Over the last several decades retail investors had been eclipsed in the stock market by institutions (e.g., pension funds). But COVID and the economic environment that surrounded started a trend that is reversing that polarity. Retail investors now account for roughly 30% of daily US equity volume, according to Goldman Sachs. Their stock trading in May of this year ran 10% above the previous record, set during the January 2021 meme-stock frenzy, and June set another all time high.
Much of that growth has come from the individuals known as day traders.” And while for the last 18 months or so, institutional investors have been cautious, often underweight, under-levered and short of conviction, these active amateurs in the retail crowd did the opposite, buying the dips, riding momentum strategies, and adding leverage. Retail investors tend to follow the herd, as can be seen in the surge in popularity – and valuations – of meme stocks and artificial intelligence stocks in recent years.
But as Simone Foxman reports, money is not all that they lose…
Surging retail trading isn’t just transforming markets; it’s also highly correlated with demoralization in young men, according to a new study.
One-quarter of men aged 18-29 said they trade stocks daily, and almost two-thirds of them (64%) report feeling like failures, according to a study of 2,000 men published Wednesday by the Institute for Family Studies, a pro-marriage think tank. The findings were strikingly similar to outcomes among men who gamble: Of the 23% of young men who said they gambled daily, including on sports and events, 66% reported similar angst, according to survey, which asked the young men a variety of questions about their personal behaviors and outlooks. Daily fantasy sports and pornography use were similarly correlated to feelings of failure, the survey found.
The struggles of young men are generating growing alarm among academics, pundits and billionaires. They warn that men are lagging in education and employment, gambling with their financial health on sports or event betting platforms and facing mental health crises.
At the same time, the line between gambling and investing has been blurred. Stock volumes from retail investors have doubled over the past 15 years, and day traders have driven record options volume. Now platforms like Robinhood Markets Inc. and Interactive Brokers Group are trying to capitalize on interest from Gen Z by also offering event-betting alongside stock-trading.
Some research suggests young people have embraced risky financial behaviors to try to generate returns in a world where homeownership and other markers of financial success are out of reach. Eighty percent of Gen Z investors said they’d invested or considered investing in stocks, options, crypto or prediction markets because they feel financially behind and see these investments as better tools to meet their financial goals, according to a Northwestern Mutual study.
The IFS researchers hypothesized that day trading, gambling, playing fantasy sports and porn use — among other activities — may be both coping mechanisms for dejection, stress and loneliness and also exacerbate them. Young men who engaged in these activities less than daily were about half as likely to report feelings of demoralization.
Overall, 42% of survey respondents said the statement “all in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure,” described them very or somewhat well. This feeling was particularly strong among men without college degrees and those who were neither employed nor in school.
A quarter of participants said they felt lonely all of the time, while 30% expressed feeling that way some of the time.
The study also found disillusionment with the American dream, even as young men fostered high hopes for the future. Seven in ten respondents said that success is more a matter of who you know than ability or hard work, but 84% still said they had ambitious plans for their futures.
Further to the passing reference to “event-betting” above, we should note that prediction markets, while smaller than retail investing (at least for now), are growing explosively. Like day-trading, prediction markets are pitched in the language of empowerment and democratization. The former involves stocks and bonds, while the latter sells “event contracts“; but they share the same user base, the same psychological architecture, and the same uncomfortable gap between how they are marketed and what they actually deliver… so seem likely to contribute to the issues unpacked above.
As we parse symptoms and diseases, we might recall that it was on this date in 1966 that the U.S. Treasury Department, citing a lack of demand, ceased production of the $2 bill, which had been around in various forms since 1862. The (redesigned) denomination, featuring a portrait of Thomas Jefferson, was reintroduced in 1976… though readers will be forgiven if they mistakenly thought that “the deuce” was still retired: so few are in circulation that they are rarely encountered.
The first $2 bill, a Legal Tender Note (United States Note) with a portrait of Alexander Hamilton in profile view- in contrast to the familiar portrait in use on the $10 bill since 1928 (source)
From the McKinsey Global Institute, the executive summary of their snapshot– a “balance sheet”– of the global economy…
• The global balance sheet takes stock of all assets, liabilities, and wealth, providing a lens into economic health. This annual update estimates that it reached nearly $1.8 quadrillion ($1,800 trillion) in 2025, up from $1.7 quadrillion in 2024. Several asset classes grew further out of balance with the underlying economy, raising the possibility of corrections through inflation, asset valuation losses, or, optimally, productivity growth.
• The balance sheet’s mounting detachment from the global economy was driven by the world’s two biggest economies in 2025. US equity values soared to 2.4 times corporate net assets as profits were double their share of GDP since 2000. China’s corporate debt grew to 80 percent of real assets, versus 50 percent globally. Government debt remains near all-time highs in the United States and has grown most rapidly in China.
• Globally, most corporate and household debt and real estate moved closer to 25-year averages relative to GDP. Inflation helped with this normalization, although values remain well above pre-2000 levels. The ratio of productive assets to GDP held steady amid flat investment.
• Global household wealth growth rose to a new high of $570 trillion, driven by “paper” gains. Only 20 percent came from real capital formation, while valuations of existing assets grew four percentage points faster than already-high consumer price inflation. In the United States and Canada, equity values drove wealth growth. China, France, and Germany saw a drop in paper wealth as real estate prices declined. In the United Kingdom and Japan, inflation pushed up asset values.
• Major economies were on different pathways entering 2026. The United States has been in a “productivity acceleration” scenario, but high public debt and equities add the possibility of “sustained inflation” or “balance sheet reset.” Europe has gravitated toward “secular stagnation” as sluggish demand depresses growth and interest rates. China has experienced a partial balance sheet reset amid declining property values, although government spending and corporate investment have continued to propel balance sheet growth.
In this report, we provide an update on the global balance sheet in 2025, exploring to what extent its recent expansion, and by extension wealth growth, has been “in balance.” The analysis finds that wealth was, to an even greater extent than previously, rooted in asset values rising faster than real economy investment and growth, creating record levels of global wealth “on paper.”
Although many economies that were studied experienced wealth and balance sheet swings, the global picture was largely driven by its two biggest: the United States and China. Higher US equity values and the accumulation of China’s public and private debt brought some near-term economic benefits but left their economies more vulnerable to potential corrections.
Businesses use both income statements and balance sheets to develop a complete picture of their financial health. Analysts of the global economy tend to focus on the former. Since 2021, MGI has developed a “global balance sheet” to fill this gap, representing a clearer view into the world economy’s wealth and health.
Our previous reports found that from the mid-1990s to the COVID-19 pandemic, household wealth expanded faster than gross domestic product. Asset prices for real estate, equities, and bonds grew, as did debt and deposits. This occurred amid declining (and eventually rock-bottom) interest rates, rapidly expanding US profits, and a property boom in China. Productivity did not keep pace across advanced economies, nor did real wealth formation through net new investment.
When the balance sheet outruns the underlying economy, weaknesses can be exposed. When real estate and equity values rise faster than GDP, capital may disproportionately go to asset repurchases, sometimes with a lot of leverage. This may push up valuations but leave the economy deprived of the type of investment that generates long-run growth. For households, wealth rises but merely on paper, with heightened risks of eventual corrections. Growing asset values also tend to exacerbate wealth inequality, as existing owners of wealth see large gains while entering asset markets becomes harder for others (for example, young households trying to buy a home).
Elevated balance sheets may correct in one of three ways. A productivity acceleration scenario involves higher income supporting high asset values and debt; this is the most preferred outcome. A sustained inflation scenario brings down the real values of assets and debt, recalibrating the balance sheet with higher nominal GDP. But it can erode inflation-adjusted wealth along with other undesirable side effects. A balance sheet reset scenario, entailing a drop in asset values, deleveraging, and defaults, would shrink the balance sheet in absolute terms, with severe wealth losses and, often, lengthy periods of lost economic growth. Or the balance sheet may just stay high, particularly under secular-stagnation-like conditions of low investment and interest rates, as seen in the United States and Europe in the 2010s. That’s seemingly good for wealth, but at the cost of low growth and rising leverage.
Historically, most balance sheet corrections have taken place through higher inflation. Indeed, the inflation coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and Europe brought a correction in the balance sheet (and wealth) ratio to GDP. In China, a drop in property values drove a decline in wealth to GDP.
In 2025, global wealth reached a higher dollar value than ever before. But how “healthy” was this new growth? After postpandemic corrections, some balance sheet items have resumed expansion and reached new heights. This was particularly the case for US equity as AI fueled market optimism and corporate earnings continued to climb. Rising government debt relative to GDP remains a challenge in many economies amid higher interest rates. Stocks of currency and deposits remain high compared to longer-term historical norms. Altogether, this has culminated in even more wealth on paper than in the past several decades and raises the stakes for US corporate earnings to deliver.
Balance sheets, and macroeconomic factors like productivity and inflation, point to diverging trends across major economies. Recognizing the swing factors that can shift an economy to productivity acceleration is more urgent than ever: for the United States, corporate earnings and greater government saving (in other words, less borrowing); for Europe, greater investment; for China, higher domestic consumption.
Future global wealth and stability may depend on it…
[The report unpacks 0with lots of charts/data) the contents– the constituent elements– of the balance sheet, examines whether or not it is “in balance,” and considers whether the growth that it reflects has been “healthy.” (McKinsey worries that it has not been.) It concludes, addressing the executives who are McKinsey’s primary clients…]
… A balance sheet that is out of kilter with the economy—in other words, with high paper wealth fueled by debt and liquidity levels significantly above historical norms—can unwind via higher productivity, higher inflation, or asset price corrections. Balance sheets may also remain large, typically under secular-stagnation-like conditions, effectively kicking the can down the road for potential correction.
Each of these four scenarios shapes the long-term economic outlook. Only productivity acceleration delivers real economic growth justifying valuations, thus protecting wealth. The others sacrifice wealth, growth, or both. Sustained inflation reduces real values of wealth, secular stagnation sees low growth, and a balance sheet reset signals a loss of wealth and growth. Importantly for business leaders, two scenarios would likely mean structurally higher interest rates: Productivity acceleration would entail greater demand for capital amid higher business investment, while sustained inflation would likely involve central banks tightening policy rates and, ultimately, higher long-term yields.
All scenarios are possible for all major economies. However, they appear to be on different pathways, with different swing factors that could move them from one trajectory to another.
For executives, this means both preparing for an unusually broad array of economic pathways and carefully watching the swing factors, which rise above the noise of daily indicators (see sidebar “Business planning for all scenarios”). Leaders across sectors and industries could also explore ways to encourage the optimal outcome, the productivity acceleration scenario.
Major economies show significant divergence in trends across macro drivers of productivity, inflation, and interest rates, along with fundamental balance sheet components including real estate, equity, and debt.
The United States has seen a structural uptick in both productivity growth and interest rates relative to the prepandemic period. Productive investment, particularly driven by the tech sector, has recently grown. High equity values also signal market confidence, although they may pose some downside risks. Meanwhile, inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target and government debt remains near all-time highs, adding further inflation risk.
The eurozone has experienced a return to secular-stagnation-like conditions, akin to the prepandemic period, amid flat productivity and higher saving. Europe’s balance sheets overall appear more in balance compared to the US balance sheet (with a few exceptions, such as Italy’s government debt). Productivity growth rates, however, are down across the region’s three largest economies (Germany, France, and Italy). Until recently, inflation was mostly trending toward the European Central Bank’s 2 percent target, although Europe is more exposed to energy price changes. Personal savings rates remain high amid a drop in aggregate demand and per capita household wealth has declined in PPP terms in Germany and France.3 Productive investment remains below prepandemic and global averages.
China continues to work through a partial balance sheet reset in the face of a continued decline in real estate, with questions about future growth drivers amid low household demand and a boom in corporate investment. Productivity growth has receded in recent years, although it remains above the rate in advanced economies. Inflation and, in tandem, nominal interest rates have dropped, and concerns have shifted to dealing with deflation risks. At a macro level, lower household property investment has been offset by higher corporate investment, especially among state-owned enterprises, and by government spending. This has coincided with a substantial rise in corporate and government debt, both reaching all-time highs.
While the United States is the only major economy showing signs of productivity acceleration, it is not guaranteed long term, and other economies have a potential path to it. Focusing on “swing factors” could help filter signal from noise in the daily flow of indicators, market fluctuations, and political headlines. These factors differ by economy.
In the United States, swing factors that could knock the economy out of productivity acceleration include the “fiscal tightrope” and corporate earnings.
Government debt stands at about 120 percent of GDP. Combined with higher interest rates, this means more public spending will need to be directed toward debt repayment. Public spending could come under pressure, especially from bond investors, in the form of higher market interest rates. These translate into higher business costs of capital. If fiscal policy tightens too little, a public debt crisis or sustained inflation becomes more likely. Too much, and secular stagnation is a potential outcome. To bring budgets back into balance, greater fiscal saving (or lower borrowing) on the order of three percentage points of GDP would be needed.
On the corporate-earnings side, an equity or wealth reset could be triggered by a large structural shift in the longer-term outlook—for example, from AI disappointment or large geopolitical disruption. Equities are at all-time highs, at 3.7 times GDP and 2.4 times net assets, and constitute nearly 40 percent of household wealth. A price correction could result in a sharp pullback in demand, ushering in an extended period of low growth. It is thus imperative that corporate earnings deliver on high expectations…
See also: “World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026” from UNCTAD (the UN Trade and Development Organization), whose review of the global finacial situation resonates with McKinsey’s, but whose recommendations are targeted to global policy makers and development champions:
• Strengthen coordination across macroeconomic policies. Monetary policy alone cannot manage persistent price pressures. Better alignment between monetary, fiscal and industrial policies is essential to stabilise inflation, support investment and protect vulnerable groups.
• Use fiscal policy strategically and credibly. Targeted and temporary measures can help protect households from high prices and support social cohesion, while credible medium-term fiscal plans and prudent debt management are essential to rebuild fiscal space.
• Scale up multilateral cooperation and development finance. Implementing commitments under the Sevilla Commitment, including debt reform and expanded concessional and climate finance, is vital to closing investment gaps and reducing systemic risks.
• Reinforce an open, rules-based trading system. Strengthening transparency, predictability and cooperation in global trade remains central to sustaining growth and limiting fragmentation in an increasingly uncertain global economy.
* Catchphrase often used by financial and sports journalists to transition to statistics or financial data, e.g., on public radio’s wonderful Marketplace.
###
As we ponder the political economy, we might recall (hoping that history doesn’t repeat itself) that on this date in 1929, while the U.S. economy was already showing signs of strain (agricultural strains and a sagging consumer market), the U.S., its businesses, and its financial markets were still in the “Roaring Twenties.” Roughly three months later (on October 24, 1929, “Black Thursday,” and October 29, 1929, “Black Tuesday”) America– and the world– suffered the Wall Street crash of 1929 and began the slide into the Great Depression.
By this date in 1932, stocks had lost roughly 90% of the value they had had three years earlier. GDP in the U.S. had fallen 30%; GDP around the world was down 15%. International trade fell by more than 50%, and unemployment in some countries rose as high as 33% (peaking in 1933 at 25% in the U.S.).
Unemployed people lined up outside a soup kitchen opened in Chicago by Al Capone, February 1931 (source)
Insofar as (at the risk of sounding tautological) transformative technologies are concerned, Neil Postman is surely right. But then, as Roy Amara pointed out, “we tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” David Oks uses a common myth of technological replacement to illustrate– and more specifically, to observe that there’s a lot more to replacing labor than just automating tasks.
He begins by recounting an interview a few months ago of J. D. Vance by Ross Douthat in which (in response to a question from Douthat about the potential downsides of AI, in particular the prospect of its “obsoleting” human workers) Vance responded sanguinely, arguing that ATM machines didn’t eliminate bank tellers. Indeed, Vance suggested, “we have more bank tellers today than we did when the ATM was created, but they’re doing slightly different work…”
There are two interesting things about what Vance said, both relating to the example that he chose about bank tellers and ATMs.
The first thing is what it tells us about who J. D. Vance is. The bank teller story—how ATMs were predicted to increase bank teller unemployment, but in fact did not—isn’t a story you’ll hear from politicians; in fact, for a long time, Barack Obama would claim, incorrectly, that ATMs had decreased the number of bank tellers, in order to suggest that the elevated unemployment rate during his presidency was due to productivity gains from technology. I’ve never heard a politician cite the bank teller story before: but I have seen the bank teller story cited in a lot of blogs. I’ve seen it cited, for example, by Scott Alexander and Matt Yglesias and Freddie deBoer; and I’ve heard it, upstream of the humble bloggers, from such fine economists as Daron Acemoglu and David Autor. The story of how ATMs didn’t automate bank tellers is, indeed, something of a minor parable of the economics profession…
… But the other thing about the bank teller story that Vance cites is that it’s wrong. We do not, contrary to what Vance claims, have “more bank tellers today than we did when the ATM was created”: we in fact have far fewer. The story he tells Douthat might have been true in 2000 or 2005, but it hasn’t been true for years. Bank teller employment has fallen off a cliff. Here is a graph of bank teller employment since 2000:
So what happened to bank tellers? Autor, Bessen, Vance, and the like are right to point out that ATMs did not reduce bank teller employment. But they miss the second half of the story, which is that another technology did. And that technology was the iPhone. The huge decline in bank teller employment that we’ve seen over the last 15-odd years is mainly a story about iPhones and what they made possible.
But why? Why did the ATM, literally called the automated teller machine, not automate the teller, while an entirely orthogonal technology—the iPhone—actually did?
The answer, I think, is complementarity.
In my last piece, on why I don’t think imminent mass job loss from AI is likely, I talked a lot about complementarity. The core point I made was that labor substitution is about comparative advantage, not absolute advantage: the relevant question for labor impacts is not whether AI can do the tasks that humans can do, but rather whether the aggregate output of humans working with AI is inferior to what AI can produce alone. And I suggested that given the vast number of frictions and bottlenecks that exist in any human domain—domains that are, after all, defined around human labor in all its warts and eccentricities, with workflows designed around humans in mind—we should expect to see a serious gap between the incredible power of the technology and its impacts on economic life.
That gap will probably close faster than previous gaps did: AI is not “like” electricity or the steam engine; an AI system is literally a machine that can think and do things itself. But the gap exists, and will exist even as the technology continues to amaze us with what it can now accomplish.
But by talking about why ATMs didn’t displace bank tellers but iPhones did, I want to highlight an important corollary, which is that the true force of a technology is felt not with the substitution of tasks, but the invention of new paradigms. This is the famous lesson of electricity and productivity growth, which I’ll return to in a future piece. When a technology automates some of what a human does within an existing paradigm, even the vast majority of what a human does within it, it’s quite rare for it to actually get rid of the human, because the definition of the paradigm around human-shaped roles creates all sorts of bottlenecks and frictions that demand human involvement. It’s only when we see the construction of entirely new paradigms that the full power of a technology can be realized. The ATM substituted tasks; but the iPhone made them irrelevant…
[Oks unpacks the stories of the ATM’s and iPhone’s impact on banking, then looks ahead, by anaology, to what might be in store with AI. He concludes…]
… I am not a “denier” on the question of technological job loss; Vance’s blithe optimism is not mine. But I’m skeptical that simply slotting AI into human-shaped jobs will have the results people seem to expect. The history of technology, even exceptionally powerful general-purpose technology, tells us that as long as you are trying to fit capital into labor-shaped holes you will find yourself confronted by endless frictions: just as with electricity, the productivity inherent in any technology is unleashed only when you figure out how to organize work around it, rather than slotting it into what already exists. We are still very much in the regime of slotting it in. And as long as we are in that regime, I expect disappointing productivity gains and relatively little real displacement.
The real productivity gains from AI—and the real threat of labor displacement—will come not from the “drop-in remote worker,” but from something like Dwarkesh Patel’s vision of the fully-automated firm. At some point in the life of every technology, old workflows are replaced by new ones, and we discover the paradigms in which the full productive force of a technology can best be expressed. In the past this has simply been a fact of managerial turnover or depreciation cycles. But with AI it will likely be the sheer power of the technology itself, which really is wholly unlike anything that has come before, and unlike electricity or the steam engine will eventually be able to build the structures that harness its powers by itself.
I don’t think we’ve really yet learned what those new structures will look like. But, at the limit, I don’t quite know why humans have to be involved in those: though I suspect that by the time we’re dealing with the fully-automated organizations of the future, our current set of concerns will have been largely outmoded by new and quite foreign ones, as has always been the case with human progress.
But, however optimistic I might be about the human future, I don’t think it’s worth leaning on the history of past technologies for comfort. The ATM parable is a comforting narrative; and in times of uncertainty and fear we search naturally for solace and comfort wherever it may come. But even when it comes to bank tellers, it’s only the first half of the story…
As to whether the wisdom of Amara and Oks is widely-shared, consider this from Crunchbase:
Crunchbase data shows global venture investment totaled $189 billion in February — the largest startup funding month on record — although 83% of capital raised went to just three companies. They include OpenAI, which raised $110 billion, also in the largest round ever raised by a private, venture-backed company.
The record month for venture funding took place against the backdrop of a trillion-dollar stock market drop as AI compute and tooling unsettled leading public software companies. [See also here.]
All told, venture investment was up close to 780% year over year from the $21.5 billion raised by startups in February 2025.
OpenAI was not the only company to raise tens of billions of dollars last month. Its closest rival, Anthropic, raised $30 billion, marking the third-largest venture round on record.
Waymo, Alphabet‘s self-driving division, raised $16 billion. Together, those three rounds totaled $156 billion, representing 83% of the global venture capital raised in February.
A further four companies each raised $1 billion or more last month: Tokyo-based semiconductor manufacturer Rapidus; London-based self-driving platform Wayve; San Francisco-based AI for robotics World Labs; and Sunnyvale, California-based AI semiconductor company Cerebras Systems.
These massive rounds were led by strategic corporate investors, a host of private equity and alternative investors, as well as a few multistage venture investors and a government agency…
As we contemplate change, we might send sanitary, odor-free birthday greetings to Sir Joseph William Bazalgette; he was born on this date in 1819. A civil engineer, he became chief engineer of London’s Metropolitan Board of Works, in which role his major achievement was a response to the “Great Stink of 1858,” in July and August of 1858, during which very hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent. Bazalgette oversaw the creation of a sewer network for central London which addressed the problem– and was instrumental in relieving the city from cholera epidemics, in beginning the cleansing of the River Thames, and in creating (a crucial part of) the infrastructure that underlay its extraordinary growth over the next century.
Even as agricultural land is becoming a covetedinvestment (as manifest in the purchases of billionaires like Stan Kroenke, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, and by institutions like Nuveen and the Canadian Pension Investment Board and by publicly-traded REITs like Farmland Partners and Gladstone Land Corp), there’s another class of investor– with a very different use case– on the hunt. Joy Shin and Ryan Duffy report…
Last year, a datacenter developer started working the phones along Green Hill Road in Silver Spring Township, PA, outside Harrisburg. Mervin Raudabaugh got the call: a mystery buyer wanted to buy his 261 acres of farmland. The developer offered him $60,000 an acre for the land the 86-year-old had farmed for six decades. Mervin turned it down, selling to Lancaster Farmland Trust for <$2M instead, thereby locking the soil into agricultural use. “I was not interested in destroying my farms,” he told a local Fox affiliate.
Two things about this story might have been unthinkable a generation ago: that anyone would offer a farmer nearly $16M for that land, and that it’d be worth more dead (paved over) than alive (producing food).
The Supermarket of the World
For the better part of a century, that’s what America was. From 1959 through 2018, the country ran an agricultural trade surplus every single year, peaking near $27B in 1981, when soybeans, corn, wheat, and rice flowed out of the heartland in volumes that functioned as soft power and hard trade leverage. (When the Soviet harvest failed in 1963, Khrushchev had to buy American wheat through private US grain companies: at market rate, without credit, shipped on American vessels, which was a humiliation leveraged by his enemies to oust him the following year.)
Then, in 2019, the curves crossed. The U.S. has since run a deficit in four of the last six fiscal years. Last year, we imported $43.7B more in agricultural products than we sold.
Washington has started saying the right words. Last month, the USDA and Department of War signed a memorandum designating agriculture as a national security priority. Multiple bills linking food security to national security percolated through the last Congress. If you talk to the right folks in Washington, you’ll hear agriculture now being discussed the way semiconductors were in 2021 — as a sovereign capacity that a serious country cannot offshore.
All of which sounds right, none of which changes what is happening on the ground. Because the ground is the problem.
In real estate, you think in square feet, in proximity, in comps. Farmland trades in acreage, water tables, growing seasons, and soil composition. And right now, profitably farming that acre is just about the hardest it’s ever been.
Since 2020, seed costs have climbed 18%, fertilizer 37%, fuel 32%, and interest on operating loans 73%. Labor is up 50%. These costs never came back down after the 2021-22 supply chain shock, but crop prices did, creating a double squeeze on farmers. Farmland has appreciated nearly four-fold from ~$1,090/acre in 2000 to $4,170 in 2024.
Some 40% of U.S. farmers are over 65. The American Farmland Trust estimates nearly 300M acres will change hands through inheritance in the next two decades. When it does, the math facing each heir will look a lot like Mervin’s. What would you do: keep farming a business with collapsing margins, or if one was offered, take the check?
A Collision of Old & New Economies
Datacenters, chip fabs, and other megaprojects need what farms need: flat land, abundant water, reliable power, and access to transport.
In Loudoun County, VA, ground zero of America’s datacenter buildout, farmland already lists at $55,000–$79,000/acre, a significant premium over the statewide average because markets are pricing in the possibility the land will convert from farmland to computerland.
Conversions are large and getting larger. Meta’s $10B compute cluster in Richland Parish, Louisiana, sits on 2,250 acres of former soybean fields. Samsung’s new $17B fab occupies 1,200 acres outside Taylor, Texas, a town that once called itself the largest inland cotton market in the world. Micron’s $100B megafab is going up on 1,400 acres of former agricultural land and wetlands in Clay, New York. These are some of the largest private investments in American history, and among the most economically and strategically consequential bets we’re making as a country. You can’t help but notice the symbolism of it all: each is being built on rural land that was growing something one or two generations ago.
Datacenter developers, who already need some PR help, have seen local opposition to these projects emerge as a real planning risk, with farming families showing up at county meetings to argue that once the land converts, it will never come back.
Nobody should pretend this is irrational. A fab generates more economic value per acre than any soybean field ever will, the jobs pay better, and the strategic logic of onshoring chips is sound. But the math that makes each individual conversion obvious is the same math that, in the aggregate, leaves you structurally short on food. The country is losing about 2,000 acres a day, with 18M more projected to convert by 2040.
The Flow of Capital
As Washington works to subsidize the farming, to the tune of $10–$15B in federal support each year, Wall Street is betting on the land underneath it leaving farming.
Nuveen Natural Capital, a subsidiary of TIAA, manages $13.1B in farmland across 3M acres globally and recently launched a REIT targeting $3B in new capital. Those holdings have appreciated far beyond what crop income would justify, because it follows the pattern of a conversion optionality play: buy well-located agricultural land at agricultural tax rates and wait for rezoning.
Nearly 95% of American farms are still family-run, but most are modest operations. The 6% of farms generating $1M+ in sales produce 78% of everything, up from 69% just five years ago. Farming has developed the power-law distribution of a winner-take-most industry, except the winners don’t get to set their own prices. The family farm persists in name, but the economics (and economies of scale) increasingly push it to operate like a corporation or exit.
And institutional investors have some strange bedfellows on their side of the orderbook. Foreign investors held an interest in nearly 46M acres as of 2023 – 3.6% of all privately held farmland – up 85% since 2010. Canada alone holds 15M acres. China, which cannot feed its population from its own soil, built COFCO International into a state-backed grain trader that does $38.5B a year and accumulated millions of acres globally. Saudi Arabia was pumping Arizona’s groundwater through Fondomonte, a state-linked operation growing alfalfa for export, until Arizona killed the leases in 2023. Those countries treat productive soil as something worth a sovereign premium, and something you want to physically control…
[The authors recount the history of “Agro-Doomerism” and consider the (largely technological) potential solutions to the conundrum: “This is a hard problem, but it is a solvable one, as shown by the long history of technological revolutions in agriculture. Today, a set of technologies that were each too expensive or immature a decade ago have converged to the point where the raw inputs for a farm, ex land, can get radically cheaper, all at once.” They enumerate some of those potential saviors, and conclude…}
… The long arc of agro-doomerism and technological revolutions say there’s reasons for optimism. Many times before, the “math” said we’d run out of food; many times before, new science, systems, and processes came along that changed the denominator and proved the doomers wrong. Hoping and praying for AGI or another Norman Borlaug [the father of the Green Revolution] to save our bacon is not a strategy, but abundance-oriented technology stacks that don’t force a zero-sum choice between preservation and productivity might be. We should look at systems that help unfallow and uplift acres, making farmland competitive enough that we don’t pave over too much and one day realize we want the topsoil back – or our ag trade deficit erased.
The bet worth making is 1) to never bet against America, of course, and 2) that something similar will happen here: that productivity, not preservation alone, will close the gap. This is a generational opportunity, a category deeply in the national interest, and a sector wanting more capital, technology, engineers, and founders to show up. Those who get there first will be serving a gigantic market, and attacking a problem that Washington has acknowledged is existential but has no idea how to productively solve.
The supermarket of the world was built on cheap land and cheap water. Neither are cheap anymore, and both are being bid up by us – via population growth – as well as the industrial renaissance that we care so deeply about. But that doesn’t mean we can forget foundational inputs – literally – to our way of life…
Farming vs. fabs (and data centers)… American agriculture is caught in a collision between old and new economies: “The Supermarket of the World.”
Rubble left in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael is pictured in Mexico Beach, Florida, U.S. October 11, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman (source)
One of the effectively-secret ingredients in the world’s economic growth over the last couple of centuries has been insurance. The ability to insure against catastrophic loss has underwritten (pun intended) the trillions and trillions of dollars of loans that have funded the construction and acquisition that has enabled the growth of both commercial endeavor and the the accumulation of personal wealth (directly through home ownership and indirectly through equity ownership in those commercial endeavors or participation in pension schemes that own that equity).
But in a way that was enitrely predictable, climate change is rendering a growing portion of the world uninsurable. Gavin Evans ponders what that might mean…
The Florida peninsula looks like a sore thumb. It juts into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, where the water is getting warmer year on year, prompting fiercer hurricanes that can blow down houses like collapsing decks of cards. Climate scientists are convinced all hell will break loose sooner or later when a monster-sized, property-destroying storm makes a direct hit on Miami or Tampa-St Petersburg. Given three near-misses in the recent past, the experts view such a calamity as inevitable. It’s a huge risk for anyone living there – they stand to lose everything – but also for those bearing the financial side of this risk, the insurance companies. Some in the industry are seeing this as a portent for their future – an impending existential threat with profound implications for the economic system.
There are no easy solutions for people still paying off mortgages and those who want to buy property along the Florida coast, because the potential payout on the back of a mammoth storm is so high that the reinsurers (who insure the insurers against catastrophe) are refusing to underwrite their clients and, with no reinsurance, there’s no insurance; and with no insurance, no mortgages; and with no mortgages, no property market. Insurance protects investments against loss and is therefore a pillar of the economic system. If it goes, economies are destabilised.
Many panicked homeowners have rushed to make their houses less risky for insurance companies by reinforcing their roofs with hurricane clips, installing impact-resistant windows, doors and shutters, and strengthening their foundations. But it’s not just storms and higher, warmer seas that concern insurers. Rising temperatures mean that the frequency, range and ferocity of wildfires are also on the rise.
So far this year, 3,374 wildfires have burned an area of Florida totalling 231,172 acres (at the time of writing), and it is even worse in California where 7,855 blazes have killed at least 31 people, destroyed more than 17,000 houses and devoured 525,208 acres of land, at an estimated cost of more than $250 billion. Here, too, homeowners rushed to make their properties more palatable to cold-footed insurers – clearing their surroundings of anything flammable, covering yards with gravel, sheathing houses with fire-resistant stucco, and replacing wooden roofs with steel.
But, even for the most diligent, insurance companies have turned tail, dumping existing clients and abandoning fire-prone and storm-prone areas altogether. On the Californian fire front, 2024 was a turning point as several insurers ceased issuing new policies because of fire-associated risks, including the United States’ biggest property insurer, State Farm, which cancelled policies in parts of Los Angeles. It is all too easy to view this cynically, but it’s happening because property insurers have been reporting year-on-year losses from climate change-related payouts.
Insurance companies survive by making more money from covering risk than they lose from these risks, which is why they prefer clients less likely to claim (insofar as they can predict the risk involved) and require them to pay substantial excess to discourage claims. When payouts rise above the premium intake, insurance companies either hike up these premiums or withdraw. But when that risk is considered catastrophic, potentially affecting many thousands of clients, as with Floridian storms and Californian fires, it is the reinsurers who are the first to retreat because they will ultimately bear most of the cost.
Reinsurers aggregate payout patterns to establish the likelihood of having to make huge payouts from future natural catastrophes. They do this by gathering exposure data from existing insurers in a geographical area, and by examining catastrophe models (computer simulations that estimate potential losses from natural perils). When they put all this together with detailed analysis of conditions within the area, they come up with a figure for their total potential loss if a catastrophic event strikes.
This is why reinsurers focus so intensely on climate change. Take a glance at the websites of big ones like Swiss Re and Munich Re and you get a sense of how central this is to their calculations – a concern that has spread to property insurers who are starting to hire climate consultants. Even more than market volatility, climate is their biggest headache. ‘You won’t meet a single insurance or reinsurance CEO who doesn’t believe in climate change,’ the insurance investor and former Lombard Insurance CEO James Orford told me. ‘They see it in the numbers – a combination of more extreme, less predictable events, combined with big losses of sums insured. All the modelling suggests these are uninsurable risks.’…
[Evans recaps the history of insurance, starting in Genoa, in the mid-14th century, with the insuring of maritime expeditions; examines the current state of play; examines the efforts (and gauges the weaknesses) of state’s efforts to step up with coverage when insurers step away; then considers another role for states…]
If states do withdraw from insurance and reinsurance, some of the most lucrative areas of the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia will be devastated: no mortgages and no banks, leading to more ghost towns and villages. ‘It ends with depopulation and abandonment,’ said Agarwala. ‘Climate change reduces the operating space for humanity.’ In the UK, rising sea levels and coastal erosion could literally reduce operating space, putting 200,000 British homes at risk by 2050. There’s no coastal-erosion insurance, which puts more burden on the state, mainly to pay for new defences, but also to help people move.
Governments can take action in other ways, by investing greater sums in risk-prevention and management. There are signs of this happening such as the ‘fire-hardening’ and storm-prevention efforts in Florida, and improved flood defences in the UK; meanwhile, the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility is being used in several countries to build and renovate operations centres to cope with wildfires, and to buy firefighting helicopters.
In future, it is likely that voters will demand that their state and national governments do far more, regardless of the cost. They will want tougher building codes, including limitations on building in risky areas; expensive fire-prevention and fire-fighting schemes; better flood and storm defences; improved early catastrophe management, involving relocating people from risky areas and, when disaster strikes, rapid life-saving interventions such as large-scale emergency evacuations. If the insurance industry is forced to retreat by the climate crisis, all of this infrastructural investment will require vast chunks of taxpayers’ money. It is hard to avoid the feeling that this is part of our destiny, and that the sore thumb of the Florida peninsula is pointing us to the future…
Whole regions of the world are now uninsurable, bringing radical uncertainty to the economy: “The insurance catastrophe,” from @aeon.co.
As we cover up, we might send highly-charged birthday greetings to a man who made foundational contributions both to the detection of climatic conditions and to a technology that may help allieviate climate change: John Frederic Daniell was born on this date in 1790. Named the first professor of chemistry at the newly founded King’s College London in 1831, he was an avid meteorologist. He invented the dew-point hygrometer known by his name and a register pyrometer; in 1830 he erected a water-barometer in the hall of the Royal Society.
But Daniell is better remembered as a chemist (and physicist), especially for his invention of the Daniell cell, an element of an electric battery much better than voltaic cells, the standard before him. Indeed, the Daniell cell is the historical basis for the contemporary definition of the volt (the unit of electromotive force in the International System of Units). All advances in battery technology since then were “from” the base that Daniell laid.
You must be logged in to post a comment.