November 23, 2012
Sir, I refer to Mary Watkins’ “Barclays’ total loss bond poses test for ‘coco’ markets” November 23, as well as to Patrick Jenkins’ “Banks unnerved by BoE’s extreme focus on capital” November 20.
There is something I cannot figure out about these bonds, perhaps you can help me, or perhaps it is just one of those “blind spots” to which Gillian Tett refers to in “Investors must search for the next financial blind spot” November 23.
It states that under the terms of the deal, that the bonds will be automatically written down to zero if the bank's Common Equity Tier 1 ratio falls below 7% , and I assume that this is on a risk-weighted basis since I Barclay surely holds less than 7 percent in capital against all its assets.
If so, what happens if Barclays’ management decides, own its own, to move some assets with low risk-weights, “The Infallible”, which require holding little capital, into assets with a higher risk-weight, “The Risky”, and which therefore require holding more capital, and therefore cause the bank’s Common Equity Tier 1 ratio to fall below 7%?
Or, alternatively, what happens if the regulators decide to change the risk-weights and thereby Barclay's Common Equity Tier 1 ratio to fall below 7%?
If it is as I do not want to believe it is then management (or regulators) can, without Barclays losing a cent on its assets, get all these bonds written off. Sounds crazy! And, if so, would management be able to collect a bonus on that very real profit?
PS. Will shareholders require management to adjust the bank portfolio in such a way that Barclay's Common Equity Tier 1 ratio falls below 7% and it does not have to repay the bondholders?
PS. Will bondholders require management to adjust the bank portfolio in such a way that Barclay's Common Equity Tier 1 ratio stays over 7%, so that they will be repaid?
PS. Have regulators now been de-facto impeded to change the risk-weights?
PS. Who is going to sue who?