Our dinner in Greenwich, the preferred lush suburban haven of Wall Street, was unlike any other. We gathered in the home of the most successful trader of our era. 

Jeff Koons’s Balloon Dog sculpture adorned the driveway. Inside, the walls were festooned with paintings from his fabled collection of impressionist and contemporary art, which would make many museums envious.  

As is customary at our events, each attendee submitted a chart to discuss with the group. Please find a summary of the charts and discussion below.

Chart 1: Long Elixir “Obesity is just the canary in the coalmine for pharmaceutical companies.”

Chart 2: Short Invasion “Could it be that, contrary to popular belief, a Trump victory in November would actually be negative for the economy and markets?”

Chart 3: Long Pollyanna “The likelihood of encountering a harmful cycle of job cuts, income loss, and worsening  unemployment is slim.”

Chart 4: Long Suits In a few years, we will start to question the work-from-home revolution and reconsider the notion that the office is obsolete. 

Chart 5: Short Destiny If incomes continue to rise at their current rate and mortgage rates were to decrease by just one percentage point, it will significantly alleviate the affordability issue.

Chart 6: Long Terminator “Defense has shifted from being a taboo area for allocators to one where the narrative now revolves around saving lives.”

Chart 7: Short Discord Trade imbalances need to be taken seriously again and there are some geopolitical matters that still aren’t receiving significant attention. 

Chart 8: Short Beliefs “Limiting beliefs restrict a portfolio manager’s performance.”

Long Elixir


In the early 2000s, as several blockbuster drugs lost patent protection, the pharmaceutical industry shifted its research and development (R&D) focus from widely prescribed medicines to “niche” precision medicines targeting smaller patient populations, such as those of cancer. 

In 2000, the global revenue from the top 10 pharmaceutical drugs was $36 billion, serving 112 million patients in the US. By 2010, the 10 highest-selling drugs generated $71 billion globally, reaching 62 million US patients. In 2020, the top 10 drugs saw their global revenues rise to $93 billion, yet they served only 18 million US patients.

The financial impact of this reduced breadth was offset by rising drug prices. With Medicare prohibited from setting drug prices, the median launch price for a new drug soared from $2,115 per year in 2008 to $180,007 in 2021. Consequently, Americans are paying more for blockbuster drugs than the rest of the world combined. 

Although R&D costs are often cited to justify the high prices of cancer drugs, data suggests that major pharmaceutical companies earn $15 for every $1 spent on R&D. From 2016 to 2020, the leading drug companies spent $56 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than on R&D. “Instead of prioritizing patient care, big pharma focuses on the financial interests of shareholders,” the speaker laments. 

The abundance of new cancer drugs has not significantly improved patient- and population-level outcomes. The American Cancer Society estimates an average annual decline of 1.7 percent in cancer-related mortality over the past decade. While this decline is encouraging, it is largely attributed to reduced lung cancer mortality, which may primarily reflect changes in smoking habits. 

Everyone is stunned. There was a general sense that Big Pharma was unethical, but no one realized it was this extreme. 

“What are your thoughts on the hype surrounding GLP-1 drugs?” a participant asks. 

“First and foremost, addressing the root causes of prevalent chronic diseases—such as managing blood pressure, lipoproteins, blood sugar, body mass, and kidney function—holds significant benefits for the planet, as they contribute to a loss of $5-10 trillion in annual GDP," the speaker replies.

"Investing in this manner arguably presents one of the most undervalued opportunities in biopharmaceuticals. However, it’s avoided for good reasons: thorough analysis reveals mid-single-digit returns for most investments due to the generally poor efficiency of product discovery, development, and commercialization.

“Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly are in the spotlight because they didn’t withdraw from prevalent chronic disease categories, particularly type-2 diabetes, unlike other biopharmaceutical firms. As a result, equity returns for the pharmaceutical industry have split into the haves and have-nots.”

Having sold his previous company to Novartis for $9.7 billion, the speaker is now embarking on his next endeavor: a startup geared towards advancing a suite of peptide and peptide-antibody conjugate drugs all based on GLP-1 agonists. “Obesity is just the canary in the coalmine,” he asserts, “our perspective is that GLP-1 likely forms the foundation or cornerstone of virtually anything one pursues.” 

“GLP-1 receptor agonists have demonstrated effectiveness not only for weight loss but also for cardiovascular illness and sleep apnea, and there’s potential for treating neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease,” the speaker continues.  “When the time comes for us to conduct large Phase 3 trials, we will be able to stack therapies into a syringe and target broader health outcomes, such as cardiovascular health and neurological improvement, with weight loss being considered a secondary endpoint.”

With the emergence of opportunities showcased by the GLP-1 agonist movement and the adoption of specialized technologies like small interfering RNA (siRNA), applied not only to rare diseases and subsets of cancer and inflammation but also to common diseases, along with a significant shift towards global industrial efficiency rather than relying solely on price permissiveness in the dominant US market, and of course, the integration of AI into the equation, investing in mitigating premature death, disease, and suffering has never been more appealing.

Explore the leading causes of mortality worldwide and assess whether key players in life sciences and healthcare are poised to pivot their attention towards addressing these larger issues. Those who do may experience growth akin to that of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. The speaker highlights that blood pressure represents a significant opportunity, with Roche making substantial investments in this area.

Short Invasion 


The US stands out among advanced economies for reaping unparalleled benefits from immigration, yet the full extent of its impact is still not fully appreciated. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), net immigration totaled 2.6 million in 2022 and 3.3 million in 2023, rising from an average of 900,000 a year from 2010 to 2019. The influx of immigrants has boosted payrolls and sustained economic growth despite the Fed’s tightening campaign. A large proportion of immigrants are 25 to 54 years old—adults in their prime working years.

The CBO has raised its estimate of the labor force in 2033 by 5.2 million people, with most immigrants arriving by 2027. This will boost real GDP by 0.5 percent per year from 2024 through 2028, amounting to a $7 trillion benefit to the economy.

“The impact will be widespread,” says the speaker, “creating more demand for housing, consumer credit companies, used cars and appliances, and services, especially those that cater to middle-income and lower families.” 

The immigration surge can also help address the issue of limited labor mobility. Unlike many native households, immigrants often lack strong local support networks nor face mortgage-lock-in challenges that discourage relocation. Their eagerness to work and establish economic stability can fill roles that some younger workers may deem undesirable, especially in the wake of the pandemic. Industries such as agriculture, hospitality, construction, manufacturing, maintenance, and home healthcare heavily depend on workers with varying skill levels.

“A generally stronger economy, alongside higher demand for goods and services, means that rates may stay higher for longer,” the speaker adds. “This would be bad for bonds and companies that need rates to come down for refinancing purposes.” There are some other negatives too, such as lower real wages in general, social upheaval, and more volatile inflation.

Immigration is a particularly thorny issue given an election year. About 28 percent of Americans named immigration as the most important problem facing the US, according to a Gallup survey. The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The US had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has vowed to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” planning mass detention camps and raids targeting millions of undocumented immigrants. This goes well beyond trying to secure the border against new unauthorized entrants—a reasonable goal—and poses a risk to the labor supply.

“Could it be that, contrary to popular belief, a Trump victory in November would actually be negative for the economy and markets?” ponders one participant aloud. We exchange glances, silently concurring.

Long Pollyanna


During last year’s dinner in Greenwich, the speaker accurately forecasted that the US economy would steer clear of a recession. “I’m doubling down on my call,” he asserts. “The likelihood of encountering a harmful cycle of job cuts, income loss, and worsening  unemployment is slim.”

Inflationary pressure and rising interest rates are signs that we are leaving behind secular stagnation and entering an era of higher demand. While job openings have decreased from 2.03 for every unemployed person in March 2022, when labor shortages were at their peak, to 1.32, the ratio remains higher than it was pre-pandemic; the previous record high was 1.24.

“This is incentivizing more productivity-enhancing investment,” says the speaker. “The breakthrough in artificial intelligence has arrived precisely when needed.” 

He anticipates that AI will profoundly impact various facets of the economy and markets, such as productivity, gross margins, and the reconfiguration of  spending and activity as new industries gain economic viability and disposable income is freed up—producing dramatic winners and losers.

“More than one-third of business leaders say AI replaced workers in 2023. How come this is not showing up in the claims data yet?” a participant asks. “It’s early,” the speaker explains. “Companies are still figuring out the technology, assessing the regulatory landscape, and experimenting with AI across a wide range of tasks.”

We are seeing rapid AI adoption in a few pockets of the economy, like customer contact centers and software engineering. However, both industries remain modest in the context of the overall economy. Contact centers comprise approximately 1.8 percent of the US workforce, equivalent to about 2.9 million individuals, while software developers account for roughly 1.1 percent of US employment, totaling around 1.7 million people.

“Many studies examining the timeline of AI adoption predict that the major productivity impacts will materialize in the 2030s or 2040s, not the next few years,” a participant interjects. Historically, general-purpose technologies like electricity or computers—had a measurable impact on productivity around one to three decades after the technological capability emerged.

“The primary benefits typically don’t come from doing the same processes faster, but rather from the totally new approaches that they enable—and it takes time to identify and adopt these approaches.”

This prompts the question: Will the massive AI-related capex (of the order of $50 to $100 billion per year) deliver meaningful ROI? There were concerns that the current hype surrounding the AI boom is exaggerated in the short term, and that the prevailing market narrative can shift swiftly. 

Long Suits


Four years have passed since the pandemic first shuttered office doors. Many corporations continue to downsize their office spaces due to the rise in remote work. Even on the busiest day of the week, office occupancy levels remain at just 62 percent of their February 2020 average, dropping to around 35 percent on Fridays. 

Vacancy rates have surpassed the peaks seen in 1986 and 1991, while office building prices have declined by over 40 percent. Approximately $265 billion worth of US office loans are set to mature between 2024 and 2025, leading to an increase in sales and restructuring activities.

The speaker downplayed concerns regarding a decline in commercial real estate (CRE) values posing a systemic risk to the overall economy. Having pioneered the subprime trade in 2008, he has an intricate understanding of credit markets and the banking system.

“Stress within the CRE sector primarily impacts offices, which represent a small share of bank loans and economic activity,” he elaborates. “While certain banks with greater exposure to the sector may incur larger losses, the risk is spread out, and the banking system is equipped to absorb these losses.” 

He is selectively buying CMBS securities, which are not doing as poorly as the headlines suggest (see chart). There remains plenty of equity in many properties, a high percentage of loans are being paid on time, and demand for deals has driven spreads tighter, with CMBS bonds rated BBB- shrinking more than 250 basis points from a year ago. 

Another participant is bullish on malls. “The death to retail narrative has grown stale and worn out,” he says. “The retail apocalypse never happened.”

Despite expectations that the pandemic would expedite shopping online, e-commerce still accounts for only 15.6 percent of US retail sales, peaking at 16.5 percent in the second quarter of 2020. E-commerce and physical retail are now viewed as synergistic, with the opening of brick-and-mortar stores having the potential to enhance a brand’s online sales.

In the first quarter, the national retail vacancy rate stood at 5.4 percent, close to the lowest level observed in the past two decades. Average asking rents in the sector are up 17 percent cumulatively from 2019. Shopping centers have gotten more diverse—there are medical offices, gyms, day care centers, and pickleball. 

Over the past decade, there has been minimal retail construction, and with the closure of class B and C malls, we’ve shifted from an oversupply to an undersupply situation in the sector. Last year, just 8 million square feet of new retail space was constructed—that’s compared to about 20 million in 2019 and above 40 million a decade ago.

Similar to the shift in narrative surrounding malls, the participant anticipates that, in a few years, we will start to question the work-from-home revolution and reconsider the notion that the office is obsolete. To which the speaker adds, “Buy horrible, get mediocre, win,”—suggesting that acquiring cheap assets that may yield only mediocre outcomes can still result in success. 

Short Destiny


Interest rates constitute one aspect of the equation that can influence the short-term supply and demand dynamics of real estate. Demographic trends wield far greater influence over the long term and can shape the fate of specific real estate assets. There are several reasons for this. 

Demand: Different age groups have distinct housing needs and preferences. For example, as millennials enter their prime household formation years, there will likely be an increase in demand for starter homes. Conversely, empty nesters and retirees may opt to downsize to smaller residences or explore senior living options. 

Location: Demographic shifts can influence where people want to live.  A growing population of young professionals may affect the demand for urban condos or rental properties near workplaces and entertainment venues. Meanwhile, the cohort they are replacing or buying from may prioritize suburbs with reputable schools.

Supply and Pricing: Demographic trends can influence the supply of housing stock and property values. For example, a rise in retirees selling large homes may increase inventory in suburban areas, potentially impacting prices in those regions.

“By grasping these demographic trends and their timing, real estate investors can predict future market conditions and make informed decisions,” says the speaker, “regardless of fluctuations in interest rates.”

This leads him to the following recommendations: 

(1) Long senior living: The baby boomer cohort, currently aged 60-79, will start downsizing from their current residences, generating liquidity and ensuring financial stability for their future. As they grow older, they may opt for more active and independent senior living communities, transitioning to more supportive options as their needs evolve.

(2) Long single-family rental: Over the next decade, the 25–34-year-old population is projected to increase by 4.3 million, or 9 percent, reaching 51 million by 2033. The scarcity of starter homes will compel this cohort to favor renting, while those aged 40-49 seek to upgrade to larger and higher-quality homes. 

(3) Short housing inventory (toward the end of the decade): While it’s anticipated that baby boomers will downsize, the current bid/ask spread in housing may prompt them to wait and sell only towards the end of the decade when majority of the cohort is approaching 78+ years old.

“How do you think about homebuilders in this context?” a participant inquires. Despite the impact of high mortgage rates on affordability, homebuilder stocks have surged by over 130 percent since June 2022.

With the limited inventory of existing homes for sale (EHS) attributable to the lock-in effect—where homeowners with low mortgage rates are hesitant to sell and purchase new homes at significantly higher rates—potential buyers have turned their attention to new homes for sale (NHS). Following the 2008 financial crisis, only one out of 20 homes for sale was newly constructed. Presently, one out of three homes for sale is a new construction.

Homebuilders offered attractive incentives, such as below-market mortgage rates (referred to as “buy downs”), which rendered new construction more affordable. Consequently, NHS are now at levels significantly above the 12-year average (even surpassing 2019 levels), while EHS are at their lowest point in nearly three decades.

The combination of reduced housing inventory levels, solid employment, and favorable demographics has bolstered the new home market and homebuilder profit margins. New home construction in the US has thus surged to a 50-year peak in response to demand from the sizable millennial generation, currently in its prime homebuying years. 

“There is pent-up demand for moving, however,” the speaker elaborates, “and if incomes continue to rise at their current rate and mortgage rates were to decrease by just one percentage point, it will significantly alleviate the affordability issue.” He highlights growing inventories, price reductions, and longer days on the market, indicating that existing home sales may soon rebound to a more normalized level.

In 2022, when rates nearly doubled, many people held onto the memory of the good old days when mortgage rates were at 3 percent. The subsequent rise in rates seemed rather steep. Now, with the new anchor set at 8 percent, rates below 7 percent will seem more reasonable. Since interest rates peaked in late October, mortgage applications have been gradually increasing. 

“The bottom line,” the speaker concludes, “with EHS on the rise compared to NHS, it should provide a boost to EHS ‘flow’ stocks, which benefit from increased transaction activity, as opposed to homebuilders.” 

Long Terminator


In response to a new era of geopolitical uncertainty and shifting national security concerns, countries across the world are transforming their military capabilities. This is creating opportunity for a range of new entrants to the defense industry.

The lion’s share of the nearly $1 trillion budget of the US Department of Defense (DOD) is earmarked for five established contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and RTX (formerly Raytheon). These industry giants trace their origins back to the consolidation of smaller firms that emerged during the 1960s, which were initially involved in projects for NASA’s supercomputer initiative, and early AI research at Stanford under DARPA. However, today they are grappling with challenges such as labor shortages, costly fixed contracts, and bureaucratic hurdles in Washington. Their share prices have notably lagged behind their European counterparts over the past year.

Amid rapid developments in advanced defense systems, the DOD has been gradually pivoting away from heavy hardware such as tanks, ships, and aircraft to technology driven solutions including AI, cybersecurity, robotics, and unmanned vehicles. New acquisition and budgeting authorities have been established, including the Defense Innovation Unit, an office of Strategic Capital, and the Replicator initiative to field autonomous, attritable systems. NATO has formed an innovation accelerator, DIANA, to foster collaboration with startups and other technology companies, while also unveiling the €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund focused on dual-use technologies.

“Startups are poised to meet crucial national security requirements, supplementing the traditional industrial base,” the speaker remarks. “Both government and venture funds are eager to provide capital, and founders are of high caliber, typically alumni from Tesla, Palantir, and SpaceX.” As the CIO of a university endowment, she notes that “defense has shifted from being a taboo area for allocators to one where the narrative now revolves around saving lives.” 

Short Discord


China’s industrial overcapacity—from steel to solar, to autos, to batteries—is a growing international concern. Officials in Washington and Brussels, who argue that Chinese companies are flooding global markets with cheap, excess production, undercutting domestic industries, are stuck between needing more Chinese technology to meet their climate change goals while also wanting to block it on the grounds of national and economic security.

China’s significance as a manufacturing hub has surged from about 5 percent of global manufacturing output in 1995 to roughly 35 percent in 2020. This production share surpasses that of the next nine largest manufacturing nations combined, including the US, Japan, and Germany. China’s trade surplus in goods has more than doubled since the pandemic, soaring from $400 billion annually to $900 billion, with no signs of shrinking. 

“Trade imbalances need to be taken seriously again,” the speaker suggests, “and there are some matters that still aren’t receiving significant attention.”

First, the Western reaction to China is anticipated to be considerably more assertive, regardless of whether Trump or Biden is elected, although their approaches would differ significantly in execution. However, the tensions within the Western bloc resulting from varying responses to Chinese overcapacity could be particularly pronounced, especially between the US and Europe.

“The Europeans cannot afford to provoke the Chinese,” the speaker explains. “Germany stands to lose the most in any trade dispute with China and has consistently worked to soften the firm stances taken by Brussels.”

Second, the competition between the US and China for control over manufacturing and transshipment hubs such as Mexico and Vietnam matters. These hubs are critical to the US’s strategy of fostering alliances, but China is increasingly integrating them into its value chains. Tariffs may redirect trade flows but they cannot curtail Chinese overcapacity.

BYD exported nearly 250,000 cars in 2023 and—even without the US or European markets—management have told investors they believe they can increase that by more than tenfold over the coming years. Moreover, BYD could still one day crack the US car market, even accounting for trade barriers and the rise of anti-Chinese sentiment.

China’s automakers plan to use new regional operations in places like Hungary and Mexico to enter Western markets with cheaper electric models. The average price of a new car in the US is about $48,000. BYD’s Seagull costs around $10,000. Even a 100 percent tariff would not make much of a dent in China’s competitive advantage. 

US automakers have largely shifted their focus away from the lower-price segment of the automobile market, directing their attention instead towards pick-up trucks and sports utility vehicles. 

“I find the entire discourse regarding Chinese overproduction to be hypocritical,” comments a participant. “China has ascended the value chain and achieved global dominance in various domains. Rather than bemoaning China’s unfair policies, especially as the West has its share, leaders would be more effective by strengthening their country’s economic competitiveness, fostering internal political cohesion, and working within the international economic system to mediate and alleviate tensions.”

In a recent study, authors identify product-level dominant positions in world trade, defined as a share of more than 50 percent of worldwide exports. China holds a dominant position in at least six times as many products as the US, Japan or any other country and twice as many products as the European Union considered as a whole. 

“From where I stand, China is already emerging victorious.”

Short Beliefs

The speaker recites a passage from Gay Hendricks’ book, The Big Leap.

What is the Upper Limit Problem? 

The subconscious self-sabotage that happens when we get a taste of something great, be it a promotion, a financial windfall, a great relationship, completing your first marathon, or any other measure of success. 

Each of us has an inner thermostat setting that determines how much love, success, and creativity we allow ourselves to enjoy. When we exceed our Upper Limit, we often do something that causes us to drop back into the old, familiar zone where we feel secure. Unfortunately, our thermostat setting usually gets programmed in early childhood, before we can think for ourselves. 

These limiting beliefs crop up to sabotage us, putting a cap on our happiness. It keeps us in our Zone of Competence or at best our Zone of Excellence. We must learn to live in our Zone of Genius.  

“I have an upper limit problem,” the speaker admits. “I frequently encounter unease in the face of achievement, likely stemming from my perception of self-worth. Rather than embracing boundless potential, I tend to impose restrictions on my aspirations, disguising it as pragmatism. Now, however, I realize that this mindset only serves to hinder my progress… Does this resonate with anyone else?” 

“I see this all the time,” remarks the participant with the most years of experience. As the founder of a multimanager hedge fund, he has interacted with numerous portfolio managers over the years. “Limiting beliefs restrict a portfolio manager’s performance.”

“Traders often experience euphoria and become careless after a win, leading them to give back substantial profits,” he elaborates. “Conversely, they may become fearful and defensive after a series of losses, which can generate self-fulfilling negative expectations. This leads them to take profits too quickly, aiming to offset previous losses, or prevents them from initiating quality positions because they are afraid of losing. Lack of emotional self-control has likely ruined more careers than any market event.”

“Did you face similar challenges earlier in your career, or were you simply born with a high inner thermostat?” a participant inquires. 

“I harbored limiting beliefs programmed from my childhood,” he says. “I addressed them by working with a psychiatrist in the 1980s and 90s. It’s crucial to identify and eliminate these conflicts as they arise. At sixty-eight, I remain committed to broadening my vision and striving for more ambitious goals.” 

“I agree,” remarks another participant. At sixty-five, he took a big leap and his new biotech startup is running head-to-head trials against Wegovy and Zepbound. “I’ve never been more excited.”

An Ivy League magna cum laude graduate who excelled in his investment banking training program, orchestrated the most lucrative trade amidst the global financial crisis, and became the central figure in a book and movie documenting his journey, now manages a $10 billion hedge fund. However, he confessed feeling as though the upper limit had transformed into a confining ceiling. 

“I had a vision of being inducted in the Hedge Fund Hall of Fame, and I’m coming to terms with the realization that it’s not going to happen,” he says. His credit fund has annualized 7 percent returns since inception, a highly respectable achievement, but he compares his performance rankings against those employing different strategies and achieving stronger returns. “So I always feel like I’m losing,” he admits, acknowledging the need to stop comparing himself with others.

“Comparison is the thief of joy,” Hendricks states in The Big Leap. This is why many successful—even highly successful—individuals can still feel unhappy, frustrated, or even like failures. Success isn’t a destination; it’s a lifelong pursuit of growth and self-discovery. We must learn to appreciate and celebrate our unique journey.

Another participant expresses that allocators often inquire in some form, “How are you doing relative to others?” His consistent response is that he has no idea. He holds no interest in what others are doing; instead, he has carved out a niche and finds joy in building his business.

He measures achievement in a healthier manner, focusing on his progress from where he started. As the first member of his Russian immigrant family born in the US and the second to attend college, he sometimes wrestles with feelings of being an impostor. Nonetheless, he relishes the opportunity to be recognized highly enough to have a seat at the table.

“I’ve always believed in the idea of ‘take the leap and the net will appear,’” a participant says. Her journey exemplifies this belief. 

Neither of her parents went to college, and they hoped she would enroll at a secretarial school. However, she always had a passion for art and studied both chemistry and art history. While running her own studio in Venice, California, she applied to Yale “on a whim” to enhance her skills as a business owner and was accepted into the MBA program. 

During her time at Yale, she aspired to acquire enough knowledge about finance and investing to assist museums in growing their endowments. She knocked on the door of David Swensen, the legendary investor who led the Yale Investments Office until his passing in 2021. “He looked at my résumé and said, ‘There’s not one thing that applies to what we do in this office, but come on in,’” she remembers. “David loved to teach people.”

She went on to lead a university endowment where she had begun her career as a curatorial assistant. She built the investment office “from scratch,” growing the endowment from $465 million to about $3 billion, outperforming every Ivy League institution, including Yale, for many years. In her office, she keeps a framed letter from Swensen in which he quotes Leonardo da Vinci: “Poor is the pupil who does not surpass the teacher.”

“I can relate to the upper limit phenomenon,” one of the participant comments. “More on my personal side than my professional one, though. This conversation serves as a reminder to devote more attention to the patterns interfering with my marriage. Perhaps it’s time for me to recalibrate my internal thermostat and allow myself to experience greater levels of love and abundance.”

Another participant reflects, “Eighteen years ago, during our first year of marriage, we sought the help of a marital therapist. It became apparent that I was hindering myself from attaining greater success than my father. That was a pivotal moment. Understanding which crucial emotions I’m suppressing, how much fulfillment and success I’m genuinely willing to accept, and where I’m obstructing my own path are all important questions to explore.”