By: GZ on Venerdì 27 Aprile 2007 11:42
..Un po' come quando il mercato ando' giu' per i mutui subprime. Al momento tutti spaventati, terror panico per ben 24 ore. Ora sembra tutto finito. Perche? Risolto il problema in un giorno?..
-------------------------------
le perdite per i mutui subprime sono state "socializzate", spalmate su centinaia di fondi e istituzioni nel mondo e soprattutto non vengono riconosciute subito nei bilanci perchè sono tramite derivati trattati tra due controparti fuori dai mercati ufficiali
ieri c'era in prima pagina del Financial Times un intervista a Larry Fink che è a capo di circa 1.000 miliardi di dollari in gestione (non milioni) a Blackrock, il maggiore gestore del mondo, uno che stava per diventare CEO di morgan stanley mesi fa.
Dice che la stessa cosa che è successa nel segmento "subprime" dei mutui USA sta accadendo in tutto il mercato del credito nel mondo
----------------------------------------------------------
FT: We're seeing LBOs become more and more leveraged. We're seeing covenants weaken. As a buyer of loans does that worry you?
LF: Absolutely. I think we are going to look back two or three, four years, ^the same way we were looking at the subprime market where we saw standards and covenants deteriorated. We're seeing the same thing in the credit markets#http://www.euro2day.gr/articlesfna/33367553/^ I believe if I was the chairman of the Federal Reserve I'd be paying more attention to that, because to me this is going to be tomorrow's problems. The biggest reason for this, we've had just vast liquidity. The global capital markets have flourished so well, and there's so much money sloshing throughout the world, people are looking for ways to invest. And so the risk we have throughout the world now is that not only are we trading credit, higher grade credits to lower grade credits with poor covenants; probably the greatest issue that's confronting the world's investors is we are trading liquidity for illiquidity.
FT: And what are you, as an investor, doing to avoid this potential problem?
LF: I would say historically BlackRock is known to be much more conservative than most investors in terms of how we position ourselves in credit. I should say, though, that has been a mistake the last few years.
FT: But maybe it's looking better now?
LF: Maybe a little bit. Not much. You discuss the issue related to covenants and all that - covenants are not getting any better for us as investors and in fact what has happened, since we all focus on subprime, we're seeing fewer investors in subprime but that money needs to be put to work so they're going into other credit markets, and we've actually seen a tightening in those other credit markets because there's more money going in these areas, and so we've seen the actual opposite. Historically when we've seen one problem, we've seen an adjustment throughout the marketplace. We've seen no indication of that yet.
.....
FT: But do you think there could be a private equity bubble of a sort?
LF: The answer is yes, but there are going to be some real winners and losers and I'm not going to predict who the winners and losers are but my only reference would be, if you ask any investor: would you rather own a basket of hedge funds in private equity public companies or a basket of security firms? I would be hard pressed to say that one or two or three of those top investment banks, security firms… I would say they're a better organisation than most private equity firms.