Capital Group takes on the passive investors
Once secretive asset manager embarks on an uphill battle against index funds
by: Robin Wigglesworth and Stephen Foley
When Tim Armour graduated from Middlebury College, a liberal arts institution in Vermont, he faced a conundrum. He could either accept a graduate programme slot at a West Coast investment group, or go and run a windsurf shop in Florida.
Because he loved to windsurf but did not want to turn down a more sensible job, he asked the asset manager whether he could put off the traineeship for a year. He was grudgingly given nine months, so off he went to the beaches of Sanibel, an island off the south-west coast of Florida.
“It was one of the best experiences of my life because it taught me, in the first two weeks, that that’s not what I wanted to do and I was so thankful to have a job to come back to,” he says.
It worked out just fine for Mr Armour. Since 2015 he has been chairman and chief executive of the investment company he joined over three decades ago: Capital Group, one of the oldest and biggest in the world, with more than $1.5tn of assets under management. But he has taken the reins at a perilous time.
Traditional asset managers face an epochal battle against the rise of passive investing. Even Capital, one of the industry’s best-regarded players, has felt the ground shift beneath its feet, with outflows for much of the post-crisis era. In 2007 its Growth Fund of America was the biggest mutual fund. Today, it is dwarfed by Vanguard and State Street’s flagship passive funds.
That is why the company has ripped up a decades-old policy of operating in relative anonymity and is advancing new research that aims to destroy the “myth” that active management is doomed. “I feel we’re yelling from the top of a mountain, and no one is listening,” Mr Armour says. “Passive is here to stay, and it’s an important option. But we are better than passive.”
He has a reasonably strong argument to make. Although Capital’s funds did poorly in the financial crisis — tarnishing a reputation for dodging bubbles — it has regained its footing.
Thanks to improving performance and buoyant markets, its assets under management are now again close to the 2007 peak of $1.55tn. In 1993, Capital’s American Funds was the fourth-largest US mutual fund brand, behind Fidelity, Vanguard and Franklin Templeton; now it is second, behind Vanguard, the all-conquering passive specialist.
This year it launched one of its root-and-branch reviews of the entire business — a project codenamed “Delta” — to “step back, re-examine and innovate”. But the Los Angeles-based company is battling a fundamental change in investor preferences that will be hard to reverse, says Todd Rosenbluth, director of exchange traded funds and mutual fund research at CFRA.
“The shift to passive is not abating, it is accelerating, and unlike many other asset managers, Capital is entirely focused on active,” Mr Rosenbluth says. “It tends to offer lower fee products, so their returns are going to be competitive, but . . . as investors seek out passive products, Capital is going to get caught up in the trend regardless of their performance.”
For the investment industry, the post-crisis era has been marked by steady growth — but also disruption.
On the plus side, central banks have boosted markets to new highs, lifting the size of the US mutual fund industry to more than $16tn, up from $12tn on the eve of the crisis in 2007, according to the Investment Company Institute.
Yet mutual funds have proven progressively poorer at navigating markets. Over the past 10 years, 87.5 per cent of US equity funds underperformed their benchmarks, for example, and more than half of all international and emerging markets equities funds also lagged behind, according to an S&P study.
Current Capital Group CEO Tim Armour and former chief Jon B Lovelace, who helped build the company his father started into a mutual fund industry leader © FT montage
Meanwhile the likes of Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street have continued to slash the costs of their passive products, while smaller providers have unveiled a dizzying array of ETFs that allow investors to put money in any investment style or theme at a fraction of the cost of a traditional mutual fund.
But Capital’s analysis of historic fund performance — research that has been corroborated by Morningstar, an industry data provider — has shown that two factors are strong indicators of long-term, market-beating returns: fund managers having plenty of their own money in a fund; and low fees. Capital scores well on both measures.
Almost two-thirds of American Funds’ share classes have fees rated as “low” by Morningstar, while another fifth were below average. And 97 per cent of Capital’s assets are managed by a portfolio manager with at least $1m of their own money invested.“
I feel really good about the battle we’re waging,” says Steve Deschenes, director of client analytics at Capital, the architect behind much of its research on active management.
Passive rivals such as funds from State Street and Vanguard have outperformed Capital Group © FT montage / Bloomberg
Beating the drum loudly does not come naturally to Capital. Its profile was long so low that when Theresa May became British prime minister, a UK newspaper that wrote about her husband Philip’s role as a client relationship manager at Capital could still mistakenly describe it as “a little-known hedge fund”.
No longer. Capital’s ads have taken on a mad-as-hell-and-not-gonna-take-it-any-more feel. “American Funds has done what sceptics claim is impossible,” says one. “Don’t buy the myth. You can beat the index,” says another.
Mr Armour has even taken on Warren Buffett, whose latest annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders exhorted readers to put their money into cheap index funds. “We agree that the average investment manager does not outpace the market over meaningful time horizons [but] Mr Buffett and others acknowledge that there are exceptions,” Mr Armour said when the letter came out.
Capital’s fightback against passive is not just about marketing. In perhaps its boldest gambit, it is aiming to change the rules of engagement, by eliminating something it says tilts the battlefield in favour of ETFs: distribution fees.
These fees are passed on to distributors such as broker-dealers, and come on top of the fee that managers like Capital charge, potentially doubling the cost (or more). Mutual fund performance is calculated net of fees, which means active managers not only have to beat the index, they have to beat it by more than the fund’s fees to be deemed a success, and distribution fees make that hard. Capital won permission from regulators this year to start selling what it calls “clean shares”, which, unlike most mutual fund share classes, do not include a distribution fee baked in.
Clean shares will include only Capital’s own management fee. Investors may not necessarily see the benefit — brokers will add their fees by another means — but clean shares will automatically record better performance numbers than traditional mutual fund shares. If clean shares catch on, the statistics will start to show fewer active managers falling short of the index.
“When people are comparing passive returns to mutual fund returns, they’re often comparing apples and oranges,” says Mr Armour. “We want to simplify things.”
Capital is also trying to burnish its bond business. In 2015 it poached Michael Gitlin, head of fixed income at mutual fund rival T Rowe Price, to lead its bond team — an unusual move for a company that prides itself on promoting internal talent rather than hiring outside stars.
Mr Gitlin has even been promoted to its management committee.
Mr Gitlin has gone on a hiring spree, snapping up about a dozen people to boost the asset manager’s capabilities in junk bonds, emerging market debt and municipal finance among other areas.
The bond business is now growing at a healthy clip, from $225bn at the start of 2015 to $263bn by the end of last year. Mr Gitlin is targeting $500bn of assets in the next four to five years.
“The business has a substantial size already, without scratching the surface of what we can do,” he says.
Capital’s culture is different from many other investment groups, and was primarily shaped by its former head Jon Lovelace, whose daughter once labelled him a “Buddhist businessman” for his distaste of hierarchy.
The company was founded in 1931 by his father Jonathan Bell Lovelace, a former stockbroker who dodged the 1929 crash. But its egalitarian “multi-manager” system was fostered by the son, who wanted to ensure Capital would not suffer the “key person” risk that has bedevilled rivals, where the brand of one star money manager overshadows the fund.
Capital Group and the mutual funds industry
A Capital Group site in Indiana
$16tn Size at the end of 2016 of the US mutual fund industry, up from $12tn on the eve of the crisis in 2007
87.5% Percentage of US equity funds that underperformed their benchmarks over the past 10 years
$157bn Size on March 20 of Capital’s Growth Fund of America, a third smaller than State Street’s SPDR S&P 500 ETF, the biggest US equity ETF
Each of Capital’s funds is run by a team of sometimes more than a dozen portfolio managers and analysts, all of whom are responsible for investing independent slices of the fund, adding up to hundreds of individual stock picks. Critics argue that such a broad approach means its performance is likely to hew closely to the broader market index; active managers are increasingly electing to place fewer but bolder bets, making their funds look more like the concentrated portfolios of a hedge fund manager or a Mr Buffett.
That is the direction taken by Dale Harvey, who quit as a portfolio manager at Capital in 2007 to launch Poplar Forest. But he concedes his approach may not be right for the more conservative savers targeted by Capital’s American Funds, who want insulation from market rollercoasters.
The company’s bonus structure is also heavily tilted towards rewarding long-term performance. Almost half of compensation is tied to results over eight years — while most other asset managers rarely reward performance beyond five years. “Capital is a get-rich-slow kind of place,” Mr Harvey says.
Fund managers hope US president Donald Trump’s unorthodox policies might usher in a new market era that will be kinder to active asset managers, who struggle when assets rise and fall in unison, but thrive — at least in theory — when turbulence causes divergence.
“A more volatile world, I think, is good for us. It fits right into what we do well and so we’re pretty excited about what we see coming down the pike,” says Mr Armour.
Yet so far the evidence of a stockpicking renaissance remains elusive. And the central challenge confronting Capital is that the shift in investor preferences towards cheap passive investment vehicles seems so seismic that even strong performance can only ameliorate the trend.
The assets of Capital Group’s biggest fund — the Growth Fund of America — peaked at $193bn at the end of 2007, when it was almost twice the size of State Street’s SPDR S&P 500 ETF, the biggest US equity ETF. But at $155bn today it is now one-third smaller than its passive rival, despite returns in the top decile over the past five years.
“Over the last couple of years there’s just been this great sucking sound of money flowing out of active and into passive,” says Marc Pinto, the head of Moody’s asset management rating division. “You’ll always have the old masters — the Van Goghs that tend to over perform over time — but there just aren’t that many out there. Cheap is good, but even cheaper is better. That is the mantra of markets at the moment.”
Technology and risk: New hires aim to profit from disruption
The hottest hires in the asset management industry are no longer MBAs and CFAs, but data scientists and programmers. Jobs advertised for the latter outnumber those for fundamental analysts by a factor of eight, according to Bank of America. And Capital Group is also dipping its toe in the tech waters.
Underscoring the sense of the asset manager trying to shake things up a little, last year it lured over Heather Lord from Charles Schwab to be its head of “strategy and innovation”. She has been tasked with bringing some disruption to the investment group, examining what processes can be automated or augmented with technology. “What’s on my mind at night is, how do you balance the thoughtfulness that’s let this place exist for nine decades — and pivot as many times as it did over that period of time — with the need to move faster over the next three-five years,” Ms Lord says. “This period of disruption and instability creates threat and opportunity.”
Capital has also recently set up an innovation lab called the “Emerging Technology Group”, led by former Accenture partner Jeff Roedersheimer, who answers to the investment group’s chief information officer, Julie St John. It has quietly started to invest in tech companies with products that might be useful for Capital’s more digital future.
But it can be hard to modernise a company as old and big as Capital, something that Ms Lord admits. “How do we get comfortable in some areas, taking a little bit more risk and failing fast? We’re not a place that does that,” she says. “And I think to really take advantage of some of the emerging technologies coming available, we’ve got to be comfortable with that ambiguity [of not knowing what will work],” she says.
The Challenge at Mar-a-Lago: Wooing China to Drop Its Tariffs
Beijing joined the WTO in 2001 on terms that no longer make sense for an industrial powerhouse.
By Bill Lane
There’s a Civil War story about a farmer who wakes up one morning to find his house wedged between large Yankee and Rebel armies. In an effort to extricate himself from the predicament, he puts on blue pants and a gray coat before walking outside under the white flag of truce. But he doesn’t get far. The Confederates shoot him below the waist while the Union troops shoot him above it.
That’s the risk of trying to split the difference—a lesson worth keeping in mind this week as President Trump meets China’s President Xi Jinping. Some of Mr. Trump’s supporters want him to restrict imports from China sharply. Yet many Americans fear that doing so may spark a trade war. So how to avoid putting on the blue pants and the gray coat?
The answer is economic growth. Presidents Trump and Xi, as the leaders of the world’s two largest economies, must certainly realize that robust growth at home would be the best answer to their respective critics. Better to coordinate policies to stimulate prosperity than to cause a confrontation and risk an economic downturn.
A central issue during the meeting this week will be America’s bilateral trade deficit with China of about $350 billion—more than half of the overall U.S. trade deficit. Whether one is a free trader, a managed trader or a protectionist, there is no denying that trade between the U.S. and China is out of balance. The average American spends 17 times as much on Chinese products as the other way around.
Economists come up with all sorts of benign-sounding reasons for this imbalance: China saves too much; the U.S. doesn’t save enough; Americans simply like to buy inexpensive stuff. Others suggest more sinister causes: currency manipulation, trade barriers or cheating. But regardless of whether the U.S.-China trade imbalance is economically sustainable, the 2016 election demonstrated that it isn’t politically sustainable.
That’s where the opportunity comes. President Trump has a chance to recenter America’s economic relationship with China not by the saber but through flattery and mutual respect.
Beijing joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, nearly two decades ago, on terms that made sense then. Since that time, however, no country has more enthusiastically embraced economic change. Mr. Trump encourages America to do big things, yet China has been practicing what he preaches—from the Three Gorges Dam to its network of high-speed trains. America’s top universities are full of the best and brightest Chinese students. These massive investments in infrastructure and education have made China dramatically more competitive.
But global trade rules haven’t changed. As an industrial powerhouse, China no longer needs to hide behind double-digit tariffs. In the old days, these weren’t considered a big deal because new rounds of negotiation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade were held every decade or so to revise the rules. The expectation was that greater trade liberalization would be coming.
Today revising WTO rules is perceived as too difficult, so the world is stuck with an outdated framework. This particularly affects trade with the countries that have changed the most—China in particular. What’s surprising is that Beijing knows it, but has generally taken the attitude of “why change unless you have to?”
President Trump should point out that China has options. It can further open its markets to the U.S. via bilateral, regional, multilateral or, best of all, unilateral action. But Beijing has to act with a sense of urgency, as the status quo is no longer politically acceptable.
President Xi made eloquent comments at January’s economic summit in Davos about the virtues of free trade. President Trump insists he is a free-trader, too, albeit with caveats. Maybe this is the right time for the two leaders to cut a deal to slash Chinese trade barriers. This would give Chinese consumers increased access to U.S. products, while Mr. Trump could claim a victory for American exporters and their workers. And the whole world would benefit as the U.S. and China—the twin engines of global economic growth—start pushing once again in the same direction.
Mr. Lane is a retired director of global government affairs at Caterpillar Inc.
Gold - The Wait Is About To Be Over
by: Nikhil Gupta
- The U.S. dollar index has gained a bit.
- Will gold extend its gains? I believe it will.
$20 Trillion In Debt - And Why We Need Even More Of It
by: Long/Short Investments
- US equity markets as a whole are reliant on corporate tax cuts and infrastructure spending to a smaller extent to justify their current valuations.
- If these expansionary fiscal moves don’t come to fruition or underwhelm the market’s expectations, stocks are likely to drop.
The Dancing Bears
by Jeff Thomas
In the early 2000s, I recommended to associates that we were in for a major gold boom. Most thought that this was a ridiculous suggestion and didn’t buy a single ounce. I continued to recommend the purchase of gold regularly over the ensuing years, and the price continued to rise. Only in 2011 did they start to buy, at a time when gold was peaking. We were due for a correction and in late 2011, it arrived.
For several years, the price has remained in the neighbourhood of $1,200—roughly the price it needs to be to bother removing it from the ground.
During that time, gold has periodically risen a bit, then gotten knocked down again. It’s understandable that this should happen. Central banks have a stake in holding down the gold price, since a rising gold price makes it appear more attractive than storing cash in banks.
We’ve reached the point that the central banks have run out of tricks to float the economy and we’re already past due for a crash.
But crashes don’t always occur as soon as they become logical. As long as the public can be fooled into remaining confident in the system, a doomed economy can limp along for a bit before toppling.
Statistics on unemployment and inflation can be fudged (and they have been). The stock market can be falsely pumped up (and it has been) in order to create the illusion that all is well.
These factors, taken together with knocking down the price of gold periodically, helps to convince people that they should keep their money in cash and their cash in the bank, not in gold.
Just as in 2000, the number of people who understand that gold is not the equivalent of a stock but a store of wealth during dramatically changing times is quite small—certainly less than 1% and more likely less than 1/10th of 1%. Those that possess this understanding tend to hold gold long-term and are relatively unconcerned about fluctuations—even if they’re over $100 in a given month. They’re in it for the long haul and believe that, eventually, gold will rise dramatically and may well be the only safe haven after a crash.
But let’s go back to those speculators that waited until gold had risen dramatically before jumping on board the gold train. During the last four-year period, whenever gold rose as a result of economic and political developments, many of them would buy in once more, after it had risen significantly. Then, when it had been knocked down again, they tended to sell—often at the new bottom.
Of course, this behaviour is not limited just to the purchase of gold. In fact, a very high percentage of investors “play” the stock market in this way. They wait until everyone and his dog is buying in and the price is peaking, often buying on margin in order to maximize their positions. Then, when the bubble pops, they tend to ride the market down, hoping in vain that the price will return at least to what it was when they bought in. In essence, they tend to buy high and sell low almost every time.
The gold bears—those investors who don’t truly understand that gold is a very different animal from stocks—typically dislike gold but buy high when it becomes trendy to do so and sell low after it’s been knocked down. This dance is guaranteed to cause the gold bears to lose money time after time.
The dance is sometimes described as “chasing the market,” or “following the trends.” Brokers keep the dance going by advising their clients of established trends, telling them that they’re “missing out if they don’t get in now.” They serve as the market’s equivalent of a caller in a square dance: “Swing your client to and fro—watch his investment dollars go.”
Just as few investors understand the economic nature of gold, they also tend to overlook the fact that the broker doesn’t benefit from the success of the client—he makes his money when the client buys and sells frequently. So, of course his advice is going to be for the client to keep dancing.
So, will this dance go on as it is, ad infinitum? Well, no. There will be a dramatic change following a crash in the markets. Following any major crash, a panic occurs and whatever money is left on the table scrambles to find a new (hopefully safe) home. Following the coming crash, a portion of that money will head into gold. The price will rise dramatically, very possibly to such a degree that it can no longer be easily knocked down by the central banks.
At first the gold bears will assume that it’s an anomaly. Then, as gold passes $1,500, some will dip their toes in. As it passes $1,800, some will wade in. Beyond $2,000, this trend will strengthen quite a bit. As the crash deepens, stocks will tumble further. The bond bubble may also pop, increasing gold’s shine.
At some point, bankers may begin to freeze accounts, create bank holidays, and/or confiscate deposits. At that point, gold will head into its long-predicted mania phase and the bears will be falling over each other, chasing the buying trend.
Gold will rise to a logical price in keeping with its value as a hedge against a collapsing economy. At that point, it would make sense for it to stop, but that’s not what will happen.
Those who understand gold will cease their purchases and sit on what they have. But then a new dance will begin. The bears will become decidedly bullish. It’s important to note that, at this point, they will not fully understand why gold is rising so dramatically; they’ll just know that it is. They’ll want to get in on the gold rush and will do whatever they have to in order to keep buying.
They’ll find that physical gold is in short supply, as traditional holders are unwilling to sell, seemingly at any price. Potential buyers will offer $50 above spot, then $100 above spot, then more. They’ll additionally buy on margin in order to increase their position.
It will be at this point that the mania will take hold. Irrationally high prices will become the new norm. How high will it go? $10,000? $20,000? Impossible to say. It will rise as high as desperation makes it rise, and we cannot now determine what that level of desperation will be.
A new bubble will be created, but this time, it won’t be in stocks or bonds. It’ll be in gold and, like all bubbles, it will eventually pop. This will occur when those who understand the nature of gold recognize that the price has far exceeded what’s logical and, as much as they value gold, they’ll sell a portion of their holdings and use the proceeds to invest in whatever assets have already bottomed and have nowhere to go but up.
They’re likely to retain a portion of their gold holdings for the same reason they always have, but will be happy to release a portion when it becomes significantly overvalued.
This will cause the gold bubble to pop and the gold bears, who have recently become bulls, will wonder where it all went wrong. At this point, they still won’t understand gold; they’ll simply have chased yet another trend and lost.
So, is there a moral here? Well, if so, it’s simply that an investor should not become involved in a market that he doesn’t understand. Nor should he trust his broker to understand it for him.
Ironically, as long as there have been markets, there have been those who go out on the dance floor without first learning the dance. A great deal of profit will be made by some gold investors, but the majority are likely to leave the floor with empty dance cards.
NYSE Arca Suffers Glitch During Closing Auction
At least $150 billion of exchange-traded funds said to be affected, including world’s largest gold ETF
By Asjylyn Loder
A glitch snarled closing trading in dozens of exchange-traded funds late Monday at the New York Stock Exchange’s Arca platform, in one of the largest trading snafus of 2017.
ETFs with market values exceeding $150 billion were affected, including SPDR Gold Trust, the largest gold ETF, according to a person familiar with the trading.
NYSE Arca, the largest listing exchange for ETFs, suffered a trading problem in the final minutes of trading Monday. The NYSE offered few specifics on the nature of the problems.
While securities can trade on any exchange throughout the trading day, trading typically reverts to the listing exchange in the last minutes of the day, in a process known as the closing auction, which determines the settlement price.
A failure to determine a settlement price could affect investors and traders across Wall Street, traders said. ETFs have been one of the fastest-growing products in the securities industry, and the trading difficulties could hit Arca’s reputation.
“A lot of people rely on that closing price, especially with ETFs,” said Joe Saluzzi, a partner at Themis Trading LLC in Chatham, N.J.
Canceled orders could leave market makers and other traders without proper hedges, Mr. Saluzzi said.
Other affected funds include SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust, SPDR S&P Midcap 400 ETF, Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund, Financial Select Sector SPDR and iShares Russell 2000 ETF, according to the person familiar with the matter.
NYSE Arca sent a series of alerts starting at 4:07 p.m., seven minutes after the stock market closed. The exchange said “all live orders will be canceled” and that a backup method would be used to determine settlement prices.
The exchange didn’t say how many ETFs were affected, or how many orders were canceled.
Kristen Kaus, a spokeswoman for NYSE, declined to comment beyond the exchange’s published notices.
Arca is the listing venue for 1,511 ETFs that were valued at about $2.5 trillion at the end of February, out of about 2,000 U.S. listed ETFs.
The exchange issued its first alert saying a technical issue was under investigation. Four minutes later, an alert said trading was unavailable in many tickers. At 4:37 p.m., the exchange announced that any symbols that didn’t get a proper closing price would be settled using the volume-weighted average price in the last five minutes of regular trading hours, including closing auction prints of all markets.
There is no way to determine whether the alternative pricing mechanism resulted in a better or worse price for the fund, Mr. Saluzzi said.
“It definitely does cause a lot of issues for many people,” said Mohit Bajaj, director of ETF trading solutions at WallachBeth Capital. He said the lack of settlement pricing could hamper traders’ efforts to fulfill end-of-day orders or close out their books at the end of the trading day.
NYSE Arca said at 8:59 p.m. that a subset of securities listed on Arca failed to conduct a closing auction or transition from the regular trading session to the late trading session at 4 p.m. on Monday afternoon. NYSE Arca suspended trading at 4:13 p.m. and canceled all open orders.
“The underlying cause of the disruption has been identified and remediated,” the exchange said in the Monday night alert, without specifying what the problem had been.
Any exchange-traded fund investors who wish to file a claim for compensation must do so by 9:30 a.m. Tuesday morning, the exchange said.
—Gunjan Banerji contributed to this article.
Das Knowhow Kapital
JOHANNESBURG – It has been a quarter-century since apartheid ended, and 23 since the African National Congress took power in South Africa. But, as President Jacob Zuma reported in his recent State of the Nation Address, the country’s whites remain in control.
Les doy cordialmente la bienvenida a este Blog informativo con artículos, análisis y comentarios de publicaciones especializadas y especialmente seleccionadas, principalmente sobre temas económicos, financieros y políticos de actualidad, que esperamos y deseamos, sean de su máximo interés, utilidad y conveniencia.
Pensamos que solo comprendiendo cabalmente el presente, es que podemos proyectarnos acertadamente hacia el futuro.
Gonzalo Raffo de Lavalle
Las convicciones son mas peligrosos enemigos de la verdad que las mentiras.
Quien conoce su ignorancia revela la mas profunda sabiduría. Quien ignora su ignorancia vive en la mas profunda ilusión.
“There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.
No soy alguien que sabe, sino alguien que busca.
Only Gold is money. Everything else is debt.
Las grandes almas tienen voluntades; las débiles tan solo deseos.
Quien no lo ha dado todo no ha dado nada.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
We are travelers on a cosmic journey, stardust, swirling and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity. Life is eternal. We have stopped for a moment to encounter each other, to meet, to love, to share.This is a precious moment. It is a little parenthesis in eternity.
Archivo del blog
- CAPITAL GROUP TAKES ON THE PASSIVE INVESTORS / THE...
- THE CHALLENGE AT MAR-A-LAGO: WOOING CHINA TO DROP ...
- GOLD - THE WAIT IS ABOUT TO BE OVER / SEEKING ALPH...
- $20 TRILLION IN DEBT -- AND WHY WE NEED EVEN MORE ...
- THE DANCING BEARS / CASEY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL M...
- NYSE ARCA SUFFERS GLITCH DURING CLOSING AUCTION / ...
- DAS KNOWHOW KAPITAL / PROJECT SYNDICATE
- ▼ abr 06 (7)
- ► marzo (170)
- ► febrero (150)
- ► enero (170)
- ▼ abril (157)
- ► diciembre (177)
- ► noviembre (196)
- ► octubre (179)
- ► septiembre (182)
- ► agosto (205)
- ► julio (205)
- ► junio (199)
- ► mayo (194)
- ► abril (246)
- ► marzo (280)
- ► febrero (268)
- ► enero (245)
- ► diciembre (236)
- ► noviembre (233)
- ► octubre (137)
- ► septiembre (271)
- ► agosto (278)
- ► julio (269)
- ► junio (265)
- ► mayo (195)
- ► abril (252)
- ► marzo (279)
- ► febrero (256)
- ► enero (257)
- ► diciembre (223)
- ► noviembre (251)
- ► octubre (253)
- ► septiembre (103)
- ► agosto (165)
- ► julio (174)
- ► junio (182)
- ► mayo (159)
- ► abril (155)
- ► marzo (183)
- ► febrero (156)
- ► enero (143)
- ► diciembre (157)
- ► noviembre (181)
- ► octubre (174)
- ► septiembre (191)
- ► agosto (185)
- ► julio (184)
- ► junio (137)
- ► mayo (117)
- ► abril (167)
- ► marzo (166)
- ► febrero (136)
- ► enero (155)
- ► diciembre (163)
- ► noviembre (174)
- ► octubre (102)
- ► septiembre (188)
- ► agosto (171)
- ► julio (182)
- ► junio (182)
- ► mayo (107)
- ► abril (152)