Monday, December 10, 2012

Transgene Biotek Ltd- a copy of clarification

http://www.bseindia.com/Include/images/pdf.png
ClarificationDownload PDF05 Dec 2012 12:49
Transgene Biotek Ltd has submitted to BSE a copy of clarification regarding "Article titled 'Whiff of GDR scam at Transgene Biotek' published in Financial Express dated December 04, 2012".

is GDR scam at Transgene Biotek real?



Whiff of GDR scam at Transgene Biotek

A A
Comments 
ANKIT DOSHI: MUMBAI, DEC 04 2012, 01:56 IST
Mumbai: A group of shareholders of Transgene Biotek has complained to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) about a ‘GDR scam’ that the company has allegedly perpetrated on the basis of several price-sensitive announcements with an ‘ulterior motive’ of pushing up the stock price and giving an attractive exit to a select set of investors.

Shareholders of the BSE-listed company allege that the promoters of the company allotted depository receipts (using structured GDR route) to an FII/sub-account, who, in collusion with the promoters, converted the receipts into equity shares and sold them in the domestic market by creating artificial volumes.
As per the complaint filed with Sebi’s Investor Grievance cell — a copy of which is with FE — investors remonstrate the use of several price-sensitive announcements (including delisting at a much higher price than the prevailing market price) as a decoy to elevate the stock price and trap retail investors so that GDR holders can exit.
Further, investors raised doubts over the existence of Transgene Biotek HK — a subsidiary entity — and have asked Sebi to probe the fund flows between the parent and subsidiary entities.
Investors said that within a few days of incorporating the Hong Kong subsidiary, the parent company raised $17.50 million (nearly R86.5 crore) through GDRs and most of the money was remitted to the subsidiary for buying technology.
“What has happened to the technology transfer, which accounts for 25% of the size of balance sheet? Was the technology bought or were the funds given back to the ghost GDR holder?” said another investor, on conditions of anonymity. Investors have also questioned the role of GDR allottee, stream value fund (FII) and inventure merchant bankers.
“The modus operandi is similar. The trades are concentrated among a few entities, which could be fronts for GDR holders. The question is where and how much of the money was siphoned off?” the investor asked.
Incidentally, the auditors of the Hyderabad-based company highlighted a similar point in the FY12 annual report. It said the company does not have an internal audit system commensurate with its size and nature of its business, and that it was in no position to comment on the end use of money raised via GDRs as the utilisation proceeds from these GDRs were made through its wholly-owned subsidiary, which was not audited by the auditor, stated the FY12 annual report.
Meanwhile, several email queries sent to the company remained unanswered till the time of going to press. Repeated attempts to get in touch with the management and the registrar also proved futile.
Market participants, meanwhile, feel that the regulator should tighten the regulations on GDR issuances by Indian companies. Ashok Bakliwal, president, Bombay Shareholders' Association said, “It becomes incumbent on the part of Sebi to investigate this matter and take strong action. Sebi cannot always rely on official complaints to initiate an investigation. It needs to take suo moto action and must have a strong surveillance system in place.”

Shares of Transgene gained 1.98% on Monday to close at Rs 4.63. The scrip has plunged nearly 70% since the highs of September when the merchant banker was appointed to manage the delisting offer.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/whiff-of-gdr-scam-at-transgene-biotek/1040017/0

Transgene Biotek


Transgene Biotek investors cry foul over delisting plans

A A
Comments print
ANKIT DOSHI: MUMBAI, NOV 16 2012, 03:29 IST
Mumbai: A group of shareholders of Transgene Biotek is planning to lodge a formal complaint with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) over the manner in which the company recently conducted a postal ballot to get shareholders’ approval for its delisting proposal.
Shareholders of the Hyderabad-based company allege that the announcement related to delisting was done with a motive of pushing up the stock price and that there was never a serious intention of getting the entity delisted from the bourses. The company is currently listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the Delhi Stock Exchange.
Shareholders told FE, on condition of anonymity, that the ballot forms were sent just days before the deadline and the whole process was managed in a way that a majority of shareholders could not exercise their votes. According to Bloomberg, shares of Transgene Biotek surged nearly 30% in a span of 20 days to a high of R14.20 (from August 27, when the decision to consider delisting was announced, to September 17, when a merchant banker was appointed for the purpose).
The average daily volume in the period rose to 23.12 lakh shares against 7.28 lakh shares in April-November. Since the highs of September 17, the stock plunged over 60% to R5.10 as of November 15.
“They (Transgene Biotek) announced delisting of shares with a price tag which was about 2.5 times the market price and put out a deluge of forward looking statements so that the stock price would move higher,” said a Transgene investor who holds nearly a lakh shares and did not wish to be identified.
“Which investor would not want the company to delist at R25 when the current stock price is around R5?” asked another Transgene investor. An email query sent to the company on Saturday remained unanswered till the time of going to press.
Repeated attempts to get in touch with the company officials and the registrar also proved futile. Investors allege that since all shareholders could not participate in the ballot, the delisting proposal was rejected based on the number of votes that were received prior to the deadline — November 6.
Through discussions with a group of investors holding a sizable amount of Transgene's shares, it was ascertained that many investors did not receive postal ballot forms. “What is the mystery behind postal ballots not being received by several investors I have spoken to, across the country?” asked the shareholder quoted earlier. To seek shareholders' approval on delisting of shares from the BSE and the Delhi Stock Exchange, the company approved the notice of postal ballot on September 20 and fixed October 5 as the date of completion of dispatch of notice along with postal ballot to all its shareholders.
Another investor said he received the form just four days before the deadline for the ballot forms reaching the scrutiniser. The investor said: “Since the postal ballot forms were dispatched via registered post and were self-addressed, it would be impossible for my form to reach the company on/before the last date of receiving ballot forms.”
Shareholders have also raised doubts over the promoters' motive to delist the company as the latter hold less than 10% in the Hyderabad-based entity. Given the stringent delisting guidelines and rare instances of delisiting attempts in the Indian market, promoters could have first increased their stake through creeping acquisition, they say.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/transgene-biotek-investors-cry-foul-over-delisting-plans/1031794/0

Monday, November 26, 2012

HUGE PREMIUM...INSURANCE..!!!!

Future Generali stake transactions don't add up

Published: Sunday, Nov 25, 2012, 21:13 IST 
By Rajiv Ranjan Singh | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
A company with no asset of its own issued shares to two different companies on the same day. While one company bought the shares at a face value of Rs10, the other paidRs2,500 apiece.
And these weren't one-off deals. Thepractice has gone on for five years now – in Sprint Advisory Services PvtLtd.Sprint, incorporated in 2005-06 as a chain marketing company andrechristened as Sain Advisory Services in 2007-08, and further as Sprint Advisory Services in 2010-11, has no employees on record.What's more, it has posted losses year after year and gets only a paltry income through consultancy services, which has never exceeded Rslakhper annum in the last five years.Still, it has been able to command a 250-time premium.What gives?
Well, Sprint Advisory holds 49% stake in Future Generali Life Insurance Company, while Pantaloon Retail India and Maatschappij GraafsschapHolland NV hold 25.5% stake each.Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, Maatschappij, a little known firm based out of a tax heaven in Netherlands, invested Rs268 crore directly in FutureGenerali Life, while Pantaloon Retail invested a like amount, to take at 25.5% each.For the remaining 49% stake in Future Generali Life, Sprint Advisory invested Rs515 crore with an almost equal contribution coming fromMaatschappij and Pantaloon Retail.
Maatschappij started investing in Sprint in 2007-08, against which Sprint Advisory issued shares at Rs2,500 a share for a face value of Rs10. As of 2010-11 fiscal end, Maatschappij had invested Rs283.66 crore in Sprint, but got just a 0.4% stake. However, Pantaloon Retail invested Rs283.54 crore in it and commanded a 99.96% stake.For 2010-11, Sprint registered a loss of Rs15.90 lakh, though its income from consultancy services stood at Rs1.2 lakh and other income atRs69,000.To be sure, between 2007-08 and 2011-12, Future Generali Life has attracted investments of Rs1,200 crore from these players, though DNAcould only collate the figures till March 2011 as Sprint is yet to file its annual return for the last fiscal.
As these numbers show, despite investing 50% in the share capital of Future Generali Life, Maatschappij holds just 25.5% stake in the company, thanks to the hefty premium charged by Sprint Advisory, in which VijayBiyani, Future Group chairman Kishore Biyani's brother, is one of the four directors. The other three are Prakash Chandra ToshniwalKrishnakantRathi and Roberto Gasso.For the record, Biyani and Gasso are also on the board of Future GeneraliLife, as Sprint representatives.Surely, all this can't be a coincidence; there has to be a game plan somewhere.Makes one ask – was theMaatschappij and Sprint Advisory transaction done to bypass the norm of a 26% limit for foreign companies in insurance?A detailed questionnaire sent to Sprint Advisory remained unanswered.
Deepak Sood, CEO, Future Generali Life refused to give any answer.Curiously, there is little in the public domain about Maatschappij or its key executives.As per Bloomberg BusinessweekMaatschappij Graafsschap Holland NV was founded in 1975 and is based in Diemen, the Netherlands. ParticipatieMaatschappij Graafschap Holland NV operates as a subsidiary ofAssicurazioni Generali SpA.It is ironical that the absurd pricing scheme in Sprint was not questioned by the star-studded board of Future Generali Life. Former SEBI chairman GNBajpai, who is supposed to be an authority on pricing of shares, has headed the board for the last three financial years and Gorakhnath Agarwal, the head of the Acturial Society of India, is on its board and acts as the chief actuary and chief risk officer.It is also reliably learnt that Girish Kulkarni, one of the pilots of the absurd pricing scheme of Sprint Advisory, working as the chief marketing officer and a director of Future Generali in 2007-08 when Maatschappij started paying the premium for Sprint, now heads Star Union Dai-ichi, an insurance company promoted by a public sector bank.
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_future-generali-stake-transactions-don-t-add-up_1769378-2

Saturday, November 24, 2012

FISCAL CLIFF - USA WOES...




Nov. 21, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST 10 people who led us to the ‘fiscal cliff’ Commentary: From Laffer to Obama, they fed our greed and guilt By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — With our political leaders locked in a fiscal struggle that threatens to throw the economy off a so-called cliff and into recession, you might be wondering how we got to this place.
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for everyone. And guilt that we weren’t paying our way. Read “Stop calling it a ‘fiscal cliff’”
All of us (or almost all) had a role in this melodrama, either benefiting from the spending or from the lower tax rates. Despite our culpability, it took strong national leaders to foster the heady mix of greed and guilt that brought us to this spot.
Here are the 10 people most responsible for bringing us to the edge of the fiscal cliff:

 

Arthur Laffer. Laffer was the economist who proved the existence of the free lunch. His Laffer Curve showed, in theory, that cutting tax rates would actually increase tax revenue. He gave intellectual cover to those conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to be seen as contributing to a big deficit. He gave them a guilt-free way to cut revenue.
There’s only one problem: Laffer’s ideas didn’t pan out in practice: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax cuts are a major cause of our $16 trillion national debt.
Pete Peterson. If there’s one person who we can blame for making us feel guilty about the federal deficit, it’s Peterson, a hedge-fund billionaire who was a cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration. Peterson founded, funded or supported most of the institutions in Washington devoted to publicizing the problem of the deficit, including the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation, The Fiscal Times, and the anti-deficit documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”
Without Peterson’s billions and the guilt it bought, the deficit would be a fringe issue.
Bill Clinton. President Clinton made budget surpluses look easy. The budget was in the black the last four years of his administration. What’s worse, he made surpluses look like a sure thing.
Clinton’s surpluses were partly the result of Washington going on a serious budget diet, with higher taxes paired with moderation in spending. But it was the booming economy — and higher taxes on capital income — that turned the modest deficits of the early Clinton years into surpluses.
By the time Clinton left office, politicians were beginning to talk about perpetual surpluses, in exactly the same way that hucksters on Wall Street were talking about a perpetual bull market. And with exactly the same outcome.
Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a high priest of both guilt and greed. He had always warned Congress about the dangers of the deficits, but his biggest failure as Federal Reserve chairman was the day in 2001 he told Congress that the worst thing it could do was pay down the debt because that would destroy the Treasury market and the Fed’s power to control the economy.
That was the day he endorsed the Bush tax cuts. The Maestro’s endorsement gave intellectual cover to the conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to feel guilty.
Greenspan also catered to our greedy side as a serial bubble-blower. He inflated the housing bubble in the 2000s by keeping interest rates low and by refusing to regulate the shadow banking system.
George W. Bush . No one is more responsible for racking up our debt than Bush. He campaigned in 2000 promising to cut taxes in order to avoid paying down the national debt. And when the recession of 2001 arrived, he said tax cuts would revive the economy. And when the economy didn’t revive, he cut taxes some more. Tax cuts for all occasions. And it was all guilt-free
Dick Cheney. While Bush was busy cutting taxes, Cheney was busy planning the war on terror. For the first time in our history, we sent our military into battle without raising taxes at home to help pay for it. It added trillions to the debt.

David Lereah. Lereah was the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors and was perhaps the most enthusiastic and public cheerleader for the housing bubble. Even after the bubble began to deflate, Lereah still insisted that real-estate investments would never lose money.
Of course, Lereah didn’t cause the bubble all by himself, but he does embody the greed that engulfed the real estate industry, the Wall Street banks that profited from it, and the homeowners who took on more debt than they could ever hope to repay.
Grover Norquist. As the head of a powerful lobbying and campaign-finance organization, Norquist forced almost every Republican officeholder to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. If anyone declined to sign or dared to violate the pledge, Norquist would back a primary challenger. The threat worked.
The Norquist pledge blocked any possibility of a budget deal between Democrats and Republicans over the past two years. Democrats insisted that any plan to balance the budget must include more revenue as well as spending cuts, but Republicans held solid against any tax increase.
There are signs that Norquist could be losing his hold on the party. Several Republicans won elections this year without signing his pledge, and several incumbents have said they don’t feel bound by the pledge any more.
Barack Obama. Obama may be the perfect representative of our age, because he encapsulates our national schizophrenia over the budget. He honors both the greed and the guilt. He presided over the largest deficits in history, including a large fiscal stimulus, bailouts of the auto industry, and an expansion of the safety net.
But Obama also lectures us about the need for the government to tighten its belt, even during a recession. He wants to raise taxes, if only on a few, and he’s expressed willingness to cut into the great middle-class entitlements. It was Obama’s administration that first suggested the bargain in 2011 that created the fiscal cliff.
John Boehner. The House speaker is trapped in Grover Norquist’s world. He’s a pragmatic legislator who accepts that the government needs more revenue, but his caucus in the House doesn’t agree. In the summer of 2011, Boehner nearly forced the nation to default on its debt because he couldn’t deliver the votes necessary to raise taxes.
In the end, Boehner was forced to punt the problem down the road. Today’s fiscal cliff showdown is the result of Boehner’s inability to lead the House Republicans to a deal.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-people-who-led-us-to-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-11-21?pagenumber=5

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

INSIDER TRADING STORY...


A former portfolio manager for Steven A. Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors LP was charged with what U.S. prosecutors called a record-setting insider-trading scheme that netted as much as $276 million for the hedge fund.

Mathew Martoma, 38, traded on inside tips about clinical trials of bapineuzumab, a drug intended to treat Alzheimer’s disease, prosecutors in the office of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a criminal complaint unsealed today. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Martoma, his former hedge fund and the doctor who allegedly passed him the tips.Martoma allegedly advised Cohen to sell shares of Wyeth LLC (PFE) and Elan Corp. (ELN), the companies that were developing the drug, before bad news about its performance was announced. Cohen’s firm sold its Elan (ELN) and Wyeth holdings to avoid losses and profited from short positions in the stocks, prosecutors said.“Mathew Martoma and his hedge fund benefitted from what might be the most lucrative inside tip of all time,” Bharara said at a press conference today. “This is certainly the most lucrative insider-trading scheme ever charged.”Martoma is the sixth current or former SAC employee implicated in alleged insider trading by U.S. prosecutors. He’s charged with conspiracy and two counts of securities fraud, a crime that carries a maximum 20-year prison term.While the SEC and prosecutors don’t say whether Cohen knew Martoma’s advice was based on illegal tips, they do allege that Martoma discussed the Elan investments with the hedge fund’s owner before the drug’s test results were out. Cohen wasn't charged or sued over the matter.

Health-Care Tips

More than 80 people have been sued by regulators or charged by prosecutors since 2008 for passing or getting inside tips about pharmaceutical, biotechnology or other health-care stocks.Martoma worked as a portfolio manager for CR Intrinsic Investors in Stamford, Connecticut, a unit of SAC Capital, according to the SEC. The agency’s suit names as defendants Martoma, CR Intrinsic and Dr. Sid Gilman, a University of Michigan neurologist. Gilman wasn’t charged criminally.
“Mathew Martoma was an exceptional portfolio manager who succeeded through hard work and the dogged pursuit of information in the public domain,” his lawyer, Charles Stillman, said in an e-mailed statement. “What happened today is only the beginning of a process that we are confident will lead to Mr. Martoma’s full exoneration.”Billionaire Cohen, 56, started SAC Capital in 1992. His hedge fund manages $14 billion. He has been deposed by SEC investigators about trades made close to news such as mergers and earnings that generated profits for his fund, a person familiar with the matter said in June. The person asked not to be identified because the investigation wasn’t public.“Mr. Cohen and SAC are confident that they have acted appropriately and will continue to cooperate with the government’s inquiry,” Jonathan Gasthalter, a company spokesman, said today in an e-mailed statement.
Martoma was arrested at his home in Boca RatonFlorida, at 6:30 a.m. today, said Peter Donald, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York. He appeared before U.S. Magistrate David Brannon in West Palm Beach and was released on $5 million bond secured by two family members, said Mary Delsener, a spokeswoman for Bharara’s office. Martoma is scheduled to be in federal court in Manhattan on Nov. 26, Bharara said.

‘Manager A’

The SEC claimed Martoma used Gilman’s illegal tips to trade for CR Intrinsic as well as for “hedge fund portfolios managed by an affiliated investment adviser” and controlled by an unidentified “Portfolio Manager A.” That manager was Cohen, according to a person familiar with the matter.In the criminal complaint, prosecutors said Martoma, who specialized in health-care stocks, recommended to the “hedge fund owner” at his firm that he sell Elan and Wyeth shares before the drug-trial results were disclosed publicly. Cohen is the owner of SAC.Gilman, 80, is a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical School. He served as chairman of the safety monitoring committee overseeing the bapineuzumab trial, the SEC said. The doctor has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.“He is cooperating with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Marc Mukasey, Gilman’s lawyer, said. “We expect to settle with the SEC in short order.”The doctor was a consultant for an expert-networking firm based in Manhattan and consulted with Martoma from mid-2006 to July 2008, according to the government.

Gerson Lehrman

Gilman worked for Gerson Lehrman Group’s Scientific Advisory Board starting in 2002, according to a 2011 curriculum vitae posted online by the University of Michigan.Loren Riegelhaupt, a spokesman for the New York-based expert-network firm, declined to comment on the case. Bloomberg LP, the owner of Bloomberg News, has an agreement to offer its clients access to Gerson Lehrman consultants.Over the course of about 42 consultations, Martoma persuaded the doctor to talk about his work on the drug trial, Bharara said.The doctor passed along the generally positive safety data about the trial, according to the criminal complaint, which doesn’t identify the neurologist by name. The SEC’s complaint names Gilman as Martoma’s source.

Elan, Wyeth

Relying on the safety data, Martoma allegedly bought shares of Elan and Wyeth for his portfolio. Cohen also bought Elan and Wyeth, based on Martoma’s recommendation, prosecutors said. By the end of June 2008, SAC held about $700 million in the two companies’ stocks.“The hedge fund built up over time a massive position in Elan and Wyeth stock. The hedge fund built up this position, even though it was vocally opposed by several others at the hedge fund who were worried about the risk of that investment,” Bharara said. “Martoma was the only person at the hedge fund who was recommending establishing such a large position in Elan and Wyeth based on that drug.”In mid-July 2008, Gilman received secret data showing that bapineuzumab failed to halt progression of Alzheimer’s in patients in the clinical test, the U.S. said. The doctor e- mailed Martoma a 24-page PowerPoint presentation detailing the results, which he was scheduled to present at a medical conference on July 29, according to the U.S.“That is when Martoma, according to the complaint, had to do a spectacular about-face, because he understood that with these negative results looming, the hedge fund’s massive $700 million stake had become a terrible bet,” Bharara said. “Overnight, Martoma went from bull to bear as he tried to dig his hedge fund out of a massive hole.”

‘It’s Important’

Prosecutors said that on July 20 Martoma e-mailed Cohen to ask, “Is there a good time to catch up with you this morning? It’s important.” The two later talked for about 20 minutes, according to the complaint.After that conversation, SAC allegedly sold all its Elan shares and shorted the stock in a little more than a week. SAC also liquidated most of its Wyeth stock and took short positions, the U.S. said.During that time, SAC’s Elan trades accounted for more than one-fifth of its trading volume, Bharara said.On July 27, an unidentified “Senior Trader” at Martoma’s company e-mailed Cohen about the week’s trading activity, according to prosecutors.

Dark Pools

The e-mail said that the fund “executed a sale of over 10.5 million ELN” for four internal hedge fund accounts. The sales were carried out “quietly and effectively” over four days through dark pools and other means, and booked into accounts that had “very limited access,” according to the e- mail cited in the criminal complaint.After the results became public, Wyeth and Elan shares plummeted. Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer Inc., fell the most in almost six years on the news. Elan dropped the most in three years.Prosecutors said Martoma was paid a bonus of $9.38 million in January 2009, based largely on the hedge fund’s profit from the Wyeth and Elan trades.Martoma lost money in the next two years and was fired after another identified employee said in a May 2010 e-mail that he was a “one-trick pony with Elan,” according to the government.

SAC Managers

At least five other current or former SAC portfolio managers or analysts have been implicated ininsider trading, including three charged criminally by federal prosecutors in New York, including two former portfolio managers Noah Freeman and Donald Longueuil and analyst Jon Horvath.
Michael Steinberg, a portfolio manager at SAC’s Sigma Capital Management unit, has been described by federal prosecutors as an “unindicted co-conspirator” of Horvath, a former analyst he supervised who pleaded guilty to receiving and passing inside information. Longueuil, who worked for SAC Capital’s CR Intrinsic in New York from July 2008 to July 2010, was accused of giving information to Freeman, his friend.In April 2011, former SAC analyst Jonathan Hollander agreed to settle SEC allegations that he traded on inside information about a pending takeover of the Albertson’s LLC grocery chain.
The U.S., by spelling out the evidence against Martoma in the complaint filed yesterday, may be seeking to persuade him to assist in a probe of others at SAC, said Andrew Frisch, a defense attorney in New York and former federal prosecutor.“That they’re proceeding by a complaint, as opposed to an indictment, often means the government wants to convince the defendant of the wisdom of cooperation,” Frisch, who isn’t involved in the case, said in an interview. “Cooperation is always a possibility for a defendant, but it’s a question of whether he has information.”The criminal case is U.S. v. Martoma, 12-MAG-2985; and the civil case is SEC v. CR Intrinsic Investors LLC, 12-8466, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net; Patricia Hurtado in New York at pathurtado@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-20/u-s-charges-mathew-martoma-in-insider-trading-scheme.html

Monday, November 5, 2012

Monday, October 29, 2012

UBS, RBS Traders Suspended -LIBOR issue..


UBS, RBS Traders Suspended as Rates Probe Goes Beyond Libor

At least two foreign-exchange traders at UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, have been put on leave as part of an internal probe into the manipulation of non-deliverable forwards, a derivative traders use to speculate on the movement of currencies that are subject to domestic foreign exchange restrictions, according to a person with direct knowledge of the operation. Edinburgh-based RBS also put Ken Choy, a director in its emerging markets foreign exchange trading unit, on leave, a person briefed on the matter said on Oct. 26.Regulators around the world are broadening the scope of their investigations beyond interbank offered rates such as the London interbank offered rate to encompass more benchmarks. The Monetary Authority of Singapore last month announced it was extending its probe into rate-rigging to include NDFs. About $1.02 trillion of the contracts are traded in a year, according to 2003 figures, the most recent available, compiled by the Emerging Markets Traders Association.Spokesmen for UBS and RBS declined to comment. Choy didn’t answer a call to his work phone in Singapore today.Unlike foreign exchange forward contracts, where two parties agree to physically exchange currencies at a set rate at a specific date in the future, NDF traders settle the net position in U.S. dollars. Who pays and how much at the end of the contract is determined by reference to a fixing rate which in some jurisdictions is set, like Libor, by a survey of banks.

Ringgit, Rupiah

Contracts that reference the Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah against the dollar are among NDFs that are traded in Singapore. The spot rates for both currencies are fixed by the Association of Banks in Singapore based on data submitted by banks. If traders can move the spot rates, they could boost their profit, said a person familiar with the process who asked not to be identified.The Russian ruble spot rate is set by CME Group Inc., which operates the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Each day, the company surveys at least 15 lenders at a randomly selected time between noon and 12.30 p.m. in Moscow and asks them for both a bid and offer price on a hypothetical $100,000 ruble-to-dollar transaction.

Changed Methodology

In other jurisdictions, the rate is set by central bankers. The Reserve Bank of India sets the spot rates for dollar-rupee and euro-rupee by polling “a select list of contributing banks” at a “randomly chosen five minute window” between 11.45 a.m. and 12.15 p.m. each day, according to its website. Before it changed the methodology in June 2011, all banks were called at noon each day.Barclays Plc, Britain’s second-biggest lender by assets, was fined a record 290 million pounds ($467 million) in June when it became the first bank to settle with regulators over the rigging of interest rates. Derivatives traders at the bank systematically sought to influence where Libor was set each day to suit their trading positions and boost profits, according to the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority.
To contact the reporters on this story: Liam Vaughan in London at lvaughan6@bloomberg.net; Sanat Vallikappen in Singapore at vallikappen@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net; Chitra Somayaji at csomayaji@bloomberg.net

Sunday, October 28, 2012

MOUNTING EURO PROBLEMS...


Spanish unemployment hits new peak

@CNNMoney October 26, 2012: 5:48 AM ETLONDON (CNNMoney) -- Spain's unemployment rate hit a record high of 25% in the third quarter, as the jobless total grew to nearly 5.8 million people.
The latest unemployment data reflects the impact of the region's recession, and Spain's government cuts aimed at restoring stability to the country's finances.The national statistics office said unemployment in the July to September period rose 0.4%, compared to the previous quarter; and 3.5% compared to the year prior, as another 85,000 people were left without work.A sharp fall in the number of public sector workers accounted for a large portion of the unemployment rate increase. Almost 50,000 fewer workers were employed in the public sector in the third quarter, representing a fall of 7% year-over-year.Some 1.7 million Spanish households have no adult of working age in employment, a rise of more than 300,000 over the past year. That means around 10% of all Spanish homes are now without a breadwinner.The unemployment figures underscore the impact of Spain's second recession in the last three years. The eurozone's fourth biggest economy had fewer than 2 million people out of work at the end of 2007, when it was riding a boom before the financial crisis hit.Analysts believe Spain's unemployment rate could deteriorate further next year as the economy continues to contract, and more austerity measures begin to bite as Madrid struggles to contain its budget deficit.Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's government and the International Monetary Fund predict that Spain will remain stuck in recession next year.Data published by the Spanish central bank earlier this week showed the country's economy shrank by 1.7% in the third quarter, compared to a year earlier..........http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/news/economy/spain-unemployment-rate/index.html

Saturday, October 27, 2012

EURO BANKS --MASKED.. MAY FAIL TO TEST


Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:30

The immeasurable risk European banks may be hiding

There is growing concern among policymakers and analysts that the true extent of European banks' debt problems is being masked. There is growing concern among policymakers and analysts that the true extent of European banks' debt problems is being masked.


Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, became the most high-profile policymaker to date to warn of the dangers of banks putting off foreclosures in a speech Tuesday night.
His stern warning to UK banks that they need to drop the "pretense" that some of their bad debts will be repaid was coupled with the statement that they have "insufficient capital" to deal with losses which have remained undeclared.
Essentially, what seems to have happened is that banks across the euro zone have put off foreclosures on weak businesses - a process known as forbearance. This has been enabled by low interest rates across the region and rescue packages which have injected unprecedented amounts of liquidity into the banking system and helped keep struggling economies afloat.
The scale of forbearance is hinted at in relatively low rates of company insolvencies.
In the UK, despite the recession, insolvency rates are similar to 2002, when the economy grew by 1.6 percent, according to government figures.
Greece's problems have been well flagged - yet just five Greek companies were declared insolvent in 2011, the year it was forced to seek a bailout from international lenders, fewer than in 2007, when its economy was still growing.
This persists across the euro zone, with the weakest economies sometimes experiencing its lowest insolvency rates.
In 2011, the number of insolvencies per 10,000 companies was lowest in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal, according to calculations from Creditreform.
However, as Nigel Myer, director of credit strategy at Lloyds, pointed out, the extent of this is "effectively invisible" and "almost impossible to quantify." Decisions are made by individual banks and they do not have to declare them under accountancy rules.
Putting off foreclosure could be dangerous not only because it masks the true state of businesses, but because it could mean a faster rate of insolvencies if banks decide to change their policies in response to a worsening economy, with potential damage to employment figures and the broader economy - and to the banks themselves.
"To the extent that forbearance has taken place, a worsening economic environment in these countries could lead to a faster rate of deterioration in asset quality than might be inferred from reported numbers," Myer warned.
Of course, delaying the repayment of non-performing loans can be positive for the economy, particularly in the short-term.
"It has allowed companies to survive and people to be employed," as Myer pointed out. "It also very likely supports tax receipts and reduces the need for social security support."
Sir Mervyn's warning does not chime with other influential figures in the UK.
Andrew Bailey, a member of the Bank's Financial Policy Committee and head of prudential regulation at UK regulator the Financial Services Authority, thanked the banks for their actions earlier in October.
The European countries least likely to be affected by forbearance following worse-than-expected economic data are Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, according to Myer, who suggested spreads in Swiss banks and the recent rally in Danish spreads should be supported by worries about forbearance.

Written by Catherine Boyle, CNBC. Twitter: @cboylecnbc.