<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Regulatory arbitrage of the day, Barclays edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 19:38:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: q</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-6924</link>
		<dc:creator>q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/#comment-6924</guid>
		<description>article in housingwire differs from what you say.

they say that the assets remain on barclays&#039; balance sheet for regulatory cap purposes and that this move serves to lower balance sheet volatility for investors, not for regulatory capital purposes.

i don&#039;t know the truth, but this story differs from yours:
http://www.housingwire.com/2009/09/17/barclays-sells-123bn-of-assets-to-protium-finance/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>article in housingwire differs from what you say.</p>
<p>they say that the assets remain on barclays&#8217; balance sheet for regulatory cap purposes and that this move serves to lower balance sheet volatility for investors, not for regulatory capital purposes.</p>
<p>i don&#8217;t know the truth, but this story differs from yours:<br />
<a href='http://www.housingwire.com/2009/09/17/barclays-sells-123bn-of-assets-to-protium-finance/'>http://www.housingwire.com/2009/09/17/ba rclays-sells-123bn-of-assets-to-protium- finance/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: q</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-6912</link>
		<dc:creator>q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/#comment-6912</guid>
		<description>did nobody have to kick in equity capital?  does barclays own all the equity of protium?

if there is enough equity capital at protium, then, sure, this makes sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>did nobody have to kick in equity capital?  does barclays own all the equity of protium?</p>
<p>if there is enough equity capital at protium, then, sure, this makes sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brown Ram</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-6909</link>
		<dc:creator>Brown Ram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/#comment-6909</guid>
		<description>You should google R3 capital and Lehman.  Same trick, different company (or is it really a different company?).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should google R3 capital and Lehman.  Same trick, different company (or is it really a different company?).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Enrique</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-6907</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Enrique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/#comment-6907</guid>
		<description>Can you expand a bit - how has the amount of capital at risk gone up? Is it just 12.6&gt;12.3? or is there something else going on? Why has the transparency to shareholders gone sharply down? Can&#039;t shareholders find out about what&#039;s going on at Protium as often and easily as they can obtain information about the value of toxic assets marked to market if they were still held by Barclays?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you expand a bit &#8211; how has the amount of capital at risk gone up? Is it just 12.6&gt;12.3? or is there something else going on? Why has the transparency to shareholders gone sharply down? Can&#8217;t shareholders find out about what&#8217;s going on at Protium as often and easily as they can obtain information about the value of toxic assets marked to market if they were still held by Barclays?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Young</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-6904</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/17/regulatory-arbitrage-of-the-day-barclays-edition/#comment-6904</guid>
		<description>If Barclays had been bailed out by tax-payers the move would be outrageous - but it wasn&#039;t. So as long as the transactions are legal and shareholders are happy then it&#039;s no big deal.

It&#039;s capitalism. Greed, short-term profits, the pursuit of bonuses, cosy deals with pals. Nothing&#039;s changed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Barclays had been bailed out by tax-payers the move would be outrageous &#8211; but it wasn&#8217;t. So as long as the transactions are legal and shareholders are happy then it&#8217;s no big deal.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s capitalism. Greed, short-term profits, the pursuit of bonuses, cosy deals with pals. Nothing&#8217;s changed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
