The Costly Illusion of "Fixed"

Don’t mistake the “markets’” composure for stability. It may be nothing more than duct tape holding the illusion together.

More often than not, outward calm is treated as evidence of strength.

A steady earnings call.
Measured executive tone.
Margins that hold quarter after quarter.
Guidance that rarely wavers.

These signals create a powerful assumption: if leadership appears composed, the structure beneath must be stable. That assumption is then amplified across the mainstream business and financial media.

That assumption is comforting. It is also frequently wrong.

Composure is presentation. True stability comes from sound business architecture.

Do not confuse the two.

Market valuations can maintain the illusion of composure for an extended period, quietly relying on temporary measures to preserve that appearance. Debt refinanced rather than reduced. Expenses deferred. Capital expenditures postponed. Personnel stretched thin. Accounting assumptions adjusted at the margin. Et cetera.

None of these actions immediately produce visible instability. In fact, they often improve reported results. Cash flow appears stronger. Earnings smooth out. Volatility declines. The narrative holds.

Let’s call it what it is: duct tape.

Duct tape works, which is precisely why it is used.

It buys time. It manages optics. It sustains the story long enough to navigate the next reporting cycle. What it does not do is repair underlying structure.

This distinction becomes clear at inflection points. We have seen this happen time and again.

When liquidity tightens, demand softens, or credit markets become selective, temporary solutions lose their effectiveness. What was manageable under favorable conditions becomes fragile under constraint. Duct tape tears. Adhesive fails.

This is when composure is tested.

The relevant question is not whether analysts or talking heads appear confident. It is what supports that confidence. Durable operating margins? Conservative leverage? Structural competitive advantages? Or continued access to cheap capital and a favorable narrative environment?

One reflects stability. The other reflects containment.

Guess which one requires duct tape.
Bonus question: guess which one analysts reach for first.

Markets routinely conflate the two. Analysts reward smooth execution. Investors reward predictability. Boards reward calm leadership. That calm can be engineered with enough duct tape. Stability, true stability, must be built. Building it is expensive, which is precisely what most do not want to hear.

There is nothing inherently wrong with temporary fixes. Every organization uses them. Most of us have relied on duct tape at midnight during an emergency repair. The issue arises when those fixes become structural substitutes rather than transitional tools.

Do you really believe the leak under your sink that you taped together in a panic is now fixed?

Since the 2008 financial crisis, central banks have effectively operated a duct tape policy for monetary management. What began under Bernanke as a patch evolved into policy, repeatedly. When patch becomes doctrine, composure is no longer evidence of resilience. It is evidence of strain being carefully managed.

Strain, when ignored, compounds.

We are now seeing those strains compound on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

Eventually conditions shift in ways not contemplated. Pressure increases. External support recedes. Relentless BTFD bids no longer materialize. At that point, what was once contained becomes visible. The spackle cracks, revealing duct tape underneath rather than the solid foundation previously assumed.

Then, suddenly, what was assumed to be a reliable bid for stocks and bonds becomes an illiquid pool of bidless securities.

The lesson is simple but uncomfortable: stability is rarely measured by how calm markets appear during narrative frenzies. It is measured by how little duct tape was required when conditions deteriorated.

Not by how much is now needed to keep everything from coming apart.

Disclaimer: The content published across MYTR reflects opinions, analysis, and perspective.
It is offered to inform thinking and encourage consideration—not to provide instruction, direction, or individualized advice. How any idea is interpreted, evaluated, or applied remains the responsibility of the reader, listener, or viewer, as applicable.
Responsibility for decisions—and their outcomes—begins and ends with the individual making them. Please read, or re-read the “Policy Notes” page for any questions or clarifications.