November 15, 2024

A Lack of Lending at European Banks Increases the Fear of Stagnation

On the contrary, debt issuance by banks has slowed to a trickle at the same time that short-term interbank lending is drying up. The financing drought raises questions about whether banks will have enough money to refinance their own long-term debt and still meet demand for loans.

Less lending could further depress growth in Europe, which is already teetering on the edge of recession. “The euro zone economy has stalled and as the recent financial stresses feed into the real economy, it is likely to get worse still,” analysts at HSBC wrote in a note to clients on Thursday. A release of data showed that pessimism among manufacturers had reached levels not seen since the 2009 recession.

The fund-raising problems at banks stem directly from the sovereign debt crisis, which is having an insidious effect in a few ways.

Not surprisingly, investors are wary of banks that could suffer losses if Greece defaults on its debt, as seems increasingly likely. But the crisis has also raised doubts about the underlying health of the European banking system and whether governments would be able to step in to rescue their banks if there were another financial catastrophe.

“Banks certainly do not have enough capital in relation to their government bonds,” said Dorothea Schäfer, an expert in financial markets at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. She has calculated that the 10 largest German banks would need to raise 127 billion euros ($171 billion) to bring their capital reserves to 5 percent of gross assets — a level she considers barely adequate.

“That could substantially heighten trust, I would even say would bring it back,” Ms. Schäfer said. But raising that additional capital would be politically perilous because it would probably require another taxpayer-financed bailout. Many of the banks that need capital are already owned by government entities and, because they are not listed on stock markets, cannot sell shares to increase their capital.

The banking industry is also fighting requirements that would require them to keep more ample reserves, which would cut into profits.

According to the standard used by regulators, banks are much better capitalized than they were in 2008. Banks in Europe had so-called core Tier 1 capital — the most durable form of reserves — equal to 10.6 percent of their assets at the end of June, according to calculations by analysts at Nomura. That compares with a previous low of 6.4 percent.

For that reason, some analysts say that the alarm about bank financing is overblown.

“I don’t think we’re overly concerned yet,” said Jon Peace, a banking analyst at Nomura. But he added, “Definitely we are watching the data week by week.”

He said that banks in Northern Europe, where government debt is less of a problem, were having an easier time raising money.

Ms. Schäfer said, though, that current measures of capital reserves were “useless” because they did not capture the risk from holdings of government bonds, which the International Monetary Fund this week estimated at 300 billion euros for European banks.

Regulations still treat European government debt as if it were risk-free, though it obviously is not. As a result, banks are not required to set aside extra capital to cushion against a government default. And holdings of government bonds are excluded from the calculation of capital ratios.

Sophisticated investors are aware of these shortcomings, which helps explain the drop in debt issuance recently. Since July, sales of bonds and other debt instruments have plummeted 85 percent compared with sales in the period a year earlier, according to Dealogic, a data provider in London.

“A lot of money has been lost,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and former chief economist at the I.M.F., during an appearance in Frankfurt on Thursday. Greek default is inevitable, said Mr. Rogoff, author of a history of sovereign defaults. “Banks and governments may not have put it in their books,” he said of the losses, “but it’s gone.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=135a5250de09e1fd1500036f08114615

Financing Drought for European Banks Heightens Fears

On the contrary, debt issuance by banks has slowed to a trickle at the same time that short-term interbank lending is drying up. The financing drought raises questions about whether banks will have enough money to refinance their own long-term debt and still meet demand for business and consumer loans.

Less lending could further depress growth in Europe, which is already teetering on the edge of recession. “The euro zone economy has stalled and as the recent financial stresses feed into the real economy, it is likely to get worse still,” analysts at HSBC wrote in a note to clients Thursday, after the release of data showing that pessimism among manufacturers has reached levels not seen since the 2009 recession.

Banks’ fund-raising problems stem directly from the sovereign debt crisis, which is having an insidious effect in more ways than first meet the eye.

Not surprisingly, investors are wary of banks that could suffer losses if Greece defaults on its debt, as seems increasingly likely. But the crisis has also raised fundamental doubts about the underlying health of the European banking system, and whether governments would be able to step in to rescue their banks in the wake of another financial catastrophe.

“Banks certainly do not have enough capital in relation to their government bonds,” said Dorothea Schäfer, an expert in financial markets at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. She has calculated that the 10 largest German banks would need to raise €127 billion, or $171 billion, to bring their capital reserves to 5 percent of gross assets — a level she considers barely adequate.

“That could substantially heighten trust, I would even say would bring it back,” Ms. Schäfer said. But raising that additional capital would be politically fraught, because it would probably require another taxpayer-financed bailout. Many of the banks that need capital most are already owned by government entities and, because they are not listed on stock markets, cannot sell new shares to increase their capital.

The banking industry is also fighting requirements that would require them to keep more ample reserves, which would cut into profits.

According to the standard used by regulators, banks are much better capitalized than they were in 2008. Banks in Europe had so-called core Tier 1 capital — the most durable form of reserves — equal to 10.6 percent of their assets at the end of June, according to calculations by analysts at Nomura. That compares with a previous low of 6.4 percent.

For that reason, some analysts say that the alarm about bank financing is overblown.

“I don’t think we’re overly concerned yet,” said Jon Peace, a banking analyst at Nomura. But he added, “Definitely we are watching the data week by week.”

He said that banks in Northern Europe, where government debt is less of a problem, are having an easier time raising money.

Ms. Schäfer argues, though, that current measures of capital reserves are “useless” because they do not capture the risk from holdings of government bonds, which the International Monetary Fund this week estimated at €300 billion for European banks.

Regulations still treat European government debt as if it were risk free, though it obviously is not. As a result, banks are not required to set aside extra capital to cushion against a government default. And holdings of government bonds are excluded from the calculation of capital ratios.

Sophisticated investors are well aware of these shortcomings, which helps explain the drastic drop in debt issuance recently. Since July, sales of bonds and other debt instruments has plummeted 85 percent compared with the period in 2010, according to Dealogic, a data provider in London.

“A lot of money has been lost,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and former chief economist at the I.M.F., during an appearance in Frankfurt on Thursday. Greek default is inevitable, said Mr. Rogoff, author of a history of sovereign defaults. “Banks and governments may not have put it in their books,” he said of the losses, “but it’s gone.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=135a5250de09e1fd1500036f08114615

DealBook: In U.S. Stress Tests, a Tool to Gauge Contagion in Europe

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, left, with his finance minister, Giulio Tremonti. American banks hold sizable amounts of Italian debt.Tiziana Fabi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPrime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, left, with his finance minister, Giulio Tremonti. American banks hold sizable amounts of Italian debt.

In early 2010, top officials at the Federal Reserve began to wonder: how would United States banks hold up through the European debt crisis? Investors were fleeing Greece and Ireland, and starting to get nervous about Portugal and Spain, spreading contagion.

The conclusion from the stress tests that resulted was heartening to supervisors at the regulator, according to a person who was directly involved in the exercise: American banks didn’t have too much exposure to Portugal and Spain, so the contagion would not be a problem.

Unless it hit Italy.

“At the time, the results made us a bit relieved; our focus was on Ireland and Greece,” said this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Fed has a policy of not discussing supervisory actions. “But if Italy goes, God help us all.”

American banks not only had a small exposure to Italian government bonds, but also a larger one to Italian banks and companies. If the European debt crisis spread to Italy, it could cause another global financial catastrophe. Only this time, global regulators might have fewer weapons to combat it. The Fed declined to comment on its analysis.

And that is why last week was so terrifying, scarier than either the stock market drop or the Standard Poor’s downgrade of the United States credit rating: debtholders had abandoned Spain and Italy.

The Trade
View all posts


At one point on Friday, Italian bonds were trading at more than 400 basis points higher than Germany’s, a signal of panic. Italy has a huge debt load. If investors began to focus on that, it wasn’t clear what might stop the run.

The European Central Bank intervened this week, buying Spanish and Italian government bonds. On Monday, the panic eased in Europe, with Italian and Spanish interest rates falling. The French and Germans announced that the European Financial Stability Facility (clearly named by Dr. Seuss) would be able to buy those government bonds when it was up and running in late September.

By Wednesday, the fears were back, as French banks got hit especially hard. The problem is that Europe has tried repeatedly to fence off the problem, only to have it escape again to wreak havoc. Greece and Ireland have each been through several rounds of failed bailouts and extensions. If they are bankrupt, and not simply victims of investor panic, then someone, somewhere will have to take losses. And if Spain and Italy start to go down, those losses threaten the global economy.

European banks are on the front lines, vulnerable because they are more thinly capitalized than their American counterparts. Europe has conducted stress tests, just as the Fed has, but they haven’t instilled confidence, in part because they didn’t subject most sovereign debt holdings to any loss estimates.

The tests did require vast disclosures, however, so that investors and analysts could delve into the numbers and conduct their own analyses.

If European banks go down, what will happen to American banks? Investors and analysts seem unconcerned. American banks disclose some of their exposure to specific countries, but the information isn’t up to date and the figures depend on opaque estimates of how well hedged the banks are. Analysts differ on the amounts at risk.

According to a note from the research firm CLSA on July 13, Citigroup had $12.7 billion in Italian holdings, much of it government-related, while JPMorgan Chase had $12.2 billion. According to a note from Bernstein Research, JPMorgan had “less than $20 billion” in exposure to Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain combined. But that was going in the wrong direction, up from “less than $15 billion” at the end of 2010, when one might expect the banks to be paring exposure.

These aren’t large numbers, less than 1 percent of these gigantic banks’ balance sheets. And banks wouldn’t take 100 percent losses on their investments in the event of a default.

Unfortunately, we simply don’t know whether the analysts are right. Neither the Fed nor the Securities and Exchange Commission has forced United States banks to make as detailed disclosures as the European stress tests did of its banks. So it’s a matter of having to trust the banks and the regulators.

Which brings us back to the exercise the Fed undertook last year. Two Fed officials ordered up the analysis: Daniel K. Tarullo, the board member who oversees matters of bank supervision, and Patrick Parkinson, the head of banking supervision, who is reported to have undergone a conversion from a Alan Greenspan antiregulation acolyte to a believer in strong oversight. Clinton D. Lively, a number-cruncher who recently left the New York Fed, was one of the officials who played a major role.

Disturbingly, before the financial crisis of 2008, the Fed, which is the most important bank regulator and is charged with keeping the banking system safe and sound, couldn’t really do this kind of analysis, according to former Fed officials. It might have asked banks for the data on their exposures to specific countries, but it couldn’t play out a chain of events very easily. What if the central bank wanted to know what would happen to United States banks if the euro fell 20 percent in a short period? The Fed didn’t have the tools.

Now it does, thanks in part to the efforts of Mr. Lively and others. The assessment came with its own pitfalls. At time the Fed was gathering the data, a rumor started in markets that the Fed was worried about two Spanish banks. Some European banking supervisors became nervous about the Fed’s efforts and voiced those concerns.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is whether the data truly reflects all the risks. That continues to be a matter of intense debate within the central bank. Given the complexity of the trading arrangements within the global financial system, it’s far from clear that the banks have a handle on their own exposures. As we learned in 2008, hedges that seemed solid on Monday disappear on Tuesday.

Nevertheless, it’s good to know that the Fed isn’t flying blind.


Jesse Eisinger is a reporter for ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Email: jesse@propublica.org. Follow him on Twitter (@Eisingerj).

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/in-u-s-stress-tests-a-tool-to-gauge-contagion-in-europe/?partner=rss&emc=rss