August 2025
Macro Radar Taking the pulse of economic activity
In a Nutshell
Theme in Focus In the shadow of probabilities: How randomness shapes the world of finance
The Back Page Asset Classes
There is no summer break this year for the trade negotiators in the employ of the US Department of Commerce because there are deals to make in line with the motto “America First.”
A summer full of deals
Our view on the markets
There is no summer break this year for the trade negotiators in the employ of the US Department of Commerce because there are deals to make in line with the motto “America First.” The trade agreements with Japan and the European Union unveiled shortly before the August 1 deadline are extremely lopsided and really do put America first. The Trump administration was hardly more accommodating towards other trading partners, and Switzerland was hit particularly hard. The US president’s actions continue to pose a constant challenge for central banks. While the European Central Bank must now give thought to further policy rate cuts, US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has been steadfastly resisting calls for lower interest rates.
Meme stock mania 2.0
US stocks continued to rise in July and have gained almost 30 % at their peak since pulling out of their April trough. But beneath the already rock-solid surface, the market has been moving even faster (and more speculatively). Shares of microcaps (corporations with a market capitalization below USD 300 million) have gained around 40 % since mid-April, and shares of unprofitable tech companies have jumped by a whopping 70%. This performance has been driven mainly by speculative interest on the part of US retail investors and is almost comparable to the meme stock mania (read: GameStop short squeeze) witnessed in 2021. However, the signs
of a speculative bubble are an inapt timing signal for an immediate end to the equity rally.
In the shadow of probabilities: How randomness shapes the world of finance
Happenstance, luck, and unforeseeable events often affect our lives much more pervasively than we care to acknowledge. A lot seems logical and congruous in retrospect, but our hindsight is deceptive. We block out the large number of those who have failed and look for patterns among the successful in places where frequently only luck existed. While creditable success is often the result of prowess, spectacular success not infrequently stems from unique, irreproducible circumstances.
Donald Trump (finally) announced major deals agreed with truly important trading partners in July. The agreements reached with Japan and the European Union can be sold as a victory to the MAGA constituency because the deals are very one-sided in America’s favor: Japan will buy Boeings and rice from the USA and the EU will purchase energy and arms, and both promise to invest billions in the United States. Even better, the future punitive tariffs on imports from the Eurozone and Japan will amount to 15 % on almost all goods and will pour money into US federal coffers. Donald Trump appears to have perfectly pinpointed trading partners’ pain threshold. The deals are obviously bad for those exporters affected, but they are breathing a sigh of relief nonetheless because never-ending uncertainty is even worse than medium-sized tariffs. Despite generating extra annual revenue in the triple-digit billions, the tariffs are likely to reduce the USA’s gaping federal budget deficit only by a good 10 %, and that’s only if the US president doesn’t use the new source of income to fund gifts to the public.
A summer full of deals
There is no summer break this year for the trade negotiators in the employ of the US Department of Commerce because there are deals to make in line with the motto “America First.” The trade agreements with Japan and the European Union unveiled shortly before the August 1 deadline are extremely lopsided and really do put America first. The Trump administration was hardly more accommodating towards other trading partners. Switzerland has been hit particularly hard: it has been slapped with a 39 % tariff and will have to hope that Donald Trump is willing to make concessions once and for all. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will have to live with at least a new basic tariff of 15 % to 25 %, which would raise the aggregate average tariff rate on imports to the USA to around 18 %. That will definitely have tangible consequences. Macroeconomists project that the US tariffs will shave 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points off GDP growth for export-dependent Germany, for example, over the next twelve months. Although those numbers make the near-term harm seem manageable, the medium-term repercussions are more ominous: in its deal with the USA, the EU has violated its principle of adhering to established World Trade Organization rules and thus may have set a dangerous precedent
The actions of the US president and their consequences continue to pose a constant challenge for the world’s major central banks. After the European Central Bank left its deposit rate at 2 % in July and rhetorically set a high bar for further interest-rate cuts, it now may soon have to rethink its stance. The intermittent appreciation of the euro by as much as 15 % year-to-date and the expected blow to economic growth in the aftermath of the trade deal tend to argue in favor of maintaining necessary monetary-policy flexibility. The situation looks entirely different in the USA, where Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is steadfastly resisting the incessant pressure from the White House to lower interest rates. Uncertainty about the inflationary effects of President Trump’s policies is no longer the sole explanation for Powell’s tenacity – it by now arguably has also become an emblematic declaration of the Fed’s independence. The more pressure that is put on Powell, the less willing he is to give in to it even if a noticeably cooling job market, a softening housing market, and slackening
US consumer spending definitely would give reason enough for two to three quarter-point interest-rate cuts.
More stimulus in the pipeline China’s economy expanded by a stronger-than-expected 5.2 % in the second quarter (Q1: +5.4 %). The country’s GDP growth for the first half of 2025 came in solidly above the government’s 5 % target. But officials in Beijing cannot lean back in satisfaction because risks to growth lurk at many levels. The final tariff rate on Chinese exports to the USA isn’t the only thing likely to prove problematic. An even bigger problem in the longer term is China’s heavy dependence on the manufacturing sector, where an unrelenting price war is raging. China’s GDP deflator has been in negative territory for nine consecutive quarters now while consumer spending is too weak to play a leading role in economic growth despite an array of cash-for-clunker rebates on offer on a variety of goods. Alarm bells appear to be ringing now also in the halls of government. The July issue of the Chinese Communist Party organ Qiushi stressed the importance and urgency of domestic consumption. Additional fiscal stimulus measures are very likely to be forthcoming soon. A further easing of monetary policy is also necessary because the real interest-rate level in China, which stands at around 3 % at present, is much too high.
An even bigger problem in the longer term is China’s heavy dependence on the manufacturing sector, where an unrelenting price war is raging.
Slowdown without a tailspin | US macro data have turned more positive lately Citi US Economic Surprise Index
Sources: Bloomberg, Kaiser Partner Privatbank
Fixed
Sovereign
Microfinance
Inflation-linked bonds
High-yield bonds
Emerging-market bonds
Insurance-linked bonds
Convertible bonds
Duration
Emerging
funds
Currencies Structured products
US dollar
Swiss franc
Euro
British pound
Equities: Meme stock mania 2.0
• US stocks continued to rise in July and have gained almost 30 % at their peak since pulling out of their April trough. But beneath the already rock-solid surface, the market has been moving even faster (and more speculatively). Shares of microcaps (corporations with a market capitalization below USD 300 million) have gained around 40 % since mid-April, and shares of unprofitable tech companies have jumped by a whopping 70 %. This performance has been driven mainly by speculative interest on the part of US retail investors and is almost comparable to the meme stock mania (read: GameStop short squeeze) witnessed in 2021. Recent weeks have again seen sharp price movements in some stocks of questionable quality (including Kohl’s, GoPro, and Krispy Kreme). The signs of a speculative bubble are an inapt timing signal for an immediate end to the equity rally, but they are a warning signal and give cause to become a bit more conservative about return expectations on a 12- to 24-month horizon.
• Around three-quarters of US companies thus far have surprised on the upside in the ongoing reporting season for the second quarter. But the current earnings season is basically unfolding the way it habitually does these days because profit estimates and thus the bar for upside surprises were substantially lowered by analysts beforehand. Stripping out the Magnificent Seven, earnings growth of just
equity
credit
+1 % was projected for the rest of the S&P 500 index. However, the better-than-expected numbers had already largely been priced in during the recent rally. So, those companies that delivered too little earnings were the ones that have gotten punished lately. Earnings surprises on the downside have triggered share-price dips averaging -5 % relative to the broad market on the day of the results release. As always during a reporting season, analysts’ eyes are already looking ahead to the future, where there are scattered rain clouds on the horizon due to the lingering residual uncertainty about the impact that US trade policy and weakening US consumer spending will have on certain sectors of the economy.
• Emerging-market stocks have risen disproportionately year-to-date, outpacing the MSCI World index by more than 5 percentage points. That needn’t be the end of the road, in our opinion – several arguments make a case for a continued above-average performance by EM stocks in the future (and for
As always during a reporting season, analysts’ eyes are already looking ahead to the future.
Meanwhile, the sustained assault on the US Federal Reserve’s independence is now eliciting only weary yawns, but no longer price reactions, on the bond market.
a mild overweighting of them in our tactical asset allocation). Emerging-market countries had massively underperformed developed nations by around 50 % since 2021 alone, and many institutional investors by now rate China in particular as a structural underweight. A continued downward-trending US dollar and the prospect of US interest-rate cuts are also suggestive of a favorable outlook for EM stocks. Bad news regarding China is already priced in while positive developments are being ignored. Last but not least, EM stocks are still inexpensively valued at a price-to-earnings multiple of 13 ×.
• The bond market has entered calmer waters in recent weeks. The MOVE index, an indicator of expected US Treasury bond volatility, has fallen from 140 points to below 90 points since the Liberation Day price storm in early April. The yield on 10-year US Treasurys fluctuated in a narrow band between 4.2 % and 4.5 % in July. It has thus pulled well away from both the year-to-date high hit in January (4.8 %) and from the 5 % sound barrier that some market observers thought would have triggered a course correction by the Trump administration if it were surpassed. There has been no course correction thus far, and in the meantime, the US president has signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, putting US federal debt on an even less sustainable path than before. Meanwhile, the sustained assault on the US Federal Reserve’s independence is now eliciting only weary yawns, but no longer price reactions, on the bond market. Classic drivers – economic growth, inflation, and monetary policy – will determine the future bond yield trend. Those factors are more or less balancing each other out at the moment, so a continued rangebound trend in the near term wouldn’t be abnormal. But on a six- to twelve-month horizon, there is a growing prospect of policy rate cutting by the Fed – with or without pressure – simply because the macro fundamentals allow and necessitate it. Long-term yields therefore also look set to tend to edge downward in the medium term.
Alternative assets: Bitcoin hits new high
• Calm has also returned to the price of gold in recent weeks. However, from a technical analysis perspective, gold’s pendular motion with ever smaller price swings could soon break out upward as a trend-confirming flag. The current breather is not unusual and is definitely healthy. There was more movement in July in the cryptocurrency space. The price of Bitcoin hit a new all-time high above the USD 120,000 mark, and alternative coins like Ether and Ripple posted above-average gains. Cryptocurrencies thus continue to follow the upward path set by the expansion of the M2 money supply. However, the fact that more and more businesses are mimicking the USbased company Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy)
and are buying Bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies to boost their enterprise value has to be viewed as a warning signal. The next one to two years will reveal whether this way of using funds is a sign of speculative excess. Many market-neutral equity strategies have had problems in recent weeks precisely with such signs of elevated speculation, which have also been observable on the US stock market, as mentioned above. Market-neutral strategies normally bet that shares of fundamentally strong companies will outperform shares of weaker competitors over the long run. They recently have given back part of the gains that had accrued since the start of this year.
Currencies: Has the US dollar found a (temporary) floor?
• EUR / USD: The uptrend in the EUR / USD exchange rate took a temporary break in early July at the 1.18 level. The lopsided trade deal with the USA has particularly spurred profit-taking lately. The expected blow to economic growth might prompt the European Central Bank to implement another policy rate cut in the months ahead, which would widen the euro’s interest-rate disadvantage. The recent dip in the exchange rate, though, should be viewed as a healthy correction. An attempted run at the 1.20 mark definitely seems possible in the second half of this year. However, apprehensions are likely to increase among some ECB officials at that level.
• GBP / USD: The US dollar also appreciated against the British pound in July, and this development, too, rates merely as a technical retracement for now particularly because sterling, unlike the euro, is not at an interest-rate disadvantage versus the greenback. The fact that the UK evidently negotiated a better deal with the USA (obtaining a 10 % rather than a 15 % base tariff) is unlikely to have a lasting impact in the long term on the GBP / USD exchange rate, for which we also see upside potential in the long run.
• EUR / CHF: The EUR / CHF exchange rate continued to move within a very narrow range hardly more than 50 basis points wide in July. Switzerland is hardly likely to succeed in wrangling a trade deal much better than the ones that competing exporting countries have gotten. Since the relative advantage or disadvantage is thus unlikely to change much, no appreciable impact on the Swiss franc is to be expected. The knowledge that the Swiss National Bank will resort to negative interest rates only in the direst of emergencies is the more relevant factor. The pull of gravity on the EUR / CHF exchange rate looks destined to remain strong in the months ahead.
The US dollar has continually lost ground since the start of this year and has depreciated in the meantime by more than 10 %, as measured by the US dollar index. Looking back over the last 50 years, rarely has the greenback been weaker at mid-year. Although the dollar had long been overvalued and was ripe for a correction, only the fewest of analysts had weakness of this magnitude on their forecast radar scope. Currency models based on interest-rate differentials have particularly malfunctioned in recent months. The greenback has been under pressure despite its large interest-rate advantage. What most forecasting models lacked was the Trump component: the dollar’s depreciation can be well explained by adding variables for trade policy uncertainty to regression models. US President Trump has thus fulfilled his wish for a weak dollar on his own and is taking ongoing pleasure in the outcome judging by his quote “Now it doesn’t sound good, but you make a hell of a lot more money with a weaker dollar – not a weak dollar, but a weaker dollar.” But despite its recent declines, the greenback actually is not yet truly weak or even undervalued. The presidential maneuvering thus far has merely led to an overdue, albeit unconventional, correction of existing imbalances in the currency market.
Desired and delivered | Trump gifts himself a weak dollar US dollar index since start of 2025
Sources: Bloomberg, Kaiser Partner Privatbank
The difference from dentistry lies in the fact that the market does not adhere to precise rules, but instead follows the whims of probability.
Happenstance, luck, and unforeseeable events often affect our lives much more pervasively than we care to acknowledge. A lot seems logical and congruous in retrospect, but our hindsight is deceptive. We block out the large number of those who have failed and look for patterns among the successful in places where frequently only luck existed. While creditable success is often the result of prowess, spectacular success not infrequently stems from unique, irreproducible circumstances.
Why financial pros aren’t dentists
In the field of dentistry, success depends almost exclusively on the skills of the attending dentist. A dental surgeon who extracts a decayed tooth works with precise instruments under controlled conditions using well-established procedures. There is a clear relation between cause and effect here. The medical intervention, if performed correctly, produces a predictable, measurable outcome. What’s more, that outcome is repeatedly reproduceable under the same conditions. It’s a different story in the financial sector. Expertise, methods, models, and tools exist there, too, but the outcomes of financial decisions are rarely linear or directly controllable. Even well-grounded strategies can fail while reckless maneuvers may result in gains. The difference from dentistry lies in the fact that the market does not adhere to precise rules, but instead follows the whims of probability. In short, financial pros operate in an environment that is profoundly shaped by random chance. Mathematician, fund manager, and author Nassim Nicholas Taleb provocatively puts this in a nutshell: many instances of success on markets are
not the result of superior skill, but are merely a product of luck. The difference is hard to recognize and often gets interpreted incorrectly in hindsight. This perspective shakes the self-image of many financial pros and challenges the myth of the “market beater.” What if many of those icons were merely in the right place at the right time?
Short-term successes in the financial sector frequently get rated as being proof of genius. But that can deceive because lucky guesses usually also look like sage decisions in retrospect. Success thus becomes anecdotal and not an objective measure. One striking example of this is the dotcom bubble around the turn of the millennium. Numerous fund managers who bet on technology stocks were deemed visionaries. Their funds earned spectacular returns, turning the managers into celebrated stars in the media. But when the bubble burst, it became evident that many of them had not acted strategically, but had simply followed the trend. Their success was less the result of superior skill and much more a product of favorable circumstances. The SPIVA Scorecard from S&P Dow Jones Indices also routinely shows that most actively managed funds do not outperform the market in the long run. Nevertheless, short-term outliers quickly get hailed as proof of exceptional investment skill. A simple thought experiment helps here: What if we could replay our lives a thousand times? In stable professions like dentistry, the outcomes would mostly resemble each other, with comparable incomes and similar lifestyles. In professions that involve high risk, such as that of entrepreneurs or traders, the outcomes would vary to extremes in contrast, with some lives ending in opulent wealth and others in ruin. It’s precisely this spectrum that illustrates how profoundly an outcome is shaped by chance. Whoever operates in an environment with a wide distribution of possible outcomes should be aware that spectacular successes are often a product of luck.
…and skill looks like luck
Yet we tend to attribute successes mainly to our own acumen while we like to chalk up failures to misfortune. This selective way of thinking is human nature, but it leads to dangerous false conclusions because whoever observes only the outcome ignores the actual core of a decision: the process that led to it. A decision can only really be judged with respect to the information, probabilities, and risks that were known when it was made. Even a smart decision can lead to a bad outcome, and conversely, a dubious decision can be rewarded by random chance. Moreover, what decisively matters is not just the outcome itself, but also the period over which it is observed. Let’s take, for an example, an excellent investor who sets up a well-thought-out portfolio with an expected annual return of +15 % and an expected volatility of 10 %. If one could observe that portfolio over 100 differently progressing years, around 95 of those years would end with a return between -5 % and +35 %.
The probability of the portfolio performing positively in any given year actually even stands at around 93 % – a decidedly bullish scenario. But the scene changes dramatically if the observation period is shortened. Picture that same portfolio on a modern trading desk with six monitor screens flashing prices in real time. In a time frame of a single second, the probability of the portfolio exhibiting a positive outcome suddenly hardly differs from a coin flip, or more precisely, the chance of an uptick right at that moment stands at exactly 50.02 %.
This means that the shorter the observation period, the more dominant random chance becomes. And the more dominant that random chance is, the less information value there is in what we see in the observation period. Whoever passes judgement prematurely or stares too fixedly at short-term fluctuations runs the risk of making wrong decisions even if the underlying longterm strategy is sound. This is exactly where a frequently underrated benefit of private-market assets lies. Private-market assets are not valued second by second, their prices do not appear on flashing screens, and they do not urge constant reactions to market noise. The absence of momentary prices can be a blessing for many investors, especially those who tend to act impulsively and harm themselves through overhasty reactions.
Time is the best investor | Success requires patience
Probability of success over different periods (investment strategy with 15% return and 10% volatility)
Never lose money | Losses weigh more heavily than gains Asymmetric return profile
Source: Kaiser Partner Privatbank
Asymmetry: Why 50 % down weighs more heavily than 50 % up
One frequently underappreciated factor in dealing with risk is the asymmetry between losses and gains. The fact is that whoever loses 50 % of his or her capital must gain 100 % afterwards just to get back to the initial value. The way down is short and steep, but the reascent is long and arduous. This asymmetry matters not just mathematically, but is also emotionally and strategically crucial. Losses are harder to bear, not just financially, but also emotionally. They often lead to irrational decisions like completely exiting the market at the wrong time, for example. Whoever wants to build wealth must be mindful not only of opportunities, but also of the price of failure. Arguably there is hardly an investor who understands this principle better than the “Oracle of Omaha,” Warren Buffett, does. One of his most famous quotes puts it in a nutshell: “Rule number one: Never lose money. Rule number two: Never forget rule number one.“
The fact is that whoever loses 50 % of his or her capital must gain 100 % afterwards just to get back to the initial value.
When it comes to the subject of risk, the probability of a given event occurring often gets underestimated, as does the force of its potential effects. Many decisions appear harmless at first glance because they lead to a small gain with a very high occurrence probability. But if an extremely improbable outcome is associated with a dramatically negative result, that can flip the expectation value. It then is only in hindsight that the decision reveals itself as obviously fatal. A simple example illustrates this. Picture a scenario in which a person earns a small one-dollar profit with a probability of 999 out of 1,000 times (event A). That sounds reasonable at first, but there’s a catch: in the one remaining case, a loss of ten thousand dollars looms (event B). Although that risk seems vanishingly small, it results in an average expectation value of negative nine dollars and in a decision that destroys wealth in the long run. This kind of asymmetry is particularly treacherous precisely in the world of finance, where complex risks often are communicated only in the form of probabilities. It leads to an underestimation of risks – even ones with existential implications – if they rarely actually occur. In the language of statistics, it’s not just how often something occurs, but above all what happens when it does that matters.
Bulls and bears
This kind of asymmetric risk distribution is not a theoretical construct, but a reflection of a real, oft-misunderstood problem: the question of whether an investor should position him or herself for a bull or bear market. Or put succinctly: Is the market headed up or down? It seems logical at first glance to position oneself in line with one’s expectation about the market’s future direction. Whoever thinks that the market will rise will be inclined to invest correspondingly optimistically. But this approach is too short-sighted. The probability of a scenario occurring isn’t all that matters; so does the potential severity of its implications. A simple numerical example illustrates the dilemma. Let’s assume that there’s a 70 % probability of the market rising by 1 %. At the same time, there’s a 30 % probability of it dropping by 10 %. Even if the prevailing market view is bullish, this results in a negative expectation value of -2.3 %. In this case, the statistics clearly show that a defensive, bearish positioning is more sensible in the long run even if the baseline scenario points to rising prices.
Like in the previous example with events A and B, the view here, too, is that there’s a high probability that the market will rise. Nevertheless, in some circumstances it makes sense to position oneself against the market because if the less probable case occurs and the market drops, the decline can be staggering. The losses in this scenario are so severe that they substantially outweigh the moderate gains in the other cases. Many investors focus too much on probabilities and disregard the severity of potential tail events. But financial markets in particular are precisely where it is crucial to ask not just what’s likely to occur, but above all what can happen if the improbable comes to pass. Those who understand this perspective make smarter decisions and protect their capital where others get lulled into a false sense of security.
People’s biggest weakness in dealing with randomness is their inability to accept randomness. This inability gets coupled with other deep-rooted cognitive biases. Hindsight bias causes us to believe that we saw what happened coming. The narrative fallacy drives us to construct stories out of random courses of events. We want to recognize correlations where none exist. And overconfidence bias causes us to overestimate our own abilities, particularly within complex systems characterized by randomness. Those who fail see themselves as victims of adverse circumstances. But it’s precisely that mindset that obscures the view of what really matters: a well-structured decision-making process and not just the mere outcome.
In the context of finance, this frequently leads to grave mistakes. A person who believes that he or she has “figured out” the market is more prone to disregard his or her protective mechanisms and undertake risky maneuvers. Conversely, knowledge of one’s own limitations – i.e. genuine humility – guards against errors of that kind. Experienced investors who do well in the long run do not stand out due to clairvoyant powers, but by virtue of systematic thinking. They do not rely on intuition or short-term trends, but on robust processes, clear principles, and a profound understanding of risk. They know that in a world full of coin flips, it is senseless to bet on the next “heads.” Rather, the decisive question is: how many losing flips can one afford without getting wiped out of the game? A matter-offact look at long-term data shows what it really comes down to. Studies on large-scale pension plans verify that over 90 % of differences in returns are attributable to the strategic asset allocation and not to tactical bets or individual asset picking.1 So, whoever wants to invest successfully on a permanent basis should rely less on isolated market views and instead focus on the structure of his or her overall portfolio. It isn’t single brilliant decisions, but rather a clear and consistent allocation that performs soundly even in difficult times that makes
In our daily work, we deliberately employ Monte Carlo simulations to test the viability of investment strategies under realistic conditions. A portfolio can look very convincing on paper. Expected returns, clear risk parameters, and sound fundamental assumptions make everything seem plannable. But in reality, investments rarely follow a linear path. Gains and losses do not occur rhythmically, but in an unpredictable order. It’s precisely that succession that often determines whether a plan works out or falters. This is where Monte Carlo simulation comes into play. It enables one to work not just with single probabilities, but also allows one to simulate hundreds and sometimes thousands of possible future paths. Each path follows the same fundamental assumptions but evolves in its own way. What results from this is more than mere statistics. It’s a realistic glimpse into alternative visions of the future. Some of the paths lead to impressive wealth accumulation, and others end close to the zero line or even in negative territory. Each of the paths is hypothetical, but each one shows a possible future history that an investor might actually experience. We, together with our clients, do not write a single future history – we instead help to prep them for many possible scenarios.
Structure rather than speculation
Randomness cannot be eliminated, but its impact can be contained through structure, discipline, and prudent risk allocation. This is exactly where the real added value of modern private banking lies. It’s not about foreseeing the future or finding the perfect entry point. It’s about advising and supporting investors in a way that enables them to survive in the market in the long run and maximizes their chance of earning sustainable profits over the long term. Professional private banking provides guidance during turbulent times. It helps clients to avoid making emotionally driven, impulsive decisions that often cost them dearly. It enables clients to build strategies that bet on resilience rather than on forecasts. At the same time, it’s not just about selecting individual products, but is also about comprehensive risk management that systematically takes randomness and asymmetry into account. A lighthouse does not avert a storm, but it prevents a ship from crashing and splintering on the rocks. An advisor analogously has just as little control over the markets, but an advisor can help one navigate them more wisely.
1 Brinson, G. P., Hood, L. R., & Beebower, G. L. (1986). Determinants of Portfolio Performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 42(4), 39 – 44.
This document constitutes neither a financial analysis nor an advertisement. It is intended solely for informational purposes. None of the information contained herein constitutes a solicitation or recommendation by Kaiser Partner Privatbank AG to purchase or sell a financial instrument or to take any other actions regarding any financial instruments. Furthermore, the information contained herein does not constitute investment advice. Any references in this document to past performance are no guarantee of a positive future performance. Kaiser Partner Privatbank AG assumes no liability for the completeness, correctness or currentness of the information contained herein or for any losses or damages arising from any actions taken on the basis of the information in this document. All contents of this document are protected by intellectual property law, particularly by copyright law. The reprinting or reproduction of all or any parts of this document in any way or form for public or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited unless prior written consent has been explicitly granted by Kaiser Partner Privatbank AG.
Publisher: Kaiser Partner Privatbank AG Herrengasse 23, Postfach 725 FL-9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein HR-Nr. FL-0001.018.213-7
T: +423 237 80 00, F: +423 237 80 01 E: bank@kaiserpartner.com
Editorial Team: Oliver Hackel, Senior Investment Strategist
Design & Print: 21iLAB AG, Vaduz, Liechtenstein