- Joined
- 12 September 2004
- Posts
- 1,714
- Reactions
- 1
Not safe from harm... safe from an Enron type meltdown, as implied by posts above.Hrmm.... the parent Company would be safe from harm if the asset bubble affected their sattelite funds..... Lets have a think about that....
I doubt losing 1/3 of net profit would be enough to cause a financial meltdown in the majority of listed companies - MBL have one of the highest contract to fulltime ratios in the country, so have a higher degree of flexibility on overheads than many of their contempories.1. Revenue impact - Revenue from fee and consulting commissions to associates and JV's for 2007 was over 1 Billion. Lets say that costs associated with such advisory was half (500 Mil). If their fee income was gone from associates, that would be 1/3 of net profit - sounds fairly material to me.....
So their recent raising of capital just prior to a global tightening of credit is another tick in the box of intelligent timing.2. Asset impariment - Net assets are 7.5 Bil, investments in associates 4 Bil - I think an impairment here would greatly affect their collateral.
It is about both - less regulation and an increase in asset protection. Lumping MBL with the profiles of largely unregulated hedge funds & private equity firms seems a little unfair (and over the top) when you consider the difference in approach both to raising capital, internal risk policies & history of reporting.Everyone needs to have a good look at what MBL actually is - the biggest deck of cards on the ASX. The Company restructure is not about asset protection, it's about getting around the Capital requirements of having banking licence for the investment banks head Company. It will actually increase risk, because the prudential requirements won't hold them back ....
In saying all this however, MBL have lasted this long ripping everyone off with their spin outs, so perhaps if the bank roll continues, everything will be ok..... I've heard this story before......
Likewise, we all learn from hearing someone else's viewpointFirstly, thanks for the intelligent debate here, sometimes opinions can become heated and people on boards can get a little abusive - you seem to be putting forward a logical and from what I can see objective opinion so I do appreciate that.
I still see a major difference between Enron & Macquarie.Let me say firstly, that I would be extremely disappointed if MBL went down in an Enron style collapse. Clearly, it would adversely affect Australia in ways that are too numerous to mention on one post. I sincerely hope that this is just a stage in the asset cycle that MBL go through and emerge safely so that investors funds are safe from harm.
However, to state that an Enron collapse couldn't happen to MBL is not true. They are the most aggressive M&A firm around internationally, they have been paying top $$ for all the assets they have acquired of late and pay the largest pay packets to maintain there staff. Like it or not, the similarities between MBL and Enron are numerous - only MBL is selling financial instruments and services, Enron was selling Gas distribution.
Agree that it was opportunistic, however I still see it as showing a reasonable measure of market conditions in the near future. Majority of their loans are held off balance sheet or against assets already majority held (although not managed) by the same "sophisticated investors", againt consisitent with a practice of sheilding the parent company from as much exposure as possible.In reference to the their latest capital raising, I would say it was more opportunistic than intelligent - I mean, every man and his dog raised money before this latest correction/cash (the verdicts still out), why because scrip prices were high and cash was about, simple as that. Sure, it gives them a buffer, but how much considering their gearing levels, which are out of this world? But they raised less than 1 Bil - a material write down in their investments in associates could cause them to default on many of their loan covenants etc.
1 point each I would think here - yes, happy to agree that MBL exist in an evironment where selling yourself is rewarded, disclosing the risks is done only "in accordance with Macquarie's standard practice of complying with all relevent regulations under (insert act here)"OK, happy to concede they have a good consultant to FTE ratio. This obviously decreases the profit downside risk.
I'm not bitter about MBL, I just think they are terrible at disclosing the risks associated with their and their satellite businesses.
I think MBL are fairly unique in the Australian corporate landscape, so even those with no direct interest in Macquarie would keep an eye on them to see what they are doing.As I always say, one needs to draw their own conclusions in life, but MBL is a very interesting little debacle in corporate Australia and it will be interesting to see what arises out of them in the next 6 - 12 months...
The question is when/if to buy back in. I've got a feeling that in 6 months time the stock price will be back around the $90 mark again. Of course for legal reasons the stock could also go down even more.
Personally I wouldn't consider shorting at a significant support level.
But then, what do I know...
GP
Would be pleased if you would be so kind as to elaborate on your feeling that the SP will move back up to $90 in six months. I am hesitant to take note of posts without qualification
That is assuming it is a one off loss. Part of the pullback seems to be based on the fear that the tightening of world credit will also lead to a reduction in M&A activity, which is a major source of MBL cashflow.One off losses like this have always prooven incredible buying opportunities!
Coke, American Express anyone?
lol this is a buying opportunity.
the selling is based on fear & over-reaction rather than fundamentals, seriously macquarie banks makes billions a year - whats $300m (from hedge funds) that its not even directly responsible for gonna do?
and that counts for most other Australian financial demons as well, BNB & Allco barely have any exposure
im accumulating this baby before it shoots past $100 in the medium term
Then you shouldn't take any notice of what I say. I came to that conclusion because I seen it time and time again that after a stock drops significantly it has recovered to it's same levels later down the track. Just look at the NAB.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?