Cluster Family Office Blog

Hay quien dice que un nuevo crack económico está próximo. No está nada claro si se empieza a hablar de algo parecido al 29 de octubre de 1929 o simplemente de una crisis económica generalizada que puede afectar más o menos globalmente. Es evidente que la interrelación de las economías mundiales y el castillo de naipes que supone el sistema financiero moderno, no ayudan a asentar unas bases sólidas a prueba de crisis mundiales. Es decir, algunos empezamos a advertir los peligros de la globalisation macroeconómica y la superposición de productos financieros, que no sirven más que para especular (que no es poco). En los últimos años los ingenieros financieros han creado estructuras y productos inimaginables hace una década o dos, y que se soportan sobre bases que a su vez quedan ya muy lejos de la economía real tradicional. Estructuras complejas creadas sobre estructuras complejas.

Comprar o vender un contrato de petróleo por parte de cualquier particular es ya un juego de niños anticuado aunque ni siquiera sepa jamás qué aspecto tiene un barril ni su contenido. Hoy en día el brochure de cualquier producto estructurado supone un par de páginas explicativas de cómo se comportará dicho producto en el tiempo según los escenarios posibles. Texto, gráficos y fórmulas matemáticas relativamente simples que junto con la explicación del asesor o gestor correspondiente (a veces incluso de forma competente y objetiva), tratarán de hacer entender al comprador el funcionamiento de su nuevo juguete financiero. Pero este brochure o fact sheet tan sólo es el manual de instrucciones. Los auténticos planos constructivos del producto jamás llegan al inversor final. Son tan complejos que sólo son inteligibles por los padres de la criatura y sus colegas. Ingenieros financieros, a quienes cariñosamente me gusta llamar financos (por aquello de que a los ingenieros en telecomunicaciones se les llama telecos).

The thoughts I am about to set out may not be shared by younger readers, or indeed it is quite possible that hardly any of you will agree with them. But I have come to these conclusions after 20 years of observing markets in almost every colours and to get to know the profiles of investors who are quite greys. Let me make it clear from the outset that I do not intend to teach anyone anything, nor do I claim to be above good and evil – not least because it has taken me a great deal of effort, involving learning from my mistakes, bearing the scars and spending money, to arrive at these reflections. What’s more, I would gladly settle right now for being just halfway through a certain experience. Having said that, I recommend that you read (if you haven’t already) this article by The Rebuzner in which he offers a very interesting and entertaining analysis of investors and our ego. Now that we’ve set the scene, here are some additional points to consider which most of us tend to overlook, even though they’re obvious:

In a market of RV In a bull market, almost all of us investors make a profit, and in a bear market, the opposite is true. We usually look for the key to success in maximising profits during the boom and minimising losses during the downturns. Few of us would consider stopping investing in the stock market before we’ve got our fingers, wrists and forearms badly bruised. Who is forcing us to swim against the tide when we could be standing on the shore considering other forms of investment? It is true that, in the long term, the statistics show that returns as a whole outweigh bear markets. But no one can guarantee that we will live long enough to benefit from that average. Many investors lost all their money and/or their lives before the statistics could bestow their well-deserved blessing upon them. Nevertheless, if one retains enough investment capacity and good health to see the sun rise again, one will experience a few years of abundance during which it is best to put oneself in expert hands and learn – whilst enjoying – the journey.

But most investors confuse complexity with profitability. Many believe that doing something different from everyone else will lead them to success. This may be true, for example, in the business world, as setting ourselves apart from the competition usually yields good results. But in the markets, things are different, Competition becomes our ally and the majority view will prevail in the most efficient way. It is certainly true, as our much-admired Rebuzner that many people often think they are smarter than the market as a whole. They confuse the word «investment» and believe it defines what will happen to the market trend in which they are investing their money. Why should the trend of a security, sector, etc. invert Just when we decide to put our money in the opposite direction? Why must the majority agree with us the moment we start going against the grain? Isn’t it easier to go with the market in a prudent way, with solid assets and undervalued Should you back promising young talent or go against the grain? Mind you, I’m not saying it’s more profitable, just that it’s easier and better suited to the capabilities of most investors.

Of course, buying a company with exemplary fundamentals whilst its share price is plummeting is a perfectly valid and profitable strategy, but one that is not suitable for most ordinary people. The example of the ‘golden knives’ from Rebuzner It’s very vivid. But neither financially nor emotionally are we all prepared for investments which, although highly profitable in the medium term, make life difficult for us in the short term. In Technical and Fundamental Aspects The four risk management techniques for investments are discussed value, namely:

(a) Invest only in companies whose business we understand.
(b) With low financial and operational risk.
(c) Buy below intrinsic value.
d) Always take a long-term view.

Unfortunately, none of them are within the reach of most deadly investors: Understanding of these businesses is severely limited by a lack of information, time and/or expertise; the financial and operational risk posed by these companies is unlikely to be accurately assessed unless the first condition is met; buying below intrinsic value in a bear market will require a level of nerve and foresight that is uncommon amongst most people, whilst in a bull market few will recognise that needle in the haystack amidst the lack of information; finally, the culture of quick profits and a lack of experience will mean that very few will stick to a long-term strategy.

I’m not saying that the investor value I’m certainly not wrong, as I personally feel closer to him than to the fundamentalist or the die-hard technical analyst. But for most deadly investors These methods are beyond their reach. The average investor needs to simplify their strategies to suit their circumstances. That is why, when I read or see on channels such as tv Financial advice and tips on investing in the markets make me think. How would we view doctors (or quacks) who prescribed medicines to improve health without tailoring them to each of their patients? When I see in the media: ‘Buy, sell, hold,’, overweight This or that gives me the creeps. It’s as if I were looking at a generic recipe aimed at the whole audience, along the lines of: Please take Two tablets of this or that every 8 hours to live longer and better.

I would like to reiterate that I am not questioning the profitability of all these investment strategies, but rather their accessibility and adaptability for the average person. Unfortunately, over the years I have come across countless ordinary investors who believe they can learn to be immortals. They believe there are two types of investors in the world: those who still have a lot to learn and lose money; and those who have learnt a great deal and make a fortune to infinity and beyond. They are convinced that by training hard enough and gaining experience, they will reach the rank of immortal investors, capable of making consistent profits on the stock market and infinitely. They have examples in mind such as Buffet, Soros, etc. A grave mistake. Partially aware of their limitations, they would be content with a small fraction of the fortunes mentioned (sic). But the mirrors in which they see themselves are exceptional cases that prove the rule. Unfortunately, the rules of the game are different for the deadly investor.

Pragmatism, an awareness of personal circumstances, bearing in mind that stock market cycles are not always compatible with our individual circumstances, financial situation, family situation, timing and goals that are vital for determining acceptable risks, and humility – a great deal of humility – amongst many other things that I cannot quite bring myself to list.

For those with less expertise: simplicity and focusing exclusively on bull markets, guided by good fund managers with an indisputable track record.

May God grant good fortune to the most capable…

Hello, my name is Gurus Mundi, I am a deadly investor.

The two giants of the Spanish banking sector BBVA y BSCH have announced their decision to sell off almost all their property assets over the coming months. Of course, they have dressed up this strategy to make it politically correct. On the one hand, the BBVA refers to the centralisation of resources on a dedicated campus or business park; and another BSCH is selling off assets to fund the acquisition of 27.9% of ABN Amro. This correction Politics attempts to justify to the public strategic decisions that are plain to see – at least to us. BBVA It is centralising its facilities in a business park that will be entirely versatile; in other words, unlike the situation in Boadilla del Monte, it will be possible to market and to become profitable to let or sale to any interested prospective buyer. That is why there is talk of an «open-plan» layout with horizontal buildings featuring independent units that are easy to sell on a retail basis. For its part, BSCH «needs» to raise around €19,000 million to acquire its stake in ABN, although it has in fact been recognised in petit committee that this large-scale property sale will go ahead regardless of whether the acquisition of ABN goes ahead as planned or is called off for whatever reason. Clearly, the acquisition of the Dutch group could bring its share of properties into the group, but the reality is that the decision to sell the property portfolio of BSCH goes beyond and within the scope of this operation.

Realising gains from property capital appreciation, raising liquidity to optimise assets, balance sheets and lending capacity, restructuring internal, centralisation of resources, etc… All these arguments and phrases media-related are nothing more than a smokescreen for the reallocation of assets within the banking giants. Other major players such as Telefónica are also jumping on the bandwagon, the last one being the fool. The investment The property market is no longer just a business, and large companies are making major decisions that they conveniently gloss over, but the essence of it all strikes us as very Clarita: A 180-degree shift in investment strategy. Furthermore, we find that obvious, the cycle has not only come to an end but has been milked to the full. The rental yields that these banks guarantee to potential buyers of their properties are nothing more and nothing less than market rates. And although most property owners have become accustomed to achieving net returns of 2 or 3% of the property’s value at the height of the property bubble, these figures are easily surpassed by any self-respecting banking operation. In other words, it is far more profitable for a bank to pay rents at this level and thus be able to to make profitable It is better to invest their liquid assets in alternative banking operations. Furthermore, this change of course also avoids the risk of their property values falling in the near future. It is a time for cash, and we will not tire of repeating this for as long as we believe it to be the case.

It is undeniable that, with each passing day, the rich are becoming increasingly distanced from the poor and even from the middle and upper-middle classes. Whilst it is true that wealth continues to be created from nothing or very little, the growth of established fortunes is unequivocally rising at a greater rate. One factor that may explain this widespread growth amongst the wealthy is, perhaps, their ever-increasing understanding of the economic world, but also their use of specialist advice. An increasing number of wealthy individuals are preserving and growing their assets over time by developing their own expertise and/or engaging specialist services in high-net-worth management (ffamily offices). Private banking is no longer sufficient – in fact, it never was – as the comprehensive services required by anyone with medium to high net worth quickly overwhelm any bank manager. Furthermore, their dependence on the financial institution itself renders them ethically unfit to provide wealth advice to their clients, not to mention the technical incompetence of many of them. But let us not talk about bankers; let us turn to a more pleasant subject: asset diversification for high net worth individuals, which is also applicable to those with medium-sized portfolios. We shall therefore continue our work to demonstrate in practical terms that most of the protocols designed for managing large fortunes are also highly profitable for smaller estates.

But they will never do so in markets where property prices have already risen to saturation point, let alone in property bubbles.

At this point, let us once again compare the strategic position of the middle and upper-middle classes with that of the rich: What have most Spaniards done with their spare cash in recent years? Clearly, we are not talking about those who can barely afford to pay off their own, single mortgage, but rather those who have purchased – with or without a mortgage – other properties as a «safe investment» in which to put their savings. The answer is obvious: they continue to buy more and more properties that are not prime in a property market that it is not stable far from it growing or emerging. They may now be more selective, or at best have stopped buying, but very few have adjusted their strategy in line with the radical changes that the property market and interest rates have begun to undergo.

Making money by investing in property at the height of the property boom has been a piece of cake in recent times; even the most inexperienced have made huge capital gains. The bank would finance 100% (or more) of a property at a ridiculously low interest rate, and within a few months – or even weeks – the property’s value would rise spectacularly compared to the initial investment. Nowadays, some people are already facing serious difficulties in keeping up with these mortgages, whose interest rates are no longer a laughing matter. Others are beginning to realise that they will have to carry some mortgages for longer than expected. What’s more, prices have stopped rising or are even starting to fall, with a few exceptions. prime, of course.

Faced with this situation, what are many average investors in Spain doing? Quite simply, some have stopped risking their savings on new property developments – which are now seen as highly «uncertain» – and are instead «securing» their surplus assets on the stock market… A surreal strategy if ever there was one. What’s more, almost all of them refuse to sell their properties at current market prices, arguing that prices will never fall: «For less than so much »I’m not selling, I’m in no hurry, it will always be worth more.’ They compare these figures with the asking prices found in property listings and confirm their theory that, with very few exceptions, prices do not fall but simply stop rising. It’s a pity they forget one a minor detail: They are not for sale. The opportunity cost from that point onwards is enormous. The fall in prices is a matter of time, interest rates and the prime whichever property it may be. Consequently, the ability to maintain asking prices over time will depend on the owner’s needs. In other words, buyers with more modest means, who are hardest hit by rising mortgage rates, will have to lower their asking prices sooner if they wish to sell, whilst more affluent investors will be able to keep their properties on the market at above-market prices for longer, but will pay the opportunity cost of going against the trend. However, properties that are closer to prime level will be more likely to sell at the desired price.

At this point, why don’t we adopt the strategy of HNWIs and become Medium or even Low Net Worth Individuals? From our perspective, the answer is clear: firstly, a lack of knowledge about the correct strategy for each cycle; secondly, the widespread inability to invest in fixed income through high-yield financial products tailored to our investment capacity; and thirdly, the Latin culture of windfall and the drive to create sudden wealth.

For those with average or even low net worth, their own home already more than adequately covers the appropriate proportion of property holdings for an HNWI. In other words, our investment in property should focus on paying off our own mortgage over many years, and our savings should be channelled into fixed-income and equity assets in proportion to the current economic cycle. As wealth increases, our investment horizons will broaden, seeking to maintain a strategic allocation across the four main asset classes: fixed income, property, companies/businesses and equities. This allocation should be adapted to the prevailing economic conditions at any given time.

This financial progression goes hand in hand with personal development, as defined by…Abraham Maslow began in 1943 with his famous pyramid. Company Blog He offers us a light-hearted and up-to-date analysis of this through Pau, to whom, incidentally, we would like to publicly wish a happy birthday, so that he may continue to combine sound economics with entertainment through his sharp wit. At Family Office, a few years ago we adapted this theory to the world of high-net-worth personal finance, replacing the ‘Needs for Ego and Self-Actualisation’ with ‘Public Recognition’ and ‘Philanthropy’. This is based on our experience with family office clients.

In short, as our friend said Echevarri: «You have to be able to read the stage of the match we’re at.» And I would add that we also need to have the mindset and strategy of a top-flight team without losing sight of our limitations. After all, aren’t there teams at the top with very modest budgets? Once we’ve reached a certain level, the hard part will be staying up there, just as our headline says. «So let’s start with the easy bit…»

The concept of investment is one of the most difficult economic concepts to define. The most general definition that can be given is that, through investment, there is an exchange of an immediate and certain satisfaction that is renounced, against a hope that is acquired and of which the invested good is the support.

When it comes to investment, we are faced with a fundamental problem: determining the profitability of the investment project to decide whether or not to carry it out, and also, when a list of investment alternatives is available, these can be ordered from highest to lowest profitability, with the aim of prioritise the most profitable.

There are various criteria for valuation and selection of investments, some of them are:

On the other hand, there is a clear effect of the inflation and taxes when calculating the potential return on our investment.

To take these two factors into account in the calculation of the Capital Value, the formula would be as follows:

VC= - A + ((Q1 - tQ1)/ ((1 +K)*(1 +g)) + ((Q2 - tQ2)/((1+K)^2*(1 + g)^2)) +.....+(((Qn – tQn)/((1+K)^n * (1 + g)^n)))

Where t is the tax rate and g is the expected inflation.

All these methods are deterministic. The magnitudes defining the investment problem are considered to be perfectly known. The economic reality is different. It is difficult to know the future with precision. There are methods that introduce that component of risk or probability into the formulas, which makes them even more complicated, taking into account mathematical expectation, variance, .... but I think that would be excessive theorising.

Vaya por delante que vamos a analizar algunos comportamientos y opiniones que hemos contrastado desde nuestras propias experiencias con clientes y conocidos. El lector no tiene porqué sentirse identificado con ninguno de estos perfiles ni maneras de pensar. Simplemente hacemos unas reflexiones que, desde nuestra perspectiva, nos resultan muy reveladoras.

Como ya sabrán nuestros seguidores asiduos, desde hace unos pocos meses estamos dedicando una área de nuestro multi family office a aplicar nuestros protocolos de actuación a capitales también medios e incluso bajos. Pues bien, en este sector absolutamente mayoritario de la población nos hemos encontrado con diversas sorpresas en cuanto a su concepto del riesgo e inversión para sus patrimonios respecto a los propietarios de las grandes fortunas. Durante años nos hemos acostumbrado a los feedback que los clientes de alto nivel patrimonial nos proporcionan respecto a su visión de la economía, inversiones y el dinero en general, y las comparaciones con los pequeños y medios inversores nos han evidenciado algunas diferencias de criterios muy significativas. Ahí van algunas de ellas:
Los grandes inversores mayoritariamente son receptivos a contrastar opciones innovadoras y a la creatividad financiera. Quizás su interés por seguir las últimas tendencias en inversión les hace tener esa predisposición a analizar cualquier nueva propuesta de aplicación para sus activos. Eso sí, lo harán escrupulosamente, contrastarán, se asesorarán y escanearán exhaustivamente dichas opciones como es lógico, hasta que al fin decidirán. Los de perfil más atrevido se aventurarán más y los de perfil ultra-conservador casi siempre declinarán la propuesta; pero en general jamás descartarán una opción de inversión antes de analizarla.
Pero analicemos nuestra experiencia reciente con los perfiles de menor patrimonio: En primer lugar podemos destacar que tanto el pequeño como el inversor medio tienden a un mayor conformismo con las bajas rentabilidades y las altas fiscalidades. Es decir, en general renuncian a propuestas que podrían optimizar estas dos variables básicamente por dos razones: Los pequeños inversores porque nadie jamás les ha tenido en cuenta para que puedan utilizar las herramientas que normalmente sólo están al alcance de capitales mayores. Por eso dichas propuestas adaptadas a su perfil les sorprenden, confunden y no se ven capaces de realizar los trámites necesarios para beneficiarse de ellas. Suelen conformarse con la sencillez de invertir en bolsa como alternativa única al ostracismo financiero de sus modestos activos. Estas inversiones las pueden realizar a través de cualquier gestor de su propio banco o broker de entidad financiera, incluso a través de the internet, como quien hace un depósito a plazo fijo en la oficina bancaria del barrio o una apuesta en bwin.com, sin ir más lejos. En cambio, el motivo por el que los inversores medios tienden a dicho conformismo, quizás se fundamenta más en el hábito a tributar de manera ascendente durante los años de crecimiento y madurez de su economía. Por supuesto, otro factor determinante es el desconocimiento generalizado y la falta de interés por las posibilidades financieras diseñadas para clientes de mayor nivel, pero que son aplicables en su mayoría al resto de perfiles menores.
A menudo a mayor cantidad de activos, menos riesgos debería estar dispuesto a correr su propietario. Y aquí chocamos siempre con el mismo planteamiento equivocado: «Los rendimientos de renta fija después de impuestos apenas superan el IPC«. Esta visión distorsionada de la renta fija les lleva a asumir riesgos de forma generalizada.
Los capitales mayores ya conocen las maneras de invertir en renta fija en niveles de rendimiento y crecimiento muy interesantes, a la vez que desfiscalizan eficientemente sus patrimonios de muy diversas maneras. Por lo tanto distinguen muy bien la diferencia entre riesgo y seguridad en sus activos. Pero los medios y pequeños siguen resignándose a la que creen única alternativa rentable a la inversión inmobiliaria, aunque sea peligrosamente variable, es decir las bolsas puras y duras o en algún caso productos derivados de ésta.
Como ya hemos explicado en otras ocasiones existen alternativas seguras para todo tipo de cliente. Por este motivo es muy importante que sobre todo los inversores medios (y por supuesto los grandes) comprendan que no deben arriesgar en renta variable la mayor parte de su patrimonio para crecer. El Riesgo no se debe asumir como implícito en cualquier inversión. Obviamente siempre existe un mínimo riesgo de que todo nuestro sistema económico se vaya al garete si sobreviene una guerra o una crisis fulminante a nivel global, y en ese escenario probablemente no resistiría ni siquiera la renta fija, y por supuesto tampoco nadie pagaría por nuestros inmuebles. Pero exceptuando una situación así, nuestras inversiones se deben blindar y distinguir muy bien los activos que se pueden poner en riesgo de los que no.
Como decíamos esta confusión provoca que muchos inversores nos hayan sorprendido con reflexiones como: «La renta fija me la dan los alquileres de los inmuebles y su constante apreciación inmobiliaria. Por lo tanto el efectivo lo debo invertir en bolsa para obtener un buen rendimiento». ¡Por favor! Ni los alquileres son fijos ni los inmuebles se aprecian in eternum, se lo aseguro. Lógicamente, a medida que estos inversores medios empiezan a saborear la renta fija de alta seguridad y rentabilidad, sus reflexiones se van iluminando y empiezan a dejar de arriesgar tanto. Pero confieso que nos cuesta mucho más trabajo convencerles de que se descarguen de inmuebles en favor del efectivo, porque siguen confiando ciegamente en que sus propiedades cada día valdrán más y más y más y más… Qué poca memoria. Y no me cansaré de repetirlo: Son tiempos de efectivo.
Debo decir también que para patrimonios realmente pequeños y sobre todo cuando sus propietarios son jóvenes, las inversiones en renta variable, no sólo son recomendables sino que incluso diría obligatorias. Crecer al 8% en renta fija con unos pocos miles de euros y teniendo toda la vida por delante, es poco menos que una condena. Mientras que para alguien de mediana edad y con centenares de miles de euros, crecer a dicho ritmo se convierte en casi una necesidad. Y en todos los casos mencionados hay que contemplar otra variable: La capacidad de generar ahorros procedentes de nuestra actividad laboral, pero de eso hablaremos en otra entrada.
Resumiendo, lo que me parece significativo es el menosprecio al riesgo de los mercados de renta variable que abunda entre los inversores de nivel medio, y la equiparación de la inversión inmobiliaria a la renta fija. No vamos bien.

Cada día se crean más y más planes de pensiones basados en la renta variable. Es muy común encontrar asesores financieros que aconsejan invertir en bolsa para asegurar nuestra vejez (sic). Incluso algunos afirman alto y claro que «sólo los parqués son capaces de superar sistemáticamente la inflación», frase perpetrada por el mismísimo socio director de Abante Asesores o artículos como el de la pasada semana en Cinco Días. Poco importa el riesgo implícito o el hecho de que la variable tribute un 18%, ¡más madera, es la guerra!

Parece de cajón que debamos arriesgar nuestra futura supervivencia senil en bolsa para mantener así nuestro poder adquisitivo y alimentar al Estado durante nuestro trayecto vital. Pero parémonos a analizar un poco esta situación. Estamos acumulando un capital con un esfuerzo ahorrativo durante décadas, para asegurarnos una vejez y decadencia digna, prescindiendo de la improbable ayuda estatal en forma de pensión. Hasta aquí razonable. Pero resulta que la mayoría de los «expertos» nos aconsejan invertirlo en bolsa porque ésta es la única manera de superar la inflación a largo después de impuestos. Es decir: Riesgo y mayor imposición sobre beneficios. ¡Curiosa manera de superar el poder adquisitivo y las ventajas fiscales aplicadas a los planes de pensiones! Ah, olvidaba que también pagaremos sustanciosas comisiones para nuestros asesores durante el trayecto. Si pactamos un success fee, sólo pagaremos en caso de final feliz, es cierto, pero si la historia termina mal poco nos importará habernos ahorrado unos puntos de comisión. ¿Será por incrementar sus comisiones que la mayoría de asesores proponen vincular el ahorro para la vejez a la renta variable? En algunos casos, sí. Pero en otros puede ser pura incompetencia.
Es cierto que siempre nos quedará el recurso de vender la nuda propiedad de nuestro hogar, como bien explica nuestro amigo Echevarri, aunque sea en detrimento de los posibles herederos. Pero no tardarían los «asesores expertos financieros» en proponer otra inversión en RV para optimizar nuestros recursos en la tercera edad, metiendo mano a esta nueva y suculenta entrada de dinero en nuestros (sus) bolsillos.En definitiva, arriesgando nuestro futuro en los mercados, podemos llegar a viejos, posiblemente enfermos y pobres, aunque con un impecable currículum como fieles contribuyentes a las arcas del estado y de nuestros asesores financieros. Claro que algún día alguien podrá decir que optó acertadamente al invertir su futuro en bolsa si los mercados le han respetado hasta el fin de sus días. Pero, si me permiten la expresión: «A huevos vistos, seguro que es toro».
Un plan de pensiones, en esencia debe ser una acumulación de capital asegurada en renta fija, pero que supere claramente la pérdida de poder adquisitivo. Una opción que considero poco conveniente es la de fondos de renta fija High Yield o deudas emergentes, porque conllevan un riesgo nada despreciable. Aún así, con una selección rigurosa sería una opción a largo alternativa al risk de bolsa. Mi opción preferida desde hace ya un par de años es la de la renta fija sofisticada: Es decir fondo de bonos, obligaciones y acciones preferentes, de distribución y con apalancamientos de hasta el 300% y ratings aproximados tipo A. En otras entradas ya os he hablado de ellos.
Por favor, no confundir los apalancamientos en renta fija con los de renta variable. Fernando Calatayud nos da, como siempre una lección magistral de los riesgos de dichos apalancamientos en variable.
Os adjunto el drama original de la carta de despedida a que hace referencia Fernando. Sobrecogedora, pero no os perdáis el resto de comentarios. Y también ahí va una visión desenfadada del mundo de la variable por parte de el interesante Company Blog.
Aún me parece más indigno que asesores financieros de renombre aconsejen invertir en planes de bolsa los ahorros para la vejez. Bien sea por avidez de comisiones o por ineptitud y desconocimiento de formas más imaginativas de renta fija de bajo riesgo y alta rentabilidad. Da igual, en cualquier caso juegan con el futuro de muchas familias que a diferencia de los casos comentados en dicha carta anónima, pueden verse en la ruina cuando su edad ya no les permita ninguna reacción. Pero preferirán las comisiones y felicitaciones de los que saben que es toro después de…

As part of our day-to-day work, last week we negotiated the possible purchase of a plot of land for development (let’s say between Seville y Albacete…) a very substantial sum: €58 million. The negotiations centred on the interest payable on the 50% for the payment deferred over three years. So far, so normal, and the preliminary contacts were made through the intermediary on duty – an old acquaintance of ours and an expert professional who, if you’re not careful, will sell you the Palace of Versailles as chateau for the summer, with a discount for early payment. But we insisted on dealing directly with the sole owner, whom we had not yet met: a middle-aged man with a rustic, prudent air about him. However, when we got down to business, he told us very seriously that the deferred payment of 29 million € had to be paid with «»the same interest rate as the bank, plus one olivo’. I must admit that although I have fought bulls in many arenas (I’d say almost all of them), it took me a few seconds to react. It wasn’t irony or a joke, nor even a metaphor. I found it hard to believe that someone who confuses the Euro interbank offered rate With the oil-related profits, plus one unit of something I don’t even want to imagine, he’s set to become the owner of €58 million any day now: €29 million of that in cash and the rest over three years with the corresponding interest… very interesting Olivos plus one. Both comical and alarming, although many of us envy him from our modest background.

What will become of this man and his family in a few years« time? Based on our experience as wealth advisers, I do not believe they will be any happier than they are today. They will be manipulated, robbed, swindled, flattered and squandered in the broadest sense of the word. They will be at the mercy of everyone around them, whether they are part of the family or not. Mutual animosities, fuelled by their limited education, may well end tragically. The best thing that could have happened to them would have been to sell land worth no more than a couple of million euros. That way, they would have savoured the sweet taste of abundance, but within a few years everything would have returned to »normal’ – at most, leaving a few residual properties that their children could make use of.
I wish you all the best for the future, but paradoxically Life isn’t going to be easy for them from now on, unless I just steal a honest a law firm that sympathises with their limitations and cuts them off from their fortune in exchange for the «business» of their lives. To end up in a family office, even if it were the worst in Spain, it would be like winning the ‘Primitiva’ jackpot for a second time, but unfortunately the chances of that are virtually nil (unless we bring it on ourselves…).
As for our economic system, I have to say that I consider it an aberration that, overnight, a farming family should find their land – which has been used to feed comfortably to their ancestors, in the face of such a turn of events for which no one has ever prepared them. Perhaps it is an aberration comparable to that which the buyers of the homes to be built on this land will have to endure, with mortgages that their children will inherit if the properties are not repossessed.
In the case of the farmer, it seems to me to be a wealth creation contrary to every law of the capitalist economy. And amongst the buyers of those flats, a the creation of poverty, interestingly enough, the same interest: Olivo plus one.

On one occasion, a well-known F1 driver (who was still a test driver at the time) told me that it was utterly stupid to go to such lengths to protect the teams’ technical advances, as by the time they were officially implemented, the competition would have copied them in less than a week. In other words, the result of months of extremely costly research was within the competitors’ reach in a matter of days. I asked him whether it was worth all that financial and technical effort for such a small advantage over the rest, and how frustrating it must be for the whole team to see the team next door catch up simply by copying them. But his reply was It was a real lesson that we have applied ever since in our work as financial advisers:

«If you are the innovator rather than the imitator, your real advantage is far greater than the time it takes for others to copy your advances.»

A pithy statement if ever there was one. Indeed, when others apply something we have created, they are still a long way from catching up with us, since our know-how will be far beyond that. Or at least that is how it should be. Furthermore, the implementation of any protocol or advancement in a system will always be far more efficient and refined when carried out by its creator than by trained third parties.
At that moment, as family office We came to the conclusion that we could offer our entire range without any hesitation know-how to manage people’s wealth in the broadest sense. And that is what we did. As pioneers in many aspects of asset analysis, planning and management, we decided to to liberate our source code. Inevitably, some of our competitors copied some of our services; others even improved on them in certain respects (¡well (thanks to them!), but without a doubt those who benefit most were and are Customers. And that is what truly This should be a priority for any business. A business organisation with customers who are happy and grateful that they have been taught how to manage their wealth – by offering them our «source code» in an educational manner tailored to their profile – is sure to reap business benefits.
At first glance, it might seem that a client who is taught how to be self-sufficient and manage their financial affairs, they will soon no longer be subject to our invoicing. The answer is: Probably yes. But that does not mean they will cease to be a revenue-generating customercrucial for the company. When we talk about the economic sector and, above all, about counselling and comprehensive advice, the synergies between the client and family office are, and should be, almost infinite. Therefore, by gradually blurring the line between client and friend over time, we undoubtedly generate financial benefits for our company that are often far greater than the reduced or lost turnover itself. What is more, even in the worst-case scenario, where, having helped a client to become self-sufficient As far as wealth management expertise is concerned, even if we lose their business and it doesn’t generate any synergy with our company, we’ll still gain a grateful friend. If that’s the worst-case scenario, at this stage of the game, so be it.
This reminds me of the difference between a senior executive who simply gives orders and a leader. A comprehensive wealth management firm may «lead the way» in terms of assets under management and clients advised, but another with a lower volume will lead the sector. That is a qualitative difference that is impossible to replicate, given that this elite The role of businesses is to innovate, create and constantly improve. To quote one of my Gurus favourites: «A business can get better or worse, but it can never just stay the same.» So the choice is clear; if, on top of that, you are the creator or founder of the venture, all that’s left to do is «get out into the field and enjoy it», as he said Johan Cruyff.
Getting back to my conversation with the F1 driver, he also made a confession to me that gave What to think: «We even try out techniques and technical solutions that are prohibited by the FIA«. My naivety got the better of me, and he then replied: «In case they are authorised at some point, so that they can be implemented immediately… or in case it is decided, on an ad hoc basis, to take the risk of using them sooner.» A statement that is not quite so categorical, but which is also perfectly applicable to our work as Family Office. That’s right.