Posts Tagged ‘Bank stress tests’

Spain Asks the Eurozone for a Bank Bailout

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

Spain asked the Eurozone for a bailout of up to €100-billion to rescue its banks.  This is just a short-term fix for the troubled Eurozone because it doesn’t address the underlying problems in the monetary union.  The earlier bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Portugal didn’t resolve the problems either.  “The Spanish banking bailout is big enough for some shock and awe (€100-billion vs. talk of €40-billion) but details are murky,” said Kit Juckes, the chief of foreign exchange at Société Générale.

Still unanswered are who shares the burden, and just how much will Spain be limited in terms of talks over its debt troubles.  It’s crucial to keep in mind that in Spain, it’s currently a banking crisis.  “And where is the growth coming from to make the problems go away?” Juckes said.  “The Spanish bailout doesn’t solve Europe’s woes…but maybe it allows the rest of the world to focus on something else.”  There are many other questions, said Adam Cole of RBC in London.  Which bailout will fund the rescue?  How much will the final rescue total?  What will the ratings agencies do?  What terms will be attached to the funds?  “The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) report concluded Spanish banks would need at least €37-billion,” Cole said, noting that the maximum of €100-billion is perceived as credible.  In terms of the ratings agencies, Cole said that “the loans will add directly to the Spanish government’s liabilities and so increase the debt-to-GDP ratio by around 10 per cent, leaving further downgrades likely.”

Spain’s bailout plan is seen as a robust answer to critics who accused European Union (EU) leaders of reacting too slowly, too late and with the least possible amount of cash while the crisis is spinning out of control.  “This is a very clear signal to the markets, to the public, that the Eurozone is ready to take determined action,” Olli Rehn, the EU’s top economic official, said.  “This is pre-emptive action.”

Instead of waiting for Spain to complete stress tests on its banks later, Eurozone officials agreed to move before the market turmoil that Greece’s upcoming elections may produce.  Rather than undershooting estimates of Spanish bank needs, they have been generous: the International Monetary Fund estimated a requirement of at least €40 billion, but the Eurozone agreed to provide at least €100 billion.  “We deliberately wanted to ensure there is some additional safety margin,” Rehn said.  “This is the first time Europe is willing and able to deal confidently and overwhelmingly with (such) a large contingency,” said an unidentified Eurozone diplomat.  “And all through a straightforward telephone conference.  No all-nighters, no devising new instruments in a panic, and no penny-pinching haggling over money.”

The bad news is that Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s request for a bailout for Spain’s banks may undermine his political authority and credibility in financial markets.  “The emperor’s clothes are tattered,” Simon Maughan, financial strategist at Olivetree Securities Ltd., said. “Unless he uses this money to attack the regions and control the failed cajas, what threads he has left will be stripped off him.”  Rajoy has to persuade the Spanish people to accept austerity, and convince bond investors the cuts will deliver the deficit goals he has pledged.  if he fails, he may have to return for a larger rescue, potentially draining the Eurozone’s financial ammunition.

“Clearly his domestic credibility will have been hampered by this U-turn but at least he is partially recognizing the depth of the problem,” said Stuart Thomson, a fixed income fund manager at Ignis Asset Management, who predicts another bailout, this time for the government itself, within the next year and a  half.  “This bailout is predicated on a return to growth next year and we don’t think that’s possible.”

Protestors demanded to know why billions would prop up broken Spanish banks, instead of helping people who are suffering financially.  According to Moody Analytic’s Mark Zandi, the reason why Spain is in so much trouble may sound familiar to Americans.  “Spain had a bigger housing boom and bust than we had here in the United States and that means a lot of bad mortgage loans bad real estate loans that undermined the capital positions of the banks.  They are broke, they need help from the European Union,” Zandi said.  “The Spanish must be very humiliated by having to take the aid.  For them to actually have to go to the European Union for help like this, I’m sure was very difficult.”  But the pain runs deep with 25 percent of Spaniards is out of work; among the young, unemployment is upward of 50 percent.

Prime Minister Rajoy warned that Spain’s economy, Europe’s fourth-largest, will get worse before it gets better.  ‘‘This year is going to be a bad one,’’ he said.  ‘‘By no means is this a solution,’’ said Adam Parker, of Morgan Stanley.  Spain’s aid ‘‘could be a near-term positive from a trading standpoint, but you haven’t solved anything in the long term.’’

European leaders must prove to the world that they are making a credible effort to repair flaws in the Eurozone that allowed the problems in Greece to threaten the world economy.  If Greek voters elect a government that is willing to live up to the terms of its €130 billion bailout by meeting its payments and narrows its enormous budget gap, strong doubts remain whether new leadership can fulfill those obligations.  A significant amount of private money has already fled Greece, while its deeply depressed economy and dwindling tax revenues threaten to put the country deeper in the hole.  ‘‘Even in case of a new government, I doubt whether the institutional framework in Greece can guarantee the program,’’ said Jurgen Stark, a former member of the European Central Bank’s executive board.  ‘‘Who has the competence to implement the program?  That is the key point.’’

Catalina Parada is an International, Marketing Consultant and Alter NOW’s Madrid correspondent.  She can be reached at catalinaparada@hotmail.com.

Bernanke Talks Tough on Bank Regulation

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

The Federal Reserve is identifying risks in the financial system that could someday erupt into a new financial crisis, but regulators must be careful not to unintentionally hamper lending as they set up new oversight, according to Chairman Ben Bernanke.   “We want the system to be as strong and resilient as possible,” and more intense oversight and changes such as requiring banks to hold more capital will help, said Bernanke at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s Bank Structure & Competition conference.  “If we can’t arrest risks, we want to make sure the financial system is defending itself,” he said.  The Dodd Frank Act establishes governmental structures to analyze risk aimed at preventing another financial failure as harsh as the one that almost brought down the world’s economy in the fall of 2008.

Through the Financial Stability Oversight Council and within the Fed, regulators are still analyzing what can cause “systemic risk,” – identified as risk that can cause widespread financial failure, Bernanke said.  Similar actions are underway in other nations; Bernanke said that regulators worldwide are communicating with each other while implementing their own systems.  If the new structures had been in place previously, Bernanke said, the 2008 financial crisis likely would not have happened. The old system of regulation spread authority across too many entities, was poorly coordinated, and problems “fell through the cracks.”  As the Federal Reserve develops a structure for analyzing risk, Bernanke said the focus must go beyond “fighting the last war.”  Future financial threats may differ from those of the past, which is why the banking industry currently is facing new oversight.  When some banks announced plans to pay shareholders dividends, regulators applied “stress tests” to their finances to determine if the institutions would be sound even if the economy weakened.  According to Bernanke, the government’s new stress testing system has provided accurate assessments of bank finances.

Even so, the regulations – the first new ones in 70 years — will be written to encourage bank compliance.  “No one’s interests are served by the imposition of ineffective or burdensome rules that lead to excessive increases in costs or unnecessary restrictions in the supply of credit,” Bernanke said.  “Regulators must aim to avoid stifling reasonable risk-taking and innovation in financial markets, as these factors play an important role in fostering broader productivity gains, economic growth, and job creation.”

Bernanke and Fed officials are trying to balance the need to diminish the risk of another financial crisis with the aim of stimulating the economy after the worst recession since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the Fed the job of overseeing the biggest financial companies.  “While a great deal has been accomplished since the act was passed less than a year ago, much work remains to better understand sources of systemic risk, to develop improved monitoring tools, and to evaluate and implement policy instruments to reduce macro-prudential risks,” Bernanke said.

Lawmakers who solidly opposed the financial overhaul legislation, say Dodd-Frank goes too far and might make it more difficult for American banks to compete globally.  Some are working to cut funding for agencies established by the law and limit the scope of new rules.  According to the General Accounting Office, the law will cost nearly $1 billion to implement in 2011.

Additionally, Bernanke cited the sovereign-debt concerns in Europe as an example where the analysis led to the May 2010 decision by the Federal Open Market Committee to authorize “dollar liquidity swap lines with other central banks in a pre-emptive move to avert a further deterioration in liquidity conditions.”

To listen to our podcast on financial reform with Anthony Downs of The Brookings Institution, click here.

The Fed Sends 19 Biggest Banks Back to the Treadmill

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

The Federal Reserve‘s second round of stress tests requires the 19 largest U.S. banks to examine their capital levels against a worst-possible-case scenario of another recession with the unemployment rate hovering above 8.9 percent. The banks were instructed to test how their loans, securities, earnings, and capital performed when compared with at least three possible economic outcomes as part of a broad capital-planning exercise.  The banks, including some seeking to increase dividends cut during the financial crisis, submitted their plans in January.  The Fed will complete its review in March.

“They’re essentially saying, ‘Before you start returning capital to shareholders, let’s make sure banks’ capital bases are strong enough to withstand a double-dip scenario,'” said Jonathan Hatcher, a credit strategist at New York-based Jefferies Group Inc.  Regulators don’t want to see banks “come crawling back for help later,” he said.

The review “allows our supervisors to compare the progress made by each firm in developing a rigorous internal analysis of its capital needs, with its own idiosyncratic characteristics and risks, as well as to see how the firms would fare under a standardized adverse scenario developed by our economists,” Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo said. Although Fed policymakers aren’t predicting another slump any time soon, they want banks to be prepared for one.  In January, the Federal Open Market Committee forecast a growth rate of 3.4 percent or more annually over the next three years, with the jobless rate falling to between 6.8 percent and 7.2 percent by the 4th quarter of 2013.  Unemployment averaged 9.6 percent in the 4th quarter of 2010.

The new round of stress tests are being overseen by a financial-risk unit known as the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC).  The unit relies on the Fed’s economists, quantitative researchers, regulatory experts and forecasters and examines risks across the financial system.  Last year, the LISCC helped Ben Bernanke respond to an emerging liquidity crisis faced by European banks.  “The current review of firms’ capital plans is another step forward in our approach to supervision of the largest banking organizations,” Tarullo said. “It has also served as an occasion for discussion in the LISCC of the overall state of the industry and key issues faced by banking organizations.”

At the same time, Bernanke expressed his support for the Dodd-Frank Act, which will add new layers of regulation to the financial services industry, as well as the Consumer Protection Act. “Dodd-Frank is a major step forward for financial regulation in the United States,” Bernanke said, noting that the Fed is moving swiftly to implement its provisions.  Additionally, the Fed wants banks to think about how the Dodd-Frank Act might affect earnings, and how they will meet stricter international capital guidelines.  Banks will have to determine how many faulty mortgages investors may ask them to take back into their portfolios.  Standard & Poor’s estimates that mortgage buybacks could carry a $60 billion bill to be paid by the banking industry.

In the meantime, the big banks are feeling adequately cash rich to pay dividends to their stockholders.  Bank of America’s CEO Brian T. Moynihan said that he expects to “modestly increase” dividends in the 2nd half of 2011.  “We’d love to raise the dividend,” James Rohr, CEO of PNC, said.  “We’re hopeful of hearing back in March from the regulators.”  JPMorgan CFO Douglas Braunstein told investors that the bank asked regulators for permission to increase the dividend to 30 percent of normalized earnings over time.  Braunstein said that JPMorgan’s own stress scenario was more severe than the Fed’s, and assumed that the GDP fell more than four percent through the 3rd quarter of this year with unemployment peaking at 11.7 percent.

Clive Crook, a senior editor of The Atlantic, a columnist for National Journal, and a commentator for the Financial Times, believes that United States fiscal policy itself merits examination.  Writing in The Atlantic, Crook says that “Fiscal policy needs a hypothetical stress test, just like bank capital.  Let’s be optimistic and suppose that the deficit projections do hold, and that a debt ratio of 80 percent can be comfortably supported at full employment.  What happens when we enter the next recession with debt at that level?  Assume another really serious downturn, and another 30-odd percentage points of debt.  Worried yet?  That’s why the problem won’t wait another ten years, and why sort-of-stabilizing at 80 percent won’t do.”

The Fed Is Sending Big Banks Back to the Virtual Treadmill

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

The Fed Is Sending Big Banks Back to the Virtual Treadmill

The Federal Reserve is going to subject the nation’s 19 largest banks to a new round of stress tests to determine if they are healthy enough to pay dividends to their shareholders again.   The Fed plans to use a conservative approach, applied with an even hand, on the nation’s largest and most complex banks.  The tests also will determine if the Fed needs to repurchase shares or take other actions to protect the banks’ cushions against possible future losses.

The planned tests are a lower profile version of the 2009 round, when regulators determined exactly how much capital big banks needed to survive worst-case economic conditions.  According to Fed officials, those stress tests were an excellent lesson about how to regulate banks in a way the mirrors events taking place in the broader economy.  The Fed plans to apply those lessons to the new stress tests.

“We anticipate that some firms with high capital levels that have been retaining solid earnings for several quarters will be interested in increasing or resuming dividends,” said Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo.  “We will expect firms to submit convincing capital plans that demonstrate their ability to absorb losses over the next two years under an adverse economic scenario that we will specify, and still remain amply capitalized.”

Although the big banks appear to be significantly healthier than they were two years ago, several risks remain.  Other than the possibility of another economic downturn, banks face potential court challenges from investors who own mortgage-backed securities.  Some believe the banks should bear responsibility for loans that went south because they used improper procedures on these “put backs”.