Vamos a resumiros el estudio que han realizado tres prestigiosos investigadores y proferores de Princeton y Columbia vinculados al equipo de investigación de la Reserva Federal del Banco de Nueva York, Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding y David Weinstein. En dicho estudio muestran los costes insostenibles que el aumento de tarifas perpetrado por Trump tendría en los bolsillos de la familia media de los EE.UU. si se prolongasen en el tiempo. Por ello, las probabilidades de que esos impuestos se lleven por delante las 2 economías más potentes del planeta, son materialmente nulas. Y hay que verlas como bravuconadas recíprocas entre un pollo sin cabeza y otro con cabeza, que nos brindan una muy buena oportunidad para posicionarnos en los mercados de bolsa (especialmente asiáticas como propone también en este artículo Mark Mobius). Veamos las cifras:
.
Las tarifas actuales impuestas a productos chinos son del 10%, y recientemente se aumentaron hasta el 25% pero con una moratoria de 90 días para dar margen de negociación (vieja táctica). Para averiguar el impacto que tendría ese 15% adicional de impuestos, con el que amenaza Trump si no llegan a un acuerdo antes de finales de dicho plazo, el cálculo parte del estudio previo sobre el impacto de los actuales impuestos del 10% aplicados en 2018. En él se llega a la conclusión de que el impacto supone un coste de $414 anuales por familia, entre lo que deberán gastar de más las familias medias para pagar los impuestos adicionales, y lo que llaman pérdida de eficiencia o peso muerto. Cabe recordar aquí que una proporción enorme de artículos proviene de China, y que el resto tienen en su interior y/o proceso de fabricación elementos chinos, por lo que un bloqueo temporal por parte de Jinping sería un colapso mundial inimaginable. Vamos que los chinos tienen el botón nuclear comercial y los norteamericanos no. Pero volvamos a los números.
.
La magnitud de estos costes depende de como las tarifas aduaneras afectan a los precios que añaden los importadores a sus productos, y también de la demanda de productos importados de China. Diversos estudios, incluído el mencionado, han llegado a la conclusión de que los aumentos tarifarios que los EE.UU. impusieron en 2018 han pasado directamente a aumentar los precios de las importaciones, lo que significa que los exportadores chinos no redujeron nada sus precios para paliar el aumento del precio final para sus clientes norteamericanos. La proporción de aumento del precio final respecto al del impuesto aduanero fue por tanto prácticamente 1 a 1. Lo que esa imposición inicial del 10% a productos chinos sí produjo fue, lógicamente, una caída en la demanda de importaciones chinas del 43%, ya que el primer movimiento lógico de los importadores es aplazar compras, y posteriormente buscar proveedores y rutas alternativas.
.
Los compradores norteamericanos de productos chinos ahora pagan un impuesto del 10% adicional a su precio base de siempre, es decir que un artículo que a un consumidor o importador americano le costaba $100, ahora le cuesta $110. Esto añade $10 a su coste particular pero no a la economía norteamericana en su conjunto, ya que esos $10 adicionales los cobra el gobierno en forma de impuesto. El gobierno, a su vez debería -o potencialmente podría- revertir esos mismos $10 y aplicarlos en beneficio de sus ciudadanos (también de aquellos que no compran o importan productos chinos).
Recordemos aquí que la demanda se redistribuye naturalmente entre los que siguen comprando productos chinos más caros y los que se pasan a productos alternativos no tan caros. Por tanto, algunos importadores o consumidores reorganizarán sus acuerdos comerciales o preferencias de compra, de manera que comprarán artículos sustitutivos a un precio inferior a los $110 que les cuestan ahora los productos chinos. Por ejemplo, un artículo sustitutivo vietnamita o malasio con un coste de $105. En este caso el coste del importador/comprador ha aumentado sólo $5 y no los 10$ que le supondría seguir comprando el chino. Pero ojo, en este caso la economía americana en su conjunto también pierde, puesto que no existe un retorno de esos $5 en forma de impuestos que redistribuir a la población. Además, está ampliamente demostrado que los importadores acabarán importando productos sustitutivos sólo ligeramente por debajo del precio del producto chino. Es decir que se importará a $108 o $109 y no a $101 o $105, puesto que la comprativa ante la decisón de compra se realizará sobre el precio actual del producto chino, o sea $110. También se cumplirá esta máxima porque los ofertantes tomarán la comparativa del precio chino de $110 para establecer sus ofertas al mercado norteamericano. Este aumento de coste de la cadena productiva inducido por el aumento en las tarifas de importación se conoce como pérdida de eficiencia o peso muerto.
.
La teoría económica nos dice que ese peso muerto tiende a crecer más que proporcionalmente a medida en que las tarifas aumentan, ya que los importadores y consumidores se ven inducidos a aceptar precios más y más caros cuando los impuestos suben. Además, unas tarifas aduaneras muy altas causan una caída en la recaudación de impuestos, ya que los compradores dejan de importar productos de un país perjudicado por esas tarifas/sanciones y buscan otros proveedores/artículos de otros países, más baratos en precio final pero menos eficientes. Pensemos que hasta ese momento sus proveedores/artículos eran chinos porque habían elegido esa opción como la más eficiente de todas las opciones que los importadores/consumidores habían contemplado. Por tanto, esas segundas y terceras opciones, a más de $100, con las que se ven ahora abocados a comerciar, son por definición menos eficientes (peor relación calidad-precio, peor eficiencia logística, peor robustez, peor servicios post-venta, peor marketing, peor packaging, peor fiabilidad, peor política de devoluciones, reparaciones, etc.) que los productos chinos que venían comprando a $100.
.
Podemos ver como actúan esas dos variables comparando los costes estimados de las tarifas de 2018 con el aumento recientemente anunciado por Trump de $200.000 millones adicionales para los productos chinos. Como se puede ver en la siguiente tabla, en Noviembre 2018, con el 10% de tarifas actuales ya implementadas, los importadores norteamericanos estaban pagando $3.000 millones al mes en impuestos adicionales y sufriendo $1.400 millones adicionales en pérdidas de eficiencia o pérdidas de peso muerto.
.
Por tanto, la factura total para los importadores de EE.UU. fue de $4.400 millones al mes. Si anualizamos estas cifras obtendremos $52.800 millones, o $414 por familia y año. De dicho coste, $282 por familia corresponden a dinero que va a parar a las arcas del gobierno de USA, y por tanto relativamente recuperable por el conjunto de la sociedad norteamericana. Sin embargo, las pérdidas de eficiencia o peso muerto alcanzan los $132 por familia y año, y representan la pérdida neta de la economía de EE.UU. más allá de los pagos de impuestos adicionales.
Basándonos en estas cifras podemos calcular el coste que tendrá el incremento adicional de tarifas que ha anunciado Trump para el próximo trimestre, aumentando del 10% actual al 25%. En la tabla vemos como los ingresos en impuestos para el gobierno caerán de los $282 a los $211 por familia y año, ya que el incremento impositivo a los productos chinos será ya tan costoso que los consumidores americanos empezarán ya a consumir artículos sustitutivos que no conlleven esas tarifas, como por ejemplo productos de Vietnam u otros países emergentes, como hemos dicho anteriormente. Recordemos que estas segundas y terceras opciones importadas son menos eficientes (más caras que el coste del producto chino antes de las tarifas), y además el gobierno ya no ingresa esos impuestos. Algunos diréis que el consumidor/importador americano puede sustituir los productos chinos por otros locales norteamericanos y evitar así la pérdida de eficiencia o peso muerto. Pero la realidad que demuestran los estudios hechos al respecto es que son otros países emergentes quienes se llevan el gato al agua, ya que los productos de países desarrollados como los EE.UU. tienen costes de producción mucho mayores. Y no solo costes muy superiores, sino que además tienen una capacidad de producción muy limitada (adaptada a la demanda y cuota de mercado actual), que tardaría años y años en poder satisfacer la demanda, aún si alcanzase lo inalcanzable, o sea la eficiencia de calidad-precio de los países emergentes. Además, el peso muerto de la pérdida de eficiencia aumenta tanto si los consumidores se pasan a artículos más caros extranjeros como o otros más caros nacionales.
.
A resultas de este cambio al que importadores y consumidores se están viendo y se verán temporalmente forzados (hasta que Trump salte por los aires o los lobbies lo obliguen a recular, como explicaremos a continuación), se estima un incremento de las pérdidas de eficiencia por familia desde los $132 hasta los $620 anuales, llevando el peso muerto total que soportarán las familias media norteamericanas hasta los $831 por año, si se hace efectiva la amenaza del 15% de impuestos aduaneros adicionales. Por tanto, este aumento de las tarifas a las importaciones chinas van a crear enormes distorsiones económicas en la sociedad norteamericana, y además una reducción sustancial de los ingresos del gobierno. Pero no solo los ciudadanos van a verse seriamente afectados. Imaginaos las pérdidas que pueden sufrir las gigantes empresas tecnológicas (y no tecnológicas) americanas con las derivadas de la guerra comercial y boicots de software a gigantes como Huawuei. Recordad que Jinping tiene el control absoluto de un mercado de más de 1.300 millones de potenciales consumidores, y una influencia en El resto de países asiáticos y africanos enorme y creciente. Todo ello está generando ya represalias cruzadas que generan y generarán un sinfín de daños colaterales que, a buen seguro, jamás han calculado Trump y su equipo de ultra-nacionalistas republicanos.
.
La pregunta del millón es ¿qué van a hacer las grandes corporaciones como Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, etc. ante unas represalias chinas que, aunque más discretas, serán igual o más sangrientas que las de la administración norteamericana cacareadas por los western media? Pues obviamente, ante inminentes pérdidas de decenas de miles de millones, van a preferir gastar miles de millones en lobbies que obliguen a Trump a revertir la situación. Y miles de millones, sin lugar a dudas, van a permitir a los lobbies, de manera perfectamente legal, ejercer presiones absolutamente insoportables para la administración Trump. No olvidemos que en los EE.UU. el Congreso, con una mayoría cualificada, puede obligar al presidente y a su gobierno a hacer lo que quiera. Dicho de otra manera, pueden prohibir a la administración Trump cualquier tipo de tariff o sanción a los productos chinos con 290/435 congresistas. Actualmente la mayoría Demócrata ya es del 54% en el congreso, por tanto le faltarían tan solo «convencer» a un 12,6% de los congresistas Republicanos, algunos de los cuales caerán por su propio peso en cuanto las tarifas empiecen a dañar seriamente los bolsillos de sus votantes.
.
En definitiva, la guerra comercial entre EE.UU. y China es tan dañina, especialmente para la economía norteamericana, que tiene fecha de caducidad. Y Trump lo sabe. En este chicken game, quien tiene un Congreso que lo controla, quien depende de los votos y los lobbies empresariales, en definitiva quien es una democracia, sabe que tiene la partida perdida. El ganador no puede ser otro que una China cuyo presidente ejecuta planificaciones a décadas vista sin importarle la opinión de los votantes (sic) ni de sus corporaciones, que están al servicio del gobierno y por supuesto sin lobby alguno. Jamás Trump ni nadie en la democracia de los EE.UU. podrá doblegar política ni comercialmente la dictadura y la economía planificada de los chinos. Por tanto, aunque Trump necesitará poner un final digno a su aventura, vendiéndolo en los western media con titulares como «hemos conseguido el mejor acuerdo comercial de la historia, bla, bla..», la guerra comercial no puede durar más que unos cuantos trimestres. Las grandes corporaciones norteamericanas no lo permitirán, vía lobbies y mayoría cualificada del Congreso. Incluso esta «guerra comercial» puede estar materialmente desactivada cuando aún públicamente se siga hablando de ella por intereses políticos electoralistas de Trump. Pero la realidad no puede ser otra que la de no dañar de manera importante ni irreversible a los gigantes corporativos norteamericanos, puesto que tienen dinero más que suficiente para convencer a suficientes congresistas, que a su vez obliguen al gobierno norteamericano a dar marcha atrás, aunque públicamente no se reconozca y se siga alimentando la sensación de conflicto comercial. Al fin y al cabo, todos los presidentes de los EE.UU. han necesitado y provocado alguna guerra, de baja intensidad real pero de alto voltaje mediático, durante sus mandatos, con fines electoralistas. Trump ha elegido una guerra comercial, que también será de alto voltaje mediático y de obligada baja intensidad económica.
.
Por todo ello, los inversores harían bien en aprovechar las escaramuzas mediáticas que generan caídas de precios para posicionarse convenientemente. Esto es, salir de compras buscando empresas emergentes cuyas cifras seguirán creciendo más allá de esta efímera guerra comercial electoralista. Por todo lo explicado en este artículo, cuanto más oscuro esté el horizonte de los Mercados asiáticos en los próximos meses, más próximo estará su resurgir. Una oportunidad de oro para comprar negocios con el viento económico y demográfico en popa a múltiplos muy interesantes. Recordad que la volatilidad es la amiga del buen inversor y la enemiga de banqueros y demás vendedores de miedo, que se esfuerzan para mantener cautivos a sus clientes en trampas, cuyos exiguos rendimientos sólo alcanzan a pagar las comisiones que se quedan en el camino.
.
Solo hace falta ser conscientes de que cuanto más sangrienta sea la guerra comercial en los medios, más deberíamos posicionarnos en los mejores fondos con sesgo emergente del planeta. Las comparaciones de los fondos del miedo que vende la banca, con los mejores gestores de fondos institucionales de bolsas internacionales, son odiosas. La volatilidad siempre va convenientemente de la mano de los rendimientos anuales de doble dígito a medio y largo plazo. Y la mejor noticia es que existen fondos de fondos que hacen accesibles esos fondos institucionales, como ya explicamos en «Funds that make inaccessible funds accessible.»
.
Los chinos conocen muy bien el significado de la crisis que está generando Trump con su guerra comercial. No en balde allí definen la palabra «crisis» como sinónimo de «oportunidad». Y los inversores occidentales que se precien, harían bien en dejarse influir menos por los western media y más por los criterios Value de los mejores gestores del planeta. Esta vez tampoco es diferente.
Our developed society seems to be frolicking in the sand by the seashore, totally oblivious to the tsunami that is crashing over us. This great wave that will sweep away everything we know is none other than the disruptive change that is already being generated by new technologies, and especially by advances in artificial intelligence (AI). The changes in society that we saw during the industrial revolution or the global implementation of the internet were child's play compared to what is coming our way. Technological and personal adaptation skills with constant training are already what our parents' and grandparents' literacy was. Without such skills and training, our old age, and more seriously, the lives of our children, are condemned to a marginalisation comparable to that of the illiterate of yesteryear.
.
The latest OECD study (Skills Outlook 2019) is devastating. It warns that the percentage of the population in Spain with the capacity to adapt to technological progress and the digitalisation of tasks is only 23%. These figures include people aged between 16 and 65, so if we think beyond the age of (pre)retirement, the scenario is even more terrifying. More than 3/4 of our society will be marginalised in the face of the technological advances that are already being implemented in the workplace. The figures improve slightly in countries with more advanced educational and social systems, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, etc. But imagine the figures that could come out of less advanced societies such as those in Africa or deep Asia or South America. The extinction of jobs analogue is already and will be overwhelming.
.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg, since the artificial intelligence (AI) is a disruptive breakthrough as momentous as possibly the mastery of fire by early hominids. The AI revolution will eliminate not only the remnants of analogue jobs in the less developed corners of the globe, but also a good part of the digital ones. Until our generation, society and the global economy have been able to cope with, adapt to and take advantage of technological advances despite initial fears. We remember the trade union protests in the industrial revolution, when machines began to replace workers, who had to readapt to other work tasks. Another example would be digital photography, which overnight wiped out giants such as Kodak and their film developers. Or streaming content such as Netflix, HBO, Prime Video, etc., which are forcing the Hollywood empire itself to reinvent itself or die. The same will soon happen with other disruptive changes such as mobility in self-driving cars and a host of imminent changes that will make our society unrecognisable when our children try to enter the world of work. It is true that civilisation has been sufficiently assimilating these advances and more jobs have been created than destroyed, as economies have grown even faster than the population. But the speed of technological advances is exponential, and especially artificial intelligence will overwhelm society without having enough time to react and readapt as it has done in the past.
.
There is no antidote to the incoming tsunami. We continue to fiddle absentmindedly in the sand, wondering whether our children should learn English, Chinese or German, while they go to the university around the corner to get a degree in a subject for which we delusionally think they will have no shortage of work. Unfortunately this will not be the case. Experts warn that our children will have to adapt to work in professions that do not yet exist today and that no less than 75% of today's professions will cease to exist. The million-dollar question is what we can do to be as well prepared as possible for these radical changes. But the honest answer is that the disruptive advances of AI are so brutal and imminent, there is seemingly nowhere to take cover. The tsunami is already upon us, and all we can do is stop fiddling absentmindedly on the shore and face it head on and try to survive occupationally and socially.
.
To this end, we must educate our children at leading universities and in subjects whose employment opportunities will not be cannon fodder in the face of the global deployment of artificial intelligence. There is little else we can do. Professions such as teachers, doctors or manufacturing that can be replaced by 3D printing, to give just a few examples, will have to adapt radically to the new AI rules of the game if they are to survive. Others, such as those involving typing, telephone answering, etc. will probably become hopelessly extinct in the face of virtual assistants, of which Alexa, Siri, etc. are only primitive and crude versions. As the speaker in the video we link to at the end of this article says, they would be what we call «virtual assistants".«narrow AI«.
.
The prestigious MIT University in the US has created a project, 1 billion, no less, to train multidisciplinary students to adopt and combine their education of any degree, even if it is not technological, with artificial intelligence, very present in all their careers. As Gay de Liébana said in his lecture last month in Barcelona, parents must do everything possible to give their children the best training and qualifications for the global world they will face. That is what he did with his own son, who now lives and works in Los Angeles, and sent him to study at an American university. By the way, here you can read the costs and scholarship possibilities for Spanish students at universities in the USA, You will see that you don't have to have brilliant grades or be rich to send your children to the best university education system on the planet. Another of the virtues of the university system in the USA - key in the current and future environment - is the flexibility to transfer and validate credits from one degree to another without losing courses or money. In fact, it is so easy to reorient your studies throughout your college years that 70% of students graduate with a different degree than the one they started with, making decisions and adapting their study programme to their preferences each term. This flexibility, together with the technological edge of American universities, will be a feature of the American university system. It is vital for our children's educational process to be able to adapt more easily to the changes that will also occur during their university years.
.
In short, the machine revolution is already here, and our children will have to cope in a changing world, very different from the one we know. To do so, they will have to train and adapt throughout their lives, since the professional tasks they perform will be as ephemeral as the customs of the society in which they will live. They must avoid professions that will become extinct, and at the same time train constantly to adapt to new professions that will emerge from nowhere at breakneck speed and that we cannot even imagine today. We will experience this too, although it will probably affect us somewhat less as we will be close to retirement or already fully engaged in a contemplative but overwhelming life.
.
Finally, we leave you with this very interesting speech 8-minute film made last year by Michael Harrison, a graduate in Theoretical Physics at the MIT and with a Master's degree in Aerospace Systems Architecture from the USC. Artificial intelligence not only puts many of the present professions at risk at its levels of narrow AI y strong AI, but also the civilisation itself when it reaches the level of super-strong AI. But hopefully our children won't see that... but our grandchildren will.
Después del Capítulo 1: Endeudamiento y el Capítulo 2: Inversión, vamos con el Capítulo 3: Carta a los accionistas de Berkshire Hathaway 2018. Aquí os resumiremos algunas citas y frases con las que Warren Buffett y Charlie Munger deleitaron a los accionistas este año. Podéis leer la carta completa traducida por cortesía de nuestros amigos en la web de Value School.
.
Sobre la recompra de acciones (autocartera) que viene realizando su compañía, Buffett y Munger dijeron lo siguiente:
.
Para los accionistas que se queden (los que no vendan sus acciones), la ventaja es obvia: si el mercado valora la participación de un socio que abandona en, por ejemplo, 90 centavos por cada dólar, los accionistas que permanezcan obtienen un aumento en el valor intrínseco por acción con cada recompra por parte de la empresa. Obviamente, las recompras deben depender del precio: comprar ciegamente una acción sobrevalorada destruye valor, algo que muchos CEOs pasan por alto.
.
Cuando una empresa dice que contempla hacer recompras, es vital que todos los accionistas reciban la información necesaria para hacer una estimación fundada del valor intrínseco. Proporcionar esa información es lo que Charlie y yo intentamos hacer en este informe. No queremos que un socio venda acciones a la compañía porque haya sido engañado o informado inadecuadamente.
.
Y sobre la fiscalidad y su influencia determinante en la valoración de su holding, los maestros del Value Investing hicieron comentarios que no tienen desperdicio:
.
Comencemos con una realidad económica: nos guste o no, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos «posee» una participación en los beneficios de Berkshire de un tamaño que viene determinado por el Congreso. En efecto, el Departamento del Tesoro de nuestro país posee una clase especial de nuestras acciones (algo así como la clase de acciones AA), que recibe grandes «dividendos» (o impuestos) de parte de Berkshire. En 2017, como en muchos años anteriores, la tasa impositiva corporativa era del 35%, lo que significaba que en el Tesoro estaban muy contentos con sus acciones AA. De hecho, las «acciones» del Tesoro, que no pagaban «dividendo» cuando asumimos el control en 1965, se han convertido en una posición que suministra miles de millones de dólares anuales al gobierno federal.
.
El año pasado, sin embargo, el 40% de la «propiedad» del gobierno (14/35) fue devuelta a Berkshire cuando la tasa del impuesto corporativo se redujo al 21%. En consecuencia, nuestros accionistas «A» y «B» recibieron una gran subida en el bene cio atribuible a sus acciones.
.
Este hecho incrementó sustancialmente el valor intrínseco de las acciones de Berkshire que usted y yo poseemos. Además, esto también aumentó el valor intrínseco de casi todas las acciones que Berkshire posee.
.
Los benefcios fiscales obtenidos por nuestro gran negocio de servicios públicos se transfirieron a los clientes. Mientras tanto, la tasa impositiva aplicable a los cuantiosos dividendos que recibimos de negocios nacionales apenas se modificó ligeramente, cerca de un 13%. (Esta tasa más baja lleva siendo lógica durante mucho tiempo porque sus participadas ya pagan impuestos sobre el beneficio que posteriormente reparten a la matriz). En general, las nuevas leyes han hecho que las empresas y acciones que poseemos sean considerablemente más valiosas.
.
No obstante, el agradecimiento hacia los EE.UU. es absoluto, ya que sin el dinamismo y crecimiento de su economía, jamás habría podido amasar semejante fortuna. Cuando los alemanes durante la guerra auguraban el éxito de sus tropas, los norteamericanos confiaban en que sus hijos y herederos econtrarían un mundo mejor. La formación de las siguientes generaciones ha sido una de las claves del éxito de los EE.UU. para liderar la economía mundial durante el último siglo (recordemos lo que decía el economista Gay de Liébana respecto a la conveniencia formar a nuestros hijos en universidades norteamericanasy los costes asequibles que podemos encontrar con el asesoramiento adecuado).
.
Hablando de las trampas contables que realizan algunos directivos de manera costumbrista, Buffett dijo:
.
A lo largo de los años, Charlie y yo hemos visto todo tipo de malas prácticas corporativas, tanto contables como operativas, inducidas por el deseo de los directivos de cumplir con las expectativas de Wall Street. Lo que comienza como una mentira «inocente» para no decepcionar a los analistas (como, por ejemplo, «forzar» ventas a nal del trimestre, hacer la vista gorda ante pérdidas de seguros o retirar bene cios de nuestra «hucha»), en realidad puede ser el paso previo al fraude total. Puede que la intención del CEO sea jugar con las cuentas «solo por esta vez», pero es raro que solo sea una vez. Y si está bien que el jefe haga alguna trampilla, es fácil que sus subordinados adopten comportamientos similares.
.
Sobre la necesidad de que BRK tenga músculo financiero y de los riesgos de las empresas que necesitan financiarse, Buffett y Munger soltaron la siguiente perla:
.
La ecuación de la ruleta rusa (normalmente ganas, a veces te mueres), puede tener sentido desde el punto de vista financiero para alguien que se benefcia de las buenas noticias de una empresa, pero que no sufre las malas. Esta estrategia sería una locura para Berkshire; las personas sensatas no arriesgan lo que tienen y necesitan por lo que no tienen y no necesitan.
.
Buffett reconoció que su fortuna se ha creado casi exclusivamente gracias al crecimiento y liderazgo económico de los EE.UU. Pero también que el centro económico del planeta se desplaza hacia determinados países emergentes, puesto que en los próximos años el crecimiento unido a la madurez de los Mercados dejará de ser una exclusividad de la economía norteamericana (aquí cabe recordar las directrices de inversión que nos daba Mark Mobius hace unas semanas):
.
También hay otros países alrededor del mundo con futuros brillantes. Debemos alegrarnos de esto: los estadounidenses seremos más prósperos y estaremos más seguros si todas las naciones prosperan. En Berkshire esperamos invertir grandes sumas fuera de nuestras fronteras.
.
Para acabar os dejamos con un pupurrí de frases y bromas que se pueden leer en la misiva a su accionistas:
.
Abraham Lincoln una vez planteó la pregunta: «si llamas pata a la cola de un perro, ¿cuántas patas tiene?». Y luego respondió a su propia pregunta: «cuatro, porque llamar pata a una cola no la convierte en una». Lincoln habría sido un incomprendido en Wall Street (allí habrían discutido si el perro tiene una o cinco).
Incluso a nuestros 88 y 95 años de edad (yo soy el joven), esa esperanza (de realizar una adquisición) es lo que hace que mi corazón y el de Charlie se aceleren. (El mero hecho de escribir sobre la posibilidad de una gran compra ha hecho que mi pulso se dispare).
Mi previsión de comprar más acciones no es una recomendación sobre qué hará el mercado. Charlie y yo no tenemos ni idea de cómo se comportarán las acciones la próxima semana o el próximo año. Nunca hemos tenido interés en hacer este tipo de predicciones. Nuestro foco, más bien, está puesto en calcular si una parte de un buen negocio vale más de lo que señala el precio de mercado.
Olvídense: sería una tontería vender cualquiera de nuestras maravillosas compañías, incluso si la venta estuviese exenta de impuestos. Las buenas empresas son extremadamente difíciles de encontrar. Vender un negocio que tienes la suerte de poseer, no tiene ningún sentido.
A día de hoy, Charlie y yo no tenemos ningún interés en unirnos a ese grupo (gente que desinvierte). Quizás nos convirtamos en derrochadores cuando lleguemos a nuestra vejez.
Sin embargo, algunos vendedores pueden discrepar con nuestro cálculo del valor y otros pueden haber encontrado inversiones que consideran más atractivas que las acciones de Berkshire. Parte de este segundo grupo tendrá razón: hay, sin duda, muchas acciones que ofrecerán rentabilidades muy superiores a las nuestras.
Ocurrirá una gran catástrofe que ridiculizará a los huracanes Katrina y Michael, quizás mañana o tal vez dentro de décadas. «El gran error» podrá provenir de una fuente tradicional, como un huracán o un terremoto, o puede ser una sorpresa total que involucre, digamos, un ciberataque que tenga consecuencias desastrosas que las aseguradoras no contemplan ahora. Cuando ocurra tal catástrofe, haremos frente a nuestra parte de las pérdidas y serán grandes, muy grandes. Sin embargo, a diferencia de muchas otras aseguradoras, buscaremos adquirir negocios al día siguiente.
A finales de 1995, después de que Tony hubiera revitalizado GEICO, Berkshire hizo una oferta para comprar el 50% restante de la compañía por 2,3 mil millones de dólares, aproximadamente 50 veces lo que pagamos por la primera mitad (¡y la gente dice que soy un tacaño!).
Christopher Wren, arquitecto de la catedral de San Pablo, está enterrado dentro de esta iglesia londinense. En su tumbra encontramos estas palabras (traducidas del latín): «si buscas mi monumento, mira a tu alrededor». Los escépticos en lo referente a la economía estadounidense deberían prestar atención a este mensaje.
Durante 54 años, Charlie y yo hemos amado nuestros trabajos. Diariamente, hacemos lo que nos parece interesante, trabajando con personas que nos gustan y en las que confiamos. Y ahora nuestra nueva estructura de gestión ha hecho que nuestras vidas sean aún más placenteras.
Contando con todo el conjunto, es decir, con Ajit y Greg al cargo de las operaciones, una buena cartera de negocios, una generación de «flujo» de efectivo como la de las Cataratas del Niágara, un equipo de gerentes talentosos y una cultura empresarial sólida, su compañía está en buena forma para lo que sea que nos depare el futuro.
La mitad de la propiedad de GEICO le costó a Berkshire 47 millones de dólares, aproximadamente lo que le costaría hoy en día un apartamento lujoso en Nueva York.
Every year it is becoming more and more common for Spanish families to consider sending their children to study at American universities. Despite this, many still have the misconception that it is a luxury reserved for an elite of millionaires and/or gifted eggheads. However, study at a university in the USA is not difficult at all, and the reasons for sending our children to universities in the USA are multiple and justified. For example, the international prestige of a degree from a university there is far superior to that of comparable alternatives in Spain. It should also be borne in mind that the likelihood of finding more and better jobs upon return, either in the USA itself or in any other country in the world, is much higher with a US degree. As for personal experience, no doubt, living inside of a university that is like a real city in its own right, with its own flats, restaurants, cinemas, concert halls, sports stadiums, shops, gyms, libraries, banks or police, has no comparison with simply attend classes at a Spanish university.
The renowned economist Gay de Liébana he said last week in one of his lectures to an audience essentially made up of parents of teenagers: Families who are able to send their children to study at prestigious universities in talent-receiving countries will be doing them a huge favour, as they will have many more tools and contacts to shine in their professional future. On the other hand, the talents that remain in the Spanish university system will, unfortunately, have a much more difficult time and will probably fade away, becoming part of the multitude of young people who end up doing jobs that are much lower than what they would be entitled to for their extremely well-rounded university degrees. The Spanish economy and its university system and labour market cannot cope. His slogan was clear, parents who can materially push their children to fly through universities in countries like the US, where R&D budgets are infinitely higher than in Spain, will do the right thing.. As a significant fact, he explained that a single company such as Amazon spends more than twice as much money annually on R&D as the whole of Spain. Gay de Liébana himself has a son who trained and lives in Los Angeles, and his father could not be more satisfied with the effort made. Let us now turn to money and then we will explain accessibility for Spanish families of different purchasing power.
.
The budgets that American universities manage for facilities, research, faculty, student government and other internal operations are light years ahead of what is possible in our universities. There, it is very common for former students who have made a fortune over the years as entrepreneurs, in gratitude to the university that trained them academically and personally (their alma mater), donate millions of dollars. Thus, in addition to the income that universities receive from tuition fees, room rentals, maintenance and public subsidies, they also receive astronomical donations that allow them to provide specific scholarships or to build entire buildings to house all kinds of resources that donors want for their students. Because of all these abundant sources of income, most American universities are constantly expanding, improving their facilities, faculty and services year after year, because compete fiercely with each other to attract more and better students.
The million-dollar question in the title of this article is: Can I really send my children to a university in the USA? Most families would think that only an elite group with extremely bright sons or daughters can get enough scholarships to study there, unless the parents are millionaires and can afford to pay huge sums. But they are wrong. The flexibility of the American university system allows foreign families to access academic scholarships that are relatively suitable for any good student.. This is a true policy of attracting universal talent. Let's say that with a remarkably high average of the last 4 years of studies in Spain, that is, from 3rd ESO to 2nd Bachillerato, with grades between 7 and 9 out of 10, you can find scholarships that cover a very substantial part of the cost of tuition fees. Obviously there is also the cost of room and board for the student, but this is comparable to the cost of any student from here attending a university in a Spanish city other than their own, which would require them to pay for a student flat and daily meals.
.
Another way to access scholarships at American universities is for our son or daughter to have a good level in any sport, to have played it for some years and to be federated. In other words, they must have a demonstrable track record in sport, having competed in a local amateur league and, logically, have a certain ability that makes them stand out from the crowd. In addition, both scholarships are compatible, so you can have access to sports scholarships and also academic scholarships, thus greatly reducing the cost of tuition.
.
As mentioned above, there is total flexibility, i.e. there are universities for all tastes and academic levels. For example, a family with a child who has a grade point average in the lower range of the above mentioned can choose to go to a less prestigious university with a higher scholarship, to a higher level university with a small scholarship, or to a top university without a scholarship. The same applies to sports scholarships: If the student's level in his or her sporting discipline is very high, he or she can opt for a less prestigious university practically free of charge or for a more prestigious university paying most of the cost out of pocket. Depending on the circumstances of each student and the willingness and financial capacity of the family, a tailor-made option will be chosen. And of course there are also options for those students who simply pass the baccalaureate with averages of 5-6 out of 10 and do not excel in any sport, but without scholarships, which will force parents to cover the full cost. In fact, studying at a university in the USA is an extraordinary opportunity for the brightest, for simply good students and even for less bright students, who would not be able to reach the cut-off mark to be able to study at a Spanish university the degree they like the most, but could do so at various American universities, thanks to the aforementioned flexibility.
.
Advice and accompaniment throughout the process of preparation, selection and application to American universities is an essential part of the process. service that we have been offering since Cluster Family Office for several years now, not only to clients of our multi-family office, but also to our aanyfamilyinterested. For this purpose we have two specialists (one of them American) who graduated from universities in the USA, who know the secrets of the whole process from start to finish. For families who decide to start their children's path to American universities, we provide them with access to exclusive software that we use together with them as we complete the necessary stages and tasks. And we also maintain throughout the entire process (which can last between 9 and 18 months) constant meetings via skype and/or face-to-face meetings in our offices in Madrid or Barcelona.. They are assisted in the selection process of the universities that best suit them, both in terms of price and scholarships, size, diversity profile, geographical area, climate, rankings in their speciality, etc. Also in the preparation of the dreaded «best fit" lists.«essays«The cost of the service will depend on the needs of each case, but to give you an idea, it can range between 8,750 and 11,250 euros for a complete process, that is to say, between 8,750 and 11,250 euros for a complete process. The cost of the service will depend on the needs of each case, but to give you an idea it can range between 8,750 and 11,250 euros for a complete process, that is to say less than one tenth of what is usually available in academic or sporting scholarships. A cost that also makes the difference between carrying out a practical, resolute process that guarantees receiving at least a couple of letters of acceptance, or throwing oneself into a process that can be very stressful, labyrinthine and doomed to failure, and with the consequent frustration of having dedicated a great deal of effort, time and enthusiasm to a project that will end up with a pile of rejection letters.
.
This whole process of preparation requires a lot of advance notice. In fact, American students start preparing for their university entrance two and three years in advance, althoughthefamiliesSpanishcanhavesufficientiflomakedulyadvisedduringoncoursefrom1ºoincluding2ºfrombaccalaureate (if starting in 2nd year, access to university may not take place in the autumn of the same year as the end of the baccalaureate, but in January of the following year). During all this time the student must demonstrate a sufficient level of English by achieving a minimum grade of TOEFL, The level of the English language proficiency level should be higher or lower, depending on the level of demand of the university to which the student wishes to apply. Students with an insufficient level of English are usually enrolled in adaptation courses, so that they can reach the necessary level within a few months and become acclimatised to university life in the USA. SAT, This is a kind of selectividad exam whose minimum grade required will also depend on the level of demand of the universities to which you wish to apply for admission. Logically, families and students will be helped, trained and accompanied in all these processes.
.
In order for readers to get a practical idea of the costswithout grants The approximate costs that a Spanish student who decides to go to the USA to obtain a degree can assume, here are a few figures per year, The programme is based on a standard academic load, from mid-August to the beginning of May, with 24-30 credits per year and a 4-4.5 year expectation to graduate:
.
Tuition fees:
Between €10,000 and €55,000 depending on the prestige and quality of the university.
Cost of room and board:
Between 8 and 10 thousand euros
Books, materials, travel and miscellaneous expenses:
Between 2 and 3 thousand euros
Health insurance for international students:
Between €1,000 and €2,000
Therefore, if you want to send your child to an American university, you have to calculate logistical costs of between 11 and 15 thousand € per year, plus the annual tuition that depends entirely on the prestige and quality of the university, and all of this could come with a scholarship to a greater or lesser extent as we have already said. As you can see, the costs of room and board are the same as what it would cost to send our children to study in any city in Spain. And the annual tuition fees can be perfectly equivalent to the tuition fees in some private Spanish universities, even without access to any scholarship. SEE ALL THE COSTS AND DETAILS OF THE PROCESS HERE
.
Here you will find a example of housing where students from Arizona State University live. It is obvious that the atmosphere and quality of life is light years away from the student flats that university students usually rent during their studies in any city in Spain.
.
We have already seen in the price table above that with some scholarships, and even without any, the costs of sending our children to universities in the USA are affordable for many more families than we might think. However, it is undoubtedly an effort and financial sacrifice on the part of the family towards their children. But there is no better inheritance than to give them the best possible education during their lifetime so that they can defend themselves before the world with the best weapons and the most prestigious qualifications. Wouldn't it be infinitely more useful and profitable for them that we have paid for their studies at the best universities on the planet than to have left them a handful more money in our will? From our experience in the formation of heirs and the relationship of the new generations with the family heritage, we can assure you that this is the case. If our children are to make their way in the difficult world they will have to face, it will be of little use to them if we leave them only a basket full of fish as an inheritance. We must provide them with the best fishing rod, the best equipment and the best fishing instructors. And their training must enable them to find the most fish-filled international waters and to move in them with complete ease. That will be our greatest legacy.
.
One of the most important benefits of the whole application process is that, during the months of preparation, the pupils will give a huge qualitative leap in maturity and motivation. Their personality will mature due to the process of internal reflection that the pupils will go through as they work on their Essays with our coaches. They will have to explain in essays of only 500 to 600 words who they are and why the university should choose them over other candidates. What personal merits they have accumulated in their short life and what they want to make of it in their future. They will become aware of the high level of competition for admission to the university of their dreams (don't worry, the final list of universities to which they will apply will include options accessible to the student and no one will ever be left without at least one letter of admission). This whole process will make them appreciate much more and much better the financial effort made by their parents for them. For the first time in their lives, they will have to analyse who they are and present their best version of themselves to the world in order to be worthy of the prize of receiving an admission letter. Here we leave you a few videos with some of the emotional reactions of students when they receive the news that they have been admitted to the university of their choice. These videos which abound on YouTube, will give you an idea of what it means, for the teenagers who choose the American university path and for the whole family, to be rewarded at the end of the whole process of effort. You will not tire of watching them. When that time comes, we can guarantee that your children will have grown a great deal personally compared to when they started their journey 9, 12 or 18 months ago.
.
Applying to American universities is the best personal growth process they can undergo, and it will come at the best time in their lives (between the ages of 15 and 18) to make the leap in maturity they need.
Most investors know little or nothing about the inner workings of what is considered the best investment fund in the world, due to its stratospheric performance over more than 30 years, the Medallion Fund. We have therefore decided to write this article unveiling the information we have gathered and the ins and outs we learned when we visited its management,Renaissance Technologies, a couple of years ago. Despite the length of the article, we believe it will be very interesting for readers to learn about the background, inner workings, curiosities and eccentricities of this great group of scientists, who have been recognised as the best managers in the world for their ability to beat the market for decades.
.
The first piece of bad news is that since 1993, Medallion has only managed money for its just over 300 employees and, of course, the owners of the management company. The good news is that Medallion's fund manager Renaissance, has 3 funds open to some institutional clients. But the second piece of bad news is that to invest in these institutional funds you have to have a minimum of $5 million, and also pass the due diligence that the fund manager performs on new investors. Yes, you read that correctly, to access Renaissance's institutional funds it is not enough to have a minimum investment of 5 million dollars, but the managers reserve their right of admission. But do not be discouraged, read on because At the end of the article we will explain how an investor with a minimum of 125,000 euros/dollars can access these funds.
.
According to Bloomberg, the size of the Medallion, which is the fund set aside for «...", has been reduced to the size of the Medallion.«friends & family».» The current owner's fund size is approximately $11 billion, which together with the other funds that Renaissance manages for an elite group of institutional clients, make up the $62 billion under management in total (figures as of January 2019).
.
We will now explain the origins and evolution of the world's best fund manager, and at the end of the article we will tell you about our personal visit to the Renaissance Technologies facilities, after passing both their due diligence and ours and thus becoming institutional clients of their funds.
.
The origin and evolution of Medallion and Renaissance performance:
On the north shore of the luxurious Long Island, just a couple of hours' drive from Manhattan, lies the area popularly known as the Renaissance Riviera. Not for nothing are the biggest billionaires in the area scientists working for Renaissance Technologies in neighbouring East Setauket. This elite group created in 1988 what has been the biggest money-making machine in the financial world, the Medallion Fund. A quantitative fund that has far exceeded the returns of other legendary managers such as Ray Dalio or George Soros. And what is even more spectacular is that it has done so in less time and from a smaller size.
.
This fund almost never loses money. Its worst 5-year performance has been -0.5%. According to Andrew Lo, professor of finance at MIT and chairman of AlphaSimplex, another quantitative fund manager, «Renaissance is the financial and commercial version of the Manhattan Project«. Andrew Lo praises Jim Simons, the mathematician who founded Renaissance in 1982, for bringing so many scientists and intelligence together in a single enterprise. «They are the pinnacle of quantitative investing. No one is even close to their level.». Very few companies generate so much fascination, buzz and speculation. Everyone has heard of Renaissance and the mythical Medallion but hardly anyone knows what goes on in there. Apart from Simons, a somewhat more public figure who retired in 2009 with a personal fortune estimated at more than $16 billion, little is known about the rest of its small group of founding scientists, whose wealth exceeds the GDP of several countries.
.
For those who are wondering whether such astronomical returns (see graph below) and such sustained returns over time are really possible, it is worth commenting here on the words of Simons, in his lecture last week at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), when he was asked for the umpteenth time in his career whether he had ever been compared to the fraudster Madoff: «Of course, with our results and after what happened with Madoff, shortly after that the SEC (US regulator) looked at us and investigated us thoroughly. Of course they didn't find anything.». But this team of scientists who have been beating the markets for more than 30 years, with a fund closed exclusively to them, and 3 others with entry barriers of USD 5 million, really care little about the sceptics.
.
Renaissance is unique among hedge funds, institutional funds and closed-end funds. Its partners and managers are as cool as they are eccentric. Of the more than 300 employees, 90 are doctors (Ph.D) in disciplines such as mathematics and physics. Peter Brown, who co-heads the firm, used to sleep on a folding bed in his office. His counterpart, Robert Mercer, rarely speaks. And the identical twins, Stephen and Vincent Della Pietra, PhDs specialising in string theory, often argue loudly with each other. The rest of the staff can't be called typical office workers either. There is too much talent for vulgarity.
.
For the outsiders, the mystery is how Medallion has been able to win so close to the top of the table. an annual 80% before commissions, The fund, by the way, takes almost half of the return, although in reality almost all of it stays at home as it is a fund exclusively for members and employees. And the most surprising thing is that despite three decades of experience, they have not been able to copy them enough to come close to their results. The reasons are to be found in the power of its computational capacity, because the computers in their bunker basements are among the most advanced on the planet. Their talented employees have more and better data in which to find patterns and models that can be exploited. And they also fine-tune the costs of their transactions, of which there are many, while taking into account the consequences that their own trading generates in the markets.
.
But it should not be forgotten that the origins of most of its founders come from IBM back in the 1980s. There they used statistical analysis for the first linguistic challenges faced by mathematicians and computer scientists. Jim Simons, mathematical genius, professor at MIT and Harvard, winner of the Oswald Veblen Prize in Geometry and co-creator of the Chern-Simons Theory, was also a code breaker for the Institute for Defence Analyses (IDA).IDA) of the USA. (the current location of the Renaissance headquarters may not be coincidental, given that East Setauket was the area known as Culper Spy Ring, The birthplace of espionage, which enabled Goerge Washington to confront British troops with prior knowledge of their secret plans at the end of the 18th century). The aim of quantitative analysis is similar: to build models that find hidden signals in the «noise» of the markets.. Often they are just whispers, but some are able to predict how the price of a share, a bond or a barrel of oil will make a profitable move, however imperceptible it may be. The problem is complex. Prices depend on fundamentals and flows and the often irrational behaviour of the actors who are buying and selling. Despite (or because of) the fact that Simons lost his job at IDA after publicly denouncing the Vietnam War in a New York Times article, the cryptographic connections he researched helped him create Renaissance, and a few years later Medallion. On his way out, he sought out and surrounded himself with cryptographers and mathematicians such as Elwyn Berlekamp and Leonard Baum, former colleagues at IDA, Stony Brook and professors Henry Laufer and James Ax, for his initial project: Statistical price prediction.
.
The beginnings were bittersweet, and trend following and conversion to the mean caused them problems. Gradually they built models and more models. The initial results were mixed: +8.8% in 1988 and -4.1% in 1989. But in 1990, after explicitly focusing on short-term trading, Medallion achieved a profit of +56% net of commissions. The scientists went on to develop an internal programming language for their models. Today, Medallion uses dozens of «strategies» that run together as one. The computer code they use includes several million lines of code, which is soon to be said. Several teams are responsible for specific areas of research, but in practice everyone can work on everything. Every week there is a meeting where new ideas are tested and discussed to extreme limits by almost a hundred PhDs and other gifted minds.
.
In the early 1990s, spectacular yields became the norm at Renaissance: 39.4%; 34%; 39.1%. And customers began to flock to Medallion. The fund manager never bothered with marketing, in fact today its website still looks like a relic from 20 years ago. In 1993 Renaissance stopped accepting new customers. Fees were multiplied from 5% management + 20% success fee to 5% + 44%. Brutal, but even so, their net returns still stood out far above the rest. Not only that, but also In 2005, they had already expelled from the fund all former investors who were neither partners nor employees, leaving Medallion exclusively for them, and creating for the outsiders the first of the 3 institutional funds of which we will give details later: RIEF, RIDA and RIDGE.
.
Scientific background applied to markets:
The success encouraged Simons to hire more and more brilliant scientists. The next batch of gifted people to join the Renaissance family was a team of mathematicians from IBM's research centre in Yorktown Heights, NY, who were struggling at the time to get machines to recognise, emit and translate human speech. Let's just say that the parents of Siri, Alexa and Google Translate.At first mathematicians tried to rely on linguists to codify grammar, but they soon realised that the problems they faced were much better solved by mathematical probabilities than by language experts.. Mercer for example disappeared for months to type conjugations of French verbs into a computer. Processing his data allowed him to write an algorithm that found the most plausible translation for each sentence: «Le chien est battu par Jean» translated as «John does beat the dog», which was a dramatic improvement on the literal translation that systems without such algorithms were running up against. With every linguist they fired and mathematician they signed up, the system took a step forward. A similar thing happened with speech recognition: «Given an auditory signal x, the speaker probably said y«. «Recognition and translation are the intersection between mathematics and programming,» said Ernie Chan, who worked in the 1990s in IBM's research department and today manages QTS Capital Management.
.
Mercer and Brown then made a bold proposition to IBM: «Let us build a computer model to manage a part of your pension fund».». At the time IBM was managing a $28 billion fund for its employees. IBM rejected the proposal, thinking what would language programmers know about the investment world? But Mercer and Brown were already determined to apply their knowledge to making money in the financial markets. IBM was also at a low ebb, and it was easy for Simon, Mercer and Brown to recruit talent at the time. Renaissance was created by mathematicians who learned to program, not the other way around. They learned how to build large systems where many people were working at the same time. That was another competitive advantage of Renaissance.
.
Talented additions came and went, the Della Pietra twins (String Theory), Lalit Bahlt (responsible for human speech recognition algorithms), Mukund Padmanabhan (digital signal processing specialist). Almost all of them had worked together at IBM. They soon realised that tackling the market was much more demanding than the advances required at IBM. Either your algorithm was better than the rest - which were starting to flood the markets - and you made money, or it was worse and you went broke. High pressure was tremendously productive. Renaissance spent a lot of resources collecting, sorting and cleaning data, and making it accessible to its researchers. «If you have an idea, you want to test it quickly. And if you have to get the data you want to use right first, it slows the process down enormously,» said Patterson, another code breaker who worked for British intelligence and was part of Renaissance until 2001. But intellectual challenges are not the only incentives for this group of data-hungry brains. They also enjoy something more intangible: The feeling of a family of top-level scientists and the complicity and satisfaction that this brings them. Simons was like the benevolent father figure who added emotional intelligence to a group as diverse as they were geeky.
.
When the IBM scientists joined Renaissance, Medallion was already earning more than 30% net of commissions. And almost a third of that came from futures trading. In those early days, the inefficiencies of the market were more visible and exploitable than they are today. For example, one of their scientists noticed that there was a 15-minute gap between the close of options and futures, which allowed them to create a specific system to exploit that for a time. The market was full of aberrations, and the scientists investigated each one to death. The sum of all of them generated very large amounts of money for them. In the beginning it was millions, but after a few years it was in the billions. But as the financial system became more sophisticated with the proliferation of other quantitative funds, inefficiencies became scarce.
.
When Mercer and Brown came to Renaissance, they started working separately, but soon realised that they were more powerful working together. They fed off each other: Brown was the optimist and Mercer the sceptic. «Peter is very creative with a lot of ideas, and Bob says, I think we need to go deeper on this one,» Petterson said. They took over the group working on listed stocks, which were losing money. It took no less than 4 years to make the system work.. But Jim Simons was very patient. The investment paid off, and even Today, listed equity managers, through their derivatives and leverage (let's not forget that inefficiencies today are much more subtle) still generate the lion's share of Medallion's profit.
.
Simons explained in an interview in Institutional Investor back in 2000 that a winning [quantitative] system must be highly layered. «With every new idea you have to determine: Is it really new or is it somehow implicit in something we've already done? Once that's determined, the team has to figure out how much it should weigh in the mix.» He explained that signals can cool off at any given moment, but that vigilance must be maintained because they can emerge again at any time, or even withdrawing that vigilance can have an impact on the performance of the whole. The trade can be in any asset class and last for fractions of seconds or many months. In a lecture Brown gave in 2013 he explained an example that they shared with outside investors at the time, and was therefore public: By studying the weather in financial centres around the globe they found that local markets have a subtle tendency to rise more on sunny days than on cloudy ones. «It turned out that if it is cloudy in Paris, the French stock market is less likely to rise that day than if the sun shines during the opening hours of its market».» he said. It was not a big money maker, as that only happened slightly above the 50% of the time. But with the right tools and system in place, they are exploitable signals, along with many others. Brown continued: «The point is that there can no longer be obvious and powerful signals, because they would have been exploited by others as soon as they were incipient. What we do is look for huge amounts of signals, and for that we have 90 PhDs in mathematics and physics, who just have to sit there every day to distinguish them from the noise of the markets. We have over 10,000 processors (year 2013) down there who are constantly gutting very diverse data in search of those signals». Nowadays the methods of profiting from the market are as secret as they are difficult to imagine. A couple of years ago information was leaked that they were planning to use GPS (atomic) clocks to synchronise buy and sell orders in different markets, through nearby servers that manage to take massive positions without their purchases altering the market price and before even the HFT (High Frequency Trading) funds have time to react. We cannot even imagine what they will (or do) with quantum computers.
.
In addition to language specialists, Astrophysicists have been especially successful throughout history in deciphering systems. Such scientists shine above the rest when it comes to finding patterns in a sea of data. noisy.String theorists have also been particularly successful in filtering data. And the Della Pietra brothers, who along with others of their team at IBM were involved in the listed equity area at Renaissance, were among the first to shine in their field. These identical twins, now 58 years old, have never been apart from each other. Both attended an advanced honours programme at Columbia at the age of 16, graduated from Princeton with a degree in physics and received their PhDs from Harvard in 1986. They always sat next to each other, recalls his former professor of abstract algebra at Princeton. «Their conversations were full of argumentation. They were passionate mathematical discussions, and they were always correcting their professors». The fact that they are identical twins seems to take them to another dimension. «They are almost telepathic,» says Ernie Chan. At Renaissance, the Della Pietra's have always had adjoining offices with a large window for constant communication. «They are very creative and competitive with each other,» adds Patterson, to whom they reported directly for a few years.
.
The IBM team focused on constantly improving system efficiency and performance. As the Renaissance models were essentially short term, focused on fine-tuning transaction costs and how their own movements affected markets, both very difficult problems to solve, according to other fund managers. quants. They also ensured that trades and profits were in line with the system, since a bad price or any other crack could spoil the whole outcome of that particular operation.
.
Medallion reserved exclusively for members and employees:
The amount of money invested by an employee in Medallion depends on his or her overall contribution to the company. And collaboration with the environment is seen as key to having a bigger slice of the pie. Employees are allowed to buy a limited number of shares in the fund. In addition, a quarter of their salary is invested directly in the fund for at least 4 years. They all pay, of course, the tremendous 5% mgmt fee + 44% performance fee. Simons made it clear from the start that the size of the fund matters, and that too much money hurts performance. Renaissance currently limits the size of Medallion to 10-12 billion, which is double what it was a decade ago. It is therefore not uncommon for partners and employees to disinvest large sums of money to maintain a manageable fund size. Profits are also usually distributed on a semi-annual basis.
.
Thanks to Medallion, Simons, who still owns the company's 50%, amasses a fortune of 16 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The other Renaissance heavyweights such as Laufer, Mercer and Brown have unquantified fortunes publicly, but have probably amassed many hundreds of millions each. But in a way, money, like the family atmosphere among the partners, keeps them together, with the exception of a few scientists who, already wealthy, have preferred to devote their intellect entirely to research or philanthropy. In general, few employees and partners leave Renaissance over the years. Why should they?The intellectual challenges are as attractive as they are constant, the colleagues are top-notch and the salaries are astronomical.. As all the employees have become wealthy, their lifestyles have changed. Trains to Manhattan have given way to private helicopters. Scientists have traded in their Hondas for Porsches, and expensive hobbies have become the norm. Simons' cousin Robert Lourie, who heads the futures research team, built stables and a riding arena for his daughter. State-of-the-art yachts are also the order of the day, and spending on company trips for team building activities is unmentionable. Simons, a heavy smoker, even took out a fire insurance policy with his favourite restaurant to allow him to continue smoking his beloved Merit after dinner. You will understand better now why the coast where the management company is located is known as the Renaissance Riviera.
.
However, the money has, of course, also brought them some displeasure. In 2001 they hired a Russian scientist, Alexander Belopolsky. Patterson was reluctant to hire him because Belopolsky had previously worked on Wall Street, where he had jumped from one job to another. His fears were well-founded. In 2003 Alexander and another Russian, Pavel Volfbeyn, announced that they were leaving to work at another hedge fund, Millennium Partners, where they would be working on a new project. had negotiated multi-million dollar bonuses in exchange for trying to copy Renaissance's know-how.. Of course, both the Russian scientists and Millennium were sued in court by Renaissance, and the matter was subsequently settled by a financial settlement of which no details are known.
.
However, not all Russians were unhappy at the company. Around that time, another scientist named Alexey Kononenko, who came out of the former USSR and received his PhD from Penn State in 1997, was promoted and moved up the Renaissance organisational chart with a bang, raising some eyebrows among the more senior staff. Kononenko was seen having dinner at Simons' house, and that was a sure sign that the Russian had a gift that made him more special than the rest of the company's gifted brains. Time proved him right, and Medallion achieved returns in excess of 40% per annum net after that dinner.
.
Building on the crash of 2007 and 2008, what is the secret of Renaissance?
When competitors or former investors are asked how Renaissance can continue to achieve such impressive results, the answer is unanimous: They run and evolve more than the rest.. Even so, they have not been without their scares. According to sources close to the fund manager, in August 2007 the mortgage market crashed, wiping out many hedge funds along the way, which literally disappeared from the map, including the 30 billion giant managed by Goldman Sachs. The disasters of so many trapped investors and leveraged quantitative and non-quantitative hedge funds flooded the markets with sell orders, making the situation much worse. Medallion suffered a loss of almost a billion in a matter of days, almost 20% of its size at the time.. This, which had never happened before in the fund's almost 30-year history, gave the team of scientists food for thought. They even considered whether they should reduce risk to ensure the fund's survival by selling off some positions. Fortunately, the scientists put their hearts aside and focused on their brains, letting the systems do their job. In the last four months of the year, they not only recovered their losses but closed the year with a brutal profit of +85.9% net.But it doesn't stop there. In 2008, the year of the stock market crash, profits were even higher, close to 100% net. The Renaissance partners reaffirmed their principles: «Don't mess with the models». And they also learned a lesson: the damage that large third-party bankruptcies can cause to the market must also be calculated.
.
Quantitative managers often say that there is no system that is effective forever. The variables are infinite and the markets as changeable and diverse as the human race and its globalisation. So one wonders how much longer Renaissance will be able to deliver these superior returns. The reality is that almost a decade after Simons' official retirement, the money-making machine is still running, and the old ex-IBM team is still between 50 and 65 years old.
.
The visit of Cluster Family Office to the Renaissance facilities:
We will now tell you our impressions of the visit we made a couple of years ago to the Renaissance bunker in Long Island (images below from google maps). We will start by saying that, once they passed their due diligence to be accepted as institutional investors, we had to insist that we were allowed to visit their headquarters., The majority of those selected are only shown their Manhattan offices, which are more «than the Manhattan offices".«commercial»but also spectacular. About 40 people work in Manhattan on a regular basis, but the offices are large enough to house the more than 300 employees who work at renaissance. Why is that? Well, because in Manhattan they have a backup and servers equivalent to the equipment they use in the bunker, and from time to time they practice a drill as if it had been rendered inoperative, moving all personnel for a day or two to Manhattan., in order to ensure that they continue to work perfectly in the event of an emergency in the bunker. That's how geeky and rigorous they are.
Why do we call the Renaissance headquarters on Long Island a bunker, if it appears to be a building (or several), large, yes, but just like any other? Well, because in addition to the access control on the road and the fact that it is surrounded by a lush forest that naturally conceals the facilities, inside there are a multitude of access controls, depending on the degree of restriction desired for each part of the building. Some doors were crossed when our companions swiped a simple magnetic strip through the reader, but others, closer to the heart of the company, required additional codes and even their fingerprints.. In addition to its two-storey height and its whimsical shape, which is slightly reminiscent of the Pentagon building, the main block also has two underground levels which house, among other secrets, the computer room. They agreed to show us around for a few minutes. It was a huge, white-walled, perfectly cooled space with a double-height ceiling. In the centre of the room, half a dozen 2-metre-high columns were lined with processors lined up on either side, forming long corridors between each column. The length of each column was impressive - we estimated at a rough guess that they must be between 50 and 60 metres long., The processors, as they allowed us to walk down those aisles from one end to the other. Obviously the figure of more than 10,000 processors that Brown talked about in 2013 was no exaggeration. Inside that room was another smaller room, to which we did not have access, which must have contained other mainframe computers. Interestingly, all the cooling machinery was outside that large room, so that even the air-conditioning maintenance technicians didn't have to enter the computer room at all. We had never seen anything like this before, and probably very few private companies have such a computer arsenal. We immediately understood what other big names in quantitative management were talking about when they said that «...the new system is a new way of doing business.«No one is at Renaissance's level in terms of data processing and analysis, not even close.»
.
During the visit to the rest of their facilities we could see that indeed all the individual offices are identical in size and decoration, following the guidelines of the partners. We did not see a single closed office door, everyone works with their door open to facilitate interaction and the exchange of ideas., as Simons states in an interview. They explained some of their internal processes, such as the challenges that rapporteurs of new proposals to be incorporated into the system have to overcome. Any new idea must overcome a huge number of Ph.Ds (PhDs in physics, mathematics, etc.) trying to smash it mercilessly. Ythe proposal of the rapporteur(s) will only progress if it overcomes the criticism and convinces the eminent. The next step is to test the proposal with models for a period of time. If it continues to work, it is tested with operations and real money in small amounts for another period of time. And if finally all the results are positive and there is no affectation or interference with the rest of the systems, it is implemented. The process can take months or even years, It is not fully implemented until it is empirically well proven and tested. It was impressive to see the challenges, where these new proposals are debated to death. There was a large screen presiding over a huge oval table with about forty seats, and around it a second ring of chairs for a total audience of more than a hundred. Imagine that room full of Ph.Ds arguing vehemently and trying to find the cracks in any new proposal. Truly, nothing that does not certainly improve the existing system will make it through that first theoretical filter and subsequent practical implementations.
.
The comments and behaviour of the managers we met that day confirmed to us that indeed the motivation for scientists to stay at Renaissance is not primarily money - once they have become rich enough, what keeps them there is the attraction of an intellectually challenging environment and being surrounded by the best. And what better place than here, they said. They also told us that the intellectual challenge of working surrounded by 90 Ph.Ds of the scientific elite not only serves to retain the talent already working at Renaissance, but also to attract eminent people who are bored in their university research positions. These profiles, tired of no professor or university colleague daring to contradict them on anything, fit perfectly in the fun that an environment such as Renaissance offers them, where they can the challenges they constantly subject each other to are at a level they could never find in any university in the world.. The concentration of talent, not to mention the impressive semester cheques, acts as a real intellectual magnet to retain and attract the most prodigious minds.
.
Funds open to institutional investors: Renaissance Institutional Funds
In addition to the legendary Medallion, which is reserved exclusively for members and employees, as mentioned above, the fund manager has 3 funds open to institutional investors with a minimum of 5 million to invest and who have passed the fund manager's internal due diligence: Renaissance Institutional Intitutional Equity Fund (RIEF), Renaissance Institutional Diversified Alpha Fund (RIDA) and Renaissance Institutional Diversified Global Equities Fund (RIDGE). They explained to us how they discriminate the management of Medallion compared to that of the RIEF fund, the oldest of the 3 funds that are still open to institutional investors (you can see its track record since 2005 in the table below). They readily admit that their «best ideas» are applied to the Medallion, and that their «second best ideas» are used in RIEF.. The other two institutional funds, RIDA and RIDGE, are different animals. The latter two are seen as tests or platforms where other (apparently more conservative) ideas are applied, they are perfect laboratories for their research, although for many other fund managers they would be their own funds. flagships or flagships, without a doubt. After analysing the 3 funds, from Cluster Family Office We decided to invest for the moment only in RIEF, which we could define as the most similar quantitative fund of the three to Medallion, essentially focused on equities from all over the world and long-biased. In the graph below you can see its performance since its launch in 2005, when -as we have already said- all external investors were definitively expelled from Medallion.
In our long career in wealth management, we have visited many, many asset managers around the world. We have seen them in all shapes, sizes and colours, but the visit to Renaissance a couple of years ago was the most special. It was like visiting the Mecca of quantitative management. That feeling of seeing how the best in the world work in their field. Having said that, we have to confess that quantitative funds are not our cup of tea, The majority of us feel much more comfortable investing in good value managers who focus on finding shares in good companies at attractive prices. Quantitative managers are still black boxes that, when they stop making money (as is the case with the vast majority), there is nothing to hold on to. However, we must surrender to the evidence of the Number Ones, who have not stopped earning money to date and far above the others.. That is why the RIEF combination in portfolios of more than 10 million together with the other leading international Value managers is, in our opinion, the best option.. We are convinced that this is the perfect mix for the coming years in equities: a percentage of the best Value managers and a percentage of the best quantitative fund on the planet. The proportions to suit the consumer, or rather adjusted to the needs and circumstances of each individual.
.
The good news for junior investors, as we mentioned at the beginning of this article, is that can access funds of funds that slice these combinations starting at 125,000 euros/dollars., although logically paying an additional commission, as we explain in «Funds that make inaccessible funds accessible«. Medallion will certainly remain reserved exclusively for Renaissance partners and employees forever. But investing in the substitute RIEF The minimum amount of 5 million and the due diligence carried out by Renaissance itself to decide whether or not to grant access to the aspiring institutional investor are insurmountable barriers for the vast majority. This is why being able to enter through the back door via a fund of funds is an extraordinary opportunity. The only one.
.
Disclaimer: This article does not represent an investment recommendation for the products mentioned. The funds referred to in the article are not registered for marketing in Spain and are only suitable for qualified investors, with minimums ranging from €125,000 to €5,000,000.
Today we are going to refer to an article published by Bloomberg where a panel of 5 experts give their opinion on which assets they think are the best to invest in at the moment. One of these experts is Mark Mobius, founder of Mobius Capital Partners and former executive chairman of Templeton. His recommendations have particularly caught our attention because they coincide with our strategy, which we have been implementing for some time now. Cluster Family Office. We will therefore summarise and comment on Mark Mobius' arguments and proposals to Bloomberg readers, to which we fully subscribe.
.
In the late 1980s, emerging economies accounted for only 51Tbp3T of the global market, but now they account for more than 401Tbp3T and rising. In those years investors could not invest in more than half a dozen stock exchanges, yet now we have more than 70 markets open to growing foreign investment. This now allows for enormous diversification, and points the way forward: Now is the time to invest in certain economies emerging - or already emerging where tremendous economic recovery and growth is taking place.
.
For example, Brazil's stock market has risen 40% from its lows. And it still has a long way to go, as every sector is set to benefit from the reform being implemented by the new Bolsonaro government (political-ethical discrepancies aside). The country's entire political environment is being radically changed as a result of the relentless pursuit of corruption that is taking place. Take Petrobras, one of the largest oil companies, which is changing its entire organisational structure from top to bottom to make sure that no more corruption cases take place in order to be in tune with the new government. All the companies have been getting their act together on corporate governance issues, along the lines of stamping out corruption so that the state does not take a fatal look at them. This is very positive for international investors, since with more rigour and order, the Brazilian consumer sector will benefit and will do particularly well in the coming years.
.
Political data has even aligned with technical analysis, as many markets have drawn a double bottom long trend. In terms of fundamentals, the most defining data for the investor, we still see attractively low price to earnings and book values in many of the emerging economies, which let's not forget are the economies that are riding the wind of economic growth and demographics in their favour. Russia's P/Es are only in the multiple of x5, that is even below Pakistan's valuations. If we add to that the advances in corporate governance that Putin is implementing, the Russian stock market is very, very cheap indeed.
.
Moving on to the fundamentals, we like India's domestic consumption oriented companies, whose economy is already practically growing at 8% per annum. India's software sector is very large (like everything else there) and we like the medium-sized companies that are embracing new technologies to, for example, start/increase their online sales. India's byzantine distribution system is being modernised radically by technology, tax reforms and the elimination of taxation between the different regions of this sub-continent. This will be vital and will greatly boost the movement of goods and trade. Despite the intrinsic difficulties that still exist in India, Amazon and Walmart are getting local businesses into their game.
.
It is true that there is still a lot of bad credit hurting the books of the big banks in India. And the government is going to bail them out and recapitalise them properly, which will have an impact on the value of the currency. But this weakening of the Rupee will be short-lived. Let's not forget that the central bank, despite its stormy relations with the BJP, has historically been effective in stabilising the currency. Mobius says he would put a 30%, of the $1 million referred to in the article, in India.
And what about China. Its potential is enormous, both for Cantonese companies listed in Hong Kong and A-shares listed in Shanghai. And its market economy, perfectly planned by the Jinping government, is an oasis of prosperity for Western investors in the growth desert of Western developed markets. It is also more than interesting to look for companies that are particular winners in a trade war with the US that has more political than real economic overtones. One of the clear winners to look out for, although we were already looking at it on the merits of its own growing economy, is Vietnam, which is welcoming southern Chinese companies to relocate or simply expand. In fact, and as a significant anecdote, the failed summit between Trump and North Korean President Jong Un was held in Vietnam because the US government wanted to show Jong Un the Vietnamese model as an example for North Korea to follow. The model evolution, from an iron communist economy like Vietnam's, to a growing and prosperous market economy, without loss of government control. And all this praised by the US president, live to see.
.
And the same is true for the rest of Southeast Asia, where everything is still to be done and the middle class has a tremendous future ahead of it. Mexico is also benefiting from its recent agreement with the USA and Canada. World trade is like a big balloon: if you push on one side, it inflates on the other.
.
In short, Mobius is fully in line with our positioning in Russia, Vietnam, China, India and Brazil. And this positioning is materialised through the management companies of local institutional funds who know the political, legal, accounting and economic characteristics of their respective countries inside out. The result is in the form of alphas spectacular and consistent. And fortunately options are beginning to emerge fund of funds so that smaller investors (with a minimum of $125,000) can access these large institutional funds. emerging who do not even have retail classes.
.
The reasoning, then, is clear: traditional markets belonging to developed economies must be abandoned because they have and will have the wind against them for at least a generation. Their economic growth is and will be anaemic, and their ageing and unproductive demographics are and will be an insurmountable drag on their companies' future share prices. It is true that some Western companies are desperately and painstakingly turning to Asia in their search for revenue. But it should not escape anyone's notice that it is far more productive to invest directly in Asian companies that concentrate all their turnover and growth in domestic economies with overwhelming GDP growth and demographics.
Para el inversor la definición de riesgo vinculada a la volatilidad no solo es engañosa sino que además es del todo contraproducente. Sin embargo buena parte del sector financiero y la práctica totalidad del sector bancario determinan -legalmente y en la práctica- el riesgo de las inversiones a través de la volatilidad de las mismas: A mayor volatilidad, mayor riesgo (sic) y viceversa. Pero lo peor es que así califican el prefil de riesgo de sus clientes, perfil que determinará los activos en los que van a poder invertir, en función de dicha volatilidad. Como resultado encontramos aberraciones como considerar una cartera de renta fija insolvente y cara como una propuesta apta para perfiles conservadores. Y vemos como se priva a muchos inversores de comprar bolsa por el mero hecho de que las valoraciones sean volátiles a corto o medio plazo. Y no les importa que a medio y largo plazo la certeza de obtener beneficios en bolsa sea muchísimo más elevada que la probabilidad de que los bonos de la cartera de renta fija insolvente y cara devuelvan el principal y los intereses sin ningúnevento de crédito (a no ser que rescates con dinero público que devolveremos a futuro en forma de impuestos, eviten las pérdidas permanentes, como hemos visto en esta última década).
Francisco García Paramés lo explica perfectamente en su libro «Invirtiendo a largo plazo«, de donde hemos extraído los gráficos, demoledores donde los haya de las falacias inculcadas a los inversores por buena parte del sector bancario y financiero. Como veis en el gráfico de arriba, el riesgo de sufrir pérdidas en bolsa a largo plazo es nulo, mientras que el riesgo de sufrir pérdidas permanentes en renta fija persiste. Además, incluso la volatilidad es menor a largo plazo en renta variable! Es decir, que invirtiendo de forma pasiva en acciones cotizadas, a largo plazo no sólo conseguiremos mayor rendimiento, sino que lo haremos con menor volatilidad y sin riesgo de pérdidas. Si además lo hacemos de manera activa a través de gestores de fondos brillantes que consigan superar a los índices de referencia de manera consistente y sostenida en el tiempo, llegamos a la conclusión de que esa es nuestra mejor opción como inversores que queremos conservar e incrementar nuestras inversiones a largo plazo.
.
Y es que ese es y debe ser el criterio de inversión: Conservar y aumentar nuestro capital financiero evitando pérdidas permanentes. ¿Qué es una pérdida permanente? Pues es una pérdida de la cual no nos vamos a poder recuperar antes de que el coste de oportunidad, la devaluación de la divisa y la inflación se nos coma con patatas. Es decir, una pérdida que mermará la progresión de nuestro patrimonio de manera tan decisiva que sólo la inflación, la devaluación y el paso de muchos años nos permitirá recuperar nominalmente, pero que habrá mutilado nuestro poder adquisitivo a lo largo de buena parte de nuestra vida inversora. Por ejemplo una pérdida permanente es un evento de crédito de un bono o activo de deuda, o la compra de un inmueble o de una acción en plena burbuja de precios. Es decir, pagar por un activo muchísimo más de los que vale y valdrá durante muchos años. A pesar de resultar obvio conviene recordar que una pérdida permanente no es una pérdida temporal a corto plazo. La pérdida temporal a corto plazo es simplemente volatilidad que nos afecta momentáneamente de manera aparentemente negativa, pero que será recuperada con mayor o menor velocidad en función del Valor intrínseco que tenga el activo respecto a la caída del precio. Y decimos «aparentemente negativa» porque como veremos más adelante, dicha pérdida permanente nos brinda oportunidades de oro.
Pongamos unos ejemplos de la diferencia de riesgo que puede tener una misma volatilidad, extraídos de las reflexiones de Didier Darcet al respecto. Digamos que tres propietarios vecinos de un mismo barrio, con tres casas idénticas, sufren un gran incendio en el vecindario que destruye por completo sus propiedades. Tienen por tanto la misma volatilidad inicial, ya que sus activos se han depreciado de idéntica manera en valor y tiempo:
.
El primero no dispone de ningún seguro que le resarza de las pérdidas, por tanto las sufrirá de manera permanente. Es cierto que con el tiempo la inflación y la devaluación de su divisa pueden hacer que su parcela vacía llegue a valer nominalmente lo mismo que valía su casa antes del incendio. Pero esa inflación/devaluación y el coste de oportunidad dilapidado a lo largo de buena parte de su vida inversora harán que sus pérdidas hayan sido permanentes a pesar de recuperar en el tiempo el mísmo importe nominal de dinero. Para este primer vecino, sufrir un incendio era un riesgo real. Y después del trauma probablemente decida vender su parcela de manera poco reflexiva o por necesidad, para trasladarse a otro barrio más barato o a una casa de alquiler, donde se crea más a salvo de futuros riesgos.
El segundo sí dispone de un seguro contra incendios equivalente al coste de construcción de la casa, por lo que, digamos a medio plazo, puede reponer el activo y recuperar la pérdida sufrida a corto plazo. Por tanto, a pesar de que tiene la misma volatilidad a corto y medio plazo que el primer vecino, su riesgo estaría prácticamente anulado por el seguro. Algunos dirían que es un propietario sin riesgo a medio/largo plazo, aunque con una innegable volatilidad si se produce el siniestro. ¿Acaso un propietario como éste podría considerar que tiene riesgo de perder una parte de su patrimonio? A corto plazo sí, pero nadie en su sano juicio debería considerar que es un propietario arriesgado o que tome riesgos, si éstos están asegurados y van a ser recuperables con total seguridad a medio o largo plazo.
El tercer propietario dispone también de un seguro que le cubre el coste de construcción y le va a permitir reponer su casa. Pero además va a querer y poder aprovecharse de las circunstancias actuales, y va a comprar la parcela de su vecino sin seguro a buen precio, aprovechando la necesidad y/o el miedo que éste pueda tener a causa del incendio (pérdida temporal o volatilidad) sufrido en el barrio. Por tanto va a convertir su pérdida temporal en un mayor beneficio a medio y largo plazo. Y lo más curioso es que la volatilidad de este tercer caso será incluso superior a corto y medio plazo a la de los dos anteriores, manteniendo un riesgo prácticamente nulo. En el caso de un inversor financiero, la compra de la casa del vecino sería el equivalente a la recompra de más participaciones de buenos fondos Value o acciones de empresas extraordinariamente baratas, es decir aprovecharse del miedo y/o necesidad de otros para comprar activos con alto Valor a bajo precio.
Aquí conviene recordar que el primer gráfico se basa en inversores (propietarios) como el segundo vecino, es decir que van a recuperar sus pérdidas temporales a medio y largo plazo. Pero imaginaos ahora cómo sería ese mismo gráfico si además el inversor es capaz de aprovechar los momentos de volatilidad (de incendio) para invertir más y comprar adicionalmente activos a precios inusitadamente bajos. Obviamente las recuperaciones de las pérdidas temporales serían mucho más rápidas, acortando de manera espectacular los periodos de pérdidas a corto e incrementando muy sustancialmente los rendimientos a largo plazo. Esto es fácil decirlo pero difícil hacerlo, ya que el impulso primitivo natural es el de huír de los activos que dan pérdidas, como huye del barrio donde ha habido un incendio el primer vecino.
.
Por todo ello, los lectores deberían plantearse sus inversiones financieras del mismo modo que el tercer vecino, siempre que sean capaces de invertir en fondos de gestión activa que superen consistente y permanentemente a los índices. Si lo hacen de ese modo, su volatilidad y sus rendimientos serán elevados, mientras que a la vez mantendrán un nulo riesgo de pérdidas permanentes. Y si los inversores no son capaces de encontrar dichos fondos, siempre podrán emular al segundo vecino a través de fondos de gestión pasiva, asumiendo volatilidad a corto y medio plazo a cambio de anular el riesgo de pérdidas permanentes.
.
Afortunadamente para los vecinos como el tercero, la mayoría se comportan como el primero. Sin estos ofuscados y/o necesitados inversores no habría una oferta masiva que desplomase los precios después de los incendios. Por eso los grandes gestores rezan y ponen velitas a Santa Volatilidad, para que la esquizofrenia de Mr. Market les traiga oportunidades. A mayor volatilidad (incendios) a corto plazo, más oportunidades de inversión se producirán y mayor rentabilidad a largo plazo obtendremos con menos riesgo de pérdidas permanentes, que son las únicas pérdidas que nos deben importar a los inversores. Conceptos radicalmente opuestos a las consignas de la mayor parte de los profesionales del sector, que siguen obstinados en colocar a sus clientes más conservadores activos con escasa volatilidad y, paradójicamente mayor riesgo real de pérdidas permanentes. Quizá sea porque para los bancos, al igual que para los políticos, el largo plazo es ciencia ficción. Unos con el fin de la legislatura, y otros con el cobro del variable o la cifra de ventas obligada a fin de año, pero ambos con una miopía galopante. Y porque cuando hablan de riesgo se refieren al riesgo que ellos mismos tienen de perder a sus clientes en cuanto sus carteras, sin el seguro contra incendios que suponen unos buenos fondos Value de bolsa, empiezan a humear.
¿Os imagináis poder invertir en los mejores fondos institucionales del planeta, donde invierten las manos fuertes del mundo financiero, con tan solo 125.000 euros? Nos referimos a poder invertir en fondos y hedge funds con barreras de entrada de 500.000, un millón o cinco millones de inversión mínima. Fondos que, a pesar de seguir abiertos (de momento), tienen mínimos prohibitivos para carteras que no alcancen al menos los 10 millones, si desean una diversificación adecuada de gestores y zonas geográficas. Fondos que por la brillantez de sus rendimientos históricos están a años luz respecto al catálogo de fondos que vende la banca española, como explicamos ya en «Fondos y Hedge Funds institucionales, la liga en la que no pueden jugar los inversores retail». Estamos hablando de gestores de la talla de Branis, Jiang o Simons del mítico Medallion, que han demostrado durante décadas que están por encima de los demás, consiguiendo alphas descomunales como las que podemos ver en las siguientes tablas.
<
Pues bien, algunos fondos de fondos agrupan en sus carteras gestores de grandes fondos y hedge funds institucionales y «trocean» esos mínimos de inversión prohibitivos en tickets de tan sólo 125.000, como decíamos al principio del artículo. Lógicamente, esta facilitación para que puedan acceder inversores menores requiere un análisis exhaustivo y una selección previa de fondos que no es gratis. Todos estos fondos de fondos cobran una comisión adicional a las que de por sí ya tienen los fondos subyacentes. Es decir, que se estará pagando comisión sobre comisión. Pero si la cartera de fondos subyacentes es lo suficientemente potente en rendimientos netos, y las comisiones del fondo de fondos son moderadas, el resultado será el de fondos de fondos que seguirán superando a sus respectivos índices de referencia de manera muy jugosa.
En el gráfico de arriba podréis ver el rendimiento que ha obtenido uno de estos fondos de fondos, domiciliado en Luxemburgo, en cuyo interior se concentran los 3 gestores arriba mencionados y media docena más de primeras espadas de la gestión Value de fondos institucionales. Como veréis, el fondo se compara con un índice compuesto por 50% MSCI World y 50% MSCI EM, lo cual le pone el listón muy alto, ya que si os fijáis en la mayoría de índices de referencia que utilizan los fondos, suelen ser del tipo AR (absolute return) u otras definiciones menos comprensibles. Estas nomenclaturas de la mayoría de índices o benchmarks «capan» los rendimientos del índice en cuestión respecto al índice bursátil del respectivo país con el objetivo de que el fondo lo supere visualmente de manera más holgada. Esto suele producir falsos alphas, que resultan engañosos para los inversores, ya que en muchos casos esos fondos tampoco superan a sus puros índices de referencia o lo hacen de manera muy mediocre, lo cual no justifica sus costes de gestión activa. En cambio, en este fondo de fondos la comparación es a pelo con el MSCI World y Emergente, lo cual es muy de agradecer y dice mucho de la potencia de los fondos subyacentes, puesto que los vienen superando ampliamente.
.
Como podréis apreciar, a pesar de que el fondo fue lanzado en Mayo 2018 y la mayoría del rendimiento es una simulación del comportamiento de todos esos fondos subyacentes en los últimos cinco años, ya en rendimientos reales de 2018 está más que amortizando sus comisiones sobre comisiones.
.
¿Cuál es la mala noticia? Pues que la mayoría de estos fondos de fondos, al igual que ocurre con los fondos institucionales subyacentes, tampoco se comercializan en España. Y por tanto, hoy por hoy, la única forma de acceder a ellos es abrir una cuenta en un banco luxemburgués que acepte clientes menores (tarea más difícil de lo que parece sin la referencia adecuada) y suscribirlo desde allí con un mínimo de 125.000 euros.
.
Comparad los rendimientos de las tablas con los de cualquier fondo de inversión pasiva y veréis como, a pesar de la mediocridad generalizada de la gestión activa, algunos gestores se ganan sobradamente sus comisiones. Lo difícil es encontrarlos, pero aún es más difícil poder acceder a ellos con importes menores. Aunque como siempre solemos decir, haberlos haylos, como ya explicamos en el blog de Cobas.
.
Disclaimer: This article does not represent an investment recommendation for the products mentioned. The funds referred to in the article are not registered for marketing in Spain and are only suitable for qualified investors, with minimums ranging from €125,000 to €5,000,000.
Después del Capítulo 1: Endeudamiento, vamos con la segunda entrega de los razonamientos, frases y conclusiones del genio Warren Buffett, extraídos de las múltiples Cartas a los Accionistas que ha publicado Berkshire Hathaway a lo largo de décadas, conferencias, coloquios universitarios, entrevistas en múltiples medios de comunicación, ensayos personales o comentarios realizados en la Comisión de Investigación sobre la Crisis Financiera.
.
En este Capítulo 2 trataremos la visión de Buffet del concepto de inversión y la forma en que cada persona aborda esta práctica tan determinante en la vida:
.
Invertir bien no está vinculado a un alto coeficiente intelectual. Con una inteligencia normal se puede invertir de manera excelente. Sólo hace falta carácter para controlar los impulsos irracionales que arruinan a otros inversores inteligentísimos. Para evitar dichos impulsos, es conveniente reflexionar mucho sobre las inversiones. Y para hacerlo, la mejor forma es estar sólo en una habitación y pensar. Si eso no funciona, créeme que nada más lo hará.
.
Cuando fui adolescente pasé 8 años haciendo gráficos para ganar dinero en bolsa (chartista). Entonces álguien me dijo que nada de aquello era necesario, que bastaba con comprar algo por debajo de su valor. Conocer de primera mano el chartismo te hace pisar más firme cuando lo abandonas definitivamente para buscar el valor fundamental en tus inversiones.
.
Invertir con poco dinero mejora las expectativas de rendimientos, contrariamente a lo que muchos piensan. Con poco dinero y pocas oportunidades para invertirlo, solemos elegir mucho mejor. Sin embargo la mayoría de gente atribuye sus fracasos a la escasez de millones y no a sus malas decisiones (desde nuestra visión como Multi-Family Office podemos asegurar que eso es totalmente cierto, cuanto mayor es el patrimonio de un nuevo Cliente que llega a nosotros, paradójicamente más ineficiente suele ser la gestión del mismo).
.
Quiero ser propietario de activos que sean productivos. Parece una obviedad, pero es asombrosa la cantidad de gente que está de acuerdo con esta frase y sin embargo invierten su dinero en activos no productivos, a la espera de que alguien pague más por ellos en el futuro, y esa es la esencia de la especulación.
.
La especulación no es inmoral, ni ilegal, ni engorda, ni es pecado. Pero es jugar a algo totalmente distinto de invertir en algo que te va a producir ingresos con el tiempo. A partir del momento en el que compro algo, sea una granja o cualquier empresa, me olvido de su cotización y me centro en lo que produce cada año, y si esa producción es satisfactoria o no en relación con lo que he pagado.
.
No creo que si el presidente de la FED me dijera al oído las decisiones que fuera a tomar en el futuro cambiara mi opinión sobre mis negocios adquiridos. Simplemente los voy a tener durante muchos años mientras dichos negocios funcionen. Si de verdad entiendes de negocios, probablemente no deberías tener más de 6. Si puedes identificar 6 buenos negocios no necesitas mayor diversificación, porque las probabilidades de que se tuerzan más de uno o dos son realmente bajas si los conoces y analizas correctamente. Si en cambio inviertes en un séptimo y un octavo, en lugar de poner más dinero en tu primero y segundo, vas a cometer un error. Casi nadie se ha hecho rico gracias a su séptima mejor idea.
.
La concentración debe ser directamente proporcional al conocimiento de los activos en los que inviertes. En cambio, para la población en general, sin interés ni dedicación al análisis de los negocios, y por tanto desconociéndolos, la diversificación es la clave de su éxito. Lo mismo puede decirse a los inversores en fondos de inversión. Si no se dedican al análisis y selección de los fondos de inversión activa -o contratan a álguien que lo haga por ellos-, que les permita seleccionar un puñado de fondos que consigan superar a los Mercados, lo mejor que pueden hacer es invertir en fondos de inversión pasiva, que al menos les asegurarán no hacerlo peor que el Mercado. Es cierto que la selección de empresas de Berkshire Hathaway ha obtenido una rentabilidad superior, pero invertir en las empresas de EE.UU. en su conjunto (fondos de gestión pasiva o ETFs) no ha sido hasta hoy una mala inversión, y eso es algo que puede hacer cualquiera si tiene suficiente paciencia.
.
La paciencia es otra de las claves para el inversor. De hecho el Mercado es un sistema que distribuye dinero de los impacientes hacia los pacientes. Y es la obsesión por el precio de las cosas y no por su valor la que genera la fatal impaciencia. Intento comprar un dólar por 60 centavos. Y si veo posibilidades de conseguirlo no me importa cuanto tiempo deba esperar. Pero si veo hoy algo atractivo, no dejaré pasar la oportunidad a la espera de que más adelante pueda aparecer algo aún más atractivo.
.
Si van por la carretera y ven un puente que soporta un máximo de 4,000, no intenten cruzarlo con un camión de 3,950. Vayan por otra carretera y crucen por un puente que soporte 7,000. Ese es el mismo márgen de seguridad que deben mantener cuando realizan una inversión. No deben comprar un negocio que vale 100 por 95, sino buscar uno que valga 100 pero que puedan comprar por 60.
Buffett ha sido y será uno de los genios del mundo de la inversión durante generaciones. Un personaje que, al igual que otros insignes como Einstein, Gandhi o Adam Smith, dejan una huella intelectual que hace avanzar y evolucionar a quienes se interesan por beber de sus conocimientos. Por ello, merece la pena que dediquemos algunos artículos a recordar algunas de sus citas y reflexiones más interesantes que ha hecho públicas a lo largo de su larga vida. Los razonamientos, frases y conclusiones que incluiremos en esta sere de artículos están extraídos de las múltiples Cartas a los Accionistas que ha publicado Berkshire Hathaway a lo largo de décadas, conferencias, coloquios universitarios, entrevistas en múltiples medios de comunicación, ensayos personales o comentarios realizados en la Comisión de Investigación sobre la Crisis Financiera.
.
En este Capítulo 1 trataremos algunos pensamientos relacionados con el endeudamiento que resultarán deliciosos para cualquier inversor:
.
Esencialmente existen dos tipos de endeudamiento, el público o del Estado, y el privado o de la población (nos centraremos en el endeudamiento privado, ya que de todos es sabido que el público suele utilizarse de manera nefasta y abusiva hasta niveles de endeudamiento tan descomunales como los actuales en los Estados desarrollados). Dentro del endeudamiento privado también es imprescindible distinguir dos tipos: El endeudamiento para el consumo y el endeudamiento de inversión/ahorro.
.
El endeudamiento para el consumo es algo malo, ya que tan sólo drena potencial de inversión y reduce las posibilidades de ganar dinero en el futuro. Ejemplos de deuda para el consumo sería un crédito para comprarse un coche, para hacer unas buenas vacaciones o las mismísimas tarjetas de crédito. Mientras que el endeudamiento de ahorro o inversión tiene un componente más positivo, ya que permiten cambiar fracciones de capital a lo largo del tiempo por otros activos que, teóricamente, deberían apreciarse durante ese mismo periodo de tiempo. El ejemplo más comunmente conocido es el de una hipoteca, en la que cambiamos dinero, que devolveremos fraccionadamente, por la adquisición de ladrillos que en principio van a mantener o superar el valor del dinero invertido en el tiempo. Otros endeudamientos para inversión son por ejemplo las líneas de crédito que permiten ampliar un negocio, bien comprando otras empresas o expandiéndose con nuevas instalaciones, maquinaria, personal, etc. Todo ello con la intención de que ese capital que se amortizará en el tiempo se transforme en otros activos que mantengan o superen su valor inicial.
.
Sin embargo (o con él), las recomendaciones para evitar endeudarse de manera importante son diáfanas: Si eres inteligente no necesitas crédito, y si no lo eres no deberías utilizarlo. El endeudamiento es la única manera de arruinar a una persona inteligente. Si estás libre de deuda evitas meterte en problemas cuando las cosas no salen como habías planeado, cosa que ocurre en la mayoría de ocasiones.
.
Comprar una empresa utilizando gran cantidad de endeudamiento, o asumiendo una gran deuda existente en esa empresa, generalmente da un resultado negativo. Es como conducir con un puñal en el volante apuntando a tu corazón. Más te vale ser un excelente conductor y ser extremadamente prudente, lo cual te evitará muchos accidentes, pero cuando tengas uno será mortal. Ese es el efecto perverso del endeudamiento, que contrarresta los muchos beneficios que te puede conllevar si todo sale sorprendentemente bien. Es como el alcohol, una copa es satisfactoria, pero 10 copas traen muchos problemas y te pueden arruinar la vida fácilmente.
.
El endeudamiento, además, es adictivo. Cuando las cosas salen bien uno cree ser el más listo de la clase, y sus amigos, vecinos y entorno parecen confirmarlo con su admiración y aplausos. Cuando eso ocurre, nuestra naturaleza humana nos impide parar y bajarnos del tren. Lo mismo ocurre cuando Mr. Market sube y sube sin parar, los codiciosos inversores sólo ven su meritoria capacidad para ganar dinero en bolsa. No importa el precio de las empresas que está comprando, sólo los beneficios que consigue día tras día. Hasta que alguna cosa se tuerce. En ese momento el puñal del volante atraviesa, rápida e irremediablemente, el corazón del eufórico conductor endeudado.
There is no antidote to the incoming tsunami. We continue to fiddle absentmindedly in the sand, wondering whether our children should learn English, Chinese or German, while they go to the university around the corner to get a degree in a subject for which we delusionally think they will have no shortage of work. Unfortunately this will not be the case. Experts warn that our children will have to adapt to work in professions that do not yet exist today and that no less than 75% of today's professions will cease to exist. The million-dollar question is what we can do to be as well prepared as possible for these radical changes. But the honest answer is that the disruptive advances of AI are so brutal and imminent, there is seemingly nowhere to take cover. The tsunami is already upon us, and all we can do is stop fiddling absentmindedly on the shore and face it head on and try to survive occupationally and socially.
The million-dollar question in the title of this article is: Can I really send my children to a university in the USA? Most families would think that only an elite group with extremely bright sons or daughters can get enough scholarships to study there, unless the parents are millionaires and can afford to pay huge sums. But they are wrong. The flexibility of the American university system allows foreign families to access academic scholarships that are relatively suitable for any good student.. This is a true policy of attracting universal talent. Let's say that with a remarkably high average of the last 4 years of studies in Spain, that is, from 3rd ESO to 2nd Bachillerato, with grades between 7 and 9 out of 10, you can find scholarships that cover a very substantial part of the cost of tuition fees. Obviously there is also the cost of room and board for the student, but this is comparable to the cost of any student from here attending a university in a Spanish city other than their own, which would require them to pay for a student flat and daily meals.
One of the most important benefits of the whole application process is that, during the months of preparation, the pupils will give a huge qualitative leap in maturity and motivation. Their personality will mature due to the process of internal reflection that the pupils will go through as they work on their Essays with our coaches. They will have to explain in essays of only 500 to 600 words who they are and why the university should choose them over other candidates. What personal merits they have accumulated in their short life and what they want to make of it in their future. They will become aware of the high level of competition for admission to the university of their dreams (don't worry, the final list of universities to which they will apply will include options accessible to the student and no one will ever be left without at least one letter of admission). This whole process will make them appreciate much more and much better the financial effort made by their parents for them. For the first time in their lives, they will have to analyse who they are and present their best version of themselves to the world in order to be worthy of the prize of receiving an admission letter. Here we leave you 
