Most of you will no doubt remember the famous Spanish film entitled “Why do they call it ‘Love’ when they mean ‘Sex’?” in which Verónica Forqué plays a charming porn actress. We’ve borrowed the title of that film to name this article, in which we’ll attempt to explain the confusion (for want of a better word) that reigns in the financial sector – that is, amongst banks and their various clients and investors – when it comes to distinguishing between risk and volatility. To lighten the mood a little, we’ll be interspersing this article with a few cartoons by Forges, who is a master at laying bare the banking sector’s shortcomings. (more…)
We look after your interests
(+34) 93 626 47 75
Torres Sarrià, Carrer de Can Ràbia, 3-5, 4ª Planta BCN 08017
(+34) 91 794 19 82
Pº de la Castellana, 93 2nd floor MADRID 28046
Below is a link to our latest article, published as 
The ECB has denied that it opposed the Spanish Government’s plan to recapitalise Bankia using Spanish government debt. It has simply issued a brief official statement to the media, explaining that the ECB has not been consulted on the Spanish (bank) recapitalisation plans. But what happened a few hours earlier is more than a little curious. 
There is no greater failure than that of someone who gives up on success. Something similar happens to investment funds that stick to their benchmark indices, confident that, despite their mediocrity, the firms they work for will have no trouble marketing these funds on a massive scale, and will never blame them for failing to shine. A bank’s commercial capacity is directly proportional to the mediocrity of its investment products. Perhaps it’s because Necessity is the mother of invention, and fund managers at independent fund management firms (which do not belong to banks, at least not directly) can only compete for a place in the investment sales arena by demonstrating sheer quality and superior returns compared with their competitors. 
There is something worse than being poor and insolvent, and that is having to hide one’s poverty whilst feigning opulence and grandeur. Woe betide anyone who has to pretend to be rich, when they are not, just to keep their business afloat! For insolvency and poverty, when faced with sincerity and honesty, become more dignified, more hopeful and less miserable. The fact is that working in a sector such as banking—which necessarily requires those in the business to feign wealth and stability in order to win the trust of their customers—is something one can live with when the bank is genuinely wealthy and solvent. But when the business goes awry and the leverage inherent in banking itself completely erodes the solvency and soundness of the institutions, that façade of opulence becomes a macabre lie, resulting in the schizophrenic loss of all contact with reality (as we said in
It’s already a 
First of all, we must tell you that the subject we are going to deal with today is complex and may offend some professional sensibilities. But that is not our intention at all, but rather our interest is focused on clarifying a situation that is currently generating a lot of confusion and, more importantly, is damaging families with a certain amount of wealth. Both large fortunes and small savers. We will therefore discuss, for example, Santander's convertible bonds, the recent inflammatory statements by Greg Smith (ex-Goldman Sachs), the types of assets that a properly diversified wealth should contain, the Spanish and Luxembourg regulators, banking, EAFIs, Family Office, or how to distinguish between a perverse advice and a perverse advice. comme il faut. We apologise for the length of the post, but we have chosen to publish it in its entirety so as not to lose the thread in the middle of the reflections that follow. 
This week I came across an article published in FundsPeople titled «