以前都講過, 拯救銀行用賣 損失保險 (loss protection) 的方法比直接收購有毒資產更具成本效益, 而且政府仲有保費收入, 銀行不用注資也可以提升資本充足比率, 因為有政府包底, 同樣金額的資產, 因為風險系數細左, 計算出來的風險資產也會細左, 分母細左, 比率就會大左. 唔明美國仍然想實行資金需求高好多的收購有毒資產計劃. 現在英國推行總值5,000億英鎊的資產保險計劃:
HOW IT WORKS
In return for a fee, the government will provide banks with protection against losses on risky assets and loans "where there is the greatest amount of uncertainty about their future performance."
Much like many insurance schemes, the banks will be responsible for an excess or what the Treasury calls a "first loss amount" on top of the initial fee.
COST
The Treasury will base the fee and first loss amount on the likely performance of the assets covered. RBS says it will pay a fee of 6.5 billion pounds or 2 percent of the value of the 325 billion pounds of assets it is insuring and be responsible for the first 6 percent or 19.5 billion pounds of losses.
Over and above the "first loss" amount the Treasury will be liable for 90 percent of losses with banks responsible for the remaining 10 percent. The Treasury believes each bank's exposure will be sufficient incentive to keep losses to a minimum.
WHAT'S COVERED
The scheme covers corporate and leveraged loans; commercial and residential property loans and structured credit assets, including residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, collateralised loan obligations and collateralised debt obligations.
The duration of the scheme will be not less than 5 years and banks will have to give the Treasury access to information required to assess the risk.
CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON BANKS
Each applicant's participation in the scheme will be conditional upon the applicant committing to agreements to increase lending to credit-worthy borrowers. They will report to government on a monthly basis on delivering on the commitments.
RBS has committed to increasing its lending to homeowners and businesses by 25 billion pounds this year and a further 25 billion in 2010.
Banks must also comply with a remuneration policy consistent with the Financial Services Authority's code of practice and "meet the highest international standards of public disclosure" in relation to the assets.
台灣yahoo: http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
新浪Sina: http://graham_choi2003.mysinablog.com/
香港yahoo: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
下一站，牛津
2 年前
Which country has the most profitable banks going forward (for the next 5 years), in terms of profitability?
回覆刪除- Spain
- Canada
- US
- UK
- China
- India
回應Albert : 我對Spain, Canada, India唔太熟悉, 其餘我認為中國較好.
回覆刪除"The Treasury will base the fee and first loss amount on the likely performance of the assets covered"
回覆刪除I wonder how they assess the likely performance of the assets covered. What kind of models are they using?
市場先先，看你有好Buy擔保計劃，但你可否講吓二者的優劣？
回覆刪除擔保及轉移壞資產......
I am now working in Spain in insurance. I am not quite clear about the Spain banks as it is just my colleagues responsible for the Spain portfolio, i am just responsible for Asia. But as far as i know, she gave up several big deals covering the banks, including the biggest one, Santander......can't disclose much here as there are some confidential info. To my personal understanding, they are less exposed to those CDS, CDO is more purely by luck with the fact that the country is quite conservative or in more cruel term, less sophisticated and hence not involved in these kinda fancy stuff. but that doesn't mean they are strong to create value. It's a closed market that doesn't give service but reaped you off with huge fees on each limited traditional services......hence, profitability looks high....e.g. money transfer on internet costs you $0 in HK or $20 for interbanks, while here costs you $200 or still charge you $80 for online transaction.
回覆刪除As to your insurance scheme, I'd say it may work, according to law of large number (insurance principle) if things go natural. but in current case, all banks are having shxt, all are shxt, 100% shxt, doomed to fail, where probability is not naturally distribute with chance to win. (e.g. rolling a dice has 1/6 of win, while if all faces of dice are same no., no matter how many times you roll, it's 100%), then law of large no. doesn't work. The fact is that the distribution model (default risks) changes according to economy, economy turns sour, and default rate can change sharply and assets dropped more sharply or even exponentially if it's CDO, CDS products, then such doesn't work. Such will work only say, 5 banks are healthy (no toxic assets), 5 banks are shxt, then overall, you can find the probability to dilute the effects, but if 9 banks are negative assets, to file chapter 11 long time ago, and only 1 bank survive with a weakened last breath, the insurance scheme can hardly work effectly as no matter how many times the dice rolls, the result will be the same, law of large nos or insurance doesn't work when things are doomed to "die"......as if i explained to many Chinese insurance companies last June during the trip, AIG will highly likely disappear in future or if not disappear, will never be the same AIG again, this is by my own experience from my previous company who had 100 yrs history and disappeared in the end after the 3rd generation of founder.
To Vale - That's why I asked the question above - how will the toxic assets' performance be modeled?
回覆刪除