Lunchtime Links 12-8

Dec 8, 2009 18:29 UTC

(Reader note: still working on the bugs….please click “continue reading” to see all the links)

Banks, U.S. spar over TARP repayment (David Enrich) This is the kind of thing that gives me a better feeling about Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. They are hammering banks to raise equity capital to get out of TARP. They have leverage and are using it productively, forcing bank shareholders to eat losses via dilution so that balance sheets are more stable. Great! Stick to your guns guys!

Questioning the unemployment rate (Kaminska, Alphaville) Dennis Gartman doesn’t buy the good news in the jobs report.

FASB wants accounting standards “decoupled” from bank capital rules (Norris, NYT) Can you blame ‘em? Seems to me Bob Herz just wants to be left alone. If regulators want to give banks more slack, fine.

Consumer credit contracts again (Federal Reserve) Though the contraction seems to be moderating. Just the latest improvement in the second derivative. I’m a fan of this trend. As consumers get out of debt, they rebuild their savings.

NY Fed President Dudley says monetary policy can limit leverage (CalculatedRisk) CR hightlights some key sections of Bill Dudley’s most recent speech. On the one hand it’s good to see him talk about the Fed’s ability to prevent credit bubbles by limiting leverage. On the other, he repeats that rates will stay low for an extended period. So the Fed is doing what it does best, inflating the next bubble. This time ’round they say they understand why that’s a problem. Yet they seem unwilling to do anything about it.

Obama to announce new jobs program (Zeleny, NYT) Including a cash for caulkers program….

BofA CEO candidate under scrutiny (Nadgir/Comlay/Eder, Reuters) Greg Curl was one of two names discussed at Judge Rakoff’s famous hearing back in August…

Greece faces ratings downgrade over spiraling deficit (Atkins/Oakley/Hope, FT) Alphaville is all over this story.

Don’t try this at home

Missed connection (Craigslist)

Late for work…

COMMENT

is there some sort of issue with using the ‘page down’ button for the latest batch of creativity-less web designers? oh, right, how will we get clicks unless we force readers to click just to read. at least we know its about content and not so much about money.

aka, new format = thumbs down

Posted by todd | Report as abusive

Amendment could neuter FASB

Nov 7, 2009 14:46 UTC

Sarbox isn’t the only regulatory regime under threat. As Ryan Grim writes over at HuffPo, an amendment has been introduced that would put FASB under the thumb of the new systemic risk oversight council, and give the council the power to literally do away with inconvenient accounting rules that pose a problem for banks.

Astonishingly, at a time when the public is crying out for greater regulation to limit excessive risk-taking by financial institutions, the banks are trying to get Congress to agree that the next time there’s a big downturn, they should have the ability to alter their accounting standards — essentially, fudge the numbers — so that the public and investors won’t be able to tell how insolvent they really are. By ignoring their declining asset values, they can avoid the standard requirement of raising more capital.

The mechanism is contained in an amendment set to be introduced in mid-November by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) that would move final authority over the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from the Securities and Exchange Commission to a new body, a so-called “oversight” board, that would include the officials charged with managing systemic risks to the financial markets.

Accountants are apoplectic. Even the Chamber of Commerce is fighting this, on behalf of their non-bank membership, co-signing a letter with the Center for Audit Quality and the Council of Institutional Investors:

By placing the FASB under the jurisdiction of a structure charged with managing systemic risks to the financial markets, accounting rules will be viewed though the narrow lens of a few large companies from specific industries, rather than considerate of the applicability of financial reporting policies to over 15,000 public companies. Such a narrow focus can skew standards such that it makes understanding of transactions that businesses engage in on a daily basis more difficult and undermine the confidence of investors. We believe that the SEC has been and continues to be best suited to provide the oversight of the FASB for such a broad and diverse economy.

As such, we strongly support an independent standards-setting process, subject to public scrutiny and free of undue pressures.

Another helpful bit of the article explains how it isn’t Wall Street driving this, it’s smaller community banks.

It bothers me how small banks have been able to set themselves up as David to the Wall St. Goliath. No, they don’t benefit from TBTF guarantees so, yes, they are at a disadvantage relative to Wall St.

But that’s not a reason to bend the rules in their favor. No they didn’t get involved in more exotic products that blew up Wall St., but many got caught in the CRE mania. If they are insolvent, they need to be shut down. Otherwise they’ll continue to absorb capital that should go to solvent banks and borrowers.

But congressmen tend to like little guy storis (also they like campaign contributions from community banks) so many are happy to sponsor this race to the bottom.

(By the way….it’s interesting that Kanjorski is against this. Recall that it was his subcommittee that browbeat FASB into overriding fair value rules earlier this year.)

COMMENT

These acronyms only mean anything to New Yorkers, but this is a microcosm in the Global context. Andrew and Benny, transactional, systems driven banking should be run by Feds and Treasuries, all the ‘retrenchees’ can apply for Government jobs. Consolidation of smaller and community banks under one brand, let’s say per State, e.g. the Community Bank of Alaska, would lead to trust competition for other services, which will drive down fees.

Posted by Casper | Report as abusive

America’s Japanese banks

Aug 17, 2009 16:04 UTC

A banking system loaded down with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of unrecognized bad debt — Japan in the 1990s? No, it’s the United States today.

And where are American banks hiding their losses?  Among other places, in their loan portfolios.

problem-debt-areas1

(Click table to enlarge in new window)

Banks have  written down billions in toxic securities, but many toxic loans are still carried at close to full value.  According to data published by the Federal Reserve late last year, banks are carrying $3 trillion of residential real estate loans and $1.7 trillion of commercial real estate loans on their books for a total of $4.7 trillion.  Dan Alpert at Westwood Capital thinks as much as a fifth of that total could be uncollectable.

“We know lots of mortgage loans are underwater,” he says, describing the situation where the value of collateral has fallen below the principal balance of a loan.  “A majority of the loans banks are holding were originated at the height of the bubble, when securitization broke down.”

When securitization markets were fully functional, banks had been able to package and sell their loans to investors.  When those markets buckled, banks were forced to eat their own cooking — much of it rancid.

Banks argue that loans should not be marked down if they’re still “performing.”  As long as borrowers are meeting their contractual obligations, there’s no reason to take a writedown.  The problem is, this gives banks an excuse to extend, amend and pretend. They can make concessions on loan terms or delay foreclosure notices, if only to maintain the fiction that borrowers will make good.

With real estate prices likely to fall, and stay, 40 percent below the peak, borrowers have a big incentive to renege on their side of the bargain.  This is how we become Japan.  Emergency bailout facilities allow banks that otherwise would have failed under the weight of bad loans to hold those loans to maturity — pretending the bad ones will be paid off in full over time.

In reality, many loans will default and banks will bleed capital for years.   Take commercial real estate.  As the Congressional Oversight Panel has reported, few CRE loans that were originated at the peak will qualify for refinancing when they mature. Banks can pretend they will, carrying the loans at values far above what will ever be paid back.

FASB wants to bring some clarity to the issue.  A plan under discussion would force banks to record loans at fair value on their balance sheets.  But it’s not clear how much good that would do.

One problem is that it’s much more difficult to determine the fair value of a loan than it is the fair value of a security, where more liquid markets with more frequent price quotes make measurement relatively easier.  With loans, banks must rely on internal models.what-loans-are-worth

Banks are now required to report fair value estimates four times a year.  But the most recent data raises just as many questions as it answers.

(Click table to enlarge in new window)

For instance, what estimates are banks using in their models?   As Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg noted, Regions Financial carries its loans at 34 percent above fair value, Citigroup carries its loans at no premium.   This could mean Regions faces bigger losses down the road, or it could mean Citi’s fair-value calculation is too charitable.  More likely, it means both.

Determining fair value is largely subjective.  So FASB’s proposal, to make banks adjust their balance sheets accordingly, is imperfect.  It could have a positive impact if regulators use the new information to force banks to raise more capital, cushioning balance sheets from the future writedowns we know are lurking.

But will banks raise enough?  Probably not.  Alpert is highly skeptical that banks’ fair value estimates are accurate: “Given the decline in value of collateral backing these loans, it’s very likely banks are underestimating the severity of future losses.”

So what do we do?  We can start by eliminating government guarantees that allow banks to avoid dealing with the problem.  As things stand, the biggest banks have no incentive to write down loans because the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Treasury Department have, in effect, promised them unlimited financing to hold loans to maturity.

As the Japanese can tell you, this is just a recipe for stagnation.  Thanks to a debt bubble that authorities refused to deal with decisively, that country is now entering its third consecutive lost decade.

COMMENT

Christian,That would only happen if interest rates stayed the same, *then* you’d see housing prices reinflate. But with inflation comes higher interest rates, and higher interest rates mean lower prices because the interest makes the asset more expensive to afford.A 600,000 property at 5% is relatively the same as a 175,000 property at 23%. It’s what people can afford that drives housing.Interest going up will cause property values to collapse.

  •