Tema: PPCC-Pisitófilos Creditófagos-Otoño 2022

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/2cc86bde-c0a3-4018-8dff-06f7ce16d887

Investors pile into insurance against further market sell-offs

A surge in put options reflects fears of more asset price falls as central banks take action against inflation

Investors are buying record amounts of insurance contracts to protect themselves from a sell-off that has already wiped trillions of dollars off the value of US stocks.

Purchases of put option contracts on stocks and exchange traded funds have surged, with big money managers spending $34.3bn on the options in the four weeks to September 23, according to Options Clearing Corp data analysed by Sundial Capital Research. The total was the largest on record in data going back to 2009, and four times the average since the start of 2020.

Institutional investors have spent $9.6bn in the past week alone. The splurge underscores the extent to which big funds want to insulate themselves from a sell-off that has dragged on for nine months, and has been supercharged by central bankers across the globe aggressively raising interest rates to tame high inflation.

“Investors have realised the [US] Federal Reserve is very policy constrained with inflation where it is and they can no longer count on it to manage the risk of asset price volatility, so they need to take more direct action themselves,” said Dave Jilek, chief investment strategist at Gateway Investment Advisors.

Jason Goepfert, who leads research at Sundial, noted that when adjusting for growth in the US stock market over the past two decades, the volume of equity put option purchases was roughly equivalent to the levels reached during the financial crisis. By contrast demand for call options, which can pay out if stocks rally, has tailed off.



While the sell-off has wiped more than 22 per cent off the benchmark S&P 500 stock index this year — pushing it into a bear market — the slide has been relatively controlled, lasting months, not weeks. That has frustrated many investors who hedged themselves with put options contracts or bet on a surge in the Cboe’s Vix volatility index but found the protection did not act as the intended shock absorber.

Earlier this month the S&P 500 suffered its biggest sell-off in more than two years but the Vix failed to breach 30, a phenomenon never before registered, according to Greg Boutle, a strategist with BNP Paribas. Generally large drawdowns push the Vix well above that level, he added.

Over the past month money managers have instead turned to buying put contracts on individual stocks, betting that they can better safeguard portfolios if they hedge against large moves in companies like FedEx or Ford, which have slid dramatically after issuing profit warnings.

“You’ve seen this extreme dislocation. It’s very rare you see this dynamic where put premiums in single stocks are bid so much relative to the index,” said Brian Bost, the co-head of equity derivatives in the Americas at Barclays. “That’s a large structural shift that doesn’t happen every day.”

Investors and strategists have argued that the slow slide in the major indices has in part been driven by the fact that investors had largely hedged themselves after declines earlier this year. Long-short equity hedge funds have also largely pared back their bets after a dismal start to the year, meaning many have not had to liquidate large positions.



As stocks dropped again on Friday and more than 2,600 companies hit new 52-week lows this week, Cantor Fitzgerald said its clients were taking profits on hedges and establishing new trades with lower strike prices as they put on fresh insurance.

Strategists across Wall Street have cut year-end forecasts as they factor in tighter policy from the Fed and an economic slowdown that they warn will soon begin to eat into corporate profits. Goldman Sachs on Friday lowered its S&P 500 forecast, expecting a further decline in the benchmark as it scrapped its bet on a late-year rally.

“The forward paths of inflation, economic growth, interest rates, earnings, and valuations are all in flux more than usual,” said David Kostin, a strategist at Goldman. “Based on our client discussions, a majority of equity investors have adopted the view that a hard landing scenario is inevitable.”

[Derby]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices.html

Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?

The economics of the housing market, and the local rules that shape it, have squeezed out entry-level homes.

As recently as the 1990s, when Jason Nageli started off, the home-building industry was still constructing what real-estate ads would brightly call the “starter home.”[/i] In the Denver area, he sold newly built two-story houses with three bedrooms in 1,400 square feet or less.

The price: $99,000 to $125,000, or around $200,000 in today’s dollars.

That house would be in tremendous demand today. But few builders construct anything like it anymore. And you couldn’t buy those Denver area homes built 25 years ago at an entry-level price today, either. They go for half a million dollars.

The disappearance of such affordable homes is central to the American housing crisis. The nation has a deepening shortage of housing. But, more specifically, there isn’t enough of this housing: small, no-frills homes that would give a family new to the country or a young couple with student debt a foothold to build equity.

The affordable end of the market has been squeezed from every side. Land costs have risen steeply in booming parts of the country. Construction materials and government fees have become more expensive. And communities nationwide are far more prescriptive today than decades ago about what housing should look like and how big it must be. Some ban vinyl siding. Others require two-car garages. Nearly all make it difficult to build the kind of home that could sell for $200,000 today.

“It’s just become where you can’t get to that number anymore,” said Mr. Nageli, now the operations manager for the Utah builder Holmes Homes.

Nationwide, the small detached house has all but vanished from new construction. Only about 8 percent of new single-family homes today are 1,400 square feet or less. In the 1940s, according to CoreLogic, nearly 70 percent of new houses were that small.

Those starter homes came in all kinds over the years: mill worker’s cottages, shotgun homes, bungalows, ramblers, split-levels, two-bedroom tract homes. American families also found their start in brick rowhouses, cozy duplexes and triple-deckers.

But the economics of the housing market — and the local rules that shape it — have dictated today that many small homes are replaced by McMansions, or that their moderate-income residents are replaced by wealthier ones. (A little 1948 Levittown house on Long Island, the prototypical postwar suburban starter home, now goes with a few updates for $550,000.)

At the root is the math problem of putting — or keeping — a low-cost home on increasingly pricey land.

“When we started out 20 or so years ago, we could buy a lot for $10,000-$15,000, and we could build a home for under $100,000,” said Mary Lawler, the head of Avenue Community Development Corporation in Houston, a nonprofit developer. “It was a totally different world than we are in today.”

In Portland, Ore., a lot may cost $100,000. Permits add $40,000-$50,000. Removing a fir tree 36 inches in diameter costs another $16,000 in fees.

“You’ve basically regulated me out of anything remotely on the affordable side,” said Justin Wood, the owner of Fish Construction NW.

In Savannah, Ga., Jerry Konter began building three-bed, two-bath, 1,350-square-foot homes in 1977 for $36,500. But he moved upmarket as costs and design mandates pushed him there.

“It’s not that I don’t want to build entry-level homes,” said Mr. Konter, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders. “It’s that I can’t produce one that I can make a profit on and sell to that potential purchaser.”

That reality conflicts with demographics. The typical American household has fallen in size for decades, even as the typical home has grown larger. Downsizing baby boomers and young adults who delay children figure to drive demand for smaller homes. So will increasingly diverse young buyers who have more debt and less access to family wealth.



These shifts may force communities, builders and buyers to rethink what a starter home looks like. In places where even small single-family houses are out of reach for many, the answer might be a condo.

Today in some parts of the country there is hardly anything on the market for under $300,000 resembling the American starter home of the last 70 years. In Raleigh, N.C., entering this weekend there were 17 such single-family homes with at least two bedrooms listed for sale. Across the Denver metro, there were six; around Salt Lake City, three.

In Houston, Felecia Ellis has been driving around on lunch breaks from a dental clinic looking for such a home in the $200,000-$250,000 range.

“Driving through a neighborhood, I’m like, ‘Oh my god, this is a beautiful home, I know I can afford it,’” Ms. Ellis said. Then she pulls out her phone in the hopeful ritual of the first-time home buyer. The answer in the listing, more often than not, is that, in fact, she can’t afford it.

“And I’m like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” she said. “‘This house is $425,000.’”

‘It’s flexible, it’s malleable’

The starter home has always done a lot of work. It builds equity, creates stability, gives shelter from landlords and inflation. It has been an incubator of small businesses and community institutions like day care centers. And in an earlier form and time, it was more adaptable. Just add a bathroom when indoor plumbing arrived, a second unit to collect rental income, a garage once cars became common.

“It’s flexible, it’s malleable, and it allows for improvement, investment and change over time,” said Marta Gutman, dean of the City College of New York’s Spitzer School of Architecture.

In the early 20th century, communities were effectively using all kinds of models to solve for affordable, entry-level housing. But the arrival of the car enabled people to move further out, and new planning ideas declared what would be built there.

“That allowed us to say, ‘Forget all those other typologies — a starter home is going to be a two-bedroom detached house on a 7,500-square-foot lot,’” said Nolan Gray, the research director at California YIMBY, as in the opposite of NIMBY.

For a long time, that suburban model worked, although only for white families at first. But the economics and the politics shifted as the land within a reasonable driving distance of downtown filled in.

Land grew more expensive. But communities didn’t respond by allowing housing on smaller pieces of it. They broadly did the opposite, ratcheting up rules that ensured builders couldn’t construct smaller, more affordable homes. They required pricier materials and minimum home sizes. They wanted architectural flourishes, not flat facades.

“Local communities in the last 30 to 40 years have gotten really good at this — way better than they used to be,” Joseph Gyourko, a professor at the Wharton School of Business, said of rules that restrict development that neighbors don’t like.

This mix of good intentions (energy efficiency, tree preservation) and exclusionary ones (aesthetic mandates, minimum lot sizes) has pushed up the cost of building on top of the rising cost of land. Cities have also shifted more of the burden for funding public infrastructure like parks and sewer systems off taxpayers and onto homebuilders.

The result today is that a builder who can put up only one home on an expensive piece of land will construct a large, expensive one.

Another result is that more affordable homes built decades ago are less likely to stay that way. A small house now sitting on land worth $500,000 will make sense mostly as a tear-down. A family earning $150,000 a year will compete with a family earning $60,000 when there are so few entry-level homes to buy.

“They still have the starter home,” said Ed Pinto, director of the A.E.I. Housing Center, pointing to pricey Santa Clara County, Calif. “They still have the 1954 1,200-square-foot rambler.”

It now sells for $1.4 million.

Or take the early 1900s bungalows in the Greater Heights area of Houston. Many were cheap rental housing in the 1990s, with chain-link fences and dismal carpeting.

“When you removed the chain-link fence, pulled back the carpet, and painted the walls back to white, these are charming homes which today we sell for $600,000-$800,000,” said Bill Baldwin, a local broker and city planning commissioner.

Houston has relatively lax land-use restrictions, and reduced minimum lot sizes have enabled a townhome boom. But it’s not immune to rising costs, either.

One last result of these forces is that investors who surged into the housing market during the pandemic have become attracted to entry-level houses, too. These houses are more reliable as rental properties than high-end homes would be. They can house, after all, the renters who can’t afford to buy them.

Building a dependency over decades

The simplest way to put entry-level housing on increasingly expensive land is to build a lot of it — to put two, three, four or more units on lots that for decades have been reserved for one home.

The outcome would look more like housing built a century ago, with more duplexes, more rowhouses, more homeowners adding their own rental units.

“We need to shift our culture away from this dependency on single-family detached housing, and thinking it’s the only solution,” said Daniel Parolek, an architect and author of a book on “missing middle” housing.

Mr. Parolek worked with the Utah builder, Holmes Homes, to design one model outside Salt Lake City. They rotated the more typical rowhouse on its side, attaching small two-story homes along an intimate pedestrian path. The homes first came on the market in 2015 at about $200,000.

“It was a home run the minute we built them,” Mr. Nageli said. But costs have risen even since then. And the builder hasn’t repeated the concept elsewhere because most communities wouldn’t allow it.

From a builder’s view, there’s nothing particularly preferable about higher-end homes. Their profit margins aren’t generally higher. They demand more customization. They’re riskier to build in economic downtimes. Entry-level housing, on the other hand, is invariably in deep demand.

If more communities permitted it, builders would return to that end of the market, Mr. Nageli said.

“We would be thriving in it,” he said.

In Portland, where Mr. Wood has long tried to build entry-level single-family homes, zoning reforms now allow multiple units on what were previously single-family lots. Today Mr. Wood is pursuing permits for his first triplexes and fourplexes.

“In 2022, we started our last single-family detached homes in Portland,” he said. “I do not think we will ever do it again.”

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.elmundo.es/economia/vivienda/2022/09/24/632d7ac7e4d4d852368b4593.html

Saludos.

[pollo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices.html

Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?

The economics of the housing market, and the local rules that shape it, have squeezed out entry-level homes.

As recently as the 1990s, when Jason Nageli started off, the home-building industry was still constructing what real-estate ads would brightly call the “starter home.”[/i] In the Denver area, he sold newly built two-story houses with three bedrooms in 1,400 square feet or less.

The price: $99,000 to $125,000, or around $200,000 in today’s dollars.

That house would be in tremendous demand today. But few builders construct anything like it anymore. And you couldn’t buy those Denver area homes built 25 years ago at an entry-level price today, either. They go for half a million dollars.

The disappearance of such affordable homes is central to the American housing crisis. The nation has a deepening shortage of housing. But, more specifically, there isn’t enough of this housing: small, no-frills homes that would give a family new to the country or a young couple with student debt a foothold to build equity.

The affordable end of the market has been squeezed from every side. Land costs have risen steeply in booming parts of the country. Construction materials and government fees have become more expensive. And communities nationwide are far more prescriptive today than decades ago about what housing should look like and how big it must be. Some ban vinyl siding. Others require two-car garages. Nearly all make it difficult to build the kind of home that could sell for $200,000 today.

“It’s just become where you can’t get to that number anymore,” said Mr. Nageli, now the operations manager for the Utah builder Holmes Homes.

Nationwide, the small detached house has all but vanished from new construction. Only about 8 percent of new single-family homes today are 1,400 square feet or less. In the 1940s, according to CoreLogic, nearly 70 percent of new houses were that small.

Those starter homes came in all kinds over the years: mill worker’s cottages, shotgun homes, bungalows, ramblers, split-levels, two-bedroom tract homes. American families also found their start in brick rowhouses, cozy duplexes and triple-deckers.

But the economics of the housing market — and the local rules that shape it — have dictated today that many small homes are replaced by McMansions, or that their moderate-income residents are replaced by wealthier ones. (A little 1948 Levittown house on Long Island, the prototypical postwar suburban starter home, now goes with a few updates for $550,000.)

At the root is the math problem of putting — or keeping — a low-cost home on increasingly pricey land.

“When we started out 20 or so years ago, we could buy a lot for $10,000-$15,000, and we could build a home for under $100,000,” said Mary Lawler, the head of Avenue Community Development Corporation in Houston, a nonprofit developer. “It was a totally different world than we are in today.”

In Portland, Ore., a lot may cost $100,000. Permits add $40,000-$50,000. Removing a fir tree 36 inches in diameter costs another $16,000 in fees.

“You’ve basically regulated me out of anything remotely on the affordable side,” said Justin Wood, the owner of Fish Construction NW.

In Savannah, Ga., Jerry Konter began building three-bed, two-bath, 1,350-square-foot homes in 1977 for $36,500. But he moved upmarket as costs and design mandates pushed him there.

“It’s not that I don’t want to build entry-level homes,” said Mr. Konter, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders. “It’s that I can’t produce one that I can make a profit on and sell to that potential purchaser.”

That reality conflicts with demographics. The typical American household has fallen in size for decades, even as the typical home has grown larger. Downsizing baby boomers and young adults who delay children figure to drive demand for smaller homes. So will increasingly diverse young buyers who have more debt and less access to family wealth.



These shifts may force communities, builders and buyers to rethink what a starter home looks like. In places where even small single-family houses are out of reach for many, the answer might be a condo.

Today in some parts of the country there is hardly anything on the market for under $300,000 resembling the American starter home of the last 70 years. In Raleigh, N.C., entering this weekend there were 17 such single-family homes with at least two bedrooms listed for sale. Across the Denver metro, there were six; around Salt Lake City, three.

In Houston, Felecia Ellis has been driving around on lunch breaks from a dental clinic looking for such a home in the $200,000-$250,000 range.

“Driving through a neighborhood, I’m like, ‘Oh my god, this is a beautiful home, I know I can afford it,’” Ms. Ellis said. Then she pulls out her phone in the hopeful ritual of the first-time home buyer. The answer in the listing, more often than not, is that, in fact, she can’t afford it.

“And I’m like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” she said. “‘This house is $425,000.’”

‘It’s flexible, it’s malleable’

The starter home has always done a lot of work. It builds equity, creates stability, gives shelter from landlords and inflation. It has been an incubator of small businesses and community institutions like day care centers. And in an earlier form and time, it was more adaptable. Just add a bathroom when indoor plumbing arrived, a second unit to collect rental income, a garage once cars became common.

“It’s flexible, it’s malleable, and it allows for improvement, investment and change over time,” said Marta Gutman, dean of the City College of New York’s Spitzer School of Architecture.

In the early 20th century, communities were effectively using all kinds of models to solve for affordable, entry-level housing. But the arrival of the car enabled people to move further out, and new planning ideas declared what would be built there.

“That allowed us to say, ‘Forget all those other typologies — a starter home is going to be a two-bedroom detached house on a 7,500-square-foot lot,’” said Nolan Gray, the research director at California YIMBY, as in the opposite of NIMBY.

For a long time, that suburban model worked, although only for white families at first. But the economics and the politics shifted as the land within a reasonable driving distance of downtown filled in.

Land grew more expensive. But communities didn’t respond by allowing housing on smaller pieces of it. They broadly did the opposite, ratcheting up rules that ensured builders couldn’t construct smaller, more affordable homes. They required pricier materials and minimum home sizes. They wanted architectural flourishes, not flat facades.

“Local communities in the last 30 to 40 years have gotten really good at this — way better than they used to be,” Joseph Gyourko, a professor at the Wharton School of Business, said of rules that restrict development that neighbors don’t like.

This mix of good intentions (energy efficiency, tree preservation) and exclusionary ones (aesthetic mandates, minimum lot sizes) has pushed up the cost of building on top of the rising cost of land. Cities have also shifted more of the burden for funding public infrastructure like parks and sewer systems off taxpayers and onto homebuilders.

The result today is that a builder who can put up only one home on an expensive piece of land will construct a large, expensive one.

Another result is that more affordable homes built decades ago are less likely to stay that way. A small house now sitting on land worth $500,000 will make sense mostly as a tear-down. A family earning $150,000 a year will compete with a family earning $60,000 when there are so few entry-level homes to buy.

“They still have the starter home,” said Ed Pinto, director of the A.E.I. Housing Center, pointing to pricey Santa Clara County, Calif. “They still have the 1954 1,200-square-foot rambler.”

It now sells for $1.4 million.

Or take the early 1900s bungalows in the Greater Heights area of Houston. Many were cheap rental housing in the 1990s, with chain-link fences and dismal carpeting.

“When you removed the chain-link fence, pulled back the carpet, and painted the walls back to white, these are charming homes which today we sell for $600,000-$800,000,” said Bill Baldwin, a local broker and city planning commissioner.

Houston has relatively lax land-use restrictions, and reduced minimum lot sizes have enabled a townhome boom. But it’s not immune to rising costs, either.

One last result of these forces is that investors who surged into the housing market during the pandemic have become attracted to entry-level houses, too. These houses are more reliable as rental properties than high-end homes would be. They can house, after all, the renters who can’t afford to buy them.

Building a dependency over decades

The simplest way to put entry-level housing on increasingly expensive land is to build a lot of it — to put two, three, four or more units on lots that for decades have been reserved for one home.

The outcome would look more like housing built a century ago, with more duplexes, more rowhouses, more homeowners adding their own rental units.

“We need to shift our culture away from this dependency on single-family detached housing, and thinking it’s the only solution,” said Daniel Parolek, an architect and author of a book on “missing middle” housing.

Mr. Parolek worked with the Utah builder, Holmes Homes, to design one model outside Salt Lake City. They rotated the more typical rowhouse on its side, attaching small two-story homes along an intimate pedestrian path. The homes first came on the market in 2015 at about $200,000.

“It was a home run the minute we built them,” Mr. Nageli said. But costs have risen even since then. And the builder hasn’t repeated the concept elsewhere because most communities wouldn’t allow it.

From a builder’s view, there’s nothing particularly preferable about higher-end homes. Their profit margins aren’t generally higher. They demand more customization. They’re riskier to build in economic downtimes. Entry-level housing, on the other hand, is invariably in deep demand.

If more communities permitted it, builders would return to that end of the market, Mr. Nageli said.

“We would be thriving in it,” he said.

In Portland, where Mr. Wood has long tried to build entry-level single-family homes, zoning reforms now allow multiple units on what were previously single-family lots. Today Mr. Wood is pursuing permits for his first triplexes and fourplexes.

“In 2022, we started our last single-family detached homes in Portland,” he said. “I do not think we will ever do it again.”

El propio concepto de "starter home" ya implica que hay una escalera infinita que trepar de compras y ventas con niveles cada vez más altos, que suben "porque ojetes".
Qué puto asco de mentalidad en la que tienes que comprometer tus objetivos vitales para entrar en el timo piramidal. Y se ha interiorizado como algo 100% normal.

[pollo]

https://www.elmundo.es/economia/vivienda/2022/09/24/632d7ac7e4d4d852368b4593.html

Saludos.

El efecto Carlos III.

Claro, el "aumento de la esperanza de vida" (así en general) hace que los propietarios se vuelvan inmortales, y por tanto jamás se derrumbará el timo de las casitas, no te jode. Rápido, hay que convencer a los viejos de que hagan hipotecas inversas.

Pues ya ha llegado, queridos periolistos. A mi generación ya se le están muriendo los padres hace tiempo y hay varios que han heredado, y eso sólo va a ir a más. ¿Cuál será la excusa después?

Cada vez que alguien hereda, o bien deja de ser demanda, o bien saca al mercado el inmueble porque ya tiene la vida solucionada por otro lado.

Y por supuesto "los costes de la vivienda aumentarán en el futuro" porque patatas.

Se huele la caca.

[newclo]

Buenos días

De Hartnett traído por Cárpatos:

Ideas de Hartnett de esta semana

Como todas las semanas damos un repaso a las citas más importantes de la publicación semanal de Hartnett de Bank of America. El único que lo acierta todo desde hace mucho tiempo. Recuerden que su última recomendación sería corto en 4320 que cerraría en los entornos de 3600.
Destaca mucho el crash que estamos viendo…

https://zonavalue.com/noticias-bolsa/ideas-de-hartnett-de-esta-semana

El artículo completo:

Ideas de Hartnett de esta semana
25/09/2022

Como todas las semanas damos un repaso a las citas más importantes de la publicación semanal de Hartnett de Bank of America. El único que lo acierta todo desde hace mucho tiempo. Recuerden que su última recomendación sería corto en 4320 que cerraría en los entornos de 3600.

Destaca mucho el crash que estamos viendo en los bonos, el mayor de la historia moderna. Vean esta cita:

El tercer gran mercado bajista de bonos es, hasta ahora, una maravilla (gráfico 2)… las pérdidas de los bonos gubernamentales mundiales de 2022 son las peores desde 1949 (Plan Marshall), 1931 (Credit-Anstalt), 1920 (Tratado de Versalles); el desplome de los bonos amenaza con eventos crediticios y la liquidación de las operaciones más concurridas del mundo… largo en dólares, largo en tecnología estadounidense, largo en acciones privadas (-47% desde los máximos, véase el gráfico 3)… la verdadera capitulación se produce cuando los inversores venden lo que aman y poseen

El precio es correcto: desde el 1 de agosto, los rendimientos de EE.UU. han aumentado en 110 puntos, los del Reino Unido en 123 puntos (la subida más rápida desde 1994 – gráfico 5), los de los bunds alemanes en 87 puntos (la más rápida desde 1990), los de los OAT franceses en 83 puntos (la más rápida desde 1994); el aumento de los rendimientos está impulsado por la inflación (el IPP alemán ha aumentado en un 46%), los bancos centrales (unas 300 subidas de tipos en los últimos 12 meses), pero también por el déficit fiscal, dada la nueva era de rescates gubernamentales en cada crisis, y el empeoramiento de la geopolítica, que se traduce en un mayor gasto militar (la guerra es inflacionista).

Aquí da pistas sobre en que niveles podrían ser interesantes compras contrarias:

Los fondos de la Reserva Federal, los rendimientos del Tesoro y la tasa de desempleo de EE.UU. se dirigen a un rango del 4-5% en los próximos 4-5 meses/cuartos; el desencadenante del “pico de la Reserva Federal”, el “pico de los rendimientos” y el “pico del dólar” es la compra contraria de empresas emergentes, de pequeña capitalización, de chatarra, de semiproductos, de constructoras de viviendas y de materias primas, y las nóminas serán negativas… “recesión = compra de productos cíclicos”;

Y aquí da su recomendación semanal, sigue con su mantra ya conocido, de mordisquear en 3600, morder en 3300 y al cuello con las compras en 3000.

Mordisqueo a 3600 SPX, mordisco a 3300, atracón a 3000; E de 220$ + PE de 15-16x = P de 3300-3500; los impulsores de la alta PE del siglo XXI se están invirtiendo… QE, austeridad fiscal, libre circulación de comercio, personas, capital, paz geopolítica; el nuevo régimen de mayor inflación significa que la visión secular sigue siendo el efectivo, las materias primas, la volatilidad para superar a los bonos y las acciones; y la inflación en cosas de las que no tenemos suficiente… energía, trabajadores, lugares de alquiler, alimentos, materias primas, buenas infraestructuras, equipamiento militar (la deflación será en cosas… deuda pública, espacio de oficina, teléfonos móviles, contenidos en streaming)… PE del siglo XX de 15 veces más creíble

Cree que un PER del SP500 en 3500 es más creible. Este viernes Goldman dijo exactamente lo mismo sobre el PER

 

[newclo]

Y sobre la Web3, artículo explicativo
(Lo de la carrera de la rata no hace falta explicarlo)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbva.com/es/que-es-la-web3-y-que-relacion-tiene-con-el-metaverso/amp/

[Mistermaguf]

Y sobre la Web3, artículo explicativo
(Lo de la carrera de la rata no hace falta explicarlo)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbva.com/es/que-es-la-web3-y-que-relacion-tiene-con-el-metaverso/amp/

Te corrijo el enlace: https://www.bbva.com/es/que-es-la-web3-y-que-relacion-tiene-con-el-metaverso/

[Benzino Napaloni]

https://www.elmundo.es/economia/vivienda/2022/09/24/632d7ac7e4d4d852368b4593.html

Saludos.

El efecto Carlos III.

Claro, el "aumento de la esperanza de vida" (así en general) hace que los propietarios se vuelvan inmortales, y por tanto jamás se derrumbará el timo de las casitas, no te jode. Rápido, hay que convencer a los viejos de que hagan hipotecas inversas.

Pues ya ha llegado, queridos periolistos. A mi generación ya se le están muriendo los padres hace tiempo y hay varios que han heredado, y eso sólo va a ir a más. ¿Cuál será la excusa después?

Cada vez que alguien hereda, o bien deja de ser demanda, o bien saca al mercado el inmueble porque ya tiene la vida solucionada por otro lado.

Y por supuesto "los costes de la vivienda aumentarán en el futuro" porque patatas.

Se huele la caca.

Yo les dejaría que suelten estos panfletos. Mientras otros voceros ya se van pispando de lo que hay y que la fiesta se acabó -con tipos de interés subiendo no hay más tu tía-, aún los hay ignorantes que no se enteran de lo que pasa. O que creen que aún tienen poder para moldear la realidad. O, y me temo que es esto, dirigirse a su target de mercado para tranquilizarles diciendo que aquí no se toca nada. Mientras, el camión sigue su viaje al matadero.

Las compras ya se han detenido. Ya estaban muy ralentizadas antes, pero ahora los tipos han dado la puntilla. En octubre de 2006 ya pasó esto, fue el momento en que se detuvieron las operaciones de compraventa. Se reconoció en la prensa la bajada de los precios en julio de 2007.


Contestando a Zugzwang, creo que tampoco viviremos un 2011 calcado. Entonces cundió el pánico, pero porque estaba acompañado de una depresión económica. Llevábamos ya 3 años de crisis, y el personal se agarraba a clavos ardiendo. Primero que era pasajero, y luego los brotes verdes. Pasada la fiesta del "Iniesta de mi vida", sólo ahí empezó a golpear la cruda realidad.

No será fácil convencer al rentista de que todo ha terminado. Es dar por muerto un ciclo que ha durado décadas. Eso sí, coincido en que los "cuarteles generales" han aprovechado la subida de tipos. Veremos si esta vez se queda de nuevo en una podita de nada o si por fin comienza a retirarse la porquería.

Desde luego tiene pinta de que el otoño va a ser rico en noticias. ¿Aguantarán los rentistas hasta la próxima campaña de verano?

[Cadavre Exquis]

Buenos días

De Hartnett traído por Cárpatos:

Ideas de Hartnett de esta semana

Como todas las semanas damos un repaso a las citas más importantes de la publicación semanal de Hartnett de Bank of America. El único que lo acierta todo desde hace mucho tiempo. Recuerden que su última recomendación sería corto en 4320 que cerraría en los entornos de 3600.
Destaca mucho el crash que estamos viendo…

https://zonavalue.com/noticias-bolsa/ideas-de-hartnett-de-esta-semana

Ciertamente  el vídeo de esta semana de "Las 4 claves de la semana" de José Luis Cárpatos merece la pena...

Las 4 claves de la semana bolsas y economía 24 9 2022 Cárpatos

Y, efectivamente, Hartnett se moja en el informe que ha publicado esta semana(*) la gente de BofA SECURITIES:

(*) Tienen el PDF del informe completo aquí: BofA Flow Show: The Bond Crash of 2022 by Michael Hartnett, Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, BofA Securities

Saludos.

[tomasjos]

https://www.publico.es/internacional/von-der-leyen-avisa-ultraderecha-italiana-hay-instrumentos-alejen-buena-direccion.html

Von der Leyen avisa a la ultraderecha italiana de que hay "instrumentos" si se alejan de la "buena dirección".
El líder de La Liga, Matteo Salvini, le ha exigido a la jefa del Ejecutivo europeo que "pida perdón o dimita".


Sin comentarios.
 

Lo de la actual dirigencia de la UE empieza a tener tintes claramente dictatoriales. Luego decimos de que si Putin o Xi, pero lo de Von der Leyen y Bórrell es tan despótico y dictatorial como lo de los anteriores, básicamente porque no dirigen un estado nación ni han sido elegidos democráticamente, sino que son parte de un Lobby que ha ocupado Bruselas que es una extensión de los halcones liberales del Dpto de Estado usano, en lo político y trosko woke en lo cultural.

Así, así... retrataos bien.

Sudden, nunca he tenido miedo de dar la cara y retratarme, llevo haciéndolo aqui años. Todos los que están aquí saben que soy opuesto al liberalismo económico, cultural, etc. E igual que he defendido la labor de Bruselas cuando he entendido que lo hacía bien, cuando entiendo que ha perdido el norte lo hago, y apoyar a la angloesfera es perder el norte. Y eso llevo diciéndolo desde que entre en burbuja y luego aquí, y además está en mi firma.

[sudden and sharp]

Lo que yo digo.

[sudden and sharp]

Añadido.

[senslev]

Kwichon: el fenómeno por el que cientos de miles de personas en Corea del Sur se están mudando al campo

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-62902896

El descontento con el trabajo se une a otros motivos de queja en otras grandes ciudades del mundo, como los altos precios de vivienda, el estrés urbano y mucha competitividad.

Corea del Sur tiene una de las tasas de suicidio más altas del mundo y esta es la mayor causa de mortalidad en adolescentes y jóvenes, según estadísticas del gobierno. Psicólogos han atribuido estos niveles de depresión y suicidio a la intensa presión impuesta en los jóvenes para que cosechen éxitos académicos.

Éxitos que, por otra parte, un número creciente de jóvenes ve como inalcanzables debido a cómo el trabajo excesivo y el ritmo de la ciudad les consume sin darles las recompensas que esperan.

Estafa langostil global.

[Derby]

https://elpais.com/economia/2022-09-25/el-gobierno-exigira-revisar-el-alumbrado-publico-para-ahorrar-pero-no-suprimira-las-luces-navidenas.html

El Gobierno exigirá revisar el alumbrado público para ahorrar pero no vetará las luces de Navidad

El plan de contingencia frente a la crisis energética que el Gobierno remitirá la semana que viene a Bruselas exigirá a todas las Administraciones públicas llevar a cabo una revisión técnica del alumbrado público bajo su competencia para ahorrar, según un borrador al que ha tenido acceso EL PAÍS.  (...)