More Regulators Concerned About Private Credit, Prediction Markets Available In IRAs Soon? Costco vs Gas Station Rewards, Is There A Bubble In Sports Teams? Understanding the Relative Cost of IRMAA & More

More regulators are concerned about private credit 

The bad news just keeps coming for the private credit industry. If you’re not sure what private credit is, it is mostly middle market business loans extended by asset managers. People often don’t realize that these asset managers don’t have the same strict supervision that banks have on their loans. Investors may be starting to realize the risk because in the first quarter of 2026, private credit investors requested $20 billion from some of the private credit funds. Unfortunately, they only got a little bit over 50% of what they requested or about $11 billion. This could lead to higher redemption requests above $20 billion in the second quarter as more investors become disenchanted with private loan funds. The Securities Exchange Commission over the past few months has opened several enforcement investigations of large private credit managers. The Treasury department is also requesting information from private fund managers and insurance firms to understand their businesses more. The Securities Exchange Commission is the primary regulator for the private credit industry, but the private funds don’t regularly disclose holdings and don’t reveal much about private credit on the forms that are used by the SEC. It is quite the dilemma for these private credit funds, and I do believe it will continue to get worse because I am confident that the SEC and the Treasury department will find areas that could really hurt the individual investor due to the lack of disclosures. 

Could prediction markets be available in your IRA soon?  

Bitwise, Roundhill, and GraniteShares have filed applications with the SEC to launch exchange-traded funds tied to event contracts. If approved, these products could potentially be held in self-directed IRAs. The initial proposals appear relatively narrow in scope, focusing on outcomes like which party wins the White House in 2028 and which party controls the House and Senate after this year’s midterm elections. While these types of products can sound appealing—and successful bets could generate strong returns—they also carry a clear risk: if you’re wrong, you lose your entire investment. One of the main concerns is how complex and speculative these instruments are, especially in the context of retirement accounts. Event contracts are fundamentally different from traditional investments like stocks or bonds, and their all-or-nothing nature makes them more like betting rather than than long-term investing. Are we going to soon allow withdrawals from retirement assets in Vegas so people can blay blackjack? The odds may be better there than on some of these “event contracts.” 

There are also broader legal and regulatory questions still being debated. Some states argue that certain event contracts—particularly those tied to sports outcomes—should be classified as sports gambling, which would place them under state jurisdiction rather than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Tribal groups have also raised concerns, arguing that such products could infringe on their sovereign rights to regulate gambling on tribal lands. 

At the moment, sports-related event contract ETFs are not part of these filings, but that could evolve depending on how the legal landscape develops. If courts ultimately allow these types of products and current applications move forward, it’s possible that similar filings tied to sports outcomes could follow. Regardless of how regulation unfolds, it’s important to understand the nature of these products. While they may be packaged as ETFs, their structure and risk profile differ significantly from traditional investments. Anyone considering them should be clear on one point: this is not investing in the conventional sense—it’s a high-risk, all-or-nothing proposition that is really just gambling. 

Who offers a better reward program? The big gas stations or Costco? 

When I pull into a Shell gas station, I always see a pitch on the screen about getting up to $0.30 back per gallon. Other stations like Chevron run similar promos, which got me wondering: how many people actually sign up—and are these deals better than Costco’s credit card with 4% cashback on gas? Right off the bat, gas station rewards programs feel overly complicated. Once you dig in, you’ll find caps, conditions, and purchase limits that make it tough to consistently get the maximum benefit. In the best-case scenario, you might get around $0.35 off per gallon. If gas is $6 per gallon, that works out to roughly a 5.8% discount. Not bad—but actually hitting that number regularly is another story. 

Costco’s credit card, on the other hand, offers a straightforward 5% cashback at Costco gas stations and 4% cashback at other gas stations (up to $7,000 per year). At $6 per gallon, that’s about $0.24 back per gallon; at $5 per gallon, it’s $0.20. To hit the annual cap, you’d need to buy around 22.4 gallons per week at $6 per gallon, or about 26.9 gallons per week at $5. If you’re filling up at a Costco station, the math can tilt even more in your favor. Gas there is often $0.10–$0.30 cheaper per gallon to begin with. Pair that with 5% cashback, and your effective savings climb even further: about $0.25 per gallon at $5 gas, or $0.30 at $6. So, when you’re standing at the pump at Shell or Chevron and see an offer for a flashy rewards program, it’s worth pausing. The headline numbers can look appealing, but the real-world value often depends on how much you drive and how closely you follow the program’s rules. For many people, a simple, consistent cashback card—especially one tied to already lower fuel prices—may end up being the better, less stressful option. 

Is there a bubble in sports teams? 

We’ve spent plenty of time talking about stretched valuations in stocks, the frenzy in crypto, and the rise of prediction markets—but sports teams may deserve a spot in that conversation too. Valuations across major leagues are climbing at a remarkable pace. The NFL is leading the charge, with the average team now valued at $7.65 billion, up from roughly $1 billion in 2010. NBA franchises tell a similar story: the average team is worth $5.52 billion, an 18% jump from just last year. Go back 15 years, and the average NBA team was valued around $369 million—an increase of 1,396%. By comparison, the S&P 500’s roughly 425% return over that same period looks modest. 

Major League Baseball is seeing it too, with the San Diego Padres reportedly finalizing a record sale at $3.9 billion. As prices climb, fewer buyers can afford entry into the top leagues, pushing capital into smaller or emerging sports that may carry more risk. Rick Horrow, CEO of Horrow Sports Ventures, highlighted this trend: “Major League Cricket was at $5 million. Now the value’s at $30 million and going higher. Major League Pickleball two years ago was at $5 million. Now the value is at $15 million or higher.”  

Women’s sports are also experiencing rapid growth. The National Women’s Soccer League recently awarded an expansion franchise in Columbus, Ohio for $205 million—a $40 million increase over the fee paid by Arthur Blank (The Falcon’s owner) for Atlanta’s team in November. That deal itself was a sharp jump from the $110 million paid by Denver in January of last year. For perspective, expansion fees were around $2 million as recently as 2022. 

The key question is whether these valuations are supported by underlying fundamentals. While interest is rising—about 1.2 million people watched the NWSL final, up 22% year over year—it still trails far behind the audiences of major leagues. Game 7 of the NBA Finals drew 16.4 million viewers, the World Series drew 25.9 million, and the Super Bowl surpassed 127 million. Media rights are central to this dynamic. The NFL signed an 11-year, $111 billion deal in 2021 and is already eyeing further increases. The NBA followed with its own 11-year, $77 billion agreement starting in 2025. If these massive contracts continue to absorb the bulk of media spending, smaller leagues may struggle to sustain their current growth trajectories. Most people will never be in a position to buy a sports franchise, but the broader trend is still worth watching and I believe is just yet another example of excessive valuations in today’s markets.  

Financial Planning: Understanding the Relative Cost of IRMAA 

IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is best understood not as a flat cost, but as an additional marginal tax rate layered on top of federal and state income taxes. When your income exceeds certain thresholds, your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums increase, and because the adjustment applies for the entire year once you cross the threshold, even by $1, it creates a “tax cliff.” For example, in 2026 the first IRMAA tier for married couples begins at $218,000 of income. At that point, Part B premiums increase from $202.90 to $284.10 and Part D increases $14.50, resulting in an additional annual cost of $2,296.80. Since this tier spans $56,000 of income (from $218,000 to $274,000), that cost translates to roughly a 4.1% marginal “tax” on income within that range, but only if you fully utilize the entire bracket. If you only exceed the threshold by a small amount, you still incur the full $2,296.80 cost, which means the effective marginal rate on those extra dollars can be extremely high. When layered on top of a 22% federal bracket and 9.3% California tax rate, the true marginal rate is about 35.4% if the bracket is filled, but can be significantly higher if it is not. This framing is critical when evaluating strategies like Roth conversions or large withdrawals, because it highlights that the decision isn’t just about stated tax brackets, it’s about the all-in marginal rate including IRMAA. In practice, this means it is often beneficial to either stay below an IRMAA threshold or intentionally “fill up” the bracket once crossed, ensuring the additional premium cost is spread across the full income range rather than concentrated on just a few dollars. 

Is the United States losing economic power around the world  

I hope there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that there are countries around the world that want to destroy the United States. Even though we have the best legal system and the best economy in the world, there are signs that our world power is being chipped away at. If you go back in history, even just 50 years, you will see we controlled the world because everyone relied on the US dollar. Countries like Russia, China and Iran have hated this because we could place financial sanctions on their banks and their country, and it would drive their economy into a major depression and there would be a large devaluation of their currency. Currently $21 trillion per day is trading through what is known as the United States SWIFT system, which stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications. Many countries use us because of our strong legal system and the backing of the US dollar with the taxing authority and strong economy. The Chinese have not taken this sitting down, years ago they came up with their own cross border interbank payment system known as CIPS to try to take away our power of financial sanctions. The Chinese system pales in comparison to ours at $178 billion per day, but their system is growing. Between that system and Bitcoin, in the next 10 years we could be facing major economic problems because we no longer have any leverage over the world. Please realize if you hold and speculate on Bitcoin that is really a bet against the future of the United States economic system. Please don’t think it has anything to do with our current President because no matter who is President Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will always want to take away our power. 

The cost of a first-class stamp in the US is going up 

It should be no surprise that the cost of mailing a first-class letter is increasing by 5% from $.78 to $.82 starting July 12th. The United States Postal Service is trying to get their financial house in order and they need more revenue. I still do not understand why they aren’t cutting out Saturday delivery, which would save billions of dollars. If you think about it, is $.82 to mail a letter 3000 miles across the country a bad deal? I really don’t think it is especially when comparing to the United Kingdom where it cost $2.42 to send something across their country first class. Also realize that the United States Post Office delivers to over 170 million addresses across the country and generally it doesn’t receive tax dollars and instead relies on the sale of postage. I do remember the five-cent postage stamp, but I still think even at $.82 it is still one hell of a deal!  

Add to the surging cost of housing HOA fees 

Homeowners have been hit with rising mortgage rates, increasing insurance costs, growing property taxes, and home repair costs just keep climbing as well. This has made housing unaffordable for many people, but one forgotten expense in many cases is HOA fees. Roughly 25% of households in the US are paying either HOA or condo fees which is adding more of a burden to own a home. For condo owners from 2019 to 2025, condo fees increased on average by 29%. For a single-family homeowner in an HOA over the same time their HOA fees were up 26%. Of the 21.6 million households paying either HOA or condo fees, it is estimated that 3 million of those households are paying over $500 per month. The fees are increasing for the same reasons as general housing costs with property insurance, labor, and materials being more expensive than before. To make matters worse, some associations also issue special assessments to pay for large repairs or expenses because of in many cases mismanagement by the board. If you do pay condo fees or homeowner association fees, and you have not seen an increase or much of an increase in your HOA fees either consider yourself lucky or thank your board for doing a great job of managing the expenses and the reserves. 

20-year-olds are becoming a healthy generation  

It seems that young adults in their 20s are more concerned about their health than any other generation at this stage of life. This could be due to several factors, such as observing unhealthy habits in older parents or grandparents and wanting to adopt a healthier lifestyle in comparison. This shift has been challenging for the alcohol industry, as young adults between the ages of 14 and 29 drink 20% less than millennials and about one-third less than Generation X. They now prefer to socialize at gyms and yoga classes rather than going out for drinks during happy hour after work. Many would rather spend their money participating in athletic races, spin classes, or strength-training sessions, while still maintaining gym memberships. At first glance, one might assume they have less of a social life. However, many have built strong friendships and connections through regular participation in fitness classes and gym communities. This trend has been difficult for alcohol beverage companies, and it remains unclear whether it will persist if the economy slows down. As this group ages, their habits could shift, and they may return to socializing more frequently at restaurants and bars, potentially increasing their alcohol consumption. Studies have also shown that Gen Z spends more money on gambling than older generations. One reason may be their familiarity with technology, which makes it more comfortable to place bets or gamble using their phones. This behavior could eventually lead to more socializing in bars, where betting on sports is often more enjoyable in a group setting than alone. While it is unlikely that alcoholic beverage companies will disappear, they may need to adapt their marketing strategies and modify their products to better align with the preferences of this new generation. 

Unfortunately, the birth rate in the United States continues to fall 

The number of babies born to women ages 15 to 44 reached a record low of 53.1 per 1,000 women in 2025. The birth rate has been steadily declining since 2007, when millennial women entered their prime childbearing years. Another surprising data point is that, for the first time, women in their late 30s had more babies than women in their early 20s. Women and couples report not having children due to uncertainty about the future, including financial concerns, relationship stability, and even the political climate. While these concerns are understandable, similar uncertainties likely existed in the 1950s and 1960s, yet many people still chose to have children, often prioritizing the perceived benefits of family life. Another way to measure birth rates is the total fertility rate, which represents the average number of children a woman would have over her lifetime if current age-specific birth rates remained constant. This rate also hit a record low of 1.57 births per woman. It has now fallen below 2.1, the level typically considered necessary for a population to replace itself without immigration. In the 1950s, the fertility rate was above 3 and peaked at nearly 4 births per woman. One positive aspect of the declining birth rate is that births among teenagers ages 15 to 19 have dropped by 72% since 2007. Because people are living longer, there were still about 500,000 more births than deaths in 2025. However, this represents relatively slow population growth and contributes to an increasing average age—something that can pose challenges for a strong economy. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that this natural population increase will end within the next 10 years. The total number of children born in the United States has remained roughly stagnant at about 3.6 million for the sixth consecutive year. At the same time, more people are dying each year due to an aging population. Without sufficient immigration, this trend is likely to result in overall population decline.