Lola drew my attention to this on Robert Peston's 'blog. Assuming it's factually correct, the salient bits are as follows:
...about $1000bn of "old world" companies' borrowings in the form of tradable debt has to be paid back during the next 12 months - with something like $800bn of this owed by financial companies and $200bn by non-financial companies. That would be a colossal sum to pay off at the best of times, and is equal to about five times what's been repaid in 2008...
Their desperate plight - their almost complete inability to raise vital finance - is shown by another Bank of England chart. It plots the market price of European leveraged loans - banker-speak for the debt of companies with big borrowings - which has collapsed to 65 cents in the dollar on average.
To translate: companies with large debts are only expected to pay back two thirds of what they owe, which doesn't make them a sound banking proposition in our harsh new world of tighter-than-tight credit...
The trick for government, therefore, would be to rescue fundamentally viable businesses, while somehow leaving feckless management to swing in the wind.
Ahem, why is this "the government's", i.e. the taxpayers' problem in the first place? These banks have a few options:
1. Do nothing, bury heads in sand. If I were earnings millions as a director of a bank, I'd be sorely tempted to hang on as long as possible and damn the investors.
2. Do the decent thing and approach bondholders now, offering to exchange each £1 of nominal bond due next year with a new 65p bond due a few years hence, plus shares with a nominal value of 35p (to keep the books tidy). Commercially, this merely crystallises the latent loss that bondholders have suffered so far. Quite what the market value of those shares is and the extent to which existing shareholders are diluted is up to negotiation between the parties concerned. If bondholders refuse to co-operate, the bank can always point out that a few well-placed rumours will see ordinary depositors rushing to withdraw their money. This is what is known in the trade as a debt-for-equity-swap.
3. Hope against hope that various governments find another couple of hundred billion of taxpayer's finest to cover the one-third shortfall when repayment is due. There is always the possibility that no such money will be forthcoming, in which case bondholders and other creditors will end up taking over the bank anyway.
Was it all worth it?
1 hour ago
5 comments:
Do you mean that all the £1000bn of debt can be swapped for equity, thus removing all debt repayments? Is all debt in the form of bonds?
the answer is 3. the solution is to print more money.
the New World Order has thus spoken.
The article refers to 'tradeable bonds', so I'm taking that at face value.
The simplest form of d-f-e swap is when a bank repossesses a house. They now longer have a financial asset (the money the borrower owes them, which is supposed to earn them interest) they have a different asset of approximately the same value (the house) which they can then rent out or sell according to taste.
So yes, it does remove all debt repayments (assuming the evicted borrower ends up owing the bank nothing, or declares himself bankrupt or just disappears), but of course the new shareholders will want dividends (the same as the bank renting out the repossessed house).
Ooooo I really like that....can you imagine the 'phone calls...?
"Hallo. Hallo. Yes. Is that the Chairman of NatbarclloyHbos? Oh good. Now. I represent your lenders and because you have defaulted on your mortgage I am going to repossess you. Take over your equity as it were. You will be aware of the letters we have sent and the court papers? Excellent. Now then as to timescales. We will be seeking vacant possession in ten days. Is that OK? Good. Good. Have you got all that? Right. Bye now."
I would love to make those calls.
L, that reminds me of the Chase Manhattan-JP Morgan merger.
Post a Comment