Vet
Forumer storico
gia'......anche se ritengo che niente sia a gratis....o in regalo
Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate Tutto quello che avreste sempre voluto sapere sulle obbligazioni perpetue... - Cap. 3 (2 lettori)
- Creatore Discussione Joe Silver
- Data di Inizio
gia'......anche se ritengo che niente sia a gratis....o in regalo
Fabrib
Forumer storico
Moody's: partecipazione ad Atlante negativa per il credito di Unicredit
di Francesca Gerosa
di Francesca Gerosa
- La partecipazione al fondo Atlante è negativa per il merito di credito degli istituti, soprattutto per Unicredit
. L'allarme arriva da Moody's che nel credit outlook pubblicato oggi ricorda che Unicredit
e Intesa Sanpaolo
sono i due istituti italiani che daranno il maggior contributo al fondo con circa 1 miliardo di euro ciascuno.
Il fondo servirà a sottoscrivere gli aumenti di capitale di banche che sono a rischio di risoluzione e ad acquistare quei crediti deteriorati che non hanno mercato. Tant'è che Atlante prenderà il posto di Unicreditnel garantire l'aumento di capitale della Banca popolare di Vicenza per 1,5 miliardi di euro.
Tuttavia per l'agenzia di rating, anche se questo ridurrà l'esposizione di Unicreditad Atlante, il suo investimento nel fondo è negativo in quanto le implicazioni a livello creditizio sono più significative poiché la banca ha un minor buffer di capitale rispetto alle altre banche che vi partecipano.
Non solo. In attesa che Atlante riceva il via libera della Banca centrale europea, Moody's avverte che la Bce potrebbe richiedere un aumento dei requisiti alle banche. E il coefficiente patrimoniale dell'istituto di Piazza Gae Aulenti, rispetto ai minimi regolamentari, è particolarmente modesto: Cet 1 ratio al 10,73% contro il 10% richiesto dalla Bce.
Se quindi la quota di Unicreditnel fondo Atlante fosse dedotta dal suo patrimonio di vigilanza, Unicredit
avrebbe un buffer di capitale più modesto rispetto ai requisiti prudenziali e i sottoscrittori delle obbligazioni additional Tier 1 potrebbero restare senza cedola. L'investimento in Atlante rappresenta lo 0,26% degli asset ponderati per il rischio diUnicredit
.
Invece Intesa Sanpaoloha un Cet 1 del 13% contro il 9,5% chiesto dalla Bce e l'investimento in Atlante rappresenta lo 0,35% degli asset ponderati per il rischio della banca. Alla fine per Moody's i due istituti che trarranno il maggior vantaggio dal fondo Atlante sonoMps
e Carige
, anche alla luce del minor contributo al fondo: 50 milioni di euro perMps
e 20 milioni per Carige
.
MATHEUS
Nuovo forumer
-CoCos can work, but the fix will be painful
25/04/2016 13:16 RSF
(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
By Neil Unmack
LONDON, April 25 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Bank hybrid debt can work, but the fix it requires will be painful. The European Central Bankis having second thoughts about banks issuing securities that can be turned into equity or stripped of their coupons in a crisis, according to reports. Yet better than banning them would be for investors to price them properly. They may need to seereal losses first.
It's no surprise that the ECB has doubts over additional Tier 1 securities, known as contingent capital or CoCos for short. Banks have issued nearly 100 billion euros of these bonds. Yet concerns over Deutsche Bank's ability topay coupons in February turned into misplaced panic over the bank's health.
The case for these quirky securities remains: European banks need capital, and CoCos are cheaper for their issuers than equity. Still, the question facing regulators iswhether CoCos are a reliable form of capital.
Deutsche has already given its answer. Its co-Chief Executive John Cryan thinks CoCos are a "bad product" because they cost a lot to issue, but absorb small amounts of losses. And investors don'tunderstand them: they think such hybrids are safer than they are, creating panic when banks get close to the level at which coupons are cancelled - known as the maximum distributable amount (MDA).
But CoCos could be rehabilitated, especially ifregulators made rules simpler and standardised, so that risks could be better understood. A big part of the panic this year was caused by uncertainty over accounting and capital rules. Giving banks greater discretion to keep paying coupons in case ofa small loss would also help.
Investors are in any case doing a better job of pricing hybrids than they were. The spread, for example between the yields of UniCredit (UCG.MI)and Societe Generale's (GLE.EQ) CoCos is now 3 percent, versus 0.5percent points in July last year. CreditSights reckons the Italian bank's "cushion" before coupons are cancelled is just 2.3 billion euros, less than half French bank's 5.9 billion euros.
What investors really need to see is a coupon suspension. That would show that coupons can be cut off without triggering panic, and provide clarity over how severe losses are in such a situation. While it may lead to a smaller market, it should be a more rational one too.
CONTEXT NEWS
- TheEuropean Central Bank is having "second thoughts" about whether banks should issue some kinds of hybrid securities, the Financial Times reported on April 24.
- Additional Tier 1 securities, also known as contingent capital or CoCos, are a form of hybrid debt that allows coupon payments to be cancelled, and principal to be written down or converted to equity, upon certain triggers linked to a bank's solvency.
- Discussions between the ECB and Deutsche Bank resulted in the German bank"scrapping its earlier plans to issue more CoCos", the FT reported.
- Deutsche Bank co-Chief Executive John Cryan said on March 16 that such hybrid securities were a "bad product" that were "too prone to be mis-sold."
25/04/2016 13:16 RSF
(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
By Neil Unmack
LONDON, April 25 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Bank hybrid debt can work, but the fix it requires will be painful. The European Central Bankis having second thoughts about banks issuing securities that can be turned into equity or stripped of their coupons in a crisis, according to reports. Yet better than banning them would be for investors to price them properly. They may need to seereal losses first.
It's no surprise that the ECB has doubts over additional Tier 1 securities, known as contingent capital or CoCos for short. Banks have issued nearly 100 billion euros of these bonds. Yet concerns over Deutsche Bank's ability topay coupons in February turned into misplaced panic over the bank's health.
The case for these quirky securities remains: European banks need capital, and CoCos are cheaper for their issuers than equity. Still, the question facing regulators iswhether CoCos are a reliable form of capital.
Deutsche has already given its answer. Its co-Chief Executive John Cryan thinks CoCos are a "bad product" because they cost a lot to issue, but absorb small amounts of losses. And investors don'tunderstand them: they think such hybrids are safer than they are, creating panic when banks get close to the level at which coupons are cancelled - known as the maximum distributable amount (MDA).
But CoCos could be rehabilitated, especially ifregulators made rules simpler and standardised, so that risks could be better understood. A big part of the panic this year was caused by uncertainty over accounting and capital rules. Giving banks greater discretion to keep paying coupons in case ofa small loss would also help.
Investors are in any case doing a better job of pricing hybrids than they were. The spread, for example between the yields of UniCredit (UCG.MI)and Societe Generale's (GLE.EQ) CoCos is now 3 percent, versus 0.5percent points in July last year. CreditSights reckons the Italian bank's "cushion" before coupons are cancelled is just 2.3 billion euros, less than half French bank's 5.9 billion euros.
What investors really need to see is a coupon suspension. That would show that coupons can be cut off without triggering panic, and provide clarity over how severe losses are in such a situation. While it may lead to a smaller market, it should be a more rational one too.
CONTEXT NEWS
- TheEuropean Central Bank is having "second thoughts" about whether banks should issue some kinds of hybrid securities, the Financial Times reported on April 24.
- Additional Tier 1 securities, also known as contingent capital or CoCos, are a form of hybrid debt that allows coupon payments to be cancelled, and principal to be written down or converted to equity, upon certain triggers linked to a bank's solvency.
- Discussions between the ECB and Deutsche Bank resulted in the German bank"scrapping its earlier plans to issue more CoCos", the FT reported.
- Deutsche Bank co-Chief Executive John Cryan said on March 16 that such hybrid securities were a "bad product" that were "too prone to be mis-sold."
Ultima modifica:
albicocco
Forumer storico
Moody's: partecipazione ad Atlante negativa per il credito di Unicredit
di Francesca Gerosa
Un'informazione pf: ma è possibile che gli azionisti di Unicredito ricevano un dividendo, mentre i detentori di bond AT1 restino senza cedola? gm
Se quindi la quota di Unicreditnel fondo Atlante fosse dedotta dal suo patrimonio di vigilanza, Unicreditavrebbe un buffer di capitale più modesto rispetto ai requisiti prudenziali e i sottoscrittori delle obbligazioni additional Tier 1 potrebbero restare senza cedola. L'investimento in Atlante rappresenta lo 0,26% degli asset ponderati per il rischio diUnicredit.
Fabrib
Forumer storico
Grazie Fabrizio, gentilissimo.
Large Italian Banks’ Stake in Rescue Fund Is Credit Negative
Last Monday through Wednesday, several Italian banks announced that they would support Atlante (unrated), a bank rescue fund that will provide equity to distressed banks and buy junior notes of securitised bad loans that banks issue as part of Italy’s bad-bank framework. UniCredit SpA (Baa1/Baa1 stable, ba11 ) and Intesa Sanpaolo Spa (A3/Baa1 stable, baa3), which the week before had confirmed their participation in Atlante, disclosed that they would each take a €1 billion stake in the fund, the largest among the participating banks. Buying equity in Atlante is credit negative for the investing banks because the fund is subscribing to the shares of banks that are at risk of resolution, and to the junior notes of securitised bad loans for which there is no market. Atlante will guarantee a €1.5 billion capital increase by Banca Popolare di Vicenza (unrated), which had been previously guaranteed by UniCredit alone. This will reduce UniCredit’s exposure to Atlante, yet the bank’s investment in Atlante remains negative because the credit implications of UniCredit’s stake in Atlante are more significant since the bank has a smaller capital buffer than the other banks investing in Atlante. The regulatory treatment of banks’ equity investments in Atlante awaits a decision by the European Central Bank (ECB) and local authorities. At issue is whether the amount invested will have to be deducted from a bank’s capital calculation. Atlante will initially invest in the shares of two banks, and usually a bank’s equity investment in another bank must be deducted from its regulatory capital calculation. Even if European authorities do not require the deduction, we believe that the ECB could still increase banks’ prudential requirements. As the exhibit below shows, if UniCredit’s stake in Atlante were to be deducted from regulatory capital, it would leave UniCredit with a smaller capital buffer in excess of its prudential capital requirement. Such a scenario would be credit negative for investors in UniCredit’s additional Tier 1 instruments because they would be at risk of a coupon suspension if capital falls below requirements under the European Banking Authority’s supervisory review and evaluation process.
Last Monday through Wednesday, several Italian banks announced that they would support Atlante (unrated), a bank rescue fund that will provide equity to distressed banks and buy junior notes of securitised bad loans that banks issue as part of Italy’s bad-bank framework. UniCredit SpA (Baa1/Baa1 stable, ba11 ) and Intesa Sanpaolo Spa (A3/Baa1 stable, baa3), which the week before had confirmed their participation in Atlante, disclosed that they would each take a €1 billion stake in the fund, the largest among the participating banks. Buying equity in Atlante is credit negative for the investing banks because the fund is subscribing to the shares of banks that are at risk of resolution, and to the junior notes of securitised bad loans for which there is no market. Atlante will guarantee a €1.5 billion capital increase by Banca Popolare di Vicenza (unrated), which had been previously guaranteed by UniCredit alone. This will reduce UniCredit’s exposure to Atlante, yet the bank’s investment in Atlante remains negative because the credit implications of UniCredit’s stake in Atlante are more significant since the bank has a smaller capital buffer than the other banks investing in Atlante. The regulatory treatment of banks’ equity investments in Atlante awaits a decision by the European Central Bank (ECB) and local authorities. At issue is whether the amount invested will have to be deducted from a bank’s capital calculation. Atlante will initially invest in the shares of two banks, and usually a bank’s equity investment in another bank must be deducted from its regulatory capital calculation. Even if European authorities do not require the deduction, we believe that the ECB could still increase banks’ prudential requirements. As the exhibit below shows, if UniCredit’s stake in Atlante were to be deducted from regulatory capital, it would leave UniCredit with a smaller capital buffer in excess of its prudential capital requirement. Such a scenario would be credit negative for investors in UniCredit’s additional Tier 1 instruments because they would be at risk of a coupon suspension if capital falls below requirements under the European Banking Authority’s supervisory review and evaluation process.
Ventodivino
מגן ולא יראה
Venduto VEB 2025 104,25 comprato Groupama T2 93,00
Volpe1975
Nuovo forumer
Ciao darkog !quale Popular hai preso?io stavo seguendo at 1 unicredit sia in usd 8% che eur 6.75 ma dopo aver letto moody s ,beh potrebbero calare un po' anche se oggi operativo in usd 84/85 in realtà non si è mosso proprio,ci potrebbero speculare sopra per la questione atlante !cosa ne pensi?