Mike Duncan

The opening line works because it stacks three credibility signals in one sentence: 20 years (tenure), Singapore (specific geography = real experience), and the phrase 'fixing the things that looked fine until they did not' (the exact problem his audience faces but can't name). This is not generic—it's a credential that only someone with deep structural experience could claim.

The post moves from credibility statement to business model (Para Bellum Advisors) to a bulleted list of specific problems he solves, then to his engagement model (diagnostic first, observations free, conclusions paid), then a soft CTA. The architecture is: Authority > Proof of Independence > Problem Specificity > Business Model > Invitation.

• Negation for clarity: 'No trading desk. No products to place. No balance sheet conflicts.' Each line is a short sentence that removes a conflict of interest.
• Problem naming: 'FX and rates hedges that are technically in place but economically misaligned' is the exact language a treasurer would use internally—it signals he speaks their language.
• Engagement model transparency: By stating 'Observations are shared freely. Conclusions are paid for,' he removes friction and builds trust through honesty about the commercial relationship.

The CTA is soft and consultative: 'If any of the recent posts have resonated with something you are seeing inside a portfolio or treasury function, a conversation is the right place to start.' This works because it doesn't ask for a sale—it asks for a diagnostic conversation, which is exactly what his audience needs and is willing to have.

The hook 'Two different tools for two different jobs' is deceptively simple—it's a contrarian claim disguised as a statement of fact. Most readers assume FX swaps and cross-currency swaps are interchangeable; this hook immediately signals that assumption is wrong. The brevity also creates curiosity: what's the difference, and why does it matter?

The post follows a teach-then-warn pattern: First, he defines each instrument clearly (FX swaps = short-dated liquidity, no coupon exchange; cross-currency swaps = long-dated, coupon-bearing). Then he shows the failure mode: using rolling FX swaps for a long-dated USD liability creates the illusion of a complete hedge while leaving basis and rate transformation unaddressed. Finally, he explains why this failure mode is dangerous: it accumulates silently through basis movements and roll costs, and by the time it's visible, the structure is embedded and expensive to unwind.

• Technical definition followed by plain-English consequence: After defining each instrument, he translates to business impact: 'The hedge looks complete on a currency report. It is not complete on a balance sheet.'
• Failure mode narrative: Instead of just saying 'this is wrong,' he walks through how the damage accumulates: 'The failure mode rarely appears in calm markets. It accumulates incrementally through basis movements, roll costs, and the mismatch between the hedge tenor and the exposure tenor.'
• Embedded cost language: He uses the phrase 'basis movements, roll costs' which are the exact line items a treasurer would audit—this shows he's writing for someone who can immediately verify his claim.

The post ends with 'Full brief in the link below…' which is a soft CTA that assumes the reader wants more detail. There's no hard sell, just an assumption that if the problem resonated, they'll click.

The hook 'Most hedge programmes don't fail loudly. They bleed 20–75bps a year and nobody notices.' works because it quantifies a problem that most readers sense but can't measure. The phrase 'bleed' is visceral—it suggests ongoing damage, not a one-time loss. The follow-up 'After 30 years looking at these structures, one thing is clear – most of that damage is self-inflicted' reframes the narrative from external market risk to internal design failure, which is both more credible and more actionable.

The post uses a problem-diagnosis-solution structure: First, the hook establishes that silent damage is real. Then, a bulleted list of specific damage vectors (carry embedded where it shouldn't be, roll mechanics that compound losses, collateral posted reactively, unused flexibility). Then, the pivot: 'So, I built something that surfaces these costs automatically.' The final section describes the tool (structural cost auditor) and its capabilities (detect hidden carry drag, identify roll dependency, estimate true lifecycle cost, etc.). The structure moves from 'you have a problem you don't see' to 'here's what the problem looks like' to 'here's how I solve it.'

• Bullet-point diagnosis: The list of damage vectors ('Carry embedded where it shouldn't be. Roll mechanics that quietly compound losses.') uses parallel structure and short sentences for scanability and impact.
• Negation for emphasis: 'Not a chatbot. Not another risk dashboard.' This removes the reader's assumption that the solution is just another software tool.
• Specificity in capability claims: Instead of 'it identifies problems,' he lists exactly what it detects: '500+ hedge and overlay structures, 20+ volatility events, Thousands of roll cycles across FX, rates, credit and equity.' This is credible because it's specific.

The post is truncated in the data, but the structure suggests a CTA that invites the reader to see the tool in action or learn more. The high comment count (14 comments on 8 likes) suggests readers are asking clarifying questions about the tool, which means the CTA successfully created curiosity.