Is Buffett Buying American Express for Berkshire Hathaway? [View article]
Get an explanation to how those calculations are being made before you believe them. Those numbers are Economic Capital as defined by IRA in association with what they think about derivative exposures, which basically means, IMO, that if you make a market in derivatives, Economic Capital "as calculated" by IRA is completely deficient because of what they assume about is required because of notional exposure. Notional exposure can increase through time through what is essentially trading and offsetting risks, not really the addition of new positions (ie: if you sell a position to another party, your net exposure went to 0, but your notional exposure doubled). If you want transparency as to what real risk for banks are considering the economic capital needed to underlie the risks on the portfolio, then they need to disclose how exactly they come up with the numbers and I've never seen that. If they have, that's great and it should be more obvious. It seems to me that the numbers they come up with are materially different than from a regulators POV and since JPM has been one of the strongest banks through the crisis and according to IRA faces the largest risk, then either the market doesn't see the risk that IRA supposes they face, or the market disagrees with the analysis.
Is Buffett Buying American Express for Berkshire Hathaway? [View article]
Get an explanation to how those calculations are being made before you believe them. Those numbers are Economic Capital as defined by IRA in association with what they think about derivative exposures, which basically means, IMO, that if you make a market in derivatives, Economic Capital "as calculated" by IRA is completely deficient because of what they assume about is required because of notional exposure. Notional exposure can increase through time through what is essentially trading and offsetting risks, not really the addition of new positions (ie: if you sell a position to another party, your net exposure went to 0, but your notional exposure doubled). If you want transparency as to what real risk for banks are considering the economic capital needed to underlie the risks on the portfolio, then they need to disclose how exactly they come up with the numbers and I've never seen that. If they have, that's great and it should be more obvious. It seems to me that the numbers they come up with are materially different than from a regulators POV and since JPM has been one of the strongest banks through the crisis and according to IRA faces the largest risk, then either the market doesn't see the risk that IRA supposes they face, or the market disagrees with the analysis.