Thursday, February 14, 2008

債保商必向畢菲特say no

孫柏文相信,同我同一日生日嘅畢菲特喺大家心目中,一向以來只係一個「股神」。佢只係個識揀平股,跟住揸一世嘅投資者,盡量避免做買賣。我可以同大家講,畢菲特已經成功呃咗你。

畢菲特,冇錯係個非常精明嘅投資者,而如果有能力揀得到平股,長揸係最好嘅策略。不過,如果有好機會,畢菲特可以好似啲大鱷一樣玩財技。甚至比啲大鱷玩得叻。呢幾日就有個好例子。

冇得你情我願

前晚,畢菲特突然向啲債保商話:「你哋受保嘅債券,一旦發債借錢嘅單位冇能力還,你哋根本冇能力賠錢。不如咁,你哋呢班債保商畀錢我,搵我受保晒一旦出事、你哋冇能力賠錢嘅各省市債券。條件係你當日收嘅保費,我要收1.5倍。」

作為一個債保商,冇能力賠就係冇能力賠,根本就係執笠收場,點解要再畀錢畢菲特?

債券有得賠,益嘅係債券持有人,債保商根本冇着數。所以債保商一定向畢菲特say no。噚日已經有債保商叫畢菲特fuck off。

大家可能會問:「畢菲特咁醒目,點解會向債保商提議,一個佢哋一定唔會接受嘅方案?」理由係畢菲特知道,債保商喺你情我願嘅情況下,一定唔接受。不過,啲債保商冇得你情我願,佢哋面對好多監管機構。

畢菲特可以拯救好多債券持有人,啲監管機構一定希望救得幾多就幾多。所以畢菲特知道債保商將會面對監管機構嘅壓力,送錢畀畢菲特白袋。雖然人人知道啲債保商已患絕症,不過裏面嘅人未來都要搵工。搞寸個party,就連可以上救生艇嘅人,都要拉埋落水,未來就冇運行。畢菲特真係好勁。

支持環保武器?

最後,有個朋友話:「你前日笑啲環保分子笑得唔啱。佢哋唔係反對啲女性覺得最浪漫,例如鮮花嘅『無謂』禮物,佢哋只係反對唔環保。

例如,冇乜嘢比戰爭更無謂,古希臘有個儍佬,佢為咗條女Helen揮軍打Troy。因為話到明係木馬屠城記,啲木可以循環再用。環保分子一定支持!」Green weapons就ok?

6 comments:

  1. Your analysis is flawed. The reason that the bond insurers would do this is to preserve their credit rating. Yes, they might have to give up $9 bil of capital but at the same time, they will move a lot of risks off of their balance sheet. Take a look at the letter that Ajit Jain wrote to Lazard. In the letter, he says the credit markets are pricing bonds insured by the bond insurers at 2x the original underwriting cost. By this argument, they can off-load the risk at 150% of previous pricing as opposed to the 200% as priced by the market. If the bond insurers lose their rating, they can't underwrite new businesses which will be worse than paying a $9 bil premium today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hahahahah

    They will lose their ratings NO matter what they do.

    Imagine if, yes they raise they capital ratio by offloading the munis, but what is left?

    Also. The real reason the bond insurers are not going to take the deal is that the bigger they are in liabilities, the more likely they will be "too big to fail"

    They are not going to give up their leverage they get from being the insurers of munis.

    I mean they can still go around now and say, "yo, wanna save the muni market? save me!" weeeeeeee

    But your analysis is very very good. An exceptionally reasonable case for arguing the bond insurers should take the deal.

    We'll see how the insurers will act. They take deal, means you are right. They not take deal, I am right.

    If they take the deal because they are "advised" to do so... I still win hahahahaha

    But I do look forward to your future comments.

    Very thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 有錢佬都係無寶不落...你看看0008+0432...唉.....!!!P.S.點解冇POST你前天鬧有線打攪你高堂的文章??受壓力呀..我之前都係你個POST申訴過..你都冇撐我...!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. hahahaha

    I have long wanted to go after Cable's Sales and customer service practices.

    Like last time when I went after Google adsense...

    ReplyDelete
  5. 孫先生, 可否引用你的文章?:)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yo 秋。

    It is good.

    Go ahead. Which piece are you thinking?

    ReplyDelete