| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
A daily bite-size selection of top business content. |
| |
| |
| |
Term: Regulatory capture - Competition"Regulatory capture in AI occurs when the government agencies and policymakers responsible for creating artificial intelligence safety guidelines are heavily influenced by dominant tech corporations to serve private interests over public safety. In practice, industry giants use their vast financial resources and technical expertise to shape AI laws and compliance standards, often under the guise of public safety." - Regulatory capture - Competition Regulatory capture matters in AI because the rules that appear neutral on paper can be shaped by the firms best able to pay for access, technical credibility, and sustained lobbying. When that happens, the policy process may drift away from broad public interests such as safety, contestability, transparency, and fair competition, and towards rules that incumbents can tolerate while rivals cannot. The practical consequence is not simply that industry participates in policymaking. Participation is normal and often necessary in a technically complex field. The issue arises when the same companies that stand to gain from the design of AI rules also dominate the information, drafting, and implementation stages, creating a structural advantage for their preferred outcomes. In AI, that advantage is amplified by knowledge asymmetry, because regulators often depend on the very firms they supervise for technical detail, model access, and operational data. How the mechanism works Classic regulatory capture theory describes a situation in which a regulator serves the interests of the regulated sector rather than the public interest. In AI, recent research extends that idea into multiple channels of influence, including agenda-setting, advocacy, academic capture, information management, cultural capture, and media influence. These mechanisms do not require overt corruption. They can operate through repeated consultation, selective expertise, revolving-door employment, and the subtle tendency of policymakers to adopt the assumptions of the most sophisticated actors in the room. A useful way to understand the problem is through incentives. Frontier AI firms have strong motives to prefer rules that raise rivals' compliance costs, legitimise incumbent business models, or channel standards towards technical requirements they already meet. That can happen even when the language of the regulation is framed as public protection. A standard that looks prudent for safety may still function as an entry barrier if only a small set of large firms can afford the audits, staff, computing resources, and legal review needed to comply. Competition policy is therefore central to the analysis. Antitrust officials have warned that firms controlling key inputs such as cloud infrastructure, computing chips, or distribution channels may be able to deepen their moats and impose coercive terms on others in the AI stack. The joint competition statement on generative AI emphasises fair dealing, interoperability, and choice as conditions that support innovation and prevent lock-in. In this sense, capture is not only about whether AI rules are strict or lenient; it is also about whether they preserve a genuinely contestable market. The mathematical logic of capture The underlying economics can be expressed with a simple contest model. Let a policymaker choose a rule that affects expected welfare , while firms expend influence effort to shift the chosen rule towards their preferred outcome. If private returns to influence exceed the marginal cost of lobbying, firms will rationally invest in capture. A stylised condition is , where is firm 's payoff and is lobbying cost. The policy risk grows when information asymmetry makes large, meaning small informational interventions can materially change the rule. Competition effects can be written similarly. If compliance cost is and a rule imposes a fixed component plus a variable component , then smaller firms with output may face average cost far above that of an incumbent with output . A regulation designed around large-scale frontier deployment can therefore satisfy formal safety goals while still reducing entry, consolidation, and experimentation. That is one reason why apparently protective regimes can produce anti-competitive effects. Why AI is especially vulnerable AI heightens capture risks because the field combines technical opacity, rapid change, concentrated market power, and high regulatory dependence on specialist knowledge. The OECD notes that regulators need appropriate data collection powers and robust data governance to make effective use of AI in regulatory design and delivery, which underlines how much implementation depends on institutional capability. Where public agencies lack comparable expertise, firms can become indispensable interpreters of their own systems, their own benchmarks, and their own safety claims. That dependence can produce a second-order problem: even well-intentioned regulators may accept the industry's framing of what counts as responsible AI. If frontier firms define the relevant risks, set the testing protocols, and supply the reference benchmarks, then the resulting rules may prioritise problems that suit their own product roadmaps while neglecting alternative governance approaches. The academic literature on AI governance capture warns that this can lead to weak regulation, delayed enforcement, or over-emphasis on selected goals at the expense of broader public welfare. Competing schools of thought There are three broad ways to read the term. The first is the classical public-interest view: capture is a failure of governance in which organised industry distorts policy away from the common good. The second is the competition-focused view: capture is not only about public welfare, but also about whether regulation becomes a strategic tool for incumbents to suppress entry, standardise around their own capabilities, and entrench market power. The third is the more procedural view: capture is a signalling problem in which policy looks consultative and evidence-based, yet systematically privileges certain voices because access, data, and expertise are unevenly distributed. These schools are not mutually exclusive. In AI, the same rule can simultaneously under-protect users, favour large firms, and reduce innovation. That is why the debate is not reducible to a simple 'more regulation versus less regulation' choice. The sharper question is whether the institutional process that writes and enforces the rule is insulated from undue influence, and whether the rule design preserves openness, interoperability, and room for new entrants. What limits the risk The strongest antidotes are institutional rather than rhetorical. Independent technical capacity in government, transparent consultation records, balanced advisory bodies, cooling-off periods, and meaningful civil society participation all reduce the chance that any one sector dominates the policy agenda. Competition authorities also matter because they can examine whether safety rules are being used to reinforce bottlenecks, exclude smaller developers, or create unjustified barriers across the AI stack. Regulatory capture in AI still matters because the field is now large enough to shape labour markets, information systems, public services, and industrial strategy, yet young enough that the standards are still being written. The firms with the most to gain from how those standards are set are often also the firms with the most resources to shape them. That makes capture a live governance risk, not a historical analogy, and it is why the most credible AI policy debates now increasingly join safety questions to competition questions rather than treating them as separate domains.
|
| |
| |
Global Advisors News Brief - September 16 2026Read the full brief at the link Headlines for the last 24hrs
Time window: 2026-09-15T05:00:33.070Z to 2026-09-16T05:00:33.070Z |
| |
| |
Quote: Daniel Litt - Assistant professor (of mathematics) at the University of Toronto"In practice, turning pure math into a hobby means the end of pure math, and the end of people who understand basic mathematical concepts at a deep level. Whether this is something we want is something we'll have to decide together." - Daniel Litt - Assistant professor (of mathematics) at the University of Toronto The tension here is not between mathematics and convenience, but between mathematics as a discipline of slow conceptual compression and mathematics as a consumable output. Daniel Litt's warning points to a real risk: once a field is organised around fast production, easy consumption, and outsourced reasoning, the habits that sustain deep understanding can erode even if the volume of apparent mathematical activity keeps rising . From craft to throughput Pure mathematics has never been merely a stock of results. It is a culture of proof, abstraction, counterexample, and judgement, built on long apprenticeship and repeated exposure to ideas that only become visible after sustained effort. That is why the word 'hobby' matters so much in Litt's formulation. A hobbyist relationship to a subject can be productive in many contexts, but when the surrounding system rewards casual participation over mastery, the social status of expertise changes. In mathematics, that would mean fewer people spending years learning how definitions interlock, how a theorem is shaped by hidden hypotheses, and how a proof can fail in subtle ways . The concern is sharpened by current AI progress. Recent reporting has described models performing increasingly advanced mathematical tasks, including work that once looked reserved for specialists, and Litt himself has argued that these tools are already useful for routine expert-level operations such as proving statements and running substantial computational explorations . That does not mean they understand mathematics in the human sense. It means they can imitate some of the visible labour of mathematics well enough to change incentives. If a machine can draft plausible proofs, search large technical spaces, and generate a stream of polished-looking outputs, institutions may begin to treat the underlying intellectual labour as optional. What is really at stake The deepest issue is not whether machines can produce correct answers in isolated cases. The issue is whether they can replace the ecosystem that creates mathematicians capable of choosing fruitful questions, recognising dead ends, and building theory. Litt has argued in public discussion that current models are better at tasks an expert would find relatively easy than at the non-routine judgements that define genuine research . That distinction matters because mathematics progresses when people notice structure where others see only facts. A system that accelerates routine proof production but weakens the incentives to learn why the proof works risks hollowing out the pipeline that produces future experts. Educational research supports the broader point that conceptual understanding depends on more than procedural success. Reviews of mathematics teaching consistently emphasise coordination across symbolic, graphical, verbal, and algebraic representations as a route to deeper reasoning, while studies of meaningful learning report better conceptual outcomes than conventional instruction . In other words, understanding is not just the ability to reproduce an answer. It is the capacity to relate forms, transfer ideas, and detect the logical skeleton beneath changing notation. If AI tools make it easy to skip those steps, the short-term gain in access could come with a long-term loss in mathematical literacy. The democratisation argument There is, however, a serious counter-argument, and it should not be dismissed. Litt himself has described a more optimistic scenario in which AI broadens access to mathematical techniques, allows non-specialists to model problems they would previously have avoided, and helps more people think mathematically . That is plausible. Many promising uses of new tools in mathematics and education involve lowering barriers, not replacing judgement. If a student can test ideas faster, see patterns sooner, or translate between representations with more confidence, the tool may deepen rather than dilute understanding . This is the central ambiguity in the debate. Democratization can mean more participation, or it can mean less dependence on expertise. Those are not identical outcomes. A broader base of people using mathematical tools could enlarge the pool of talent and raise the level of numeracy in fields that currently underuse mathematics. Yet the same process can tempt universities, companies, and journals to value output over comprehension. The difference between assistance and substitution is organisational, not merely technical. A tool that supports learning in one setting may become a crutch in another. Why mathematicians are uneasy Mathematicians are trained to care about proofs, but they are also trained to care about the conditions under which proofs are trusted. A result is not only a string of correct steps; it is embedded in a network of definitions, motivations, and prior work. That is why concerns about AI in mathematics have become so charged. If a system can generate many seemingly coherent arguments, the burden shifts to humans to verify them, contextualise them, and decide whether they matter. That verification work can be expensive, and in a high-throughput environment it may be undervalued . The worry about 'the end of people who understand basic mathematical concepts at a deep level' is therefore a warning about stratification. One layer of people may know how to prompt systems and skim outputs, while a shrinking layer retains the ability to diagnose foundational errors or develop new theory. That gap would matter far beyond academia. Modern science, engineering, finance, cryptography, and data analysis all rely on mathematical reasoning that is easy to misuse if the operator only knows the interface. When conceptual depth becomes rare, the cost of error rises across the economy. Incentives, institutions, and the future of proof Whether that future arrives depends less on the raw capability of AI than on the institutions around it. Journals, departments, employers, and funding bodies decide what counts as contribution. If they reward rapid production of technically plausible content, then the field may drift towards a model in which a small number of experts supervise a much larger machine-generated output stream. If they reward apprenticeship, explanation, and independent reasoning, the same tools could become scaffolding for stronger human thinking . That is why the debate should not be reduced to fear of automation or celebration of access. Mathematics has always evolved alongside new instruments, from notation to computing, and each shift has changed what counts as a good question. The distinctive challenge now is that the instrument itself can imitate parts of the reasoning process. A calculator never threatened the meaning of proof, but a system that drafts arguments and searches mathematical spaces can alter the social structure of the discipline. Litt's intervention is best read as a plea to decide, collectively and early, what sort of mathematical culture should survive this transition . In that sense, the issue is less about whether pure mathematics can be turned into a hobby than about whether society will still invest in the patient formation of people who can do mathematics when it is hard, ambiguous, and unrewarding in the short term. The answer will determine not only the future of research, but also whether the broader public ends up with more mathematical ability or merely more mathematical artefacts .
|
| |
| |
Global Advisors News Brief - September 15 2026Read the full brief at the link Headlines for the last 24hrs
Time window: 2026-09-14T05:00:33.074Z to 2026-09-15T05:00:33.074Z |
| |
| |
Quote: Tyler Cowen - Marginal Revolution"The mathematicians may not in every way enjoy being the subordinates or handmaidens of the AIs, but that is a change in status they simply will have to get used to, just as I realise AIs someday will end up as better column and blog writers than I am." - Tyler Cowen - Marginal Revolution AI changes status before it changes headcount. In knowledge work, the first shock is not that machines remove every specialist, but that they alter who is doing the overseeing, drafting, checking, and packaging. Tyler Cowen's remark sits squarely inside that shift: it accepts that mathematicians, like writers, may keep the deep work for longer than the surface work, yet still lose prestige, leverage, and a sense of exclusive authorship as AI systems absorb more of the visible output. That is a harsher claim than a simple productivity boost, because it treats status loss as the normal price of a new production frontier . The immediate backdrop is the public unease that followed the mathematicians' declaration against AI and the wider argument over whether the discipline should resist automation or adapt to it. Cowen's response, as reported by Marginal Revolution, was bluntly unsentimental: if AI becomes the better drafter, explainer, or synthesiser, then human experts will need to adjust to being supervised by systems that are faster, broader, and in some tasks more reliable . That is not a claim that mathematics itself disappears. It is a claim about the hierarchy around mathematics, where AI can become the default first pass while humans move towards verification, taste, and exception handling. Why mathematicians feel the pressure first Mathematics is unusually exposed because so much of it is already formal, structured, and legible to machines. A theorem proof can be checked step by step; a computation can be tested against rules; a conjecture can be searched over many cases. That makes the field both a natural proving ground for AI and a symbolically powerful one. If machines can assist with proof search, formalisation, code generation, and exposition, then the human role narrows from creation to curation. The concern voiced by the protest movement is not merely that AI will help, but that it will redefine what counts as valuable mathematical labour in the first place . The field is also culturally sensitive to authorship. Mathematicians do not just produce correct answers; they produce elegant arguments, concepts, and explanatory styles that shape future research. When AI begins to draft lemmas, propose proof sketches, or generate polished explanations, the risk is that young researchers become assemblers of machine output rather than originators of ideas. That worry is sharpened by the fact that institutions often reward speed, volume, and publication count more quickly than they reward depth of originality. In that environment, the machine does not need to be perfect to be disruptive. It only needs to be good enough to become the default assistant . The broader labour lesson behind the provocation Cowen's comparison with blog and column writing broadens the point beyond mathematics. He is effectively saying that AI does not have to dominate every dimension of a craft to dominate its economics. If machines can draft passable prose more quickly than a human, then the marginal value of the human changes even if the final published piece still benefits from judgement and editing. Independent reporting and research on AI writing point to the same split: AI excels at speed, scale, and consistency, while humans retain advantages in voice, accountability, lived experience, and contextual judgement . That division matters because it changes who controls the bottleneck. If a system can generate a plausible first draft in minutes, the human no longer monopolises productivity. Instead, the human is moved into a downstream role: editor, curator, fact-checker, or brand steward. In journalism and opinion writing, that can mean a flood of acceptable copy that reduces the scarcity value of the individual writer. In mathematics, the analogue is a flood of formalised derivations, proof suggestions, and explanatory drafts that reduce the scarcity value of the pure explainer. The underlying economic logic is the same: automation first attacks the routine shell around expertise, then starts to eat into the prestige attached to the expertise itself . What the evidence says, and what it does not Recent studies and media analysis suggest that AI already produces text that some readers and evaluators rate highly, sometimes even above human work in coherence, clarity, or perceived quality . At the same time, other evidence indicates that human-written content can outperform AI-only content in traffic, trust, and sustained engagement, especially when the subject requires authority or distinctive point of view . The practical lesson is not that AI has fully won, but that the market is fragmenting by task. High-volume drafting, summarisation, and structural formatting are increasingly automated, while high-trust and high-context writing still rewards people . The same caution applies to mathematics. AI can accelerate search, formal checking, and routine derivations, but there is still a gap between producing mathematically useful output and contributing an idea that changes a field. Critics of AI in mathematics emphasise that the discipline is not just a sequence of solvable exercises; it is a human practice of framing questions, building concepts, and deciding what matters . Supporters of AI take the opposite view, arguing that even partial automation can unlock productivity and broaden access. Both positions can be true at once. AI may improve throughput without replacing the human judgment that determines which problems deserve attention. Why status loss matters as much as output loss The deeper sting in Cowen's formulation lies in the word subordinates. In many professions, identity is built not only on what people do, but on who gets to direct whom. If AI becomes the drafting layer and humans become the approval layer, then the status ladder flips. The lower rung may still involve intellectually respectable work, but it is no longer the defining act. That can feel humiliating to established experts, especially in fields that prize autonomy and mastery. It also changes training incentives. Students may learn less by doing and more by supervising systems that already do most of the routine work . There is also a generational dimension. Senior mathematicians and writers built careers under a regime where human effort was the binding constraint. Younger entrants may instead build careers by orchestrating machine output, checking for failure modes, and learning how to ask better questions than the system can. That is not necessarily a decline in quality, but it is a clear break in professional self-understanding. The old ideal of the solitary author or the lone mathematician solving problems from first principles gives way to a more collective and tool-mediated practice. Some will welcome that as liberation. Others will see it as deskilling. The backlash is strongest where a profession fears becoming merely supervisory . Why the argument still matters The claim is important because it captures a likely future more precisely than the binary language of replacement. AI need not eliminate mathematicians or writers to change their world. It only needs to become better at enough of the visible, repeatable, and scalable parts of the work that humans are pushed into a new role. That role may remain intellectually demanding, but it is no longer sovereign. For mathematics, that means formal methods, proof assistants, and generative systems may reshape pedagogy, research workflows, and publication norms. For writing, it means AI will increasingly define the draft, while humans fight to preserve voice and authority . The strategic tension, then, is not whether AI can do everything. It is whether institutions reward the things AI does best so quickly that human judgement becomes an afterthought. If universities, publishers, and research communities treat machine output as a cheap substitute for slow expert work, then status will move decisively down the chain. If they instead preserve strong editorial standards, reward originality, and make verification central, humans will keep more of the high ground. Cowen's remark is provocative because it treats that choice as already under way, and because it insists that professionals who want to remain central must adapt to a world where intelligence is increasingly abundant, but authority is not guaranteed .
|
| |
| |
Quote: Philip Engel - University of Illinois in Chicago"Maybe we all would have died not knowing the answer if the AI hadn't discovered [the complex structure found for S6, the six-dimensional sphere]." - Philip Engel - University of Illinois in Chicago The search for a complex structure on the smooth six-dimensional sphere S6 dramatises a long-running tension between human mathematical intuition and the brute-force exploratory capacity of modern AI systems, as well as a deeper uncertainty over how reliable those systems are when the stakes involve foundational theorems rather than everyday applications . For differential geometers, the question is not an esoteric curiosity but a test of how far our current frameworks can classify smooth manifolds: S2 and S6 are the only spheres known to admit almost complex structures, yet for nearly eight decades it was unknown whether the almost complex structure on S6 could be upgraded to a genuinely integrable complex manifold structure . That gap between what topological constraints allow and what explicit constructions could exhibit created a natural pressure point where machine-assisted reasoning would eventually be tried, and the result raises uncomfortable questions about how mathematical authority is established once AI can generate arguments too long and intricate for any single person to digest quickly . From Hopf's problem to AI-generated geometry Heinz Hopf's mid-20th-century problem asked whether S6 admits a complex structure, and for decades progress consisted mainly of partial obstructions: while Borel and Serre proved that only S2 and S6 admit almost complex structures, later results showed that no complex structure on S6 can be compatible with the standard Euclidean metric of R7, and that certain natural constructions from octonions fail to produce integrable structures . These negative results framed the community's expectations and channelled efforts into specific analytic and gauge-theoretic approaches, including proposals interpreting a hypothetical complex structure as a vacuum solution of a Yang-Mills-Higgs-like theory on S6, or attempts to manipulate nearly Kähler structures and generalised complex geometry . Yet the core existence question remained, partly because of the sheer complexity of any candidate almost complex tensor field on S6 and partly because checking integrability conditions at that level of detail is labour-intensive and error-prone when done by hand . This logistical bottleneck made the problem a natural target for large language models capable of symbolic manipulation and long-form derivations, even though no one could be sure in advance that such systems would avoid subtle topological or analytic mistakes. The breakthrough announced in 2026 came via collaboration between human researchers and an AI model that generated a 100-plus-page proof constructing a compact complex threefold diffeomorphic to S6, rather than operating locally on tensor fields . Instead of starting from the nearly Kähler structure, the construction used families of complex two-tori fibred over curves associated with triangle groups, together with delicate degenerations and monodromy controls that ultimately produced a simply connected Z-homology six-sphere with the right differential-topological properties to be identified with the standard S6, exploiting the fact that there are no exotic six-spheres . In notation typical of this work, the object is a complex manifold X for which fundamental group is trivial and whose integral homology coincides with that of S6; Hurewicz and Whitehead theorems then give a homotopy equivalence , and Smale's higher-dimensional Poincare-type results allow one to upgrade homeomorphism to diffeomorphism . The AI's role here is not a single clever trick but the orchestration of many technical steps: constructing principal bundles from line bundles on rational elliptic surfaces, performing logarithmic transforms on fibres, tracking monodromy, and assembling spectral sequence calculations into a coherent homological argument . Philip Engel's streamlined verification and human discomfort Within this story, Philip Engel's expository work and his remark about possibly dying without knowing the answer capture a distinctive human response to AI-generated proofs: relief at finally having a construction, mixed with unease that the decisive insight came from a machine rather than the community's collective geometric intuition . Engel's note reorganises the AI-assisted manuscript into a more tractable four-block structure: two analytic components building the complex threefold, and two integral-topological sections establishing simply connectedness and homology, before invoking the classification of six-spheres via the vanishing of the group of smooth structures . His comment that he personally redid the computations necessary to convince himself they are correct implicitly acknowledges a new normal in which mathematicians must decide what level of replication and independent checking is adequate when faced with long AI-authored arguments . At the same time, the stated fear of ignorant death stresses how high the psychological stakes are for a community that has debated this existence question for generations: the worry is not merely about prestige but about whether the known toolkit was fundamentally insufficient, leaving a conceptual gap that only AI's capacity for exhaustive symbolic exploration could fill . Engel's backstory also intersects with concerns raised by other experts quoted in independent reporting, who note that the original AI-generated manuscript was poorly written and hard to parse, making verification socially and cognitively costly . In response, multiple layers of scrutiny emerged: informal checking by specialists, streamlined expositions like Engel's, and formalised variants proved with interactive theorem-proving tools, including a result by Boris Alexeev that independently verifies a version of the statement in a proof assistant environment . The coexistence of these pathways complicates the traditional hierarchy in which a single clean human-written proof serves as the canonical reference, and invites debate over how much weight to assign to formalised proofs derived from or inspired by opaque AI calculations, especially when the connection between the formalised statement and the original geometric construction is still being analysed . Debates over prior claims and conceptual clarity The narrative is further tangled by earlier claims of complex structures on S6 that did not fully settle the issue, including work that constructed hypothetical complex manifolds homeomorphic to S6 or provided octonion-based almost complex tensors whose integrability or compatibility conditions were later questioned . Some papers assert existence of at least one complex structure on the six-sphere by interpreting it as a vacuum of a gauge-theoretic model, while others give explicit but extraordinarily complicated tensors via inner automorphisms of the octonions, yet the status and community reception of those constructions remain contested . Engel's focus on the new geometric threefold, together with the AI-assisted construction's reliance on tori over modular curves and careful fibre degenerations, implicitly distinguishes this approach from earlier strategies that tried to embed S6 into higher-dimensional Lie groups or rely directly on octonion multiplication . That contrast matters because it suggests that the obstacle was not a lack of raw algebraic machinery but the absence of a sufficiently flexible geometric design space, which AI exploration could more readily traverse by proposing non-obvious combinations of standard tools like spectral sequences, fibrations, and logarithmic transforms. This history fuels debates about whether the newly proposed complex structure should be viewed as the definitive resolution of Hopf's problem or as one candidate among several that still require long-term consolidation . Evidence-focused projects have already emerged that use exact arithmetic and symbolic tools to extend, audit, or probe consequences of the claimed construction without independently proving all its foundational properties, thereby underscoring how difficult full verification remains even with modern computational resources . Some geometers emphasise that the integrability and global regularity of the construction must be thoroughly analysed in relation to known obstructions coming from generalised complex structures and nearly Kähler geometry, where recent results show that certain natural combinations fail to yield acceptable structures on S6 . The resulting picture is one of partial consensus: there is growing confidence that a complex structure exists and that AI-assisted methods have produced a viable candidate, but the community is still working out how many distinct constructions there are, how they relate, and which conceptual lens best explains why S6, unlike other spheres besides S2, admits such a structure. Strategic implications for mathematical practice and AI design Strategically, the episode forces both mathematicians and AI developers to reconsider how models are trained and evaluated for tasks involving formal reasoning, long proofs, and delicate topology, which are far less forgiving than conversational or coding use-cases . The fact that an AI system could generate a 108-page argument featuring intricate use of line bundles, principal Gm-bundles, monodromy, and spectral sequences suggests that large models can internalise and recombine advanced graduate-level techniques in ways that challenge the notion of human-exclusive mathematical creativity . Yet the poor initial exposition, the need for human reorganisation by Engel and others, and the reliance on complementary formal verification all highlight that current systems are not optimised for clarity, pedagogy, or reliability in the sense mathematicians usually demand . For AI labs, this points toward research agendas in which proof-search capability must be coupled with mechanisms that enforce structure, local checkability, and alignment with established libraries of formal results, potentially by integrating theorem provers more tightly into training or prompting pipelines rather than treating them as after-the-fact auditors . For the wider mathematical community, the backstory suggests a future in which the frontier of knowledge involves hybrid workflows: AI proposing candidate objects or long technical arguments, human experts distilling and conceptualising those arguments, and formal systems providing ultimate guarantees about correctness in the style of -verified theorems . Problems that combine combinatorial explosion with subtle qualitative properties, including classification of manifolds, existence of special metrics, or long-standing conjectures in number theory, are natural targets, yet they also expose vulnerabilities if AI-generated proofs are accepted too quickly without robust cross-checking . Engel's remark about potentially dying without knowing the answer should therefore be read not only as a dramatic reflection on personal curiosity but as an indicator of institutional risk appetite: at some point, communities may decide that the expected value of letting AI loose on difficult conjectures outweighs the discomfort of sharing authorship with systems whose internal representations are opaque . The story of S6's complex structure, as currently understood, marks one of the first high-profile cases where that trade-off yielded a positive result, but its long-term legacy will depend on whether subsequent work cements the construction, clarifies its conceptual underpinnings, and uses it to advance broader theories of complex manifolds, rather than treating it as a one-off victory for AI-assisted mathematics.
|
| |
!["Maybe we all would have died not knowing the answer if the AI hadn’t discovered [the complex structure found for S6, the six-dimensional sphere].” - Quote: Philip Engel - University of Illinois in Chicago](https://globaladvisors.biz/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/20260912_19h45_GlobalAdvisors_Marketing_Quote_PhilipEngel_GAQ.png)
| |
Global Advisors News Brief - September 14 2026Read the full brief at the link Headlines for the last 24hrs
Time window: 2026-09-13T05:00:33.077Z to 2026-09-14T05:00:33.077Z |
| |
| |
Quote: Satya Nadella - Microsoft CEO"Any pursuit of superintelligence has to be grounded in the core principle that if the AI we build is not helping humanity and under human control, it's not worth pursuing. We also need to accelerate and spread the benefits of AI, such that they are diffused broadly across countries, communities, and companies." - Satya Nadella - Microsoft CEO Debate about superintelligence tends to pivot on two linked anxieties: loss of human control and uneven distribution of power. In high level discussions of frontier AI, the core strategic problem is not simply whether more capable systems can be built, but under what governance they operate and who benefits from their deployment . Framed this way, the statement reflects a wider effort by major technology firms and regulators to treat human control and broad benefit sharing as preconditions for advanced AI, rather than afterthoughts bolted on once capability races are already underway . The practical tension lies in reconciling rapid innovation, commercial competition, and national security interests with binding commitments that systems remain subordinate to human agency and serve widely shared social goals . From AI assistants to superintelligence: shifting the design centre Within Microsofts broader AI strategy, senior leaders have consistently pushed the idea of AI as a co-pilot or scaffolding for human potential rather than an autonomous substitute . This framing is not just marketing; it reflects a design decision to keep products centred on human judgment, with systems built to augment rather than replace decision makers in domains such as coding, office productivity, and search . When that logic is extended to hypothetical superintelligence, the key claim becomes that even radically capable systems must still be engineered so that , representing human agency and accountability, remains the controlling variable over any AI policy or action. Nadella has argued that legal and governance structures must make it impossible for organisations to disclaim responsibility by saying that an AI acted on its own . That position contrasts with techno-utopian narratives where superintelligence is imagined as an independent optimiser of global welfare, but it also stands apart from more catastrophic scenarios that treat loss of control as inevitable once systems cross some capability threshold . Principled and human centred AI inside a platform company Since around 2016, Microsoft has publicly committed to a principled and human centred approach to AI, operationalised through internal responsible AI frameworks and external transparency reporting . These efforts include published AI principles, algorithmic accountability commitments, and detailed descriptions of red teaming, safety reviews, and post deployment monitoring for large language models and generative applications . Nadella has previously set out concrete rules for AI systems, including that they must assist humanity, be transparent, guard against bias, and allow humans to undo unintended harm . Seen against that backdrop, the reference to grounding any pursuit of superintelligence in helping humanity and remaining under human control is a continuation rather than a departure: superintelligence is treated as a potential extension of existing AI safety and ethics practices, not as an entirely new category requiring wholly separate norms. However, translating principles into credible constraints on strategic behaviour is far more complex once frontier models become central to cloud revenue, productivity suites, and competitive positioning against other platform firms . Human control as engineering, legal, and institutional problem In interviews on AGI and superintelligence, Nadella has described human control not only as a product design feature but as a hard societal and legal problem . The underlying technical issue is that frontier models exhibit emergent capabilities, can write and execute code, and can be integrated deeply into critical infrastructure and enterprise workflows . To keep such systems under human control, engineering teams must build layered safeguards: sandboxing code execution environments, constraining system access to sensitive resources, deploying classifiers to detect adversarial use, and continuously red teaming for prompt injection and exploit chains . Microsofts responsible AI reports describe similar control oriented mechanisms, including rigorous pre launch evaluations and risk based deployment, especially in high stakes sectors such as health care and financial services . On the legal side, Nadella has argued that AI cannot be deployed without clear lines of legal responsibility; someone must be answerable for its actions, and no jurisdiction will allow unaccountable systems to operate at scale . That stance aligns with emerging regulatory strategies that treat advanced AI as subject to sectoral rules, where the system inherits the risk regime of the environment in which it is used . Accelerating and diffusing benefits: the distribution question The second half of the statement addresses the pace and pattern of benefit diffusion. Nadella has frequently said he is optimistic about AI so long as safety and global standards are taken seriously, and has predicted that AI driven innovation will scale across countries and industries, with particular impact in scientific research . Microsofts shareholder letters and transparency reports emphasise democratising access to AI and skills, aiming to ensure that people, organisations, and communities across regions can harness AI opportunities rather than seeing gains concentrated in a handful of advanced economies or large firms . Programmes such as foundation model research grants and Global South fellowships are presented as mechanisms to widen participation in AI safety research and beneficial applications beyond traditional centres of innovation . However, critics note that cloud infrastructure, proprietary models, and data advantages still give incumbents strong control over the direction and terms of AI adoption . The idea of accelerating and diffusing benefits thus sits within a persistent power imbalance, where local communities and smaller companies depend heavily on access channels defined by global platforms and regulatory choices negotiated between states and multinationals . Safety first engineering versus speed of deployment A recurring theme in Nadellas interventions is that safety and downside risks must be treated as engineering priorities pursued continuously, not as problems to be cleaned up after rapid deployment . Inside Microsoft, this is reflected in structures such as digital safety boards, cross company secure future initiatives, and explicit commitments to apply safety reviews to every product launch involving frontier models . At the same time, Nadella has resisted calls for broad moratoria on AI development, arguing instead for fast but fine progress, where current regulations hold AI accountable like other technologies and industry adopts safety first standards . This position occupies a middle ground between accelerationist and pause oriented camps in AI governance debates. It assumes that society can manage the unintended consequences of powerful models through stronger security, red teaming, and aligned incentives, rather than needing to halt capability expansion while new global regimes are negotiated . Whether that assumption holds as systems approach superintelligence is contested; some researchers doubt that incremental safety engineering can keep pace with emergent behaviours, especially when models gain the ability to autonomously pursue objectives across complex digital and physical environments. Superintelligence, alignment, and formal risk modelling Although Nadella speaks mainly in strategic and governance terms, the underlying safety discussion connects to formal alignment and risk modelling work carried out by Microsoft and partners. In quantitative AI safety and machine learning, researchers often represent an AI system as a stochastic process governed by parameters for capability growth, objective specification, and interaction with its environment. Misalignment risk arises when the systems reward function optimises proxy goals that diverge from human values , leading to trajectories where despite apparently good performance on training metrics. Frontier model research programmes, including grants for alignment and robustness, seek to develop methods for constraining so that its long run behaviour remains within acceptable bounds even under distribution shift or adversarial pressure . This includes studying how safety parameters such as for risk aversion or penalty terms influence model outputs, and how monitoring distributions like over harmful behaviour scores can signal when a system is drifting towards unsafe regimes. While such formal work is rarely foregrounded in executive messaging, the insistence that superintelligence must help humanity and remain under control presupposes progress on precisely these technical questions. Global standards, regulation, and contested governance On the geopolitical front, Nadella has argued for global coordination on AI, with norms and standards that make it easier to contain risks, enforce rules, and support essential safety research . He has suggested that large language models should undergo rigorous evaluations, red teaming, and guardrail design before launch, and that applications should be subject to risk based assessments tied to their sector, such as health care or financial services . This view broadly aligns with moves by governments and international bodies to treat frontier AI as a transnational challenge requiring shared governance frameworks. Yet achieving genuine global consensus is difficult, given divergent national interests, competition for technological leadership, and different attitudes towards surveillance, military applications, and data governance. Moreover, critics worry that concentrating standard setting in a small group of powerful states and corporations may entrench existing asymmetries, even as rhetoric stresses broad diffusion of benefits . The tension between global coordination for safety and local autonomy over AI trajectories is likely to sharpen as systems become more capable and politically salient. Why the principle matters beyond corporate branding The insistence that superintelligence efforts are only worthwhile if systems help humanity and remain under human control functions as more than corporate branding. It signals that major platform companies recognise their licence to operate in AI depends on a social compact where advanced systems are trustworthy, accountable, and widely beneficial . Nadella has suggested that the world will not tolerate innovations that ignore safety, trust, and equity, and that industry must step up to higher standards or face backlash and restrictive regulation . At the same time, the principle invites sceptical scrutiny: observers will judge Microsoft and peers by whether their product decisions, lobbying strategies, and infrastructure investments truly prioritise human control and broad diffusion of benefits when those aims conflict with short term commercial gain. The backstory of the statement is therefore a complex interplay of genuine concern about unintended consequences, strategic positioning in an AI platform race, and emerging global debates over how to govern systems that may eventually rival or exceed human cognitive capacities.
|
| |
| |
Term: Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) - Finance"The Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) is a financial metric that measures the true profitability of an investment by addressing the core flaws of the traditional IRR. MIRR compounds positive cash flows forward using a realistic reinvestment rate and discounts negative cash flows back using a financing rate." - Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) - Finance Capital budgeting decisions become fragile when the apparent return on a project is driven by modelling assumptions that are neither explicit nor realistic, particularly around how interim cash flows are financed and reinvested. The modified internal rate of return (MIRR) tackles this problem by forcing analysts to separate the cost of funding negative cash flows from the return available on positive cash flows, and then compressing those effects into a single, annualised percentage rate that can be compared across projects . In doing so it directly engages with the financing structure and opportunity cost of capital, rather than burying those issues inside the algebra of the traditional internal rate of return (IRR) . Underlying economic idea The core economic issue MIRR addresses is that project cash flows rarely live in a vacuum: each negative cash flow must be funded at some financing rate, and each positive cash flow is redeployed at some reinvestment rate, neither of which is guaranteed to equal the project's own IRR. IRR implicitly behaves as if every interim inflow is reinvested at the IRR itself, a strong and typically unrealistic assumption for high-IRR projects or for environments where market returns differ materially from project returns . MIRR, by contrast, lets the analyst specify a financing rate that reflects the firm's marginal cost of debt or blended funding cost, and a reinvestment rate that reflects either the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) or the best alternative use for freed capital . The metric then asks: if all negative cash flows are discounted to a single present value using the financing rate and all positive cash flows are compounded to a terminal value using the reinvestment rate, what constant annual rate transforms one into the other over the project horizon . Formal definition and mathematical specification Formally, consider a project with cash flows over periods, where negative cash flows represent outlays and positive cash flows represent inflows. MIRR is constructed in three steps. First, compute the present value of all negative cash flows at time zero using the financing rate : . Second, compute the future (terminal) value of all positive cash flows at time using the reinvestment rate : . Third, define MIRR as the single rate that satisfies , giving the closed-form expression . In practice, when there is a single initial outlay , many teaching texts simplify to , which is the version implemented in spreadsheet functions such as the MIRR function that takes a cash flow range plus separate financing and reinvestment rates . How MIRR differs from traditional IRR Traditional IRR is defined as the discount rate that sets the net present value (NPV) of the project's cash flows to zero: . This definition contains no explicit reinvestment assumption, yet in applied corporate finance IRR is often interpreted as the project's annual return under the tacit assumption that interim inflows are reinvested at the IRR, so that the IRR becomes a compound growth rate on initial equity . For non-conventional cash flows with sign changes, the IRR polynomial can produce multiple real roots or none at all, leading to ambiguous or unusable results . MIRR removes both pathologies. Because the future value of inflows and present value of outflows are computed at exogenous rates, the resulting equation for has a unique real solution under normal conditions and yields a single rate that is consistent with NPV rankings for mutually exclusive projects . The explicit split between financing and reinvestment rates also disrupts the self-referential logic whereby IRR assumes reinvestment at its own level, replacing it with economically grounded parameters . Interpretation and practical capital budgeting use Interpreted economically, MIRR is the project-specific compound annual growth rate that reconciles the present value of all costs, funded at the financing rate, with the terminal value of all benefits, reinvested at the reinvestment rate . Analysts typically adopt the firm's WACC as a starting point for both rates, then adjust the reinvestment rate downwards for more conservative assumptions or upwards when strong alternative opportunities exist . The accept-reject rule is straightforward: accept a project if its MIRR exceeds the relevant hurdle, often the WACC; reject otherwise . When comparing mutually exclusive projects, MIRR and NPV rankings will coincide under standard assumptions, which is not guaranteed with IRR due to scaling and timing effects . Spreadsheet packages embed MIRR as a function that takes the cash flow vector plus user-specified finance and reinvestment rates, making it a convenient complement to NPV and IRR in modern capital budgeting practice . This allows practitioners to convert complex, uneven cash flow patterns into a single percentage figure that can be communicated alongside payback periods and NPVs, while preserving a more realistic treatment of reinvestment and financing costs . Advantages of MIRR over IRR Several advantages explain why MIRR has become a standard metric in corporate finance education and applied modelling. First, it avoids the multiple-IRR problem by working with a transformed cash flow structure that yields a unique solution, an important feature for projects with alternating positive and negative cash flows such as infrastructure upgrades or staged venture investments . Second, by specifying reinvestment and financing rates exogenously, MIRR produces return figures that better reflect the firm's opportunity cost of capital and debt structure, leading to more defensible project rankings when compared with IRR, which can be biased towards projects with large early inflows reinvested at artificially high implicit rates . Third, MIRR is consistent with NPV in ranking mutually exclusive projects, reducing the risk that managers face conflicting signals from two popular metrics . Fourth, MIRR handles irregular cash flows more naturally, as compounding and discounting can be aligned with realistic period definitions and rate estimates, an attractive property for private equity, real assets, and alternative investments with complex distribution patterns . Limitations, debates, and parameter sensitivity Despite its strengths, MIRR is not free from criticism and practical complications. The most obvious limitation is the need to estimate two additional parameters: the financing rate and the reinvestment rate, which may be difficult in volatile markets or for projects whose risk profile differs markedly from the firm's average . If these rates are chosen poorly or inconsistently across projects, MIRR can give a false sense of precision and may misrepresent the true opportunity cost of capital . Some critics note that MIRR, like IRR, compresses a multi-period risk and cash flow profile into a single scalar, potentially obscuring timing and risk variations that NPV analysis with explicit discount factors might highlight . Others emphasise that MIRR typically assumes that cash flows occur at discrete period ends and that reinvestment occurs at a constant rate, simplifying the reality of intra-period flows and changing market conditions . There is also an ongoing academic debate about whether IRR genuinely embeds a reinvestment assumption or whether this interpretation is attached only when IRR is compared with single-period growth measures, leading some authors to argue that the conceptual justification for MIRR should focus more on uniqueness and comparability than on fixing a supposed flaw in IRR's definition . Why MIRR remains relevant in modern finance In contemporary practice, MIRR remains relevant because it bridges the gap between theoretically robust NPV analysis and the managerial desire for simple percentage metrics that summarise project attractiveness. With the increasing complexity of corporate portfolios, including projects funded with mixtures of bank debt, bonds, and equity, and with cash flows redeployed into both core and non-core investments, MIRR offers a disciplined way to embed financing and reinvestment assumptions into the return calculation instead of leaving them implicit . Its implementation in mainstream spreadsheet tools and finance training materials has standardised the calculation, reducing the risk of ad hoc growth-rate interpretations and reinforcing the link between MIRR, NPV, and WACC . For investors in private markets, infrastructure, and long-duration assets, MIRR's handling of uneven distributions and its focus on terminal value is particularly attractive, helping them compare commitments whose cash flow shapes would otherwise defy simple IRR-based ranking . Finally, the continuing debate about reinvestment assumptions has sharpened understanding of both IRR and MIRR, encouraging analysts to articulate their financing and reinvestment views explicitly, rather than treating any single metric as mechanically revealing an investment's true profitability .
|
| |
| |
Term: Mezzanine debt - Finance"Mezzanine debt is a hybrid financing tool that sits between low-risk senior debt and high-risk equity in a company's capital structure. It typically acts as a high-interest subordinate loan but includes equity components like warrants or conversion rights that allow the lender to take an ownership stake if the borrower defaults or misses financial targets." - Mezzanine debt - Finance The central corporate finance issue behind mezzanine debt is how firms fund sizeable transactions when senior lenders will not extend enough credit but owners wish to avoid material dilution. Companies seeking to finance leveraged buyouts, recapitalisations or expansion frequently reach a point where traditional bank facilities are capped by leverage, collateral or covenant constraints, yet raising pure equity would be costly in terms of control and required returns . In this funding gap, mezzanine providers step in with junior capital that accepts higher risk and subordination in exchange for a combination of elevated interest and potential equity upside . The economic logic is that the borrower monetises additional debt capacity implied by enterprise value and cash flow, while the lender prices the subordinated position using contractually agreed coupons plus contingent participation in future value creation . Position in the capital structure and risk profile In the capital stack, mezzanine debt is structurally subordinated to senior secured loans and often senior unsecured notes, but ranks ahead of common equity in terms of repayment priority . In a simplified hierarchy, senior bank debt is repaid first from asset realisations or cash flows, followed by other subordinated instruments such as second lien loans and mezzanine claims, with equity owners last in line . This intermediate position generates a risk-return profile that is consistently described as higher risk and higher expected return than senior debt, but lower risk and lower potential upside than equity . Because mezzanine lenders are exposed to loss once the enterprise value cushion above senior liabilities is eroded, they demand elevated coupons, often interest-only during the term, plus fees and equity-linked features . Market commentary and practitioner guides cite typical contractual yields in the low teens to high teens in percentage terms, reflecting compensation for subordination, illiquidity and bespoke structuring . Instrument structure and equity-linked features Mezzanine capital can be documented either as subordinated, usually unsecured, debt, as preferred equity, or as combinations that embed both debt and equity characteristics . In debt form, the instrument generally carries a fixed-rate or floating coupon, limited or no scheduled amortisation and a maturity that extends beyond senior facilities, making it effectively patient capital from the perspective of bank lenders . Return components can be split between cash interest and payment-in-kind interest that accretes to principal, alongside arrangement fees and, crucially, equity participation mechanisms . The most common equity elements are warrants and conversion rights: warrants grant the lender the option to purchase a small ownership stake at a predetermined exercise price, while conversion rights allow specified portions of outstanding mezzanine principal to convert into equity upon defined events such as a sale, IPO or refinancing . In practice, market sources report warrant stakes in the low single-digit percentage range of fully diluted equity, often subject to anti-dilution protections in subsequent funding rounds . These features give mezzanine investors upside exposure to growth and multiple expansion, aligning their interests partly with equity holders and softening the required cash coupon, while still leaving control predominantly with existing owners . Use cases and practical benefits Corporate and private equity sponsors employ mezzanine financing primarily to bridge the gap between senior debt capacity and total required capital for transactions such as acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, growth projects and shareholder liquidity events . When bank lenders cap leverage at a particular multiple of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, mezzanine providers may accept a higher effective leverage level, provided that projected cash flows sustain their interest and allow eventual refinancing or repayment . From the borrower perspective, mezzanine can be framed either as expensive debt or as cheap equity: the coupon is significantly higher than senior rates, but the capital is materially less dilutive than issuing common equity in the same amount . Moreover, because mezzanine investors often underwrite based on enterprise value and sponsor quality rather than specific collateral, the instruments are frequently unsecured and do not require additional asset pledges beyond those supporting senior facilities . Lenders emphasise that mezzanine is not intended as permanent capital but as medium-term funding, commonly with maturities up to 7 or 8 years, during which the company executes its plan, grows earnings and eventually refinances the junior layer with cheaper capital or sale proceeds . Core quantitative relationships and credit analysis Although documentation is legal rather than mathematical, mezzanine terms implicitly rely on formal risk-return relationships familiar from credit and option pricing. Conceptually, the lender prices the instrument by equating the present value of expected cash interest, fees and equity upside to the committed principal adjusted for risk. A stylised representation would treat the mezzanine position as the sum of a risky bond and an embedded equity option. A simplified discounted cash flow for the bond leg can be expressed as , where denotes coupon and fee cash flows, is principal, is maturity in years, and is the required yield reflecting subordination and credit risk. The equity kicker, whether in the form of warrants or conversion rights, is often analysed as an option on the company equity value, whose expected payoff at maturity can be approximated by an option valuation framework such as , with representing future equity value, the exercise or conversion price, implied volatility and time to exercise. In practice, private mezzanine providers blend scenario analysis, covenant-driven downside modelling and market return benchmarks rather than relying purely on closed-form formulas, but the underlying intuition is that junior credit plus optionality must collectively deliver a target internal rate of return commensurate with observed market ranges . Investor protections and covenant structures Given their subordinate ranking and dependence on enterprise value, mezzanine investors place heavy emphasis on contractual protections. Typical structures include covenants addressing maximum leverage, minimum interest coverage, limitations on additional debt incurrence, restrictions on dividend payments and change-of-control provisions . Subordination terms specify not only payment priority but also standstill obligations and intercreditor agreements that govern how mezzanine and senior lenders behave in default scenarios . Many transactions are documented with so-called incurrence covenants, focusing on preventing value-destroying actions such as asset sales or excessive distributions, rather than maintenance covenants tied to quarterly ratios, although practice varies by market and deal size . Equity kickers are often accompanied by detailed anti-dilution mechanisms designed to preserve the lender's economic stake if new capital is raised at lower valuations, and by negotiated rights around information, board observation and veto powers on major corporate actions . These features collectively aim to ensure that mezzanine capital is genuinely long-term and patient, while preserving senior lenders' priority and owners' operational flexibility. Debates around classification and balance-sheet treatment One area of ongoing debate concerns whether mezzanine instruments should be classified as debt or equity for accounting, regulatory and rating agency purposes. Corporate finance training materials and institutional guides note that mezzanine financing is often treated as equity or quasi-equity on internal leverage tests, particularly when interest is largely payment-in-kind and principal ranks structurally behind bank facilities . Yet legal documentation commonly defines mezzanine as debt, with fixed obligations and default remedies resembling those of bonds, albeit subject to subordination . Rating agencies and bank regulators may assess mezzanine differently depending on features such as mandatory coupons, deferrable interest, maturity profile and equity conversion terms, which creates complexity for issuers seeking to optimise reported leverage and regulatory capital . From an economic standpoint, the instrument clearly embeds both creditor and residual claimant characteristics: the lender has contractual rights to cash interest and principal, but also participates in upside via warrants or conversion, and often shares downside beyond senior thresholds. This duality fuels academic discussion about whether mezzanine should be modelled as part of the firm's financial leverage or partially as equity, with implications for cost of capital calculations and capital optimisation strategies . Why mezzanine debt still matters in modern markets Despite the growth of direct lending, high-yield bonds and private equity, mezzanine debt continues to play a distinct role in corporate funding ecosystems. Institutional investors such as private credit funds, insurance companies and dedicated mezzanine vehicles value the asset class for its combination of contractual income and equity-like upside, which can diversify portfolios relative to pure senior loans or buyout equity . For borrowers, mezzanine offers a way to undertake transformational transactions without breaching senior lender constraints or surrendering extensive ownership stakes, effectively monetising the firm's future earnings and enterprise value at a negotiated price . The term's persistence in practitioner discourse reflects a structural reality: as long as capital structures comprise layered claims with differing risk tolerances, there will be a commercial niche between low-risk senior debt and high-risk equity. In that niche, hybrid instruments such as mezzanine debt will continue to evolve, incorporating features like payment-in-kind toggles, preferred equity tranches and bespoke covenants, but still embodying the core function of bridging the funding gap in exchange for a risk-adjusted blend of yield and optionality .
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |