distraetevi con una..buona lettura.

[ramirez]

Lasciate perdere per un attimo ...default, spread, manovre ecc ecc.
una buona lettura, facile, può servire.
.

The data miners are out in force in recent weeks trying to compare 2011 to 2010. We’re seeing endless chart overlays with excessively simplistic analysis that says 2011 = 2010 because of XYZ. In the world of cognitive science this attempt to compare everything to recent events is called the recency effect. It’s particularly pervasive in the stock market as we are always attempting to decipher future events by past actions. We have a tendency to believe that the market’s recent actions are likely to repeat themselves even though the market is a dynamically adapting non-linear system. You see it on a daily basis in the markets. The only problem is that it will almost always lead you astray.

Understanding the past is vital in building a sound understanding of macro trends. After all, Mark Twain was right when he said that history may not repeat, but it does tend to rhyme.* And when it comes to big broad macro trends that is particularly true. I’ve utilized the Japan playbook for much of my understanding of the current economic environment. And it has worked. The problem is, this doesn’t always translate into an ability to understand where the market is going. The market after all, is not the economy.
The reason why this recency effect is likely to lead you astray more often than not is due to the fact that markets are just a microcosm of the global economy. Therefore, understanding what the market did in 1937 during the Great Depression is not likely to help you decipher what the market is going to do in 2011. Why? Because the micro picture is entirely different. There might be similarities between the two environments and you might be able to glean very valuable insights from the macro picture by understanding what occurred in 1937, but the equity market of 2011 in no way resembles the equity market of 1937.

The same can be said of the recent attempts to compare 2010 and 2011. The primary problem with these comparisons is that they are not apples to apples. Instead of in-depth analysis we are generally seeing YTD charts with labels such as Jackson Hole, the recent sell-off and an emphasis on the spectacular year-end rally in 2010. The thinking here is even more simplistic than that though. Investors utilizing this comparison are prone to believe that the Fed is able to once again save the equity markets via a policy response. But this assumes that the market is not dynamic, not adaptive and linear – things it is not!

The problem here is that the market environments are entirely different and the lessons of the past have now been built into investor behavior in a fashion that actually makes the current system even more dynamic than it was in the past. And we see this difference in many other markets which are confirming that this is a different animal from 2010. Whether it be high yield bonds, CDS price action, sovereign debt markets, interbank lending markets, etc. They are all telling us that the credit markets are FAR more strained than they were in 2010. The animal we think we know in 2011 is far more concerned than the one we knew in 2010. And that alone makes this a very different beast. And while it doesn’t hurt to understand the creature of 2010, relying on it to behave the same exact way it did last year is likely to be misleading.

In sum, investors are prone to oversimplify their analysis by referring to technical analysis while combining this with recent events in order to try to explain the future market action. This recency effect, more often than not, is proven false when one looks under the surface and better understands the comparison and understands that the market is not a simple linear system. This recency effect leads investors to establish strategies and beliefs that are excessively simplistic and likely to fail. But if an investor better understands the complexities of the system and its ability to adapt and evolve, that investor can better prepare him/herself to conform to the changing environment and create a strategy that is more appropriate given the ever adapting marketplace. In short, adapt with the adapting market or die.
* Updated with proper Mark Twain citation.

[ramirez]

quì è meglio spiegato il concetto..
.
The Greater Recession: America Suffers from a Crisis of Productivity - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic
.
in poche parole ecco perchè stiamo male..
.
BAD NEWS: ESSENTIALS ARE GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE
(Or: The Crisis in Meds, Beds, and Higher Ed)


You could say that everything is getting cheaper except for almost everything you need. We need places to live, energy to move, education to move up, and insurance to stay healthy. The productivity revolution isn't doing much to make those things more affordable.


Even after decades of building up and building out, homes and apartments are still prohibitively expensive in our most productive cities. Adjusted for inflation, home energy costs doubled between 1967 and 2003, and continued to rise in the last ten years. The cost of medical insurance is growing faster than wages. Tuition and higher education fees are growing even faster.

[fdg86]

Ma va? E' ovvio, dato uno stock finito e una popolazione in crescita, i beni a domanda rigida (=essenziali) salgono di prezzo. Back to the classroom?

[ramirez]

Originalmente inviato da fdg86

Ma va? E' ovvio, dato uno stock finito e una popolazione in crescita, i beni a domanda rigida (=essenziali) salgono di prezzo. Back to the classroom?

questa è una capzata !!! Perchè la sanità DEVE SALIRE DI PREZZO ?
Dove c'è scritto ? Sale perchè le nuove tecnologie CHE IN TUTTI GLI ALTRI
SETTORI FANNO DIMINUIRE I COSTI....guardacaso (e forse per ns fortuna)
nella sanità funzionano all'opposto.
Oggi ci sono macchine migliori MA CHE COSTANO CIFRE ENORMI.
Non c'entra la popolazione in crescita (ma quella italiana
non era in de-crescita ) lo stock finito ecc ecc.

[dottoraus]

Originalmente inviato da ramirez

questa è una capzata !!! Perchè la sanità DEVE SALIRE DI PREZZO ?
Dove c'è scritto ? Sale perchè le nuove tecnologie CHE IN TUTTI GLI ALTRI
SETTORI FANNO DIMINUIRE I COSTI....guardacaso (e forse per ns fortuna)
nella sanità funzionano all'opposto.
Oggi ci sono macchine migliori MA CHE COSTANO CIFRE ENORMI.
Non c'entra la popolazione in crescita (ma quella italiana
non era in de-crescita ) lo stock finito ecc ecc.

Fino a qualche tempo fa le neoplasie venivano curate con una spesa X e la mortalità era M, adesso con i nuovi farmaci la spesa è passata a 5X e la mortalità a M/2.

E' un esempio non so i dati precisi, questo per farti capire che nonostante la tecnologia certi costi aumentano.

[ramirez]

Originalmente inviato da dottoraus

Fino a qualche tempo fa le neoplasie venivano curate con una spesa X e la mortalità era M, adesso con i nuovi farmaci la spesa è passata a 5X e la mortalità a M/2.

E' un esempio non so i dati precisi, questo per farti capire che nonostante la tecnologia certi costi aumentano.

e io che ho scritto ?
che alcuni costi salgono non nonostante MA A CAUSA DI...
.
prendiamo la legge 626. Sarà una buona legge ma agli italiani
è costata e costerà svariati miliardi di euro.
E' nuova tecnologia....e si fa pagare.