pull down to refresh
Bonds have always been a safety bet,
have they been? safe for who? over the last what 50-60 years if you were in bonds you got absolutely destroyed. Isn’t this part of the reasons corporations stopped offering pensions to life long employees. The investments they used (bonds) didn’t protect against anything
Idk, I didn't get destroyed, because the bonds just did what they said they would. It used to be the "certainty" because in general, AA+ and up rated govts don't default on their payments.
But you only don't get rekt in non-inflation corrected dollar terms of course, that's where the scam is at. It's predictable, but yes you are also right that you cannot build a pension on just bonds because inflation outpaces it.
I don't like that I have to defend Dalio here because I don't really like the guy, but, when he says you put 15% of your portfolio in gold instead of bonds, I think that's good. With one problem: now the buyer of last resort of US debt is gone, so if this transition goes fast then collapse can happen. I wouldn't want to be the last guy standing when the music stops on this one though.
My beef with this advice is for the middle and poor class this really doesn’t move the needle for moving the economic ladder. If you are worth millions yes this is very good advice. The millionaire boomers who already made a buttload of money yes buy bonds until your heat is content but anyone who is trying to climb up and out of the economic doom that Fiat as brought to the world this is just bad advice
I think that if you're up and coming, and you still have time for a career in front of you, then yes, you should not listen to Dalio. Or any of these shows. Or your boy Livingston. Better keep things simple, stack sats, and try to always make more than you spend. Invest what you can afford to lose, and you can take risks.
But that does not invalidate the statement made, it just changes the audience. Also no one is saying buy bonds. Everyone is saying: don't buy bonds.
We're totally talking past each other I feel... why?
Mag 7 isn't tech adoptors, I understand what he's saying as the businesses that successfully implement things like AI well and ride the wave of disruption in their favor - perhaps still Nasdaq but defo not Mag 7, with as only exception maybe Tesla (though to your point, that already has it priced in, so not very opportune, plus why is Tesla still part of Mag7 anyway?)
Bonds have always been a safety bet, not for performance but for reliability. My life insurance used to be 25% bonds allocation just for that reason, so that bottom line if shit hit the fan, I would at least get 25% of what I put in plus compound interest. But I largely reduced that allocation in favor of "boring" ETFs that have things like retail and distribution, since ZIRP, because that to me was the second signal that shit was breaking down - after the 2008-2010 bailout insanity.
Bonds have been the default diversification strategy ever since "modern" 1971 finance though. If he's right (and in this case it means that we have been right) and this safety is gone now, Dalio's message ought to make a lot more people that actually have these kinds of constructs think about their portfolio and see the world a little more our way. I think it is good if people see things a bit more our way?