I've worked a long time in the secondary markets and I've written a fair bit about this problem (delayed IPOs, exclusion of public market investors), but I think there's a bit of ex post facto reasoning on here.
Companies like Palantir that have 10xed are "speculative"... but the for people in the 90s, "they still had the opportunity to invest in Google, Amazon or Microsoft at low valuations" ignores the fact that they were *equally* speculative at the time.
Companies are going public at 10x the valuations, but the markets are 10x bigger. Ten years ago, we didn't have a single $T company, but now we have 11 of them.
And as it has always been, the right move for 99% of investors is to invest in a broad index. The 25-year return of the S&P and the 10-year return of the S&P are, coincidentally, *identical* at 12.9% IRR (not including dividends).
I do agree that there are a whole host of other issues that pose structural issues with building wealth — the decaying value of a college education, AI taking all the knowledge work, what does money mean post AGI, student loans, etc.
But I've gradually come to the conclusion that the private markets concern — while something to address — isn't as much of a society-shaking issue as I previously thought.
Great article, loved it. I think you diagnosed a huge part of my psychology here.
The "no gamble, no future" ethos is difficult to trace.
Various LLMs say it comes from Poker, notably one Ren (Tony) Lin who adopted it as his catchphrase, but I recall hearing this in M:tG circles as early as 2008-09; so it was infiltrating the zeitgeist even back then. While impossible to unproblematically pin this psychological mode to any given culture, it would not surprise me if there's some East Asian influence at work here.
Whether it comes from outside or entirely home-grown, the United States (and the West more broadly) is now thoroughly suffused in this kind of thinking. One could also point to Taleb and his popularization of taking into account the long tails in probability distributions.
This way of being is pretty cursed and sociologically unsustainable (we see signs of this everywhere).
Agree wholeheartedly with this - as much as I keep feeling like things can't keep going up, it just feel like public big tech stocks are the new (even more concentrated) TINA. Where else are you really going to chase returns?
First, the college-to-career ladder feels increasingly broken. Many students spend $100k–$300k on degrees only to face a scarcity of entry-level roles, which leads them to question the ROI of college and their ability to build a stable future. The “average” college premium often hides massive variance by major, school, and location, misleading individuals with aggregate stats.
Second, the erosion of the employer-employee social contract has amplified uncertainty. Even if employees show loyalty, companies can (and often do) break that contract through layoffs, restructurings, or pivots whenever profits demand it. When reciprocity becomes one-sided, spending 5–10 years “paying dues” feels far less rational, making faster-payoff side bets seem more appealing.
Third, there’s a growing culture and incentives mismatch. Gen Z is often framed as “unproductive,” prioritizing individuality and well-being over traditional achievement. But suppose firms fail to create clear skill ladders, offer mentorship, or share upside meaningfully. In that case, young workers optimizing for autonomy isn’t a moral failing—it reflects incentives for doing their job.
Fourth, our education system remains rooted in the industrial era, prioritizing standardized compliance over fostering agency, project-based learning, or market-relevant skills. The “college-for-all” narrative persists largely because aggregate outcomes look favorable, but this can lead to elite overproduction if opportunities fail to scale with the growing number of graduates. Alternative pathways—such as apprenticeships, community college combined with work, or targeted certifications—often deliver better outcomes for specific individuals and careers. When college is marketed as a guaranteed path to success but fails to meet expectations, it’s no surprise that people turn to speculative alternatives like meme stocks, crypto, or short-term options in search of upside.
Fifth, the winner-take-all dynamic only exacerbates these challenges. In many industries, a handful of players dominate the market, capturing the majority of profits, opportunities, and attention. This applies not only to tech but also to entertainment, finance, and beyond. For individuals, this creates a culture where being in the “right place at the right time” feels like the only path to success, while everyone else scrambles for scraps. It’s no wonder many people think they’re locked out of meaningful upside unless they take significant risks to break into the upper echelon.
Sixth, AI accelerates all these dynamics (even if it turns out to be a lot of hype in the short run). Even the perception of displacement increases career risk. When core skills feel perishable and the best equity remains locked in private markets, “no gamble, no future” doesn’t feel reckless—it feels like parity. This explains the rise of synthetic lotteries in public markets: meme stocks, altcoins, short-dated options, and “picks-and-shovels” plays.
The bottom line is this: when the compounding paths to success feel blocked and institutions feel transactional, gambling becomes the default. The solution isn’t to scold people for impatience but to rebuild credible long-term ladders and reduce the friction to real upside. It’s still a marathon for most—but we need tracks that make running it worthwhile.
I've worked a long time in the secondary markets and I've written a fair bit about this problem (delayed IPOs, exclusion of public market investors), but I think there's a bit of ex post facto reasoning on here.
Companies like Palantir that have 10xed are "speculative"... but the for people in the 90s, "they still had the opportunity to invest in Google, Amazon or Microsoft at low valuations" ignores the fact that they were *equally* speculative at the time.
Companies are going public at 10x the valuations, but the markets are 10x bigger. Ten years ago, we didn't have a single $T company, but now we have 11 of them.
And as it has always been, the right move for 99% of investors is to invest in a broad index. The 25-year return of the S&P and the 10-year return of the S&P are, coincidentally, *identical* at 12.9% IRR (not including dividends).
I do agree that there are a whole host of other issues that pose structural issues with building wealth — the decaying value of a college education, AI taking all the knowledge work, what does money mean post AGI, student loans, etc.
But I've gradually come to the conclusion that the private markets concern — while something to address — isn't as much of a society-shaking issue as I previously thought.
Great article, loved it. I think you diagnosed a huge part of my psychology here.
The "no gamble, no future" ethos is difficult to trace.
Various LLMs say it comes from Poker, notably one Ren (Tony) Lin who adopted it as his catchphrase, but I recall hearing this in M:tG circles as early as 2008-09; so it was infiltrating the zeitgeist even back then. While impossible to unproblematically pin this psychological mode to any given culture, it would not surprise me if there's some East Asian influence at work here.
Whether it comes from outside or entirely home-grown, the United States (and the West more broadly) is now thoroughly suffused in this kind of thinking. One could also point to Taleb and his popularization of taking into account the long tails in probability distributions.
This way of being is pretty cursed and sociologically unsustainable (we see signs of this everywhere).
Thanks, Rohit. There’s transcendent beauty in your article if you but look for it.
♥️
Agree wholeheartedly with this - as much as I keep feeling like things can't keep going up, it just feel like public big tech stocks are the new (even more concentrated) TINA. Where else are you really going to chase returns?
I think there are deeper forces at play here.
First, the college-to-career ladder feels increasingly broken. Many students spend $100k–$300k on degrees only to face a scarcity of entry-level roles, which leads them to question the ROI of college and their ability to build a stable future. The “average” college premium often hides massive variance by major, school, and location, misleading individuals with aggregate stats.
Second, the erosion of the employer-employee social contract has amplified uncertainty. Even if employees show loyalty, companies can (and often do) break that contract through layoffs, restructurings, or pivots whenever profits demand it. When reciprocity becomes one-sided, spending 5–10 years “paying dues” feels far less rational, making faster-payoff side bets seem more appealing.
Third, there’s a growing culture and incentives mismatch. Gen Z is often framed as “unproductive,” prioritizing individuality and well-being over traditional achievement. But suppose firms fail to create clear skill ladders, offer mentorship, or share upside meaningfully. In that case, young workers optimizing for autonomy isn’t a moral failing—it reflects incentives for doing their job.
Fourth, our education system remains rooted in the industrial era, prioritizing standardized compliance over fostering agency, project-based learning, or market-relevant skills. The “college-for-all” narrative persists largely because aggregate outcomes look favorable, but this can lead to elite overproduction if opportunities fail to scale with the growing number of graduates. Alternative pathways—such as apprenticeships, community college combined with work, or targeted certifications—often deliver better outcomes for specific individuals and careers. When college is marketed as a guaranteed path to success but fails to meet expectations, it’s no surprise that people turn to speculative alternatives like meme stocks, crypto, or short-term options in search of upside.
Fifth, the winner-take-all dynamic only exacerbates these challenges. In many industries, a handful of players dominate the market, capturing the majority of profits, opportunities, and attention. This applies not only to tech but also to entertainment, finance, and beyond. For individuals, this creates a culture where being in the “right place at the right time” feels like the only path to success, while everyone else scrambles for scraps. It’s no wonder many people think they’re locked out of meaningful upside unless they take significant risks to break into the upper echelon.
Sixth, AI accelerates all these dynamics (even if it turns out to be a lot of hype in the short run). Even the perception of displacement increases career risk. When core skills feel perishable and the best equity remains locked in private markets, “no gamble, no future” doesn’t feel reckless—it feels like parity. This explains the rise of synthetic lotteries in public markets: meme stocks, altcoins, short-dated options, and “picks-and-shovels” plays.
The bottom line is this: when the compounding paths to success feel blocked and institutions feel transactional, gambling becomes the default. The solution isn’t to scold people for impatience but to rebuild credible long-term ladders and reduce the friction to real upside. It’s still a marathon for most—but we need tracks that make running it worthwhile.
Wonder how much of Nvidia’s valuation is because it allows you to index AI in more ways than just via GPU demand
https://x.com/umang/status/1970692831389065244?s=46
Leaving a quick pedantic spell check here, you’ve got a “by dent” instead of a “by dint” in the first paragraph
Thank you!