Craevax Signals

If you live in Tarrant County in Texas, you've probably stared at your Notice of Appraised Value that's due mid-May and wondered why your taxes keep going up. I used to think protesting my value was complicated, risky, or something only professionals did.

Turns out, I was wrong.

This year, I finally sat down and went through the protest process on tad.org, and what I discovered honestly shocked me. The system is way easier than I expected — and I could have been doing this every single year.

Here's exactly what happened, what I learned, and how you can do it too.

The Big Secret: Protesting Your TAD Value Is Easy — And Expected

I always assumed protesting was a hassle. Evidence, hearings, paperwork, stress. Nope.

TAD actually expects homeowners to protest. Their entire system is built around it. And if you give them a reasonable opinion of value, they often just…accept it.

No hearing. No evidence. No drama.

Just a lower value.

If you've never protested before, you're exactly the kind of person appraisal districts count on staying quiet. But once you understand the process, you realize it's not a loophole — it's literally how the system is designed. So let's walk through the steps...

The one thing you MUST do by May 16

Submit a Notice of Protest (Form 50‑132) to TAD.

That's it. You do not need evidence ready by the deadline — only the protest form.

You can file it:

Online through your TAD account

By mail (must be postmarked by May 16)

In person at: 2500 Handley‑Ederville Rd, Fort Worth, TX 76118

You only need to check two boxes:

Market Value is incorrect

Property is unequally appraised

These two reasons preserve all your rights and allow you to argue value later.

You do not need to write a long explanation. A simple line like:

"I believe the appraised value is too high."

…is enough.

Although you can file by mail, the focus of this blog will be for filing online and if you prefer an automated review without providing evidence. Just log into your TAD account -> go to your property -> click "File Protest". It takes about 3 minutes.

You might be wondering if it is a good idea to try to argue your property value down instead of up. It is almost always in your best interest to protest down, not up. There is no strategic advantage to raising your value, and several reasons why lowering it is smart.

The appraisal district NEVER raises your value because you protested

This is a common fear, but it's not how Texas law works.

When you file a protest, your value cannot be increased above the Notice of Appraised Value you already received.

The worst‑case scenario is: your value stays the same.

So there is zero downside to trying to bring it down.

Why lowering your value is almost always the right move

Here's the real‑world logic:

1. Lower value = lower taxes every year

Even a small reduction saves you money every single year going forward.

2. Your homestead exemption protects you

Once your homestead exemption is approved:

Your taxable value can only increase 10% per year (the "cap").

A lower starting point means lower taxes forever.

3. Appraisal districts routinely overvalue homes

Especially in fast‑growing areas. Protesting is normal — over 40% of homeowners protest in some counties.

4. You're not hurting resale value

Your appraisal district value has nothing to do with:

market value,

what buyers will pay,

or what a realtor lists your home for.

It only affects property taxes.

5. HELOC lenders do NOT use your TAD value

They use a professional appraisal ordered by the bank. Your TAD value could be:

way too high,

way too low,

or totally wrong…

…and the lender doesn't care. They rely only on the appraiser's report.

So lowering your TAD value has zero effect on your HELOC approval or loan amount.

6. Buyers do NOT use TAD values to decide what to pay

Buyers look at:

market comps,

listing price,

condition,

interest rates,

neighborhood demand.

They do not look at the appraisal district value to decide what your home is worth.

Realtors will tell you the same thing: TAD values are not market values.

7. Lowering your TAD value actually helps future buyers

Because it lowers their projected property taxes.

Lower taxes = more attractive home.

Some buyers even ask:

"Why is the tax value so high?"

So a lower value can make your home easier to sell, not harder.

8. Your homestead cap protects you long‑term

Once your homestead exemption is approved:

Your taxable value can only rise 10% per year.

A lower starting point means lower taxes forever.

If you don't protest now, you lock in a higher base value that compounds every year.

9. When would a higher TAD value help you?

Almost never.

The only edge case:

You're selling to a buyer who mistakenly thinks TAD = market value (but agents correct this instantly).

Even then, it's not a real advantage.

Hopefully you are now at ease with gunning for the protest so let's walk through the tough questions:

"Automated Market Value Review Enter your opinion of value below to begin the protest process. This value will be used in the calculation for your automated value review. Your Opinion of Market Value*"

The "Opinion of Value" Box Isn't a Trap — It's the Shortcut

When you file online, TAD asks for:

Your Opinion of Market Value

This freaks people out. It freaked me out. I didn't have evidence. I didn't have comps. I didn't have anything.

But here's the truth: This number is not binding. It's just used to run an automated review.

TAD showed me three numbers. For the sake of this exercise here are some hypothetical numbers:

Property Market Value: $188,021

Indicated Value from Sales: $219,540

Indicated Value from Equity: $187,353

These numbers are TAD's own internal estimates:

Property Market Value: $188,021 This is the value they officially assigned you.

Indicated Value from Sales: $219,540 This is what their sales model thinks your home might be worth based on comps.

Indicated Value from Equity: $187,353 This is what your home should be worth based on similar homes' appraisals (equity approach).

That last one — the equity value — is TAD's own internal estimate of what similar homes are appraised at. So I entered:

$187,353

The equity value ($187,353) is lower than the market value ($188,021).

That means:

TAD's own system is already suggesting your value is a bit high.

You have a built‑in argument for a reduction.

You don't need outside evidence to justify a small adjustment.

A reasonable number. Not extreme. Not risky. Do not enter $0 or something absurd like $100,000 if your home is worth $350,000. The system will ignore it and it makes the automated review useless.

And guess what?

TAD instantly matched it.

Why this number?

It's defensible because it's TAD's own calculation.

It's reasonable — not too low, not too high.

It triggers the automated review without raising red flags.

It keeps your protest fully valid and gives you room to negotiate later.

This is exactly what most experienced homeowners and tax agents do when they don't have evidence ready.

The Automated Offer: A Real Reduction With Zero Effort

After submitting my opinion of value, TAD responded with:

Final Market Value: $187,353

Exactly what I entered. The response will look something like this:

Account Number: XXXXXXX Situs Address: XXXX XXXXXXXX Thank you for submitting your opinion of Market Value. The Automated Market Value Review takes your opinion of market value and measures it against the district's evidence. The Final Market Value below is the best and final offer. In order to accept this Final Market Value, you must digitally sign this form and acknowledge the terms. This agreement or joint motion agreement will be available to sign until the protest deadline. Market Value Before Settlement: $188,021 Your Opinion of Value: $187,353 Final Market Value: $187,353 Decision If you accept please click Accept to sign and finalize the offer. If you disagree please click Reject/protest. Continuing to protest will allow you to upload evidence for an appraiser to review prior to your hearing. If an offer can be made, you will receive it by mail. Your Decision* I Accept this offer of $187,353 I Reject this offer and wish to continue in filing a protest I Reject this offer of and DO NOT wish to continue in filing a protest

All I had to do was click Accept, sign the joint motion, and I was done. No hearing. No evidence. No back‑and‑forth. This is the choice most homeowners make when TAD matches their number.

Naturally, you could choose one of the other two choices:

Reject and continue protesting if:

You believe your home is worth less than the hypothetical $187,353

You have (or can get) evidence of repairs, damage, or lower comps

You want to push for a bigger reduction

You're comfortable with the hearing process

Reject and NOT continue protesting if:

You want to keep the original hypothetical $188,021

(Almost nobody chooses this)

Assuming you choose Accept, next you should see this:

Joint Motion - Section 41.47 (g-1) Consent to a joint motion is required to complete this form online. Use this form as my protest before the protest deadline with the Tarrant Appraisal Review Board (TARB). The grounds of protests are value is over market value and/or value is unequal compared with other properties. I am the owner or I am a Texas Licensed Property Tax Consultant for this property. If the authorized agent: I have a current Appointment of Agent form on file with the Tarrant Appraisal District. My authorities include, but may not be limited to, the right to file and present protest matters before the TARB. I affirm, under penalty of law, that the information and documents I have presented to Tarrant Appraisal District concerning the above property are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that all such documents will become part of the official government record and no additional evidence will be presented in this matter. The property owner waives all rights to any notice of the date and time of the hearing on this protest. This electronic form is the 41.47(g-1) joint motion with the Chief Appraiser, and no other motion is contemplated. I request that the TARB or the Chair of the TARB, as applicable, issue an agreed order and that the agreed order be appealable in the same manner as any other order issued by the TARB under Section 41.47 of the Tax Code. By checking this box, I consent to the above Joint Motion.*

The Joint Motion Isn't Scary — It's Just the Final Step

Should you check the box and sign? In this hypothetical if you want the value $187,353 locked in and your protest closed: Yes — check the box and sign.

When you accept the offer, TAD shows a long legal form called a 41.47(g‑1) Joint Motion. It sounds intense, but all it means is:

You and TAD agreed on a value

No hearing is needed

The ARB will sign off on it

Your protest is officially closed

That's it. This then begs the question...

"Do You Really Need a Property Tax Protest Company?"

Many of the companies that send you letters every year use the same online protest system I used. In many cases, they simply file the protest, enter a reasonable opinion of value, and accept the automated offer — the same steps any homeowner can do for free. Some companies do go further when needed, but for most properties, the automated system is the entire process.

What Happens After Accepting a TAD Joint Motion

Once you click Accept on TAD's automated offer and sign the 41.47(g‑1) Joint Motion, the rest of the process is surprisingly simple. Here's exactly what happens next — no surprises, no extra steps, no hidden obligations.

1. Your New Appraised Value Is Locked In

The moment you sign the joint motion, your property’s value for the year becomes:

$187,353 (or whatever value you accepted)

This is now your official 2025 appraised value. TAD will update your account on the legacy site, usually within a few days.

2. Your Protest Is Automatically Closed

Accepting the joint motion ends your protest. That means:

No hearing

No evidence uploads

No informal review

No ARB appointment

No further action required

You're done for the year.

3. The ARB Issues an Agreed Order

The Appraisal Review Board (ARB) will sign off on the value you and TAD agreed to. This is a formality — you don't need to attend anything or respond to anything.

You may receive a copy of the agreed order by mail.

Your Homestead Exemption (If Pending) Applies to the New Value

If you filed a homestead exemption and it's still processing, it will apply to the new, lower value once approved.

This means:

lower taxable value

lower tax bill

a lower starting point for your 10% homestead cap

5. Your Taxing Entities Use the New Value Later in the Year

Cities, counties, and school districts set tax rates in late summer and fall. When they do, they'll use your new appraised value to calculate your bill.

You don't need to do anything — the system updates automatically.

6. You Can Still Protest Again Next Year

Accepting a joint motion does not affect your right to protest in future years. Every year is a clean slate.

And now that you know how easy the automated system is, you can repeat this process annually.

7. The New TAD Website Will Not Show Any of This

Please note that this writing what originally posted on May 25, 2026 and I had already completed my protest mid-May, so by the time you read this blog the situation with the dual sites can change. Because TAD is running two separate systems, your:

protest

joint motion

accepted value

exemption

ARB order

…will only appear on the legacy site.

The new site is not fully connected yet, which is why you needed two logins with two different password rules.

Bottom Line

Once you accept the joint motion, you’re done. Your value is lowered, your protest is closed, and the ARB will finalize the agreement behind the scenes. No hearings, no extra steps, no surprises.

So… Should You Do This Every Year? Absolutely

Once I realized how simple this was, I had the same reaction you probably do:

"I could have been doing this every year?"

Yes. You could have. And you should.

Protesting:

does not affect resale

does not affect HELOCs

does not hurt you

does not raise your value

does not require evidence to file

It only lowers your taxes.

If you've ever felt confused, intimidated, or overwhelmed by the Tarrant Appraisal District's systems, you're not alone. I was right there with you — juggling two different logins, navigating two different websites, and assuming the protest process was something only experts could handle. But once I went through it myself, I realized how straightforward it really is.

The truth is simple: TAD's system is built for homeowners to protest every year, and the online tools — even with their quirks — make it easier than ever. If you've been putting it off because it seemed complicated or risky, consider this your sign to take a closer look next time your Notice of Appraised Value arrives.

A few minutes of effort can save you money year after year. And now that you know how the process works, you're already ahead of the game.

But wait! There's More!

The Dual Login Mess: Why TAD Has Two Websites and Two Passwords

Here's the part that confused me the most. As of this writing (May 25, 2026) TAD currently runs:

1. The Legacy Site

This is the real system. It handles:

protests

evidence

exemptions

joint motions

automated offers

2. The New Site

This is basically a redesigned property lookup tool. It does not show:

protests

exemptions

homestead applications

evidence

settlement offers

And because they're separate systems, you need two different logins with two different password rules.

I happened to catch this Facebook article this month about an underrated yet important track record: https://www.facebook.com/CharlesworthAerospace/posts/spirit-airlines-has-built-one-of-the-quietest-safety-records-in-us-aviation-sinc/1460355398990694/

In a sad twist of fate, in the end it was Spirit Airlines that ended up killed.

I'm floored. Genuinely. Spirit Airlines — one of the last truly affordable ways to fly in this country — collapses, and instead of outrage, instead of concern, instead of even basic empathy for the people who relied on it, Americans are celebrating. Laughing. Making memes. Acting like the loss of a budget airline is some kind of cosmic justice.

Meanwhile, these are the same people who complain nonstop about rising prices, shrinking paychecks, and the cost of simply existing in this country. And yet when given a rock‑bottom option — a no‑frills, transparent, "you get what you pay for" airline — they mocked it into the ground.

This isn't about Spirit. This is about us.

Americans Want Champagne on a Beer Budget

Spirit's entire business model was simple: You pay a tiny fare. Everything else is extra.

That's it. No lies. No tricks. No hidden fees. They told you up front:

Bags cost extra

Seats cost extra

Printing your boarding pass costs extra

And people still acted shocked — shocked! — that the cheapest ticket in the sky didn't come with free champagne and a foot massage.

Americans want luxury at discount prices. They want premium experiences without premium costs. They want to feel rich without being rich.

And when reality doesn't match the fantasy, they get angry at the company instead of their own expectations.

Spirit Didn't Fail — Americans Failed the Concept of "Affordable"

Spirit wasn't a bad airline. It was an honest airline.

It said: "Here's the cheapest way to get from A to B. Everything else is optional."

Remember the hilarious Bare Travel commercials?

People hated that honesty. They hated being reminded that they chose the cheapest option. They hated the idea of looking "cheap."

So instead of accepting the tradeoff, they blamed Spirit for delivering exactly what it promised.

The Same People Complaining About Prices Are Buying $70k+ Trucks

This is the part that really breaks my brain.

Americans will:

finance a $70,000+ pickup truck

take out a 10‑year loan

buy a luxury SUV they can't afford

upgrade their phone every year

eat out constantly

…and then turn around and complain about grocery prices, airline fees, and the cost of living.

Spirit was the Toyota Corolla of airlines — cheap, reliable, no nonsense. But Americans want the BMW experience at Corolla prices.

And when they don't get it, they throw a tantrum.

The Loss of Spirit Hurts Real People

This isn't just about memes or brand reputations. This is about actual consequences:

Higher fares

Less competition

Fewer options for working‑class travelers

Entire routes disappearing

People in smaller cities getting priced out of flying entirely

I used Spirit. It helped me get home — twice in the last few months. It was affordable, predictable, and exactly what I needed.

Now that option is gone.

And people are cheering.

The Celebration Is Cruel — and Tells You Everything About American Culture

People aren't celebrating because Spirit was bad. They're celebrating because Spirit was cheap.

Mocking Spirit was a socially acceptable way to mock:

working‑class travelers

families on a budget

students

people who don't have money to burn

It was punching down disguised as humor.

And now that Spirit is gone, the same people will complain when fares go up — because they will.

This Wasn't a Coup — But It Was a Cultural Failure

No, the government didn't "take down" Spirit. No, there wasn't a conspiracy.

But there was a perfect storm:

a fragile business model

a failed merger

a fuel‑price spike

creditors refusing bailout terms

politicians weaponizing the collapse

a public that never understood the product

Spirit didn't die because it was bad. Spirit died because Americans demand luxury while pretending they're victims of rising prices.

I'm Angry Because I Lost Something Real

I lost an affordable way home. I lost a travel option that actually worked for me. I lost competition that kept fares sane.

And I'm watching people celebrate something that will hurt them — and me — in the long run.

I'm living in two Americas at once.

In one version, the headlines are glowing. The stock market keeps climbing, corporate earnings look strong, and every indicator suggests the economy is "healthy." If you only looked at the numbers, you'd think the average American worker is thriving.

But in the other America — the one most of us actually inhabit — people are struggling to find stable work, watching opportunities shrink, and feeling the ground shift beneath their feet. The disconnect between the macro story and the lived reality has never been wider.

This is the split‑screen economy. Capital is winning. Labor is losing. And the people in the middle are being squeezed from both sides.

For years, we were told that if you worked hard, built skills, and stayed adaptable, you'd always have a place in the market. That was the social contract. But the rules changed faster than anyone expected.

Global labor markets opened. AI matured almost overnight. Companies learned they could "get by" with cheaper alternatives. And entire categories of work — the ones that used to provide stability — suddenly became optional.

I'm not angry at the workers abroad. They're doing what any of us would do: using the tools available to build a better life. I'm frustrated by the silence around what this means for Americans who are watching their standard of living erode while being told everything is fine.

It's not fine.

We're not outdated. We're not unwilling to adapt. We're not imagining the pressure. We're just living in an economy where the ground moves faster than any individual can.

The hardest part is the lack of conversation. The decline in job stability, the downward pressure on wages, the shrinking demand for mid‑skill work — these aren't fringe issues. They're structural. And they deserve more than a passing mention in a quarterly report.

I don't have a tidy conclusion to offer. I'm still navigating this transition myself, trying to understand where my skills fit in a world that suddenly feels unfamiliar. But I do know this:

We need to start talking honestly about what's happening. We need to stop pretending the rising stock market reflects the lived experience of everyday people. We need to acknowledge the human cost of "efficiency."

For years, the conversation around AI has been dominated by two extremes: utopian optimism ("AI will free us to be creative!") and existential dread ("AI will destroy humanity!"). But in her recent interview with Steven Bartlett — and in her new book, The Truth About AI — journalist Karen Hao cuts through the noise with a far more grounded warning.

Not about killer robots. Not about runaway superintelligence. But about something far more immediate and far more human:

What happens to society when companies eliminate the bottom and middle of the labor market without thinking about who replaces the people at the top?

This isn't sci‑fi. This is economics. This is history. This is happening now.

The Moment Steven Bartlett Realized the Hole in His Own Argument

During the interview, Bartlett proudly explained how his company uses AI agents to wipe out repetitive tasks, admin work, and even mid‑level roles. He was almost bragging about how lean and efficient everything had become. Then Hao asked him a simple question that stopped him mid‑sentence:

"If you remove the entry‑level and mid‑level work, where do the next generation of experts come from?"

You could see the realization hit him. He laughed, but it wasn't a funny moment. It was the sound of someone recognizing the hole in his own logic.

He tried to recover by saying his CFO and senior people could manage the AI agents themselves. He even joked that the only jobs that can't be automated are the ones where you take clients out to lunch. But the damage was done. He knew it. Hao knew it. Anyone paying attention knew it.

The ladder he climbed is being dismantled in real time.

The Talent Pipeline Collapse No One Wants to Talk About

This is the part that business leaders, investors, and techno‑optimists keep glossing over.

When companies automate:

entry‑level roles

junior analyst roles

mid‑level operational roles

creative support roles

…they're not just cutting costs.

They're destroying the training ground that produces the next generation of:

managers

strategists

engineers

designers

leaders

And when the remaining experts retire, burn out, or move on?

There's no one left to replace them.

This isn't a hypothetical. This is a structural collapse.

The Race to the Bottom

When millions of displaced workers flood the remaining low‑skill jobs, wages fall. When wages fall, tax revenue falls. When tax revenue falls, governments strain. When governments strain, social stability cracks.

This is how societies slide into what economists call labor decoupling — when productivity grows but human participation in the economy shrinks.

It's not dramatic. It's math.

And here's the uncomfortable truth: companies don't fix this. They never have. When big institutions make catastrophic decisions — Countrywide, AIG, Boeing, Lehman — the pattern is always the same:

The company survives.

Executives walk away fine.

Workers absorb the damage.

The public pays the bill.

AI doesn't change that pattern. It accelerates it.

Karen Hao Is the First to Say It Clearly

Hao isn't anti‑AI. She's anti‑irresponsible deployment.

She's one of the first mainstream voices to articulate the real danger:

AI isn't just replacing jobs. AI is replacing the structure that produces skilled humans.

That's the part that should keep CEOs awake at night. That's the part that should keep policymakers awake at night. That's the part that should keep all of us awake at night.

What Happens When Too Many People Lose Work at Once?

History gives us a brutally consistent answer.

When large institutions screw up — Countrywide, AIG, American Airlines, Boeing — the aftermath is always the same:

The company survives.

Executives walk away fine.

Workers suffer.

The public pays the bill.

Nothing fundamental changes.

But AI introduces a new twist:

What happens when the number of displaced workers is too large for the public to absorb?

Who pays the bill when:

unemployment spikes

the tax base collapses

social programs strain

millions can’t find meaningful work

The answer is simple:

Everyone.

The Breakpoint Is Coming — and It's Not Far Off

Based on how fast AI is moving into operational roles, the real pressure point isn't 50 years away. It's closer to 10–20. Somewhere between 2035 and 2045, the old economic model will start to buckle. The labor market won't be able to absorb the number of displaced workers, and governments will be forced to step in.

That's when we'll see the shift toward:

new tax structures

new welfare systems

new definitions of work

new social contracts

The politicians won't suddenly become visionaries, but because the math stops working.

What This Means for Individuals — Especially Those in Midlife

If you're in your 40s, 50s, or 60s, you're living through the most volatile labor transition in modern history.

Many people have already experienced:

repeated job loss

downward mobility

shrinking opportunities

disappearing ladders

You didn't do anything wrong, but the system is shifting under your feet.

A paid‑off home? That's a fortress.

Diversified investments? They tend to survive transitions.

A willingness to adapt? That's the real advantage.

The ladder is gone. But stepping stones still exist.

The Real Question

The real question isn't whether AI will take all the jobs. It's what happens to a society when work is no longer the foundation of stability, identity, and economic participation.

The ladder is being sawed off in real-time. And the people who see it early — the ones who prepare, adapt, and plan — will be the ones who land on their feet.

You can purchase Karen Hao's book on Amazon.

Every few months, the same chorus rises: "The dollar is doomed! Gold is the only real money! Bitcoin will save us!"

And every time markets get shaky, something hilarious happens.

Here's the link for context: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gold-steady-near-5-000-065630369.html

And once again, the pattern repeats.

The loudest anti‑fiat evangelists — the ones who swear they've transcended the "corrupt" dollar system — sprint right back into U.S. dollars the moment volatility spikes. Not gold. Not Bitcoin. Not "sound money."

Dollars.

Why? Because ideology is optional. Liquidity is not.

Gold: The Hedge That Doesn't Hedge When You Actually Need It

Gold has a 5,000‑year résumé, but it's not magic. It doesn't protect you from every kind of market stress, and it certainly doesn't behave like a superhero during liquidity crunches.

When fear hits:

Traders dump gold to raise cash

Futures markets unwind

The dollar strengthens

Interest rates stay high

And suddenly the "ultimate hedge" looks suspiciously like every other asset — sliding downhill.

This isn't a failure of gold. It's a failure of the fantasy that gold is supposed to rise in every crisis.

Gold hedges inflation, not margin calls.

Bitcoin: The Asset That Wants to Be a Hedge but Trades Like a Tech Stock

Bitcoin's marketing says "digital gold." Bitcoin's chart says "leveraged NASDAQ."

When risk appetite evaporates, Bitcoin doesn't hedge anything. It amplifies the move:

Stocks fall

Bitcoin falls harder

Liquidity dries up

Bitcoin dries up faster

This doesn't make Bitcoin useless — it just means it's not the crisis‑proof asset some claim it is. It's a speculative, high‑volatility instrument that thrives on liquidity and momentum, not fear.

The Dollar: The Thing Everyone Pretends to Hate but Secretly Needs

Here's the part people don't like to admit:

The global financial system runs on dollars.

Not gold. Not Bitcoin. Not ideology.

When markets panic, the world needs:

Dollars for margin calls

Dollars for global trade

Dollars for debt servicing

Dollars for safety

The U.S. dollar is the deepest, most liquid asset pool on the planet. It's the fire extinguisher everyone swears they don't need — until the flames start licking the curtains.

The Real Story: Not Pump‑and‑Dump, Just Gravity

Gold isn't a scam. Bitcoin isn't a scam. But neither is the universal hedge their fans sometimes claim.

What you're seeing isn't manipulation or conspiracy. It's the gravitational pull of the dollar.

When the world shakes, everything — stocks, gold, Bitcoin, commodities — gets sold to raise cash. And that cash is almost always the same thing:

U.S. dollars.

As I step into 2026, I wanted my first post of the year to be something real — not polished, not performative, just honest. This isn't a victory lap or a highlight reel. It's a look back at the mistakes that shaped me, the lessons that stuck, and the quiet realizations that changed how I invest and how I think. If sharing this helps someone else navigate their own financial journey with a little more clarity and a little less fear, then it's worth putting into the world.

How It Started: The Paris Hilton Penny‑Stock Disaster

If I'm being honest, my investing journey didn't start a decade ago — it started back in the Scottrade days, when I bought a Paris Hilton penny stock and learned the true meaning of humiliation.

Most people begin their investing careers with index funds. I began with a pump‑and‑dump tied to a "modeling/entertainment" company that slapped Paris Hilton's name on it like a clearance sticker.

And the worst part? I bought it because a friend gave me what sounded like an insider tip — the kind of whispered "trust me, this one's going to pop" advice that preys on every beginner's FOMO. It was the first of two times in my life I let fear of missing out override common sense. (The second was the 2008 real estate crash, when I over‑leveraged myself into a personal demolition derby.)

This was my first "career" in stock trading. It lasted about five minutes.

I watched that thing spike, collapse, and take my dignity with it. After that, I sold everything else (thankfully at a profit), closed the chapter, and walked away from the markets like a character in a movie who'd just survived an explosion.

For a while, I was done.

But I never stopped watching.

2020: The Year the Market Broke… and I Recognized the Pattern

When the pandemic hit the stock market in March 2020, the market didn't just wobble — it collapsed in a way that felt eerily familiar.

Because this wasn't my first rodeo.

I'd lived through:

Black Monday — October 19, 1987

The Dot‑Com Bust — 2000 to 2002

The 2008–2009 real estate crash, which I personally fell victim to with a full‑blown "get rich" FOMO mindset that wiped me out

So when the world panicked in 2020, I didn't see chaos. I saw a pattern.

Every major collapse I'd witnessed had the same rhythm:

euphoria

denial

panic

capitulation

opportunity

And this time, I wasn't the rookie. I wasn't the one chasing hype. I wasn't the one getting swept up in the fear.

I combined everything I'd learned from decades of watching market cycles with the fundamentals I’d absorbed from:

Warren Buffett's discipline, and

the authors of "Chicks Laying Nest Eggs", who hammered home the power of steady, rational investing

And I swooped in like a vulture at a fire sale.

I still had a TD Ameritrade account — the successor to my old Scottrade days — and I started buying the mega‑dips. Not recklessly. Not emotionally. But with intention.

Little by little, I rebuilt my portfolio.

The Chase Experiment: Setting Up My Baseline Competitor

Later that same year, I kept hearing rumors about Chase's conservative performance. Some people defended them. Some shrugged. Some said they were "fine."

And I thought:

"Fine isn't good enough. Let's see what they can actually do."

So I transferred one of my old IRAs from Invesco to Chase — not because I expected brilliance, but because I wanted a baseline. A benchmark. A competitor.

Same starting point. Same market. Same timeframe.

And that's when the real comparison began.

The Setup: My "Managed" IRA That Wasn't Built for My Goals

In December 2020, I opened the managed IRA with Chase. In January 2021, I funded it with $23,903.16.

To be clear, Chase didn't "fail." Their managed portfolio did exactly what it was designed to do:

protect capital

minimize volatility

deliver steady, conservative returns

especially for people nearing retirement

It just wasn't aligned with my goals.

I'm comfortable with volatility. I'm comfortable with long‑term bets. I'm comfortable taking responsibility for my own decisions.

That's why my self‑directed strategy outperformed — not because they were wrong, but because we were playing different games.

Fast‑forward to December 2025 — five full years later:

Final value before I transferred it to my self‑directed IRA: 👉 $31,659.03

Note: This IRA was just one slice of my broader portfolio — the point isn't the size, but the difference in strategy and outcome.

Not terrible. Not amazing. Just… fine.

And "fine" is the most expensive word in investing.

Meanwhile, My Personal Portfolio Was Doing This…

At the same time, using the same starting point, my personal portfolio — the one I actually researched, managed, and adjusted myself — hit:

👉 $45,682.01

Same timeframe. Same market. Same starting point.

The difference? Turns out I was the edge all along.

Oh, and One More Thing: My Strategy Outperformed Theirs Three Years Straight

This wasn't a one‑off. It wasn't luck. It wasn't a fluke.

My self‑directed portfolio outperformed Chase's managed allocation three years in a row, including 2025.

But here's the important part:

We weren't playing the same game.

They were operating within a framework built for stability:

analysts

models

committees

guardrails

risk controls

I was operating with:

conviction

flexibility

long‑term focus

and the freedom to adapt quickly

So yes — my approach outperformed theirs. Not because they were wrong, but because I wasn't bound by the constraints that define a managed portfolio.

Bonus Chapter: The "Dip Buying" Mistakes That Taught Me More Than Any Win

Let's sprinkle a little salt on my own wounds too.

Back in 2020, I bought American Airlines (AAL) and Canada Goose (GOOS) because they were "cheap."

Cheap is not a strategy. Cheap is a trap.

And I fell right into it.

American Airlines: The Reverse‑Split Mirage

AAL had years — literal years — to recover. But the fundamentals were never there:

Heavy debt

Thin margins

A business model that struggles even in good times

Then came the reverse split — a cosmetic price boost that didn't change the underlying reality.

I held it too long. In December 2025, I finally said: "Enough. I'm done."

Canada Goose: The Goose That Cooked Itself

GOOS was another lesson wrapped in a parka.

The brand had global momentum — especially in Asia — until a series of missteps cracked the growth story. The fundamentals softened. The stock reflected that.

I waited for a turnaround that never came.

This month, I sold it too. Bu‑bye.

The Lesson These Trades Taught Me

Buying during a dip is not a thesis. A dip only matters if the company underneath it is strong enough to rise again.

AAL and GOOS weren't. And holding them taught me more than any winner ever did.

December 31, 2025: The Day I Finally Folded the Losers

New Year's Eve 2025, I did what I should've done years ago:

I sold the dead weight.

All of it.

And when I say "dead weight," here's what I mean — this is the actual lineup Chase had me holding:

CGLBX, BNDX, BND, GOVT, BBJP, VCIT, CRDOX, BBCA, BBEU, MBB, BBAX, PIMIX, CUSDX

A greatest‑hits compilation of:

bond funds

international funds

low‑volatility ETFs

"safe" allocations

and positions that barely moved for years

Basically, the financial equivalent of a beige waiting room.

And here's what I kept — the only things in that entire portfolio that actually aligned with my strategy:

CUSUX, CIUEX, VTI

Everything else? Gone. Folded. Cleared out like a garage sale.

And because this is a self‑directed IRA, I didn't owe a single penny in taxes for rotating out of them.

I freed up $14,857.91 in clean, tax‑sheltered capital.

That's not a setback. That's opportunity.

The Future: Redirecting Into What I Actually Believe In

With that capital freed up, I finally had the chance to put it into something that actually fits my long‑term strategy.

So I bought ASML.

Not because it was "on sale." Not because I was trying to time anything. But because ASML sits at the center of one of the most important technological bottlenecks in the world — advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Their moat isn't just deep; it's structural. There is no substitute for what they build.

Even if the price moved a bit before settlement, I'll live. This wasn't about catching the perfect moment. It was about aligning my capital with conviction.

And that's exactly what I did.

Final Thought: This Is the End of My Training Arc

My journey didn't start ten years ago. It started with a Paris Hilton penny stock that wiped out my dignity.

But everything since then — the comeback, the discipline, the wins, the losses, the lessons — built the investor I am today.

I'm not the rookie anymore. I'm not the student. I'm not the guy chasing hype.

I'm the manager now.

And the numbers speak for themselves.

The Lie

They told us we were being “freed” from grunt work. What they didn’t tell us was that we were also being freed from stable income, predictable clients, and the dignity of being paid fairly for our time.

The Disruption That Wasn’t

No-code tools, AI copilots, and automation didn’t democratize development—they commoditized it.

The projects that once paid the bills—basic apps, websites, integrations—are now DIY or outsourced to bots.

Small clients expect enterprise results on a Fiverr budget.

The Empowerment Myth

“You get to solve harder problems now!” Translation: more stress, more ambiguity, same (or lower) pay.

The devs who preach this gospel are often sitting on SaaS revenue, cushy retainers, or monetized audiences.

They’re not wrong—they’re just not representative.

Now imagine telling a salesperson or business owner:

“Congratulations! All of your high-volume, high-margin ‘easy wins’ have been eliminated. From now on, you’ll focus exclusively on chasing the hardest-to-find clients, closing deals that take ten times the effort, and earning a smaller commission for your trouble.”

Do you honestly think their reaction would be to cheer about “empowerment”? Not a chance. You’d hear a string of four-letter words, not motivational slogans.

The Real Cost

Freelancers and consultants are being squeezed out of the middle.

Junior devs are entering a market that no longer values entry-level work.

Burnout is rising, not because the work is hard—but because the reward is shrinking.

The Pivot or Perish Dilemma

To survive, devs must either:

Go upmarket (enterprise clients, niche specialization)

Build their own products (and become marketers overnight)

Or leave the field entirely

If you’re one of the “empowered” few, great. But don’t confuse your privilege with progress. And if you’re still grinding, still adapting, still trying to find footing in a landscape that changed without warning—you’re not failing. You’re enduring.

The Paradox of Simplicity

Warren Buffett's investing principles are simple, public, and endlessly repeated:

Buy businesses you understand.

Be patient.

Ignore short-term noise.

Hold for the long run.

Yet few follow them consistently. Ironically, that's why they work. Buffett's edge isn't secret knowledge — it's discipline. He resists fear and FOMO, while most investors chase trends or panic-sell.

My Own Journey

For most of my life, my passions were history and political science. Finance came later. And that's okay. Buffett himself didn't experience massive wealth until his 50s — the same stage of life where my own portfolio began to compound meaningfully.

I'll admit, sometimes I get teary-eyed when I think about it. For years I chased what everyone else was doing, trying to outsmart the experts and the market. Then I read The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life. It was the first book that explained not just what Buffett did, but why. His snowball metaphor made sense: wealth isn't built by brilliance or timing, but by patience, discipline, and compounding over decades. I stopped pretending I could beat the system and instead leaned into my natural instinct — to hoard, to wait, and to buy when fear ruled. That shift changed everything.

I've built my portfolio by living those principles, not just quoting them. Here are the moments that defined my approach:

Pandemic 2020: When the world panicked, I was cash-rich and bought aggressively. This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, just as 2001 and 2008 had been. Patience paid off — today I'm enjoying splits and rebounds.

Stock Splits: Every split was a chance to accumulate more. Tesla was a prime example.

March 2025 Panic: Another wave of fear, another chance to buy. I swooped in again.

Tech Dips (2022–2023): Amazon and Alphabet briefly traded near $100. I bought heavily, knowing their fundamentals were strong. Those positions have more than doubled.

Looking Ahead: With more splits this fall (Tesla, Netflix, etc.), I'm prepared to act again.

The Myth of "Saving Cash for the Apocalypse"

One argument I hear from panic sellers is: "I need to keep cash ready for the apocalypse."

Germany's history shows us that in true crises, cash becomes meaningless. After WWI, hyperinflation was so extreme that people wheelbarrowed cash down the street just to buy bread. And before WWII, rationing and shortages meant money couldn't buy what didn't exist. In real apocalypses, survival — not savings — becomes the priority.

The point? Cash only matters in functioning economies. In real-world investing, hoarding cash out of fear means missing opportunities. Crises that look like "apocalypses" to investors are actually temporary downturns. That's when disciplined buyers step in and build wealth.

Why This Works

Crises are rare: True "apocalypses" don't happen often. That's why patience is essential.

Execution beats knowledge: Everyone knows markets recover. Few have the courage to buy when fear dominates.

Positive-sum game: Investing isn't poker. When businesses grow, all shareholders benefit. My edge comes from acting rationally when it feels irrational to do so.

The Dilemma

If everyone followed Buffett's principles, opportunities would shrink. But here's the truth: most won't. Human psychology ensures there will always be panic sellers and trend chasers. That's why I can freely share my philosophy without losing my edge.

Closing Thought

Back in October, we announced that Craevax had officially become a Holding Company. Today marks the next chapter—we've acquired our first two stocks: Broadcom (AVGO) and Netflix (NFLX). This isn't just about numbers; it's about building a portfolio that reflects innovation and resilience.

Why Netflix? The streaming pioneer continues to accelerate revenue growth, expand operating margins, and unlock new opportunities through its advertising business. With ambitious plans to double revenues by 2030 and reach a $1 trillion market cap, Netflix represents both global reach and long-term growth potential.

Why Broadcom (AVGO)? Broadcom is riding the wave of the AI boom, with its semiconductor and infrastructure solutions powering next-generation data centers. Its ASICs and networking platforms are critical for training generative AI models, and the company has seen its stock more than double in the past year. Analysts project billions in AI-related revenue growth in the coming years, making Broadcom a cornerstone of technological resilience.

Date: October 17, 2025 Author: Craevax Founder

In an era where AI companions like Microsoft Copilot can write essays, generate images, and help you plan your life, you'd think every web experience would be lightning-fast. But here I am in Mexico, stuck on a legacy T-Mobile Simple Choice plan that throttles me to a 2G network (yes, 2G, in 2025—don't ask)—and guess what? Even Copilot, a text-based interface, struggles to load.

Meanwhile, my own site craevax.com loads like a dream. No hiccups. No spinning wheels. Just clean, fast content delivery. That's not a fluke—it's the power of JAMstack.

What Is JAMstack, and Why Does It Shine?

JAMstack stands for JavaScript, APIs, and Markup. It's a modern web architecture that prioritizes speed, security, and scalability by pre-rendering content and serving it as static files—often via a CDN for maximum performance. I asked Copilot why my site loaded faster, and it explained that JAMstack's static-first approach avoids the real-time API bottlenecks that trip up dynamic apps. why it thrives—even on ancient networks:

Pre-rendered pages: No waiting for server-side logic. The content is already built and ready to go.

Minimal dependencies: No bloated frameworks or endless third-party scripts.

Edge delivery: CDNs serve content from the nearest node, reducing latency dramatically.

Resilience: No reliance on real-time API calls to verify user actions before rendering content.

Why Even Copilot Struggles on 2G

Look, I love Copilot. It's like having a genius friend who never sleeps. But when you're on a network slower than a dial-up hamster wheel, even the smartest tools get stuck. Copilot needs to phone home for everything—verifying checkboxes, loading sessions, probably asking the cloud if I'm worthy. My site? It just shows up and gets to work. This is what I learned:

It depends on real-time API calls to verify user interactions (like the checkbox that wouldn't load for me).

It uses client-side logic to manage sessions, security, and interactivity.

It's optimized for modern broadband—not for networks that feel like they time-traveled from 2005.

This isn't a flaw—it's a tradeoff. Copilot is designed for rich, interactive experiences. My site is designed for speed and simplicity.

The Takeaway: JAMstack Still Has a Place in 2025

In a world of fiber optics and 5G, it's easy to forget that not everyone has blazing-fast internet. Whether you're traveling, throttled, or just dealing with spotty coverage, JAMstack proves its worth by delivering content that loads fast, even when the network doesn't.

So if you're building a site that needs to be reliable, fast, and globally accessible—especially in low-bandwidth environments—JAMstack isn't just relevant. It's essential.

If Your Geek Reaction is "Whoa, I didn't realize JAMstack was still that powerful in 2025."

Totally fair reaction—and honestly, that's part of the problem. JAMstack hasn't lost its usefulness, but it's been overshadowed by the hype around dynamic frameworks, serverless functions, and AI-powered everything. Many developers assume that static-first architectures are "old news" or only good for blogs and portfolios. That's a misconception.

Why People Might Underestimate JAMstack in 2025

Trend fatigue: With the rise of Next.js, Remix, Astro, and edge computing, JAMstack sometimes gets lumped in with "last-gen" tech—even though many of those frameworks still use JAMstack principles.

Misunderstood scope: Some think JAMstack can't handle dynamic content, forgetting that APIs and client-side rendering are part of the stack.

Overengineering bias: In a world obsessed with real-time interactivity and personalization, static sites seem "too simple"—until you're on a 2G network and they're the only thing that works. (Spoiler alert: I'll be diving deeper into this "overengineering bias" in upcoming posts. It's not a roast—just a gentle nudge to ask, "Are we building cathedrals when a cabin would do?")

The Reality: JAMstack Is Quietly Crushing It

It's still the fastest way to deliver content globally.

It's ideal for SEO, security, and scalability.

It's perfect for edge-first architectures and hybrid rendering.

And as I have proven, its resilient in hostile network conditions.

So yeah—next time your AI assistant freezes mid-thought and your fancy app starts wheezing, remember: sometimes the simplest stack is the one that shows up, does the job, and doesn't ask for a latte first.

Date: October 16, 2025 Author: Craevax Editorial Team

Celebrating Craevax's first blog post since forever. After years of quiet evolution, Craevax is ready to speak again. Not with noise — but with purpose. Founded in 2003, Craevax has always been more than a company. It's a mindset. A proving ground. A launchpad for ideas that challenge convention and thrive under constraint. From AI and cybersecurity to immersive storytelling and community-driven initiatives, Craevax has built quietly, relentlessly — guided by a single principle: "Infinite innovations through constraints."

Why now?

Because silence has served its purpose. Because the world is shifting — and Craevax is shifting with it. Because the projects we've nurtured deserve a voice. Because the people we've inspired deserve a signal.

This blog is our signal.

What's next?

We'll be sharing insights from across our portfolio — including:

AI and Cybersecurity: How we're building smarter, safer systems in an age of digital complexity.

Immersive Storytelling: Projects that blend narrative, technology, and emotion to create unforgettable experiences.

Community and Culture: Initiatives that empower creators, challenge norms, and build resilience.

We'll also spotlight the thinkers, builders, and rebels who embody our ethos — and invite you to join them.

Our 2025 Inspiration: NEVER FINISHED

Inspired by David Goggins' relentless mindset, we believe growth is a process, not a destination. Craevax is never finished. And neither are you.

Whether you're a founder, a coder, a dreamer, or a fighter — we're here to challenge you. To support you. To build with you.

Join Us

This isn't just a blog. It's a reawakening. A signal to those who've been quietly building. A call to those who believe constraints are fuel, not friction.

"We've been building. Now we're ready to share. This is Craevax — where constraints fuel creativity, and silence gives rise to signal."