Fortis, the largest Belgian financial-services firm, received an 11.2 billion-euro ($16.3 billion) rescue from Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg after investor confidence in the bank evaporated last week.
Belgium will buy 49 percent of Fortis's Belgian banking unit for 4.7 billion euros, while the Netherlands will pay 4 billion euros for a similar stake in the Dutch banking business, the governments said in a statement late yesterday. Luxembourg will provide a 2.5 billion-euro loan convertible into 49 percent of Fortis's banking division in that country.
Fortis is the largest European firm so far caught up in the global financial crisis that drove Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy two weeks ago and prompted U.S. President George W. Bush to seek a $700 billion bank rescue package. Fortis dropped 35 percent last week in Brussels trading on concern the company would struggle to replenish capital depleted by the 24.2 billion-euro takeover of ABN Amro Holding NV units and credit writedowns.
``Confidence in Fortis needs to be restored,'' said Corne van Zeijl, a senior portfolio manager at SNS Asset Management in Den Bosch, the Netherlands, who oversees about $1.1 billion and owns Fortis shares.
Fortis plans to sell its stake in ABN Amro's consumer banking unit, though a buyer wasn't identified. Fortis joined with Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Spain's Banco Santander SA last year to buy Amsterdam-based ABN Amro for 72 billion euros, just as the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed.
Lippens Resigns
Fortis Chairman Maurice Lippens stepped down and will be replaced by someone from outside the company, Fortis said. The firm picked company insider Filip Dierckx to succeed Herman Verwilst as chief executive officer on Sept. 26, just three months after former CEO Jean-Paul Votron was pushed out.
Fortis, formed in the 1990 merger of the Dutch insurance company NV Amev, Belgian insurer AG Group and the Dutch bank VSB, angered investors on June 26 by scrapping the interim dividend and announcing plans to sell shares to help strengthen its finances.
``We're buying power in the bank, getting more influence on the decisions that will be made, that's what savers need in these times,'' Dutch Finance Minister Wouter Bos told Dutch public television NOS. Bos said he couldn't comment on who'll buy the ABN Amro business.
The collapse of New York-based Lehman and the U.S. rescue of American International Group Inc. heightened concern about the global financial system and made it costlier for banks to raise funds. Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc. was seized by regulators last week in the biggest U.S. bank failure in history.
Fortis tried three days ago to assuage investor concerns by stating that its financial position was ``solid,'' and that it had identified banking and insurance businesses to sell worth as much as 10 billion euros. Fortis said it wouldn't sell assets at fire-sale prices, and didn't have an urgent need for funds.
`Over-Leveraged'
The remarks, presented in an impromptu press conference by Verwilst and Dierckx, failed to stem the selling. The stock ended the day down 20 percent.
``Markets thought that they were over-leveraged,'' European Central Bank Governing Council member Nout Wellink said. ``What's happening in the U.S. is having an impact on the rest of the world. At the end of the day Fortis is a good bank,'' said Wellink, who also heads the Dutch central bank.
Fortis has fallen 71 percent this year in Brussels, the second-worst performance among the 69 companies on the Bloomberg Europe Banks and Financial Services Index, cutting the lender's market capitalization to 12.2 billion euros.
The company has about 3 billion euros of bonds maturing this year and needs to refinance an additional 7 billion euros next year, said Ivan Lathouders, an analyst at Banque Degroof SA in Brussels, in a report last week.
Short-Selling Restricted
Fortis reported a 49 percent decline in second-quarter profit on credit-related writedowns on Aug. 4. The banking business's core Tier I capital ratio, an indicator of a bank's ability to absorb losses, was 7.4 percent at the end of June, compared with Fortis's own target of 6 percent.
The company's structured credit portfolio, which includes collateralized debt obligations and U.S. mortgage-backed securities, amounted to 41.7 billion euros at the end of June. Fortis said Aug. 4 the pretax impact of the credit market turmoil on its earnings was 918 million euros in the first half.
Belgian and Dutch regulators restricted short-selling in the shares and derivatives of financial companies for three months last week to curtail a market rout. The rules require investors betting on a decline in stock prices to arrange to borrow the shares before selling them. The Belgian and Dutch regulators also requested investors to refrain from lending the securities.
Source: Bloomberg.com
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
U.S. government seizes Washington Mutual
The U.S. government on Thursday made the largest bank seizure in American history, taking over Washington Mutual, the severely troubled savings and loan, and selling pieces of it to JPMorgan Chase in an emergency deal intended to avoid sticking the taxpayer with a bill for another bank, according to people briefed on the plan.
For weeks, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department had been nervous about the fate of WaMu, among the worst-hit by the housing crisis, and had pressed hard for the bank to sell itself. As panic gripped financial markets last week after the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, U.S. regulators stepped up their efforts, working behind the scenes, and at times going behind WaMu's back to work privately with potential bidders.
Indeed, the seizure and the deal with JPMorgan came as a shock to Washington Mutual's board, which was kept completely in the dark: the company's new chief executive, Alan Fishman, was flying from New York to Seattle at the time the deal was brokered, according to these people.
The shot-gun acquisition marks the second time since the housing crisis began that the government has pushed a troubled bank into the arms of JPMorgan Chase. In March, JPMorgan rescued Bear Stearns as it teetered into bankruptcy protection.
The deal will give JPMorgan branches in California and other markets where it does not have a footprint. But JPMorgan will also inherit a big loan portfolio of troubled mortgages and commercial real estate.
U.S. regulators had been trying to broker a deal for Washington Mutual because a takeover by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would have dealt a crushing blow to the deposit insurance fund. The fund, which stood at $45.2 billion at the end of June, had been severely depleted after suffering a debilitating loss from the sudden collapse of IndyMac Bank. Analysts say that a failure of Washington Mutual would have cost the fund upwards of $20 billion to $30 billion.
The takeover of Washington Mutual is yet another black-eye for its primary federal regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision. It also oversaw IndyMac Bank, another big lender that suddenly collapsed in mid-July, and several other deeply troubled savings banks. Washington Mutual was the largest institution under its watch.
Washington Mutual long insisted that it could remain independent, but the giant thrift had quietly hired Goldman Sachs early last week to identify potential bidders. Among the banks that expressed interest were Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Banco Santander, TD Bancorp and Wells Fargo. Each had different reasons for making an offer, but nobody could make the numbers work. Several deadlines past without anyone submitting bid.
Washington Mutual had struggled to find a partner earlier this year willing to inject fresh funds in its ailing business. This spring, it balked at an offer from JPMorgan to buy the entire company. Instead, TPG, the big private equity firm, led a group of investors that made a $5 billion capital injection in April.
For weeks, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department had been nervous about the fate of WaMu, among the worst-hit by the housing crisis, and had pressed hard for the bank to sell itself. As panic gripped financial markets last week after the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, U.S. regulators stepped up their efforts, working behind the scenes, and at times going behind WaMu's back to work privately with potential bidders.
Indeed, the seizure and the deal with JPMorgan came as a shock to Washington Mutual's board, which was kept completely in the dark: the company's new chief executive, Alan Fishman, was flying from New York to Seattle at the time the deal was brokered, according to these people.
The shot-gun acquisition marks the second time since the housing crisis began that the government has pushed a troubled bank into the arms of JPMorgan Chase. In March, JPMorgan rescued Bear Stearns as it teetered into bankruptcy protection.
The deal will give JPMorgan branches in California and other markets where it does not have a footprint. But JPMorgan will also inherit a big loan portfolio of troubled mortgages and commercial real estate.
U.S. regulators had been trying to broker a deal for Washington Mutual because a takeover by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would have dealt a crushing blow to the deposit insurance fund. The fund, which stood at $45.2 billion at the end of June, had been severely depleted after suffering a debilitating loss from the sudden collapse of IndyMac Bank. Analysts say that a failure of Washington Mutual would have cost the fund upwards of $20 billion to $30 billion.
The takeover of Washington Mutual is yet another black-eye for its primary federal regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision. It also oversaw IndyMac Bank, another big lender that suddenly collapsed in mid-July, and several other deeply troubled savings banks. Washington Mutual was the largest institution under its watch.
Washington Mutual long insisted that it could remain independent, but the giant thrift had quietly hired Goldman Sachs early last week to identify potential bidders. Among the banks that expressed interest were Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, Banco Santander, TD Bancorp and Wells Fargo. Each had different reasons for making an offer, but nobody could make the numbers work. Several deadlines past without anyone submitting bid.
Washington Mutual had struggled to find a partner earlier this year willing to inject fresh funds in its ailing business. This spring, it balked at an offer from JPMorgan to buy the entire company. Instead, TPG, the big private equity firm, led a group of investors that made a $5 billion capital injection in April.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Optimising your tax benefits on your life insurance premium
Life Insurance is a must for any income generating individual. The nature and the quantum of risk cover required varies from person to person. The Government also provides you with excellent tax benefits for the amount of life insurance premium you pay under sec 80 C of the Income Tax Act.
The insurance premium paid on our life insurance policies is deducted from your total income under Sec 80 C. The practical story is that most of you would have already exhausted the available limit of Rs100,000 under Sec 80 C by way of housing loan principal repayment.
But there is a possibility of utilising a portion of the life insurance premium paid by availing the benefit under Sec 80 D of the Income Tax Act. Sec 80 D of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction of premium paid towards Health Insurance from your total income. If the insurance policy covers "critical illness", then the premium portion attributable to the critical illness cover can be deducted u/s 80 D of the IT Act instead of claiming it under Sec 80 C. Normally we deduct the total premium on life insurance policies under sec 80 C but it is possible that we get few extra thousands deduction from taxable income if you have a policy with critical illness rider.
You have to contact your Life Insurance company and ask for the premium break-up details between the mortality charges for the life cover and the critical illness cover. Few of the insurance policies you have taken already has a "critical illness" rider attached to it. Going forward, when you opt for a life insurance cover you have to do a cost benefit analysis of having a critical illness rider considering the additional deduction possible under Sec 80 D of the IT Act.
Get a premium certificate from the life insurance company stating clearly the amount of premium charged for critical illness cover and claim it under sec 80 D and avail extra tax deductions.
The insurance premium paid on our life insurance policies is deducted from your total income under Sec 80 C. The practical story is that most of you would have already exhausted the available limit of Rs100,000 under Sec 80 C by way of housing loan principal repayment.
But there is a possibility of utilising a portion of the life insurance premium paid by availing the benefit under Sec 80 D of the Income Tax Act. Sec 80 D of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction of premium paid towards Health Insurance from your total income. If the insurance policy covers "critical illness", then the premium portion attributable to the critical illness cover can be deducted u/s 80 D of the IT Act instead of claiming it under Sec 80 C. Normally we deduct the total premium on life insurance policies under sec 80 C but it is possible that we get few extra thousands deduction from taxable income if you have a policy with critical illness rider.
You have to contact your Life Insurance company and ask for the premium break-up details between the mortality charges for the life cover and the critical illness cover. Few of the insurance policies you have taken already has a "critical illness" rider attached to it. Going forward, when you opt for a life insurance cover you have to do a cost benefit analysis of having a critical illness rider considering the additional deduction possible under Sec 80 D of the IT Act.
Get a premium certificate from the life insurance company stating clearly the amount of premium charged for critical illness cover and claim it under sec 80 D and avail extra tax deductions.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Warren Buffett to invest $10bn in Goldman Sachs!!
Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, is to invest up to $10bn (£5.4bn) in Goldman Sachs as the investment bank attempts to bolster its financial position amid continued fallout on Wall Street as a result of the sustained credit crisis.
Mr Buffett, known as the "Sage of Omaha" for his legendary investment skills, will buy an initial $5bn holding through his Berkshire Hathaway investment vehicle, and will receive warrants to buy up to another $5bn at a later date.
Goldman is also raising a further $2.5bn through a public offering of its shares, which soared by 8.4pc to $135.56 in extended after-hours trading.
The investment is a major vote of confidence in the bank, which has largely avoided the worst of the sub-prime crisis, but also highlights just how precarious the market has become that an institution such as Goldman feels the need to raise money in the first place.
The news should act as a fillip for the wider stock market, given that Mr Buffett is perceived by many as a shrewd investor to whom timing is crucial. It is the first time Mr Buffett has bought a stake in an investment bank since purchasing a holding in Salomon Brothers in 1987.
His investment comes just a day after Goldman changed its legal status to allow it to become a federal holding bank. "Buffett did this after Goldman converted to a bank holding company," said Pat Dorsey, director of equity research at Morningstar,"Buffett is saying that, with less leverage and more stable sources of funding, this is an institution worth investing in. From Buffett's perspective you have a world-class firm in a less-competitive landscape, with a hopefully less-risky business model."
As a result of its initial investment, Berkshire will own the equivalent of a 10pc stake in Goldman, based on last night's closing market capitalisation, in return for buying $5bn of perpetual preferred shares which will pay a 10pc dividend and which the bank can buy back at any time for a 10pc premium. Berkshire will also receive warrants to purchase $5bn of ordinary shares at a strike price of $115 a share at any point over the next five years.
Mr Buffett said last night "Goldman Sachs is an exceptional institution" with "the intellectual and financial capital to continue its track record of out-performance".
Japanese bank Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group is also reported to be considering investing $2.5bn in Goldman Sachs.
Mr Buffett, known as the "Sage of Omaha" for his legendary investment skills, will buy an initial $5bn holding through his Berkshire Hathaway investment vehicle, and will receive warrants to buy up to another $5bn at a later date.
Goldman is also raising a further $2.5bn through a public offering of its shares, which soared by 8.4pc to $135.56 in extended after-hours trading.
The investment is a major vote of confidence in the bank, which has largely avoided the worst of the sub-prime crisis, but also highlights just how precarious the market has become that an institution such as Goldman feels the need to raise money in the first place.
The news should act as a fillip for the wider stock market, given that Mr Buffett is perceived by many as a shrewd investor to whom timing is crucial. It is the first time Mr Buffett has bought a stake in an investment bank since purchasing a holding in Salomon Brothers in 1987.
His investment comes just a day after Goldman changed its legal status to allow it to become a federal holding bank. "Buffett did this after Goldman converted to a bank holding company," said Pat Dorsey, director of equity research at Morningstar,"Buffett is saying that, with less leverage and more stable sources of funding, this is an institution worth investing in. From Buffett's perspective you have a world-class firm in a less-competitive landscape, with a hopefully less-risky business model."
As a result of its initial investment, Berkshire will own the equivalent of a 10pc stake in Goldman, based on last night's closing market capitalisation, in return for buying $5bn of perpetual preferred shares which will pay a 10pc dividend and which the bank can buy back at any time for a 10pc premium. Berkshire will also receive warrants to purchase $5bn of ordinary shares at a strike price of $115 a share at any point over the next five years.
Mr Buffett said last night "Goldman Sachs is an exceptional institution" with "the intellectual and financial capital to continue its track record of out-performance".
Japanese bank Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group is also reported to be considering investing $2.5bn in Goldman Sachs.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become banks
The Wall Street that shaped the financial world for two decades ended last night, when Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley concluded there is no future in remaining investment banks now that investors have determined the model is broken.
The Federal Reserve's approval of their bid to become banks ends the ascendancy of the securities firms, 75 years after Congress separated them from deposit-taking lenders, and caps weeks of chaos that sent Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp.
``The decision marks the end of Wall Street as we have known it,'' said William Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ``It's too bad.''
Goldman, whose alumni include Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary presiding over a $700 billion bank bailout, and Morgan Stanley, a product of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that cleaved investment and commercial banks, insisted they didn't need to change course, even as their shares plunged and their borrowing costs soared last week.
By then, it was too late. As financial markets gyrated --the Dow Jones Industrial Average whipsawed 1,000 points in the week's last two days -- and clients defected, executives at the two firms concluded they had no choice. The Federal Reserve Board met at 9 p.m. yesterday and considered applications delivered that day, said Michelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the central bank. The decision was unanimous, she said.
`Blood in Water'
``There's blood in the water in the industry and the sharks are circling,'' Peter Kovalski, who helps oversee about $10 billion at Alpine Woods Capital Investors LLC, said at the end of last week. ``It all comes down to perception and the current trust within the community.''
Morgan Stanley rose 4.1 percent to $28.33 by 11:16 a.m. in German trading, after jumping 21 percent in New York on Sept. 19. Goldman declined 1.2 percent to $128.28 in Germany, after surging 20 percent three days ago in New York.
Wall Street hasn't had such a shakeup since the 1980s, when firms including Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Cos. went public and London's financial markets were altered forever with the so- called Big Bang reforms implemented in 1986. Bear Stearns disappeared in March, when it was bought by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The announcement paves the way for the two New York-based firms, both of which will now be regulated by the Fed, to build their deposit base, potentially through acquisitions. That will allow them to rely more heavily on deposits from retail customers instead of using borrowed money -- the leverage that led to the undoing of Bear Stearns and Lehman.
Depositors Rule
Morgan Stanley has taken $15.7 billion of writedowns and losses on mortgage-related securities and other types of loans since the credit crunch started last year. Goldman's tally stands at about $4.9 billion. While both companies have remained profitable and avoided money-losing quarters suffered by Lehman and Merrill Lynch, their revenue from sales and trading and investment banking has been declining this year.
``Deposit-banking is king right now,'' said David Hendler, an analyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York. ``It's the only meaningful critical-mass way to make money.''
Morgan Stanley may feel it has more time to contemplate alternatives to the deal that it began to shape last week with Wachovia Corp., said Tony Plath, a finance professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
`Certainty'
``This means Morgan Stanley is reassessing its plan for a merger with Wachovia,'' Plath said. ``Morgan Stanley is going to try to go it alone, and I expect it will try to buy a bank with a market-to-book ratio that is next to nothing. It means they are walking away from Wachovia.''
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm until this week, had $36 billion of deposits and three million retail accounts at the end of August. The company plans to convert its Utah-based industrial bank into a national bank.
``This new bank holding structure will ensure that Morgan Stanley is in the strongest possible position,'' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Mack, 63, said in a statement last night. ``It also offers the marketplace certainty about the strength of our financial position and our access to funding.''
Goldman, the largest and most profitable of the U.S. securities firms, will become the fourth-largest bank holding company. The firm already has more than $20 billion in customer deposits in two subsidiaries and is creating a new one, GS Bank USA, that will have more than $150 billion of assets, making it one of the 10 largest banks in the U.S., the firm said in a statement last night. The firm will increase its deposit base ``through acquisitions and organically,'' Goldman said.
``Goldman Sachs, under Federal Reserve supervision, will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and a greater diversity of funding sources,'' Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman's chairman and CEO, said in the statement.
The Washington-based Fed is the primary regulator of bank- holding companies, which are firms that own or control banks. Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan are bank- holding companies regulated by the Fed.
Securities firms, by contrast, had been regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's future becomes dimmer with the change in Goldman and Morgan Stanley's structures.
Less Risky
``You can't kiss goodbye to the last two important investment banks without noting that the house is empty,'' said David Becker, a former SEC general counsel who is now a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington. ``It's a downward spiral where the less significant the population you regulate, the less your available resources.''
The change is also likely to lead to less risk-taking by the companies and possibly lower pay for their employees. Both Goldman and Morgan Stanley held more than $20 of assets for every $1 of shareholder equity, making them dependent on market funding to operate.
Goldman, in particular, has been remarkable for the high bonuses it pays to its employees. Goldman's CEO and two co- presidents were each paid more than $67 million last year. `They're going to have to protect their deposit bases by law, and the days of high leverage are gone,'' said Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, who wrote ``Wall Street: A History.'' ``The days of the big bonuses are gone.''
Source: Bloomberg.com
The Federal Reserve's approval of their bid to become banks ends the ascendancy of the securities firms, 75 years after Congress separated them from deposit-taking lenders, and caps weeks of chaos that sent Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp.
``The decision marks the end of Wall Street as we have known it,'' said William Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ``It's too bad.''
Goldman, whose alumni include Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary presiding over a $700 billion bank bailout, and Morgan Stanley, a product of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that cleaved investment and commercial banks, insisted they didn't need to change course, even as their shares plunged and their borrowing costs soared last week.
By then, it was too late. As financial markets gyrated --the Dow Jones Industrial Average whipsawed 1,000 points in the week's last two days -- and clients defected, executives at the two firms concluded they had no choice. The Federal Reserve Board met at 9 p.m. yesterday and considered applications delivered that day, said Michelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the central bank. The decision was unanimous, she said.
`Blood in Water'
``There's blood in the water in the industry and the sharks are circling,'' Peter Kovalski, who helps oversee about $10 billion at Alpine Woods Capital Investors LLC, said at the end of last week. ``It all comes down to perception and the current trust within the community.''
Morgan Stanley rose 4.1 percent to $28.33 by 11:16 a.m. in German trading, after jumping 21 percent in New York on Sept. 19. Goldman declined 1.2 percent to $128.28 in Germany, after surging 20 percent three days ago in New York.
Wall Street hasn't had such a shakeup since the 1980s, when firms including Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Cos. went public and London's financial markets were altered forever with the so- called Big Bang reforms implemented in 1986. Bear Stearns disappeared in March, when it was bought by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The announcement paves the way for the two New York-based firms, both of which will now be regulated by the Fed, to build their deposit base, potentially through acquisitions. That will allow them to rely more heavily on deposits from retail customers instead of using borrowed money -- the leverage that led to the undoing of Bear Stearns and Lehman.
Depositors Rule
Morgan Stanley has taken $15.7 billion of writedowns and losses on mortgage-related securities and other types of loans since the credit crunch started last year. Goldman's tally stands at about $4.9 billion. While both companies have remained profitable and avoided money-losing quarters suffered by Lehman and Merrill Lynch, their revenue from sales and trading and investment banking has been declining this year.
``Deposit-banking is king right now,'' said David Hendler, an analyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York. ``It's the only meaningful critical-mass way to make money.''
Morgan Stanley may feel it has more time to contemplate alternatives to the deal that it began to shape last week with Wachovia Corp., said Tony Plath, a finance professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
`Certainty'
``This means Morgan Stanley is reassessing its plan for a merger with Wachovia,'' Plath said. ``Morgan Stanley is going to try to go it alone, and I expect it will try to buy a bank with a market-to-book ratio that is next to nothing. It means they are walking away from Wachovia.''
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm until this week, had $36 billion of deposits and three million retail accounts at the end of August. The company plans to convert its Utah-based industrial bank into a national bank.
``This new bank holding structure will ensure that Morgan Stanley is in the strongest possible position,'' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Mack, 63, said in a statement last night. ``It also offers the marketplace certainty about the strength of our financial position and our access to funding.''
Goldman, the largest and most profitable of the U.S. securities firms, will become the fourth-largest bank holding company. The firm already has more than $20 billion in customer deposits in two subsidiaries and is creating a new one, GS Bank USA, that will have more than $150 billion of assets, making it one of the 10 largest banks in the U.S., the firm said in a statement last night. The firm will increase its deposit base ``through acquisitions and organically,'' Goldman said.
``Goldman Sachs, under Federal Reserve supervision, will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and a greater diversity of funding sources,'' Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman's chairman and CEO, said in the statement.
The Washington-based Fed is the primary regulator of bank- holding companies, which are firms that own or control banks. Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan are bank- holding companies regulated by the Fed.
Securities firms, by contrast, had been regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's future becomes dimmer with the change in Goldman and Morgan Stanley's structures.
Less Risky
``You can't kiss goodbye to the last two important investment banks without noting that the house is empty,'' said David Becker, a former SEC general counsel who is now a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington. ``It's a downward spiral where the less significant the population you regulate, the less your available resources.''
The change is also likely to lead to less risk-taking by the companies and possibly lower pay for their employees. Both Goldman and Morgan Stanley held more than $20 of assets for every $1 of shareholder equity, making them dependent on market funding to operate.
Goldman, in particular, has been remarkable for the high bonuses it pays to its employees. Goldman's CEO and two co- presidents were each paid more than $67 million last year. `They're going to have to protect their deposit bases by law, and the days of high leverage are gone,'' said Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, who wrote ``Wall Street: A History.'' ``The days of the big bonuses are gone.''
Source: Bloomberg.com
Friday, September 19, 2008
Fallout from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers
WHEN Warren Buffett said that derivatives were "financial weapons of mass destruction", this was just the kind of crisis the investment seer had in mind. Part of the reason investors are so nervous about the health of financial companies is that they do not know how exposed they are to the derivatives market. It is doubly troubling that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near-collapse of American International Group (AIG) came before such useful reforms as a central clearing house for derivatives were in place.
A bankruptcy the size of Lehman's has three potential impacts on the $62 trillion credit-default swaps (CDS) market, where investors buy insurance against corporate default. All of them would have been multiplied many times had AIG failed too. The insurer has $441 billion in exposure to credit derivatives. A lot of this was provided to banks, which would have taken a hit to their capital had AIG failed. Small wonder the Federal Reserve had to intervene.
The first impact concerns contracts on the debt of Lehman itself. As a "credit event", the bankruptcy will trigger settlement of contracts, under rules drawn up by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). Those who sold insurance against Lehman going bust will lose a lot. But Lehman had looked risky for some time, so investors should have had the chance to limit their exposure.
The second effect relates to deals where Lehman was a counterparty, ie, a buyer or seller of a swaps contract. For example, an investor or bank may have bought a swap as insurance against an AIG default, with Lehman on the other side of the deal. That protection could conceivably be worthless if Lehman fails to pay up. Until the Friday before its bankruptcy, Lehman would have posted collateral, which the counterparty can claim. After that day, the buyer will have been exposed to price movements before it could unwind the contract.
The third effect will be on the collateralised-debt obligation (CDO) market, which caused so many problems last year. So-called synthetic CDOs comprise a bunch of credit-default swaps; a Lehman default may cause big losses for holders of the riskier tranches.
Insiders say the biggest exposure may be in the interest-rate swaps market, which is many times larger than those for credit derivatives. In a typical interest-rate swap, one party agrees to exchange a fixed-rate obligation with another that has a floating, or variable, rate exposure. Depending on whether floating rates rise or fall, one will end up owing money to the other. Again, those banks that dealt with Lehman should have been fine until Friday, when the bank was still posting collateral. But not afterwards.
Although there are ISDA rules to cover such events, the sheer size of Lehman in the market (its gross derivatives positions will be hundreds of billions of dollars) makes this default a severe test. There will inevitably be legal disputes as well. The good news is that the swaps markets did not utterly seize up after it went bust on September 15th. But the reaction may be a delayed one. Mr Buffett's WMD could leave behind a cloud of toxicity.
Source:Economist.com
A bankruptcy the size of Lehman's has three potential impacts on the $62 trillion credit-default swaps (CDS) market, where investors buy insurance against corporate default. All of them would have been multiplied many times had AIG failed too. The insurer has $441 billion in exposure to credit derivatives. A lot of this was provided to banks, which would have taken a hit to their capital had AIG failed. Small wonder the Federal Reserve had to intervene.
The first impact concerns contracts on the debt of Lehman itself. As a "credit event", the bankruptcy will trigger settlement of contracts, under rules drawn up by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). Those who sold insurance against Lehman going bust will lose a lot. But Lehman had looked risky for some time, so investors should have had the chance to limit their exposure.
The second effect relates to deals where Lehman was a counterparty, ie, a buyer or seller of a swaps contract. For example, an investor or bank may have bought a swap as insurance against an AIG default, with Lehman on the other side of the deal. That protection could conceivably be worthless if Lehman fails to pay up. Until the Friday before its bankruptcy, Lehman would have posted collateral, which the counterparty can claim. After that day, the buyer will have been exposed to price movements before it could unwind the contract.
The third effect will be on the collateralised-debt obligation (CDO) market, which caused so many problems last year. So-called synthetic CDOs comprise a bunch of credit-default swaps; a Lehman default may cause big losses for holders of the riskier tranches.
Insiders say the biggest exposure may be in the interest-rate swaps market, which is many times larger than those for credit derivatives. In a typical interest-rate swap, one party agrees to exchange a fixed-rate obligation with another that has a floating, or variable, rate exposure. Depending on whether floating rates rise or fall, one will end up owing money to the other. Again, those banks that dealt with Lehman should have been fine until Friday, when the bank was still posting collateral. But not afterwards.
Although there are ISDA rules to cover such events, the sheer size of Lehman in the market (its gross derivatives positions will be hundreds of billions of dollars) makes this default a severe test. There will inevitably be legal disputes as well. The good news is that the swaps markets did not utterly seize up after it went bust on September 15th. But the reaction may be a delayed one. Mr Buffett's WMD could leave behind a cloud of toxicity.
Source:Economist.com
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Dividend stocks - Do they matter?
Interesting in dividend stocks seems to have gone out of fashion over
the last few years.
We came across this interesting article recently on India Infoline (http://www.indiainfoline.com/news/innernews.asp?storyId=76882&lmn=1&cat= 26). They analyze the top 25 dividend yielding stocks and conclude that most of them are
'Value Traps' - these stocks may give strong dividends, but may suffer from price erosion.
This is because of earnings pressures going forward. The analysis has selected the top dividend yielding companies from groups of different market capitalization. Due to capital erosion, these stocks may not yield good results even in a bear market.
This raises a fundamental question - do dividend stocks merit a place in your portfolio?. We feel they do for the following reasons:
Earnings visibility - While companies giving high dividend yields also face earnings pressures, that is applicable in general to the entire market. In fact, these stocks tend to have relatively stable earnings streams as compared to the rest of the market
Low beta - Dividend stocks tend to trade in a narrow band and are less prone to a fall even in volatile market. In calendar year 2008 stocks like TNPL, Ador Fontech, Varun Shipping have had lesser fall as compared to other stocks
Stable cash flows - they have stable cash flows and do not have a heavy interest burden. This ensures adequate interest coverage in times of rising interest rates.
Tax efficient - Dividends are tax free for the investor. Even after considering the dividend distribution tax paid by the company, it Is still efficient for the investor from an annual earnings viewpoint
Dividend history - Stocks with a dividend track record have proven
their ability to pay dividends through business cycles. For e.g. companies from the Shriram group have paid dividends over the past twenty years.
In the current market we feel that defensive stocks like TNPL and Ador Welding have a role to play in Investor's portfolio. They cap your downside and provide assured income as well. That is more than can be said for several large cap 'growth' stocks.
the last few years.
We came across this interesting article recently on India Infoline (http://www.indiainfoline.com/news/innernews.asp?storyId=76882&lmn=1&cat= 26). They analyze the top 25 dividend yielding stocks and conclude that most of them are
'Value Traps' - these stocks may give strong dividends, but may suffer from price erosion.
This is because of earnings pressures going forward. The analysis has selected the top dividend yielding companies from groups of different market capitalization. Due to capital erosion, these stocks may not yield good results even in a bear market.
This raises a fundamental question - do dividend stocks merit a place in your portfolio?. We feel they do for the following reasons:
Earnings visibility - While companies giving high dividend yields also face earnings pressures, that is applicable in general to the entire market. In fact, these stocks tend to have relatively stable earnings streams as compared to the rest of the market
Low beta - Dividend stocks tend to trade in a narrow band and are less prone to a fall even in volatile market. In calendar year 2008 stocks like TNPL, Ador Fontech, Varun Shipping have had lesser fall as compared to other stocks
Stable cash flows - they have stable cash flows and do not have a heavy interest burden. This ensures adequate interest coverage in times of rising interest rates.
Tax efficient - Dividends are tax free for the investor. Even after considering the dividend distribution tax paid by the company, it Is still efficient for the investor from an annual earnings viewpoint
Dividend history - Stocks with a dividend track record have proven
their ability to pay dividends through business cycles. For e.g. companies from the Shriram group have paid dividends over the past twenty years.
In the current market we feel that defensive stocks like TNPL and Ador Welding have a role to play in Investor's portfolio. They cap your downside and provide assured income as well. That is more than can be said for several large cap 'growth' stocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
