Entusiasmo com IA dá maior ganho semanal deste ano a S&P 500 e Nasdaq

[VirtuaGod]

Templetons total Return a subir como se nao houvesse amanhã. Têm muito para compensar...

Templeton Global Total Ret N Acc EUR a 3 meses +17.99
Templeton Global Total Ret N Acc EUR H1 a 3 meses +9.35

[Ulisses Pereira]

topline, mais posts apagados teus e, mais uma vez, banido. Lamento que gastes o teu tempo a criar nicks para vires aqui insultares as pessoas. Até tens conhecimentos sobre mercado mas o teu comportamento social é deplorável.

Escolhe outro fórum da Internet para destilares o teu ódio. Aqui no Caldeirão não. Fim de linha.

[VirtuaGod]

@toplineTendo em consideração que partilhas coisas que acrescentam valor ao tópico e vindo de uma pessoa que até gosta de ler o que partilhas tenta limitar os teus insultos pessoais para quem tem uma opinião diferente da tua sff

És livre de ter a tua opinião assim como as outras pessoas o são de ter as deles. Respeita os outros pois acho que gostas que te respeitem. Não tendo sido eu alvo de nenhum dos teus insultos nos últimos tempos custa-me ler estares a atacar outros intervenientes só por terem opiniões diferentes das tuas (é que nem atacas as opiniões, é mesmo as pessoas)!!

[topline]

Trump and Small-Caps: A Perfect Match?

(Excelente artigo. É claro que isto deve interessar pouco para os passivos, pois mudanças de rumo para quem é adepto do "stay the course" são irrelevantes ... para um prazo >= à esperança média de vida do investidor.)

Some of Donald Trump’s plans for the US economy may provide a big boost for small stocks. We think there are five compelling reasons for investors to take a closer look at this segment of the market.

Since Trump won the US presidential election a little more than a month ago, the small-cap Russell 2000 Index has surged some 15%, compared to less than 6% for the S&P 500 Index of large-cap stocks.

What’s going on? Investors are betting that a bevy of proposed Trump polices, including lower corporate taxes, repatriation of cash held offshore and looser regulation, and their likely effects (faster economic growth, higher interest rates, rising inflation), will disproportionately benefit small-cap stocks.

Our research points toward the same conclusion. But that doesn’t mean every small company will be a winner during a Trump presidency. His policies will have varying effects on different companies and sectors. Take regulation. Trump’s plan to relax some postcrisis financial rules is clearly good for bank shares. But repealing the Affordable Care Act could leave millions uninsured, raising costs for hospitals.

Investors will have to navigate plenty of twists and turns, and they will need a steady hand on the wheel. That’s why a hands-on approach that can identify attractively valued stocks with strong fundamentals is still critically important, in our view.

MORE CHANGE, MORE OPPORTUNITY.

For investors, change can mean opportunity—especially when it comes to small-caps. They receive far less attention from analysts than their larger peers, and this neglect often leads to mispricing or misunderstood fundamentals. Today, the potential for both is even greater.

Here’s a look at some key Trump policy priorities and what they could mean for small-caps:

1. TAX REFORM: This is the most unambiguously positive proposal for small-caps and a big reason for the market rally. Smaller companies generally have higher tax rates than multinationals, so lower corporate taxes would provide a big boost. Some smaller companies that pay close to the full current corporate rate, such as regional banks and certain consumer and industrial companies, could see earnings rise by 10% to 20% if the rate falls into the 20%–25% range (ver gráfico acima).

2. INFRASTRUCTURE: Trump wants to spend up to $1 trillion over a decade, and there’s strong bipartisan support for updating the country’s aging infrastructure. Whatever the ultimate price tag, additional spending should benefit engineering-and-construction and industrial companies. Generally, smaller companies can offer a more targeted and better way to bet on trends like new infrastructure spending than exposure to large multinationals with diversified businesses.

3. INTEREST RATES: Lower taxes and increased fiscal spending could drive higher inflation and higher interest rates. That’s good for certain regional banks, but bad for interest-rate–sensitive sectors such as real estate investment trusts and utilities, whose shares have underperformed since Trump won and rates rose.

4. REPATRIATION OF OVERSEAS CASH: A proposed repatriation tax holiday for companies with cash overseas may also add to inflation. But if it boosts M&A activity, it could benefit smaller-cap stocks disproportionately. Since 1994, small-caps have accounted for 91% of public-company M&A deals. A big potential winner: biotech.

5. TRADE AND PROTECTIONISM: Most small-caps are domestically oriented and generate a smaller portion of their sales overseas than their large-cap peers. That suggests that retreat from existing trade deals should squeeze large companies’ margins harder. But there’s plenty of gray here. Those larger firms that do sell abroad are often customers for smaller-cap companies and may buy less or ask for price concessions. What’s more, trade barriers depress economic activity.

PICK YOUR STOCKS CAREFULLY.

On balance, we’re bullish on small-caps and think allocating to this segment of the market can boost investors’ return potential. And while the market has risen sharply over the last month, the rally still seems to have legs. When compared with large-caps, smaller stocks still appear reasonably valued. That’s good news for investors who feared they had missed their chance to increase small-cap exposure.

But how they get that exposure matters. Changing rules will create winners and losers. Exchange-traded funds and passive mutual funds that track a small-cap index buy a broad basket of small-cap stocks and can’t interpret how individual companies will react to new policies or economic developments.

It can be risky to make broad judgments about how small-caps will respond to specific policy proposals—which could look very different once they become law. The best course of action is to target companies with strong fundamentals while maintaining the flexibility to react as policy changes become clearer.

In other words, even now, when conditions for performance seem to be falling into place, we think focusing on company-specific earnings drivers is the best way to identify the small stocks that can generate big investment returns.


http://www.advisorperspectives.com/comm ... fect-match

[topline]

Capturar 1.PNG (26.67 KiB) Visualizado 9729 vezes

[topline]

Na categoria de small caps dos EUA, nos últimos 3 anos o melhor fundo é o Aberdeen Global North Amer Smlr Coms A2 (USD), de acordo com as métricas da MS, sendo melhor que os seus pares, designadamente, em: rentabilidade média a 3 anos (em 2014 o Ranking foi fazer parte dos 19% melhores fundos na categoria, em 2015 dos 1% melhores e em 2016 dos 54%), RS, Risco, Beta, Alfa, R2, ...

Portanto, este fundo, no curto prazo de 3 anos que está em vigor, não dá hipótese aos seus pares, tem uma boa gestão ativa do binómio retornos vs risco, apresenta um adequado R2 de 80.77% em relação ao índice standard Russell 2000 TR e tem atualmente uma carteira com uma alocação de 49 ativos, sendo assim uma carteira medianamente concentrada (boa concentração: 20-30 ativos. Boa diversificação: >= 100 ativos), revelando assim que a equipa de gestão está a fazer um bom stock picking qualitativo e quantitativo, pois se fizesse uma alocação com demasiada diversificação de ativos, com certeza que não tinha a outperformance que tem tido.

Link do fundo: http://www.morningstar.pt/pt/funds/snap ... F00000QHV0

[topline]

Capturar 1.PNG (43.99 KiB) Visualizado 9886 vezes

Capturar 2.PNG (126.78 KiB) Visualizado 9886 vezes

http://blog.gavekalcapital.com/?p=12376

[topline]

Capturar 1.PNG (89.11 KiB) Visualizado 9900 vezes

Capturar 2.PNG (83.73 KiB) Visualizado 9900 vezes

[chico_laranja]

Muito bom topline

Falta-me ler agora tudo a partir da parte I.

[topline]

Risk vs Return — The Dirty Secret.

Capturar 1.PNG (85.47 KiB) Visualizado 9946 vezes

You don’t always get more return on average if you take more risk. The amount of added return declines with each unit of additional risk, and eventually turns negative at high levels of risk. The graph above is a vague approximate representation of how this process works.

Why is this so? Two related reasons:

1.People are not very good at estimating the probability of success for ventures, and it gets worse as the probability of success gets lower. People overpay for chancy lottery ticket-like investments, because they would like to strike it rich. This malady affect men more than women, on average.

2.People get to investment ideas late. They buy closer to tops than bottoms, and they sell closer to bottoms than tops. As a result, the more volatile the investment, the more money they lose in their buying and selling. This malady also affects men more than women, on average.

Put another way, this is choosing your investments based on your circle of competence, such that your probability of choosing a good investment goes up, and second, having the fortitude to hold a good investment through good and bad times. From my series on dollar-weighted returns you know that the more volatile the investment is, the more average people lose in their buying and selling of the investment, versus being a buy-and-hold investor.

Since stocks are a long duration investment, don’t buy them unless you are going to hold them long enough for your thesis to work out. Things don’t always go right in the short run, even with good ideas. (And occasionally, things go right in the short run with bad ideas.)

In closing, the dirty secret is this: size your risk level to what you can live with without getting greedy or panicking. You will do better than other investors who get tempted to make rash moves, and act on that temptation. On average, the world belongs to moderate risk-takers.

http://alephblog.com/2016/05/11/risk-vs ... ty-secret/

[topline]

Retornos versus volatilidades e riscos (cont.).

Capturar 7.PNG (48.82 KiB) Visualizado 9968 vezes

Capturar 8.PNG (54.42 KiB) Visualizado 9968 vezes

Capturar 9.PNG (56.58 KiB) Visualizado 9968 vezes

Capturar 10.PNG (52.04 KiB) Visualizado 9968 vezes

Capturar 11.PNG (56.87 KiB) Visualizado 9968 vezes

Greater Volatility Doesn’t Always Equal Higher Reward.

As our previous posts have demonstrated, not only do Non-Durable (also known as consumer staples) industries have the highest risk-adjusted returns (e.g. higher Sharpe ratios), they have also posted some of the best absolute returns. Conversely, the highly volatile technology and durable goods sectors are near the bottom when it comes to absolute returns. At first blush this would appear to run counter to conventional wisdom: that investors receive higher rates of return in compensation for bearing additional volatility/risk. In practice, however, this has not been the case.

A hallmark of the most profitable industries seems to be stability of valuation multiples.

One of the astonishing things about so-called “defensive” sectors (consumer staples / non-durables, utilities, etc.) is that they have shown healthy historical returns, but they have done so while not commanding excessive multiples from investors. In other words, there has been less volatility in the price-to-earnings and EV/EBIT multiples over time for consumer staples than for high-tech and telecommunications (Note: In the French dataset, “Other” includes financials and banks, which explains that categorization’s plot placement.)

It is only on a price-to-book basis that consumer staples have shown a higher degree of volatility than other market participants.

At this point we draw two conclusions. First, the volatility of returns, as well as price-to-earnings, enterprise value-to-EBIT, and price-to-book all have a shared input: market capitalization. It’s worth noting, while not explicit, that enterprise value has an aspect of price “baked in” as the market capitalization of the company/sector/asset makes up a substantial portion of total enterprise value. The major implication here is that price movements have been responsible for a large portion (if not the majority) of volatility as the volatility of earnings, book value, and EBIT fail to alter the observable trends in a meaningful way (they are all flat to slightly negative).

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we note that simply taking on a higher level of absolute risk (as measured by standard deviation) is insufficient to generate additional return. One of the fundamental ideas of the Capital Asset Pricing Model is that investors should only be compensated for bearing systematic risk—or risk that is highly correlated with the overall market and therefore can’t be diversified away. Simply taking on higher levels of absolute risk shouldn’t pay off because uncorrelated but volatile returns can be diversified away. Along these lines of reasoning we should expect to see annualized returns correlate with beta, a measure of systematic risk.

Finally, because of their a-cyclical nature, consumer staple stocks have seemingly been taken for granted. Their returns have been largely consistent, but the stability of their valuations means they have been less prone to return-killing over-valuation. Take, for example, a comparison of the most profitable industry of the last 100 years, tobacco, versus what many would likely assume would be the technology of the future, software. Using the EV/EBIT multiple, you can see clearly the tech bubble of the late 1990s, while tobacco’s multiples have been remarkably stable.

Despite the fact that additional forms of risk—the Fama French factors such as small cap and value–were not accounted for, we note that these trends run counter to expectations. We defer to famed value investor Howard Marks for a shrewd explanation of the relationship between risk and return:

But riskier investments absolutely cannot be counted on to deliver higher returns. Why not? It’s simple: if riskier investments reliably produced higher returns, they wouldn’t be riskier!

The correct formulation is that in order to attract capital, riskier investments have to offer the prospect of higher returns, or higher promised returns, or higher expected returns. But there’s absolutely nothing to say those higher prospective returns have to materialize. [1]

Our data set shows a slight negative trend between return and Beta. Frazzini and Pederson of AQR point out that many investors expose themselves to high Beta assets in an attempt to earn higher returns. [2] The result of tilting towards these high Beta assets results in lower risk adjusted returns compared to low-beta assets. Their analysis shows similar results in multiple markets including foreign equities, Treasuries, foreign bonds and commodities. Thus the results observed here, while constrained in time and focused on domestic stocks*, are not a product of a specific period or market, but instead are somewhat consistent with outcomes present in multiple markets and stretches of time.

Perhaps the phenomenon we’ve described is best encapsulated by the commentary of Severian Asset’s Sam Lee. Sam has written extensively on the historical outperformance of low-volatility stocks such as consumer staples, and he attributes their excess performance to three key factors:

1.Due to their tendency to over-extrapolate from current conditions, investors systematically fail to appreciate the earnings power of very stable companies, while overestimating the longevity of earnings for firms in highly cyclical businesses.

2.Investors have lottery-seeking tendencies which leads them to overpay for firms that have the potential for making enormous gains, while devaluing firms that earn low but steady returns.

3.Investors are leverage-constrained and so in order to earn higher returns seek out higher-risk assets, which, ironically, don’t produce higher returns.

In conclusion, it would appear that taking on higher levels of volatility or overpaying for innovation and glamour may make for great chatter at a dinner party, but don’t expect it to provide higher rates of return.


*While our study on volatility of valuations focused solely on domestic stocks, we found similar risk-reward characteristics for low-volatility sectors in both foreign and emerging market stocks, albeit without the luxury of having valuation data available.


https://thepfengineer.com/2016/09/28/ma ... -part-iii/

[topline]

Retornos versus volatilidades e riscos.


Vou apresentar um artigo dos mais completos que conheço sobre a temática supra, provavelmente o melhor artigo produzido até à data. Estamos perante um post a tender para um nível estratosférico.
Dada a limitação da plataforma do Caldeirão em não se poder juntar mais do que 6 anexos por post, e tendo em conta que selecionei 10 gráficos para ilustrar o artigo, este vai ser dividido por 2 posts sequenciais.

A 1ª imagem seguinte constitui a legenda descriminada dos gráficos, que em alguns aparece só com abreviaturas e para os menos entendidos podia haver dúvidas.

Capturar 1.PNG (179.69 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

Capturar 2.PNG (53.85 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

Capturar 3.PNG (57.02 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

Capturar 4.PNG (55.52 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

Capturar 5.PNG (55.13 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

Capturar 6.PNG (51.67 KiB) Visualizado 9973 vezes

https://thepfengineer.com/2016/09/28/ma ... -part-iii/

(Este post tem continuação no seguinte post)

[Bucks]

PRUSSLC:LX
Equity Russia Opportunities
+73.24%

[topline]

Rally is Real, Not "Hope & Faith".


Since the presidential election, the S&P 500 is up 8.4%, the Russell 2000, a small cap stock index, is up almost 20% and the Dow is closing in on 20,000. Financial stocks have surged.

This "Trump Rally," just like the entire 2009-2016 bull market – which pushed up stocks more than 200% - has its detractors. We heard it over and over in the past eight years, and now we are hearing it again – "the market has moved too far, too fast."

This rally, they say is based on "Hope and Faith." After all, nothing has changed yet. It's wishful thinking.

We could not disagree more. According to our capitalized profits model, the market was undervalued by roughly 30% on election day. In fact, it was undervalued for the previous eight years as well.

We believe the reason it was undervalued was because government policy was constantly making it more difficult for free markets to operate. Higher taxes, higher spending and more regulation increase the risks to future growth. It's why we have had a Plow Horse economy. At the least, these policies are now stopped, at best, they will be reversed.

Next, profits are rebounding. It's true that in 2014-2016, the drop in oil prices undercut profits, not just for energy companies, but for ancillary businesses (trucking, machinery, materials), as well.

Profits hit an all-time record high in the fourth quarter of 2014, then fell. Now, oil prices are stabilizing, which helped economy-wide corporate profits rise 6.6% in the third quarter. After Q3, profits now stand just 2.8% short of that previous record high.

So, instead of asking why the market is up, investors should be asking why wasn't it rising more before? After all, with profits turning the corner in an already undervalued state, the market should be up.

But it was hard for stocks to rise with such a bad set of fiscal policies. And, following such a surprising election outcome, it is clear that these policies will change. The election may not herald a new era of free market perfection, but investors can be confident that, overall, public policy isn't going to get worse and may get much better. The US is moving out the public-policy elite of the Ivy League, and moving in an all-star cast of adjunct professors. Markets know that this infusion of real world experience will push policy in a much more market friendly direction. It's not just "hope and faith," it's an entirely rational response to a radical shift in economic policy.

This information contains forward-looking statements about various economic trends and strategies. You are cautioned that such forward-looking statements are subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and actual results could be materially different. There are no guarantees associated with any forecast and the opinions stated here are subject to change at any time and are the opinion of the individual strategist. Data comes from the following sources: Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Reserve Board, and Haver Analytics. Data is taken from sources generally believed to be reliable but no guarantee is given to its accuracy.


http://www.advisorperspectives.com/comm ... hope-faith

[topline]

topline

O tempo que estiveste ausente estiveste a coleccionar informação e agora estás a debitar estas pérolas

Andei a frequentar um workshop intensivo sobre a termodinâmica dos mercados, dado por um moderador meu amigo do peito ... é que eu só conhecia as leis da termodinâmica física (lei zero, 1ª e 2ª leis), mas agora passei a entender melhor os fluxos térmicos entre os vários mercados bolsistas e a fugir dos mercados sobreaquecidos, pois mesmo com umas boas luvas de proteção térmica, as mãos, e principalmente os bolsos, queimam como brasas incandescentes.

[Bucks]

Voltei a entrar:

Fidelity Asian Aggressive E-Acc-EUR
http://www.morningstar.pt/pt/funds/snap ... F000000RLR

[topline]

Technically Speaking: Bullish Or Bearish? What The Charts Say.


(Artigo de excelência a tender para o estratosférico)

Capturar 1.PNG (161.5 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

Capturar 2.PNG (164.83 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

Capturar 3.PNG (157.91 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

Capturar 4.PNG (189.31 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

Capturar 5.PNG (142.02 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

Capturar 6.PNG (233.73 KiB) Visualizado 10121 vezes

“For ordinary Americans, 2017 is likely to feel like the best year economically since the Great Recession.
The recovery is finally expected to trickle down to you in the form of an improved job market, higher wages, and growing spending power.
And, despite the advanced age of this bull, your improving fortunes just may keep U.S. stocks chugging along too, as consumers represent 70% of the U.S. economy.“

While his points are valid, but very debatable, it is critical to remember the stock market and the economy are two different things. GDP growth and stock returns are not highly correlated. In fact, some analysis suggests that they are negatively correlated and perhaps fairly strongly so (-0.40).

However, it isn’t just Paul pushing the bullish commentary, but virtually the entirety of the media press. The siren’s song of “stay long my friends” has risen as of late as the market has soared following the election. But here is the interesting takeaway:

The reasoning for the continuance of the “bull rally” over the last several years has been footed by the common threads of:

1.Interest rates and inflation are low,
2.Corporate profitability is high,
3.Economic recovery is stronger than it looks and;
4.Global Central Bank interventions continue to put a floor under stocks.

Now, the bull market will continue because:

1.Interest rates and inflation are rising,
2.Corporate profitability will rise,
3.The economic recovery will strengthen, and;
4.Global Central Bank interventions/supports are being removed.

It can’t be both.

Interest rates have remained low because of the Federal Reserve’s actions and weak economic growth rates, corporate profitability is high due to accounting gimmicks, and the Fed’s liquidity programs have artificially inflated stock prices. As far as the economy goes, I think it looks like it looks.

Yes, there are lots of wiggles along the way. Each bounce was expected to be “the turn” into a lasting uptrend with respect to policy changes, etc. They weren’t. Debt has continued to erode the underlying ability for economic growth to accelerate and with interest rates rising, the negative feedback loop will likely manifest itself sooner than most expect.

However, in the meantime, the promise of a continued bull market is very enticing. But it is important for investors to remember we have only one job: “Buy Low/Sell High.” It is a simple rule that is often forgotten as “greed” replaces “logic.” It is also that simple emotion of greed that tends to lead to devastating losses. Therefore, if your portfolio, and ultimately your retirement, is dependent upon the thesis of a continued bull market, you should at least consider the following charts which cover both fundamental and technical views.

Valuations.

I have often visited the point of valuations and the importance of them. Valuations are often dismissed in the short-term because there is not an immediate impact on price returns. Valuations, by their very nature, are HORRIBLE predictors of 12-month returns should not be used in any strategy that has such a focus. However, in the longer term, valuations are strong predictors of expected returns.

The chart shows Dr. Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted P/E ratio combined with Tobin’s Q-ratio. The problem is that current valuations only appear cheap when compared to the peak in 2000. Outside of that exception, the financial markets are now more expensive than at any other single point in history.

Sentiment.

Another argument for the continuation of the current “bull market” remains the “cash on the sidelines” that will come rushing in just any day now. As Cliff Asness, head of AQR Capital, penned:

“Every time someone says, ‘There is a lot of cash on the sidelines,’ a tiny part of my soul dies. There are no sidelines. Those saying this seem to envision a seller of stocks moving her money to cash and awaiting a chance to return. But they always ignore that this seller sold to somebody, who presumably moved a precisely equal amount of cash off the sidelines.”

Cliff, of course, is right. However, the other argument is that retail investors “missed out on the bull market” and will push stocks higher as they move back into the markets. That is not the case either.

The chart shows the percentage of stocks, bonds and cash owned by individual investors according to the American Association of Individual Investor’s survey. With equity ownership approaching the highest levels since 2007, and near record low levels of cash, the individual investor is “all in.”

Notice, that despite the recent “rout in bonds,” bond exposure has remained relatively flat is 2012.
However, it is not just individuals that are “all in,” but the entire spectrum of financial professionals as well. The index below is the composite bullish index of the AAII, INVI, MarketVane and NAAIM investor sentiment indices. I have summed the indices and then recalibrated the index to a starting point of 100.

With bullish sentiment near all-time records, there is little argument that “bullish is back.”

Momentum.

I have discussed previously the importance of “price” as an indicator of the market “herd” mentality. One of the major problems with fundamental and macro-economic analysis is the psychology of the “herd” can defy logical analysis for quite some time. As Keynes once stated:
“The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”

Many an investor have learned that lesson the hard way over time and may be taught again in the not so distant future. As shown in the chart, the momentum of the market has decidedly changed for the negative. Furthermore, these changes have only occurred near market peaks in the past. Some of these corrections were more minor; some were extremely negative. Given the current negative divergences in the markets from RSI to Momentum, the latter is rising possibility.

It Is What It Is…

I really don’t care much for the “bull/bear” debate that ensues on a daily basis as both camps are eventually wrong. When investing in the markets “it is, what it is.” It is of very little use some pundit, or analyst, was “right” during the bull market if they never saw the bear market coming. The opposite is also true.

As a money manager, I am currently long the stock market. I must be, or I potentially suffer career risk. However, my job is not only to make money for my clients, but also to preserve their gains, and investment capital, as much as possible. This is why, although I am often considered a “bear”, I focus on the “risks” that prevail.

Understanding, and analyzing, both sets of arguments is crucially important to navigating the markets successfully over time. The REAL RISK to investors is not “missing out” on a further rise in the markets, but catching the bulk of the reversion that will wipe out most of the gains from the previous advance.

Hopefully, these charts will give you some food for thought. Remember, every professional poker player knows how to spot a “pigeon at the table.” Make sure it isn’t you.

https://realinvestmentadvice.com/techni ... harts-say/

[chico_laranja]

topline

O tempo que estiveste ausente estiveste a coleccionar informação e agora estás a debitar estas pérolas

Infelizmente vou ter que colocar aqui uma marca no PC para ler e reler com calma pois é muita informação para processar em pouco tempo

Os tempos para vir cá são curtos pelo que não dá para grandes debates

[topline]

Value investor Bill Miller says 35-year-old bond bull market is over, stocks should benefit.


The recent collapse in bond prices following Donald Trump's election is signaling the end of the three-decade-old bull market in fixed income, closely followed value investor Bill Miller told CNBC on Tuesday.

The money leaving bonds should find its way into the stock market, the founder, chairman and CIO of Baltimore-based LMM added.

"The over-investment in bonds is going to switch somewhere," he said. "I think a large part is going to go to equities like it did in 2013."

"Stocks are already discounting probably 3 to 4 percent [on the] 10-year [bond yield]," Miller said. "So you have clear sailing for another 75 basis points easy." He noted that "it depends on the growth rate."

But don't expect the stock market bull run that began in March 2009 to last forever, Miller warned. "It will last, as secular bull markets, do until it becomes too expensive, relative to the alternatives."

"If rates move up, as I would expect, over next couple of years to ... 3 or 4 percent on the 10-year [Treasury bond], assuming good economic growth, and if the stock market moves up ... from 18 to 22 [or] 23 times [earnings], it'll be pretty much over," he said.

Bull markets "die of valuation excesses," he stressed.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/15/value-in ... nefit.html

[Rambaldi]

Um bom amigo que retornou às lides do tópico e se saúda ... ele não é um black swan dos mercados mas sim um cisne branco: Rambaldi.

Saudações a todos. Obrigado topline, vejo que continuas com um elevado active share de conhecimentos. Vou ver se consigo vir mais vezes, mas infelizmente venho cá quando posso e não quando quero. Até porque o tópico continua deveras interessante, com uma excelente liquidez de partilha de conhecimentos e ideias.

[topline]

Correcting Some Misconceptions About A New Secular Bull Market.


(Excelente artigo, com uma densidade ou concentração de informação qualitativa-quantitativa e gráfica ao nível do melhor que vi)

Capturar 1.JPG (67 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Capturar 2.JPG (57.3 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Capturar 3.JPG (83.18 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Capturar 5.JPG (55.45 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Capturar 6.JPG (68.16 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Capturar 7.JPG (58.55 KiB) Visualizado 10260 vezes

Conclusion:

While being a “stark raving bull” going into 2017 is certainly fashionable currently; as investors, we should place our faith, and hard earned savings, into the reality of the underlying fundamentals. It is entirely conceivable the current momentum driven markets, fueled by ongoing Central Bank interventions combined with optimism over the potential for economic reforms under the new administration, could certainly drift higher in the months to come. However, the reality is that the current underlying demographic trends, economic realities, and market fundamentals do not provide the base to support current price levels much less the entrance into a secular bull market akin to that of the 80’s and 90’s.

Of course, with virtual entirety of Wall Street being extremely bullish on the markets and economy going into 2017, along with bullish sentiment at extremely high levels, it certainly brings to mind Bob Farrell’s Rule #9 which states:

“When all experts agree – something else is bound to happen.”

There are simply too many things we “don’t know that we don’t know.” For that reason alone, 2017 could well turn out to be an interesting year for all the wrong reasons.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/com ... ull-market

[VirtuaGod]

Eu iria nas obrigações para o PIMCO Global Bond (VirtuaGod.... és o mago dos fundos de obrigações pelo que podes dar aqui uma ajuda) e nas acções iria para um fundo global tipo LU0094560744 - MFS Meridian Global Equity A1 EUR Acc ou até algo mais conservador tipo LU0229519805 - Nordea-1 Global Stable Equity Unhedged E EUR

Tenho imensa info sobre o assunto e já tenho que chegue para uma pessoa com calma analisar a sua situação particular. Agora o risco pretendido é com cada um. Mas se for pelo aconselhamento do Private do BPI não acho que vá mal. Do que já vi deles parecem-me bastante competentes.

Uma mais aprofundada análise de uma carteira de 2 fundos
Uma carteira nova: A carteira '4 fundos' e a minha constante procura por um Portfolio pequeno, simples e eficiente

Não me custa nada correr o script com outros pesos e colocar aqui as conclusões. Só têm que me dizer os pesos, mas isso não sou eu que decido

[Bucks]

MTPENER:PL
Montepio Euro Energy - Fundo de Investimento Mobiliario Aberto de Accoes
+6.07%

[topline]

The differences between US and European ETF markets.

Capturar 1.PNG (24.54 KiB) Visualizado 6573 vezes

Capturar 2.PNG (22.55 KiB) Visualizado 6573 vezes

The US is far bigger.

Demand for exchange traded funds in Europe has never been higher. Assets held in funds and products listed across the region hit a record $567bn at the end of the third quarter, according to ETFGI, a London-based consultancy.

Such growth, however, lags far behind the US, where assets invested totalled $2.4tn for the same period. This reflects two major differences between the two regions. First, in Europe, the majority of business is off-exchange, and secondly, there are far fewer retail investors.

“When you look at the EU market, only 11 per cent of households own funds compared to over 40 per cent in the US. So it’s not surprising that European ETFs are largely the domain of institutional investors,” says Sean Tuffy.

The main European ETFs also only cover the biggest and most liquid markets — the German Dax, Euro Stoxx 50, Italy’s MIB, France’s Cac 40 and the pan-European Stoxx 50 index.

Europe’s fragmented markets: there’s little ‘E’ in ETF.

Therefore not all transactions have to be reported and so most of the market is traded over-the-counter. The ratio of on-versus-off exchange trading in the US is 70:30, while it is widely estimated that the ratio is reversed in Europe.

The fact is that ETFs in Europe aren’t really traded on exchanges.

“When an investor comes in and buys, that adds to the share base of the ETF. The share count goes up but the issuer doesn’t know how many trades and at what price. The issuer wants more information,” says Mr Pace.

The US has more retail investors and efficient infrastructure.

In the US, returns from the stock market are still a key generator of wealth.

“One driver is that people invest their own pension money so they are much more cost-conscious than in Europe,” says Dennis Dijkstra.

And ETFs — especially outside the UK — are typically sold to investors via banks and not specialist brokers. That reinforces an institutional grip on the market in two ways.

“The banks are more likely to sell banking products rather than fund products,” says Mr Tuffy.

Mr Dijkstra notes that a local retail broker is usually a member of one or two exchanges. As institutional investors are members of many bourses, “off-exchange they will get the best price. They get the liquidity in one shot’.’

Then there is the issue of settlement. In the US, all trades are settled in one place, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. By contrast the European Central Securities Depositories Association has 41 members. That is a particular problem when it comes to redeeming ETFs.

“A broker may have to move collateral between central securities depositories. It’s more time consuming and costly,” says Laura Morrison, global head of exchange-traded products at Bats Global Markets.

Then there is a matter of financial incentives. US issuers are prohibited from paying a market-maker directly for their services, preventing a conflict of interest in which trading desks profit from a product created within the same institution. Nevertheless, there are incentive schemes to attract traders. For example, issuers can make defined payments to the Bats exchange, and the market-makers compete to win the sum on offer from the third party.

No such distinction is made in Europe, where direct agreements can be made between the market makers and the issuers. “In Europe it matters, it makes a difference,” says one executive.


https://www.ft.com/content/aa4e3be2-baf ... b81dd5d080

[topline]

(...)
topline
As melhores flores são as naturais e qualquer dama gosta de receber uma bonita flor

Pois, pois ... num restaurante o empregado pergunta-me: água, natural ou fresca? Ao que eu lhe respondo: naturalmente fresca e sem sabores.