This week, I speak with Howard Lindzon, co-founder and CEO of StockTwits, and founder and managing partner at Social Leverage. His podcast is podcast is Panic with Friends. We discuss his outlook for venture capital investing, including what he sees as potentially profitable from human behavior.

Our original recording in April was postponed because Howard accidentally severed a finger completely — he had to have it surgically reattached.

His current favorite book is here; a transcript of our conversation will be available here tomorrow.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Joe McLean, Managing Partner at MAI Capital Management, where he leads firm’s Sports & Entertainment division, serving 100s of pro athletes/entertainers across NBA, NFL, MLB, PGA + NASCAR. His path to finance runs directly through the locker room as a 4-year NCAA Division 1 player at U of Arizona. Dubbed the athlete’s “Money Whisperer” by the New York Times, he is known for his non-negotiable 60% savings mandate for clients.

Current Reading/Favorite Books

The post MiB: Howard Lindzon, Social Leverage appeared first on The Big Picture.

• I Want to Live Like Costco People: Embracing the Costco lifestyle means accepting the fact that I am, in many ways, becoming my father. This is an old idea, both Freudian and Kierkegaardian—the belief that we are all destined to embody learned characteristics and habits passed down from parent to child. On the strange aspirational pull of bulk warehouse shopping. A rare cultural piece that’s actually fun. Some of us are crying in H Mart; some of us are mourning in Costco. (Taste)

• David Attenborough and the Voice That Revealed a Planet: As Attenborough turns 100, a tribute to the most recognizable voice in nature documentary — and a worldview that hardened from wonder into warning over six decades. (The Ringer) see also At 100, David Attenborough Is Nature’s Most Trusted Voice: A second centennial salute to Attenborough, this one featuring Prince Harry. Two takes on the same milestone — pick your poison. (Time)

• SpaceX is Breaking Capitalism (& Indexing): Once upon a time, companies went public to raise money. You’d go on a road show to pitch your story and drum up interest, you’d float a big pile of stock, and then you’re off to the races to go build your company. Turns out, that’s not really the case anymore. On the index-construction problem when the most valuable companies are private and untouchable. The market-cap weighted world has a SpaceX-shaped blind spot. (ETF.com)

• Raising Cane’s Grew From an Idea a College Professor Hated: No one believed in Todd Graves’ vision for a restaurant at first. Today, Raising Cane’s is the third-largest chicken chain in the US by sales and growing fast. Founder Todd Graves built a multibillion-dollar chicken-finger empire from a business-school F. The professor is presumably re-grading. (Businessweek free)

• Artemis II Is Competency Porn and We Are Starving For It: (girls will be like i needed this and it’s just four nerds in space). If you have spent the last week inexplicably emotional about a space mission, you are not alone and you are not being dramatic. Something real is happening to you. Something your nervous system recognized before your brain caught up to it, and it is worth understanding why, because the reason is actually about a lot more than space.On the cathartic appeal of an institution that still works. The rocket program is the rare federal effort that actually delivers on its press release. (Airplane Mode)

• Six lessons from history’s greatest financial crises: Robin Wigglesworth distills six recurring patterns. None of them are surprising; all of them keep getting forgotten. (Financial Times)

• Toyota built a $10 billion private utopia—what’s going on in there?: A reported tour of Woven City, the corporate test-bed at the foot of Mount Fuji. The ‘utopia’ framing is doing a lot of work, but the engineering is real. Woven City is a privacy nightmare but could be helpful to an OEM desperate to be more. (Ars Technica) see also Our Cringe Century: On cringe as the dominant cultural register of the 2020s. A cleverer essay than the headline suggests. Since the start of the millennium Britain has found new and exquisite ways to humiliate herself. Here, in order, are the most embarrassing moments. (The Fence)

• There Is No ‘Hard Problem Of Consciousness’ A bracing essay arguing the famous puzzle is a category error. Whether you buy it or not, it’s the best version of the case. Consciousness is not separate from the physical world — our “soul” is of the same nature as our body and any other phenomenon of the world. (NOEMA)

• How college students are learning to socialize without cellphones: Phone-free dorms and screen-free social hours are spreading on campus. The kids may end up correcting this faster than the policymakers. (Washington Post)

• Who’s NBA’s most overrated player? Underrated? Best coach? Anonymous player poll results: How do NBA players feel about which of their peers is most underrated and most overrated? And what do they think when it comes to the league’s head coaches? We asked them those questions, and more, for The Athletic’s 2026 Anonymous NBA Player Poll. (The Athletic)

Video of the day: Billie Eilish | Good Hang with Amy Poehler

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business interview this weekend with Howard Lindzon, known as “The Larry David of Finance.” He is General Partner at the seed fund, Social Leverage, he was one of the first seed investors in Robinhood, which IPOd at $30B in 2021, eToro, Manscaped, and Beehiiv. Previously, he founded Wallstrip, a daily online video show acquired by CBS (2007). He also co-founded Stocktwits, which pioneered the “cashtag.” Recognized by Institutional Investor as a “Super Angel;” his podcast is Panic with Friends.

Which Brands Make the Best Cars?

Source: Consumer Reports

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” drops this week; to celebrate, this whole week I am running various stories and excerpts about the book. 

This short, Beatles-related excerpt from the book was one of my favorite chapters to write… Enjoy!

Is there any greater gap between “Expert Opinion” and subsequent history than The Beatles?

AllMusic sums up the Fab Four as “The most popular and influential rock act of all time, a band that blazed several new trails for popular music.”1 That’s obvious today, but it was not the consensus early in their career.

Many amusing details were recounted by Bob Seawright is his “Better Letter.” Nobody skewers humanity’s cognitive failings with more amusing flair than Seawright. He giddily recounted the early reviews of the Beatles when they first came to America. At the time, they had five singles in Britain’s Top 20, three of which hit #1 – all in 1963. Their debut album, “Please Please Me,” held the top spot on Britain’s charts for 30 weeks, displaced only by the band’s next album, “With the Beatles.“

Despite the sensation they were causing in Great Britain, The Beatles’ record label (EMI) could not persuade its American counterpart (Capitol) to release any of the band’s singles in the States. Dave Dexter was the man in charge of international A&R for Capitol, and ostensibly an industry expert on the public’s musical tastes. He repeatedly rejected The Beatles’ singles, calling them “generally amateurish and unappealing.” One after another, Dexter vetoed those singles tearing up the charts in the UK, starting with “Please Please Me” and “She Loves You.”

Ed Sullivan had also turned down the Fab Four (twice) for his television show. He was by coincidence at London (now Heathrow) Airport when he witnessed “Beatlemania” firsthand. The band was returning home from a tour in Sweden, greeted by a raucous, screaming mob of teenage girls. That convinced Sullivan to book the lads.2

The Ed Sullivan Show was a huge platform for breaking new acts, and Capitol decided to release “I Want to Hold Your Hand” a few weeks before The Beatles’ appearance. This was not some insightful exec reversing Dexter’s misguided rejections or a change of musical heart but rather, simply good corporate opportunism. How could you not capitalize on the demand one of the country’s most popular TV shows might create?

And how did the Sullivan Show go? 3

The Beatles played five songs on two broadcast segments, ending with “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”  Ray Bloch, Ed Sullivan’s musical director, was unimpressed: “The only thing different is the hair, as far as I can see. I give them a year.” 4

He was not alone in panning the appearance. Seawright collected a string of headlines and reviews that have not aged particularly well:

The New York Herald Tribune: “BEATLES BOMB ON TV.”

The Boston Globe: “Don’t let the Beatles bother you. If you don’t think about them they will go away and in a few more years they will probably be bald.”

The New York Times: “The Beatles’ vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts.”

The Los Angeles Times: “Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well.”

The New York Herald Tribune: “75 percent publicity, 20 percent haircut and 5 percent lilting lament.”

Talk about “Nobody Knows Anything.”

It wasn’t just that the reviews missed the mark. What is noteworthy is all of biases evident in those critiques. This is also evident in the prior section on Media (later on, we explore what causes this).

Consider Newsweek:

“Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody.” (emphasis added)

Whether you like their songs or not, The Beatles’ harmonies and melodies are simply not debatable. The musicality and beauty of their songs is simply beyond reproach.

And this was The Washington Post revealing their inside-the-beltway angle:

“They are, apparently, part of some kind of malicious, bi-lateral entertainment trade agreement. The British have to sit through dozens of dreadful American television programs. In return, we get The Beatles. As usual, we got gypped. Nothing we have exported in recent years quite justifies imported hillbillies who look like sheep dogs and sound like alley cats in agony.”

What was the 1960s equivalent of “Okay, Boomer”…? 5

You probably know what happened next: “I Want to Hold Your Hand” went to number one in the U.S., quickly selling a million copies.5 American tastes were not so different than Britain’s after all, and Beatlemania became a cultural phenomenon here too.6

***

Ironically, these music “experts” missed the biggest cultural shift in generations, and it was happening right before their eyes and ears. How did they blow it? In his book “Hit Makers,” 7 Derek Thompson explains Raymond Loewy’s concept of MAYA: New products that are “most advanced yet acceptable.”8

Loewy “believed that consumers are torn between two opposing forces: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. As a result, they gravitate to products that are bold, but instantly comprehensible.” Any innovation too far ahead of the curve gets rejected by much of the public.

But with music, I suspect that MAYA line varies with age. The receptiveness to new music is different for a critic in their 40s or 50s than for teenagers. One group is still in its formative age, embracing new things (while rejecting most of what their parents liked); the others’ formative years were decades earlier. Once your musical taste hardens, you may be less receptive to the latest sounds.

This might explain the bad reviews from Beatles’ critics throughout their career. Many of their albums, including some of the best music ever recorded, were initially panned. Musicologist and Historian Ted Gioia observed that critics “literally were handed the greatest recordings of their era to review, and blew them off. Every classic song on these albums was not only attacked, but actually mocked.” 9

MAYA helps explain why.

Gioia notes that The Beatles were “punished for how quickly they were pushing rock music ahead . . . the critics misunderstood the lads from Liverpool for the worst possible reason – namely, that they were constantly learning, growing more ambitious, and willing to take risks.”

Or as UK rocker Elvis Costello said, “Every [Beatles] record was a shock.” 10

The Ed Sullivan appearance was merely a single episode in an explosive career. Throughout the 1960s, bad reviews of Beatles’ albums such as Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, and Abbey Road would come back to haunt the critics who penned them…

Previously:
HNTI: Never Take Candy from Strangers (May 7, 2026)

How NOT to Invest’s 10 Most Important Ideas (May 6, 2026)

Adventures in Recording an Audio Book (May 5, 2026)

How NOT to Invest Paperback Arrives! (May 4, 2026)

Nobody Knows Anything (Full archive)

__________

1. Some try to make the case for the Rolling Stones in the #1 position through a combination of great songs, great live performances, and sheer longevity. The GOAT case for The Beatles is the unbeatable catalogue of amazing albums, and how their influence changed (and continues to change) music in so many ways. And, they created all of that astonishing music in less than a decade.

2. “The Ed Sullivan Show received 50,000 ticket requests for the 728-seat Studio 50 (now known as the Ed Sullivan Theater) where the band was to perform, far surpassing the previous high (7,000 tickets requested for Elvis Presley’s 1957 debut).” -Ibid, Seawright, Better Letter.

3. Seawright adds: “The broadcast drew a then-record of more than 73 million viewers (60 percent of all viewers), as compared to 21 million on a typical week.”

4. “The Beatles had no U.S. chart presence before February 1964 but sold 2.5 million records in the U.S. in the month after their first Ed Sullivan Show appearance and soon became the first act to hold all top 5 spots in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (they also held spots 16, 44, 49, 69, 78, 84 and 88). By the end of the year, the band had placed 28 songs on Billboard’s Hot 100 Singles chart, 11 of them in the Top 10.”  –Billboard Hot 100 via Seawright

5. See: “What the critics wrote about the Beatles in 1964” By Cary Schneider, LA Times, February 9, 2014

6. Also laughable: Alan Rinzler of The Nation: Headlined “No Soul in Beatlesville:” The Beatles “remain derivative, a deliberate imitation of an American genre” whose “loud, fast, and furious, totally uninfluenced by some of the more sophisticated elements” music was “amplified to a plaster-crumbling, glass-shattering pitch.” It was “vapid,” and “Beatlemania as a phenomenon is manna for dull minds.”

Conservative writer William F. Buckley, September 9, 1964: “The Beatles are not merely awful, I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are godawful.  They are unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.”

Source: Early Criticism of The Beatles, Steve Silverman  February 11, 2016

7. “Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction,” by Derek Thompson, Penguin Books, February 7, 2017

8. MAYA was first published as “The Four-Letter Code to Selling Just About Anything” By Derek Thompson, The Atlantic, January/February 2017.

9. Why Did the Beatles Get So Many Bad Reviews? An inquiry into how critics stumble, Ted Gioia, January 30, 2023

10. Elvis Costello, Rolling Stone, 100 Greatest Beatles Songs

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” is out this week at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Bookshop, Hudson, or wherever you buy your favorite books!

If you want to learn more about how the book was made, any related media appearances or background, get unique bonus material, or just ask a question, you can sign up here: HNTI at RitholtzWealth dot com.

The post HNTI: Nobody Knows Anything, The Beatles edition appeared first on The Big Picture.

• The Great $110 Trillion Wealth Transfer Won’t Happen Any Time Soon: Financial advisory firms like to talk about a looming event called “the great wealth transfer,” where the huge and very wealthy baby-boomer generation dies off and their children inherit their money. But the process may be more of a slow drip than a sudden windfall. The two generations that hold the most wealth are baby boomers, who are between age 61 and 80, and Gen X, who are between 45 and 61. Americans 55 and up control most wealth, and many of them have decades of living left. (Wall Street Journal)

• Will the anti-obesity wonder drugs work wonders for the US economy? Unlike artificial intelligence, the impact of GLP-1 medications may already be happening in a big way. (Faster, Please!)

• Wall Street’s Wisest Man: The renowned investment wizard Charley Ellis (Chair Yale Endowment, BoD Vanguard Group)) from June 2001. It still rings true, because wisdom never goes out of style. Investing, like manufacturing cookies or toothpaste, is supposed to be boring: “If you find anything interesting, you’ve found something wrong.” (Jason Zweig)

• The $11 Billion Casino-Style Economy Built on Players Who Can Never Cash Out. Apple and Google are raking in money from social casinos that replace real winnings with virtual coins and dopamine hits. Some players have spent more than $1 million to keep playing. (Bloomberg Free)

• ‘Life is existential uncertainty. What happens when you outlive a fatal diagnosis? Bruce Deachman in this National Post article talks with three people whose lives were upended by grim prognoses. Life threw them another curveball by extending their lives, in some cases indefinitely. Tadas Viskanta’s quiet meditation on living with not-knowing. The investing application is obvious; the human one matters more. (Abnormal Returns)

• Brendan Carr Is Playing a Dangerous Game: If he can weaponize Jimmy Kimmel’s joke to punish ABC, other media companies with far less will be intimidated out of ever criticizing the president again. (Slate)

• How Texas Republicans Turned on George W. Bush: The former president is now persona non grata in his own state party. The man who delivered Texas to the GOP is now one of its chief targets. What gives? (Texas Monthly)

• Iran has hit far more U.S. military assets than reported, satellite images show: Imagery published by Iranian state-affiliated media and verified by The Post shows damage to at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at U.S. military sites. Investigative satellite work re-counting the actual damage to U.S. bases. The official tally and the imagery don’t agree. (Washington Post)

• How the Classic American Game of Twister Went From Risqué to Record-Breaking: Sixty years ago, Johnny Carson and Eva Gabor played Twister on the “Tonight Show,” and the public took it as permission to buy the controversial game. The improbable history of the most physically suggestive game ever sold to children — from puritan panic to Guinness records. (Smithsonian Magazine)

• Billie Eilish says she does ‘everything I can’ to suppress Tourette syndrome tics: US singer-songwriter talks about huge effort of controlling her behaviour, in interview with Amy Poehler. Eilish on the daily work of masking a neurological condition in public. A useful counter to the ‘celebrities are fine’ assumption. (The Guardian)

Video of the day:  Why Boston Dynamics’ New Atlas is Years Ahead of Tesla

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business interview this weekend with Howard Lindzon, known as “The Larry David of Finance.” He is General Partner at the seed fund, Social Leverage, he was one of the first seed investors in Robinhood, which IPOd at $30B in 2021, eToro, Manscaped, and Beehiiv. Previously, he founded Wallstrip, a daily online video show acquired by CBS (2007). He also co-founded Stocktwits, which pioneered the “cashtag.” Recognized by Institutional Investor as a “Super Angel;” his podcast is Panic with Friends.

Which US cities give new grads the best shot in 2026?

Source: Sherwood

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” drops this week; to celebrate, I am running various stories and excerpts about the book, Today, I want to discuss why we ignore what ourt moms taught us. It’s as applicable on the playground as it is on Wall Street and markets. Enjoy!

I grew up in the generation of latchkey kids: Both parents worked; you came home from school, fixed yourself a quick bite, then ran off to the playground for some stick- or b-ball. We weren’t wildly overscheduled; we didn’t have 20 hours a week of school events, after-school activities, and projects.  We were (mostly) on our own.

This led to a generation of parents who recognized the risks all this unsupervised play created. The results were three simple rules that every kid who grew up in the 1960s, 70s, and even 80s had to learn:

1. Make sure your parents knew where you were going to be after school;

2. Be home for dinner (hands washed and at the table) by 6pm;

3. Never take candy from strangers.1

That was it!

Every other rule was a variation on this theme. Whether you had a sleepover at Brian’s house or were playing hoops with Marc, Chuck, and Ritchie, you had to leave a note or a message at home and/or your parents’ workplace as to what you were doing that day. Dinner was the same time every day, and if you were late, there was gonna be hell to pay for it.

Technology has rendered the rules 1 and 2 obsolete: Parents know exactly where their kids are to within a few feet, courtesy of the tracking apps on their phones. Texting lets them know precisely when they are coming home. But that third rule…

Today, I want to discuss why you should never take candy from strangers. It was true when I was 12 years old, developing a decent pull-up jump shot and studying for my bar mitzvah. It’s true today, perhaps more so. It’s true, even if you are an adult, married with two kids, a dog, and a mortgage.

It’s so obvious and ingrained – at least to my generation – that it’s easy to overlook the simplicity and brilliance of this concept.

Just as your mother used to tell you not to take candy from strangers, so goes it with taking investment advice from strangers on TV, in print, weblogs, and most especially social media.

When a stranger offers you something for free, it should immediately make you ask a few questions: Who are they? What do they want? Do they have your best interests at heart? What’s in it for them?

Always ask yourself: What are these people selling? Is it a newsletter? Some wacky trading scheme or crypto scam claiming it’s gonna make you rich? “Just make 1% per day to turn $100 into millions” type nonsense.

At the very least, they are asking for your time and attention, and that has tremendous value to you as an individual. Collectively, it’s worth billions of dollars to big tech and media.

I devote at least 10 chapters in “How Not to Invest” discussing these exact topics because its that important. See:

Who do you listen to?
Prediction, Inc.?
Forecasting Chaos
What are they selling?
24/7 Financial Advice
TikTokInvestors
Gell-Mann Amnesia
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Lose the News
Use the News: Reengineer Your Media Diet

Before you accept the investing advice from a random stranger, ask yourself if they are concerned with your comfortable retirement, buying a new house, or paying for your kids’ college. If they don’t know your zip code or tax bracket, how on earth can their advice be geared to your specific circumstances?

Of course it is not. It’s selling something, be it advertisements, investment products, newsletters, or God knows what else.

Most of what you see, hear, and read was not written with you in mind. It was created to sell a product. This blog post, as an example, is exhorting you to buy my book. These sales pitches are not nefarious, but they have become so ubiquitous that we often overlook them.

It’s not realistic to suggest people tune everything out. However, I am making three suggestions for all consumers of financial content:

-Understand what media you are consuming;

-Make intelligent, well-informed choices;

-Prioritize quality over quantity.

I am not suggesting you become a curmudgeon who hates all they see, but rather, be a little less gullible and naïve. When I started out in the finance industry, I believed every line that came my way from every salesman, any fund manager, and each quarterly call (all filled with nonsense). I was an easy mark for any smooth-talking bullshit artist.

This is why my Mom was right to warn me not to take candy from strangers. Her advice applies equally to taking investment advice from people you don’t know and whose process, track record, and temperament you are unfamiliar with. Have they been more right than wrong? Do they have a calm, thoughtful temperament? Lived through a few cycles? Are they worthy of your time and attention?

It took some time and some expensive losses before I figured all that out.

Listen to what mom told you: Taking investment advice from people you do not know in the media in all of its forms is no different than taking candy from strangers…

Previously:
How NOT to Invest’s 10 Most Important Ideas (May 6, 2026)

Adventures in Recording an Audio Book (May 5, 2026)

How NOT to Invest Paperback Arrives! (May 4, 2026)

__________

1. There is a much longer story from 1874 about Charley Ross, the first missing child to make national headlines. It (of course) involved taking candy from strangers. A full century before my generation, and so was not exactly part of the Zeitgeist in 1974. If you want to learn more about it, see “The Kidnapping of Little Charley Ross,” Library of Congress, April 23, 2019.

~~~

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” is out this week at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Bookshop, Hudson, or wherever you buy your favorite books!

If you want to learn more about how the book was made, any related media appearances or background, get unique bonus material, or just ask a question, you can sign up here: HNTI at RitholtzWealth dot com.

The post HNTI: Never Take Candy from Strangers appeared first on The Big Picture.

• I Asked ChatGPT to Manage a Stock Portfolio. Here’s How It Did. What followed was a monthslong back-and-forth on everything from tariffs to leveraged funds . Spoiler: it picked momentum and got beaten by a bad market. Useful as a reality check on the AI-as-PM pitch deck. I planned to test it for a few weeks. (Wall Street Journal)

• Storied Toolmaker Closes Its Last Hometown Plant—and Blames Its Tape Measures: WHat a bullshit excuse — Stanley Black & Decker says fewer buyers want the Connecticut plant’s single-sided tape measures, preferring double-sided ones made abroad. (Wall Street Journal) but see what really happened Your Power Tools Got Worse on Purpose: The 2010 merger of Stanley Works and Black & Decker created a company that already owned DeWalt. From there they went on an acquisition spree that should have built an empire. Instead it built a bloated holding company drowning in debt and leadership turnover. (Worse on Purpose)

• The Fastest V-Shaped Recovery Ever: First semis, then software; Peak Social Media; Your SaaSflation Is My Opportunity. (It’s time to build.)

• Demand destruction vs fuel-superseding infrastructure: In starting this stupid, unforgivable war, Trump has vastly accelerated the process of demand destruction. Rather than buying American oil, the whole world has undertaken a simultaneous, rapid, irreversible shift to electrical substitutes for fossil fuel applications, from induction tops to balcony solar to ebikes and EVs: Doctorow on why building the alternative is more durable than punishing the incumbent. Energy-transition strategy as policy aikido. (Pluralistic)

• Scientists Are Starting to Unlock the Nanoscale Secrets of the Immune System: Immunologist Daniel Davis detailed the ways in which new technologies are enabling a better understanding of the human immune system. On the molecular-scale reckoning happening in immunology and the therapeutic implications are years out, but the science is now. (Wired)

• ‘The Most Bipartisan Issue Since Beer’: Opposition to Data Centers: Liberals and conservatives, finally united — by NIMBYism over the AI build-out. The grid math, water draw, and tax breaks are uniting people who never agree. (New York Times)

• The unflattering secrets revealed so far in Elon Musk’s latest legal feud: Shira Ovide digs through the court filings in Musk vs. Altman / OpenAI for what’s already embarrassing for Musk. Hundreds of court filings have revealed cringey texts, emails or private diary entries of Musk, Sam Altman, other OpenAI founders and other public figures. (Washington Post)

• A Stanford Experiment to Pair 5,000 Singles Has Taken Over Campus: A student built a matchmaking algorithm that has consumed the school—and highlighted the challenges of finding love for high achievers. (Wall Street Journal)

• F.D.A. Blocked Publication of Research Finding Covid and Shingles Vaccines Were Safe: The agency’s scientists and data contractors reviewed millions of patient records for studies that were pulled back before release. Suppressing favorable safety data because it conflicts with political messaging is its own kind of malpractice. The institutional rot continues to surface. The agency’s scientists and data contractors reviewed millions of patient records for studies that were pulled back before release. (New York Times)

• Work Won’t Love You Back: Greta Rainbow on ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ For those who’ve seen every Met Gala fit yet crave another fashion fix, the writer reports from Times Square on the sequel’s view of labor, love, and, of course, looks. The smarter take on the sequel — what it accidentally says about the labor economics of the prestige magazine world. (Filmmaker) see also That’s All: A Guide to Every Easter Egg in The Devil Wears Prada 2: For those keeping score on the sequel. Pure entertainment, but a useful index of where pop-culture nostalgia currently sits. From celebrity cameos to that emotional ending, a spoiler-filled rundown of references to the original film and special guests joining the sequel. (Vanity Fair)

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business interview this weekend with Howard Lindzon, known as “The Larry David of Finance.” He is General Partner at the seed fund, Social Leverage, he was one of the first seed investors in Robinhood, which IPOd at $30B in 2021, eToro, Manscaped, and Beehiiv. Previously, he founded Wallstrip, a daily online video show acquired by CBS (2007). He also co-founded Stocktwits, which pioneered the “cashtag.” Recognized by Institutional Investor as a “Super Angel;” his podcast is Panic with Friends.

The Iran war is accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels

Source: Paul Krugman

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Thursday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

At The Money: Focusing on Growth (Not Market Cap) with Rob Arnott, RAFI (May 7, 2026)

Indexes are weighted by their size, primarily market cap. Research Affiliates’ latest index focuses on Growth, rejiggering these indexes based on how fast companies are growing.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Rob Arnott is known as the “godfather of smart beta” and founder of Research Affiliates, which oversees strategies for over $100 billion in assets.

For more info, see:

Professional Bio

Masters in Business

LinkedIn

~~~

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

TRANSCRIPT: Rob Arnott on the Research Affiliates Growth Index

Intro
Take a load off Fanny
And (and, and) you put the load right on me
(You put the load right on me)

Barry Ritholtz: Traditional market-cap-weighted indexes like the S&P 500 have really done a great job in dominating investor inflows. But today there are concerns that cap weighting is leading to increased market concentration into just a handful of stocks, especially the Mag Seven, higher valuations, and increased risks for investors. How should an index investor think about this? Well, to help us unpack all of it and what it means for your portfolio, let’s bring in Rob Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates. The firm recently put out the Research Affiliates Growth Index, which is different from both cap-weighted ETFs, but also different from equal-weight ETFs.

Barry Ritholtz: So I’m fascinated by this index, which you guys put out. You’re tracking it live today. It’s not yet investible, but I assume there’ll be an ETF out sooner rather than later. Define Raffi. Define the Research Affiliates Growth Index. What are the weights based on? How do you think about alternatives to cap-weighted growth?

Rob Arnott: Sure. Let’s back up just a little bit and challenge one of the basic principles of modern investing and modern finance—the principle that there’s this binary duality of growth and value. If it’s not value, it’s growth. If it’s not growth, it’s value. Pardon me? Those are not one-dimensional. Those are two dimensions. You can have cheap and expensive. You can have fast and slow growing—two completely different dimensions. Our industry has had a fixation on this simple duality, where if it’s cheap, it’s value, and if it’s expensive, it’s growth. No, if it’s expensive, it’s expensive—it’s much simpler. If it’s growth, it’s growth.

Rob Arnott: So to my astonishment, looking back, cap weighted indexing goes back to the fifties as investible portfolios, and growth indexes to the late seventies, and investible growth strategies to the 1980s. Nobody has posed the question, why don’t we look at this fundamentally? Instead of based on valuations, nobody has asked the question, why don’t we create an index that chooses growth stocks based on how fast they’re growing and weights growth stocks based on how big their dollar contribution to the growth of the macro economy is? If you do that—if you choose companies that are growing rapidly and you weight them on the dollar magnitude of that growth—you wind up with an index that over the last 30 years would’ve outperformed Russell Growth by four and a half percent per annum going back almost 30 years.

Barry Ritholtz: Russell Growth, not Russell Value.

Rob Arnott: Correct.

Barry Ritholtz: So if that’s the case, what are we selecting on? It’s not just cap weight, I’m assuming. And I’ve read some of the research—you’re looking at increasing sales, increasing profits, increasing R&D. Explain what goes into the Raffi Growth Index.

Rob Arnott: Sure. Well, there’s an article coming out in the next issue of the Financial Analyst Journal that takes a deep dive. So anyone who’s got access to the FAJ, take a look. For the moment, you can also find it on SSRN—just look up “Arnott Fundamental Growth” and it’ll take you right there. Anyway, if you wanted a growth index that didn’t anchor on expensive stocks but anchored on fast growing companies, how would you instinctively choose to measure that growth? Sales, profits—those are the obvious choices. Slightly less obvious: most growth companies have R&D, and it’s a big enough part of their business that they break it out as a separate item in their P&L. So what about growth in R&D? Because if they’re shrinking their R&D budget, that’s a bad sign. So if you have three different growth rates—growth in sales, growth in profits, and growth in R&D spending—if R&D is available, use all three; if not, use two of the three. You average those growth rates and you’ve got a very good gauge of how fast the company is growing. If it’s growing rapidly enough to be in the top 25%, let’s use it.

Rob Arnott: Here’s a fun factoid: two of the Magnificent Seven don’t make the cut for the Raffi Growth Index.

Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really? Which two?

Rob Arnott: Take a guess.

Barry Ritholtz: So who’s cutting way back on their R&D and not seeing increases in revenue? Apple and Amazon. I’m just spitballing.

Rob Arnott: You got one out of two.

Barry Ritholtz: So Apple is the first one. Amazon?

Rob Arnott: Amazon. Amazon and Microsoft. Both were growing incredibly fast in the 2010s and have been growing nicely in the 2020s, but not fast enough to make the cut. So they’re left out of the Raffi Growth Index.

Rob Arnott: The index is on Bloomberg—it has been since last March—and it’s already 13 percentage points in less than a year ahead of Russell Growth. So the idea works and it’s exciting. I wish I was on your show to announce that it’s an investible ETF or mutual fund. Not yet.

Barry Ritholtz: When it comes out, when it becomes investible, we’ll have you back. I want to ask you a question about dollar magnitude as opposed to percentage magnitude of growth. Every metric I see is almost always a percentage. You are looking at absolute dollars of growth. Explain the thinking behind this. How does it manifest in performance? How does it work?

Rob Arnott: We select based on percentage growth. You could have a huge company that has sales grow by a hundred billion in a year, and it’s only 10% growth—right? Or 5% growth. And if that’s the case, it’s not a particularly fast-growing company. So percentage growth is used to choose the companies. Now, the two biggest stocks in Raffi Growth are Nvidia and Apple. One has had stupendous growth from a low base. One has had good growth from a high base. Both have had percentage growth fast enough to make the cut. They are both a little over 10% of our index. Now, think what that means. If it’s a 10% weight, that means Nvidia has singularly, all by itself, been 10% of the sales or profit growth in the aggregate US economy.

Barry Ritholtz: Wow.

Rob Arnott: Huge. Apple has been 10% of the aggregate growth in sales or profits of the US economy. So by weighting companies in proportion to the dollar magnitude, you’re not going to introduce a bias toward frothy tiny companies that have had just a big percentage surge. You could have a tiny company that’s grown tenfold, and if you weight it by that tenfold growth, it’s going to get a huge weight—and it’s a tiny company. It might be a flash in the pan.

Barry Ritholtz: So in other words, the percentage gains matter, but so too do the real dollar gains.

Rob Arnott: Exactly right.

Barry Ritholtz: I understand that. So I’m curious about the volatility of this versus traditional cap weighting indexes. How does this compare? Are you getting better performance, but you have to live with a little more volatility?

Rob Arnott: The short answer is you have to live with a little bit more volatility, and you have to live with occasional periods when it will underperform. On average over the last 28 years, it adds four and a half percent a year, plus or minus 7%. So in just a normal disappointing year, it’s going to underperform by about two. In a normal, excellent year, it’s going to outperform by about 12. So since we launched last March, the 13% outperformance means this is a very typical, very normal good year. You have to be willing to take a little bit of volatility, but if you go back, you find that it wins about seven out of 10 years.

Barry Ritholtz: Wow. That’s pretty cool, to say the very least. So, since we’re talking about a lot of, not just large-cap companies, but companies with a substantial economic footprint, my assumption is there aren’t a whole lot of capacity or liquidity constraints. I’m assuming this can ramp up just like an S&P index or what have you.

Rob Arnott: Short answer to your question is, current AUM is zero, so there’s loads of capacity. Longer answer: An educated guess would be that it has about four times the turnover of the S&P, maybe five. So just on that alone, its capacity would be a fourth or a fifth of the S&P. It’s also tilted toward a particular category, not the whole broad market—so that would suggest another haircut. I think its capacity would be 10 to 20% of the S&P. Given that there’s about 15 trillion indexed to the S&P, that would give us something on the order of one and a half to 3 trillion as a capacity.

Barry Ritholtz: So plenty of capacity. Last question. I’ve been watching various narratives come into favor and then fade. We went through a whole blockchain crypto set of narratives. AI seems to be in the midst of its various narratives. When you think about the Research Affiliates Growth Index—the fundamental growth index—does the dominant narrative matter, or is it just redefining its constituents based on what is best working today, what is seeing the highest increases in revenue, profits, and research and development spending?

Rob Arnott: Well, between Raffi—the fundamental index, which has a stark value tilt—and Raffi Growth, which has a stark growth tilt, I like to think that we’re launching a revolution in indexing. I mean, the runway for this is huge. One other observation: we’re quantitative investors. We love testing things. Quantitative investors are addicted to data mining—go back historically and ask, what can I construct that’s worked? We don’t do that. The scientific method means you start with a hypothesis and you only use the data to test the hypothesis. Our hypothesis was: if you select companies on how fast they’re growing and weight them on the magnitude of their contribution to economic growth, this is an idea that might work pretty darn well. And lo and behold, it does. The back tests of Raffi when we launched it 20 years ago showed about 2% value add relative to the cap-weighted value. It’s added two to two and a half percent live for 20 years. So you don’t fall into the trap of creating a strategy that looks great in a back test and falls apart instantly.

Barry Ritholtz: I’m so glad you said that, because when do you ever see a bad back test? All back tests are great, that you—

Rob Arnott: I see lots of bad back tests.

Barry Ritholtz: Oh, no. I mean the ones that get—

Rob Arnott: And I would never promote it.

Barry Ritholtz: The back tests that get shared are the ones that—of course they are. Totally. And inherent in every back test is the concept that the future is going to look like the past. And very often we see the future does not look like the past. So the back tests fail. Many back tests that look great fail to perform in real life.

Rob Arnott: That’s exactly right. Because the world changes. And if you’re doing a back test to create a better back test—

Barry Ritholtz: Right. That’s right.

Rob Arnott: That’s the epitome of data mining, and it’s endemic in our business.

Barry Ritholtz: Absolutely. So Rob, when this comes out as an investible product—be it an ETF or an SMA or a mutual fund—come back, tell us about it.

Rob Arnott: I’m not sure it will, because I’m trying to keep it secret. It’s so good.

Barry Ritholtz: Well, you and Jim Simons—like, kick out all the outside investors and just keep your own money so it works well. So to wrap up: if you’re concerned about cap weight, if you’re concerned about market concentration or valuation, take a look at the Research Affiliates Growth Index. It’s not market cap weighted, it’s not yet investible, but I know Research Affiliates and I’m pretty confident there will be an ETF for you to put money into at some point in the future. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

The post ATM: Focusing on Growth (Not Market Cap) appeared first on The Big Picture.

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” drops this week; to celebrate, this whole week I am running various stories and excerpts about the book…

The TL:dr summary of the key points might whet your appetite for all of the fun stories and anecdotes in the book. Enjoy!

The challenge in writing “How NOT to Invest” was organizing a large number of ideas, many of which were only loosely connected, into something coherent, understandable, and, most importantly, readable.

It took a while of playing around with the concepts, but eventually, I hit on a structure that I found enormously useful: I organized our biggest impediments to investing success into three broad categories: “Bad Ideas,” “Bad Numbers,” and “Bad Behavior.”

That insight greatly simplified my task of making the book both fun to read and helpful for anyone interested in investing.

Here is a broad overview of each of the 10 main sections, which can help you quickly grasp the key ideas in the book.

Bad Ideas:

1. Poor Advice: Why is there so much bad advice? The short answer is that we give too much credit to gurus who self-confidently predict the future despite overwhelming evidence that they can’t. We believe successful people in one sphere can easily transfer their skills to another – most of the time, they can’t. This is as true for professionals as it is for amateurs; it’s also true in music, film, sports, television, and economic and market forecasting.

2. Media Madness: Do we really need 24/7 financial advice for our investments we won’t draw on for decades? Why are we constantly prodded to take action now! when the best course for our long-term financial health is to do nothing? What does the endless stream of news, social media, TikToks, Tweets, magazines, and television do to our ability to make good decisions? How can we re-engineer our media consumption to make it more useful to our needs?

3. Sophistry: The Study of Bad Ideas: Investing is really the study of human decision-making. It is about the art of using imperfect information to make probabilistic assessments about an inherently unknowable future. This practice requires humility and the admission of how little we know about today and essentially nothing about tomorrow. Investing is simple but hard, and therein lies our challenge.

Bad Numbers:

4. Economic Innumeracy: Some individuals experience math anxiety, but it only takes a bit of insight to navigate the many ways numbers can mislead us. It boils down to context. We are too often swayed by recent events. We overlook what is invisible yet significant. We struggle to grasp compounding – it’s not instinctive. We evolved in an arithmetic world, so we are unprepared for the exponential math of finance.

5. Market Mayhem: As investors, we often rely on rules of thumb that fail us. We don’t fully understand the importance of long-term societal trends. We view valuation as a snapshot in time instead of recognizing how it evolves over a cycle, driven primarily by changes in investor psychology. Markets possess a duality of rationality and emotion, which can be perplexing; however, once we understand this, volatility and drawdowns become easier to accept.

6. Stock Shocks: Academic research and data overwhelmingly reveal that stock selection and market timing do not work. The vast majority of market gains come from ~1% of all stocks. It’s extremely difficult to identify these stocks in advance and even harder to avoid the other 99% of stocks. Our best strategy is to invest in all of them through a broad index. Some terrible trades are illustrative of this truth.

Bad Behavior:

7. Avoidable Mistakes: Everyone makes investing mistakes, and the wealthy and ultra-wealthy make even bigger ones. We don’t understand the relationship between risk and reward; we fail to see the benefits of diversification. Our unforced errors haunt our returns.

8. Emotional Decision-Making: We make spontaneous decisions for reasons unrelated to our portfolios. We mix politics with investing. We behave emotionally. We focus on outliers while ignoring the mundane. We exist in a happy little bubble of self-delusion, which is only popped in times of panic.

9. Cognitive Deficits: You’re human – unfortunately, that hurts your portfolio. Our brains evolved to keep us alive on the savannah, not to make risk/reward decisions in the capital markets. We are not particularly good at metacognition—the self-evaluation of our own skills. We can be misled by individuals whose skills in one area do not transfer to another. We prefer narratives over data. When facts contradict our beliefs, we tend to ignore those facts and reinforce our ideology. Our brains simply weren’t designed for this.

Good Advice:

10. This is the best advice I can offer:
A. Avoid mistakes (fewer unforced errors, be less stupid).
B. Recognize your advantages (and take advantage of them).
C. Create a financial plan (then stick to it). If you need help, find someone who is a fiduciary to work with.
D. Index (mostly). Own a broad set of low-cost equity indices for the best long-term results.
E Own bonds for income and to offset stock volatility. Primarily
Treasuries, investment-grade corporates, munis, and TIPs.
F. Be tax-aware. Consider direct indexing to reduce capital gains and
reduce concentrated positions.
G. Use a regret minimization strategy when sitting on outsized single position gains.
H. Be skeptical of all but the best alts (VC/PE/HF/PC). If you have access to the top decile, take advantage of it. Otherwise, exercise caution.
I. Spend your money intelligently: Buy time, experiences, and joy. Ignore the scolds.
J. Fail better. Understand what is and is NOT in your control.
K. Get rich: Here are the classic strategies to get rich in the markets, including how difficult each is and their likelihood of success.

Previously:
Adventures in Recording an Audio Book (May 5, 2026)

How NOT to Invest Paperback Arrives! (May 4, 2026)

~~~

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” is out this week at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Bookshop, Hudson, or wherever you buy your favorite books!

If you want to learn more about how the book was made, any related media appearances or background, get unique bonus material, or just ask a question, you can sign up here: HNTI at RitholtzWealth dot com.

The post <i>How NOT to Invest’s</i> 10 Most Important Ideas appeared first on The Big Picture.

• Microsoft’s new research finds an AI ‘paradox’ holding companies back. A new study of 20,000 artificial intelligence users in workplaces around the world concludes that the biggest barrier to getting real value from AI isn’t the technology or the workers themselves — it’s the ingrained culture of the organizations where they work. That “Transformation Paradox” is one of the central findings from Microsoft’s annual Work Trend Index, released Tuesday morning, which paints a picture of employees eager to reshape their jobs and organizations that aren’t really in a position to make it happen. (Geekwire)

• One Calf Shows Why Record Beef Prices Still Aren’t Coming Down: Pressures at every stage of the 18-month supply chain are expected to keep prices high at least through year end. (Bloomberg Free) see also It’ll be years before Americans get used to higher prices — and politicians can’t just wait it out: Consumers will eventually adjust, but in the meantime, they’ll keep punishing leaders who don’t act. The reference-point reset on the price level is permanent damage to political incumbents — left or right. Voters anchor on what they remember. (G. Elliott Morris)

• International Diversification Is Finally Paying Off: The dollar’s weakness has contributed to a long-awaited foreign-stock rally and reduced correlations with US equities—at least for now. After fifteen years of underperformance, ex-US is finally earning its keep. A useful reminder that ‘home country bias’ eventually gets a bill. (Morningstar)

• An AltView on Private Real Estate: Valuations seem high, but never mind. LFG!!!!! Still, confoundingly, private RE remains a default option for many institutions—until you pause and reflect. Higher fees reduce returns—and pay for seriously good propaganda A skeptical, well-sourced look at private real estate marks versus reality. Read it before your next non-traded REIT pitch. (AltView)

• ‘Microshifting’ puts a new spin on 9-to-5 schedules: The remote-era cousin to flex time. Whether it’s productivity gain or attention spread thin depends entirely on whose calendar you read. (AP News)

• China’s Big Bet on Wind Power Is Paying Off: An industrial policy of subsidies and import restrictions laid the foundations for China to become almost as dominant in wind turbines as in solar panels. While we argue about windmills causing cancer, Beijing is shipping turbines and printing electricity. The energy-transition gap keeps widening. (New York Times)

• Why Your Best Ideas Aren’t Original: Derek Thompson on the recombinant nature of creativity. Originality is mostly cross-pollination wearing a top hat. (Derek Thompson) see also Better Than Human: Why Robots Will—And Must—Take Our Jobs (2012): Kevin Kelly’s 2012 Wired classic on automation is more relevant than ever. The argument that robots replacing human labor is not just inevitable but desirable hasn’t aged a day. The rote tasks of any information-intensive job can be automated. It doesn’t matter if you are a doctor, lawyer, architect, reporter, or even programmer: The robot takeover will be epic. (Wired)

• Cannabis may make you remember things that never happened: Newer THC research on false-memory formation. Studies show THC can influence multiple stages of memory formation, shaping not just what we remember—but how accurately we remember it. As legalization expands, the basic neuroscience is finally catching up. (National Geographic)

• Brain scans reveal 3 ADHD subtypes, including a more extreme form: Researchers identified a more severe presentation of the condition marked by emotional dysregulation. New imaging research argues ADHD isn’t one thing but at least three — with treatment implications. Useful science journalism, low on hype. (Washington Post)

• Netflix’s ‘Lord of the Flies’ Adaptation Is a Harrowing Watch With a Stellar Young Cast: TV Review. Originally aired by the BBC before coming to Netflix in the U.S., the four-episode series doesn’t make any major changes to Golding’s potent allegory for the thin line separating civilization from savagery. A grimly faithful update of Golding. The young cast is the reason to watch — and the reason it’s hard to. (Variety)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this past weekend with Lawrence Calcano, CEO and Chairman of iCapital, The firm is a fintech platform built to be the OS for alternative investments and complex products for financial advisors, wealth managers, and banks. The firm has over $1.2 trillion in active global assets on platform across 2,455 funds used by 123,ooo financial professionals.

Name changes as a bubble symptom

Source: Acadian

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” drops May 5; to celebrate, this whole week I am running various stories and excerpts about the book…

This discussion of what the recording of the audiobook was like was  surpisingly well recieved bit of inside baseball. Enjoy!

I wanted to share a quick update as to what’s been keeping me occupied during the run up to the release of the new book.

The past few weeks have been pretty busy and full of surprises. We have been designing a dedicated website for the How Not to Invest book, and working with the team at Off Menu has been much more fun than I expected.

But the biggest surprise has been the book’s Audible version.

Harriman House asked me to record the audio version of the book. Like an idiot, I said, “Sure, why not? How hard can it be?”

Really, really hard.

Previously, I labored under the false impression that I knew how to both read and speak. As it turns out, I was wrong. The combination of the two is its own skill set. I drop the letter “S” at the end of words, I slur syllables, I put emphasis on the wrong words in a sentence, and I transpose adjacent words on an all too regular basis.

Then there is the modulation. I am not aware of my gain or volume. I speak too loudly, projecting to the back of the room (Wrong approach). To say nothing of my speed, which as a New Yawker is too fast (S L O W  D O W N).

Another surprise? They LIKE my awful NY accent (“it’s authentic”)

You sit in a 6 X 6 glass booth in front of a hypersensitive mic that picks up everything. Shifting your weight in the chair ruins a sentence. Moving your feet, touching your clothes, rolling up a sleeve, touching the glass tablet a smidge too hard — all killers.

This is before we get to the myriad of sounds the body produces beyond your control. I had no idea about the lip smacks, tongue clicks, the throat gurgles and burps that phlegms with noise that affect the quality of sound. The milk in your coffee makes your mouth too sticky. And the stomach! Even if you eat, it makes a panoply of noises, growls, whines, and complaints of which I was wholly unaware.

To say nothing about pronunciation: Proper names and cities are one issue, but even worse are the words that I read or write all the time but don’t necessarily speak aloud. I imagined I knew how to pronounce them: capitalization, iterative, capricious, conscientious, and so on. It’s really quite embarrassing to realize that I cannot properly pronounce half of my vocabulary.

Surprisingly, you cannot just grind away at this. Even with regular breaks, lots of hot tea, and water, you have at most 5 hours before your voice gives out, and your brain can no longer identify words on the page. It is immensely harder than I expected.

I am about 80% through the recording, which took four separate sessions, and I finally feel like I am getting the hang of it. I’d like to go back and rerecord all the prior chapters, but the director at MacMillan said it was great. (Never believe anything anyone with the title of “director” says.)

It’s been 15 years since I last wrote a book. I forgot all the work that happens when the writing process is over.

Hopefully, the website will be live this week. I am beginning to schedule all of the podcasts and Q&As to promote it. Reach out to Tina (tina.joell at harriman-house dot com) or Lucy (lucy.vincent at harriman-house dot com)  at Harriman House if you want to learn more.

~~~

The paperback is out today at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Bookshop, Hudson, or wherever you buy your favorite books!

Previously:
How NOT to Invest Paperback Arrives! (May 4, 2026)

If you want to learn more about how the book was made, any related media appearances or background, get unique bonus material, or just ask a question, you can sign up here: HNTI -at-RitholtzWealth.com.

The post Adventures in Recording an Audio Book appeared first on The Big Picture.