Talk:Syndicated loan

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's balderdash, I tell you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is nonsense. It's sourced, but either the source is inaccurate or it's incorrectly interpreted:

"In the U.S., corporate borrowers and private equity sponsors fairly even-handedly drive debt issuance. Europe, however, has far less corporate activity and its issuance is dominated by private equity sponsors, who, in turn, determine many of the standards and practices of loan syndication" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.149 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is an assertion without evidence: "If the banks cost of funds is a hypothetical 5 %, it needs to charge more than 10 % interest on the loan to make a profit."

Perhaps it should say "If the banks cost of funds is a hypothetical 5 %, it may feel that it needs to charge more than 10 % interest on the loan to make a profit." (Which is more acceptable to state without support.)

Or "If the banks cost of funds is a hypothetical 5 %, it needs to charge more than 5 % interest on the loan to make a profit." (Which is self evident.)

Isn't the point of that example dependent on the idea that 5% of the loans aren't repaid? In which case your expected return is .95*(1+r)-(1+.05) (i.e., 1.05*X goes out the door and (1+r)*.95*X comes back, so your profit is the difference) and solving for r=1.05/.95-1 yields a breakeven of just over 10%. It's obviously an oversimplified example, but the point of syndication is to spread around the risk of not getting paid back, not jsut make a profit. Your example would apply to any loan. Afelton 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The main reason Syndicated Lending is undertaken in Asia (and Australia where I work) is risk migigation and large exposure management. Return concepts have little bearing. This section should certainly be removed from importance as I believe Eurpoe is the same as Asia in this regard. ShirtyBear (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No References

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A MAJORITY OF THIS PAGE IS WORD FOR WORD FROM THE MCGRAW HILL FINANCIAL HANDBOOK. ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS HAVE BEEN PASTED WORD FOR WORD. WHILE IT IS CITED, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE ENTIRE HANDBOOK WORD FOR WORD, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY MAKE KNOWN THE EXTREME EXTENT IT WAS USED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.168.17 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please supply a reference for the information for rankings, otherwise I will remove.

Cheers muj --ImperialCollegeGrad 16:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rankings need to be updated from one of the League Table providers annually. Reuters is a very prominent one (http://www.loanpricing.com/) but I am unsure of their flexibility in terms of reproduction of this information. Bloomberg and Deal Logic also compile statistics from Bank submissions. ShirtyBear (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Parochial & Patronising

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Don't want to edit main page, might screw it up, but the EMEA syndicated loan market is not 'much smaller'. 2007 YTD (06/09) volumes from Loanware - United States 1,547,587.20 vs EMEA 1,163,900.30. Europe's also notable for having several loans larger than the largest US deal. http://gib.dealogic.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone's changed it, it's still nonsense and to boot incredibly US-centric. The European synloan market is in no way run by the American banks - the only ones with any leadership are Citi, JPM and to a lesser extent BoA. Here's the bookrunner league table as of today for EMEA '07 - again from dealogic

1 RBS 71,174.46 72 9.17 2 Barclays Capital 52,796.74 52 6.80 3 BNP Paribas 44,228.42 116 5.70 4 SG Corporate & Investment Banking 43,191.25 55 5.56 5 Citi 39,922.03 65 5.14 6 Deutsche Bank 36,892.85 23 4.75 7 Calyon 35,045.83 67 4.51 8 ABN AMRO 32,001.02 32 4.12 9 UBS 25,055.40 5 3.23 10 HSBC 19,973.69 32 2.57

Count 'em. ONE US bank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Completely ignores Asia also. Sections for North America/EMEA/Asia should be compiled with research on Latin America which is also a growing market. ShirtyBear (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone keeps deleting Barclays out of the EMEA list. Is it personal? It's wrong, anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.137 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: the European syndicated loan market is not driven by private equity so the article is certainly wrong on this point. The market in Europe has been closed for large LBOs since the failed syndication of the Boots deal in mid 2007. 2011 has seen the market start to re-open but its very unlikely that more than EUR5bn could be raised for an LBO at the moment. ie the corporate market fully dominates the European syndicated loan market... not private equity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.238.35 (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply