Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: Sicuri che le banche europee siano con i conti in ordine???

Adesso che lo stato USA ha "salvato" quelle piccole cachette bancarie, 
quando toccherà all'europa a fare altrettanto???
Siamo certi che in USA siano solo loro i criminali che giocano a debito 
e noi europei, come dice il ladro di Draghi, siamo tranquilli quando 
alcuni istitui hanne leve del doppio o più di quelle degli istitui 
americani?
Leggiamoci questo interessante aticolo:
European banking on borrowed time
By Daniel Gros and Stefano Micossi
Published: September 23 2008 19:49 | Last updated: September 23 2008 
19:49
The US financial system is being nationalised. The piecemeal approach 
followed so far had clearly not been working. Hence the US political 
system is working overtime to reach a bipartisan agreement on a 
systemic solution. The centrepiece is already known: the US government 
is going to buy $700bn (€480bn, £380bn) of the so-called “toxic” 
assets. More measures are certain to follow as the banks will require 
recapitalisation to the extent that they make losses. As a result, the 
US government will soon own a large share of the US banking system. If 
the details are generous enough, this should be sufficient finally to 
restore orderly market conditions. Can Europe be far behind?
The synchronised movements in global markets over the last few weeks 
have shown that contagion works on the way down and on the way up.
But the case of AIG, the US insurer, also shows the importance of 
another, hidden, link across financial markets, namely massive evasion 
of regulatory requirements. AIG’s last annual report reveals that it 
had written coverage for more than $300bn of credit insurance for 
European banks. The comment by AIG itself on these positions was that 
they were “for the purpose of providing them with regulatory capital 
relief rather than risk mitigation in exchange for a minimum guaranteed 
fee”. Thus, a formal default by AIG would have exposed European banks 
to large increases in regulatory capital requirements, with possibly 
devastating effects on their ratings and market confidence. Thus, the 
US Treasury has saved, inter alia, the European banking system.
The extent of regulatory arbitrage can also be seen in the very large 
gap between overall leverage ratios and the official regulatory ratios. 
The dozen largest European banks have now, on average, an overall 
leverage ratio (shareholders’ equity to total assets) of 35, which has 
actually increased so far this year, compared with less than 20 for the 
largest US banks. But at the same time most large European banks also 
report regulatory leverage ratios of close to 10. This is partly due to 
the fact that the massive in-house investment banking operations of 
European banks are subject only to limited regulatory capital 
requirements. Another part of the explanation must be regulatory 
arbitrage, for example, through the credit insurance offered by AIG.
Europe’s banks will benefit greatly from the effective nationalisation 
of the US financial system now being planned, because the larger ones, 
which all have significant US operations will also benefit from the 
$700bn bail-out fund. But it remains unclear how many of these assets 
they still hold in their balance sheets and how volatile their 
liability base will prove if confidence does not return quickly.
The crucial problem on this side of the Atlantic is that the largest 
European banks have become not only too big to fail, but also too big 
to be saved. For example, the total liabilities of Deutsche Bank 
(leverage ratio over 50!) amount to about €2,000bn (more than Fannie 
Mae) or more than 80 per cent of the gross domestic product of Germany. 
This is simply too much for the Bundesbank or even the German state, 
given that the German budget is bound by the rules of the European 
Union’s stability pact and the German government cannot order (unlike 
the US Treasury) its central bank to issue more currency. Similarly, 
the total liabilities of Barclays of around £1,300bn (leverage ratio 
60!) are roughly equivalent to the GDP of the UK. Fortis bank has a 
leverage ratio of “only” 33, but its liabilities are three times the 
GDP of its home country of Belgium.
With banks that have outgrown their home turf, national treasuries and 
regulators in Europe are living on borrowed time: they cannot simply 
develop “road maps” (the only result of various Ecofin discussions of 
regulatory reform by finance ministers), but must contemplate a worst-
case scenario.
Given that solutions for the largest institutions can no longer be 
found at the national level it is apparent that the European Central 
Bank will need to be put in charge as it is the only institution that 
can issue unlimited amounts of a global reserve currency. The 
authorities in the UK and Switzerland – which cannot rely on the ECB – 
can only pray that no accident happens to the giants they have in their 
own garden.
Che si fa?
salute

cut
no.
problemi di bilancio?
http://news.kataweb.it/item/404395

 
http://news.kataweb.it/item/404395
non capisco il nesso...Spieghi?

Gobo wrote:

un altro che fa politica su ieb...
un altro da plonkare. 



un'altro da mandare a cagare

dovessi scommettere un euro lo scommetterei sul fallimento di una banca UK
troppo legati i mondi finanziari londinesi a quelli newYorkesi perchč i 
metodi non si siano propagati
sono storicamente compagni di merende 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:ZsHCk.6398$Uo5....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

secondo te è fare politica permettere di mettere a bilancio quello che si 
vuole?
e se io ho una partecipazione mettiamo in un qualche fondo estero che 
improvvisamente và in cacca, mi conviene metterlo in chiaro nel bilancio?
vedi un pò te se questa è politica.
basta vedere alcune dichiarazioni "non abbiamo esposizioni con i mutui 
subprime", ci credi?
ti pare fare politica ? 

magomerlino wrote:

senti 
te non ti piace berlusconi/la destra/la sinistra/etc. etc. 
ma se vuoi parlare di falso in bilancio dillo.. non mettere un link che fa'
pensare a qualche cosa di puntuale. 
Per un problema di attualita' posti un link de gennaio 2008 sul processo
sme....
che ti devo dire? 
a me questo modo di fare da' noia e plonko.
Se poi vuoi aprire un thread sui problemi del falso in bilancio nelle
aziende quotate... beh 
sarebbe interessante.
in ogni caso *plonk*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
bye

>
non era poi cos' difficile capire che intendevo il falso in bilancio nelle 
aziende, a quell'ora il primo link che si trova dgt con google è quello, si 
vede che google fà politica anche lei.
rilassatevi, visto che investiamo in titoli di chicchessia sarebbe utile se 
non altro avere dei bilanci chiari e non solo delle dichiarazioni sui 
giornali.