Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate Tutto quello che avreste sempre voluto sapere sulle obbligazioni perpetue... - Cap. 1 (7 lettori)
- Creatore Discussione negusneg
- Data di Inizio
-
- Tags
- additional tier 1 bail in basilea 3 coco bonds crd iv genussscheine grandfathering hybrid bond loss absorption lower tier 2 make whole amount matusalem bond obbligazioni irredimibili obbligazioni perpetue obbligazioni subordinate perpetual bond preference shares restricted tier 1 tier 1 upper tier 2
- Stato
maxolone
Forumer storico
HSBC OTC la offre a 63% in size di mezza cassetta...bid 61.5%
BACA è in lettera a 64 sui siti tedeschi. Possibile???
BA-CA FINANCE 04/UND. FLR (WKN A0DD4K, ISIN DE000A0DD4K8) - Profil - Aktien, Aktienkurse - ARIVA.DE
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
Sempre su Basilea III
Financials seek to soften Basel stance
By Patrick Jenkins and Brooke Masters
Published: April 11 2010 22:42 | Last updated: April 11 2010 22:42
It is a city well known for its confluence of European railway lines and three countries, and little else.
But in Basel, also home to the international standard setter for banking regulation, there will be another confluence this week, as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision gathers the banking industry’s responses to the tough new rules it proposed late last year.
Bankers say that by Friday’s deadline the committee will be inundated with protests, complaining that the timescale and content of the proposals – designed to insulate the industry from another financial crisis – could backfire, cutting bank profits to unsustainably low levels and cutting off the lifeblood of credit to the economy.
Richard Meddings, finance director at Standard Chartered, represents the views of most of his peers when he says that many of the Basel proposals, while going in the right direction, risk being excessive, especially when taken together.
“Most of us have absolutely the same interest in a more resilient global banking system,” he says. “But there is much to learn from how good banks have managed themselves rather than treating all banks as if they were the same. This approach risks losing sight of actually what went wrong.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b6fe3b0-4587-11df-9e46-00144feab49a.html#Banks’ return on equity levels would be cut by at least a half, according to many bankers and analysts, to as little as 5 per cent. They argue that the industry would find it impossible to attract new investors, in competition with more profitable sectors.
This is partly posturing – if all banks were burdened with the same additional regulatory overheads, they would simply pass them on to customers in the form of higher fees and charges. But that is where the doom-mongering about the negative impact on the broader economy comes in.
Regulators, for their part, say the banks are just whingeing and that it is essential to rewrite the rules on how much capital banks must have, how “leveraged”, or debt-financed, they should be and how much “liquidity”, or liquid funds, they should have to hold. All the same, Basel committee members recognise that the December proposals were stringent and suggest there may be room for compromise.
The banking industry is certainly hoping so. While many banks complain about aspects of the proposals, one clear axis has emerged, between French, German and Japanese institutions, concerned about several key issues.
The planned ban on most deferred tax assets – counting prior-year losses as capital on account of its potential boost to after-tax earnings – is particularly sensitive in Tokyo, where in some years they have accounted for the majority of bank capital, according to estimates.
The proposed rules on the capital treatment of subsidiaries held alongside minority investors is a big issue in France. Crédit Agricole is reckoned by analysts to be among the most at risk from the proposal, which would oblige a bank to account for 100 per cent of the capital requirements of a subsidiary, even if another shareholder holds a substantial minority stake.
The most vociferous complainants will also argue that the overall reappraisal of capital structures – designed to push banks to raise more equity, while de-emphasising the kinds of hybrid capital instruments and preference shares that were unable to bear the losses of the financial crisis – goes too far. Most banks believe that core tier one capital will in future have to comprise equity and little else.
But some, including the French, Germans and Japanese, are hoping that their versions of hybrid capital, such as French banks’ loss-bearing preference share structures, will be exempt from any crackdown. The one big question, which will not be resolved until the end of the year, is at what level Basel will pitch the new core capital ratio, compared with the current bank norm of about 8 or 9 per cent.
Regulatory experts who work with banks say the industry as a whole is united in its concerns about the liquidity proposals, which for the first time ever would set global requirements for the amount of liquid assets each bank and its subsidiaries have to have on hand.
The liquidity proposals come in two parts: one, known as the Bear Stearns rule, requires banks to have enough liquid assets on hand to survive a 30-day crisis, while the other, nicknamed the Northern Rock rule, requires banks to have stable long-term funding, favouring deposits and heavily disfavouring wholesale sources. It is the latter rule that has attracted most criticism. “It is an attempt to micro-manage banks’ asset portfolios,” complains one regulatory expert.
Many of the responses also focus on how the Basel proposals might interact with other responses to the banking crisis, such as a possible global levy on balance sheets, co-ordinated pre-planning for banks’ own collapses, and suggestions that global banks’ subsidiaries should be self-sufficient in every country.
The timescale of reform is highly contentious, with the original plan for end-2012 implementation widely criticised as potentially endangering the world’s economic recovery.
Stephen Green, chairman of HSBC, said: “There is increasingly broad consensus on two points – and not just among banks. First, no one disputes that capital and liquidity need to be strengthened, but the macro economic effect must be carefully calibrated. Second, changes should be gradually phased in over several years and must be internationally co-ordinated”.
The Basel Committee insists it is not deaf to the industry’s opposition, and that its assessment of how to proceed will be pragmatic. The danger, says the Institute for International Finance, the global bank lobby group, is that if Basel takes too draconian a line, hopes for a co-ordinated global approach to include the US could crumble. “Unless it is done in a globally co-ordinated, even playing field fashion,” says the IIF, “it is not going to work.”
Additional reporting by Michiyo Nakamoto
FT.com / Companies / Banks - Financials seek to soften Basel stance
Financials seek to soften Basel stance
By Patrick Jenkins and Brooke Masters
Published: April 11 2010 22:42 | Last updated: April 11 2010 22:42
It is a city well known for its confluence of European railway lines and three countries, and little else.
But in Basel, also home to the international standard setter for banking regulation, there will be another confluence this week, as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision gathers the banking industry’s responses to the tough new rules it proposed late last year.
Bankers say that by Friday’s deadline the committee will be inundated with protests, complaining that the timescale and content of the proposals – designed to insulate the industry from another financial crisis – could backfire, cutting bank profits to unsustainably low levels and cutting off the lifeblood of credit to the economy.
Richard Meddings, finance director at Standard Chartered, represents the views of most of his peers when he says that many of the Basel proposals, while going in the right direction, risk being excessive, especially when taken together.
“Most of us have absolutely the same interest in a more resilient global banking system,” he says. “But there is much to learn from how good banks have managed themselves rather than treating all banks as if they were the same. This approach risks losing sight of actually what went wrong.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b6fe3b0-4587-11df-9e46-00144feab49a.html#Banks’ return on equity levels would be cut by at least a half, according to many bankers and analysts, to as little as 5 per cent. They argue that the industry would find it impossible to attract new investors, in competition with more profitable sectors.
This is partly posturing – if all banks were burdened with the same additional regulatory overheads, they would simply pass them on to customers in the form of higher fees and charges. But that is where the doom-mongering about the negative impact on the broader economy comes in.
Regulators, for their part, say the banks are just whingeing and that it is essential to rewrite the rules on how much capital banks must have, how “leveraged”, or debt-financed, they should be and how much “liquidity”, or liquid funds, they should have to hold. All the same, Basel committee members recognise that the December proposals were stringent and suggest there may be room for compromise.
The banking industry is certainly hoping so. While many banks complain about aspects of the proposals, one clear axis has emerged, between French, German and Japanese institutions, concerned about several key issues.
The planned ban on most deferred tax assets – counting prior-year losses as capital on account of its potential boost to after-tax earnings – is particularly sensitive in Tokyo, where in some years they have accounted for the majority of bank capital, according to estimates.
The proposed rules on the capital treatment of subsidiaries held alongside minority investors is a big issue in France. Crédit Agricole is reckoned by analysts to be among the most at risk from the proposal, which would oblige a bank to account for 100 per cent of the capital requirements of a subsidiary, even if another shareholder holds a substantial minority stake.
The most vociferous complainants will also argue that the overall reappraisal of capital structures – designed to push banks to raise more equity, while de-emphasising the kinds of hybrid capital instruments and preference shares that were unable to bear the losses of the financial crisis – goes too far. Most banks believe that core tier one capital will in future have to comprise equity and little else.
But some, including the French, Germans and Japanese, are hoping that their versions of hybrid capital, such as French banks’ loss-bearing preference share structures, will be exempt from any crackdown. The one big question, which will not be resolved until the end of the year, is at what level Basel will pitch the new core capital ratio, compared with the current bank norm of about 8 or 9 per cent.
Regulatory experts who work with banks say the industry as a whole is united in its concerns about the liquidity proposals, which for the first time ever would set global requirements for the amount of liquid assets each bank and its subsidiaries have to have on hand.
The liquidity proposals come in two parts: one, known as the Bear Stearns rule, requires banks to have enough liquid assets on hand to survive a 30-day crisis, while the other, nicknamed the Northern Rock rule, requires banks to have stable long-term funding, favouring deposits and heavily disfavouring wholesale sources. It is the latter rule that has attracted most criticism. “It is an attempt to micro-manage banks’ asset portfolios,” complains one regulatory expert.
Many of the responses also focus on how the Basel proposals might interact with other responses to the banking crisis, such as a possible global levy on balance sheets, co-ordinated pre-planning for banks’ own collapses, and suggestions that global banks’ subsidiaries should be self-sufficient in every country.
The timescale of reform is highly contentious, with the original plan for end-2012 implementation widely criticised as potentially endangering the world’s economic recovery.
Stephen Green, chairman of HSBC, said: “There is increasingly broad consensus on two points – and not just among banks. First, no one disputes that capital and liquidity need to be strengthened, but the macro economic effect must be carefully calibrated. Second, changes should be gradually phased in over several years and must be internationally co-ordinated”.
The Basel Committee insists it is not deaf to the industry’s opposition, and that its assessment of how to proceed will be pragmatic. The danger, says the Institute for International Finance, the global bank lobby group, is that if Basel takes too draconian a line, hopes for a co-ordinated global approach to include the US could crumble. “Unless it is done in a globally co-ordinated, even playing field fashion,” says the IIF, “it is not going to work.”
Additional reporting by Michiyo Nakamoto
FT.com / Companies / Banks - Financials seek to soften Basel stance
Zorba
Bos 4 Mod
maxolone
Forumer storico
ero veramente indeciso ma alla fine mi sono convinto perché
1) costa 10% in meno
2) voglio differenziarmi sul 10Irs....sono pieno di tassi fissi con step up in floater che non ne volevo ancora un'altra...non mi interesa se performano meglio i tassi fissi adesso...gli amatori di 10Irs ci saranno sempre...
1) costa 10% in meno
2) voglio differenziarmi sul 10Irs....sono pieno di tassi fissi con step up in floater che non ne volevo ancora un'altra...non mi interesa se performano meglio i tassi fissi adesso...gli amatori di 10Irs ci saranno sempre...
Mais78
BAWAG fan club
io hsbc la vedo di mezzo punto piu' bassa
maxolone
Forumer storico
Mais78
BAWAG fan club
IW solitamente arrotonda quando chiedi il prezzo poi quando hanno l'eseguito ti dicono prezzo effettivo (che coincide sempre con BBG)
ilfolignate
Forumer storico
Ragazzi visto che ancora non sono dentro il mondo delle P, mi ci vorrà metà settimana prossima prima di "attuare" il ptf gentilmente offertomi da Zorba, vi volevo chiedere, sinteticamente cosa accadrà se verrà attuata Basilea III e sopratutto, cosa prevede Basilea III? Grazie 
- Stato