Cluster Family Office Blog

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine, who is also a renowned criminal lawyer in Barcelona. He told me that in the first quarter the number of insolvency cases handled by his law firm that year had already exceeded the number of throughout 2007. And that in the second quarter, the upward trend had been even more pronounced. He also told me that many of his clients, who had had stable business partners for many years, were now in dispute with one another for various reasons. Various, yes, but always financial. Logically, financial difficulties within a company put the strength of the relationship between partners to the test in a dramatic way. And many partnerships that have been stable for years shatter into pieces when the red figures begin to seriously affect the partners’ pockets.

«Serious, well-educated and high-profile business partners tear each other apart in court over money,» this prestigious lawyer remarked to me in a chilling tone. Indeed, the organisational charts of corporate senior management are in turmoil during times of loss. And reaching a point of insolvency is always traumatic. In most cases, it involves the breakdown of internal relationships, the sacking of senior and executive management, backstabbing amongst shareholders and, of course, staff cuts accompanied by the collapse of the employer–employee relationship, if indeed such a relationship ever existed.

According to my friend at this leading Barcelona law firm, they have never before witnessed such a collapse in business activity and such a surge in insolvency cases as we are seeing now. So much so that they have had to adapt their internal structure and HR arrangements to cope with this avalanche of business failures, the end of which is nowhere in sight.

Speaking to another friend, this time a tax adviser, he told me that he has many (and when I say many, I mean exactly that) clients with businesses that are waiting for the end of the holiday season so they won’t have to reopen in September. This is set to become widespread practice. In other words, the unemployment figures after the summer are not only going to skyrocket due to the traditional end of the season in the service sector (restaurants, hotels, etc.), but also because of the thousands of workers who will find themselves out of work when they return from their paid holidays in convenient payment terms all-inclusive, right up to dismissal.

Will these workers’ household finances be able to cope with the loss or reduction of one of their incomes when their unemployment benefit comes to an end? For the most part, no. Their levels of debt are often so crippling that any dip in their earnings would shatter the fragile balance of their household finances.

In the face of this massive increase in insolvency cases pre- and, above all post-When it comes to holidays, the classic film springs to mind Timo del Nazareno:

It involves setting up a commercial enterprise, preferably a limited liability company, which begins to make purchases from various suppliers, initially paying for the first purchases in cash until it has gained their trust. From that point onwards, larger purchases are made, using bills of exchange and promissory notes as a form of payment, drawn on dormant bank accounts, whilst the goods, before the payment due date, are either resold at half price or simply diverted, resulting in the bills being dishonoured when presented for collection.

The term ‘scam’ for the Nazarene It stems from the «queue» of debtors caused by this type of fraud, who, just like penitents, turn to the banks in an attempt to cash the promissory notes and bills of exchange issued by the alleged fraudsters.

But of course, there are significant differences: a business owner who will no longer be opening their doors in September is not doing so out of a desire to defraud, but because of an accounting error; and it is not a premeditated act but a regrettable measure resulting from the crisis and/or negligence in business management. What I am not so sure about is whether, before pulling down the shutters, business owners have not done everything possible to minimise the residual assets they will have to face in insolvency proceedings. A practice which, on the other hand, seems perfectly understandable to me. Clearly, the trail of aggrieved creditors that both business owners and fraudsters will leave in their wake will be worthy of the name ‘Nazareno’.

In these times of crisis, the line between the Nazarene con artists and the businesspeople who make purchases – some of which they will sell, some of which they won’t, and which they will never be able to pay for – is becoming increasingly blurred. But what is worrying is that, whether in good or bad faith, the Nazarene penitents are set to swell the already long queues of creditors in a dramatic domino effect.

It is of no use for a brilliant (but not brilliant) businessman from Valladolid to be involved in cultural and sporting university movements during his younger years. It is of no use that at the age of 30 he leads the general secretariat of the local UCD, nor that his time in politics perfects his capacity for future dialogue in the world of big business. It is of no use that he moved to live in the capital of Spain and that in just 5 years he became CEO of a real estate company called Prehogar. Nor that he later founded with other partners his first own companies: Inomar and Contrucciones Pórtico, whose Managing Director from 1992 to 1996 was Francisco Javier Cerceda Colado, ex-Division General and deputy director of the Guardia Civil, where he was appointed president of the Patronato de Viviendas, and from whose experience his partner and vice-president Fernando Martín obviously benefited... It is of no use at all.

At that time, Mr. Martín had already created Promociones y Urbanizaciones Martín, S.A. (Martinsa), with very moderate activity and growth. Perhaps that is why he continued to accumulate various companies: Jafemafe, Femaral, Almarfe, Fercler, Premier Martinsa (until recently called Martinsa Norte), Inmobiliaria Marplus and FT Castellana Consultores Inmobiliarios. Many of them were nothing more (and nothing less) than mere property companies, but others were dedicated to what really made him great: land management in the midst of the rezoning and credit fiasco. His influences, his complicity with Florentino Pérez and FCC, did the rest.. In the face of accusations of influence peddling, Fernando Martín repeated incessantly: “The business is in unconsolidated land. And that's where imagination and intuition come into play”. Indeed, we sensed and imagined how he was making dream capital gains, one after the other. He even sat in the dock but was acquitted due to the well-known lack of evidence. At the time, he boasted that he was able to get a finalist floor in less than 50 days... It's no use.

Until a couple of years ago alone, he accumulated more than 550 million euros in stock market assets, achieving capital gains of up to 120 million euros in just one year. Sacyr Vallehermoso. But it is of no use that at the beginning of the 21st century his business take-off was meteoric, nor that in 2006 he bought Fadesa and created Martinsa-Fadesa with a presence in 14 countries. The feet of this giant were made of clay. Of a mud built on a real estate bubble and a banking credit lust, which burst months ago.

Mr. Fernando Martín, as you would say my admired Groucho Marx, «the game is over«. But for whom? Unfortunately, this is the million-dollar question. The game is over For the shareholders who trusted you, for the families who bought their flats that you will never finish building, for the shareholders of the banks who trusted you, and we could go on with the list of despair until we bleed to death. But what about you, Mr Martin? For you, only one of your toys is finished, the one that made the most noise, the one that amused you the most and even, who knows, the one that made you the most money. But what about your diversified businesses? Those that are known (3% of Unión Fenosa, 1% of Telefónica, 1% of BBVA, 1% of BSCH, etc.), those that only your friends know, and above all those that are not known. He is known to have more than significant holdings in distribution companies (supermarkets), and seats on a wide range of boards of directors. Mere tips of the iceberg.

I am not criticising him for having diversified his assets at all. Not to have done so would have been reckless and naïve on his part (even Bañuelos did so). But it is not credible that he did not see the danger of not diversifying Martinsa-Fadesa itself at the height of the bubble. Sorry Fernando Martín, nor were the re-qualification bucks repeated by chance, nor was their foresight of the bursting of the bubble so short-sighted.. He simply used one of his tools, one of his toys, until it stopped working. The current real estate and, above all, credit scenario no longer compensates him for his efforts, and not only did he do nothing to avoid bankruptcy, but I fear that it is an end designed and adapted to the future plans he has for his assets. And worst of all, the size of Martinsa-Fadesa makes the Government tremble and force it to buy land from you to pay your debts, thus extending the collateral damage caused by you to immoral extremes.

Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of «imagination and intuition». To be a good businessman it is not enough to make a company big and influential, you also have to make it solid, strong, agile, indestructible. Something similar to what you have done with your personal assets. This is the only way to be an entrepreneur in capital letters. You are not, because the only thing you have consolidated is your own fortune. And that is useless without a minimum of moral and human qualities.

Wealth without Ethics is despicable. This from a Family Office where we see many ways of amassing fortunes, Mr. Fernando Martín.

(…)Pero “tranquilos”, la sangre de todos no llegará al río. Nuestro sistema financiero no corre peligro de muerte mientras quede margen para una mayor miseria social. Lamentablemente así son las reglas del juego. Pero el anchor effect In good times, it helps us look the other way. As he said, Supetramp in 1975: Crisis? What Crisis?

Hoy ya nadie puede mirara hacia otro lado. Todos sabemos, incluso los más optimistas o peor informados (¿dónde habré oido esta frase?), que estamos en crisis. O mejor dicho en Crisis, en mayúsculas. A algunos les ha costado mucho concebir una gran crisis sin crack bursátil, con el permiso del amago del 21 de Enero pasado, pero hoy en día hasta los más lentos de reflejos saben que occidente está en crisis. No obstante, parece que los peligros que algunos veían amenazando la supervivencia del Sistema Financiero se purgará a base del empobrecimiento global.

El aumento del coste energético ha popularizado, sin duda, esta sensación de crisis. Pero aún, para la mayoría, es poco más que una sensación. Los precios aumentan como consecuencia inmediata del precio del crudo, pero las consecuencias laborales de la contracción del consumo todavía son incipientes. El paro tan sólo comienza a repuntar y la sociedad apenas ha comenzado a sufrir las consecuencias del empobrecimiento del Sistema Económico. Además, viniendo de orgías consumistas y lujurias financieras nunca vistas, la caída será aún más dolorosa. El terremoto se ha producido, los sismólogos lo saben bien, pero la población, a pesar de algunas voces de alarma cada día menos incipientes, en general aguarda inconsciente la llegada del tsunami.

Muy pocos intuyen la magnitud de la tragedia, porque muy pocos corren. Es decir, las economías domésticas de guerra con apretadas drásticas de cinturón, sólo se producen en los casos en los que ya les salpica el agua. El resto oye hablar de crisis a diario pero confían en que sus vidas no van a cambiar sustancialmente. A lo sumo menos vacaciones o menos caprichos caros como cambios de coches, etc. Pero la realidad es que muchos perderán gran parte de sus ingresos y los ajustes tendrán que ser mucho más dramáticos.

Afortunadamente tenemos margen para una mayor miseria social. Que nadie se ofenda: Me refiero a que en general hasta hace un puñado de meses la clase media consumía y se endeudaba muy por encima de sus posibilidades reales. Y la media/alta también, sólo hay que ver las cifras récord de Ferraris vendidos entre la población cuyas fortunas no eran suficientes para este tipo de lujos. El hecho de habernos emborrachado de créditos al consumo, hipotecas y vuelos al caribe hasta casi el coma etílico, nos condena a una resaca fortísima y larga, muy larga. El ciclo de una profunda y compleja crisis como esta puede ser largo. A pesar de que las fuerzas políticas, empresariales e institucioneles intenten convencer a la población de que en un par de años malos purgaremos nuestros pecados, la triste realidad es otra. Probablemente (ya que no tenemos la bola de cristal que parecen tener algunos), en España los vendedores de pisos no verán mejorar sus valoraciones de mercado en los próximos 5 o incluso 10 años, ni podremos llenar nuestros depósitos a los precios del pasado año, ni volverán los bancos a facilitarnos hipotecas del 80% de la tasación (a pesar de que algunas voces oficiales lo reclaman temerariamente), ni créditos al consumo sin sólidas garantías, ni…

En Japón llevan casi 20 años sin plusvalías de ningún tipo: Sueldos, precios, valores inmobiliarios ni, por supuesto, bolsa. Ese modelo recesivo que para nosotros es economía-ficción, existe. Las tan sobadas frases oidas en España como: «El ladrillo nunca baja»; o «en RV a medio plazo siempre ganas»; o la mismísima «cada día todo está más caro», son una quimera para el japonés de la generación de los últimos 20 años. Y 20 años es casi media vida inversora, no lo olvidemos. No me cansaré de recordar que el mismísimo Dow Jones apenas subió un 10% entre 1965 y 1983 (18 años), y eso en un entorno de crecimiento y no recesivo.

Como en una maquiavélica alineación astronómica, hoy se dan diversas circunstancias fatales coincidentes en tiempo (desde aprox. 2007) y lugar (occidente): Desmoronamiento del abuso en las titulizaciones, pichazo de la burbuja inmobiliaria, endeudamiento abusivo generalizado y una crisis del petróleo que va más allá del aumento de precios (peak oil). Como habréis visto, no incluyo una crisis bursátil, aunque es evidente que muchas reservas patrimoniales de las familias estaban malblindadas en acciones (manda huevos) que hoy también se ven muy recortadas, agravando así las consecuencias de dicha acumulación coincidente de factores fatales. ¿Conjunción planetaria fruto de la mala suerte? En absoluto. No es más que fruto de nuestros excesos, abusos y nuestro malhacer. Esperemos que el final sea menos desagradable y traumático que los excesos del protagonista del siguiente memorable video de «The meaning of Life» de los Monty Python.

A pesar de todo me gustaría acabar con un cierto optimismo y quiero pensar que en el negro horizonte se abrirá una brecha de luz económica, que hoy no acierto a adivinar, y que amortiguará la caída (energía alternativa, boom tecnológico, economías emergentes…quién sabe). Aunque no estoy muy seguro de que sea sano ni prudente evitar un cierto desastre que nos permita arrancar de nuevo sobre fundamentos asépticos y capaces de aguantar nuestros futuros excesos.

Esperemos que este anuncio, que podría haber sido redactado por Henry Paulson conjuntamente con Citi, surja efecto y atraiga algún carroñero salvador antes de que el dinero público deba limpiar tarde y mal los restos en putrefacción, como sucede sin ir más lejos con IndyMac Bank. Es labor de todos maquillar y sanear suficientemente unos restos cada día menos apetecibles para hacerlos atractivos, sexys, asequibles e interesantes para los carroñeros. De otro modo se nos complicaría todo muchísimo.

Sí a todo, Sr. Carroñero. God Bless Scavengers!

Recordamos hoy el artículo en el que hablábamos del afán de la clase media por conseguir un pelotazo que les sitúe directamente en un estatus superior, descuidando así su progresión profesional y laboral.

Con los tiempos que corren quizás más de uno añore la situación de hace un año donde un trabajador podía centrarse en el esfuerzo por progresar en su puesto de trabajo o mejorando su condición cambiando de empresa, sin sentir el aliento del despido en el cogote. Os dejo con el artículo original:

La cultura del pelotazo y el Pixie Dust

The fishermen arrived in the middle of a troubled river. And of course they won. They won over chastened followers (or inept ones) who wanted to see alternative investment as a substitute for the bullish rallies to which the stock market has been giving them a hard time since the beginning of time. Their world, of course. A world, that of these investors, which is inconceivable without capital gains in equities that in many cases exceed the earning capacity of their own work. How clever we all were, weren't we?

But then came the stock market cuts and the reproaches began to be heaped on their vaunted managers and bankers. Why didn't they warn them that they were going to suffer such large and persistent losses? Isn't that their job? What use are their ties, their courses (not even masters anymore), their experience...? Faced with this avalanche of blame, managers tend to react in two very different ways:

1. The incompetent and inexperienced (although there are some middle-aged ones) are as surprised as the client himself. I would never have imagined that VR could lose so much and, more importantly, beyond one or two bad years. Most have even dragged down not only their clients but also their family and close friends, and of course their own savings. In fact, the only one they have not harmed is the very entity they work for, since they have sold fish left, right and centre, generating a large amount of commissions. But that does not mean they will keep their jobs, since the flight of clients, and the consequent reduction in profits in the manager's operating account, inevitably digs their grave.
2. On the other hand, the old dog (with almost all due respect), knows perfectly well that these are lean times and that it is necessary to operate clients morning and afternoon. The market is not going to be able to take the rain as it has in the past, although this time it looks worse, as there is no stock market crash to excuse itself for, and it is going to be a long one. However, it knows that it has alternative weapons at its disposal to continue sucking commissions from its clients who have been chastened by the traditional RV. The entities for which they work nimbly have supplied them with them. and have even trained them minimally to use them.

However, there are managers whose power of conviction is not sufficiently oppressive and who allow their clients to doze off for some time in simple deposits. while inflation eats away at them and their private banking or management company bosses lose their patience.

But let's focus on the managers and bankers of champions, the fishermen who win in troubled waters, i.e. those who really generate profits for the entities in which they work. They have managed to ensure that their clients see alternative investments as an idem for their longed-for annual capital gains of 12, 18, 25% or even more. The «perfect antidote».» against western RV downgrades. Many investors have bought alternative funds confusing them with hedge funds (which is very common) and without really knowing what either one or the other means. They just wanted to hear that these investments would continue to make money despite stock market declines.

They care little about knowing the truth. And the truth is that a alternative investment is as undefined and absurd as to say market investment. Do investors know whether their alternative investment is based on hedge funds with 50% or 800% leverage? Do they know whether they invest in yield curves or equity spreads? Do they know whether they have bought a fund of funds with corresponding fee multiples? Do they know if their money is invested in an unlisted company (venture capital) as a shareholder? Do they know if at the same time they are investing in commodities, emerging or alternative energies? Do they know if they are paying a NAV with the proceeds of a derivative or credit sale that compromises the future of their investment? etc., etc... The unfortunate majority answers are NO. At most a brief history of results and volatilities that is more than ever useless due to the constant adaptation of investment policies to the day-to-day scenario. Because an alternative investment enjoys the greatest freedom of movement for its managers. Anything goes. But if anything goes and the type and strategy of investment changes substantially and constantly, trackbacks are meaningless. If, in addition, if we de-correlate (what a nice word) In the market, not knowing where we put our money, we decide to diversify within the most absolute diversity, what investment criteria do we have? Nil.

In such cases, which are unfortunately all too common, we are only obfuscated by the promise of compensating for longed-for stock market gains. We lose sight of the North, and of course our money. The consequences are already obvious.

What's next for promiscuous investors? The arms industry of the financos It is sure to impress us with shiny new weapons of mass (patrimonial) destruction.

Your comments on strategies for a scenario of severe financial and energy crisis are, as always, very interesting. I would just ask that, even if using an anonymous pseudonym, you post them as comments rather than sending private emails. I believe this is the best way for us all to share ideas – some of which are excellent – whilst reserving emails for personal enquiries, so that this forum doesn’t become overloaded. Having said that, let’s analyse our strategies and yours.

Seeking opportunities in turbulent times. This is how we like to analyse future strategies. Although seeking opportunities means exactly that – that is, making investments that carry a certain degree of risk in pursuit of the potential gains that a crisis scenario often offers. For this reason, given that inherent risk, we must seek out opportunities with caution. Without jeopardising the bulk of our assets, and using only those assets earmarked for this purpose, following a thorough analysis and planning of our PGR. Now that this point has been clarified, let’s move on.

It is quite true, however, that the times ahead may not be as turbulent or difficult as they appear today, and that many of today’s views may turn out to be ridiculous, alarmist exaggerations. Some people, in fact – mainly politicians and bankers – predict just that. It is possible that the credit crisis will be played down and that the worst is now behind us. That, through the natural evolution of social customs or who-knows-what, may time restore confidence in credit, this being the best medicine (or rather the best painkiller – which relieves but does not cure, I would say) for a return to the dangerous and fragile normality of years gone by. It is also possible that the dreaded peak oil that it is a false alarm and that, despite being unable to replace our dependence on oil with anything else, we will continue to extract barrels at somewhat more moderate prices for several decades. Or why not? Perhaps in a few years’ time we will find a viable, cheap and globally accessible alternative energy source. I, too, sincerely hope so, Fernan2. In that case, the current analyses and strategies would be useful, but we wanted this to be an exercise in reflection, considering the hypothesis that we might actually find ourselves in serious trouble.

In that potential worst-case scenario, it is wise to have at least some strategy in place to deal with the possible prolongation and intensification of the current financial and/or energy crisis. The first thing we must reconsider in such a negative scenario is the structure of our assets that need to be protected and the proportion we are willing to risk. And, of course, we must redefine our risk aversion – in fact, redefine our ad hoc risk tolerance. How would we protect the majority of our assets, and where would we look for opportunities? That is undoubtedly the million-dollar question, but we’re going to try to offer some guidance – just as you have done – which may prove useful in the process of each individual analysis. Obviously, it goes without saying that every PGR must be tailored entirely to each individual’s assets, personality, family, idiosyncrasies and circumstances. Having said that, and bearing in mind all the risks involved in offering guidelines without knowing the potential reader inside out, we are going to make some dangerous generalisations (much to the delight of some), assuming a net worth of at least €3 or 4 million:

As regards cash holdings, to begin with, the traditional reliance on banks should be reviewed in favour of a more rigorous selection of institutions and a lower concentration of risk organisation. I’m not quite as convinced as ManuelMad that tax havens are the ideal refuge, but I do agree that, in principle, they should be less affected by the credit crisis. Furthermore, the part we need to shield, one should steer clear of fixed-income securities and lean more towards sovereign bonds, with maturities not exceeding the medium term. ManuelMad commented that he would steer clear of sovereign fixed-income securities, but given such a scenario, we believe that a safe-haven currency and countries least affected by the oil shortage would be safer than corporate alternatives. Perhaps our view of both crises is less bellicose than yours. As for gold as a safe haven, which Manuel also mentions, a 40% allocation to a precious metal strikes me as an excessive concentration of assets in something whose return can only be expected from speculative appreciation. It could be a good investment, but bear in mind that we’re talking about the amounts set aside for protection; as for assets that can withstand certain risks, we’ll find significant investment opportunities (with the potential to gain or lose) in commodities, financial debt «distressed» (not to be confused with the «Distressed Wealth Strategies«), etc.

As for cash exposed to a certain degree of risk, we would consider investing in prime property in the USA. The depressed property market and an attractive exchange rate make this market one worth considering. Even today, we advise many of our clients on the benefits of selling some of their properties in Spain at market prices, in order to take advantage of these opportunities across the Atlantic. Some of you might say that to sell in Spain at the moment, you have to «to sell at a loss«. But it’s not actually that it’s cheap, but rather its actual market price – there is no other. And the opportunity cost may be much higher than the drop in price we have in mind moored. Generating rental income from property in the US $ with rates of return that we haven’t seen in Spain for many years seems to us to be a sound strategy at present, even as the financial and energy crises worsen. That is certainly true Dalamar, that the American model of typical towns The Truman Show where people used to commute 100 miles from home to work, are no longer viable for the average household. In fact, it is this type of housing that has suffered most from the property and mortgage crisis in the US. In Spain, some people will certainly feel the pinch, but we never started from such low petrol prices as they do there, and the cost of travelling by private car has always been factored in in Europe.

As for the portion of cash that is also subject to risk, we would consider investments in equities. Depending on the proportion of total assets and the level of risk we are willing to take, current options include emerging markets. But beware: in the event of a severe energy crisis, their domestic consumption (in China and India), low wages and sluggish GDP growth could take a dramatic turn for the worse. Depending on the severity of the crisis, these markets are only worth considering as long as energy costs do not skyrocket to the point of stifling them. Nevertheless, their extreme volatility should prompt us to exercise caution regarding the volumes invested at present. Another, less volatile option – and one that is indeed compatible with a world where oil is prohibitively expensive – would be the blue-chip companies Americans, but only those who are least affected by a rise in energy prices and its impact on transport costs.

Assuming fuel prices remain significantly higher than they are at present, it seems that one sector that might be spared this problem is the telecommunications or technology sector. The bubble of 2000 is now sufficiently distant and has been sufficiently deflated for the conditions to be in place for it to recur, and this time with less hype and more substance. Furthermore, the challenges facing physical transport could lead to a particular boom for these companies. A portfolio in this sector could be a sound long-term strategy in such a scenario. I agree with Alejandro and Paco, although the sector is so broad that finding the gems amongst all the chaff would not be easy. I would even go so far as to say that, given current energy prices, this investment strategy would already be advisable.

I think a lot of things would change, Tom, the needs might be very similar for a while, but what we really ought to adapt straight away is the way we meet them.

Thank you for your thoughts and analysis of this hypothetical financial and energy scenario. I hope you’ll continue to contribute high-quality content to this blog, as you always do.

We simply wish to offer a brief reminder of the crisis that was clearly looming just a year ago. Some people were still unaware of the crisis that was bearing down on us, whilst others were predicting catastrophes marking the end of civilisation and/or the system. Amidst talk of capital controls and the collapse of the global economy, our perspective was that the financial outlook for the average citizen was deteriorating.

Sadly, it seems time is proving us right. For the time being, the credit crunch and the energy crisis are more than enough to harm billions of people. Dear Virgin Mary, dear Virgin Mary, let me stay just as I am…:

Crisis? What crisis?

«Money doesn’t bring happiness, but it creates a feeling so similar that it takes a highly skilled expert to tell the difference.»

Woody Allen.

Si no conseguimos frenar la escalada del precio de la energía, no sólo se resentirán los estómagos de los países más necesitados y las economías de los países del primer mundo, también supondrá un frenazo a nuestra cuestionada globalización. Y por tanto afectará a la propia evolución de nuestra civilización como tal.

El proceso de globlización iniciado en las últimas décadas, comenzando con la implantación comercial de internet a nivel mundial y siguiendo con los desplazamientos de mercancías y de personas low cost, se verá comprometido en la medida en que el coste energético se multiplique.

Hace alguna generación el consumo de fruta tropical más allá del mismo trópico era imposible. En un futuro inmediato, si la energía sigue encareciéndose, pasará de ser habitual a prohibitivo. La pregunta que podemos lanzar es la siguiente: ¿Es malo que volvamos a consumir sólo productos autóctonos de temporada y deje de haber en el primer mundo de todo y siempre? Mi respuesta sería, depende: Para los países desarrollados en general, no tiene porqué ser dramático, ni siquiera negativo, que sólo se consuman productos de temporada propios y que se deba volver a diversificar la producción autóctona para cubrir las necesidades regionales. En ese caso sólo se importarían productos lejanos necesarios como por ejemplo medicamentos, eso sí a precio de oro (negro, claro). Pero este mismo fenómeno sería pésimo para el mundo no desarrollado, ya que condenarlos a producir sólo para su mercado autóctono significa la extinción de sectores de población incalculables. Imaginar un país emergente o incluso sub-desarrollado sin posibilidad de exportar porque los costes del transporte les arranca de raíz su competitividad, es escalofriante. No obstante, lógicamente los costes del transporte no repercuten igual en un producto grande, pesado y barato que en uno pequeño, ligero y caro. Es decir, por ejemplo el encarecimiento de la energía no afectará tanto al transporte de videocámaras como al de bicicletas, aunque ambos productos sean chinos.

Si alguna ventaja tienen esos países con economías paupérrimas, es precisamente su mano de obra barata que hace atractivos sus productos al primer mundo. Pero en el momento en que cueste lo mismo o menos una sudadera made in Italy, Spain o France que otra (de probable peor calidad) made in Indonesia, Korea o Taiwan, nuestro mundo al que ya nos habíamos acostumbrado, será otro. Deberíamos abandonar la producción especializada que hemos venido evolucionando en el pasado final de siglo, para volver a la producción diversificada por la ausencia de globalización mercantil. El escenario con el que nos veríamos obligados a lidiar con un petróleo desbocado y sin alternativa presente es, cuando menos, inquietante. Sin duda un panorama involutivo a todas luces (con el permiso de los anti-globalización).

Sin embargo, el fenómeno de la globalización es algo difícilmente reversible, sólo un evento que afecte a todo el planeta y de gran calibre como un agotamiento energético, puede frenar (que no parar o eliminar) dicha globalización. Espero que después de haber constatado el peak oil hace tres o cuatro años, y antes de llegar a un agotamiento que vaya más allá del simple encarecimiento del crudo, hayamos sido capaces de desarrollar una alternativa realmente viable y global. De otro modo sí que podemos ver peligrar el hasta hoy vertiginoso ritmo de la globalización.

Metiéndonos en Economía-Ficción, aunque me temo que menos fictícia de lo que parece, vamos a imaginar el escenario de un coste energético insostenible y sostenido. Es decir, que nos pilla el toro (si es que no nos ha pillado ya) y nos vemos abocados a un mundo con los trazos que hemos definido, y además durante décadas. Que no somos capaces de encontrar una alternativa energética barata, abundante y global como lo era el petróleo hasta hace unos años. Imaginemos pues que el comercio internacional se ve modificado drásticamente en consecuencia, y que las industrias y las economías se tornan sensiblemente menos globales. Sin embargo a pesar de este escenario, los mercados financieros seguirían disfrutando del esplendor de los movimientos de la información, y casi ajenos a los problemas de los movimientos de las mercancías y personas. Planteemos algunas cuestiones interesantes: ¿Qué sucederá entonces con las inversiones financieras? ¿Qué estrategias de inversión deberíamos crear para que nuestro patrimonio siguiera una correcta progresión en un escenario de crisis energética drástica?

Sería muy revelador leer vuestros comentarios al respecto, sobre todo si no se reducen sólo a la compra de derivados de petróleo, claro 🙂

Quizás si empezamos a pensar cómo serían nuestras inversiones en ese escenario de economía-ficción, encontraremos alguna directriz interesante y aprovechable para el escenario real actual. Una estrategia de inversión a largo plazo podría necesitar hoy del análisis de esta situación futura.

La globalización de los mercados financieros no necesita petróleo y, de la mano de internet serían los grandes beneficiados de la incapacidad de movimientos físicos causada por la ausencia de energía barata. Y no cabe duda de que, en dicho escenario, las cotizaciones de equities, commodities, RF soberana o corporativa, y en definitiva cualquier producto creado por los financos, se vería profundamante alterado en sus respectivas cotizaciones. ¿Estáis pensando en el mismo sector que yo? ¿Quizás incluso en las mismas empresas?

And the fact is that the mother of all crises no la concibiría sin la madre de todas las oportunidades.

Hay que encontrar un modo de preservar a las generaciones venideras de la avaricia o inhabilidad de las presentes.

Napoleón Bonaparte.

Wealth, fortunately, is mostly redistributed naturally. That is to say, the wealthy spend surpluses more easily in favour of the less wealthy. This quasi-universal law exists in countless areas: From the rich man who lives at a rate that means the livelihood of many families around him; to the football club of the G14 which pays a huge sum for a player from a mediocre club, thus helping to balance the latter's damaged balance sheets.

Almost always the increase in wealth leads to an increase in spending, consumption, investment and/or whatever we want to call it, with many different collaterals benefiting from it. Some of us call this relationship a kind of Win-Win, but sometimes it becomes a parasitic relationship. Some will say that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because of the exploitation of the former by the latter. In that case we would enter into the controversy of who is the parasite and who is the host. But the class struggle is not the main reason for this reflection, so we will ignore this polemic and consider (fairly or not) that the rich is the host and the poor the parasite when it is not a Win-Win relationship.

Not all parasitic relationships are trophic, In other words, they involve an increase in monetary resources that feed the parasite. Sometimes the benefit obtained from the rich or powerful translates into protection from third parties, influence, leisure, business, prestige or other very diverse advantages that have little or no relation to money.

Another example of wealth redistribution would be philanthropic giving. Perhaps mostly residual in volume, but look at the large donations that do occur from time to time. For example, Warren Buffett's recent donation of 37,400,000,000′-$ to charitable foundations (when you read all the zeros, it's more impressive, isn't it?). These types of philanthropic acts are the most straightforward and direct way to redistribute wealth. The most radical and at the same time laudable form of Win-Win decompensated or voluntary parasitism on the part of the host. In the face of an altruistic attitude of this calibre, the balance of the two «win» or the «damage»The "parasite as a passive subject" is something that, happily, escapes us from the traditional analysis of the relationship between wealth and poverty.

Some may criticise such acts as merely laundering the conscience of the rich. I prefer to think that laundering or not, we are dealing with effective redistributions of wealth that honour the human race. NGOs (some) will not only redistribute mere resources but also encourage small forms of autonomous wealth creation, e.g. wells, dams, schools, etc. At this point I cannot fail to mention Vicent Ferrer and its copy Foundation, to which I personally have a couple of splendid ties.

Philanthropy, trade, business, leisure, influence.... whether the relationship between the rich and the poor is parasitic or Win-Win, it tends to compensate to a greater or lesser extent for the distribution of wealth.

But lately there is something that has me a little worried. I am not sure that the hands that have accumulated an enormous amount of wealth since the beginning of the new century have the same profile as the rich to which we are traditionally accustomed. I am basically referring to the Chinese and above all to Arabs (natural and legal persons) who are accumulating astronomical amounts of money day after day. Let us bear in mind that money has always been in the hands of Westerners in the past, either through the merits of their own civilisation or through the plundering of third worlds, but that is how it has traditionally been. But the holders of great wealth have changed in the last decade, in the last couple of years, I dare say. And perhaps the way they spend or pass on their wealth to the rest of the planet is not the traditional way either.

The great billionaires of the last century, as long as modern economics has been called that, have always been Westerners. Great businessmen who have amassed their great fortunes in industry, business or even commerce. Diverse men, of course, but all of them of Western culture. Only in the late 20th century did we see some Japanese multi-millionaires whose culture is far removed from Western culture, but they were short-lived and much less significant than today's great fortune-makers. My personal opinion is that many huge fortunes created in the last few years, which are growing at an unprecedented rate, are being formed without the commitment, effort and perseverance of traditional Western multi-millionaire businessmen. It is only an impression, true, but if these new fortunes of unimagined volumes have been formed in a somewhat passive way by their holders, their future objectives will undoubtedly be different from the traditional ones as well.

This is not at all a question of cultural, religious or even racial discrimination. It is only a reflection that leads me to think that wealth is no longer in the hands of our western culture, as it has always been historically until a few years ago. And the next question I ask is: What are the consequences of this phenomenon: will the traditional redistribution of wealth change?

It is as if in an eternal game of Monopoly, tacitly, the winners would cyclically return the banknotes to the bank so that the game would never end. And suddenly, the winners would have a new profile and question whether they will return their wealth to continue the game forever or not. The question I dare not ask myself is what will happen to our game if the nouveau riche decide to break with tradition.