Search results

  1. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    BHP's raising was in USD but as they are an international company they report in USD anyway and we get the A$ equivalent of their div payments. No hedging needed. Sorry my brain hurts. :(
  2. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Turk, if that loan is denominated in pommy pounds then NAB assumes the exchange risk. Don't know if that would make much difference, just something to note.
  3. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    That's the understatement of the year. :D But Swannee assures us all that Aussie banks are AAA. Why don't the bond vigilantes believe him
  4. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    They are out there and willing to lend billions to BHP at one third that rate. Is that telling us something about the risk on Aussie banks? If our banks are risky that can only be because the rest of the world believes our property bubble is about to pop. Any other explanation?
  5. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Only 2%? I knew they didn't offer much. I gather they didn't want to set a precedent. Germanic pragmatism. :D
  6. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    True. BHP's profitability improves as our $ goes down. But in a sense they are the ultimate currency hedge. :)
  7. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    This is not unique to BHP. I think I remember IBM raising cash even cheaper. Few Australians realise how much wealth that 1% that the "occupy" movement resents, actually control. US "T" bills pay incredibly low interest but no matter how much they issue there are "takers". These takers are...
  8. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    You've skirted my Q. Are the banks a credit risk? The bond vigilantes seem to think so.
  9. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Today BHP announced that it had raised $3 bill in three tranches. $1,000 mill at 1.125% for 3 years, $750 mill @ 1.875% for 5 years and $1,250 mill @ 3.25% for 10 years Are our banks lying about cost of overseas funds or are they credit risks?
  10. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Watching Fox Biz the other night and Telstra, Newcrest and Cochlear (I think) have just arranged billion$ + funding @ around 4%. How come our banks can't do that? the lenders must perceive extra risk in the banks. Does that mean that, as I investor, I should buy these companies and not the banks?
  11. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Hard to know who your friends are innit?
  12. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Hong Kong? not here. But the Spanish work day seemed pretty civilised, 20 years ago. But there was 2" glass between you and the money in Spain.
  13. S

    It's deja vu all over again.

    Who is asking who for guarantees TF? I can understand the banks that lent to the PIIGS are now wishing they had some sort of g'tee. Is what you mean?
Back
Top