Stealth Chief Investment Officer

@bowtiedgerman @BuffBifff It’s called parenting, building memories with your kids, creating character, etc. Sounds like you want to play golf. If your kid was all into golf then that’s not a bad idea. But you shouldn’t force your kid into a sport is bad whether it’s travel baseball or golf

@BuffBifff Okay but what if I don't want to throw away my entire 40s driving my kids to games Seems like the easier option is just get a country club membership and let them rip golf and tennis every day

Are travel sports worth it if you know 100% your kid isn’t going to the league? Serious question. I played travel basketball for three years and hardly remember it

@bowtiedgerman Absolutely. It’s quality time with your kids, keeps them out of trouble, keeps them moving, builds relationships/friendships, etc. It’s like saying what’s the point of of a family vacation in Rome if I know I won’t be the Roman Emperor

@andyantiles_ Inheriting in cash vs stocks makes very little difference here

Just got off a call with a guy who just got a $34m inheritance from his parents Not in real estate value… Not in stocks… But in cold hard cash. The kid is 23 and makes $200k/year as a software engineer Has no idea whatsoever what to do with this money What would you do with it? Here’s what I suggested (I’m not a financial advisor, and this is not financial advice) Invest $12.5m into $VOO (S&P500 ETF) Invest $12.5m into $QQQ (Nasdaq ETF) Buy a $5m primary residence in cash And with the last $5m, buy section 8 real estate properties. I connected him with the sourcing company I use, and over the next 12 months They’re going to source him 150-180 rental properties This will create enormous tax deductions that will eliminate his income tax for years And he’ll earn ~$600k-700k in annual recurring cashflow And the $5m he puts into down payments will turn into $25m of equity once the federal government pays off all the debt in 30 years Simple playbook to ensuring that $34m turns into multiple 9 figures and true generational wealth

@robbiehendricks Risk on just means equities. That in itself isn’t a problem. It’s “stupid on”, taking on way more risk (financial, operational, legal, individual equities, tactical trading, tax) than the return suggests Step 1, IMO, is understanding taxes

If you inherit $34M of generational wealth and don’t know what to do, here’s the actual next steps: 1) Do nothing. Keep it in cash. 2) Go find a wealth manager. If you don’t want to research a highly regarded firm, just call UBS. 3) Retire and pursue your passions.

@TCIIIyeee The NBA seems more popular than it is because ESPN pushes it so hard.

Mark Cuban and them boys did all that yappin about the NBA taking over the NFL. There's a legit argument that MLB is ahead of the NBA right now.

@FinanceLancelot Because the military objectives are met. I’m not sure why this is confusing people

It's ironic, the Iran war goal went from regime change to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Probably the most idiotic war we've ever seen.

@RnaudBertrand It’s solely bc the US is showing constraint and Iran is not. The US can game over Irans economy at any point, and Iran has no response except to raise prices. Patience for humanitarian reasons is a virtue, not a weakness

I don't think people realize just how extraordinary what we're witnessing with Iran is. I was arguing with a dear journalist friend of mine yesterday who was telling me that Iran was winning, yes, but only on the strategic level, not tactically. The type of thing a skinny kid getting stuffed in lockers in highschool tells himself to make himself feel better: "These people will BEG to work for me in ten years. Everyone knows jocks peak in highschool. They'll literally beg." 😏 I think that's precisely wrong, and that's what makes the Iran war different. As of now, Iran is in fact holding its own tactically too. Think about other U.S. wars of aggression these past few decades. Take Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, etc. (the list is unfortunately very long). The pattern was roughly always the same with an immense power differential between aggressor and victim. These wars were, by and large, imperial: the empire attempting to crush a much weaker people whose only realistic recourse was guerrilla resistance. And that is when they actually had the will to resist: some - like Libya - barely even bothered, just resigning themselves to their fate (despite being, at the time, the richest country in Africa). As spectators of these wars, if you had any moral sense, the dominant emotion was a kind of helpless disgust: you were watching a giant stomp through someone else's house. Sure, the U.S. actually lost many - if not most - of these wars, famously replacing the Taliban with the Taliban or being expelled with their tail between their legs from Vietnam, but the power differential was no less real for it. It's just that power doesn't always guarantee victory: sometimes the giant can't kill everyone, and eventually tires of trying. But the “victories” won this way were always pyrrhic at best: the people endured, yes, but what they were left with was a country in ashes that takes decades to rebuild. Meanwhile, in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego. Iran is - remarkably - proving to be an entirely different beast: when others were merely surviving a giant, Iran appears to be able to compete with one. What just happened over the past 48 hours is the best illustration of this. You had the President of the United States issue a formal ultimatum: reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or we "obliterate" your power grid. Iran's response was essentially: we dare you, if you do this we'll make all your Gulf allies uninhabitable within a week. And, as we saw, Trump backed down: pretexting non-existent "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS" with Iran, he said his ultimatum no-longer applied (or, rather, became 5 days). Adding he now envisaged the Strait of Hormuz being “jointly controlled by me and the Ayatollah.” To the amusement of Iran’s diplomacy (x.com/IraninSA/statu…). That, folks, is a textbook tactical victory. It is, remarkably, Iran demonstrating in this instance that it had escalation dominance over the United States of America. That is, the ability to credibly threaten consequences so severe that the US - for perhaps the first time since the Cold War - found it preferable to stand down. That's no skinny kid being locked in a locker dreaming of revenge fantasies. That's the kid grabbing the bully's wrist mid-shove and watching his face change. And it's not the only tactical victory in this war so far. Take the episode over the Israeli attack on Iran's South Pars gas facility. Iran had warned that if that happened U.S. allies in the region - including Israel - would face a symmetrical response. And they delivered: famously devastating Qatar's Ras Laffan facility - which produced roughly 20% of global LNG supply - and leading, according to Qatar themselves, to a $20 billion loss of annual revenue for the next 5 years (oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-…). Not only that but they also managed to hit Israel's Haifa refinery (aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/19…), one of the country's most strategic and protected sites. The result was Trump distancing himself from the South Pars attack, saying that Israel had "violently lashed out" unilaterally and that "NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field." Israel then said it wouldn't strike Iran energy sites anymore (bloomberg.com/news/articles/…). From where I stand, that's another tactical victory. It is, at least, Iran demonstrating that is can fight back **symmetrically** against the U.S. and its allies. Not through asymmetric resistance with IEDs hidden in the roadside or traps hidden in the jungle, but eye for eye, and against some of the most heavily protected sites on the U.S.'s side. That's qualitatively different from any other adversaries the U.S. has directly fought in recent wars. There's plenty more, such as the pretty relevant fact that Iran has gained control of the single most strategic energy chokepoint on earth and the U.S. is finding it impossible to break that control. To the point where Trump has been reduced to publicly begging China - of all countries - for help, which given Trump's ego mustn't have been easy to do. Only to be told no. By China. And by everyone else he asked. This is the topic of my latest article: how this is, in fact, the first genuine "multipolar war." First, in the narrow sense: because Iran is revealing itself to be a genuine pole of power - not a superpower, but an actor that cannot be submitted, which is all multipolarity is. And second, because the war itself is accelerating multipolarity everywhere else: the U.S. has never been more isolated, never looked weaker and its security guarantees have never been more hollow. In my article I lay out the full scoreboard - military, economic, political - and explain why this war has already changed the world, regardless of how it ends. Enjoy the read here: open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbert…

@policytensor The US can flatten it with zero troops If the US occupies it then Iran has to decide whether to blow up their own economy (they won’t) The US doesn’t need Kharg functioning, Iran does.

How do you protect a force on Kharg when you cannot protect THAAD radars three hundred miles away?

@policytensor 1. The US always has the option of destroying the Iranian economy and its ability to export oil 2. Alternatives to Hormuz are obviously going to be built

But can the US stomach an Iran that holds the Hormuz weapon in perpetuity. That’s the main issue. If it can, a negotiated solution is possible. If not, we’re looking at a ground war that will last for years and still result in strategic defeat.

@Nostre_damus If the current Iranian regime rearms and pursues nuclear weapons then they will be attacked.

Why would Iran agree to a ceasefire? The US & Israel are just going to rearm and attack them again sometime in the future

@MazeLove14 Yes. The original goal of the war has been achieved

The “goal” for this war is to open the Strait of Hormuz? Reminder: It was open before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran.

@policytensor There hasn’t even been anything close to an all out attack

It’s not geography. It is the national strength to absorb an all out attack by the United States and stay in the fight. A weaker state would not have been able to harvest geographic features to create a new power position.

@mnoman @Crussian17 We don’t need to control them. We either need a non suicidal regime or we need to eliminate their ability to cause harm. The goal isn’t to nation build

I can’t imagine how we leave this regime in power especially as it seems it is now more hardline and seeking revenge than the last one. We don’t have their uranium and they clearly have the ability to attack with missiles and drones despite supposedly not having any navy or air force or leadership. The first thing Iran will do is rebuild their stockpiles of missiles and drones ESPECIALLY because they just saw it was key to remaining in power and threaten the strait and energy infrastructure of their neighbors. Are we really going to be back to this exact spot in a year or two except now we will just give Iran time to rebuild weapons stockpiles and be more dangerous than they are now? Seems ludicrous and a complete failure if that happens… Imo this is all a play for time so we get our resources to the region and take the strait by force, I just can’t imagine that any negotiation or concession will now be acceptable when it wasn’t acceptable before this all started. Also will Iran ever believe we won’t randomly attack and assassinate all their guys even with an agreement whenever we want to? How do you have an agreement without that belief or trust?

@OctopusIllusion @BorisDoesTweets @adamscochran The gay guy in a coma?

@BorisDoesTweets @adamscochran Umm they haven’t killed the new Ayatollah even tho you predicted it 2.5 weeks ago?

Iran's speaker and foreign minister both now deny contact. They claim the US attempted to make contact via intermediaries, but that contact was denied. This would match the reporting from Axios that leaked from US sources about middlemen. Trump wanted an offramp for market open. So he made one up.

@EdKrassen Ed is on the IRGC payroll trying to spin everything to be anti US 1. The IRGC aren’t trustworthy 2. Trump can be speaking to other internal leaders of Iran 3. The oil price is the IRGCs ONLY weapon. Why not fight back on that?

BREAKING: It appears Trump lied. According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, several friendly nations passed along messages indicating the U.S. wants negotiations to end the conflict, but Iran chose not to reply. “Friendly countries sent messages indicating the U.S. is requesting talks to end the war, but Iran did not respond.” Iran is demanding reparations and guarantees that the US will never attack again. They don't trust Trump given he has went back on America's word more than once.

@unusual_whales Murphy has zero idea. He’s about as big of a Trump hater as possible and has no idea what’s going on

Senator Chris Murphy has that Trump backing down on his threat to strike Iranian power plants was to calm the financial markets.

@DeItaone The oil price is Irans only weapon Of course Trump will say there are talks and Iran will deny it.

IRAN'S FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS THERE ARE NO TALKS WITH WASHINGTON AND ACCUSES US PRESIDENT OF BUYING TIME WHILE REGIONAL DE-ESCALATION EFFORTS GO ON.

@Matans8442 @Geiger_Capital TDS is strong. These people don’t realize Iran would kill them in an instant. They have zero knowledge of the last 50 years of history. It’s sad honestly. All they know is Trump bad

@Geiger_Capital Dude, this is embarrassing. Stop siding with the country that is fighting your country in war. Pathetic.

Incase you’re confused… Iran called Trump’s bluff on his 48-hour deadline and now it’s been extended 5 days.

@Geiger_Capital It’s called war. Even if Trump is lying about the talks, so what? Oil price is the ONLY weapon Iran has. So even if he’s lying he’s buying time against Irans only weapon. That’s smart. He cares about winning the war, not people betting against America in the market

@TicTocTick Someone had the wrong trade on….

For a leader, loss of credibility and respect is worst than death in the war field. This is a tragic fall for a man much loved by the masses of all races.