Current equity valuations have detached from any reasonable fundamental anchor. The S&P 500 trades at multiples that would have been considered bubble territory in any previous cycle, and yet the consensus view treats this as normal, even justified. We're told that artificial intelligence justifies these prices, that monetary conditions support them, that American exceptionalism demands a premium. None of these narratives withstand serious scrutiny. The reality is that we're witnessing speculative excess on a scale that makes historical bubbles look restrained by comparison. For those willing to accept the career risk and timing uncertainty, out-of-the-money puts represent an asymmetric opportunity that could generate extraordinary returns when this structure inevitably collapses.

Western Europe is facing a reckoning. The continent that once dictated terms to the world now finds itself navigating a minefield of fiscal constraints, demographic challenges, and geopolitical irrelevance. The post-war consensus that delivered prosperity for decades has collapsed, and what we're witnessing is a collection of nations trying to maintain living standards with economic models that no longer function. Some are adapting, most are flailing, and a few are simply pretending the problem doesn't exist. For investors, understanding these national trajectories isn't academic speculation, it's essential for positioning capital in a fragmenting global order.

While everyone's busy losing their minds over Nvidia's valuation, they're completely missing the real circus act happening right under their noses. Palantir has quietly become the most overvalued large-cap stock in market history, and I spent my entire weekend crunching numbers to prove it. What I found should terrify anyone holding this stock – we're looking at a price-to-sales ratio of 100. Let that sink in for a moment. One hundred times sales. Not earnings, sales. At a nearly $300 billion market cap with less than $3 billion in revenue for all of 2024, Palantir has achieved a level of valuation insanity that makes the dot-com bubble look like a rational pricing exercise.

A client once told me that he had lost USD 24K waiting for a "value" biotech stock to rebound. He held on for years, convinced that the market had mispriced this hidden gem, watching his position bleed until he finally capitulated at an 86% loss. This story haunts me not because it's unusual, but because it's so painfully common. The biotech sector is littered with the corpses of value investors who thought they could apply Graham and Dodd to an industry that operates by entirely different rules. Let me be absolutely clear about my position here: value investing in biotech is a myth, a dangerous delusion that will separate you from your money faster than a rigged slot machine.

The biotech sector is a fascinating beast. It's where brilliant minds meet desperate hope, where science fiction becomes science fact, and where fortunes are made and lost faster than you can say "Phase 3 trial failure." I've spent years analyzing these companies, watching some soar to unimaginable heights while others crashed and burned despite having what seemed like promising technologies. Through all this chaos, I've learned that there are three fundamental elements that separate the winners from the losers, the diamonds from the rough, the actual breakthroughs from the elaborate scientific theater. These aren't secrets hidden in some vault – they're right there in the clinical data, if you know how to read between the lines.

The global supremacy of the U.S. dollar did not emerge by chance or peaceful consensus. It was forged in the aftermath of three pivotal victories: 1918, 1945, and 1990. Each vanquished old orders and cleared the stage for a new empire to rewrite the rules on its terms. With traditional powers on their knees, the United States seized the opportunity to anchor the world’s commerce to its own currency. As war-torn continents scrambled for credit and reconstruction, the dollar stepped in as a pillar of stability and order. Gone were the days of multiple competing currencies vying for dominance. Now there was one linchpin, one financial standard: the greenback. The U.S. had not merely won wars; it had inherited the right to dictate the terms of trade and credit worldwide.

America has been the leading economic and military power of the world decades. This kind of dominance has created a sense of invincibility—one that both presidential candidates seem to share. But in this race, there’s an issue that no one is talking about, and it could be a big problem for this modern empire. The national debt is growing, and with it comes economic risks that could shake America’s strength. As of August 2024, the public debt of the United States was around  $35.26 trillion. Both candidates have chosen to focus on other issues, avoiding the uncomfortable truth about the nation’s finances. Ignoring this crucial economic number could have serious consequences for the country's future.

Everyone loves it, except the people in charge. El Mordjene, the delicious Algerian chocolate spread, became an instant hit in France, thanks to social media buzz. But just as it was becoming a household name, European lawmakers decided to ban it, leaving fans frustrated and disappointed. This story isn’t just about chocolate—it’s about how a beloved product can get caught in a tangle of regulations and big-brand politics. From TikTok fame to unexpected barriers, this is a journey that shows how something as simple as a jar of chocolate spread can stir up bigger debates about trade, regulations, and fairness. Let's dive into how El Mordjene went from being everyone’s favorite treat to a symbol of something much bigger.

A stagnation that does not seem to end            

Once the world's largest trading nation, Britain stood as an economic titan in 1913, with London accounting for half of global capital investment. Back then, the British Empire covered a quarter of the world's land surface, and the pound sterling was a symbol of financial might. Fast forward to today, and the picture looks starkly different. The pound has devalued significantly, and the UK's importance on the global stage has waned. What is the risk of Britain’s economic stagnation continuing in the current decade, and how did it transition from being an economic powerhouse to this state over the past 15 years?