I was a bit surprised when I browsed through Bloomberg news. I was expecting to see more report on "ratios." However, I see more dollar amount of loss for the banks under different stress. Such presentation of stress test recalls my memories of the other article I read few days ago. Then it is clear for me how and why they express the stress test in this way.
Here comes this Dealbook article first:
What Europe could have learned from the US bank bailout? by Peter Evais
There are two things to look at here.
1.) Capital ratio:
There are two ways you might book up the capital ratio, you raise more fresh capital or just reduced the exposure of risk of your assets. For the later approach, the demand to improve "adequate" ratio might eventaully hurt the industries and companies, which would lose their credits from banks.
Europe and United States have quite different ideas on such ratio thing. As quoted from the article, William C. Dudley, the president of FED of NY, mentioned that they not only look at the ratio and also look at the absolute amounts. In other words, the supervisory body wants banks to raise capital, and they cannot deliberately reduce their risk exposure.
Therefore, United States has another focus here. If these banks cannot make a cut on their risky exposure, how much loss they might have to face during the most adversary times?
2.) Possible loss under the worse scenario:
The stress test results are out from United States. The worse scenario is, the unemployment rate at 13%, 50% stock price drop and 21% of housing price drop. Then they assess the possible loss for each bank, and measure their possible capital ratio under such scenario.
Surprisingly, Citi is among those who failed the test. 15 out of 19 banks under the same test pass it.
Eventually, Banks should be the institutions which can absorb risks, especially during hte bad times. As I see, the various American legislation movement now are moving toward that direction. Banks cannot take too many risks, and they should have enough reserve to go through the bad times, for themselves and for the public. I personally like the ideas behind this logic. Just do not know how exactly it would turn out to be alike for banking industries.
There are two things to look at here.
1.) Capital ratio:
There are two ways you might book up the capital ratio, you raise more fresh capital or just reduced the exposure of risk of your assets. For the later approach, the demand to improve "adequate" ratio might eventaully hurt the industries and companies, which would lose their credits from banks.
Europe and United States have quite different ideas on such ratio thing. As quoted from the article, William C. Dudley, the president of FED of NY, mentioned that they not only look at the ratio and also look at the absolute amounts. In other words, the supervisory body wants banks to raise capital, and they cannot deliberately reduce their risk exposure.
Therefore, United States has another focus here. If these banks cannot make a cut on their risky exposure, how much loss they might have to face during the most adversary times?
2.) Possible loss under the worse scenario:
The stress test results are out from United States. The worse scenario is, the unemployment rate at 13%, 50% stock price drop and 21% of housing price drop. Then they assess the possible loss for each bank, and measure their possible capital ratio under such scenario.
Surprisingly, Citi is among those who failed the test. 15 out of 19 banks under the same test pass it.
Eventually, Banks should be the institutions which can absorb risks, especially during hte bad times. As I see, the various American legislation movement now are moving toward that direction. Banks cannot take too many risks, and they should have enough reserve to go through the bad times, for themselves and for the public. I personally like the ideas behind this logic. Just do not know how exactly it would turn out to be alike for banking industries.
歐美各國這一陣子都在給自己的銀行進行壓力測試,主要目的是希望檢測這些主要銀行在經濟危機的狀態下是否有足夠的資本去承擔損失並且度過難關.
然而Peter Evais在Dealbook的一篇文章顯示了美國人跟歐洲人對於在銀行資本適足率處理上的差異. 當然, 這個比率是得看的, 但是美國人更在乎絕對的金額.
會這麼做很簡單, 因為增加資本適足率有兩種方式, 一種是充實自己的資本, 但另外一種方式就是把風險性資產降低, 換句台灣人常聽的話, 就是 "雨天收傘"
美國的各大銀行前一陣子才因為"雨天收傘太快"跟聯邦政府達成一個和解的協議(主要就是在房地產查封的過程過快而沒有進行應有的程序) 而美國政府也意識到, 如果銀行業不能夠成受衝擊而直接進行降低風險資產的動作的話, 那麼對於整體經濟的衝擊是不容小覷的.
因此本周發布的壓力測試消息主要都著重在銀行可能的損失金額, 以及他們現有的資本是不是可能承受這樣的損失. 我不確定下一部他們要做的是什麼, 但可以預期的是會更加限制銀行業可以承做的風險性資產範圍, 以及加速鼓勵銀行進行充實資本的計畫.
歐盟呢? 我不知道, 我只回憶起因為雨天收傘在倒掉了一家瑞士的石化廠. 雖然國際清算銀行也指出, 歐盟區的銀行的確有出售風險性資產跟減少貸放的狀況, 然而其他的借款者因此而進入這個市場所以對於產業的影響是較小的. 但是無法否認的是這個從去年十二月開始的新政策讓歐元區特定的借款成本增加, 對於整體歐元區的復甦事實上是非常不利的.
No comments:
Post a Comment