Oggi Recce’d pubblica sette nuovi Post. Il lancio della nuova impostazione di questo Blog (a temi, e con un nuovo layout) è stato rinviato al secondo trimestre 2021 in ragione della rapidissima evoluzione della situazione dei mercati finanziari nel mese di gennaio. Per noi di Recce’d, sono sempre i mercati a dettare i tempi. In aggiunta, oggi le occasioni per gli investitori sono le più grandi di una generazione. e noi di certo non vogliamo perderle di vista.

Mentre Mario Draghi crea un Ministero della Transizione Verde (noi il verde Lega ma il verde ambientalista) e mentre Joe Biden dedica una parte importante del suo Piano da 2000 miliardi (forse solo 1400 miliardi?) che dovrebbe essere varato nel mese di marzo (dovrebbe), anche sui mercati finanziari circola con grandissima insistenza la parola “surriscaldamento”. ma non si tratta del problema ambientale.

Il “surriscaldamento” del quale si discute ogni giorno sui mercati di tutto il mondo è un fenomeno duplice:

1. da un lato c’è il surriscaldamento dei prezzi, alla produzione ed al consumo,

2. e dall’altro c’è il surriscaldamento dei prezzi sui mercati finanziari

Anche se il dato per l’inflazione che è stato pubblicato lo scorso mercoledì negli Stati Uniti è risultato inferiore a ciò che veniva previsto dagli economisti, resta il fatto che tra gli operatori si discute, con frequenza, di una possibile inflazione al 4% per gli Stati uniti, dal mese di agosto in avanti.

Con la sua ben nota maestria, Mohamed El Erian ha preso spunto proprio da questo, per scrivere un articolo (sul Financial Times) che unisce la sua analisi del tema inflazione alla sua analisi del tema “surriscaldamento dei mercati”.

In questa occasione, la nostra sintonia con ciò che El Erian scrive è vicina al 100%. “Mind the gap”, ci spiega El Erian: che in italiano si può tradurre “Fate attenzione al buco”. Ed in effetti, per tutti noi investitori, il rischio è quello di “cadere nella voragine”: e si può essere certi che un buon numero di investitori ci cascherà dentro, e con tutti e due i piedi.

Questo perché il “surriscaldamento” oggi è un problema che investe anche gli investitori: come scrive nel grafico di apertura del nostro Post il Wall Street Journal: “bloccati in casa sul divano e con nulla da fare” si perde il senso della realtà, e accadono le cose che si vedono poi sotto, nei due grafici.

Da questa situazione deriveranno le inevitabili turbolenze, e molti investitori si renderanno conto di avere tenuto troppo rischio in portafoglio, nonostante i mille segnali ed avvertimenti, forniti anche da noi.

Ciò che Recce’d può fare per voi, dopo che avrete letto questo articolo, è operare in modo tale da garantire al Cliente sia un rendimento decente (anche se i mercati in un dato momento ci vanno contro) sia un controllo del rischio stretto, e di elevato livello qualitativo.

Leggiamo quindi insieme le parole di El Erian: se poi volete anche sapere che cosa fare, non avete che da contattarci.

The economic and financial data so far this week have highlighted once again the enormous contrast between the reported inflation rate for goods and services and the one for asset prices. It is part of a much bigger and consequential disconnect between the economy and financial markets, or what is commonly referred to as Main Street versus Wall Street. In the short term, it opens a bigger window for significant additional fiscal stimulus to supplement ultra-loose monetary policy and financial conditions. But it does so at the risk of amplifying the policy, financial stability and political risks that await us down the road.

For the second consecutive month, the core consumer price index, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, was flat for January;  the core annual inflation rate was 1.4%, down from 1.6% in December. Both outcomes were below analysts’ median forecast of a gain of 0.2% month over month and 1.5% year over year. The overall inflation rate rose 0.3% from the previous month and 1.4% from a year earlier.

The muted inflationary data come at an important time for a Biden administration seeking backing for a sweeping fiscal package. Congress is now considering the first of two components, focused on providing $1.9 trillion in immediate relief for multiple segments of the population and in countering Covid-19 by controlling the infection rate and speeding up vaccinations. Consensus expectations for what is likely to emerge from the inevitably noisy legislative process are now in the range of $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion, with as much as $2 trillion penciled in by some for the second multiyear recovery-focused component.

When combined with the continued exceptional liquidity injection of $120 billion a month signaled by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. economy is looking at an additional 15% to 25% of gross domestic product in stimulus this year alone, coming on top of what was even more for 2020. No wonder both stock and bond prices jumped immediately after the release of the muted inflation data. In doing so, they amplified what is already an enormous gap between a sluggish economy in terms of both growth and inflation and buoyant finance.

Fresh records for U.S. stock indexes are not — by far — the only sign of booming Wall Street conditions. January was yet another strong month for a wide range of contributors to the financial sector’s bottom line, including price increases for the vast majority of risk assets, massive additional fund inflows, heightened SPAC activity and greater corporate bond issuance. This comes on top of an incredibly remunerative 2020, which produced booming profits and, according to the latest Bloomberg estimates, some $23 billion of compensation for the top 15 earning hedge fund managers.

But what is favorable for policy and markets now increases future risks, starting with financial instability. The more Wall Street surges ahead in the short term, the harder it is for eventually improving economic conditions to validate the ever more elevated asset prices in an orderly manner. This makes it more difficult to carry out the needed policy transition in which massive fiscal stimulus allows for a moderation of what has been exceptionally loose monetary stimulus. It also makes the much needed catch-up of nonbank sector regulation and supervision harder to undertake smoothly. All this is in the context not just of the enormous disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street, which is attracting greater social and political attention, but also of the warning signals from the Robinhood-Reddit-GameStop frenzy.

The big hope — for policy makers, markets, the economy and, most importantly, society as a whole — is that faster growth that is also more inclusive and sustainable will validate elevated asset prices, facilitate the policy transition and avoid the type of financial dislocations that undermine economic well-being. The risk is twofold: that the muted inflation data prove to be a head fake rather than an indication of the future and that the challenge of eventually closing the economy-finance gap is made even more difficult by an additional liquidity-driven short-term sprint in markets.

Oggi Recce’d pubblica sette nuovi Post. Il lancio della nuova impostazione di questo Blog (a temi, e con un nuovo layout) è stato rinviato al secondo trimestre 2021 in ragione della rapidissima evoluzione della situazione dei mercati finanziari nel mese di gennaio. Per noi di Recce’d, sono sempre i mercati a dettare i tempi. In aggiunta, oggi le occasioni per gli investitori sono le più grandi di una generazione. e noi di certo non vogliamo perderle di vista.

Leggendo la stampa ed ascoltando CNBC, se ne ricava che Cathie Wood è il nome del giorno: le azzecca tutte, ma proprio tutte.

Come Elon Musk, ma lei opera nel mondo dell’asset management. Per questo, la sua vicenda per noi è più interessante di quella di Elon Musk, Ci tocca più da vicino. La seguiamo da anni.

Cathie Wood per noi è una opportunità operativa: infatti Recce’d potrebbe, se lo giudicasse opportuno, investire una parte del proprio portafoglio modello negli ETF di di ARK, la Società di asset management guidata da Cathie Wood.

Il grafico qui sotto ci racconta che Cathie Wood ha fatto molto, ma molto, meglio dei nostri portafogli modello. Fino ad oggi.

Ed in effetti, in questo 2021, ha fatto molto meglio di tutti (e molto meglio di noi, come detto).

Noi però, NON investiamo in questi ETF, ed in generale NON investiamo mai i soldi dei Clienti negli ETF tematici.

Torneremo su questo argomento, ed in modo diffuso, in futuro. Evitiamo (del tutto) di investire in ETF tematici, perché si tratta di strumenti che noi giudichiamo del tutto inefficienti. La discrezionalità del gestore, uscita dalla porta quando gli investitori del Mondo intero hanno detto basta ai Fondi Comuni di Investimento (tranne gli investitori italiani) rientra dalla finestra.

In questo modo (anche se spesso l’investitore finale non lo capisce) l’investitore finale sceglie di investire sul gestore, e non sul sottostante. Vediamo ad esempio ARK: “New Generation” e “Fintech Innovation” sono, semplicemente etichette. Sono parole senza un significato concreto, parole che attirano l’attenzione.

Il gestore, alla fine, ci può mettere ciò che desidera. E l’investitore finale, che ci mette i suoi soldi, non sa neppure che cosa ha comperato.

Una situazione che Recce’d vi suggerisce di evitare come la peste. Perché è questa, la peste, per l’investire finale. E’ esattamente per questo, che da tre decenni voi lettori non guadagnate nulla.

Come detto, si tratta di un tema molto ampio: che noi tratteremo in una delle nostre sei correnti tematiche, quando rilasceremo la nostra versione rivista, ed innovativa, del Blog di Recce’d.

Oggi, in questo Post,ci limiteremo a scrivere a proposito di ARK: magari, qualche lettore desidera investire in “Genomic Revolution” ed “Autonomous Tech”. E noi desideriamo aiutarli, informandoli al meglio., anche con l’articolo del Financial Times che leggete di seguito.

Non vi sorprenderà leggere che ARK investe in Tesla, quella che compera Bitcoin, e che ARK compera anche Bitcoin. Il che, a nostro giudizio, spiega un po’ tutta la faccenda.

Cathie Wood says “nothing has gone wrong” with her Tesla Model S since she bought it in 2018, and she has never required a service call. She is just as pleased with her investment in Tesla shares. The fortunes of Wood’s Ark Investment Management and Elon Musk’s electric carmaker have been indelibly linked for some time, and Wood says she remains decidedly bullish about its prospects — even after its shares touched a record high of $900 and remain up 14 per cent since the start of the year. T

esla has been the biggest single holding in Ark’s suite of actively managed exchange traded funds, which promise to invest around several loose themes of technological disruption. Their popularity has catapulted Wood to fame and turned Ark into an investment phenom with $50bn under management in its ETFs, from less than one-tenth that at the start of last year. T

esla has a 10.1 per cent weighting in Ark’s Autonomous Tech ETF, remains the largest holding in the Ark Innovation ETF with a weighting of 9.1 per cent and tops the bill in Ark’s Next Generation Internet ETF at 8.8 per cent, according to the asset manager’s website. That degree of concentration has raised questions about the sustainability of Ark’s growth, but Wood says not to worry. “Any trend that generates a lot of excitement encounters scepticism due to the bad experiences — internet and housing crashes — of the past 20 years. That’s why the opportunity is so big. Most portfolios don’t have this exposure and they own companies that are being disrupted,” she said.

Tesla retains significant competitive advantages in the development of electric vehicles, a market segment for which Ark estimates compound annual growth of 80 per cent in the next five years, Wood said. “Their battery technology is at least three years ahead of other auto manufacturers” and thanks to developing their own AI chip, they have collected vast amounts of real world data and far more than their competitors. But those advantages are trumped by the promise of autonomous driving. “There is a more than 30 per cent chance in our view that Tesla is the autonomous taxi network of the US.” Bar chart of Year-to-date share price rise (%) showing Ark's five thematic ETFs set a scorching pace so far in 2021 Two of Ark’s investment themes collided this week, when Tesla said it bought $1.5bn of Bitcoin.

The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust is the ETF’s second-largest holding at 4.5 per cent after Tesla, and the subsequent rise in the price of the digital currency (and in Tesla shares) propelled Ark’s Next Generation Internet ETF to a new record high on Tuesday. It is now showing a gain of 25 per cent this year, while the broader US stock market is up 4 per cent. Wood, who founded Ark in 2014 after 12 years as an investment officer at AllianceBernstein, said she expected more such convergence. “It doesn’t surprise us that innovative companies are looking at other kinds of innovation,” she said. Peter Garnry, head of equity strategy at Saxo Bank, estimated that Tesla shares held across Ark’s ETFs represents 6.7 per cent of their total assets under management. Other large holdings include Teladoc Health, Roku, and Square.

The hefty concentration has enabled Ark to outperform, but it leaves its funds vulnerable to a pullback by hot stocks, should the market take fright at soaring valuations. Outflows from its funds could exacerbate the pullback. “There is a high degree of overlap between investors and speculators in Tesla shares, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, Ark Invest funds and related stocks such as the biotechnology stocks,” said Garnry. “This risk concentration is important to understand if you have positions in your portfolio that are part of this network structure of positions.”

Rejecting talk of an equity market bubble led by many of their high profile holdings, Wood said she expects innovative companies will grow into their high equity valuations as demand for their products and services expands exponentially over the next decade. Aside from Tesla, Wood reckons the broad adoption of digital wallets will benefit the payments groups Square and PayPal, for example. Wood said a stock market correction will provide Ark with an opportunity to buy more “high conviction names” and companies it believes will be “winner-take-all” in a fast-expanding new industry. “A correction is a great time to determine what are our high conviction names,” she said.

Oggi Recce’d pubblica sette nuovi Post. Il lancio della nuova impostazione di questo Blog (a temi, e con un nuovo layout) è stato rinviato al secondo trimestre 2021 in ragione della rapidissima evoluzione della situazione dei mercati finanziari nel mese di gennaio. Per noi di Recce’d, sono sempre i mercati a dettare i tempi. In aggiunta, oggi le occasioni per gli investitori sono le più grandi di una generazione. e noi di certo non vogliamo perderle di vista.

Tra le nostre (a volte grandissime) fatiche quotidiane, troviamo anche momenti di divertimento. In alcune, rare, occasioni, c’è proprio da ridere. Ne abbiamo scritto anche in un altro Post di oggi.

Questa settimana, il divertimento ce lo ha garantito il Bitcoin: ci diverte vedere quanta gente c’è in giro che paga 50.000 dollari USA per avere un Bitcoin.

Nella nostra lunga esperienza, non avevamo ancora visto nulla di paragonabile: individui razioniali che pagano 50000 dollari (una bella somma) per disporre di una unità di una cosa che non hanno neppure capito, esattamente, che cosa è e che cosa può fare.

E pagano soltanto perché “lo fanno anche gli altri”.

Tornano alla amente episodi del passato, da Tiscali ad Enron a (più di recente, nel 2020) Wirecard.

Wirecard, uno dei titoli dell’austero indice tedesco DAX 40. (Si sa, che i tedeschi fanno le cose bene).

Wiurecard era scambiata a 105 euro il 10 settembre 2018: ma Wirecard non valeva nulla, proprio esattamente zero, erano soltanto numeri su un pezzo di carta. Wirecard non è mai esistita, se non per l’indice DAX 40. Nella vita reale, Wirecard non esisteva: esisteva unicamente sullo schermo dello smartphone su cui passano (troppe) ore i “guerrieri da tastiera” di Robinhood, e-Toro, e altre piattaforme online e dintorni.

La vita reale vince sempre: nel 100% dei casi. Arriva sempre il “momento Bitcoin” del quale noi scrivemmo già nel 2018, tre anni fa.

Per questa ragione, anche noi di Recce’d vinciamo sempre, come dicono i nostri risultati.

Per chi avesse la memoria cortissima, qui vi ricordiamo che il Bitcoin ad inizio settimana (8 febbraio 2021) era il tema unico di ogni commento sui mercato finanziari: “Musk ha acquistato Bitcoin”. Entusiasmo alle stelle e grafici che salgono, e salgono, e salgono in alto verso la luna.

Ne scriveva anche il New York Times, nel modo che noi adesso vi facciamo leggere.

By Ephrat Livni and Jason Karaian

• Feb. 9, 2021

Cryptocurrency prices are soaring after Tesla said that it had purchased $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin with company funds. The electric carmaker wasn’t the first company to shift corporate cash into cryptocurrencies, but it was one of the biggest. It could make finance chiefs elsewhere consider whether they should follow suit, the DealBook newsletter reports.

Tesla’s move is an “exclamation point” for institutional acceptance of Bitcoin, said Matthew Graham, the chief executive of the Beijing-based blockchain investment firm Sino Global Capital. “It’s clear that Bitcoin is ready for Main Street.”

Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, is known for bucking convention, so his company’s purchase is not as surprising as it would be at, say, Ford or General Motors.

Tesla had more than $19 billion in cash at the end of 2020, a big enough cushion to make the Bitcoin purchase a relatively small share of its resources. But much of that cash was raised in recent stock sales, and the company only recently reported its second year of positive free cash flow. Because of Bitcoin’s unique characteristics, Tesla will have to record declines in the value of its Bitcoin against its earnings, but cannot book gains.

The software company MicroStrategy now holds Bitcoin worth about a third of its market capitalization, according to a site that tracks corporate holdings. MicroStrategy’s chief, Michael Saylor, held a conference last week that promoted Bitcoin for corporations.

Naresh Aggarwal of the Association of Corporate Treasurers in London is skeptical that many companies will follow Tesla and MicroStrategy and buy Bitcoin at scale. “Gold is probably a more traditional form of alternative investment,” he said, yet few firms outside the financial sector hold it. “If they’re not tempted by gold, then I can’t see them being tempted by Bitcoin,” he added, likening it to “putting money on a horse race.”

Keeping money in liquid, safe investments is particularly important during the pandemic, and many corporate finance chiefs remember being burned in 2008 by higher-yielding alternatives.

Ephrat Livni reports from Washington on the intersection of business and policy for DealBook. Previously, she was a senior reporter at Quartz, covering law and politics, and has practiced law in the public and private sectors.  

Jason Karaian is the editor of DealBook, based in London. He joined The Times in 2020 from Quartz, where he was senior Europe correspondent and later global finance and economics editor.

Poi però, che cosa è successo? Martedì 9 febbraio? Meno entusiasmo. Mercoledì 10 febbraio? Meno ancora. Giovedì 11 febbraio? Beh, forse … magari … le cose si possono vedere anche da una diversa angolazione. Venerdì? pronti, via! Meno 1%, e poi durante la giornata … arriva la Cavalleria Confederata.

Un gestore di portafoglio professionale a voi serve per questo: per non farvi sentire eccitati ogni lunedì, e depressi dopo qualche giorno.

Siamo qui per quello. Ma siamo qui anche per affrontare, in modo professionale, i temi che vengono strillati dalla stampa quotidiana, dalle TV come CNBC, da PLUS del Sole 24 Ore e da Corriere Economia.

Siamo qui per aiutarvi a distinguere, tra cento e cento fake news le poche cose (pochissime) che a voi servono per fare le scelte giuste quando vi chiedete in merito a “che fine faranno i miei soldi”?

E per questo, anche questa settimana come in alcune settimane precedenti, ci occuperemo di Bitcoin. Del quale, ripetiamo anche oggi, abbiamo già detto chiaramente (anche noi insieme ad altri) che NON è un investimento.

Ci occupiamo del Bitcoin come strumento per la gestione della tesoreria di un’azienda: sarà utile infatti ricordare che Elon Musk ha acquistato Bitcoin con i soldi che gli erano stati affidati dagli investitori che credevano di avere investito in Tesla, e nel futuro dell’auto elettrica.

La scelta di Elon Musk, di impiegare in Bitcoin una parte della disponibilità di cassa della sua Azienda, è una scelta che guarda al futuro? E’ una scelta che verrà replicata anche dalle altre Società quotate che fanno parte dell’indice S&P 500? E’ una scelta che farà il bene della Società Tesla, le darà un vantaggio rispetto ad altri costruttori di automobili?

E’ una domanda rilevante, per noi investitori: prima di investire, per noi è decisivo avere capito quali sono le strategie delle Società quotate, poter effettuare una previsione sulle loro capacità di produrre utili oppure perdite. Eventualmente, anche acquistando Bitcoin.

Leggiamo che cosa ne ha scritto il Financial Times.

Richard Waters in San Francisco and Eric Platt in New York FEBRUARY 9 2021

Cryptocurrencies play almost no role in the staid world of corporate treasury, where protecting a company’s financial liquidity and cash reserves are key. Their massive volatility has ruled them out.

That did not stop Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla, from putting $1.5bn of his company’s spare cash into bitcoin last month. The company’s shares edged up more than 1 per cent on news of the bet on Monday, while the price of bitcoin staged a strong rally. But to experts in corporate treasury management, the move makes almost no sense.

“Corporations invest their cash in very high quality, short-term fixed income securities, and are willing to accept a relatively low rate of return,” said Jerry Klein, a managing director at Treasury Partners, an investment management firm in New York. “I don’t think there is a case to be made for investing corporate cash in a risky asset like bitcoin, where they could experience significant declines.”

Apart from a handful of listed vehicles that try to give stock market investors a way to speculate on cryptocurrency, only a very few companies have put their spare money into bitcoin. One of the first was the ecommerce site Overstock — though it only had $2m in bitcoin when it last disclosed the figure. The US software company MicroStrategy broke the mould in the middle of last year, making a well-timed move to start shovelling all the spare cash not needed for its operations into bitcoin. A week ago the company said it had spent a total of $1.145bn on bitcoin, and was sitting on a hoard of digital currency currently worth $3.2bn. Michael Saylor, its chief executive, described the investment as a “second strategy” for his company alongside its previous business of selling software, rather than as a treasury decision. The company has also said the investment was designed to raise brand awareness among corporate buyers of information technology and boost its software sales.

For Tesla, with a stock market value of more than $800bn, speculating on bitcoin seems unlikely to rise to the level of a second strategy. But accepting payment for its electric cars in the form of bitcoin could burnish its brand in the cryptocurrency universe. Musk’s vocal support for bitcoin and other digital currencies has already brought him a strong following in the crypto world. Tesla also said it would soon start accepting payment in bitcoin in a limited way, potentially giving it more ways to tap Musk’s crypto fan base. While there may be longer term upside to Musk’s enthusiasm for bitcoin, it brings more immediate risks. One is to the company’s reported profitability. Like MicroStrategy, Tesla said it would treat its crypto holdings as an intangible asset with long-term value, like goodwill. As such, it will have to revalue its bitcoin holding regularly and take any decline in value as a cost against profits. Any increase in value, on the other hand, can’t be fed back into profits, but can only be realised when Tesla sells the holding, in line with US accounting standards.

Tesla’s quarterly profit swings are already heavily influenced by the amounts it makes from selling regulatory credits to other companies, distracting from the performance of its underlying car business. A collapse in bitcoin prices could add to the extraneous earnings moves — though the downside would be limited to $1.5bn, unless the company pumps more of its money into crypto markets. In its filing with securities regulators, Tesla said its board had authorised purchases of gold and other digital assets. Recommended LexTesla Inc Tesla/bitcoin: asset exchange Premium

“It’s unusual, it’s risky and it won’t necessarily provide that hedge that they are looking for,” said Campbell Harvey, a professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “That to me is OK if you are a hedge fund and your clients know that this is exactly what you do, you make speculative bets and sometimes they work and sometimes they do not . . . Tesla is not a hedge fund.” The largest blue-chip companies have become full-time asset managers over the past decade as their cash holdings have swelled, venturing beyond time deposits and money market funds as places to park their cash. However, their purchases have often focused on the more sedate world of Treasuries, corporate bonds and asset-backed securities. Apple, which held almost $200bn in cash and securities in December, invested 48 per cent in corporate debt. Bitcoin prices have swung wildly over the past 12 months.

During the worst of the sell-off in March last year, prices fell as much as 63 per cent from highs hit just weeks earlier. The cryptocurrency has since surged in value and is up tenfold from last year’s lows. On Wednesday it was quoted as high as $47,492. David Yermack, a professor at New York University, said cryptocurrencies were still so new that accounting and tax authorities did not yet have rules on how companies should recognise the investments. He added that Tesla’s investment could prompt guidance on those fronts. “It has got to be at the top of everyone’s minds,” he said. “Many companies have avoided doing this for years because the auditors don’t know how to account for it.”

A large bitcoin investment could also put a dent in Musk’s self-declared intention of building a new style of corporate conglomerate dedicated to tackling climate change. The intensive data-crunching that goes into bitcoin mining — the process by which people involved in the network validate transactions — consumes plenty of energy. Some crypto experts argue that it would be too simplistic for institutions committed to environmental, social and governance issues, or ESG investing, to hold this against the company. Ethan Buchman, a co-founder of the crypto project Cosmos, said Tesla had already faced potentially bigger ethical concerns, given the mining practices involved in extracting the materials used in car batteries. He also claimed that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, if successful, could lead to more moderate economic growth over the long-term, with big advantages for sustainability

Può essere utile al lettore, a questo punto, che Recce’d chiarisca quale è la nostra posizione sul Bitcoin: il Bitcoin non è un investimento (come è stato scritto anche da altri), ma questo non significa che non abbia un futuro.

Potrà essere, in futuro, un utile strumento di pagamento, a fianco di altri strumenti di pagamento. Una unità di misura, come molte altre, che ha un valore come metro. E che per tanto ha ed avrà un valore che è pari al suo costo di produzione (grafico qui sotto), che oggi dovrebbe essere di dieci centesimi, venti centesimi, forse trenta centesimi sopra il costo dell’energia elettrica? Non lo sappiamo, stiamo solo facendo delle ipotesi. Di certo c’è solo il fatto che nel tempo, il costo di produzione, inevitabilmente tenderà a zero (al netto del costo dell’energia elettrica).

Molto più critico, e negativo, di Recce’d sul Bitcoin è da sempre Nouriel Roubini, che anche questa settimana ha rinnovato la sua posizione critica attraverso il Financial Times, con un articolo che sotto vi riportiamo., in chiusura del Post.

La posizione di Roubini è molto rigida, ma alcune delle cose scritte qui sotto risultano, semplicemente, impossibili da negare.

The writer is a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business, NYU, and host of NourielToday.com

Claims that bitcoin is the new “digital gold” are feeding a new bubble in it and other cryptocurrencies. The last one in 2017-18 saw bitcoin go from $1,000 to $20,000 and then fall back to $3,000 by the end of 2018. Since the fundamental value of bitcoin is zero and would be negative if a proper carbon tax was applied to its massive polluting energy-hogging production, I predict that the current bubble will eventually end in another bust. Referring to bitcoin or other crypto as “currencies” is a misnomer. They are not a unit of account: virtually nothing is priced in them. They are not a scalable means of payment: with bitcoin you can do five transactions per second while the Visa network does 24,000.

Bitcoins are barely used by legitimate companies as payment for goods and services, although Tesla said it planned to start accepting them. Crypto is not a stable store of value: even some crypto conferences refuse to accept them as payment for attendance fees. The volatile price moves can wipe out any profit margin of a merchant within a matter of hours. They aren’t even denominated in a consistent way that allows users to compare relative prices of goods. This reliance on different tokens is effectively a return to barter. The Flintstones had a more sophisticated monetary system based on a benchmark: the cartoon cavemen used shells. Even referring to crypto as assets is a misnomer.

Most assets have a stream of income (stocks, bonds, commercial real estate) or a use (housing) or some other utility (fiat currency provides liquidity and can be used for payments). Gold has no income but it has industrial uses. It also has utility as a store of value and a hedge against inflation, currency debasement and tail risks. Crypto has no income, no utility, no payment or other services. It isn’t even anonymous because the underlying blockchain technology makes it easy to trace payments. It is only a play on a speculative asset bubble, worse than tulip-mania as flowers had and still have utility. Its store of value against tail risks is unproven. And worse: some cryptos, dubbed “shitcoins”, are financial scams in the first place or debased daily by their sponsor.

Bitcoin’s price is highly volatile, and claims of misbehaviour, including pump and dump, spoofing, wash trading and front-running by exchanges, are widespread. Stablecoins claim to be superior. But New York authorities are already investigating whether one, tether, is being used to manipulate the price of bitcoin. Vitalik Buterin, a co-founder of the cryptocurrency ethereum, argues that no crypto can be at the same time scalable, safe and decentralised. Traditional financial systems are scalable and safe: if your credit card or bank account is hacked or stolen, you are made whole.

But they are centralised because participants and assets are verified by trusted institutions. Right now, crypto is neither scalable nor safe. If your private key is stolen or lost, the assets are gone for good. It isn’t even decentralised. Oligopolistic miners control most bitcoin mining. Many are out of reach of western law enforcement in places such as China, Russia and Belarus, creating a national security nightmare. About 99 per cent of bitcoin trading occurs on centralised exchanges, which may be hackable. Furthermore, the original programmers retain outsized control over their creations. In some cases they act as police, prosecutors and judges, and reverse transactions that are supposed to be immutable.

Nor is crypto equitable: a small number of “whales” control much of bitcoin’s value. This undermines claims that crypto will decentralise finance, provide banking services to the unbanked, or make the poor rich. Blockchain claims to enable cheap money transfers to refugees, but crypto is much more likely to provide cover for scam artists, conmen, tax evaders, criminals, terrorists and human traffickers. Our world is beset by financial crises, geopolitical risks and very loose monetary policy. There is growing demand for safe haven assets that are a hedge against inflation, currency depreciation and debasement and tail risks. Gold, inflation-indexed bonds, commodities, real estate and even equities are all reasonable candidates. Risky, volatile bitcoin doesn’t belong in the portfolios of serious institutional investors. Many of its retail backers are suckers being manipulated by an army of self-serving insiders and snake oil salesmen. Tesla’s Elon Musk and MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor may be betting the house on bitcoin. That doesn’t mean you should.

Ciò che qualifica il lavoro di un gestore del portafoglio è la capacità di prospettare ai propri Clienti, nel modo più corretto possibile, gli scenari che il suo portafoglio di investimenti dovrà affrontare.

Questo è il metro sul quale noi, in Recce’d, ci misuriamo ogni mattina. Quello che accade nella realtà del Mondo (produzione, lavoro, inflazione, ed anche politica, relazioni internazionali, guerre) corrisponde a ciò che noi avevamo anticipato ai nostri Clienti?

Facciamo, insieme ai lettori del Blog, un test in tempo reale. Attraverso il nostro sito, noi di Recce’d vi avevamo detto:

1. che il 2021 non avrebbe avuto nulla in comune con il 2020, ed è già così oggi: lo avete visto tutti

2. che il 2021 sarebbe risultato un anno molto diverso da quello raccontato a fine 2020 dalle banche globali di investimento e dalle Reti di promotori: e nel solo mese di gennaio avete ricevuto due-tre conferme

3. che il 2021 avrebbe portato una serie di eventi e fatti non immaginabili solo pochi mesi prima: dal Campidoglio a Gamestop, le conferme non sono mancate

4. che la fragilità dei mercati finanziari deriva soprattutto … dai mercati finanziari medesimi, e solo otto giorni fa era questo il tema che dominava le nostre e le vostre giornate

5. che il COVID-19 ed “il vaccino” non sono notizie rilevanti per i mercati finanziari, ed infatti in questa prima settimana di febbraio quando si parla di mercati ed investimenti del vaccino non ti parla più nessuno

Per i vostri investimenti, a questo punto, potrebbe risultare utile andare a cercare quelle cose che Recce’d ha anticipato nel 2021 e che devono ancora verificarsi. Quelle che non avete ancora letto in prima pagina sul Sole 24 Ore oppure degli altri quotidiani. Perché potrebbe essere quella, la prossima cosa che i vostri investimento devono affrontare.

Ragione per la quale, potrebbe essere un buon investimento di tempo quello di ritornare indietro, e rileggere nel Blog tutte le nostre analisi degli ultimi 12 mesi.

Come sempre, Recce’d non si limita a proporre le proprie analisi e le proprie tesi, quelle che fanno da supporto fondamentale alla propria strategia di investimento. Senza timore e senza giri di parole, Recce’d vi mette a disposizione anche le idee e le indicazioni degli altri.

In questo Post, ad esempio, facciamo il punto al 6 febbraio 2021 utilizzando le parole degli altri.

Tornando a ciò che si diceva prima, queste sono le cose che Recce’d ha detto che NON si verificheranno. Lo scriviamo qui ed oggi, poi torneremo a leggerlo tra qualche settimana e mese.

Il titolo che leggete nell’immagine ci dice che: “la tesi della reflazione si sta rafforzando, ed è per questo che le azioni (americane) mettono a segno nuovi record.

E’ vero? Non è vero? E’ un riflesso delle isterie assortite di questo mercato, del mercato di Gamestop?

Amici lettori, questo lo dovete decidere da soli, e nel vostro migliore interesse: noi, per la nostra parte, abbiamo già preso le decisioni migliori.

Nel brevissimo testo che segue, scritto oggi sabato 6 febbraio, si riassumono tutti i punti forti della “tesi reflazione”. C’è tutto in poche righe: il piano di Biden, lo stimolo alla crescita dell’economia, le prospettive di un ulteriore rialzo della Borsa, il rialzo dei rendimenti delle obbligazioni. Leggete e poi chiedetevi: mi convince?

“We believe that we are still in the early stages of a new bull market, transitioning from the 'hope' phase (which typically starts during a recession, led by rising valuations) to a longer 'growth' phase as strong profit growth emerges,” chief global equity strategist Peter Oppenheimer wrote in a 4 February client note.

Yet the fundamentally more important financial development was, as usual, in the bond market. The yield curve—the graph of Treasuries from short- to long-term maturities—is the most sharply upwardly sloped in years. That’s a result of longer-term yields climbing, with the benchmark 10-year note ending the week at 1.17%, near the high end of its recent trading range, and the 30-year bond at 1.98%, nearing 2% for the first time in about a year.

This is a classic indication that the bond market is anticipating stronger economic growth and higher inflation. Those expectations got a boost Friday after both houses of Congress voted to begin the process of approving President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion fiscal relief plan without votes from congressional Republicans.

Friday’s employment report was disappointing, however, with a smaller-than-expected 49,000 increase in nonfarm payrolls in January, and December’s job loss revised to 227,000 from the 140,000 originally reported. The unemployment rate fell to 6.3% last month from 6.7%, but mainly because of lower labor-force participation. The uninspiring data could bolster the argument for fiscal action.

The prospect of stimulus has some economists boosting growth estimates, with Nancy Lazar of Cornerstone Macro now looking for the economy to be expanding at a 7% pace by the fourth quarter, up from her previous estimate of 6%. That’s what both the bond and stock markets seem to be pricing in, which means that any shortfall in a recovery would be a surprise. So far, 2021 has been full of them.

Il secondo titolo che vi presentiamo, nell’immagine sotto, si pone una domanda: il rialzo dei rendimenti delle obbligazioni, nel 2021, ci segnala che l’inflazione sta arrivando?

Noi aggiungiamo una seconda domanda: se l’inflazione sta arrivando, e se questo aumento dell’inflazione farà aumentare anche i rendimenti obbligazionari, lo scenario di “reflazione” descritto dal brano che avete letto più in alto reggerebbe?

Secondo Goldman Sachs, la risposta è positiva.

Alla fine, ciò che si chiede all’investitore finale, è di credere. E’ di crederci. “Ya gotta believe” come diceva il famoso allenatore dei New York Mets (Tug Mc Graw) prima di ogni partita.

Qualcosa del genere anima anche i piccoli investitori negli ultimi mesi: “se ci crediamo tutti insieme, allora il titolo salirà”. Nel caso di Gamestop ha funzionato.

Come detto, noi in questo Post siamo qui a ricostruire un’atmosfera e a riportare le idee degli altri, le idee che ad oggi risultano prevalenti, guardando ai prezzi sui mercati finanziari.

Siamo però qui anche per ricordare a tutti i lettori che il gioco dei mercati finanziari in realtà NON è un gioco, ma è strettamente intrecciato con la realtà.

Ed anche che NON è semplice: è molto complesso.

Ve ne potete rendere conto facilmente, anche se leggete (ma con attenzione ed in modo critico) le parole di chi NON la vede come la vede Recce’d.

Un esempio lo trovate qui di seguito, in un articolo del quale, dopo e più in basso, noi mettiamo in evidenza quello che a nostro giudizio è il passaggio più utile per chi deve fare scelte per il futuro dei propri soldi.

Ya gotta believe, reliever Tug McGraw said of his 1973 New York Mets before they went on to win an unlikely National League pennant. Investors seemed to have embraced the same sentiment for this stock market, which continues to put every setback behind it as it marches to record highs.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 1,165.62 points, or 3.89%, to 31,148.24 this past week, while the S&P 500 rose 4.6%, to 3886.83, and the Nasdaq Composite gained 6%, to 13,856.30. The Russell 2000 left them all behind with a 7.7% jump, to 2233.33.

It was a striking turnaround following the previous week’s 3%-plus declines—and a fast one. At the end of Friday a week ago, we were concerned that the derisking—market jargon for selling—that hedge funds had to do following the GameStop (ticker: GME) short squeeze would last awhile. Instead, it appears that the pros had derisked so much during the last week of January—Fundstrat’s Tom Lee called it the “largest [hedge-fund] degrossing in a decade, second only to March 2020”—that they had to reload this past week.

They certainly had reason to. Let’s start with the economic data. While January’s payroll report was a disappointment—the U.S. added just 49,000 jobs, and December’s losses were revised even lower—everything else came up roses. The Institute for Supply Management’s services survey not only topped expectations, but the new-order and hiring components pointed to further growth ahead, and durable-goods orders topped expectations as well. The economy should also get a lift from more stimulus payments, whether through a bipartisan agreement or the Democrats passing a $1.9 trillion relief package on their own.

But the real driving force has been improving Covid-19 news. The weekly number of new cases has dropped 30% from two weeks ago. New vaccines will be on the scene soon, with Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) filing for emergency-use authorization and Novavax (NVAX) heading in that direction. At this pace, reopening should happen on schedule, letting people who work at restaurants, hotels, and elsewhere get back to work.

“The market is projecting that we see the economy pulling out of the worst of the pandemic in the second half of the year,” says Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist at Prudential Financial.

Is it ever. The Energy Select Sector SPDR exchange-traded fund (XLE) gained 8.2% this past week as oil prices climbed 8.9% to $$56.85 a barrel, the highest since January 2020. The Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) got a boost as the 10-year Treasury yield climbed to its highest level since March. Both are signs of coming growth. On the flip side, Clorox (CLX), one of Covid’s biggest beneficiaries, tumbled 8% despite reporting better-than-expected earnings and offering above-consensus guidance. No one, it seems, wants to own a stock so closely connected to the lockdown narrative.

Wall Street is starting to believe in the reopening, too. Macquarie’s trading desk now expects the U.S. economy to grow by 7.1% in 2021, including inflation, up from its previous 4.7% estimate. It would be the strongest growth since 1983. Analysts, who have been only too happy to leave forecasts unchanged despite earnings beats, have started to change their tune, increasing their S&P 500 earnings estimates for 2021 by 2.6% this earnings season, according to Barclays strategist Maneesh Deshpande. “Analysts might be playing catch-up with their revisions as companies update their 2021 outlooks,” he explains.

Yet investors might want to listen to the bond market. The yield curve, as the difference between short- and long-term bonds is known, has been steepening rapidly, rising above one percentage point last week in the two-year/10-year curve. In the short term, that’s simply a reflection of stronger growth expectations and more inflation, and something the Federal Reserve governors are almost certainly happy to see.

But everything has its limits, and as the spread between the two bond yields nears 1.3 percentage point, it could become a problem for the stock market, explains Sevens Report’s Tom Essaye. “Historically, [a steepening yield curve is a] good sign for both the economy and stock markets in the coming months and quarters,” he writes. “But it is also an early warning sign that the clock is ticking on how long the Fed will remain on hold, or easy, before beginning to hike rates and tighten financial conditions to combat the threat of runaway inflation.”

The Fed, of course, has done its best to convince the market that it won’t start raising interest rates until 2023, no matter what markets do. How much more stocks can gain could depend on whom investors believe.

Nell’articolo che avete appena letto, trovate un aggiornatissima descrizione della “narrativa della reflazione”. E dovete crederci.

Oppure NON crederci: siete liberi di farlo, e l’alternativa è a vostra disposizione, qui in Recce’d.

Ciò che dovrebbe aiutarvi, a decidere se crederci oppure non crederci, è il passaggio che Recce’d ha evidenziato nell’articolo, insieme con il testo che accompagna il grafico più in alto, ed anche i due grafici che qui sotto fanno da chiusura al nostro Post.

E poi chiedetevi: “ma io ci credo, a questa storia?”.

I dati di questo Post vi aiuteranno. Ed anche utilizzare la vostra stessa memoria, vi aiuterà: la memoria di ciò che successe, alle economie ed anche ai vostri portafogli, sia nel 2019, sia nel 2018, sia nel 2017, sia nel 2016, sia nel 2015, e poi … continuate voi.

Da almeno sei mesi, la strategia di Recce’d ruota (come abbiamo ampiamente e ripetutamente illustrato ai nostri Clienti, da ultimo nella Lettera al Cliente di oggi 6 febbraio 2021) intorno ad un’unica domanda: la nostra scelta si spiega con il fatto che soltanto la ripsota a questa domanda ci dirà, e vi dirà, se il vostro portafoglio chiuderà il 2021 con un ampio risultato positivo, oppure con un pesante risultato di perdite.

Anche i lettori del Blog, pur non essendo Clienti, già sanno qual’è questa domanda, perché ne abbiamo già scritto anche in sede pubblica.

La in questione domanda riguarda gli interventi a sostegno dell’economia (di spesa pubblica e di tipo monetario, come il famoso QE) varati nel 2020 per reagire agli effetti dell’epidemia (ed insieme affrontate anche ad altri quattro o cinque problemi, che erano già emersi nel 2019, e nel 2018, e nel 2017).

La domanda che Recce’d vi sottopone è centrata sulla efficacia, di questi strumenti: è vero che aumentando di 3 mila miliardi l’attivo della Banca Centrale, e portando il debito pubblico al 130% del PIL, si ottiene il rilancio dell’economia, la ripresa delle attività produttive, il rilancio della domanda?

E’ vero che l’economia oggi reagisce così, come Keynes aveva teorizzato ormai ottanta anni fa?

E’ vero, che l’economia funziona così? Facciamo bene, a crederci? Oppure in tanti hanno fatto una serie di gravi sbagli, che poi tutti pagheremo?

In settimana, proprio di questo ha scritto in un Articolo per il Washington Post, Larry J. Summers sul Washington Post. Perché vi segnaliamo questo articolo? Almeno per tre diverse ragioni.

Summers è un professore di Harvard ed economista di fama, conosce quindi perfettamente Keynes ma pure tutta la Teoria economica degli ottanta anni seguenti, che sarebbe sbagliato ignorare del tutto. Inoltre Summers conosce anche la pratica della politica economica: è stato Sottosegretario all’Economia e anche a capo del Consiglio Nazionale dell’Economia. Ed infine: perché Summers è Democratico, ed è quindi della medesima parte politica del Presidente oggi in carica.

Se queste ragioni di interesse a voi non sembrano sufficienti, e se siete vittime dell’ansia e della confusione che vi è stata prodotta dal vedere tutti i talk-show della RAI, della Mediaset, e della Sette, allora aggiungiamo un ultimo (e molto meno importante) motivo di interesse. Ciò di cui parla Summers è un problema che si presenta, in una misura anche più ampia, in Europa. E del quale proprio l’Italia (di Draghi) potrebbe risultare una delle principali vittime.

Dopo avere letto l’articolo, troverete un nostro commento.

Opinion by 

Lawrence H. Summers

Contributing columnist

Feb. 4, 2021 at 7:06 p.m. GMT+1

President Biden’s $1.9 trillion covid-19 relief plan, added to the stimulus measure Congress passed in December with the incoming administration’s strong support, would represent the boldest act of macroeconomic stabilization policy in U.S. history. Its ambition, its rejection of austerity orthodoxy and its commitment to reducing economic inequality are all admirable. It is imperative that safety-net measures for those suffering and investments in vaccination and testing be undertaken rapidly after the indefensible delays of the last months of the Trump administration.

Yet bold measures need to be accompanied by careful consideration of risks and how they can be mitigated. While the arguments for providing relief to those hurt by the economic fallout of the pandemic, investing in controlling the virus and supporting consumer demand are compelling, much of the policy discussion has not fully reckoned with the magnitude of what is being debated.

I agree with the general consensus of progressive economists that it would have been much better if the Obama administration had been able to legislate a much larger fiscal stimulus in early 2009, in response to the Great Recession. Yet a comparison of the 2009 stimulus and what is now being proposed is instructive. In 2009, the gap between actual and estimated potential output was about $80 billion a month and increasing. The 2009 stimulus measures provided an incremental $30 billion to $40 billion a month during 2009 — an amount equal to about half the output shortfall.

In contrast, recent Congressional Budget Office estimates suggest that with the already enacted $900 billion package — but without any new stimulus — the gap between actual and potential output will decline from about $50 billion a month at the beginning of the year to $20 billion a month at its end. The proposed stimulus will total in the neighborhood of $150 billion a month, even before consideration of any follow-on measures. That is at least three times the size of the output shortfall.

In other words, whereas the Obama stimulus was about half as large as the output shortfall, the proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as the projected shortfall. Relative to the size of the gap being addressed, it is six times as large.

A calculation like this can only be very approximate for many reasons. Most important, estimates of potential gross domestic product may be inaccurate, and it may be that the CBO is underestimating potential GDP and the output gap. On the other hand, this crude calculation actually underestimates the difference between what was done in 2009 and what is proposed now.

First, unemployment is falling, rather than skyrocketing as it was in 2009, and the economy is likely before too long to receive a major boost as covid-19 comes under control. Second, monetary conditions are far looser today than in 2009 given extraordinary Federal Reserve policies, the booming stock and corporate bond markets, and the weakness of the dollar. Third, there is likely to be further strengthening of demand as consumers spend down the approximately $1.5 trillion they accumulated last year as the pandemic curtailed their ability to spend and as promised further fiscal measures are undertaken.

Looking at incremental deficits relative to GDP gaps is only one way of assessing the scale of a fiscal program. Another is to look at family income losses and compare them to benefit increases and tax credits. Wage and salary incomes are now running about $30 billion a month below pre-covid-19 forecasts, and this gap will likely decline during 2021. Yet increased benefit payments and tax credits in 2021 with proposed stimulus measures would total about $150 billion — a ratio of 5 to 1. The ratio is likely even greater for low-income individuals and families, given the targeting of stimulus measures.

In normal times, a family of four with a pretax income of $1,000 a week would take home about $22,000 over the next six months. Under the Biden proposal, if the breadwinner were laid off, the family’s income over the next six months would likely exceed $30,000 as a result of regular unemployment insurance, the $400-a-week special unemployment insurance benefit and tax credits.

Judged relative to either the macroeconomic output gap or declines in family incomes, the proposed covid-19 relief package appears very large. The Biden administration is right that it will never have a progressive window of opportunity like the present one. And I share its judgment that the risks of insufficient fiscal stimulus are greater than those of excessive fiscal stimulus. In many ways, an overheated economy in which employers are desperate to find workers and push up wages and benefits would be a very positive thing.

Yet as a massive program moves toward enactment and implementation, policymakers need to ensure that they have plans in place to address two possible, and quite serious, problems.

First, while there are enormous uncertainties, there is a chance that macroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability. This will be manageable if monetary and fiscal policy can be rapidly adjusted to address the problem. But given the commitments the Fed has made, administration officials’ dismissal of even the possibility of inflation, and the difficulties in mobilizing congressional support for tax increases or spending cuts, there is the risk of inflation expectations rising sharply. Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown. For credibility, they need to be accompanied by clear statements that the consequences will be monitored closely and, if necessary, there will be the capacity and will to adjust policy quickly.

Second, long before covid-19, the U.S. economy faced fundamental problems of economic injustice, slow growth and inadequate public investment in everything from infrastructure to preschool education to renewable energy. These are at the heart of Biden’s emphasis on building back better.

If the stimulus proposal is enacted, Congress will have committed 15 percent of GDP with essentially no increase in public investment to address these challenges. After resolving the coronavirus crisis, how will political and economic space be found for the public investments that should be the nation’s highest priority?

Is the thinking that deficits can prudently be expanded longer and further? Or that new revenue will be raised? If so, will this be politically feasible?

Fiscal stimulus for covid-19 relief can be a landmark achievement that helps the American economy turn the corner. But despite its scale, the limited scope of the Biden plan means that it must be a beginning and not an end. As its final details are crafted, it will be essential to carefully consider how the choices we make now may constrain what we are able to achieve in the future.

The Biden plan is a vital step forward, but we must make sure that it is enacted in a way that neither threatens future inflation and financial stability nor our ability to build back better through public investment.

Come detto, chi scrive è un eccellente economista, ma pure un esperto politico: i problemi che Summers segnala non sono problemi di teoria, ma di pratica. Problemi già presenti oggi, che potrebbero manifestarsi anche lunedì mattina.

Per questo, le reazioni all’articolo di Summers sono state sia immediate sia della massima autorevolezza, come leggete sotto nell’immagine.

Non si tratta di problemi teorici, ma di problemi pratici ed immediati, come ci hanno detto 36 ore fa anche i dati USA per gli occupati, che leggete riassunti sotto nella prima delle due immagini.

Nella seconda delle due immagini, che poi vedrete più in basso, è invece implicita una domanda, con la quale chiudiamo il Post.

Oggi, gennaio 2021, come si risolve il problema di questi milioni di persone? Continueremo a finanziare le loro necessità con la spesa in deficit dello Stato? L’economia crescerà così tanto, da risolvere questo problema? Oppure verranno creati nuovi posti di lavoro che però non producono nulla? Oppure, infine,, saremo costretti ad accettare il calo dei loro consumi, e quindi anche della domanda (smartphone compresi, naturalmente)?

Ovviamente, Biden dovrà rispondere a queste domande, come anche Merkel ed anche (forse (Draghi). E qui, diventa decisivo tenere a mente il limite di cui scrive, benissimo, Summers nell’articolo che avete letto qui sopra.