Mi estrategia de inversión

Lopv Inversor en Fondos Internacionales de RV, RF y RA

¿Hay corrección generalizada en la Renta Fija?


Escrito 4 Dec 10

¿Qué le está pasando a la Renta Fija global?  Se mire por donde se mire en el último mes ha habido una corrección generalizada en los diferente tipos de deuda.

¿Es esto debido al QE2?  ¿A la crisis de deuda de los países periféricos de la zona Euro?  ¿A ambos?  ¿O es una corrección por sobrecompra o por explosión de la burbuja de la RF?

¿Qué opináis?  ¿Alguna idea de a dónde va aparar esto?  ¿Qué predicción podéis hacer?

Pongo las gráficas del 2010 y del último mes en USD para evitar distorsiones de cambios:

Comentarios (28)

joigar Dtor. de Análisis y Estrategia y Dtor. del comité de inversiones de Kau Markets EAFI (Nº 183 CNMV). Asesor del fondo Fonvalcem FI de Andbank.

6 Dec 10

ummm D.Arturop... se equivoca, para no cumplir con mis abjetivos,
debería de tenerlos primero y que no se cumplieran después, cosa que
al no ser el caso no puede por menos que estar equivocado. Tenga en
cuenta que mi sistema de inversión solo va con el mercado da igual la
dirección, no se pone metas de rentabilidad, no cierra posiciones por
haber alcanzado un objetivo de rentabilidad o un objetivo de pérdida,
no pretende adivinar en que dirección está el mercado ni si va a
cambiar o no de dirección, etc. Aunque por otro lado, yo no digo que
no me aproveche de lo que dice Vd., de hecho parte de mis inversiones
son Fondos Value que precisamente utilizan esa teoría para rotar las
carteras, ya no tanto entre activos, pero a la vista nos vale, verdad?


Por otro lado, y permítame que vuelva a diferir, que no inferir,
aunque no antes sin decir que mira que le gusta la guerra, que su
lógica es sencilla y por tanto seguro que llena de razón, en ningún
momento he dicho que el market timing nos haga ricos y cierto es
también que 100 años de historia para contrastar da mucho para
estudiar, pero al final sólo vale que Vd, yo, etc, personalmente
ganemos dinero en Bolsa. Es cierto que no puedo, y ahora sí, inferir
sin cierto grado de error (igual que Vd.) si mi sistema a largo plazo
me dará resultado y sin embargo Vd. cuenta con 100 años de historia
como el resto del mundo para hacer lo mismo que hace el resto del
mundo, y ¿está seguro que es ganar dinero?, de hecho debería
preguntarse ¿cuanto gana Vd. en Bolsa?, y yo deberé preguntarme
individualmente ¿cuánto gano en Bolsa?, y después de que cada uno se
responda a sí mismo, pensar si uno debe de hacer lo que la mayoría
contando con la gran cantidad de datos de los que se dispone a modo de
serie por ejemplo para desarrollar contrastes de volatilidad para
comprobar la eficiencia del mercado con el objetivo de estimar el
riesgo sistemático del mismo a través de la modelización de la
varianza condicional, o aplicar la estadística por ejemplo para
determinar el marco estacionario de determinados activos a través de
condiciones de causalidad en modelos econométricos, etc, en fin
literatura para la mayoría, o por el contrario debe de salirse de la
regla común.


...y por supuesto, no hay series que me puedan dar la razón, cachis!
Si al final tendrá Vd, razón! jeje


Lopv Inversor en Fondos Internacionales de RV, RF y RA

6 Dec 10
@joigar, te explicas como un libro abierto :-))))

joigar Dtor. de Análisis y Estrategia y Dtor. del comité de inversiones de Kau Markets EAFI (Nº 183 CNMV). Asesor del fondo Fonvalcem FI de Andbank.

6 Dec 10
jajajaja bueno, con permiso de D.Arturop, estaba metiendo el dedo en la
llaga!

arturop https://foro.masdividendos.com/

6 Dec 10
Sobre lo de los objetivos, ya sabe que es imposible llegar a ningún
sitio si ni siquiera sabemos a dónde queremos ir. Resulta bastante snob
decir que uno no tiene objetivos en plan 'porque yo lo valgo', pero le
aseguro a Vd. que bajo tortura confesaría los objetivos que tiene (y por
tortura no se me emocionen, me refiero a hacerle una serie de
preguntas). En cualquier caso articularlos no puedo hacerle ningún daño,
se lo aseguro.



Sobre si gano o no, seguro que Vd. gana más que yo, de momento, como ya
he dicho alguna vez sigo 'teorizando' y poco más. Tenga en cuenta
también que ganar dinero es un resultado apetecible pero que también
puede ser fortuito, es decir que ganemos dinero "a pesar de nuestro
método", simplemente por azar.



Mis argumentos son sencillos, mi torpeza en explicarlos grande. Piense
no obstante que al darle al 'generador de términos
estadístico-económicos' y al esgrimirlos en su respuesta puede estar
haciendo que algún lector me meta en ese saco, y nada más lejos de mi
intención y del significado de lo que pretendo contar. Hablando de
intenciones, sin prisa pero sin pausa, empezaré a escribir algún
articulillo que otro sobre este tema que nos llevamos entre manos.
Mientras tanto, ojalá sea Vd. ese suceso estadístico que está en la cima
del mercado bien por azar o todavía mejor por su propia capacidad. Nada
me congratularía más.

joigar Dtor. de Análisis y Estrategia y Dtor. del comité de inversiones de Kau Markets EAFI (Nº 183 CNMV). Asesor del fondo Fonvalcem FI de Andbank.

7 Dec 10

Bueno, tiene Vd. razón D Arturop, piense que me estaba recreando en
los placeres de la estadística, y bueno ha sido culpa suya en todo
caso, jeje.


Tiene razón, tengo un objetivo GANAR DINERO EN BOLSA, a lo que me
refería es que no hago y deshago posiciones en función de haber
alcanzado unos objetivos de rentabilidad para esas posiciones, procuro
ir con el mercado, a donde me lleve. Sin preguntarme demasiadas cosas,
porque suelen llevarnos a error. 


En realidad, comparto sus argumentos, de hecho, como le decía, esa
manera de rotar activos es muy similar a lo que muchos gestores con
éxito hacen en sus carteras, incluso, como ya sabe, creo profundamente
que sus sistema de rotación ya sea a través de Piotroski o
implementándolo con otros análisis me parece muy interesante, si bien,
éste asunto sigue sin dar respuesta a mis curiosidades, a saber:
¿Podríamos en RF diseñar una estructura en la que le ganáramos el
Alpha a un Fondo por ejemplo de PIMCO, como por ejemplo se puede en
RV?, eso sería interesante y no tendría riesgo, podríamos en tal caso
estar invertidos en RV ganando el Alpha de por ejemplo Bestinver
frente a su referencia por ejemplo el Eurostoxx o el MSCI,  y en RF
ganando el Alpha de Mohamed El-Erian. Aunque llegados a éste punto, y
aquí está la clave, seguro que si comparamos, preferiríamos concentrar
nuestra inversión en la estructura de RV, y aquí es donde insisto,
todos racionalmente queremos ganar más y de la forma más segura, nadie
elegiría a Mohamed, porque puestos a comparar sobre el mismo riesgo,
ninguno, entraríamos en RV, y de esta lógica se derivan el resto de
mis conclusiones.


A este tipo de cosas me refiero, a las inquietudes por diversificar
en producto para alcanzar objetivos y que estos no sean objetivos de
rentabilidad, sino que ésta llegue como consecuencia de aplicar esa
diversificación en producto y no una diversificación sobre activos de
forma que el objetivo sea una rentabilidad futura en base a que la
estadística deje abierta la posibilidad de ganar, y repito, no estoy
diciendo que no sea interesante, sólo apunto que en general no nos
movemos en esa línea que arriba comento y creo que con las cabezas
pensantes que tenemos por aquí, algo más interesante podríamos deslizar.


Opino.


26 Dec 10

@lopv,


Tengo intención de hacer una cartera de fondos para el año que viene
como la que empleas tú para tus familiares, es decir, una cartera
conservadora con los cuatro fondos que tú mencionas, pero añadiendo
también el Koala Sicav.


La duda que me invade es saber si es correcto incluir el Templeton
Global Bond Hedged, dado la situación sobre la renta Fija que existe
actual, no obstante he observado en los gráficos de Morningstar que
dicho fondo lo ha hecho muy bien en estos dos meses de crisis de deuda periférica.


un saludo y gracias


caballero39


Lopv Inversor en Fondos Internacionales de RV, RF y RA

26 Dec 10

@caballero39, pues no solo yo lo mantengo, sino que he quitado este
mes el Schroder US dollar y he añadido el Templeton Glbl Total Return
N Acc €-H1 (LU0294221253).  Ambos Templeton va a la RF global y no
invierten en mercados donde la RF está ya exhausta.  Este último
fondo, invierte también un poco en RF Corporativa, por lo que es un
poco más volátil.


Ya sé que se parecen (aunque no son iguales), pero sinceramente, no
encuentro más fondos que se portaran razonablemente bien en 2008 y lo
sigan haciendo ahora.


26 Dec 10
Totalmente fuera de contexto pero como estos dias los mercados
estan cerrados...............solo para manteneros fuera de los bares y
de la mala vida..............Felices fiestas!


FORTUNE: 
Secrets of Greatness 
What it Takes to be
Great 
By Geoffrey Colvin, senior editor-at-large 

(Fortune Magazine) -- What makes Tiger Woods great? What made
Berkshire Hathaway (Charts) Chairman Warren Buffett the world's
premier investor? We think we know: Each was a natural who came into
the world with a gift for doing exactly what he ended up doing. As
Buffett told Fortune not long ago, he was "wired at birth to
allocate capital." It's a one-in-a-million thing. You've got it
- or you don't. 
Well, folks, it's not so simple. For one
thing,  you do not possess a natural gift for a certain job,
because targeted natural gifts don't exist.
 (Sorry,
Warren.) You are not a born  href="http://www.valueforum.com/ratings/rating.mpl?symbol=CEO">CEO or
investor or chess grandmaster.  You will achieve greatness
only through an enormous amount of hard work over many years. And
not just any hard work, but work of a particular type that's
demanding and painful.
 
Born Winner? Golf champ
Tiger Woods never stopped trying to improve. 
Woods devoted
hours to practice and even remade his Swing twice, because that's
what it took to get better. Buffett, for instance, is famed for his
discipline and the hours he spends studying financial statements of
potential investment targets.  The good news is that your
lack of a natural gift is irrelevant - talent has little or
nothing to do with greatness. You can make yourself into any
number of things, and you can even make yourself great.
 

Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent
findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent
doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an
innate ability to do some specific activity especially well.
British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John
A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we
have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a
consequence of possessing innate gifts." 
To see how the
researchers could reach such a conclusion, consider the problem they
were trying to solve.  In virtually every field of endeavor,
most people learn quickly at first, then more slowly and then stop
developing completely. Yet a few do improve for years and even
decades, and go on to greatness.
 
The irresistible
question - the "fundamental challenge" for researchers in
this field, says the most prominent of them, professor K. Anders
Ericsson of Florida State University - is, Why?  How are
certain people able to go on improving?
 The answers begin
with consistent observations about great performers in many fields. 

Scientists worldwide have conducted scores of studies since
the 1993 publication of a landmark paper by Ericsson and two
colleagues, many focusing on sports, music and chess, in which
performance is relatively easy to measure and plot over time. But
plenty of additional studies have also examined other fields,
including business. 
No substitute for hard work 

The first major conclusion is that nobody is great without
work.
 It's nice to believe that if you find the field where
you're naturally gifted, you'll be great from day one, but it
doesn't happen. There's no evidence of high-level performance
without experience or practice. 

Reinforcing that no-free-lunch finding is vast evidence that
even the most accomplished people need around ten years of hard
work before becoming world-class, a pattern so well established
researchers call it the ten-year rule.
 
What about
Bobby Fischer, who became a chess grandmaster at 16? Turns out the
rule holds: He'd had nine years of intensive study. And as John Horn
of the University of Southern California and Hiromi Masunaga of
California State University observe,  "The ten-year
rule represents a very rough estimate, and most researchers regard
it as a minimum, not an average."
 In many fields
(music, literature) elite performers need 20 or 30 years' experience
before hitting their zenith. 
So greatness isn't handed to
anyone; it requires a lot of hard work. Yet that isn't enough, since
many people work hard for decades without approaching greatness or
even getting significantly better. What's missing? 
Practice
makes perfect 

The best people in any field are those who devote the most
hours to what the researchers call "deliberate
practice." It's activity that's explicitly intended to
improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's
level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves
high levels of repetition.
 
For example: Simply
hitting a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why
most golfers don't get better. Hitting an eight-iron 300 times with
a goal of leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of
the time, continually observing results and making appropriate
adjustments, and doing that for hours every day - that's deliberate
practice. 
Consistency is crucial. As Ericsson notes,
"Elite performers in many diverse domains have been found to
practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day,
including weekends." 
Evidence crosses a remarkable range
of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and
colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers)
averaged 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over their lives; the
next-best averaged 7,500 hours; and the next, 5,000. It's the same
story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More
deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals
great performance. 
The skeptics 
Not all researchers
are totally onboard with the myth-of-talent hypothesis, though their
objections go to its edges rather than its center. For one thing,
there are the intangibles. Two athletes might work equally hard, but
what explains the ability of New England Patriots quarterback Tom
Brady to perform at a higher level in the last two minutes of a
game? 
Researchers also note, for example, child prodigies who
could speak, read or play music at an unusually early age. But on
investigation those cases generally include highly involved parents.
And many prodigies do not go on to greatness in their early field,
while great performers include many who showed no special early
aptitude. 
Certainly some important traits are partly
inherited, such as physical size and particular measures of
intelligence, but those influence what a person doesn't do more than
what he does; a five-footer will never be an NFL lineman, and a
seven-footer will never be an Olympic gymnast. Even those
restrictions are less severe than you'd expect: Ericsson notes,
"Some international chess masters have IQs in the 90s."
The more research that's done, the more solid the
deliberate-practice model becomes. 
Real-world examples 

All this scholarly research is simply evidence for what great
performers have been showing us for years. To take a handful of
examples: Winston Churchill, one of the 20th century's greatest
orators, practiced his speeches compulsively. Vladimir Horowitz
supposedly said, "If I don't practice for a day, I know it. If
I don't practice for two days, my wife knows it. If I don't practice
for three days, the world knows it." He was certainly a demon
practicer, but the same quote has been attributed to world-class
musicians like Ignace Paderewski and Luciano Pavarotti. 
Many
great athletes are legendary for the brutal discipline of their
practice routines. In basketball, Michael Jordan practiced intensely
beyond the already punishing team practices. (Had Jordan possessed
some mammoth natural gift specifically for basketball, it seems
unlikely he'd have been cut from his high school team.) 
In
football, all-time-great receiver Jerry Rice - passed up by 15 teams
because they considered him too slow - practiced so hard that other
players would get sick trying to keep up. 
Tiger Woods is a
textbook example of what the research shows. Because his father
introduced him to golf at an extremely early age - 18 months - and
encouraged him to practice intensively, Woods had racked up at least
15 years of practice by the time he became the youngest-ever winner
of the U.S. Amateur Championship, at age 18. Also in line with the
findings, he has never stopped trying to improve, devoting many
hours a day to conditioning and practice, even remaking his swing
twice because that's what it took to get even better. 
The
business side 
The evidence, scientific as well as anecdotal,
seems overwhelmingly in favor of deliberate practice as the source
of great performance. Just one problem: How do you practice
business? Many elements of business, in fact, are directly
practicable. Presenting, negotiating, delivering evaluations,
deciphering financial statements - you can practice them all. 

Still, they aren't the essence of great managerial
performance. That requires making judgments and decisions with
imperfect information in an uncertain environment, interacting with
people, seeking information - can you practice those things too? You
can, though not in the way you would practice a Chopin etude. 

Instead, it's all about how you do what you're already doing -
you create the practice in your work, which requires a few critical
changes. The first is going at any task with a new goal: Instead of
merely trying to get it done, you aim to get better at it. 

Report writing involves finding information, analyzing it and
presenting it - each an improvable skill. Chairing a board meeting
requires understanding the company's strategy in the deepest way,
forming a coherent view of coming market changes and setting a tone
for the discussion. Anything that anyone does at work, from the most
basic task to the most exalted, is an improvable skill. 

Adopting a new mindset 
Armed with that mindset, people
go at a job in a new way. Research shows they process information
more deeply and retain it longer. They want more information on what
they're doing and seek other perspectives. They adopt a longer-term
point of view. In the activity itself, the  mindset
persists
. You aren't just doing the job, you're explicitly
trying to get better at it in the larger sense. 
Again,
research shows that this difference in  mental approach is
vital
. For example, when amateur singers take a singing
lesson, they experience it as fun, a release of tension. But for
professional singers, it's the opposite: They increase their
concentration and focus on improving their performance during the
lesson. Same activity, different mindset. 

Feedback is crucial, and getting it should be no
problem in business. Yet most people don't seek it; they just wait
for it, half hoping it won't come. Without it, as Goldman Sachs
leadership-development chief Steve Kerr says, "it's as if
you're bowling through a curtain that comes down to knee level. If
you don't know how successful you are, two things happen: One, you
don't get any better, and two, you stop caring." In some
companies, like General Electric, frequent feedback is part of the
culture. If you aren't lucky enough to get that, seek it out. 

Be the ball 
Through the whole process, one of your
goals is to build what the researchers call "mental models of
your business" - pictures of how the elements fit together and
influence one another. The more you work on it, the larger your
mental models will become and the better your performance will
grow. 
Andy Grove could keep a model of a whole world-changing
technology industry in his head and adapt Intel (Charts) as needed.
Bill Gates, Microsoft's (Charts) founder, had the same knack: He
could see at the dawn of the PC that his goal of a computer on every
desk was realistic and would create an unimaginably large market.
John D. Rockefeller, too, saw ahead when the world-changing new
industry was oil. Napoleon was perhaps the greatest ever. He could
not only hold all the elements of a vast battle in his mind but,
more important, could also respond quickly when they shifted in
unexpected ways. 
That's a lot to focus on for the benefits of
deliberate practice - and worthless without one more requirement: Do
it regularly, not sporadically. 
Why? 

For most people, work is hard enough without pushing even
harder. Those extra steps are so difficult and painful they almost
never get done. That's the way it must be. If great performance
were easy, it wouldn't be rare. Which leads to possibly the
deepest question about greatness. While experts understand an
enormous amount about the behavior that produces great
performance, they understand very little about where that behavior
comes from.
 
The authors of one study conclude,
"We still do not know which factors encourage individuals to
engage in deliberate practice." Or as University of Michigan
business school professor Noel Tichy puts it after 30 years of
working with managers, "Some people are much more motivated
than others, and that's the existential question I cannot answer -
why." 
The critical reality is that we are not hostage to
some naturally granted level of talent. We can make ourselves what
we will. Strangely, that idea is not popular. People hate abandoning
the notion that they would coast to fame and riches if they found
their talent. But that view is tragically constraining, because when
they hit life's inevitable bumps in the road, they conclude that
they just aren't gifted and give up. 
Maybe we can't expect
most people to achieve greatness. It's just too demanding. But the
striking, liberating news is that greatness isn't reserved for a
preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone.


26 Dec 10

@lopv.


gracias por tu pronta respuesta Dicho sea de paso aprovecho para que
te plantes en incorporar a tu cartera conservadora el BNY Mellon
Global Real Return Fund que es un clónico del Newton Global Real
Return: este fondo desde su lanzamiento 2004 no ha perdido nunca.
Modestamente pienso que una buena idea, al menos para mi, es formar
una cartera para el año 2011 por medio de una cartera de fondos de
gestión activa verdaderamente flexibles: Carmignac Patrimonie, Koala
(la gestión se está desarrollando muy eficazmente), BNY Mellon Global
Real Return, Templeton Global Total Return. Esta cartera me había
planteado crearla en dos veces, es decir un 50% cada vez, no sea que
meta la gamba y me arrepienta, bueno, uno nunca sabe.


Este grupo de fondos formaría el 50% de mi patrimonio, el 25% lo
tendría en participaciones preferentes de una Caja en la que trabajo,
lo cual significa que controlo la liquidez de este activo, y el resto
25% en liquidez a la espera de entrar en mercado por medio de ETF,S,
pero vamos ,siempre y cuando vea posibilidades de ganar.También me
planteo especular en Dolar Usa/euro si también se dá esta posibilidad.
Intentaré ser fiel a este planteamiento inicial, ya sé que es dificil
pero hay que adoptar una disciplina para poder ser un inversor feliz.


gracias por todo y Felices Fiestas.


un abrazo


caballero39


Lopv Inversor en Fondos Internacionales de RV, RF y RA

26 Dec 10
@caballero39, creo que el BNY es un fondo a caballo entre el Templeton y
el C. Patrimoine. No incluyo BNY porque no está en la plataforma de mi
banco, por tanto no lo sigo.