Van beleggers
voor beleggers
Uitgebreid zoeken

Beurscodes, betekenis en hulp bij zoeken

Europa

AEX
Euronext Amsterdam
BRU
Euronext Brussels
PSE
Euronext Paris
LIS
Euronext Lissabon
CHX
CBOE Europe, grote(re) EU aandelen
NAV
Investment Funds (NAV)

Noord-Amerika

NYS
New York Stock Exchange
OTC
CBOE BZX Exchange (US)
TSE
Toronto Stock Exchange

Kunt u een instrument niet vinden?

Zoek dan via de zogenaamde ISIN code. Elk instrument, aandeel etc. heeft een unieke code.

Kies vervolgens - wanneer er meerdere resultaten zijn - de notering op de beurs van uw keuze.

Waar vind ik die ISIN code?

Google de naam van het instrument, aandeel etc. met de toevoeging 'ISIN'.

Als zoeken op ISIN code geen resultaten oplevert hebben wij het instrument of aandeel niet in onze koersendatabase.

desktop iconMarkt Monitor
  • Word abonnee
  • Inloggen

    Inloggen

    • Geen account? Registreren

    Wachtwoord vergeten?
Home  /  Forum  /  Koffiekamer  /  Kredietcrisis begint nog maar

Ontvang nu dagelijks onze kooptips!

word abonnee

Koffiekamer« Terug naar discussie overzicht

Kredietcrisis begint nog maar

83 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 2 3 4 5 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓
  1. [verwijderd] 26 november 2007 20:35
    wanneer worden die leningen eigenlijk terug betaald? wat is het onderpand? zou interessant zijn om te weten. ik heb nog ergens iets over gelezen.

    nout wellink noemde een bedrag van 1200 miljard als richtlijn voor de subprime, tot ie door een deens minister van financien op de vingers werd getikt. toen zei hij opeens niets meer; wellink is over het algemeen een heel gematigd man.

    kortom dat het nu al over is lijkt me sterk. dat het louter leningen betreft trouwens ook. grt roos.
  5. [verwijderd] 26 november 2007 21:27
    THE FINANCIAL TSUNAMI Part 1: Deutsche Bank's Painful Lesson
    Financial Sense University ^ | November 24, 2007 | F. William Engdahl

    Posted on 11/24/2007 6:05:40 PM PST by Travis McGee

    Even experienced banker friends tell me that they think the worst of the US banking troubles are over and that things are slowly getting back to normal. What is lacking in their rosy optimism is the realization of the scale of the ongoing deterioration in credit markets globally, centered in the American asset-backed securities market, and especially in the market for CDOs—Collateralized Debt Obligations and CMOs—Collateralized Mortgage Obligations. By now every serious reader has heard the term “It’s a crisis in Sub-Prime US home mortgage debt.” What almost no one I know understands is that the Sub-Prime problem is but the tip of a colossal iceberg that is in a slow meltdown. I offer one recent example to illustrate my point that the “Financial Tsunami” is only beginning.

    Deutsche Bank got a hard shock a few days ago when a judge in the state of Ohio in the USA made a ruling that the bank had no legal right to foreclose on 14 homes whose owners had failed to keep current in their monthly mortgage payments. Now this might sound like small beer for Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest banks with over €1.1 trillion (Billionen) in assets worldwide. As Hilmar Kopper used to say, “peanuts.” It’s not at all peanuts, however, for the Anglo-Saxon banking world and its European allies like Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Barclays Bank, HSBC or others. Why?

    A US Federal Judge, C.A. Boyko in Federal District Court in Cleveland, Ohio ruled to dismiss a claim by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. DB’s US subsidiary was seeking to take possession of 14 homes from Cleveland residents living in them, in order to claim the assets.

    Here comes the hair in the soup. The Judge asked DB to show documents proving legal title to the 14 homes. DB could not. All DB attorneys could show was a document showing only an “intent to convey the rights in the mortgages.” They could not produce the actual mortgage, the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Charta if not longer.

    Again why could Deutsche Bank not show the 14 mortgages on the 14 homes? Because they live in the exotic new world of “global securitization”, where banks like DB or Citigroup buy tens of thousands of mortgages from small local lending banks, “bundle” them into Jumbo new securities which then are rated by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or Fitch, and sell them as bonds to pension funds or other banks or private investors who naively believed they were buying bonds rated AAA, the highest, and never realized that their “bundle” of say 1,000 different home mortgages, contained maybe 20% or 200 mortgages rated “sub-prime,” i.e. of dubious credit quality.

    Indeed the profits being earned in the past seven years by the world’s largest financial players from Goldman Sachs to Morgan Stanley to HSBC, Chase, and yes, Deutsche Bank, were so staggering, few bothered to open the risk models used by the professionals who bundled the mortgages. Certainly not the Big Three rating companies who had a criminal conflict of interest in giving top debt ratings. That changed abruptly last August and since then the major banks have issued one after another report of disastrous “sub-prime” losses.

    A new unexpected factor

    The Ohio ruling that dismissed DB’s claim to foreclose and take back the 14 homes for non-payment, is far more than bad luck for the bank of Josef Ackermann. It is an earth-shaking precedent for all banks holding what they had thought were collateral in form of real estate property.

    How this? Because of the complex structure of asset-backed securities and the widely dispersed ownership of mortgage securities (not actual mortgages but the securities based on same) no one is yet able to identify who precisely holds the physical mortgage document. Oops! A tiny legal detail our Wall Street Rocket Scientist derivatives experts ignored when they were bundling and issuing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CMO’s in the past six or seven years. As of January 2007 some $6.5 trillion of securitized mortgage debt was outstanding in the United States. That’s a lot by any measure!

    In the Ohio case Deutsche Bank is acting as “Trustee” for “securitization pools” or groups of disparate investors who may reside anywhere. But the Trustee never got the legal document known as the mortgage. Judge Boyko ordered DB to prove they were the owners of the mortgages or notes and they could not. DB could only argue that the banks had foreclosed on such cases for years without challenge. The Judge then declared that the banks “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test,” the Judge concluded, “their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.” Deutsche Bank has refused comment.

    What next?

    As news of this legal precedent spreads across the USA like a California brushfire, hundreds of thousands of struggling homeowners who took the bait in times of historically low interest rates to buy a home with often, no money paid down, and the first 2 years with extremely low interest rate in what are known as “interest only” Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs), now face exploding mortgage monthly payments at just the point the US economy is sinking into severe recession. (I regret the plethora of abbreviations used here but it is the fault of Wall Street bankers not this author).

    The peak period of the US real estate bubble which began in about 2002 when Alan Greenspan began the most aggressive series of rate cuts in Federal Reserve history was 2005-2006. Greenspan’s intent, as he admitted at the time, was to replace the Dot.com internet stock bubble with a real estate home investment and lending bubble. He argued that was the only way to keep the US economy from deep recession. In retrospect a recession in 2002 would have been far milder and less damaging than what we now face.

    Of course, Greenspan has since safely retired, written his memoirs and handed the control (and blame) of the mess over to a young ex-Princeton professor, Ben Bernanke. As a Princeton graduate, I can say I would never trust monetary policy for the world’s most powerful central bank in the hands of a Princeton economics professor. Keep them in their ivy-covered towers.

    Now the last phase of every speculative bubble is the one where the animal juices get the most excited. This has been the case with every major speculative bubble since the Holland Tulip speculation of the 1630’s to the South Sea Bubble of 1720 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. It was true as well with the US 2002-2007 Real Estate bubble. In the last two years of the boom in selling real estate loans, banks were convinced they could resell the mortgage loans to a Wall Street financial house who would bundle it with thousands of good better and worse quality mortgage loans and resell them as Collateralized Mortgage Obligation bonds. In the flush of greed, banks became increasingly reckless of the credit worthiness of the prospective home owners. In many cases they did not even bother to check if the person was employed. Who cares? It will be resold and securitized and the risk of mortgage default was historically low.

    That was in 2005. The most Sub-prime m
  6. [verwijderd] 26 november 2007 21:57
    quote:

    Bookie schreef:

    Het gaat erom dat velen denken dat als de ECB geld in 'de markt' pompt, dat dit weldegelijk leningen zijn, en niet zomaar wat bijgedrukt geld.
    Juist Bookie,
    Velen weten ook niet dat deze leningen ergens schulden achterlaten die lastenverzwarend werken en ooit terug betaald moeten worden willen we dit systeem instant houden.
    :-) gr.fes

  9. [verwijderd] 26 november 2007 23:20
    The next credit scandal!

    "
    Now they face big risks from other corners of the debt markets -- but don't expect them to warn investors anytime soon.

    The failure by banks to properly inform shareholders of their potential losses is perhaps the biggest scandal so far of the credit crunch that began this summer.
    ..............
    "

    money.cnn.com/2007/11/24/magazines/fo...
  12. forum rang 10 bp5ah 26 november 2007 23:23
    quote:

    Be schreef:

    The next credit scandal!

    "
    Now they face big risks from other corners of the debt markets -- but don't expect them to warn investors anytime soon.

    The failure by banks to properly inform shareholders of their potential losses is perhaps the biggest scandal so far of the credit crunch that began this summer.
    ..............
    "

    money.cnn.com/2007/11/24/magazines/fo...
    Als dat alles is ...

    Ze moeten wat beter hun best doen.

    Waarom komt er niet een bank die meteen even 999 miljard afschrijft, dan schiet het tenminste lekker op.

    Gr.

    Dirk
  14. [verwijderd] 26 november 2007 23:52
    quote:

    fes schreef:

    Eigen vermogen bank zit meestal onder de 10%....banken die 999 miljard kunnen afschrijven bestaan helaas niet.
    gr.fes
    Toch wel weer knap dat er banken zijn die een paar miljard kunnen afschrijven en toch nog zwarte cijfers schrijven.

    Ik ga toch wat strakker onderhandelen over afsluitprovisies, behandelingskosten e.d.
  15. forum rang 10 bp5ah 26 november 2007 23:55
    quote:

    fes schreef:

    [quote=bp5ah]
    Waarom komt er niet een bank die meteen even 999 miljard afschrijft, dan schiet het tenminste lekker op.

    Gr.

    Dirk
    [/quote]

    Eigen vermogen bank zit meestal onder de 10%....banken die 999 miljard kunnen afschrijven bestaan helaas niet.
    gr.fes
    Was sarcastisch bedoeld fes.

    Gr.

    Dirk
  17. [verwijderd] 27 november 2007 02:53
    Bank of America Takes Lead in Backing `SuperSIV' Fund (Update3)

    By David Mildenberg and Christopher Condon

    Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the nation's second-largest bank, will lead efforts by Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to convince smaller competitors to help finance an $80 billion bailout of short-term debt markets.

    The campaign starts this week with New York-based Citigroup and JPMorgan in supporting roles to Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America, said two people with knowledge of the matter, who didn't want to comment publicly before the plan is formally announced.

    The ``SuperSIV'' fund, backed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would buy assets from so-called structured investment vehicles, whose $300 billion of holdings include corporate and mortgage debt in danger of default. Analysts including Richard Bove of Punk Ziegel & Co. have criticized the proposal because it may saddle new participants with losses created by their bigger rivals.

    ``Why should we put something on our balance sheet that is going to result in further writedowns?'' is how most contributors will respond, Bove said in an interview. ``The job of the Treasury isn't to go out and defraud investors.''

    Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan, the three largest U.S. banks, want the SuperSIV fund in place by year-end because some SIVs haven't been able to trade, people familiar with the fund said. BlackRock Inc., the biggest publicly traded U.S. money manager, probably will manage the fund, said a person with knowledge of the plan.

    HSBC's SIVs

    Officials at Bank of America, Citigroup, and New York-based BlackRock declined to comment. A call to JPMorgan spokesman Brian Marchiony wasn't returned. JPMorgan's involvement in the fund is meant to help SIVs ``properly liquidate,'' Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said on Nov. 13. ``SIVs don't have a business purpose'' and will ``go the way of the dinosaur,'' he said.

    Bank of America dropped $1.27, or 2.9 percent, to $41.88 in 4:16 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Citigroup lost $1, or 3.2 percent to $30.70. JPMorgan fell $1.49 or 3.6 percent to $40.46.

    HSBC Holdings Plc, Europe's largest bank, will bail out two SIVs by taking on $45 billion of assets and said today in a statement that other banks will follow its lead. The London-based company said it doesn't expect the decision to have a ``material impact'' on earnings.

    Falling Values

    SIVs borrow in the $835.8 billion asset-backed commercial paper market and then buy longer-dated bank bonds, mortgage- backed securities and collateralized debt. Investors have become reluctant to deal with SIVs because holdings are difficult to value now that trading has collapsed in some mortgage debt markets. That's stoking concern SIVs will sell assets at distressed prices, adding to turmoil in credit markets.

    SIV holdings have declined $75 billion since July, and net asset values have fallen to 70 percent from 100 percent in July, according to data compiled by Fitch Ratings. Net asset value is what's left after selling all assets and paying debts. The commercial paper market -- debt due in 270 days or less -- has shrunk 29 percent from its Aug. 8 peak of $1.18 trillion.

    Bank of America ``has far more to gain down the road'' with regulators by backing SuperSIV, said Tony Plath, a financial professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who expects the plan to fail. ``They are setting themselves up so they aren't criticized when this thing falls apart.''

    The need for a fund like SuperSIV to calm credit markets has grown more pressing, analysts Birgit Specht and Jonathan Neve of Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. wrote on Nov. 21.

    Limited Support

    ``Net asset values keep falling, debt continues to mature and sentiment has deteriorated further,'' the analysts said. The fund will provide ``a liquidity backstop'' for about a third of the SIV assets, limiting the benefit, Specht and Neve said.

    Treasury spokeswoman Jennifer Zuccarelli said the department ``is pleased with the work the private sector is doing on a structure that is meant to improve liquidity'' for all participants.

    Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp., the fourth- largest U.S. bank by assets, has pledged support, while Boston- based State Street Corp. CEO Ronald Logue said Oct. 16 ``you won't see us participating in any way.''

    Deutsche Bank AG, Germany's biggest, was awaiting more details, Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann said last month. Terms for participants haven't been publicly released.

    The fund's lack of disclosure makes it ``a necessary failure,'' Bill Gross, manager of the world's biggest bond fund at Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., said in an Oct. 31 interview. ``Transparency is what the Treasury and Fed are supposedly all about.''

    Delayed Response

    Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is among critics who say SuperSIV may do more harm than good by delaying the need for investors and SIVs to absorb subprime losses.

    Loomis Sayles & Co. declined to invest after receiving one of 16 invitations for a meeting earlier this month with current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, said Daniel Fuss, who oversees $22 billion as chief investment officer at the Boston-based firm. The Securities Industries Financial Markets Association trade group extended the invitations, Fuss said.

    The meeting was a general session initiated by the trade group to discuss current market developments and led to ``some very candid give-and-take,'' said Richard Hunt, SIFMA's senior managing director for government relations. Spokeswoman Michelle Smith at the Federal Reserve confirmed the meeting took place.

    ``It's so nice to get a personal invitation to go to Washington and have a one-hour visit with Ben Bernanke,'' said Fuss, who decided participating wasn't worth the risk to his firm. ``Oh, boy, did I feel important for about 27 seconds, and then you smell a rat.''

    Ieder voor zich en God voor ons allen...

    mvg, E.
  18. forum rang 4 Willempie3 27 november 2007 08:09
    Het begint er steeds meer op te lijken dat de verliezen die afgeboekt moeten worden wel eens te groot kunnen zijn voor een aantal banken. Duidelijk is wel dat men er alles aan doet om te voorkomen dat er partijen om gaan vallen. Toch is het denk ik wel nuttig om je als investeerder af te vragen wat er met je vermogen gebeurt als je bank toch omvalt.
    Ik heb begrepen dat aandelen en opties op naam staan.
    Maar hoe zit het als je bijvoorbeeld in een beleggingsfonds zit van Aegon met 100.000 Euro en Aegon gaat failliet ? Krijg je dan je geld terug uit dat beleggingsfonds of gebruiken ze dat fonds eerst om andere schuldeisers van Aegon geld te geven?

    W3.
  19. [verwijderd] 27 november 2007 08:15
    Wow, dat zou nogal wat zijn Aegon failliet, of Fortis of ING. Kan je je geen voorstelling van maken. Toch gaat het gebeuren dat er ergens ter wereld een grote bank gaat omvallen. Northen Rock is al gegaan maar wordt kunstmatig nog in leven gehouden.

    Maar een beleggingsfonds in volgens mij geen "bezit" van een bank maar een aparte entiteit.
83 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 2 3 4 5 »» | Laatste |Omhoog ↑

Meedoen aan de discussie?

Word nu gratis lid of log in met je emailadres en wachtwoord.

Direct naar Forum

Indices

AEX 874,50 +0,92%
EUR/USD 1,0705 +0,49%
FTSE 100 8.031,68 +0,10%
Germany40^ 18.099,90 +1,34%
Gold spot 2.320,01 -0,31%
NY-Nasdaq Composite 15.451,31 +1,11%

Stijgers

VIVORY...
+32,46%
BAM
+4,52%
PROSUS
+4,04%
JUST E...
+3,36%
ABN AM...
+2,51%

Dalers

Akzo N...
-6,55%
RANDST...
-6,19%
FASTNED
-4,20%
NSI
-4,12%
Arcelo...
-2,41%

Lees verder op het IEX netwerk Let op: Artikelen linken naar andere sites

Gesponsorde links

Meld u aan voor de dagelijkse Beursupdate

Dagelijks een update van het laatste beursnieuws en beleggingskansen in uw mailbox!