Obbligazioni societarie CIT Group, SLM, GMAC e le finanziarie USA che (forse) si salveranno diventando banche

Certo, a parte quello, e concordo con te sul coraggio... :D da quanto capisco, per ora mettono mano al portafoglio... senz'altro avranno anche ipotizzato (quantomeno) qualche linea di azione circa modalità di ristrutturazione sul debito... anche perché una parte di questo debito dovrebbe essere in portafoglio agli attuali erogatori di credito...

PS: il tasso praticato è da strozzo.... :lol: :lol:

CIT’s bondholders acted in their own interest when they stepped in to salvage CIT. They might have lost much of their investment if the company went into Chapter 11 or an outright liquidation. It is a case of self-interest serving the national interest when the national government has been unwilling to do so.

A pensare male si fa peccato, ma già me li vedo fare un po' di pulizia e poi bussare di nuovo alla porta statale (peraltro a rischio di perdere un paio di bilioncini già seppelliti in CIT, se ricordo bene...).

La telenovela continua... ;)
 
CIT’s bondholders acted in their own interest when they stepped in to salvage CIT. They might have lost much of their investment if the company went into Chapter 11 or an outright liquidation. It is a case of self-interest serving the national interest when the national government has been unwilling to do so.

A pensare male si fa peccato, ma già me li vedo fare un po' di pulizia e poi bussare di nuovo alla porta statale (peraltro a rischio di perdere un paio di bilioncini già seppelliti in CIT, se ricordo bene...).

La telenovela continua... ;)

Eh, ma se ti dicono no oggi, diventa difficile che ti dicano sì fra 3 mesi... ;)certo prestare soldi a GMAC e non a CIT ... il criterio non credo sia quello della qualità degli asset, altrimenti il sostegno a GMAC dovrebbe valere come "tana libera tutti"... :lol:
 
Eh, ma se ti dicono no oggi, diventa difficile che ti dicano sì fra 3 mesi... ;)certo prestare soldi a GMAC e non a CIT ... il criterio non credo sia quello della qualità degli asset, altrimenti il sostegno a GMAC dovrebbe valere come "tana libera tutti"... :lol:

sto giocando a fantafinanza, ma se hai raggiunto il risultato che le parti a rischio di perdere (es. bondholder...) non giocano più al "tanto li salvi tu e io ci guadagno anche..." (pimco con Gmac...), ma devono metterci del loro, e magari per primi, i miei complimenti all'amministrazione, bravi davvero, a questa mano di poker... ;)
 
sto giocando a fantafinanza, ma se hai raggiunto il risultato che le parti a rischio di perdere (es. bondholder...) non giocano più al "tanto li salvi tu e io ci guadagno anche..." (pimco con Gmac...), ma devono metterci del loro, e magari per primi, i miei complimenti all'amministrazione, bravi davvero, a questa mano di poker... ;)

Giusta osservazione... ;) da questo punto di vista l'hanno giocata bene ... :up:
 
If CIT really has dodged a bullet here and avoided bankruptcy, that’s spectacularly good news. I’m assuming here that a deal has done, based on nothing but a single one-line headline on WSJ.com; these things tend to be fraught and fractious, however, so I’m not counting my chickens just yet. But if CIT has really avoided bankruptcy, that’s a major turning point in the history of the financial crisis.
It’s good news for various individual constituencies, of course, especially all the small and medium-sized businesses which will now find it easier to roll over their loans. It’s good for CIT’s shareholders, who might be left with something more than $0. It’s good for CIT CEO Jeffrey Peek, who did his best Dick Fuld impression over the past few months, refusing to raise capital even as everybody else was taking any capital they could get, and as a result almost sent his company the way of Lehman. And it’s spectacularly good news for CIT’s bondholders, who could well see the value of their holdings rise from the single digits into the high double digits as soon as the markets open.
Most of all, however, it’s good news for the system as a whole, which seems to have demonstrated that it’s possible, if not easy, for a private-sector alternative to bankruptcy to be worked out without government interference or guarantees.
I have to say that on Friday, I didn’t think such a thing possible. But with CIT’s unsecured bonds reportedly trading at less than 10 cents apiece on Friday, it was clearly in the large bondholders’ best interests to do some kind of deal, even if doing so meant other bondholders would get a free ride.
The point here is that there is almost nothing which can destroy as much value overnight as the bankruptcy of a financial institution. There were questions over CIT’s solvency, of course. But we’re talking a few billion dollars of shortfall on an $80 billion balance sheet: if capitalism worked the way it’s meant to, then maybe shareholders would be wiped out, but bondholders’ recovery would be high.
But financial-company bankruptcies don’t work that way, as we saw with Lehman Brothers, liquidating a bank is a sure-fire way of getting such low prices for your assets that even secured bondholders start worrying; unsecured bondholders are liable to walk away with little if anything.
It makes sense, then, that those unsecured bondholders would have every incentive to come to some kind of deal with CIT. The problem with any deal done outside bankruptcy court is that any creditors not taking part in the negotiations are going to have to be paid off in full. In turn, that means that the bondholders who are in negotiations are going to have to provide new money, so that CIT has the cash to service its debts. And no one likes throwing good money after bad, especially when that new money doesn’t have the protections afforded to DIP financing in a bankruptcy situation.
If bondholders managed to overcome all those obstacles over the course of the weekend and come to a deal which saves CIT, then maybe the market is starting to be able to work things out on its own, without the need for government involvement. And maybe spreads on bank debt in general will continue to tighten in, as the expected recovery in case of distress rises from the single digits to something much higher. I do hope this deal happens.
Update: The WSJ article is now up:
The deal, which was being considered by CIT’s board Sunday night, charges CIT very high interest rates, and it doesn’t permanently fix the company’s long-term financing needs, say people involved in the transaction. But it buys time for the lender to restructure itself, and minimizes bondholders’ losses. Bondholders calculated they would lose more if CIT filed for bankruptcy and sold assets at fire-sale prices than if they offered the rescue.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/149797-cit-a-turning-point-in-the-financial-crisis
 
scusate se forse sono fuori tema. Steel capital è una finanziaria di citigroup ? Se si qualcuno sà qualche notizia fresca e i suoi rapporti con la casa madre ?
Grazie
 
mah....

definirlo un Turning Point in the Financial Crisis mi sembra francamente azzardato...piuttosto una pezza per di piu' venduta a condizioni usurarie.
La stessa cosa era successa con Thornburg Mortgage, salvata con la sottoscrizione di un nuovo bond al 18% ....affondata comunque pochi mesi piu' tardi :specchio:
Infatti su onvista i bond CIT sono tutti in calo. Il motivo potrebbe essere che questa nuova linea di credito si e' accaparrata delle garanzie, riducendo ulteriormente il recovery atteso per i bond unsecured.
Poi ovviamente nulla esclude che se i debitori di CIT riprendono a pagare regolarmente la CIT possa salvarsi e i bond correre felici verso quota 100... ma personalmente suggerirei prudenza :rolleyes:
 
definirlo un Turning Point in the Financial Crisis mi sembra francamente azzardato...piuttosto una pezza per di piu' venduta a condizioni usurarie.
La stessa cosa era successa con Thornburg Mortgage, salvata con la sottoscrizione di un nuovo bond al 18% ....affondata comunque pochi mesi piu' tardi :specchio:
Infatti su onvista i bond CIT sono tutti in calo. Il motivo potrebbe essere che questa nuova linea di credito si e' accaparrata delle garanzie, riducendo ulteriormente il recovery atteso per i bond unsecured.
Poi ovviamente nulla esclude che se i debitori di CIT riprendono a pagare regolarmente la CIT possa salvarsi e i bond correre felici verso quota 100... ma personalmente suggerirei prudenza :rolleyes:

in effetti all'aspetto dell'accaparramento di garanzie "buone" da parte dei nuovi sottoscrittori avevo guardato anch'io... è un po' come nel caso GM, c'era la ola quando lo Stato concedeva un credito privilegiato, mentre in realtà restava sempre meno per i bondholder... :cool:

una opinione più vicina alla tua visione:

Sunday night edition of America's favorite game: kick the can down the street, better known as "someone else's problem." From the WSJ:
The final term sheet still needs to be reviewed by the various financial and legal advisers, said the people familiar with the matter. And there is the chance that a final deal could falter over last-minute negotiations.
Under the proposal, CIT would likely pay interest rates 10 percentage points above the London interbank offered rate, said these people. (As of Friday, three-month Libor stood around 0.5%.) CIT has also agreed to pledge some of its highest-quality loans as collateral on the $3 billion package.
The new loan could act like a "bridge" to a series of debt-exchange offers that CIT would launch in order to get bondholders to swap some of their bonds for equity in the company or for new debt that matures later.
J.P. Morgan (JPM) would have considered lending if CIT were first to seek bankruptcy protection, but the bank "couldn't get comfortable with a deal outside (bankruptcy) court," said one person familiar with the matter.
CIT's advisers, which includes Evercore Partners, then launched talks with its bondholders, led by investment firm Centerbridge.
You mean after Dana and Extended Stay Centerbridge is still around? And now CIT? Did these guys just buy whatever bonds Goldman (GS) was a size seller in?
Also from Reuters:
The $3 billion rescue financing plan will be backed by remaining unsecuritized assets which likely exceed $10 billion, another source familiar with the matter said.

"The $3 billion is new money but securitized by all the remaining unsecuritized assets which probably exceed $10 billion," that source said.
So i) bondholders are screwed either way, ii) the company will pay 10%+ on the bridge instead of paying 3.5% on a DIP, iii) the stock will pop Monday only to crash to zero ala GM soon enough, iv) Peek will cash out, and v) in 6 months when chapter 11 is inevitable, the company will suddenly become Too Big To Fail and taxpayers will be on the hook after the bulk of any salvagable value will have been leaked away.


http://seekingalpha.com/article/149819-cit-s-5-step-road-to-too-big-to-fail
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto