Category: Banks & Interest Rates

Posted on

Increasing bank capital is in the interest of shareholders

Westpac CEO Gail Kelly warns that all Australians will have to carry the cost of making the financial system safer:

“Of course you can ever increase capital and become ever more safe, but that does come at a cost. The increasing of capital ends up having ultimately having a diminishing return in terms of safety, but the costs are real, capital is not free. Those costs will flow through to impact the economy more broadly, noticing and noting that banks are strong intermediaries within the Australian economy.”

What Gail fails to consider is that Australians already carry the cost of an unsafe banking system, with the broad economy contracting when banks suffer solvency or liquidity problems. And the taxpayer effectively stands as guarantor in the event of a failure.

I agree that capital comes at a cost — higher than the direct cost of deposit funding which capital would partially replace. But when one factors in the cost of the vast infrastructure required to attract and service those deposits, the margin narrows. Increasing the level of capital will also make banks safer and reduce the risk premium, further lowering the average cost of capital. And not only for equity: improved risk ratings will lower the cost of deposit-funding as well.

Banks with higher capital ratios also benefit from higher asset and loan growth according to studies conducted by the Bank for International Settlements.

Making the banking system safer is not only in the interests of the taxpayer, but also bank shareholders.

Read more at This Breathtaking Overstep From Gail Kelly Shows It’s Time To Call Australia’s Bankers To Account | Greg McKenna

Posted on

QE: The end is nigh?

I have read a number of predictions recently as to how stocks will collapse into a bear market when quantitative easing ends. The red line on the graph below shows how the Fed expanded its balance sheet by $3.5 trillion between 2008 and 2014, injecting new money into the system through acquisition of Treasuries and other government-backed securities.

Fed Assets and Excess Reserves on Deposit

Many are not aware that $2.7 trillion of that flowed straight back to the Fed, deposited by banks as excess reserves. So the net flow of new money into the system was actually a lot lower: around $0.8 trillion.

The Fed has indicated they will end bond purchases in October 2014, which means that the red line will level off at close to $4.5 trillion. If excess reserve deposits continue to grow, that would cause a net outflow of money from the system. But that is highly unlikely. Excess Reserves have been growing at a slower rate than Fed Assets for the last three quarters, as the graph of Fed Assets minus Excess Reserves shows. If that trend continues, there will be a net injection of money even though asset purchases have halted.

Fed Assets and Excess Reserves on Deposit

Interest paid on excess reserves is a powerful weapon in the hands of the FOMC. The Fed can accelerate the flow of money into the market by reducing the interest rate, forcing banks to withdraw funds on deposit in search of better returns outside the Fed. Alternatively, raising interest paid above the current 0.25% p.a. on excess reserves would have the opposite effect, attracting more deposits and slowing the flow of money into the market.

The Fed is likely to use these tools to maintain a positive flow into the market until the labor market has healed. As Janet Yellen said at Jackson Hole:

“It likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after our current asset purchase program ends.”

That’s Fedspeak for “Read my lips: there will be no interest rate hikes.”

Posted on

Market turbulence

A Coincident Economic Activity Index above 0.2 indicates the US recovery is on track. Produced by the Philadelphia Fed, the index includes four indicators: nonfarm payroll employment, the unemployment rate, average hours worked in manufacturing, and wages and salaries. Bellwether stock Fedex also suggests rising economic activity.

Coincident Economic Activity Index

But contraction of the ECB balance sheet by € 1 Trillion over the last two years has pitched Europe back into recession.

Weakness in Europe and Asia has the capacity to retard performance of US stocks despite the domestic recovery.

Posted on

Amir Sufi: Who is the Economy Working For? The Impact of Rising Inequality on the American Economy

Amir Sufi, professor of Finance at the University of Chicago, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy. His statement titled “Who is the Economy Working For? The Impact of Rising Inequality on the American Economy” makes interesting reading.

“Only 76% of Americans aged 25 to 54 currently have jobs, compared to 80% in 2006 and 82% in 1999…..How did we get into this mess?”

The gist of his argument is:

“Richer Americans save a much higher fraction of their income, ultimately holding most of the financial assets in the economy: stocks, bonds, money-market funds, and deposits. These savings are lent by banks to middle and lower income Americans, primarily through mortgages.”

…And collapse of the housing market caused disproportionate harm to the middle and lower-income groups.

It is true is that middle and lower-income groups have a higher percentage of their wealth invested in their homes and are also far more exposed to mortgages than richer Americans. The source of funding for these mortgages, however, is not the wealthy — who are primarily invested in growth assets such as stocks — but the banks who create new credit out of thin air. The collapse of the housing market caused disproportionate hardship to middle and lower-income Americans because their wealth is concentrated in this area. The rich suffered from a collapse in stock prices, but the market has recovered to new highs while housing remains in the doldrums. That is one of the causes of rising wealth inequality.

Where I do agree with Amir is that credit growth without income growth is a recipe for disaster.

“A tempting solution to our current troubles is to encourage even more borrowing by lower and middle-income Americans. This group of Americans is likely to spend out of additional credit, which would provide a temporary boost to consumption. But unless borrowing is predicated on higher income growth, we risk falling into the same trap that led to economic catastrophe.”

The graph below compares credit growth to growth in (nominal) disposable income:

Credit and Disposable Income

The ratio of credit to disposable income rose from 2:1 during the 1960s to almost 5:1 in 2009.

Credit to Disposable Income

There is no easy path back to the stability of the 1960s. A credit contraction of that magnitude would destroy the economy. But regulators should aim to keep credit growth below the rate of income growth over the next few decades, gradually restoring the economy to a more sustainable level.

The worst possible policy would be to encourage another credit boom!

Posted on

Big banks may need $41b more capital, UBS says

From Chris Joye at AFR:

UBS’s more likely scenario of a 3 per cent TBTF capital buffer combined with an increase in the average mortgage risk weight to 25 per cent gives a total capital shortfall of $41.1 billion for the majors.

Risk-weightings, especially for residential mortgages are coming under increased scrutiny. The big four banks have a major advantage in this area, employing risk-weightings as low as 15% to 20% based on their historical record of low defaults. But that history includes a credit boom lasting more than 2 decades which fueled an unprecedented rise in housing prices and is unlikely to be repeated in the future.

APRA alluded to this problem in its second FSI submission:

..APRA also highlighted the problem with the major banks’ predicting their own probabilities of defaults on home loans in the absence of a recession in 23 years and the much lower levels of housing leverage in 1991.“The Basel Committee is currently reviewing the validity and reliability of risk weights generated under the IRB approach [used by the majors] in response to studies showing that the variability … is much greater than could be explained by differences in underlying risks,” APRA said.

Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked. ~ Warren Buffett

Read more at Big banks may need $41b more capital, UBS says.

Posted on

Financial reform: Call to arms | FT.com

Martin Wolf on how much capital banks should be required to hold:

The new regulatory regime is an astonishingly complex response to the failures of this model. But “keep it simple, stupid” is as good a rule in regulation as it is in life. The sensible solution seems clear: force banks to fund themselves with equity to a far greater extent than they do today.

So how much capital would do? A great deal more than the 3 per cent ratio being discussed in Basel is the answer. As Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig argue in their important book, The Bankers’ New Clothes, significantly higher capital – with true leverage certainly no greater than 10 to one and, ideally, lower still – would bring important advantages: it would limit the implicit subsidy to banks, particularly “too big to fail” ones; it would reduce the need for such intrusive and complex regulation; and it would lower the likelihood of panics.

An important feature of higher capital requirements is that these should not be based on risk-weighting. In the event, the risk weights used before the crisis proved extraordinarily fallible, indeed grossly misleading…..

There is no magic in the number of 10 times leverage (or 10% Tier 1 Capital to Total Assets) but the larger the buffer, the greater the protection against fluctuations in asset values. The Basel III minimum leverage ratio of 3% is too low to offer adequate protection, even with the highest quality assets, and while 10% is not readily attainable in the short-term, it makes a suitable long-term target.

Read more at Financial reform: Call to arms – FT.com.

Posted on

A Prominent Financial Columnist Is Calling For Radical Reforms To The Global Economy | Business Insider

From The Economist review of Martin Wolf’s new book “The Shifts and the Shocks: What We’ve Learned–and Have Still to Learn–from the Financial Crisis”:

To make finance safer, Mr Wolf suggests replacing a fractional reserve banking system, which takes in deposits and lends most of them out in longer-term loans, with a system of “narrow banking”, where deposits must be backed by government bonds. To sustain demand without relying on dangerous asset bubbles, he proposes permanent “helicopter money”, where governments run deficits that are financed by the central bank. For a man of the mainstream, this is brave stuff.

Fractional reserve banking is inherently unstable and responsible for many of the problems in our economic system, but abandoning it completely in favor of “narrow banking”, where deposits are fully-backed by government bonds, seems unnecessary. Increasing Tier 1 capital requirements to 10 percent of total exposure, from the current 3 to 5 percent, should provide a sufficient buffer to withstand most financial shocks. Rapid expansion of credit during an asset bubble would be difficult, with high capital requirements forcing banks to be more selective in their lending. Even more so if supplemented by central bank monetary policy to counteract rapid deposit growth.

Read more at A Prominent Financial Columnist Is Calling For Radical Reforms To The Global Economy | Business Insider.

Posted on

Banks hold more risk than before GFC | Chris Joye

Chris Joye explains why risk-weighted capital ratios used by Australia’s major banks are misleading and why true leverage is more than 20 times tier 1 capital.

It was only after 2008 when regulators allowed the majors to slash risk-weightings on home loans from 50 per cent to 15 per cent today that we have seen their reported and purely academic tier one capital measured against these newly “risk-weighted” loan assets which shrunk in value spike from 6.7 per cent in December 2007 to 10.5 per cent in June 2014.

By arbitrarily boosting the risk-free share of major bank home loans from 50 per cent to 85 per cent via the regulatory artifice that is a risk-weighting, one gets the fictional jump in their tier one capital that everyone believes is real.

Tier 1 Capital to Gross Assets

Read more at Banks hold more risk than before GFC.

Posted on

Putin antics fail to impress markets

For all his macho posturing, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated an inability to move financial markets with his antics in Eastern Ukraine. His latest incursion towards Luhansk, with white-painted military trucks bearing aid to the rebel-held city, unchecked by the Red Cross, passed barely noticed. Instead markets are intently focused on nuances from a 68-year old Jewish mum at Jackson Hole, who also happens to chair the Federal Reserve.

I would have loved to call Janet Yellen a “grandmother”, but son Robert Akerlof — himself a PhD in Economics — does not claim any offspring on his CV. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Husband, George Akerlof, is a Nobel prize-winning economist and professor emeritus at University of California, Berkeley.

The image below highlights the differences between the Fed and the ECB:

The Fed’s more stimulatory approach has paid dividends in terms of economic growth and employment while inflation expectations remain muted. The inflation breakeven rate — 10-year Treasury yield minus the yield on equivalent inflation-indexed securities — continues to range between 2.0% and 2.50%.

Inflation breakeven rate

The ECB’s more austere approach, on the other hand, has caused a world of pain.

Market update

  • S&P 500 tests 2000.
  • VIX continues to indicate a bull market.
  • DAX hesitant rally.
  • China bullish.
  • ASX 200 faces strong resistance.

The S&P 500 hesitated after making a new high on Thursday, but there was no dramatic fall in response to news from Eastern Ukraine. Expect retracement towards 1950, followed by another test of 2000. 21-Day Twiggs Money Flow is likely to re-test the zero line, but respect would indicate strong buying pressure. Breach of support at 1900, warning of a reversal, remains unlikely.

S&P 500

* Target calculation: 1500 + ( 1500 – 750 ) = 2250

Declining CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) indicates low risk, typical of a bull market.

S&P 500 VIX

Germany’s DAX rallied above 9300 on the weekly chart, but 13-week Twiggs Money Flow warns of continued selling pressure. Reversal below support at 8900/9000 would warn of a primary down-trend.

DAX

* Target calculation: 9000 – ( 10000 – 9000 ) = 8000

Shanghai Composite Index is testing resistance at 2250. Breakout would confirm a primary up-trend, signaling an advance to 2500*. Rising 13-week Twiggs Money Flow indicates medium-term buying pressure. Respect of resistance, however, would suggest further consolidation.

Shanghai Composite Index

* Target calculation: 2250 + ( 2250 – 2000 ) = 2500

Tall wicks on ASX 200 daily candles indicate strong resistance at 5650. Respect would suggest retracement to 5550, while follow-through would be a strong bull signal, suggesting an advance to 5850*. Another 21-day Twiggs Money Flow trough above zero would indicate long-term buying pressure. Reversal below 5450 is unlikely, but would warn of a test of primary support.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5650 + ( 5650 – 5450 ) = 5850

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper