Obbligazioni bancarie MONITOR Principali banche mondiali (2 lettori)

[Imark]

lettura molto interessante, grazie
una cosa non ho capito però

cosa si intende , in standard ammerigano,
"very risky capital market activities" ?

tra il dire e il fare...

manderanno a GM la fattura per il rating di Ford e viceversa ??


come dire.. avete finito di fare il qua@@o che vi pare con i soldi dei contribuenti..

Per le agenzie di rating, spero troveranno la maniera di fare pagare la fee ai bondholders, con le agenzie che avranno l'obbligo di monitorare i bilanci degli emittenti per conto dei detentori del debito...

Sul resto, vedrai che le letture non mancheranno...

 

[Mr.Noob]

devo dire che questo non è un thread da leggere prima di andare a dormire.
E' peggio di un film horror
Visto che sono un inguaribile ottimista linko un articolo generalizzato di reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE50F6RT20090116

 

[Imark]

devo dire che questo non è un thread da leggere prima di andare a dormire.
E' peggio di un film horror
Visto che sono un inguaribile ottimista linko un articolo generalizzato di reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE50F6RT20090116

Soprattutto quando escono le trimestrali...

 

[Imark]

Intanto vengono fuori alcuni retroscena sul salvataggio di BofA-Merrill (e sinceramente mi resta da vedere se le perdite massive di Merrill verranno da esposizioni originariamente fuori bilancio oppure saranno da ricondurre alla svalutazione di quali ulteriori asset, dopo i massicci writedowns già varati a suo tempo da Thain, prima della fusione BofA-Merrill, al di là delle indicazioni di stampa per cui si stratterebbe del portafoglio dei crediti nel segmento del real estate e del corporate piuttosto che dei soliti ABS, però già pesantemente svalutati a suo tempo, a quanto mi è dato ramemntare)

Li ripropongo nella versione del Wall Street Journal online di oggi, assai più veritiera, IMHO, della versione di BofA secondo la quale gravi perdite si sarebbero verificate nel mese di dicembre 2008, a fusione già votata, per effetto dell'andamento dei mercati.

In sostanza, accortosi di aver pagato troppo Merrill a suo tempo, il CEO di BofA avrebbe cercato una revisione dell'accordo quantomeno per ridurre il prezzo di acquisto, essendo in ciò bloccato dalla FED e dal Governo USA, intenti ad evitare ogni ritardo nel completamento del deal in quanto temevano che altrimenti Merrill non si sarebbe salvata.

Mugging Bank of America

No good financial deed goes unpunished.

So much for being a good corporate citizen. Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis earned kudos last year for stepping into the breach when the mortgage market and Wall Street cratered. BofA's purchase of Countrywide Financial and its September agreement to buy Merrill Lynch offered a welcome dose of optimism and private capital amid the panic.

In December, Mr. Lewis realized that he had been too optimistic. And when he considered breaking off the Merrill engagement, Washington arranged a shotgun wedding. After BofA shareholders approved the Merrill purchase on December 5, Mr. Lewis saw Merrill's assets plunge in value and began to explore a way out. At least he wanted a better price given the erosion in Merrill's real estate and corporate portfolio.

Mr. Lewis's effort to protect his common shareholders was vetoed by his most important shareholder, the feds. In October the U.S. Treasury had insisted on investing $15 billion in his bank. Come December, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told him that Merrill had to be saved, and that BofA had to be the savior. Mr. Lewis said yesterday that the government was "firmly of the view" that canceling or delaying the Merrill deal might result in "serious systemic harm."

In other words, the feds believe that the way to calm financial markets is to force the nation's largest, and a heretofore healthy, bank to swallow toxic assets it didn't want. In return, yesterday the Treasury agreed to invest $20 billion in BofA, for which the government will receive preferred shares paying 8%. Treasury, the FDIC and the Fed will also partially insure $118 billion in troubled assets -- mostly Merrill's. In return for this downside protection, BofA will have to render unto Caesar another $4 billion of preferred stock plus warrants.

These preferreds will also pay 8%, but private shareholders are not so fortunate. The agreement limits quarterly common stock dividends to a penny a share. The Charlotte bank will also have to accept new executive compensation limits. And the bank will need to submit for government approval a plan to modify troubled mortgages.

Mr. Lewis doesn't seem thrilled that the government has a larger piece of his business. When asked yesterday when the bank might escape federal ownership, he replied, "I wish I knew," and then added, "clearly as soon as possible." Bank of America investors, who've taken a beating since the Journal reported on Merrill's latest troubles and the government "rescue," would surely agree. BofA shares fell 14% yesterday. If the feds really want to attract private capital to the banking system, this isn't the way to do it.

 

[paologorgo]

Mr. Lewis's effort to protect his common shareholders was vetoed by his most important shareholder, the feds. In October the U.S. Treasury had insisted on investing $15 billion in his bank. Come December, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told him that Merrill had to be saved, and that BofA had to be the savior. Mr. Lewis said yesterday that the government was "firmly of the view" that canceling or delaying the Merrill deal might result in "serious systemic harm."

...

Mr. Lewis doesn't seem thrilled that the government has a larger piece of his business. When asked yesterday when the bank might escape federal ownership, he replied, "I wish I knew," and then added, "clearly as soon as possible." Bank of America investors, who've taken a beating since the Journal reported on Merrill's latest troubles and the government "rescue," would surely agree. BofA shares fell 14% yesterday. If the feds really want to attract private capital to the banking system, this isn't the way to do it.

conosco uno che è sicuro che l'intervento statale gli salverà sempre il fondoschiena, come in Gmac, magari stavolta si è sbagliato...

As the financial system continues to crash under the weight of falling asset values and shrinking availability of capital outside of government investments and guarantees, it is rapidly becoming clear that the emperor has no clothes. When the rumors hit the tape on Wednesday night that Bank of America (BAC) had been secretly negotiating with the government since mid-December to keep its Merrill, Lynch (MER) deal alive, the failure of the stock to bounce and its subsequent weakness from early January became quite explicable.
What's not as easily understood is why shareholders didn't learn of this (they had voted, but the deal hadn't closed), unless one understands that the interests of the shareholders in large banks are subordinate to the "national interest". According to a NY Times report, CEO Ken Lewis stated during the conference call yesterday (no transcript on Seeking Alpha yet) “I do think we were doing the right thing for the country.” We heard similar type of discussion when Treasury Secretary Paulson "forced" TARP funds on some banks as well as in some of the previous shotgun merger discussions as well.
The Philadelphia Stock Exchange Banking Index (BKX) has already declined 29% in just 11 trading days of 2009 (after falling in each of the prior three months a combined 35%). Investors in banks and other companies on the receiving end of government assistance need to be aware that these companies don't necessarily have the interests of the equity investor at the top of their list of priorities.
Investors in general need to understand how this deference to the "greater good" indicates the true magnitude of this crisis. While stocks have actually rebounded somewhat since this revelation, I believe that options expiration, rotation into other sectors and some expectation of a potential post-inauguration bounce are at play.
The conclusion I draw is that the need for secrecy of the negotations, the abrogation of shareholder rights, the massive "investment" required by the government and yet still vast damage to the stock price suggest that investors don't like to invest when the game is rigged.

 

[paologorgo]

German banks face billions more in losses



BERLIN (AFP) — German banks face further losses running into the billions of euros as only a quarter of their toxic assets have been written off, a report said Saturday.
Germany's respected Der Spiegel weekly based its report on a survey of 20 banking institutions carried out by Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, and the financial market watchdog Bafin.
The survey revealed that German banks possess 300 billion euros (400 billion dollars) in toxic assets and have so far only written off the most rotten, which represent a quarter of the total, the report said.
"The remainder is still registered in accounts at illusory values," said Der Spiegel.
According to the magazine, government economic experts believe the remaining write-downs are considerable and could lead to "very heavy new losses for the banks".
The finance ministry estimates the volume of assets at risk in the German banking sector to be in the region of one trillion euros, Der Spiegel said.
"In the worst case scenario, it could run to more than double the federal debt," an aide to Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck told the magazine on condition of anonymity.
Several leading bankers have called for the creation of a "bad bank" as a way out of the credit crunch.
By allowing banks to dump bad assets and troubled loans, the proposed bank would help restore confidence between banks that was shattered by the financial crisis, leading to a squeeze on interbank lending and tighter credit for the economy at large.
But the Der Spiegel report said Steinbrueck believed the size of the assets at risk meant it would be irresponsible to create such an institution.
Germany's ruling left-right coalition has noted that 400 billion euros in loan guarantees for the banking sector in the so-called Soffin fund were designed with the same aim in mind, to jumpstart lending between banks.
Leading bankers say those guarantees distort competition in favour of banks that have state-backed guarantees however, and make conditions harder for those that have not needed the aid.

 

[Broker88]

conosco uno che è sicuro che l'intervento statale gli salverà sempre il fondoschiena, come in Gmac, magari stavolta si è sbagliato...

As the financial system continues to crash under the weight of falling asset values and shrinking availability of capital outside of government investments and guarantees, it is rapidly becoming clear that the emperor has no clothes. When the rumors hit the tape on Wednesday night that Bank of America (BAC) had been secretly negotiating with the government since mid-December to keep its Merrill, Lynch (MER) deal alive, the failure of the stock to bounce and its subsequent weakness from early January became quite explicable.
What's not as easily understood is why shareholders didn't learn of this (they had voted, but the deal hadn't closed), unless one understands that the interests of the shareholders in large banks are subordinate to the "national interest". According to a NY Times report, CEO Ken Lewis stated during the conference call yesterday (no transcript on Seeking Alpha yet) “I do think we were doing the right thing for the country.” We heard similar type of discussion when Treasury Secretary Paulson "forced" TARP funds on some banks as well as in some of the previous shotgun merger discussions as well.
The Philadelphia Stock Exchange Banking Index (BKX) has already declined 29% in just 11 trading days of 2009 (after falling in each of the prior three months a combined 35%). Investors in banks and other companies on the receiving end of government assistance need to be aware that these companies don't necessarily have the interests of the equity investor at the top of their list of priorities.
Investors in general need to understand how this deference to the "greater good" indicates the true magnitude of this crisis. While stocks have actually rebounded somewhat since this revelation, I believe that options expiration, rotation into other sectors and some expectation of a potential post-inauguration bounce are at play.
The conclusion I draw is that the need for secrecy of the negotations, the abrogation of shareholder rights, the massive "investment" required by the government and yet still vast damage to the stock price suggest that investors don't like to invest when the game is rigged.

Siamo alla frutta

 

[triale]

ciao ,visto tremonti da fazio? concordo con te...

 

[samantaao]

sto via 3 gg e ne succedono di tutti i colori?
qualcuno riesce a farmi un riassuntino di 2 righe veloce veloce tipo (andando al sodo) le nostre obbligazioni sono andate in default o sono più sicure?
ho sentito parlare di city e boa, magari ce ne sono altre...

 

[c0ltran3]

RBS May Report 28 Billion-Pound Loss as Credit Crisis Deepens (Bloomberg)

By Jon Menon
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Britain’s biggest government-controlled bank, said it may post a loss of as much as 28 billion pounds ($41 billion) as the credit crisis worsens.
RBS may post a full-year loss before exceptional goodwill impairments of as much as 8 billion pounds, the Edinburgh-based bank said in a statement today. In addition, the bank may write down the value of past acquisitions by as much as 20 billion pounds, the lender added.
“The dislocation of credit markets and the global economic downturn continue to hit RBS hard,” Chief Executive Officer Stephen Hester said in the statement. “Significant uncertainties and risks inevitably remain.”
RBS issued its statement on the same day that the Bank of England said it would set up a facility to buy as much as 50 billion pounds of private-sector assets. The central bank will also extend its discount lending facility to help banks access liquidity.
Royal Bank of Scotland plans to raise 5 billion pounds from investors to replace the U.K. Treasury’s preference shares, which carry a dividend. RBS shareholders will be offered shares for 31.75 pence apiece, the bank said. If shareholders fail to take up their rights, the government’s stake in the bank will increase to 70 percent from 58 percent.