Jim Grant isn’t enamored with Ray Dalio’s self-promotion.
And Jim’s reasoning is pretty straightforward:
Activities [like] tweeting, promoting his book, attacking the press have one thing in common: They are not investing. Yet here he is, laying it all out to the world again – necessarily doing less of his day job than he would otherwise do.
Grant’s critique is laid out in the October 6 edition of his newsletter (more here) and it’s a pretty scathing assessment of Dalio, who has of course weighed in on all manner of things of late including – and perhaps “especially” – the rise of populism and the implications that rise has for global order. You can read Dalio’s thoughts on that here.
To be sure, Jim isn’t the first person to lampoon Dalio. Indeed, he’s hardly the first person to lampoon Dalio lately.
Earlier this month, “Principles” – the Zen master’s 600-page manifesto – was sitting near the top of The New York Times bestseller list and as the homies over at DealBreaker hilariously observed on Tuesday, that’s not the only place it’s “sitting.” For instance, it’s also sitting on Steph Curry’s coffee table:
Even The Dubs leader and totem, point guard Steph Curry, seems to be just chillaxing his way into the season. Look what he just posted on Instagram:
Sunshine, a cool dry Napa Valley Sauvignon Blanc, and a good book, this guy is ready to wi—
Wait, can we zoom in on the book?
Steph is reading “Principles”?
Boom. So you can either credit Dalio when the Warriors win it all again, or else blame Bridgewater if they crash and burn under pressure from the Thunder and the Cavs whose starting lineups now look like something out of the Olympics.
Judging by Jim’s critique of Dalio’s recent performance, he’s bearish Warriors headed into the season:
Bridgewater has lately performed no better than the typical hedge fund.
And then here’s Grant on disclosure:
Dalio & Co. opts for a qualitative approach (to disclosure), as if the SEC were suggesting a course of action rather than, say, requiring it.
Of course in the end, the real question for Bridgewater is this: will the correlations that underpin risk parity hold up? And if not, what happens when risk parity unwinds? Will it be, as many commentators have suggested, an aggravating factor that exacerbates an already bad situation? What happens, for instance, to a levered bond position in an environment where rates vol. suddenly spikes?
Who knows. But if that day ever comes, you can take comfort in knowing that the answers to all your questions are buried somewhere in here: