S&P 500 Stime sull'eventuale impatto della nuova tassa per le banche USA

[gipa69]

Citigroup ha effettuato una iniziale stima sull'impatto della tassa sugli utili stimati per il 2012(forse un po troppo ottimistici) sia calcolando la tassa pro quota o in percentuale sulle liabilities sulle principali banche USA o sulle controllate USA di banche mondiali.

 

[Grecale]

Grazie Gipa sempre puntuale........

Avevo cercato in rete..... ma niente di cosi esaustivo

saluti

 

[gipa69]

Grazie Gipa sempre puntuale........

Avevo cercato in rete..... ma niente di cosi esaustivo

saluti

Ciao

 

[paologorgo]

Grazie Gipa sempre puntuale........

Avevo cercato in rete..... ma niente di cosi esaustivo

saluti

Ciao Luciano, ed un grazie a Gipa.

Comunque non chiamatela tassa...

A Tax by Any Other Name

By CATHERINE RAMPELL The Obama administration today released details of its plan to collect a new bank tax.
But heavens, don’t call it that; it’s the “financial crisis responsibility fee,” not the “financial crisis responsibility tax.”
This labeling choice was probably a good idea: The term “tax” seems to be a dirty word, according to a new study from three Columbia psychologists.
Bradford Plumer at The New Republic summarizes the research here:

Test subjects were broken up into two groups, and each group was allowed to pick between pricier and cheaper versions of various items like airline tickets. Group A was told that the more expensive items included the price of a “carbon tax,” whose proceeds would go toward clean-energy development. Group B was told that the costlier items included the price of a “carbon offset,” whose proceeds would go toward clean-energy development. Exact same policy, just different names for each.
You can guess what happened next. In the “offset” group, Democrats, Republicans and independents all flocked toward the pricier item. They were perfectly happy to pay an extra surcharge to fund CO2 reduction — even Republicans gushed about the benefits of doing so. Not only that, but most of the group supported making the surcharge mandatory. In the “tax” group, however, Democrats were the only ones willing to pay for the costlier item. Republicans in this group were much more inclined to grumble about how much more expensive the tax made things. Labels really do matter.
​

I wonder what would have happened if a third group had been given the option of a “carbon fee” — and how things would have looked if the tax-offset-fee had been imposed upon an outside group of much-reviled bankers, rather than the study participants themselves.
My sense is that “tax” conjures up images big, ravenous governments sucking the little guy dry; “offset” connotes restoring things to their natural balance; and “fee,” like “fine,” sounds somehow punitive or compensatory, a punishment for wrongdoing or a bill for services rendered.



A Tax by Any Other Name - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[paologorgo]

By James Kwak

I’m in favor of the bank tax; what’s not to like about extracting $117 billion from large banks to pay for the net costs of TARP? But it’s by no means enough.
Simon covered the main points earlier this morning, so I’ll just add three comments.
1. Why $117 billion? Because that’s the current projected cost of TARP. But everyone realizes that TARP was only a small part of the government response to the financial crisis, and the main budgetary impact of the crisis is not TARP, but the collapse in tax revenues that created our current and projected deficits. So why not raise a lot more?
2. The tax isn’t going to prevent a future financial crisis. And it isn’t going to hurt any bankers, at least not very much. Basically it will get passed on to customers, and shareholders will take a small hit. The best thing about the tax is that it helps level the playing field between large and small banks. From Q4 2008 through Q2 2009, large banks had a funding cost that was 78 basis points lower than that of small banks, up 49 basis points from 2000-2007. Closing that gap could lead some of those customers, faced with lower interest payments on deposits or higher fees, to take their money elsewhere. (Of course, they are already getting lower interest and paying higher fees, so there may not be much of an effect.)
But the tax isn’t nearly big enough! It’s being calculated as 15 basis points of uninsured liabilities, calculated as assets minus Tier 1 capital minus insured deposits. 15 basis points is a lot less than 78 basis points. And if the FDIC cost of funds data are based on all liabilities (not just uninsured liabilities),* then charging 15 basis points on uninsured liabilities only increases the overall cost of funds by about 7 basis points (at least in the administration’s example). This doesn’t come close to compensating for the TBTF subsidy.
The big banks will fight this, of course; they will claim that it simply increases the costs of doing business in America (although most individuals or firms can avoid those costs simply by switching banks. From a PR perspective, they would probably be better off smiling and handing over the money; if all they have to fear is a tax of 6 bp on total assets (again, in the administration’s example), then they really have nothing to fear.
3. Because it’s a flat tax with a cliff at $50 billion in assets, it isn’t going to provide an incentive for banks themselves to get smaller; Bank of America is not going to break itself into 45 pieces to avoid a 6 bp asset tax. If the tax had been graduated (bigger banks pay a higher percentage), then it might have had some small effect, although again the tax is probably way too small.

* I couldn’t tell in the fifteen minutes I spent on the FDIC web site–as I’ve often noted, what an awful web site! The Federal Reserve wins that contest hands down.

3 More Thoughts on the Bank Tax -- Seeking Alpha

 

[gipa69]

Stima del fees per le banche dal creditsuisse...