Q 04/28/2014 The Elephant In The Room: Deutsche Bank's $75 Trillion In Derivatives Is 20 Times Greater Than German GDP http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...llion-derivatives-20-times-greater-german-gdp UQ Q Is It Time To Panic About Deutsche Bank? 02/03/2016 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-03/it-time-panic-about-deutsche-bank Back in April 2013, we showed for the first time something few were aware of, namely that "At $72.8 Trillion, The Bank With The Biggest Derivative Exposure In The World" was not JPMorgan as some had expected, but Germany's banking behemoth, Deutsche bank. Some brushed it off, saying one should never look at gross derivative exposure but merely net, to which we had one simple response: net immediately becomes gross when just one counterparty in the collateral chains fails - case in point, the Lehman and AIG failures and the resulting scramble to bailout the entire world which cost trillions in taxpayer funds. We then followed it up one year later with "The Elephant In The Room: Deutsche Bank's $75 Trillion In Derivatives Is 20 Times Greater Than German GDP." Then, last June, we asked the most pointed question yet: "Is Deutsche Bank The Next Lehman?" only this time it wasn't just the bank's gargantuan balance sheet risk shown below that was dominant... .... but the fact that it impaired assets had finally started to trickle down through to the income statement, leading to loss after loss, management exit after exit, market rigging settlement after market rigging settlement, and all culminating ten days ago with the bank's "titanic", and record, €7 billion loss, surpassing the bank's troubles even during the depths of the Global Financial Crisis. But while income statement losses can be brushed aside, far more troubling was that even other banks had started paying attention to the bank's balance sheet. This is what Citi said: We view the leverage ratio as the binding capital constraint for Deutsche. The current 3.5% is well below peers and the company’s own 4.5% target. Post restructuring & litigation charges and a Postbank divestment at 0.6x P/TB, we estimate a pro-forma leverage ratio of c3.3%. This implies a c€15bn shortfall, of which we expect part to be met by underlying retained earnings and part via AT1 issuance. However this still leaves an equity shortfall – we see a c4% leverage ratio by end-2017 – which is likely to necessitate a capital increase of up to €7bn in our view. In addition we note the target CET1 ratio of >12.5% only allows for a 0.25% management buffer above the fully-loaded SREP requirement. This provides the company with limited flexibility especially if BaFin were to introduce a counter-cyclical buffer (max 2.5% add-on). And then there is the huge black hole that is China, and exposure to it... although others are starting to pay attention, and as New Europe wrote two weeks ago, "Major European banks... are significantly exposed to China and if there is significant deleveraging the impact will no doubt be global." Banks such as HSBC, such as Deutsche Bank. We bring all this up because here is what the stock price of Deutsche Bank has done since our first warning about the huge potential risks borne by Deutsche Bank, back in April 2013 - earlier today it touched on fresh post-crisis lows and down substantially since we first started warning about it: But the real chart everyone should be paying attention to - we certainly have been for a long, long time - is that of DB's Credit Default Swaps, the earliest harbinger not of company risk, that has been there for a long, long time, but far more importantly of the market's realization and admission of this risk, have been blowing up and screaming that something is very, very broken at the bank with the largest gross notional derivative exposure in the world. So, our question for today, is it time to panic about Deutsche Bank yet? Average: 4.95082 Your rating: None Average: 5 (61 votes) UQ
This would have interessted me, but why does the posting has no content beyond the title? Googling gives: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...llion-derivatives-20-times-greater-german-gdp ie. old news from 2014-04-28.
Good news + bad news.The good news is DB stock price is much higher than C, BAC . The bad news is C is a penny stock, reverse split 10 times.NOT to worry; American banks are FDIC, insured not the stock price, its the deposits are insured somewhat ........ To answer your question, i do more planned selling than panic selling. Wisdom is profitable to direct; thanks
%% I see your points,Dealmaker; but i never believed ireland belonged in the nickname ''PIG'' They're tax cutters for sure.NOT a prediction. Still on topic, many said Lehman, Bear..... , were too big to fail-many ''predicted that'' LOL Frankly i was suprised when Bear bit the dirt in a bear market, but never predicted they were to big......Thats sounds like PIG.Thanks
DB may have huge itraxx index longs; no idea. The problem is that this shit is so opaque and essentially off the balance sheet as the only risk is counter-party. Of course, ALL of the risk is due to netting. The prop-trading wasn't the problem -- it's the infinite size available. I have a bunch of long boxes paying an implied ~300bp. Microstructure adds variance to the marks on these positions, even though the only tangible risk is rho. No, we're not going to trade 300bp LIBOR in the next 4 months, but what happens if the broker's back-end thinks the position is at risk due to a bad mid? Broker blows out the boxes at 4.60 and I am holding a debit balance. Not a great analogy, perhaps, but 1.6T in swaps held by a bank with a $20B market cap? The point is that you cannot hold a 1000x multiple of your capital in swaps, regardless of the risk out to n-sigma.
Difference between you and DB is that DB controls the marks. And in the OTC space, two firms (banks really) can have different marks for the same position as long as the consensus marks are in line. Same happens with listed products for which there is a substantial OTC market (like divswaps in Europe).
I didn't state it was a good analogy, but do you want the whole thing coming down because DB refuses to act in their best-interest? Lack of control is a bitch (esp. when you think you're in control).
I don't think it's as scary as sites like ZeroHedge say it is. It would be better if there were a clearing house that would collapse all the netting positions (like they do in listed products) but it can't create the systemic risk that is implied. If DB reneged on what they owed, everyone else would reneg on what is owed to DB. The net would be less than a few million dollars per counterparty as every firm has Credit Service Agreements in place that require netted collateral posted between them. When Lehman went under, their derivs book was trillions and basically no one took a haircut.