Back in 2011, Marc Andreessen wrote a widely cited blog post where he argued that "software is eating the world." In some ways, it feels like just yesterday that I first read it. But it has been 15 years, and boy, has the world changed. Now, the worry is that AI is eating software.

It has become significantly easier to write code, to the point that in the span of only two years, Google has gone from 0% of its new code being written by AI to now over 75% of it! But it's not just big companies. I know lots of non-technical people who wanted software that could do "X," and so they just vibe coded a solution. Done.

In fact, I've been experimenting and doing the same for several months now. It has become so easy that I feel an obligation to do it. But as we know, if everyone can do it, then it means there is no longer any value. The value will necessarily need to be created in other ways.

Earlier this week, we spoke about Uber and how being asset light — previously a hallmark of the gig economy — is potentially now a liability. Well, this is a broader theme. Josh Brown, CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management, even coined a term for this: HALO. This stands for Heavy Assets, Low Obsolescence.

The general idea is that you now want physical stuff with a big moat that is immune to being disrupted by someone in their parents' basement using Claude Code. Hard assets are, arguably, where you want to be today. I guess that means real estate is back, baby!

Cover photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

I just saw The Real Estate God argue the following (on Twitter): "What people don't understand about the S&P is that every single person in the country who has money is also invested in it. When your money goes up 15%, so does everyone else's. You gained zero relative wealth. You need to outperform the S&P if you want to actually get ahead." The implication of this is that when you then go out and compete for a "fixed pool of high-quality assets" — such as a home — you have no comparative advantage against everyone else.

Yes, and no.

I think this tweet is true in a narrower, segmented sense. One of my personal life philosophies is that it's important to do things that others can't or aren't willing to do. It's important to be disciplined, make sacrifices, and put in the work; otherwise, you revert to the mean. You have to be different! It's one of the reasons that I've maintained a daily blog for nearly 13 years. I enjoy it and there are benefits to doing so, but it's also painfully difficult and not something most people care to do (perhaps rightly).

Small improvements and outperformance can also make a huge difference when looking at a long enough time horizon. Consider this simple table showing a starting balance of $100k and annual returns ranging from 10% to 15% per annum.

If 10% represents the expected return of "the market," look at how much of a difference even one percentage point (increase to 11%) can make. Over a 30-year period, it's more than half a million dollars. And between 14% and 15%, the delta is over $1.5 million! The simple and commonly discussed lesson here is that small incremental improvements compound and can make all the difference when applied with consistency and discipline.

But to find alpha in this way (outperformance), you arrive at a subset of "being different." To outperform the market, you generally need to be right about something that most people think is incorrect. Because if everyone believes something to be true, it's not being any different; it's just "the market" and there's no alpha in that.

So in this sense, if you want a high degree of relative wealth creation, if you want to retire early with a yacht in Monaco, and you don't want to wait for the decades of compounding to start delivering the bulk of its fruit, then yes, you will likely need to look beyond just the S&P and take on additional risk to get there.

This is the "yes" part. Now let's consider the "no."

It is estimated that about 40% of Americans have no exposure to the stock market, that the wealthiest 10% own roughly 93% of all outstanding stock shares, and that the wealthiest 1% own about 50% of the market. Canada exhibits a similar story of high concentration, although it's less extreme, and Canadians tend to be more invested in residential real estate compared to stocks and business equity.

Regardless, there is a question of allocation. When the market goes up 15%, it doesn't affect everyone equally, and it actually increases overall inequality given the above concentrations. Though if you're competing for a €6M apartment in Paris, you are admittedly competing within your narrow socio-economic band against people who probably have exposure to equity markets.

There's also a behavior gap. If you buy the S&P 500 and hold it for 30 years, you would be an extreme statistical outlier. Most people don't do this. They get emotional, they sell when it falls, and they try to time the market. Here, for example, is a study that found that in 2024 the average equity investor earned 16.54%, compared to the S&P 500's 24.02%.

Despite strong performance in the equity markets, investors continued to underperform due to their behavior. Withdrawals from equity funds occurred in every quarter of 2024, with the largest outflows taking place just before a major return surge.

So even if you are just buying the S&P 500, there are still ways to be different and achieve relative outperformance. You just have to be patient and have the right temperament.

That said, even if you were extremely disciplined and you behaved for, say, 30 years, it would still be mathematically impossible to achieve something like Elon Musk-level wealth. You could be a multimillionaire with Monaco yacht level wealth, but not a centibillionaire. For that, you'll need to actively take on more risk and, yes, outperform the market.

Cover photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash

Conventional wisdom suggests that if you're going to invest $10 million into an illiquid real estate investment that will not bear delicious fruit for 7 to 10 years, you may want to be compensated for the illiquid nature of your commitment. In other words, there's an "illiquidity premium." Flexibility is worth something. If you can get the same return and have the flexibility to get your money back when you want it, isn't that better? I don't know; maybe that's not always the case. Here's an excerpt from a clever article written by Cliff Asness, founder of AQR Capital Management, where he argues the reverse:

If people get that PE [private equity] is truly volatile but you just don’t see it, what’s all the excitement about? Well, big time multi-year illiquidity and its oft-accompanying pricing opacity may actually be a feature not a bug! Liquid, accurately priced investments let you know precisely how volatile they are and they smack you in the face with it. What if many investors actually realize that this accurate and timely information will make them worse investors as they’ll use that liquidity to panic and redeem at the worst times? What if illiquid, very infrequently and inaccurately priced investments made them better investors as essentially it allows them to ignore such investments given low measured volatility and very modest paper drawdowns?

Perhaps another way to think about illiquid private investments is that they kind of force you to think more like Warren Buffett. He has so many great lines to this effect: "If you aren't willing to own a stock for 10 years, don't even think about owning it for 10 minutes." And: "The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." He has also written over the years about how a tolerance for short-term volatility can improve long-term prospects. So, behaving in this way, it would seem, is generally good for making money.

The problem — and this is really Cliff's more precise argument — is that the majority of people simply aren't good at being like Warren Buffett. We're impatient and emotional. That's why he's so remarkable. His approach certainly sounds simple, but it's clearly not so easy. Illiquidity can help with this. It removes the fraught thinking part and might actually protect you from your own thoughts and emotions.

Cover photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash