Obbligazioni perpetue e subordinate Tutto quello che avreste sempre voluto sapere sulle obbligazioni perpetue... - Cap. 3

Mio caro Marc.....il punto non è litigare o non litigare......ma è come riuscire a rappresentare le proprie convinzioni e idee...in maniera da non offendere (anche personalmente)quelle di senso contrarie o non allineate alle ns convinzioni ,

Sì, questo è il punto. Dobbiamo sempre cercare di avere un comportamento amichevole con tutti, anche con chi la pensa in modo diverso, senza per questo rinunciare ad esprimersi in modo franco (aihmè non sempre ci si riesce) :)
 
Da tempo immemorabile ho, seppellite in pf, le XS0194701487. In carico a 35, per pigrizia non ho piu´ seguito.

Quanto sotto riportato oggi significa che anche le XS0194701487 non pagheranno cedole per ancora parecchi anni?

Qualcuno ha T1 IKB in pf?

E´ il caso contatti IR? Grazie

Servicing the compensation agreements of a total amount of € 1,151.5 million and the value recovery rights of the hybrid investors means that IKB AG will probably not report any, or only minimal, profit for a long time to come, even if its results are positive. In addition, to the extent that net income can be reported in the future, the reduction of net accumulated losses means that it will not be possible to distribute a dividend to the shareholders of IKB AG.

https://www.ikb.de/GetDocument?news...7b2dd5e6ad23&filename=161125_6M_2016_17_E.pdf

risultati IKB usciti oggi
l'azione sale bene, i T1 sembrano fermi...

chi ne capisce di bilanci bancari più di me e se ha opinioni sono gradite
 
Sì, questo è il punto. Dobbiamo sempre cercare di avere un comportamento amichevole con tutti, anche con chi la pensa in modo diverso, senza per questo rinunciare ad esprimersi in modo franco (aihmè non sempre ci si riesce) :)

Per la verità a me pare che non sia in discussione la diversità di opinioni, quanto il modo nel quale sono espresse e sostenute.
Se io spendessi del tempo a raccattare qualche informazione e presentarla qui, non mi aspetterei ringraziamenti e nemmeno una particolare attenzione, però almeno di non sentirmi dire, sostanzialmente, che è tutto inutile perchè i motivi son ben altri

Personalmente ho sempre apprezzato gli OT di questa discussione, non penso che si debba sempre parlare di numeri (anche se effettivamente i numeri aiutano) però tutti dovrebbero fare mente locale sul fatto che esprimere opinioni, diciamo, radicali e soggettive può apparire una implicita critica a chi cerca di fornire informazioni oggettive.
 
Da tempo immemorabile ho, seppellite in pf, le XS0194701487. In carico a 35, per pigrizia non ho piu´ seguito.

Quanto sotto riportato oggi significa che anche le XS0194701487 non pagheranno cedole per ancora parecchi anni?

Qualcuno ha T1 IKB in pf?

E´ il caso contatti IR? Grazie

Servicing the compensation agreements of a total amount of € 1,151.5 million and the value recovery rights of the hybrid investors means that IKB AG will probably not report any, or only minimal, profit for a long time to come, even if its results are positive. In addition, to the extent that net income can be reported in the future, the reduction of net accumulated losses means that it will not be possible to distribute a dividend to the shareholders of IKB AG.

Sostanzialmente direi anche io di sì
Posso aggiungere che la frase da te indicata è presente identica in tutti i comunicati da anni, in questo si dice però che a fine anno ci sarà risultato positivo devoluto a diminuire quell'importo (credo di pochi mil)...
diciamo che se tornassero a pagare tra 10 anni, considerandola zc ha comunuqe un rendimento accettabile
Poi c'è sempre la possibilità di un'offerta di riacquisto...
 
Nel corso degli anni questa discussione è stata un riferimento importante per chiunque desiderasse investire in subordinate, soprattutto bancarie.
La sua parte più pregevole, a mio avviso, è stata quella che ha permesso di capire come funzionassero questi strumenti e di prevedere come il mercato avrebbe reagito alle numerose novità normative. A questo nocciolo vitale di informazioni se ne sono aggiunte altre pure importanti che hanno riguardato quotazioni, notizie di mercato, confronti sui disallineamenti, etc. etc.
Non è, ovviamente, mancata una certa dose di cazzeggio, ma mai a livelli esorbitanti, come invece accade altrove, dove alcuni forumers hanno totalizzato migliaia e migliaia di posts senza mai pubblicare, nemmeno per sbaglio, uno straccio di informazione. E non sono mancati nemmeno i furbetti, ma si sa che dove girano i quattrini…:squalo:

Questo è stato possibile grazie al contributo di un numero notevole di forumers, che ha messo a disposizione di tutti (inevitabilmente anche dei cosiddetti “succhiaruote”) le informazioni raccolte.

Ad essi, oltre al sito che ospita questa discussione, devono dire grazie tantissimi di coloro che hanno gonfiato il loro portafoglio in questi anni.

Da parecchio tempo, però, questa discussione ha subito una trasformazione genetica, che non mi dilungherò a descrivere, limitandomi a portare un esempio.

Mercoledì scorso la Commissione Europea ha pubblicato qualcosa che avrà un’influenza sostanziale sul settore dei subordinati. Non sono mancati i forumers che, meritoriamente, hanno pubblicato la notizia, ma quale discussione ne è seguita? In altri tempi ci sarebbe stata tutta una serie di contributi per cercare di capire e di prevedere. Qui, invece, si sono lette soprattutto lamentele nei confronti delle autorità europee. :sad:
Ecco: prima si cercava di approfondire il presente per provare a prevedere il futuro; oggi non ci si prova nemmeno, o ci si limita a sperare in qualche samaritano... Così si pongono le premesse per essere puniti (o premiati: good luck!) da un futuro che arriverà a sorpresa. :jack:Seguiranno ulteriori lamentele….:sad::sad::sad:

Potrei proseguire per un bel po’, ma mi fermo qui. In fin dei conti potrei aver sbagliato tutto e questa discussione essere più interessante oggi di ieri.

La frequento da 7 anni (la crisi del settimo anno colpisce anche qui?), e non la penso così. E quando cambia la percezione che si ha di un luogo che si frequenta, le conseguenze sono inevitabili.
Immagino capiti a tutti: quando ti trovi a tuo agio (o più prosaicamente scopri che ne trai dei vantaggi) ti presenti lì spesso. Se non provi lo stesso gusto ti regoli diversamente...
 
In our opinion the ECB will continue to drive sector spreads for the
European banking sector with the likely extension of corporate QE biasing
relative value considerations in favor of financials versus corporates. Whilst
being long IG corporate credit would have been the favored trade 2016, we
think that relative value considerations will likely result in a greater rotation
into European banks for 2017. We highlight that both HoldCo Senior and
AT1 instruments look attractively priced versus similarly rated
corporate debt. We note that despite the high degree of equity-AT1
correlation in 2016, AT1 has tended to outperform bank equities in H2’16.
In our opinion, it is more likely that bank equities outperform AT1 in 2017
as there appears to be limited downside risk given the severity of the
downgrades to 2018 consensus EPS already priced in, with valuations likely
to benefit from further potential increases in Bund yields. By contrast, we
see more limited upside for AT1 as we are at the upper end of the most
recent trading range.
 In terms of regulation, we cite clearer guidance on MREL requirements and
the prospect of non-preferred senior issuance in Q1’17 as key near-term
milestones. While we expected buffer requirements to be in line with the UK
framework, we note the event risk of MREL requirements being materially
higher, if the CBR is included in its calibration. The risk of higher absolute
requirements could be exacerbated if MREL requirements interact with
MDA risk, an outcome which would impact AT1 risk premiums. We
estimate end-point MREL requirements could be in the €400-550bn range,
with our base case being towards the lower end of the range and which is
predicated on more a more flexible approach to calibration. We anticipate
circa €20-30bn of MREL issuance in 2018, with the bulk coming from the
French banks in the form of non preferred senior.
 We materially revise down our long-term AT1 supply estimates to €180bn
from our original €250bn estimate, given that we expect supply will mostly
come from the existing issuer universe, with limited incremental issuance
from smaller debut issuers. Hence, while the AT1 market has consolidated
with circa €110bn of supply to date, the reality is that there was almost no
debut issuance in 2016, suggesting a much narrower issuer universe which
will remain centered on European national champions. While lower supply
is supportive for current valuations, we think that further upside to
valuations is contingent on a change in how extension risk is priced for the
asset class. We remain Neutral AT1, despite near-term support from
lower supply and improved regulation.
 We reiterate our Overweight on HoldCo Senior debt, where we see a
more manageable level of supply which has been further reinforced by a
more flexible timeline for compliance as per recent BoE guidance. We think
the asset class looks compelling versus similarly rated IG corporate debt as
well as French non-preferred senior which we think will initially price well
inside HoldCo Senior levels. Lastly, we reiterate our Overweight on
legacy senior debt with positive technical factors being reinforced by a
further declines in net issuance in 2017, as European banks increasingly
tap the term MREL-compliant market
 
Building MREL into bank regulation
Due to the fact that the existing regulation on bank capital effectively pre-dates
TLAC, there is as yet a relative lack of clarity as to how MREL requirements are
going to be integrated into the Basel III capital framework. In our opinion, it is more
likely that this is undertaken within the context of the proposals for CRR2/CRD5
which is the next iteration of the sector’s regulatory framework. Here the challenge
for valuations across the capital structure could be two-fold, both in terms of the
implications for the risk profile of AT1, as well as the absolute scale of these
requirements. We think that the upcoming proposals might provide some clarity
on the potential interaction between MREL requirements and CBR, with the
downside risk for AT1 clearly being the extent to which MREL requirements
need to be met ahead of the CBR. While this is already the case for jurisdictions
where loss absorbing requirements have been modelled on FSB guidance, having a
large MREL requirement ahead of the ability to meet the CBR could be a challenge
for the AT1 market.
The second challenge for valuations at the more senior part of the capital structure
pertains to the absolute level of MREL requirement and to what extent this will
weigh on the primary market. In this note we look at the different combinations
within MREL guidance could result in issuance in the range of €400-550bn for
Eurozone and Swedish banks. While our base case is for MREL issuance
requirements at the lower end of the scale and which would assume that MREL is
implemented broadly in line with what the BoE has outlined for UK banks, there is
some event risk that the overall requirement for the European banking sector could
be materially and which would be a challenge from a technical perspective. Here we
highlight that the supply in MREL compliant issuance would be incremental to the
HoldCo Senior issuance we expect from the UK and Swiss banks.
 
European Insurance
Subordinated Debt

Attractive Opportunities in an Evolving Market

 The capitalisation of insurance companies has evolved radically over the past
few years. Most insurers have substantially improved their capital positions
over this period, and the Solvency II Directive has now gone live (Jan-16). As
such, Solvency II is no longer the big unknown, and we have seen relatively
good ratios from most companies (see Fig. 2, 3). However, ratios have declined
moderately this year primarily due to the downward trend in interest rates. We
view a Solvency II ratio >200% to be excellent, 175-200% to be strong, 160-
175% to be fair, 150-160% to be adequate and <150% to be poor. Looking
ahead, we expect most of the Continental European and UK insurers to
maintain their ratings for the longer term, despite issues such as the low rate
environment, natural catastrophe risk, pension reform in the UK and adjusting to
the new mark-to-market capital regime (i.e., Solvency II).
 Insurance subordinated debt continues to be a very attractive prospect for
investors, in our view. Despite reasonable earnings and strong Solvency II
ratios, insurance tier 2 debt trades c. 165bps wide of similar bank tier 2
securities. While ultimately we expect this differential to compress to c. 50-
60bps, we recognise this is likely to occur over an extended period as the market
gets more comfortable with the evolving insurance asset class. However,
investors looking for higher yields in the near term should find the sector
attractive on a risk-adjusted return basis. For example, despite provisions for
mandatory or optional coupon deferral, we have only encountered two cases in
the past few years where these features have been used (Groupama, SNS Real).
We include a sample of insurance tier 2 bonds yielding >4.5% below (see Table
2). Overall, we continue to believe that greater issuance and a growing investor
base will encourage market participants to focus more attention on the sector.
 As a mark-to-market capital regime, Solvency II ratios are heavily influenced
by volatility across security and real asset markets. In general, higher corporate
spreads lower the Solvency II ratio, while higher government spreads move the
ratio higher, although exceptions do exist, and sensitivities vary across firms.
Sensitivities to other asset classes, e.g. equities and real estate, are also
important to consider when thinking about Solvency II ratios. We have included
reported sensitivity analyses for each insurer in our universe on pgs. 12-13).
 We expect transparency around Solvency II reporting to only increase from
here. Starting with FY16, companies will have to report their Solvency II
ratios both with and without transitional factors. This should provide a greater
degree of comparability between companies and give an indication of which
companies have been more ‘aggressive’ in the use of transitionals.
 Starting this year, we saw the first issuance of tier 3 securities (AVLN and
CNPFP). Rated the same as tier 2 but with shorter duration, and higher yielding
vs. senior debt, we think this is likely to be a sought after asset class, amplified
by relatively little supply (capped at 15% of SCR for each insurer). Aviva issued
CAD 450mn in Apr-16, while CNP Assurances brought a €1bn deal in Oct-16.
Tier 3 does include mandatory deferral, although is linked to MCR and not SCR,
and there is no optional deferral feature. We expect companies to issue a
maximum of 1-2 tranches of tier 3 considering the limit on percentage of SCR
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto