Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate Tutto quello che avreste sempre voluto sapere sulle obbligazioni perpetue... - Cap. 2 (10 lettori)

[oldmouseit]

C'è l'ha eccome (meno esplicita della 059). E ti dirò di più: un anno fa la interpretavo in maniera più benevola. Oggi credo che se mai dovesse verificarsi il Capital Deficiency Event, Bankitalia la farà applicare...


7. LOSS ABSORPTION
To the extent that the Guarantor at any time suffers losses (also considering profits and losses
relating to previous financial years) which would result in a Capital Deficiency Event, the obligations of
the Issuer relating to the principal amount of the Notes will be suspended to the extent necessary to
enable the Guarantor to continue to carry on its activities in accordance with applicable regulatory
requirements. In any such case, but always subject to the provisions set out in Condition 6.2 (Interest
suspension – Mandatory suspension of interest), interest will continue to accrue on the nominal
amount of the Notes. The obligations of the Issuer to make payments in respect of principal amount of
the Notes will be reinstated (in priority to any Junior Securities and on a pari passu basis with any
Parity Securities), as if such obligations of the Issuer had not been so suspended:
(a) in whole, in the event of winding up, dissolution, liquidation or bankruptcy of the Guarantor
and with effect immediately prior to the commencement of such winding up, dissolution,
liquidation or bankruptcy; and
(b) in whole, in the event of early redemption of the Notes pursuant to Conditions 8(b)
(Redemption and Purchase – Redemption at the option of the Issuer), 8(c) (Redemption and
Purchase – Redemption due to a Regulatory Event), 8(d) (Redemption and Purchase –
Redemption due to a Tax Deductibility Event) or 8(e) (Redemption due to an Additional
Amount Event); and
(c) in whole or in part, from time to time, to the extent that the Capital Deficiency Event is no
longer continuing.
The Issuer shall forthwith give notice of any such suspension and/or reinstatement to the Noteholders
in accordance with Condition 17 (Notices) below and such notice shall include a confirmation of the
Issuer’s entitlement to such suspension and/or reinstatement, together with details of the amounts to
be so suspended and/or reinstated.

io capisco poco l'inglese, ma mi pare parli di cedola, non di capitale.

 

[Topgun1976]

qualcuno che ha aderito allo scambio ha avuto i nuovi bond di ing127?
io ho IW e nada

Si parlava di averli il 23,con Iw andrà sicuramente dopo il 26

Ps.Carlo non stò seguendo Lt2 al Momento

Stò tradando Dexia Giornalmente,e P che sono fermine (Ucg e Sns)

 

[Topgun1976]

io capisco poco l'inglese, ma mi pare parli di cedola, non di capitale.

Old da precedenti esperienze (Irlandesi e Non ) se una Banca arriva a livelli di insolvenza,non fà differenza se ci sono Loss Abs o No
Quindi non starei a controllare clausola x clausola,anche perchè se Uc arriva a quei livelli vuol dire che Il Paese è messo peggio della Grecia.
Detto questo sono daccordo con te che è meglio la 243,mi sembra più liquida e più facilmente controllabile.

 

[samantaao]

Si parlava di averli il 23,con Iw andrà sicuramente dopo il 26

Ps.Carlo non stò seguendo Lt2 al Momento

Stò tradando Dexia Giornalmente,e P che sono fermine (Ucg e Sns)

grazie Top

forse nei prox gg di ferie (che oggi hanno tentato di cancellarmima che per motivi personali questa volta sono inderogabili)
avrò un po' di tempo per studiare qualche switch... nel caso ci si confronta tutti insieme
ciao!

 

[Topgun1976]

grazie Top

forse nei prox gg di ferie (che oggi hanno tentato di cancellarmima che per motivi personali questa volta sono inderogabili)
avrò un po' di tempo per studiare qualche switch... nel caso ci si confronta tutti insieme
ciao!

A disposizione

 

[Rottweiler]

Può tagliare il nominale se (da prospetto):

Loss absorption: Based on the assessment of the financial and solvency
situation of the Issuer, the Issuer may determine or the Lead
Regulator may require, in each case in its sole discretion, that
the principal amount of the Notes needs to be written down. If,
as a result of losses incurred by the Issuer on a consolidated or
non-consolidated basis, the total Risk-based Capital Ratio of
the Issuer, on a consolidated or non-consolidated basis falls
below the higher of 6 per cent. or the then minimum
requirements of the Lead Regulator specified in Bank of Italy
Regulations and the Supervisory Guidelines of the Bank of
Italy, the principal amount of the Notes will be written down
(each such event, a Write Down Event).
Any write-down of the principal amount of the Notes shall be
made pari passu and pro rata with the Issuer’s nonconsolidated
Tier 1 Capital (patrimonio di base) (as determined
in accordance with the Bank of Italy Regulations and the
Supervisory Guidelines of the Bank of Italy) but excluding any
innovative or non-innovative capital instruments treated as own
funds (Core Tier 1 Capital).
Any write-down of the principal amount of the Notes will only be
made to the extent necessary to enable the Issuer to continue
to carry on its activities in accordance with applicable regulatory
requirements. The Issuer will notify the Noteholders in
accordance with Condition 16 (Notices) within five business
days following a write-down.
In the event that other securities which would be subject to such
write-down are outstanding, such write-downs will be applied on
a pro rata basis among the Notes and such other securities.
From the date of any Write Down Event, and as long as a Write
Down Event is continuing, the Issuer will be prohibited from
paying interest on any Interest Payment Date in the event that
on such Interest Payment Date the principal amount of the
Notes has not been written up in whole pursuant to Condition 6
(Loss absorption) provided that if a Regulatory Event has
occurred and is continuing on an Interest Payment Date, the
Issuer will be required to pay interest on such date and the
interest shall accrue on the initial nominal amount of the Notes.
The principal of the Notes will be written up:
General Overview
11
(a) to the original principal amount, in the event of winding
up, dissolution, liquidation or bankruptcy (including, inter
alia, Liquidazione Coatta Amministrativa) of the Issuer
and with effect immediately prior to the commencement
of such winding up, dissolution, liquidation or bankruptcy
(including, inter alia, Liquidazione Coatta
Amministrativa); and
(b) to the maximum extent permitted (up to the original
principal amount), from time to time, pari passu and pro
rata with the Issuer’s Core Tier 1 Capital within the limits
of Available Distributable Profits, provided that the Write
Down Event has ceased and is no longer continuing.
Available Distributable Profits means net profits of the Issuer
(generated, for the avoidance of doubt, following the
occurrence of the relevant Write Down Event) that are stated as
being available for the payment of a dividend or the making of
a distribution on any share capital of the Issuer, according to the
most recent non-consolidated audited annual accounts of the
Issuer.
In the event that other securities which would be subject to such

Ciao,
devo dire che apprezzo molto il tuo entusiasmo e la tua disponibilità, anche se un osservatore frettoloso potrebbe, certamente a torto, vedere un filo di precipitazione in alcune tue prese di posizione.
Voglio allora approfittare di questa tua disponibilità per chiederti un parere su 2 questioni:
1)come interpreti il passaggio del prospetto da te citato: "Any write-down of the principal amount of the Notes shall be made pari passu and pro rata with the Issuer’s nonconsolidated Tier 1 Capital (patrimonio di base)". Ti chiedo, in altre parole, se ti sembra possibile che l'emittente possa "tagliare" il nominale della 059 lasciando immutato quello della 243.
2)cosa ne pensi di quanto Morgan Stanley ha scritto a proposito del nuovo bond di Unicredit. MS è consapevole, come deve esserlo chiunque, che il prospetto della 059 è meno favorevole di quello della 243. Il punto però è un altro, e cioè: quanto è ragionevole pensare che il peggioramento possa tradursi nella pratica in una penalizzazione della 059 rispetto alla 243? Ecco il testo MS:
"Based on the current trigger levels, the form of loss-absorbency included in this Tier 1 security will not help Unicredit to continue to operate on a going-concern basis and is therefore a relatively ineffective form of loss-absorption, in our view. Absent the regulator exercising its discretion, the write-down trigger is currently the higher of a 6% total capital ratio or minimum requirements set by the regulator.
Based on a 6% total capital ratio trigger, as Tier 1 capital forms a part of the total capital ratio, the fact that the Tier 1 securities are being written down would not help Unicredit to maintain the total capital ratio above regulatory minimums, in our view, and so this write-down language does not help Unicredit to continue to operate on a going-concern basis, from that perspective. All this does is to help to share the burden of loss across shareholders and bondholders once this level of capital has been breached – but then, this is really only a cosmetic write-down......
...........

This would be in contrast to a trigger linked to a level of core capital ratio. In this case, once a bank hits the trigger level, the fact that (non-core) Tier 1 capital is being written down effectively spares core Tier 1 (equity and retained earnings) and therefore should theoretically help a bank to continue to operate on a going-concern basis. Loss-absorbency in the Unicredit bond, set against total capital (all Tier 1 and Tier 2), and set at, again in our view, a very low trigger level, is very weak. At this level, it’s likely to only get triggered (excepting regulatory discretion) if the bank is permitted to actually get into an extremely bad state to begin with, which we think is quite unlikely for Unicredit. Note that under current Basel II rules, minimum total capital is 8%. We therefore think that the regulatory discretion here has far more bite than the 6% trigger, as in our view, regulators would be stepping in to get the bank back on its feet well before it gets close to 6%......

............
The loss-absorption language is more stringent on the new Tier 1 as it can be written down at the discretion of either the issuer or the regulator, which is not the case in the 8.125%. However, while on the face of it, the trigger in the new-style Tier 1 is harsher at 6% total capital compared to 5% in the 8.125%, both trigger levels can be adjusted by the regulator. Specifically, the new-style Tier 1 references “the higher of 6 per cent or the then minimum requirements of the Lead Regulator specified in Bank of Italy Regulations and the Supervisory Guidelines of the Bank of Italy”. The 8.125% references total capital as “determined by the Lead Regulator and communicated to the Guarantor, in either case, falls below the then minimum requirements of the Lead Regulator specified in applicable regulations (currently equal to 5% Pursuant to the Nuove Disposizioni di Vigilanza Prudenziale per le Banche, set out in the Bank of Italy’s Circolare n. 263, dated 27 December 2006, as updated on 15 January 2009 and as further amended or updated from time to time)”.
Therefore, while on the face of it, the new-style Tier 1 has harsher triggers, given the discretion, both the new and old- style Tier 1 triggers can be changed as a result of changes to minimum capital requirements by the Italian regulator, in our view"

P.S. queste considerazioni non devono in nessun modo essere interpretate come un incoraggiamento a preferire la 059......

 

[oldmouseit]

Old da precedenti esperienze (Irlandesi e Non ) se una Banca arriva a livelli di insolvenza,non fà differenza se ci sono Loss Abs o No
Quindi non starei a controllare clausola x clausola,anche perchè se Uc arriva a quei livelli vuol dire che Il Paese è messo peggio della Grecia.
Detto questo sono daccordo con te che è meglio la 243,mi sembra più liquida e più facilmente controllabile.

Certo, a me quello che non piace è che può decidere Bankitalia se tagliare il capitale, mentre la cedola decide Ucg

 

[Rottweiler]

Può tagliare il capitale, non pagare la cedola e rimborsare di meno in qualunque momento.
Ora come ora non mi pare il caso

Cosa intendi per la parte che ho grassettato? Puoi citare il prospetto?
Grazie.

 

[oldmouseit]

Ciao Rott,
non quoto tutto il tuo scritto, troppo lungo.
Il taglio del capitale del 059 è previsto dal prospetto, quello della 243 non ne parla, almeno mi sembra.Dopo chiamerò l'Investor relator dell'Ucg e chiedo delucidazioni in merito, magari in italiano riesco a capirlo.
Per quanto riguarda l'articolo di MS non lo capisco, non parlo inglese molto bene.
Io per me comprerei la 059, per il cliente devo comprare la 243.
o venduto entrambe sopra la pari, ma era un altro mercato.
A questi livelli sono rientrato,per la precisione intorno a 70 per cui perdo bene ma non mi interessa, non sono spaventato per nulla.
Mi sto invece cagando in mano-scusate il francesismo- su Monte Paschi e Bp

 

[oldmouseit]

Cosa intendi per la parte che ho grassettato? Puoi citare il prospetto?
Grazie.

Che in qualsiasi momento si verifichino le condizioni di cui sopra possono tagliare.
Dopo chiedo e faccio sapere