The newest stress tests for US banks produced scores that are at odds with other measures of lenders’ safety, in another sign that some institutions may be too big for regulators to understand and executives to manage.
For example, Citigroup Inc, which has been bailed out multiple times by the US government, showed up on the score sheets posted by the US Federal Reserve on Thursday as being clearly safer than JPMorgan Chase & Co.
That conclusion is at odds with the views of investors, bond analysts and credit-rating agencies, as well as when measured by a yardstick regulators themselves want to use in the future.
Photo: Bloomberg
“At the end of the day, there is a legitimate question about the ability of regulators to fully evaluate US$2 trillion institutions because of the complexity and exposures they have,” said Fred Cannon, director of US research at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.
The Fed report shows the latest results of the tests that began after the 2007-2009 financial crisis to determine if banks have enough capital to withstand a severe economic crisis. The Fed concluded that the banks are in “a much stronger position” than before the financial crisis in 2008.
While experts are not arguing with the fact that the banks are better capitalized now and that the system is safer than it was in the run-up to the financial crisis, some of the numbers the regulators published left analysts and bank executives groping for explanations. The test raises questions about the ability of regulators to head off the next big threat to the financial system because of the complexity of the institutions.
The results are also important as they will help the Fed decide how much capital banks can return to investors.
The report showed that Citigroup’s capital, as tracked by the Tier 1 common capital ratio, would dip to 8.3 percent during two years of hypothetical stress. JPMorgan’s would fall to 6.3 percent. Both numbers are better than the 5 percent minimum under current regulations, but they show Citigroup having a bigger cushion to weather losses.
That does not make a lot of sense to Kathleen Shanley, a bond analyst at GimmeCredit, a research service for institutional investors.
“I wouldn’t say that Citi is safer than JPMorgan, for a variety of reasons, including its track record,” Shanley said.
Citigroup has lower credit ratings than JPMorgan, and prices for credit default swaps show the market views JPMorgan as safer. Citigroup is the third-biggest US bank by assets and JPMorgan is the biggest.
A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment, as did representatives for Citigroup and JPMorgan.
Citigroup’s score came out better partly because it started the test with a better Tier 1 common ratio, 12.7 percent compared with JPMorgan’s 10.4 percent.
The starting ratios were based on the banks’ financial statements at the end of September. They were calculated based on a set of international regulations known as Basel 1, which the Fed intends to replace as inadequate with a pending new set known as Basel 3.
Under the expected Basel 3 rules, Citigroup has estimated its ratio was 8.6 percent at the end of the third quarter, about the same as the 8.4 percent JPMorgan estimated.
Among the reasons that Citigroup’s ratio will fall so much under Basel 3 from the Basel 1 level is that the new rules will not treat as favorably Citigroup’s deferred tax assets. Citigroup expects those assets to allow it to pay lower taxes on future profits because it lost so much money when the financial crisis and recession hit. Basel 3 will also reduce the benefits of stakes Citigroup has in joint ventures, such as its brokerage with Morgan Stanley.
The Fed did not publish stress scores for the banks under Basel 3 because the regulators have not finalized those rules yet.
Cannon said there was one reason to think of Citigroup as being safer: Its capital markets business is smaller than JPMorgan’s. Regulators regard capital markets operations as riskier than consumer banking businesses.
The Fed’s scoring is also at odds with results some of the banks calculated for themselves under the same scenarios, which shows there is room for subjectivity in the testing.
JPMorgan, for example, found that its ratio would fall to 7.6 percent, significantly better than the 6.3 percent reported by the Fed. Goldman Sachs Group Inc determined its low during the hypothetical stress period would be 8.6 percent, compared with the 5.8 percent reported by the Fed, with some of the difference related to its extensive capital markets activities.
Goldman declined to comment.
Wells Fargo & Co pegged its low at 8.3 percent, compared with the Fed’s 7 percent.
Wells Fargo said in a statement that it could not fully explain the difference because the Fed does not disclose all of the models it uses to score the banks.
“It is primarily model-driven assumptions that will drive the differences,” said Fernando De La Mora, who leads PricewaterhouseCoopers’ banking and capital markets risk.
Last year, differences between scores by the banks and by the regulator were not disclosed, but people in the industry knew of significant disagreements over expected losses in some portfolios, said De La Mora.
This year, the Fed told the banks that it “will focus on the robustness” of each bank’s testing.
For Citigroup, the Fed’s ratio this year of 8.3 percent was nearly as high as the 8.4 percent the bank tallied for itself.
Stephen Garrett, a 27-year-old graduate student, always thought he would study in China, but first the country’s restrictive COVID-19 policies made it nearly impossible and now he has other concerns. The cost is one deterrent, but Garrett is more worried about restrictions on academic freedom and the personal risk of being stranded in China. He is not alone. Only about 700 American students are studying at Chinese universities, down from a peak of nearly 25,000 a decade ago, while there are nearly 300,000 Chinese students at US schools. Some young Americans are discouraged from investing their time in China by what they see
MAJOR DROP: CEO Tim Cook, who is visiting Hanoi, pledged the firm was committed to Vietnam after its smartphone shipments declined 9.6% annually in the first quarter Apple Inc yesterday said it would increase spending on suppliers in Vietnam, a key production hub, as CEO Tim Cook arrived in the country for a two-day visit. The iPhone maker announced the news in a statement on its Web site, but gave no details of how much it would spend or where the money would go. Cook is expected to meet programmers, content creators and students during his visit, online newspaper VnExpress reported. The visit comes as US President Joe Biden’s administration seeks to ramp up Vietnam’s role in the global tech supply chain to reduce the US’ dependence on China. Images on
New apartments in Taiwan’s major cities are getting smaller, while old apartments are increasingly occupied by older people, many of whom live alone, government data showed. The phenomenon has to do with sharpening unaffordable property prices and an aging population, property brokers said. Apartments with one bedroom that are two years old or older have gained a noticeable presence in the nation’s six special municipalities as well as Hsinchu county and city in the past five years, Evertrust Rehouse Co (永慶房產集團) found, citing data from the government’s real-price transaction platform. In Taipei, apartments with one bedroom accounted for 19 percent of deals last
US CONSCULTANT: The US Department of Commerce’s Ursula Burns is a rarely seen US government consultant to be put forward to sit on the board, nominated as an independent director Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, yesterday nominated 10 candidates for its new board of directors, including Ursula Burns from the US Department of Commerce. It is rare that TSMC has nominated a US government consultant to sit on its board. Burns was nominated as one of seven independent directors. She is vice chair of the department’s Advisory Council on Supply Chain Competitiveness. Burns is to stand for election at TSMC’s annual shareholders’ meeting on June 4 along with the rest of the candidates. TSMC chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) was not on the list after in December last