One fact should be perfectly clear to everyone ... the banks see a receivership as offering more potential to destroy value than to salvage it.
Alot of the rubbish spoken about a BNB receivership is based on the interests of BNB satellite company holders wishing to nuke the management contracts the operating group of BNB has over the satellites.
People do not really seem to understand the role of BNB as "the bank" and how BNB differs from BBIPL, the formally 78% owned operating entity (which should be the object of the emotional "ire" - but all this seems to be reserved for BNB ordinary holders who are a related but different party).
(It is interesting to note that BNBG holders have capital and interest guarantees from both BNB and BBIPL equity holders ... of course equity accounting gives us a consolidated view of this in the accounts ... but the fact remains there is a wider group of people who's assets are guaranteeing BNBG capital and distributions).
BNB
babcock & brown limited
