The US government is now permitting 10 of the US’ biggest banks to repay about US$70 billion of the capital injected into them last fall.
This decision followed the banks having passed the so-called “stress tests” of their financial viability, which the US Treasury demanded, and the success of some of them in raising the additional capital that the tests suggested they needed.
Many people have inferred from this sequence of events that US banks — which are critical to both the US and world economies — are now out of trouble.
But that inference is seriously mistaken.
In fact, the US stress tests didn’t attempt to estimate the losses that banks have suffered on many of the “toxic assets” that have been at the heart of the financial crisis.
Nevertheless, the US model is catching on.
In a meeting this month, finance ministers of G8 countries agreed to follow the US and perform stress tests on their banks.
But, if the results of such tests are to be reliable, they should avoid the US tests’ fundamental flaw.
TOXIC
Until recently, much of the US government’s focus has been on the toxic assets clogging banks’ balance sheets.
Although accounting rules often permit banks to price these assets at face value, it is generally believed that the fundamental value of many toxic assets has fallen significantly below face value.
The administration of US President Barack Obama came out with a plan to spend up to US$1 trillion to buy banks’ toxic assets, but the plan has been put on hold.
STRESS TEST
It might have been hoped that the bank supervisors who stress-tested the banks would try to estimate the size of the banks’ losses on toxic assets.
Instead, supervisors estimated only losses that banks can be expected to incur on loans (and other assets) that will come to maturity by the end of next year.
They chose to ignore any losses that banks will suffer on loans that will mature after next year.
Thus, the tests did not take into account a big part of the economic damage that the crisis imposed on banks.
Although we don’t yet have an estimate of the economic losses the stress tests have chosen to ignore, they may be substantial.
A recent report by Deutsche Bank, for example, shows that borrowers will have difficulty refinancing hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial real estate loans that will mature after next year.
Rather than estimate the economic value of banks’ assets — what the assets would fetch in a well-functioning market — and the extent to which they exceed liabilities, the stress tests merely sought to verify that the banks’ accounting losses over the next two years will not exhaust their capital as recorded in their books.
As long as banks are permitted to operate this way, the banks’ supervisors are betting on the banks’ ability to earn their way out of their current problems — even if the value of their assets doesn’t now significantly exceed their liabilities.
But doesn’t the banks’ ability to raise new equity capital indicate that, regardless of whether the stress tests are reliable, investors believe that their assets’ value does significantly exceed their liabilities?
LIABILITIES
Not at all. Consider a bank with liabilities of US$1 billion.
Suppose that the bank has assets with long maturity and a face value of US$1.2 billion, but whose current economic value is only US$1 billion.
Although the value of the bank’s assets doesn’t exceed its liabilities, depositors won’t flee as long as the government backs the bank by guaranteeing its deposits.
UNAVOIDABLE
If in two years the bank’s assets have a 50-50 chance of appreciating to US$1.2 billion or declining to US$800 million, the bank will be able to raise new equity capital: New investors will be willing to pay for the prospect of sharing in the excess of the value of assets over obligations if things turn out well.
To get a good picture of banks’ financial health, estimating the value of their toxic assets is unavoidable.
Regulators could encourage each bank to sell part of its toxic portfolio and extrapolate the portfolio’s value from the price obtained in such a sale, or they could attempt to estimate the portfolio’s value as well as they can on their own.
Either way, the true value of banks’ toxic assets must be estimated before concluding that banks are armed with sufficient capital to carry out their critical roles.
The kind of stress tests that the US conducted, and that other countries are being urged to emulate — and the ability of banks to raise additional equity capital — cannot provide a basis for such a conclusion.
Lucian Bebchuk is professor of law, economics and finance, and director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS