Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
0 Usuarios y 1 Visitante están viendo este tema.
Entrevista al Nobel Robert Lucas
Cita de: Mad Men en Abril 05, 2016, 10:45:50 amEntrevista al Nobel Robert LucasRepugnante.
"Moreover, ETFs have gained importance in both advanced economy and EME bond funds promise intraday liquidity to investors as well as to portfolio managers who seek to meet inflows and redemptions without buying or selling bonds.The growing size of the asset management industry may have increased the risk of liquidity illusion: market liquidity seems to be ample in normal times, but vanishes quickly during market stress. In particular, asset managers and institutional investors are less well placed to play an active market-making role at times of large order imbalances. They have little incentive to increase their liquidity buffers during good times to better reflect the liquidity risks of their bond holdings."
en nuestro país hay 70 oficinas por cada 100.000 habitantes y eso a pesar de que en los años de reestructuración tras la crisis se ha reducido en un 28%. En 2007 ese número superó las 104 oficinas.[...] En Europa, la media es de 28 sucursales por cada 100.000 habitantes y hay países como Noruega donde no esa cifra no alcanza las 9. Es decir, que a nadie se le escapa que la reducción tiene que producirse y que será significativa.
Entrevista al Nobel Robert Lucas[...]
[...]No sabemos aún bien por qué[...][...]Hoy ya tenemos mecanismos para ir corrigiéndolo. Necesitamos tener claros estos mecanismos y aplicarlos.[...][...]No tuve que hacer colas ni listas de espera, porque tengo una buena mutua privada.[...]
Sobre lo que hablábamos el otro día de invertir en acciones, etc. Estoy empezando a leer los informes de Stansberry (p.e. Stansberry's Investment Advisory.pdf). ¿Conocéis? ¿Os interesa a alguno?A mí me están gustando para usarlos como fuente de información si se quiere usar la bolsa.
Frank Porter Stansberry is an American financial publisher and author. Stansberry founded Stansberry Research (previously Stansberry & Associates Investment Research,) a private publishing company based in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1999. He is the author of the monthly newsletter, Stansberry's Investment Advisory, which covers investments and investment theory in commodities, real estate, and the stock market. He is also the creator of the 2011 online video and infomercial titled "End of America" (77 min). In 2002, the SEC brought a case for securities fraud and a federal judge fined him $1.5 million in 2007.[wiki]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Stansberry
Sí, es ese. Conocía lo de la sanción, pero al rascar un poco la superficie en su día, creo recordar que no vi que fuese un fraude. De hecho he leído que acertó su previsión aunque falló en el timing.
In 2003, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a case against Stansberry for a "scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters."[1][18] A federal court, upheld on appeal, found that Stansberry had sent out a newsletter to subscribers predicting one company's stock, USEC Inc., was going to increase by over 100%. Stansberry maintains that his information came from a company executive; the court found that he fabricated the source.[1] The company's stock price did not significantly change even after the insider trading information Stansberry was selling came to fruition.[1] In 2007, he and his investment firm, then called "Pirate Investor", were ordered by a U.S. District Court to pay $1.5 million in restitution and civil penalties. The court rejected Stansberry’s First Amendment defense, saying "Stansberry's conduct undoubtedly involved deliberate fraud, making statements that he knew to be false."[18]At the time of the trial, many media outlets spoke out in support of Stansberry due to the relevance of the case to First Amendment rights. A group of newspaper publishers urged the Supreme Court[19] to reverse the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that Mr. Stansberry was liable, and signed an Amici Curiae in defense of Stansberry. They claimed that a guilty verdict was "a significant threat to the free dissemination of news about the financial markets and specific investment opportunities" and could lead to a situation that "would be contrary to the spirit of our system of a free and independent press."[20] When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, a New York Times editorial column noted that "the implications of the S.E.C.’s action are potentially profound: newspapers or Web sites promising their paying readers stock information that later turns out to be untrue suddenly leave themselves open to fraud charges. Any financial commentator who passes on bad information in good faith could be sued."[21]
Cita de: Yupi_Punto en Abril 08, 2016, 15:37:39 pmSí, es ese. Conocía lo de la sanción, pero al rascar un poco la superficie en su día, creo recordar que no vi que fuese un fraude. De hecho he leído que acertó su previsión aunque falló en el timing.Según el enlace a la wiki que he puesto:CitarIn 2003, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a case against Stansberry for a "scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters."[1][18] A federal court, upheld on appeal, found that Stansberry had sent out a newsletter to subscribers predicting one company's stock, USEC Inc., was going to increase by over 100%. Stansberry maintains that his information came from a company executive; the court found that he fabricated the source.[1] The company's stock price did not significantly change even after the insider trading information Stansberry was selling came to fruition.[1] In 2007, he and his investment firm, then called "Pirate Investor", were ordered by a U.S. District Court to pay $1.5 million in restitution and civil penalties. The court rejected Stansberry’s First Amendment defense, saying "Stansberry's conduct undoubtedly involved deliberate fraud, making statements that he knew to be false."[18]At the time of the trial, many media outlets spoke out in support of Stansberry due to the relevance of the case to First Amendment rights. A group of newspaper publishers urged the Supreme Court[19] to reverse the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that Mr. Stansberry was liable, and signed an Amici Curiae in defense of Stansberry. They claimed that a guilty verdict was "a significant threat to the free dissemination of news about the financial markets and specific investment opportunities" and could lead to a situation that "would be contrary to the spirit of our system of a free and independent press."[20] When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, a New York Times editorial column noted that "the implications of the S.E.C.’s action are potentially profound: newspapers or Web sites promising their paying readers stock information that later turns out to be untrue suddenly leave themselves open to fraud charges. Any financial commentator who passes on bad information in good faith could be sued."[21]Los interesados pueden ampliar en las referencias indicadas por los números.Por supuesto, cada cual es libre de asesorarse en quien deposite su confianza. En estos casos procuro seguir mi consejo preferido para 'elegir cabestro' (*), el evangélico: "por sus obras los conoceréis".Saludos.______(*) Cierto joven ayudante de carnicero, hoy anciano, me contó cómo se llevaban a los corderos comprados para el matadero: con ayuda de un cabestro, viejo carnero, prestado por los vendedores para el primer día de camino por la cañada, conocido por los corderos que lo seguían confiados.
¿Puede ser interesante abrir un hilo en el que comentemos y analicemos a diferentes «cabestros» que nos puedan facilitar refugiarnos en bolsa?
Cita de: Yupi_Punto ¿Puede ser interesante abrir un hilo en el que comentemos y analicemos a diferentes «cabestros» que nos puedan facilitar refugiarnos en bolsa?Adelante.