An interesting article in The Telegraph from June 8...Apparently Morgan Stanley reckons UK shares are over-priced (and I'm sure they are not alone). So what should an investor do?
It was nice to see the article (which can be read here) pointed out the benefits of guaranteed equity bonds (GEBs) which suit those "people who find the sort of stock market volatility seen this week simply too upsetting to tolerate".
Sadly, as the article points out, however, National Savings & Investments, one of the largest GEB providers has no current offers. Is it time NS&I and others re-evaluated their GEB offerings?
If you are a UK provider I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...
Rumours are circulating about a potential tie up between structured products stalwarts SG CIB and BNP Paribas. Other buzz regards a tie up between Unicredit and SG CIB. And who could ignore the ongoing battle to buy ABN Amro?
But what does this all mean for the structured products markets? Any merger (whether it be of equals or of one dominant and one smaller institution) carries execution risk. It usually takes a while for the wrinkles to be ironed out. And in such scenarios clients inevitably suffer.
Going forward, however, once a merger has run its course, clients often benefit from economies of scale (although that's providing the merging institutions have streamlined their business lines effectively). Just imagine the structured products prowess of a combined BNP/SG, a BarCap/ABN or RBS/ABN.
Will the ties up be a good thing for the structured products distributor? Will there be synergies between the investment bank's structured products desks? Or will the rumoured mergers have no impact?
As always, if you have any thoughts, do let me know...
The Structured Products Association (SPA) has posted its comments about the Retail Structured Products (RSP) draft principles document that circulated last month. The RSP principles were drafted by five associations, namely, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (Isda), the European Securitisation Forum, the International Capital Market Association, the London Investment Banking Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Impressively, the SPA comments are as long as the original principles. The draft was designed by the five associations to focus on how "structured products combine various components (which) may in practice result in different parties being responsible for different aspects of the related regulatory obligations." The principles therefore "focus on how to address this issue, given that all parties have a common interest in customers obtaining satisfaction with regards to their legitimate expectations as to performance of the investment."
The SPA says it broadly agrees with the RSP draft but maintains that “in order to be comprehensive, the RSP principles should acknowledge the differences in market dynamics and regulation in various markets.”
The comments make for interesting reading and can be accessed here.
If you have any thoughts of the SPA comments, or indeed the RSP draft, do let me know…