In this blog we have referred on several occasions to the jurisprudence of our courts on litigation for the commercialization of complex financial products and we have drawn attention to the desirability of not generalizing the impression that banks are always condemned and clients They always consider their claims of nullity or resolution of the contracts of acquisition of those complex values and of the consequent responsibility of the defendant banks. This is because, although it is true that most of the Judgments – both of the First Chamber of the Civil Court of the Supreme Court and the Provincial Hearings – are estimates of those claims, you must be in the circumstances of each case to verify the final solution.
When it comes to investing, we found no shortage of theories linking various phenomena with the final results of the exchanges. And that human psychology is invited to pursue numerous strategies or guidelines that have been repeated over the years to try to guess how the market will behave.
Every theory is an attempt to impose some sort of consistency or stable to the millions of decisions that make buying and selling on the market run frame.While it is useful to know these theories, it also is important to remember that no unified theory can explain the financial world completely.
Before reviewing the five trading theories, we must add that in most of them the sectionalism events and one aspect of “cause and effect” more or less visible have been the ideal combination for final formulation. But theories are just that and should not be taken into account for the final investment decision.