Tag Archives: Barclay

October 29, 2024 · 15:28

Laughing Out Loud

Yup this happens too and in this case it was an article that Bloomberg showed its paying customers. I am not one of them. As such I am attaching the image that made me laugh.

I saw it about 8-10 hours ago and it had me rolling with laughter. So what gives? First the setting of ‘Consider Re-entering’ as I see it Barclays and other banks are strapped for capital and bleeding a client dry (service fees and commissions) is a tell tale story towards any bank trying to make a living. There is no consideration, there is merely the trap they put themselves in 10 years ago. As for the “capitalise on the kingdom’s growing need to access capital markets” is even more hilarious. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has options to consider HSBC, JP Morgan, Bank of America and the 5 largest banks in China. All stronger and more able than Barclays. There is also Credit Agricole and the Citigroup. All in the top 12, Barclays stands at 18. So there is the first part. In addition I can hand you Rothschild & Co. The one bank no one mentions. It’s value was around €18.1 billion a year ago, as such I reckon it is pushing well over €20 billion at present. Barclays has nowhere near that capital or those connections. I reckon that Rothschild can access around 20% more clients than Barclays can (a casual speculation by little old me). 

So why this action?
Well it started in 2012 when we were given “Barclays is fined for manipulating the benchmark Libor interest rate in 2012, after revelations stretching back to 2005” It’s CEO C. S. Venkatakrishnan didn’t forget about that, did he? Then we get 2014 when Reuters gave us ‘Barclays sued by Saudi developer for $10 billion’, so how did that end? We got “A Saudi real estate company has sued Barclays for $10 billion (6.24 billion pounds), claiming the bank ceased pursuing lease payments due from the Saudi government on military complexes in the kingdom in order to obtain a lucrative banking license there” when we were given (source: Reuters) “The company, Jadawel International, a unit of London-based MBI International Holdings Inc., claims Barclays “hatched a fraudulent scheme” to secure the rare Saudi banking license, selling out Jadawel in the process, according to the lawsuit filed in New York state Supreme Court on Tuesday” One says potato and the other claims tomato. In the end as far as I can tell Barclays won the dismissal. It doesn’t make them innocent, but the claimant could not prove guilt (as far as I can tell). And last but not least only this year we were given that Barclay was one of the players in getting Andrea Orcel “derivatives linked to Commerzbank for the Italian lender in the weeks before Berlin sold a stake earlier this month, sources familiar with the matter said. Barclays and Bank of America subsequently helped Orcel to effectively expand UniCredit’s holding in Commerzbank to the current level of about 21 per cent, they said asking not to be named discussing the private information” now, this last bit does not seem to be illegal, but the stakes against Barclay (all over Europe) are increasingly high and now they hope that Saudi Arabia gives them a chunk of business before they are forced to hand over their bank to any of the upper 15 banks. I say good luck to them. Yes there is all kinds of banking issues I am not familiar with, but governments need to work with banks that are cleaner then clean and as such I am entertaining howls of deriving laughter if Barclay thinks they are that. The LIBOR scandal took care of that. 

And lets be clear Barclay didn’t (as far as I know) hand the statement “Mistakes were made in the past and we have sanitised our structures and people to meet the challenge that a customer the size of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia brings”, nope, none of that. We were given “Barclay plc is considering re-entering Saudi Arabia as it looks to capitalise on the kingdom’s growing need to access capital markets”. I actually wonder if they would be allowed in the country at present. There are seemingly better viable candidates and that is before you consider Rothschild as a contender. 

I get it. I also tried to access Saudi Arabia as a partner (read: future owner) of my IP. I merely wanted 50 million, a Canadian passport and 2% of the revenue for 20 years. With my believe (a presented believe) that the idea would give them 6 billion annual and their investment to that would be 50 million (for happy old me). And this is about as decent as it gets. A mere 0.8% risk and that is at the time of the presentation. A mere trivial amount and I feel certain that this would have worked. There was one condition Microsoft was not allowed near it. Amazon would be OK, but Microsoft is a no go.

This is why I contacted Kingdom Holdings and Tencent Technology as well. They can drive the innovation I brought. As such I feel a stronger contender than Barclay ever could be (Yes, I am blowing my own horn).

So as I see it, re-entering a market when the others have seemingly had enough of you isn’t re-entering. It is running for the hills to avoid being taken over. But I am not a banking person, so what do I know.

Have a fun day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 12, 2023 · 22:23

I honestly don’t get it

It started early this morning when I saw ‘Silicon Valley Bank: Regulators take over as failure raises fears’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64915616), now I have never denied my lack of economic knowledge and these Simple Voluptuous Bobo’s should know a hell of a lot more than I do. So when I read “a key tech lender, was scrambling to raise money to plug a loss from the sale of assets affected by higher interest rates. Its troubles prompted a rush of customer withdrawals and sparked fears about the state of the banking sector. Officials said they acted to “protect insured depositors”.” You see, this left me with questions. Bankers should know this stuff, they should know about margins and leave room to spare to take a breather when things tenses up. So when I read “The collapse came after SVB said it was trying to raise $2.25bn (£1.9bn) to plug a loss caused by the sale of assets, mainly US government bonds, which had been affected by higher interest rates.” When one bank needs to cover losses to the effect of more than 2 billion dollars things go south fast, yet it was that one part “mainly US government bonds” that send my non-knowledge off flying. You see the US has a debt of well over $30,000,000,000,000. Is this the first signal that the US debt is buckling banks? I honestly do not know that, I am asking. You see, the fact that I see “Concerns that other banks could face similar problems led to widespread selling of bank shares globally on Thursday and early Friday” supports this. That does not make me right, I simply do not understand this setting and the setting that it merely happening to one bank. Then we get “US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said she was monitoring “recent developments” at Silicon Valley Bank and others “very carefully”.” One bank goes the way of the Dodo and she wakes up? This does not make sense to me. Especially when other banking Bobo’s (read: fat cats) are not responding to this. Then we get “The firm, which started as a California bank in 1983, expanded rapidly over the last decade. It now employs more than 8,500 people globally, though most of its operations are in the US.” Now this makes it not the smallest bank, but we also see that HSBC shares fell 4.8% and Barclays dropped 3.8% that ain’t hay. This implies that either the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is a lot larger, or the bonds are taking a massive dive and I wonder is this the beginning of the end for the USA? 

I am not telling it is, I am asking if it could be. We see the sleep sussing by people like Alexander Yokum and we get that, but consider that this hits one bank that needs to secure over 2 billion. Did they buy up way too much bonds and how many banks have bonds and how much bonds do they have? So when I see “Silicon Valley Bank would not have lost money if they hadn’t run out of cash to give back to their customers” did we not see a similar setting in 2016 in the wake of the LIBOR scandal? Perhaps they are two different things, but I remember something on Basel III, it was about stress testing and liquidity requirements. It was something with CET1 (Common Equity Test). I only know about it because it was a big thing in a program called Clementine, people were all over this and a program called Clementine was bought by SPSS and it became SPSS Modeler (later bought by IBM). So I saw the emails pass by, but it was not on my plate and this was a decade ago. So in a decade someone ignored the Common Equity Test? That is what it looks like to me and I will admit that the article has limited information and this is not the case, but this landed on the desk of US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen? One bank? She wouldn’t even read my love letters (her glasses are too thick), so this one bank has her attention? Things do not add up, but that is my take and there is every chance I am wrong. Yet I saw a few articles and no one seems to be asking questions and that seems weird to me. 

Still my brain is asking, is this merely the first sign that banks are anchored to the titanic as American bonds are dragging these banks down. And the SVB is merely the first one as it had too many of them. I am ready to be called wrong, but the media isn’t looking very active. I do not care, I have been in a haze of achievement with my 8 IP’s and the fact that both Gucci and Tiffany are driving in my IP minefield 9 months after I published my stories on Augmented reality. I was in a daze of happy feelings and a bank that is not on my continent did not worry me, but HSBC is, so the puzzlement came back and the surprising nature was that one bank should not see the reactions of Janet Yellen, she is too big for one bank, as such my worry started. Was this the beginning of a lot more?

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,