顯示具有 Bank 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Bank 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2011年7月18日 星期一

你有壓力,我有壓力,銀行無壓力?

7月15日,周五。世界真的變了,變到大家都不認得。繼穆迪一視同仁,向美國發評級「最後通牒」,標普亦不甘後人,翌日揚言美國若不盡快執靚盤數,三個月內喪失AAA信貸評級的可能性高達五成。

標普的警告「唔講得笑」,不僅因為這一聲呼喝,令國債博弈更形緊湊,更重要的是,標普似有不見談判雙方達成削赤4萬億美元協議絕不「收貨」之勢。

「貞節牌坊」不能失?

換句話說,白宮與共和黨縱有「枱底交易」,交足戲後取得共識,國債上限及時調高,違約危機迎刃而解,亦不代表美國AAA評級可以力保不失。然而,開支不削至入骨、賦稅不加至入肉,十年減赤4萬億談何容易?問題是,削支削入骨、加稅加入肉,豈是本已搖搖欲墜的美國經濟足堪承受?

那等於說,美國要麼犧牲經濟復蘇,依照評級機構「指示」開源節流,力保AAA這個「貞節牌坊」;要麼任由標普穆迪手起刀落,反正厲行緊縮經濟衰退,財赤對GDP比率不跌反升的例子,歐洲俯拾皆是。美國的政黨不惜拿國家信譽還款承諾作籌碼爭取競選優勢,視環球投資者利益如無物,政客在上述兩個選擇之間怎揀,從其所作所為,答案不已寫在牆上了嗎?

除了評級機構殺得性起,為本已波動的市況火上添油外,本周另一市場焦點,是歐洲銀行監管局(EBA)在本港時間周六凌晨一時公布歐洲銀行壓力測試結果(涉及二十一個國家九十一家銀行)。

這個周末,老畢訂了飛看《黑癲鵝先生》,睇久違了的占爺點「癲」法。在我一邊睇戲一邊嘆爆谷之際,班「數佬」肯定已埋頭苦幹,為哪些銀行資本不足,邊個有壓力邊個無壓力左計右計。

簡單地講,EBA為接受測試的銀行定出幾個假設,檢討金融機構在這些負面因素一旦出現時,資本水平是否足以抵禦衝擊。三個假設分別為:①歐羅區經濟今年收縮0.5%;②歐洲股市平均下跌15%;③在銀行資產負債表內被列入「交易賬戶」(trading books)的主權債券有沒有可能出現虧損。

兩個賬戶兩種影響

潮流興講主權債,意大利更是「潮中之潮」,在壓力測試三個假設中,老畢認為第三點乃關鍵所在,有必要拆拆。

銀行持有的主權債券,在資產負債表內分別列入兩個賬戶,一為上面提及的「交易賬戶」,必須按市值入賬(mark-to-market),並在季度業績中反映;另一為「銀行賬戶」(banking books),列入其中的主權債券,估值不受市價波動影響,原因是記進此賬的資產,已假定了銀行一直持有至到期,且能百分百收回投資本金。

《經濟學人》「熊彼得專欄」(Schumpeter column)7月8日題為Pub skittles, the Italian version一文,雖未直接談及歐洲銀行壓力測試,惟當中對「交易賬戶」和「銀行賬戶」的分析,大大有助讀者理解整個問題的核心。打蛇打七寸,讀此文比看大堆數字的EBA測試報告,肯定有益有建設性得多。

該欄以在歐債危機期間常因流動資金不足而向央行伸手的比利時銀行Dexia為例,說明意大利對歐洲金融機構的重要性。

mark-to-market?

從【附表】可見,截至今年3月31日,Dexia持有的希臘國債總額為34.7億(歐羅.下同),其中列入「銀行賬戶」的債券佔34.69億,列入「交易賬戶」的只有100萬。再看該行所持意大利國債,總額高達155.99億,其中列入「銀行賬戶」的債券佔148.74億,列入「交易賬戶」的佔7.25億。

上述數字說明兩件事:①Dexia持有的希臘國債,在歐洲銀行中僅次於法國巴黎銀行,希債佔Dexia一級資本約19%,水平雖高惟未至「無法控制」。意大利卻完全是兩回事,以Dexia持有近160億歐羅意國債券而論,規模相當於該行一級資本85%!②從附表可以發現,列入Dexia「交易賬戶」、須按市值入賬因而影響盈虧的主權債券,愛爾蘭、葡萄牙均為0,希臘僅100萬,西班牙則為1300萬,意大利的數字卻高達7.25億。換句話說,意國債券在Dexia「交易賬戶」中的比重,於歐豬債券中大得不成比例,同樣的情況普遍見於其他歐洲銀行。去年的壓力測試就顯示,列入歐洲銀行「交易賬戶」中的歐債,超過三分一為意大利國債。

講咗咁耐,老畢想說的是,Dexia的例子說明,銀行所持歐豬主權債,除了意大利,餘者絕少被列入「交易賬戶」,意味其市值不管多殘,對銀行盈利都不會構成影響。然而,將希臘、葡萄牙、愛爾蘭債券一股腦兒放進「銀行賬戶」,是否就代表此等資產名副其實價值跟面值匹配?

反過來看,意大利受到炒家狙擊前,其信貸質素優於其他「歐豬」,銀行把比重較高的意債放進「交易賬戶」,mark-to-market,對業績利多於弊。

如今情況逆轉,意債孳息急劇抽升,市場形勢急轉直下,EBA在評估銀行「交易賬戶」潛在虧損時,有沒有把這個重要因素考慮在其假設之內?

你有壓力,我有壓力,但睇來睇去,接受壓力測試的歐洲銀行,似乎最無壓力!

2011年7月15日 星期五

港銀行靜待黎明


內地銀行業遇到的挑戰增加,香港銀行又如何?內地收緊銀行信貸,給予香港銀行融資的機遇增加,預期銀行股的貸款增長可得以保持,中銀香港(2388)及東亞(023)等得到較多內銀貸款轉介的銀行,可率先受惠。

理文造紙(2314)高層近日對辛思維表示,內地銀根收緊,借錢困難,惟集團今年增加4部造紙機產能,資本開支將由香港銀行貸款應付。事實上,一些能在內地及香港借錢的公司,現時均一面倒選擇在香港融資,中銀香港及工銀亞洲等在港中資銀行,獲得母公司轉介生意的可能性存在。

高盛近日便發表了對於香港銀行股的報告,其中一些觀點值得參考。首先,高盛指出,評價香港銀行應以淨利息收入來衡量,而不是着眼於淨息差,該行預期中銀香港的生意將不俗,淨利息收入增長達到15%,勝過平均的8%。

經營環境方面,淨息差方面收窄的可能性亦相當低。融資市場轉趨穩定,銀行手頭上的資金亦非無人問津,中銀、永亨(302)等普遍將H按的利率調高了半厘至一厘,中銀的H按利率已提升至「拆息加2.3厘」,永亨的H按亦達到「P減2.75厘」,與以最優惠利率為基準的P按看齊,意味着新造按揭利錢提高,淨息差可望輕微拉闊。

雷曼爆煲已有三年,香港銀行的賠償已經完成,有毒資產的撥備亦成為過去式,料未來的壞賬撥備額會保持在低水平。里昂證券對中銀香港的研究指出,中銀於今年第一季有壞賬撥備的回撥,相較去2010年下半年有2400萬元撥備理想,該行料信貸的周期向好的狀況不變,對中銀是一個利好消息。

惟一擔心的是,歐美監管機構可能會提高資本要求,香港銀行要保留資本配合,會降低整體的股本回報率。

不過,人民幣離岸業務帶來的機遇,則可成為另一盈利增長催化劑。在這方面,中銀作為人民幣結算的「大水泵」,將香港銀行的人民幣存款結滙運往人行賬戶,率先享受到滙兌收益。而且,中銀亦是在港人民幣基礎較佳的銀行,貿易融資生意有不俗的發展空間,而在內地積極拓展分行網絡的東亞,相信亦可受惠。

2011年6月26日 星期日

Lloyds has largest exposure to risky loans

By Sharlene Goff and Norma Cohen

Lloyds Banking Group’s exposure to the riskiest kind of mortgages is more than double that of any of its top five rivals in what is potentially a ticking time bomb for Britain’s largest high-street lender.

Data published last week by the Bank of England showed that loans representing more than a quarter of Lloyds’ mortgage book are worth at least 90 per cent of the property value they are secured against.

More

ON THIS STORY

By contrast, up to 12 per cent of loans provided byRoyal Bank of Scotland and Santander have a similarly high loan to value, while Nationwide, Barclays and HSBC have a smaller proportion of such risky loans.

The danger of these kinds of loans is that home buyers who make insignificant deposits are considered more likely to fall into arrears. High loan-to-value ratios also pose the risk of bigger losses if borrowers default.

Previous analysis from Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency, found that a borrower with a 10 per cent deposit was roughly twice as likely to fall into arrears as one putting down 30 to 40 per cent.

In total, 60 per cent of Lloyds’ secured debt book – which includes mortgages to individuals and businesses – has a loan to value deemed high or very high by the Bank of England, compared with 38 per cent for RBS, 33 per cent for Santander, and just 6 per cent for HSBC.

About 13 per cent of Lloyds’ £340bn mortgage book – £45bn of loans – exceed the value of the property they are secured upon. The actual number of borrowers in negative equity, where their property is worth less than their loan, is much smaller, at about 5 per cent. The figures show how vulnerable Lloyds is to a further souring of the UK economy, particularly another fall in house prices.

They also illustrate the challenges faced by António Horta-Osório, the new chief executive, who will present his initial strategic review to investors this week. Analysts said the concern was that a riskier loan book would push up funding costs for the bank just as it is attempting to boost returns.

“This increases the worry about the quality of Lloyds’ assets and the potential of loan losses to come,” said Ronit Ghose, an analyst at Citigroup.

Lloyds emphasised that negative equity only became a real concern for borrowers if they needed to move house and said it had a range of mortgage products to assist these customers.

It expected the loan-to-value position to be stable, although it forecasts a 2 per cent fall in house prices this year, as it believes they will rise by the same amount in 2012.

Analysts estimate that as much as three-quarters of Lloyds’ risky mortgage book was inherited from HBOS, which was one of the most aggressive lenders during the property boom.


巴塞爾增資本率 滙控須達標

巴塞爾銀行監管委員會同意向大行施加2.5%的額外資本要求,預料包括滙控(005)在內的大行,須於2018年底前完成增資。

央行行長與監管機關負責人小組(GHOS)周六在瑞士巴塞爾開會後發表聲明,表示新建議將於下月公開諮詢,大行須要接受1%至2.5%的額外核心一級資本比率要求,視乎對銀行體系的影響力。如果銀行規模大增,將被要求再加1%資本比率。

新計劃將在2016年1月1日至2018年底之間分階段引入,但仍待11月獲20國集團(G20)通過。除上述額外要求,根據新《巴塞爾資本協定III》協定,銀行至少要持有7%的核心資本比率

GHOS沒有說明哪些「可影響全球系統穩定的金融機構」(G-SIFI)會被納入哪個級別,表示揀選方法在7月底公開。《金融時報》本月較早時引述知情人士報道,有八家大行納入最高級別,包括滙控。

很多國際大行已持有10%的核心一級資本比率,因此新規定對它們沒有難度,而且逾七年後才完全執行。滙控3月底的核心一級資本比率為10.7%。而且,英國正考慮要求銀行的第一級資本充足率提高至10%。

另一問題是核心一級資本成分的要求會否改變。GHOS要求額外資本由最高級的資本組成,即保留盈利或普通股。估計這對滙控等英國銀行不會有太大衝擊,反而歐陸一些銀行目前使用「或有可轉換銀行資本」(CoCos)等混合債券,影響較大。

不過,國際和英國仍有其他監管措施正在討論,監管風險仍可能影響到滙控。銀行根據五種特徵來分類,包括規模、相互關連性、跨境活動、業務複雜性,以及發生危機時是否有對手可接管其業務。

2011年6月21日 星期二

6月20日,周一。上星期五,德國總理默克爾與法國總統薩爾科齊拍拍膊頭握握手,市場滿以為希臘「講掂數」,煲雖然遲早要爆,惟不在今天,美股周五升住嚟收。

老畢上周講過,國內政局愈亂,希臘與歐盟周旋的空間便愈大,總理帕潘德里歐以退為進,改組內閣威脅辭職雙管齊下,既做給反對派看,亦覷準德法不敢「瓷器撼缸瓦」,任由希臘失救,違約潮拖垮整個歐洲金融體系。

直至上周五,老畢仍認為帕潘德里歐這招見效。然而,德法亦非省油的燈,此例一開,歐盟日後豈非有求必應,得不斷向希臘供應「免費午餐」?不要忘記,德法手上有「援助」(aids)這張皇牌,可以用來反制雅典,歐盟豈有任由對方挾內亂得其所哉之理?如此這般,德法首腦握過手拍過膊頭,人人以為援希塵埃落定,歐盟卻突來一記反擊。要錢?可以,但得付出代價。就這樣,原定7月發放的120億歐羅撥款,一半hold住,畀唔畀足,要睇希臘減開支售資產削財赤做得夠不夠。

政治博弈結果難料

希臘資不抵債,實際上早已破產,歐盟和IMF千億歐羅千億歐羅地「掟」出去,填完一個氹又一個氹,說什麼也不容該國自生自滅,點解?

希臘(不用說葡萄牙、西班牙)倒下,不少揸重歐豬國債的銀行就要「陪葬」。然而,正如雷鼎鳴教授昨天在其專欄所言,要從根本上改變福利優厚國家的社會制度,促使過慣休閒生活工作意欲偏低的人民由豐入儉,十年八載恐亦難以為功。希臘當下水浸眼眉,奢求治本不切實際,退而求其次「放水」治標,能否成事亦要看國內外連串政治博弈的結果,第一道關卡是本文見報日希臘國會對政府的信任投票,其結果若非市場所願見,帕潘德里歐下台,勢必為國際社會二度救希增添莫大變數。

在民主國家,政客權力來自選票,當選民意願與市場意願相違背時,政客往往會作出在市場眼中「不理性」的決定,政治博弈結果因此十分難料。希臘政府信任投票開大開細,老畢無意亂猜。然而,近日市場尤其銀行同業拆息出現的變化,似在發出重要訊息,投資者必須留神。

先看資金成本指標。從【圖1】可見,三個月倫敦銀行同業拆息(LIBOR)與聯邦基金利率三個月平均息差(LIBOR-OIS spread),2008年金融危機期間一度逼近200基點,目前離「海嘯價」仍甚遠,跟去年歐債危機相比亦大有距離。再看【圖2】,LIBOR-OIS息差今年以來升得最急是3月日本天災核洩期間,之後隨市場焦點離開福島而大幅回落。不過,近日此指標又見抽升,目前已重返「福島價」,意味希臘違約風險已促使銀行不敢輕信同業,於交易對手的償付能力戒心大增。

同業「安全至上」

英國多份報章周末報道,港人熟悉的渣打銀行,近月在同業市場抽走了數以10億英鎊計的資金,過去數周更大削對歐羅區銀行的借貸,收縮幅度達三分之二,意味渣打不願在無抵押的短期同業市場承受風險。跟渣打一樣「安全至上」的金融機構,據說還有巴克萊等英資大行。這些財政相對健全的銀行,對法國等持有大量「歐豬」國債的區內銀行疑心尤重,巴克萊近期就大幅縮減在同業市場中對西班牙和意大利銀行的拆借業務。

所謂一葉知秋,同業間互不信任,有錢不借,此情此景,大家可有似曾相識之感?博反彈,還是留待心口掛住個「勇」字的諸君一試身手吧。

5月以來,環球股市在risk off潮下大幅調整,美股上周雖結束「六連跌」,惟弱勢未改。不過,跟其他市場相比,美股已算硬淨。

計計數,以本幣為準,標普500指數年初至今上升0.9%,表現優於德國以外的所有G7成員;與金磚四國相比,美股全勝。

然而,計入美元貶值因素,美股回報要打個折扣。即使如此,標普500指數仍然跑贏所有金磚四國股市,只是計入滙率變化後,美股跑贏英國、加拿大和日本,卻輸給法德意三個G7成員國【圖3】。

放大圖片


放大圖片

2011年6月16日 星期四

中資證券商獨食「肥肉」


對於上海國際板的推出,除了有意上板的企業及投資者齊讚好之外,最高興的當然還有中資證券商。

只因在政策扶持下,內地金融市場仍以中資獨大,即使外國投行進入中國,亦要合資經營,業務擴展有一定限制。若國際板成行,「上市保姆」的工作自然成中資證券商及投行的獨市生意。

目前有意到國際板掛牌的企業普遍規模巨大,例如計劃回歸的中移動(941),以及北上拓業務的滙控(005),相信集資額不會太少,若投行成功獲選為「上市保姆」,所收取的服務費用預計也相當「和味」。

以滙控為例,過去數年來就有不少傳聞。早在2009年,有消息指出,集團已初步選定中金公司及中信證券作為國際板上市保薦人。至今事隔兩年,國際板仍未起動,以上兩間公司未知最後能否成功入選,但相信絕對少不了中資企業的一份。

外資券商有心無力

事實上,若融資規模預計超過300億元人民幣的話,當中涉及的保薦費、承銷費等開支,有望超過10億元人民幣。面對這塊「肥肉」,中資證券商當然要為國際板讚好。

「肥肉」當前,外國投行並非無意爭奪,只是想爭也爭不來。根據中國政策規定,外國投行要成立合資公司方可營業,而且外資比例不得超過三分之一。因此,多年來在中國經營的投行,其業務發展並不太理想,較著名的有瑞銀證券、高盛高華及財富里昂等。

相反,失敗的例子卻有不少,如長江證券和法巴合資的長江巴黎百富勤。在2007年初,因雙方意見不同,最終不歡而散,成為首家退出中國市場的合資證券商。

上海證券和日本大和證券合資的海際大和證券在今年1月之前,只有股改項目有盈利,其餘的新股發行、增發、配股等主要證券承銷業務全都錄得虧損。

據中國證券業協會去年的數據,股票及債券承銷金額五強分別是中信證券、中金公司、中銀國際、國泰君安和瑞銀證券。其中,瑞銀證券主要承銷債券,股票業務只佔少數。

若然落實推出國際板,相信保薦生意的「肥肉」將大部分落在內地投行和證券商手上。事實上,內地證券商和投行經過多年發展,具一定規模和能力處理大「刁」。

目前,本港上市的海通國際(665)及國泰君安(1788),可望能成為其中一個得益者。另外,中信證券早前宣布落實H股上市計劃,這些具有國際板概念的證券商,均值得投資者多加留意。

2011年5月18日 星期三

雙料緊縮 抗通脹內銀再捱兩刀!


自去年下半年以來,內地為嚴防通脹問題惡化,已先後使出加存款準備金率(RRR)及利率,以至約談勸喻各類食品及日用品企業不要加價等措施。只不過,4月CPI仍在高位徘徊,通脹壓力明顯未減,央行持續「抽水」已是大家預期之內的事。昨天央行除了新發行暫停了5個月的3年期央票,更再次調高存款準備金率,出乎市場預料,緊縮政策有加大的趨勢,內銀股的增長,進一步受到制約。

去年10月以來,內地4次加息,目前一年期存款利率已加至3.25%。至於存款準備金率方面增加的步伐則更密,10月以來,就加了8次,目前大型銀行的存款準備金率達到21%。

CPI數據居高不下

只不過,相對於4月份內地5.3%的CPI數據,負利率問題仍存在,難怪民眾對存錢入銀行的動力仍十分低,4月份住戶存款淨減少4678億元(人民幣.下同)。同時間,在利率相對較便宜的情況下,縱使中央大力打壓房地產等行業的借貸,但4月人民幣新增貸款仍達到7396億元,比3月份的6794億元多8.8%。

通脹問題未解決,貨幣緊縮政策當然要持續下去,問題是使出哪一種控制流動性的方法,才最有效。過去半年來經常使用的調整存款準備金率及利率,其實都有其局限性。利率的調升雖然令淨息差擴大,有利內銀企業,但同時間卻對需要透過借貸進行發展的企業不利。尤其是各地目前進行的大型基建項目,包括高鐵等,其實都需要大量借貸,所以,央行一直對加息態度審慎。

至於存款準備金率方面,雖然央行行長周小川早前公開表示沒有上限,但目前已達到歷史最高點,再加的話只會嚴重傷害商業銀行的利益。而且每間銀行財務狀況及面對的客戶群,均有所不同。劃一提高存款準備金率,對個別銀行不利,亦影響真正有需要貸款的個人及中小型企業。

過去半年,在央行不斷推出加息及加存款準備金率的措施之下,3年期央票的發行已暫停了5五個多月,所以今次重推,市場一度猜測其他貨幣政策短期內可能會暫時離場。只不過,央行的行為往往出人意表,到傍晚時分,再次提出調高存款準備金率0.5個百分點的消息。

事實上,央票是央行為調節商業銀行超額準備金,而向商業銀行發行的短期債務憑證,目的是減少商業銀行的可貸資金。由於央票的發行與加息及加存款準備金率一樣具收緊銀根的作用,所以近期每次央票發行量減少,市場便會猜測其他貨幣政策或將出台。惟獨今次一天之內齊推央票及加準備金,雙料收緊,令人意外。

過往,央行使用得較多的是1年期以內的票據,主要用作短期的流動性控制。今次重推3年期央票,更長期控制流動性的意圖頗為明顯。雖然發行央票及調整存款準備金率的目的,都是為了阻止銀行的貸款業務增長,不過對於內銀來說,購買央票的好處更大。

央票息更高

中央不願意看到銀行借太多錢出去,所以,內銀除了要有足夠的準備金之外,還要預留超額準備金,以應付央行突然增加存款準備金的要求。不過,目前央行給予商業銀行的法定準備金利率及超額準備金利率,只有1.62%及0.72%,比起銀行付給存戶的利率還要低。

至於央票方面,今次發行的3年期央票,中標利率有3.8%,3個月期央票,收益率亦有2.9168%。所以購買央票,對內銀的收益更為有利。而且央行更可以針對不同銀行作出具彈性的調控,效果更佳。

昨天,市場上不少人均認為,3年期央票的發行將會取代存款準備金率的調整,但結果是兩項措施齊出。足見央行在期望增加彈性之餘,收緊步伐更不斷加快。內銀首季業績雖好,但為抗通脹,目前有錢不能借,相信業務增長將持續放緩。

2010年10月11日 星期一

Blow to bank crisis plans

Regulators are struggling to create a global mechanism that could wind down a big financial institution without the disruption caused by Lehman Brothers’ collapse in 2008.

The US is due on Tuesday to propose its own so-called “resolution” regime that would allow officials to stabilise a big, distressed bank, sell off assets over time and force creditors to take a discount on the value of their debt, without taxpayer money or market disruption.


Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, said it was a “mistake” by the US to equate keeping a seized bank open with a bail-out. He questioned whether the system could work if no buyers were on hand to pick up some assets.But policymakers attending meetings around the International Monetary Fund and Institute of International Finance criticised the US regime and cast doubt on whether anything but a modest set of principles could be agreed at the Group of 20 meeting in Seoul next month.

Mr Tucker said he thought employees would stop coming to work at an institution slated for closure. “And I suspect that even if it’s risk-free, some counterparties will move away because what’s the point of dealing and placing money with an institution that has no future?” he said.

European policymakers want to allow “open bank resolutions” that keep an institution running, but the US is opting for a system of mandatory liquidation, partly because the multibillion dollar bail-outs of AIG and Citigroup created immense political pressure for creditors, shareholders and executives to bear financial responsibility. The US is also far less enthusiastic than some Europeans on the introduction of instruments such as “contingent capital” and “bail-ins”, designed to convert debtholders’ stakes in a bank into more loss-absorbent equity when it gets into trouble.

Lael Brainard, the senior Treasury official responsible for international affairs, said that “more analysis” was needed of bail-in instruments and they should serve only as “complements to effective resolution frameworks”.

But more important than US scepticism might be a lack of investor appetite, according to some bankers and investors meeting in Washington.

“I’m severely concerned,” said Raj Singh, chief risk officer at Swiss Re. “That’s not the kind of bet I’m buying into when I’m buying into bank debt: who’s really going to fund all these things that people are talking about in these resolution mechanisms? It certainly won’t be people like us.”

Phillipp Hildebrand, chairman of the Swiss central bank, said international regulators and policymakers meeting at the Basel committee and Financial Stability Board would define “core ingredients” that should be included in national resolution regimes and over time work to harmonise them.

“Cross-border resolution is very hard,” he said. “If you try to build a beautiful, global resolution regime I think we‘ll be at it for a very, very long time.”

2010年10月7日 星期四

Proprietary Traders Earned ‘Trust, but Verify’: Simon Johnson

There are two ways regulators can keep tabs on proprietary traders and their equivalents who can win big betting their firm’s capital or lose even bigger and threaten the world financial system.

We can have a part-time lapdog, which is surely what the banks want, or a guard dog who keeps an eye on them 24/7. Given everything that happened in the run-up to September 2008 -- and in the two years since -- it’s pretty clear what we need, though it remains up in the air what we’ll get.

The Financial Services Oversight Committee met for the first time last Friday. As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the committee issued a request for comments on the proposed application of the Volcker Rule, which requires, as insisted upon by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin, that large banks cease to conduct proprietary trading and significantly limit their private-fund investments to 3 percent of capital.

The request for public comments now is posted on the committee’s website and comments are due by Nov. 5. The committee needs to make its recommendations by Jan. 22.

Behind the scenes and inside the regulatory debate, there are two opposing sides developing with regard to how compliance with the Volcker Rule should be monitored and enforced.

On one side is the view that compliance should be monitored only through periodic existing supervision and some spot checks. This was the position that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke took before the Senate Banking Committee last week. His idea seems to be that the industry will follow instructions and only needs a moderate degree of broad-brush enforcement.

Another Side

On the other side is the view that enforcement should be more assertive and based on real-time access to detailed trading data. The thinking here is that regulators would need the ability to look at transaction data to understand what is really going on.

At the same hearing last week Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Shapiro seemed to take this more trade- by-trade approach to monitoring and enforcement.

Why not do both? This is the position taken by Merkley and Levin in a conference paper that came out this week.

I testified in favor of the Volcker Rule in February to the Senate Banking Committee on a panel alongside representatives of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., and we disagreed completely. Given the adamancy with which they argued so recently against the Volcker Rule, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder about their intentions now.

Easy to Disguise

If a bank’s management wants to take proprietary risks using its own capital, these would be relatively easy to disguise on a trading desk as “customer flow” in some way. Some big banks have already announced that proprietary trading jobs will be cut, including at JPMorgan after the firm reportedly lost $250 million on coal trades in the second quarter (although perhaps these developments are not connected). Bank of America Corp. has announced that proprietary traders will be switched to other jobs within the firm.

But as my colleague Michael Lewis asked last week: how would anyone know whether proprietary trading reappears in disguise? Lewis also pointed out that, at least in the case of Goldman Sachs, some of the most important transactions with regard to committing or protecting the firm’s own capital in the recent past were undertaken by their so-called Client Facing Group. This doesn’t imply there was any deception, simply that risks can be placed in any number of locations within such an organization.

Betting Big

We know that big banks like to bet big, particularly as the credit cycle develops. Sometimes this goes well for them and their shareholders, and other times it goes badly as it did for Goldman Sachs when it reported losses on equity derivatives in the second quarter. When large bets go bad the damage can be so catastrophic that the entire credit system is disrupted and the tax payer is again on the hook.

Whatever you hear from politicians, there is no way to handle the failure of global megabanks because there is no cross-border resolution mechanism or bankruptcy procedure that can handle their failure, a point I made with co-author James Kwak in “13 Bankers.” The idea that too big to fail has been legislated away is simply an illusion.

There is nothing anti-business about wanting to enforce the Volcker Rule. Quite to the contrary, the severity of the financial collapse in the fall of 2008 was very much about how big banks acquired and mismanaged huge risks -- not all of which were within officially designated prop-trading groups -- and in the process damaged the rest of the financial industry and the broader economy.

On the Sidelines

You can stand on the sidelines or you can send comments to the committee; they will only ask once. If you care about future financial stability and regard the ability of big banks to endanger the system as unnecessary and inappropriate, you should consider sending in comments to that effect.

The Volcker Rule may not be perfect but at this stage it’s almost all we’ve got. And with regard to voluntary compliance by the big banks, we should reflect on Ronald Reagan’s thinking with regard to nuclear disarmament commitments by the Soviet Union, “trust, but verify.”

2010年10月6日 星期三

Wall Street downbeat on bank earnings

By Francesco Guerrera and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York

Published: October 5 2010 23:03 | Last updated: October 5 2010 23:03

Wall Street’s sentiment towards Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley has turned sharply bearish over the past month with analysts’ estimates for the banks’ third-quarter earnings plunging amid a slump in trading activities.

The poor performance of the trading operations – a key driver of the two banks’ recovery after the financial crisis – will intensify questions over their business models and deepen fears of job

Analysts have slashed their forecasts for Morgan Stanley’s third-quarter results by more than 73 per cent in the past 30 days, according to Thomson Reuters’ StarMine.

Goldman’s consensus estimate has fallen by more than a ­quarter since early September and is now forecasting the lowest quarterly earnings per share, excluding exceptional items, since November 2008.

Sri Raman, StarMine’s quantitative analyst, said Goldman’s results, due on October 19, could still come in below the consensus numbers because five of the 22 analysts covering the bank were yet to lower their predictions.

“If they don’t all revise their estimates, we would expect Goldman to miss [the consensus forecast],” he said. “That is a bold prediction because Goldman has a history of always beating expectations.”

StarMine estimates that Goldman’s earnings could come in more than 16 per cent below the current EPS consensus of $2.52. In the same period last year, Goldman earned $5.25 per share.

The consensus estimate for Morgan Stanley is $0.15 per share, compared with the $0.38 EPS recorded in the third quarter of 2009.

Goldman and Morgan Stanley declined to comment, but executives said they expected most analysts to fall into line before the results. Financial sector analysts tend to move later than colleagues covering other sectors because bank earnings are more volatile.

Macroeconomic woes and political uncertainty have kept investors on the sidelines, prompting analysts to become more and more pessimistic during the quarter about the profitability of trading operations.

“Anxiety stemming from a waning economic recovery and uncertainty over the mid-term elections left clients paralysed and trading desks fell silent during the quarter,” wrote Brad Hintz of Bernstein’s Research in a recent note that lowered estimates for Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

StarMine weights analysts’ forecasts according to their past accuracy and gives more emphasis to those who make early calls or “bold” estimates, which differ strongly from the mean.

It estimates that its methodology has had an 80 per cent success rate over the past 10 years in predicting the direction in which estimates will move for highlighted stocks.

Mr Raman said this quarter’s reporting season should see earnings of North American companies rise on average by 23.8 per cent year on year, building on the 38 per cent growth seen in the second quarter.

Japan Regulator Says Not Considering Bank Capital Surcharge

Japan’s financial regulator denied it plans to force the nation’s largest banks to hold more capital than required under Basel III rules, after a person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News that talks on whether to apply a capital surcharge will begin soon.

An official at the Financial Services Agency who spoke on condition of anonymity said at a press conference in Tokyo today that the regulator isn’t considering a capital surcharge. The agency will start internal discussions soon on whether to apply a capital surcharge to systemically important lenders such as Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., the person familiar with the matter said yesterday, declining to be identified.

A Swiss government-appointed panel said Oct. 4 that UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group AG should hold more capital than required by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Japan’s largest banks may have to cut dividends or raise more capital should the country impose a capital surcharge, Credit Suisse analysts said this week.

“Our leading banks should, in the long run, further increase capital above the Basel minimum level in order to take certain risks, boost lending, and reap higher profits,” Shinsuke Amiya, a Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker who is a member of the Financial Affairs Committee, said yesterday in an interview.

The FSA’s deliberations may last a year or two, the person said. Japanese lenders should be able to achieve the Basel III levels by building internal reserves, according to the person.

Bank Shares Rise

Bank stocks rebounded after the FSA’s briefing. Mitsubishi UFJ, Japan’s biggest lender, climbed 2.8 percent at 2:21 p.m. in Tokyo after earlier declining as much as 1.8 percent. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc., the second-largest bank, advanced 1.6 percent and Mizuho Financial Group Inc., the third largest, gained 7.8 percent, heading for the biggest increase this year.

Japan’s three largest banks have raised about 4.5 trillion yen ($54.1 billion) by selling shares since December 2008, bolstering their balance sheets as regulators called for lenders to hold more capital.

The Swiss panel said last month that UBS and Credit Suisse should hold almost double the capital required under the Basel III proposals announced last month. By 2019, the lenders would need to hold at least 10 percent of capital in common equity, compared with 7 percent required under Basel.

The possibility of a global capital surcharge of around 2 percent for the world’s most important banks “cannot be ruled out,” Shinichi Ina, a Tokyo-based analyst at Credit Suisse, wrote in a report this week.

G-20 Meeting

Group of 20 leaders will consider the Basel III proposals and discuss stricter rules for the biggest banks at a summit in Seoul next month.

As well as Switzerland, China is considering more stringent capital requirements than those proposed by the Basel Committee. China’s banking regulator may require the nation’s biggest lenders to boost their capital adequacy ratios to as high as 15 percent by the end of 2012, a person with knowledge of the matter said last month.

Banks worldwide may resist the imposition of any additional capital burden. Extra capital requirements on the biggest lenders would increase the “economic impact” of regulatory reform, the Institute of International Finance, a group that represents 400 firms worldwide, said this week.

2010年4月1日 星期四

What does weak demand for ECB funds mean?

The ECB’s last ever six-month long-term refinancing operations (LTRO) took place on Wednesday, fetching unexpectedly weak demand, according to the newswires.

As Bloomberg reported:

Sixty two banks bid for 17.9 billion euros ($24.1 billion), the Frankfurt-based ECB said today. The cost of borrowing will be indexed to the average of the ECB’s main rate over the life of the loans. Economists forecast that it would lend 60 billion euros, based on the median of 13 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.

The average amount of allotment was €0.29bn. Reuters, meanwhile, had predicted average demand of €70bn.

On the surface, of course, this looks to be good news. Weak demand for the LTRO not only suggests banks’ liquidity needs have declined, but also that banks are no longer so dependent on the ECB’s long-term operations.

Analysts at Unicredit, however, remind that the drop-off still comes in the context of ongoing dependence on the ECB’s weekly ‘main refinancing operations’ (MRO). As they noted (our emphasis):

The low amount allotted is a clear sign that banks liquidity needs have declined over the last months and that banks do not have real needs to participate to long-term operations to get liquidity, as the weekly MRO will give them the possibility to get unlimited funds at the refi rate if they need, at least until mid-October.

The MRO gives also banks more flexibility in managing their funding needs. This is also confirmed by the fact that the allotment at yesterday’s MRO was EUR 78.3bn and supports our view that the MRO is set to be the main pillar of the Eurosystem in providing liquidity to banks.

Importantly, today’s results should ease concerns related to the effect of the expiration of the 12M LTRO on July 1 (EUR 442bn) on banks’ liquidity needs and on the market.

And, of course, there could be another reason for the drop-off in demand too, given the ECB’s new collateral rules only came into play at the beginning of March. As the Unicredit themselves analysts noted:

Probably, stricter rules on ABS as collateral to get funding at the ECB has contributed to reduce demand at today’s auction. The speculative component of demand should have been affected by the fact that market rates are lower than the refi rate (Euribor 6M: 0.94% and 6M Deposit rate: 0.85%), thus reducing the attractiveness of the 6M LTRO.

Barclays Capital, who predicted all along that LTRO demand would probably fetch weak demand, meanwhile attributed another potential factor to Wednesday’s outcome: Ireland’s NAMA.

As BarCap analysts wrote early on the day:

Looking at who has bid before, who re-deposits money at the ECB and the limited bidding likely to originate from the Irish NAMA probably reinforces our expectation for a low number. We went through the details of what it means in the Global Rates Weekly: essentially such a number would not change that much in terms of liquidity conditions overall, and the important event remains the maturity of June LTRO on 1 July and its aftermath.

Suggesting Ireland’s banks may have been particularly dependent on the ECB’s LTRO operations pre-NAMA.

Related links:
Around the world in three Libor rates
– FT Alphaville
So farewell, 12-month LTRO
– FT Alphaville
The ECB as liquidity monster
– FT Alphaville

There’s too much liquidity in the eurozone (for now)

One view regarding the unexpectedly poor showing at Wednesday’s last ever six-month Long-term refinancing operation (LTRO) by the ECB is that there’s too much liquidity in the eurozone.

Barclays Capital’s Laurent Fransolet emphasizes the point in his take on the financing operation. As he stated on the day (our emphasis):

The low number can be explained by 1) the fact that the market rate for the same maturity was much lower than the bidding rate (also compared to previous LTRO), 2) the fact that there is already a large surplus, so most banks do not need extra money as such, and 3) the ECB probably pushed banks not to bid aggressively (by having an indexation mechanism, and maybe exercising some moral suasion).

Today’s small number does not change much the liquidity conditions in the euro area: there is still a very large surplus, of more than 200bn, way more than enough to keep EONIA low for the coming 3 months.

Here, meanwhile, is a pictorial view of just how much excess liquidity is currently stalking the system, also from Fransolet (who also points out that the recent rise will be down to banks’ liquidity needs decreasing, rather than the liquidity provided increasing):

And for those wondering how that liquidity surplus might be affected by the maturity of previous operations and the expiry of programmes further down the line, BarCap’s Euro Weekly note from last week offers the following chart reflecting exactly that :

According to the above, therefore, a critical point might lie in June. That’s when the €442bn borrowed by banks in the 2009 1-year LTRO comes up for refinancing.

After that, though, it’s not clear at all whether euro-system liquidity will remain as abundant. As Fransolet wrote on Wednesday:

While 1 week and 1 month operations will remain at full allotment (until at least October), this does not guarantee that there will be a liquidity surplus anymore: it will very much depend on the appetite of banks to borrow from the ECB at such shorter maturities. On balance, we think EONIA will remain low probably until October, but we would not bet aggressively on this: EONIA market rates for July/Sep could rally further, but post October rates look already quite low to us, not discounting any normalisation until Q1 2010 at least.

There are two points to be stressed with regards to that. One, as Barclays Capital points out, is the fact that banks will find it impossible to refinance the total €442bn at the ECB – especially since the three-month LTRO will be limited to €100bn by then.

In fact, some €150bn probably won’t be rolled over at all, say the analysts.

The second point is how the Euro Overnight Index Average (Eonia rate) might react.

In all likelihood the benchmark rate will remain low until at least October, say the analysts, as banks will still have unlimited access to the ECB’s weekly and one-month operations.

Nevertheless, the degree to which they do will depend “on banks’ appetite to borrow from the ECB at 1 per cent for much shorter maturities”, BarCap argues.

One thing is sure: the relationship between the liquidity surplus and Eonia will not be as predictable as before.

Which might turn out to be a big thing if you consider just how stable the rate has been since the ECB started its liquidity operations last June:

As for those monthly spikes, Fransolet explains they correspond with reserve maintenance periods at the ECB, when the central bank comes into the market to mop up liquidity.

The surplus at those times thus becomes smaller or negative, which has the effect of pushing Eonia higher. The spikes do not therefore reflect volatility in the rate.

Related links:
What does weak demand for ECB funds mean?
– FT Alphaville
So farewell, 12-month LTRO
– FT Alphaville
The ECB as liquidity monster
– FT Alphaville
RIP Eonia
– FT Alphaville

Banking bubble (charts)

Warning: this post contains a bubble chart.

Citi’s European banks research team has come up with a fresh take on earnings and valuation bubbles across major markets.

Analysts led by Ronit Ghose compared the market value of banks to the size of the economies in which they are based – a measure dubbed ”penetration”.

Methodological comment:

our calculation of bank system market value is based on the value of the quoted banks we cover, adjusted for their international businesses, and then grossed up based on these quoted banks’ share of national system loans and deposits.

For most markets, our analysis is based on an initial sample of over half the system. For Mexico and the UK, our analysis is based on only one quoted domestic bank (Banorte and Lloyds). For the US, to commercial banks we add investment banks, credit card and mutual fund companies.

From the note (click to enlarge the chart):

the most penetrated major market is China (c30% of GDP) and the least is Mexico (c8%). The old Commonwealth countries of Australia, Canada and South Africa — along with Brazil — follow
closely behind China, while Italy, Korea and Japan occupy the lower reaches of Figure 2. India and Turkey are mid-table.

Citi chart of World Bank Sectors by Banks Market Cap to GDP, 2009
And there’s more:

China has high penetration (bank market cap as % GDP) due to a high level of bank profits to GDP. But the PE multiple placed on its earnings is middle of the pack. So China has a high market value bank sector but does not have high valuation multiples relative to peers. The same — large relative market value, median PEs — is true of Brazil and South Africa.

Other high earning bank sectors can be found at opposite ends of the PE range, with Turkey (lowest 2011 PE of our sample) and Australia (one of the higher PE multiples in our sample). Turkey has one of the highest levels of
bank earnings relative to GDP, in line with Brazil. Australia’s bank sector earnings is the highest of the wealthy countries in our sample.

Citi chart of Earnings-to-GDP, OE and Market Cap-to-GDP 2011E
The note is worth reading in full (so many charts…), but for those of you with short attention spans, here’s the TL:DR summary:

whilst Australia – with a bank market value to GDP at a close 2nd only to China’s and banks earnings to GDP similar to Brazil – looks like a shining example of how to do banking and get a high multiple…turning Aussie won’t be easy: market structure, a robust economy and supportive shareholders all help explain Australia’s high earnings and valuation multiple…and while other developed markets like the UK could look to replicate the advantages of Australia’s oligopoly banking market, Australia’s commodity-driven strong economies may be harder to replicate…ditto for the investor base.

1. Investors looking for low-PE banking systems should focus on Turkey, Korea, and possibly Russia.

2. For low earnings relative to peers, Mexico screens best, as does India relative to other BRICs.

3. China and Brazil have large market values but the main risk is one of earnings sustainability not a valuation bubble.

4. For European banks the main investment take away is sticking with Standard Chartered and BBVA

Related links:
The terrorist model for banks – FT Alphaville
Bank picture du jour – redux – FT Alphaville
That JP Morgan picture – official redux – FT Alphaville

2010年3月31日 星期三

BofA Hires Staff, Leans on Merrill to Expand Overseas

By David Mildenberg


March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the lender that bought stakes in foreign firms to expand overseas, will grow on its own by adding staff and offering services through Merrill Lynch, according to the company’s head of global corporate banking.

Merrill Lynch had three times as many relationships as we had at Bank of America” in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, Paul Donofrio said in a March 29 interview. Emerging markets are “where we will find the most immediate opportunities,” he said.

The addition of Merrill Lynch in January 2009 gives Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan more resources to draw upon outside the U.S. as he maps a bigger international role for Bank of America. His firm is the largest U.S. lender by assets, with only 17 percent tied to foreign nations. Former CEO Kenneth D. Lewis invested in international banks in Argentina, China and Mexico rather than building internal operations.

Moynihan, 50, who made his first trip to China last week as CEO, has said he wants the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank to concentrate on internal growth rather than acquisitions.

“For Bank of America Merrill Lynch to reach its full potential, we have to be great outside the U.S.,” said Donofrio, 50, a London-based executive who reports to Tom Montag, president of global banking and markets. Success is most likely to happen in emerging markets, where relationships are less entrenched than in Europe and other more mature markets, according to Donofrio, who has worked at the company’s investment bank since 1999.

Hiring Plans

Montag told colleagues at a March conference in London that most global banking hires this year will be outside the U.S., according to two people with direct knowledge of his remarks. Emerging market nations typically refer to Brazil, Russia, India and China, though Donofrio declined to discuss specific geographic targets.

Bank of America added more than a dozen corporate banking executives in Hong Kong, Singapore, London and New York this year to boost its global expertise, including four managers starting in May, according to a March 29 statement. The lender plans selective hiring rather than adding dozens of new corporate bankers, Donofrio said.

One of the fields he’s targeting is treasury services, used by companies to manage payments to suppliers and vendors, collect receivables and to predict cash positions and then invest and borrow accordingly. Bank of America led in 2009 with a 20 percent market share in the U.S., according to an Ernst & Young survey.

“The treasury management fee pool is many times larger than global investment banking,” Donofrio said.

Foreign Affairs

Bank of America’s foreign units, which exclude Canada, reported a $7.3 billion profit in 2009, including a $4.7 billion gain from the sale of shares in China Construction Bank. In 2008 and 2009, Bank of America reported $10.6 billion in losses in its U.S.-dominated credit-card and home-lending units as the domestic economy suffered its sharpest decline since the 1930s. Counting costs of repaying bailout funds, the company posted a $2.2 billion loss for 2009.

The overseas thrust comes as U.S. banks face a regulatory overhaul proposed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, and expected revenue losses tied to new regulations on consumer-banking products including home loans, credit cards and debit cards. Bank of America may lose $3.3 billion in net revenue annually as it halts overdraft fees on debit cards, in addition to the lender’s previous acknowledgement of an $800 million after-tax cost due to new federal restrictions on credit card fees, Sanford C. Bernstein analyst John McDonald said in a March 29 report.

Limits at Home

Tighter regulation on consumer banking in the U.S. is making it more advantageous to invest overseas,” said Gary Townsend, president of Hill-Townsend Capital LLC, a Chevy Chase, Maryland-based investment firm that owns Bank of America warrants. “Bank of America is less likely to invest and hire in the U.S. given our government’s current policies.”

Concentrating on international growth could cause Bank of America to lose its focus on improving unprofitable U.S. operations, said Greg Donaldson, chairman of Donaldson Capital Management, an Evansville, Indiana-based investment firm that manages more than $300 million. Moynihan “is trying to do a lot of things in a hurry, which often proves to be a mistake,” he said. “I’d rather they fix their problems first.”

About 18 percent of Bank of America’s revenue came from overseas last year compared with 25 percent at JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second largest U.S. bank, and more than 40 percent at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the New York-based investment bank.

Asian Plans

“Our goal is to create one of the world’s largest universal banks in Asia,” Bank of America’s Asia-Pacific President Brian Brille said at a March 24 press event.

Moynihan hasn’t given a timetable on the bank’s plan to incorporate a Bank of America business within China, the world’s most populous nation. The lender is the second-largest shareholder of China Construction Bank.

“We do better when we play to our strengths, and our strengths are in the U.S.,” Lewis said in a June 2007 interview. He cited research by the bank and McKinsey & Co. that showed the U.S. offers the greatest potential for new fees over the next decade.

Fifteen months later, in September 2008, Lewis cited Merrill Lynch’s international scope as a key benefit when announcing the bank’s acquisition of the world’s largest securities brokerage. About a third of New York-based Merrill Lynch revenue typically came from overseas.

2010年3月30日 星期二

Irish Banks Need $43 Billion on ‘Appalling’ Lending

By Dara Doyle and Colm Heatley


March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Ireland’s banks need $43 billion in new capital after “appalling” lending decisions left the country’s financial system on the brink of collapse.

The fund-raising requirement was announced after the National Asset Management Agency said it will apply an average discount of 47 percent on the first block of loans it is buying from lenders as part of a plan to revive the financial system. The central bank set new capital buffers for Allied Irish Banks Plc and Bank of Ireland Plc and gave them 30 days to say how they will raise the funds.

“Our worst fears have been surpassed,” Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said in the parliament in Dublin yesterday. “Irish banking made appalling lending decisions that will cost the taxpayer dearly for years to come.”

The agency aims to cleanse banks of toxic loans, the legacy of plunging real-estate prices and the country’s deepest ever recession. In all, it will buy loans with a book value of 80 billion euros ($107 billion), about half the size of the economy.

“The information that has emerged from the banks in the course of the NAMA process is truly shocking,” Lenihan said.

‘Lot of Work’

Dublin-based Allied Irish needs to raise 7.4 billion euros to meet the capital targets, while cross-town rival Bank of Ireland will need 2.66 billion euros. Anglo Irish Bank Corp., nationalized last year, may need as much 18.3 billion euros. Customer-owned lenders Irish Nationwide and EBS will need 2.6 billion euros and 875 million euros, respectively.

“The regulator is taking the bank system by the scruff of the neck,” said James Forbes, senior equity strategist at Irish Life Investment Managers in Dublin. “Allied Irish has a lot of work to do to avoid majority state ownership, Bank of Ireland less so.”

Allied Irish will sell its stakes in banks in the U.S. and Poland and said this will meet a “substantial part” of its capital needs. It also plans a share sale.

Lenihan told the parliament that Bank of Ireland also expects to raise a “substantial” part of its new capital privately. The bank declined to comment ahead of its full-year results, due at 7:00 a.m. today.

The government announcement was issued after the Irish stock market closed. Late yesterday in New York, Allied Irish’s American depositary receipts were down 8 percent to $3.29. Bank of Ireland jumped as much as 21 percent.

Capital Target

Lenders must have an 8 percent core Tier 1 capital ratio, a key measure of financial strength, by the end of the year, according to the regulator. The equity core Tier 1 capital must increase to 7 percent.

AIB had an equity core tier 1 of 5 percent at the end of 2009. Bank of Ireland had a 6.6 percent ratio on Sept. 30. Those ratios exclude a government investment of 3.5 billion euros in each bank, made at the start of 2009.

“The banks are undergoing major surgery via NAMA,” financial regulator Matthew Elderfield said at a press conference in Dublin. “Even after surgery, they will suffer losses in coming years. They need a transfusion now to speed their recovery and that of the economy.”

If Allied Irish can’t raise enough funds privately, the state will step in with aid, Lenihan said. It is “probable” the government will then end up with a majority stake in what was once Ireland’s largest company by market value, he said.

The banks “are in a better position today, but we also have to be cautious about thinking we are done and dusted here,” Forbes said.

‘Awful Losses’

Ireland may not be able to afford to pump more money into the banks. The budget deficit widened to 11.7 percent of gross domestic product last year, almost four times the European Union limit, and the government spent the past year trying to convince investors the state is in control of its finances.

The premium investors charge to hold Irish 10-year debt over the German equivalent was at 139 basis points yesterday compared with 284 basis points in March 2009, a 16-year high.

Ireland’s debt agency said it doesn’t envisage additional borrowing this year related to the bank recapitalization. It is sticking to its 2010 bond issuance forecast of about 20 billion euros, head of funding Oliver Whelan said in an interview.

“The bank losses, awful as they are, represent a one-off hit. It’s water under the bridge,” said Ciaran O’Hagan, a Paris-based fixed-income strategist at Societe Generale SA. “What’s of more concern for investors in government bonds is the budget deficit. Slashing the chronic overspending and raising taxation by the Irish state is vital.”

2010年3月29日 星期一

Germany’s Bank-Asset-Berg

The ABCP Matterhorn? Der Asset-Alps? Das Bank-Massiv?

Below is the net foreign asset position of banks in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

The chart uses BIS data and was created by financial consultant Achim Dübel.

Put simply, net asset positions are assets minus liabilities — so you can see that German banks’ accumulation of foreign assets (or decrease in liabilities) has been growing substantially:

Much of that is probably down to developments in Landesbanken — Germany’s public sector banks — in the first half of the last decade. In 2001, the European Commission abolished state guarantees for the Landesbanks, but the institutions were granted a four-year adjustment period.

To counter, or prepare for the loss of the state guarantees, the Landesbanks went on something of a shopping spree — snapping up high-yield assets, the effect of which you can see in the chart.

During the financial crisis, Germany’s mountain of assets seems only to have gotten bigger.

Here’s what Dübel says:

The public Landesbanken must have issued several 100 billions in additional taxpayer debt between 2001-2005 . . . So that added to the ‘natural’ surplus by excess private sector savings an element of publicly sponsored autonomous capital investment . . .

In more detail:

There is ‘endogenous’ capital export stemming from foreign excess demand for German manufacturing goods and our ageing effects leading to higher savings ratios; but there has also been huge ‘autonomous’ capital export, such as the US investments of the Landesbanken with taxpayer money (estimates go to some 400bln . . . but you see the 2001-2005 issuance effect quite clearly in the net position; and there are of course follow-on effects as the ABCP consolidation took place in 2007 and 2008), such as the huge international state and commercial mortgage finance investments of mortgage banks, or ship investments of ship banks, with Pfandbriefe.

Now, autonomous capital exports come back as additional excess demand for German manufacturing goods; however they clearly created a bubble . . . Both Landesbanken and mortgage banks . . . only survive with government guarantees.

This . . . matches the huge German capital account surpluses on record and comes close to the implicit guarantee the German sovereign is shouldering;

Shadow (banking) debt anyone?

For German-speakers, a much longer version of the above here.

Related links:
Green shoots: artificial flowers - FT Alphaville
China and Germany unite to oppose deflation – Martin Wolf, FT
Don’t forget the German banks – FT Alphaville
Denial, coverup, and the blaming of others – International Economy