Except for honorable exceptions, the commercialization of this product has left much to be desired, since, once again, the employed financial advisers of the bank have not explained sufficiently well the risks of the product, due to the pressure and the conflict of interest which they were put under because the unique objective of the organizations was to place the product outside as. Today, many independent advisers of investment we were with multitude of clients " pillados" with these products, that cannot recover their investment and that are forced to maintain their money inverted in an organization in which there are lost all the confidence. The operations of exchange that finally have been carried out or are carrying out on the part of the organizations are varied and need an individual analysis, but in enough cases it is abusing the client again forcing it to exchange its preferred ones by action in the future, now establishing a price of the action that at the time of the conversion has perhaps come down, with the consequent loss of the inverted capital. Or more worse still, in some operations of exchange, one commits the investors to exchange and to maintain during long periods, for example during 10 years, subordinate debt, to an interest very below the market for this type of investment, which makes impossible that before the 10 years this product in secondary market without suffering a bulky loss of capital can be sold, and therefore, it will force the investors to maintain the inverted money until the victory, they like or they do not like. Therefore, we can speak of authentic " corralito" to the Spanish, who is unimaginable more in advanced countries financially but than to take place in some of these countries, it would have had important consequences for the managers of the responsible organizations. Here, nevertheless, all so contentments. It would not want to finish without doing one reflection on the null utility of the Mifid in these cases.
Indeed, the European directive that supposedly it had to protect the small investors has demonstrated to be wet paper, since the organizations continue at will placing those products that interest to them to the detriment of the interests of the particular investors, who are in clear disadvantage by their low financial culture. A situation that has few possibilities of changing, since the financial reconstruction that we are living is taking us to the formation of a banking oligopoly, with the excuse of the crisis, which will bring about a diminution of the competition between organizations, and therefore will harm the investors and will favor the continuation of this type of practices. No matter how hard some politicians, bankers and mass media repeat, it is an enormous deceit that the unique form to survive nowadays for the banks is to become larger organizations, and we have some examples in our country that obstinately demonstrate to us that it is possible to be small or medium, and simultaneously very efficient. In addition, if the financial authorities once and for all promoted the independent financial advising, like which we exert the AIF professionals, these problems would not occur and a model of distribution of financial products more favorable to the more efficient investor and in terms of cost for the own banks could be created. All we would leave winning. The model to follow is the United Kingdom, where the independent advisers are a fundamental actor in the financial system, but still we are here, unfortunately, to years light.