Journal to portfolio afterlife

The underperformance of U.S. value stocks since the Great Recession has received much attention from the financial media, and prompted at least some investors to conclude that value investing is dead.
From 2008 through July 2023, while the S&P 500 returned 9.8% per year, the Fama-French small-value research portfolio returned 8.6%, an underperformance of 1.2 percentage points annually.
We heard the same argument about the death of the value premium in 2000. From 1994 to 1999, the S&P 500 returned 23.6%, annually outperforming the Fama-French small-value research portfolio by 7.2 percentage points. However, the declaration of the death of the value premium was premature. From 2000 to 2007, while the S&P 500 returned 1.7%, the Fama-French small-value research portfolio returned 16.2%, outperforming by 14.5 percentage points annually. Such performance should be a cautionary tale for those declaring the death of value.
While all crystal balls are cloudy (we cannot know the future), valuations are the best predictor we have of future returns. And small-value stocks are trading at historically cheap valuations relative to their market counterparts, indicating the likelihood of a large premium going forward.
The takeaway is that investors face a choice. They can either own a traditional 60% market-like equity/40% bond portfolio, which has most of its risk (as much as 90% or more depending on the maturity and quality of the bond holdings) concentrated in the single factor of market beta, or they can choose to diversify across as many unique sources of risk and return as they can identify that meet all their established criteria.
The first path is the comfortable one in the sense that the portfolio will not cause any tracking error regret—investors won’t be underperforming popular benchmarks that are reported on a daily basis by the financial media.
With that said, failing conventionally is always easier than failing unconventionally (misery loves company).
The second path—diversification—is more likely to lead to successfully achieving goals. However, it does mean having to live with the fact that the portfolio will perform very differently than traditional portfolios, creating the risk of tracking variance regret. In that sense, diversification is not a free lunch. It means living through uncomfortable periods, even long ones. And during periods of failure, it means failing unconventionally, which is much harder to deal with.
Given that investors must accept that they will have to live through uncomfortable times on whichever path they choose, it seems logical to pick the one with the highest odds of achieving their goals. And that is choosing the more efficient portfolio—the one that is more diversified across factors that provide exposure to unique sources of risk such as size and value—and saying to oneself, “I don’t care about tracking variance regret because relativism [how you performed relative to some popular index] has no place in investing.”

 
Come ho avuto già modo di scrivere, temo ci sia una latente strategia volta ad indebolire il sistema sanitario nazionale pubblico allo scopo di favorire la crescita del sistema privato.

Oltre 8 medici su 10 considerano sempre più difficile lavorare nel Servizio sanitario nazionale: colpa di turni di lavoro lunghissimi, carenza di personale, scarsa sicurezza negli ospedali, compensi considerati troppo bassi. E per quanto i camici bianchi apprezzino ancora il loro lavoro solo il 60% sceglierebbe nuovamente questa professione ed è sempre più diffusa la tendenza a cercare opportunità lavorative all’estero, soprattutto tra i giovani medici.
Il 57% del campione afferma che carico di lavoro è aumentato negli ospedali ma solo nel 27% dei casi è stato assunto nuovo personale all’interno della struttura. Inoltre, se la precedente indagine 2020, la burocrazia era considerata come l’ostacolo principale per i medici (ora viene citata solo dal 17% del campione), nel 2022 è la mancanza di personale ad affliggere chi lavora nel 35% dei casi.

 
Non ho mai capito con quale criterio vengono distribuiti i fondi. Polonia 11 miliardi. Perché? Sono tanti soldi e sono sempre a rompere le scatole

Con sincerità devo dire che non ho mai approfondito i meandri della burocrazia e dei meccanismi tecnocratici dell'Unione Europea. Non ci trovo nessun valore aggiunto ad approfondire :confused:

Basti ricordare che i parlamentari europei, gli unici che possiamo votare direttamente, contano come il due di briscola nella governance dell'Unione Europea.

Che i polacchi o gli ungheresi si mettano spesso in contrapposizione contro l'UE secondo me gli fa onore, quando lo fanno per difendere gli interessi dei propri cittadini.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto