La verdad es que los datos son espeluznantes. Muchas veces las cosas se pierden en la maraña del día a día. Lo grave es que muestra una situación de muchos años y ya muy enquistada.
http://www.cotizalia.com/cache/2009/05/05/opinion_64_andalucia_miseria_detras_feria.html
Good article from FT on prices of Bourdeaux wine going up affected by Robert Parker's ratings:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52db61e8-382e-11de-9211-00144feabdc0.html
Please go for Spanish wines, much cheaper and of excellent quality; two of my favourites are Pago de los Capellanes and Pago de Carraovejas from Ribera del Duero. Among the Riojas, two sure bets are 904 Rioja Alta Reserva (of the Viña Ardanza producers) and Muga Reserva.
Se acaba de conocer que Javier Díez de Polanco, director del Área Audiovisual de Prisa y consejero delegado de Sogecable, abandonará "por voluntad propia sus actuales responsabilidades para iniciar una nueva etapa profesional". Díez de Polanco, sobrino del fundador, había sido desplazado de la reorganización corporativa que el grupo hizo en diciembre. Su marcha se produce en un momento importante por la delicada situación de Prisa, que sigue intentando vender Digital+, parte de Sogecable. [Párrafo extraído de noticia de Finanzas.com]
Es una noticia inquietante dada la situación de la empresa y las incertidumbres sobre su viabilidad. Puede que sea el preludio de una noticia corporativa importante (con la que Javier Díez de Polanco no estuviera de acuerdo) como, por ejemplo, la venta de Digital+ o bien que está dimisión sea consecuencia de las luchas internas existentes en Prisa, acentuadas con la crisis actual.
En cualquier caso, este tipo de noticias sólo contribuyen a incrementar la incertidumbre.
First of all, I have to say that I am a Goldman Sachs fan. My first job was as a summer intern at the Investment Banking Division (M&A) of GS at the London office. I worked a couple of years there afterwards. I learnt a lot there and I make a lot of good friends (unfortunately, after ten years and two crisis, most of them are working in other places).
Having said that, I think it is not a good idea to let GS pay the TARP back to the Government early (or at least earlier than the rest of the banks).
GS voluntarily took $ 10 bn in late 2008 from the TARP (and become a bank holding to be able to do so) for several reasons:
1) The fall of Lehman Brothers, AIG and the buyout of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America marked the zenith of the financial crisis. Even sound companies like GS could go broke in just a few days based on rumours and the lack of liquidity in the markets. Bear in mind that GS (like all other major investment banks in the US) is a combination of M&A advisory, a giant hedge fund, trading and brokerage, private equity, private banking and asset management. Several of these businesses are very sensitive to liquidity constrains and could go down pretty quickly. These banks had no access to a significant base of clients' deposits.
2) Being left out of these capital injections (or voluntarily decline them) would have left GS very weak versus other institutions, becoming the preferred target of short sellers for example. On the other hand, rejecting public aid could have been perceived as a "rude" gesture towards a Government decided to help the sector.
3) At that moment, it was not clear which would be the level of intervention of the Treasury in the daily run of the business. All the pay restrictions and increased business supervision came later (or at least were defined later; it was clear that some sort of intervention was inevitable).
At this stage letting GS payback the TARP would mean lifting all these restrictions putting GS at a clear advantage to its weaker competitors, potentially luring their most talented employees with no bonus caps and capturing additional market share in potentially profitable businesses. Thus, these competitors would face more difficulties to improve their condition and could even require additional public intervention. You should bear in mind that in just a couple of days the results of the stress cases would be released, making public which institutions would require additional capital funding.
I understand GS willingness to get released of those restrictions while they have a sound balance sheet and an array of potentially lucrative business opportunities. However, in my opinion, GS should realise the world has changed a lot in the last few months and the Government should not let anybody operate too freely until a new regulation is in place for the financial sector (including supervision, minimum capital requirements, etc.).
On the other hand, what would happen if an institution that repays the TARP now goes under in the coming months for whatever reason? Should the Obama Administration intervene it (again)?
This is applicable to all other institutions that have declared their intention to payback the TARP as soon as possible, like JP Morgan, for example.
Entradas
Comentarios
