Tale as Old as Time...True as it Can Be

Indeed!

Those are the opening lines to the theme song for Disney's classic animated Beauty and Beast (1991) movie, and later, the 2017 live action version. The movies are based on the 1749 French fairy tale by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. Fascinatingly, De Villeneuve drew her inspiration from historical events. The real "beast" was a man named Petrus Gonsalvus who born in Tenerife, Spain in 1537. Gonsalvus had a rare genetic condition called hypertrichosis or "werewolf syndrome." It is characterized by excessive hair growth throughout the body, including the face. At a young age Gonsalvus was sent to Henry II of France in a cage as a curiosity. The King however appreciated boy's quiet and calm nature and sought to transform him into a gentleman. 

Gonsalvus became a part of the royal court and would go on to speak, read, and write, in three languages. While his achievements impressed many he was still viewed by most as somewhat less than human. After Henry's death Gonsalvus became the property of the King's widow and de facto ruler, Catherine de' Medici. Catherine sought her own experiment on Gonsalvus, involving "Belle." She wanted to see would happen if her "beast" married a beautiful woman; what kinds of children would they conceive? She found a wife for Gonsalvus, a young maiden also named Catherine, who was the daughter of a royal court servant.

Petrus Gonsalvus met Catherine for the first time on their wedding day. The pair would be married for 40 years and have seven children, four of whom suffered from Gonsalvus' condition, which has dominant traits. Sadly, the four hypertrichosis-stricken children were sent as gifts to other European courts. As a result, the story of the "beauty and the beast" was thus spread across the continent, eventually becoming part of de Villeneuve's tale. 

The Racket: Finance Bros Edition

A couple of funny memes re-making the rounds on LinkedIn this morning...

Private Equity:

Hedge Funds:

Broadcast Yourself…

Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the first video on YouTube, the world’s biggest social media platform. Originally intended to be a dating tool with videos (obviously?), YouTube quickly revolutionized how we watch, create, and share videos, turning ordinary users into content creators. The NYT has a great article chronicling its biggest moments from Lazy Sunday to Gangnam Style to I am Not a Cat., etc.

Google saw the potential of YouTube early on and snapped it up in 2006 for $1.65 billion, the company's biggest acquisition at the time. Today, YouTube has 2.53 billion active monthly users (behind only Facebook), and more than 60% of all U.S. internet user access the site daily. In 2024, the site generated $54+ billion in revenue and is on track to overtake Disney as the world's biggest media company by revenue in 2025. In fact, analysts estimate that YouTube could be worth as much as $550 billion as a stand-alone company (that would make it the 17th biggest company in world as of April 2025).

And it all started with this unassuming 19 second video from co-founder Jawad Karim: "I am at the Zoo."

DPI is the New IRR? Caveat Emptor...

For the past year, private equity managers have sought to prioritize returning cash to investors after higher interest rates stifled deal activity and exits. The drop in distributions has left many financial institutions that invest in private equity with less money to allocate to future funds. As a consequence, DPI, or distributions to paid-in capital, has replaced IRR, or the internal rate of return as the most important measure of private equity performance—at least for the time being. 

IRR has long been favored by the private equity industry to demonstrate its superiority over public markets. And justify the hefty management and performance fees (?). IRR is a cash-weighted measure of return that takes into account the time value of money, which ROI, or return on investment, does not; which is helpful when committed capital is called over different points of time. However, there are also some unrealistic assumptions underpinning the mechanics of IRR calculations that can make returns appear more attractive than they really are. That effect is compounded by how private equity funds mark their assets. 

The value of an asset is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. But in the absence of an active market for said asset, its value is whatever the fund manager says it is. Now, to be fair, fund managers do consult third-party valuation experts and their valuation processes are usually audited by well-credentialed firms at least annually. Still, as owners and experts on said asset, the fund managers' views carry a lot of weight. And it's not really in their economic interest to aggressively mark things down. So, even when public markets gyrate wildly, private equity valuations tend to remain relatively stable, as fund managers hold out hope for better times. In fact, this is actually an attractive feature of private markets for many investors, to chagrin of others. 

But what if you have to sell? Recently, amidst funding cuts by the Trump administration, the liquidity needs of major university endowments have increased. For example, Yale is reportedly exploring the sale of up to a third of its private equity portfolio. And Harvard tapped the bond market raise $750 million to meet short-term needs. Heck, if multi-billion dollar endowments (like Harvard and Yale with $50.7B and $40.7B of assets, respectively) start selling their massive private equity portfolios to generate liquidity, fund managers are not going to be able avoid price discovery for very long. And investors, long shielded by IRRs, may find actual realized returns, or DPI, are a lot skinnier than they imagined.

King James: Path to 40

Lebron James is the oldest player in the NBA at 40. He's also the first and, so far, the only player in NBA history to cross 40,000 regular season points. He is in his 22nd season in the NBA and going strong. Beyond the championships (4) and league MVPs titles (4), one of the most remarkable aspects of his game is his consistency. James scored his first 10,000 points in the exact same number of games as it took him to go from 30,000 to 40,000 (h/t Ben Golliver):

- 10K in 368 games 

- 10K to 20K in 358 games

- 20K to 30K in 381 games

- 30K to 40K in 368 games

Age is but a number...

Waiting to Exhale

Losing weight is a big issue. The CDC estimates that ~42% of adult Americans, roughly 100 million individuals, are obese (defined as having a BMI Index >30). Obesity is responsible for many diseases and accounts for nearly $173 billion in medical expenditures (in 2019 dollars). 

There is no shortage of weight loss services and products. In fact, the weight management market was valued at $143 billion in 2022. Ozempic anyone? But ever wonder how we actually lose weight? Where does the fat go? Stumped? Well, you're not alone...there seems to widespread mystery and confusion about the metabolic process of weight loss even among health professionals, including doctors and dieticians.  

Writing in the SciTechDaily, Ruben Meerman and Andrew Brown of the University of New South Wales say the correct answer is that "fat is converted to carbon dioxide and water. You exhale the carbon dioxide and the water mixes into your circulation until it’s lost (as vapor,) urine or sweat." The key relationship, which we all intuitively recognize, is that:

                                               ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT

According to government figures, Australians consume 3.5kg of food and beverages every day. Of that, 415g is solid macronutrients and the remaining 3kg is water. Messrs. Meerman and Brown note that what's not usually reported is that a typical person also consumes over 600g of oxygen every day, which is crucial to maintaining the metabolic balance, as shown in the diagram below. Including oxygen, 4.1kg of stuff goes in, so at least 4.1kg of stuff must come out, otherwise we gain weight.     

In steady state, the 415g and 640g of oxygen is metabolized into 740g of carbon dioxide, 35g urea, and 280g (one cup) of "new" water. (Every O₂ molecule we inhale gets split into two separate oxygen atoms which are welded together with hydrogen atoms obtained from food making two brand new water molecules) (h/t rubenmeerman.com). The 3kg of water we drink plays a crucial role in all of this by acting as a solvent, a reactant, and a transporter of nutrients, but remains unaltered in the metabolic process.

What this means is that of the 4.1kg of food, water, and oxygen a person typically consumes each day about half of it exhaled out as carbon dioxide and water vapor. The remainder is excreted out as urine, sweat, and feces. The first part is crucial for weight loss. If we are not producing enough carbon dioxide, we're likely adding pounds.

So, if fat turns into carbon dioxide, can simply breathing more cause weight loss? Umm, no. Meerman and Brown note that "huffing and puffing more than you need will cause hyperventilation and will only make you dizzy, or possibly faint." Unfortunately, the only way you can increase the amount of carbon dioxide your body is produces is by...moving your muscles. Yes, exercising, doing chores, walking to the store half a mile away rather than driving or, worse, Instacart-ing. At least you'll appreciate with every breath that you take, you're exhaling away fat.  

The Harvard Humble Brag

Last week Harvard rejected demands from the Trump Administration that threatens $9 billion in federal funding and its non-tax status. University president Alan Garber wrote in a message to the Harvard community: "No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Harvard's defiant stance is very different from that of major law firms and other universities, notably Columbia, who quickly agreed to the government's demands.

That's made Harvard, or Hahvadh, popular again; with individual donations skyrocketing over the past week. Harvard is elite, it's also wildly rich...so naturally, both the Right and the Left have issues with it. Which has forced many Harvardians over the years to hide where they went to school from their less smarter, less richer, less capable non-Harvard peers. Because, apparently, things become awkward when you drop the "H-bomb." 

But now that Harvard finds itself at the forefront of the nation's political/culture wars, people all across the political spectrum have cover to speak about their personal connection to the esteemed university. Not to remind you how smart and capable they are. No, of course not. But to "helpfully" set the context for whatever for/against argument they want to make. But things can still be a little awkward. Take it away Ronnie...