Header Ad Module

Collapse

shareholder-capital-leveraged-157-times-nz-banks-giving-effective-loan-value-ratio-ba

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mortgage broker
    Fanatical
    • Mar 2008
    • 1245

    #1

    shareholder-capital-leveraged-157-times-nz-banks-giving-effective-loan-value-ratio-ba

    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/53...alue-ratio-ban

    "Figures from the banks' general disclosure statements show they have total shareholder funds of NZ$21.7 billion behind NZ$340.6 billion of assets (mainly loans). That means if the value of those assets loans was to drop by 6.5% the shareholder capital in those banks would be wiped out. It means the owners of these banks effectively have NZ$21.7 billion of equity against assets 15.7 times larger than that. That's an effective loan to value ratio of 93.6%. For any home owner that would be a very aggressive level of leverage, but for a bank it's seen as normal"

    Interesting article, fails to comment on the fact that banks have term deposits, mortgages and low equity insurance as well at times.
    Hamish Patel | ph: 09 625 4693 | mob: 021 625 693
    My Website
    Be informed - register for our free monthly newsletter

  • gavinc
    Forum Junkie
    • Feb 2010
    • 401

    #2
    <That's an effective loan to value ratio of 93.6%t>

    Is that true? Don't they also lend the funds they have on deposit plus source funds from other overseas lenders? The shareholders funds are not the only backing the bank has. If they had no deposits at all then what you say would be true

    Comment

    • eri
      Fanatical
      • Sep 2008
      • 7621

      #3
      i think this is how it works under some normal business calculations

      ie the value of the company being decided purely by share value and not hard assets

      ie if you were to value toyota 1 of the ways to do so would not include their factories or their inventory of unsold cars

      an exercise for sharemarket watchers
      have you defeated them?
      your demons

      Comment

      • spaceman
        Banned
        • Feb 2004
        • 2817

        #4
        TYPO alert ... big difference between 157 times and 15.7 times.

        Lots of holes in the logic of the article: for one what if the loans ($340.6 B) secure $500 B of assets then a 10% drop in the value of the assets would leave $450 B >> $340.6 B = no prob's.

        Also in line with Gavinc (hey hey!!!) Banks can borrow money at x % and relend it at x+margin % ...shareholder funds aren't only source of funds.

        Typical crappy reporting

        Cheers
        Spaceman
        Last edited by spaceman; 02-06-2011, 04:58 PM.

        Comment

        • Winston001
          Fanatical
          • May 2006
          • 1046

          #5
          Banks are required by international banking rules to hold a capital adequacy ratio. Tier 1 requires something like 8.7% capital meaning that if all the banks loans were repaid, depositers etc repaid, the bank would still be worth a lump of money. Usually land and buildings, govt bonds etc.

          See the Basel II Accords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_II

          Comment

          Working...