Groven

The best seconds of every stream, every day
5-hour streams → 60 seconds worth watching

[Groven @grovenx]

A girl looked Clavicular dead in the eyes and admitted she'd cheat on her boyfriend without thinking twice 😭

"I have a boyfriend… but we don't really care."

[Groven @grovenx]

A girl made out with Clavicular on the boat while her best friend sat right next to them hiding her face, and the reason she couldn't look BROKE everyone 😭

"wait… he kissed me 2 minutes ago and now HER?"

[Groven @grovenx]

One girl thought she had finally WON Clavicular over, until two more climbed on him right in front of her 😳

"wait… I actually thought I was the ONLY one."

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular asked if BOTH girls could come with him, then found out they were actually best friends 😭

"wait… did her friend seriously just say yes for BOTH of them?"

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular pulled a curly blonde 10/10 on stream and kissed her right in front of her friends - one of them literally couldn't even LOOK 😭👀

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular got swarmed in a packed club, then out of nowhere he SWUNG on one of the guys and the entire place erupted 😱

"did he seriously just knock a dude out on stream?"

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular got mobbed by a crowd of HUNDREDS in the street, and somehow still pulled a girl and kissed her right in the middle of the chaos 🔥

"how is he pulling girls while the entire city is swarming him?"

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular's girl confronted him after seeing him make out with other girls on Twitter, until he hit her with the coldest response possible 👀

"Who gives a f***? I don't even know their names."😳

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular pulled up to a pool party and got completely SWARMED by girls, until one of them asked the question everyone was too scared to 😟

"Out of ALL of us… who would you actually pick?"

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular made out with a blonde at the club, until the girl standing right next to them said what everyone was thinking 😙

"So… am I next?"

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular let a group of girls fight over him on stream, until ONE finally asked what they were all thinking 👀

"Be honest… who was the best kisser?"

[Groven @grovenx]

A whole LINE of girls took turns kissing Clavicular one by one on stream 🔥

Clav was in comlete SHOCK😳

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular had TWO blondes on him at the club on stream - he kissed one, then went straight for the OTHER 😳🔥

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular pulled a curly blonde 10/10 on stream and kissed her right in front of her friends - one of them literally couldn't even LOOK 😭👀

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular was just filming his stream at the club until a 10/10 latched onto him and REFUSED to leave his side 😳💀

[Groven @grovenx]

Clavicular made out with a 10/10 on stream while the NEXT girl stood right there waiting for her turn 😭👀

[Groven @grovenx]

Pudgie did jumping jacks in StableRonaldo's room and shook the whole place like an earthquake - everyone just kept yelling "God dang… you good??" 😭

[Groven @grovenx]

Madi2Hotty fought Kai Cenat's brother after calling Kai's sister a B*TCH live on stream 😳

[Groven @grovenx]

Over ten years, $1,000,000 left alone in a plain index grew to about $2,260,000.
The same million handed to hedge fund elites came back as $1,360,000.

Same decade. Same economy. One side was run by the smartest people money can hire.

It lost. Badly. To a spreadsheet that charges almost nothing.

This isn't bad luck. It's arithmetic.

It has a name.

Two and twenty.

The classic fee: 2% of everything you hand over, every year - win or lose - plus 20% of any gains on top.

Sounds small. Follow one dollar for thirty years.

A fund earns a strong 10% a year, gross. Impressive. But 2% comes off the top before you see a cent, and 20% of what's left is skimmed again. Your real return quietly drops to about 6.5%.

Now let it run.
At 10% gross, one dollar becomes $17.45 over thirty years.
At your net 6.5%, that same dollar becomes $6.60.

The fund did the 10%. You kept the 6.5%.

That gap - $10.85 out of every $16.45 of profit never reached you. Roughly two-thirds of your lifetime gain went to the people managing it.

You took all the risk. They took most of the reward.

This is why the fee, not the genius, is the story. A manager has to beat a sleepy index by more than 3.5% every single year just to leave you exactly where you'd have been doing nothing - and almost none of them manage it for long. The compounding that was supposed to work for you quietly works for them.

Bookmark this. Next time someone sells you access to the "smart money," ask what they keep when they're wrong. The answer is 2%. Every year. Forever.

Old idea. Sitting in every finance syllabus, free, never behind a paywall.

They don't sell performance. They sell the story of performance and they charge you whether or not it ever arrives.

[Groven @grovenx]

A lottery flashes a $1,000,000,000 jackpot.

Take the cash instead of the payments and they hand you barely more than half - around $550 million.

After tax, closer to $350 million.

The "billion" was never real. Nobody lied. It's just one idea almost no one was ever taught.

Present value.

A dollar promised in 30 years is not a dollar. It's a fraction of one. That "billion" is 30 yearly payments stacked together and counted as if a dollar in 2055 weighs the same as a dollar today. It doesn't. Discount each one back to now and half the prize disappears before taxes even show up.

The same move is everywhere. The "$500 a month" car. The "0% financing." The pension quote. The "$10 million policy." Whenever the big number lives in the future, someone is selling you tomorrow's smaller dollars at today's full price - and counting on the fact that you can't tell the difference.

Andrew Lo teaches the whole thing at MIT, for free. Finance Theory. Session 2. Seventy-six minutes. A camera at the back of a lecture hall.

Learn this one equation and giant numbers stop impressing you. You start asking the only question that matters: what is it worth right now?

The lecture has sat on YouTube for over a decade. Free. A million people pressed play.

Almost none of them changed what they do with a dollar.

So the next time a number "later" sounds huge - what is it actually worth today?

[Groven @grovenx]

A bank can tell you, to the dollar, the most it will lose on 99 days out of 100 - and have absolutely no idea what happens on the 100th. That blind spot is the number the whole industry trusted its life to.

It even sounds safe. "We're 99% covered." Read the definition and the floor drops out.

Value at Risk.

One line: the most you'll lose over a set window, at a set confidence. A 1-day 99% VaR of $10 million means "on a normal day, we won't lose more than $10M - 99% of the time." Sounds like a seatbelt. It's a speedometer that stops reading at 80.

Because look at what it never tells you. That "1%" isn't a freak once-a-century event - 1% of about 250 sessions a year is two or three days every year, by design. And on those days VaR says nothing about how bad it gets.

Lose $11 million? $100 million? Enough to end the firm? The number is identical either way. It measures where the cliff edge is and stays dead silent about how far down the fall goes.

That silence isn't a bug people missed. It's baked into the math. VaR reports the threshold and deletes the tail behind it - the exact region where firms actually die.

This is how giants walked into 2008 looking bulletproof on paper. Balance sheets levered near 30 to 1, risk desks reporting calm, tidy VaR numbers every morning - right up until the losses landed in the 1% the number was built to ignore. The dashboard glowed green because it was designed to glow green until the very end.

The definition is public, it's plain, it fits in a sentence, and it's decades old. A single word - "confidence" - quietly hides the only losses that ever matter.

Most people who quote a risk number every morning have never once asked what it does on the day it's wrong.

[Groven @grovenx]

Pick one classmate. You get 10% of everything they earn for the rest of their life. Who do you buy? In 1998 the richest investor alive asked a room of students exactly that - and used it to expose the only asset that truly compound.

Warren Buffett stood in front of MBA students at the University of Florida and ran a thought experiment.

Pick one person. Not to befriend - to own. You collect 10% of their lifetime earnings. Who do you choose?

He said you wouldn't pick the highest IQ or the best grades. You'd pick the one you trust. The one who shows up, gives others credit, stays generous, keeps their word.

Then he flipped it: pick the classmate you'd sell short. It's never the least talented - it's the one who's dishonest, selfish, cuts corners.

And here's the line that lands: every quality on the "buy" list is a choice. None of them require talent. You can decide, today, to become the person everyone wants to own a piece of.

The best investment he ever described isn't a company. It's the habits you build before anyone is watching.

If someone could buy 10% of your future right now - are you a buy or a short?

[Groven @grovenx]

When you buy "the S&P 500," you are not buying 500 companies. The ten biggest can make up a third or more of the whole thing - while the smallest hundred, combined, barely move the number at all.

Everyone calls it "the index of 500."
Almost no one knows how the 500 are counted.

Cap weighting.

Here's the mechanism nobody explains. If all 500 counted equally, each would be worth exactly 0.2% - one five-hundredth. They don't.

Each company's slice is set by its total value, so the weights run from around 6-7% for the single largest down to roughly 0.01% for the smallest. That's a 700 to 1 gap between two names wearing the identical "S&P 500" label. One moves the number; the other is decoration.

Watch what that does. A $3 trillion leader ticking up just 2% adds about 0.14% to the index. A tiny member doubling - a full +100% moonshot - adds barely 0.01%.

So one giant twitching two percent outweighs a small company having the best day of its life, fourteen times over. The bottom of the list can catch fire and the headline number won't even blink.

So the famous figure isn't a vote of 500 equals. It's dollar-weighted. The top ten are the index; the next few dozen fill in the rest; and several hundred names below them are along for the ride, contributing hundredths of a percent each.

This is why the index can print an all-time high while most of its members are flat or bleeding. A handful of giants climb 2-3%, the headline climbs with them, and the story becomes "everything is up" - when the truth is "a dozen names are up, and they happen to own the scoreboard." Breadth and the number can point in opposite directions for months.

It also means the passive money pouring in every month buys more of what's already largest, by design - funneling fresh weight into the exact names already at 6-7%. The index isn't neutral. It has a built in bias toward whatever just won.

The rule is plain arithmetic, printed publicly, older than almost everyone quoting the number. One weighting choice decides what "the whole thing went up" even means.

Most people watching that single number every day have never asked which three companies were quietly moving it.

[Groven @grovenx]

A lottery flashes a $1,000,000,000 jackpot.

Take the cash instead of the payments and they hand you barely more than half - around $550 million.

After tax, closer to $350 million.

The "billion" was never real. Nobody lied. It's just one idea almost no one was ever taught.

Present value.

A dollar promised in 30 years is not a dollar. It's a fraction of one. That "billion" is 30 yearly payments stacked together and counted as if a dollar in 2055 weighs the same as a dollar today. It doesn't. Discount each one back to now and half the prize disappears before taxes even show up.

The same move is everywhere. The "$500 a month" car. The "0% financing." The pension quote. The "$10 million policy." Whenever the big number lives in the future, someone is selling you tomorrow's smaller dollars at today's full price - and counting on the fact that you can't tell the difference.

Andrew Lo teaches the whole thing at MIT, for free. Finance Theory. Session 2. Seventy-six minutes. A camera at the back of a lecture hall.

Learn this one equation and giant numbers stop impressing you. You start asking the only question that matters: what is it worth right now?

The lecture has sat on YouTube for over a decade. Free. A million people pressed play.

Almost none of them changed what they do with a dollar.

So the next time a number "later" sounds huge - what is it actually worth today?