Finanskrisen er ikke helt slut endnu. I hvert fald skal der ikke gå meget galt i US, før det kan få seriøse konsekvenser for de amerikanske banker. Dette skulle ikke have været offentliggjort, men det er altså sluppet ud:
1) Of the top nineteen (19) banks in the nation, sixteen (16) are already technically insolvent. (Based upon the “alternative more adverse” scenario which had a 3.3 percent contraction of the U.S. Economy in 2009, accompanied by 8.9 percent unemployment, followed by 0.5 percent growth of the U.S. Economy but a 10.3 percent jobless in 2010.)
2) Of the 16 banks that are already technically insolvent, not even one can withstand any disruption of cash flow at all or any further deterioration in non-paying loans. (Without further government injections of cash)
3) If any two of the 16 insolvent banks go under, they will totally wipe out all remaining FDIC insurance funding.
4) Of the top 19 banks in the nation, the top five (5) largest banks are under capitalized so dangerously, there is serious doubt about their ability to continue as ongoing businesses.
5) Five large U.S. banks have credit exposure related to their derivatives trading that exceeds their capital, with four in particular - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America and Citibank - taking especially large risks.
6) Bank of America`s total credit exposure to derivatives was 179 percent of its risk-based capital; Citibank`s was 278 percent; JPMorgan Chase`s, 382 percent; and HSBC America`s, 550 percent. It gets even worse: Goldman Sachs began reporting as a commercial bank, revealing an alarming total credit exposure of 1,056 percent, or more than ten times its capital! (HSBC is NOT in the top 19 banks undergoing a stress test, but is mentioned in the report as an aside because of its risk capital exposure to derivatives)
7) Not only are there serious questions about whether or not JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs,Citibank, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust Bank, HSBC Bank USA, can continue in business, more than 1,800 regional and smaller institutions are at risk of failure despite government bailouts!
Se mere her:
http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/04/leaked-bank-stress-test-reults.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS180066+06-Apr-2009+BW20090406
1) Of the top nineteen (19) banks in the nation, sixteen (16) are already technically insolvent. (Based upon the “alternative more adverse” scenario which had a 3.3 percent contraction of the U.S. Economy in 2009, accompanied by 8.9 percent unemployment, followed by 0.5 percent growth of the U.S. Economy but a 10.3 percent jobless in 2010.)
2) Of the 16 banks that are already technically insolvent, not even one can withstand any disruption of cash flow at all or any further deterioration in non-paying loans. (Without further government injections of cash)
3) If any two of the 16 insolvent banks go under, they will totally wipe out all remaining FDIC insurance funding.
4) Of the top 19 banks in the nation, the top five (5) largest banks are under capitalized so dangerously, there is serious doubt about their ability to continue as ongoing businesses.
5) Five large U.S. banks have credit exposure related to their derivatives trading that exceeds their capital, with four in particular - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America and Citibank - taking especially large risks.
6) Bank of America`s total credit exposure to derivatives was 179 percent of its risk-based capital; Citibank`s was 278 percent; JPMorgan Chase`s, 382 percent; and HSBC America`s, 550 percent. It gets even worse: Goldman Sachs began reporting as a commercial bank, revealing an alarming total credit exposure of 1,056 percent, or more than ten times its capital! (HSBC is NOT in the top 19 banks undergoing a stress test, but is mentioned in the report as an aside because of its risk capital exposure to derivatives)
7) Not only are there serious questions about whether or not JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs,Citibank, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust Bank, HSBC Bank USA, can continue in business, more than 1,800 regional and smaller institutions are at risk of failure despite government bailouts!
Se mere her:
http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/04/leaked-bank-stress-test-reults.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS180066+06-Apr-2009+BW20090406
21/4 2009 02:34 alpehue 0
8404 Det er vel hvad man viste ?
Derfor fik de hjælpepakkerne !
Idag fik de lussinger, men var det ikke for en dels vedkommende, profittaking ?
Snart er det det glemt, og datoerne 6. april og 19. april kan man vel egentlig ikken kalde "leaked" ?
Derfor fik de hjælpepakkerne !
Idag fik de lussinger, men var det ikke for en dels vedkommende, profittaking ?
Snart er det det glemt, og datoerne 6. april og 19. april kan man vel egentlig ikken kalde "leaked" ?
24/4 2009 02:10 collersteen 08653 Så begynder de første historier at dukke op til overfladen om hele forløbet i efteråret 2008 i USA. Dog synes jeg nok, at denne her kommer fra en lidt uventet kant, men Cuomo satster måske på at den nye administration ikke vil røre ham pga. disse afsløringer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53M4GK20090423?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Lewis (og hele BofA bestyrelse og aktionærer) havde vel reelt intet valg da de først havde sagt A mht. Merrill. Så måtte de også sige B, selvom det nok ikke helt var et A inkl. lig de havde i tankerne oprindeligt.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53M4GK20090423?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Lewis (og hele BofA bestyrelse og aktionærer) havde vel reelt intet valg da de først havde sagt A mht. Merrill. Så måtte de også sige B, selvom det nok ikke helt var et A inkl. lig de havde i tankerne oprindeligt.
24/4 2009 16:07 alpehue 08704 Iflg. Jyske Bank netTV skulle Geithner have udtalt, at alle 19 "stress" banker forventes, at bestå tersten ?
Hvis der er nogen, der er faldet (citi) på grund af frygt for det modsatte, så må det være et kø'bsemne.
Hvis der er nogen, der er faldet (citi) på grund af frygt for det modsatte, så må det være et kø'bsemne.
26/4 2009 23:10 collersteen 08967 Lidt fra Cramer om regionals til ære for aka.... som egentlig ikke fortjener noget som helst ros eller særbehandling efter den skandaløse BIF-hype i chatten idag....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30391772
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30391772
9/5 2009 13:45 collersteen 010567 People's United Financial. Ticker "PBCT"
"This company has a problem that’s quite unique these days – it has too much capital. That’s right. While most of banks in this peer group have a tangible capital to asset ratio of 6.1%, PBCT’s clocks in at 19.5%. And nonperforming assets, i.e., bad loans, as a percentage of all loans are at 1.75% versus just 0.25%, respectively."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30646956
"This company has a problem that’s quite unique these days – it has too much capital. That’s right. While most of banks in this peer group have a tangible capital to asset ratio of 6.1%, PBCT’s clocks in at 19.5%. And nonperforming assets, i.e., bad loans, as a percentage of all loans are at 1.75% versus just 0.25%, respectively."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30646956
9/5 2009 14:20 collersteen 010572 Jeg må nok lige henlede opmærksomheden på at banken ikke er billig. Som man vil kunne se af kursgrafen har den næsten ikke fået tæsk i løbet af finanskrisen, hvilket jo selvfølgelig er udmærket for aktionærerne. Det betyder dog nok også at upsiden ikke er så stor som andre mere spekulative banker. Men igen, det er jo et spgm om risiko vs. afkast.
P/E er på den forkerte side af 30 med en EPS omkring 0,40 USD per aktie.
Som Cramer siger er de meget stærkt kapitaliseret og det vil jo nok kunne rykke en del på EPS, hvis man begynder at bruge noget af den store kapital på at udvide forretningen. Det er der væksten i aktiekursen skal komme fra..... Og status som New England's største bank kan vel også gøre den interessant på sigt for en større national spiller.....
P/E er på den forkerte side af 30 med en EPS omkring 0,40 USD per aktie.
Som Cramer siger er de meget stærkt kapitaliseret og det vil jo nok kunne rykke en del på EPS, hvis man begynder at bruge noget af den store kapital på at udvide forretningen. Det er der væksten i aktiekursen skal komme fra..... Og status som New England's største bank kan vel også gøre den interessant på sigt for en større national spiller.....
som staldtips betegnet kan Cramer godt lige lukke mere op for posen,.....
28/4 2009 13:34 alpehue 09104 Godt info Aka.
Jeg har forsøgt, at læse de signaler, der er candlecharts på, men det er CH, dig og andre meget bedre til.
Fra min tråd om stress test:
markedet har allerede de, der er dårligere end andre.
Se disse candlestick charts:
http://stockcharts.com/scripts/php/candleglance.php?JPM,C,BAC,WFC,GS,MS,MET,PNC,usb,bk
og
http://stockcharts.com/scripts/php/candleglance.php?STI,stt,cof,bbt,rf,axp,fitb,key
Men FED har jo udmeldt, at alle har kapital nok ?
Samtidig bedt bankerne om at holde tæt ?
Så hvor sikre er oplysningerne Citi og BAC egentlig ?
Jeg har forsøgt, at læse de signaler, der er candlecharts på, men det er CH, dig og andre meget bedre til.
Fra min tråd om stress test:
markedet har allerede de, der er dårligere end andre.
Se disse candlestick charts:
http://stockcharts.com/scripts/php/candleglance.php?JPM,C,BAC,WFC,GS,MS,MET,PNC,usb,bk
og
http://stockcharts.com/scripts/php/candleglance.php?STI,stt,cof,bbt,rf,axp,fitb,key
Men FED har jo udmeldt, at alle har kapital nok ?
Samtidig bedt bankerne om at holde tæt ?
Så hvor sikre er oplysningerne Citi og BAC egentlig ?
28/4 2009 18:01 Hya 09177 først et lille klip
someone with "very deep pockets" has been propping up the S&P futures on every dip. The same can be seen every afternoon at the close, he claims. As he put it, this market is being manipulated in order to keep it propped up, and if you are long have VERY TIGHT STOPS in place, because when this deep-pocket trade begins to unwind, the drop will be fast and furious.
dernæst hevisning til
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30439325
og
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30445774
jeg tror ikke der er så mange bilioner til at manipulere markedet med længere - så det skal vel snart NED igen!
Hya
someone with "very deep pockets" has been propping up the S&P futures on every dip. The same can be seen every afternoon at the close, he claims. As he put it, this market is being manipulated in order to keep it propped up, and if you are long have VERY TIGHT STOPS in place, because when this deep-pocket trade begins to unwind, the drop will be fast and furious.
dernæst hevisning til
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30439325
og
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30445774
jeg tror ikke der er så mange bilioner til at manipulere markedet med længere - så det skal vel snart NED igen!
Hya
Så røg Ken Lewis og erstattet med en gammel Macdonalds mand....
http://politiken.dk/erhverv/article700481.ece
http://politiken.dk/erhverv/article700481.ece
2/5 2009 00:47 alpehue 09759 Han får en stor opgave i, at forklare begrebet indtjening :)
Her er gode eksempler:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/134513-bankrupt-banks-and-how-asset-values-are-deteriorating?source=email
Særligt interessant er begrebet:
"Fair-value lying accounting changes"
Nå jeg har ikke US-banker mere !
Der er for meget stess og for lidt test over dem. :)
Her er gode eksempler:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/134513-bankrupt-banks-and-how-asset-values-are-deteriorating?source=email
Særligt interessant er begrebet:
"Fair-value lying accounting changes"
Nå jeg har ikke US-banker mere !
Der er for meget stess og for lidt test over dem. :)
2/5 2009 12:08 collersteen 09788 Her er et lidt andet perspektiv på de amerikanske banker fra the old man himself.
I bund og grund lyder bankdrift jo ret simpelt....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30307530
Artiklen som omtales og linkes til er her: Det er primært om Wells Fargo, som jo faktisk nåede All-time-high i september 08 omkring kurs 40 ..... for derefter at blive banket fuldstændig til ukendelig sammen med de andre banker i starten af 09. Jeg tror de nåede ned i 7-8-9usd den dag i Marts, da alt var galt. (og man vist også kunne købe GE til 6-7usd)
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/19/news/companies/lashinsky_buffett.fortune/index.htm
I bund og grund lyder bankdrift jo ret simpelt....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30307530
Artiklen som omtales og linkes til er her: Det er primært om Wells Fargo, som jo faktisk nåede All-time-high i september 08 omkring kurs 40 ..... for derefter at blive banket fuldstændig til ukendelig sammen med de andre banker i starten af 09. Jeg tror de nåede ned i 7-8-9usd den dag i Marts, da alt var galt. (og man vist også kunne købe GE til 6-7usd)
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/19/news/companies/lashinsky_buffett.fortune/index.htm
2/5 2009 12:25 collersteen 09791 Et enkelt klip derfra som man så lige kan sammenligne med dagens markedsværdi på WellsFargo på omkring 80-85mia usd (ifølge google finance).
Then on top of that, they're smart on the asset side. They stayed out of most of the big trouble areas. Now, even if you're getting 20% down payments on houses, if the other guy did enough dumb things, the house prices can fall to where you get hurt some. But they were not out there doing option ARMs and all these crazy things. They're going to have plenty of credit losses. But they will have, after a couple of quarters of getting Wachovia the way they want it, $40 billion of pre-provision income.
Then on top of that, they're smart on the asset side. They stayed out of most of the big trouble areas. Now, even if you're getting 20% down payments on houses, if the other guy did enough dumb things, the house prices can fall to where you get hurt some. But they were not out there doing option ARMs and all these crazy things. They're going to have plenty of credit losses. But they will have, after a couple of quarters of getting Wachovia the way they want it, $40 billion of pre-provision income.
2/5 2009 12:37 collersteen 09792 Og lige her til sidst: Nu ved vi da hvordan Buffett bruger sin tid, når han ikke lige laver en 5mia deal med GE og Goldman på en eftermiddag. Buffett har taget internetverdenen til sig må man sige....
How confident will you be in Wells when Kovacevich retires?
Well, John [Stumpf] is in charge. Dick is a terrific help to John. I play bridge with John on the Internet. He plays under the name of HTUR. His wife's name is Ruth. My bridge partner, who I probably play bridge with four times a week, developed online banking for Wells. A woman named Sharon Osberg. And she's worked with those people. And she told me about John Stumpf ten years ago. I've had some insight through her on these people. But the real insight you get about a banker is how they bank. You've got to see what they do and what they don't do. Their speeches don't make any difference. It's what they do and what they don't do. And what Wells didn't do is what defines their greatness.
How is John's bridge game?
John is a very good bridge player. But he doesn't play as much as I do. I play all the time. He's smart. He's a different personality than Dick. Dick is a real sales person. They both subscribe to the same principles of banking. They just don't think you have to do things that the other guy is doing.
How confident will you be in Wells when Kovacevich retires?
Well, John [Stumpf] is in charge. Dick is a terrific help to John. I play bridge with John on the Internet. He plays under the name of HTUR. His wife's name is Ruth. My bridge partner, who I probably play bridge with four times a week, developed online banking for Wells. A woman named Sharon Osberg. And she's worked with those people. And she told me about John Stumpf ten years ago. I've had some insight through her on these people. But the real insight you get about a banker is how they bank. You've got to see what they do and what they don't do. Their speeches don't make any difference. It's what they do and what they don't do. And what Wells didn't do is what defines their greatness.
How is John's bridge game?
John is a very good bridge player. But he doesn't play as much as I do. I play all the time. He's smart. He's a different personality than Dick. Dick is a real sales person. They both subscribe to the same principles of banking. They just don't think you have to do things that the other guy is doing.
