This must be one of the big questions that the strategists of the different signatures will be doing at the beginning of this new year. Buts if actually that is the question that are being made, then are in wrong. Many of the people that are promoted as market strategists, see it as one thing or the other. I.e., or these bonds or these actions and one decides on the basis that generate greater profitability in the future. Most of these people say them now that they have to be in the stock market by two aspects: 1) first of all there is to say that actions have gone through the worst decade of history and have lost approximately value for 10 years. In addition, one can assume that so long as this disastrous performances can come accompanied by a decline in earnings in the future.

Those were the patterns of the past year and it is very reasonable to think so. (2) Secondly, it must be said that the yields that are taking the bonds are low, which translated into a language of investors would be are too expensive and overvalued. Many do not think that it is a bad decision to invest in bonds with a return of 3% safe tending into account as they are volatile actions in the market. The year spent was really amazing the amount of bonds that were bought, but you have to know that usually when injected a large amount of money on a specific asset its performance in the long ends up not being desired. All sound like good theories, but let me tell you about another theory. Many of those who recommend them to buy shares today are those who in 1999 had also recommended them same thing. That is because in the 1990s instead of buying bonds with low interest rates downward not buy technological actions that was revolutionizing the world at that time?.