Insights

You’ve heard them all. You’ve rolled your eyes at some. But market clichés persist for a reason: they’re simple, sticky, and sometimes dangerously misleading. The trouble is, investors often repeat these sayings without asking if they still apply in today’s markets where AI algorithms, central bank intervention, and social media sentiment can move prices as much as fundamentals.

In classic Fearless Investor fashion, let’s slice through the noise and separate the timeless wisdom from the outdated myths.

1. Wall of Worry? Try a Wall of Shrugs.

The old line goes: “Bull markets climb a wall of worry.”

It’s still mostly true. Market tops are rarely formed in euphoria; they usually emerge when the smart money’s cautious and everyone else is rationalizing risk.

But in 2025, with central banks smoothing out volatility, “worry” isn’t what it used to be. The climb looks more like a dance along the edge of a volcano—moving forward while doomsday headlines pile up. The market knows the government is hooked on the tax receipts that flow from stock market gains. The Fed knows too.

Here’s the edge: learn to tell when the worry reflects real risk versus when it’s just headline noise.

If you’re not using options, remember you face two types of risk:

• Downside risk — losing money on positions you hold.
  
• Upside risk — selling too early and watching the asset rally without you.
  

Most investors only manage the first risk and miss the “melt-up.” If you’re selling based on a scary headline instead of your pre-set signals, you’re not investing—you’re reacting.

2. Trade the Market You Have, Not the Fantasy You Want

This one’s for every bear who missed the rally: “Trade the market you have, not the one you wish you had.”

It’s not surrender, it’s discipline. Markets evolve daily, and your playbook must adapt.

History’s graveyard is full of brilliant analysts who were “right too early” (Wall Street code for wrong). The pros tune out their own bias and focus on what the data says now, not on the macro story they wish would unfold. The chorus of bear commentary is drowning out the right tail risk.

3. Cut Your Losses: The Only Hill Worth Dying On

No one ever lost sleep over taking a small, controlled loss. But letting an ego trade metastasize into portfolio cancer? That will keep you up at night.

“Cut your losses” is more than a tactic, it’s a mindset.

Hope is not a strategy. If the signals you trusted to enter a trade no longer hold, exit. If the only thing that’s changed is the price, and the signals persist, why would you sell?

Know why you buy, when you should hold and when you should sell.

exit. If the only thing that’s changed is the price, your signals were flawed to begin with.

Self-discipline, not conviction, is the real alpha.

4. Buy the Dip—But Don’t Drown

In a liquidity-driven market, “buy the dip” isn’t dead, it’s just harder. AI-driven order flow has compressed pullbacks. What used to be a 5% drawdown now rebounds 2% before you’ve even clicked “buy.”

Today, buying the dip means adding exposure in liquid conditions and stepping aside when the water turns choppy. Valuations are stretched, but there are two ways to fix that: price falls, or earnings catch up. We just had a very strong earnings season.

If you’re under-allocated to a position you believe in, dips can be your friend. If you’re fully invested, chasing small rebounds can turn you into the liquidity for someone else’s exit.

5. Sell in May? Only If You Vacation with Dinosaurs

Back when trading floors thinned out over summer, “Sell in May and go away” had teeth. Now, ETFs, retail flows, remote trading, and offshore liquidity have erased most seasonality patterns.

That doesn’t mean it’s worthless, just that you need to confirm in real time whether the pattern is in play or being gamed by algorithms.

The lesson? Old data is history. The signals of today decide your next move.

Cliché Survival Guide: How to Use Them Without Getting Burned

• Check the context. Is the cliché explaining the past or predicting the future? Only the latter is actionable.
  
• Beware absolutes. When the crowd’s certainty is at 100%, that’s often the point of reversal.
  
• Backtest. Run the numbers. Most of these sayings don’t hold up to even a basic statistical check.
  

Every cliché started as a kernel of truth. But if you accept them blindly, you’re no longer the investor, you’re the yield.

Final Thought: In volatile markets, trust comes from process. Build a system. Follow your signals. Adapt when the data changes.

📊 Want help building your portfolio strategy based on macro fundamentals?

→ Book a call with Dakota Ridge Capital

🧠 Want to be around disciplined investors learning together?

→ Join the Fearless Investor Community

‍

If your asset allocation still treats Bitcoin as a speculative side bet and ignores energy infrastructure as a strategic asset, you’re investing like it’s 2015.

The real story isn’t just the rise of tech or the volatility of energy markets: it’s that the rules of what counts as safe and strategic have fundamentally changed. And so have the geopolitics.

1. Bitcoin: Beyond Casino, Now Core

Bitcoin is no longer just a retail “bet.” It’s becoming an institutional hedge, arguably the first truly non-sovereign, censorship-resistant reserve asset.

With monetary regimes under strain and political trust decaying, Bitcoin is taking the role gold once held before ETFs and central bank interventions diluted its edge.

Yes, it’s volatile. But its track record matters: since the pandemic, Bitcoin has outperformed nearly every asset class by a factor of 10. And here’s the twist: as of 2025, it’s less volatile than gold.

2. Stablecoins: The Digital Eurodollar

While Bitcoin gets the headlines, stablecoins are quietly becoming the backbone of global settlements.

• Scale: Multi-trillion-dollar settlement pipes for emerging markets, corporate treasuries, and dollar liquidity seekers in jurisdictions where the local regime can’t be trusted.
  
• Policy shift: Bolstered by the GENIUS Act, stablecoins are now mainstream, top-tier creditors backed by U.S. Treasuries.
  
• Implication: They’re not just crypto, they’re a key part of Washington’s plan to find new domestic buyers for U.S. debt. As the market cap of Bitcoin grows, so does the market cap of stablecoins, and the amount of Treasuries needed to back them.
  

3. Commodities: Boring, Until They Aren’t

Copper, uranium, lithium, oil: these aren’t just cyclical plays anymore. They’re at the center of a new energy and sovereignty arms race.

Post-Ukraine, every major economy is scrambling to secure the metals and fuels that underpin their independence. Volatility is the new normal, and pricing power belongs to resource-rich nations.

Washington, with guidance from the Department of Defense, has finally recognized the risk: China’s dominance in manufacturing and supplying critical metals like rare earths is a strategic vulnerability.

4. AI and the Power Crunch

AI isn’t just changing how we work, it’s transforming global energy demand. Data centers are now among the biggest electricity consumers on the planet.

The shift isn’t about “peak oil” anymore; it’s about “peak grid.” Renewables are part of the bridge, but gas and nuclear are regaining ground. Dirty, disliked, indispensable — fossil fuels still power 86% of global energy. In geopolitics, energy resilience is beating ESG box-ticking.

5. Renewables as Bridge, Not Destination

Solar and wind are growing, but they’re transitional, not the final stop.

As AI and digital infrastructure expand, we’ll need every available electron—carbon-neutral or not. The smart money sees renewables as a bridge to nuclear and next-gen hydrocarbons.

6. The Portfolio Perspective

In this environment, your “safe assets” list needs an upgrade:

• Digital hard assets: Bitcoin, stablecoins.
  
• Physical hard assets: Gold, critical commodities.
  
• Energy transition plays: Renewables, nuclear, select hydrocarbons.
  
• Tactical risk-on exposure: For opportunistic rotations.
  

Forget the ghost of 60/40. Build for a regime where power, trust, and digital sovereignty are the true reserve currencies.

📊 Want help building your portfolio strategy based on macro fundamentals?

→ Book a call with Dakota Ridge Capital

🧠 Want to be around disciplined investors learning together?

→ Join the Fearless Investor Community

‍

Across policy circles, trading floors, and social media, one debate is gaining momentum:

Should the Federal Reserve continue setting U.S. interest rates — or should we let the market decide?

This isn’t just an academic question. It’s about who holds the steering wheel of the U.S. economy and whether we still trust them to drive.

A Brief History of the Fed

The Federal Reserve was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913.

Woodrow said it best himself: “There has been no question in our time more anxiously debated than this question of banking reform. This measure takes control of our currency out of the hands of a private monopoly and makes it an instrument of the whole people.”

The Fed’s creation meant the United States would have a central authority for monetary policy and banking stability that would serve the public interest, not just private financial institutions.

The Fed’s original mission:

• Provide a stable money supply
• Act as lender of last resort during crises
• Smooth out the boom-and-bust cycles by adjusting interest rates and credit conditions
  

Over the decades, the Fed’s mandate expanded to include promoting maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

The Pre-Fed US Economy

The U.S. before 1913 had no central bank. Interest rates and credit were set entirely by private banks and market forces. That often worked fine during good times but in bad times it was catastrophic. Rates would spike, credit would dry up, and economic downturns would deepen.

• The Panic of 1907 was the breaking point:
  • Triggered by a failed attempt to corner the copper market
  • Stock markets collapsed, depositors rushed to withdraw cash, and many banks and trust companies failed
  • The U.S. economy spiraled toward depression
  • J.P. Morgan personally organized a rescue by rallying major banks to inject liquidity but the crisis showed the danger of relying on one man’s influence instead of a formal institution.
    

This led Congress to create the National Monetary Commission in 1908, which studied central banking systems abroad and drafted the blueprint that became the Federal Reserve Act.‍

The Value the Fed Brings

Proponents argue the Fed is the economy’s shock absorber. By raising rates when inflation rises, and cutting them when growth stalls, it can reduce the severity of recessions and keep prices stable.

It also plays a critical role as lender of last resort: injecting liquidity when markets freeze, as in 2008 and 2020. Without that backstop, many believe financial crises would be deeper and longer.

Notable Accomplishments Credited to the Fed

While controversial, the Fed has played critical roles in stabilizing the economy during crises:

• The Great Depression (1930s): Eventually implemented policies to expand the money supply, though economists debate if this came too late
• World War II: Managed interest rates to keep government borrowing costs low, enabling massive war financing
• 1980s Inflation Fight: Under Paul Volcker, the Fed hiked rates aggressively to bring down double-digit inflation, paving the way for decades of lower inflation
• 2008 Financial Crisis: Provided emergency lending facilities and slashed rates to near zero, helping prevent a complete financial collapse
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020): Acted quickly to stabilize markets, slash rates, and launch large-scale asset purchases to avoid a deep economic depression

Attempts to Close the Fed

Over the years, various politicians — particularly populists and some libertarians — have called for the Fed’s powers to be curtailed or for it to be abolished outright.

Notable examples:

• Ron Paul and the “Audit the Fed” and “End the Fed” campaigns in the 2000s–2010s
• Some criticism during President Trump’s term, where he publicly attacked Fed rate decisions, though he did not move to dismantle it
• These efforts have never gained enough congressional support to seriously threaten the Fed’s existence.

The Case for Market-Set Interest Rates

Some economists and investors argue that central banks distort the natural supply and demand for capital. Their main points:

• True Price Discovery: Letting the market set rates would ensure borrowing costs reflect real-time economic conditions.
• No Moral Hazard: Without the Fed “bailing out” markets, risk would be priced more accurately.
• Greater Transparency: Rates wouldn’t be influenced by closed-door meetings or policy speeches.
• Fiscal Discipline: Governments would face real borrowing costs, potentially reducing deficits.
  
  

The Case Against Removing the Fed’s Role

Critics of a purely market-driven approach point out serious risks:

• Loss of Stabilization Tools: Without the Fed adjusting rates, there’s no lever to combat inflation or recessions.
• Volatility: Markets can overshoot — pushing rates too high or too low, amplifying economic swings.
• Liquidity Crises: In times of panic, rates could spike uncontrollably without a lender of last resort.
• History’s Warning: The pre-Fed era saw frequent, devastating financial panics that destabilized the economy.

Top Supporters of the Fed

• Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve Chair — Continues championing the Fed’s independence and long-term credibility. Amid political attacks, financial leaders like JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon have echoed this defense of institutional autonomy. Business Insider
• Moderate and centrist economists, such as Mohamed El‑Erian and Jeremy Siegel, are quietly urging Powell to resign—not as a criticism of his performance, but as a strategic move to protect the Fed’s independence under mounting political stress.
  

Prominent Critics and Opponents

• Former Governor Kevin Warsh — Delivered strong criticism in April 2025, arguing the Fed has strayed beyond its mandate, misusing tools like forward guidance and drawing caution and concern from policy hawks. Reuters+Barron's

• Stephen Miran — Recently nominated by President Trump to the Fed’s Board of Governors, Miran is aligned with Trump’s call for aggressive rate cuts and structural reform, including reducing Fed independence. Financial Times

• Donald Trump and MAGA-aligned figures — Increasingly vocal critics of Powell and the institutional Fed, Trump has attacked the chair personally and signaled eagerness to restructure or replace the institution. Aljazeera.com+MarketWatch

• Libertarians and Gold-Standard Advocates — Figures like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and economist Mark Spitznagel continue to denounce the Fed, calling for its abolition or return to the gold standard, echoing long-standing skepticism.

The Trade-Off

At its core, the debate comes down to a choice:

Pro-Fed: Stability (Centralized Fed Control)

Centralized control by the Federal Reserve allows it to act as a lender of last resort in crises, inject liquidity to prevent bank runs, and use interest rate adjustments to smooth out the boom-bust cycle. By anchoring inflation expectations and keeping borrowing costs relatively predictable, the Fed provides businesses, households, and governments with a stable environment for long-term planning. Its ability to coordinate with other central banks during global shocks and its dual mandate to promote stable prices and maximum employment make it a powerful tool for dampening financial turmoil and sustaining economic confidence.

Anti-Fed: Freedom (Market-Set Rates)

With market-set rates, borrowing costs are determined purely by supply and demand for capital, credit risk, and inflation expectations — not central bank policy. Large government deficits push investors to demand higher interest rates, increasing debt costs. This acts as a natural brake on overspending, forcing fiscal discipline through spending cuts, tax adjustments, or structural reforms. Investors, not central bankers, act as the real-time “enforcers” of sound fiscal policy. But, without the Fed cutting rates or injecting liquidity, recessions could be deeper and longer, credit harder to get, and unemployment slower to recover.

Who Wins and Who Loses in Each System?

Where Do You Stand?

This is not a theoretical exercise. In a world of high debt, shifting global power, and rapid information flows, how we set interest rates could shape the next century of U.S. economic history.

Let’s end with a thought for you to contemplate: Should the Fed step back and let markets set interest rates — or is their guiding hand still essential?

Enjoyed this newsletter? Get Involved.

• Join our Fearless Investor newsletter: one email a week, zero noise.
• Book a call with Dakota Ridge Capital if you’re investing in clean energy or want to optimize for tax strategy
• Watch us on YouTube, or tune in via Spotify / Apple
• Collaborate with us at contact@macromashup.com