{"id":22865,"date":"2008-11-03T00:03:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-03T00:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/blog\/?p=445"},"modified":"2008-11-03T00:03:00","modified_gmt":"2008-11-03T00:03:00","slug":"la-banca-rota","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clusterfamilyoffice.com\/en\/la-banca-rota\/","title":{"rendered":"The Broken Bank."},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"A spectacular article by Investorsconundrum: \u00abHow much is a bank worth today?\u00bb.<\/a> I think it\u2019s worth mentioning, by way of memes<\/a>, all of us who work in this field and write about it should give some thought to the possibility that the global financial solution may lie in minimising the stock market value of banks. The dichotomy between a capital increase and the state plugging financial holes could be the difference between a fall in value for shareholders or for depositors (customers). But beyond this dichotomy of future solutions\u2014whether viable or not\u2014let us reflect on some factors affecting the valuation of banks in the current situation.<\/div>\n
The first thing I\u2019d like to do is congratulate Marc Garrigasait<\/a> for daring to write an article like this. For being radically consistent with a line of reasoning in which he firmly believes (so much so that he has written off his exposure to Koala Capital SICAV<\/a> (in banks). Hats off to them, whether you agree or not.<\/p>\n

I hope that, following on from Marc\u2019s post and this or other memes, various bloggers will also share their views and discuss the future value of banks and their impact on the crisis. Some have already done so brilliantly, such as Gurusblog<\/a>. And it would also be very interesting if Echevarri<\/a>, Marc Vidal<\/a>, Fernan2<\/a>, FuturFinances<\/a>, Unience<\/a>\u2026 (to name but a few who are still active), and a long list of other illustrious figures, both well-known and lesser-known, did the same. Now let\u2019s get on with our thoughts on the matter:<\/p>\n

If banks are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them, then clearly they are not worth zero today. Obvious, yet unsettling<\/span>. The market \u2013 that is to say, we \u2013 generally cannot, at present, conceive of a world without banks unless we make the (futile) effort to imagine how our great-grandfathers lived when they were courting our great-grandmothers. And that very difficulty in imagining a world without banks already increases their value, whether calculated on an accounting or fundamental basis. We are prepared to pay more for them than they deserve because of our anchor<\/a> in a multi-generational system that is inconceivable without the banking sector. Is the value we mentally ascribe to it irrational, or is it irrational to think that its real value is zero?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>We can also attribute a different kind of value to them. For example, the fact that always<\/span> have managed to reinvent their business for as long as anyone can remember (with banks, of course). This argument is literally priceless. To explain what I mean more clearly, let\u2019s watch an extract from the following video: Jurassic Park<\/a> in which, even though rationally speaking the chances of the dinosaurs reproducing uncontrollably within the park\u2019s controlled environment were nil, as the mathematician played by Jeff Goldblum says: \u00abLife finds a way\u00bb<\/span>. In this case, we could say that ever since the financial system as we know it came into existence, and despite the various difficulties, \u00abthe banking sector has managed to forge ahead\u00bb.<\/p>\n