Incuriosito mi sono messo a leggere e il testo mi ha lasciato alquanto perplesso. Ci sono degli avvocati che stanno suggerendo alle banche di pagare le clausole rescissorie dei finanziamenti garantiti per alcune grande operazioni di leveraged buyouts lo scorso anno, perche' le penali sarebbero piu' basse dei costi di svalutazioni dei prestiti sui libri contabili delle banche. Trovo personalmente questa idea un po' folle. E' vero che ci sarebbe un immediato vantaggio economico, me se il finanziamento era stato garantito previo il dovuto lavoro di analisi da parte della banca, non vedo perche' una banca non dovrebbe onorare il contratto e procedere con il finanziamento, anche se questo puo' voler dire dover ascrivere a bilancio i prestiti, visto che non si riesce a piazzarli sul mercato.
Se la due diligence era stata fatta bene, la svalutazione odierna e' solo momentanea. Oltretutto, vorrebbe dire venir meno al compito principale di qualsiasi banca, ossia fornire liquidita' e finanziamenti per lo svolgimento delle attivita' economiche. D'altronde prendere rischi di carattere finanziario e' proprio il mestiere delle banche ed e' quello per cui vengono pagate.
Quello a cui l'articolo allude sarebbe, a mio parere, un grosso errore, che minerebbe pesantemente la credibilita' di tutto il mondo finanziario. Almeno cosi' mi hanno insegnato le persone con cui ho lavorato prima a Londra e poi qui a NY. Persone che, anche di fronte alle difficolta' che si sono iniziate ad incontrare quest'estate, mi hanno ripetutamente ricordato che periodi di tumulto sui mercati finanziari, come sta succedendo ora, ci sono stati e sempre ci saranno e chi ha fatto il proprio lavoro con efficacia ne viene sempre fuori.
Appunto, la cosa che veramente conta e' sapere di aver fatto al meglio il proprio lavoro: si limitano le perdite odierne e si massimizzano i profitti di lungo periodo.
il Vostro bugia nén
Di seguito il testo integrale dell'articolo:
Banks advised to walk away from big deals
By Henny Sender in New York
Published: February 15 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 15 2008 02:00
Leading banks are being advised that it would be cheaper to walk away from big buy-out deals than incur further losses on their funding commitments, increasing the chances that more highprofile private equity transactions will collapse.
This advice from lawyers contrasts with the conventional wisdom that banks would risk serious damage to their reputations if they were to drop out of deals.
However, legal advisers argue that the break-up fees banks would owe in such cases would be far lower than the writedowns they would have to make on their loans, given the current cataclysmic conditions in the capital markets.
"It is the tipping point argument," said a senior partner at one of the biggest private equity firms, who asked not to be named.
"The banks have so many issues with their balance sheets that they are considering a new policy."
However, such a change could have a dramatic impact on the markets.
"If you want to come up with news that could make the Dow drop another 500 or 1,000 points, this would be it," said one lawyer specialising in private equity for a New York law firm. The presence of private equity buyers is one factor that has helped boost stock prices.
So far, leveraged buy-outs have usually collapsed when the private equity firms involved - including Blackstone and Cerberus - have withdrawn.
Such moves have occurred as banks have been working behind the scenes to persuade private equity firms to abandon deals.
If banks had more direct conversations on this sensitive subject with private equity firms, they could be vulnerable to charges of interference from the target companies and could be sued.
However, the chances of banks abandoning buy-out deals - such as those for Clear Channel Communications, the radio station owner and outdoor advertising company, and BCE, the Canada-based telecoms group - are growing as the market prices for the leveraged loans used in such transactions continue to fall.
US regulators are pressing banks to account for these loans at market prices while they keep them on their books.
Already, it is understood that one bank has marked down its share of the loan used in the Clear Channel buy-out to 85 cents on the dollar.
By contrast, lawyers are telling the banks that if they walk away from deals, their biggest liability would be equivalent to the so-called reverse break-up fee that private equity firms pay target companies when deals fail to close.
These fees usually amount to about 2 per cent of the total value of a deal, or about $500m in a large buy-out.
Lawyers say there could be other costs for the banks, such as covering the expenses buy-out firms incur while doing their homework on bids. Further, they do not rule out the possibility that banks could have to pay greater damages in litigation.
What is sure is that banks are giving thought to dropping out of deals. "We are already there in terms of the economic pain," said the head of debt capital markets at a major Wall Street firm. "Banks sitting on $30bn (£15bn) of debt for one deal are looking at $4.5bn of losses. That is enough to play hardball."
www.ft.com/usdailyview www.ft.com/m&a
Previsioni Meteo NYC
No comments:
Post a Comment