Trabalhadores do Novo Banco querem bónus pela venda ao BPCE

[mrod0]

A estratégia aqui delineada pretende ser simples e com um consumo de tempo anual mínimo. Quem estiver interessado em perder tempo com coisas mais complexas, tipo portfolio tilting, tem vários tópicos neste fórum ao seu dispor.

Boa noite LTCM,
Tenho algumas dúvidas para se souberes/tiveres possibilidade de responder:
Em termos de custódia de títulos (país/intermediário) que recomendações fazes? Como procedeste pessoalmente?
(1) Optas por Portugal e pelos intermediários portugueses (BEST, Gobulling PRO, Montepio Trader, etc.) que essencialmente utilizam a plataforma da SAXO Bank;
(2) Optas por um intermediário internacional tipo IB (UK), TD Ameritrade (US)?
(3) Outra alternativa que eu não tenha previsto?

E em termos fiscais:
- Achas que devemos optar por ETF de casas como a Vanguard/iShares (US) que essencialmente distribuem dividendos - e tipicamente são mais líquidos e muito mais baratos em termos de custos de gestão...rondam os 0,10% - mas que tudo é duplamente taxado, mesmo com a minimização do acordo entre Portugal e os US, ou;
- Achas melhor, por ser mais fiscalmente eficiente, optar por ETF de casas como as que operam na Europa (DB x-trackers, Lyxor, Amundi, ComStage) e capitalizam dividendos - tipicamente menos líquidos e com custos de gestão a rondar 0,40%?

Obrigado pela atenção.

[LTCM]

There is perennial debate about whether stock selection improves investment performance over the long term, when compared to the low cost, and low effort approach of simply buying index products. At the heart of the debate is the question not of whether some stocks in the index will do better than others – this will always be the case – but whether those which will perform better can be reliably selected in advance.

Over short holding periods this is always doubtful: at best: there are simply too many idiosyncratic and unexpected events that can lead any one ‘good’ stock to disappoint over any specific short time horizon. Furthermore, in the turbulent, ‘risk on, risk off’ markets we’ve experienced since August, picking individual stocks seems to have little discernable effect, as markets rise and fall as a whole, led by changes in political events or investor sentiment, whose effects are common to all stocks.

However, this high volatility, high degree of focus on short term news flow, and lack of discrimination between individual stocks provides an environment potentially full of opportunity…that is, for those with the emotional resilience to stick with investments through the ongoing turmoil. This is true both with respect to the level of the market as a whole, and also for purchasing individual stocks at particularly good long-term value.

In fact, it is the very anxiety induced by the market turmoil that brings the first source of value: when times are very stressful and uncertain, investor focus tends to shift to excessive concern about what will occur in the short term, and away from calmer reflections on long term, sensible, value opportunities. Emotional time horizons shorten, and this enhanced nervousness naturally causes investors to shun investing more than if they were taking a more rational long term perspective. This emotionally induced lack of demand for risky investments drives markets lower than can be justified by a less myopic evaluation of risk and return. In other words, long term and emotionally resilient investors can take advantage of the temporary anxiety premium caused by the high level of stress, fear and myopia of everyone else in the market.

This is not to say that markets aren’t still risky – they are – but in times of stress markets are not only pricing in risk, they’re also pricing in the emotional anxiety of all those investors who have taken their eyes off their long term investment goals. So, unless we think that markets are significantly underestimating the true risks, then times of turmoil are good entry points for long term investors.

But what about individual stock selection? Well, another feature of stressed investors with myopic emotional time horizons is that their perspective becomes much less nuanced – fearful investors often flee risky assets as a whole, without discriminating effectively between high and low quality assets. Correlations increase and all stocks move up and down together depending on whether the prevailing sentiment is ‘risk on’ or ‘risk off’. When markets fall, investors sell the good with the bad. This means that not only is there an anxiety premium for the market as a whole, but that good stocks can be dragged down with all the rest, despite very robust long term prospects.

Thus, at times when stocks as a whole are being shunned there can be a number of hidden gems available at very good prices for those with the knowledge and expertise to unearth them. In the short term they may well continue bouncing up and down with the market as a whole, but a basket of such shares, carefully selected, allows investors to supplement their portfolio with assets purchased at deep long term value, at a time when most market participants are more concerned about short term emotional comfort.

[FDPC]

[LTCM]

Rebalance more frequently In a world of accelerated change and volatility, being a disciplined investor means paying stricter attention to the markets. Rebalancing your portfolio once a year may not give you the degree of flexibility you need. Keep a careful eye on your progress toward your goals and consider rebalancing two, three or even four times a year, if needed. Bear in mind that rebalancing is a taxable event.

LTCM, estive a reler o Enriquecer Devagar, mas não vejo nenhuma referência tua a uma maior ou menor frequência no rebalanceamento consoante a volatilidade dos mercados. Isto acaba por ser um bocado market timing (ainda que do rebalanceamento).

Conselhos como

Before making any significant strategy changes, it would be prudent for investors to review their portfolios to determine if the allocations reflect their tolerance for volatility and the time horizons of their financial goals.

são demasiados vagos. Tu abordas isto da maior ou menor frequência do rebalanceamento de forma mais ou menos estruturada (leia-se não 'achómetro e não 'olhómetro') ou ignoras a questão e tentas manter sempre a mesma periodicidade no ajustamento ?

Os textos que tenho deixado neste tópico são algumas das coisas que diariamente vou lendo e que na minha imodéstia considero interessantes, embora não raras vezes sejam contraditórios ou mutuamente exclusivos, para aquela meia dúzia de caldeireiros que criou uma carteira e, sabiamente, não perde tempo com o ruído diário dos mercados.

O intuito do extinto tópico Enriquecer Devagar foi apresentar uma forma de estar no mercado, fundamentada na teoria económica, simples, robusta e amplamente testada (sem optimizações) que permite ao perdedor crónico (generalidade dos intervenientes) obter, no longo prazo, resultados muito interessantes - deixando de lado estratégias claramente perdedoras como o market timing.

Aquilo que eu deixei no tópico não é exactamente igual ao que eu pratico na minha carteira de Longo Prazo (o meu rebalanceamento é efectuado de acordo com a sinalização de indicadores proprietários não tendo contudo uma periocidade fixa), mas é o quanto basta para obter bons resultados.

Embora eu já tenha deixado noutros tópicos exemplos de como um portefólio ajustado pela volatilidade pode apresentar rentabilidades positivas, mesmo em fracas condições de mercado, não é crucial IMHO, muito menos prático, para a generalidade das pessoas rebalancear de acordo com um algoritmo que meça a volatilidade (?), daí eu nunca o ter mencionado neste tópico.

A estratégia aqui delineada pretende ser simples e com um consumo de tempo anual mínimo. Quem estiver interessado em perder tempo com coisas mais complexas, tipo portfolio tilting, tem vários tópicos neste fórum ao seu dispor.

[Automech]

Rebalance more frequently In a world of accelerated change and volatility, being a disciplined investor means paying stricter attention to the markets. Rebalancing your portfolio once a year may not give you the degree of flexibility you need. Keep a careful eye on your progress toward your goals and consider rebalancing two, three or even four times a year, if needed. Bear in mind that rebalancing is a taxable event.

LTCM, estive a reler o Enriquecer Devagar, mas não vejo nenhuma referência tua a uma maior ou menor frequência no rebalanceamento consoante a volatilidade dos mercados. Isto acaba por ser um bocado market timing (ainda que do rebalanceamento).

Conselhos como

Before making any significant strategy changes, it would be prudent for investors to review their portfolios to determine if the allocations reflect their tolerance for volatility and the time horizons of their financial goals.

são demasiados vagos. Tu abordas isto da maior ou menor frequência do rebalanceamento de forma mais ou menos estruturada (leia-se não 'achómetro e não 'olhómetro') ou ignoras a questão e tentas manter sempre a mesma periodicidade no ajustamento ?

Btw, não ia spoilar o tópico só com esse comentário mas o gráfico que deixaste há dias com as correlações é priceless.

[LTCM]

In search of Alpha: Beating the Market Has Become Nearly Impossible

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Ar ... l_OwxAud50

[LTCM]

In this eight-week course, you will learn the financial concepts behind sound retirement plan investment and pension fund management. Course participants will become more informed decision makers about their own portfolios, and be equipped to evaluate economic policy discussions that surround public pensions. The course begins with the principles of financial economics, such as the distribution of outcomes when investing in stocks, bonds, or annuities. These serve as the building blocks for an understanding of different retirement strategies that can help you improve your asset allocation.

http://online.stanford.edu/course/rauh-finance

[LTCM]

A look at historical asset class return correlations over a 15-year period.

How Correlations Have Changed
For evidence that correlations have increased since the financial crisis, look no further than the preceding charts. Remarkably, correlation levels between all asset groups have been higher since the crisis than they were before, without exception. For diversification-minded investors whose portfolios consist primarily of U.S. stocks, the first two columns may be most instructive because they track a broad market index and the S&P 500, two popular proxies for the U.S. stock market. As you can see, foreign stocks, including emerging-markets stocks, have become more correlated to U.S. equities during the past half-decade. U.S. bonds, especially the high-quality types that dominate the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, continue to be a good diversification tool, though even they are slightly more correlated to stocks than in years past. Correlation between U.S. stocks and many foreign bonds has risen even more as the latter have become subject to the same risk-on/risk-off cycle affecting the former.

Real estate and commodities, asset classes long considered classic portfolio diversifiers, show some of the biggest increases in correlation to stocks. One reason correlations have risen between stocks and REITs is that REITs have grown as a percentage of the S&P 500 (they currently make up about 2% of the index), meaning that they and the index now move more in sync than they have in the past. (You can read more about this increasing correlation here.)

The dramatic increase in correlation between commodities and stocks is more difficult to pinpoint. As Morningstar exchange-traded fund analyst Alex Bryan wrote in this recent column, theories behind this increase suggest it could be the result of tighter credit markets having an impact on each asset class, or increased investor interest in commodities. Whatever the cause, it should be noted that commodities and REITs still have lower correlations to U.S. large-cap stocks than do smaller stocks or foreign stocks, and they still have value as a source of income (in the case of REITs) or as a hedge against inflation (in the case of commodities). But their diversifying qualities appear to be greatly diminished, at least for the time being.

What do these rising correlations mean for individual investors?Is there no longer any point to build a diversified portfolio as a safeguard against market turbulence? Abandoning the idea of diversification altogether seems rather extreme, not to mention unnecessary. After all, correlations between stocks and high-quality bonds remain low (which is one reason investors afraid of what rising interest rates will do to their bond holdings might want to think twice before ditching them), and even highly correlated assets will outperform one another at different times. A diversified portfolio allows you to spread your bets, so that when one performs poorly another can help pick up the slack. When small caps are underperforming, large caps might be doing better and vice versa. Likewise foreign stocks may give your portfolio a boost at times when U.S. stocks are in the doldrums. The diversifying properties of the various asset types shown in the charts above may not be what they've been in the past, but they haven't gone away completely. Most investors would probably be best-served making use of what's still there.

[LTCM]

A look at historical asset class return correlations over a 15-year period.

[LTCM]

Eugene Fama, Robert Shiller e Lars Peter Hansen foram laureados hoje com o Prémio do Banco da Suécia em Ciências Económicas de 2013, o chamado Nobel da Economia.

O anúncio foi feito há instantes em Estocolmo. Os três economistas norte-americanos foram distinguidos pelos seus trabalhos na área dos mercados financeiros, em particular na determinação do preço dos ativos.

Lars Peter Hansen e Eugene Fama são ambos da universidade de Chicago, enquanto Shiller, famoso pelos seus métodos de determinação de bolhas nas bolsas, é da Universidade de Yale.

Ler mais: http://expresso.sapo.pt/nobel-da-econom ... z2hh9CmslV

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... es2013.pdf

https://www.coursera.org/course/financialmarkets

É já para 2014.

Mr Fama, from the University of Chicago, is one of the fathers of the so-called “efficient market hypothesis”. This theory – which underlies his seminal 1965 paper “Random Walks in Stock Market Prices” – formulates that markets are “informationally efficient”, as investors immediately incorporate any new available information in the price of an asset.

In contrast to Mr Fama, Mr Shiller, from Yale University, believes that any explanation of investors’ behaviour cannot be fully based on rationality and must acknowledge the role played by psychology. In the 1980s, he showed that stock prices tend to fluctuate more than corporate dividends. This should not happen if investors were fully rational, since stock prices forecast future dividends.

Mr Hansen, a co-founder of the Becker Friedman Institute also at the University of Chicago, designed methods to explore the drivers of stock market volatility. His statistical brainchild – called the “Generalized Method of Moments” – confirmed Mr Shiller’s finding that swings in asset prices could not be explained via standard models based on rationality. Subsequent work has shown that at least some of this volatility can be explained by investors’ different attitude towards risk.

Mr Fama’s insight that markets immediately incorporate all available information in stock prices led to a careful re-examination of the merits of stock-picking and of the performance of mutual funds. The lack of predictability of stock movements has been an important driver behind the emergence of index funds, which aim to replicate the movements of an index or of a specific market rather than second-guessing where they will move.

[LTCM]

The deadline to raise the U.S. government debt ceiling is rapidly approaching, but Congress has not yet agreed to authorize an extension. Breaching the debt ceiling, which may result in a default, could have major ramifications for the government, the economy, and the financial markets. Indeed, the very discussion of such a possibility has affected the bond market, where the costs of insuring against a U.S. government default—as indicated by the prices of credit default swaps—have risen sharply in recent days.

BACKGROUND AND BASICS

What is the statutory (legal) debt ceiling?

Under current law, Congress authorizes the U.S. Treasury Department to issue the debt securities needed to fund federal government operations up to a stated limit, or ceiling. The current debt limit is $16.699 trillion; it was increased to that level earlier in 2013.

Who set the current deadline for raising the debt ceiling?

In late September, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob (Jack) Lew notified congressional leaders in a letter that the Treasury would have only about $30 billion by October 17—not enough to pay all of its expenditures in the near future—and that it would be unable to continue using “extraordinary measures” beyond that time to meet its obligations in the absence of a debt ceiling increase.

Why was the debt ceiling not a concern earlier this year?

Due to the economic recovery, higher tax rates at the beginning of 2013, and federal spending cuts (i.e., the sequester) that took effect in March, the federal government has had higher-than-expected revenues and a smaller-than-expected budget deficit during this fiscal year. The budget is still far from being balanced, however, and the government’s aggregate debts—while growing more slowly than previously—are still mounting.

How will the Treasury operate if the debt ceiling is not raised?

Without a debt ceiling increase, the Treasury will have no authority to borrow additional money to finance daily federal government expenditures. If this happens, the Treasury would have to align spending with revenue, which would require an immediate and significant reduction in spending. Based on the Congressional Budget Office projections on government revenue and expenditures for 2014, failure to raise the debt limit would require the government to cut spending by 15% to 20%.

In the absence of lifting the debt ceiling, are there any actions the Treasury can take to avoid missing interest or principal payments on Treasury securities?

Even if the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury will continue to receive tax revenues that could be used to service the interest on the national debt. That would require prioritizing debt-servicing expenditures over others. The Treasury can also continue to auction debt securities on a regular basis, but only to replace maturing issues so that there is no net increase in government debt. In addition, according to a 1985 report from the Government Accountability Office, “the Treasury is free to liquidate obligations in any order it finds will serve the interests of the United States.” At this time, significant asset liquidation seems unlikely.

Is the Treasury likely to prioritize some of its obligations?

It is unclear how the Treasury will act if the debt ceiling is not lifted in time. The Treasury could defer nonfinancial expenditures (e.g., Social Security payments) in order to maintain debt service, but it does not have a clear legal basis for doing so. Legislation passed by the House of Representatives in May would permit the Treasury to prioritize its payments, but the bill has not been passed by the Senate. Also, in his recent letter to Congress, Treasury Secretary Lew referred to prioritizing some payments over others as “simply default by another name.”

How would rating agencies respond to a U.S. government default?

S&P has already warned that it would lower the U.S. sovereign rating to Selective Default if the government fails to service a debt obligation. Similarly, Fitch could reduce the rating to Restrictive Default.

Even if the debt ceiling is raised in the near future, could there be another downgrade of U.S. government debt?

T. Rowe Price sovereign credit analysts believe a credit rating downgrade could occur in any of these three situations:

(A) The agencies reassess U.S. political institutions and the “willingness to pay,” determining that it is no longer consistent with their current rating (currently AAA for Moody’s and Fitch and AA+ for S&P). A downgrade could be one to two notches;
(B) As we get close to the debt ceiling, the agencies may preemptively change the outlook on the rating, or downgrade it slightly, to reflect the elevated risk environment;
(C) If the U.S. actually defaults, then the U.S. would be downgraded to a default rating.

What is the difference between a default and a credit rating downgrade?

A default takes place when an issuer of debt securities (i.e., a borrower) fails to make the required interest or principal payments to bondholders on a timely basis.
A credit rating downgrade takes place when a credit rating agency—such as S&P, Moody’s, or Fitch—determines that the ability of a borrower to make timely interest and principal payments is weakening. In August 2011, immediately following the debt ceiling crisis, S&P downgraded the U.S. government’s long-term sovereign credit rating from AAA to AA+. S&P cited the weakened political environment and political brinkmanship as the main trigger for the downgrade.

If the debt ceiling is not raised by the deadline, will Social Security payments be affected?

The Obama administration has not indicated how it may prioritize spending if the debt ceiling is not raised. It is assumed that Social Security would remain a high priority.

POSSIBLE FINANCIAL MARKET RESPONSES

How would Treasuries and other government-backed securities respond to a U.S. government default or downgrade by one or more major credit rating agencies?

A one-notch downgrade of U.S. Treasuries would likely create short-term market volatility. However, it would not, on its own, be the catalyst for a crisis. Some believe that U.S. Treasury yields could rise, and other government-backed debt securities—such as GNMA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Sallie Mae securities—could be affected, too. But that outcome is not assured. Treasury yields actually fell sharply in the months that followed the August 2011 downgrade, though there were other factors—such as the eurozone debt crisis—that likely contributed to the decline.
A default would be a much more serious problem, but we believe this outcome is highly unlikely at this time. In a default scenario, U.S. debt could be rated D for some period, and forced sales of Treasuries by investors would probably create high volatility and illiquid market conditions.

Would the Treasury market still be considered a safe haven in the event of a downgrade?

It is likely. The fact that longer-term Treasury yields have been declining over the past two weeks despite the threat of a government shutdown and another possible debt ceiling crisis is a reassuring signal that foreign investors continue to favor the liquidity and low risk of U.S. Treasuries.

Would higher Treasury yields lead to higher bond yields (and thus lower bond prices) in other sectors of the U.S. bond market?

Over the long term, we believe that the economy, inflation, and the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy will be the primary drivers of interest rate movements. If Treasury yields rise in response to a credit rating downgrade, yields on other securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government or linked to its rating (such as Ginnie Maes) would probably rise, and the yield spread (difference) between Treasuries and these sectors could increase modestly.

Would the Treasury market become less liquid in the event of a downgrade?

The Treasury market is perhaps the most liquid market in the world. Although a downgrade could result in reduced overall liquidity, it is expected that those who wish to buy or sell Treasuries after a downgrade should generally be able to do so without difficulty.

Could the U.S. dollar lose value relative to foreign currencies?

It is possible, particularly if foreign investors who own Treasuries or other dollar-denominated assets redirect their investments to nondollar-denominated securities.
How would global fixed income markets respond to a U.S. government downgrade?
It is uncertain how global fixed income markets would respond to a U.S. downgrade. However, there could be a flight to quality—at least for a short time—in which investors sell or avoid higher-risk assets in favor of high-quality fixed income assets globally or other perceived safe havens.

How would global equity markets respond to a U.S. government default or downgrade?

It is uncertain how global equity markets would respond to a U.S. downgrade or default, but we believe a default is highly unlikely at this time. In the event of a downgrade, there could be a flight to quality—at least for a short time—in which investors sell or avoid higher-risk assets in favor of high-quality fixed income assets globally or other perceived safe havens. That is what we saw in 2011, specifically in emerging markets. A default would have much greater repercussions.

WHAT SHOULD INVESTORS DO IN THIS UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT

Financial planners strongly encourage investors to stay focused on the long-term goals for which they are saving—such as retirement or college—and have an appropriate and broadly diversified asset allocation. This is preferable, rather than attempting to time the markets or making portfolio adjustments every time the market gyrates. Reacting to short-term market events could derail your long-term investment goals.

Before making any significant strategy changes, it would be prudent for investors to review their portfolios to determine if the allocations reflect their tolerance for volatility and the time horizons of their financial goals.

[ghorez]

Eugene Fama, Robert Shiller e Lars Peter Hansen foram laureados hoje com o Prémio do Banco da Suécia em Ciências Económicas de 2013, o chamado Nobel da Economia.

O anúncio foi feito há instantes em Estocolmo. Os três economistas norte-americanos foram distinguidos pelos seus trabalhos na área dos mercados financeiros, em particular na determinação do preço dos ativos.

Lars Peter Hansen e Eugene Fama são ambos da universidade de Chicago, enquanto Shiller, famoso pelos seus métodos de determinação de bolhas nas bolsas, é da Universidade de Yale.

Ler mais: http://expresso.sapo.pt/nobel-da-econom ... z2hh9CmslV

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... es2013.pdf

https://www.coursera.org/course/financialmarkets

É já para 2014.

[LTCM]

Consider a wider range of asset classes and extend your global perspective Investors have a greater range of choices than ever for addressing specific investment themes and ideas. To mention just a few, you can consider ETFs that track emerging-market stock indexes; actively managed funds or separately managed accounts that home in on equities in specific sectors or according to themes; market-linked investments that seek to exploit particular investment ideas; and, for qualified investors, real assets and private equity funds that offer access to markets or private companies that are inaccessible through other means.

Invest toward specific goals It’s logical to gauge your success as an investor on external benchmarks such as S&P 500 returns. But when markets don’t adhere to predictable patterns, performance-based measurement can lead to disappointment. Instead, you might want to evaluate the success of your investment strategy based on whether it meets your personal goals—whether that’s achieving a stable income in retirement, keeping your investments aligned with your risk tolerance or working toward a particular objective such as paying for college, pursuing philanthropy or funding a start-up. The key is to set concrete financial targets for each objective and then decide upon an investment strategy that can help you meet it.

Rebalance more frequently In a world of accelerated change and volatility, being a disciplined investor means paying stricter attention to the markets. Rebalancing your portfolio once a year may not give you the degree of flexibility you need. Keep a careful eye on your progress toward your goals and consider rebalancing two, three or even four times a year, if needed. Bear in mind that rebalancing is a taxable event.
The need to account for a constantly shifting world will always be a central challenge for any investor. The good news is that the signals indicating how the world is changing can be discerned and translated into investment themes. The even better news is that the extremes characterizing the years during and just after the financial crisis are at last giving way to something else—a period that will come with its share of serious risks and problems, but that on the whole offers a great deal of promise for investors.

“For a lot of understandable reasons, clients have been rooted in a defensive posture—behaviorally, emotionally, financially,” Wolfe says. “But there’s a new dynamism taking hold, both in the U.S. and globally, and that dynamism means opportunity.”

[Max_Filas]

Já vi tirarem todo o tipo de dúvidas neste forum, e esta, era só mais uma como muitas outras que por vezes aparecem, e quem não tem à vontade/conhecimento para discutir estes assuntos, este fórum por vezes, é uma ajuda preciosa.

De qualquer das formas obrigado, não pelo esclarecimento, mas pela resposta.

[LTCM]

Quando procuro por este ETF, iShares MSCI World UCITS ETF (Acc), aparecem-me os seguintes tickers/ISINs:

IWDA - IE00B4L5Y983 Amsterdam https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON%3A ... IdOBwAO5GQ

SWDA - IE00B4L5Y983 London https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON%3A ... YeMwAP4hAE

EUNL - DE000A0YBR38 Deutsche Borse https://www.google.com/finance?q=FRA%3A ... 7sbAA8C7AQ

Qual a diferença para mim entre investir num ou noutro? Isto é tudo o mesmo ETF? Só têm tickers diferentes consoante a bolsa onde é negociado?

O seu intermediário financeiro não responde a esse tipo de perguntas, questões, por telefone, chat ou mail?

[Max_Filas]

Quando procuro por este ETF, iShares MSCI World UCITS ETF (Acc), aparecem-me os seguintes tickers/ISINs:

IWDA - IE00B4L5Y983 Amsterdam https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON%3A ... IdOBwAO5GQ

SWDA - IE00B4L5Y983 London https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON%3A ... YeMwAP4hAE

EUNL - DE000A0YBR38 Deutsche Borse https://www.google.com/finance?q=FRA%3A ... 7sbAA8C7AQ

Qual a diferença para mim entre investir num ou noutro? Isto é tudo o mesmo ETF? Só têm tickers diferentes consoante a bolsa onde é negociado?

[LTCM]

What’s at the Core of your portfolio?

[LTCM]

Dunn, 79, who earned a doctorate in theoretical physics from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, in 1966, began trading managed futures for clients in 1974 after a brief career as a consultant to the federal government.
Mainframe Computer

He raised $137,000 from friends and family and used punch cards to build a program to detect profitable market trends and control risk. He purchased processing time on a mainframe computer to run the cards.

High on one wall of Dunn’s windowless trading-room floor, hundreds of red and green numbers blink with currency and commodity prices.

The three traders on duty one March afternoon watch the numbers but don’t make decisions based on them. They leave that to their black box, which makes trading choices on contracts for 53 investments, including the Australian dollar, U.S. Treasury bonds, interest rates, stock indexes, cocoa, copper, live cattle and crude oil.

The so-called box is actually lodged in six computer servers linked by blue and yellow cables. It automatically collects tick-by-tick trading data on all 53 possible trading choices and runs it through hundreds of different models, asking each whether to buy or sell. Then it makes a decision, which it relays to the human traders.
‘Your Orders’

“In minutes, you have your orders for the day,” Dunn says.

Dunn doesn’t cater to most retail investors; he requires a commitment of at least $100,000. He boasts a 13.2 percent compounded annual rate of return over the past 29 years, after a 25 percent fee taken from profits. He charges no management fee.

“I think investors are very comfortable knowing that if they’re having bad times, we’re having them as well,” says Dunn, who sports a shaved head and neatly trimmed salt-and-pepper goatee. “We’re in the same boat.”

[LTCM]

Ter em conta que as estratégias de market timing (geração de retornos através da previsão de movimentos ou tendências futuras do mercado) e de market neutral (utilizam posições curtas bem como posições longas) obtêm mais retornos que as estratégias de long-only market neutral, isto é, aquelas que utilizam apenas posições longas; em contrapartida estas estratégias quanto mais retornos têm também incorrem num maior nível de risco.

paper:
Berteli (2005), por sua vez, compara estratégias de market timing (geração de retorno através da previsão de movimentos futuros do mercado) e market neutral (geração de retornos absolutos positivos, independentemente da tendência do mercado), concluindo, a titulo de exem-plo, que as estratégias long-short market neutral (que utilizam posições curtas bem como posições longas) obtêm performances superiores às estratégias long-only market neutral (que utilizam apenas posições longas), tendo também um nível de risco superior, e que as estraté-gias de market timing têm um grau de risco mais elevado que as estratégias market neutral.

a maioria das medidas utilizadas apontam para os fundos de retorno absoluto como o melhor investimento para o investidor norte-americano nos últimos 20 anos, sendo esta estratégia eleita não só por medidas de performance ajustada ao risco que utilizam medidas de risco com distribuição de rendibilidades simétrica como por medidas com distribuição assimétrica das rendibilidades

lipper:
Market-neutral funds have returned only 1.7% on average on an annualized basis over the past five years—substantially below the average annual return of U.S. domestic equity (USDE) funds over the same period—between 9.4% and 14.4% based on classification (Lipper’s USDE groupings include the large-cap, mid-cap, small-cap, and multi-cap versions of core, growth, and value equity funds). So, market-neutral funds are more expensive—typically 20 basis points or more—than USDE funds, and they have returned substantially less than USDE funds over the past five years.

Exemplo:

[ghorez]

The Ultimate Cheapskate's Index Portfolio
For investors looking to build a portfolio based on rock-bottom fees, here's a list of funds and ETFs that can serve as building blocks.

O expensive ratio do meu portefólio é 0.19. Tenho alguns ETF's falados no artigo. Para além dos custos associados, tive em consideração a volatilidade e o market cap..

No longo prazo os custos importam...

O meu é 0.55 ...é alto eu sei, mas prefiro os ETF europeus pela questão fiscal/dividendos.

[LTCM]

But confidence and conviction without humility can be dangerous in the investment business. When one shares an investment thesis publicly, it can be more difficult to change one’s mind because the human mind has a tendency to ignore data that are inconsistent with a firmly held view, and particularly so, when that view is aired publicly.

I have learned that the key to long-term success in investing is to balance confidence with the humility to recognize when the facts are no longer consistent with one’s original investment thesis. It is critically important not to let psychological factors interfere with economic rationality in investment decision making.

[LTCM]

These days, most investment funds employ some degree of automated trading. But the sub-category of funds that rely solely on computer software to analyze and bet on markets have had a terrible year. The average such fund is down 3.5%, according to data from Hedge Fund Research (HFR). Hedge funds overall were up 3.9% through August. The S&P 500, by contrast, is up 18.8%.
+

Investors piled into these quant-driven funds—also known as commodity trading advisors (CTAs)—after the worst of the financial crisis, looking for an edge in grim markets and putting their faith in the physics PhDs and mathematics wizzes hired to work at these firms. The edge for CTAs was supposed to be their ability to make informed decisions at high speed by crunching swaths of data and mining markets for pockets of distortion (paywall), in both bull and bear markets.
+

Between 2009 and 2012, investors, including pension funds, poured some $130 billion into quant funds. Programmers were only too happy to accommodate them; a record of 187 of these algorithmic funds launched in 2012.
+

Unfortunately, by that time the profits had already started to vanish. The onslaught of extraordinary money-printing by the world’s central banks changed the assumptions upon which programmers’ strategies were based, which particularly affected the funds’ programming around US Treasurys, which are a primary asset class for those funds. Computers are ill-suited to predict how markets will move as the US Federal Reserve ponders tapering its bond-buying plans, or the European Central Bank ponders ways to keep credit loose. Humans haven’t been particularly good at this either, but statistics suggest that computers have been worse.
+

Investors pulled $1.33 billion from these kinds of funds in the first half of the year, and those withdrawals are likely just the beginning.

[Tridion]

The Ultimate Cheapskate's Index Portfolio
For investors looking to build a portfolio based on rock-bottom fees, here's a list of funds and ETFs that can serve as building blocks.

O expensive ratio do meu portefólio é 0.19. Tenho alguns ETF's falados no artigo. Para além dos custos associados, tive em consideração a volatilidade e o market cap..

No longo prazo os custos importam...

[LTCM]

The Ultimate Cheapskate's Index Portfolio
For investors looking to build a portfolio based on rock-bottom fees, here's a list of funds and ETFs that can serve as building blocks.

[LTCM]