/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54208969
>The swiss gov is going to force a law to bypass any will of the shareholder about the merge
Kek If I was an UBS shareholder I would be seething hard.

>>54209041
You VILL hold ze giant bag full of liabilities
You VON'T get ze vote on ze matter
and you VILL be happy

Credit Suisse general? More like chud "2 more weeks" general

>@elerianm 30m – Virtually everyone at this high-level Swiss press conference--government officials, regulator, central bank governor, and executives of the two banks--blamed the US banking sector turmoil for being the catalyst for the financial turmoil in #Switzerland.

>QT: @lisaabramowicz1 – This is notable. Everyone in Switzerland is blaming regional US banks as the catalyst. If they're right, then that suggests a much bigger problem. How much money is flowing out of the weaker banks? And where is it going? Are JPM & BofA just getting trillions of new deposits?

>>54209073
>muh 2 more weeks
It already happened negroid dog

>>54209087
TWO
MORE
WEEKS
AND
ECONOMY
WILL
COLLAPSE

Head of the Federal Department of Finance during the Q&A:
>"this is a commercial solution and not a bailout"

holy kek

>>54209107
where did I say the economy will collapse you illiterate monkey?

>>54209041
free economy btw

>>54208969
n o t h i n g
b u r g e r

>>54209165
Having everything crash will affect not only swiss banks but also international institutions.
Shareholders can now go sue the swiss gov/UBS and whomever they like.

Here they come

Deutsche Bank is next, followed by First Republic Bank and PNC Bank, then HSCB will fall.
All of this will happen within 2 weeks.
Then either Wells Fargo or Citi Group will go kaput despite being an SIB (mostly due to the House and Senate being diametrically opposed to each other and any action taken by Biden will be litigated by lolberts)
Check these digits for truth and screencap this.

>>54209493
>2 weeks.
that number...it seems so familiar...

>>54209493
>2 weeks

It's quite hard to understand why some regional bank of homos in Silicon Valley, a nest of homos, somehow affects Credit Suisse. My guess is that this is because it doesn't, not really. I'm intrigued if the Gamestop shorts are a factor, is this handed on to to UBS, or does special jew legal magic mean that this disappears?
Next up: Santander. They are another woke, badly run bank of morons. It's been Deutsche Bank in 2 weeks for about 3 years now, so idk about them. They appear to be a protected bank, for reasons.

Comfy Sunday afternoon economic happening.

>>54209082
>It was all RONALD RUMP!

>>54209107
>>54209493
2 weeks is an extremely good metric to judge how much fear should actually be applied to a situation.

The truth is 2 weeks will never arrive because 4chan is forward looking therefore any news on 4chan has already been confirmed and they are already looking to the next 2 weeks.

Contrast this with the MSM who is always 2 weeks late reporting news and this helps you determine presents. Presents are actually pasts which can help us to determine futures. Now the main thing is to always inverse 4chan and the MSM. Extreme optimism or negativity shiuld be inversed while conflicting reports means a solid nothing burger.

Keep in mind you need to use the nothing/something burger index as that trumps all previous information the amount of nothing/something burgers inversely tells you how worried you need to be about futures.

>>54209493
>Citi
>At greater risk of insolvency than BofA, Morgan Stanley or JP Morgan.

Oh look, it’s another thread of unemployed /pol/ armchair economists

>>54210203
Because banks lend each other money. It's a confidence game. When fear takes over the market you don't want to be exposed to a dying bank. You need to sell those toxic assets without other counterparty banks starting to notice your situation first. Credit Suisse probably had a worse balance sheet than UBS but they had the worst reputation after so many blunders. That's why the name is erased. And while the speculators might bet against CS, are they going to bet against UBS. Are they going to bet against UBS backed by the SNB?

>>54210376
Oh look, it's another paid shill.

>>54210408
Yes. Default CD swaps paint that picture pretty clear that UBS will be way down

>>54210203
All banks are linked by reliance on US treasuries.

>>54210468
Correct, I get paid to work with banks, you FUD banks for free

>>54210334
while that sounds like a decent strategy on a normal day, i think the current economic situation might not be as simple. It's my impression that very few people know "the truth" about what's really happening in the global economy right now, and those people are the central bankers and world leaders. the media and general public have no concept of the beast that is monetary policy, there's no way to make people understand how fucked up and convoluted it all is. people wouldn't be smart enough to grasp the finer details either, even if they do eventually get the general concept

the simple fact is, people always think there's a solution to a problem like this, but we're in a rare situation where there may not actually be a solution, we just might be fucked. the global economy will probably collapse because inflation and a liquidity crisis cannot be solved at the same time, fixing one just makes the other worse. so no one knows what to think, the media doesn't know what to report, and no one really knows what comes next or how bad it will end up being. that's the long and the short of it

>>54208969
Do we know who are the major holders of those CHF 16B Credit Swiss bonds?

>>54210493
This is why I pointed out nothing/something burger index trumping daily sentiment. Essentially the stronger the something burger the more likely nithing will happen vs the more likely the nothing burger the more likely the 2 week is real or at least a serious issue.

>>54210489
Nuh uh FUDing banks makes my bitfarts go up.

>>54210573
except if you knew what was going on, then you know something WILL happen. this isn't going to be a nothingburger, it's far too serious of a crisis, and it's not being actually fixed. they are just printing more money to extend it. it's actually so serious, that law makers are working and passing laws over the fucking weekend to fix it. the general public probably won't be told the full story, making it a real "nothingburger" for you

>>54208969
>About 16 billion Swiss francs of Credit Suisse bonds have become worthless as part of the SNB-orchestrated UBS takeover of the bank. This is the biggest loss yet for Europe's $275 billion AT1 market.
Wait, how does this work?
I'm sure that in any other takeover bonds don't become worthless.
The only way for bonds to become worthless is for a company to go bankrupt. Even then bondholders will share whatever money is made through sale of firm property.

>>54210520
At this point probably the ECB during their last round of QE

>>54210629
Exactly. The fear of a something burger causes actual movement which causes a movement to turn it into a nithing burger. However this can cause an early declaration of victory which would inverse the nothing/something burger index.

Keep in mind during the Depression everyone assumed we would see total collapse and revolution which never came. During the GFC a great depression was called but it never reached that degree.

During the fall of Rome it was declared the end of civilization but civilization continued and at the height of Rome it was declared no other civilizationwould achieveher greatness. Surf the waves and always short sell hype.

>>54210395
tldr

These are the CS shareholder ranked, and now their shares will be converted to UBS shares at a 22 to 1 basis, apparently. Possibly bond holders as well? >>54210520

>>54210928
you sure love your history, but it would really benefit you to look at the present. the world is a completely different place now. high speed trading algos didn't exist in 1920, and definitely didn't in ancient rome. it's 2023, current year, and now high speed algos do 99.9% of all trading. the world is not the same. that's really all i can tell you. not saying you're wrong, but if you're right then it's just from dumb luck

>>54210376
Seethe more

>>54210489
Nobody here is invested in banks though retard

>>54211080
why did you higlight caise de Quebec?

>>54210376
yeah, nothing to see here. move along

>>54209073
>>54209107

>>54209493
>house and senate being diametrically opposed
I don't think you understand how politics in America works, go look at any vote for increasing aid to Israel, or aid for Ukraine, 99% approval

>>54209493
>PNC
more like piece of shit bank

>>54211184
I was about to make a post exactly to this effect lol.

>>54211110
Nothing will happen until something happens. But something won't happen until the majority of people assume nothing will happen.

>>54208969
>Credit Suisse stockholders
Credit Sissy stockingholders kek

>>54209493
BoA, too.

>>54210655
>Wait, how does this work?
>I'm sure that in any other takeover bonds don't become worthless.
>The only way for bonds to become worthless is for a company to go bankrupt. Even then bondholders will share whatever money is made through sale of firm property.

these bonds have special clauses in which the bonds are written to zero if the bank's CET1 capitalization ratio crosses a certain threshold, like 7%

i guess in that scenario the equity could theoretically still get something even while this particular tranche of debt gets nothing

but the CET1 ratio was 14.1% not that long ago, so maybe between withdrawals, asset write-downs, or other events, the clause was triggered? i'm trying to figure this out myself

>>54210203
Yes, UBS is now the bagholder for Archegos' GME shorts. I expect them to begin closing them tomorrow.

>>54211184
honestly, he needs tranny hair

>>54211154
why not?

>>54208969
> and we would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for those meddling americans
Prime cope and seethe. Who’s next?

>>54211359
Isn't this write off going to lead to massive increase in borrowing costs for every single other bank?
I mean every other bank took a bigger or smaller hit to their stock price last week because of the increased risk CS defaulting causes.
But this means that lending money through bonds just became riskier than owning the stock.

>>54208969
>Credit Suisse
More like Debit Suisse now.

Even the mountain Jews aren't save from woke bullshit in their companies.

>>54211471
AT1 bonds like these are a $275B market in Europe so

>Isn't this write off going to lead to massive increase in borrowing costs for every single other bank?
yeah probably but with the recent inflows towards megabanks, and out of regionals, the pain will be felt unevenly

massive banks with special access to cheap liquidity aren't going to do as poorly

if Bitcoin is good for anything it usually signals rate moves pretty well, U.S. treasury yields will probably tank again tomorrow

>>54210376
>unemployed
its sunday you dumb nigger

>>54210235
What movie?

I own open cs 2.5 calls. What does this mean for me?

>>54208969
me waiting for the markets to puke blood tomorrow

>>54210395
Is he another gold peddler?

>>54210465
What a bargain

>>54211674
i believe they'd be converted to UBS call contracts with the strike prices and shares per contract adjusted according to the merger

ultimately probably worthless if you had a $2.50 strike and the takeout was at $0.82

>>54210520
>Pacific Investment Management Co., Invesco Ltd. and BlueBay Funds Management Co. SA were among the many asset managers holding Credit Suisse AT1 notes, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Their holdings may have changed or been sold entirely since their last regulatory filings.

>>54212037
It's like transplanting a brain tumor onto another patient

>>54209265
sue the swiss government? where. in Da Hague?

>>54210203
spaniard here... don't take it as financial advise but:
>They appear to be a protected bank, for reasons.
Santander means satan network and its own by a crypto family named Botin (spoils of war). They actually are frontrunners from another family
>Juan March was the wealthiest man in Spain and the sixth richest in the world. Throughout his life, he accumulated labels such as "the Rockefeller of Spain" or "the last pirate of the Mediterranean". At his death in 1961, Time called him "the Iberian Croesus".
and Juan March was a puppet of the global cabbal.

So, my bet is that Santander will be the last Spanish survivor bank. It haven't failed for the same reason Deutsche is still afloat.
I guess the next spanish bank to fail will be Banc Sabadell.
Also, what we are starting to see in the international scene already happened in Spain - the falling and merging of banks "big and solid" banks, ad-hoc regulations, massive wipe outs (check Santander buying Popular for 1 eur), and so one.

As you know, the endgame is hardcore tech communism rules by trannies.

>>54212412
>>54212412
also
>satanred is the main bank for drug laundering money in Spain and a big lot of Latin America.
>the Vatican signs the former Santander number two. Javier Marín will be a director of the bank of the Holy See

When does pre market open?

>>54210203
>It's quite hard to understand why some regional bank of homos in Silicon Valley, a nest of homos, somehow affects Credit Suisse.
it didn't.
they aren't related at all, except insofar as that fed rate hikes triggered both problems.

MX. PIPS BUNCE

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOUUUUUUUUUUU

>>54212554
That's Ms. Pupa for you

>>54210474
partly this, except, it's a total coincidence that both banks got caught out simultaneously. either one could have rolled short-term notes and been in better condition than the other and lasted several months longer than the other.

>>54210465
>if you didn't learn in 2008 never to buy a bank, not its common, not its preferreds, not even its debt, if you weren't around then, if you weren't paying attention, or if you just got burned again
now you know
cut it out, anon

>>54210655
that's what this is. it's restructuring. they're bankrupt.
bankruptcy isn't always 100% liquidation. sometimes its only partial liquidation.

do I start shorting bank stocks tomorrow morning? Whenever I usually do something like this it means it's bottomed already

>>54210493
>there's no way to make people understand how fucked up and convoluted it all is
>the global economy will probably collapse because inflation and a liquidity crisis cannot be solved at the same time, fixing one just makes the other worse

Everyone is too dumb to understand something I’ve explained with a single sentence. /biz/ = intellectual masturbation.

This whole manufactured (over decades) crisis is the passing of the torch from the white countries to the Asian countries. Whitey is being phased out, with this crisis and the clotshot replacing the blood shed.

>>54212780

Definitely. Send itttt

>>54209107
>When the left governs
Two weeks!
>When the right governs
Late stage capitalism!

>>54211513
>/pol/posting retard unironically thinks "woke bullshit" is what's bringing down the banking system
Truly, the people will always be slaves to central banking

I work for a Swedish bank. Currently have $16b against us in short positions. Shitting myself for market open and the following week.

>>54212993
Some industries need elite performers with very little margin for error. Electing to introduce weakness into an already destabilized system can spell disaster. Straw meet camel.

>>54212993
Pronouns in bio is retarded.

>>54213039
Will you feel drained by the swamp when you end up voting for a lifelong fed in 2024? Or will you do it with a smile on your face like a dumb goy

>>54212993
You really don't think ESG contributed to how fucking poorly those companies were run? Or are you fighting in a culture war right now?

>>54212993
Sure, put the mentally ill person in charge of risk management. What could go wrong?

>>54209493
well if you're looking for the next bank, you could always look at which ones passed the stress test last summer by the US Fed, just like Credit Suisse did

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/european-banks-ace-us-feds-stress-test-show-strong-capital-levels-2022-06-23/

>WASHINGTON/LONDON, June 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. units of major European lenders including Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Credit Suisse sailed through the Federal Reserve's annual "stress tests" on Thursday, showing they hold enough capital to weather an economic shock.

>For the seven European bank subsidiaries the Fed oversees with more than $100 billion in assets, the average capital ratio -- a measure of the cushion a bank has to withstand potential losses -- remained well above the regulatory minimum of 4.5%.

>The average capital ratio for the seven European lenders stood at 15.2%, compared with 9.7% for the 34 banks. Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations had the highest ratio of all banks at 22.8%, while Credit Suisse was the third-highest of the group with a ratio of 20.1%. HSBC was the straggler of the foreign pack with a ratio of 7.7%.

the article then goes on to single out Credit Suisse as having a weakness, to be fair

>However, Credit Suisse's core capital ratio suffered the biggest fall of all the banks tested under the severe stress scenario, eroding by more than 7 percentage points from its starting point. HSBC's buffer fell the second most, dropping more than 6 percentage points.

>>54213111
These are also just the american subsidiaries so it's tough to read too much into it

>>54213078
>voting

Umm, anon? The script is written and we don’t have a role. Of all the variables that are able to be controlled, do you think public influence would be left unchecked?

>>54213101
If the government sets a price ceiling on milk, there will be a shortage of milk

If the government sets interest rates on a whim it will cause asset prices to fluctuate, if government sets interest rates too low it will cause mal-investment.

Anti-tranny propaganda is the cinnamon sugar sprinkled on neo-con propaganda to make you swallow banker, Israel, immigration loving shit

>>54213155
>gruesome experiment

>>54211674
You made shekelberg slightly wealthier

>>54213199
I get my anti-tranny messaging together anti-banker, anti-israel, and anti-immgiration ideas, retard.

>>54208969
Oh shit. The elites are abandoning america and moving to europe.

Missing money? thats a deflationary signal. Feels planned.

>>54213199
And if the government showers ESG with money you get retards in positions of power running companies into ground.

>>54208969
Nothing happens, so what credit suisse stock is going to be sold at 1/22th of it's current market price which is like 0.08c (1.86/22=0.08) that isn't going to scare investors who hold stocks in JPMorgan or Wells Fargo because once this is over it'll easy 22x back again.

>>54210520
Likely pension funds.

>>54214668
oh shit lmao
boomers are gonna seethe

>>54210629
Uh, won’t Swiss fed just come and save it like USA fed with svb. There’s no way they going to let the economy crash

>>54214736
All these sorts of stocks are mainly held by funds run by Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard, and the asset management arms of all the world's largest banks. The main users of these funds will be pension funds and retail investors.

>>54210408
Is that you George?

>>54214403
How'd they manage that steep decline from the higher peak in Sep '22?

>>54211080
explain to me like im a retarded frog speaking french

>>54208969
What a shitshow. The shareholders deserved to lose everything and the high ranking employees should be in prison. But once again bankers get special treatment at the cost of everyone else.

>>54215512
Punishing the Saudis for not helping at the end and their Iran deal.

Giving the Arabs yet another reason not to trust Europe and join in on the BRICS currency.

>>54211656
Being this underage and virginal.

>>54210376

>>54211656
Margin Call

>>54208969
bullish for UBS

>>54208969
To the bond baggies
No refunds
> No refunds
No refunds
> No refunds
No refunds
> No refunds

What does this mean for Credit Suisse ETNs?

>>54209265
>Having everything crash will affect not only swiss banks

I believe this would have a ripple effect across all financial markets including crypto which still have me skeptical about where the crypto market is as a whole. Well, I have a good portion of my assets in stablecoins on SpoolFi waiting to buy the dip on the outcome of this bank saga.

>>54208969

So they are saying that the AT-1 bonds will be worthless, which should be the the perpetuals.

What about the non perpetuals like pic related? My friend bought it just fre days ago, is he making 40% profit or getting wiped too?

>>54210465

Credit suisse shareholders got really scammed, as a fair and even low valuation just their operation for local clients in Switzerland was with over 10 billions. The rest still had positive value overall with the last credit line it had enough cash to cover even if all short term depositors were to pull out. ALL.

>>54213199
You progressive fundamentalists have become the new neo-cons, gullible dumbass.

>>54214774
They can't afford to, I wonder the essence of banks if they don't hold the cash they claim to hold what is their usefulness?

>>54217748
For settling bills and taking high interest loans for wagies.

>>54217782
>For settling bills
Bills are being settled with Crypto, haven't you heard of CryptMi and COTI?

>>54217398
You think neo-cons disappeared? Lol
Slurp it up from Ben Shapiro and his shabbos goy

>>54210493
There's actually the more frightening idea that nobody can know "the truth" because the world is now so complex that no single person can hold all the knowledge necessary to understand the whole picture. At some point you start using summaries to abstract away the technical details because you don't have time to go through everything but if you add all those generalizations up eventually your knowledge becomes something completely different from the real thing.

>>54212208
this

>>54212208
yup. this right here is why people need to stop being idiots and think it is safe.

>>54212208
Kek

>>54218908
This no one can understand modern banking system, shits fucked up

>>54211080
>Blackrock, Saudi, Qatar.
LOL. Lmao.

>>54217117
What do you do when your stables become worthless?

>>54211570
>AT1 bonds like these
nope, those were special AT1 bonds.
CS had "Perpetual Tier 1 Contingent Write-down Capital Notes".
Note that it's "contingent write-down" rather than the more typical "contingent convertible".
So bondholders get wiped first and don't get converted to stock like with typical AT1 bonds.

Retards not reading the fine-print have only themselves to blame.

>Dropped 62%

It's over

>>54209493
>94
>93
>descending numerals
fuckufuckfuckfukcfuckuckfuckfuck... It's unfolding

>>54212850
>This whole manufactured (over decades) crisis is the passing of the torch from the white countries to the Asian countries. Whitey is being phased out, with this crisis and the clotshot replacing the blood shed.
You forget to mention the manufactured wars and immigrant invasions meant to exterminate us.

>>54211080
That uh puts a lot of those there banks with more liabilities then equity now kek dos gon be a good week afterall

>>54210493
From my understanding of how the world economy works since the anglo-dutch (+jew ofc) capitalist system has been adopted, we're basically borrowing from the future.
We predict that there will always be growth and there will always be more resources and products and overall richesses tomorrow than there are today. The whole market follows this one thing for truth, a basic truth from which all policy derives.
There are times of recession but it is understood that this is corrected by a steeper growth after it ends to "catch up".
This is simply no longer the case. Major economies are shifting to renewables and leaving oil and gas which will necessarily involve a period of recession, that will be longer than a mere passing one like in 2008. We're talking decades or even a century.
Population growth has also stabilised and is not far from going into a reverse trend, as even China, India and Africa have lower and lower fertility rates.
Add to that a looming war that will probably destroy more resources and you understand that everyone and their mother KNOWS the economy will recede in the foreseeable future.
This overall pessimistic outlook has started to creep into the markets and nobody is willing to speculate on continued growth across the board. Energy companies, hard industries, agro and war industries will probably do well + a few tech sectors and bio pharma (more and more old people to keep healthy in years to come) but the rest will crash and burn. Especially everything related to luxurious products from media to travel to soft tech.
The WTO is also dead and we're slowly back to protectionism, meaning less growth for companies across the world as they have access to smaller and smaller potential markets.

>>54211674
thank you for playin. no refunds

>>54208969

What happens to stockholders now?

Why shouldn't we just slurp up those shares at 0.77 CHF?

>>54210928
>During the fall of Rome it was declared the end of civilization but civilization continued
It took the world 1000 years for italians to finally rise back to the heights of roman art made in 2nd century BC.
If you consider any senegalese nigger village civilisation fine, and that's where we're headed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-65011579

>>54221633
Going to 0

>>54221836
Funds are sicher

>>54210655
So the CDS people actually pulled it off. Unfucking believable.

>>54208969
Stupid banks.
https://youtu.be/-wI79Hf3XI8

>>54221836
Collapse imminent

>>54221657
I wonder how a collapse would play out in the current globalized world. Back then, when a civilization was falling, the others were still going on like nothing happened, but now that everyone has ties with everyone else and is dependent on global ressources, there would be probably nowhere to flee.

>>54212850
>Whitey is being phased out
with countries entering terminal demographic decline?

"Thanks for playing"

>>54222506
there'll be faux outrage and people will forget about it in 2 weeks. they know they can spit in peoples faces and nothing will come of it.

>>54209082
lmao, credit suisse has been on the brink of collapse for like a year now. and the toblerone fags have the audacity to put all blame on the final straw that broke the camels back

>>54212037
Who's buying UPS when they get in trouble?

>>54222395
>Back then, when a civilization was falling, the others were still going on like nothing happened
Not true. After the roman empire fell the decay and regression in arts echoed throughout the known world as far as India.
Nowadays it would probably be worse though, agreed.
The only region that would be relatively speaking unscathed is South America in my opinion.
They're already poor and have plenty of land to grow food. Nothing much would change, if anything Argentina or Brazil would meme themselves into stronger regional or even global powers, kind of like the US did after europe nuked itself twice within 50 years.
South America also has a decent human capital meanwhile India and Africa are full of dumb negroes that will resort to eating each other without Europe feeding them.

>>54212037
kek

>>54222727
The thing is, most retail investors won't know that it's their pensions that are taking the hit here.

/r/ing a basedjack warren buffet

i just want to quit my day job

It's over.

>>54212260
The Hague is only for crimes against Jews and Jewish interests, you're looking for the court of crimes by Jews or for Jewish interests.

"Don't panic."
-CEO

>>54217117
>waiting to buy the dip on the outcome of this bank saga.
You'll be waiting a long time, this isn't a 'dip' it's a cliff edge.

Why is it up to 0,90 from 0,70?

>>54213107
If you really think they're putting troons and homos in charge of anything more complicated than a marketing e-mail campaign you really don't know what you're talking about.

>>54223301
>-CEO

>>54223395
Before UBS vs After UBS

>>54223395
Pips bunce is a software engineer. Troons are well renowned computer geeks and it's probably the one area where they've really historically proven themselves. They are 1 in 50,000 employees and aren't even in the business of making fund allocation decisions. You have fallen for neo-con propaganda

>>54223456
Fuck off with the neo-cons bullshit, we're just making fun of CS. At least blame Jews like anyone else if you want to be taken seriously.

>>54223456
ive always wondered why trannies are so overly represented in high level, technical aspects of electronics and software engineering (not just the failsons getting a paycheque because every silicon valley startup needs to burn their cash somehow). theyre like jews with banks. i just dont get it.

>>54213229
theres a lot more to that experiment actually that isn't mentioned in the pic.

>>54209041
Your own fault for believing in banks t b h.

>>54208969
>contagion
Yeah this was the key word in the OP.
Credit Sus no longer matters they've been temporarily bailed out. Now it's the contagion. Very 2020 vibes.

>>54225042
Autism

>>54225042
Code monkeys are massive faggots. I don't get how this is surprising to you.
All the ugly and fat fucks bullied throughout their school and high school years are the ones to go into computer coding faggotry in college.

>>54217117
don't hold your breath waiting on it, that's dangerous

>>54225042
NSA spooks demanding a show of obedience and clique networking effects.
You pretty much don't see them outside of American tech.

I'm so fucking happy CS is going down, they are always such fucking retards to work with.
UBS isn't that much better, but they are somewhat capable usually

>>54226277
In what capacity did you work with them? Would love to hear some stories

>>54208969
holy shit this board is dead

So Siwssfags were the first ones to get out? Well played.

>>54224367
The Jews are neo-cons lol

>>54225042
Weird computer geeks are more understanding of weird tranny computer geeks

>>54226406
It varies a lot, sometimes I work with them a lot, sometimes rarely. However they are always a fucking hassle to get things done with. I work with settlement and they have no fucking idea how to operate any markets except the US (and even that can take a long time). During all the trades I've worked with them, they have owed us probably procured 10-100 thousand in easily avoidable delay-costs that they try to pass over to us (and blame me for of course), when they can't do simple shit.
What I've just started to do is when I find one competent person there, I just work exclusively with them, since their teams are retarded and take no responsibility for anything.
The stories aren't particularly interesting, they just have an incredible low workrate and incompetence, combined with a huge workload the last years which have made them unbearable to work with.

>>54213111
>>54213144
>>54213155
>>54213199
4 in a row
Checked

>>54209493
>Deutsche Bank is next
no kek
the next ones are gonna be:
Commerzbank
Barclays
Lloyds
Deutsche Bank
Santander

Most ametican banks are gonna survive.
Mostly big banks.
Wells Fargo seems okay as well.
Citigroup gonna eat dust

Check their charts and see for yourself. they're all doomed

>>54228134
Don't forget UniCredit and HSBC. The one bank I expect to do well would be JP Morgan.

>>54209073
Mire like 6 less months. What you will start seeing now are the after effects of the shit hitting the fan.

>>54209151
>this is totally not a bailout
>The occupy wallstreet nocs: I sleep

>>54228134
why does everyone believe all the banks are going under? CS has been having problems for years, this was just the straw that broke the camels back

>>54228134
>Santander
Highly doubt it since they're big into WEF and XRP plus their balance sheet looks okay so it's more likely Wells Fargo is next if anything

>>54229065
CS was a *systemically relevant bank* and still went down.
no one is safe.

>>54223395
Credit Buisse

>>54231253
it didn't really go down, the swiss decided to bail them out through a merger instead just a regular cash handout.

>>54209493
Before that shot - 200 billion more to mother Ukrain!!

>>54229943
I'm willing to take a Wells Fargo fall. The more the merrier. Besides, they are Well and truly Faggots.

CREDIT SUISSE 3/2023

It is sometimes useful to think that the shareholders of a bank are not its owners; they are just renting it from its creditors. Schematically, a bank borrows a bunch of money from depositors and other creditors and uses the money to make loans and buy securities and do other risky investments. If the investments end up being worth more than the deposits, the shareholders keep what’s left. If the investments end up being worth less than the deposits then, uh, that’s bad. Then the shareholders don’t own the bank anymore, for one thing, but that’s really the least of your problems. The real problem is that the depositors can’t lose money; the banking system relies on bank deposits being usable as money. “Banks are speculative investment funds grafted on top of critical infrastructure,” Matt Klein wrote last week. The liabilities (deposits, etc.) are the critical infrastructure; the assets (loans, securities) are the speculative investment fund. The bank is a machine for turning safe deposits into risky investments. If the investments end up being worth less than the deposits, then regulators and central banks step in and there is some sort of rushed rescue to make sure that the depositors still get paid.

>>54233752
One important consequence of this is that the equity of the bank — the shareholders’ ownership stake — is just a tiny sliver resting on top of an enormous iceberg of liabilities. In a good profitable conservative bank, there might be $100 of assets, $90 of liabilities and thus $10 of equity. The liabilities are certain and knowable, things like deposits that really need to be paid back at 100 cents on the dollar. [1] The assets are risky and variable, and their valuation is a bit of a guess: They include securities with volatile market prices, weird derivatives that are hard to value, and business loans with uncertain probabilities of being paid back. The bank applies some accounting conventions and makes some guesses and comes up with a value of $100 for its assets, but there is a range of uncertainty around that number.

And because the equity is only like 10% of the assets, if the asset valuation is off by 10%, then there is no more equity, and that’s bad. The value of the bank’s equity is extremely sensitive to the value of its assets, because the bank is so leveraged. I wrote once that “a bank is a collection of reasonable guesses about valuation. It is a purely statistical process. There is no objective reality. At best, there is a probability distribution, a reason to reject the null hypothesis with some level of confidence.” If the bank reports $100 of assets and $90 of liabilities, then probably its assets are worth more than its liabilities, but you can’t really be sure. There is a cloud of probabilities, and $100 is in that cloud, but so are other numbers. Some of the other numbers are bad.

How the fuck the shareholders get paid ahead of the bondholders? Shareholders are always last in line. If bondholders get nothing then neither should shareholders.

>>54233767
And most of the time the bank bops along like this, in its cloud of probabilities. But occasionally a thing will happen to collapse the probabilities and force it to find a real number. Occasionally a bank will have to, in effect, sell all its assets over a weekend. Often the thing that causes this is bad: a bank run, a loss of confidence, an emergency. When this happens, the assets will probably sell at a discount. If the discount is more than about 10% — more than the equity cushion — then the shareholders get nothing. If you are in the sort of emergency that requires you to sell all of your assets over a weekend, it is arguably a little surprising to do better than a 10% discount.

Credit Suisse Group AG filed its 2022 annual report last week. It reported about 531 billion Swiss francs of assets and about CHF 486 billion of liabilities, leaving about CHF 45 billion of shareholders’ equity (about 8.5% of assets). When it filed the report last week, its stock was trading at about CHF 2.24 per share, for a total market value of the stock of about CHF 9 billion (about $9.7 billion).

One way to put this is that the market thought the stock was worth 20% of its book value. [2] But another, more useful way to put it is that the market thought that the assets were worth 93.2% of their book value: Credit Suisse’s CHF 486 billion of liabilities were real enough, so if the market priced the equity at CHF 9 billion then that implicitly meant that it valued the assets at about CHF 495 billion. The market thought that the reported asset value was off by 6.8%. But if the reported asset value was instead off by 8.5%, the stock would be worthless. The cushion was very very thin.

>>54233771
Biggest holders of the bonds were the Saudis. This is payback from the Saudi Arabia - Iran deal last week.

>>54233771
Its about to be explained in this newsletter, actually.

>>54233752
>. “Banks are speculative investment funds grafted on top of critical infrastructure,” Matt Klein wrote last week. The liabilities (deposits, etc.) are the critical infrastructure; the assets (loans, securities) are the speculative investment fund. The bank is a machine for turning safe deposits into risky investments.
Sounds like we really need banks since they provide such a worthwhile service.

>>54233786
It kept getting thinner. Last Friday, the stock closed at CHF 1.86 per share, for a market value of CHF 7.4 billion. And over the weekend, Swiss authorities forced through a merger of Credit Suisse and UBS Group AG. Here is UBS’s statement on the deal:

>UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher said: “This acquisition is attractive for UBS shareholders but, let us be clear, as far as Credit Suisse is concerned, this is an emergency rescue.”

And Credit Suisse’s:

>Axel P. Lehmann, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Credit Suisse said: “Given recent extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, the announced merger represents the best available outcome. This has been an extremely challenging time for Credit Suisse and while the team has worked tirelessly to address many significant legacy issues and execute on its new strategy, we are forced to reach a solution today that provides a durable outcome.”

In deals like this, it is customary for the shareholders of the selling bank to get something, not so much because their shares are worth much but because it is technically a voluntary deal, a merger between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and it is hard for the board of directors of the selling company to say to their shareholders “hey we negotiated the best possible price for you, which is zero.” This is only technically true, though, and you can tell from Lehmann’s statement that Credit Suisse was not exactly a willing seller. It was barely even involved in the deal: “[Credit Suisse Chief Executive Officer Ulrich] Koerner and the rest of the Credit Suisse management team were marginalized as emergency weekend talks — led by Swiss National Bank President Thomas Jordan — to sell the group to UBS gathered pace,” reports Bloomberg.

>>54233818
But there is a payment, in stock, of one UBS share for every 22.48 Credit Suisse shares. UBS closed on Friday at CHF 17.11 per share, making the deal worth about CHF 0.76 per Credit Suisse share, or about CHF 3 billion total, down about 60% from Friday’s close. I have previously described the customary payment for equity in deals like this as “a Snickers bar,” and given that benchmark Credit Suisse drove a surprisingly hard bargain. Bloomberg again:

>When the terms of the initial UBS offer — which valued its rival at just 1 billion francs — landed on Sunday morning, the Credit Suisse managers were outraged. The price tag was seen as derisory for a bank that had a market cap of $8 billion at the close on Friday. Shareholders would be wiped out, managers argued.

>Saudi National Bank — the Swiss bank’s largest shareholder — urged Credit Suisse to reject the offer. Calls went out from Credit Suisse to various institutions, including Deutsche Bank AG, in a last-ditch attempt to find an alternative. But the complexity and timeframe meant there were no takers. A full sale to UBS was the only option. That triggered a final round of back-and-forth which lifted the price to 0.76 francs per share. That's 99% lower than Credit Suisse's peak share price.

>>54233834
You can, on the internet, find various expressions of astonishment that a bank as old and important as Credit Suisse turned out to be worth only $3 billion. [3] But this is, I think, the wrong way to look at it. Credit Suisse is not worth $3 billion; it is worth half a trillion dollars, more or less. [4] It's just that virtually all of that value — more than 99% of it — belongs to its creditors. UBS will take over Credit Suisse’s hundreds of billions of assets and use them to pay Credit Suisse’s hundreds of billions of liabilities, and there's the tiniest sliver — about $3 billion — left for its shareholders. That $3 billion is pretty much rounding error on the value of Credit Suisse; it could just as well have been $5 billion, or $1 billion, or a Toblerone bar. The value and mechanics of this deal don’t depend that much on the price for the equity, as you can tell by the fact that UBS tripled that price in the course of a few hours.

Yeah, so what is the purpose of banks? They are like Google, they don't really even work. I'm in a credit union but assume they are also fucked. I suppose imposing Glass Segall is another holocaust, for real this time, so nobody can do shit.

>>54233852
It really could just as well have been zero, but it is polite to give the shareholders something, a little consolation prize on their way out the door. The dynamics are:

1. You want shareholders to get something so that the board of Credit Suisse can feel okay about agreeing to the deal, rather than making trouble and trying to hold out for something better.

2. You want shareholders to get something so that they don’t make legal trouble, trying to find some legal way to block the deal. (My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Shuli Ren writes: “Regulators might have just given Credit Suisse’s equity owners some sweeteners so they don’t go to court and overturn the merger.”)

3. You want shareholders to get something so that they are more willing to support the combined bank, and the banking system generally, after the merger. If you make Saudi National Bank and other big holders feel like they have been taken care of, even a little bit — even with 90% losses — they might be a bit more willing to buy bank shares in the future, and it does feel like banks are going to be selling a lot of shares in the future.

4. You want shareholders to get something because the employees often own a lot of shares, and you need them to keep coming to work, and zeroing them is bad for morale. Not that a 90% haircut isn’t, but 100% is worse.

>>54233872
Similarly, it is normally a requirement in mergers for the selling shareholders to get to vote on the deal: They own the company, after all, and it can’t be bought from them without their permission. But in a distressed bank merger it is silly to pretend that the shareholders own the company, and nobody did. “Pursuant to the emergency ordinance which is being issued by the Swiss Federal Council,” says Credit Suisse, “the merger can be implemented without approval of the shareholders.”

The upshot of this for UBS is not that it paid CHF 3 billion to buy its historic competitor. The upshot of this is that it has assumed hundreds of billions of francs of liabilities, and taken on a bunch of assets that are probably worth more than that, but it’s hard to tell over a weekend, or ever really. Fortunately it got a discount:

>[UBS CEO] Ralph Hamers … and his team will have plenty to work through as they consider which businesses and people to keep, alter or jettison. But he’ll have 56 billion francs of so-called badwill to help cover any writedowns, as well as 9 billion francs of guarantees from the Swiss government to take on certain losses. And the firm can access a huge liquidity line from the central bank.

>>54233882
The badwill is the difference between the price that UBS paid for the assets and their book value. In Credit Suisse’s accounting, it had CHF 531 billion of assets as of Dec. 31; UBS effectively bought them for CHF 473 billion. [5] If Credit Suisse’s valuation was too high by 10%, then UBS still makes out okay.

Of course banks aren’t allowed to operate with too thin a sliver of equity, and UBS will have to make sure that its capital ratios are high enough to support the new much larger bank. After the deal, “the bank remains capitalized well above its target of 13%,” UBS announced, while Swiss regulators announced that “the takeover will result in a larger bank, for which the current regulations require higher capital buffers,” but they “will grant appropriate transitional periods for these to be built up.” Now UBS owns Credit Suisse; it would like to be able to hang onto it.

>>54233890
>>54233800
AT1s (this explains the bondholder wipeout)

After the 2008 financial crisis, European banks issued a lot of what are called “additional tier 1 capital securities,” or “contingent convertibles,” or AT1s or CoCos. The way an AT1 works is like this:

1. It is a bond, has a fixed face amount, and pays regular interest.
2. It is perpetual — the bank never has to pay it back — but the bank can pay it back after five years, and generally does.
3. If the bank’s common equity tier 1 capital ratio — a measure of its regulatory capital — ffalls below 7%, then the AT1 is written down to zero: It never needs to be paid back; it just goes away completely.

This — a “7% trigger permanent write-down AT1” — is not the only way for an AT1 to work, though it is the way that Credit Suisse’s AT1s worked. Some AT1s have different triggers. Some AT1s convert into common stock when the trigger is hit, instead of being written down to zero; others are temporarily written down (they stop paying interest) when the trigger is hit, but can bounce back if the equity recovers. (Here is a 2013 primer on CoCos from the Bank for International Settlements.)

These securities are, basically, a trick. To investors, they seem like bonds: They pay interest, get paid back in five years, feel pretty safe. To regulators, they seem like equity: If the bank runs into trouble, it can raise capital by zeroing the AT1s. If investors think they are bonds and regulators think they are equity, somebody is wrong. The investors are wrong.

>>54233917
In particular, investors seem to think that AT1s are senior to equity, and that the common stock needs to go to zero before the AT1s suffer any losses. But this is not quite right. You can tell because the whole point of the AT1s is that they go to zero if the common equity tier 1 capital ratio falls below 7%. Like, imagine a bank:

- It has $1 billion of assets (also $1 billion of regulatory risk-weighted assets). [6]
- It has $100 million of common equity (also $100 million of regulatory common equity tier 1 capital).
- It has a 10% CET1 capital ratio.
- It also has $50 million of AT1s with a 7% write-down trigger, and $850 million of more senior liabilities.

This bank runs into trouble and the value of its assets falls to $950 million. What happens? Well, under the very straightforward terms of the AT1s — not some weird fine print in the back of the prospectus, but right in the name “7% CET1 trigger write-down AT1” — this is what happens:

- It has $950 million of assets and $50 million of common equity, for a CET1 ratio of 5.3%.
- This is below 7%, so the AT1s are triggered and written down to zero.
- Now it has $950 million of assets, $850 million of liabilities, and thus $100 million of shareholders’ equity.
- Now it has a CET1 ratio of 10.5%: The writedown of the AT1s has restored the bank’s equity capital ratios.

This, again, is very explicitly the whole thing that the AT1 is supposed to do, this is its main function, this is the AT1 working exactly as advertised. But notice that in this simple example the bank has $950 million of assets, $850 million of liabilities and $100 million of shareholders’ equity. This means that the common stock still has value. The common shareholders still own shares worth $100 million, even as the AT1s are now permanently worth zero.

>>54233938
The AT1s are junior to the common stock.
Not all the time, and there are scenarios (instant descent into bankruptcy) where the AT1s get paid ahead of the common. But the most basic function of the AT1 is to go to zero while the bank is a going concern with positive equity value, meaning that its function is to go to zero before the common stock does.

Credit Suisse has issued a bunch of AT1s over the years; as of last week it had about CHF 16 billion outstanding. Here is a prospectus for one of them, a $2 billion US dollar 7.5% AT1 issued in 2018. “7.500 per cent. Perpetual Tier 1 Contingent Write-down Capital Notes,” they are called.

In UBS’s deal to buy Credit Suisse, shareholders are getting something (about CHF 3 billion worth of Credit Suisse shares) and Credit Suisse’s AT1 holders are getting nothing: The Credit Suisse AT1 securities are getting zeroed. This is not, to be clear, exactly because Credit Suisse’s CET1 capital fell below 7%; instead, there is a separate clause of the AT1s allowing them to be zeroed if the bank’s regulator decides that zeroing them is “an essential requirement to prevent CSG from becoming insolvent, bankrupt or unable to pay a material part of its debts as they fall due.” [7] Plus, in a situation like this, the banking regulators get to do a certain amount of ad hoc stuff, and they do. (They got rid of the shareholder vote on the deal!) Zeroing the AT1s while preserving a little value for the common does seem to have been done in an ad hoc way; my point is just that it follows very logically from the terms and function of the AT1s.

>>54233957
People are very angry about this. Bloomberg News reports:

>The clauses that led to the bonds being marked to zero aren’t common. Only the AT1 bonds of Credit Suisse and UBS Group AG have language in their terms that allows for a permanent write-down and most other banks in Europe and the UK have more protections, according to Jeroen Julius, a credit analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. ...

>“This just makes no sense,” said Patrik Kauffmann, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Aquila Asset Management, who holds Credit Suisse CoCos. “Shareholders should get zero” because “it’s crystal clear that AT1s are senior to stocks.”

The Financial Times adds:

>“In my eyes, this is against the law,” said Patrik Kauffman, a fund manager at Aquila Asset Management, who invests in additional tier 1 (AT1) bank debt.

>He said it was “insane” that under the terms of UBS’s takeover of Credit Suisse, AT1 bondholders were set to receive nothing while shareholders would walk away with SFr3bn ($3.2bn). “We’ve never seen this before. I don’t think this would be allowed to happen again.”

>Davide Serra, founder and chief executive of Algebris Investments, said the move was a “policy mistake” by the Swiss authorities. “They changed the law and they have basically stolen $16bn of bonds”, he said in a widely attended call on Monday morning.

>>54233980
I’m sorry but I do not understand this position! The point of this AT1 is that if the bank has too little equity (but not zero!), the AT1 gets zeroed to rebuild equity! That's why Credit Suisse issued it, it’s why regulators wanted it, and it would be weird not to use it here.

Oh, fine, I understand the position a little. The position is “bonds are senior to stock.” The AT1s are bonds, so people bought them expecting them to get paid ahead of the stock in every scenario. They ignored the fact that it was crystal clear from the terms of the AT1 contract and even from the name that there were scenarios where the stock would have value and the AT1s would get zeroed, because they had the simple heuristic that bonds are always senior to stock.

That's the trick! The trick of the AT1s — the reason that banks and regulators like them — is that they are equity, and they say they are equity, and they are totally clear and transparent about how they work, but investors assume that they are bonds. You go to investors and say “would you like to buy a bond that goes to zero before the common stock does” and the investors say “sure I’d love to buy a bond, that could never go to zero before the common stock does,” and the bank benefits from the misunderstanding. [8]

>>54233997
We talked about CoCos a few years ago due to a different misunderstanding. CoCos generally are perpetual — they never need to be paid back — but the bank is allowed to repay them after, usually, five years (the “first call date”). It is customary for banks to repay CoCos at the first call date (because they are like bonds), but it is not required, and in fact bank regulators go around saying that banks shouldn’t make too much of a habit of repaying them. “A bank must not do anything which creates an expectation that the call will be exercised,” say the rules, because the regulators do not want CoCos to be too bond-like.

And so one day four years ago Banco Santander SA did not call its AT1s after five years, and the market freaked out. “Santander’s decision is raising questions about whether investors will start souring on AT1s across the board,” said the Wall Street Journal at the time, “which could force European banks to rethink a key way in which they have cushioned themselves against potentially catastrophic losses since the global financial crisis.” I was unmoved. I wrote:

>If the regulators think that AT1s are equity and the investors think that they’re debt, someone is wrong, and much better for the investors to be wrong!

Since then I have become very convinced that regulators know how AT1s work, and that investors don’t, and that this is good.

>>54234008
Anyway there are once again threats that this is the end of the AT1 market, that no one will ever buy these securities again, etc., threats that are familiar from the Santander situation four years ago. Bloomberg:

>Market participants say the move will likely lead to a disruptive industry-wide repricing. The market for new AT1 bonds will likely go into deep freeze and the cost of risky bank funding risks jumping higher given the regulatory decision caught some creditors off-guard, say traders.

>That would give bank treasurers fewer options to raise capital at a time of market stress, with the Federal Reserve and five other central banks announcing coordinated action on Sunday to boost dollar liquidity.

And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Marcus Ashworth:

>The entire banking sector will end up paying for Credit Suisse's myriad transgressions one way or another. The repercussions of the Swiss takeover structure may close off access to CoCos for all but the strongest banks — the definition of which will come under ever-closer scrutiny.

To be fair, most AT1s outside of Switzerland don’t work like this — they tend not to be permanent write-down AT1s — and so it is not clear why the Credit Suisse writedown should affect the prices of other AT1s:

>European regulators are rushing to reassure investors that shareholders should face losses before bondholders after the takeover of Credit Suisse Group AG wiped the bank’s Additional Tier 1 debt.

>The clauses that led to the bonds being marked to zero aren’t common. Only the AT1 bonds of Credit Suisse and UBS Group AG have language in their terms that allows for a permanent write-down and most other banks in Europe and the UK have more protections, according to Jeroen Julius, a credit analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

>>54234028
It is just possible that the explanation is that AT1 investors don’t read the terms of their securities? Anyway European Union and UK banking authorities put out statements saying in effect that they would never do what the Swiss authorities did here, and that (in the Bank of England’s words) “AT1 instruments rank ahead of CET1 and behind T2 in the hierarchy. Holders of such instruments should expect to be exposed to losses in resolution or insolvency in the order of their positions in this hierarchy.” If you read that very closely, it does not quite say that AT1 instruments can’t be written off in a shotgun merger over the weekend that preserves some value for the equity (not “resolution or insolvency”!), but I guess there’s no reason to read it too closely.

>>54234044
[NOTES]
[1] I am oversimplifying here in various ways. For instance, of course a bank, like any other company (but more so!), can have contingent liabilities that are hard to measure: If a bank is going to have to pay a big settlement for doing some crimes, but hasn’t negotiated it yet, you know that there is a lurking liability but you don’t know how big it is. Also a big international bank will tend to have large derivative liabilities whose value depends on market conditions: A $100 bank deposit is a $100 liability, but a written credit default swap is a liability whose value changes minute by minute. Also there is DVA: Banks measure some of their own liabilities at market value, not face amount.

[2] I am oversimplifying here in that the balance sheet numbers are as of Dec. 31, and things had changed by last week.

[3] One fun one is that, over the weekend when the deal price seemed to be $1 billion, crypto mogul Justin Sun tweeted that he’d pay $1.5 billion. Wrong wrong wrong! If you have $1.5 billion, you can’t buy a $500 billion bank, even if its equity value is only $1.5 billion. You need the capital and financial capacity to handle its $500 billion of assets.

>>54234057
[4] The exact number is uncertain (to me and perhaps even to UBS) because it has been shrinking rapidly in recent days as depositors left.

[5] The rough math is CHF 531 billion of assets (as of the Dec. 31 balance sheet) minus CHF 486 billion of liabilities is 45 billion of equity. UBS paid CHF 3 billion for that equity, meaning a CHF 42 billion discount. It also got to write about CHF 16 billion of AT1 securities down to zero (see the next section), for a total discount of about CHF 58 billion. This does not precisely equal the CHF 56 billion in the block quote but what is a few billion dollars among friends. “UBS benefits from CHF 25 billion of downside protection from the transaction to support marks, purchase price adjustments and restructuring costs, and additional 50% downside protection on non-core assets,” says its announcement.

[6] For simplicity I am conflating *book* values of assets and equity with *regulatory* values. In fact things like “common equity tier 1 capital” measure capital and (especially) assets differently from financial accounting — primarily, the capital ratios use risk-weighted assets as the denominator, while I mostly use market values of assets in the text — and I am oversimplifying by treating them the same. But this is all directionally right even if it’s not numerically precise.

[7] See pages 86-87 of the prospectus. The 7% trigger is a “Contingency Event”; the regulatory one is a “Viability Event.” The prospectus also says (page 23): “In the case of any such cancellation, FINMA may not be required to follow any order of priority, which means, among other things, that the Notes could be cancelled in whole or in part prior to the cancellation of any or all of CSG’s equity capital.”

[8] To be fair, there is a recent Credit Suisse presentation suggesting that the AT1 ranks ahead of the common. Perhaps Credit Suisse never read the document either.

Why would anyone buy AT1 bonds if they are subordinate to equity? I assume these bonds were bought by large financial companies or even state investment funds. Don't they have lawyers that read the fine print on the prospectus?

>>54234399
It all sounds like jewish tricks from top to bottom.
Can't even be bothered to not gamble with deposits.

>>54234399
The eternal Swiss strikes again.

>>54222727
the move will scare people out of other similar types of bonds, knowing that they could end up like the credit suisse bagholders if they don't sell fast

>>54233752
why dont you include the fact that Archegos shorted a stock and blew up because they cant unwind/close that short position and now credit suisse goes under because of those short swap position.

>>54235028
we did it reddit

>>54221836
'Definitely comparable to 2008'
At last

>>54234959
Anyone who bought an AT1 bond should have known that their bond is subordinate to shares.
Here in the US we don't have AT1 bonds so it seems odd to us.
t. Still holding a Debit Suisse normal bond, lost about 2.4%.

>US officials are studying ways to let the FDIC temporarily insure deposits beyond the current $250,000 cap on most accounts, without having to get approval from Congress
this doesn't inspire confidence, presuming they're expecting FRC to go under by the end of the week then

>>54235249
Depends on how much money those FRC depositors "contributed" to politicians.

>>54235249
cmon. bail out the small frys. the ones over 250k are supposed to be funding the ones under 250k but having their money wiped out.

>>54233752
This is actually a really good article and worht the long read. Thanks.

>>54235028
*hey morty, we just killed everyone's retirement morty*
"oh no rick that's not good, i'm busy raping a chick"

>>54222858
Fedex

>>54234399
>Why would anyone buy AT1 bonds if they are subordinate to equity?
>>54233957
>7.5% AT1 issued in 2018
7.5% interest in 2018 would have been very attractive if you don't read the fine print.

>>54234399
>>54236736
Looks like dollar denominated bonds issued by CS in 2018 were somewhere around 3.5% - 4.5%. They didn't list any CHF bonds but without doing some crazy forex conversions investors were getting maybe 2-3% premium by buying AT1 bonds in exchange for the added risk that their investment would be worth nothing if the triggering event happened. Of course the risk management at whoever bought them probably assigned a probability of 0% to that happening

>>54236940
Makes sense. Even more sense because 2018 was before the Greensill and Archegos disasters.

>>54236999
Yeah even 2% premium is really good if you consider it a low increase in risk. Easy to say that was dumb now but the risk of a top 50 global bank failing was historically very small

>>54212554

>>54233852
Can the internet tell me which bank is more jewish?

>>54211331
This lol

>>54234071
Thank you for your effort posts. We need more people like you on this board.

>>54235028
There are a few dominos still in play, but we're starting.