20 ms·

Ray Dailo has been thinking about this idea for most of his life. He has had the resources and status to access any scholar on the topic he would like. Smart an

Ray Dailo has been thinking about this idea for most of his life. He has had the resources and status to access any scholar on the topic he would like. Smart and motivated to understand the answer, he has written a book about this topic that is coming out soon, but is also available in full on-line for free[1]. I'm half-way through and it is very good so far. [1]https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#introduction https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#introdu...

throw0101a 6y ago
> He has had the resources and status to access any scholar on the topic he would like. So did Bill Gross of PIMCO, one of the largest fixed-income (bond) management firms in the world (AUM: $1.9T): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIMCO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIMCO He bet that interest rates would rise in 2011 after QE(2). Keynesian macroeconomists like Krugman said they wouldn't. Krugam was right: * https://www.businessinsider.com/this-was-the-bill-gross-blunder-that-led-to-his-downfall-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/this-was-the-bill-gross-blun... * https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/paul_krugman_schools_the_deficit_maniacs_who_keep_“getting_it_wrong”/ https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/paul_krugman_schools_the_de... * https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2014/10/pimco-how-to-lose-lots-of-money-and-still-influence-people-the-honest-broker-for-the-week-of-october-10-2014.html https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2014/10/pimco-ho... Be careful about experts in one field trying to expound in an unrelated field. (I have found Dalio's writing to be interesting though.)
- hntrader 6y ago
  A fixed income fund manager is a domain expert in this area, even though he was wrong about this prediction. Their full time job is largely to understand and anticipate Central Bank policy.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    My time in finance has led me to believe that traders and investors are far more prone to groupthink than they’re willing to admit to. “Hedge fund manager predicted inflation after QE and was wrong” is very low on my list of things that surprise me.
    - headmelted 6y ago
      So very much this, all the way down. The Robinhood impact on the US market makes me incredibly nervous, as it should others. That Cathie Wood can mention CRISPR in a YouTube video and gene therapy stocks rocket that same afternoon should be a fairly sizeable red flag I would have thought.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Yeah, they have an incentive to appear overconfident since their job is also largely a sales role, in order to prevent redemptions and encourage new fund inflows. They are still the number one domain experts insofar as Central Bank policy goes, as that's one of their primary preoccupations. Perhaps aside from economists that actually work at the Fed.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        They’re not the number one domain experts though. As you said, those who work at the Fed are probably number one. I’d put academic economists at number two. That leaves the relevant traders/hedge fund managers in third at best. Fundamentally, trading an instrument doesn’t necessarily make you an expert in all aspects of it, only in those aspects related to making a buck on it. Exactly how much a trader ends up knowing seems to vary. While a bond trader might understand how bonds work very well, chances are that a grain trader would make a pretty bad farmer. It seems in passing that fixed income traders have a moderate level of expertise on how government debt works, with their long, loud, and so far wrong predictions about catastrophic inflation undermining any claim they have towards total expertise.
        hntrader 6y ago
        I put them above most academic economists. Economics is a broad discipline and even macro specialists are most often not experts on monetary policy. Their research focus is likely distinct and tangential, and their understanding of central banks is theoretical and abstract with little understanding of the actual goings-on in the real Fed right now(1). Fixed income managers are experts on it since they need to understand the yield curve, to which Central Bank policy is one of the most important variables. Most importantly they are practical experts and know the minutae of the actual decision making variables being considered right now by the current Fed. Yes there's some fixed income trades (in the short term quant space) that don't require such expertise, that's Taleb's Green Lumber problem, but that doesn't apply to PIMCO. Especially if we're talking about the lead at PIMCO. It's harder to get that job than it is to be a staff economist even at the Fed, so I would put him as close to number one in terms of expertise in understanding and especially predicting monetary policy. (1) I've published papers with academic economists. I have to say, they really don't know the practical details of central bank policymaking, and nor do they have to in order to publish more papers. That's not their job.
- lend000 6y ago
  Everybody in the industry is making predictions (with 0 dollars on the line) constantly, so cherry-picking different credentialed people to support a narrative is pointless. Especially in the field of macroeconomics where a few individuals are making decisions behind closed doors that can radically alter the economy. I do tend to put more weight on the predictions of people who statistically understand markets. By that, I mean people who beat the market in the long term without exceptional drawdown. Ray Dalio is one of those people, whose mastery of macro trading is on display across a number of different projects in his career, often with relatively low measured risk and volatility [0][1]. Paul Krugman is not. Unfortunately, many of the loudest voices in the field of economics wouldn't have made it in a career in which compensation is directly tied to understanding of markets. [0] https://portfolioslab.com/portfolio/ray-dalio-all-weather https://portfolioslab.com/portfolio/ray-dalio-all-weather [1] https://atticcapital.com/bridgewater-associates-average-return-and-the-man-behind-the-money/#:~:text=Bridgewater%20Associates%20average%20return%20over,%2C%20which%20is%20about%207%25 https://atticcapital.com/bridgewater-associates-average-retu....
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    I know who Dalio is. I've read his Principles. He's a smart cookie. I think he's wrong. The inflationists have been squawking about since QE started under Ben Bernanke way back in 2010: > We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment. * https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.html https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.ht... Krugman has been saying we don't have to worry about it for just as long since we're in the zero-lower bound territory: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap Krugman has been writing about this since 1998 as Japan enter this territory a couple of decades before the rest of us: * https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/its-baaack-japans-slump-and-the-return-of-the-liquidity-trap/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/its-baaack-japans-sl... Can you point me to the theory(-ies) that Dalio uses in his predictions for inflation? He may end up being right, but unless he can explain why, then he's just throwing darts. Show me the math you base your predictions on: at least with Krugman/Keynes, if they are wrong, models can be examined and improved on (like they were with stagflation in the 1970s). As for Dalio's All Weather portfolio, Meh: * https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2015/07/06/raining-on-the-all-seasons-portfolio/ https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2015/07/06/raining-on-the-al...
- headmelted 6y ago
  We’re basing the prediction of inflation on the notion that there’s more money “sloshing around out there”. I’m not convinced that more of it is sloshing. Wage growth has been largely absent for many people in the 12 years since the crisis, and as a result those people haven’t had more money to spend. The money clearly exists of course given that it’s been printed, but there’s a good chance it just isn’t finding it’s way into people’s pockets.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Just because many people haven’t seen wage growth, doesn’t mean money isn’t sloshing around out there. Remember 20% of Americans own ~80% of all the wealth in the US. So if your looking for sloshing money you should look at what they’re doing, not what “most” people are doing. I think it’s fair to say that those a big chunk of those 20% probably have more money than they know what to do with, which probably means money is sloshing somewhere.
    - flatline 6y ago
      20% is 1 of 5, hardly easy to miss. A lot of that money goes toward expenses in HCOL areas, where more people live, and the salaries are higher. A lot goes into consumer goods. People buy stuff, a lot of it. A lot of the rest is in the stock market in retirement accounts because nobody has pensions anymore. Americans don’t save a lot of money, and are not particularly fiscally responsible, that money is not hiding in slosh it’s being spent. Now start talking the top 1-2% and the story changes dramatically. A few of those people are wage slaves who spend a lot, but the majority are not, and really do live different lives.
      - Swizec 6y ago
        > Now start talking the top 1-2% and the story changes dramatically. Probably the top 5-6%. The numbers are lower but the behavior is similar. You’d be surprised how soon you hit the “More money than I know what to do with” line. Make 150 to 200k/year (not uncommon on HN) and what are you gonna do, buy a new car every year? Rent is paid, food is paid, clothes are good, 1 or 2 vacations per year, go out to eat whenever you want, one-off nice purchases aren’t a big concern ... it’s cushy. Not enough to buy real estate cash or anything like that, but def more slosh than you need.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Economists as a whole don't have a great track record of predictions here, either. You know the saying, right? Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 6 recessions.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > You know the saying, right? Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 6 recessions. You know that the person who said/wrote that was Paul Samuelson, one of the most important economists in the 20th Century, right? > To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.[20] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_quotations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_q... He literally wrote the (text)book on economics: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_(textbook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_(textbook)
- Railsify 6y ago
  Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted.
  - dctoedt 6y ago
    Citation, please? Krugman has been laudably willing to confess error; I wasn't aware he'd done so on this point.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      Here's one: > And so during the 1990s a number of economists, myself included (Krugman 1995), tried to assess the role of Stolper-Samuelson-type effects in rising inequality. Inevitably given the standard framework, such analyses did in fact find some depressing effect of growing trade on the wages of less-educated workers in advanced countries. As a quantitative matter, however, they generally suggested that the effect was relatively modest, and not the central factor in the widening income gap. > Meanwhile, the political salience of globalization seemed to decline as other issues came to the fore. So academic interest in the possible adverse effects of trade, while it never went away, waned. > In the past few years, however, worries about globalization have shot back to the top of the agenda, partly due to new research, partly due to the political shocks of Brexit and Trump. And as one of the people who helped shape the 90s consensus – that the income distribution effects of rising trade were real but modest – it seems appropriate to ask now what we missed. What aspects of rising trade did we either fail to see at the time or fail to anticipate? * https://www.gc.cuny.edu/cuny_gc/media/liscenter/pkrugman/pk_globalization.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/cuny_gc/media/liscenter/pkrugman/pk_... One hour talk by him from 2019: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQ3jCURzy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQ3jCURzy0 * https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/paul-krugman-globalisation https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/paul-krugman-globalisati...
      - dctoedt 6y ago
        Thanks, but these citations don't at all support the GP's sweeping assertion that "Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted." Krugman's cited gc.cuny.edu paper is titled, "Globalization: What Did We Miss?" It concludes, not that economists were wrong per se, but that they didn't adequately take into account the pace of globalization: "Basically, the big problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for broadly defined factors of production as the disruption caused by rapid change. And that rapid change appears to be largely behind us ...." (Emphasis added.) The summary in the University of Melbourne piece (the third cite) is to basically the same effect. (I don't have time to watch a one-hour YouTube video, but thanks for the link.)
stephc_int13 6y ago
Probably an interesting read. But, as always, predicting the future is not possible, even when looking at the past. But we can, to some extent, predict the outcome of things that are already happening. Not too hard if someone jumped out of a plane without parachute, and even then you'll need an error margin.
- joering2 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87
tomp 6y ago
Just because he's been thinking about it doesn't mean he's right. His funds posted record losses (-20%) in 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-06/bridgewater-loss-stuck-at-18-6-in-main-fund-after-model-tweaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-06/bridgewat...
- mcosta 6y ago
  Nobody was right about 2020.
  - tomp 6y ago
    Don’t be so sure about that. Rokos is up 44% - they are much smaller in terms of capital but probably trade similar strategies (global macro). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/chris-rokos-s-macro-hedge-fund-surges-44-in-best-year-ever https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/chris-rok...

throw0101a 6y ago

> He has had the resources and status to access any scholar on the topic he would like. So did Bill Gross of PIMCO, one of the largest fixed-income (bond) management firms in the world (AUM: $1.9T): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIMCO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIMCO He bet that interest rates would rise in 2011 after QE(2). Keynesian macroeconomists like Krugman said they wouldn't. Krugam was right: * https://www.businessinsider.com/this-was-the-bill-gross-blunder-that-led-to-his-downfall-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/this-was-the-bill-gross-blun... * https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/paul_krugman_schools_the_deficit_maniacs_who_keep_“getting_it_wrong”/ https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/paul_krugman_schools_the_de... * https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2014/10/pimco-how-to-lose-lots-of-money-and-still-influence-people-the-honest-broker-for-the-week-of-october-10-2014.html https://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2014/10/pimco-ho... Be careful about experts in one field trying to expound in an unrelated field. (I have found Dalio's writing to be interesting though.)

hntrader 6y ago
A fixed income fund manager is a domain expert in this area, even though he was wrong about this prediction. Their full time job is largely to understand and anticipate Central Bank policy.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  My time in finance has led me to believe that traders and investors are far more prone to groupthink than they’re willing to admit to. “Hedge fund manager predicted inflation after QE and was wrong” is very low on my list of things that surprise me.
  - headmelted 6y ago
    So very much this, all the way down. The Robinhood impact on the US market makes me incredibly nervous, as it should others. That Cathie Wood can mention CRISPR in a YouTube video and gene therapy stocks rocket that same afternoon should be a fairly sizeable red flag I would have thought.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Yeah, they have an incentive to appear overconfident since their job is also largely a sales role, in order to prevent redemptions and encourage new fund inflows. They are still the number one domain experts insofar as Central Bank policy goes, as that's one of their primary preoccupations. Perhaps aside from economists that actually work at the Fed.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      They’re not the number one domain experts though. As you said, those who work at the Fed are probably number one. I’d put academic economists at number two. That leaves the relevant traders/hedge fund managers in third at best. Fundamentally, trading an instrument doesn’t necessarily make you an expert in all aspects of it, only in those aspects related to making a buck on it. Exactly how much a trader ends up knowing seems to vary. While a bond trader might understand how bonds work very well, chances are that a grain trader would make a pretty bad farmer. It seems in passing that fixed income traders have a moderate level of expertise on how government debt works, with their long, loud, and so far wrong predictions about catastrophic inflation undermining any claim they have towards total expertise.
      - hntrader 6y ago
        I put them above most academic economists. Economics is a broad discipline and even macro specialists are most often not experts on monetary policy. Their research focus is likely distinct and tangential, and their understanding of central banks is theoretical and abstract with little understanding of the actual goings-on in the real Fed right now(1). Fixed income managers are experts on it since they need to understand the yield curve, to which Central Bank policy is one of the most important variables. Most importantly they are practical experts and know the minutae of the actual decision making variables being considered right now by the current Fed. Yes there's some fixed income trades (in the short term quant space) that don't require such expertise, that's Taleb's Green Lumber problem, but that doesn't apply to PIMCO. Especially if we're talking about the lead at PIMCO. It's harder to get that job than it is to be a staff economist even at the Fed, so I would put him as close to number one in terms of expertise in understanding and especially predicting monetary policy. (1) I've published papers with academic economists. I have to say, they really don't know the practical details of central bank policymaking, and nor do they have to in order to publish more papers. That's not their job.
lend000 6y ago
Everybody in the industry is making predictions (with 0 dollars on the line) constantly, so cherry-picking different credentialed people to support a narrative is pointless. Especially in the field of macroeconomics where a few individuals are making decisions behind closed doors that can radically alter the economy. I do tend to put more weight on the predictions of people who statistically understand markets. By that, I mean people who beat the market in the long term without exceptional drawdown. Ray Dalio is one of those people, whose mastery of macro trading is on display across a number of different projects in his career, often with relatively low measured risk and volatility [0][1]. Paul Krugman is not. Unfortunately, many of the loudest voices in the field of economics wouldn't have made it in a career in which compensation is directly tied to understanding of markets. [0] https://portfolioslab.com/portfolio/ray-dalio-all-weather https://portfolioslab.com/portfolio/ray-dalio-all-weather [1] https://atticcapital.com/bridgewater-associates-average-return-and-the-man-behind-the-money/#:~:text=Bridgewater%20Associates%20average%20return%20over,%2C%20which%20is%20about%207%25 https://atticcapital.com/bridgewater-associates-average-retu....
- throw0101a 6y ago
  I know who Dalio is. I've read his Principles. He's a smart cookie. I think he's wrong. The inflationists have been squawking about since QE started under Ben Bernanke way back in 2010: > We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment. * https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.html https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.ht... Krugman has been saying we don't have to worry about it for just as long since we're in the zero-lower bound territory: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap Krugman has been writing about this since 1998 as Japan enter this territory a couple of decades before the rest of us: * https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/its-baaack-japans-slump-and-the-return-of-the-liquidity-trap/ https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/its-baaack-japans-sl... Can you point me to the theory(-ies) that Dalio uses in his predictions for inflation? He may end up being right, but unless he can explain why, then he's just throwing darts. Show me the math you base your predictions on: at least with Krugman/Keynes, if they are wrong, models can be examined and improved on (like they were with stagflation in the 1970s). As for Dalio's All Weather portfolio, Meh: * https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2015/07/06/raining-on-the-all-seasons-portfolio/ https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2015/07/06/raining-on-the-al...
headmelted 6y ago
We’re basing the prediction of inflation on the notion that there’s more money “sloshing around out there”. I’m not convinced that more of it is sloshing. Wage growth has been largely absent for many people in the 12 years since the crisis, and as a result those people haven’t had more money to spend. The money clearly exists of course given that it’s been printed, but there’s a good chance it just isn’t finding it’s way into people’s pockets.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Just because many people haven’t seen wage growth, doesn’t mean money isn’t sloshing around out there. Remember 20% of Americans own ~80% of all the wealth in the US. So if your looking for sloshing money you should look at what they’re doing, not what “most” people are doing. I think it’s fair to say that those a big chunk of those 20% probably have more money than they know what to do with, which probably means money is sloshing somewhere.
  - flatline 6y ago
    20% is 1 of 5, hardly easy to miss. A lot of that money goes toward expenses in HCOL areas, where more people live, and the salaries are higher. A lot goes into consumer goods. People buy stuff, a lot of it. A lot of the rest is in the stock market in retirement accounts because nobody has pensions anymore. Americans don’t save a lot of money, and are not particularly fiscally responsible, that money is not hiding in slosh it’s being spent. Now start talking the top 1-2% and the story changes dramatically. A few of those people are wage slaves who spend a lot, but the majority are not, and really do live different lives.
    - Swizec 6y ago
      > Now start talking the top 1-2% and the story changes dramatically. Probably the top 5-6%. The numbers are lower but the behavior is similar. You’d be surprised how soon you hit the “More money than I know what to do with” line. Make 150 to 200k/year (not uncommon on HN) and what are you gonna do, buy a new car every year? Rent is paid, food is paid, clothes are good, 1 or 2 vacations per year, go out to eat whenever you want, one-off nice purchases aren’t a big concern ... it’s cushy. Not enough to buy real estate cash or anything like that, but def more slosh than you need.
pmiller2 6y ago
Economists as a whole don't have a great track record of predictions here, either. You know the saying, right? Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 6 recessions.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > You know the saying, right? Economists have successfully predicted 9 of the last 6 recessions. You know that the person who said/wrote that was Paul Samuelson, one of the most important economists in the 20th Century, right? > To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.[20] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_quotations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_q... He literally wrote the (text)book on economics: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_(textbook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_(textbook)
Railsify 6y ago
Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted.
- dctoedt 6y ago
  Citation, please? Krugman has been laudably willing to confess error; I wasn't aware he'd done so on this point.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Here's one: > And so during the 1990s a number of economists, myself included (Krugman 1995), tried to assess the role of Stolper-Samuelson-type effects in rising inequality. Inevitably given the standard framework, such analyses did in fact find some depressing effect of growing trade on the wages of less-educated workers in advanced countries. As a quantitative matter, however, they generally suggested that the effect was relatively modest, and not the central factor in the widening income gap. > Meanwhile, the political salience of globalization seemed to decline as other issues came to the fore. So academic interest in the possible adverse effects of trade, while it never went away, waned. > In the past few years, however, worries about globalization have shot back to the top of the agenda, partly due to new research, partly due to the political shocks of Brexit and Trump. And as one of the people who helped shape the 90s consensus – that the income distribution effects of rising trade were real but modest – it seems appropriate to ask now what we missed. What aspects of rising trade did we either fail to see at the time or fail to anticipate? * https://www.gc.cuny.edu/cuny_gc/media/liscenter/pkrugman/pk_globalization.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/cuny_gc/media/liscenter/pkrugman/pk_... One hour talk by him from 2019: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQ3jCURzy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQ3jCURzy0 * https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/paul-krugman-globalisation https://fbe.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/paul-krugman-globalisati...
    - dctoedt 6y ago
      Thanks, but these citations don't at all support the GP's sweeping assertion that "Krugman recently came out and said almost all of his advice about globalism was wrong. The man can't be trusted." Krugman's cited gc.cuny.edu paper is titled, "Globalization: What Did We Miss?" It concludes, not that economists were wrong per se, but that they didn't adequately take into account the pace of globalization: "Basically, the big problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for broadly defined factors of production as the disruption caused by rapid change. And that rapid change appears to be largely behind us ...." (Emphasis added.) The summary in the University of Melbourne piece (the third cite) is to basically the same effect. (I don't have time to watch a one-hour YouTube video, but thanks for the link.)

stephc_int13 6y ago

Probably an interesting read. But, as always, predicting the future is not possible, even when looking at the past. But we can, to some extent, predict the outcome of things that are already happening. Not too hard if someone jumped out of a plane without parachute, and even then you'll need an error margin.

joering2 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

tomp 6y ago

Just because he's been thinking about it doesn't mean he's right. His funds posted record losses (-20%) in 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-06/bridgewater-loss-stuck-at-18-6-in-main-fund-after-model-tweaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-06/bridgewat...

mcosta 6y ago
Nobody was right about 2020.
- tomp 6y ago
  Don’t be so sure about that. Rokos is up 44% - they are much smaller in terms of capital but probably trade similar strategies (global macro). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/chris-rokos-s-macro-hedge-fund-surges-44-in-best-year-ever https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/chris-rok...