¿Usar varios brokers y gestoras?

Para debatir todo tipo de cuestiones, noticias y teoría de inversión Bogleheads® (no personales).
Responder
Depe
Mensajes: 13
Registrado: Mié Nov 13, 2019 20:42

¿Usar varios brokers y gestoras?

Mensaje por Depe » Vie Nov 15, 2019 11:51

Por un lado, la filosofía Bogleheads nos habla de la simplicidad, pero por otro nos habla de la diversificación.

En ese sentido, ¿sería interesante usar varios brokers y/o gestoras?

Según entiendo, el FOGAIN cubriría hasta 100.000 euros en caso de la quiebra del broker. Por encima de esa cantidad, ¿interesaría tener la misma cartera en dos brokers?

Por ejemplo, tener una cartera igual o similar con fondos Amundi en Openbank y Selfbank de forma que en ninguna te pases de ese límite. De igual forma, ¿habría que buscar alternativas a Amundi para no tener todos los huevos en la misma cesta?

¿O estamos dejando de lado la simplicidad?

josep
Boglehead
Mensajes: 274
Registrado: Mié Ene 09, 2019 07:33

Re: ¿Usar varios brokers y gestoras?

Mensaje por josep » Vie Nov 15, 2019 12:39

Cubre 20.000 si no se me ha ido la olla, y es por fraude. Los valores son independientes del bróker.
Cuanto peor mejor para todos y cuanto peor para todos mejor, mejor para mí el suyo beneficio patrimonial

Avatar de Usuario
kakadeluxe
Boglehead
Mensajes: 269
Registrado: Vie Feb 22, 2019 11:26

Re: ¿Usar varios brokers y gestoras?

Mensaje por kakadeluxe » Vie Nov 15, 2019 12:39

Depe escribió:
Vie Nov 15, 2019 11:51
Según entiendo, el FOGAIN cubriría hasta 100.000 euros en caso de la quiebra del broker. Por encima de esa cantidad, ¿interesaría tener la misma cartera en dos brokers?
Los fondos de inversión así como los ETFs y las acciones están separados de la gestión del broker y sus titulares son los participes, si tienes invertido 250.000 euros en un fondo o ETF o acciones lo recuperas salvo que el broker haya hecho una estafa.

En este tema del foro lo explico con mas detalle aportando un caso real: viewtopic.php?t=195

No tiene mucho sentido diversificar en varias gestoras, lo único que harás es que pagues mas comisiones cosa contraria a la filosofía Bogleheads.
"El interés compuesto, la octava maravilla del mundo", Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
Tu Dinero * (1 + i)↑n

DragonAge
Mensajes: 36
Registrado: Mar Oct 01, 2019 21:47

Re: ¿Usar varios brokers y gestoras?

Mensaje por DragonAge » Vie Nov 15, 2019 19:15

Como bien explica kakadeluxe en su tema del foro, los fondos de inversión estan separados del balance de las gestoras, son entidades con personalidad jurídica propia y tienen sus propias cuentas anuales por lo tanto tienen sus propios activos y pasivos que son propiedad de sus accionistas/participes. La gestora realiza la gestión de ese fondo de inversión mediante una politica de inversión definida de antemano y por escrito, pero los activos y pasivos del fondo de inversión no le pertenecen.

Diversificar entre gestoras y comercializadores para mi si que tiene sentido para minimizar el riesgo gestor, es decir, el posible error del gestor o peor desempeño en relación con la aplicación de la política de inversión del fondo respecto a un fondo de similares características. Por lo tanto, montar dos carteras de la siguiente forma aportaria un mayor grado de seguridad y diversificación a la cartera y tampoco supondría unos sobrecostes demasiado elevados:
a) Amundi - Selfbank u Openbank o Bankinter
b) Vanguard - Mapfre o Renta 4 o BNP o GPM o EBN Banco

Obviamente para una cartera de importe reducido no vale la pena tener dos carteras o tres, estaríamos hablando de volúmenes de cartera más importantes. Yo lo veo interesante para carteras de 200.000 euros o superiores, sin tener en cuenta las posibles ofertas de Banca Privada a las que puedas acceder en estos casos.

Saludos ;)

PD: Copio un extracto de un libro donde lo comenta:

Consider Using Different Financial Institutions

You will need a brokerage account to implement the Permanent Portfolio, since you will be buying ETFs or mutual funds for a portion of the portfolio's assets. A suggested approach is to open accounts at two different brokerages to protect you against the risk of a problem arising at any one financial services company. While this approach may seem to add more complexity to the portfolio, it only takes a little extra effort to set up accounts at two companies. After the initial setup there is little ongoing maintenance other than checking on the whole portfolio occasionally to see if a rebalancing event has occurred. The reason for using more than one brokerage for your assets is covered in Chapter 14 on Institutional Diversification.

Consider Using Different Fund Providers

Another simple way of reducing potential risks in your Permanent Portfolio is to use different fund providers for the major portfolio assets. For instance, instead of keeping all your stock exposure in the Vanguard Total Stock Market fund, you can split it 50/50 between the Vanguard fund and Fidelity's Total Stock Market index, just in case a problem were to arise in one of the funds. This goes for the other assets as well. There is no need to store all your cash in a Fidelity Treasury Money Market when you can break it between Fidelity and iShares for example. It is important to remember that you may be protecting yourself against remote risks with these steps, but if the protection requires nothing more than typing in another ticker symbol when doing your purchase, the reduced risk is coming at virtually no cost. However many may find it too much trouble to split up each asset class into multiple funds. So another approach is to consider using different fund companies for different asset classes. For example, you might choose to use a Vanguard fund for the stock exposure, an iShares ETF for the cash holdings, hold the bonds directly, and put the gold in allocated storage. This way you could still use one broker for the stocks, bonds and cash but still know that a single fund having a problem is unlikely to impact the entire portfolio.

50/50 Split Between Vanguard and Fidelity Accounts.
Vanguard Fidelity Stocks Vanguard Total Stock Market Fidelity Total Stock Market Bonds Direct from Bond Desk Direct from Bond Desk Cash Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fidelity Treasury Money Market Gold None—Stored overseas in allocated storage and some locally None—Stored overseas in allocated storage and some locally

What Is Institutional Diversification?
Institutional diversification simply means dividing your money among several funds, brokerages, banks, and other institutions to diversify against risks from the people and organizations holding and managing your assets. This approach may seem overly cautious, but it is not. Financial history is filled with examples of strong banks going broke, fund companies mismanaging assets, and trustees proving untrustworthy. Diversification against these types of events just makes good sense.

Why Institutional Diversification?
In the United States there are strict laws, regulations, and insurance in place to prevent the loss of assets by customers in the event of a bank, brokerage, or mutual fund company failure. These protections allow individual investors to have a degree of confidence that their assets will be protected in case the worst comes to pass. Just because laws are in place, however, doesn't mean that your assets can't become entangled in a problem at an institution. In some cases, funds could be subject to limited access for an extended period of time while regulators and/or courts sort things out. In the worst cases, some kinds of failures can lead to either partial reimbursement or a total loss. As much as the government may attempt to provide comprehensive protection against all calamities, no such system is ever truly airtight. Below is an overview of some of these threats.

Exceeding Insurance Limits
One reason to have multiple brokerage accounts is to keep your account balances below the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) limits, which are currently capped at $500,000 total (and $250,000 in cash). The SIPC is an insurance program similar to the FDIC in some respects, but it differs in important ways. SIPC will protect assets in a brokerage account that are missing due to fraud or theft by the broker. It does not, however, protect you against investment losses due to normal market fluctuations or manager mistakes, nor does it protect certain types of assets such as commodity futures contracts. The SIPC website has more information on what protection it offers and how investors can be sure they are covered (www.sipc.org). Using different brokerages is one way to allow you to maintain full coverage when your accounts reach a certain threshold. With the above said, many brokerages also carry insurance that covers other risks or adds to the existing SIPC limits. Spreading your money across two or more brokerages makes it more likely that you will remain below the limits of any other insurance coverage that may be provided by a financial institution. Since this varies by brokerage, it is a good idea to inquire about what insurance your particular provider has for customer assets. Manager

Mistakes and Incompetence
As outlined in Chapters 6 through 9, a fund company can manage money in a completely legal manner, but still rack up large losses due to manager mistakes. For example, the cash chapter went over some money market funds that experienced tremendous losses during the 2008 market crash when managers took on too much risk. Stock and bond funds have had similar experiences when a manager made a risky bet that simply didn't turn out well. The problem is that insurance coverage and government regulations will not protect you from these kinds of losses if they should happen. It is viewed simply as market risk and it is the investor's burden. This is true even if the fund managers are the ones responsible for risky behaviors that caused the problem. It may be that a fund company could compensate investors in the event of a very bad problem in one of their funds, but it is also true that they may not (and probably won't). Although this risk is mitigated by using low-cost index funds and by following the advice outlined in this book, such risks have even shown up in very well regarded funds (Vanguard's Total Bond Market fund undershot their index in 2002 due to manager mistakes for instance). The simplest way to diversify against fund manager mistakes is to split your money among different fund companies to protect yourself against problems that may occur in any one of them.

Failure and Fraud
MF Global As discussed in Chapter 9 on Gold, in 2011 MF Global collapsed almost overnight and defrauded investors by using their assets in ways not authorized and clearly against the law. When MF Global's insolvency came to light, customers found their assets frozen as multiple parties laid claim to them (MF Global had apparently used customers' assets as collateral for their own trades, among other activities). As of 2012, many of MF Global's customers are still waiting for these matters to be resolved and they could be waiting for years more. Many customers may only get back pennies on the dollar if they get anything at all. Figure 14.1 is a clipping from one of MF Global's marketing brochures about customers' custody accounts. This brochure talked about the separation of customers' assets from those of the firm. This separation apparently didn't prevent the accounts from being used inappropriately, however. The Street reports: MF Global is still missing an estimated $600 million more than a week after it filed for bankruptcy, and at least one high-profile accounting expert said Wednesday he is beginning to sense fraud may be the explanation. “My concern is that at the very end as things got very dire, as liquidity dried up, that you had some people in collusion go in and commit fraud here and I don't know that that did occur, but that's what it's starting to smell like,” Lynn Turner, former chief accountant at the Securities and Exchange Commission told Bloomberg Television Wednesday . . . . . . “It's amazing that we're sitting here today trying to find out today what happened w ith $600 million,” Turner said. “It's like it just vanished into thin air and the fact that people today can't tell us where the $600 million went is not a good sign. The fact that they were held in custodial accounts that someone should have been on top of only further complicates the issue and makes it even more concerning.”1 Figure 14.1 MF global marketing brochure about separation of customers' assets.
Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers During the credit crisis and market panic of 2008, there were some very notable failures among prominent financial institutions. Following the failure of Bear Stearns earlier in the year, the 160-year-old firm Lehman Brothers folded almost overnight as many bad investments seemed to turn
sour all at once. Investors exposed to Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers debt took tremendous losses, while customers with accounts at these institutions faced a variety of risks and sleepless nights as events unfolded.

Identity Theft
Criminals have become incredibly sophisticated in their efforts to steal and access investment and/or bank accounts of individuals. There are a variety of ways this type of fraud can occur, from theft of account statements and other correspondence from the mail to sophisticated electronic theft of account information credentials. Sadly, identity theft often doesn't even happen with anonymous criminals but relatives, caregivers, and others with close intimate knowledge of the victim. Brokerages and banks normally carry insurance and have policies to deal with these events, but it could take some time to clear up such a mess if it should happen to you. If you spread your money across more than one institution it reduces the likelihood that all of your assets would be affected by a single act of identity theft. Furthermore, if a portion of your assets were ever the subject of a criminal fraud, having access to assets at another institution could provide you with needed funds while you worked with law enforcement and the institution where the fraud occurred to resolve the matter.

Natural Disasters
Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters are also a threat to financial institutions and the data centers where customer information is located. Most financial institutions have multiple backup “hot sites” to handle these and other emergencies. A hot site is a backup data center that is ready to come online at a moment's notice. The idea is that a company encountering a data breach or loss of data will be able to continue operations if the main data center should experience a problem. The reality, though, is that account access can be affected in many different ways by a natural disaster. It's one thing to have a hot site backup data center. It's another thing when the people that handle the day-to-day operations of the company can't manage it any more due to their local situation. In other words, until a company is able to figure out a way to put in a backup CEO, board of directors, managers, and employees in hotspare status the company will be subject to risks from natural disasters, no matter how much redundancy there is in the data systems.

Terrorism
The perpetrators behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks stated that the viciousness of the attack was designed to not only strike a symbolic blow, but also to disrupt the financial operations of Wall Street and impact the U.S. economy. Wall Street was, in fact, shut down for a week following the tragedy as the nation absorbed the scale of the destruction. Events such as 9/11 can never be fully anticipated and protected against. Investors can, however, reduce the likelihood of losing all access to funds during an emergency by having accounts at more than one institution and preferably not all based in the same major financial center.

Cyber Attack
Beyond the threat posed by terrorism to buildings and infrastructure, various online groups and governments have stated intentions to target stock exchanges electronically in cyber-warfare operations. In many cases, the damage that can be done through an electronic attack on a computer network can exceed the damage done by targeting a physical structure. For example, virtually all of Wall Street's records are in electronic form and a computer system attack could cause serious problems, including potentially large financial losses. The financial networks of the world are interconnected in a relatively fragile way. A problem in the trading systems of one firm can cause a cascade effect in the world markets. In spring of 2010 the U.S. stock markets experienced a “Flash Crash” during which the Dow Jones stock index sunk by 1,000 points within five minutes before quickly recovering. During this time, automated trading systems piled on sell orders, making the problem escalate quickly before finally coming back under control (some investors who had set stop losses in their accounts took large losses as they were automatically traded out of positions that recovered almost immediately and other bad trades were later backed out and canceled). The Flash Crash was reportedly caused by a combination of automated and high-frequency trading systems gone awry. However, if such an event can occur by accident, it could certainly occur again as a part of a deliberate attack. By dividing your money among different institutions you have a better chance of accessing at least some of your funds if any of these events were to occur. Financial firms have a diverse set of systems, each of which are unique to the firm that created it. A wide-scale attack taking down all firms at once is not very likely, but taking down one firm, at least for a short period, is plausible. Craig has a lot of real-world experience in computer security: “Early in my career I worked at a network security auditor. I was paid to break into computer networks and did work at financial firms, among others. While banks and financial institutions obviously have safeguards in place to prevent problems, it is always possible that a very knowledgeable outsider or (more likely) an insider could cause trouble. “When you spread your money between at least two institutions it is unlikely that they are going to share the same infrastructure and each will have their own security policies, protections, and procedures. The diverse set of hardware, software, and internal controls between companies works in your favor against the likelihood of a single attack taking down multiple institutions at once. Do yourself a favor and spread your money outside of just one company to be safe.”


Recap The idea behind institutional diversification is to simply split your money among more than one bank, brokerage, or fund provider. This can protect against threats including fraud, incompetence, identity theft, natural disasters, cyber attack, terrorism, or other future unknown calamities. While keeping all of your money at one bank or brokerage is often the simplest approach for many investors, financial history suggests that splitting it up among institutions is a good idea. When splitting your money, pick at least two brokerages you are comfortable with and use them to hold funds appropriate to the Permanent Portfolio. It is also a good idea to use funds from different companies to build your portfolio to diversify against manager risk in the funds. If you have a tax-deferred account you can transfer part of your funds to a second provider with no tax consequences. Contact your provider for more information. Likewise, taxable funds can also be transferred to a second broker with no tax effects. The fund assets will simply be transferred into the new account. Contact your broker for the specific steps involved in this process.



Responder
  • Similar Topics
    Respuestas
    Vistas
    Último mensaje