2013-01-09 — dealbreaker.com
``Anyway the interesting/disappointing part for me is what investors thought about what GS calls the "Mulligan rule." This refers to the fact that, in the 2012 bank stress tests, banks asked regulators for approval to return an amount of capital, and if the regulators said no then the banks basically couldn't do anything (ex regular dividends etc.) for another year, but in the 2013 tests if the regulators say no the banks can go back and ask once more for another, lower amount of capital return. I was pretty bullish on this: the do-over gives you a chance to be more aggressive once, and scale back if regulators say no, so you'd think that at least some banks would be aggressive and get away with it, while others will be too aggressive and have to cut back to a more moderate capital return but still no harm no foul. Or so I would think. I am in the minority:''
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments: Be the first to add a comment
add a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.