The callback to the office era is fully here. If "hybrid policy update" or "collaboration requirements" just landed in your inbox, I'm sorry. Emma Grede sparked debate recently claiming WFH is a career killer for women. I think that take needs a light facelift, if you're in a job you're not passionate about in the first place.

Probably, you didn't lose your spark, but rather traded it. 40 of your best weekly hours, when you're sharp, energised, and at full capacity, exchanged for a salary. Does that swap actually make sense for where you're going?

Get clear on why you're even there in the first place. Is corporate your actual destination, or just a vehicle? Are you there for the payslip while you build something else, to learn a specific skill, grow a network? Because "WFH kills your career" only holds if that career is genuinely where you're headed.

If you are ambitious and have ever tried to change your life, like getting into your best shape, or building a business or a side hustle, AND have a regular corporate job, I bet you probably know what a burnout looks like. WFH might be the one solid reason for grasping on to a corporate job, and it actually being worth it, if the job serves as a vehicle for something else.

The 40-hour week was designed to keep workers productive enough to keep showing up. Then add the commute on top, early mornings, packed transit, mental energy spent before your day has even started. It's capacity that could be going toward your own goals instead, in my POV.

Your time is an investment, make sure it's going somewhere that returns something to you.

The IPO of SpaceX has people talking, not just because it could be the largest in history at a $2 trillion valuation, but because the filing reads like Elon went straight from a tarot reading to his lawyer's office, got high, and then wrote the IPO filing.

He plans to establish a lunar economy and develop human augmentation systems using technologies that do not exist (they literally wrote that in the filing). So this bet is on a future that hasn't been invented yet.

Here's what's worth knowing though: SpaceX isn't really a rocket company. Rockets are the headline, but Starlink, its satellite internet service, generated $11.4bn in revenue last year versus $4.1bn from launches. What you're actually looking at is a global internet infrastructure business that owns its own supply chain to orbit.

So if you want space exposure: they're reportedly reserving up to 30% of shares for retail investors, roughly three times the usual allocation. Given his track record, I'd believe him. But at $2 trillion, the question isn't whether SpaceX can win, it's whether there's anything left in the price for you. Then again, maybe the rules are different in a lunar economy hehe.

Markets hit record highs this week. Consumer sentiment also just hit an all-time low. Hold both of those thoughts for a moment.

The S&P 500 closed out its eighth consecutive week of gains, up 18% from its wartime lows. The fuel was: optimism around a US-Iran ceasefire deal, and an AI-driven tech rally. The less comfortable story is that at the same time: Brent crude is sitting near $100 a barrel; the incoming Fed chair Kevin Warsh, who replaces Powell this week, is inheriting an institution that's now openly discussing rate hikes, not cuts; the strait is still effectively closed, adding further pressure on global energy.

So even though our portfolio still looks fine on paper (for now), the gap between what markets are doing and what people are actually feeling is the drunk elephant in the room. Everyone knows he's there, but nobody knows what he does next.

Record high stocks and record-low consumer sentiment don't cancel each other out.

Great news for the non-alcoholic beverages market, which (fun fact) is where my first angel investment is placed. The segment is forecasted to hit $1.5 trillion by 2031, and the newcomers are defining the category while the big names scramble to catch up. The brands winning are Ghia and De Soi in America, and Seedlip, Villbrygg and Noughty in Europe.

The health angle is strong, De Soi have made GymTonic pop-ups in wellness studios, creating a playful concept from the alcohol-centric culture into something wellness-centric. Less inflammation, better sleep, more money, the trade-off was always clear, and the culture just finally caught up. 75% of Gen Z say they've pulled back on drinking in the past six months.

If you designed a substance specifically made to undermine your body's recovery, you'd land somewhere close to a glass of wine. I believe the rise of Oura rings, and the decline of alcohol consumption is pretty 1:1. But what makes GenZ different from previous generations is the social permission, not drinking used to require an excuse, now it seems like more of a preference.

Personally, I'm not a big drinker, but also don't shy away from a glass of wine every now and then, IF I'm in the right half of my cycle. Alcohol affects you quite differently through your cycle, we are actually less vulnerable to alcohol's cognitive impairment when estrogen peaks around ovulation. Your body is, relatively speaking, handling it better. Luteal phase is exactly the opposite, so if your second half of the month already feels harder, that glass of wine won't actually be taking any edge off.