“Hello, my name is ABC Bank and I’m undercapitalised” Cue clapping and welcoming support from other Banks. It is often said in order to overcome your problems, you first have to admit you have one. The SCAP methodology released on Friday was another great example of pretending things are better than they are. Now, it’s not hard to be cynical about the White Paper, but it is hard not to be. There are plenty of things you can poke holes at…my personal favs include
- Each participating firm was instructed to project potential losses on its loan, investment, and trading securities portfolios etc. The report goes on in the same vein. The institutions we asked to provide etc. Erm, so the Banks are providing the estimates and the Fed and co are taking them at their word. How many times in the last 18 months have we heard banks come out and say they were well capitalised. This is definitely the last time we need to raise capital. We don’t need to lower our marks, there’ll be a H2 recovery and we’ll get out of these positions.
- I think most would agree that the Adverse scenario could/should well have been the base case scenario.
- The loan portfolios are valued at amortized cost instead of mark to market…as a result “The economic value of loans in the accrual book is reduced through the loan loss reserving process when repayment becomes doubtful, but is not reduced for fluctuations in market prices” No prizes for guessing which holds the greater value.
- The baseline scenario assumes no further losses above current marks!
One thing that also struck me was in the preamble on the
website where they say over 150 people were involved and that the process was extensive. So we’re talking circa 8 people per bank. The banks submitted their projections in early March and we’re getting the results May 4th. Now as I’ve said before, I’m not an accountant, but 150 people “scrutinising” 19 banks, which are mired in toxic assets, does not seem that extensive to me. In order to follow up on my hunch, I did some primary research…and asked an accountant friend of mine*. Now if you consider, to conduct an audit on a global bank takes at least 1000 people multiple months. 8 people over two months seems like they may be short of some manpower. Now you wouldn't necessarily have to have an audit when conducting a stress test - the key link to the audit is that the opening balance sheet is accurate (which is clearly questionable for these banks). Models are simplified so they can be reviewed and understood quickly so you would not need as many people as in an audit and those you do have would be far more experienced. In any case, the fruits of my research estimate it would take 40-50 people two months to stress test a large global bank.
It was surprising to me (perhaps I should stop being surprised by this sort of stuff) the market reaction to the White Paper. A bit of a sell off and then a rally back. The cover ups continue and so does the rally.
And another thing…I was also pretty surprised (note to self, see above paragraph) by the reaction of the credit card companies post Amex figures last week. They pretty clearly showed ongoing deterioration. Charge off rates jumped to 8.5% and the outlook was for another 2-2.5% increase in Q2. Looking back, we’ve had 4.3% Q108, 5.3% Q2, 5.9% Q3 and 6.75% Q4. It showed that card spending has fallen heavily and the beat was of low quality. There was a big gain from Mastercard and Visa settlements and the core US card services business actually came in at a loss of $25m vs $523m last year. The market didn’t seem to care though, there was a headline beat and the stock bounced 20%.
So in summary…a hocus pocus stress test methodology and the market goes up. Poor numbers and macro extrapolation from AXP, COF etc figures and the market goes up. What does it take to get the market down…as bad case of flu. Bizarre…
*This accountant does not work for Friehling & Horowitz