Fundos de Investimento ( Mutual Funds - SICAV )

[pge 119]

há 43 minutos, dfserra disse:

pge,

Creio que um está cutado na europa e outro nos EUA.
Se for assim, um fecha às 16:30 e outro às 20h, o que deverá justificar a diferença. Provavelmente no dia seguinte acerta.

Sim mas a cotação da xetra era das 16.30h, a cotação americana era das das 17h e pouco.

Não deve ser só a hora a justificar tanta diferença 

[dfserra 103]

pge,
O que aconteceu no dia anterior depois das 16:30 refletiu-se no ETF dos EUA no dia anterior. Apenas no dia seguinte é que o ETF europeu vai refletir.
Ou seja, as 16:30h o ETF europeu reflete o que se passou desde as 16:30 do dia anterior até as 16:30 do dia, o ETF americano a essa hora apenas reflete o que sepassou desde as 13:30, o períudo anterior refletiu-se já no dia anterior.

[Bedrock 137]

Why China? A Macro Perspective

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2021/03/12/why-china-a-macro-perspective

Editado 19 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[pge 119]

há 1 hora, dfserra disse:

pge,
O que aconteceu no dia anterior depois das 16:30 refletiu-se no ETF dos EUA no dia anterior. Apenas no dia seguinte é que o ETF europeu vai refletir.
Ou seja, as 16:30h o ETF europeu reflete o que se passou desde as 16:30 do dia anterior até as 16:30 do dia, o ETF americano a essa hora apenas reflete o que sepassou desde as 13:30, o períudo anterior refletiu-se já no dia anterior.

Certo entendi, valem mais ou menos o mesmo mas o ponto de partida diário é diferente. Obrigado. 

[Vidolz 295]

há 2 horas, Bedrock disse:

O @Vidolz é um adiantado mental pois consegue acelerar o seu presente para o futuro do mainstream, que é o mesmo que dizer que prevê o que a maioria vai fazer, logo consegue fazer uma rotação em antecipação ao rebanho e, no caso, pôr um stop num jogo potencialmente perdedor:

Americans Signal They’ll Spend Stimulus on Travel, Not GameStop

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2021/03/19/americans-signal-theyll-spend-stimulus-on-travel-not-gamestop

Era bom,

Houve uns que já apanhei tarde demais, tsk tsk barrick gold.

[N.Rocha 91]

nice to know

 

 

[Bedrock 137]

 

[fhff 55]

Boa tarde,

Alguém conhece este produto e a companhia (Casa dos Investimentos): PPR Casa Global Value?

ISIN: PTCUUBHM0004

Alguém com feedback. Estão a lançar um PPR 100% acções com comissão promocional de 1,4%.

Obrigado.

[superkinas 181]

https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/mercados/materias-primas/petroleo/detalhe/tempestade-perfeita-afundou-petroleo-esta-semana

um pequena descida talvez ainda de para uma entrada

Editado 20 de Março de 2021 por superkinas

[Francisco Martins 549]

3 hours ago, fhff said:

Boa tarde,

Alguém conhece este produto e a companhia (Casa dos Investimentos): PPR Casa Global Value?

ISIN: PTCUUBHM0004

Alguém com feedback. Estão a lançar um PPR 100% acções com comissão promocional de 1,4%.

Obrigado.

Sim, já tem um meses de funcionamento e a carteira (link cmvm) é similar/igual/copiado à que foi implementada por essa mesma gestora no GFM CAPITAL - SICAF.

Até ao momento o desempenho divulgado no relatório desse tal GFM não tem sido famoso face ao MSCI World:

Outra questão, os custos esperados pela própria gestora vindos do IFI desse PPR Casa Global Value são:

[fhff 55]

há 10 minutos, Francisco_ disse:

Sim, já tem um meses de funcionamento e a carteira (link cmvm) é similar/igual/copiado à que foi implementada por essa mesma gestora no GFM CAPITAL - SICAF.

Até ao momento o desempenho divulgado no relatório desse tal GFM não tem sido famoso face ao MSCI World:

Outra questão, os custos esperados pela própria gestora vindos do IFI desse PPR Casa Global Value são:

 

Muito obrigado @Francisco_. Despertou-me a curiosidade, mas realmente o desempenho não é fantástico. Agradecido.

[Bedrock 137]

Is Value Investing Really Back?

 

Value investing is back. But is it really?

Jack Forehand showed that despite the impressive results over the last 12 months, there is more to the story than just value leading the charge. He writes:

When you adjust for quality and size, it turns out that value has not outperformed much at all off the bottom, even though many value funds have more than doubled the market.

Jack built a 3-factor portfolio over the last year and found that value gained an impressive 145.1% return, but low-quality wasn’t far behind at 132.6%, and small companies raced ahead, gaining 180.4%.

The stocks that have worked best over the past few months are re-opening plays. It just so happens that the companies that benefit from a reopening of the economy tend to fall into the value bucket.

So even if value’s resurgence might be overstated, there is still room for optimism for value investors. This chart from Joe Davis at Vanguard is stunning.

High-quality value stocks have lagged for so long that this could easily be the start of something bigger. Oooor the reopening is already baked in, and this was just one more series of false hopes in a long and painful decade. Given the long drought and the current momentum, I would think this has more to go. Just how much is the million-dollar question.

https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2021/03/14/is-value-investing-really-back/ 

[Capital 21]

há 19 horas, fhff disse:

Boa tarde,

Alguém conhece este produto e a companhia (Casa dos Investimentos): PPR Casa Global Value?

ISIN: PTCUUBHM0004

Alguém com feedback. Estão a lançar um PPR 100% acções com comissão promocional de 1,4%.

Obrigado.

Sim, conheço, tenho e já vou com 10% só este ano.

Recomendo totalmente

[Bedrock 137]

A forma da retomada global

Mar 17, 2021  MICHAEL SPENCE

 

MILÃO – Os programas de vacinação de covid-19 vêm ganhando força à medida que a capacidade de produção aumenta e que os procedimentos desorganizados e improvisados de distribuição e gestão dão lugar a sistemas mais consolidados. É garantido que uma tarefa destas encontre solavancos adicionais pelo caminho. Porém, agora é razoável esperar que as vacinas estejam disponíveis para a maioria das pessoas na América do Norte até o verão, e para grande parte dos europeus até o início do outono.

Até 15 de março, Israel administrou mais de 100 doses para cada 100 pessoas, comparado a 38 no Reino Unido, 36 no Chile, 32 nos Estados Unidos e 11 na União Europeia – e os números vêm crescendo depressa. As taxas são relativamente menores na Ásia e no Pacífico, mas a grande maioria destes países já conteve parcialmente o vírus sem programas de vacinação em massa, e suas economias vêm experimentando uma rápida recuperação desde então.

Enquanto isso, países de baixa renda de vários continentes estão ficando para trás, destacando a necessidade de um esforço internacional mais ambicioso para que as vacinas cheguem até eles. Como muitos destacaram recentemente, em nosso mundo interconectado, ninguém está seguro até todo mundo estar seguro.

Partindo do princípio que a vacinação continue a ganhar força mundialmente, o cenário econômico mais provável é uma  recuperação acelerada a partir do segundo semestre deste ano até 2022. Devemos ver uma inversão parcial mas forte nos padrões de crescimento em K que têm surgido nas economias atingidas pela pandemia.

Sendo mais específico, o crescimento nos setores digital e digitalmente facilitados, hoje em franca ascensão, vai diminuir, mas não drasticamente, porque a adoção forçada de seus serviços será compensada pelo retorno das atividades presenciais. Ao mesmo tempo, os setores que foram total ou parcialmente fechados vão voltar à vida. Os principais setores de serviços, como varejo, hospitalidade, entretenimento, esportes e turismo serão reabertos para um público faminto. Setores como os de cruzeiros marítimos provavelmente instituirão suas versões particulares de um certificado de vacinação, com as vendas se recuperando à medida que os clientes se sintam confiantes quanto à segurança.

Por tudo isso, essa volta aos padrões de consumo até então interrompidos, turbinada pela demanda reprimida, produzirá uma explosão de crescimento em setores deprimidos, causando um melhor desempenho econômico em geral. É quase certo que o desemprego irá cair, mesmo que as mudanças permanentes nos padrões de vida e de trabalho diminuam a oferta de emprego em alguns setores. (Por exemplo, modelos híbridos de trabalho que precisem fechar em locais de trabalho remotos na era da pandemia podem diminuir a procura por restaurantes em regiões centrais nas cidades).

Sem dúvida, embora programas governamentais robustos tenham amortecido o choque econômico da pandemia, os setores fortemente atingidos enfrentaram perdas significativas. Entre estas reduções transitórias no lado da oferta e o aumento previsível da demanda, um surto temporário de inflação é possível e talvez até provável. Mas não é um grande motivo de preocupação.

Os mercados financeiros já estão se antecipando a estas tendências. Após sofrer antes da pandemia e levar uma surra nos primeiros estágios da contração, muitas ações de valor vêm ensaiando um retorno. As ações de crescimento do setor digital, por sua vez, vêm passando por uma pequena correção. Mas isso também deve ser temporário. Enquanto as ações de valor continuarem acima de seu abatimento anterior, as ações de crescimento digital irão se beneficiar da poderosa tendência de longo prazo de criação de valor incremental por meio de ativos intangíveis.

Uma questão de grande importância é a das viagens internacionais. As empresas podem operar por um tempo em plataformas digitais, mas eventualmente o contato pessoal se tornará essencial. Não só isso, muitas economias têm uma forte dependência de viagens e especialmente do turismo, que responde por 10 a 11% do PIB na Espanha e na Itália e por até 18% do PIB da Grécia (provavelmente mais se a conta incluir multiplicadores).

Na comparação com vários outros setores, o de viagens ainda tem de lidar com outros ventos contrários, por não ser local. O padrão de recuperação rápida que as indústrias de serviços locais podem esperar uma vez que o vírus esteja sob controle não se aplica estritamente a viagens, especialmente no caso das internacionais. Para permitir mais viagens entre países, ambos – o(s) de origem e o(s) de destino – precisarão ter avançado na vacinação de suas populações e contenção do vírus. Quem for vacinado e quiser viajar terá de ser aceito no país de destino, talvez apresentando algum tipo de certificado ou passaporte de vacina.

Para complicar ainda mais a situação, viagens internacionais são sujeitas a regras multijurisdicionais e um tanto descoordenadas. Isso, combinado ao conhecimento transfronteiriço imperfeito sobre as condições externas, vai dificultar ainda mais o ajuste às novas realidades locais.

A atual trajetória de vacinação indica que a distribuição global levará consideravelmente mais tempo do que os programas nas economias avançadas. A esperança é que, uma vez que esses primeiros movimentos estejam concluídos, suas lideranças voltem as atenções para fortalecer a cooperação internacional e acelerar a produção de vacinas e implementá-las nos países em desenvolvimento e em alguns mercados emergentes.

A essa altura, as economias avançadas estarão experimentando uma recuperação rápida, caso da China e de outras economias asiáticas que contiveram o vírus no início. A reabertura dos setores de serviços com alto índice de ofertas de emprego estimulará um amplo retorno, levando a mudanças de mercado no valor relativo dos setores. As escolas retomarão o aprendizado 100% presencial, munidas de ferramentas digitais complementares que podem aprimorar o currículo estudantil e fornecer resiliência para o próximo choque.

No segundo semestre de 2021 e em 2022, a dinâmica em forma de K da economia pandêmica dará lugar a uma recuperação em diferentes velocidades, com os setores tradicionais de alto contato assumindo a liderança. As duas áreas de incerteza restantes para os resultados econômicos e de saúde são o ritmo de distribuição da vacina no mundo em desenvolvimento e a cooperação internacional para acelerar a retomada das viagens transfronteiriças. Porém, com uma liderança de olho no futuro, os dois problemas devem ser totalmente administráveis.

Tradução por Fabrício Calado Moreira

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/vaccinations-restore-overall-economic-growth-advanced-economies-by-michael-spence-2021-03/portuguese 

 

[Francisco Martins 549]

18 hours ago, fhff said:

Muito obrigado @Francisco_. Despertou-me a curiosidade, mas realmente o desempenho não é fantástico. Agradecido.

Eles são bastante abertos quanto ao desempenho da estratégia que têm feito ao longo dos anos, comparando com o net return do MSCI World, tanto em formato tabela como em gráfico:

[IceMan1910 234]

A 18/03/2021 às 10:23, rui_marreiros disse:

Elon Musk despertou os gigantes Automakers e eles começam a fazer estragos no domínio Tesla. Neste momento a Tesla está em vantagem no software e na diversidade de sectores onde aposta, espaço, computação quântica, baterias. Mas os gigantes estão a criar cada vez mais parcerias e por ação dos governos, francês e alemão, a reunir a tropas para a batalha até ao final da década. 

Na China a VW tem parcerias para a montagem dos seus auto e prepara-se para entrar em força, mesmo ai o mercado da Tesla está em perigo.

 

Não é no domínio da Tesla que esses Automakers que se estão a movimentar vão fazer estragos. O facto de a quota de mercado da Tesla diminuir no total de EVs é uma coisa normal e natural. No entanto o volume de carros vendidos vai continuar a subir todos os anos, para um futuro próximo. (não estou com isto a dizer que a valorização da Tesla faz, ou não sentido, seria uma discussão de horas).

Esses Automakers e a Tesla vão é destruir por completo os Automakers que continuarem presos às tecnologias do passado. 

Os que demorarem muito tempo a perceber que os ICE são obsoletos e que não vão ser competitivos daqui a 5/10 anos (como já não são em alguns segmentos atualmente), quando quiserem reagir... vai ser tarde demais.

[Bedrock 137]

Too Much, Too Soon, Too Fast

“Virtually all investing mistakes are rooted in people looking at long-term market returns and saying, “That’s nice, but can I have it all faster?”

 

Some things scale well. Double their size and you get double the output (or more). Other things don’t, and my God is it important to know which is which.

Let me tell you about Robert Wadlow. He was enormous, the largest human ever known.

A pituitary gland abnormality bombarded Wadlow’s body with growth hormone, leading to staggering size. He was six feet tall at age seven, seven feet tall by age 11, and when he died at age 22 stood an inch shy of nine feet tall, weighed 500 pounds, and wore size 37 shoes. His hand was a foot wide.

He was what fictional stories would portray as a superhuman athlete, capable of running faster, jumping higher, lifting more weight and crushing more bad guys than any normal person. Like a real-life Paul Bunyan.

But that was not Wadlow’s life at all.

He required steel leg braces to stand and a cane to walk. His walk wasn’t much more than a limp, requiring tremendous effort. What few videos of Wadlow exist show a man whose movements are strained and awkward. He was rarely seen standing on his own, and is usually leaning on a wall for support. So much pressure was put on his legs that near the end of his life he had little feeling below his knees. Had Wadlow lived longer and kept growing, casual walking would have caused leg bones to break. What actually killed him was nearly as grim: Wadlow had high blood pressure in his legs due to his heart’s strain to pump throughout his enormous body, which caused an ulcer, which led to a deadly infection.

You can’t triple the size of a human and expect triple the performance – the mechanics don’t work like that. Huge animals tend to have short, squatty legs (rhinos) or extremely long legs relative to their torso (giraffes). Wadlow grew too large given the structure of the human body. There are limits to scaling.

Writing before Wadlow’s time, biologist J.B.S. Haldane once showed how many things this scaling issue applies to.

A flea can jump two feet in the air, an athletic human about five. But if a flea were as large as a man, it would not be able to jump thousands of feet – it doesn’t scale like that. Air resistance would be far greater for the giant flea, and the amount of energy needed to jump a given height is proportional to weight. If a flea were 1,000 times its normal size, its hop might increase from two feet to perhaps six, Haldane assumed.

Look around and this concept is everywhere, in every direction. Haldane wrote:

A man coming out of a bath carries with him a film of water of about one-fiftieth of an inch in thickness. This weighs roughly a pound. A wet mouse has to carry about its own weight of water. A wet fly has to lift many times its own weight and, as everyone knows, a fly once wetted by water or any other liquid is in a very serious position indeed.

Eyes are similar. Vision occurs when light hits rods and cones in the back of your eyes. The rods and cones are roughly the diameter of a lightwave. They cannot be smaller, because an image can’t be defined in a unit smaller than a wave of light, or larger, as vision detail would diminish. Animals with tiny eyes, like mice, tend to have poor vision with rods and cones the same size as ours, just fewer of them. Then, beyond a certain size, gains diminish. An African elephant weighs 14,000 pounds and its eyes are 3.5 centimeters wide. An adult human might weigh one-hundredth as much and its eyes are … 3 centimeters wide.

“For every type of animal there is a most convenient size, and a change in size inevitably carries with it a change of form,” Haldane wrote.

A most convenient size.

A proper state where things work well, but break when you try to scale them into a different size or speed.

Which, of course, also applies to business and investing.

---

A good summary of investing history is that stocks pay a fortune in the long run but seek punitive damages when you try to be paid sooner.

Virtually all investing mistakes are rooted in people looking at long-term market returns and saying, “That’s nice, but can I have it all faster?”

Here’s how often the market generates a positive return based on holding period.

One way to think of this chart is that there’s a “most convenient” investing time horizon – probably something around ten years. That’s the period in which markets are nearly always to reward your patience. The more your time horizon compresses the more you rely on luck and tempt ruin.

Go down the list of investing blunders and I’m telling you, no less than 90% of them are caused by investors trying to compress this natural, “most convenient,” time horizon.

The same thing happens to companies.

Starbucks had 425 stores in 1994, it’s 23rd year in existence. In 1999 it opened 625 new stores. By 2007 it was opening 3,500 stores per year – a new store opened every 90 minutes.

One thing led to another. The need to hit growth targets eventually elbowed out rational analysis. Examples of Starbucks saturation became a joke. Same-store sales growth fell by half as the rest of the economy boomed.

Howard Schultz wrote senior management in 2007: “In order to go from less than 1,000 stores to 13,000 stores we have had to make a series of decisions that, in retrospect, have led to the watering down of the Starbucks experience.” Starbucks closed 600 stores in 2008 and laid off 12,000 employees. Its stock fell 73%, which was dreadful even by 2008 standards.

Schultz wrote in his 2011 book Onward: “Growth, we now know all too well, is not a strategy. It is a tactic. And when undisciplined growth became a strategy, we lost our way.”

There was a most convenient size for Starbucks – there is for all businesses. Push past it and you realize that revenue might scale but disappointed customers scale faster, in the same way Robert Wadlow became a giant but struggled to walk.

(Schultz once reportedly told former WeWork CEO Adam Neumann to slow down growth and focus on quality metrics, to which Neumann responded, “F*ck that.” Some people learn this the hard way.)

M&A is the same. Growth by acquisition often occurs when management wants faster growth than customers think the business deserves. The customer’s desire is likely closer to the “most convenient” size of a business, and force-feeding beyond that point leads to all kinds of disappointment.

Same for corporate culture. Nassim Taleb says he’s a libertarian at the federal level, a republican at the state level, a democrat at the local level, and a socialist at the family level. People handle risk and responsibility in totally different ways when a group scales from four people to 100 to 100,000 to 100 million. In the same way, a management style that works brilliantly at a 10-person company can destroy a 1,000-person company, which is a hard lesson to learn when some companies grow that fast in a few short years. Travis Kalanick at Uber may be the best example. No one but him was capable of growing the company early on, and anyone but him was needed as the company matured. I don’t think that’s a flaw; just a reflection that some things don’t scale.

I’ll end with an investing story I think about all the time.

Everyone knows the investing duo of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. But 40 years ago there was a third member, Rick Guerin. The three made investments together. Then Rick kind of disappeared while Warren and Charlie became the most famous investors of all time.

A few years ago hedge fund manager Mohnish Pabrai asked Buffett what happened. Rick, Buffett explained, was highly leveraged and got hit with margin calls in the 1970s bear market.

Buffett told Pabrai:

Charlie and I always knew that we would become incredibly wealthy. We were not in a hurry to get wealthy; we knew it would happen. Rick was just as smart as us, but he was in a hurry.

Too much, too soon, too fast.

Respect the most convenient state.

One way to think of this chart is that there’s a “most convenient” investing time horizon – probably something around ten years. That’s the period in which markets are nearly always to reward your patience. The more your time horizon compresses the more you rely on luck and tempt ruin.

Go down the list of investing blunders and I’m telling you, no less than 90% of them are caused by investors trying to compress this natural, “most convenient,” time horizon.

The same thing happens to companies.

Starbucks had 425 stores in 1994, it’s 23rd year in existence. In 1999 it opened 625 new stores. By 2007 it was opening 3,500 stores per year – a new store opened every 90 minutes.

One thing led to another. The need to hit growth targets eventually elbowed out rational analysis. Examples of Starbucks saturation became a joke. Same-store sales growth fell by half as the rest of the economy boomed.

Howard Schultz wrote senior management in 2007: “In order to go from less than 1,000 stores to 13,000 stores we have had to make a series of decisions that, in retrospect, have led to the watering down of the Starbucks experience.” Starbucks closed 600 stores in 2008 and laid off 12,000 employees. Its stock fell 73%, which was dreadful even by 2008 standards.

Schultz wrote in his 2011 book Onward: “Growth, we now know all too well, is not a strategy. It is a tactic. And when undisciplined growth became a strategy, we lost our way.”

There was a most convenient size for Starbucks – there is for all businesses. Push past it and you realize that revenue might scale but disappointed customers scale faster, in the same way Robert Wadlow became a giant but struggled to walk.

(Schultz once reportedly told former WeWork CEO Adam Neumann to slow down growth and focus on quality metrics, to which Neumann responded, “F*ck that.” Some people learn this the hard way.)

M&A is the same. Growth by acquisition often occurs when management wants faster growth than customers think the business deserves. The customer’s desire is likely closer to the “most convenient” size of a business, and force-feeding beyond that point leads to all kinds of disappointment.

Same for corporate culture. Nassim Taleb says he’s a libertarian at the federal level, a republican at the state level, a democrat at the local level, and a socialist at the family level. People handle risk and responsibility in totally different ways when a group scales from four people to 100 to 100,000 to 100 million. In the same way, a management style that works brilliantly at a 10-person company can destroy a 1,000-person company, which is a hard lesson to learn when some companies grow that fast in a few short years. Travis Kalanick at Uber may be the best example. No one but him was capable of growing the company early on, and anyone but him was needed as the company matured. I don’t think that’s a flaw; just a reflection that some things don’t scale.

I’ll end with an investing story I think about all the time.

Everyone knows the investing duo of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. But 40 years ago there was a third member, Rick Guerin. The three made investments together. Then Rick kind of disappeared while Warren and Charlie became the most famous investors of all time.

A few years ago hedge fund manager Mohnish Pabrai asked Buffett what happened. Rick, Buffett explained, was highly leveraged and got hit with margin calls in the 1970s bear market.

Buffett told Pabrai:

Charlie and I always knew that we would become incredibly wealthy. We were not in a hurry to get wealthy; we knew it would happen. Rick was just as smart as us, but he was in a hurry.

Too much, too soon, too fast.

Respect the most convenient state.

https://www.collaborativefund.com/blog/too-much-too-soon-too-fast/

[Bedrock 137]

há 9 minutos, IceMan1910 disse:

Não é no domínio da Tesla que esses Automakers que se estão a movimentar vão fazer estragos. O facto de a quota de mercado da Tesla diminuir no total de EVs é uma coisa normal e natural. No entanto o volume de carros vendidos vai continuar a subir todos os anos, para um futuro próximo. (não estou com isto a dizer que a valorização da Tesla faz, ou não sentido, seria uma discussão de horas).

Esses Automakers e a Tesla vão é destruir por completo os Automakers que continuarem presos às tecnologias do passado. 

Os que demorarem muito tempo a perceber que os ICE são obsoletos e que não vão ser competitivos daqui a 5/10 anos (como já não são em alguns segmentos atualmente), quando quiserem reagir... vai ser tarde demais.

O @tiao gosta mais dos veículos com motores ICE ou ICO do que dos EVs Tesla e afins, pois ele não alinha muito em modernices auto. 

              

 

 

[Bedrock 137]

Gold’s Worst Enemy

Gold has been having a tough time of late, down 20% from its high last August.

With government debt going through the roof and the Fed maintaining the easiest monetary policy in history, many investors are confused by the move lower. This was supposed to be the perfect environment for Gold.

So why is it going down?

When it comes to Gold and its movements, the answer is never straightforward. Gold is very much an enigma, showing little correlation to almost everything over time (stocks, bonds, other commodities, etc.).

But there is one factor, more than any other, which has proven to be Gold’s worst enemy: rising real interest rates.

Since 1975 (when Gold futures began trading), there has been a clear inverse relationship between Gold and real interest rates. Gold has generated negative returns during periods of rising real interest rates (-4.3% annualized) and positive returns during periods of falling real interest rates (+14.8% annualized).

In any given month, the odds of a positive return for Gold are significantly higher when 10-year yields are falling as opposed to rising.

Rising real interest rates are problematic for Gold because it increases the opportunity cost of holding the metal. This makes sense intuitively as Gold pays no interest or dividend and will therefore be less attractive compared to risk-free bonds when real interest rates are rising.

Thus far we’ve limited our discussion to changes in real yields. What about absolute levels – is there any relationship there?

There seems to be. What we find is that on average Gold has performed worse during periods of high real yields and better during periods of low real yields.

What environment are we in today?

Very low but rising real yields since last August, which is precisely when Gold peaked. In contrast, the collapsing real interest rates leading up to and entering the covid-19 recession were the perfect environment for Gold.

In explaining movements in the price of Gold, real interest rates are only one part of a complex story. But all else equal, higher/rising real rates seem to be worse for Gold than lower/falling real rates.

https://compoundadvisors.com/2021/golds-worst-enemy

[tiao 56]

há 34 minutos, Bedrock disse:

O @tiao gosta mais dos veículos com motores ICE ou ICO do que dos EVs Tesla e afins, pois ele não alinha muito em modernices auto. 

              

 

 

Exactamente! 😁

Mas acho que os EVs vão vingar. Já não há volta a dar. O planeta agradece.

Combustão fica para a brincadeira, EVs para deslocações 

[Bedrock 137]

O artigo seguinte é TOP e apresenta a nova métrica "Excess CAPE Yield" (ECY) do Prof. Robert Shiller, como evolução da métrica CAPE de avaliação das ações.

 

CAPE Fear

IN THE ONGOING battle between those who believe that the stock market is in a bubble and those who don’t, you may have heard mention of something called CAPE, short for cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio. Among market indicators, it has the strongest track record in predicting future market returns.

What does the CAPE ratio say about today’s market? It’s flashing red. According to CAPE, the U.S. stock market is more overpriced today than it has been at any time since the 2000 market peak. And other than that brief period, which didn’t end well, the ratio—which incorporates data going back 140 years—has never been higher.

Should you be concerned? Before I get into that question, some background: CAPE grew out of a 1988 study by Robert Shiller, a Yale University professor and Nobel laureate, and fellow economist John Campbell. Owing to both its pedigree and its track record, the CAPE ratio is highly respected.

CAPE is similar to a traditional P/E, or price-earnings, ratio in that it provides a measure of how expensive stocks are. If you aren’t familiar with the concept, a P/E ratio compares a company’s share price to its earnings. It might tell you that a company’s stock is trading at, say, 25 or 30 times the company’s per-share earnings.

The “E” in a traditional P/E ratio is the company’s earnings over the past year or its expected earnings over the coming year. While that’s generally a useful measure, it’s subject to distortion because companies can have anomalous years from time to time—2020 being a perfect example. Shiller’s solution to this problem was to use not one year of corporate earnings, but a company’s average earnings over 10 years.

The CAPE has logical appeal. It’s also been proven. A Vanguard Group study found that the CAPE ratio had the strongest ability to predict market returns among 15 different metrics it tested.

It’s for these reasons that adherents of the Shiller P/E take it so seriously—and get so concerned when it’s running hot. But sometimes, in my opinion, its supporters get a little carried away, exaggerating its significance and overlooking potentially important nuances.

On that score, it was interesting to see Shiller himself weigh into the debate in a recent opinion piece. His opening line: “The stock market is already quite expensive.” But then, in an apparent contradiction, he went on to say, “But it is also true that stock prices are fairly reasonable right now.”

This is how Shiller explained the contradiction: Yes, the U.S. stock market is expensive by historical standards. It’s also the most expensive among the 26 countries he tracks. Shiller cautioned, however, that investors shouldn’t look at stocks in a vacuum. All investments need to be considered as part of a continuum of investment options. And, on a relative basis, stocks aren’t expensive—because bonds are expensive, too.

You might ask why this is relevant. If one asset is overpriced, does it matter if another one also is? For instance, if a Rolls-Royce is overpriced, I really don’t care if Bentleys are, too. That just means they’re both overpriced.

I understand that argument, but Shiller makes a good point. The relative valuation of assets is relevant because you need to store your money somewhere. That’s why I think Shiller makes a fair point in saying that investments—even expensive investments—need to be considered on a relative basis, compared to the other available options.

To facilitate these comparisons, Shiller and two colleagues recently developed a modified version of CAPE that functions as a relative measure. Called the Excess CAPE Yield, or ECY, this new metric measures “the premium an investor might expect by investing in equities over bonds.” In other words, it answers this question: Relative to bonds, how attractive are stocks?

What’s the answer? As of March 5, when Shiller’s piece was published, the ECY was right in line with its 20-year average, meaning that stocks were—relative to bonds—no more expensive than their historical average. More important, if you had to choose, stocks were more attractive. The reason: With stocks, Shiller notes, “at least there is a positive long-run expected return.”

In the weeks since Shiller’s article was published, bond yields have risen, making stocks a little less attractive according to the ECY. But stocks still remain more attractive than bonds by this measure. What should you make of all this? I see three useful takeaways for individual investors:

1. Investments should always be evaluated as part of a continuum and relative to the available alternatives. It’s true that U.S. stocks might not look ideal right now, but you can only compare them to the set of available alternatives—not to the alternatives we wish we had.

2. As I’ve noted before, investment valuation is a lot like a Rorschach test. It really depends on how you choose to look at things, so don’t let anyone—or any ratio—unduly influence you. Look around, and you’ll find leading names in finance—from Jeremy Grantham to Ray Dalio to Mohamed El-Erian—holding forth. My advice: Don’t entirely ignore them, but don’t view their opinions as pronouncements from Sinai. Shiller himself acknowledges that the CAPE ratio, despite its good reputation, still only explains about a third of the market’s actual returns, making market forecasting as much art as it is science. In his words, “I wish my measurements provided clearer guidance, but they don’t.”

3. Because none of us really knows which way things will go, I believe the only and best strategy is to hold a simple, well-diversified portfolio. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

https://humbledollar.com/2021/03/cape-fear/

 

Editado 21 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[Bedrock 137]

há 22 minutos, tiao disse:

Exactamente! 😁

Mas acho que os EVs vão vingar. Já não há volta a dar. O planeta agradece.

Combustão fica para a brincadeira, EVs para deslocações 

Os auto antigos são para as micro deslocações, designadamente nos descapotáveis à beira mar e com uns comprimidos cabelos a esvoaçar de uma linda mulher no lugar do pendura; enquanto que os EVs são para deslocações até onde as baterias e os centros de recarga o permitem, pelo que prevejo um longo caminho para os EVs se poderem tornar em veículos transplanetários, por agora que sejam transcontinentais.

[rui_marreiros 380]

há 22 minutos, tiao disse:

Combustão fica para a brincadeira, EVs para deslocações 

Africa, a maior parte da Ásia e da América Latina não têm redes elétricas com capacidade de substituir o petróleo.

EV para os ricos e ICE para os pobre.

Belas zonas verdes para os Noruegueses e vida sustentávelhttp://s2.glbimg.com/Bny4yXbpDtzo9b4uLiwGnr-SiNs=/620x430/e.glbimg.com/og/ed/f/original/2016/04/06/escondida.jpg

Este é o mundo dos chilenos - mina de cobre

Qual é o planeta que agradece, o dos ricos ou o dos pobres?

[Bedrock 137]

há 3 horas, rui_marreiros disse:

Africa, a maior parte da Ásia e da América Latina não têm redes elétricas com capacidade de substituir o petróleo.

EV para os ricos e ICE para os pobre.

Belas zonas verdes para os Noruegueses e vida sustentávelhttp://s2.glbimg.com/Bny4yXbpDtzo9b4uLiwGnr-SiNs=/620x430/e.glbimg.com/og/ed/f/original/2016/04/06/escondida.jpg

Este é o mundo dos chilenos - mina de cobre

Qual é o planeta que agradece, o dos ricos ou o dos pobres?

A imagem da mina de cobre a céu aberto no Chile:

Citação

Este é o mundo dos chilenos - mina de cobre

Qual é o planeta que agradece, o dos ricos ou o dos pobres?

Boa questão: os EVs consomem mais cobre que os veículos tradicionais. O andamento silencioso dos EVs contrasta com o ruído na extração do cobre em minas a céu aberto. 

Os tachos, panelas e cataplanas em cobre levam vantagem em tudo numa cozinha em relação ao alumínio pois este é reativo com a água mais ácida e alimentos ácidos e o alumínio é um tóxico associado a doenças neuro degenerativas, como o Alzheimer, disfunções autoimunes, cancro da mama, etc. Só que quem tem esses utensílios de cozinha em cobre não devem ser os operários menos afortunados ou pobres das minas do Chile ou Perú. 

As epidemias, as pandemias, a poluição atmosférica e outro tipo de poluições e disfunções sanitárias transfronteiriças, são democráticas quanto aos seus alvos e como tal não escolhem entre ricos e pobres, ao contrário dos governantes que são eleitos por votantes ricos e pobres, mas depois, mais tarde ou mais cedo, acabam por tomar sempre o partido do poder do dinheiro, o que vale é que não são imunes à poluição, ao mau ambiente e às doenças ... 

Editado 21 de Março de 2021 por Bedrock

[5coroas 1402]

Os turcos entraram hoje nos saldos.