Le mensonge sur lequel repose toute votre épargne

For over 70 years, the financial industry has promoted the 60/40 portfolio, comprising 60% bonds for security and 40% stocks for growth. This strategy, rooted in Harry Markowitz's 1952 Modern Portfolio Theory, is mathematically appealing because it combines assets with negative correlation, aiming for the best possible return for the lowest risk. For four decades, this approach was highly successful, but this success was largely due to a unique historical period between 1980 and 2020, which Ray Dalio describes as a phase of peace and prosperity. During this time, globalization exported inflation and imported deflation, interest rates plummeted from nearly 20% to zero, and massive liquidity injections inflated all financial assets. In this environment, the 60/40 portfolio was invincible; when stocks fell, central banks lowered rates, mechanically increasing bond prices and activating the safety net. However, the world has changed. Since 2022, bonds have started moving in tandem with stock markets, amplifying portfolio movements instead of moderating them. This shift is attributed to the return of persistent inflation, which causes the correlation between stocks and bonds to turn positive. When the economy is stressed, stocks fall, and bonds also fall as interest rates rise to combat inflation, turning the safety net into a dead weight. The 60/40 portfolio is no longer a universal solution, as it is effective during disinflationary periods but ineffective during inflationary ones. To understand the current predicament, it's crucial to break the illusion of financial wealth. Ray Dalio argues that financial assets like stocks and bonds are not real wealth but merely promises of future payment. Real wealth consists of tangible goods and services, such as factories, energy sources, or real estate. The problem is that in recent decades, we have created far more promises than real assets to purchase. This "alchemy" works as long as people believe these promises will be kept, but if everyone tries to convert their financial promises into real assets simultaneously, it becomes clear that the stock of real wealth is insufficient. This imbalance between promises and reality is manifested by three key symptoms: excessive debt, geopolitical conflicts, and monetary instability. High debt levels prevent interest rates from rising enough to combat inflation without risking economic collapse. The return of conflicts often marks the end of economic cycles, as nations compete for resources when growth slows. Monetary instability occurs when currency loses its function as a store of value and becomes a political tool for state survival. Holding bonds, which represent debt, becomes problematic in this context. Historically, states have four ways to address excessive debt: austerity (politically unpopular), default (economically devastating), monetary devaluation (printing money to repay debt with a depreciating currency, leading to loss of purchasing power), and financial repression coupled with monetary printing. The latter is the most subtle and politically acceptable method, involving keeping real interest rates negative, capping savings returns, and letting inflation erode debt over time. This approach allows states to prolong their solvency by siphoning wealth from the private sector. Therefore, holding a 10-year bond today is a bet on an over-indebted state's ability not to devalue its currency—a historically risky gamble. Investing 60% in bonds now guarantees a loss of purchasing power, as the real value of future payments will have eroded significantly. The mechanics of diversification are broken because inflation affects both stocks and bonds negatively. All investments are based on exchanging present money for future cash flows (discounted cash flow). When inflation takes hold, central banks raise interest rates, increasing the discount rate for future cash flows and thus decreasing the value of bonds. Simultaneously, inflation compresses corporate margins, increases uncertainty, and drives up risk premiums, directly lowering stock valuations. Inflation is the common denominator that can destroy the value of both debt and equities, unlike in disinflationary periods. Leading figures like Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, acknowledge that the 60/40 portfolio no longer offers true diversification in an inflationary long cycle. Instead of being exposed to two different engines, investors are exposed to a single systemic variable: the cost of money. Fink suggests that true diversification now lies in the allocation between financial assets and real assets, advocating for private assets like infrastructure, electrical grids, and data centers, which often have inflation-indexed cash flows and intrinsic utility independent of monetary system fluctuations. Commodities, metals, and gold are also regaining importance as "anti-fragile" assets that cannot be printed. The problem with the 60/40 portfolio is deeper than just correlation mechanics; it relies on a deterministic worldview that assumes stable asset relationships and predictable macro regimes. This view overlooks long-term interest rate cycles. We are emerging from a disinflationary phase that began 45 years ago, a period during which most current market participants were not active. Instead, a probabilistic approach is needed, one that accepts multiple possible futures, including extreme scenarios. The goal should be to build a portfolio capable of surviving various economic environments, not just an optimal one for a single predicted world. This means shifting from seeking security in state guarantees to finding it in physical scarcity and economic utility—a return to anti-fragile assets. Redefining investing, as Ray Dalio emphasizes, means storing purchasing power today for future use, not merely achieving nominal returns on a screen. If your portfolio gains 10% while the cost of living (energy, housing, food) rises 15%, you haven't gotten richer; you've experienced a slow-motion bankruptcy. The pivot is from nominal returns to real resilience. Dalio's "All Weather" portfolio is an historical response to fragility, aiming to survive various growth and inflation environments. However, even this approach relies on the stability of traditional financial assets, particularly sovereign bonds. To truly protect against monetary devaluation, financial repression, or a world where stocks and bonds are permanently correlated, a more radical approach is needed. Jeff Park's "Radical Portfolio Theory" posits that in a world of continuous over-indebtedness, increasing centralization, and systemic fragility, one must differentiate between system-compliant assets and system-resistant assets. System-compliant assets (like state debt and currency) depend on the continuity of institutions, while system-resistant assets derive value from scarcity, sovereign ownership, optionality, or their ability to remain relevant even if the system falters. This is because state financial contracts have historically proven unreliable when deficits explode. Real assets, conversely, possess intrinsic value independent of any counterparty. Diversification is no longer just about smoothing volatility but about escaping state counterparty risk. Park's theory replaces the traditional 60/40 allocation by segmenting assets into "fragile" (long global carry) and "anti-fragile" (short global carry) categories. He proposes maintaining 60% in fragile assets like stocks, real estate, and some bonds to benefit from current comfort and yields, while allocating 40% to anti-fragile assets such as gold, Bitcoin, and hard intellectual property. The idea is that anti-fragile assets will explode in value when fragile assets collapse during systemic crises. This radical 60/40 portfolio is designed to thrive during a collapse of major currencies while still benefiting from the current yields of assets destined to decline. However, if states manage their debt and the world continues as it does today, this portfolio will underperform traditional indices due to the 40% in anti-fragile assets that may not yield returns in stable times. Anti-fragile assets include gold, an analog store of value tested over centuries, and Bitcoin. Ignoring Bitcoin as a counterparty-risk-free asset with absolute scarcity and total portability would be a mistake. While Bitcoin's adoption risk is higher than gold's, one can mitigate this by allocating to both based on their respective market capitalizations. A critical aspect of Park's thesis is the mode of conservation. Holding resistance assets through state-controlled or system-entangled infrastructure (like gold or Bitcoin ETFs) reintroduces systemic risk. True resistance requires direct possession, such as physical gold or self-custodied Bitcoin. Ray Dalio reminds us that during major cycle shifts, markets close, banks suspend withdrawals, and paper wealth is confiscated. Complete diversification extends to how assets are held. Park also identifies "hard IP assets" (e.g., biotech patents, proprietary AI models, exclusive licenses) as anti-fragile. Their value doesn't depend on the financial system's carry, rates, credit, or liquidity. Even if the financial system fails, a cancer-curing patent or an energy-optimizing algorithm retains its intrinsic utility. Lastly, "professional gambling," encompassing market finance activities like options or informational bets, is considered the most uncorrelated, as returns depend on one's ability to identify market inefficiencies, not on injected liquidity. The common thread for these anti-fragile assets is their function, not their nature. They transform energy (physical or cognitive) rather than relying on promises indexed to time. Their value comes from proof of work and physical reality, independent of monetary decrees or the continuation of the credit cycle. The Radical Portfolio isn't about escaping the system but living within it, aware of its flaws, and having the means to recover from its failures. States eventually default on their currencies. Park's 60% allocation to fragile assets acknowledges this reality for current living, while the 40% in anti-fragile assets acts as protection. The modern financial system is a vast "carry machine" that borrows from the future to consume or invest today, constantly deferring costs. Actions capture growth (or liquidity), and credit captures confidence (the system's ability to extend promises). These are system assets, functioning as long as the system does. Diversification, therefore, shifts from asset classes to scenarios of the system's survival. Figures like Paul Tudor Jones and Michael Saylor exemplify this evolving mindset. Tudor Jones, a macro trader, holds gold and Bitcoin as essential protections against monetary degradation. Saylor drastically leverages the existing system to acquire Bitcoin, essentially shorting the dollar. These actors understand that navigating this grand cycle requires reconfiguring our view of financial assets. One can either balance system engagement with off-system protection (like Park's portfolio) or make conviction-driven, high-risk bets on the new world while shorting the old (like Saylor).