If high yielding preference shares are issued, does this not leave ordinary shares worthless ?
From today's Irish Times
[broken link removed]
Given that the government is taking all the downside in terms of its guarantee...
If high yielding preference shares are issued, does this not leave ordinary shares worthless ?
I'm a shareholder and also an employee of BOI. Scary times !
So they will get hit twice or three times. But that money has already been earned and spent. The taxpayer could be on the hook for billions in liabilities that will be paid for in poorer public services for the next generation. Think I'm being alarmist? Nobody is going to buy short-dated Irish government debt because they can buy Irish government guaranteed bank short-term debt at a better yield. So the government will be issuing long-dated debt in the event the guarantee is called upon. And they will have to issue over a range of dates up to thirty years. And probably at a fruity yield (since every other government in the world is issuing huge amounts of debt). Each and every year the government will have to put a significant proportion of its income into servicing the national debt.But wouldn't it be true to say that a lot of shareholders are taxpayers ?
There are a lot more people affected through pension & investment plans.
Hi Duke
You are correct. The government is taking most of the downside. The shareholders in Bank of Ireland stand to lose around €1billion at the moment. The tax payer stands to lose a lot more due to the guarantee.
Brendan
Haven't put much thought into this arguement, but does the fact that the buffer between assets and liabilities has fallen €17bn make the €1bn market capitalisation remaining a very slim margin against further negative news? I understand that much of the loss in market capitalisation was as much to do with the loss of expected future growth but it seems to me that the banks have no handle on the level of bad debts and the projections for these will only go one way unless someone seriously stimulates the economyDon't want to get bogged down in a semantic argument. I still think the risk of actual insolvency is quite small - this is what the government is insuring against, they still argue that it is a small contingent liability. The shareholders on the other hand stand to lose all the net assets up to the point of insolvency. The market value of 1Bn is an assessment of what will be left after these loan losses.
The argument for state capitalisation seems to revolve around the state being the only one with the stomach to lend into a recession. The banks, acting prudently (for a change), are not prepared to take the risks which are necessary to avoid a severe economic downturn.
In summary. If the government recapitalises the banks in some shape or form the taxpayer is definitely taking on a much greater short term financial risk than the mere guarantee. But, and I am starting to believe this, the taxpayer might need to take these risks for the long term good of the economy.
http://www.herald.ie/opinion/column...s-control-of-our-disgraced-banks-1543327.htmlDan White's article in today's Herald is worth a read.
...
The Government should ignore the bank bosses. They are now totally discredited. While they might seem to think that the banks can get by without fresh capital, no-one else now believes that.
By delaying the much-needed recapitalisation, the bank bosses are threatening to make a bad situation even worse.
The sooner the Government seizes control of the banks and pumps in the fresh capital, which they desperately need to start lending again, the better.
Is recapitalisation now inevitable? From what I've been reading this morning, it looks like it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?