctors’ words of caution reminded her, she said, that “I’m letting them do experiments on my grandpa.”

Barron's : The Reign of the Dollar Is Coming to an End. What Investors Can Do Ab

The Reign of the Dollar Is Coming to an End. What Investors Can Do About It.
Investment in foreign stocks and debt could be juiced by a falling dollar.

The dollar is in decline, and investors have to learn to live with it.

The past 12 months were tough for the greenback. The U.S. Dollar Index, which measures the dollar’s value against a basket of developed currencies, slid 8% over the past year—and the list of potential concerns grows longer and longer. They include the breakdown in the U.S.-led multilateral system, growing concern that the dollar will continue to be weaponized through sanctions and seizures, worries about Federal Reserve independence, unease about profligate U.S. government spending, and a long overdue rebalancing as growth and yields abroad become more relatively attractive.

None of that implies the dollar will suddenly fall from grace, abandoned in a wave of panic selling. It isn’t about to lose its reserve status, suddenly replaced by the Chinese yuan or another currency. But the dollar is becoming less popular for savings, for trade, and as the ultimate safe asset. That makes diversification, through international stocks and bonds, especially in emerging markets—and a dollop of gold as a buffer—good options for the years ahead.

If individual investors and large institutions collectively decide to lighten up on their dollars, it will leave a mark. “Some of the U.S. exorbitant privilege will fade,” says Daleep Singh, says Daleep Singh, PGIM vice chair and global chief economist and former deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. The cost of losing some of that luster: potentially higher borrowing costs, less capacity to absorb a financial shock, and less ability to create one with sanctions, Singh adds.

The dollar has always been mightier than the size of the U.S. economy suggests it should be. Its share of the global market in currency reserves and international debt issuance is in the range of 60% to 80%, or two to three times the U.S. share of the global economy. For years, critics have argued that the dollar’s place of primacy would erode, to no avail. There was no alternative.

That began to change more than a decade ago as China started to wean itself off the dollar, diversifying reserves into gold while pushing for wider use of its own currency. But the true impetus came with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the sanctions and freezing of assets that followed. The weaponization of the dollar pushed central banks to pare back some of their holdings for gold. President Donald Trump’s push to own Greenland and his constant threats of tariffs rattled European allies and their trust in the U.S., forcing them to consider alternatives as well.

Think of it as quiet quitting rather than a Sell America frenzy. Instead of dumping U.S. Treasuries en masse, many central banks are letting their bondholdings mature and replacing them with gold. Many Treasury investors are cutting U.S. duration risk—moving to shorter-term bonds—says Cameron Brandt, director of research at EPFR.


In the last two months of 2025, net flows into emerging market equity funds totaled $70.8 billion, whereas U.S. equity funds attracted only $43 billion, according to EPFR.

Foreign fund flows have gotten off to a strong start this year as well. While U.S. equity funds saw net outflows of $34 billion in January, international equity funds saw $31 billion of inflows, and emerging market equity funds took in $15 billion, according to Morningstar Direct.

The most notable diversification shift has been among central banks. Gold is expected to account for a quarter of central bank reserves as of the end of 2025, compared with 10% in 2017, with China, Turkey, and Russia seeing the biggest shifts, says Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, a senior fellow in the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at Brookings.

The U.S. dollar accounts for about 57% of central bank reserves, down from 64% in 2017, as the share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries outstanding by foreign central banks has also declined, notes Milesi-Ferretti. Countries are also using the Chinese yuan in trade financing and foreign direct investment into China. Nonetheless, extensive capital controls in China and the country’s high household savings rate make it hard for the yuan to become a reserve currency contender unless Beijing undertakes extensive structural reforms.

Countries are also introducing measures to further internationalize their own currencies. Europe expanded the use of its global liquidity facilities—like repo lines during periods of market stress—to non-European central banks. India is pushing the use of the rupee in trade settlements and cross-border financing, and 10 European banks have banded together to launch a euro-backed stablecoin later this year.

“It’s more of a quiet diversification away from the dollar,” says Joyce Chang, global head of research at J.P. Morgan. “Dollar diversification and dollar weakness shouldn’t be confused with de-dollarization.”

But even diversification has a way of changing asset behavior. When the dollar reigned supreme, foreign investors could rely on the dollar rising during risk-off periods, partially offsetting losses in U.S. stocks. That has begun to change, forcing foreigners to rethink what makes a good hedge or haven.

“Pension funds around the world constructed portfolios with huge U.S. equity exposure and took the currency risk, based on the old correlations,” says Jens Nordvig, founder of global macro strategy and analytics firm Exante Data. “But that’s now flipping—and that’s a big deal: People will want to hedge the dollar more or want less U.S. equity exposure because it’s expensive to hedge.”

A year ago, Marc Chandler, a veteran currency strategist now at Bannockburn Capital Markets, argued that the dollar wasn’t at risk of being dethroned during an onstage debate at a foreign exchange conference. This year, as he headed back to the conference, he expects a multiyear bear market in the dollar, citing the fracturing of alliances and U.S. concerns about dependence on China for critical supply chains.

The coming Five-Year Plan, China’s blueprint for government priorities, reprioritizes making the yuan a global reserve currency. Beijing has also reportedly told state-owned banks to pivot more away from U.S. Treasuries and toward gold. Regulators are also finding ways to encourage further yuan use in lending and transactions, including by getting more control over the payments architecture to create an alternative to the dollar-dominant Swift system. The share of Chinese goods traded in yuan has more than doubled since 2018 to 28%, and nearly all of China’s trade financing is now done in yuan instead of the dollar.

“That’s not something you see on the Bloomberg screen,” Nordvig says. “And there are all sorts of side effects of that because now new entities have to handle yuan balances in Chinese banks, and that may generate demand for Chinese T-bills or holding gold in China.”

Geopolitics are also helping to improve economic conditions abroad, providing impetus for currencies to strengthen against the dollar. The combination of Russian aggression and uncertain U.S. support has Germany planning to spend one trillion euros ($1.18 trillion) on the military and infrastructure through 2035. Germany’s factory orders in December increased at the biggest pace in two years. That could help revive the German economy—and fuel further gains in industrials, including European defense stocks, which are still cheap compared with U.S. peers.


Japan, too, is at a crossroads. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s plans to revive growth with hefty military spending and a more robust industrial policy caused a sharp selloff in the yen because of fiscal concerns. Japan’s gross debt is already 2.3 times that of its gross domestic product, almost double that of the U.S.

But a landslide victory in snap elections this month gives the Japanese prime minister a powerful mandate for what she describes as a “responsible, proactive fiscal policy” to remake the economy. It’s too early to see if it works, but political stability plus reforms could spark a repatriation of some of the assets that Japanese investors have in the U.S. and push Japanese stocks higher.

A mix of bullish forces are coming together in emerging markets, too. More than a dozen central banks there are poised to cut interest rates—including Brazil—as inflation eases, and business-friendly reforms and a commodities boom spell opportunities for Latin America. Earnings in emerging markets are expected to grow 29% this year, more than double the increase expected in the U.S. The combination of faster growth and declining inflation pressures could force a repricing of emerging market currencies versus the greenback.

The dollar will still see pockets of strength. It recovered a bit i n February after Trump nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, viewed as a more traditional pick, as the next Fed chair. The dollar would also get a boost if the U.S. raises interest rates or there’s an easing of geopolitical tensions, like those over Greenland. And despite the talk of dollar weakness, the current decline has only taken it close to the middle of the range it has traded in for the past 30 years, not exactly a sign of the apocalypse.

Even dollar bears aren’t calling for the end of the dollar’s reign as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar is still the most widely used currency—accounting for more than 90% of foreign exchange transactions—and the U.S. is the most liquid and deepest market. There’s no close competitor.

Foreign dependence on the dollar has lessened—but it hasn’t gone away. The extra yield that investors demand to hold long-dated Treasuries is now about 1.25 percentage points, up from zero at the end of 2023. That’s still relatively low historically. And the U.S. hasn’t had to lower the market price to clear the supply of 10-year Treasuries.

Citi strategist Drew Pettit is monitoring gauges like foreign exchange implied volatility to see whether the concerns about a weaker dollar morph into signs that the shift is more than just diversification. So far, implied volatility is currently in the bottom decile of where it has been over the past five years.

American investors in U.S. stocks don’t have much to worry about—the dollar’s direction is one of the smallest factors affecting S&P 500 valuations, Pettit says. Even the benefit of a weaker dollar to U.S. exporters is probably exaggerated, given that global companies are probably making goods abroad and selling them there rather than exporting them.

There are exceptions. Pettit screened for companies with a greater share of foreign sales compared with foreign assets; that highlighted exports in quarterly results; and that disclosed big foreign exchange-related gains in their quarterly reports. Companies meeting those requirements include semiconductor manufacturers Applied Materials, Broadcom, and LAM Research, and healthcare diagnostics companies Agilent Technologies and Bruker.

Dollar weakness has bigger effects abroad. Foreign stocks outperformed U.S. stocks last year, with the MSCI All Country World ex-USA Index up 31% over the past year, more than double the S&P 500’s increase.

The simplest way to take advantage of the trend is to buy a broad exchange fund. Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research, has been telling clients to get allocations back in line with the MSCI All Country World Index, which has 65% of assets in the U.S. and 35% elsewhere. Funds like the iShares MSCI ACWI exchange-traded fund or the Vanguard Total World ETF offer a quick way to do that on the cheap.

Neither holds large stakes in emerging markets. Two cheap ways to tap those markets: the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF, which excludes South Korea and has about half of its allocation in China and Taiwan, and 20% in India, but with limited exposure to Latin America, and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex-China ETF, which steers clear of China and has about 10% in Latin America. For someone looking to allocate more to the continent, a regionally focused fund like the iShares Latin America 40 ETF is a better option.

The biggest beneficiaries of a weak dollar could be overseas bond markets. Vishal Khanduja, a manager of the Eaton Vance Total Return Bond fund, says its allocation to foreign assets was at 6% by year end, the highest level in five years. The draw: Real yields are improving elsewhere around the world as central banks begin to diversify, and there’s a shift in how investors are hedging.

Instead of investment-grade bonds of U.S. financial companies, Khanduja is opting for the bonds of European financial companies, as the economic backdrop is benign and credit conditions are holding up. Plus, the interest-rate differential works in the favor of U.S. investors after they convert the currency back. He is also finding opportunities for high yields in Mexico and Brazil, where he thinks investors are well compensated for potential political risks around trade and Brazil’s presidential election later this year.

Tina Vandersteel, who runs GMO’s emerging country debt team, sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity in local-denominated debt in emerging markets with the asset class extremely cheap, currencies poised to strengthen, and a generous carry, or interest-rate pickup versus U.S. bonds. A cheap way to get access: the iShares J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF for those willing to take on a bit of extra risk, and the Vanguard Total International Bond ETF for investment-grade bonds abroad.

As the dollar weakens, U.S. Treasuries are also likely to lose their haven status—the ability to gain value when other assets fall—which means looking elsewhere for safety. Gold has become the consensus choice, even as volatility has increased with its price. Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio suggests that investors target a 5% to 15% stake of their portfolio in the precious metal.

Continued reallocation could provide a tailwind for gold. If investors nudged their allocations to just 3.5% from 3%, J.P. Morgan’s Chang says that could translate to $6,000 gold, while a move to 4.6% in coming years could push the price as high as $8,500. Ed Yardeni, of Yardeni Research, told clients in a recent note that $10,000 gold by the end of 2029 is plausible.

Gold’s rise is the clearest sign that investors are rethinking assumptions about the dollar. It might not be Sell America, but after decades of U.S. dollar dominance, it’s time to do more buying elsewhere.

WSJ : Trump Boosts New Global Tariff to 15% After Court Setback

Trump Boosts New Global Tariff to 15% After Court Setback
The rate, up from the 10% level the president announced a day earlier, is on temporary duties that will replace many of the levies ruled illegal by the Supreme Court

  • President Trump increased a global tariff to 15% from 10%, effective immediately, following a Supreme Court ruling.
  • The Supreme Court overturned most of President Trump’s second-term tariffs.
  • The 15% tariff is authorized for 150 days Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, with plans for more permanent levies later.

WASHINGTON—President Trump said he would increase to 15% from 10% a global tariff that will replace many of the duties ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

In a social-media post on Saturday, the president said the new 15% global tariff would take effect immediately. He said his decision to increase the tariff rate was the result of a “thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American” Supreme Court ruling.

The announcement came a day after the Supreme Court overturned most of Trump’s second-term tariffs, rejecting the administration’s argument that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, implicitly authorized the tariffs. Trump denounced the ruling and immediately reinstated a 10% global tariff under a different authority—Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Section 122 allows for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. After that period, Trump has said that those levies will be replaced with a longer-lasting tariff authority—Section 301 of the Trade Act. That provision would allow for more permanent levies, but requires monthslong investigations before tariffs can be imposed, which Trump hinted at in his Saturday post.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” Trump posted.

Barron's : Now Is the Time to Buy Alternative Funds

Now Is the Time to Buy Alternative Funds
There’s a strong case for hedging your bets with alts. The question is which kind to buy.

Wealthy investors are getting nervous. Or at least, that is how you could interpret the surge of money into hedge funds and other alternative investments in 2025.

Traditional hedge funds, which are only accessible to the rich, are designed to protect their investors from market downturns by shorting, or betting against, stocks and other securities. Total global hedge fund industry assets hit a historic $5 trillion milestone for the first time last year, with net asset inflows of $116 billion, the strongest calendar year for investor inflows since 2007, according to the latest HFR Global Hedge Fund Industry Report.

Hedge funds are part of an array of so-called alternative investments, or alts, that investors can use to diversify their portfolios or to generate higher returns than traditional stocks and bonds. Should you get on board? Unfortunately, the answer is it depends. Alts are more complex than regular funds—and more expensive.

Understanding which kinds of alts are best for playing offense or defense within a portfolio is essential, as some asset classes, like private equity and private debt funds, can actually increase your risk while appearing to be safe. Moreover, fund selection is vital, as individual alt fund returns vary more than the returns of traditional mutual funds—a concept known as dispersion—sometimes with extreme highs and lows within the same fund category.

Liquid Versus Private
The case for hedging your bets with alts is strong today. The S&P 500’s Shiller price-to-earnings ratio —a popular valuation measure based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years—recently hit 40. It has been higher only one other time since 1871; it hit 44 in 1999, right before the dot-com bubble burst.

The question is which kind of alt to buy. “Accredited investors” with either a net worth exceeding $1 million or an annual income above $200,000 can buy traditional hedge funds, but now there are numerous “liquid alt” mutual funds and exchange-traded funds run by reputable firms like AQR and BlackRock, which have smaller minimum investment requirements and no other restrictions to getting in. They are also generally cheaper than hedge funds, which frequently charge 2% of assets plus 20% of profits as an annual fee.

The choice often comes down to restrictions on buying and selling, also known as the liquidity of an alt fund’s portfolio. “Both types of structures have a lot of merit,” says Kenneth Heinz, HFR’s president, referring to private hedge funds compared with ETFs and mutual funds. “The more liquid the strategy, the less pronounced is the benefit of owning a hedge fund.” Private hedge funds often restrict shareholder redemptions to once a quarter so they can more effectively invest in illiquid securities. For the wealthiest investors and institutions, their fees can also be less than the standard “2% and 20%” and negotiable, Heinz says.


Long-Short Strategies
Given that many stocks are very liquid, there’s little reason that a traditional long-short style hedge fund couldn’t work well in a liquid alt mutual fund or ETF structure. Long-short funds own stocks their managers like on the long side of their portfolios and bet against stocks they dislike on the short side, thereby neutralizing some or all of the funds’ sensitivity to market moves. This sensitivity, or correlation, to the S&P 500 or another fund benchmark is measured by a statistic called R2.

For instance, the AQR Long-Short Equity mutual fund has a 27.4% five-year annualized return as of Dec. 31, 2025, versus just 8.0% for the average fund in the HFRI Directional Long-Short Index. (Because many private hedge funds don’t report daily performance numbers, it is better to use quarterly or monthly periods for gauging performance.) For comparison, the average fund in Morningstar’s Long-Short Equity category for liquid alts had a 9.7% return.

AQR’s mutual fund is quantitatively run, using computers to pick many stocks as opposed to doing deep fundamental research on each company. It recently held 926 positions on the long side of its portfolio and 873 on the short side. Because of the fund’s long-short balance, it has proved to be less volatile than the stock market and a good diversifier. It was up 18.8% in 2022, when the S&P 500 was down 18.1%. Its R2 in the past five years is a low 6.3, which compares with 100 for an S&P 500 index fund.

That is impressive, yet one can see the advantages of the traditional hedge fund structure with Crescat Global Macro Hedge fund. It had a 130% return in 2025, crushing the 7% return of the HFRI Macro (Total) Index, thanks in part to private investments in gold and precious-metals miners that are too illiquid for a public mutual fund. Since the fund’s Jan. 1, 2006, inception, it has produced an annualized 11% return versus the 1.6% of the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index. That is while having a negative 41.8% downside capture ratio with the S&P 500. That means that if the S&P 500 fell, say, 10%, Crescat was up 4.18% during that period on average throughout its history—an excellent diversifier, in other words.

Crescat Capital CEO Kevin Smith says he could never see his fund being a liquid alt. Accredited investors must agree to lock up a portion of their money for three years to access the fund. “You can get 25% of your money out after one year, another 25% out after the second year, and then no lockup after three years,” he says. The fund requires a minimum investment of $500,000. “Attracting long-term-oriented investors into our funds is very important,” Smith adds. “That exclusivity allows us to invest in earlier-stage companies to express our themes and not have to worry about being forced into a [shareholder] redemption scenario.” His firm’s two largest miner company holdings currently, San Cristobal Mining and Silver Bow Mining, are private.

Global Macro
Global macro funds make long and short bets based on broad macroeconomic trends. In Crescat’s case, Smith is playing a “fiat currency debasement” trend that’s causing currencies to lose their value against gold.

Global macro and equity long-short are the two hedge fund categories favored by investment firm Evanston Capital, which has some $4.4 billion invested in alternative assets. In January, Evanston published its annual Hedge Fund Outlook, which said the advantage these categories have in the current market environment is a wide dispersion both in individual stock returns and macroeconomic outcomes.

“For global macro, we think it’s this deglobalization trend that is leading to much more varied economic conditions across regions globally,” says Kristen VanGelder, Evanston’s co-chief investment officer. Countries with economic policies that were moving in lockstep after the financial crisis of 2008-09 by keeping interest rates near zero have had radically different approaches since the Covid crisis in 2020-21 and inflation’s resurgence in 2022, with some keeping rates high and others lowering them, she notes. Meanwhile, tariffs and trade wars have only amplified the differences, with countries such as the U.S. seeking to deglobalize with isolationist trade policies. “This backdrop is creating a much richer set of trading opportunities for global macro managers,” VanGelder says.

Unlike in the long-short category, there aren’t really many suitable investment options among liquid alts with a global macro style. There are only 15 mutual funds and ETFs in Morningstar’s Macro Trading category. BlackRock Tactical Opportunities, Fulcrum Diversified Absolute Return, and MFS Global Alternative Strategy are three decent ones.

Interval Funds
The most illiquid securities can be found in private-equity and debt funds. There really is no traditional liquid alt to mirror these. However, there is an increasingly popular structure known as an interval fund that provides access to these asset classes, sometimes even for investors who aren’t accredited. Such funds typically allow investors to redeem only up to 5% of the fund’s total assets once a quarter or semiannually.

Interval funds are a subset of what are known as evergreen funds, which include private business development companies, or BDCs, as well as private real estate investment trusts. Private BDCs and REITs are less regulated than interval funds, so they can apply more leverage than interval funds and needn’t provide quarterly redemptions, although they often do in practice. They are generally available only to accredited investors.

Currently, 197 interval funds exist, according to Morningstar, with the largest being the private-credit fund Cliffwater Corporate Lending, with $33 billion in assets. Cliffwater has a 10% five-year annualized return, high for a debt fund. Plus, it seemingly has no volatility. But its stability is deceptive because the private credits it invests in don’t generally trade daily like public bonds.

Because of stale pricing, private-equity and debt funds may not be truly uncorrelated alternative asset classes and may not provide as much diversification to investors as raw returns suggest. The co-founders of alt fund shop AQR Capital, Cliff Asness and David Kabiller, joke that such funds are “volatility laundering,” as the real underlying business and economic risks don’t show up in the funds’ shares prices.

“Private equity and debt can be a good thing,” Kabiller says. “But investors need to understand the underlying economics of what they’re investing in. If you’ve got a big equity allocation in public markets in the [artificial-intelligence sector], and then you invest in lots of private equity in the AI space, you need to understand, ‘How much correlation and risk do I have? Am I doubling up on a bet?’ ”

There’s evidence that credit quality in recent years has deteriorated in private credit and leveraged loans, while it has improved in the public high-yield bond market. In January, Morningstar research found that the percentage of the better-quality double-B-rated high-yield bonds increased from 49% to 59% in the high-yield index in the past 10 years. In a separate report, the research firm highlighted declining cash flows among private credit issuers and predicted credit deterioration this year.

Private Equity
Private equity seems a better investment today. Many attractive companies remain private and, unlike with debt, the upside on stock returns is unlimited. Over the past 15 years, the average private-equity fund delivered a 14.1% annualized return, according to PitchBook. This is equivalent to the S&P 500’s 14% return in the public markets. But in the past three years, private equity’s returns have been lackluster—just 8% annualized. This reflects the impact of interest-rate hikes that started in 2022 and made financing for leveraged buyouts more expensive.

The good news is that interest rates are now coming down, making PE deals cheaper to execute. “I expect deal activity to pick up this year,” says Kaush Amin, head of private market investing for U.S. Bank Wealth Management. That should improve returns. Amin acknowledges, though, the wide dispersion of returns among private-equity managers historically. Fund selection is key, so hiring an advisor to find a private-equity fund could be helpful in this difficult but rewarding sector.

Amin doesn’t like PE’s move downstream. “We have concerns about these products that are being created specifically for the mass-affluent market,” he says. Given that there’s less information available about private companies compared with public ones, he worries about “the quality of the underlying assets” in newer funds. “A lot of these vehicles haven’t been tested across different market cycles,” Amin says.

They could be tested if the recent spike of inflows into more-defensive hedge funds proves to be prescient.

Barron's : Want to Win the Warner Bros. Discovery Takeover Battle? ‘Walk Away No

Want to Win the Warner Bros. Discovery Takeover Battle? ‘Walk Away Now.’
Both Netflix and Paramount Skydance are prepared to overpay for Warner Bros. Discovery and take on significant debt.

  • Netflix has a deal for Warner Bros. Discovery at $27.75 per share, while Paramount has offered $30 per share in cash.
  • Netflix and Paramount stocks have dropped 24% and 25%, respectively, since December due to concerns over potential overpayment and debt.
  • Analysts suggest that the winning bidder will overpay, with Netflix potentially taking on over $50 billion in new debt.


The winner in the takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery will be the loser.

That’s because the winner—either Netflix or Paramount Skydance—will overpay for the media company and take on a lot of debt. Wall Street has cooled on both stocks as they tussle for control of Warner Bros.

Netflix reached a deal for the company in early December, but Paramount has insisted that its offer is superior. The bidding war is coming to a head. Warner this past week gave Paramount until Feb. 23 to improve upon its offer of $30 a share in cash for the whole company.

If Paramount does come up with an offer superior to Netflix’s deal, Netflix would retain “matching rights,” Warner said this past week. The Kalshi prediction market was rating the contest a tossup this past Friday.

Investors aren’t thrilled with either company’s pursuit of Warner. The winner will pay a premium price when media stocks and valuations remain under pressure.

Netflix has seen its stock drop 25%, to $77, since the merger agreement was reached on Dec. 5. Paramount is off 26%, to $10.94, since then. Warner stock, at $28.53, is up 16% over the span.

Investors should consider buying the losing bidder’s stock when a final deal is set. Netflix stock could get a nice bump if it’s topped by Paramount since Wall Street wishes it would give up its pursuit and focus on its dominant global streaming platform. It would also pick up a $2.8 billion breakup fee. Netflix now trades for 25 times projected 2026 earnings—a reasonable multiple, given estimated growth of more than 15% annually over the next few years as a stand-alone company.

Paramount stock could also gain if it loses since it would avoid taking on debt and potentially be in a position to buy Warner’s assets more cheaply later.

LightShed Partners analyst Rich Greenfield wrote last week that Paramount and its CEO David Ellison “should walk away now.” Greenfield’s view is that the Warner cable assets—if not the entire company—could become available if a Netflix/Warner deal is blocked on antitrust grounds.

The Netflix/Paramount situation is reminiscent of the battle for 21st Century Fox in 2018, when Walt Disney vied with Comcast for the bulk of Fox’s assets.

Disney ended up winning—and overpaying—with its offer of $71 billion. The deal boosted Disney’s debt and contributed to the underperformance of its shares, which have been flat since then, compared with a near tripling in the S&P 500 index.

David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, has done a good job of orchestrating the bidding process and playing what looked like a tough hand. The company’s stock traded as low as $8 in April 2025, and its debt—about $30 billion at the end of September—was viewed as an impediment to a lucrative deal.

As it now stands, Netflix has a deal to buy Warner’s HBO, movie studio, TV production, and streaming-related assets for $27.75 a share in cash, or $82.7 billion, including assumed debt.

Warner’s cable TV properties, including CNN, Discovery, and the Turner Networks, would be spun off to Warner shareholders, as a new publicly traded company called Discovery Global, before the Netflix deal closes. The superiority of the Netflix offer hinges on the value of those cable networks, which Warner’s investment bankers have put at $1 to $4 a share, according to a proxy statement filed this past week.

That cable valuation is the subject of debate because Warner’s cable network financial results are under pressure from cord-cutting.

Paramount has argued that there is no equity value in the business, assuming that Warner allocates about $17 billion in debt to it. One negative read on the Discovery Global valuation is Versant Media Group. The cable spinoff from Comcast that owns CNBC, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), and the Golf Channel, has performed poorly in the stock market since it began trading in early January. Versant is now valued at just 3.5 times projected 2026 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or Ebitda, based on its enterprise value (equity market value plus net debt).

Paramount has offered $30 a share in cash, or $108 billion, with an additional 25 cents per share per quarter after the end of 2026 if the deal doesn’t close before then.

All of this could change. Warner said this past week that a Paramount representative indicated that it was prepared to pay $31 a share, and that the offer “wasn’t Paramount’s best and final” offer.

This has prompted speculation that Paramount might go to $32 to $33 a share—or perhaps even higher. Netflix, however, may be prepared to match any Paramount bid in that range, with Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos telling CNBC this past week, “Let them make a move, and then we will see where the next step takes us.” With a $325 billion market value, Netflix can prevail if it wants, even with Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison backstopping Paramount.

The Netflix offer looks rich as it now stands.

It’s paying a multiple of about 25 times projected 2026 Ebitda before any corporate synergies for HBO, the Warner Bros. movie studio, TV production, and other assets when industry leader Disney commands just 10 times 2026 Ebitda.

Netflix probably would take on more than $50 billion of debt, leveraging what had been a strong balance sheet. Many investors aren’t happy with the signaling effect of the deal with Netflix indicating that it needs more traditional media assets to be competitive.

The company argues otherwise, saying the deal will strengthen its platform and offer consumers more choice and a better streaming experience.

Netflix built its dominant business under former CEO Reed Hastings without a major deal. It should stay the course.