The bad guys are after your Money!

It just so happens that the bad guys are (in no particular order) regulators, politicians and bankers. All the people that you think are employed to look after your interests! But in reality they need someone to pay for the bankruptcy of their policies while at the same time receiving generous pay from the taxpayer/customer.

Eurozone banking - prepare for the Big One!

In 2005 I warned in another blog that to keep one's money in Italian government bonds that yielded a paltry 10 basis points more than German Bunds was not sensible. Now that a certain sense of normality has returned to financial markets in the Eurozone it is easy to forget the major risk that still exists when the next Euro-Quake hits the headlines. Investors have a short memory - only two months ago depositors in Cypriot banks were unilaterally stripped of (part) of their wealth. So I would urge any reader to consider transferring his bank deposits into Eurozone countries that can be considered 'safe' (hopefully there are some that deserve that description). Interest paid on deposits is ludicrously low in all countries so there is very little loss if money is moved out of vulnerable countries and their banks. But the upside is substantial as any break-up of the Eurozone would lead to major losses in the currencies of the countries that are forced out. So depositors are basically getting a free option.

CoCo's are NoNo's

One would have thought that the main lesson of the Credit Crunch and Financial/Economic Crisis is the danger that can be created by newfangled and little-understood financial 'innovations'. The need for banks to raise additional capital has led to the design of 'Contingent Convertible Bonds' (CoCo's for short). These bonds lure investors with relatively high nominal interest rates that make them appear attractive to those who are desperate to get some positive return on their investments. Even so-called sophisticated investors in large financial institutions get tempted. Partially because they do not play with their own money or they will long have moved on to other jobs or positions when the proverbial s*** hits the fan. They may also not be as sophisticated as their clients (pensioners, mutual fund savers and private clients) assume. It will be interesting to see how regulators treat these securities if they become more of a mainstream investment option. They will have to decide whether their role is to protect the banking establishment or the investors. We know on which side they should be and we are definitely siding with the investors on this issue. Dangerous bets such as CoCo bonds should not be in any investor's toolkit but should be strictly reserved for regular visitors to casinos and betting shops. Not for nothing the link above talks of a ticking time-bomb with respect to these securities.

Bank deposits may be expropriated in Eurozone

The introduction of a European deposit insurance scheme could lead to the expropriation of savers in countries who end up as net contributors to the scheme warns former member of the ECB Ottmar Issing. (Financial Times)

Are Regulators asleep again?

There is still more talk than action in banking reform. We do not seem to be alone when making this observation. Volcker rule, Basel III, contingent capital - all these buzzwords are worthless if nothing gets implemented at some stage. News of generous bonus pools give the impression that all is back to normal in the banking world but when we had a look at the capital ratios of some large banks we were genuinely surprised - if not shocked - about the abysmal capital ratios that some of them reveal. Balance sheet totals seem to expand and the simple ratio of pure equity is in the low single-digits, and falling! So investors have to be more vigilant than ever when deciding how to allocate their investments. More than ever it is not the return on the investment that counts but the return of the investment.

Are Governments more risky than some banks?

This is the question asked by a national newspaper today. The reason for this is the fact that the cost of insuring against the British Government defaulting on its outstanding debt during the next five years has surged to 100 basis points above Libor at one stage.
This is more than the premium charged to insure bonds issued by the stronger banks such as BNP Paribas, Commerzbank of Credit Agricole.
We do not think that a default scenario is very likely for the government debt of any major industrial nation but we think it is extremely unlikely that the money that you will be repaid with will have even close to the same purchasing power that it had when the bond was issued.
The loss in purchasing power will be the involuntary contribution made by bond investors to finance the politician's pet spending projects - especially on their clientele and hangers-on.

Causes of the Global Credit Crunch

It is too early to fully understand how it could happen that the World's Financial System got close to a global meltdown during the past 12 months. Some blame greedy bankers, others lay the blame squarely at the foot of the (US) consumers. Institutional Investors also appear entangled as they allowed managements too much leeway and even egged them on to pursue ever-more risky expansion plans. However, we tend to think that regulators - and their paymasters the politicians - may have to take a large part of the blame.
Unfortunately they are the party that is the least likely to bear the full cost of their mistakes. Shareholders have to suffer from dramatically shrunken share prices, scores of bankers have lost their jobs, or are about to in the near future. Bureaucrats are happily engaged in the blame game and are joined by academics and media people who often are also less than objective in their judgement.