Marko

@ZeeContrarian1 This is a solid post. I listen to Dalio, but agree - I see him as a man offering interesting, big-picture and long-term views of where the world was and where it is going. Not my investment advisor.

We all grew up on Ray Dalio. To be honest, I even interviewed at Bridgewater a few times, which is a funny story by itself. And what I’m about to say is just one observation. The problem with these macro legends is that they sound incredibly smart, they speak incredibly smart, and most of the time they just end up disturbing your investment process. Because at some point they stop being investors or traders and become commentators. They’re usually semi-retired, managing reputation more than risk, and every time they open their mouth it somehow becomes one of the greatest contrarian indicators on Earth. A few classics. 2018:
Dalio warned about late-cycle conditions, tightening liquidity, and structurally lower future returns. Market response:
S&P up 31% in 2019. 2020:
Dalio warned future returns would likely stay low because rates were near zero and asset prices were elevated. Market response after the COVID crash:
One of the greatest bull runs in modern history. 2021:
Repeated warnings about bubbles, money printing, and expensive valuations. Nasdaq response:
Up another 27%. 2022:
Dalio:
“The stock market offers about a 5 to 5.5 percent expected return which is pretty low.” Market response:
The market bottomed shortly after and the AI rally began. 2024 and 2025:
Again warning that equity risk premiums are too low and long-term returns from these valuation levels will disappoint. Meanwhile AI stocks continued going vertical. To be fair to Dalio, he’s usually talking about long-term annualized returns from current valuation levels, not short-term market direction. But markets can stay expensive for years while continuing to compound higher. And the last decade taught me one thing. Listening too much to famous macro people is one of the fastest ways to miss massive moves. Ray Dalio has correctly predicted 14 of the last 2 bear markets.

@LizAnnSonders Beautiful photo.

Nothing better than Central Park in the spring

@dieworkwear This is a great post - I learned some things, so thanks.

To break this down: The rule the person stated below is not even the correct "rule." The "rule," if there's even a rule, is that your socks should match your trousers. Barring that, they should be navy. Where does this "rule" come from? It comes from the first half of the 20th century, when much of Western male dress was shaped by the ruling class, who, at the time, still wore tailored clothing. By ruling class, I mean groups such as British aristocrats, Italian industrialists, and American WASPs who could trace their lineage back to the Mayflower. For people in this group, proper sock choice fell into one of two categories. The first is that the socks should match the trousers: gray trousers with gray socks, tan trousers with tan socks, etc. Alternatively, navy socks were always considered correct with everything except black trousers, which required black socks. Of course, some people broke this rule in cheeky ways, such as wearing pale lemon yellow socks with khaki chinos to add a bit of unexpected color. But the aforementioned two pairings constituted the general "rule." When people state this as a "rule," they are trying to universalize something that was once subjective. In other words, they are trying to add a certain logic to something once practiced by the ruling class. So we invent a certain logic to this practice, such as saying wearing socks that match your trousers elongates your leg line. While this may be true (even if not for the navy sock), what we're really trying to do is make a cultural practice seem rational and scientific. This can be insidious when it applies to the practices and habits of the ruling class, because you are framing a subjective cultural practice as logically superior. But regardless, it's no longer the case that British aristocrats, Italian industrialists, and American WASPs (Old Money) dictate the proper ways of dressing and speaking for everyone. There are plenty of groups that dress in ways that are either opposed to these groups (e.g., punks) or have nothing to do with them (e.g., avant-garde). Many of these groups possess cultural capital, which gives their style an "aura." Therefore, you can't universalize this rule without first stating the context. Are you trying to dress like Prince Charles in 1980? Or Sid Vicious? If the latter, then the idea of matching socks to trousers makes no sense, as that's not how socks were worn in that particular group. There's an entire cottage industry online of people proclaiming certain "style rules." "Men shouldn't wear shorts." "Here's how shirts should fit." "Here are the best color combinations." If you absorb all this advice, you end up with a very generic aesthetic, similar to how video game designers dress characters in The Sims. IMO, if you want to figure out how to wear socks, you should identify a certain segment of culture that inspires you, whether historical or contemporary, and learn the language of that aesthetic. About fifteen years ago, talking about this stuff was easier online because people were segmented into style communities — classic tailoring, workwear, streetwear, avant-garde — each group huddled around certain forums and blogs. These communities gave the discussions context. If you were in a community obsessed with how to dress like a 1960s Ivy League student, then no one would have to spell out the intention, as it was assumed. This made discussing the "rules" easier. But on Twitter, there is no consensus. Therefore, it's not reasonable to proclaim things like "wear this sock with these shoes" or "this is how all pants should fit." Everything depends on how you want to dress.

@SavingsCaptain @BoomerDivvies Ditto

@BoomerDivvies I relate more to the bottom list

“What does financial success mean to you?” is such a revealing question. Some people hear: Private schools Country clubs Business class seats Early retirement Others hear: No debt One vacation a year Not checking grocery prices Sleeping without stress Wheres your mind at?

@awealthofcs The internet did not wipe-out travel agents quickly - took time. AI will start with big / middle tech companies and then it will hit many service industries - it will be seen in the data.

Everyone is waiting for AI to take all the jobs but it's not happening yet The unemployment rate was higher than the current level (4.3%) from March 1970 to March 1998 Prime age labor force participation ratio is essentially at the all-time highs of the late-90s

@SahilBloom Great post.

The life cheat code nobody told you: Be the most interested person in the room. Everyone tries to be the most interesting person in the room. The most compelling stories. The funniest lines. The most impressive credentials. The most names dropped. Don't be everyone. It backfires. It feels painfully forced. It reads as insecure. Instead, focus on being interested, not interesting. Turn outward. Take a genuine interest in others. Not as a means to an end, but because you actually want to learn about who they are as a person, beneath the surface. When you open up to people, they can feel it. They reciprocate and open up to you. Be visibly happy to see people. Smile at people. Ask high-quality questions. What are you most excited about right now? What's creating the most energy in your life at the moment? What's lighting you up outside of work? Ask follow-up questions. Be glowing about what other people are doing. Not fake or disingenuous, but genuinely excited about what they're excited about. Lighting up for others makes them light up for you. Being interested is how you become interesting.

@KurtSupeCPA I agree with most of this, but it is also true Medicare is excellent coverage. The big unknown in retirement spending is if you will require years of long term care / assisted living with significant cost not covered by Medicare. Equity in your house might be insurance for this

A retirement calculator is one of the last tools in America that still assumes you will spend less in retirement than you did while working. The 70% income replacement rule came from older research on middle-income households with traditional pensions and paid-off homes. Most basic retirement calculators still rely on it or something like it. Which is how couples walk into retirement with plans that fall short when real spending does not follow a simple downward slope. Real retirement spending looks like a smile, not a slope. High in the early go-go years, when you finally have the time and health to travel, pursue hobbies, and enjoy what you saved. Lower in the slow-go years as travel tapers and life quiets down. High again in the no-go years as healthcare and long-term care costs climb. A couple who spends 105% of working income in the go-go years, 75% in the middle, and 95% at the end does not average 70%. The true average is closer to 92%. On a $200,000 working income, that pattern could potentially create a multi-million-dollar shortfall over 30 years compared to a flat 70% plan. The rule was built for a retiree with a secure pension, minimal lifestyle changes, and different cost structures. That retiree no longer exists.

@morganhousel Very true. I think what has changed is "expectations". In prior generations families created strong expectations that their children should marry and have children in their 20's and live near where they grew up. With boomers and each younger gen - these expectations declined.

I don't fully buy the idea that living in an age of uncertainty is what's driving the decline in fertility. The Baby Boom took place when your kids had to practice duck-and-cover drills at school to prepare for what was seen as the inevitable nuclear apocalypse.

@jennyrozelle That is so true.

“Kill ’em with kindness” is seriously underrated as a strategy. And I don’t say that sarcastically. There’s real power in just staying kind on purpose, especially when it’s not the easiest option.

@conorsen May be true, but it is so much easier to measure and see wealth creation by just following the markets. Not easy to measure productivity increases and some companies may keep their internal numbers mostly private to avoid answering questions on job reductions.

Seems pretty obvious that the main way in which the AI boom is impacting the US economy right now is the wealth creation in financial markets rather than anything on the productivity side (for now).

@KurtSupeCPA This is a solid post. Also, you develop long-term memories in a home and if one parent develops dementia and loses ST memory - they feel lost after moving. BUT, the tradeoff is at 80 years old, the move is more difficult / stressful. A one story newer house may be safer.

He called me after Thanksgiving. Said the kids had sat them down and told them it was time to sell the house and downsize. Easier to manage. Safer. He was 74. She was 71. They had lived there for 38 years. He said we are not ready but we do not want to be a burden. Before we talked about any of that I asked him one question. Do you know what your basis is in the house. Long pause. They had bought it for $110,000 in 1986. Put on an addition in 1994. Replaced the roof twice. Finished the basement. Redid the kitchen. He had no records of any of it. Their house was worth $780,000. The married exclusion covers $500,000 in gain. Which means $170,000 was potentially taxable. At capital gains rates that is a real number. A number that proper recordkeeping and planning could have reduced significantly. Then we talked about the move itself. I told him what the research actually shows. Older adults who feel pressured into leaving a home they are not ready to leave have significantly worse outcomes than those who make the decision on their own terms. The kids thought they were helping. They were solving a problem that had not fully arrived yet. Sometimes simplifying makes sense. Sometimes what looks like a burden is actually what is keeping everything together. Make sure you are solving the right problem before you sell the place that has been home for 38 years. Sources: Research published in The Gerontologist ranks residential relocation among the top three most stressful life events for older adults. A longitudinal study by the University of Michigan found that seniors who felt their housing transition was involuntary reported significantly worse psychological outcomes than those who made the decision on their own terms. IRS Publication 523, Selling Your Home. This is not financial advice. Consult a qualified financial professional before making any financial decisions. The scenarios described are hypothetical and for illustrative purposes only.

@KurtSupeCPA A more common, big problem is not saving enough during your high income earning years early and mid-career and then you face unexpected earnings reduction / career setbacks in your 50's. Your retirement options become very limited.

Name a worse retirement decision than naming your spouse outright beneficiary on a $2M IRA in a second marriage with adult kids from a first marriage. I've been doing this 30 years and I can't think of one. Drop yours in the replies.

@SahilBloom Great post.

A few "boring" things I love: - Going to bed early - Waking up early - Eating simple foods - Saving money - Moving my body - Walking in silence - Reading old books - Avoiding drama Boring is seriously underrated.

@dieworkwear You dress for the event, correct? This is a better comparison for Warren.

For the most part, the left side is how rich people dress. The right shows an outfit on a celebrity who was dressed by Robert Wun, who used this opportunity to show the level of craft and creativity they can execute when not limited to making the boring ass clothes most people buy for going going to the office, buying groceries, and other mundane activities.

Once again, I feel that people assume rich people are paying a lot of money to dress like hamburgers for a night. In reality, fashion houses buy tickets and allocate them to celebrities, who they dress to show off how they can make hamburger shaped outfits.

@dieworkwear @krassenstein I share your appreciation for vintage Mercedes. This one caught my eye recently at a local car show. Note it is a coupe.

@krassenstein i realize i prioritize aesthetics more than most people, but the cybertruck outside of a very narrow range of aesthetics (brutalist buildings, techwear outfit) just looks so bad to me. looks like something to do with waste disposal. would rather drive one of these

I might get hate for this too but I bought a Cybertruck. With a young family, safety was important and so is not polluting the atmosphere with $5 a gallon gasoline.

@KurtSupeCPA Great post.

I saw a post recently from someone with a massive following. "Everyone should have 90% of their investments in stocks. No matter what age." Everyone. I have been doing this for nearly 30 years. And I can tell you the moment someone says everyone in financial planning, they are wrong. Every single time. Nothing is right for everyone. That is not how money works. That is not how people work. But here is what really scared me about that post. Meet Bob and Carol. Both retire January 1, 2000 with $1M. Both take $50,000 a year. Both have 90% in stocks just like that post suggested. Bob is broke by 2012. Carol retires January 1, 2010 with the same $1M. Same withdrawal. Same 90% in stocks. Carol is fine at 85. Same strategy. Completely different outcome. The only difference was when the market decided to drop. Bob hit 2000 through 2003 first. Then 2008. He was selling beaten-down stocks every year just to pay his bills. The math never recovered. 90% stocks is a fine strategy for some people at some points in their life. It is a devastating strategy for a 68-year-old who retires the year the market drops 40%. Anyone who tells you what everyone should do with their money has never actually sat across the table from a real person trying to make their savings last the rest of their life.

@bgtennisnation @jmgmoron I think it's a valid point - skipping Rome. The game is currently so physical and clay makes it worst. The body needs a break in the clay season especially when you go deep in every tournament. Rome is a perfect time for Sinner to recover - play stronger in Paris.

@jmgmoron So how does not playing Rome change that, nothing by the way is in the bag 💼 best to be active in Rome few days off afterwards then be ready for Paris

Yo, si fuera Sinner, no iría a Roma. La oportunidad que tiene de ganar Roland Garros es única. Nadie sabe lo que pasará otro año, pero en este lo tiene a placer. Su cuerpo es ahora su mayor rival de cara a París. Yo no tomaría riesgos. ¿Qué pensáis?

@chutneylife More people lease a BMW or Range Rover they cannot afford, and go down the path of becoming broke.

A lot of broke people buy the BMW 3 series.

@josemorgado Always enjoyed watching him play - a great defender and a class act on the court.

BREAKING: Kei Nishikori, the best men’s singles Asian player of all time, will retire from tennis at the end of the season. Former top 5 Olympic medalist Grand Slam finalist A trailblazer!

@TheStalwart Professional hockey now does 3 on 3 for overtime to create spacing and quick play for more scoring opportunities - it works. Soccer should do the same - reduce the number of players on the field from ten to five - quick play and exciting for fans.

I think I’ve fully come around to soccer. If I could change once thing, it wouldn’t be making the goal bigger or anything like that. But just if it’s a tie game, rather than going to penalty kicks, the winner should be whichever team had the higher Attack Momentum implied score.