Agregador de canales de noticias

El 'chief information officer' (CIO) y el 'operation excellence manager' son los perfiles profesionales más cotizados, con sueldos de hasta 250.000 y 160.000 euros anuales respectivamente. Leer

El 'chief information officer' (CIO) y el 'operation excellence manager' son los perfiles profesionales más cotizados, con sueldos de hasta 250.000 y 160.000 euros anuales respectivamente. Leer

When I was much younger than today, and still enjoyed the benefits of youth like a concave belly, we used to say that when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Today, that still is true, but the same can be said about China – at least if you live in Europe or Asia.

The common explanation for the steeper declines in European asset prices when there was a crisis in the US was the international trade links between Western Europe and the United States. But in 2008, the housing market collapsed in countries like the United States, the UK, Ireland, while Germany or Switzerland had no housing crisis at all. Yet, German stock markets were down more than US stock markets.

In fact, a recent study showed that only about one-third of the spillover from US crises (and I presume Chinese crises) to other countries is explained by macroeconomic ties between countries. The other two-thirds are explained by financial market integration. Countries where institutions and households own a larger share of their wealth abroad and where their assets are held all over the world experience steeper declines in asset prices.

The driver of these steeper declines is quite straightforward. First, when the US economy hits a rough spot economically, US investors think about their investment portfolio. Psychologically, they will reduce their holdings in assets they are less familiar with and that thus appear to be riskier. This means they will keep their US stocks, but sell their foreign stocks. But also, they will tend to sell more of the stocks in countries that are heavily integrated with the US stock market, that is UK, Western Europe, and developed Asia. Why? Because it makes sense. First, these markets are typically the most liquid, so it is easy to sell these stocks at a moment’s notice. Second, because these markets are so integrated with the global markets and your home market, they offer less diversification benefits. Technically speaking, their correlation to the US market is so low that there are diversification benefits to be had, but these diversification benefits are so subtle that for most investors it simply appears as if the correlation between US and European stocks is about 1.0. When the US goes down, so do the UK and Europe. And as a result of this mental shortcut, US investors tend to sell UK and European stocks more than emerging market stocks, for example. And it is this psychological effect that creates a higher correlation and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because people think European stock markets are highly correlated in a US downturn, they act as if they were and sell these stocks first. And these actions in turn increase the correlation and turn perception into reality.

So the next time something happens on the economic front in the United States of China and somebody tells you that it is all going to be contained because it is a purely domestic problem, make sure you check the list below and look at the financial integration of different countries. The countries with higher financial integration will sell off more, whether that makes sense economically or not.

Financial and trade integration of different countries

a.image2.image-link.image2-952-600 { padding-bottom: 158.66666666666666%; padding-bottom: min(158.66666666666666%, 952px); width: 100%; height: 0; } a.image2.image-link.image2-952-600 img { max-width: 600px; max-height: 952px; }

Source: Londono (2021)

La educación de un niño puede llegar a ser una labor complicada. Hay gente que únicamente delega esa tarea al sistema de enseñanza reglado, a los profesores o lo que es lo mismo, al estado. Por una serie de razones que ya iremos viendo, considero eso un grave error. Educar a un niño no pasa simplemente por ... Leer más

 Leer

 Leer

 Leer

Nuevo cambio en las condiciones de Pibank:
te informamos de que a partir de mañana 23 de septiembre de 2021 el Depósito Pibank pasará a tener un tipo de interés del 0,25% TAE para las nuevas imposiciones que realices en tu depósito y para las renovaciones de imposiciones con vencimiento a partir del 23 de octubre de 2021 (incluido)

Estadísticas: Publicado por Kike Moreno — 22 Sep 2021, 18:45

Yesterday I broke the news to all of you… readers of Katusa’s Investment Insights.

“Marin, this is going up multiples.”

That was the line that David Garofalo, the CEO of Gold Royalty (GROY.NYSE) told me at a dinner recently.

He had my full attention from that point on.

David Garofalo (CEO) and the team at Gold Royalty (GROY.NYSE) have pulled off one of the best royalty acquisitions I’ve seen in years in the space.

Today you’re going to see one of the top managers in all of the gold mining in an exclusive 1 on 1 interview with me.

And I want everyone to pay attention to what this is about.

1. First of all, I have never seen, ever in my career, a management team execute with this much precision and time.

1. Secondly, they’re going after a royalty on Canada’s largest producing mine that’s already in operation, talk about de-risked.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I Marin Katusa am a severely biased, large shareholder of Gold Royalty (GROY.NYSE). If that bothers you then do not buy the stock. I continue to be a buyer of the stock. And you’ll learn more about why in my exclusive interview with David Garofalo.

In this interview you’ll learn:

• Why I believe this project is severely de-risked
• Why billionaire mining legends like Eric Sprott, Rob McEwen, and Jimmy Lee have acquired more stock and have agreed to a share lockup (hint: they’re bullish)
• The significance of the Malartic Mine transaction
• The potential of a “Double Bump” and what that means for anyone that owns shares of Gold Royalty (GROY.NYSE)

It’s not often that I release an exclusive report behind our $3500 paywall.

Or a full-out member-only conversational video for KRO subscribers that features someone of David Garofalo’s pedigree.

But you’re getting a seat at the table, so you can see the kind of depth and opportunities we uncover at Katusa Research.

Click here to watch the interview with David Garofalo.

Best,

Marin Katusa
Founder, Katusa Research

 

Details and Disclosures

Katusa Research, Marin Katusa and its directors, employees, and members of their households directly own shares of the following Companies which are described in this publication – Gold Royalty Corp (GROY.NYSE). Therefore, Katusa Research is extremely biased. All publications of Katusa Research represent only the opinion of the respective authors and not of the company. Gold Royalty Corp did not review this report or articles. The information in the publications of Katusa Research do not replace and are not to be taken as individual needs geared professional investment advice and is for informational purposes only.

This report and information are neither explicitly nor implicitly to be understood as a guarantee of a particular price development of the mentioned financial instruments or as a trading invitation. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of Katusa Research involves risks which could lead to a total loss of the invested capital and—depending on the investment—to further obligations for example additional payment liabilities. Katusa Research does not guarantee that any of the companies mentioned in this newsletter will perform as we expect, and any comparisons we have made to other companies may not be valid or come into effect. All information published in publications from Katusa Research is based on public filings and news releases.

The post BREAKING: Watch Marin’s Interview appeared first on Katusa Research.

El ingeniero e inversor de 52 años creador del ipod, ha pasado los últimos tres años marcando cuál será el futuro de la tecnología con una gran cantidad de inversiones tecnológicas. De hecho, las apuestas de Fadel se dirigen a apoyar retos personales que responden a lo que él ve como las próximas olas en innovación tecnológica.

Hasta la fecha, ShoreView, fundada por emprendedores españoles, ha conseguido no solo llamar su atención, sino también disrumpir en el sector náutico turístico, afianzándose como la mejor alternativa en las costas de Mediterráneo.

De hecho, ya cuenta con más de ochenta mil usuarios y apoyos institucionales como el Instituto Financiero de la Comunidad Valenciana y el fondo Ports 4.0 donde opta a una subvención de medio millón de euros gracias su funcionalidad de guiado al amarre.

ShoreView comenzó su actividad el pasado año, y que ha levantado más de un millón de euros de financiación - agregando a su accionariado a importantes ejecutivos y family office españolas -, planea en los próximos dos ejercicios llegar a EEUU donde destinará gran parte de los fondos de esta nueva ronda.

Según Javier Lasarte, CEO de la compañía, “la entrada en el mercado USA es necesario para posicionar la compañía en otro nivel y para su propia viabilidad a largo plazo. No solo el turismo y la afición a la náutica es sustancialmente mayor, sino que los inversores que realmente apuestan por modelos de volumen de usuarios previos a la monetización, están allí. La ayuda de Fadel y su círculo será crucial para dar con éxito este salto”, concluye.

¿Qué es ShoreView?

La start up española tiene como función facilitar la vida a quien llega a la costa tanto por mar como por tierra, ofreciendo previamente cuál es la actividad de una zona costera y proporcionando información en tiempo real. Para ello utiliza IA (inteligencia artificial) y realidad aumentada, entre otras tecnologías, siendo un gran agregador de información.

Además, cuenta con herramientas bajo suscripción que se adaptan a las necesidades y al perfil del usuario: bien sea navegante, buceador o simplemente turista.

“Estamos convencidos que nuestra nueva fórmula de hacer tecnología (#Greencoding), será una palanca de gran ayuda para que nuestros clientes adopten soluciones que muestren su compromiso medioambiental. El desarrollo de tecnología sostenible será uno de los principales pilares para el desarrollo económico de nuestro país y GFT va a jugar un papel significativo en conseguirlo”, ha declarado el nuevo CEO de GFT España.

Bajo este nuevo liderazgo, GFT España confía en seguir creciendo, abriéndose a nuevos sectores. “Vamos a aprovechar nuestro sólido conocimiento de algunas de las tecnologías más avanzadas del mundo como son las tecnologías del sector financiero y asegurador, así como la experiencia de nuestro magnífico equipo de profesionales, para trasladar este know how a otros sectores como gran consumo, industria, energía y telecomunicaciones”, ha añadido Lavín.

Desde su incorporación a GFT hace seis años, Manuel Lavín, de 46 años de edad, ha desempeñado varios cargos, siendo el último el de Chief Digital Officer (CDO) del Grupo. Ha sido el encargado de liderar la visión global de la compañía para el desarrollo del negocio digital en el sector bancario, consiguiendo grandes éxitos en Europa, América y Asia-Pacífico. Adicionalmente Manuel Lavín ha sido responsable de las relaciones comerciales con los clientes de banca y seguros más importantes de GFT en España y México.

Licenciado en Administración y Dirección de Empresas por ICADE, Lavín ha sentido desde siempre una gran pasión por la tecnología, sector en el que acumula más de 20 años de experiencia. Su llegada a GFT en 2015 se produjo tras la adquisición de Adesis Netlife, empresa que había co-fundado en el año 2000 y que fue pionera en servicios de transformación digital financieros en España y Latinoamérica. Anteriormente, había trabajado como consultor de estrategia en Arthur D. Little y como analista de banca de inversión en operaciones de fusiones y adquisiciones en J.P Morgan Chase en Londres.

Carlos Eres, dos décadas al frente de la dirección española

Por su parte, Carlos Eres deja el puesto tras una carrera profesional de más de 40 años en el sector. La dirección del Grupo ha querido agradecerle su exitosa trayectoria en GFT España, donde ha sido director general durante los últimos 20 años, además de desempeñar un papel clave en el desarrollo del negocio del Grupo a nivel global.

“Ha sido un honor para mi dirigir la exitosa trayectoria de GFT en España durante dos décadas de la mano de este gran equipo profesional. Quiero aprovechar para darles las gracias tanto a ellos como a nuestros clientes por acompañarme durante todos estos años con ilusión, esfuerzo y dedicación”, ha agradecido Carlos Eres.

Al frente del desarrollo enológico continúa Almudena Alberca, única mujer Master of Wine española, quien desde su incorporación ha impulsado la innovación, conjugándola con el respeto por las tradiciones y el cuidado de la tierra y su biodiversidad.

Entrecanales Domecq e Hijos agradece la valiosa aportación de Antonio Soto durante los últimos seis años, que ha permitido posicionar a las bodegas de la compañía – Bodegas Cosme Palacio (Rioja), Viña Mayor (Ribera del Duero), Caserío de Dueñas (Rueda), Anzil (Toro), El Aeronauta (Valdeorras) – entre las de mayor prestigio del panorama vitivinícola español.

Entrecanales Domecq e Hijos

Entrecanales Domecq e Hijos es uno de los grupos vitivinícolas más relevantes de España, con más de 125 años de experiencia en la Crianza y Elaboración de vinos de alta calidad, reconocidos por la crítica nacional e internacional.

Con viñedos y bodegas circunscritos a las Denominaciones de Origen más prestigiosas de nuestro país, y con más de 400 hectáreas en propiedad, Entrecanales Domecq e Hijos conforma su identidad con vinos excepcionales, como Cosme Palacio, Secreto, Caserío de Dueñas, Finca Anzil y El Aeronauta; en las D.Os de Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Rueda, Toro y Valdeorras, respectivamente.

Entrecanales Domecq e Hijos está firmemente comprometido con la sostenibilidad, guía esencial para cada una de sus actuaciones. Sus bodegas fueron pioneras en España en ser neutras en carbono y utilizar energía 100% renovable.

On Monday I ranted a bit about benchmarking and how it turns businesses and asset managers into mediocre performers. The argument I often hear in favour of benchmarking is that it limits underperformance and the damage done by inferior managers.

On the other hand, in recent years, the evidence has mounted that fund managers generate their performance almost exclusively from their high conviction overweights. 

Average annual outperformance of US equity fund managers net of fees

a.image2.image-link.image2-940-1290 { padding-bottom: 72.86821705426357%; padding-bottom: min(72.86821705426357%, 940px); width: 100%; height: 0; } a.image2.image-link.image2-940-1290 img { max-width: 1290px; max-height: 940px; }

Source: Panchekha (2019).

So, fund managers have started to create high conviction funds as a way to counteract the trend towards passive investing and closet indexing. But, a new study argues that a key problem for fund managers is that if you reduce the number of stocks in your portfolio you may need a different approach to identifying the right assets and constructing the right portfolio. This is true and I recommend this article as the first stop for those who want to become more active and think about what that means for their portfolios. 

But the study also argues that being active alone is not enough to create outperformance.

No kidding.

That is the whole point about being very active. Both outperformance and underperformance are more accentuated, making it easier for investors to identify which fund managers are doing a good job and which ones don’t. This way the underperformers have fewer places to hide and will hopefully exit the market instead of being able to stay around for years as closet indexers convincing their clients to give them one more chance since the underperformance so far wasn’t that bad and one can catch up in the right environment (which of course is true for a truly active manager but an illusion if the fund is a closet indexer).

If the active fund management industry wants to grow its assets it needs to weed out the unskilled managers that stick around forever and are able to dupe investors year after year. And being highly active makes it harder for the truly unskilled managers to hide and easier for the truly skilled managers to shine.

In my job at Liberum, I run 10 model portfolios with 20 stocks each, so they are highly active and highly concentrated. Yet, since I launched these portfolios in spring 2020, they have outperformed their benchmark by 15% to 35% after transaction costs (and if you are interested in getting these portfolios you have to become a research client of Liberum). Obviously, a track record of 15 to 18 months in my current role is too short to draw conclusions if I am skilled or not, though my previous track record as a fund manager from 2010 to 2016 indicates that this outperformance is no accident. 

Nevertheless, the point is that my highly active portfolios outperform their benchmarks by a wide margin after costs both on an absolute and a risk-adjusted basis. So being very active and running highly concentrated portfolios can add enormous value if done right and will mercilessly expose underperformers. And that’s how active management should be. It should be a marketplace for different opinions where fund managers put their money where their mouth is and where underperformers exit and make room for new entrants trying their luck. In my view, we should all encourage more active management but the tendency to benchmark fund managers does exactly the opposite and thus helps to keep the flows from active to passive funds alive and contributes to the demise of active management. It turns the investment world into a world full of mediocre funds.

The biggest takeaway from history is that the characters change but their behaviors don’t. The technologies, trends, tragedies and winners – the events that take place – are always in flux and can be nearly impossible to predict. But the behaviors that drive people into action, influence their thoughts and guide their beliefs, are stable. They’re the same today as they were 100 years ago and will be 100 years from now.

Markets change, but greed and fear never do.

Industries change, but ambition and complacency don’t.

Laws change, but the tribal instincts of politics don’t.

My deepest forecasting belief is that you can better understand the future if you focus on the behaviors that never change instead of the events that might.

And those behaviors have a common denominator: They follow the path of least resistance of people trying to simplify a complex world into a few stories that make sense and make them feel good about themselves.

Simple stories, feel-good stories. Those are some of history’s most seductive beliefs, and they always will be.

A few that stick out:

1. An illusion that other people’s bad circumstances couldn’t also happen to you.

Most of history is slow progress amid constant bad news and occasional terrible news. A seductive story when hearing about tragedy is to believe this awful thing happened to this person, company, or nation, but it almost certainly couldn’t happen to me.

And you may be right about that. Your country may be more stable than the one that collapsed, your business may be stronger than the one that went bankrupt, and your health may be better than the person diagnosed with cancer.

The problem is that people don’t like to think in probabilities; it’s so much easier to think about risk as black or white, it will happen or it won’t.

So rather than thinking your business has a 10% chance of failure, it’s easier to think that what happened to Sears and Lehman Brothers could never happen to you. Before 2008 you didn’t think there’s a 5% chance of a banking collapse in America; you just looked at what had been happening in Latin America for decades and thought, “that can’t happen here.” Most of the world didn’t look at Wuhan China last February and think, “there’s a 25% chance that this is our future.” You thought, “I can’t even imagine my town being on lockdown.” Couldn’t even fathom it happening here. That was easier to understand and made you feel better.

When you go through life thinking low-probability events are zero-probability events, you’re bound to get stuck in an illusion that what happened to someone else couldn’t also happen to you.

That’s especially true when you add up the low odds of lots of unfortunate events. If next year there’s a 1% chance of a new disastrous pandemic, a 1% chance of a crippling depression, a 1% chance of a catastrophic flood, a 1% chance of political collapse, and on and on, then the odds that something bad will happen next year – or any year – are … pretty good. “History is just one damn thing after another” the saying goes.

A few years ago I interviewed Yale economist Robert Shiller. He talked about the possibility – not quite a forecast – that home prices could decline adjusted for inflation for a decade or longer.

I asked him why he thought that, or how it could happen. “Well, it happened before,” he said. Real home prices fell for most of the 20th century. “So of course it could happen again,” even if it seems crazy.

2. Imagining an unrealistic world where progress and success don’t demand a fee, and a belief that hassle, nonsense, disagreement and uncertainty are bugs rather than a cost of admission to getting ahead.

Jeff Bezos recently talked about the realities of loving your job:

If you can get your work life to where you enjoy half of it, that is amazing. Very few people ever achieve that.

Because the truth is, everything comes with overhead. That’s reality. Everything comes with pieces that you don’t like.

You can be a Supreme Court Justice and there’s still going to be pieces of your job you don’t like. You can be a university professor and you still have to go to committee meetings. Every job comes with pieces you don’t like.

And we need to say: That’s part of it.

That’s part of it.

It’s part of everything. His advice applies to so much more than careers.

A simple rule that’s obvious but easy to ignore is that nothing worth pursuing is free. How could it be otherwise? Everything has a price, and the price is usually proportionate to the potential rewards.

But the price is rarely on a price tag. You don’t pay it with cash. Most things worth pursuing charge their fee in the form of stress, doubt, uncertainty, dealing with quirky people, bureaucracy, other peoples’ conflicting incentives, hassle, nonsense, and general bullshit. That’s the overhead cost of getting ahead.

A lot of times that price is worth paying. But you have to realize it’s a price that must be paid. There are few coupons and sales are rare.

A seductive belief throughout history is people expecting an idealized world where you demand perfection and assume that having little tolerance for error, variability, and disagreement is an asset.

It’s a simple story, and it feels good. I wish it were true. But it’s so at odds with reality that it leads to people never achieving what they want because they’re unwilling to pay the required price, and over-idolizing those whose success was harder than it looks and not as fun as it seems.

3. An assumption that your view of the world is the view of the world, and a belief that what you’ve seen and experienced are the sights and experiences that explain how the world works.

Harry Truman once said:

The next generation never learns anything from the previous one until it’s brought home with a hammer … I’ve wondered why the next generation can’t profit from the generation before, but they never do until they get knocked in the head by experience.

Here’s at least one reason why: No lesson is more persuasive than the one you’ve personally experienced.

You can try to be empathetic and open-minded to other people’s lives, but when you’re trying to figure out how the world works nothing makes more sense than the unique circumstances of what you’ve lived through firsthand.

And the idea that you’ve never seen or experienced 99.999% of what’s happened in the world is hard to swallow because it’s intimidating to admit how little you know.

A more comforting story is convincing yourself that what you’ve experienced is the story of how the world works. This is how your career went, so that’s how economics works. These policies benefited you, so this is how politics works. You think what you’ve seen is a reflection of how the world works. What could be more seductive? Yet given how oblivious everyone is to the majority of experiences, what could be more wrong?

So everyone goes through life a little blind to the lessons that have already been learned by other people.

And it goes well beyond generations: There are massive experience gaps between different nations, socioeconomic classes, races, industries, religions, educations, on and on.

The person who grew up in poverty thinks about risk and reward in ways the child of a wealthy banker cannot fathom if he tried.

The person who grew up when inflation was high is scared in a way the person who grew up with stable prices isn’t.

The stockbroker who lost everything during the Great Depression experienced something the tech worker basking in the glory of the late 1990s can’t imagine.

The Australian who went 30 years without a recession has experienced something no American ever has.

It leads to all kinds of issues.

One is that we’re constantly surprised by events that have been happening forever.

Another is that it’s hard to distinguish people who have experienced something you haven’t from people who aren’t smart enough to understand your experiences.

A third is that topics like risk, greed, and fear are not the kinds of things that we can learn about and master as a society, like we did with, say, agriculture. As Michael Batnick says, “some lessons have to be experienced before they can be understood.” Every generation has to learn on its own, over and over.

The question, “Why don’t you agree with me?” can have infinite answers.

But usually a better question is, “What have you experienced that I haven’t that would make you believe what you do? And would I think about the world like you do if I experienced what you have?”

4. An assumption that history is a guide to the future and that things will continue working as they did in the past.

A $45 million dam in Colorado designed to prevent flooding turned out to not really be needed because the river it blocked slowed to a trickle. In Rotterdam, the opposite: A dam needs to be replaced a quarter-century sooner than once estimated because it’s under unprecedented stress.

Journalist Shayla Love explained the common denominator:

Stationarity is the idea that, statistically, the past can help you predict and plan for the future—that the variations in climate, water flow, temperature, and storm severity have remained and will remain stationary, or constant.

Nearly all the infrastructure decisions with which we live have been made with the assumption of stationarity. Engineers make choices about stormwater drainage pipes based on past data of inches of rain. Bridge engineers design foundations that can withstand a certain intensity of water flow based on the severity a certain location has experienced in the past. Reservoirs are designed to hold water based on historical information about water flow, and the historical water needs of a community.

A seductive belief that exists in almost every field is that things will keep operating like they always have. It’s an almost necessary belief in a world where you have to base a prediction off something.

But as Stanford professor Scott Sagan says, “things that have never happened before happen all the time.”

All the time.

In fact in most fields – especially business and investing – the most important events that changed everything and determined the majority of future outcomes are things that had never happened until they did.

The most important economic events of the last century are probably the Great Depression, World War II, the 40-year collapse in interest rates, and globalization. And while each had analogous ancestors, anyone predicting what those events eventually did to the world could be brushed aside by those who pointed out that, say, negative interest rates had never happened before. A nationwide housing bubble and bust had never happened before. A weapon like the nuclear bomb that could deter future wars had never happened before.

Then all those things happened. And they totally changed the world.

All history is the study of what’s changed, but it’s often used as a guide to the future. The irony is overlooked because the idea that if we gather enough data and read enough books we’ll acquire a map of the future is so seductive – it’s so simple, and makes you feel great.

That will never change.

Relevant data will appear on their view of the battlefield

It is all about finding the right animal customer

Whether the cause is spiritual or social remains to be determined

As the world begins to reopen, will it see a resurgence of influenza?