An increasing number of women are "marrying down" when it comes to education, said The Atlantic. Marriages had been moving in a "more egalitarian direction" since the mid-20th century, when more women began attending university and entering the job market. But now the trend of women "partnering up with their educational equals," called homogamy, seems to be reversing, with a growing number practicing hypogamy — wedding someone of a lower social class or education level. 

Not 'too picky' 
Women outnumber men in higher education in almost all developed countries. And while women's advancement is a "cause for celebration," it's also creating "issues" in heterosexual dating, said The Independent. 

Up to 45% of single women with a degree attribute their relationship status to an "inability to find someone who met their expectations," according to a 2023 study from the Institute for Family Studies. And they are not just being "too picky." Polling expert Daniel A. Cox, who surveyed more than 5,000 people for the study, found his interviews with men "dispiriting." Many were "limited in their ability and willingness to be fully emotionally present and available." 

'Romantic pessimism' 
Women's academic success, coupled with the lingering "male breadwinner norm," gives the "shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power," said Sarah Bernstein at The New York Times. But others struggle to compete in the dating market — "enter the manosphere," a space filled with "romantic pessimism." 

Many women are also feeling "similarly despondent," said Bernstein. As much as 41% of single people have "no interest in dating at all," according to a 2023 study by the Survey Center on American Life.

But beliefs may be "evolving," said The Atlantic. In countries where hypogamy is more prevalent, people are less likely to agree that if a woman "earns more money than her husband, it's almost certain to cause problems," according to data from the World Values Survey. 

While hypogamous marriages used to be more likely to end in divorce, this is "no longer the case," recent analyses in the U.S. and Europe have found. These trends don't prove a major shift is underway, said The Atlantic, but they may "offer a reason to be cautiously optimistic."

Catastrophe bonds are a growing form of investment that can be used to fund recovery from damage in climate-related disasters. Their structure can be attractive to both issuers and investors, but they may not be effective at covering the damage they promise to help cover.

What are catastrophe bonds?
Also called CAT bonds, catastrophe bonds "raise money for insurers, helping them pay claims if there's a natural disaster or catastrophe," said Investopedia. They are essentially "reverse insurance," where "instead of paying premiums to receive protection, investors receive premiums for providing protection." 

However, investors "risk losing their investment if a specified catastrophic event occurs before the bond matures," said Investopedia. If the disaster does not occur, these instruments are "known to offer highly attractive equity-like returns, low volatility and low correlation to broader financial markets," said CNBC. 

The CAT bond market has boomed, hitting a record $17.7 billion in sales in 2024. This year, there have already been $18.2 billion in sales, surpassing the total for all of last year.

Why are sales growing?
The rise in the catastrophe bond market correlates with the growing number of disasters due to climate change. Insurers have "no choice but to identify ways to offload increasing risk, and they are doing it in the CAT bond market," said Richard Pennay, the chief executive at Aon Securities, to the Financial Times. 

These bonds also pose a mutually beneficial agreement between the issuers and the investors. Issuers hope to "cover themselves against low-probability outcomes with costs that could overwhelm them," said The Economist. Investors are "hungry for assets that do not move in tandem with the rest of their portfolio."

But the growth of catastrophe bonds has also called into question their ability to cover damages. A "defectively designed CAT bond could lead to no payout despite a significant disaster," said The Hindu. "An earthquake CAT bond designed for a magnitude threshold of 6.6M for a certain grid may fail if a 6.5M event occurs and causes extensive damage." This happened when Hurricane Beryl hit Jamaica and the air-pressure metric of the bond did not meet the payout threshold. Unfortunately, in the "absence of fresh financial innovation," said The Economist, "it's likely to be the taxpayer who ends up on the hook."