Bund e TBond: trichechi sulla Maginot VM 180 anni
- Creatore Discussione f4f
- Data di Inizio
il bernakka taglierà di 2 punti 
quicksilver
Forumer storico
MITTTTICOOOOO .....! 
ragazzi guardate questa nuova faccina che bella!!! 
.
ragazzi guardate questa nuova faccina che bella!!!
.
feliceanima
Forumer attivo
Giorno a tutti ecco a voi un GipaZ linK's .
Una piccola domanda a tutti secondo voi siamo solo all'inizio dela discesa e quanto potra durare il tutto?
Altra domanda a questo giro si sono fatti male anche le famose mani forti da quello che ho capito .
Ricordate che circa sei mesi fa chiuse un famoso hedge fund xrche' aveva puntato tutto sulla crisi creditizia negli States e fece il botto in positivo in poco tempo avremo qualche altra notizia del genere a breve.
Scusate le domande banali ma il famoso giocattolo si e rotto non credete
ed ora GipaZ link's
Una piccola domanda a tutti secondo voi siamo solo all'inizio dela discesa e quanto potra durare il tutto?
Altra domanda a questo giro si sono fatti male anche le famose mani forti da quello che ho capito .
Ricordate che circa sei mesi fa chiuse un famoso hedge fund xrche' aveva puntato tutto sulla crisi creditizia negli States e fece il botto in positivo in poco tempo avremo qualche altra notizia del genere a breve.
Scusate le domande banali ma il famoso giocattolo si e rotto non credete
ed ora GipaZ link's
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
feliceanima ha scritto:
1) A questa domanda non so rispondere, i danni causati dalla rottura di livelli importanti e la rapidità del movimento devono preoccupare, il retest dei minimi probabile un movimento probabile, una loro perforazione porterebbe ad una ennesima accelerazione tipica dei bear markets, la tenuta potrebbe dare il la ad un rimbalzo più duraturo ma che solo il tempo e la dimensione ci diranno se sostenibile. Che le Banche Centrali permettano correzioni molto più marcate difficle a meno che non sfugga il controllo.
2)Le mani forti si son fatte male, giusto per fare un esempio i fondi quant di momentum hanno avuto un annus horribilis ed i macro strategy in queste ultime sedute hanno cominciato a patire significativamente.
3)Il giocatollo ha un timer di cui non conosciamo la durata ma con il tempo che passa i rischi continuano a crescere.... questo è evidente, che l'esplosione/implosione secolare avvenga ora è possibile ma al momento ancora improbabile.
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
Fortis could face €1bn subprime hit
Fortis, the Belgo-Dutch bank, said Sunday its 2007 net profits before divestments could be lowered from €4bn ($5.9bn) to €3bn due to its subprime exposure, depending on which market scenarios apply, reports Reuters in Brussels.
“If these scenarios were to be applied to the closing of the accounts of 2007 – which would be subject to approval by the board on March 6 – the net profit of Fortis is to be around €3bn,” it said in a statement.
The bank was under pressure to communicate on its subprime exposure after a newspaper report on Saturday said it would need to write off up to €2bn in its subprime portfolio.
The shares opened up nearly 10 per cent on relief the losses were not higher. The gains cancelled out Friday’s losses when talk of profit warnings and possible exposure to US subprime mortgages, hit the shares.
A source briefed on the situation told Reuters on Friday there would be higher-than-announced write-offs due to Fortis’s subprime exposure but declined to give precise figures.
Fortis sought to reassure investors in its statement Sunday and said its capital and solvency positions were sound and it planned to maintain its dividend at last year’s level. The bank also said it was not considering issuing new shares.
Financial markets remain nervous after a week that started with plummeting stocks on fears of a US recession and saw both a massive rate cut of 75 basis points by the US Federal Reserve and the biggest trading scandal in banking history after a junior trader at France’s Société Générale was accused of secretly amassing a €4.9bn loss in bad bets.
A banking source said Fortis had held a board meeting on Friday, which the bank declined to confirm.
Fortis, which is buying rival ABN Amro’s Dutch operations, saw its third-quarter net profit fall 10 per cent in November and warned then of subprime-related losses.
At the time, Gilbert Mittler, Fortis chief financial officer, said the bank might take a €120m net charge in the fourth quarter on subprime investments if current conditions continued.
Asked whether Fortis would reach its average annual earnings per share growth target of 12 per cent in 2007, he said the target was an annual average for the period 2007 through to 2011.
© Reuters Limited
Fortis, the Belgo-Dutch bank, said Sunday its 2007 net profits before divestments could be lowered from €4bn ($5.9bn) to €3bn due to its subprime exposure, depending on which market scenarios apply, reports Reuters in Brussels.
“If these scenarios were to be applied to the closing of the accounts of 2007 – which would be subject to approval by the board on March 6 – the net profit of Fortis is to be around €3bn,” it said in a statement.
The bank was under pressure to communicate on its subprime exposure after a newspaper report on Saturday said it would need to write off up to €2bn in its subprime portfolio.
The shares opened up nearly 10 per cent on relief the losses were not higher. The gains cancelled out Friday’s losses when talk of profit warnings and possible exposure to US subprime mortgages, hit the shares.
A source briefed on the situation told Reuters on Friday there would be higher-than-announced write-offs due to Fortis’s subprime exposure but declined to give precise figures.
Fortis sought to reassure investors in its statement Sunday and said its capital and solvency positions were sound and it planned to maintain its dividend at last year’s level. The bank also said it was not considering issuing new shares.
Financial markets remain nervous after a week that started with plummeting stocks on fears of a US recession and saw both a massive rate cut of 75 basis points by the US Federal Reserve and the biggest trading scandal in banking history after a junior trader at France’s Société Générale was accused of secretly amassing a €4.9bn loss in bad bets.
A banking source said Fortis had held a board meeting on Friday, which the bank declined to confirm.
Fortis, which is buying rival ABN Amro’s Dutch operations, saw its third-quarter net profit fall 10 per cent in November and warned then of subprime-related losses.
At the time, Gilbert Mittler, Fortis chief financial officer, said the bank might take a €120m net charge in the fourth quarter on subprime investments if current conditions continued.
Asked whether Fortis would reach its average annual earnings per share growth target of 12 per cent in 2007, he said the target was an annual average for the period 2007 through to 2011.
© Reuters Limited
gipa69
collegio dei patafisici
What Happened to the Promised S&P and Moody's Review of MBIA and Ambac?
Why have the rating agencies failed to deliver on actions they promised to take? Remember the announcements that helped feed into the overseas market rout last Monday? This story ran January 16 on Bloomberg:
Standard & Poor's will start a new examination of bond insurers, one month after affirming the companies' AAA ratings, because losses on subprime mortgages will be worse than the firm anticipated.
The ratings company will examine whether insurers including MBIA Inc. and Ambac Financial Group Inc. have enough capital to withstand reductions in the ratings of the mortgage-backed securities they guarantee. The credit test will be completed within a week, said Mimi Barker, a spokeswoman in New York.
Standard & Poor's must define a week differently than I do. If you are generous and assumed S&P started its review January 17, a week later is Thursday January 24. Even if you allow another day to draft a press release, we should have heard something by the end of last week.
You may recall that Moody's also put MBIA on review for a downgrade on January 16, although they did not say when they expected to complete their process. From the Wall Street Journal:
Moody's said late Wednesday that it had placed its ratings on Ambac on review for a downgrade, after the country's second-largest bond insurer significantly stepped up its expected losses from insuring complicated securities backed in some cases by subprime mortgages. Moody's also said it will be evaluating "in the near term" the extent to which its ratings of other firms in the industry will be affected by the sector-wide pressures that produced the losses at Ambac.
Now it goes without saying that the rating agencies don't dare downgrade the insurers while New York State insurance superintendent Eric Dinallo's effort to cobble together a rescue package is underway. They'd be walking into a buzzsaw of criticism for Destroying the Financial World as We Know It and Not Letting the Private Sector Devise a Solution.
So the failure to act is understandable. But what has my paranoid juices going is the failure to make a statement that the ratings reviews were being held in abeyance. Of course, that would put the onus on the agencies to declare Dinallo's effort failed if it became evident no deal would happen but the regulator was still failing around.
But what does this behavior point to instead? An angle that should have occurred to me sooner.
Last week, I gave an initial and then a more thought-out assessment , both concluding Dinallo's initiative was highly likely to come to naught. But I was looking at this from the "can they raise enough dough" standpoint.
That is a mistaken perspective. It assumes the agencies are the immovable object in this equation, when they are in fact the most malleable.
Remember, the markets have already given a huge vote of no confidence in the debt of Ambac and MBIA. Their credit default swaps are trading at distressed level. Distressed means "serious risk of bankruptcy." Now even if you think the market reaction is a tad histrionic, given the rating agencies' track record with structured credits, I would place my faith in the markets' perception of risk. And even if you are merely democratic and split the difference, say, between an AAA and a CCC (and even CCC may be a tad generous), you get a BBB. A downgrade of that magnitude, even while still leaving the bond guarantors with an investment grade rating, makes their guarantees effectively worthless and will create chaos. Barclays estimated that a downgrade of MBIA and Ambac to a mere single A would produce $143 billion of losses to banks and brokerage firms.
Consider further that the amount Dinallo is seeking is likely to prove insufficient. His target of $5 billion now and an additional $10 billion down the road sounds very much in keeping with hedge fund Pershing Square's estimates. But those were made based on end of third quarter data. A current requirement is certain to be lower. And other experts have come up with mind numbing requirements. Rating agency Egan Jones said the bond insurers as an industry need $200 billion to keep their AAA ratings. Even if that is high by, say, 400%, it is still a vastly bigger total than Dinallo is seeking.
But the name of the game is getting the rating agencies not to downgrade the big bond insurers. There already is evidence of a tacit understanding that there will be no downgrades while the negotiations are in play, particularly since Moody's and S&P are participating.
And the very fact that the agencies are part of the process means that they will be subject to both subtle and explicit pressure to knuckle under and accept any package, no matter how inadequate.
Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his classic book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, wrote about the power of social assent. One well documented finding from studies of cult members and victims of brainwashing is if you take a person and put him with a group of people who believe in something strongly that is opposed to what he believes and they keep working on him, it is almost certain he will eventually capitulate.
Now the rating agencies could easily protect themselves from that dynamic by sending a mere note-take to the sessions. Conversely, it would be a very bad sign if they senior people who could make commitments participated.
But aside from the dynamics in the room, there is every reason to expect the rating agencies to knuckle under if Dinallo can raise a modest amount of dough, even as little as, say, $2 billion. The agencies through their mistakes have now created the situation where they could be the ones to Destroy the Financial World as We Know It. They will take any route offered to keep from pushing the button, in the hopes that either the economy will miraculously recover or other events will lead to credit repricing, so that the eventual downgrade of the insurers has far less impact than one now.
I still don't think a bailout is likely to succeed, despite the considerable costs of a bond guarantor downgrade. But the fact that the rating agencies will probably go along with any remotely plausible scheme means that a smoke and mirrors version might be put into place.
Why have the rating agencies failed to deliver on actions they promised to take? Remember the announcements that helped feed into the overseas market rout last Monday? This story ran January 16 on Bloomberg:
Standard & Poor's will start a new examination of bond insurers, one month after affirming the companies' AAA ratings, because losses on subprime mortgages will be worse than the firm anticipated.
The ratings company will examine whether insurers including MBIA Inc. and Ambac Financial Group Inc. have enough capital to withstand reductions in the ratings of the mortgage-backed securities they guarantee. The credit test will be completed within a week, said Mimi Barker, a spokeswoman in New York.
Standard & Poor's must define a week differently than I do. If you are generous and assumed S&P started its review January 17, a week later is Thursday January 24. Even if you allow another day to draft a press release, we should have heard something by the end of last week.
You may recall that Moody's also put MBIA on review for a downgrade on January 16, although they did not say when they expected to complete their process. From the Wall Street Journal:
Moody's said late Wednesday that it had placed its ratings on Ambac on review for a downgrade, after the country's second-largest bond insurer significantly stepped up its expected losses from insuring complicated securities backed in some cases by subprime mortgages. Moody's also said it will be evaluating "in the near term" the extent to which its ratings of other firms in the industry will be affected by the sector-wide pressures that produced the losses at Ambac.
Now it goes without saying that the rating agencies don't dare downgrade the insurers while New York State insurance superintendent Eric Dinallo's effort to cobble together a rescue package is underway. They'd be walking into a buzzsaw of criticism for Destroying the Financial World as We Know It and Not Letting the Private Sector Devise a Solution.
So the failure to act is understandable. But what has my paranoid juices going is the failure to make a statement that the ratings reviews were being held in abeyance. Of course, that would put the onus on the agencies to declare Dinallo's effort failed if it became evident no deal would happen but the regulator was still failing around.
But what does this behavior point to instead? An angle that should have occurred to me sooner.
Last week, I gave an initial and then a more thought-out assessment , both concluding Dinallo's initiative was highly likely to come to naught. But I was looking at this from the "can they raise enough dough" standpoint.
That is a mistaken perspective. It assumes the agencies are the immovable object in this equation, when they are in fact the most malleable.
Remember, the markets have already given a huge vote of no confidence in the debt of Ambac and MBIA. Their credit default swaps are trading at distressed level. Distressed means "serious risk of bankruptcy." Now even if you think the market reaction is a tad histrionic, given the rating agencies' track record with structured credits, I would place my faith in the markets' perception of risk. And even if you are merely democratic and split the difference, say, between an AAA and a CCC (and even CCC may be a tad generous), you get a BBB. A downgrade of that magnitude, even while still leaving the bond guarantors with an investment grade rating, makes their guarantees effectively worthless and will create chaos. Barclays estimated that a downgrade of MBIA and Ambac to a mere single A would produce $143 billion of losses to banks and brokerage firms.
Consider further that the amount Dinallo is seeking is likely to prove insufficient. His target of $5 billion now and an additional $10 billion down the road sounds very much in keeping with hedge fund Pershing Square's estimates. But those were made based on end of third quarter data. A current requirement is certain to be lower. And other experts have come up with mind numbing requirements. Rating agency Egan Jones said the bond insurers as an industry need $200 billion to keep their AAA ratings. Even if that is high by, say, 400%, it is still a vastly bigger total than Dinallo is seeking.
But the name of the game is getting the rating agencies not to downgrade the big bond insurers. There already is evidence of a tacit understanding that there will be no downgrades while the negotiations are in play, particularly since Moody's and S&P are participating.
And the very fact that the agencies are part of the process means that they will be subject to both subtle and explicit pressure to knuckle under and accept any package, no matter how inadequate.
Social psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his classic book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, wrote about the power of social assent. One well documented finding from studies of cult members and victims of brainwashing is if you take a person and put him with a group of people who believe in something strongly that is opposed to what he believes and they keep working on him, it is almost certain he will eventually capitulate.
Now the rating agencies could easily protect themselves from that dynamic by sending a mere note-take to the sessions. Conversely, it would be a very bad sign if they senior people who could make commitments participated.
But aside from the dynamics in the room, there is every reason to expect the rating agencies to knuckle under if Dinallo can raise a modest amount of dough, even as little as, say, $2 billion. The agencies through their mistakes have now created the situation where they could be the ones to Destroy the Financial World as We Know It. They will take any route offered to keep from pushing the button, in the hopes that either the economy will miraculously recover or other events will lead to credit repricing, so that the eventual downgrade of the insurers has far less impact than one now.
I still don't think a bailout is likely to succeed, despite the considerable costs of a bond guarantor downgrade. But the fact that the rating agencies will probably go along with any remotely plausible scheme means that a smoke and mirrors version might be put into place.
ditropan
Forumer storico
Giorno bbanda 
Situazione strana quella cui stiamo vivendo sui bonds ...
... se guardo al passato in cui i tassi erano all'1% ed i relativi rendimenti del trentennale mi verrebbe da shortare come un cavallo pazzo !
... se guardo a dove siamo ora, i relativi rendimenti e l'attuale inflazione merricana mi verrebbe da shortare come un doppio cavallo pazzo ....
... se guardo ai prognostici di mrci mi verrebbe da shortare come un triplo cavallo pazzo ...
... tuttavia l'attuale incertezza sull'equity e la sensazione che le borse non abbiano ancora visto il bottom mi incute timore a shortare ...sebbene ci troviamo a livelli di prezzo molto alti per il t-bond.
Situazione strana quella cui stiamo vivendo sui bonds ...
... se guardo al passato in cui i tassi erano all'1% ed i relativi rendimenti del trentennale mi verrebbe da shortare come un cavallo pazzo !
... se guardo a dove siamo ora, i relativi rendimenti e l'attuale inflazione merricana mi verrebbe da shortare come un doppio cavallo pazzo ....
... se guardo ai prognostici di mrci mi verrebbe da shortare come un triplo cavallo pazzo ...
... tuttavia l'attuale incertezza sull'equity e la sensazione che le borse non abbiano ancora visto il bottom mi incute timore a shortare ...sebbene ci troviamo a livelli di prezzo molto alti per il t-bond.
f4f
翠鸟科
ditropan ha scritto:Giorno bbanda
Situazione strana quella cui stiamo vivendo sui bonds ...
... se guardo al passato in cui i tassi erano all'1% ed i relativi rendimenti del trentennale mi verrebbe da shortare come un cavallo pazzo !
Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.net/forum/immagini/1201515074azz1.jpg
Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.net/forum/immagini/1201515097azz2.jpg
... se guardo a dove siamo ora, i relativi rendimenti e l'attuale inflazione merricana mi verrebbe da shortare come un doppio cavallo pazzo ....
Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.net/forum/immagini/1201515329azz3.jpg
Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.net/forum/immagini/1201515352azz4.jpg
... se guardo ai prognostici di mrci mi verrebbe da shortare come un triplo cavallo pazzo ...
Immagine sostituita con URL per un solo Quote: http://www.investireoggi.net/forum/immagini/1201515471azz5.jpg
... tuttavia l'attuale incertezza sull'equity e la sensazione che le borse non habbiano ancora visto il bottom mi incute timore a shortare ...sebbene ci troviamo a livelli di prezzo molto alti per il t-bond.
buongiorno Ditro
mah, borse&tassi
chi ci azzecca è bravo
my opinion è su tassi stabili/in crescita
e su borse in discesa/stabili
diciamo che una cautela maggiore dell'abituale è necessaria
ma soprattutto, mi permetto:
i paragoni col passato recente sono fuorvianti
siamo in un nuovo mercato, con nuove regole, nuovi timori, nuove speranze, nuove (in)certezze e soprattutto nuova volatilità
Similar threads
