Are Australian banks adequately capitalized?

Basel III Capital Adequacy Ratios (CAR) will require banks to hold a minimum Total Capital of 8% against risk-weighted assets (RWA), the same as under Basel II, but with additional capital buffers of between 2.5% and 5.0% depending on credit market conditions. With an average ratio of 11.5% (September 2011), Australian banks are short of the maximum Basel III requirement of 13.0% for markets in a credit bubble.

The problem, however, lies not only with CAR but with the definition of risk-weighted assets. Under RWA, loans and investments are not taken at face value but adjusted for perceived risk. These adjustments vary widely between banks in different countries. US banks still apply Basel I risk-weightings:

  • zero for cash and government debt (OECD Sovereigns);
  • 20 percent for (OECD) banks;
  • 50 percent for mortgages;
  • 100 percent for corporates.

Their counterparts in Asia and Europe apply Basel II risk-weightings, with more lenient mortgage risk weights, averaging 15 percent and 14 percent respectively.

Australia’s 4 major banks similarly apply risk-weightings (supervised by APRA) for residential mortgages as low as 15%, with an average of 17%. That means the big four hold less than 2% capital against residential mortgages. Even after mortgage insurance, Deep T pointed out earlier this year, leverage is close to 50 times capital.

Basel III introduces a minimum 3% leverage ratio which ignores risk-weighting and compares Tier 1 capital to total exposure — total assets plus derivative exposure and off-balance sheet assets. But this is a catch-all and allows banks with high quality assets to continue leveraging at 33 times capital. Fed guidelines are more conservative, requiring a minimum leverage ratio of 4% (“adequately capitalized“) with a recommended 5% minimum for well-capitalized banks. The ratio, however, excludes off-balance-sheet assets. None of Australia’s four majors appear to meet the Fed’s requirement at September 2011 — ranging between 3.9% and 4.8% of Tier 1 capital to tangible assets.

With household debt at a historic high of 150% of disposable income, 3 times higher than in the early 1990s, Australia shows classic symptoms of a credit bubble and cannot afford to be complacent. There are three areas of the banking system that require attention. Capital adequacy ratios need to be lifted as well as risk-weightings for residential mortgages. Improving these two measures should enable Australia’s four major banks to achieve a minimum (Basel III) leverage ratio of 5%.

Sources:

Click to access bcbs189.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement

Click to access wp1290.pdf

Click to access wp1225.pdf

Casualties of the externality

Click to access EY%20Reg%20Alert%20Basel%20III%20June%202012.pdf

How Obama and Biden Buried the Middle Class

By EDWARD MORRISSEY

Is this a political inconvenient truth? Has the middle class been “buried” the last four years? By any measure, the middle class has certainly lost ground. Median household income has declined each of the last four years, a decline which has accelerated during the Obama “recovery” that started in June 2009. Median household income dropped 2.6 percent during the Great Recession, but has dropped 4.8 percent in the three years since.

via How Obama and Biden Buried the Middle Class.

Gold, TIPS and inflation

The Dollar Index rally to test resistance at 81.00/81.50 appears to be faltering. Respect of resistance would confirm the primary down-trend. Reversal of 63-day Twiggs Momentum below zero earlier indicated a trend change; a peak below zero would strengthen the signal.

US Dollar Index

* Target calculation: 81 – ( 84 – 81 ) = 78

Spot Gold continues to test resistance at $1800 per ounce*. A 63-day Twiggs Momentum trough above zero would signal a primary up-trend, while breakout above $1800 would confirm.

Spot Gold

* Target calculation: 1650 + ( 1650 – 1500 ) = 1800

Rising gold prices indicate increased inflation expectations. The spread between 10-year Treasury yields and the equivalent TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) yield also spiked up after the latest QE announcement but then retreated. The inflation effect of quantitative easing by the Fed is likely to be muted by deflationary pressures from private debt contraction — and a slow-down in government debt expansion after November (no matter who wins the election) — working in the opposite direction. I believe the Fed goal is to manufacture a soft landing rather than to generate inflation, which would go against their mandate.

10-Year Treasury Yield v. 10-Year TIPS Yield

Commodities: The RJ/CRB Commodities index has been delisted by ICE Futures US (formerly NYBOT). For details click here.

The equivalent DJ-UBS Commodity Index is testing resistance at 150/155. Respect would warn of another test of primary support at 125, but also that inflation expectations remain muted.

DJ-UBS Commodity Index

Brent Crude is correcting despite the rise in inflation expectations, reflecting slowing economic activity rather than improved security. Follow-through below $108 per barrel would indicate a correction to $100, while reversal of 63-day Twiggs Momentum below zero would suggest a primary down-trend.

ICE Brent Crude Afternoon Markers

Australian data weaken further and further and…. | The Big Picture

By Kiron Sarkar

Australian new home sales declined by -5.3% to the lowest level on record in August, which itself saw a -5.6% drop from July. However, house prices rose by the most in 30 months in September – I’m getting that bubbly feeling, me thinks.

via Australian, Chinese and European data weaken further and further and…. | The Big Picture.

WSJ big interview with Sheila Bair

Former FDIC chairman Sheila Bair favors breaking up the big banks. She also discusses her differences with Tim Geithner during the GFC and how the Treasury Secretary skewed the banking bailout to favor Citigroup.

Click image to play video

Click image to play video.

Hat tip to Barry Ritholz.

Garnaut’s bitter pill must be swallowed | | MacroBusiness

Interesting quote from Professor Ross Garnaut in the AFR:

He [Professor Garnaut] said Australia’s terms of trade, or income from exports, would be hit by three “mutually reinforcing negatives” under way in China.

The first was a shift in China’s economy away from a focus on heavy industrial investment and exports, which have driven metals and energy demand. The second was a wave of internal reforms including the move towards lower carbon emissions that would cruel demand for Australian thermal coal. The third was the current “cyclical” downturn that was likely to continue.

“It’s an accident they’re coming all at once, but they are,” Professor Garnaut said

From Leith van Onselen at Garnaut’s bitter pill must be swallowed | | MacroBusiness.

Bernanke attempts to justify screwing savers

This extract from Joe Weisenthal lauds Ben Bernanke’s defense of monetary policy and its effect on savers.

I would encourage you to remember that the current low levels of interest rates, while in the first instance a reflection of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, are in a larger sense the result of the recent financial crisis, the worst shock to this nation’s financial system since the 1930s. Interest rates are low throughout the developed world, except in countries experiencing fiscal crises, as central banks and other policymakers try to cope with continuing financial strains and weak economic conditions.

He [Bernanke] then goes onto note that saving isn’t just “having money in a bank” and that the main way to benefit everyone (including savers) is to induce growth:

A second observation is that savers often wear many economic hats. Many savers are also homeowners; indeed, a family’s home may be its most important financial asset. Many savers are working, or would like to be. Some savers own businesses, and—through pension funds and 401(k) accounts—they often own stocks and other assets. The crisis and recession have led to very low interest rates, it is true, but these events have also destroyed jobs, hamstrung economic growth, and led to sharp declines in the values of many homes and businesses. What can be done to address all of these concerns simultaneously? The best and most comprehensive solution is to find ways to a stronger economy. Only a strong economy can create higher asset values and sustainably good returns for savers. And only a strong economy will allow people who need jobs to find them. Without a job, it is difficult to save for retirement or to buy a home or to pay for an education, irrespective of the current level of interest rates.

The way for the Fed to support a return to a strong economy is by maintaining monetary accommodation, which requires low interest rates for a time. If, in contrast, the Fed were to raise rates now, before the economic recovery is fully entrenched, house prices might resume declines, the values of businesses large and small would drop, and, critically, unemployment would likely start to rise again. Such outcomes would ultimately not be good for savers or anyone else.

In layman’s terms, Bernanke is saying that if the Fed didn’t act, everyone, including savers, would be in deep **** (trouble) …….so savers should be happy they are being screwed.

via Bernanke: Federal Reserve & Monetary Policy – Business Insider.

David Murray: Australian government spending on alarming trajectory

David Murray, former Chairman of the Future Fund and former CEO of the Commonwealth Bank warns growing debt-funded entitlement could end with a Europe-style debt crisis.

Hat tip to Unconventional Economist at Macrobusiness.com.au

Steve Keen on Post-Keynesian Macroeconomics

Prof Steve Keen’s presentation to the UMKC Post Keynesian conference in 2012.

Paul Krugman would argue that Income = Aggregate Demand when the economy is in equilibrium.
Steve Keen shows that the economy is not in equilibrium when aggregate debt is rising or falling:

Income = Aggregate Demand + Change in Debt

He illustrates (at 13:20) how, while GDP fell from $14.5 to $14.0 trillion, the US economy went from $18.5 to $11.5 trillion because of private debt contraction.

US GDP compared to GDP + Debt Change

This does not seem entirely accurate as my earlier chart of US Debt shows that Domestic (Non-Financial) Debt growth slowed but at no stage contracted during the GFC. I suspect that Steve has omitted Government Debt which acted as an important counter-weight to Private Debt contraction during the GFC.

US Domestic Debt Growth