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

Mi sa che da buoni Italioti stiamo un po’ troppo drammatizzando la situazione della ns amata penisola, le agenzie di rating in fin dei conti , non e’ che avessero questi toni apocalittici .,ho la sensazione ,poco supportata se non da qualche piccola illazione sulla loro principale banca sicuramente infondata ,che il vero tsunami possa arrivare dal nord delle ns Alpi.,dai quel popolo che ammiro molto per la tenacia e caparbietà che ci mette nel perdere ogni guerra.....al contrario degli altri popoli che questa ostinata tenacia la mettano per vincerle le..guerre,noi ci collochiamo nel mezzo.,ma spero che questa volta non metteremo i ns denari , come nel recente passato, per salvare le loro banche e quelle francesi investite a prestare soldi a tutto spiano al popolo greco. ,il quale naturalmente si è trovato indebitato ben oltre ogni misura..e sicuramente non basteranno i 300 e passa miliardi usati da questo magnifico popolo e da loro governo (allora si poteva fare....dopo no ! o meglio nain )per salvare le loro banchetto regionali..ora i problemi sono DB ed e’ un po’ più grosso delle precedenti banchetto e lo è perfino del ns tanto vituperato debito pubblico
Per il resto visto le varie tensioni a livello globale, direi che l’Italia è solo la punta di un enorme iceberg.....o come dice quel detto quando si indica la luna lo sciocco guarda il dito
 
Ultima modifica:
Non mi sono sfuggite ma probabilmente abbiamo livelli di percezione del rischio significativamente differenti. Condivido quanto scrivi su Arytza ma mi sembra che
anche quello in € abbia già skippato la cedola.
Non sono invece convinto che tu abbia ragione su Casino (Rallye). Sia le banche francesi (problemi banche Turchia) che il governo francese (per quanto
riguarda EDF ed Areva) hanno già le loro gatte da pelare e non credo offrirebbero supporto ad oltranza.

Bond Arytza in fortissima salita. Aumento di capitale approvato.
 
Subscribe to read | Financial Times


Barclays and Lloyds among worst performers in EU stress tests -
Region’s top 48 banks have enough capital to withstand worst-case Brexit scenarios

Caroline Binham and Stephen Morris in London

Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group were among the worst performers in the EU’s banking stress tests, in a blow to the British lenders as they struggle to improve their profitability and deal with the potential fallout of Brexit. The results nevertheless found that the region’s top 48 banks had enough capital to withstand the worst-case Brexit scenarios. Barclays, Lloyds, Italy’s Banco BPM and the German state-owned NordLB had their loss-absorbing buffers fall to the worst levels in the doomsday scenario modelled by the European Banking Authority. This included a severe recession that would leave the bloc’s economy 8.3 per cent smaller than it otherwise would have been. “In a surprise set of results, UK banks have fared worse than their European counterparts as IFRS9, combined with high levels of unsecured debt, took its toll on capital,” said Rob Smith, Banking Partner at KPMG UK. “However, you have to consider that the UK was tested against a far more severe scenario than most other countries. In spite of the heavy losses, UK banks still withstood the incredibly tough test,” he added. Barclays, Lloyds, along with Royal Bank of Scotland, also accounted for three of the top five biggest deteriorations in the test, which gauged the hit to their key capital measure, known as the fully loaded common equity tier one (CET1) ratio.

“The UK was the most affected geography, both in terms of adverse CET1 depletion and ending CET1, driven by the severity of the scenario” for them, said Javier Garcia, a banking expert at Oliver Wyman. “Italy impacts are surprisingly low, which is likely driven by a scenario that was not capturing recent market events.” Profitability remains the challenge for the European banking sector Mario Quagliariello, EBA While the results do not reflect well on the UK’s banking system, none of the banks dipped close to the unofficial 5.5 per cent level that analysts use as a de facto hurdle rate. The test is also based on a snapshot of balance sheets at the end of 2017 and therefore does not take into account any actions taken by the banks since then to shore up their capital. Analysts had predicted that the UK sector would be vulnerable to credit losses, and credit risk was one of the main drivers for the total €226bn that the 48 banks hypothetically had wiped off their balance sheets as a result of the scenarios. One of the common themes “is that many of the banks performing less well are weak in terms of profitability,” which means they would generate less in earnings to cover losses on loans in another crisis, said Mario Quagliariello, the senior EBA official leading the tests. “Profitability remains the challenge for the European banking sector.” While there is no pass-fail in the EBA’s stress tests of banks’ balance sheets, the results are important because supervisors use them to calculate whether banks need to increase capital and how much they can pay out in dividends. CET1 fell 6.6 percentage points for Barclays, far more than the 4 percentage-point average, from 12.94 per cent to 6.37 per cent; the lowest of any bank. Lloyds posted a greater decline, at 6.9 percentage points, but finished with a higher CET1 than Barclays at 6.80 per cent. While RBS fell 6.3 percentage points, it finished at a respectable 9.92 per cent. The British banks have also had their balance sheets tested by the Bank of England in a parallel exercise; the results of which will be published early next month. Barclays said the test “does not take into account subsequent or future business strategies and management actions” and “is not a forecast of Barclays’ profits”. BPM had the second-lowest end point after Barclays, with a 6.67 per cent CET1. NordLB, which is weighed down with poorly performing shipping loans, also fared badly, finishing with 7.07 per cent, as anticipated. The EBA billed the 2018 stress test as its toughest yet and said that it encompasses all “macroeconomic risks that could be associated with Brexit”. They were also the first EBA tests to encompass new accounting standards known as IFRS9, which force banks to make upfront provisions for expected losses in the future. The outcome confirms that participating banks are more resilient to macroeconomic shocks than two years ago Danièle Nouy, chair of the ECB’s supervisory board. Twenty-five banks would hypothetically have limits placed on their dividends if the EBA’s adverse scenario came to pass. These included the four largest UK banks, Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank, Santander, BBVA and a host of the continent’s other large institutions.

The results of Europe’s largest 48 banks were published on Friday by the EBA. A parallel but confidential exercise has been conducted by the European Central Bank on smaller eurozone banks. The results for the troubled Greek banking system were published in May. While many observers worried about the performance of embattled Deutsche, the bank posted a better than expected 5.76 percentage-point drop in the test from 13.9 per cent to 8.14 per cent. Similarly, other larger Italian banks included came through without any significant concerns, with UniCredit’s CET1 falling only 3.34 percentage points to 9.34 per cent in the harshest scenario. Monte dei Paschi and Carige were not part of the EBA’s tests. The latest iteration of the test was far less dramatic than in previous years. In 2016, Monte dei Paschi posted a negative capital ratio in the test and had to raise €5bn in capital to plug the shortfall. The inaugural 2014 test resulted in the ECB ordering a multitude of banks to raise €25bn.

“The outcome confirms that participating banks are more resilient to macroeconomic shocks than two years ago,” said Danièle Nouy, chair of the ECB’s supervisory board. “Banks have built up considerably more capital, while also reducing non-performing loans, and improved their internal controls and risk governance.”
 
Stress test superati da tutte le banche, Banco Bpm in fondo a classifica


Deutsche Bank (DE:DBKGn), che aveva inizialmente suscitato delle preoccupazioni, ha passato il test con l'8,14%.
 
Bisognava avere il coraggio di entrare quando l'avevo segnalata. Io non l'ho avuto.......

Max

Non ho mai visto molti rischi (anche a causa della mia elevata tolleranza al rischio) sia in Arytza come non li vedo in Casino anche se Casino e' situazione oggettivamente più complicata.

Se AdC di Arytza non ci fosse si potrebbe procedere ad una conversione dei subordinati con azzeramento virtuale dei vecchi azionisti che infatti si sono opposti a questo AdC monstre. Il recovery del bond sarebbe elevato anche perché Arytza non e' malaccio come società' nonostante il settore dove opera.

Situazione di Casino e' simile con una differenza sostanziale. Casino ha un azionista che controlla (Rallye) e decide cosa fare. Percui un AdC di cui Casino avrebbe forse bisogno non si farà'. Tra parentesi invito a leggere i recenti sviluppi di Casino.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times



Short-sellers call on Casino’s board to cancel dividend

Robert Smith in London OCTOBER 31, 2018

A lawyer representing a group of hedge funds betting against Casino has sent a letter to the French supermarket’s board, calling on them not to approve an upcoming dividend payment. Sophie Vermeille, who represents several funds with short positions in Casino and its parent company Rallye, published the letter on a new website launched on Wednesday. The note to Casino’s board of directors outlines several reasons why paying the dividend will put the group in greater difficulty, arguing that the group produces far less cash flow in France than its official results might suggest. Casino has become engaged in a public tussle with short sellers this year, as hedge funds have questioned the integrity of the heavily indebted structure through which chief executive Jean-Charles Naouri holds a controlling stake in the group. Casino and its parent company Rallye filed a criminal complaint with the country’s public prosecutor last week, over what it called “violent attacks and misinformation campaigns” aimed at hitting share prices. And in a letter to shareholders earlier this month, Mr Naouri outlined steps they could take to combat those betting against the company A spokesman for Casino told the Financial Times that the letter “can be seen as part of this ongoing campaign” against the company, adding that the group’s cash flow situation is “perfectly compatible” with a dividend being paid. “There is a deep contradiction . . . this letter is purported to defend the interests of minority shareholders in Casino, but at the same time is acting on behalf of the shorts,” the spokesman said. “Of course the shorts don’t like when a dividend is paid, because they have to pay the dividend.” When a short seller borrows a company’s stock to then bet on its decline, they also have to fund any dividend payments to the stock’s original owner. The issue of dividend payments has been widely raised by sceptical fund managers and analysts. Mr Naouri controls the group through three publicly listed investment holding companies stacked on top of one another, each with their own debts. Critics say that each entity is under pressure to send dividends to the company above it, to keep paying the interest on this chain of debts. Casino’s spokesman denied that this presents a conflict of interest with Casino’s minority shareholders. “I have yet to find a shareholder raising their hand and saying ‘please don’t pay a dividend’,” he said. Ms Vermeille also sent letters to several regulators earlier this month outlining how parent company Rallye has allegedly changed the accounting methodology it uses to value its Casino shares several times over the past few years. Ms Vermeille claims that this could breach French securities law, because companies need to be consistent if they use off-market valuations. Casino’s majority shareholder Rallye has said that it “strongly refutes” Ms Vermeille’s claims about this valuation, denying that tweaks to the calculation constitute a change of methodology. Rallye’s valuations have come under scrutiny because its bank credit lines have covenants, one of which require the value of its shareholder equity to be above €1.2bn. Some hedge funds have also recently snapped up an obscure bond with a specific clause that is also linked to the valuation, which they hope may open a new avenue to triggering pay outs on credit-default swaps.
 
Ultima modifica:
AMSTERDAM - La compagnia assicurativa olandese Vivat, nota da Zwitserleven e Reaal, potrebbe essere in mani straniere. Vivat, messo in vendita dal suo proprietario cinese Anbang, ha attirato l'interesse di Athora. Questo gruppo assicurativo, basato sulle Bermuda, vorrebbe prendere in consegna Vivat nel suo complesso o insieme a un'altra parte, riportando fonti che hanno familiarità con il processo contro il Financieele Dagblad.
L'interesse di Athora è sorprendente perché è un gruppo assicurativo giovane, non europeo. Athora ha grandi ambizioni nel restringimento del mercato europeo delle assicurazioni sulla vita. Ciò rende la società non l'unica: da un certo numero di anni sempre più parti, incluso il private equity, sono interessate a portafogli con polizze di assicurazione sulla vita europee. Lo comprano e pensano di poterlo guadagnare, tra l'altro, risparmiando sui costi e investendo i premi in modo più intelligente.
La domanda è come De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) guarda un esordiente così nuovo. È chiaro che il regolatore vuole un consolidamento nel settore assicurativo olandese, ma preferibilmente vede gli assicuratori olandesi tradizionali svolgere un ruolo importante in questo.

'Verzekeringsgroep uit Bermuda aast op Vivat'
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto