Fundos de Investimento ( Mutual Funds - SICAV )

[Bedrock 137]

The theory: Short sellers correct overpricing

In financial economics, “market efficiency” means that the market price should reflect all available information. We can basically interpret that to mean that if the stock market is efficient, the price of a stock should equal the best possible guess of its fundamental value (i.e. the discounted future value of its free cash flows blah blah blah).

If you don’t allow short-selling, then it could be hard to correct overvaluation. Suppose Facebook stock is at $300 a share. And suppose half the people (let’s call them the “realists”) realize that Facebook is only worth $200 a share, and half are just crazy bullish and incorrectly think it’s worth $500 a share. Do their opinions just sort of cancel out? Well, no. Sure, the realists could push the price down by selling shares — if they had any. But remember, the realists think FB is overvalued at $300, so maybe they don’t actually own much of it, because why would you own an overvalued stock? Instead they already offloaded it to the optimists, who eagerly paid higher prices for it. Now the optimists own all the stock, and there’s no way to get the price back down to $200 by selling it.

Enter short-sellers. They borrow FB shares (from the optimists) and sell those shares, pushing the price down. Then in a little while when all the optimists wake up and realize that FB is really only worth $200 a share, and the price goes down, the shorts can buy the stock back for the cheaper price, return the shares to whoever they borrowed it from, and pocket the difference. That is how shorts make money.

Without short-sellers, it’s theoretically very hard to push stock prices down past a certain point. Many economic theorists have argued that this tends to lead to persistent overvaluation in the market. Without shorts, they predict, prices will be higher than fundamentals.

Some economists even think that short-sellers can pop stock bubbles, or prevent them from getting started. Maybe when prices rise because of a burst of optimism, it gets everyone’s attention and causes some people to think the rising prices are a new trend, so they all buy in and push the price to the moon🚀🚀🚀! Then the crash comes and regular folks lose their life’s savings to the savvy hedge funders who knew exactly when to time the top. But with short-sellers around, maybe that bubble would never get started, and normal people wouldn’t lose their life’s savings to savvy market-timing hedge funds, because they wouldn’t have seen that initial price rise to begin with.

It’s a theory, anyway.

OK, so that’s what short-sellers are supposed to do. They obviously can’t always do it, because in real life shorts don’t have infinite firepower (aka “liquidity”) to short stuff. If you get enough optimists together, you can overwhelm the hedge funds, and cause a short squeeze, which forces the prices even higher! 🚀🚀🚀

So whether short-sellers actually can stop bubbles in practice, we don’t know, since we don’t know entirely what causes bubbles to start forming, and at some point they get so big that shorts are powerless to stop them. (Though it’s worth noting that shorts do moderate bubbles in lab experiments.)

But anyway, theory says short sellers should at least be able to reduce overpricing on a day-to-day basis.

Are higher stock prices good or bad?

This is an important and subtle question. On one hand, regular people’s 401(k)s and IRAs and pension plans are invested in stocks, so when stock prices are higher, regular people feel wealthier. On the other hand, rich people have a much higher percent of their wealth in stocks compared to middle-class people, and poor people don’t own stock at all, so when stock prices go up, wealth inequality increases, at least on paper.

But does any of that matter? If stock prices are persistently above fundamental values, then the wealth isn’t real. The ability of companies to generate economic value remains the same. If people are willing to pay each other $1000 for a share of Facebook stock instead of $300, it just means they shuffle around more money each time the stock changes hands. So what?

Sure, the rich people are all richer on paper, but what are they going to do — sell all their stock to middle-class dopes, pocket the cash, and throw a party while the middle-class dopes are stuck with overvalued crap? Seems unlikely. Instead they’re going to just hang on to the overvalued stock, and go “Hrm hrm hrm, yay for me, I’m so rich!” Again, not a big deal, unless you’re one of the people who stays up late at night seething with rage at the thought of rich people feeling self-satisfied.

OK, one real thing it would mean is that Facebook, the actual company, would have an easier time raising money. Too easy! If Facebook’s shares sell for $1000 a pop, that means Zuck can just raise tons of cash by issuing some overvalued shares. Basically, Facebook’s cost of capital gets really low.

Economists generally think this is bad. If Zuck can raise money too easily, he’ll embark on inefficient projects and waste the money (and, more importantly, the time and effort of his employees). That will make the economy less efficient.

In reality, corporations rarely issue stock to fund their business activities. They almost always rely on debt instead. Maybe if stocks were really really overpriced, this would change — AMC, for example, is using a day-trading frenzy to issue stock to keep it afloat during the pandemic! But it seems highly unlikely that modest overpricings, of the type that short-sellers would be realistically able to correct, would move the needle at all on actual corporate finance.

In other words, it seems unlikely that a modest stock overpricing from a short-selling ban would have much of an effect on the real economy. If the S&P goes up by 10%, does the world really change at all?

But OK, on top of that, we have evidence that short-selling bans don’t even push prices up in the real world.

The evidence: Short-selling bans just gum up the works

Sometimes policymakers ignore the economists and ban or restrict short-selling anyway. And this allows economists to study what actually happens when you ban shorting. It turns out that short-selling bans are not quite as important as you might think.

For example, when Australia banned short-selling in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, it made stock prices a bit more volatile, and made trading a bit more expensive, but it didn’t actually boost prices. Another study around the world from the same period found the same thing — bans on short-selling made stocks more volatile and more expensive to trade, but they didn’t actually make prices higher!

Remember that the theoretical reason shorts push prices down is that normal traders don’t actually have enough of the stock to sell when things go bad, because they’ve already unloaded it all to the most optimistic people in the market. That probably just isn’t that realistic. In the real world, people do usually have enough to sell when they get more pessimistic. So we probably don’t actually need shorts to keep prices from getting inflated, at least most of the time.

Now, that said, there are a whole lot of papers that find that when short selling is banned, stock prices respond more sluggishly to news and other shocks. This is pretty close to being an established scientific fact. In other words, short-sellers might not affect the overall level of prices much, but they help prices change faster when fundamentals change. That makes markets more “efficient”.

But again: Do we really care that much? Precisely zero companies are making business decisions or financing decisions based on whether their stock price takes 3 hours or 3 weeks to respond to a change in corporate value. Economists may feel a shiver of delight at the idea of prices making a swift, unerring beeline for their efficient value, but the actual economy is likely to be less affected.

Predatory shorting

There’s one more thing shorts might possibly be able to do that bears mentioning. If short-sellers short a stock enough, they can maybe possibly potentially drive down the price so much that the company gets delisted. At that point they make maximum profit, whether or not the company was perfectly healthy. Of course, it’s illegal to do that intentionally, but some people try to do it anyway — Jim Cramer once admitted to doing this on live TV. But this is really hard and risky to do.

Maybe short-selling just doesn’t matter that much

So what effect do short-sellers really have overall? They make markets work a little bit faster, and they damp out market swings a little bit. They might be able to stop some bubbles from forming, but we don’t really know. A few of them hunt down frauds. They might in rare cases murder companies for profit, but probably not.

As for whether or not short-sellers are The Man and long traders are The Little Guy, I highly doubt this proposition. Yes, shorts tend to be well-heeled hedge fund types. But really so do longs. In fact, so does pretty much everyone in the stock market — it’s a rich person’s game. The number of actual Little Guys who stand to gain from bans on short-selling is going to be miniscule.

Thus, it seems to make sense to have some modest, reasonable restrictions on short-selling (like bans on the dubious practice of naked shorting). But overall, short-selling bans don’t seem very likely to make a difference one way or another. That’s an answer that’s not going to please either side of the debate, of course.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/what-do-short-sellers-really-do

 

[Patanisca 1223]

[Bedrock 137]

há 5 minutos, Patanisca disse:

Afinal com as tuas apuradas técnicas de IT não consegues pôr focada a linda mulher de vermelho e focas a menos bela e o servente de obras? 😁

https://sentimentrader.com/blog/shorts-have-left-the-market--4-2-2021/

[5coroas 1402]

São portanto os peritos/sacanas dos Hedge Funds que andam a manipular os mercados...

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por 5coroas

[Bedrock 137]

The Price-Value Feedback Loop: A Look at GME and AMC!

There are three topics that you can write or talk about that are almost guaranteed to draw a audience, stocks (because greed drives us all), sex (no reason needed) and salvation. I am not an expert on the latter two, and I am not sure that I have that much that is original to say about the first. That said,  in my niche, which is valuation, many start with the presumption that almost every topic you pick is boring. Obviously, I do not believe that, but there are some topics in valuation that are tough to care about, unless they are connected to real events or current news. One issue that I have always wanted to write about is the potential for a feedback loop between price and value (I can see you already rolling your eyes, and getting ready to move on..), but with the frenzy around GameStop and AMC, you may find it interesting. Specifically, a key question that many investors, traders and interested observers have been asking is whether a company, whose stock price and business is beleaguered, can take advantage of a soaring stock price to not just pull itself out of trouble, but make itself a more valuable firm. In other words, can there be a feedback loop, where increasing stock prices can pull value up, and conversely, could decreasing prices push value down?

Price, Value and the Gap

For the third time in three posts, I am going to fall back on my divide between value and price. Value, as I have argued is a function of cash flows, growth and risk, reflecting the quality of a company's business model. Price is determined by demand and supply, where, in addition to, or perhaps even overwhelming, fundamentals, you have mood, momentum and revenge (at least in the case of GameStop) thrown into the mix. Since the two processes are driven by different forces, there is no guarantee that the two will yield the same number for an investment or a company at a point in time:

Put simply, you can have the price be greater than value (over valued), less than value (under valued) or roughly the same (fairly valued). The last scenario is the one where markets are reasonably efficient, and in that scenario, the two processes do not leak into each other. In terms of specifics, when a stock's value is roughly equal to its price:

 

• Issuing new shares at the market price will have no effect on the value per share or the price per share, dilution bogeyman notwithstanding.
• Buying back shares at the market price will have no effect on the value per share or price per share of the remaining shares, even though the earnings per share may increase as a result of decreased share count.

I know these implications sound unbelievable, especially since we have been told over and over that these actions have consequences for investors, and so much analysis is built around assessments of accretion and dilution, with the former being viewed as an unalloyed good and latter as bad.

 

The Feedback Loop

In the real world, there are very few people who believe in absolute market efficiency, with even the strongest proponents of the idea accepting the fact that price can deviate from value for some or many companies. When this happens, and there is a gap between price and value, there is the potential for a feedback loop, where a company's pricing can affects its value. That loop can be either a virtuous one (where strong pricing for a company can push up its value) or a vicious one (where weak pricing for a company can push down value). There are three levels at which a gap between value and price can feed back into value:

• Perception: While nothing fundamentally has changed in the company, a rise (fall) in its stock price, makes bondholders/lenders more willing to slacken (tighten) constraints on the firm and increase (decrease) the chances of debt being renegotiated. It also affects the company's capacity to attract or repel new employees, with higher stock prices making a company a more attractive destination (especially with stock-based compensation thrown into the mix) and lower stock prices having the opposite effect.
• Implicit effects: When a company's stock price goes up or down, there can be tangible changes to the company's fundamentals. If a company has a significant amount of debt that is weighing it down, creating distress risk, and some of it is convertible, a surge in the stock price can result in debt being converted to equity on favorable terms (fewer shares being issued in return) and reduce default risk. Conversely, if the stock price drops, the conversion option in convertible debt will melt away, making it almost all debt, and pushing up debt as a percent of value. A surge or drop in stock prices can also affect a company's capacity to retain existing employees, especially when those employees have received large portions of their compensation in equity (options or restricted stock) in prior years. If stock prices rise (fall), both options and restricted stock will gain (lose) in value, and these employees are more (less) likely to stay on to collect on the proceeds. 
• Explicit effects: If a company's stock price rises well above value, companies will be drawn to issue new shares at that price. While I will point out some of the limits of this strategy below, the logic is simple. Issuing shares at the higher price will bring in cash into the company and it will augment overall value per share, even though that augmentation is coming purely from the increase in cash.  Companies can use the cash proceeds to pay down debt (reducing the distress likelihood) or even to change their business models, investing in new models or acquiring them. If a company's stock price falls below value, a different set of incentives kick in. If that company buys back shares at that stock price, the value per share of the remaining shares will increase. To do this, though, the company will need cash, which may require divestitures and shrinking the business model, not a bad outcome if the business has become a bad one.

I have summarized all of these effects in the table below:

 

 

These effects will play out in different inputs into valuation, with the reduction in distress risk showing up in lower costs for debt and failure probabilities, the capacity to hire new and keep existing employees in higher operating margin, the issuance or buyback of shares in cash balances and changes in the parameters of the business model (growth, profitability). Looking at the explicit effect of being able to issue shares in the over valued company or buy back shares in the under valued one, there are limits that constrain their use:

1. Regulations and legal restrictions: A share issuance by a company that is already public is a secondary offering, and while it is less involved than a primary offering (IPO), there are still regulatory requirements that take time and require SEC approval. Specifically, a company planning a secondary offering has to file a prospectus (S-3), listing out risks that the company faces, how many shares it plans to issue and what it plans to use the proceeds for. That process is not as time consuming or as arduous as it used to be, but it is not instantaneous; put simply, a company that sees its stock price go up 10-fold in a day won't be able to issue shares the next day.
2. Demand, supply and momentum: If the price is set by demand and supply, increasing the supply of shares will cause price to drop, but the effect is much more insidious. To the extent that the demand for an over valued stock is driven by mood and momentum, the very act of issuing shares can alter momentum, magnifying the downward pressure on stock prices. Put simply, a company that sees it stock price quadruple that then rushes a stock issuance to the market may find that the act of issuing the shares, unless pre-planned, May itself cause the price rise to unravel.
3. Value transfer, not value creation: Even if you get past the regulatory and demand/supply obstacles, and are able to issue the shares at the high price, it is important that you not operate under the delusion that you have created value in that stock issuance. The increase in value per share that you get comes from a value transfer, from the shareholders who buy the newly issued shares at too high a price to the existing shareholders in the company.
4. Cash and trust: If you can live with the value transfer, there is one final hurdle. The new stock issuance will leave the company with a substantial cash balance, and if the company's business model is broken, there is a very real danger that managers, rather than follow finding productive ways to fix the model, will waste the cash trying to reinvent themselves.

With buybacks, the benefits of buying shares back at below value are much touted, and Warren Buffett made this precept an explicit part of the Berkshire Hathaway buyback program, but buybacks face their own constraints. A large buyback may require a tender offer, with all of the costs and restrictions that come with them, the act of buying back stock may push the price up and beyond value. The value transfer in buybacks, if they occur at below fair value, also benefit existing shareholders, but the losers will be those shareholders who sold their shares back. Finally, a buyback funded with cash that a company could have used on productive investment opportunities is lost value for the company.

 

Reality Check

 

With that long lead in, we can address the question that many of those most upbeat about GameStop and AMC were asking last week. Can the largely successful effort, at least so far, in pushing up stock prices actually make GameStop or AMC a more valuable company? The answer is nuanced and it depends on the company:

• Perception: For the moment, the rise in the stock price has bought breathing room in both companies, as lenders back off, but that effect is likely to be transient. Perception alone cannot drive up value.
• Implicit effects: On this dimension, AMC has already derived tangible benefits, as $600 million in convertible debt will become equity, making the company far less distressed. For those Redditors primed for revenge against Wall Street, it is worth noting that the biggest beneficiary in this conversion is Silver Lake, a hedge fund that invested in these bonds in the dark days for the company. GameStop's debt is more conventional borrowing, and while bond prices have gone up, the benefits don't accrue as directly to the company.
• Explicit effects: On this dimension again, AMC is better positioned, having already filed a prospectus for a secondary offering on December 11, well ahead of the stock run-up. In that offering, AMC filed for approval for issuance of up to 178 million additional shares, from time to time, primarily to pay down debt. If the stock price stays elevated, and that is a big if, AMC will be able to issue shares at a price > value and increase its value per share. It is unclear whether GameStop has the time to even try to do this, especially if the stock price rise dissipates in days or weeks, rather than months.

To incorporate the feedback loop, I had modified my base case GameStop valuation (not the best case that you saw in my last post), and allowed for two additional inputs: new shares issued and an issuance price. Note that the value per share that I get with no additional shares issued is $28.17, and you can see how that value per share changes, for different combinations of issuance share numbers and issuance share prices:

 

Note that if the issuance occurs at my estimate of intrinsic value of $28.17, the share issuance has no effect on value per share, since the increase in share count offsets the increased cash balance exactly. Even in the more upbeat scenarios, where the company is able to issue new shares at a price above this value, let's be clear that the game that is playing out is value transfer. To see this, take the most extreme scenario, where GameStop is able to issue 50 million new shares (increasing their share count from 65.1 million to 115.1 million) at a stock price of $200, viable perhaps on Friday (when the stock traded about $300) but not today, the value effect and transfer can be seen below:

 

The value transfer can be intuitively explained. If new shareholders pay well above value, that increment accrues to existing shareholders. Since the new shareholders are buying the shares voluntarily, you may be at peace with this transfer, but if these new shareholders are small individual investors drawn in by the frenzy, the entire notion of this price run-up being a blow for fairness and justice is undercut. 

 

Investing Endgames!

The anger and sense of unfairness that animated many of those who were on the buying end of GameStop and AMC last week has roots in real greviances, especially among those who came of age in the midst or after the 2008 crisis. I understand that, but investing with the intent of hurting another group, no matter how merited you think that punishment is, has two problems. The first is that markets are fluid, with the winners and losers from an investing episode representing a quickly shifting coalition, The people who are helped and hurt are not always the people that you set out to help or hurt. The second is that if you truly want to punish a group that you think is deserving of punishment, you have to find a way to do damage to their investment models. Hurting some hedge funds, say the short sellers in GameStop, while helping others, like Silver Lake, will only cause investors in these funds to move their money from losing funds to winning funds. Thus, the best revenge you can have on funds is to see investors collectively pull their money out of funds, and that will happen if they under perform as a group. 

 

https://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-price-value-feedback-loop-look-at.html

 

 

[Bedrock 137]

Stories That Make You Rich or Go Broke

Why do you make certain decisions? How can you make better ones? Perhaps, you need a better story.

I think finance is synonymous with storytelling. Wall Street publishes more stories than the publishing industry.

Exhibit A is the GameStop saga, where a group of day traders bid up the beleaguered video game retailer’s stock price high enough to cause mayhem for short-selling hedge funds. For a brief time, it was a bigger story than the global pandemic and new American president.

The significance of it all will be debated for years. What is undeniable though is its example of how stories can shape us – for better or for worse.

GameStop was a classic David-and-Goliath story featuring a merry band of retail investors taking down the big, evil elite on Wall Street. Or, it was a story about equality and dismantling a rigged system. Or, maybe it was actually a tale of smart professionals seizing a golden opportunity. Or, maybe it was story of intrigue and conspiracy. Or, maybe it was a clash of titans, billionaire versus billionaire.

The story of GameStop will be known as the genesis of a major paradigm shift, ushering in a new era for the stock market. Or, it will be a stupid, non-event.

Then there are the stories within the story, like a 10-year-old whose GameStop share returned 5,000%.

Don’t forget the Reddit group responsible, r/WallStreetBets, fraternized through stories, stories of their major gains and major losses, often told with absurd memes and irreverent idiosyncrasies.

Of course, now that the GameStop stock play has come to a crashing end, it’s easy to dunk on inexperienced investors who took it for a ride. And to pan the press for perhaps blowing it out of proportion.

But ask yourself: Why do you do what you do? Why do you admire a specific person or associate with particular groups? Why do you follow certain routines? Why do you believe one thing but not another? Why do you buy the things you buy?

The same reason people opened Robinhood accounts this past couple weeks to start trading: A story.

Stories help us understand the world around us, pass along information and build relationships. When an unexpected event occurs – say, a group of retail investors fleecing some hedge funds – our desire for a cohesive narrative grows. We crave clarity, certitude and even identity through stories.

Research has shown that “compelling narratives cause oxytocin release and have the power to affect our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.” That is the same hormone released during labor, bonding mothers and newborn babies.

Wonder why people read tabloids? It’s like a textual dopamine hit.

A good story can make you rich (not just in a financial sense, but as in a life filled with joy). A good story can equally make you go broke (again, not just in a financial sense, but also broke in spirit).

Therefore, the power of the story is something we should all understand and respect. It can give us meaning and motivation. It can help turn the world in your favor (ex., convincing your boss for a raise). But, as many historical atrocities show, it can cause people to do terrible things.

I think the GameStop saga exemplified three major elements of an effective story. A good story may have one or all three. Knowing these elements can help you craft your own stories and keep you from falling victim to one.

1. Duality (good vs. evil)

Political propaganda is the apotheosis of this element, as it is used to define an enemy. As Aldous Huxley put it: “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”

It’s good versus evil. The Rebel Alliance versus the Galactic Empire. The Lakers versus the Celtics. Or in the case of GameStop, the people versus Wall Street.

This dualistic storyline, of one thing in opposition to another, doesn’t always involve people. It can also take a more intangible form, such as the status quo versus a better future, which was the theme of Apple’s famous 1997 Think Different campaign.

But life is not so black and white; life is very gray. Therefore, any story presented in a dualistic framework – a sales pitch, a Trump fundraising email, an invitation to join a cult – is a good indication there’s more to the story than meets the eye. Be alert.

On the other hand, we don’t like ambiguity. We prefer simple either-or statements. So, for achieving a certain outcome – to earn approval for a work project, to attract investors in your start-up or to even adopt healthier habits – it’s easiest to change minds with a dualistic story.

2. A higher purpose

Gregor MacGregor was an 1800s fraudster who tricked British and French investors to invest in the fictional Central American country of Poyais. He conned investors with the story of a beautiful, civil and European-friendly territory ripe for opportunity. Part of his pitch to British aristocrats was that such an investment would not only be good for their financial health but also good for the strength of Britain and for the spirit of the Poyaisian people.

His story called to a higher purpose. Name it a theme or a motif, it’s what gives a story universal appeal.

GameStop was portrayed as a story about fairness and accountability, earning it references to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

But what is a story’s strength, is also its weakness. If the facts of the story don’t support its purported altruistic message, as in the case of GameStop, then you can tell the narrative is probably bullshit.

I’ve written before about the stories we tell ourselves. I am a diligent saver and I am an innovative entrepreneur are both positive stories, but they’re only effective if you have a reason why. No one saves money to save money. You should have a higher purpose as to why.

For example, why do you want to save and invest money? Those things aren’t meant to be done simply for the fun of it, but rather to serve a purpose. Once you have a specific purpose or goal in mind, you can work your way backward and come up with a plan to get there.

3. The reward

A common structure found among myths and folklore of many cultures is the Hero’s Journey, made famous by Joseph Campbell.[1] From the Odyssey to Star Wars, this storytelling model follows a character’s call to adventure and transformation into another world and back again, passing through different stages.

One of those stages is the reward, earned by the hero after overcoming a fear or slaying a dragon…

…or buying options on a cheap retail stock.  

The GameStop myth follows this narrative arc: a call to adventure on Reddit, crossing into a special world (the stock market), slaying the titans of Wall Street and earning a reward of triple-digit returns.

Unfortunately, some of these heroes stayed too long in that special world, only to return to the ordinary world without their shirts.

The quest to achieve a reward that will transform your life is an alluring narrative, which advertisers know quite well. Deficit advertising is a marketing technique designed to make you feel as if something is missing in your life. Why do you need to buy that truck? Because your life is missing the excitement of a white-knuckle, adrenaline pumping joyride up a mountain.

For any reward, you have to give up something.

Imagining yourself on a journey is a helpful mindset when working toward a goal. The good thing is, especially when investing, you don’t need to make it a risky adventure. Investing money in a diversified portfolio for the long term is unlikely to be as exciting as day trading, but more likely to be rewarding. The real prize, however, may be all the mental and emotional energy saved by never having to make investing some kind of game.

So, what can we learn from the GameStop experience? Well, perhaps, it’s better to ask what stories are you listening to? Can you tell a better one?

https://incognitomoneyscribe.com/2021/02/04/stories-that-make-you-rich-or-go-broke/

[pge 119]

há 46 minutos, Bedrock disse:

The 10 Most Heavily-Shorted Stocks of January 2021

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-10-most-heavily-shorted-stocks-of-january-2021/

Estes gajos nunca brincam no grafismo. É impressionante o cuidado e a imaginação destes gajos.

[5coroas 1402]

há 12 minutos, Bedrock disse:

Well, perhaps, it’s better to ask what stories are you listening to?

Que histórias é que os adeptos das bitcoins (ou das energias alternadeiras) andam a ouvir?

Desconfio que daqui a uns tempos vamos ler artigos como este mas referentes ao fracasso das fantasias do el dourado bitcoiniano e das energia vegan. 🙈

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por 5coroas

[Patanisca 1223]

há 35 minutos, Bedrock disse:

Afinal com as tuas apuradas técnicas de IT não consegues pôr focada a linda mulher de vermelho e focas a menos bela e o servente de obras? 😁

Epá, olha que elas até parecem irmãs! Se calhar até usaram a mesma modelo.

Mas mesmo assim olha que as serventes d'obras às vezes são as mais malucas!

[elkefro 14]

há 10 minutos, 5coroas disse:

Desconfio que daqui a uns tempos vamos ler artigos como este mas referentes ao fracasso das fantasias do el dourado bitcoiniano. 🙈

Ou porventura, daqui a uns tempos, olhamos para trás e perguntamos como andamos tanto tempo a necessitar de um banco central para fazer uma simples transferência bancária ou porque demorámos tanto tempo a descobrir/implementar/aperfeiçoar o blockchain. O tempo o dirá.

[5coroas 1402]

 

[5coroas 1402]

há 8 minutos, elkefro disse:

Ou porventura, daqui a uns tempos, olhamos para trás e perguntamos como andamos tanto tempo a necessitar de um banco central para fazer uma simples transferência bancária ou porque demorámos tanto tempo a descobrir/implementar/aperfeiçoar o blockchain. O tempo o dirá.

Para isso teria que ocorrer uma enorme alteração ao nível dos Sistemas politicos que regem atualmente o mundo. Ora os Estados como qualquer outro organismo visam sobreviver/crescer e se constatarem que algo como as Bitcoins põe em causa a sua sobrevivência/crescimento tudo fará para eliminar essa ameaça. O blockchain só sobreviverá se se tornar tributável/domesticado, mas se isso acontecer também se tornará desinteressante e morrerá. 

há 24 minutos, Patanisca disse:

 

Mas mesmo assim olha que as serventes d'obras às vezes são as mais malucas!

O servente de obra que o Bedrock sinalizou é afinal uma servente de obra ?!?  A homogenização sexual leva-nos a cada engano. 

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por 5coroas

[elkefro 14]

há 3 minutos, 5coroas disse:

Para isso teria que ocorrer uma enorme alteração ao nível dos Sistemas politicos que regem atualmente o mundo. Ora os Estados como qualquer outro organismo visam sobreviver/crescer e se constatarem que algo como as Bitcoins põe em causa a sua sobrevivência/crescimento tudo fará para eliminar essa ameaça. O blockchain só sobreviverá se se tornar tributável/domesticado, mas se isso acontecer também se tornará desinteressante e morrerá. 

Julgo que a adaptação dos mercados financeiros vai ocorrer de forma gradual, à medida que a tecnologia blockchain vai tendo cada vez mais utilizações:

 

[Patanisca 1223]

há 24 minutos, 5coroas disse:

O servente de obra que o Bedrock sinalizou é afinal uma servente de obra ?!?  A homogenização sexual leva-nos a cada engano. 

Li mal porra!  

[rui_marreiros 380]

há 8 minutos, elkefro disse:

a tecnologia blockchain

Correto, não confundir a tecnologia com as criptomoedas. Essa tecnologia  está a ser aplicada em diversos sectores, seja bancários na segurança das transações, seja nas empresas na difusão de informação.

Em relação as criptomoedas, os BC estão a preparar-se para intervir, os avisos já partiram do BCE.

[-------- 2582]

há 33 minutos, 5coroas disse:

Para isso teria que ocorrer uma enorme alteração ao nível dos Sistemas politicos que regem atualmente o mundo. Ora os Estados como qualquer outro organismo visam sobreviver/crescer e se constatarem que algo como as Bitcoins põe em causa a sua sobrevivência/crescimento tudo fará para eliminar essa ameaça. O blockchain só sobreviverá se se tornar tributável/domesticado, mas se isso acontecer também se tornará desinteressante e morrerá. 

 

Porque achas que os BC estão estudar implementar moedas virtuais? Tendo o da China já avançado para uma...

[5coroas 1402]

há 26 minutos, D@vid disse:

Porque achas que os BC estão estudar implementar moedas virtuais? Tendo o da China já avançado para uma...

[rui_marreiros 380]

há 1 hora, 5coroas disse:

Um socialista.

[pge 119]

há 19 minutos, rui_marreiros disse:

Um socialista.

Andaram tanto mas tanto prá esquerda, que deram a volta

É o Fernão Magalhães do secXX

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por pge

[5coroas 1402]

há 13 minutos, rui_marreiros disse:

Um socialista.

Antes de ser expulso do Partido Socialista por divergências de opinião escreveu o seguinte:

Não pense que, tirando meu cartão de mim, você vai proibir minha fé socialista, me impedir de continuar a trabalhar pela causa do socialismo e da revolução.

e depois da expulsão: 

Vocês acham que podem me expulsar, mas verão que voltarei. Sou e continuarei sendo um socialista e minhas convicções nunca mudarão. Elas se erguem sobre meus próprios ossos.

...depois foi angariando apoiantes junto dos proletários descontentes com o socialismo ortodoxo e criou ele próprio um socialismo mais nacionalista e a partir daí foi um passo até se tornar fascismo.

 

[Bedrock 137]

há 4 horas, 5coroas disse:

Que histórias é que os adeptos das bitcoins (ou das energias alternadeiras) andam a ouvir?

Desconfio que daqui a uns tempos vamos ler artigos como este mas referentes ao fracasso das fantasias do el dourado bitcoiniano e das energia vegan. 🙈

Tu que revelas uma cultura geral acima da média, mas de certeza absoluta que não és técnico das ciências exatas, fico admirado como é que tu és reincidente a negar o futuro, que já está aí.

No século passado, na década de 50 iniciou-se a designada Revolução Verde, fruto da pressão do aumento da população mundial e da necessidade de alimentar toda essa gente com os recursos limitados que a Terra dava, e foi graças a esta revolução verde que se foi mitigando a fome de certas populações, a qual consistia basicamente na criação de novas sementes mais produtivas e mais resistentes às pragas, na adoção de novas técnicas e tecnologias na agricultura e na pecuária que melhoraram a sua eficiência e, consequentemente, a produção de alimentos.

Estamos no século XXI e já entramos na década de 30, pelo que, apesar da alimentação da população mundial continuar a ser um problema e consequentemente a designada Revolução Verde tem que continuar (nunca parou), agora a prioridade é tentar garantir, ao mesmo tempo, 2 coisas essenciais para o nosso funcionamento quotidiano e estado de saúde: energia renovável e não poluente e um meio ambiente saudável. Para as nossas funcionalidades do dia a dia e para nos movermos, nós precisamos de nos alimentar, respirar e beber de forma saudável e utilizar as energias amigas do ambiente para nos ajudarem a produzir trabalhos/tarefas, garantir a nossa mobilidade, o conforto e bem-estar.

Para se geral trabalho é preciso uma força qualquer e esta precisa de energia e num qualquer processo de modificação entrópica é necessário energia. Assim, a energia está presente em todo o lado e é precisa em permanência como o ar que respiramos, e para inalarmos ar saudável, são precisas energias “limpas”.

Como quaisquer recursos naturais da Terra não são infinitos, logo são limitados em função das suas taxas de utilização e de reutilização e das eficiências dos processos, então para controlar essa limitação de recursos, temos que aumentar à cabeça a eficiência energética que está presente em todo o lado, proceder ao reaproveitamento dos rejeitados sólidos, líquidos e gasosos dos processos e aumentar a eficiência de quaisquer processos transformativos ou produtivos, porque com esse reaproveitamento e aumento da eficiência, estamos a mitigar o consumo das matérias primas e da energia.

A designada economia circular é cada vez mais necessária pois é a única que pode garantir a autossustentabilidade ao contrariar a limitação dos recursos e o aumento da procura pelo aumento da população. Por exemplo, com a cada vez mais limitada quantidade de água para as diversas utilizações necessárias, temos que aumentar a reutilização das águas residuais ou rejeitadas, com os tratamentos adequados para os seus fins, porque quanto mais reaproveitamos, mais poupamos as matérias primas ou recursos naturais.

O corpo humano é um mau exemplo de desperdícios energéticos e das matérias primas, pois se os rejeitados das fezes e da urina de uma pessoa fossem reaproveitados, dava para numa boa parte dos elementos e componentes necessários ao nosso corpo, alimentar uma outra pessoa. Portanto, o nosso próprio corpo é um mau exemplo da utilização eficiente dos alimentos/matérias primas e da eficiência energética. Agora se a isto juntarmos as ineficiências cerebrais de certas pessoas, especialmente aquelas com poder determinante, então temos o baile armado. Infelizmente, sempre houve pessoas no poder que comem gelados com a testa, mas em contrapartida nunca têm os bolsos rotos para drenar algum do dinheiro que roubam à grande massa popular. Ou seja, neste dinheiro roubado não há economia circular, há sim uma economia piramidal.

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[elkefro 14]

há 2 minutos, rui_marreiros disse:

Correto, não confundir a tecnologia com as criptomoedas. Essa tecnologia  está a ser aplicada em diversos sectores, seja bancários na segurança das transações, seja nas empresas na difusão de informação.

Em relação as criptomoedas, os BC estão a preparar-se para intervir, os avisos já partiram do BCE.

Sim, são coisas distintas, mas Criptomoedas e tecnologia blockchain estão intrinsecamente ligadas, o Sakamoto, Satoshi ou lá como se chama a personagem (vem-me sempre à memória o Sakamoto e um concerto brilhante na sereia em Coimbra) deu-lhes vida com o whitepapper da BTC. 

Julgo que as criptomoedas serão enquadradas em legislação própria, poderão mudar/evoluir, mas vieram para ficar. Neste momento, em termos de volume passam o trilião de USD, com uma parte significativa desta verba nas mãos de institucionais. Acredito que vamos ter muitas alterações nos próximos tempos (anos, décadas... quem sabe?) 

[Bedrock 137]

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-crazy-world-of-stonks-explained/

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[Bedrock 137]

More Than Precious: Silver’s Role in the New Energy Era (Part 3 of 3).

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/silver-series-new-energy-in-solar-and-ev/

Visualized: A Global Risk Assessment of 2021 And Beyond.

Nota: Ver este grafismo no link pois a página vai mudando automaticamente ou manualmente, clicando nas setas que aqui não aparecem, para os diversos tipos de riscos.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-a-global-risk-assessment-of-2021-and-beyond/

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por Bedrock

[rui_marreiros 380]

há 26 minutos, Bedrock disse:

Silver’s Role in the New Energy Era

Ainda esta semana ao falar com o Gestor do Invest veio à baila a prata por causa do short na prata, manifestei o meu interesse no sector e ele julgava que esse interesse fosse como refugio de refúgio à volatilidade do mercado, e estive a explicar-lhe a importância da prata na Nova Era do elétrico e que estava interessado em empresas mineiras de prata.

Um facto muito interessante é que um dos subprodutos, escória do cobre, é a prata e ouro. Assim, como a exploração do cobre se vai intensificar e com isso a subida do mesmo, as empresas vão sair duplamente beneficiadas com a utilização do cobre e prata nos processos industriais. Portanto, vou comprar algo na área do cobre, tipo 3 a 5%.

Editado 5 de Fevereiro de 2021 por rui_marreiros