Have you tried the 11Onze Segurs simulator?

At 11Onze Segurs we have launched a new model of socially fair insurance. And from now on, you can use our simulator to get a home insurance policy adapted to your needs and at the best price. Here’s how to do it!

Calculating the price of your home insurance with our simulator is very easy. We will ask you for some information about your home: such as an address, type of home, square metres, if you have an alarm… And depending on this information, in just 3 minutes we will show you the monthly quote of a home insurance policy adapted to your needs. You will discover that 11Onze Segurs’ prices are very competitive, especially in urban areas.

In the simulator, you will see a list of all the covered amounts, which can be extended, in the basic covers. Even so, if you have valuable belongings with an individual value of more than €2,000 (coverage limit of the basic policy), you can add them to your policy for full coverage.

Additional cover

We will also show you various options for extending your insurance cover to suit your individual needs. For example, you can add other people who live with you but are not immediate family.

If you want to go on holiday with peace of mind, you can add legal costs in the event of a squat in your home. Or cover for theft outside the home, which even covers you if you are mugged in the street, within the whole of the European Union.

We also offer you the option of being protected against any accident. With an excess of only 90 euros per claim, you will have total protection for accidental damage to the building and contents of your home.

Although the simulation process is designed so that you can obtain a quote yourself, in a simple and quick way, 11Onze agents are available 24 hours a day to answer any questions or resolve any doubts you may have. In addition, if you wish to, you still have the option of having an agent do the simulation for you.

If you want to discover fair insurance for your home and for society, check 11Onze Segurs.

Our relationship with financial institutions has changed a lot in recent years. Have you had a trusted manager for years and in the same branch? A person who accompanied you from the moment you opened your first account to the moment you took out your mortgage? The time when a customer could go to a branch and feel involved is long gone. 

The current situation is that the customer, in general, is deeply dissatisfied with the financial system. The system has evolved a lot in recent years and has not known how to (or wanted to) explain this change to the customer. Thus, year after year, the customer has only seen how the institution of which he or she was a part changed shape, colours and staff without really understanding what was going on. The new fintechs are picking up on this unease and are born precisely from the perspective of giving customers back what they lost years ago: a relationship of trust with the financial institution.

Digitalisation fosters a new interaction

We come from a society marked by social interaction, and the irruption of new technologies has revolutionised everything: another form of communication is possible, including with financial institutions. This change in mentality can be interpreted in many ways, but, if used correctly, the benefits can be manifold for customers and institutions.

To speak of financial digitalisation is to speak of fintech. In terms of communication, they have a lot to say. They are the first financial institutions to change the way they communicate with customers. They have brought about an entirely digital system of interaction, which has left traditional banking lagging behind.

At first glance, it may seem that many customers, especially those who were not born in the digital era, will not embrace this change, no matter how many advantages it brings them, and that they will therefore maintain face-to-face and direct service as their main means of contact. But to what extent can this be an advantage for them? 

A digital experience with human quality

The first thing a user looks for when accessing a financial institution is instant attention. No one wants to spend the morning standing in endless queues only to be dealt with in a matter of minutes. Every problem requires an investment of time on both sides. A fintech like 11Onze, which has already been born with digitalisation, will maintain this principle in all interactions with the user, who will have the tools to ask and get an answer to any query. Automatic chats have made it possible to improve the experience in this aspect, providing the user with information based on keywords. Some even go further and offer personal and human attention from these chats. Email or telephone support are the other two ways.

Another requirement is quick understanding, and this is where machines still have room for improvement. For most customers, receiving human telephone support will be more satisfactory than a call with a robot, where a lot of time can be wasted without getting any concrete answer. Although digital entities are working to improve in this aspect, it will be the fintechs with personalised customer service that will gain ground.

Along the same lines, branch service also allows users to have the certainty that they will be able to clear up any doubts they may have. This is a point that is not always satisfactorily resolved, as it requires an investment of time for the customer that not all institutions are currently willing to offer. If they do, it is not always with clarity and transparency.

In this sense, fintechs are still committed to personal and personalised attention, placing special emphasis on this second point. Being aware that each person has different needs and concerns and requires more or less time to acquire information. Respecting each person’s time is a key value that differentiates a good experience from a bad one, both in the digital environment and in person.

Finally, the last and most decisive factor that a customer looks for in an office is trust; knowing that there is a person who will inform us properly and will work for us with honesty and professionalism. But what if all the employees in the branch or in the entire institution were like your favourite manager, and what if they all looked after the customer’s needs and informed him or her honestly and professionally? Then a personal assignment would no longer be necessary, because the trust would not be with a single person but with an entity. This is the real change in the mindset of fintech.

Customer experience marks the future

In fintech, customer service time does not prevail, nor does customer allocation, sales pressure or the number of customers served. In fintech, attention is constant and permanent, from any channel or device. People prevail over products; their needs prevail over those of the entity; and work is done every day to evolve and improve this experience. To bring the financial world closer to users and offer them, for the first time, everything they may need at a single click. 

In short, a fintech means going back to the origins of financial institutions and offering the customer a relationship of trust based on respect and mutual benefit. A relationship to which all the technological advances and facilities that this can offer are added, and those face-to-face practices that, instead of making life easier for the customer, complicate it, are subtracted. Convenience is just a click away. Welcome to the new financial era.

11Onze is the community fintech of Catalonia. Open an account by downloading the app El Canut for Android or iOS and join the revolution!

The world’s most admired investor is sitting on a record amount of cash while stock markets continue to reach new highs. How does he decide whether the market has become too expensive? The answer lies in a formula so simple that anyone can understand it.

Imagine having more than 300 billion dollars available to invest and, despite that, deciding to wait. That is exactly what Warren Buffett has done in recent years while stock markets have continued to reach record highs.

While almost everyone else is rushing to buy, he prefers to stay on the sidelines. Not because he has lost confidence in businesses or because he believes a major crisis is just around the corner, but because he believes that, more often than not, the best investment is patience.

It is this way of thinking that has turned Buffett into a true legend of finance.

The oracle of Omaha

At 94 years old, Warren Buffett remains one of the most influential figures in the world of investing. As the head of Berkshire Hathaway, he has built a fortune that consistently places him among the wealthiest people on the planet. Yet his reputation is not based solely on his wealth.

Buffett is admired because he has achieved something extraordinarily difficult: delivering outstanding returns for more than six decades without being carried away by market fashions or periods of euphoria.

Perhaps that is why he is known around the world as the Oracle of Omaha, the American city where he still lives in the same house he bought more than sixty years ago. His philosophy is as simple as it is demanding: invest only when the price makes sense.

In fact, one of his best-known quotes perfectly sums up his approach to investing: “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get”.

A formula anyone can understand

To determine whether the market has become too expensive or still offers attractive opportunities, Buffett often looks at a remarkably simple indicator.

It compares the total value of all publicly traded companies with the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). In other words, it measures what investors are willing to pay for businesses against the wealth generated by the real economy.

The idea is almost common sense. If the value of all listed companies grows much faster than the economy that supports them, it is reasonable to ask whether prices may have risen too far.

The bakery example

Imagine a bakery that generates half a million euros in annual revenue. It has loyal customers, a stable business and still has room to grow. But if someone asked us to pay five million euros to buy it, we would probably pause for a moment before saying yes.

Not because the bakery is a bad business.But because we would want to know whether that price is justified. The Buffett Indicator asks exactly the same question, but applies it to the stock market as a whole.

So, what does it tell us today?

Today, the Buffett Indicator in the United States remains well above its historical average. That does not mean a market correction is imminent, nor does it mean that stock prices will collapse tomorrow. Markets can remain highly valued for long periods of time.

What it does suggest is that investors are paying a very demanding price for companies’ future earnings and that, when this happens, the margin for error tends to become much smaller.

Like any indicator, it is not infallible. Large American multinational companies generate a significant share of their revenues around the world, which means that comparing them solely with the U.S. GDP has its limitations. That is why economists see it as a compass rather than a crystal ball.

A lesson that goes beyond the stock market

Perhaps Warren Buffett’s greatest contribution is not this indicator, but the way he thinks about investing. While many people try to predict what the stock market will do next week, he continues to ask himself a much simpler question: does the price I’m paying really make sense?

It is a way of thinking that applies just as much to buying shares as it does to purchasing a home, investing in a business or making any important financial decision.

Because, in the end, markets can change their mood from one day to the next. But common sense remains one of the most profitable investments anyone can make.

Protecting savings with physical gold has been one of 11Onze’s greatest contributions to its community, and its range of products continues to expand. In today’s environment of market volatility, persistently high inflation and growing distrust in the banking system, gold is once again strengthening its role as a safe-haven asset. Discover Or Llavor at Preciosos 11Onze.

The International Monetary Fund was founded to promote international monetary cooperation, facilitate global trade and contribute to financial stability. Over time, however, its mandate was expanded to provide “support” to economies experiencing financial difficulties, and it has evolved into a tool at the service of neoliberal interests.

On 15-20 April, the annual spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are being held in Washington. The official purpose of these meetings is to bring together efforts to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity.

This international body was established in 1944 to promote monetary cooperation, facilitating international trade and contributing to financial stability. Since its founding, it has sought to eliminate restrictions that hinder the expansion of world trade and exchange rate stability and avoid competitive currency devaluations between countries.

With the end of fixed exchange rate systems after the gold standard was abolished during the 1970s, its role changed. The advent of neoliberalism in the US and Western European economic policies meant a new role for the IMF, which began to finance nations with trouble paying their debts and balancing their payments.

A lifeline that brings civil unrest and social misery

IMF financial assistance is not free, as is well known, loans are accompanied by strong austerity which disproportionately affects the poorest sectors of the population and often ends up benefiting the elites.

The IMF’s usual mechanism for this is the imposition of conditionalities, such as loan forgiveness for countries needing balance of payments support, or, as in the case of Pakistan, weapons transfers into Ukraine. In other words, the IMF is often used as yet another foreign policy tool of Western corporatocracies.

The conditions imposed on debtor countries open their economies to the introduction of foreign capital, corporations, and investors. This is done by privatising public services and selling off the crown jewels of the countries receiving this “aid”, especially their natural resources and land.

As a general rule, the IMF demands that governments reduce public spending, raise taxes and implement reforms to reduce their debt-to-GDP ratio. Cutting social subsidies on fuel and food or reducing public investment in hospitals, schools, and roads becomes the “new normal”.

These draconian austerity measures provoke demonstrations and revolts among the affected populations, known as “IMF riots”. A term coined to describe the waves of protests that took place in developing countries during the 1980s and 1990s, and which perfectly defines the consequences of the actions of a financial firefighter who starts fires.

The economic crises in Mexico and Greece and subsequent IMF bailouts highlighted the negative role the IMF has played in recent years, nonetheless, the widely documented record of its interventions over the last 50 years has been more than dismal. Although humanitarian organisations such as Oxfam and CAFOD never stop denouncing that the IMF’s “austerity campaigns” severely harm poor countries and that it has played a “devastating” role in the global debt crisis, the international lending agency shows little sign of changing its course.

If you want to discover the best option to protect your savings, enter Preciosos 11Onze. We will help you buy at the best price the safe-haven asset par excellence: physical gold.

Despite having the highest average salary in history, the average Spanish wage is almost 450 euros lower than the EU average and continues to have one of the highest rates of job insecurity in Europe.

Inflation has eaten into wage increases and reduced citizens’ purchasing power to an extent not seen for thirteen years. This economic mess is not unique to Spain, but it is exacerbated by Spain’s low wage levels, an endemic problem that has been dragging on for decades.

Although the latest unprecedented rise in the minimum wage has reduced the gap, both the average gross wage (1,126 euros) and the Spanish minimum wage (1,751 euros) are among the lowest in the European Union, 20.2% lower than its European partners.

Within the Western bloc, with average wages above 2,500 euros per month, Spain is at the bottom, followed by Portugal (1,106 euros) and Greece (1,034 euros). There are wide differences with countries such as France (2,446 euros), Belgium (2,830 euros), the Netherlands (2,883 euros) and Germany (3,303 euros). Spain only does well when compared with the less developed countries of Eastern Europe.

Minimum Wage EU

Average Salary EU

Low productivity and high unemployment

The precariousness of employment for a large part of the population in the face of the business world is an endemic historical evil in Spain. The insecurity created by the fear of unemployment makes workers accept low wages and working conditions that would be unthinkable in other developed countries.

When, after the sanitary crisis, the media spoke of “The Great Resignation“, referring to the fact that in many Western countries many employees were rethinking their priorities, giving up their usual jobs to get better ones, from here, with more than three million unemployed and salaries equivalent to a Western European China, we looked at it as if they were talking about another planet.

The high number of part-time and temporary full-time workers means that many employees do not receive proper training and do not maintain a professional career, which negatively affects productivity. This is exacerbated by the heavy weight of the service sector in the Spanish economy, which has little added value, low wages and is prone to outsourcing labour activity. The composition of our productive fabric has suffered a gradual deterioration in sectors that historically had better salaries.

Added to this is another trend that is prevalent in Catalonia and in Spain, but which is not observed in the developed European bloc: the enormous wage gap between younger and older employees. The low salaries received by the youngest employees, who will have to sustain the economy in the future, jeopardise the economic support of the country and a solidarity-based pension system.

If you want to discover the best option to protect your savings, enter Preciosos 11Onze. We will help you buy at the best price the safe-haven asset par excellence: physical gold.

For more than a century, capitalism followed an apparently simple logic: those who provided the capital were usually the same people who made the decisions. Today, that relationship has been turned upside down. Millions of people still own their savings, but their management has become concentrated in very few hands. How did this transformation take place? And what does it tell us about twenty-first-century capitalism?

At the end of every month, Marc receives his salary. Like millions of workers around the world, a small portion of his income is automatically transferred into his pension plan. It is an almost mechanical gesture. The money disappears from his current account and becomes part of a savings fund that, in theory, will support him when he retires.

Marc does not think much more about it. He trusts that someone will invest that money wisely so that, over the years, it will grow in value. What he probably does not realise is that part of his savings will eventually be invested in companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia or Coca-Cola. And there is another detail that he would hardly imagine: those shares will be managed alongside the savings of millions of people living on the other side of the world.

Without even knowing it, Marc takes part every month in one of the most profound transformations capitalism has undergone over the past half century. For decades, economic power had a very clear face. When people spoke about the automobile industry, it was impossible not to think of Henry Ford. Oil immediately brought John D. Rockefeller to mind. The Agnelli family represented Fiat, and even today Amancio Ortega remains closely associated with Inditex. The great entrepreneurs not only owned a significant share of their companies; they also ran them, assumed the risks and decided the direction in which they would move.

That model has not disappeared entirely. There are still major corporations controlled by their founders or by entrepreneurial families. But, without dramatic headlines or apparent revolutions, the centre of gravity of capitalism has gradually shifted. If today we look at the largest shareholders of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Coca-Cola or JPMorgan, we will discover that the same three names appear over and over again: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

It is far too frequent a coincidence to be accidental. Yet its explanation has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories that often circulate on the internet. On the contrary, it is the result of a financial revolution that began with a surprisingly simple idea.

The man who challenged wall street

Our story takes us back to 1975. John Clifton Bogle had just founded a small asset management company called The Vanguard Group after being dismissed from Wellington Management. Rather than trying to prove he was better than the rest of Wall Street’s professionals, Bogle had reached a far more radical conclusion: perhaps the real problem was trying to prove it in the first place.

For years, he had watched leading fund managers devote enormous resources to identifying the companies that would deliver the highest returns. They hired analysts, examined balance sheets, visited businesses and developed sophisticated financial models in an attempt to outperform the major stock market indices. Yet, year after year, reality proved stubborn. Once fees had been deducted, most of them achieved results that were equal to—or even worse than—the market they were trying to beat.

Bogle decided to turn that logic upside down. Instead of trying to identify the best company of the future, he proposed buying them all.

The idea, which many analysts ridiculed at the time, would eventually become one of the most influential innovations in the history of finance. Today, almost fifty years later, Vanguard manages close to 10 trillion dollars in assets, an amount equivalent to several times Germany’s gross domestic product. It was not merely the success of one company.

It marked the beginning of a completely new way of understanding investment.

When investing stopped being a game for experts

Bogle’s idea was revolutionary because it dramatically simplified an activity that had previously seemed reserved for professionals. Imagine someone walking into a fruit shop determined to buy the very best fruit available. They can spend a long time selecting each individual piece they believe to be the finest, or they can choose a basket that already contains a balanced selection of seasonal fruit. Not every piece will necessarily be outstanding, but neither will the result depend on having made the perfect choice every single time.

Index funds work according to exactly the same philosophy. Instead of trying to predict which companies will grow the most, they buy every company that forms part of a particular stock market index. If the index is the S&P 500, the fund purchases shares in the five hundred largest companies in the United States. If it tracks the MSCI World Index, it invests simultaneously in thousands of companies spread across dozens of countries.

The result is a highly diversified portfolio, with costs far lower than those of traditional active management and which, according to numerous studies, tends to outperform a large proportion of actively managed funds over the long term.

This philosophy eventually spread far beyond Vanguard. Over time, virtually the entire financial industry began developing similar investment products.

The arrival of ETFs accelerated the revolution

The second major transformation arrived in the 1990s with the popularisation of ETFs, short for Exchange Traded Funds. Despite their technical name, the way they work is remarkably simple. An ETF is a fund that is traded on the stock exchange just like a share. When an investor buys a unit of one of these funds, they are not purchasing a single company, but rather a small share of a basket that may contain hundreds or even thousands of companies.

This small change had enormous consequences. For the first time, anyone could invest in a highly diversified portfolio, at very low cost and without having to follow the markets on a daily basis. What had once been reserved for wealthy investors became accessible to virtually any saver.

The figures illustrate the scale of the phenomenon. While ETFs represented an almost insignificant market at the end of the 1990s, they now manage more than 15 trillion dollars worldwide and continue to grow at a faster pace than many other financial products.

Three asset managers that grew alongside the world’s savings

While Vanguard was consolidating its commitment to index investing, another company was embarking on a very different path. In 1988, Larry Fink founded BlackRock after losing almost one hundred million dollars on a mortgage bond transaction while working at First Boston. That episode left him with a conviction that would define his entire career: before seeking returns, you must first understand risk.

That philosophy would eventually turn BlackRock into the largest asset manager on the planet. Today it manages approximately 11.6 trillion dollars, a figure so vast that only the United States and China generate a larger annual GDP.

State Street, for its part, had a much longer history. Founded in 1792, it played a decisive role in this revolution when, in 1993, it launched the first major modern ETF linked to the S&P 500. That product definitively demonstrated that investing in an index could be as simple as buying any other publicly traded share.

None of these companies set out to become the owners of global capitalism. Their objective was far more modest: to manage as efficiently as possible the money entrusted to them by millions of people. Yet precisely because millions of people began making the same decision, the outcome became extraordinary. Today, whenever we examine the shareholder registers of the world’s largest multinational corporations, their names appear over and over again. And this is where the most surprising part of the story begins.

The money is still yours. The influence, not so much.

When readers discover that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are among the largest shareholders of virtually every major Western corporation, it is easy to reach the wrong conclusion: that these three firms are the true owners of global capitalism. The reality is far more nuanced.

The owners are still millions of anonymous individuals. They are workers like Marc, who contribute part of their salary every month to a pension plan; families who save through an investment fund; universities, insurance companies, public institutions or small investors who purchase an ETF through their bank. All of them remain the ultimate owners of their savings.

What these firms do is something different. They manage those savings. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is essential to understanding how today’s financial system works. When a property owner hires a manager to administer a building, they do not cease to own it. Exactly the same applies to savings. The money still belongs to the investors, but its management is delegated to specialised institutions that decide how to allocate it across thousands of different assets.

This explanation dismantles many of the simplistic narratives that often circulate on social media. BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have not purchased all the world’s major companies with their own money. They have grown because hundreds of millions of people around the world have independently reached the same conclusion: it is more efficient to delegate the management of their savings to large, diversified asset managers than to try to pick the winning companies themselves.

But that answer immediately raises another question. If the money still belongs to the investors, who exercises the rights attached to those shares?

The separation between ownership and power

This is, perhaps, the most profound transformation capitalism has undergone over the past few decades.

Throughout much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, ownership and power generally went hand in hand. Major shareholders were also the people who ran companies, appointed boards of directors and determined their major corporate strategies. Capitalism maintained an almost direct relationship between those who provided the capital and those who made the decisions. Today, that relationship is far more complex.

When an asset manager purchases shares on behalf of its clients, it also assumes, in most cases, the exercise of the voting rights associated with those holdings. This means voting at shareholders’ meetings, expressing positions on executive remuneration policies, approving the appointment of new board members and taking a stance on major strategic decisions.

This does not mean that BlackRock decides what the next iPhone will look like, or that Vanguard chooses which company Microsoft should acquire. Those responsibilities still belong to each company’s executive management and board of directors.

Their influence is much less visible, but also far more far-reaching. It can be seen in the way corporate governance is understood, in transparency standards, in sustainability policies and in the rules that simultaneously affect hundreds of major corporations.

It is a discreet form of power, exercised almost entirely away from the public spotlight, yet one that acquires an extraordinary dimension when the same asset manager holds stakes in thousands of companies across the world. Managing the savings of millions of people inevitably also means managing a significant portion of the voting rights attached to those savings. And doing so requires a technological capability that, only a few decades ago, would have seemed like science fiction.

Aladdin: The technology behind the management of trillions of dollars

Few tools have sparked as much curiosity as: Aladdin.

The name may evoke the character from the Arabian tales, but in reality it refers to one of the most sophisticated risk management platforms in the financial world. Larry Fink developed it with a very clear idea after losing almost one hundred million dollars in a single transaction during the early years of his career: before taking any risk, you must first understand it. That philosophy continues to define BlackRock today.

Aladdin does not buy shares or make decisions on its own. Its role is far less spectacular, yet infinitely more useful. It analyses millions of data points, simulates economic scenarios, calculates risks, identifies vulnerabilities and helps portfolio managers understand how an investment portfolio might react to rising interest rates, a trade war, an energy crisis or a global recession.

According to BlackRock itself, the platform supports the management of more than 21 trillion dollars in assets, used not only by BlackRock but also by banks, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and financial institutions around the world.

It is understandable that an infrastructure of this scale has fuelled all kinds of myths. Yet the reality is far less sensational than is often claimed. Aladdin does not control the financial markets. What it actually does is something much more pragmatic: it helps professionals make decisions in a financial system that moves amounts of money almost impossible to comprehend.

The debate that concerns universities and regulators

This phenomenon has not gone unnoticed. For years, economists, legal scholars and competition authorities have been analysing the consequences of this concentration in the management of global savings. The concept at the centre of much of the debate is common ownership—the presence of the same large institutional shareholders in companies that compete with one another.

The question is a legitimate one. If the same asset managers simultaneously hold significant stakes in the world’s leading airlines, banks or technology companies, could this reduce the incentives for those companies to compete more aggressively?

In 2018, economists José Azar, Martin Schmalz and Isabel Tecu brought international attention to this debate through a study of the U.S. airline industry. Their conclusions triggered an intense academic controversy that remains unresolved today.

Since then, institutions such as Harvard University, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have examined the issue from different perspectives. Some studies suggest that common ownership could affect competition in certain sectors, while others argue that the available evidence is still not robust enough to support such a conclusion.

This lack of consensus does not diminish the importance of the debate. Quite the opposite.

It demonstrates that we are facing a new, complex and still evolving phenomenon that forces us to rethink traditional concepts such as ownership, corporate control and even competition itself. 

A revolution that almost nobody saw coming

When John Bogle created Vanguard in 1975, he could hardly have imagined that his idea would end up transforming global capitalism. His objective was far more modest: to offer small investors a more efficient, less expensive and more transparent way to invest their savings. In that respect, his revolution has been an extraordinary success.

Never before had it been so easy to invest in the world’s leading companies.

Never before had investment costs been so low. And never before had so many small savers been able to participate in the growth of the global economy without needing substantial wealth.

Yet every revolution produces unexpected consequences. As millions of people delegated the management of their savings, that management gradually became concentrated in the hands of a very small number of institutions. Not because there was a preconceived plan, but because the very mechanisms that made investing more efficient also favoured economies of scale.

It is this paradox that defines much of contemporary capitalism. Ownership has become more democratic than ever before. Management has become more concentrated than ever before. This is neither good news nor bad news in itself. Above all, it is a reality that must be understood before it can be judged. Perhaps, a few decades from now, historians will explain this transformation with the same naturalness with which they now explain the Industrial Revolution or the birth of the modern corporation.

Because, almost silently and with hardly any headlines, capitalism has changed one of its most fundamental rules.

The owners are still millions of ordinary people like Marc. But the hands managing an ever-growing share of their capital are becoming fewer and fewer.And this is where the great question that is likely to define the coming years begins. The question is no longer who owns the world’s largest companies. The question is far more profound.

Who makes decisions on behalf of the owners?

11Onze is Catalonia’s fintech community. Open an account by downloading the El Canut app for Android or iOS. Join the revolution.

Food production generates one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is insufficient for millions of people suffering from food insecurity. Some studies advocate for a shift towards a more sustainable system, focusing on both human and environmental well-being.

A report by the World Economic Forum’s New Frontiers in Nutrition community, in collaboration with Accenture, calls for a significant shift in strategy to transform the global food system based on human and planetary health. A pathway to a sustainable food system that would enable people to lead happier, healthier and more productive lives.

It is an initiative that integrates the public, private and community sectors, focusing on increasing the availability, access, and uptake of nutritious food choices, while keeping sustainability goals in mind. It underlines the need for cross-sectoral collaboration to transform food systems and policies with the ultimate goal of achieving a more equitable and sustainable food landscape with improved global health outcomes.

The initiative details the steps to follow for healthier diets, with an emphasis on nutrient-rich, minimally processed and predominantly plant-based foods. Key suggestions include encouraging the production of organic foods that are affordable and accessible, while strengthening the link between food and health in consumer awareness.

It also advocates for facilitating a retail environment that makes nutritious choices the default option. Although most indicators of inadequate diets affecting the most vulnerable sectors of society focus on malnutrition, malnutrition is also defined by a lack of vitamins, minerals, fibre, and other key micronutrients.

An economic opportunity in transforming food systems

The World Economic Forum’s findings are in line with another global report by leading economists and scientists at the Food System Economics Commission (FSEC), which finds that existing food systems destroy more value than they create, especially because of environmental and health costs.

A poor diet is also linked to an increased risk of common mental illnesses. Depression alone costs the global economy $1 trillion per year in lost labour productivity.

In this context, a study by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that the hidden environmental, social and health costs of current agri-food systems amounted to an additional 11 trillion euros in 2020.

In this sense, shifting to a more sustainable global food system could generate up to 7.9 trillion euros of benefits per year, as well as improving our health and alleviating the climate crisis. The cost of the transformation would therefore be far less than the potential dividends, providing a better life for hundreds of millions of people.

The study proposes to divert subsidies and tax incentives from large-scale monocultures that are destructive and dependent on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance, to small and medium-sized producers. At the very least, as an alternative to the current system that pushes farmers to run large, intensively industrialised farms.

However, the main challenge of a transition to this new agri-food model is the rising cost of food. A paradigm shift that requires not only consumer awareness but also taking into account the current economic situation, unless we want to see farmers’ protests turning into a globalised popular revolt.

11Onze is the community fintech of Catalonia. Open an account by downloading the super app El Canut for Android or iOS and join the revolution!

Com ja havia succeït amb la resolució de passats conflictes bèl·lics, la trobada entre els vencedors de la Segona Guerra Mundial a la ciutat alemanya de Potsdam l’estiu de 1945 va tornar a dividir el món en dos blocs. Les grans potències occidentals van posar en pràctica un nou model econòmic que els permetria imposar la seva preeminència per sobre d’altres països.

Dos models polítics, socials i econòmics —en principi antagònics— que durant dècades s’enfrontarien diverses vegades en petits conflictes armats, de baixa intensitat i que esdevindrien la gran palanca de creixement econòmic per al món occidental.

Però la Conferència de Potsdam també va constatar que el capitalisme industrial —iniciat a finals del segle XVIII— era un model econòmic esgotat. Els més de seixanta milions de morts a conseqüència de la Segona Guerra Mundial, obligava les antigues monarquies europees —ara evolucionades a democràcies occidentals— a adoptar formes molt més sibil·lines d’aconseguir els seus objectius econòmics. Per tant, la nova estratègia extractiva havia de ser menys catastròfica i més efectiva. Per aquest motiu, el nou model econòmic que s’anirà desplegant progressivament ja no implicarà haver d’ocupar un territori físicament, sinó que n’hi haurà prou amb controlar les elits locals.  

Amb aquesta nova estratègia, els Estats Units, com a grans vencedors i sustentats per una potent maquinària militar, seran capaços de desplaçar el centre econòmic mundial —d’Europa a Amèrica del Nord— per mitjà de la imposició de la seva moneda, la pressió financera exercida pels seus bancs, i amb la creació d’una dependència tecnològica a escala global. Per tant, la implantació de les seves més que conegudes multinacionals —Amazon, Nike, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Apple, McDonald, Disney o HP, entre d’altres— els permetrà conquerir directament o indirectament a la quasi totalitat del món. L’entreteniment, principalment el cinema i els grans esdeveniments esportius com els Jocs Olímpics, la Super Bowl o Mundials de Futbol, seran les veritables armes de subjugació mental i material que possibilitaran estendre el somni nord-americà arreu del món.

La pau social, base de la nova eficiència econòmica

Tot va començar la primavera del 1951 a Mont-real, quan representants de diferents agències d’intel·ligència occidentals es van reunir en secret amb professors universitaris de psiquiatria a l’hotel Ritz-Carlton de la ciutat canadenca. Del resultat d’aquella reunió se sap, per documents desclassificats, que l’exèrcit nord-americà va invertir una gran quantitat de diners a la Universitat McGill de Mont-real per a investigar sobre l’aïllament sensorial. 

La investigació va ser iniciada pel Dr. Donald Olding Hebb, qui acabaria abandonant el projecte en adonar-se de la magnitud de la tragèdia, i acabada pel Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron, el qual les portaria fins a un nivell superior. Cameron arribà a experimentar amb un gran nombre de pacients que van ser sotmesos a una multitud de sessions d’electroxocs, combinades amb cures de son i una constant repetició de missatges gravats fins a l’extenuació mental. 

L’estudi va constatar que l’aïllament sensorial no deixa de ser una manera de generar una monotonia extrema que acabava provocant una reducció de la capacitat de pensament crític a través de l’ennuvolament de la ment de l’individu. Per tant, quan una persona no és capaç de raonar… mal assumpte!     

Els resultats de tots aquests experiments permetran a les agències d’intel·ligència occidental dissenyar mecanismes de control sobre la seva pròpia població amb l’objectiu de garantir l’estabilitat social dins les democràcies. En conseqüència, es repetirà fins a l’avorriment la idea de llibertat d’expressió, llibertat de premsa i el dret a la propietat privada, base fonamental del lliure mercat. I a fi de garantir l’eficiència econòmica, es farà de la competència un instrument per a impulsar el creixement econòmic, constant amb la premissa que “si l’empresa del costat té millors productes i més vendes que jo, en conseqüència, hauré de desenvolupar millors idees per a ser millor que la meva competència.” 

I una altra qüestió no menor respecte als estudis sobre l’aïllament sensorial, és que permetran a les agències d’intel·ligència occidentals elaborar manuals d’interrogatori —com el famós manual KUBARK de l’exèrcit dels EUA i de la CIA— els quals es posaran en pràctica contra els dissidents del sistema, tant interns com externs, als postulats occidentals.  

La gestió de la por

L’avenç tecnològic que va suposar la Segona Guerra Mundial portaria la humanitat a sortir a l’espai exterior —a la Lluna i més enllà— però també va suposar el desenvolupament de la bomba atòmica com arma de destrucció global. Aquesta serà emprada com a instrument de pressió política que encara avui persisteix.

Els cinc països principals que fabriquen armes al món — els Estats Units, Anglaterra, França, Rússia i la Xina— són els que tenen a càrrec seu la nostra pau. Fan el negoci de la guerra, però venen la pau, sobretot a través dels mitjans d’informació al servei dels poders hegemònics occidentals que fan un examen de democràcia a cada país. Són grans mitjans de comunicació que confonen la llibertat d’expressió amb la llibertat de pressió i decideixen qui és un dictador o un colpista, que curiosament té el “mal costum” de fer votar a la gent per saber què pensen sobre aquella política o una altra qüestió que els pugui afectar. I aquells mitjans que no segueixen aquestes directrius són clausurats o portats als confins del sistema. Els mitjans mostren una realitat que moltes vegades no existeix a fi de suggestionar-nos, incomunicar-nos i enfrontar-nos entre nosaltres!

La teràpia de xoc econòmic

Com tothom sap, el crac del 1929 a Wall Street va desencadenar la Gran Depressió dels anys trenta. Fins al 1932, uns 5.096 bancs es van declarar en suspensió de pagaments. El seu esfondrament va arrossegar moltes empreses a la fallida, les quals veien com s’acumulaven els estocs de mercaderies, i va comportar un important descens dels preus, especialment en el sector agrari. Finalment, el descens de l’activitat econòmica va provocar un augment desbocat de la desocupació. 

Influenciat per l’economista John M. Keynes, el recentment proclamat president dels Estats Units, F. D. Roosevelt, va posar en marxa un important programa d’ocupació pública perquè la gent pogués tornar a treballar: la política coneguda com a New Deal. Però no serà fins després de la Segona Guerra Mundial quan finalitzarà la depressió, gràcies en gran part a la implantació del famós pla Marshall, el qual generalitzarà el model regulador i intervencionista de Keynes a la majoria dels territoris occidentals.  

Contrari als postulats de Keynes, trobem ja a finals dels anys quaranta del segle XX, un reduït grup d’intel·lectuals —coneguts amb el nom de la Societat Mont Pelerin i dirigits per l’economista austríac Friedrich August von Hayek— els quals estaven convençuts que si els governs deixaven de prestar serveis i de regular els mercats, els problemes de l’economia mundial es resoldrien sols. Un dels seus màxims representants i professor d’economia a la Universitat de Chicago, Milton Friedman, creia que a través d’una teràpia de xoc econòmic impulsaria a les societats a acceptar un capitalisme més pur i desregulat.  

Certament, les tesis de la doctrina del xoc s’han acabat imposant arreu del món en diferents processos. Aquestes mesures radicals han triomfat no tant de la mà de la llibertat i la democràcia, com de la seva imposició gràcies a xocs, crisis i estats d’emergència. Per tant, lluny d’endolcir el paper dels Estats Units a l’hora d’esdevenir un país hegemònic en l’àmbit mundial, la seva capacitat de controlar el món ve donada per les sancions, restriccions, bloquejos, congelacions, confiscacions o la intervenció militar.

I per damunt de tot, ha estat fonamental el paper que ha jugat la creació d’una burocràcia internacional específica, generada estrictament per no dependre de les Nacions Unides i, per tant, per estar exempta de qualsevol control directe que pugui molestar a la comunitat internacional. Aquests organismes supranacionals —Banc Mundial, Organització Mundial del Comerç i Fons Monetari Internacional— han executat mil·limètricament totes aquestes teràpies de xoc econòmic arreu del món, combinant la pressió política amb l’extorsió. I d’exemples no en falten!

Un sistema necessitat de gàngsters econòmics

El 2004, el nord-americà John Perkins —un antic treballador de la consultora americana CHA Consulting, Inc.— va publicar un interessant llibre titulat “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, en el qual explica amb tota mena de detalls com va participar en diferents processos de colonització econòmica dels països del Tercer Món, especialment al continent sud-americà, durant els anys vuitanta. 

Perkins, com a economista en cap de CHA Consulting, tenia la tasca d’identificar països amb recursos naturals que interessaven als clients —majoritàriament corporacions— que representava la seva consultora. 

Un cop identificats, la següent fase consistia a enviar un “petit exèrcit de xacals” cap al país en qüestió per a prometre’ls que, amb la venda dels seus recursos, el país assoliria l’estàndard occidental, pel que fa a benestar social i estabilitat econòmica. I finalment, s’obligava el país a sol·licitar un gran préstec —a través del Banc Mundial o altres organitzacions vinculades— justificat davant l’opinió pública com a part de l’acord i pel fet de no disposar ni de la tecnologia ni de la infraestructura necessària per extreure, produir o manufacturar el recurs natural.   

Però aquesta quantitat de diners no arribaven mai al país en qüestió, ja que sortien del Banc Mundial —amb seu a Washington— i es desviaven a un compte a Houston, Texas o San Francisco, on curiosament el titular era una empresa que treballava per a la consultora, i que estava especialitzada en la construcció de la infraestructura necessària per extreure, produir o manufacturar el recurs natural. 

Per tant, els diners servien per a pagar les despeses de les obres —centrals elèctriques, carreteres, parcs industrials, ports— que al final només generaven grans beneficis per a les empreses adjudicatàries. Cert és que, en grau menor, també acabaven enriquint a una minoria local que posseïen les indústries bàsiques o els establiments comercials, però en detriment de la majoria. Per tant, al final del procés tots els recursos econòmics del país destinats a la sanitat, l’educació o altres serveis públics servien per a pagar aquells préstecs. Tal com explica en John Perkins, el fet de conèixer ‘a prioiri’ la incapacitat del país per retornar els préstecs era una part important per executar el pla. 

D’aquesta manera, el sistema ha permès que corporacions occidentals o organismes supranacionals —Banc Mundial, Organització Mundial del Comerç i Fons Monetari Internacional— acabin creant una mena d’imperi paral·lel que controla àmplies zones del planeta: les anomenades “zones d’influència”. És per aquest motiu, que les democràcies occidentals tenen la capacitat de dir a un d’aquests països “influenciats voluntàriament” que si no pot pagar els seus préstecs, sempre pot vendre’s l’explotació dels seus recursos… això sí, sense l’obligació d’un compromís social o mediambiental; o ha de permetre la construcció d’una base militar al seu territori, o ha de votar contra determinats països considerats “enemics” a la següent trobada de les Nacions Unides.

 Quan el president d’un d’aquests països no accepta, la major part de les vegades s’acaba intervenint o enderrocant el govern. El procés s’inicia amb una forta campanya de desprestigi nacional i internacional, es creen notícies falses de tota mena per condicionar l’opinió pública i, al final —en favor de la democràcia—, s’executa el cop d’estat totalment justificat. I si la cosa no surt bé, se l’acabava assassinant. La història contemporània està plena d’exemples: Mossadeq a l’Iran (1953), Ngô Đình Diệm al Vietnam (1955), Lumumba al Congo (1960) o Allende a Xile (1973). I més recentment, les pressions de tota mena que han hagut de suportar en Lula da Silva per frenar la desforestació de l’Amazònia brasilera, Maduro per nacionalitzar el petroli veneçolà o Petro per la descarbonització de l’economia Colombiana.

L’economia de la mort 

El 2009, en plena recessió global, el psicòleg anglès Oliver James va publicar el llibre “The Selfish Capitalist”, el qual conclou que darrere de les malalties mentals de la societat occidental actual, s’hi amaga el capitalisme practicat els darrers cinquanta anys. Simplificant molt, la tesi del llibre exposa com l’economia neoliberal anglosaxona ha empès als individus a voler tenir cada cop més i més cotxes, telèfons mòbils, roba, diners… i tot plegat ha desembocat en una insatisfacció permanent de l’individu. Basant-se en un estudi publicat per l’Organització Mundial de la Salut el 2004, conclou que les malalties mentals afecten quasi un 23% de la població al món anglosaxó i a un 11,5% a la resta dels països europeus, atès que van entrar més tard en la roda neoliberal.  

Per exemple, als Estats Units, el nombre de joves estudiants amb un deute descomunal va en augment, de la mateixa manera que hi ha un nombre brutal de gent endeutada per tractaments sanitaris, per targetes de crèdit o per hipoteques. Per tant, aquest sistema que es va dissenyar per a explotar els països anomenats “en vies de desenvolupament”, ara s’ha girat en contra d’occident. 

Per altra banda, l’economia neoliberal ha buscat maximitzar els beneficis a curt termini sense tenir en compte el cost social i l’impacte mediambiental. I en aquest aspecte, els neoliberals com en Friedman es van equivocar: més enllà del curt termini, cal incrementar els beneficis a llarg termini, d’aquesta manera hi sortirem tots guanyant. Si ens guiem pel propòsit de pagar una taxa de rendiment decent als inversors que inverteixen, podrem començar a canviar el model.Segons el darrer informe de l’Institut Internacional d’Estudis per a la Pau d’Estocolm (SIPRI), la despesa militar mundial total va augmentar un 3,7% en termes reals el 2022, fins a assolir un nou màxim històric de 2,24 bilions de dòlars. Si gran part d’aquests diners es destinessin a pagar a les mateixes empreses que obtenen aquests contractes milionaris, però en comptes de pagar per fabricar míssils, es fes per a recollir tots els plàstics dels oceans, recuperar els medis naturals destruïts, netejar els abocaments de residus dels oceans… el planeta en sortiria guanyant. I en aquest procés, les noves tecnologies ens poden ajudar a fer-ho possible.

La multipolaritat

Aquest sistema ha funcionat mentre els guanyadors han estat els Estats Units, ja que permetia que els seus aliats s’emportessin un tros del pastís amb la condició que recolzessin la seva política internacional o facilitessin l’accés de les seves empreses als seus mercats. Els Estats Units han estat capaços de compartir el pastís amb tots aquells que s’alineessin, però no amb aquells que estiguessin disposats a disputar-li els seus interessos econòmics.   

Arribats aquí, entrem en una nova era on la distribució del poder polític, militar i financer ja no recaurà en un sol país. En poques paraules, el món deixarà de ballar al so d’una sola música. De fet, ja hem començat a ballar al so de la música oriental, sota ritmes de la balalaica, combinada amb una mica de samba, uns tocs d’Indi-pop i una pinzellada de mbaqanga.

11Onze és la fintech comunitària de Catalunya. Obre un compte descarregant l’app El Canut per Android o iOS. Uneix-te a la revolució!

Després d’una reducció temporal provocada per la pandèmia, la petjada de carboni torna a créixer i el canvi climàtic s’accelera. Individus, empreses i reguladors poden contribuir a minorar l’emissió de gasos d’efecte d’hivernacle. Vegem com està evolucionant i quines mesures contribuirien a mitigar-la.

Només les necessitats energètiques de l’activitat humana van generar 36.000 milions de tones de diòxid de carboni (CO₂) el 2021, segons l’Agència Internacional de l’Energia. Una referència per a assimilar la magnitud d’aquesta xifra? Pensa que tota la població mundial posada en una balança no arribaria als 400 milions de tones. És a dir, el CO₂ que emetem en només un any multiplica per cent el pes de tota la humanitat.

El diòxid de carboni és el gas d’efecte hivernacle més abundant i que més ha contribuït a l’escalfament global en les últimes dècades. Les emissions directes i indirectes d’aquest gas, juntament amb el metà, l’òxid de nitrogen, l’hexafluorur de sofre, els hidrofluorocarburs i els perfluorocarburs, conformen el que es coneix com a “petjada de carboni”. Es tracta d’un indicador ambiental encunyat als anys noranta per a mesurar la contribució de l’activitat humana a l’escalfament del planeta.

La realitat és que estem molt lluny dels objectius marcats per a aturar el canvi climàtic. Els científics adverteixen que les emissions netes de CO₂ haurien de reduir-se a zero d’ara el 2050 si volem evitar les seves conseqüències catastròfiques. L’augment de temperatura global porta aparellats fenòmens meteorològics extrems i una pujada del nivell del mar a causa del desglaç.

Emergència climàtica

L’ONU estima que des de 1990 les emissions de diòxid de carboni s’han incrementat gairebé un 50 %. De fet, l’Organització Meteorològica Mundial apunta que els nivells actuals de CO₂ a l’atmosfera són similars als de fa tres milions d’anys, quan la temperatura mitjana de la Terra era 3 °C més elevada i el nivell del mar se situava molt per sobre de l’actual.

Per això, és lògic que un dels Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible establerts per l’ONU incideixi en la necessitat d’aturar el canvi climàtic. La fórmula demana prendre mesures que en els pròxims anys ens portin a una economia baixa en diòxid de carboni.

De fet, la immensa majoria de països del món van signar el 2015 l’Acord de París, un tractat internacional que pretén limitar l’escalfament global. Així i tot, la nostra petjada de carboni ha continuat creixent. Les emissions de gasos d’efecte hivernacle només es van reduir el 2020. I la raó va ser l’aturada econòmica que va provocar la pandèmia.

L’informe Climate Transparecy Report calcula que les emissions dels països del G-20, responsables del 75% dels gasos d’efecte hivernacle, van tornar a créixer un quatre per cent el 2022. La Xina, l’Índia, Indonèsia i l’Argentina ja estan en nivells superiors als de 2019.

Per zones geogràfiques, la Xina, els Estats Units, la Unió Europea i l’Índia sumen més de la meitat dels gasos emesos a l’última dècada. Quant a activitats, les que produeixen més CO₂ són la generació d’energia i calor (40%), el transport de béns i persones (20%) i l’activitat industrial (20%).

Calcula la teva petjada de carboni personal

La quantitat de gasos d’efecte hivernacle que genera cada individu a la seva vida quotidiana en desplaçar-se, alimentar-se i consumir recursos es coneix com a petjada de carboni personal. Per a evitar un augment de temperatura global superior als 2 °C, The Nature Conservancy, una ONG mediambiental, calcula que hauríem de reduir-la a la meitat abans de 2050.

Existeixen nombroses eines per a calcular la petjada de carboni personal. En concret, la calculadora de l’ONU té en compte aspectes com les característiques de la nostra llar, el consum d’energia, el tipus de transport que utilitzem diàriament, la quantitat de vols que realitzem, els nostres hàbits alimentaris i quant reciclem.

Algunes mesures per a reduir la nostra petjada de carboni personal són apostar per un consum responsable, moure’s de forma més sostenible, moderar la despesa energètica i rebaixar la quantitat de residus que generem.

El pes de les empreses

Bastant superior a la petjada de carboni personal és la que deixen les empreses en processos com la fabricació o el transport de mercaderies. És el que es coneix com a petjada de carboni corporativa. D’aquí la importància d’incidir en aquest apartat per a reduir l’escalfament global.

Les companyies poden reduir el seu impacte mediambiental millorant la seva eficiència energètica o incrementant el percentatge d’energia renovable que consumeixen. També poden recórrer a eines de compensació, com la inversió en projectes mediambientals, el pagament d’impostos verds o la compra de drets d’emissió de CO₂.

Una tendència a l’alça

Milers d’empreses ja publiquen la seva petjada de carboni, però no totes la calculen igual. La major part de les grans multinacionals obvien les emissions indirectes, aquelles que formen part de la seva cadena de valor, però que no depenen directament d’elles.

Un exemple paradigmàtic és el d’Amazon. La pressió d’activistes i inversors va portar a aquest gegant del comerç en línia a fer pública la seva petjada de carboni per primera vegada l’any passat. No obstant això, s’acaba de conèixer que en el seu informe només comptabilitzava una petita part de les emissions generades amb les seves vendes.

 A diferència d’altres comerços, Amazon només comptabilitzava l’impacte mediambiental total dels productes propis, que suposen únicament l’1% de les seves vendes. La companyia no assumeix les emissions generades per l’ús d’un producte d’una altra marca una vegada que els seus repartidors el lliuren al client.

Un incentiu per a la sostenibilitat

El gran impacte de l’activitat empresarial en el medi ambient ha fet que cada vegada més veus reclamin l’obligatorietat per a les companyies de publicar la seva petjada de carboni als informes anuals.

Tant és així que la Securities and Exchange Commission, el regulador borsari dels Estats Units, acaba de proposar que les empreses cotitzades en aquest país hagin de revelar les seves emissions de gasos d’efecte d’hivernacle. I, molt important també, que ho facin seguint uns mateixos criteris.

 Segons molts experts, obligar les empreses a publicar la seva petjada de carboni pot contribuir decisivament a escurçar el camí cap a una economia lliure d’emissions contaminants. Cada cop més inversors valoren les qüestions mediambientals en les seves decisions d’inversió.

11Onze és la fintech comunitària de Catalunya. Obre un compte descarregant l’app El Canut per Android o iOS. Uneix-te a la revolució!

La taxa anual equivalent o TAE és un índex en forma de percentatge anual que s’aplica a tots els tipus de préstecs. Representa el cost real i efectiu d’un préstec, ja que es tenen en compte tots els costos associats a la contractació. T’expliquem com es calcula.

Si vols comparar hipoteques o qualsevol mena de préstec és imprescindible saber què és la taxa anual equivalent o TAE. A l’Estat espanyol és obligatori que aquest indicador figuri a la publicitat i documentació dels productes financers que facin referència a un préstec. Això t’ajudarà a comparar el cost real de dos préstecs o més en un termini concret. 

Els diversos préstecs que pots trobar al mercat de productes financers porten associats dos tipus d’interès, el TIN i la TAE, sobre els quals les entitats financeres tenen l’obligació legal d’informar els clients, prèviament a la contractació d’un crèdit. Encara que estan estretament relacionats, presenten importants diferències que cal conèixer per saber el cost efectiu d’un préstec.

Diferències entre el TIN i la TAE

El TIN o tipus d’interès nominal és un percentatge fix que el banc estableix per la prestació de diners i que representa la suma de l’euríbor més el diferencial aplicat. És a dir, es tracta de la quantitat que cal abonar a l’entitat financera a canvi del capital prestat. Aquest cost pot variar en funció de l’import del préstec, el termini d’amortització i el nostre perfil econòmic. Tanmateix, el TIN no inclou les despeses associades a la hipoteca i, a diferència de la TAE, el càlcul no ha de ser anual obligatòriament.

La TAE té en compte tots els costos associats a la contractació, per tant, inclou el TIN i qualsevol comissió relacionada amb el préstec, com ara la comissió d’obertura, les despeses d’operació que assumeix el consumidor i la freqüència de pagaments. Això no obstant, cal tenir present que a la TAE no s’inclou el cost d’alguns conceptes, com les despeses de notari o les primes de les assegurances i altres productes vinculats a l’operació.

Així mateix, és important recordar que en el cas de préstecs a tipus d’interès variable no és possible determinar-ne l’evolució futura, per tant, el càlcul de la TAE és orientatiu. En tot cas, es tracta de l’indicador més fiable a l’hora de determinar el cost real d’un préstec, més enllà de la tècnica comercial que hi ha al darrere del TIN anunciat a la capçalera de les ofertes i promocions presentades per les entitats financeres.

Com fer el càlcul de la TAE

L’interès de la TAE es calcula amb una fórmula matemàtica (TAE = (1 + TIN/f)f – 1) que té en compte quatre factors: la quantitat del préstec; el TIN; els terminis de pagament; i totes les despeses relacionades amb el préstec. Pots utilitzar alguna de les calculadores de TAE que pots trobar a internet, com aquesta de l’OCU, o introduir les dades en el simulador de préstec hipotecari o personal que ofereix la web del Banc d’Espanya.

Recorda que abans de fer qualsevol simulació, cal tenir aquestes dades per obtenir el percentatge més realista possible: capital inicial, TIN, despeses de constitució i periòdiques de la hipoteca, depeses de notaria, gestoria i del registre de la propietat. La periodicitat de la devolució, és a dir, si pagaràs quotes mensuals, trimestrals, etc. Així com el termini d’amortització de la hipoteca. 

Si vols descobrir la millor opció per protegir els teus estalvis, entra a Preciosos 11Onze o dona un cop d’ull als productes que 11Onze Recomana en el nostre Marketplace.