The anatomy of a drawdown: How Soros, Dalio, and Buffett lost billions

In my years working in financial journalism, I’ve found that the difference between a retail trader and an institutional legend isn't the absence of mistakes. It is the magnitude.

New traders often ask me for the "secret" to avoiding losses. My answer is that there is no secret—only history. Even the titans of finance—George Soros, Ray Dalio, and Warren Buffett—have violated their own principles and paid the price in nine-figure losses.

The difference? They documented their failures, analysed the systemic breaks, and rebuilt.

Below is an editorial breakdown of three historical market failures. We strip away the hype to look at the psychology, leverage, and bias that caused them—so you can recognise the patterns in your own portfolio.

Case study 1: The momentum trap

The subject: George Soros & The Quantum Fund
‍The event: The Dot-Com Bubble (1999–2000)

The loss: $3 billion

Fresh off his legendary "Black Wednesday" victory in 1992, where he famously broke the Bank of England, George Soros faced a different beast in 1999: the irrational exuberance of the internet bubble.

Soros correctly identified the bubble early. He instructed his team to short the tech sector, recognising the "rot" in the valuations. But the market remained irrational longer than Soros remained solvent. As the Nasdaq continued to climb, his shorts bled capital.

The error: Driven by the pressure to perform and the fear of missing out (FOMO) as competitors posted massive gains, the Quantum Fund reversed its position. They abandoned their thesis and flipped long right at the market peak in March 2000.

When the crash hit, the fund was over-leveraged on the wrong side of the trade. The result was a 40% wipeout—a $3 billion loss in a matter of months.

The editorial takeaway: Soros later admitted that "over-extension of credit" fuelled the bubble, but his own fund’s error was psychological. They allowed price action to override their analysis. The lesson for the individual trader is clear: Thesis drift is fatal. If your data says "short," but you buy because the chart is green, you are no longer trading; you are gambling.

Case study 2: Confirmation bias

The subject: Ray Dalio & Bridgewater
‍The event: The "Depression" Call (1981–1982)

The consequence: Near insolvency

In 1981, Ray Dalio was not yet a billionaire; he was a 32-year-old manager running Bridgewater from a New York apartment. His analysis of debt cycles led him to a terrifying conclusion: the US was heading for a 1930s-style depression.

Dalio positioned the entire firm for this outcome. He shorted stocks, shorted bonds, and bet heavily on a commodities crash. He was so confident that he publicly declared this prediction on Wall Street Week.

The error: The Federal Reserve pivoted. Chairman Paul Volcker moved to ease, sparking a massive bull run in stocks and bonds. Dalio, blinded by his own conviction, ignored the changing data. Bridgewater lost nearly everything. Dalio had to fire his staff and borrow $4,000 from his father just to pay his bills.

The editorial takeaway: Dalio calls this his "abyss" moment. He realised that being "right" in theory doesn't matter if you are wrong on timing. He rebuilt Bridgewater on a new principle: Radical Transparency and uncorrelated bets (Risk Parity). For the trader, the lesson is humility. A single macro view, no matter how researched, should never carry 100% of your risk.

Case study 3: The value trap

The subject: Warren Buffett & Berkshire Hathaway
‍The event: The IBM Stake (2011–2018)

The loss: ~$2 billion

Warren Buffett built his empire on "moats"—companies with unassailable competitive advantages. in 2011, he broke his own rule of avoiding technology stocks to buy $10 billion worth of IBM.

He saw a legacy giant with sticky software and reliable dividends. He failed to see the existential threat of cloud computing (AWS and Azure) that was already eroding IBM's business model.

The error: As IBM stock faltered, Buffett did what he always does: he averaged down. He held the position for years, trusting the company's past metrics rather than its future reality. By the time he exited in 2018, the opportunity cost was massive, and the realised loss stood at roughly $2 billion.

The editorial takeaway: Buffett admitted he was "dead wrong". He had confused a "cheap" stock with a "value" stock. Even the Oracle of Omaha fell victim to the Sunk Cost Fallacy—holding onto a loser simply because he had already invested so much time and capital into it.

Final thought

The market is an equaliser. It does not care about your reputation, your past wins, or your net worth. It only cares about your discipline in the present moment.

If Soros, Dalio, and Buffett can misread liquidity, leverage, and value, so can you. The goal of this archive isn't to mock these errors, but to study them. 

In trading, your tuition is paid in losses—but it’s much cheaper to learn from someone else’s bill.

‍