Readings: Swaps & margin calls, Oil consumption, Financial services
Like a homeowner’s policy that insures against fire or flood damage, credit default swaps are intended to cover losses to banks and bondholders when companies that have issued debt are unable to pay it back. The nominal value of the insurance outstanding is now $62 trillion, up from $900 billion in 2000.
During a Feb. 22, 2007, phone call, Paramax contends in the filing, it was informed by Mr. Rothman that “UBS set its marks on the basis of ‘subjective’ evaluations that permitted it to keep market fluctuations from impacting its marks.” The filing also says: “Rothman explained that he was responsible for all marks on UBS’s super senior positions and that he could justify ‘subjective’ marks on the Paramax swap because of the unique and bespoke nature of the deal.” Mr. Rothman is no longer employed at UBS.
- Economist: Double, double, oil and trouble
- Economic Times: Financial services cos eye mutual fund industry
If industry sources are to be believed, Goldman Sachs, Shinsei Bank, DLF Prudential, Nippon Asset Management, BoB Pioneer, Indiabulls, IDBI, Edelweiss, Motilal Oswal, Anand Rathi, Religare, RSM Ambit, Schroders UK, India Infoline and Future Capital are all set to launch mutual funds in India.
. . . the MF industry has Rs 5.67 lakh crore of assets under management. According to a recent McKinsey report, the total AUM of the Indian mutual fund industry could grow to $350-440 billion by 2012, expanding 33% annually. While the revenue and profit (PAT) pools of Indian AMCs are pegged at $542 million and $220 million respectively, it is at par with fund houses in developed economies.
. . . the retail segment could grow at a CAGR of 36-42% annually, taking the total AUM from US$36 billion in 2007 to $160-$200 billion in 2012. Institutional investments in mutual funds are likely to witness a 25-33% annual growth, with total assets under management increasing from $42 billion in 2007 to $160 billion by 2012.
The more the merrier!
Related Posts:
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong.
The economist graphic is a very good example of confusing and misleading statistic at the
1) First it feels like OECD countries are producing rather than consuming. No where is it mentioned as a growth percentages. To
2) Even with fall the consumption in million barrels per day, the OECD consumption is many times greater than others. Not to mention per capita consumption.
If you want to anglicize OECD and put blame on developing countries (like Bush’s remarks few days back) this is the graphic to use.