banks Archives - Page 2 of 7 - the patient investor

April 28, 2016

IMF warns about Chinese debt

China Nonfinancial Business Debt

From FT (via the Coppo Report at Bell Potter):

China’s leaders need to look beyond the current solutions being floated to tackle the country’s mounting corporate debt problems and come up with a bigger plan to do so, the International Monetary Fund’s top China expert has warned. The IMF has been expressing growing concern about China’s debt issues and pushing for an urgent response by Beijing to what the fund sees as a serious problem for the Chinese economy. It warned in a report earlier this month that $1.3tn in corporate debt — or almost one in six of the business loans on Chinese banks’ books — was owed by companies who brought in less in revenues than they owed in interest payments alone. In a paper published on Tuesday, James Daniel, the fund’s China mission chief, and two coauthors, went further and warned that Beijing needed a comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem. They warned that the two main responses Beijing was planning to the problem — debt-for-equity swaps and the securitization of nonperforming loans — could in fact make the problem worse if underlying issues were not dealt with. The plan for debt for equity swaps could end up offering a temporary lifeline to unviable state owned companies, they warned. It could also leave them managed by state owned banks or other officials with little experience in doing so.

Bad debt is bad debt …… and nonproductive assets are nonproductive assets. Financial window-dressing like securitization or debt-for-equity swaps will not change this. The assets are still unproductive. Effectively, China has to stump up $1.3 trillion to re-capitalize its banks. And that may be the tip of the iceberg.

April 25, 2016

Real-time payments could hurt banks

Ruth Liew:

….the Reserve Bank of Australia pushes Australian banks to create the New Payments Platform, a new piece of open-source infrastructure being built that will move the payments system to real time. The RBA’s plans are echoed by the US and the eurozone, which are also planning to roll out real time payment infrastructure by next year. These payments would boost Australia’s economic activity, as money flow improves and Australians access their funds as they are deposited, [Don Sharp at InPayTech] argued.

Australian banks could lose $2.5 billion in interest earnings if instantaneous payments were adopted – and the figure could jump significantly as interest rates rise.

Payments held in the banking system are part of the “float” which banks use for interest-free funding of part of their balance sheet — a boost to interest margins. Switch to a realtime payments system would see this disappear.

Source: InPayTech plots capital raise and ASX IPO as real-time payments take off

April 8, 2016

APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding | MacroBusiness

From Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness:

…..the banks’ reliance on offshore funding hit an unprecedented 54% of GDP in the December quarter:

As always, the key risk is that the banks’ ability to continue borrowing from offshore rests with foreigners’ willingness to continue extending them credit. This willingness will be tested in the event that Australia’s sovereign credit rating is downgraded (automatically downgrading the banks’ credit ratings), there is another global shock, or a sharp deterioration in the Australian economy (raising Australia’s risk premia).

The Federal Budget, too, is now hostage to the banks’ offshore borrowing binge as it cannot borrow to spend on infrastructure or other initiatives for fear that Australia will lose its AAA credit rating, potentially leading to an unraveling of the private debt bubble created by Australia’s banks.

That APRA could stand by and allow the banks’ to borrow externally like drunken sailors is a hallmark of regulatory failure.

One in four dollars of bank assets is funded by offshore borrowing. A precarious position even for a stable economy (like Ireland?), let alone one hitched to the boom and bust commodity cycle. Smacks of moral hazard by the banks.

Source: APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding – MacroBusiness

July 20, 2015

APRA confirms further capital adequacy measures

From Robin Christie:

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has confirmed that the country’s largest banks will face increased capital adequacy requirements for residential mortgage exposures – and hasn’t ruled out further rises.

The regulator made it clear yesterday that the new rules would be an interim measure based on the Financial System Inquiry’s (FSI) recommendations – and that it was keenly awaiting guidance from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision before making any further changes.

The new measures, which come into effect on 1 July 2016, mandate that authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) that are accredited to use the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach to credit risk must increase their average risk weight on Australian residential mortgage exposures to at least 25 per cent. According to APRA, the current average risk weight figure sits at around 16 per cent….

This is a welcome first step. Increases in bank capital will improve economic stability. Even at 25 percent, however, a capital ratio of 10% would mean that banks are holding 2.5 percent capital against residential mortgages. Further increases over time will be necessary.

August 22, 2014

Bank chiefs in last-ditch plea to David Murray on tougher rules | The Australian

From Richard Gluyas at The Australian:

THE four major-bank chief executives have each made an eleventh-hour appeal to members of the Murray financial system inquiry ahead of Tuesday’s closing date for final submissions, as concerns mount that the sector could be forced to hold even higher levels of bank capital due to the inquiry’s emphasis on resilience. The closed-door meetings with the inquiry panel members come as Steven Munchenberg, chief executive of peak lobby group the Australian Bankers’ Association, said the industry was “jittery” about the inquiry’s focus on balance-sheet resilience because more onerous capital requirements would affect the banks’ ability to lend and serve the economy.

I disagree. Banks with strong balance sheets are better able to serve the needs of the economy. Highly leveraged banks leave the economy vulnerable to a financial crisis and are more likely to contract lending during periods of economic stress.

The shrill outcry may have something to do with the impact on bankers bonuses. Incentives based on capital employed would shrink if shareholder’s capital is increased.

Bank shareholders on the other hand are likely to benefit from stronger balance sheets. Reduced default risk is likely to enhance market valuation metrics like price-earnings multiples. Reduced risk premiums will also lower cost of funding and enhance lending margins. And shareholders are also likely to benefit from enhanced growth prospects. Analysis by the Bank for International Settlements in the post crisis period shows banks with higher capital ratios experience higher asset and loan growth.

July 27, 2014

World wakes to APRA paralysis | Macrobusiness

Posted by Houses & Holes:

Bloomberg has a penetrating piece today hammering RBA/APRA complacency on house prices, which will be read far and wide in global markets (as well as MB is!):

Central banks from Scandinavia to the U.K. to New Zealand are sounding the alarm about soaring mortgage debt and trying to curb risky lending. In Australia, where borrowing is surging, regulators are just watching.

Australia has the third-most overvalued housing market on a price-to-income basis, after Belgium and Canada, according to the International Monetary Fund. The average home price in the nation’s eight major cities rose 16 percent as of June 30 from a May 2012 trough, the RP Data-Rismark Home Value Index showed.

“There’s definitely room for caps on lending,” said Martin North, Sydney-based principal at researcherDigital Finance Analytics. “Global house price indices are all showing Australia is close to the top, and the RBA has been too myopic in adjusting to what’s been going on in the housing market.”

Australian regulators are hesitant to impose nation-wide rules as only some markets have seen strong price growth, said Kieran Davies, chief economist at Barclays Plc in Sydney.

…“The RBA’s probably got at the back of its mind that we’re only in the early stages of the adjustment in the mining sector,” Davies said. “Mining investment still has a long way to fall, and also the job losses to flow from that. So to some extent, the house price growth is a necessary evil.”

…The RBA, in response to an e-mailed request for comment, referred to speeches and papers by Head of Financial Stability Luci Ellis.

…The RBA and APRA have acknowledged potential benefits of loan limits “but at this stage they don’t believe that this type of policy action is necessary,” said David Ellis, a Sydney-based analyst at Morningstar Inc. “If the housing market was out of control and if loan growth, particularly investor credit, grew exponentially then it’d be introduced.”

What do you call this, David:

Reproduced with kind permission from Macrobusiness

June 30, 2013

Bankers’ political influence cause for concern

I am not sure of the background to this, but it certainly looks as if the big UK banks were able to exert enough political pressure to remove Robert Jenkins from the Financial Policy Committee, the UK’s new stability regulator. Anne-Sylvaine Chassany at FT writes:

An outspoken advocate of tough bank regulation who has worked in banking and asset management, Robert Jenkins left the committee earlier this year after not being reappointed by George Osborne, chancellor.

If bankers’ influence was the cause, it certainly is cause for concern.

via Barclays’ threat on lending under fire – FT.com.

April 7, 2013

Lessons for Australian banks: Why Risk Managers Should Be Spymasters | ProPublica

Jesse Eisinger’s interview with risk specialist John Breit highlights an issue facing Australian banks. Residential mortgages are allocated a low risk weighting — 15% to 17% because of historic performance — compared to 50% for US banks. The big four banks piled into this area because of the perceived low risk, leveraging up to 50 times capital. Risk-weighted capital ratios (around 10%) still appear healthy, but they conceal a hidden danger from the resulting housing bubble.

[Breit] despises the concept of “risk-weighted assets,” where banks put up capital based on the perceived riskiness of the assets. Inevitably, he argues, banks will “pile into” the same types of supposedly safe investments, creating bubbles that make the risks far more severe than the initial perceptions. Paradoxically, risk-weighting can leave banks setting aside the least capital to cover the biggest dangers.

“I could not be more disappointed,” he said. “The cynic in me thinks this is all in the interests of senior management and regulators to avoid blame. They may not think they can prevent the next crisis, but they then can blame the statistics.”

March 16, 2013

Fed's Fisher: Too-big-to-fail banks are crony capitalists | Reuters

Pedro Nicolaci da Costa reports

The largest U.S. banks are “practitioners of crony capitalism,” need to be broken up to ensure they are no longer considered too big to fail, and continue to threaten financial stability, a top Federal Reserve official said on Saturday……

[Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed] said the existence of banks that are seen as likely to receive government bailouts if they fail gives them an unfair advantage, hurting economic competitiveness.

March 5, 2013

Volcker: Wall Street Kills Regs By Running Out the Clock

Josh Boak at Fiscal Times writes:

…..So when Volcker declared on Monday that the financial regulation system is broken, it’s time to sound the alarm. The gist of his complaint is that Dodd-Frank was passed in the middle of 2010, yet many of its biggest regulations have not been finalized and there is no end in sight.

“I know it’s a complicated bill. I know the markets are complicated,” Volcker said at a conference for the National Association for Business Economics. “Two-and-a-half years later you can’t have a regulatory apparatus that’s devised by the most important piece of legislation in recent years? That suggests something is rather wrong. Something is dysfunctional.”