12 abril 2018

no publico más hasta dentro de un mes

Si quieres recibirlas diariamente, me las pides por email. Abrazos,

11 abril 2018

burbuja en los valores tecnológicos

Ya te he hablado de la fuerte moda de los últimos 5 años de invertir a tope en los valores tipo FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google) Ahora el Bank Of America dice que hay una clara burbuja ahí…
In a report that explains the recent market volatility as having nothing to do with Trump-induced nausea and everything to do with the Fed ("We believe the simple reason that risk assets are struggling in 2018 is the Fed.
Investors have been forced to acknowledge a tightening cycle is well underway"), BofA's Michael Hartnett moves away from listing the latest tactical and cyclical market drivers which we covered earlier, and lays out what the Chief Investment Strategist thinks are the three big secular trends threatening investors in 2018.
These are as follows:
+Regime shift from Quantitative Easing to Quantitative Tightening
+War on Inequality trade, immigration & redistribution policies
+Occupy Silicon Valley policies
Combining these, the result over the next few months could be nothing short than the second bursting of the tech - or technically e-commerce - bubble.
Recall that two weeks ago, we first showed that according to BofA, we are now witnessing the third biggest bubble in history created by a central bank. As Hartnett wrote, "the lowest interest rates in 5,000 years have guaranteed a melt-up trade in risk assets", which Hartnett has called the Icarus Trade since late 2015, and points out that the latest, "e-Commerce" bubble, which consists of AMZN, NFLX, GOOG, TWTR, EBAY, FB, is up 617% since the financial crisis, making it the 3rd largest bubble of the past 40 years, and at this rate - assuming no major drop in the 6 constituent stocks - the e-Commerce bubble is set to become the largest bubble of all time over the next few months."
The problem is that lasting even a few months with a "major drop" in the e-commerce bubble may prove very problematic, largely due to what Hartnett calls "Occupy Silicon Valley", which he explains as follows:
The economic & social disruption of technology is unlikely to stop. It has many beneficial economic & social impacts. But the sector’s growth, power & visibility make it extremely vulnerable to increased regulation & taxation, most especially if recession wrecks government finances.
Which brings us to the core of Hartnett's latest research note: "10 reasons why global investors should reduce tech allocations in 2018" which are as follows:
1. Excess returns & fancy valuations: US tech is best performing sector in QE eraup annualized 20%; ex tech the S&P500 would be 2000 not 2600 today
2. Bubbly prices: US internet commerce stocks (DJECOM) soared 624% in 7 years at their peak, 3rd largest bubble of past 40 years (see chart above)
3. Fat market caps: US tech market cap ($6.4tn) exceeds that of Eurozone ($5.0tn); FAAMG+BAT market cap of $4.9tn exceeds Emerging Markets ($4.6tn).
4. Earnings hubris: tech & eCom companies currently account for almost 1/4 of US EPS (Chart 6); this level that is rarely exceeded, and often associated with bubble peaks; note there are currently just 5 “sells” out of 250 FAAMG recommendations
5. Politics: privacy becoming policy issue as equivalent to entire global population searches Google every 2 days; last year 1579 “data breaches” exposed 179 million records of personal names plus financial or medical data; pending US & EU regulation threaten 4% of tech revenue.
6. Wage disruption: IMF says 50% of the decline in labor’s share of income is attributable to technology (25% due to globalization); number of global industrial robots by 2020 will be 3.1 million (was 1 million in 2010)
7. Tech is cash-rich, tax-light: sector has $740bn of cash overseas (larger than all other sectors put together ($510bn); effective rate of tax on US tech companies is 16.9%, lower than the 19.3% paid across the S&P500
8. Tech most lightly regulated sector: just 27K regulations (Chart 7) for tech; by comparison manufacturing regulated by 215K rules, financial sector by 128K.
9. Tech & trade: US tech has highest foreign sales exposure (58%) of all US sectors
10. Occupy Silicon Valley: tobacco (1992), financial (2010), biotech (2015) industries illustrate how waves of regulation can lead to investment underperformance.
Finally, putting it all together, is this chart which suggests that it is only a matter of time before the government bursts the third biggest bubble ever created by central banks.
PD1: El cristianismo es más que un conjunto de reglas morales elevadas, como pueden ser el amor perfecto, o, incluso, el perdón. El cristianismo es la fe en una persona. Jesús es Dios y hombre verdadero. «Perfecto Dios y perfecto Hombre», dice el Símbolo Atanasiano. En eso creemos. No es solo una moralidad, o un amor en general, es una creencia en una persona concreta…, que nos enseña a amar a Dios y al prójimo.

10 abril 2018

No es la guerra de aranceles lo que debe importar

Llevamos unas semanas que el mercado está parado fijándose en la guerra de aranceles. Interesante como siempre, leer a Mohamed A. El-Erian:

The Global Trade Game

History is less likely than game theory to provide useful insights into where the latest trade dispute between the US and China may be heading. The question, ultimately, is whether new tariffs will eventually lead to a more cooperative game, or to a competitive one in which everyone loses.
CAMBRIDGE – The trade confrontation between the United States and China is heating up. After firing an opening salvo of steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, the US administration has released a plan for a 25% tariff on 1,333 Chinese imports – worth about $50 billion last year – to punish China for what it views as decades of intellectual property theft. China has fired back with a plan to slap 25% levies on a range of US goods, also worth about $50 billion. In response to what he labels “unfair retaliation,” US President Donald Trump is now said to be considering yet another set of tariffs, covering another $100 billion worth of imports from China. Economists and market analysts are scrambling to figure out what will come next.
One might be tempted to rely on historical experience. But, given today’s economic, political, and social conditions, history is likely to be a poor guide. More useful insights come from game theory, which can help us to determine whether this exchange of tariffs will ultimately amount to strategic posturing that leads to a more “cooperative game” (freer and fairer trade), or develop into a wider “non-cooperative game” (an outright trade war). The answer will have significant consequences for the economic and policy outlook, and markets prospects.
The rapid expansion of trade in recent decades has given rise to a web of cross-border inter-dependencies in production and consumption. Supply chains now can have as many significant international links as domestic ones, and a substantial share of internal demand is being met by products partly or wholly produced abroad. As technological innovation further reduces entry barriers for both producers and consumers, the proliferation of these linkages becomes even easier, amplifying what already is essentially a spaghetti bowl of cross-border relationships and dependencies.1
For the longer-term health of both individual participants and the overall system, these relationships must function effectively, based on a cooperative approach that is deemed credible. If not, they risk resulting in a lower level of growth and welfare. This is why the current confrontation between the US and China has raised fears of serious damage, particularly if it leads to ever-greater protectionism and a wider “trade war.” But this outcome is not guaranteed.
For international economic interactions to work well, they must also be viewed as fair. That is currently not the case among many segments of the global population. As it turns out, two key assumptions on which the virtually unfettered pursuit of economic (and financial) globalization has been based in recent decades have turned out to be over-simplifications.
The first assumption was that the benefits of trade would naturally be shared by most of the population, either directly or because of appropriate redistribution policies implemented in the now-faster growing economies. Second, it was assumed that the major participants in global trade – including the emerging economies that joined this process and, later, its anchoring institutions, such as the World Trade Organization – would eventually embrace the basic principles of reciprocity, continuing gradually to reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers.
As these assumptions have proved to be excessively optimistic, the standing and sustainability of pro-trade policies have suffered. The result has been a marked rise in nationalist populism – a trend that has led to new trade restrictions, the ongoing re-negotiation of existing arrangements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement), and a backlash against supranational institutions (such as the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the European Union).
So what about the next steps? As currently set up, the international economic order needs to function as a cooperative game, in which each participant commits to free and fair trade; the commitments are credible and verifiable; mechanisms are in place to facilitate and monitor collaboration; and cheaters face effective penalties.
Current trade tensions could conceivably destroy this cooperative game, triggering a shift to a non-cooperative one, with elements of a “prisoner’s dilemma,” in which self-interested action turns out to be both individually and mutually destructive. But, given that this would mean losses for virtually all countries, it may be possible to avoid it, with the help of a few targeted policy responses.
For starters, systemically important but not sufficiently open countries – beginning with China – should liberalize their economies more rapidly (particularly by reducing non-tariff barriers) and adhere to internationally accepted norms on intellectual property. Moreover, existing trade arrangements should be modernized as needed, so that they better reflect current and future realities, while companies and others that benefit disproportionately from trade should intensify their pursuit of socially responsible activities. Multilateral surveillance and reconciliation mechanisms – not just at the WTO, but also at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – should be revamped, and the functioning of the G-20 should be improved, including through the establishment of a small secretariat that facilitates greater policy continuity from year to year.
Given how many countries have an interest in maintaining a cooperative game, such policy actions are not just desirable; they may be feasible. As they help to create a stronger cooperative foundation for fairer trade, these measures would also constitute a necessary (though not sufficient) step toward countering the alienation and marginalization of certain segments of the population in both advanced and emerging economies.
Además, la realidad en EEUU es distinta a la de hace unos años:
21 trillones de dólares de deuda pública
15 trillones de dólares de hipotecas
9 trillones de dólares de deuda de empresas
6 trillones de dólares de obligaciones de pensiones sin financiar
con la FED subiendo tipos de interés, reduciendo su balance, con una importante carga de intereses, pero lo que le preocupa a los inversores son los 100 billones de dólares de la “guerra arancelaria”…
En un mundo global, donde cada país se especializa en algo y con costes diferentes, esto es difícil de solucionar:
Y las expectativas de déficit público acongojan: 804 billones de déficit en 2018 y 1 trillón en 2020, el 5,1% del PIB (te cagas). Según el CBO (Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso):
Esto es la leche:
Deudas, deudas y más deudas… ¿Y la capacidad de repago qué? ¿Cuándo se empezará a cotizar el miedo? Quizás, los bonos son más listos y saben más de miedo (son los que mandan, los que marcan la tendencia primero). Quizás el error es el ruido de la guerra de aranceles y no las expectativas nuevas de un entorno de alza de intereses con tantas deudas… La volatilidad salvaje va a continuar…
PD1: En este mundo de infidelidades, de roturas matrimoniales, me ha gustado esto que ha pasado por mis manos:

Las 4 etapas en una crisis matrimonial

Una crisis de pareja comienza mucho antes de que caigamos en la cuenta de que estamos en ella

La crisis en el matrimonio comienza a destaparse lentamente, casi de forma imperceptible. Va arrojando destellos por aquí y por allá, pero como estamos tan metidos en el día a día no prestamos atención a ciertos detalles que nos van arrojando evidencia, señales de advertencia de que algo se está desacomodando en la relación.
Generalmente, las crisis matrimoniales vienen de una crisis personal. Es por eso por lo que se necesita de muchísima inteligencia humana y emocional para saber entender cómo está nuestra esposa o esposo.
Greg y Julie Alexander, fundadores de “The Alexander House Apostolate” comparten las 4 etapas de crisis en el matrimonio, a las que se debe prestar especial atención.

1.-Cuando comienza la armadura a torcerse.

Pequeñas diferencias comienzan a molestarte
Comienza el diálogo interno de cómo tu cónyuge no es lo que esperabas
Antes, hasta el ruido que hacía al masticar te parecía una hermosa melodía. Y hoy no toleras ni su respirar. Si te pide que le sirvas la comida o que le cambies el foco piensas: “¡Inútil! ¿Acaso tú no puedes hacerlo?”.
Si estás en esta etapa necesitas hacer un parón y reflexionar: ¿Qué me está pasando? ¿Por qué me está irritando tanto? ¿Qué me está molestado?
Puede ser que tu cónyuge no sea lo que esperabas. Pero ¿acaso tú si eres lo que él/ella esperaba?
Necesitamos vivir en la caridad y con los pies en la tierra: si se casaron fue por algo, porque son pareja, es decir, iguales… o por lo menos muy parecidos.

2.-Problemas en el paraíso

Te sientes incómodo al compartir tus sentimientos con tu cónyuge
Pretendes que todo esté bien, pero sabes que no
Es el típico de “para qué se voy a contar si no me va a entender”. Tu marido o tu mujer sabe que te pasa algo. Te lo pregunta y contestas que no te pasa nada.
Esto es peligroso porque comienza la desconexión emocional. Es decir, estás aquí, pero tu mente y corazón no. La poca comunicación gira alrededor de los hijos o de temas triviales, pero no hablan de ustedes.
Si estás en esta etapa es importante que reconozcas que algo te está molestando y lo comentes con el otro pero con prudencia y caridad.
Recuerda que en el pedir está el dar y muchas veces no es que me digas “tonta”, sino la “tonta” manera que tienes de decírmelo.
Si algo está sucediendo necesitas tomar el control de la situación y hacerte responsable de la parte que te corresponde. Si no lo haces, al rato tronarás cual olla exprés y algo que podría resolverse fácilmente se agrava. Recuerda que la comunicación es vehículo del amor.

3.-En el umbral

Sientes que no hay conexión entre ustedes
Empiezas a llenar el vacío con otras actividades y/o personas
Esta etapa es de gran peligro. Debido a la vulnerabilidad en la que nos encontramos, somos el blanco perfecto para dejarnos seducir por cosas o personas que nos ofrecen llenar nuestras carencias afectivas.
En pocas palabras, puede surgir la infidelidad. Y no me refiero solo a la afectiva o sexual, sino a dedicarle más tiempo a otras actividades o personas que a mi cónyuge.
Es decir, el tiempo que por derecho le corresponde se lo dedico a otras cosas que también me otorguen algún grado de satisfacción. Eso también es infidelidad.

4.-Me voy de aquí

Discutes constantemente… casi a propósito
Te sientes drenado de energía, sin esperanza y agotado
¡Etapa peligrosísima! Piensas que todo es inútil, que ya no hay que esforzarse en la relación y que la solución es emprender la retirada. Se genera una ceguera emocional y espiritual y no deja ver más allá de los problemas.
Si sientes que tu relación está en alguna de estas etapas ¡haz algo! y busca apoyo lo antes posible, no con amigas, sino con alguien profesional. Toda crisis tiene solución.
Trabaja en sanarte y sanar tu matrimonio, en reconstruirlo. Recuerda que tu crisis matrimonial debe servirte para perfeccionar el amor: si en las buenas te quiero junto a mí, en las malas te amo todavía más, aunque no lo sienta.

09 abril 2018

¿empezamos un mercado bajista?

Lo dudo, no creo que nos vayamos a dirigir a una tendencia profunda negativa. Esto es una corrección de los excesos habidos en los últimos trimestres. Las economías mundiales crecen bien, no se vislumbra la inflación, y las empresas siguen ganando mucho dinero, teniendo muchos beneficios (que es lo que compramos en bolsa). Que tenía que corregir, ya lo sabíamos. Que se tenía que ir a la media, era evidente. Que aquí estamos, que están empezando las dudas de que sea mayor, posiblemente…
El SP500 duda en la media móvil, con mucha volatilidad:
Es probable que el mercado de alguna oportunidad de invertir un poco más abajo, pero veo más al mercado definiendo un rango de fluctuación, entre los altos del mes de enero que serán los máximos durante varios años, y los mínimos que se definan en unas semanas…
No obstante, entran dudas…
If you’re getting the sense that stocks always go up, that’s because they’ve been doing so for a really, really long time. From CNBC today:

On the bull market’s ninth birthday, here’s how it stacks up against history

+The Dow has quadrupled during the bull market, which turned 9 on Friday.
+This is the biggest and longest bull market for the Dow post-WWII, according to Leuthold Group.
The bullish run in the Dow Jones industrial average — which celebrates its ninth birthday Friday — is the longest ever and the greatest percentage gain since World War II, according to Leuthold Group.
The corresponding run by the S&P 500, notes LPL Financial, is that benchmark’s second-largest and second-longest bull market ever, with only the 1990s stock market run led by technology stocks in the way.
Despite a more than 10 percent correction in equities last month following a burst of bullish activity, Leuthold’s Doug Ramsey doesn’t think the bull is done yet.
“Assuming the Dow Jones industrial average can exceed its late-January high on March 9th or thereafter, this cyclical bull market will become the first one ever to last nine years,” said Ramsey, his firm’s chief investment officer. “Historically, cycle momentum highs are usually followed by a push to even higher price highs over the next several months.”
The Dow hit an all-time high of 26,616.71 on Jan. 26, the same day the S&P 500 clinched its own record of 2,872.87. The major indexes are off their record highs 6.4 percent and 4.6 percent respectively.
This chart from Leuthold Group shows where the Dow bull market stacks up since 1900. It’s far and away the longest in modern financial times. In terms of percentage gains, it’s third behind two bull markets pre-WWII.
LPL chief investment strategist John Lynch, who measured the S&P 500, says the index is in the middle of its second-longest and second-greatest run ever.
The S&P 500 posted a 418 percent gain from October 1990 through March 2000, well ahead of its current 302 percent climb as of Jan. 26 as technology stocks boosted the index more so than the Dow.
To sum up, there have been a lot of bull markets over the past century, and they all ended eventually.
Why did they end? Usually because equity bull markets are part of broader expansions that eventually build up imbalances that force a retrenchment. The longer the good times go on, the more cocky investors and entrepreneurs become and the more dumb investments they make. These don’t generate sufficient cash flow to cover the interest on the related debt or otherwise satisfy backers, and eventually fail. Investors who lose money on failed projects stiff their creditors and so on, down the food chain until everyone is shell-shocked and risk-averse. Stock prices plunge, the economy contracts and the cycle begins again.
The key sentence here is “the longer the good times go on,” because the malinvestment is both cumulative and progressive. That is, the number of bad decisions rises as people become convinced that “this time it’s different” and they can’t lose.
Why the current expansion/bull market has so long is open to debate. What’s undeniable, though, is the vast amount of malinvestment that has accumulated. The biggest example might be corporations borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to buy back their stock at record high prices. See Record Buybacks at Worst Possible Time. If those equities subsequently fall by half in a future bear market, today’s buybacks will end up as an object lesson in corporate hubris.
Another undeniable fact is that based purely on historical precedent, this bull market is ancient, which puts it near, if not at, its end.
PD1: ''Para perdonar se necesita amor y para olvidar se necesita humildad'', Santa Teresa de Calcuta.

06 abril 2018

tributación de los productos financieros

Llegó el momento de liquidar los impuestos… ¡Qué lata! Por si te sirve y si quieres que te ayude me dices:

¿Cómo tributan los productos financieros en el IRPF?

PD1: Otro matiz muy bonito de la película de San Pablo es la PAZ. La encontramos en el Señor. La debemos transmitir. En este mundo convulso, debemos perdonar siempre a quienes nos ofenden, como nos enseñó el Señor en el “Padre Nuestro”, y recuperar la paz. Esa sed de venganza que tuvieron unos pocos cristianos contra Nerón, fue aplacada por el mensaje de amor y paz… ¿No es esto de total actualidad? Deseemos la paz en este mundo conflictivo también… Paz con el vecino, paz con el familiar que nos incomoda, paz con los amigos, paz con los jefes que nos maltratan, paz conduciendo, paz con los hijos y esposa, paz con los políticos que nos exasperan, paz y no revancha, ni odio, ni rencor…