Criticad mi cartera

preservación de capital a largo plazo, +30años

de la carta de Buffett de 2011

Investing is often described as the process of laying out money now in the expectation of receiving
more money in the future. At Berkshire we take a more demanding approach, defining investing as the transfer to
others of purchasing power now with the reasoned expectation of receiving more purchasing power – after taxes
have been paid on nominal gains – in the future. More succinctly, investing is forgoing consumption now in
order to have the ability to consume more at a later date.
From our definition there flows an important corollary: The riskiness of an investment is not measured
by beta (a Wall Street term encompassing volatility and often used in measuring risk) but rather by the
probability – the reasoned probability – of that investment causing its owner a loss of purchasing-power over his
contemplated holding period. Assets can fluctuate greatly in price and not be risky as long as they are reasonably
certain to deliver increased purchasing power over their holding period. And as we will see, a non-fluctuating
asset can be laden with risk.
Investment possibilities are both many and varied. There are three major categories, however, and it’s
important to understand the characteristics of each. So let’s survey the field.
• Investments that are denominated in a given currency include money-market funds, bonds, mortgages,
bank deposits, and other instruments. Most of these currency-based investments are thought of as “safe.”
In truth they are among the most dangerous of assets. Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge.
Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many
countries, even as the holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal. This ugly
result, moreover, will forever recur. Governments determine the ultimate value of money, and systemic
forces will sometimes cause them to gravitate to policies that produce inflation. From time to time such
policies spin out of control.
Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86%
in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire. It takes no less than $7 today to buy
what $1 did at that time. Consequently, a tax-free institution would have needed 4.3% interest annually
from bond investments over that period to simply maintain its purchasing power. Its managers would
have been kidding themselves if they thought of any portion of that interest as “income.”
17
For tax-paying investors like you and me, the picture has been far worse. During the same 47-year
period, continuous rolling of U.S. Treasury bills produced 5.7% annually. That sounds satisfactory. But
if an individual investor paid personal income taxes at a rate averaging 25%, this 5.7% return would
have yielded nothing in the way of real income. This investor’s visible income tax would have stripped
him of 1.4 points of the stated yield, and the invisible inflation tax would have devoured the remaining
4.3 points. It’s noteworthy that the implicit inflation “tax” was more than triple the explicit income tax
that our investor probably thought of as his main burden. “In God We Trust” may be imprinted on our
currency, but the hand that activates our government’s printing press has been all too human.
High interest rates, of course, can compensate purchasers for the inflation risk they face with currency-based
investments – and indeed, rates in the early 1980s did that job nicely. Current rates, however, do not come
close to offsetting the purchasing-power risk that investors assume. Right now bonds should come with a
warning label.
Under today’s conditions, therefore, I do not like currency-based investments. Even so, Berkshire holds
significant amounts of them, primarily of the short-term variety. At Berkshire the need for ample
liquidity occupies center stage and will never be slighted, however inadequate rates may be.
Accommodating this need, we primarily hold U.S. Treasury bills, the only investment that can be
counted on for liquidity under the most chaotic of economic conditions. Our working level for liquidity
is $20 billion; $10 billion is our absolute minimum.
Beyond the requirements that liquidity and regulators impose on us, we will purchase currency-related
securities only if they offer the possibility of unusual gain – either because a particular credit is
mispriced, as can occur in periodic junk-bond debacles, or because rates rise to a level that offers the
possibility of realizing substantial capital gains on high-grade bonds when rates fall. Though we’ve
exploited both opportunities in the past – and may do so again – we are now 180 degrees removed from
such prospects. Today, a wry comment that Wall Streeter Shelby Cullom Davis made long ago seems
apt: “Bonds promoted as offering risk-free returns are now priced to deliver return-free risk.”

http://andrewswihart.net/pictures/stock-market-since-1800.gif

Slds

Yo entiendo que el objetivo de "preservación de capital" es referido a toda la vigencia de la inversión, o sea, a que bajo cualquier circunstancia en los mercados siempre se mantenga el patrimonio.

De todas maneras con un importe a invertir de 7 CIFRAS cualquier gestor de patrimonio e inversión estaría dispuesto incluso a realizar una felación con tal de gestionar todo ese capital.

El informarse, pedir consejo y debatir en este foro no es mala opción... pero te aseguro que ese montante de pasta bien merece una gestión profesional!

SalU2

No estoy de acuerdo.

Gestión "profesional" es la que hacen Kaloo, Carmignac o Yacktman, en sus respectivos fondos.

Yo conozco varios gestores de patrimonio y no creo que el compañero Helm les tenga nada que envidiar. Para decirte que sobreponderan EEUU frente a Europa, o al revés, y acabar comprando los mismos fondos que compras tú... Y eso los que saben. A una gestora de patrimonios de uno de los dos grandes bancos españoles le tuve que explicar lo que es un contrasplit.

Otra cosa es que no tengas tiempo, ganas o conocimientos para gestionar tú la cartera. Pero si los tienes, un gestor de banca privada, en el 90% de los casos, no te aporta nada.

+1 otra vez, me considero tan profesional o más que los banqueros privados, conozco a bastantes, incluidos algunos que sólo te miran a la jeta si tienes 2kilos, y no creo que tenga nada que envidiarles, modestia aparte ;-) La gente que de verdad sabe son buy-side analysts o portfolio managers en las citadas gestoras. Saludos

Empezando por el título de este post, creo que has hecho un ejercicio de humildad
No hace falta ser un lince para darse cuenta que de esto sabes mucho y más que un gran números de los que por aquí andamos.
Tampoco hace falta ser un lince para deducir,en el día-a-día, que el grueso del foro lo representan pequeños inversores que en muchos casos están formando su primera cartera de fondos y buscan algo parecido a los depósitos.
Coincido en que ceder la gestión a terceros no añade valor.Explico mi caso
Antes de la crisis punto.com yo tenía dos carteras , una la gestionaba yo y otra unos asesores que se dicen independientes ,arquitectura abierta y esas cosas que sabemos.Cuando estalló la burbuja tecnológica yo salí pitando con pérdidas de 6/8% en mi cartera,sin embargo la que gestionaban ellos llegaron en algunos casos a -45% y eso cuesta mucho recuperar.En los ciclos alcistas estábamos bastante parejos.
Ahora lo gestiono yo todo lo mejor que puedo.
Sobre tu cartera o idea de inversión no creo que yo pudiera decir algo que tú ya no sepas por tanto lo único desear suerte en las decisiones.