The fire that needs no spark
David Dredge, a tail-risk specialist who has spent decades pricing uncertainty across Asian and global markets, uses a forest metaphor that most people hear backwards. Everyone wants to predict the lightning strike. Where will the next crisis begin? China? Commercial real estate? Some leveraged corner of European credit? Dredge doesn't care about lightning. He cares about dry brush.
The accumulated interconnectivity of leverage in a system is the risk. Not the catalyst. If lightning hits bare ground, nothing burns. The conflagration requires fuel that was already there, piled up silently over years of calm weather and crowded positioning. Dredge compares it to insuring a ship: you could hire an economist to forecast the weather and only sail on sunny days, only to discover that weather isn't the only thing that sinks ships. Pirates exist. Boilers explode. The economist, meanwhile, can't forecast anything.
Most investors spend their analytical energy on catalysts. They want to know what will go wrong, when, and how. The question is unanswerable and always has been. What you can observe, right now, is where the brush is thickest. Where has leverage built quietly? Where has correlation been artificially suppressed? Where are participants acting as though volatility has been permanently retired? Those are the spots where one match, any match, turns a small flame into something that reshapes portfolios.
I wrote about a version of this in April 2026 Review: Recovery, Extrapolation, and the Posture I Did Not Take. The people sending screenshots of green candles in April were celebrating the catalyst in reverse: a recovery they attributed to a specific policy shift or earnings beat, when the real question was whether the dry brush had actually been cleared. Celebrating a bounce without asking what structural conditions produced the drawdown is the same error as panicking about a drawdown without asking what structural conditions allowed the boom. Both are obsessed with the spark. Neither is looking at the forest floor.
The borrower everyone should have abandoned
In sixteenth-century Spain, King Philip II defaulted on his debts not once but repeatedly, earning what modern historians call the title of history's first serial defaulter. The Genoese bankers kept lending to him. So did the Fuggers. The conventional explanation, recycled in every introductory economics class, is that lenders were foolish, myopic, suffering from the belief that this time would be different.
Mauricio Drelichman, an economic historian who co-authored a study on sovereign lending in Habsburg Spain, refused that explanation. His starting principle: never assume other people are stupid. If sophisticated Genoese financiers, families who had survived centuries of political upheaval across Italian city-states, kept writing checks to a known defaulter, they had a reason. Drelichman's research found they did. The bankers had structured their loans with collateral, preferential access to revenue streams, and renegotiation mechanisms that made even a "default" more like a restructuring with favorable terms. The headline risk was terrible. The actual risk-adjusted return was not.
The instinct to call other market participants irrational is one of the most expensive habits in finance. It feels good. It flatters the person making the accusation. And it almost always means you haven't done enough work to understand the incentive structure on the other side of the trade.
Morgan Housel, who spent years as a financial columnist before writing The Psychology of Money, makes a related observation: people make financial decisions that look irrational from the outside but are perfectly rational given their personal history, their time horizon, and what they've lived through. The Genoese bankers weren't stupid. They had a different contract than the one you imagined. The person buying meme stocks at 40x revenue isn't necessarily stupid either. They might have a three-day holding period and a risk tolerance forged by circumstances you know nothing about. Calling them an idiot is easy. Understanding their structure is useful.
The one-year trap
Shlomo Benartzi, a behavioral economist at UCLA, ran a simulation in the 1990s alongside Richard Thaler that answered a question most finance professors had fumbled for decades: why do stocks return so much more than bonds? The standard models couldn't explain the size of the gap. It was too large for the actual volatility involved.
Benartzi's answer had nothing to do with volatility. It had everything to do with how often people look.
The framework requires two ingredients. First, loss aversion: the well-documented finding that losing a dollar hurts roughly twice as much as gaining a dollar feels good. Second, myopia: investors checking their portfolios constantly, even when they won't need the money for thirty years. On any given day, the stock market is roughly a coin flip. Half the time you open your brokerage app, you see red. If you check daily, you experience the emotional pain of loss roughly 50% of the time. Over a year, stocks are up about two-thirds of the time. Over thirty years, losses are vanishingly rare.
Benartzi and Thaler asked: how frequently would an investor need to evaluate their portfolio for loss aversion alone to explain the entire equity risk premium? The answer fell at roughly one year. People who check annually demand high returns because they still see losses often enough to feel the sting. People who check daily demand impossibly high returns, or simply refuse to own stocks at all.
The simulation was run in the mid-1990s, before smartphones, before brokerage apps with push notifications, before portfolio trackers that update every second. Benartzi built his model imagining someone opening a newspaper. Now people open a glowing rectangle sixty times a day. The dry brush, again, accumulates silently.
Every financial app on your phone is an engine for manufacturing the sensation of loss in a context where losses, measured over any sensible horizon, barely exist. The product designers who built those apps know this. They are not optimizing for your wealth. They are optimizing for your attention, and attention is captured most reliably by pain. The entire equity premium puzzle, one of the deepest problems in academic finance, reduces to a design flaw in human cognition being ruthlessly exploited by a notification badge.
My Ledger — notes on investing, books, and things I'm still figuring out. The Library is where I keep the books that shaped how I think. The Journal is where I work through ideas in public.
Mandelbrot — the private toolbox behind the thinking.
Hit reply if something here sparked a thought. I read every response and always write back.
You just read issue #4 of Nauman ul Haq. You can also browse the full archives of this newsletter.