Taking positions in different financial assets is useful to protect capital

The primary objective of diversification is to protect the investment you have any problem, especially with the current market instability. It can be done through different positions jacks financial assets, such as funds from deposits, bonds or options for the future, among others, but it is also possible to create a basket of different values ​​that allow the declining price of one of them would be unlikely consequences on the rest.

Mitigating losses

The vast majority of financial analysts stresses the importance of diversifying the portfolio in order to mitigate possible losses on investment. This means the distribution in various securities to minimize risks. The diversification of investments can be made in several ways:

    Through various financial assets.
    By investing in the stock market through a "basket" from different sectors or securities indices.

A diversified investment portfolio contains products of different types and includes stocks, mutual funds and fixed income instruments and equities, such as bonds and certificates of deposit. In this way, you can combine mutual funds, stock markets or ETF, among others, depending on the economic situation.

    As you increase the percentage of equity investment, increase the risks and benefits

A formula valid for conservative profiles would take positions in a 80% fixed income and 20% remaining equity. If you want to risk a little more, as is the case for aggressive investors, these percentages could be swapped to reach 70% in equities and 30% fixed income. As you increase the percentage in equities, will increase the risks assume the saver, but also the benefits will rise proportionately.

How to form a stock portfolio

Another variant of diversification comes from taking positions in equities through exchange, both domestic and international markets. This strategy can be carried out if it forms a portfolio that includes equity investment in securities and countries that are not related to each other. Thus, the decline in the price on one of them would have little impact on the rest of the basket. The ideal strategy would be to take positions in sectors with high speculative component and counter with the purchase of other more defensive, which offer greater security.

By diversifying the investment market, the decline in price of a security would have little impact on the rest of the basket

The dilemma arises when applying the percentage corresponding to each value. As is obvious, is determined by the degree of risk you are willing to assume the investor. A model of diversification of capital only through equity would be as follows: 30% in value of the banking sector, 30% in telecom companies, 20% in the pharmaceutical sector and the remaining 20% ​​could be allocated to buy shares of companies from new technologies.
Putting it into practice: pros and cons

While this strategy benefits the small and medium investors in global terms, it should also assess the risks of putting it into practice.

Advantages:

    Provides greater security by not having all capital concentrated in one product or value.

    Minimizes the risk of losing the capital invested.

    Lets take advantage of each product of the banking market: future options, mutual funds, structured deposits, etc..

Disadvantages:

    Need some expert advice from financial markets to design the composition of the portfolio of each client.

    If any of the values ​​chosen has a good performance, you can reap the benefits in all its intensity.

    Minimum capital is required than is necessary for other investment alternatives.

Five crowdfunding platforms with which they seek funding for your project

The topic of crowdfunding (or collective financing) through online platforms through which anyone can contribute their own funds to a project has been running for the past few years but lately the issue has taken special importance not only for the current situation, in which for certain projects can come better than ever as crowdfunding support, but for some specific cases in which it has raised exaggerated amounts of money and have made ​​headlines everywhere.
I'm thinking now in the case of Double Fine , the game studio owned by Tim Schafer (one of the creators of 'The Secret of Monkey Island' , in case you helps the data) that in February this year Kickstarter opened a campaign with the goal of getting $ 400,000 to develop a new graphic adventure and eventually reached $ 3,336,371 thanks to the contributions of 87,142 people. A truly absurd figure.
It is because of cases like Double Fine when this route of financing charges a much larger role and anyone who has a project in mind you will be going through your head the possibility of doing things differently. As there are many crowdfunding platforms available to us I think are worth knowing at least the most powerful and interesting (two of them are American and three Spanish) to know where to direct us depending on the type of project you have in hand. Some do not delimit by type, others do.
Normally they all have a number of common features: one that starts a campaign puts an economic objective to be achieved in a time limit (usually around the month, month and a half) and a series of rewards for those who choose to contribute some amount. The greater the input, the reward juicier. On the other hand it is essential to know that the amount you choose to provide will only become effective if the campaign reaches the target set within the stipulated time.

Kickstarter

Kickstarter is a crowdfunding platform fashion. Of U.S. origin and born in 2008, has thousands of active campaigns of all types and a very large user community that make it the most interesting.
The bad news for those who live outside the United States is that in principle allows only based projects in that country (requires a bank account to receive funds there as well). What we can do is support existing campaigns, but I have to emphasize that only supports a payment method: Amazon Payments. Kickstarter keeps 5% of the target quantity in a campaign as long as it is reached. Otherwise there is no charge.
Official Site | Kickstarter

Verkami

Verkami was one of the first crowdfunding platform created in Spain. His proposal, as opposed to Kickstarter, is aimed solely at those independent creators who want to finance their projects through this channel. The created a father and his two sons in 2010 and during this short period of time have made some renown.
Make it clear that the creators of the works that are generated through the capital raised through rights Verkami keep them (CDs, books, etc..).
Verkami charges 5% of each project only if they get funding.
Official Site | Verkami

Drip

Drip is a crowdfunding platform and distributed collaboration (services, infrastructure, microtasks) for projects that promote the commons, open source and / or free knowledge. The code of the platform, as have those responsible, will be opened when it is structured properly tested. They have no place here, therefore, for-profit projects or fundraising for charity, for example.
If funding is achieved, the commission is 8%.
Official Site | Drip

Indiegogo

The Indiegogo operation is almost similar to Kickstarter, but has a remarkable difference. While all of these platforms are carried by their leaders rule 5% of the total amount achieved by a campaign funded in Indiegogo Two types of funding. In the Flexible Funding they take 4% if the target is achieved and 9% if not achieved, but the campaign creator gets the amount he had managed to run out the time limit for the campaign. This forces seeking funding to set reasonable prices and promote the campaign well.
Then there is the Fixed Funding, where Indiegoo takes 4% if the target is achieved and nothing if not achieved, but the creator also earn a single dollar. This is the system that is used more commonly in other platforms, although it is true that Indiegogo takes the lowest percentage (4% vs. 5% standard).
Official Site | Indiegogo

Lánzanos

In the above platforms we have seen the maximum time for each project is determined by the service itself and is usually around 30 to 40 days. In Lánzanos is the creator of the campaign which sets the time it expects to raise the targeted amount of funding. And there is no maximum, but once started the campaign and can not be modified.
Lánzanos makers take 5% of each successfully funded, a figure that is reduced to 1% if it is a charity project. Payments can be made via PayPal or by using the payment gateway of La Caixa.
Official Site | Lánzanos
As said earlier, the network can find many crowdfunding platforms, but these five are the most powerful, if not more. I hope you will be helpful.

Investing in gold, yes or no?

Is it a good idea to invest in gold? At this time I found two quite substantiated opinions about investing in gold. Both are by people who I think are experts on the subject and I do not have a secondary interest in the subject. So I find it interesting to hear.

On one side in favor of investing in gold is Marc Garrigasat, the blog author Investors Conundrum and president of the Koala Capital SICAV. According to Marc Gold is the true currency of payment of the planet universally accepted, is much older and is not affected by debt that may have taken the issuing state.

On the other side is that of John Reed, author of several books and articles on real estate investment in the United States and one about protecting the savings in bad times. He says that gold is a bad asset to hedge against inflation. Although he recognized advantages such as high density value, says that gold holds its value can lower long-term, and that in the future end up losing because value is above its historical average inflation-adjusted.

In full crisis investing in gold this who would be at the whim of rich sound, but we must also recognize that the turbulence and the high price of it are causing many mediates class people engaged in buying gold, no more than see the shops and businesses that have emerged, some of them with great success and attention given by the media. In fact it has spoken to install gold vending machines . All this without counting the movements of large investors (investment funds, banks, etc.) that are around gold.

Who is right? Should we sell everything we have and buy yellow metal or should we invest in other intangible assets? Personally I think the future imagined by each of the persons mentioned is different, and the period in which the investments contemplated. Meanwhile asks readers? Invest in gold or invest in gold?

The most profitable mutual funds 2012 , Hedge funds.

I found it very interesting annual returns are able to get the big hedge funds, also known as the most profitable investment funds in the world.   We understand how big hedge funds who manage more than 1,000 million dollars. In the list we have the 100 with better performance in 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12) and we can compare it with the result obtained in the previous year (2,011).
In the list we can see that most of Hedge Funds exceeds 1,000 million managed and some 5,000 million. The best-performing hedge funds have gained hover between 20% and 40%, which is not bad considering the vast amounts of capital managed.
In this post I put the list of the top 12, with photo of the manager and all data relating to the company, the name of the fund, the strategy used and the yields obtained. The full list of the 100 best in the big hedge funds you have it here .

1st. Background: Metacapital Mortgage Opportunities . Manager: Deepak Narula. Location: USA.
Company: Metacapital Management. Strategy: Mortgage-backed arbitrage
Managed capital: 1,500 million
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 37.8%
Performance in the year 2011: 23.6%

2nd. Background: Pine River Fixed Income. Manager: Steve Kuhn. Location: USA.
Company: Pine River Capital Management. Strategy: Mortgage-backed arbitrage
Managed capital: 3.600 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 32.9%
Performance in the year 2011: 4.8%

3rd. Background: CQS Directional Opportunities. manager Michael Hintze
Company: CQS. Location: UK Strategy: Multistrategy
Managed capital: 1.500 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 28.9%
Performance in the year 2011: -10.4%

4th. Background: Pine River Liquid Mortgage . Manager: Steve Kuhn. Location: USA
Company: Chen Jiayi Pine River Capital Management. Strategy: Mortgage-backed arbitrage
Managed capital: 1.100 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 28.0%
Performance in the year 2011: 7.2%

5th. Background: Omega Overseas Partners . Manager: Leon Cooperman
Company: Omega Advisors. Location: USA. Strategy: Long / short
Managed capital: 1.400 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 21.7%
Performance in the year 2011: -1.4%

6th. Fund: European Odey. manager: Crispin Odey. Location: UK
Company: Odey Asset Management. Strategy: Macro
Managed capital: 1.800 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 24.1%
Performance in the year 2011: -20.3%

7th. Background: Marathon Securitized Credit . Managers: Bruce Richards, Louis Hanover
Company: Marathon Asset Management. Location: USA. Strategy: Asset backed
Managed capital: 1.200 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 24.0%
Performance in the year 2011: - 4.2%

8th. Background: Palomino . Manager: David Tepper
Company: Appaloosa Management. Location: USA. Strategy: Multistrategy
Managed capital: 4.900 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 24.0%
Performance in the year 2011: -3.5%

9th. Background: BTG Pactual GEMM. Managers: Team managed (Andre Esteves)
Company: BTG Pactual Global Asset Management. Location: USA. Strategy: Macro
Managed capital: 3.600 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 23.1%
Performance in the year 2011: 3.4%

10 °. Fund: Third Point Ultra . Manager: Daniel Loeb
Company: Third Point. Location: USA. Strategy: Multistrategy
Managed capital: 1.300 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 22.1%
Performance in the year 2011: -2.3%

11 º. Background: Seer Capital Partners. Manager: Philip Weingord
Company: Seer Capital Management. Location: USA. Strategy: Asset backed
Managed capital: 1.200 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 21.6%
Performance in the year 2011: 2.1%

12 º. Background: Tiger Global . Managers: Feroz Dewan, Chase Coleman
Company: Tiger Global Management. Location: USA. Strategy: Long / short
Managed capital: 6.000 billion.
Performance in the year 2012 (from 01-01-12 to 31-10-12): 21.0%
Performance in the year 2011: 45.0%

The Compound Interest (part II)

In the previous article we discussed that with compound interest was not very difficult to arrive at a figure of, say, € 300,000.

Well, needless to say, despite not be complicated requiring high doses of patience and discipline. Highly difficult thing when you have a considerable amount of money in hand, the temptation to eat uncontrollably or buying a luxury item, see a car, a house etc. exponentially increase.

A major plus point is the age at which you start, it is clear that the longer devote the most amount of compound interest can gather during a given period of time. So begin no later than age 30 would be ideal.

The first is to score a goal. Then decide how we figure that we will be around for a few years head.

Suppose we do not want risks and we're moving from, for example, 3-4% will give us a bank deposit and give us 5-7% by acquiring quality corporate debt. We mark a savings rate X which in monthly maturities of our investments go humble adding interest.

 

 

At the end of each year will add to the annual CPI rate of savings we had last year so we make sure we do not lose purchasing power over the years and inflation were not gaining ground.

An example. Monthly savings rate € 500, in a year together € 6,000. The next year we will have € 6,000 in an investment for example at 4.5% APR so that at the end of the second year we will have € 6,000 the first year, plus interest of € 6000 to 4.5% (213 euros after tax ( 21%)), but the 6000 euros (plus CPI should have risen to the saving rate) in the second year. A total of 12,213 euros in two years just.

Do you get the idea right? The third year we invested 12,213 euros, for example, the 4.5% that we will generate € 434 after tax, but the 6000 (plus annual CPI) for the third year, in total € 18,647.

In three years we will have € 18,647 without having updated the saving rate not to complicate the explanation. I think it's pretty clear the concept.

It is clear that more and more savings rate interest we reached the goal faster. But the same does not increase the interest savings. If you double the interest rate at which you are making your money work the result will not bend but is multiplied by 3'5. So imagine that can happen maximizing the savings rate and get a higher annual interest average. Spectacular.

It happens snowball effect, the principle is much start but once we have run for anyone.

To give more examples and see how it affects a slight increase projected interest rate over time.

Starting with 0 and with a savings rate of 610 € monthly, 3% compound interest capitalized through in 20 years we will have about 200,000 euros, in fact rather more in the calculation because we have not updated the CPI savings rate.

Just changing the 3% to 5% and we almost € 250,000. Can we imagine if we get over it?

If for whatever reason we can start from a number other than 0 that we have gained in time.

Let everyone do their calculations, charts and projections and let your imagination run wild. On the net there are plenty of calculators and compound interest tables .

Anyone is more motivated? You just have to want it.

Waiting for the big-market bond rotation

The OECD issued its latest revision on global economic growth prospects, in the first of his two appointments or annual reviews. The overall impression is of slow growth and downward adjustments in earlier projections.

In USA GDP will expand even more slowly, at rates of 1.9% this year and 2.8% in 2014.

In Europe much more pessimistic, expecting a contraction of 0.36% of GDP this year and moderate growth of 1.1% in 2014. The main problem remains the debt.

For Asia disparate and curious vision, the two largest economies China and Japan grow although downgrades the first, to 7.8% and the second upward to 1.6%. Curious because if China grows below 7.8% will be a warning sign of weakness and would alert the government while if Japan grows by 1.6% all happy ... not the Nikkei has left a 5.15% on the session.

U.S. bond markets nervous, considering that the expected growth without being robust, it could be enough to affect the asset purchase program by the Fed.

Furthermore bonds approaching resistance area (in profitability or price support, as you look) interesting from a technical perspective, the 10 years in 2.4%, which if exceeded invite managers to modify some strategies.

The technical aspect of fixed income USA invites caution for months, as I come through the graphic exposing long stretch following:

Bonds "high Yied" are also suffering falling sales and prices in line with the sovereign. You can read at this link an interesting article about the risks of rising rates, derived from the tendency to convexity hedging.

A reference to the debt market USA is the ETF (AGG) designed to track the performance of all U.S. debt, Total U.S. Bond Market ETF (37% Treasuries, 28% MBS and the rest in corporate and agencies) capitalization of $ 15,600 million is also falling in price and this will be five weeks straight and falling sales.

Generally, when the bonds fall weak moves financial markets assembly and intermediate trends ruptures tend to bring major changes in the outlook and portfolio adjustment, feeding additional losses in assets.

This time, before such change in the mindset presumed investor and as turbulent markets, handled all markets fall? Unison or there will be a mass migration of Fixed Income Funds Equity?.

Uncertainty about the Great Rotation is debated and concern among fund managers and selectors will depend largely on market confidence about staying "apuntaladora" Bernanke and real economic opportunities.

In view of the behavior of the Fed, it could be argued that the Great Rotation want to further enhance asset reflation and get the expected wealth effect that can finally bring down the pernicious tendency of the money multiplier.

Specific corrections in stock prices are necessary and "healthy" for the strength of trends, there should be an adjustment at any time, perhaps coinciding with breaks bearish on bonds.

After an eventual correction will attract capital bags different sources, one of them raised liquidity proceed with the settings fixed income portfolio and if the helicopter flies over satin, as the FED-BAG correlation is 85%.

True, stock valuations discounted cash flow worsen with rising interest rates and subtract bag. However, the bag can also grow through multiples expansion as we tested several times.

The music continues to play and as said the CEO of City before the debacle, must keep on dancing ... but unlike Mr. Charles Prince also closely monitoring the situation to avoid being caught in an artificial rise will end in tears, as the rest.

Redemption Mortgage or leave the money on deposit?

This question always comes up in every discussion forums and in all conversations. In this blog will have generated enough comments like: 'I lack to pay 130,000 euros of mortgage and I have 40,000 in a deposit. What do I do with the savings? Amortized mortgage or leave it in the tank I might be giving interests?

The response itself is quite simple but you have to consider several factors. Not everything is to achieve maximum profitability.

If the 40,000 we have them in a tank get 4.5% APR 1422 after tax per year in interest.

If amortize mortgage until 9040 the maximum possible for us desgravamos holder a maximum of 15%, ie 1356 per year. But if the ownership of the mortgage there are two people you can deduct twice, 18.080 euros. With 15% return we will get 2712 euros hacienda.

 

 

The tariff includes fee, interest and principal. Therefore, if we pay a mortgage of 500 euros a month is 6000 a year and we should (in case of sole holder of the mortgage) repay to the maximum of 9040, ie add 3040 euros extra. Looking at it another way, we will have a deposit of 15% per year 9040.

If our mortgage fee is 850 euros per month 10,200 annual pay, therefore you should not write off anything because you spend the maximum in 1160, and in this case if you should leave the deposit at 4.5% APR and you probably have higher interest than you are paying for the mortgage.

If mortgage paid 650 euros a month (€ 7,800 per year) but we are two holders (my partner and I) we can deduct a maximum of 18,080 euros per year. That is, at the end of the fiscal year, in December, we'll add 10,280 euros to get the most and so will be like you have a deposit of 18,080 euros to 15% APR.

So much for the options to be financially profitable. But keep in mind that it is often better to pay a little more and have liquidity savings will run out sooner repay. I guess there are all kinds mentalities and before doing anything better inquire as to what may be the best option.

In case you want to ever repay mortgage amortized time and capital, since we got rid of shortening the time and lowering interest fee we will reduce some of the money to pay monthly but will also be paying interest to the bank.

Anyway people to purchase a residence from January 1, 2013 will no longer be tax deductible anything, so that 15% is canceled. In that scenario have the money saved to a good interest monetized over paid on the mortgage will be most profitable.

Difference between active and passive

Of all the definitions of assets and liabilities are only have to stay with the most important, and you have to remember forever.

An asset is something, an investment that puts money in your pocket. However slightly.

A liability is something that takes away the money from his pocket. An expense.

Do not confuse these two concepts as there are many people who think that the house where he lives is an asset and a good investment and nothing is further from reality. A commonly used house is a liability because it does not receive any income from it, and will only be active if one day we decided to sell it to cash, and keep the money.

 

While the home where you live "cost you" money as much as your expectations make you think that in ten years you will get high returns are sitting on a pile of bricks and not on an investment.

Could encompass how active an investment in stock , bonds , a house to rent a bank deposit ...

And conversely a liability would be for example the commonly used home, second homes, a car and all that to make ends meet instead of giving money taketh away.

Spain is deeply rooted in the idea of ​​buying a flat / house and think it's an investment, "a piggy bank" for the future in case of contingencies or just spend the feel you're going to have a possession to be worth tens of thousands euros and you feel you've "invested" or you're going to invest the money.

And you have to be very careful as always not buy is more profitable than renting . The other day I read that 80% of people who have a mortgage for 5-10 years ago is paying more than it is actually worth your floor. And that's not an investment. It is a liability how a house never better.

From the moment you decide to live financially in an efficient manner have an obligation to be creating assets and go slowly getting rid of liabilities that have made ​​previously, and we saw what is the best way to start eliminating debt .

A monthly savings combined with any investment, simple or complicated, and applied over time with compound interest is the best way to create quality assets that slowly but gradually will be putting money in your pocket.

And you've started to build assets? We invite you to tell us what is your strategy to get more and more in his pocket.

Equities vs. fixed income

We want to invest but do not know where to start. We heard that a neighbor buys shares, another has-bills ... but it sounds like Chinese. The most common among the ordinary people, not familiar with the investment world is to know the stock exchange. Equities bag not associated with on many occasions.

If we go a step further, on the other side of the sidewalk, no bonds. Four out of five people questioned in the street has never heard of the bonds, but the bonds of state and treasury bills.

There is a lack of knowledge of concepts and the association has to be clear that equity = stock exchange = buy / sell shares on an exchange.

And fixed income = letters / bonds / debentures, although in this case it is not so easy to explain as above.

I am often asked which is better, if the fixed or variable?, is an open question as it is not a duel to be the best way to invest, but every one of the options requires a plan or strategy determined and made ​​to measure.

By email I have received a comment on why equities RECOMMEND even. I have to say that I've never done, just position myself where best suits me and I adapt to the rules of the game on the fly. Who else who ever invested less in stock, if not he will have done so indirectly through your bank in a structured deposit or a mutual fund. Of all the people who have bought shares being aware of what they did, probably 8 out of 10 will have lost money, have won something and that ten will be made ​​in August. It's pure statistics. To earn a few most be missed.

The bag is fascinating. But never an individual investor may invest to a "higher level" because just as fascinating is equally manipulable. If I want to buy shares of Google I can do with a few mouse clicks. I can think that the company is "on fire" and that will go far. But managers may hedge funds, pension funds and large investment funds do not think the same and withdraw their positions. In that case the action begin letting down caught out if I have not heard before, either by choice or by the use of a stop loss (stop loss).

The strategy followed by these three groups of investors is quite simple in concept. They come in solid companies with good growth and the mere fact of having a reputation draws lots of people, and I do not mean people like you and me (also), but managers and smaller funds and large investors capital private. When the action is "hot" is said, the great go through the back door, by stealth, reaping the benefits and leaving others with an action that is devalued by simply taking away a part of its value . This happens every day, and is to blame for that 8 out of 10 of us lose money in stock market.

If you look at a recent case we can see if Apple / Google. The first was the world's most powerful company, shares more than 700 usd and bank account filled to the brim, to say nothing of the benefits you get. Until one day a great manager decides he has had enough and leaves, of course others are wary and follow him. There is no reason. Humans are like dogs when you shoot with a stick.

Source | Yahoo! Finance

So where has the money gone? Much of it directly to Google. In six months is up 40% to more than 900 usd per share, your business is going well or very well, but Apple is stronger and gets more benefits. And the box (cash money) is several times larger than that of the search engine block. But the funds are positioned in the search, making skyrocket while Apple already looks like 700 usd far and passes through a discrete (to be what it is) 400 usd.

Source | Yahoo! Finance

Until some lit, some other privileged information worldwide leading company, decides to abandon positions. The action will begin to lose because it is what makes the law of supply and demand. If a site is removed as there are less.

With fixed income this can not happen in this measure. Market does not work like this. As much as the bond is not fixed for the purpose of this type of investment is not the same. In this market, commonly, it comes knowing what is going to win, and although we can speculate without any problem, large funds do not use this method. In this market, which we are most knowing the outcome. Knowing that the current uncertainty is no reason for you to lose money, and if all goes well I will recover the initial capital plus interest at maturity.

Clearly positioning myself for fixed income, but that does not mean they do not use the equity (if I use it) but I move into what best suits my investment method.

I see it like a business. Imagine you are the manager of a company and you have two possible scenarios for the end of year results. Think of your choice dependent jobs. On one side of the table is the aggressive option (the reference to equities), this option is as follows: if the thing goes well the company will earn a 25% in this fiscal year. If something goes wrong the company will lose 15% and you have to make a cut of 30% of the workforce.

Across the table is the most relaxed (relating to bonds), in that you will not lose in that year but the benefits will not 8%.

Which do you prefer?

Sure you reflect on this example you have decided that the bond is better. No, not better. It's different. It is used for different things. It depends on your plan and your ambition. Not the same winning by 8% to 25%, but it is the same to win by 8% to lose 15%.

Quite some time I am in favor of adding 8 at 8, and not from adding 25 +10 -15 -8. I hope you understand. I am more than convinced that long-term earning just over fixed income than equities.

Just to give an example, a well-known blog (I will not say the name), which have a public investment portfolio. Since 2008, have achieved 16% revalue. A 16% cumulative, then dividing by the years from the start date is plus or minus 3%.

  In fixed income, and without being a "master business" minimum multiply that number by two.

This is not to say it's easy and those who invest in equities fools. Not at all. Only that each tool is used to a certain way of working.

Bank deposit. You know how it works?

When hiring a bank deposit must look at several things and although it seems to be the easiest investment there, it is not the end of the post and I will tell you that if it is, we have to fix on the characteristics of product we hired, mostly to give us for a ride and at the end we get on a good scare and anger.

Before everything. A bank deposit, fixed term or fixed-term deposit is the same. You will leave some money to the bank to do its thing and he in return gives you a interest as compensation. It has a fixed duration and fixed remuneration contract is fixed, ie before entering already know what you're going to win. They are also guaranteed by the state (FGD) 100,000 per entity and person in case of bank failure.

This strong interest is mainly governed by the Euribor (interest rate to lend money to, including, entities) but with the whole issue of the crisis the illiquidity of banks have had to forget the taxes low interest rates by the European Central Bank (ECB) and make aggressive campaigns to individual customers a higher interest rate.

While official interest rates are at 1% banks are paying them to liabilities with 4.6% APR and without any connection from the client.

We will explain in more understandable words what the previous sentence. THE European Central Bank fixed in 1% the interest rate at which it lends money to banks, that is, that when you decide to open a window of liquidity to banks in need come to him to refinance because only charged 1% APR, which is very little.

But as always there are windows of liquidity banks must ingéniaselas to get more money and this is where the competition starts to get money from ordinary citizens.

Clearly, there are many people who prefer not to earn a little extra to have to change banks but there are many people and with real money if you are willing to move to earn more.

Therefore, the most interest is willing to offer, in theory, is the one with more numbers to get more funding. (Although other factors influence how the country of origin of the entity, rating rating and even if you drop close to home or if you are good at managing the Internet).

Once we are clear because there are going to explain bank deposits which typically offer entities and that we'll be looking.

There are several types of deposits but of course we say that we are interested only pure and hard deposits without additional links, no credit, no insurance, or payroll or anything.

Being a low-risk investment, and suitable for every investor profiles, we can see that the investment triangle occupy a very relaxed site to be a liquid investment, low risk and therefore unprofitable.

Investing in this way we will not get rich but how low we will not lose money, and I say now lose because if you go to a lot of companies and they offer a lower interest rate to 3% and enter missing. So clear.

If you want a band inflation eats it otherwise you better grab your money and spend it how you will at least give pleasure.

We also have to look at whether the associated account where interest is exempt receive commissions or we will charge between 6 and 20 euros per year. Thing that still remains for the low profitability that we provide.

Now we are chastened and they do but you have to be careful that we do not give any kind of product then selling costs or recover the money, you can leereste article preferred to go deeper on the subject.

Remember that the bank is to serve. 's not your friend , and if not keep his promises or not treating you how you deserve there are dozens of them scattered throughout the geography.

As a final conclusion and summary say that everyone who has "some" money should try to get some performance to keep purchasing power and try to at least get something "extra". Do not be charging for anything and remember that it is you who is indebted to the bank money and not leaving you giving interests.

Finally, always read the fine print to take no surprises.

Indeed, investment is simpler than having no money at home. In contrast is the least profitable of all but ultimately is an investment at 0% APR.

I hope this clarification have no hesitation in going to the bank to make "some investment" and if you do not hesitate to contact me.

The role of hedge funds: inequality and financial instability

Hedge funds known as hedge funds or hedge funds, are a type of mutual funds that are not only subject to regulation, and that because of it have played a crucial role in virtually every financial crisis since the nineties . Due to its relative complexity are completely unknown to most people. A population that is, paradoxically, the main affected by the performance of these financial institutions. To prevent that remains so in this article I will try to shed enough light, of course following the usual teaching style, in the murky world of hedge funds.

The performance of mutual funds is collecting money from many sources (individuals, corporate savings or other funds) and investment thereof in any financial product (shares, for example). After a time, when there has been a benefit and money has appreciated, the fund returns to owners past the nominal (money) plus interest, keeping the bank with an important commission.
Origin
The first recognized hedge fund was established in 1949 in the U.S., but its most important expansion took place from the second half of the nineties. Hedge funds differ from other mutual funds precisely in their aggressiveness and risk exposure. On the one hand have no regulatory limitations of any kind, and on the other hand tend to maintain very high leverage positions (operations with borrowed funds, such loans). This means that any fund can perform operations with no money but with so much borrowed money as you want. In case of profit profitability is much higher, but in case of loss the problem is also serious and very contagious (defaults follow each other).
Hedge funds are also managed by professionals who largely turn their profits as investment in the same hedge funds, more intense commitment to the future of the fund. As a result of all these features hedge funds usually yield high levels of profitability.
How and where is made ​​a hedge fund
Hedge funds are managed by professionals and have very high entry barriers for investors, in many cases reaching the million dollars, but in any case depends on the specific regulation of the territory in which it is constituted. These barriers to entry are very high also precisely because of the high risk associated with financial transactions undertaken by hedge funds. Regulators seek to protect small investors and believe the best way is by raising the barriers, while more liberal from orbit is considered to be lower these barriers to involve the largest population possible benefit of hedge funds.
Hedge funds therefore have a minimum of stakeholders: investors, managers and companies that offer services. As investors are currently most other mutual funds (including other hedge funds), transnational corporations and millionaires course.
 

Also, the location is usually territory other than the territory of management. Indeed, 60% of hedge funds in 2010 were located in tax havens (in fact 37% of all hedge funds are in the Cayman Islands and 27% in Delaware, ie United States). The constitution in a tax return also increases because it reduces transaction costs (interest, records, etc..). In terms of managing 80% is on American soil (ie 41% is in New York), and most of the rest is in London. Hedge funds have Anglo flavor.
But banks also have flavor. Because the managers of these funds are logically banks, plus they are also those who offer specialized services to hedge funds. And as all this is a business statistics increasingly concentrated, precisely because of the crisis.
 

In short, like any mutual fund, the purpose of a hedge fund is to highlight the money deposited by investors, and for that we go to all financial markets (stocks, corporate bonds, government bonds, futures, etc..) Seeking returns. The aim is to speculate, and that almost anything goes.
Hedge Fund Strategies
The strategies used by hedge funds can vary between each other, but all seek to "exploit" the opportunities of making profits in the financial markets. And all are, in a sense, gambling. They are usually complex strategies, but sometimes can be as simple as a bet that interest rates of private bonds and government bonds are converging [1]. The usual way of hedge funds bet is to alternate short positions with long positions.
Taking a short position (short) means that the bet is "to think that the price will go down." For example, a hedge fund may sell their shares today and buy tomorrow when they have fallen. As today sells more expensive than you buy tomorrow's benefit. A naked short position (naked short) is the same but in case you are selling something that does not have [2]. For example, we sell at today's prices to deliver after tomorrow and hope that tomorrow is worth much less. Bought and delivered tomorrow after tomorrow, making the profit.
A long position is betting that "the price will go up", which is what we are accustomed. If you combine both positions in different markets can increase profits. For example, the sale we did in the short position will receive money that we invest as a long position. Money Never Sleeps.
History: hedge funds, crises and speculation
The most famous case of a hedge fund is that of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), managed by a team of professionals that included two Nobel laureates in economics, and its investors had even central banks. The net returns were from 42.8% in 1995, from 40.8% in 1996 and 17'1% in 1997, and the leverage was 30-1 (Vilariño, 2000). In 1998 the risky and complex hedge fund operations clashed with the Russian debt default and the losses were very severe. Finally the action of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who pressed a set of large investors to save the bank, prevented greater evils.
But other cases are also spectacular and also reflect the sign of the times. The first thing worth pointing is that of George Soros, who used his hedge fund to speculate against sterling. First George Soros borrowed 15,000 million pounds, and stealthily changed dollars. The purpose of short-Soros was betting with pounds, ie bet that lose value. When he was all prepared and wanted to attack it managed to make it very sounded: summoned the media and announced that he was convinced that the pound would fall. Then sold off their pounds borrowed and sent the signal to the market and the pound fell really (indeed, the sell-off, coupled with the fear of the other holders of pounds, has laid). The British government responded with all its weapons of monetary policy, but after spending more than 50,000 million dollars had to surrender: speculators had expired. With the pound on the floor Soros bought 15,000 million pounds (now worth fewer dollars) and the back (it was a loan). The gains were huge, and teaching more: a speculator, one, could sink an entire country [3].
The Asian crisis of the nineties gives many more examples of this, and the recent debt crisis even more. It teaches us that a few speculators, counted on the fingers but managing huge amounts of money, can bring down countries and set economic policies themselves.
Profitability and current developments
For all, hedge funds receive higher returns in scrambled scenes, as there is nothing worse for a mutual fund that the non-existence of space to speculate. However, widespread uncertainty scenarios or collective crisis can also be its own grave. Also, as I said before, the spread can be huge losses due to the leverage situation. Therefore, depending on which sectors and financial markets suffer losses suffer much hedge funds.
And the crisis was primed with hedge funds in 2008, as many of them had participated in toxic financial assets or had investments in mutual funds that had done so. The case of the investment bank Bear Stearns is representative, since in 2008 he had to respond to losses in two hedge funds managed (offshore) and that made him finally sinking. It was sold at a bargain price to JP Morgan [4].
But bailouts hedge funds could breathe easy again. And again they make profits and continue their speculative activity. Just look at the chart I made with TheCityUK data.
 

The hedge fund business is back up, and that's precisely what the data show not only profitability but also the data of assets managed by it. Without reach even 2007 levels, pre-crisis levels, the hedge fund space have recovered rapidly.
 

And ultimately it seems that the entire financial system returns to normal gradually. Even the leverage is regaining 2007 levels. But that's the "normalcy" that led to the crisis, because although we can guess that the hedge funds are responsible for the crisis itself that it had an important role in the expansion of the bubbles and contagion from further damage. And is that as a society we do not learn.
 

 

Conclusions
But you back to this "normality" was expected. In economics there is a concept of "moral hazard" that has to do with the incentives that exist in the market and the beliefs of the agents. Today all financial actors (investors and managers especially) know the United saved from burning to entities that are in trouble and that endanger the system (and given the amount of money that move the hedge funds and banks could say that are nearly all), so this risk no actual loss. To put it another way: they know that the bill is paid by workers with adjustment plans and other measures, so they do not care not to repeat the same activities that have made them richer and richer before and after the crisis.
We can not forget that the phenomenon of hedge funds and promote financial instability and distort the market (because liberals tell me what benefits to society of naked short operations), increase inequality in several ways. On the one hand because as industry financial elites that manage these funds promote an institutional configuration such that brings in the States tax competition and prevents them from effectively control tax evasion. Following public finances are distorted and end the welfare state ends up being paid by the middle and lower classes, being the high payments outside the system. On the other hand because logically are the upper classes who benefit most from the business of collective investment funds (pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc..) And therefore grows exponentially the difference between those less by entering your salary and who increasingly enter their financial activities.
The fact is that we are headed to another huge financial crisis. And if not, at the same time