[Agorà Personal Army] Investing & Personal Finance

Pjem · June 11, 2020, 9:30pm

Si, ma ripetiamolo ancora una volta: tu non lo sai a priori cosa succedera' in questa crisi.
Davvero, non so come altro dirtelo, non hai il potere predittivo che pensi di avere basandoti su quello che e' successo nella crisi del 2008

C'e' gente che questo lo fa per lavoro e sbaglia.

Cunz · June 11, 2020, 9:31pm

aspettare la crisi secondo me è un approccio sbagliato, per me bisogna semplicemente soppesarne l'eventualità in relazione alla situazione economico finanziaria nel momento in cui ci si appresta a considerare di investire i propri soldi. o detto in altre parole non prendere l'eventualità di una crisi come l'unico elemento di valutazione nel considerare se investire il proprio denaro.
come detto da molti fare market timing non è una strategia, ma valutare più fattori per determinare se il mercato offre un panorama di investimento compatibile con la propria propensione al rischio può esserlo.

Ficus · June 11, 2020, 9:38pm

Vi posto anche quest'immagine. A vedere l'andamento ho un terribile deja vu coi bitcoin. Più sale veloce, più crolla altrettanto veloce

Articolo: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/6A955A3E-3D43-11EA-A3B8-BC9F4A046959

darthrevan · June 11, 2020, 9:38pm

sto thread resetta piu' di quello del corona

comunque oggi con le mie put spy ho fatto +100%

Cunz · June 11, 2020, 9:52pm

a darmi un deja vu della mia brevissima parentesi crypto invece sono le valutazioni a caso delle aziende tech, a vedere valutazioni di aziende come nikola mi torna in mente roba tipo dentacoin con market cap di decine di miliardi di dollari. di sicuro sono valutazioni dettate da mania speculativa.

adc5cdea8223c4ef598963ea9e6e0853 · June 12, 2020, 10:54am

La crisi del 2008 era di tutt'altra natura.

adc5cdea8223c4ef598963ea9e6e0853 · June 12, 2020, 10:55am

Sul lungo periodo non c'e' timing, perche' e' per definizione lungo periodo

Se avete tanti soldi e volete entrare, potete ridurre il rischio di un crollo facendo entrate scaglionate. Fine della storia

inglo · June 12, 2020, 5:52pm

La razionalità non esiste

ho tagliato un po' perché è lungo, ma consiglio la lettura

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if-you-want-hertz-have-some-hertz?sref=qStSw5ze

If You Want Hertz, Have Some Hertz

One theory is that the stock market is a way for people to invest money in companies. Companies want to raise money to do stuff, so they offer partial ownership of themselves to investors in exchange for money. The companies have projects that they want to fund, the investors want to fund projects, and the stock market is a way of allocating the most money to the best projects.

In its simplest form this theory is not especially true. Most public companies do not fund themselves by selling stock; mostly they fund themselves internally, or with debt, and the main thing that they do with their stock is buy it back. If you buy stock, you are buying it from someone else, who bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else; way back in the distant past someone bought it from the company, but what does that have to do with you?

But there is another theory. This theory is that the stock market is a fun casino, and you should buy stocks because they will go up and down in exciting fashion and might make you rich quick. This is a very old theory, and I suspect that for much of the history of financial markets it was considerably more popular and better supported than the discounted-present-value-of-cash-flows thing. A modern variant is the Dave Portnoy Stocks Theory:
Dave Portnoy, founder of the popular website Barstool Sports, has turned to day trading, sharing regular proclamations to his 1.5 million Twitter followers as he scans his portfolio.

“Stocks only go up, this is the easiest game I’ve been part of!” he said in a video on June 4, with Dire Straits tunes in the background. ...

“It took me a while to figure out that the stock market isn’t connected to the economy,” he said. “I tell people there are two rules to investing: Stocks only go up, and if you have any problems, see rule No. 1.”

I do not exactly want to endorse this theory. Not because it isn’t true—well, the “stocks only go up” part obviously isn’t, but “the stock market is a fun casino” may be true depending on your view of fun—but because it doesn’t really have any content. “Buy stocks, it’s fun,” doesn’t tell you which stocks to buy, or how much to pay for them. Without a rigorous quantitative model of fun, this theory makes no useful predictions.

Still it is extremely popular, and we have talked about it a lot recently. I call it, or something like it, the “boredom markets hypothesis”: People got bored in their coronavirus-related lockdowns, and they couldn’t bet on sports because sports were canceled, so they turned to betting on stocks as a form of entertainment, not investment or financial analysis. The stock market is a casino that happens to still be open.

I mean. Hertz filed for bankruptcy on May 22. It has about 142 million shares outstanding; at its $5.53 post-bankruptcy high, the total market value of its stock was about $785 million. “Hertz’s roughly $3 billion in corporate bonds were trading earlier this week at around 40 cents on the dollar,” suggesting that the value of Hertz’s stock is at best about negative $1.8 billion. 5

Of course stock can’t really have negative value; if Hertz is actually $1.8 billion in the hole to its creditors, it can’t go out and demand that its shareholders come up with the money. But it can … ask them to? It can just say to shareholders—and potential new shareholders!—“hey would you like to kick in a billion dollars to pay back our debts?” Doesn’t hurt to ask!

Why would they say yes? Well, it’s fun? I don’t know:

Jared Ellias, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, said he has studied hundreds of bankruptcies and never seen a company try to fund a case with an equity offering at the start of chapter 11.

“Hertz looks at the market and sees there is a group of irrational traders who are buying the stock, and the response to that is to seek to sell stock to these people in hopes of raising some amounts of money to fund their restructuring,” Mr. Elias said.

And:
“It is incredibly creative and they get props for that, but I wouldn’t buy those shares,” said Nancy Rapoport, a professor at UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law, who said she has never seen a bankruptcy funded this way. “I guess they’re trying to catch whatever the opposite of a falling knife is.”

A soaring spoon? Hertz is what they call a “debtor in possession”; it is managing itself to maximize value for its creditors. Its obligation is to be ruthlessly focused on recovery, to do everything it can to enhance the value of the bankruptcy estate, the carcass of Hertz that its creditors are going to carve up. Hertz’s shareholders, meanwhile, are nuts:

Thai Gaon, a 23-year-old salesman in San Francisco, bought 35,000 Hertz shares on June 4 at $1.43, spending a little over $50,000, according to documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

“It was my entire life savings,” he said. “I decided, you know, if I’m gonna do it, I should do it big, and I’ll make a play and see what comes out of it.”

But there are a lot of them:

Just in the last week, 96,000 people on the Robinhood investing app opened a position in Hertz Global Holdings Inc. …

“Retail has a lot to do with it and I don’t think you’ve seen institutional investors buying those kinds of stocks,” said Christopher Grisanti, chief equity strategist at MAI Capital Management. “It’s too much risk. I would call it catching a falling knife.”

According to website Robintrack, which uses Robinhood’s data to show trends in positioning but isn’t affiliated with it, individual investors on the app have been flocking to bankruptcy-protected companies in droves.

We talked about them on Tuesday. “It is … possible,” I wrote, “that many of the thousands of brand-new investors on Robinhood have not carefully analyzed the capital structures to find the fulcrum securities?” They seem to be bidding up Hertz’s stock because it is fun, because it’s trending on Robinhood, because they are gamblers, not because they have a reasoned expectation of recovering anything for their shares in the bankruptcy. They are buying the stock from each other. This does not help Hertz. Hertz needs help. It is tasked with recovering as much money as possible for its creditors. If it could get on the other side of the whee-let’s-buy-Hertz-for-fun trade, that would help. On Monday, Hertz’s biggest post-bankruptcy day, some $2.4 billion worth of Hertz stock changed hands. Why shouldn’t Hertz try to take a piece of that for itself, or rather its creditors?

Ahahahaha I mean, I can think of reasons. It does seem … cruel? Hertz is going to try to sell as much as a billion dollars of stock in an “at-the-market” offering, selling it on the stock exchange whenever there’s demand, not placing big blocks with institutions in a coordinated bookbuilt offering but just giving everyone on Robinhood whatever Hertz stock they want. And then maybe that will be enough to get it through bankruptcy, and the shareholders will have saved the company and their investment, and they’ll all get rich. It is not impossible: Hertz filed for bankruptcy due to, essentially, a margin call on its highly leveraged fleet of cars, but used car prices have already recovered, and maybe if Hertz can raise a little more money to get it through the tough times, everything will be fine.

Or maybe the bankruptcy will work out the way bankruptcies usually work out: The company will be reorganized, the unsecured bondholders will become the new owners of the company, and the old equity—the shares it’s selling now—will be wiped out. Hertz will raise a billion dollars from Robinhood, hand the money directly to its creditors, and tell its new shareholders “all your money vanished immediately, sorry, better luck next time.”

Imagine writing the prospectus for this offering. Actually in some ways it is nice and clarifying. Ordinarily if a company is in grave danger of going bankrupt, and it wants to do a stock offering to try to save itself, the bankers underwriting the offering will worry a lot about getting sued if it doesn’t work out. They will have to strike a tricky balance between (1) including all the right warnings about how risky the stock is, so that if the company does go bankrupt they have a defense to the inevitable securities-fraud lawsuit, and (2) making the case for the stock so that people might actually buy it and the company can avert bankruptcy.

Here neither of those things is a problem! On the one hand, you don’t have to give investors lavish scary warnings that Hertz might go bankrupt, because Hertz is bankrupt. “We’re in bankruptcy, you dopes, and your stock will probably be worthless”; what more is there to say? The bad thing has already happened; no one who buys this stock can say that they weren’t warned.

On the other hand, you don’t have to give investors a compelling sales pitch for why they should buy the stock, because the whole premise of the offering is that people are irrationally buying the stock already and so they might as well buy it from Hertz. “Hertz: We’ve got some of that Hertz stock you wanted, if for some reason you still want it,” is the entire pitch. It is not a good pitch, if you were not already predisposed to find Hertz’s stock fun, but thousands of people apparently are! The stock was up this morning!

Really I can’t decide how to feel about this. On first principles, you should not sell a billion dollars of stock in a bankrupt company to small retail investors who just installed Robinhood on their phones a few months ago. On the other hand, people are definitely doing that anyway; a notable feature of this weird pandemic market is exactly that hundreds of millions of dollars of stock in Hertz, which is bankrupt, are being sold to small retail investors every day. Hertz just wants permission to do some of that selling itself.

When Hertz’s board of directors decided to file for bankruptcy, one reason they gave was that “the Corporations have made significant efforts to seek access to the capital markets to provide additional liquidity through this challenging economic downturn, but the capital markets are currently unavailable to the Corporations and it is unclear when or if such access may become available.” In a sense that’s always the reason that any company files for bankruptcy: If you can raise more money, particularly perpetual money that you never have to pay back and that doesn’t charge interest, you should do that and pay back your debts. But when you are in dire straits and your creditors are declaring defaults and seizing your cars, no one generally wants to give you money, particularly not for free. Hertz tried to raise money to get it through the tough times, but it couldn’t, so it filed for bankruptcy.

And then a miracle happened? Then it turned out that people really do want to give Hertz a lot of money, for free. Because they are bored and in lockdown, or because they believe in the Hertz brand, or because there is something exciting about bankruptcy, or because Hertz is trending on Robinhood so it must be good, or because they believe that the present value of its future cash flows significantly exceeds its debt and so there is a lot of equity value. These are not the people Hertz would have contacted when it was “making significant efforts to seek access to the capital markets”; they are small-time retail investors using an app. They are spontaneously volunteering to give Hertz money. I mean that is not exactly right—they are spontaneously buying Hertz stock in the market, from each other, not from Hertz—but deep down those things are equivalent. The stock market is a way for gamblers to have fun, and it is also a way for companies to raise money. Sometimes those two purposes come together beautifully.

adc5cdea8223c4ef598963ea9e6e0853 · June 12, 2020, 6:54pm

Mi sembra un'analisi un po' stupidotta. Anche Lufthansa ed Alitalia sono sostanzialmente in bancarotta, pero' e' evidentemente razionale comprare azioni della prima, e non della seconda.

inglo · June 12, 2020, 7:19pm

si parlava di hertz che non è "sostanzialmente in bancarotta", è in bancarotta dichiarata.

darthrevan · June 13, 2020, 7:50am

just farrentina things

neenster · June 14, 2020, 9:28am

Forse ancora piu' interessante: https://alexdanco.com/2020/06/14/never-hertz-to-ask/

Cunz · June 16, 2020, 4:54am

https://www.investing.com/news/economy/asian-stocks-set-to-track-us-gains-as-fed-steps-up-support-2202755

1272120559309148162

Che monumentale presa per il culo.
Non riesco a figurare una singola situazione in cui tutto questo possa andare a finire bene.
O pensano di aver inventato il moto perpetuo, o sono completamente in malafede.

kat · June 18, 2020, 9:45am

Qualcuno utilizza Degiro? Sembra molto vantaggioso a livello di costi, dove sta l'inculata?

darthrevan · June 18, 2020, 10:00am

io lo uso, vivo in olanda pero' dove risiede

mi trovo bene

Cunz · June 19, 2020, 9:44am

Non voglio essere ingordo, con un tasso negativo dell’1% annuo io mi accontento di prendere in prestito anche solo tre o quattro milioncini. Qualcuno mi da il numero da chiamare?

Deynor · June 19, 2020, 6:26pm

Io lo uso,
L’unico contro importante è che non fa da sostituto d’imposta.
Ma grazie ad un accordo con dichiarativo.com ti fanno un documento per fare la dichiarazione dei redditi.

Secondo me è ottimo per investimenti a lungo termine/cassettista dato che molti etf sono gratuiti.

Cunz · June 26, 2020, 7:44am

interessante analisi del portafoglio 60/40
https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2020/06/25/the-new-60-40-portfolio/

Vertical · June 26, 2020, 10:05am

...interessante e sensato...però lui parla da cittadino USA e quindi per lui 60/40 vuol dire 60 Tbond e 40 S&P500.... che è UNA combinazione 60/40 , ma non l'unica...

..per noi investitori euro poi una combinazione 60% eurobond governativi sarebbe ad oggi ancora meno premiante e quindi un bel problema... per questo motivo se anche per la parte equity possiamo anche semplicisticamente prendere una posizione MSCI World e tanto male non faremo mai, per la parte bond, che è preponderante ci sono una infinità di sfumature più o meno rischiose/redditizie....e la differenza di rendimenti nei prossimi anni sarà probabilmente in gran parte LI' ( e non sarà un lavoro facile fare bene....)

e questa è una grande verità: "The best answer for most people, the answer that nobody (including myself) wants to hear, is to simply prepare for lower returns."

gerryino · July 6, 2020, 1:29pm

L'altro giorno tramite un articolo di giornale sono venuto a conoscenza di Soisy, in pratica dovrebbe essere una di piattaforma di prestiti P2P, in cui si saltano gli intermediari bancari, si presta direttamente soldi ai poverac... ai meno abbienti e ci si pappa più o meno tutto il malloppo.

Premesso che ne so abbastanza da sapere che se la banca sei tu significa che ti accolli il rischio di insolvenza (anche se hanno un opzione per accollarselo loro in cambio di una fetta di interessi ), potrebbe essere una buona opzione per investire un po' di liquidità o si trova uguale senza tutti gli sbattimenti?

Qualcuno per caso lo conosce?