ICBC : Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (1398)

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#81
When u look at the price to book, aren't u worrying about the book value itself already?
If book value turns out to b phoney or if it drops, won't the PB increases for the particular price u bought it at?

It's a gd discussion so far... So anyone bought today with the large drop in price?
I added 50 lots at HKD 4.64
Reply
#82
If you are worrying about the book is phoney, it does not matter what you are looking at any more.

If the book is phoney, won't the earning be too?
Reply
#83
wow, 50 lots.

To me, I shall be discipline, and only add to my position if it drops more than 10% of my entry price. If not the effect on my returns will not be significant anyway.

That said, there are many other counters on the HKSE that are really attractive right now due to the general bad market sentimentsSmile

Or maybe they just "look" cheap.. hmm..
Reply
#84
Firstly state owned banks take direction from the state, especially in a communist state, in case we forgot. Whether mgt is intelligent or not only reduces the risk, it doesn't do away. There are valid reasons why people thought these products are guaranteed by the states or the banks.

Secondly 20% of profit is not minor when you have 10X PE. How much market cap do you think that is? Neither is foray into international markets a given plus. It depends on mgt execution or are they just following the corporates' money trail. Those old enough will remember the mega Japanese banks of the 90s.

3rdly as per posted all these shadow banking products pose a systemic risk to the system with estimates around US$4tr. The question is how the govt arrest the issue and spread out the PERCEIVED credit risk. Based on the govt's past track record, I think they will be able to manage it well but a short pain is expected if they really let the 4 entities take 25% of the loss.
________________________________________________________________

The devil is in the details... holding my breath Smile

China Credit Trust Says It Reached Accord on Troubled Investment
2014-01-27 06:50:57.961 GMT


By Bloomberg News
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- China Credit Trust Co. said it
reached an agreement on a potential investment in a troubled
high-yield product distributed by Industrial & Commercial Bank
of China Ltd.
People who had put their money into the Credit Equals Gold
No. 1 trust product should contact their ICBC financial adviser
for more details, the Beijing-based trust company said in a
statement to those investors on its website today. Additional
details weren’t immediately disclosed.
The 3 billion-yuan ($496 million) product was due to mature
Jan. 31. The investment was structured to raise funds for coal
miner Shanxi Zhenfu Energy Group, which collapsed after its
owner Wang Pingyan was arrested in 2012 for illegally collecting
deposits.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
#85
Latest news
ICBC will offer the investors an option to redeem their investment at principal value
The buyer is not mentioned, but some sources say it's huarong asset, the same entity that also bailed out other WMP previously to avoid default

Looks like ICBC avoided taking any losses, investors are happy, the funds behind Huarong are gov, losses are socialized just like in the case of US banks

Markets can heave a sigh of relief, the world markets live another day, moral hazards continue

Can't complain, I have 200 lots of ICBC, and the chairman jiang really kept to his word that ICBC won't be responsible. Was expecting ICBC to take 50% liability
Reply
#86
Congrats, your decision to enter today seems to be market timing at it's bestSmile

But still not sure how the market will react. Will the market discount further due to the moral hazard involved, or will it find an excuse to rally?

The funny thing is, the actual material impact on ICBC itself (whether they shoulder the responsibility or not) is almost negligible.

Depending on how Dow perform today, the impact on the price tomorrow should be positive for speculators and negative for long term investors.
Reply
#87
In the case of US banks, where did loss get socialized? Ask the investors in various obligations of Lehman Brother. Ask investors of common equity of Citi Group, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Ask various pension funds and mutual funds which invested in subprime mortgage backed securities.

A huge part of the loss was absorbed by the private sectors, not that the private sectors do not deserve the loss. The US government only saved some.

If it is indeed Huarong, you have to understand the relationship between Huarong and ICBC. During the previous bad debt separation. ICBC's bad debts went to Huarong, in addition, ICBC lent to Huarong to help absorb the bad debts.

If you examine the balance sheet of ICBC, ICBC still owns hundreds of billions of bonds from Huarong.
Reply
#88
(27-01-2014, 09:36 PM)freedom Wrote: In the case of US banks, where did loss get socialized? Ask the investors in various obligations of Lehman Brother. Ask investors of common equity of Citi Group, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Ask various pension funds and mutual funds which invested in subprime mortgage backed securities.

A huge part of the loss was absorbed by the private sectors, not that the private sectors do not deserve the loss. The US government only saved some.

If it is indeed Huarong, you have to understand the relationship between Huarong and ICBC. During the previous bad debt separation. ICBC's bad debts went to Huarong, in addition, ICBC lent to Huarong to help absorb the bad debts.

If you examine the balance sheet of ICBC, ICBC still owns hundreds of billions of bonds from Huarong.

Yes, what I saw seems like the same story as in 1998. Offload the NPLs to AMCs, and the AMCs are funded by low yield bonds to banks. Will the bank do the same funding this round?
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#89
(27-01-2014, 09:36 PM)freedom Wrote: In the case of US banks, where did loss get socialized? Ask the investors in various obligations of Lehman Brother. Ask investors of common equity of Citi Group, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Ask various pension funds and mutual funds which invested in subprime mortgage backed securities.

A huge part of the loss was absorbed by the private sectors, not that the private sectors do not deserve the loss. The US government only saved some.

If it is indeed Huarong, you have to understand the relationship between Huarong and ICBC. During the previous bad debt separation. ICBC's bad debts went to Huarong, in addition, ICBC lent to Huarong to help absorb the bad debts.

If you examine the balance sheet of ICBC, ICBC still owns hundreds of billions of bonds from Huarong.

Good question bro! Where did the loss got socialized?
Something interesting for you to read.....


Government pumps more money into AIG, including $40B for partial ownership
By The Associated Press
Monday, November 10, 2008, 10:13 AM


Related Stories

Bernanke: U.S. on the verge of recovery
Morgan Stanley borrowed $107 billion during 2008 bailout
White House: taxpayers may profit $16.5 B from new AIG payout plan
Finally, flying in the right direction! AIG restricts use of corporate jets

Powered by Inform

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The government on Monday provided new financial assistance to troubled insurance giant American International Group, including pouring $40 billion into the company in return for partial ownership.

The action, announced jointly by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, was taken as it became increasingly clear that an original financial lifeline thrown to AIG in September would be insufficient to stabilize the teetering company. All told, the moves boost aid to the company to around $150 billion in what is likely to be the largest bailout to a single private firm. Fed officials, however, expressed confidence that the money would be repaid to taxpayers.

The $40 billion infusion comes from the recently enacted $700 billion financial bailout package. The government is buying preferred shares of AIG stock, giving taxpayers an ownership stake in the company. In turn, restrictions will be placed on executive compensation at the firm.
RELATED: CHUCK LEADS NY PLEAS: BAIL US OUT, BAM!

As part of the new arrangement, the Federal Reserve is reducing a $85 billion loan it had made available to AIG to $60 billion. The Fed also is replacing a separate $37.8 billion loan to the insurance company with a $52 billion aid package.

The actions were needed to "keep the company strong and facilitate its ability to complete its restructuring process successfully," the government said.

It marked the first time money from the $700 billion bailout package Congress enacted last month has gone to any company other than a bank.

The Treasury Department, which is overseeing the program, has promised to inject $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership. The original notion behind the bailout package was to help financial institutions lend money more freely again, one of the main reasons the economy is in danger of getting stuck in a long and painful recession.

Until Monday, all of AIG's bailout relief was coming from the Fed.

The Fed, earlier this year, said it would loan a total of $123 billion to AIG. The insurance company was later allowed to access another $20.9 billion through the Fed's "commercial paper" program. That's where the Fed is buying mounds of companies' short-term debt often used for crucial day-to-day expenses, such as payrolls and supplies.

Monday's restructuring provides AIG with easier terms on the original Fed loan. The new package reduces the interest rate AIG will pay and will extend the loan term to five years from two, reducing the need for AIG to sell off business lines and other assets at firesale prices to repay the government.

Under the new $52 billion package, the loans will last for six years. Through two new facilities, the Fed will fund the purchase of both residential mortgage-backed securities from AIG's portfolio, and collateralized debt obligations, which are complex financial instruments that combine various slices of debt.

By taking these troubled assets off AIG's balance sheet, it should take stress off the company, giving it more breathing room and helping to prevent future losses, Fed officials said. The Fed doesn't believe it will suffer losses because it is hopeful the market for such distressed investments will recover as the economy and financial markets rebound.

AIG reported Monday that continued financial market turmoil resulted in a large third-quarter loss.

The New York-based company said it lost $24.47 billion, or $9.05 per share, after a profit of $3.09 billion, or $1.19 per share, a year ago.

Results included pretax losses of $18.31 billion tied to the declining value of AIG's investment portfolio. They also were hurt by catastrophe losses and charges related to restructuring.

Excluding items, operating losses totaled $3.42 per share — missing analysts' average loss estimate of 90 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters.

AIG in early October said it would sell certain business units to pay off the $85 billion Fed loan. The company, however, said it plans to retain its U.S. property-and-casualty and foreign general insurance businesses. It also plans to keep an ownership interest in its foreign life-insurance operations.

AIG is a colossus on Wall Street and financial districts worldwide, with operations in more than 130 countries and $1 trillion in assets on its balance sheet.

Besides life, property and other insurance offerings, AIG provides asset-management services and airplane leases. Its myriad businesses are also linked to mutual funds, annuities and other retirement products held by millions of ordinary Americans.

But perhaps the biggest concern about AIG is the dizzying array of complex financial instruments it structured for commercial banks, investment banks and hedge funds around the globe — many of which were directly or indirectly linked to the value of U.S. mortgages.
Reply
#90
(27-01-2014, 01:26 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Firstly state owned banks take direction from the state, especially in a communist state, in case we forgot. Whether mgt is intelligent or not only reduces the risk, it doesn't do away. There are valid reasons why people thought these products are guaranteed by the states or the banks.

Secondly 20% of profit is not minor when you have 10X PE. How much market cap do you think that is? Neither is foray into international markets a given plus. It depends on mgt execution or are they just following the corporates' money trail. Those old enough will remember the mega Japanese banks of the 90s.

3rdly as per posted all these shadow banking products pose a systemic risk to the system with estimates around US$4tr. The question is how the govt arrest the issue and spread out the PERCEIVED credit risk. Based on the govt's past track record, I think they will be able to manage it well but a short pain is expected if they really let the 4 entities take 25% of the loss.

1st, Yes I agree to that.

2nd, Excuse me. The PER is 5.5x, not 10x. So there's reasonable margin of safety in case of any shock.

3rd,Correct there's risk. However, most of the highly profitable companies are state owned. NO MATTER how the money flows, government at some point will absorb it back to their reserve. If you observe the value chain, from mining, manufacturing, retail, financing, etc, the government has some strong SOE running them. Most of the money will eventually flow back to government.

In case of crisis, the government will just pump back the money by absorbing through their "Asset management company". Why should government do that? To prevent a full-blown crisis, so they can earn MORE money in long run. Make some sense bro?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)