Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
the counterparties would be overleveraged if they chose the same accounting interpretation of the transaction as Lehman Brothers. But since accounting involves an element of interpretation it is possible that they didn't
Indeed (my emphasis)
The report by examiner Anton Valukas also suggests that some or all of the banks, all based outside the U.S., may have known at the time that Lehman was executing what are known as "Repo 105" repurchase transactions in order to keep assets off its balance sheet, and as a result might "try to squeeze Lehman." The report doesn't allege that any of the banks engaged in any wrongdoing.

Most of the banks are identified in the report only with shorthand versions of their names. The report says Lehman's Repo 105 counterparties in 2007 and 2008 were primarily "Mizuho, Barclays, UBS, Mitsubishi, and KBC"--meaning units of Mizuho Financial Group Inc. (MFG, 8411.TO), Barclays PLC (BCS, BARC.LN), UBS AG (UBS, UBSN.VX), Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. (MTU, 8306.TO) and KBC Group NV (KBC.BT). Also identified, more completely, are Deutsche Bank AG (DB, DBK.XE) and ABN Amro Holding NV (ABN.YY).

A KBC spokeswoman said the company "never has an insight in how counterparties book repos in their accounting." She said such transactions are common, with terms varying based on the counterparties or the quality of the collateral that is posted.

(source: UPDATE: Report IDs 7 Counterparties In Lehman Repo 105 Deals, from the WSJ)

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 03:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series