I’m at a stage of my life in which I want to pass along principles I’ve learned that have helped me to people who want them, especially principles about investing because I have a demonstrated subject matter expertise in that area, which is important.
I'll say what I think the "average" investor would say, and that's this "teach me what's useful". I've read more people than I can shake a stick at say they've reached a stage in their life where they want to pass knowledge along, and they don’t pass along what's useful. Don’t show me what you think is useful at this stage of your life because you're seeing it through the lens of someone who has reached amazing success. Tell me the pain points to avoid. What do you think would have helped when you were just starting out. Too many people want to pass on knowledge and it is knowledge that may help a seasoned investor take the next step, but not enough who help with how to walk. Investing is black magic, or simply magic to many of us. Fibonacci charts, and now all the people saying "here is how I code my brilliant market analyzer in "whatevercodingplatformmayaswellbechinesetome" and it can work for you too." Then you have the people saying, markets are not about charting, it is about mental makeup. The investor today has access to tools now unheard of "back in our day" that should give everyone the ability to be successful. Yet statistics say more than 1 in 10 who try it on their own won't be. Then what's the secret all the books and experts are getting wrong? Be the guy who can bridge the gap between what is being taught, and what really matters. I don’t know what that is, but I'd love for someone to say.
I couldn't agree more with you. People just starting in investing need the useful information that people like ray used to do when they were starting out, not once they had all the success.
You should check out Ray's course as it will teach you how to get access to the only 'free lunch' in investing and how to understand global macro forces
Yeah that's great too. So what it really means is "I've reached a stage in my life where I want to get out of the daily grind of the market, and I want to share what I've learned for $2000 a student." That's not really my vision of the guy who has reached a stage to share, more a guy with a new way to easily accumulate wealth.
Ray, you're obviously loaded. Why the need to keep earning with "sharing"? I don't begrudge you the money, but just be straight about it. Become an adjunct. Teach finance. I'm sure you're an amazing philanthropist. Give back that way if that's what you choose.
I already pay money for substack experts. I pay money for subscriptions to Simply Wall St. and Seeking Alpha. I'm already paying bunches of experts for their opinions.
There are people who are successful at trading. They have real reproducable gains. That means there is somethink they KNOW how to do. That means it can be taught. Look at the Turtle Traders. What are the fundamentals of trading that anyone can do?
When I pay for something, I value it more than if it is free. It’s an investment and I am more likely to take it seriously because I have skin in the game.
Btw- Ray had his Principles available for free for a long time. Worth a look.
Macro is also very tough to learn and it takes time to gain experience - but it is valuable over the long run as you gain a very broad exposure to markets vs just simply focusing on one industry or company
The freedom here is also the trap. A long-only investor can be mediocre for decades and the market's drift still carries them. Go long-short on anything, anywhere, and you strip out exactly that, the tailwind that forgives being wrong. Macro long-short is the only style with no free beta to hide behind, which makes it the most honest game and the least forgiving one. The freedom and the danger are the same feature.
This is exactly what attracted me to global macro in the first place. Not the forecasts. Not the trades. The opportunity to understand how economies, policies, capital flows and markets interact.
The real power of global macro is not prediction. It is optionality. Most people are not investors in the Dalio sense; they are trapped balance sheets. Long one currency. Long one labour market. Long one property market. Long one political regime.
Macro teaches you to ask: what game am I already playing without knowing it?
The best investor is not always the best forecaster. It is often the player with more moves, more liquidity, and a lower cost of being wrong.
A foundational premise we increasingly need to question is the assumption that monetary investment automatically translates into genuine progress.
Today, capital predominantly seeks yield and efficiency—not meaning. It optimizes within existing monopolistic structures or circulates through closed speculative loops, while tangible value creation for human systems often lags behind. Money, in that sense, is fuel—but it is not the engine.
Historically, the deepest phases of innovation have rarely emerged from surplus. They have emerged from constraint, pressure, and necessity. When systems approach their limits, intelligence reorganizes itself around what is essential. Scarcity has often proven to be a more powerful catalyst for adaptation than abundance.
As we move from an era of artificially sustained, low-cost capital toward one increasingly defined by real constraints—energy, biology, resources, and system stability—the hierarchy of optimization begins to shift. Profit maximization becomes secondary to resilience.
Those who focus primarily on navigating financial cycles may capture timing advantages. But they risk overlooking the more fundamental dynamic: the conditions that drive transformation itself.
That dynamic has never been capital alone. It has always been necessity.
A foundational premise we increasingly need to question is the assumption that monetary investment automatically translates into genuine progress.
Today, capital predominantly seeks yield and efficiency—not meaning. It optimizes within existing monopolistic structures or circulates through closed speculative loops, while tangible value creation for human systems often lags behind. Money, in that sense, is fuel—but it is not the engine.
Historically, the deepest phases of innovation have rarely emerged from surplus. They have emerged from constraint, pressure, and necessity. When systems approach their limits, intelligence reorganizes itself around what is essential. Scarcity has often proven to be a more powerful catalyst for adaptation than abundance.
As we move from an era of artificially sustained, low-cost capital toward one increasingly defined by real constraints—energy, biology, resources, and system stability—the hierarchy of optimization begins to shift. Profit maximization becomes secondary to resilience.
Those who focus primarily on navigating financial cycles may capture timing advantages. But they risk overlooking the more fundamental dynamic: the conditions that drive transformation itself.
That dynamic has never been capital alone. It has always been necessity.
Thank you for sharing this — always valuable to hear your perspective.
Approaching markets through a global macro lens demands genuine comfort with decision-making under complexity and uncertainty. These are non-linear systems, and no amount of intellectual shortcuts changes that. Mastering this takes time, deliberate effort, and the humility to sit with ambiguity — but the compounding rewards, both intellectually and financially, make it worth it.
If you want to learn how to invest in this way I recommend taking Ray's course. I've learned a lot about how to construct diversified portfolios (the only 'Free Lunch' in investing) and about global macro analysis.
Asset allocation and macro context are undeniably foundational.
Where the conversation often slips is in conflating understanding macro with constantly expressing macro. The former is essential. The latter is a specialised craft with high implementation, behavioural, and governance risk - especially once the beta tailwind is stripped away, as Scenarica notes.
For most investors, the practical edge comes from using macro to define regime, risk, and sizing - not from being long‑short “on everything, everywhere.” The hardest skill is not identifying macro forces, but discerning which ones deserve capital and which belong on the watchlist.
Macro works best as an organising framework first, and only selectively as a trading strategy. That distinction is where durability usually beats ambition.
With all due respect to mr. Dalio I always feel like I waste my time with macro. I do like to understand the bigger picture and not disregard entirely companies out of USA but I feel like it is just beyond my grasp to put any numbers and quantify any of that info related to macro risks and building and managing the portfolio. I might be wrong for not paying more attention but I guess I am still new to this game and learning the basics. Thanks for all your wisdom and sharing I did learn alot from you. Main lessin was study the history in order to understand present.
This is exactly how I approach allocations, except I don’t view global macro from a singular perspective and I source my data differently with novel signals. I believe the global order has changed and it’s important to understand China as they’re now in the drivers seat in any discussion.
Ray, your thesis on global macro hits the exact nerve of where markets are heading, but the rapid integration of AI is about to fundamentally change how this game is played. As advanced models increasingly match our capacity to synthesize these massive geopolitical and macroeconomic forces, the cognitive edge will commoditize, shifting the real competitive advantage entirely to execution infrastructure. Global macro provides the ultimate framework for understanding the world, but in an era where AI can instantly process global data to propose a complex long-short strategy, the ultimate risk—and reward—will lie in who has the strict, hardware-enforced boundaries to confidently actuate those bets without catastrophic autonomous errors. The future of macro isn't just about making the right call; it's about safely bridging the gap between machine cognition and physical execution.
I'll say what I think the "average" investor would say, and that's this "teach me what's useful". I've read more people than I can shake a stick at say they've reached a stage in their life where they want to pass knowledge along, and they don’t pass along what's useful. Don’t show me what you think is useful at this stage of your life because you're seeing it through the lens of someone who has reached amazing success. Tell me the pain points to avoid. What do you think would have helped when you were just starting out. Too many people want to pass on knowledge and it is knowledge that may help a seasoned investor take the next step, but not enough who help with how to walk. Investing is black magic, or simply magic to many of us. Fibonacci charts, and now all the people saying "here is how I code my brilliant market analyzer in "whatevercodingplatformmayaswellbechinesetome" and it can work for you too." Then you have the people saying, markets are not about charting, it is about mental makeup. The investor today has access to tools now unheard of "back in our day" that should give everyone the ability to be successful. Yet statistics say more than 1 in 10 who try it on their own won't be. Then what's the secret all the books and experts are getting wrong? Be the guy who can bridge the gap between what is being taught, and what really matters. I don’t know what that is, but I'd love for someone to say.
I couldn't agree more with you. People just starting in investing need the useful information that people like ray used to do when they were starting out, not once they had all the success.
You should check out Ray's course as it will teach you how to get access to the only 'free lunch' in investing and how to understand global macro forces
Yeah that's great too. So what it really means is "I've reached a stage in my life where I want to get out of the daily grind of the market, and I want to share what I've learned for $2000 a student." That's not really my vision of the guy who has reached a stage to share, more a guy with a new way to easily accumulate wealth.
Ray, you're obviously loaded. Why the need to keep earning with "sharing"? I don't begrudge you the money, but just be straight about it. Become an adjunct. Teach finance. I'm sure you're an amazing philanthropist. Give back that way if that's what you choose.
I already pay money for substack experts. I pay money for subscriptions to Simply Wall St. and Seeking Alpha. I'm already paying bunches of experts for their opinions.
There are people who are successful at trading. They have real reproducable gains. That means there is somethink they KNOW how to do. That means it can be taught. Look at the Turtle Traders. What are the fundamentals of trading that anyone can do?
When I pay for something, I value it more than if it is free. It’s an investment and I am more likely to take it seriously because I have skin in the game.
Btw- Ray had his Principles available for free for a long time. Worth a look.
Macro is also very tough to learn and it takes time to gain experience - but it is valuable over the long run as you gain a very broad exposure to markets vs just simply focusing on one industry or company
The freedom here is also the trap. A long-only investor can be mediocre for decades and the market's drift still carries them. Go long-short on anything, anywhere, and you strip out exactly that, the tailwind that forgives being wrong. Macro long-short is the only style with no free beta to hide behind, which makes it the most honest game and the least forgiving one. The freedom and the danger are the same feature.
Though there is less downside risk in Global Macro investing. I believe this is due to the diversification it offers
Thank you.
This is exactly what attracted me to global macro in the first place. Not the forecasts. Not the trades. The opportunity to understand how economies, policies, capital flows and markets interact.
The real power of global macro is not prediction. It is optionality. Most people are not investors in the Dalio sense; they are trapped balance sheets. Long one currency. Long one labour market. Long one property market. Long one political regime.
Macro teaches you to ask: what game am I already playing without knowing it?
The best investor is not always the best forecaster. It is often the player with more moves, more liquidity, and a lower cost of being wrong.
Global macro sounds like the broadest game, but it may actually be a bet on interpretation rather than markets.
The harder question is whether most investors lose because they misunderstand macro forces or because they overestimate their ability to predict them.
A foundational premise we increasingly need to question is the assumption that monetary investment automatically translates into genuine progress.
Today, capital predominantly seeks yield and efficiency—not meaning. It optimizes within existing monopolistic structures or circulates through closed speculative loops, while tangible value creation for human systems often lags behind. Money, in that sense, is fuel—but it is not the engine.
Historically, the deepest phases of innovation have rarely emerged from surplus. They have emerged from constraint, pressure, and necessity. When systems approach their limits, intelligence reorganizes itself around what is essential. Scarcity has often proven to be a more powerful catalyst for adaptation than abundance.
As we move from an era of artificially sustained, low-cost capital toward one increasingly defined by real constraints—energy, biology, resources, and system stability—the hierarchy of optimization begins to shift. Profit maximization becomes secondary to resilience.
Those who focus primarily on navigating financial cycles may capture timing advantages. But they risk overlooking the more fundamental dynamic: the conditions that drive transformation itself.
That dynamic has never been capital alone. It has always been necessity.
A foundational premise we increasingly need to question is the assumption that monetary investment automatically translates into genuine progress.
Today, capital predominantly seeks yield and efficiency—not meaning. It optimizes within existing monopolistic structures or circulates through closed speculative loops, while tangible value creation for human systems often lags behind. Money, in that sense, is fuel—but it is not the engine.
Historically, the deepest phases of innovation have rarely emerged from surplus. They have emerged from constraint, pressure, and necessity. When systems approach their limits, intelligence reorganizes itself around what is essential. Scarcity has often proven to be a more powerful catalyst for adaptation than abundance.
As we move from an era of artificially sustained, low-cost capital toward one increasingly defined by real constraints—energy, biology, resources, and system stability—the hierarchy of optimization begins to shift. Profit maximization becomes secondary to resilience.
Those who focus primarily on navigating financial cycles may capture timing advantages. But they risk overlooking the more fundamental dynamic: the conditions that drive transformation itself.
That dynamic has never been capital alone. It has always been necessity.
Thank you for sharing this — always valuable to hear your perspective.
Approaching markets through a global macro lens demands genuine comfort with decision-making under complexity and uncertainty. These are non-linear systems, and no amount of intellectual shortcuts changes that. Mastering this takes time, deliberate effort, and the humility to sit with ambiguity — but the compounding rewards, both intellectually and financially, make it worth it.
If you want to learn how to invest in this way I recommend taking Ray's course. I've learned a lot about how to construct diversified portfolios (the only 'Free Lunch' in investing) and about global macro analysis.
Asset allocation and macro context are undeniably foundational.
Where the conversation often slips is in conflating understanding macro with constantly expressing macro. The former is essential. The latter is a specialised craft with high implementation, behavioural, and governance risk - especially once the beta tailwind is stripped away, as Scenarica notes.
For most investors, the practical edge comes from using macro to define regime, risk, and sizing - not from being long‑short “on everything, everywhere.” The hardest skill is not identifying macro forces, but discerning which ones deserve capital and which belong on the watchlist.
Macro works best as an organising framework first, and only selectively as a trading strategy. That distinction is where durability usually beats ambition.
With all due respect to mr. Dalio I always feel like I waste my time with macro. I do like to understand the bigger picture and not disregard entirely companies out of USA but I feel like it is just beyond my grasp to put any numbers and quantify any of that info related to macro risks and building and managing the portfolio. I might be wrong for not paying more attention but I guess I am still new to this game and learning the basics. Thanks for all your wisdom and sharing I did learn alot from you. Main lessin was study the history in order to understand present.
Yes. As you can see good global macro investors have a higher upside return relative to the mean compared to other investing styles (pg 49)
https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_whoisontheotherside.pdf
They also have a lower downside risk for the worst performing managers.
This is exactly how I approach allocations, except I don’t view global macro from a singular perspective and I source my data differently with novel signals. I believe the global order has changed and it’s important to understand China as they’re now in the drivers seat in any discussion.
Ray, your thesis on global macro hits the exact nerve of where markets are heading, but the rapid integration of AI is about to fundamentally change how this game is played. As advanced models increasingly match our capacity to synthesize these massive geopolitical and macroeconomic forces, the cognitive edge will commoditize, shifting the real competitive advantage entirely to execution infrastructure. Global macro provides the ultimate framework for understanding the world, but in an era where AI can instantly process global data to propose a complex long-short strategy, the ultimate risk—and reward—will lie in who has the strict, hardware-enforced boundaries to confidently actuate those bets without catastrophic autonomous errors. The future of macro isn't just about making the right call; it's about safely bridging the gap between machine cognition and physical execution.