That is how our article from a year and a half ago, entitled «The Stock Market Circus«… And just as we had feared at the time, a few months later …«The contortionists, tightrope walkers, magicians, wild animals and clowns ceased to be a spectacle and became a nightmare surreal.»The same thing has happened to the Banking Circus:
In the summer of 2008, we published this article in which we could clearly see how all the recommendations to invest 30,000 euros made by various organisations in Expansion. It is interesting to read now, almost a year later, the recommendations made by other organisations for investing 20,000 euros. This time, the article is published by Five Days, and it goes without saying that the same colossal, widespread mistake of «coffee for everyone’ is still being made, but this time consciously and from a somewhat more critical journalistic perspective. A year ago, the condition set by the alleged investor/journalist was something as surreal as a generic ‘without taking on high levels of risk«. This time, the reporter’s headline doesn’t even reach the level of the absurd; it reads, verbatim: «”make the most of 20,000′ – €«… It’s a bit like sending an email to the pharmacist saying: «’Give me something to make me better«. Mad.
In reality, the people featured in these articles and their readers do not care in the slightest about their usefulness or about finding out which advice is appropriate for each investor. Among many other reasons, this is because the circumstances of these investors and those 20 or 30 thousand euros are ignored (and anyone who claims that the correct application of the useless MiFID solves the problem is lying for their own gain). Both articles merely carry out research – critical in the case of *Cinco Días* and shameful in the case of *Expansión* – to find out what the organisations they interview are most keen to sell. And anyone who hopes to gain anything more from reading them is sorely mistaken.
Or does anyone actually think that the same approach should be taken with the €20,000 or so held by various investors? Well, apparently – and sadly – the answer is yes, given that such nonsense is written, published and read, and almost never with a critical eye, as in this case with *Cinco Días*. And what’s worse, it influences the behaviour of less well-informed investors. To give a few examples that everyone can easily understand: You should not invest €20,000 – which represents a pensioner’s entire life’s savings – in the same way as the €20,000 of a young person with a brilliant career ahead of them and a strong, growing capacity to save. Nor should the €20,000 of an heiress with the means to educate herself financially be invested in the same way as that of a housewife who has come into money from a lottery win. Nor should the €20,000 of a mediocre young professional be invested in the same way as that of a middle-aged business owner. Nor should the €20,000 of someone with assets of 50,000 or 1 million… We could go on with countless other examples, because every investor is a world unto themselves and must manage their wealth in a way that suits their circumstances. Do you now understand why the only information these stupid and/or dangerous financial press articles reveal to us is the type of investment that best suits the financial institutions’ own interests at that particular moment? The problem is that most readers indiscriminately seek (and find!) in them advice that serves the interests of their families (sic).
It’s also interesting to see how financial institutions still wanted to sell last summer equity funds (our own, of course) and «alternative investment«. However, this year They are content to desperately attract deposits by offering all manner of structured deposits to boost their Tier 2 capital, and preference shares to shore up their Tier 1 capital. Gone are the days of eagerly selling funds that generate commission. The bank’s profits are no longer the priority; rather, the vital thing now is to cover up the technical bankruptcy in which the Spanish banking sector finds itself. That is why preference shares are being sold whilst lying to anyone willing to believe that they are an alternative to the IPF, amongst many other commercially effective tall tales.
In this piece of journalism deforming, it transcribes conversations typical of encyclopaedia salesmen who shamelessly exploit families’ finances. Based on our experience, we can assure you that the lack of transparency and the lies perpetrated by staff at these organisations are usually directly proportional to their victims’ financial illiteracy and to the sales pitches they have been given depending on the severity of the institution’s technical insolvency. Both of the articles mentioned also show that the organisations always make recommendations in their own interests exclusively. And also that they have long since given up on making a profit and are only concerned with surviving at our expense. We would be satisfied if, after reading this article, people were to take a different view of the investment recommendations that are published left, right and centre. Let’s see if, together, we can put an end to the widespread sensationalism in the ‘salmon-coloured’ press.