Business
GMO Q1 2026 Quarterly Letter Part 2: Letter To The Investment Committee On Private Equity
mohd izzuan/iStock via Getty Images
Executive Summary
Some institutional investors who had grown accustomed to outperforming the broader private equity composites are finding they have not done so consistently in recent years. Their diagnoses of the problem often center on specific decisions or biases they made in their recent manager selection, whereas a likely culprit is a falloff in the persistence of outperformance among private equity managers.
While wide performance dispersion persists among private equity funds of a given vintage, academic research suggests that the tendency for a manager’s prior strong performance to persist into subsequent funds has largely disappeared, particularly when prior performance is based on the interim measures used to compare funds less than 10–15 years old. If this lack of persistence is the “new normal,” it will be very difficult for investors to expect to outperform the private equity composites by meaningful amounts going forward.
Investment committees should encourage institutions to raise the bar for hiring private equity managers, as putting money to work relatively cheaply in the public markets is a better investment than paying high fees for private equity managers they have less than full confidence in.
Read Part 1 of the Quarterly Letter, What Barbarians Like to Take Private (Or: The Risks in Your Private Equity Portfolio), in which Ben Inker and John Pease use decades of buyout data to demonstrate how private equity portfolios are becoming ever more concentrated on a small set of risks.
My day job at GMO does not directly involve private equity beyond being an observer. But I do wind up discussing private equity reasonably regularly, both with investment committees that I serve on and when invited to speak to the investment committees of other institutions. And in those situations, I’ve started to notice something a little jarring that may not be as obvious to investment committee members who only experience the performance of one or two institutions.
It is well known that private equity has failed to keep up with the public markets over the last several years. But I also seem to be hearing from a number of institutions that the performance of their particular PE portfolio, which in the past might have done substantially better than the Preqin, Cambridge Associates, or other composite, no longer seems to be doing so. There is usually an excuse that feels specific to the institution in question—“we focused too much on co-investment opportunities and failed to keep a high enough bar on our expectations for the actual fund performance,” or “we were too slow to react to our GPs’ loss of focus and mission creep.”
The implication of those explanations is that fixing a particular problem they diagnose will lead to better relative performance in the future. But there is another explanation for this phenomenon that is less fixable and feels awfully plausible to me: if the persistence of performance for PE managers has gone away, or even significantly deteriorated, the performance difference between the best institutional PE portfolios and the mean is doomed to collapse to low levels. 1 For private equity allocations predicated on a belief in the investment staff’s ability to find and secure the very best private equity managers, such an explanation would call into question the rationale for the allocation in the first place.
The original handbook for the endowment model, David Swensen’s Pioneering Portfolio Management (2009), made no claims about an inherent return premium for private equity. While Swensen acknowledged some advantages of private equity in principle—better alignment with investors, longer time horizons, the focus on operating efficiency that comes along with a greater debt load—he pointed out that private equity also suffers from high fees, principal-agent problems, and the tendency for successful managers to raise ever-larger funds only for them to underperform their earlier, smaller ones.
He concluded that private equity was riskier than public equities due to its high leverage and, to the best of his knowledge, achieved disappointing median returns over its history (pp. 220–235). 2 The case for private equity, rather than resting on some vague “illiquidity premium,” 3 was all about finding extraordinary managers. He believed private assets were a good place to do that, given their much wider range of performance across managers relative to public equities or fixed income.
In practice, generating this alpha for an institution would involve finding extraordinary portfolio managers or firms who can consistently outperform their peers. So the first question any investment committee should ask when discussing an allocation to private equity or any other private asset is: what makes us confident we can find these extraordinary managers and get meaningful allocations to their funds?
If the committee can’t credibly answer that question, it makes little sense for them to try to replicate the asset allocation of institutions that can. But even for institutions that have reason to claim such a selection ability, private equity fund performance really needs to be significantly persistent for the game to work. And it is far from clear that such persistence exists.
Several academics have done interesting work on the topic, noting that persistence of performance has fallen notably since 2000, and more so for private equity than venture capital. 4 A particularly relevant finding is that the interim performance of funds that have not completed their life cycles is entirely unhelpful in predicting future fund returns, a real problem since those are the only returns recent enough to feel relevant when considering a manager’s next fund.
While we all know “past performance is not indicative of future results,” it is extremely hard to overstate how central past performance is to investors’ decision-making when choosing private asset managers. You are buying into a blind pool, and almost the only thing you know is what the manager did in the past.
While the performance of the investments in that previous pool is not the only thing you can analyze, it feels like the most salient piece of data there is. But what if that is an illusion? A mature private equity portfolio will consist of multiple funds from multiple managers, so the total number of different funds owned by an institution will generally be pretty large, easily a couple of dozen or more, even if the institution has relationships with a relatively small number of firms.
If there truly is little persistence in private equity fund returns, it implies that even if the range of returns between the best- and worst-performing funds remains large, the aggregate returns for an institution will almost always be close to the median. The chart below shows the implied alpha of a diversified PE portfolio across several levels of performance persistence (Braun, Jenkinson, and Stoff 2017).
Effect of Performance Persistence on Expected PE and VC Alpha
Source: Braun, Jenkinson, and Stoff (2017) Assumed alpha for quartiles of performance is 8%/3.5%/-3.5%/-8% for PE and 12%/4%/-4%/-12% for VC. “Amazing at New Managers” assumption is 40%/30%/20%/10% odds of new managers being in each alpha quartile, and 20% of assets in PE/VC invested in such new managers.
I’ve put the venture capital results in as well. While there was basically no evidence of persistent performance in the post-2000 sample for private equity, venture capital did show a decent amount of persistence, even if it, too, shows substantially less persistence than the early sample. I added a fourth column in which I made a friendly assumption about the new funds that an institution hires. I assumed that the institution had an amazing record in backing new managers, and that those new managers had a 40%/30%/20%/10% chance of being in the 1st through 4th quartiles of performance.
I further made the (probably insanely friendly) assumption that the institution’s full 20% PE or VC allocation was invested in such funds (such an institution could still not expect very much alpha from a PE portfolio, though 55 basis points is a whole lot better than the 3 basis points of implied alpha for an institution that simply reupped with its strongest performers).
It’s possible I’m being unfair in assuming that the basic due diligence in choosing to invest in the new funds of current managers is to look at the interim performance of their previous funds, but for institutions whose current alpha relative to the PE composite does not look particularly impressive, I think it’s fair to ask why you think it will get better in the future.
I’m not trying to make the case that institutions should abandon private equity. Actually, if one believes, as I do, that private equity is choosing from a small, junky group of firms, the industry’s performance has been somewhat better than it looks over the last decade. 5 I also believe that investing skill exists, 6 and that it makes sense for well-resourced institutions to invest with private equity managers they truly have high conviction in. The difference between the best and worst performers among private equity funds remains large, and an institution that can truly tilt the odds in favor of top-quartile results will reap substantial benefits.
But the bar to invest in a private equity manager should be high—arguably even higher than it is for active public asset managers, since you’ll be stuck paying PE managers high fees for a long time, even if you lose conviction in the interim. And if individual fund allocations truly do have a high bar, a target PE allocation may not even make sense (at least not beyond establishing an upper limit).
If, for example, you target 25% of your portfolio in U.S. public equities and can only come up with 10% worth of allocations to active managers you truly believe in, you have the option to allocate the other 15% passively. That passive option is not available to you in private equity. If you max out on high-caliber PE managers short of an overall allocation target, you will wind up investing the rest of your allocation in managers you have less confidence in. Paying high fees to managers you have less confidence in is unlikely to be a good use of capital.
How can the investment committee help? I think a good start would be for the investment committee to ask the investment staff to discuss their beliefs about each asset class in which the institution invests, the purpose each serves in the portfolio, how much (if any) alpha they expect to add in each asset class, and, crucially, how they intend to test those beliefs over time. They should document their beliefs for each asset class and compare them periodically, perhaps every three to five years. 7
At the end of the day, the role of the investment committee is to help the investment staff do a better job managing the portfolio. That should not be about second-guessing individual manager decisions, but pushing the investment staff to think critically about what they do and why is absolutely in the committee’s wheelhouse. Private equity programs are not meant to run on autopilot; there are critical questions to answer and, for many institutions, disappointing results to grapple with.
1 There will still be a fair bit of performance dispersion, since most investors invest with a relatively small number of PE managers, and there will still be plenty of variability in actual fund returns. But without persistence of returns, that variability will wind up mostly owing to chance, and longer-term returns will tend to converge.
2 Paraphrased from the 2009 edition, which made basically the same points as the original 2000 edition (pp. 224–233) with some updated data.
3 An illiquidity premium for leveraged buyouts (LBOs), at least, never made any sense in the first place. If you voluntarily take a public company private and pay a premium to do so, there is no plausible mechanism by which you could possibly get paid for taking on the illiquidity. The illiquidity might be a means to an end for some other mechanism to achieve higher returns, but the idea that you would generally get paid for the fact that the asset is no longer liquid is just silly when the illiquidity is entirely self-imposed.
4 I’m not going to pretend to give a comprehensive listing of the research, but a couple of studies that stood out to me included Braun, Jenkinson, and Stoff (2017), which looked at performance by deal rather than by fund, helping to abstract away from some of the fund return calculation problems; and Harris, Jenkinson, Kaplan, and Stucke (2023), which looked at the problem of interim performance calculations that investors are forced to rely on given the long lives of funds.
5 See part 1, What Barbarians Like to Take Private, for evidence of a small, low-quality bias in private equity.
6 Admittedly, I’m highly likely to be biased toward such a belief.
7 The risk in doing this is that it just turns into a referendum on which assets have done well or badly in the trailing period, which would be a profound mistake. There is already too much performance chasing in the investment world. But putting your beliefs down on paper is extremely important to avoid the narrative creep that it is all too easy to fall into. If ”private real estate is a great place to add alpha” turns into “private real estate is an inflation hedge,” then into “private real estate is an under-owned asset class,” and so on—each rationale replacing the last as the thesis fails to play out—while the target allocation remains fairly static, something has gone very wrong.
References
Braun, R., Jenkinson, T., & Stoff, I. (2017). How persistent is private equity performance? Evidence from deal level data. Journal of Financial Economics, 123 (2), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.01.033
Harris, R.S., Jenkinson, T., Kaplan, S.N., & Stucke, R. (2023). Has persistence persisted in private equity? Evidence from buyout and venture capital funds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 81 (102361). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.102361
Swensen, D. (2009). Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment, Fully Revised and Updated. Free Press.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the views of Ben Inker through the period ending May 2026 and are subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions. This is not an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security and should not be construed as such. References to specific securities and issuers are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations to purchase or sell such securities.
Copyright © 2026 by GMO LLC. All rights reserved.
Original Post
Editor’s Note: The summary bullets for this article were chosen by Seeking Alpha editors.
Business
Possible fissure in California chemical tank may help prevent explosion, fire official says
Possible fissure in California chemical tank may help prevent explosion, fire official says
Uber weighs higher bid for Delivery Hero, FT reports
A company of Manulife Investment Management, John Hancock Investment Management serves investors through a unique multimanager approach, complementing our extensive in-house capabilities with an unrivaled network of specialized asset managers, backed by some of the most rigorous investment oversight in the industry. The result is a diverse lineup of time-tested investments from a premier asset manager with a heritage of financial stewardship. Note: This account is not managed or monitored by John Hancock Investment Management, and any messages sent via Seeking Alpha will not receive a response. For inquiries or communication, please use John Hancock Investment Management’s official channels.
Forensic experts sift through ruined dormitory in Russian-held Luhansk region
Calamos Investments is a diversified global investment firm offering innovative investment strategies including U.S. growth equity, global equity, convertible, multi-asset and alternatives. The firm offers strategies through separately managed portfolios, mutual funds, closed-end funds, private funds, an exchange traded fund and UCITS funds. Clients include major corporations, pension funds, endowments, foundations and individuals, as well as the financial advisors and consultants who serve them. Headquartered in the Chicago metropolitan area, the firm also has offices in London, New York and San Francisco. For more information, please visit www.calamos.com.
Check out what’s clicking on FoxBusiness.com.
Guzman y Gomez Mexican Kitchen, an Australian-born Chipotle rival that once planned to open hundreds of U.S. locations, has abruptly closed all of its American restaurants after six years in the Chicago area.
“All GYG USA restaurants permanently closed,” a message on the company’s U.S. website says. “Effective from May 22nd, GYG USA restaurants will cease trading. Thank you for your support.”
The chain also announced the move on Instagram, thanking customers and employees in Chicagoland, where all eight of its U.S. restaurants were located.
“After six years of burritos and big dreams in Chicagoland, we’ve made the difficult decision to close our US restaurants,” the post read. “To every guest who came through our doors – you chose us, and we never took that for granted.”
CAVA BUCKS RESTAURANT INDUSTRY TREND WITH SUCCESSFUL NO-DISCOUNT STRATEGY
A Guzman y Gomez restaurant in Sydney, Australia, on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026. (Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
Guzman y Gomez’s U.S. website shows just a message of its sudden closing Friday.
“To our team – thank you. Your passion and your purpose built something special. If you’re ever in Australia, Singapore or Japan, come find us – we’ll have your favs waiting for you. Chicagoland, Thank you!”
The shutdown marks a sharp reversal for Guzman y Gomez, which had recently reaffirmed its intent to expand in the U.S. market. The company (ASX: GYG) was founded in Australia by native New Yorkers Steven Marks and Robert Hazan and made its U.S. debut in 2020 with ambitions to build a much larger American footprint.
“I have always been confident in the differentiation of our food and guest experience, however this was not translating to an improvement in sales momentum,” Marks said in an Australian Securities Exchange announcement, Business News Australia reported.
An employee prepares food at a Guzman y Gomez restaurant in Sydney, Australia, on Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2023. (Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
“Having spent the last three months in the US, I realized this was going to take significantly more time and capital than we had expected.
“In assessing the trajectory of the current network, the board and I have concluded that the business is unlikely to deliver the performance that would justify continued investment of shareholder capital.”
FMR FAST FOOD CEO PREDICTS MORE RESTAURANTS WILL CLOSE NATIONWIDE OVER HIGHER PRICES
Guzman y Gomez says adios to the U.S., but remains active in Australia, Japan and Singapore. (Guzman Y Gomez/Instagram / Unknown)
The company chose the Chicago area as its entry point. At the time, its founders said they intended to open “hundreds, if not thousands” of Guzman y Gomez locations across the country.
Instead, the company is exiting the U.S. entirely, which has helped is stock price in Australia surge more than $3 Australian from $18.05 to $21.10 when the news dropped Friday morning.
“We have a long runway ahead of us in Australia as we progress towards our longterm target of 1,000 restaurants and segment underlying EBITDA as a percentage of network sales of 10%,” Marks said.
“Concentrating our capital, focus and infrastructure behind this opportunity is the most effective way to compound shareholder value over the long term.”
The retreat comes as U.S. restaurants face pressure from cautious consumers, higher food costs and declining traffic.
ITALIAN RESTAURANT CHAIN FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY, CITING INFLATION AND HIGHER INTEREST RATES
Guzman y Gomez (ASX: GYG), an Australian-based Chipotle rival in Chicago, is forced to close all its Chicago-area restaurants. (Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
TheStreet reported that three in 10 Americans have cut back on retail spending and restaurant visits compared with a year earlier, citing S&P Global data. Food-away-from-home prices rose 39.3% from January 2019 to January 2026, far faster than in the previous seven-year period, according to the same report.
Those headwinds have weighed on chains across the industry, especially those trying to scale in crowded categories.
Guzman y Gomez positioned itself as a cleaner take on fast-casual Mexican food, touting no added preservatives, no artificial flavors, no added colors and no “unacceptable additives” on its Australian website.
Its U.S. closure leaves Chipotle — which has roughly 4,000 restaurants — without one of its smaller fast-casual Mexican challengers in the American market.
| Ticker | Security | Last | Change | Change % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMG | CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC. | 32.89 | +0.09 | +0.27% |
| CAVA | CAVA GROUP INC | 80.42 | -0.85 | -1.05% |
| QSR | RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC. | 75.38 | -0.87 | -1.14% |
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
RBC Capital Markets analyst Michael Toner told Reuters the exit could be positive for Guzman y Gomez’s broader business because its U.S. operations had limited prospects and were weighing on earnings.
“The U.S. business had very low prospects of being successful, and the losses of the business were weighing down the earnings of the group so the sooner exit than anticipated is positive,” Toner said.
Reuters contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — Boeing Co. and Airbus SE showed contrasting performances through mid-2026 as investors weighed Boeing’s ongoing recovery challenges against Airbus’s production ramp and strong order backlog.
As of May 22, 2026, Boeing shares closed at $198.45. Airbus shares closed at €142.80 on the Euronext Paris exchange, equivalent to approximately $162.50.
Recent Financial Results
Boeing reported first-quarter 2026 revenue of $17.9 billion. The company posted a GAAP net loss of $1.2 billion, or $1.85 per share, primarily due to continued costs related to the 737 MAX program and supply chain issues. Commercial Airplanes revenue was $6.8 billion. Boeing delivered 83 commercial airplanes in the quarter.
Airbus reported first-quarter 2026 revenue of €13.8 billion, up 11% year-over-year. The company delivered 142 commercial aircraft in the quarter. Airbus reported adjusted EBIT of €1.1 billion and maintained its full-year guidance for 800 aircraft deliveries in 2026.
Analyst Consensus
Analysts assigned Boeing a Hold consensus rating with an average 12-month price target around $210. Airbus carried a Moderate Buy consensus with an average target of €165 to €175.
Boeing Developments
Boeing continues to address quality control issues following multiple incidents involving its 737 MAX aircraft. The company reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in early 2026 related to prior compliance matters. Boeing has focused on stabilizing production rates while working through supply chain constraints.
The company secured new orders at major air shows and continued development of the 777X program. Boeing’s defense business remained stable with contracts from the U.S. government and international partners.
Airbus Developments
Airbus has maintained a strong production ramp, particularly for the A320neo family. The company reported a robust backlog exceeding 8,000 aircraft. Airbus expanded its presence in the wide-body market with the A350 program and continued exploring sustainable aviation fuel and hydrogen technologies.
Airbus faced its own supply chain pressures but reported better delivery consistency than Boeing in recent quarters. The company secured major orders from airlines in Asia and the Middle East.
Market Context
Both companies operate in a commercial aviation sector recovering from earlier pandemic effects while facing new challenges including supply chain disruptions, labor issues and rising demand for more fuel-efficient aircraft. Global passenger traffic has returned to pre-pandemic levels, driving airline orders for new planes.
Boeing’s market share in narrow-body aircraft has faced pressure, while Airbus has gained ground in certain segments. Both manufacturers are investing heavily in next-generation technologies, including sustainable aviation and digital cabin solutions.
Valuation and Performance
Boeing shares have shown volatility in 2026 due to safety concerns and production delays. Airbus has demonstrated more stable performance with consistent delivery progress. Both stocks have benefited from broader industry optimism but remain sensitive to quarterly delivery numbers and regulatory developments.
Outlook Factors
Boeing aims to increase 737 production rates gradually while resolving quality issues. The company expects improved cash flow in the second half of 2026. Airbus reaffirmed its target of delivering 800 commercial aircraft for the full year.
Both companies face long-term opportunities from fleet replacement cycles and growing global air travel demand. Analysts will monitor second-quarter results, scheduled for July 2026 for both manufacturers, for updates on production rates, margins and order activity.
Broader Industry Trends
The global aircraft manufacturing duopoly continues to dominate the commercial aviation market. Emerging competition from companies like COMAC in China remains limited in Western markets. Both Boeing and Airbus are expanding aftermarket services and defense portfolios to diversify revenue streams.
NEW YORK — The New York Times Strands puzzle for May 24, 2026, numbered 812, had the theme “Summer Essentials” with the spangram BEACHBAG, according to official solutions published by the newspaper and multiple review sites.
The six theme words were SUNSCREEN, TOWEL, FLIPFLOPS, SUNGLASSES, COOLER and UMBRELLA. These items represent common gear used for beach days, pool outings and outdoor summer activities.
The spangram BEACHBAG describes a large carry-all bag used to transport summer supplies. It typically spans the grid from one side to the other and was highlighted in yellow upon discovery.
Puzzle Details
Strands presents a 6×8 grid of letters where players connect adjacent letters horizontally, vertically or diagonally to form words. The game includes one spangram that captures the overarching theme and several additional theme words. Non-theme words can be submitted for hints after finding three.
Many solvers identified BEACHBAG early, which unlocked the remaining summer-related items. SUNSCREEN and TOWEL were frequently found first. FLIPFLOPS, SUNGLASSES, COOLER and UMBRELLA completed the theme set.
The puzzle reset at midnight local time. Players who submitted non-theme words received progressive hints, including the first three letters of remaining words.
Previous Day Comparison
The May 23, 2026, puzzle No. 811 featured the theme “Staying alive” with the spangram SURVIVALIST and words MACHETE, HATCHET, FLINT, PARACORD, TARP and SHOVEL.
Game Mechanics
Strands is part of The New York Times Games portfolio alongside Wordle, Connections and others. Players must use each letter exactly once across all valid words. The spangram is highlighted in yellow upon discovery, while theme words appear in blue. A perfect solve shows a specific pattern of indicators.
The May 24 edition fell on a Sunday. Community feedback noted the seasonal theme was timely as summer approached in the Northern Hemisphere. The words focused on practical outdoor and leisure items.
Strategies Reported by Solvers
Common approaches included scanning for longer words or obvious compounds like BEACHBAG. Many began in corners or looked for summer-related terms after recognizing the theme. Finding the spangram first often simplified the remaining grid.
The New York Times publishes a Sidekick companion with hints. For puzzle 812, it encouraged thinking about items typically packed for a day at the beach or pool.
Popularity and Context
Strands has maintained steady engagement since its expansion in the NYT Games lineup. The daily format encourages vocabulary, pattern recognition and lateral thinking. Sunday puzzles sometimes incorporate seasonal themes like the May 24 edition.
On May 24, 2026, the puzzle aligned with other NYT games: Wordle answer STORM and Connections categories including types of bags, famous duos, things that spin and words that can follow “black.”
Broader NYT Games Ecosystem
The New York Times offers Strands through its website and mobile app. Basic daily play is free, with subscriptions providing archives and additional features. The game requires finding all theme words and the spangram to complete the board fully.
No major rule changes were reported for Strands in 2026. The format continues to blend word search and crossword elements, with the spangram providing the thematic anchor. Difficulty varies by grid arrangement and word familiarity.
Community Engagement
Solvers shared results on social platforms using indicator grids that avoid full spoilers. Discussions highlighted the practical vocabulary in the May 24 puzzle. Some noted connections to real-world summer activities and vacation preparation.
Performance tracking includes solve times, hint usage and perfect completion rates. The purple-level challenge in related games like Connections often draws comparisons to Strands’ spangram difficulty.
Historical Notes
Strands builds on the success of other NYT word games launched or acquired in recent years. Puzzle numbering reached the 800s by mid-2026, reflecting consistent daily output. Each edition adds to an archive of thematic challenges.
The May 24 solution emphasized single-word items with specific functions in outdoor and leisure contexts. Official answers are confirmed directly from The New York Times sources after the daily reset.
Players who missed the May 24 puzzle can reference solution archives. The game continues to attract participants seeking a balance of accessibility and intellectual challenge through its letter grid format.
NEW YORK — The New York Times Connections Sports Edition puzzle for May 24, 2026, numbered 614, featured four sports-themed categories with the following groupings according to official solutions published by review sites.
The yellow category, rated easiest, was “NBA team nicknames.” The words were Celtics, Knicks, Lakers and Spurs.
The green category was “golf terms.” The words were birdie, eagle, par and bogey.
The blue category was “tennis grand slams.” The words were Australian, French, Wimbledon and US.
The purple category was “baseball positions.” The words were catcher, pitcher, shortstop and outfielder.
The 16 words in the grid were: Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, Spurs, birdie, eagle, par, bogey, Australian, French, Wimbledon, US, catcher, pitcher, shortstop and outfielder.
Game Mechanics
Connections Sports Edition follows the standard Connections format but focuses exclusively on sports-related themes. Players sort 16 words into four groups of four based on common threads. The game provides color-coded feedback: yellow for the easiest category, green for the next, blue for the third and purple for the hardest.
The May 24, 2026, edition emphasized major league basketball teams, golf scoring terms, the four major tennis tournaments and standard baseball defensive positions. Solvers noted the NBA category was straightforward for basketball fans, while the purple category required deeper baseball knowledge.
Previous Day Comparison
The May 23, 2026, Connections Sports Edition puzzle No. 613 included categories for defeat soundly, a Missouri athlete, college coaches and baseball terms or names.
Solving Strategies
Many players started with obvious sports league or scoring terms such as Celtics, Knicks, Lakers and Spurs. The golf terms group was recognizable for players familiar with scoring. The tennis grand slams and baseball positions required more specific sports knowledge.
Popularity of Sports Edition
Connections Sports Edition, launched as a beta version by The New York Times and The Athletic, has gained a dedicated following among sports fans. The daily puzzle complements the standard Connections game and attracts players interested in athletics, team nicknames, scoring terms and positions.
On May 24, 2026, the puzzle coincided with ongoing NBA Western Conference Finals coverage between the Oklahoma City Thunder and San Antonio Spurs, adding relevance for basketball fans.
Companion Resources
The New York Times and partner sites provide hints and companion articles for each puzzle. For No. 614, progressive hints included league nicknames and golf scoring vocabulary. Third-party solvers offered practice boards and reveal assistants.
Broader NYT Games Context
The Sports Edition runs alongside regular Connections, which on May 24, 2026, had categories for types of bags, famous duos, things that spin and words that can follow “black.” Other games that day included Wordle with answer STORM and Strands with a summer essentials theme.
Players access the puzzle through The Athletic or New York Times platforms. Basic play is available daily, with subscriptions offering additional features and archives. The sports version maintains the same four-mistake limit before the puzzle ends.
Community Response
Solvers discussed the puzzle on forums, noting the NBA and tennis categories were accessible while the baseball positions group challenged some. Discussions highlighted how the puzzle tested knowledge across multiple sports.
Performance metrics shared by users included perfect solve rates and time to completion. Sunday puzzles often feature a mix of timely and evergreen sports topics.
Historical Development
Connections Sports Edition expanded The New York Times’ games portfolio in recent years. By mid-2026, puzzle numbering reached the 600s, indicating regular daily releases. Each edition draws from diverse sports including basketball, golf, tennis and baseball.
The May 24 solution blended major league references with technical sports terminology, typical of the game’s educational and entertaining balance. Official answers are confirmed post-reset by The New York Times.
Tips for Players
Effective strategies include grouping obvious sports terms first and eliminating confirmed categories. Knowledge of major league team nicknames, tournament names, scoring vocabulary and field positions aids solving. New players can use practice modes on helper sites.
The game encourages engagement with sports culture while building pattern recognition skills. Difficulty varies, with purple categories often requiring deeper sports knowledge.
PARIS — Ukraine’s Marta Kostyuk dedicated her first-round victory at the 2026 French Open to her country after a Russian missile struck close to her parents’ home in Kyiv on the morning of the match.
Kostyuk defeated Russian-born Oksana Selekhmeteva 6-2 6-3 on May 24 at Roland Garros. She became tearful during her on-court interview after the win.
Kostyuk said: “This morning, 100 metres away from my parents’ house, a missile destroyed the building. It was a very difficult morning for me, I didn’t know how this match would turn out for me or how I would handle it. I have been crying this morning. I don’t want to talk about myself today. All my heart and all my thoughts go to the people of Ukraine today.”
Russia launched a large-scale wave of overnight strikes against Ukraine, firing hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles. Four people were killed in Kyiv and at least 83 people were injured across the country.
Kostyuk did not shake hands with Selekhmeteva, in line with the long-standing policy of Ukrainian players not to shake hands with Russian or Belarusian opponents.
The 23-year-old world number 15 has been an outspoken critic of Russia and Belarus since the invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.
Kostyuk added: “My biggest example is the Ukrainian people. I woke up this morning and looked at all these people who woke up and kept living their lives, kept helping people who are in need. I knew a lot of Ukrainian people would come out and support today. My friends from Ukraine came to support and I’m very happy to have them here. I’m incredibly proud of myself. I think it was one of the most difficult matches of my career.”
Match Background
Selekhmeteva was playing her first match under the Spanish flag after switching allegiance earlier in the week.
Kostyuk has recorded 12 wins on clay in 2026, second only to Mirra Andreeva’s 15. She remains unbeaten on the surface this season.
She will face American Katie Volynets in the second round. Volynets defeated France’s Clara Burel 6-3 6-1.
Kostyuk’s Career
The Ukrainian reached the fourth round at Roland Garros in 2021, her best result at the tournament. She has used her platform to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion.
Her victory on May 24 came on the same day as the Russian strikes, adding emotional weight to the match. Kostyuk described it as one of the most difficult matches of her career.
French Open Context
The 2026 French Open runs from May 24 to June 7. The tournament is being played at Roland Garros in Paris.
Kostyuk’s emotional speech and performance drew attention amid ongoing geopolitical tensions affecting athletes from the region. She has remained a vocal supporter of Ukraine throughout the conflict.
Psychological Thriller Miniseries Pits TV’s Greatest Comedian Against A Killer
Surgeon wrongly removed healthy part of cancer patient’s bowel and left the tumour
Possible fissure in California chemical tank may help prevent explosion, fire official says
-
Crypto World3 days agoBlockchain.com files with SEC for U.S. IPO
-
Fashion2 days agoHoliday Weekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitcoin Accumulation Weakens as BTC Realized Losses Hit $600M
-
Business2 days agoDell Technologies DELL Stock Surges 15% on AI Server Momentum and Analyst Upgrades in 2026
-
Crypto World2 days agoSpace X IPO Is ‘Bad News’ for Tech Stocks: But What About Bitcoin?
-
Politics2 days agoMakerfield: a tale of two social-media histories
-
Crypto World3 days agoMicroStrategy’s Saylor Says Miners No Longer Set Bitcoin Price, Another Force Has Taken Over
-
Crypto World1 day agoRobinhood crypto COO Tanya Denisova exits
-
Business2 hours agoNYT Strands Answers May 24 2026 Revealed for Puzzle No. 812 Theme Summer Essentials
-
Crypto World2 days agoAI infrastructure race heats up as IREN pitches full-stack strategy, WhiteFiber lands $160M deal
-
Tech3 days agoWhatsApp ads could make Irish debut after discussions with DPC
-
Tech2 days agoA 0.12% parameter add-on gives AI agents the working memory RAG can’t
-
Business3 days agoTrump Invests $1M-$5M in Kura Sushi USA Chain With 27 California Locations
-
Tech3 days agoYou Can Now Add ChatGPT To PowerPoint
-
Crypto World6 days agoRevolut Launches Dogecoin Debit Card Across UK and EU
-
Sports3 days ago2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson leaderboard: Brooks Koepka finds putting stroke in Round 1
-
Crypto World3 days agoTrump Media’s Bitcoin Stash Shrinks Again as 2,650 BTC Lands on Crypto.com
-
NewsBeat3 days agoCharity run by Reform leader Malcolm Offord accused of ‘law breaking’ over Scottish registration
-
Business3 days ago
Goldman Sachs reinstates Ageas stock coverage with neutral rating
-
Crypto World4 days agoExa Labs raises $250 million in funding led by a16z
You must be logged in to post a comment Login