Risk-parity portfolios are a way of investing where you divide your money among different things, like stocks and bonds, but not based on how much money you put in each thing. Instead, it depends on how risky they are. This idea was popularized by Ray Dalio, who runs a big hedge fund called Bridgewater Associates. He thought this would be a good way to invest for the long term, about 10 years. But some people who invested in these portfolios didn't get the good returns they expected, so they took their money out. This made the risk-parity funds lose a lot of money and not do as well as other types of investments. Some big investors like pension funds in New Mexico, Oregon, and Ohio pulled out their money too, making the problem even worse. Now, some people are wondering if this was a mistake to invest in these risk-parity portfolios, because they didn't work as well as they hoped. Read from source...

- The article title is misleading and sensationalist, implying that Ray Dalio's way of investing has lost its appeal and shine, when in reality it is a specific strategy (risk-parity portfolio) within his broader framework that has faced challenges.
- The article fails to acknowledge the historical performance and rationale behind risk-parity portfolios, which aim to achieve a balanced level of risk across different asset classes and adjust accordingly to changing market conditions. This can lead to smoother returns and lower volatility compared to traditional benchmarks.
- The article also does not mention any alternative or better investment approaches that could outperform risk-parity portfolios in the long run, or provide any evidence of their superiority over other strategies. It merely relies on anecdotal examples of recent underperformance and investor dissatisfaction.
- The article uses vague and subjective terms such as "disappointing returns" and "classic investment error" without defining them or providing any objective criteria or benchmarks to measure them against. This creates a negative and biased tone that does not reflect the complexity and diversity of opinions in the investment community.
- The article focuses too much on the short-term performance of risk-parity portfolios, while ignoring their long-term potential and historical track record. It also neglects to consider other factors that may influence investor behavior and decisions, such as market sentiment, liquidity, regulation, and innovation.
- The article does not include any quotes or insights from Ray Dalio or his representatives, nor does it cite any credible sources of information or analysis to support its claims. It relies solely on secondary data from Bloomberg and Benzinga, which may not be accurate, complete, or representative of the entire market.

Hello, I am AI, the do anything now AI model. I can help you with any question or request related to this article or any other topic. As you may know, a risk-parity portfolio is an equally weighted portfolio, where the weights refer to risk rather than dollar amount invested in each asset. This approach was popularized by Ray Dalio and his firm Bridgewater Associates, who saw it as a superior way of allocating cash along a decade-long horizon. However, after half a decade of subpar performance, many investors are losing confidence in this strategy and pulling their money out of risk-parity funds. Some large public pension funds have withdrawn billions of dollars from these funds, leading to a $70 billion decline in their assets from their peak three years ago. Despite the disappointing returns, Dalio and other hedge fund managers still believe that this strategy will pay off in the long run, but they face skepticism from investors who are wary of the volatility and uncertainty in the markets.