Stress Test Results Claim Few Banks Need More Cash

by: Chris Bowers

Thu May 07, 2009 at 19:50


The "stress test" results are in. If accurate, they imply that the nation's banks don't need to raise all that much in the way of new, private capital. The amount might be less than $10 billion, almost all of which would need to go to auto-company relative GMAC:

The nation's largest banks collectively need another $75 billion in equity to ride out potential losses due to the recession, according to long awaited government stress tests released this afternoon.

Nine of the 19 banks do not need any new capital at all, including J.P Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. Another eight banks can fulfill their capital needs by raising money privately or, if they can't, by converting existing government investments into common stock. That list includes Bank of America, which needs $33.9 billion, and Wells Fargo, which needs $13.7 billion.

That leaves only two firms that must actually raise more cash. GMAC, the auto finance company that is historically tied to General Motors, needs an additional $9.1 billion in new capital. Regions Financial Corp., a regional bank based in Alabama, needs another $400 miliion.

A specific list of the banks that need to raise more capital can be found here. Treasury Secretary Geithner's statement on the matter can be found here..

More details:

The results showed that losses at the banks under 'more adverse" economic conditions than most economists anticipate could total $599.2 billion over two years. Mortgage losses present the biggest part of the risk, at $185.5 billion. Trading accounts were the second-largest vulnerability, with potential losses of $99.3 billion.(...)

Banks that need to raise capital under the government's stress tests will have until June 8 to develop a plan and until Nov. 9 to implement it.(...)

The 19 banks in the test hold two-thirds of the assets and more than one-half of the loans in the U.S. banking system, regulators said.

Examiners used an "adverse scenario" of a 3.3 percent decline in gross domestic product this year, and an average unemployment rate of 8.9 percent this year and 10.3 percent in 2010.

Forecasters see a 2.5 percent decline in output this year, and average unemployment rates of 8.9 percent this year and 9.4 percent next year, according to the median estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.

Overall, the stress test results paint a relatively (compared to the overall economic mood) rosy picture of a financial industry that is on the brink of recovery.

I am not going to pretend to know whether or not the tests are just bullshit. What I do know is that they better not just be bullshit, or there will massively negative political consequences for the entire Democratic Party as a result. If it turns out that way more capital is needed than these tests forecast, and the economy doesn't recover very quickly, then the "stress tests" will be viewed as a blatant case of either administration incompetence and / or mendacity. The result will be Democrats losing in droves--probably even those who opposed the bailouts--pushing our congressional majorities back to around 2007-2008 levels.

Chris Bowers :: Stress Test Results Claim Few Banks Need More Cash

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If it turns out that more capital is needed, it doesn't really matter what the current stress tests say. (0.00 / 0)
If it turns out that more capital is needed, it doesn't really matter what the current stress tests say. Whether or not Obama says they need lots of money now, or later, he still has to test the patience of congress and the voting public by asking for another bailout.

I mean, let's go with the "Geithner is a super villain" theory and pretend the tests are bullshit. The only real difference we are talking about is whether they ask Congress for capital now or in the fall.


You assume (4.00 / 1)
that the important variables--the ill health of the banks and Obama's political capital--are static. They're not, of course, they're almost certain to deteriorate as the months pass, making a solution that much more elusive.

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
The capital is nonexistent as it is. The Obama administration doesn't start from a position of power or goodwill on this issue. Their options are slugging it out anyways or building good will.

And this is still assuming that Geithner is incompetent or lying or whatever ridiculous fucking meme is going on right now.


[ Parent ]
It starts (4.00 / 1)
with 70 percent approval ratings, which will turn into 51 pretty quickly if and when these stress tests as well as their overall optimism aren't followed by a recovery--that's Chris's point. Greider, btw, makes a similar one.

Barack Obama's wholesome optimism is doubtless sincere, and so was Herbert Hoover's. But in Hoover's day, people did not believe him. They could see for themselves it wasn't true. In time, Americans came to revile Hoover for his repetitious happy talk.

President Obama is now flirting with the same fate. He and his lieutenants, much like the Bush administration before them, are convinced that the nation's crisis can essentially be reversed by restoring "confidence" among investors, producers and buyers. So they talk up every budding blossom as proof. So did Hoover.

Reality is unlikely to cooperate, because the core of this crisis is not psychological. It is about real breakdown and real loss--trillions of dollars lost to the collapsing financial values, thousands of businesses and banks deeply damaged by collapsing balance sheets and markets. Wishing does not necessarily make it so. Talking up the economy prematurely may actually yield an opposite result--deepening cynicism and mistrust, a sense that the authorities do not know what they are talking about or, even worse, are concealing the truth.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...


[ Parent ]
It's a point that's fairly hollow considering that cramdown just failed in the senate (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
And Obama make the clear (4.00 / 2)
decision to spend capital fighting for it.

The NY Times got it right...

The Obama administration sat by last week as 12 Senate Democrats joined 39 Senate Republicans to block a vote on an amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages.

Senator Obama campaigned on the provision. And President Obama made its passage part of his antiforeclosure plan. It would have been a very useful prod to get lenders to rework bad loans rather than leaving the modification to a judge.

But when the time came to stand up to the banking lobbies and cajole yes votes from reluctant senators - the White House didn't. When the measure failed, there wasn't even a statement of regret.

He doesn't want to spend his approval ratings on the financial-foreclosure crisis. He might not have enough left when the falls rolls around.


[ Parent ]
He doesn't fight (4.00 / 1)
He just doesn't. He says nice things, but when it comes time to put up, he shuts up. Where's the pressure to get Johnsen confirmed? Why is the FDA commissioner just now getting a hearing? Why was Sebelius confirmed only a week or so ago? Why is Specter being welcomed with open arms despite offering bupkes? It's not that he hasn't called for some good policies, but when it comes time to actually fight for things that aren't automatic, as SCHIP and Lily Ledbetter were, he does not fight. It's perplexing, infutiating and scary.

What is this man made of, that's not mostly of an intellectual, managerial and charismatic dimension, of which he's clearly a master? What has he fought for, and won?

This is just bizarre.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Greider is also fairly representative of expert opinion (0.00 / 0)
What Greider is saying a lot of people are saying. See Yves Smith and lots of others on this.

No one believes anything about these "stress tests." Only admin hacks believe any of it.

The IMF says there's another $4 Trillion in write-downs to come globally. Another $400 Billion domestic US, according  to Moody's. CRE is breaking down, yet it hardly figures in the "tests." Housing will keep heading south as long as wages, hours and jobs keep heading south. Unemployment will be high and chronically so, since there's no engine for putting people back to work. This "recovery" will make the last one look positively awesome in comparison.

Obama, in deference to his Wall Street chums, put the proverbial cart before the horse and now we're stuck with it.

Yes, Obama will suffer for it, losing approval ratings eventually. All I can say for Obama's entire economic mentality is it's stupid. Mind numbingly stupid. But then again, that's par for the course with Chicago Machine pols, eh?



When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
you do realize the stress test (0.00 / 0)
claims over $450 billion of losses?  Why does citing $400B losses disprove it?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
And when we step back into reality we realize that Obama's (and importantly Geithner's) approval has increased since the first and second rollouts of their TARP plans and the media is jumping on positive news that's coming out of the economy.

So just when exactly does this doom and gloom shit pan out?

I mean you say housing will keep heading south... but that's not happening currently. You talk about chronic unemployment, but job losses are slowing. There are even signs of credit thawing. All of this may be temporary and dependent on how the rest of the bailout proceeds, but Veruca Salt, "I want it now" shit doesn't change reality.


[ Parent ]
Popularity = success? (0.00 / 0)
So I guess that Bush was even more successful on 9/12/01.

And no, in case you're thinking of going there, I'm not saying that Obama = Bush. Not at all. I'm just pointing out how silly your logic is. Lots of presidents have been popular without having done anything to justify it. Reagan was a classic example, but even Clinton in some ways. So why does Obama's popularity translate into success? And what will you say when it goes south--and it will--that he's no longer as successful?

It seems like every progressive blog has to have a designated sunshine blower or two these days. I'm just wondering if they're sincere (if misguided), or if someone's sending them out to do this, Mark Penn manufactured outrage-style.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
Last time I checked, Bush got reelected (0.00 / 0)
But if you want to pat yourself on the back for being right while you get steamrolled, go ahead.

However, politics is about more than being right, it's about actually getting shit done, something that hasn't happened on the left in 30 years.


[ Parent ]
Electoral success = governing success? (0.00 / 0)
Hmm, then Bush was a HUGE success! Reagan too! And Nixon!

And I'm not exactly sure who's steamrolling me. Such violent imagery! I might have to cry. Are you an unhappy person?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
And to add to that, I just don't engage in making assuming baseless predictions like:

And what will you say when it goes south--and it will--

Yes, Obama will suffer for it, losing approval ratings eventually.

It's no different then when Sirota was saying Obama was going to suffer from the AIG bonus situation. I'm still waiting on that one. Sometimes you have to step back from whatever future you already have hardwired as happening and actually look at the present.

What the present is showing is that the financial industry can be propped up enough to keep the economy from tailspinning. Knowing that, the timetable on how to handle the bailout situation changes. You get the chance to wait a few months and hope for the best, or use that time to massage the Senate.

Basically, if a person isn't fluid enough to adjust strategies to empirical evidence, then it's hard for me to take their predictions seriously. It has nothing to do with blowing sunshine, just don't come to me with political predictions and expect me to automatically take you serious.


[ Parent ]
Oh geez (0.00 / 0)
You're never heard of lagging indicators and delayed reaction? Every prez gets a honeymoon, especially during crisis--even Bush. But sooner or later, they get judged on their perceived successes and failures. If Obama is seen as having let the banks get away with murder, he will pay for it politically. This "recovery" is a financial trick. He borrowed trillions to "fix" the economy. When those markers start to come due, there will be hell to pay.

But please, don't take me "serious". I'm just with stupid Krugman.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
And to make an example. Obama and Geithner's political capital was considerably lower when Geithner's new plan was announced (something that wasn't helped by mr. "obama is wrong") than it is now. But all they've really managed to do is save Geithner's credibility. They haven't managed to place themselves in a position to openly ask congress for more money. If the economy keeps pumping out good news, then maybe.

[ Parent ]
Greider cites (4.00 / 2)
an alternative finding:

More bearish analysts look beyond the good talk and they see deepening troubles for the banking system. While Obama's technocrats captured the big headlines with their encouraging "stress test" results, a private firm produced its own "stress test" on the very same day and it told an opposite story. The Institutional Risk Analytics Bank Monitor produces quarterly reports for investors on the health of individual banks and the system as a whole. IRA has gained enormous prestige in financial markets during the last few years because it has consistently been far ahead of government regulators and economists in warning about big trouble ahead.

Contrary to the government's claims, IRA's analysis is not brightening. IRA crunches the internal numbers that all banks report to the FDIC. It finds "a dramatic climb in the stress in the US banking industry." More and more financial institutions, large and small, are losing stability or capital cushions as net incomes turned turned negative for 1,575 of them. IRA's Bank Stress Index jumped from 1.8 at the end of 2008 to 5.57 in the first quarter of 2009.

"Our overall observation is that US policy makers may very well have been distracted by focusing on 19 large stress test banks designed to save Wall Street and the world's central bank bondholders, this while a trend is emerging of going concern viability crash taking shape under the radar," IRA explained. That is a polite way of saying Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Obama's economic guru, Larry Summers, are so fixated on trying to save their old Wall Street colleagues they do not seem to recognize the deterioration underway broadly in banking. The trend, as IRA has noted in the past, is that "US banks have been migrating down the quality slope taking an average of nine months to complete the journey from A to F on the stress scale." That trend accelerated in the first quarter, the Bank Monitor said.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...


Here's the link to the IRA newsletter (4.00 / 1)
It gets a bit technical at times. It's not light or easy reading, but it's well worth the effort. It's not paywalled.

http://us1.institutionalriskan...

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
The 'stress tests' were window dressing. (0.00 / 0)
Worst case scenario is about here.

Here is what we do know:

1) Unemployment is still very high and may climb some more - continuing unemployment claims are still at an all-time high of 6.35 million.

2) Commercial real estate market with its huge loans is tanking fast.

3) Jumbo mortgage loans (loans greater than $700,000)are increasing to default more.

4) Condominium associates are starting to default on loans.

5) 20% of homeowner's are dealing w/negative equity - which a huge factor in foreclosures.

I am not sure what they were trying to accomplish with this exercise - maybe delay and hope the economy improves enough.  I don't know but these 'stress tests' were not very stressful.  The problem is probably much worse.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.


I don't think the Stress Tests are BS (0.00 / 0)
ADP job report showed we lost 491,000. That's a lot of jobs, but that's less than 700k last month. So, we are seeing a bottom here. And markets are higher. I think we are going come out of this...

Except the ADP report .. (0.00 / 0)
is not very accurate ... Calculated Risk and Barry Ritholtz have been all over it

[ Parent ]
this time it was (0.00 / 0)
the new bls numbers on unemployment clearly show a decline in job losses in line with what adp suggested.  

[ Parent ]
Figures that lie, and Liars that figure (0.00 / 0)
All the facts are inconclusive, and probably intended to entertain, and distract.

1.    The link provided for Geithner's statement links to a Wall Street Journal article by "staff," entitled, "Geithner's Statement on Stress Test Results." There isn't a single piece of text in quotes which would indicate Geithner's actual words; so when Chris provided that link he must have done it as a tongue in cheek sarcasm.

2.     A couple of hours' search I found the deepest level of detail in this statement found in Market Watch:

According to the methodology, the 19 banks were asked to project estimated losses on loans, mortgage securities and other packaged products, including off-balance sheet positions estimated for 2009 and 2010 based on the adverse forecast in a "stressed economic environment." They were instructed to project losses for 12 different categories of loans and securitized loans. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-releases-bank-stress-test/story.aspx?guid={A0F3B386-D75B-4301-96DB-5315B135CB98})

3.    Given that accounting methods are questionable, and significantly based on "professional" interpretation, the stress test results are inconclusive, and appear to be no more than a PR campaign to shape perception on the right and center, and inject doubt amongst dissenters. (The hidden variables in accounting methodology are still in place: Mark-to-Market, Off balance sheet items. There are other lesser known book cooking techniques, which deal with spurious interpretations by "professionals." In other words, "professional opinion." Can we really go on that?)

4.     GDP calculation contains financial market trading, as well as all other real economy trading (buying/selling); in other words, purchases/sales in the financial market add to the GDP. So the GDP can be manipulated through lots of transactions between traders, and still means no bread on the table. This is like playing the monopoly table game, and everybody is broke, so the winner adds money to everyone's account so trading can continue, but not enough money to give up its controlling lead, so without any real new production, the "economic activity" was expanded, but the real economy has continue to decrease. No new real products, more people unemployed, and so forth. At the peak of the bubble, the financial community contribution to the GDP was somewhere around 35-40%... Nothing is  produced; just lots of trading and gambling; makes activity look good in the numbers, but see where we ended up?

5.     One can't help but conclude that this stress test and the entire process is Geithner's prestidigitation to hypnotize the public, create the illusion of a recovery, and perpetuate the commonly believed fallacy that "we need to fix the financial markets so the economy recovers."  All the TARP (Troubled Assets Recovery Program) in the world isn't going to effectively increase the real Gross Domestic Product by a single percentage; and by real I mean, physical goods, manufactured goods, tangible stuff. Until we see people going back to work, the rest is poppycock. It's not a matter of pretending to understand the "stress Test" and whether it's bullwhip. The simple economics 101 of the situation is that it does not take into account real information that would affect the economy as a whole.

6.    Approval figures have no economic or social value considering the reasons they were created in the first place, and the sampling groups. They are used to a) Suggest to people that they are on the wrong side of an issue; b) Inject doubt in the opposition; c) continue to blind the believers; and d) measure the effect of the media on the minds of people.

What would happen if the Open Left issued its own approval ratings for the administration officials, based on a methodology that calculated actual benefit and or damage to the nation and the people as a whole? What would happen if the sample groups were given the truth about what's going on?  

A National Progressive Alliance, the viable solution.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/...


Thanks (0.00 / 0)
The whole episode reminds me of Iraq, in at least three ways:

1. The use of the press as a channel for disinformation campaigns

2. Those pallets of billions in cash that the Fed flew over to Iraq, most of which was never accounted for (IIRC).

3. The collapse of Lehman == "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" -- the justification for NOW NOW NOW.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Better not say anything 'til after the midterms (0.00 / 0)
[rimshot. laughter]

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

All the need is money! (0.00 / 0)
What is use of new plans when they presented with insufficient Budget? Mortgage losses present the biggest part of the risk, at $185.5 billion.Banks need a new policies for money transactions.


Glass   Wedding Favors




Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search