Профиль

From @attackerman.bsky.social: The end of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians may be the moment at which Mayor Mamdani’s hands-off approach to policing is no longer sustainable. www.forever-wars.com/the-end-of-t...

Yes, there has been a real shift recently. Gross issues have tripled in the past two years, while retirements are flat, no net issuance is now (slightly) positive. Which means that payouts as I define them are down sharply. www.federalreserve.gov/releases/efa...

Here is a new poem by @ltanenbaum.bsky.social for you to read, called “A Poem with Cops in It.” therumpus.net/2026/07/21/a...

Well, hasn't @positivemoneyeu.bsky.social just gone and put the book 'Against Money' by @jwmason.bsky.social and Arjun Jayadev at the top of their 2026 summer recommendations list positivemoney.org/eu/update/20...

Yes that also. As you get older you realize your family will not be around forever.

There is a big literature on exactly this question!

Chapter 6 of @doughenwood.bsky.social’s Wall Street is also essential reading on this point.

Or as Bill Lazonick says: The function of the stock market isn’t raising money for corporations, its function is to get money out of them.

Thanks to @jwmason.bsky.social

I find this paper really interesting in describing the large role played by the cost of financing in housing production. Particularly the section on the history of 20th century tools, such as Savings & Loans, that provided below market capital to local residential developers. Screencaps below:

“Governments that call themselves pro-business don’t particularly serve the interests of these smaller businesses that New York depends on … In some sense a lot of what being a socialist mayor, a socialist in office, means is making government simply work better.”

Yes. That's roughly half the one-point increase, the other half is Meta (or hyperscalers?) specifically.

Or as Alphaville put it in a very thorough piece on the earlier deal: www.ft.com/content/d034...

Because the difference in payments depends on the exact chances of some rare and ex ante highly unlikely events, it is very easy for the two sides to have (or act as if they have) different views about them. Meta may see a higher value in the option to stiff the bondholders than they see its cost.

In most states of the world, the payments are basically the same either way - meta makes profits by selling ads or whatever, some of that flows out to bondholders. Whether it passes through the Sopaipilla entity on the way doesn't matter. But of course, in a few states of the world it matters a lot!

Another explanation for this structure, it seems to me, is that bond owners want to be owed money by Meta, while Meta wants to not owe money to the bond owners. Borrowing through this kind of off-balance sheet vehicle lets both of them say that they are getting what they want.

I expect we'll see a Matt Levine column soon where he'll explain that this is win-win because bond investors clearly want to get paid for bearing the exact risks from this indirect structure rather than bonds issued by Meta directly. Sure, maybe. But there might be other reasons to do it this way.

Then there is the structure of the deal, where Meta does not formally owe the debt or own the data centers it finances, but economically sort-of does, with a 20-year rental contract that backs the loans and a commitment to cover any cost overruns in construction.

(Also: thanks!)

Right, ok, so half or a bit less the rise in yields in general, half or a bit more Meta specifically.