Showing posts with label stress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stress. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

S & P 500 Stress Test for the Bears


S and P 500, Chart, Daily, Midday.

S & P 500 Stress Test

Highlights:
  • It is early in the day but the market made a new low, below yesterday's low, reversed, and is now clawing its way back over 800. A positive short term development.
  • The chart gap is still in play. The S & P needs to trade to 813.43 to fill the gap. This area should be watched closely.
  • Trading is slow so far. However, it the market closes above that gap the bears will be forced to run for cover.
  • A close above yesterday's high of 810.48 would give us an outside up day. That would be very bullish. It would also give us another hook up in the chart.
  • We need to watch closely to be sure support is building below the market. A pattern of higher highs and higher lows is what we are looking for to remain bullish.
In spite of all the bear chatter and shorting in the market, the S and P is only 30 points from the high for this move--made last week. A move above yesterday's high will put extreme pressure on the bears.

Looks like a bear stress test to me so far.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist and twenty year Wall Street veteran. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. Content from All American Investor has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.


More from All American Investor




Wednesday, March 11, 2009

A conversation with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner


The following interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was performed by Charlie Rose.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

Follow us on Twitter

Bob DeMarco is a citizen journalist, blogger, and Caregiver. Bob has written more than 500 articles with more than 11,000 links to his work on the Internet. Content from All American Investor has been syndicated on Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Pluck, Blog Critics, and a growing list of newspaper websites. Bob is actively seeking syndication and writing assignments.



Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Bank Stress Test Economic Scenarios and Questions


The Bank Stress Test Questions and Purposes

Why are supervisors performing the capital assessments?

A: The U.S. Federal bank and thrift supervisors (supervisors) are conducting this exercise to determine if the largest U.S. banking organizations have sufficient capital buffers to withstand the impact of an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated.

Q2: Why is the exercise limited to banking organizations with assets greater than $100 billion? Will capital be made available to smaller financial institutions?

A: The banking organizations included in this exercise comprise the core of the US banking system representing roughly two‐thirds of aggregate U.S. Bank Holding Company assets. Eligible U.S. banking institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion may also obtain capital from the CAP. Eligibility will be consistent with the criteria and the deliberative process established for identifying Qualifying Financial Institutions (QFIs) in the existing Capital Purchase Program.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email
Follow us on Twitter

Also see: Bank Stress Test FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Supervisory Capital Assessment Program


Q2: Why is the exercise limited to banking organizations with assets greater than $100 billion? Will capital be made available to smaller financial institutions?

A: The banking organizations included in this exercise comprise the core of the US banking system representing roughly two‐thirds of aggregate U.S. Bank Holding Company assets. Eligible U.S. banking institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion may also obtain capital from the CAP. Eligibility will be consistent with the criteria and the deliberative process established for identifying Qualifying Financial Institutions (QFIs) in the existing Capital Purchase Program.

Q3: How will the capital assessment be conducted?

A: The supervisors will conduct these capital assessments on an interagency basis to ensure that they are carried out in a timely and consistent manner. Each participating financial institution has been instructed to analyze potential firm‐wide losses, including in its loan and securities portfolios, as well as from any off‐balance sheet commitments and contingent liabilities/exposures, under two defined economic scenarios over a two year time horizon (2009 – 2010). In addition, firms with trading assets of $100 billion or more are being asked to estimate potential trading‐related losses under these same scenarios.
Participating financial institutions will also forecast internal resources available to absorb losses, including pre‐provision net revenue and the allowance for loan losses. As part of the supervisory process, the supervisors will meet with senior management at each financial institution to review and discuss the institution’s loss and revenue forecasts. Based on those discussions, the supervisors will assess institution‐specific potential losses and estimated resources to absorb those losses under the baseline and more adverse case, and determine whether the institution has a sufficient capital buffer necessary to ensure each institution has the amount and quality of capital necessary to perform their vital role in the economy.

Q4: What scenario(s) will be used in the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment will cover two economic scenarios: a baseline scenario and a more adverse scenario. The details provided to participating financial institutions on these macroeconomic scenarios are attached as an Appendix to these FAQs.

Q5: Which asset categories will be covered by the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment is intended to capture all aspects of a financial institution’s business that would be impacted under the baseline and more adverse scenarios.

Q6: What will the supervisors do with the forecasts generated by the participating financial institutions? Will these forecasts be accepted at face value?

A: Supervisors will carefully evaluate the forecasts submitted by each financial institution to ensure they are appropriate, consistent with the firm’s underlying portfolio performance and reflective of each entity’s particular business activities and risk profile. The assessment of the firm’s capital and the size of any potential needed additions to capital will be determined by the supervisors.

Q7: What is the key capital measure/objective that will be targeted in the capital assessment?

A: The assessment of capital adequacy considers many factors including: the inherent risks of the institution’s exposures and business activities, the quality of its balance sheet assets and its off balance sheet commitments, the firm’s earning projections, expectations regarding economic conditions and the composition and quality of its capital.

Specific factors supervisors consider include: uncertainty about the potential impact on earnings and capital from current and prospective economic conditions; asset quality and concentrations of credit exposures; the potential for unanticipated losses and declines in asset values; off‐balance sheet and contingent liabilities (e.g., implicit and explicit liquidity and credit commitments); the composition, level and quality of capital; the ability of the institution to raise additional common stock and other forms of capital in the market; and other risks that are not fully captured in regulatory capital calculations.
Under current rules for bank holding companies, supervisors expect bank holding companies to hold capital above minimum regulatory capital levels, commensurate with the level and nature of the risks to which they are exposed. That amount of capital held in excess of minimum capital requirements should be commensurate with their firm‐specific risk profiles, and account for all material risks. The assessment of capital under the two macroeconomic scenarios being used in the capital assessment program will permit supervisors to ascertain whether the buffer over the regulatory capital minimum is appropriate under more severe but plausible scenarios.

Q8: What will be the source of capital if supervisors determine that a banking organization requires an additional capital buffer?

A: An institution that requires additional capital will enter into a commitment to issue a CAP convertible preferred security to the U.S. Treasury in an amount sufficient to meet the capital requirement determined through the supervisory assessment. Each institution will be permitted up to six months to raise private capital in public markets to meet this requirement and would be able to cancel the capital commitment without penalty. The CAP convertible preferred securities will be converted into common equity shares on an as‐needed basis. Financial institutions that issued preferred capital under Treasury’s existing Capital Purchase Program (TARP 1) will have the option of redeeming those securities and replacing them with the new CAP convertible preferred securities.

Q9: What recourse does a financial institution have if it disagrees with the outcome of the capital assessment?

A: The capital assessment is part of the supervisory process and thus subject to the same framework used for bank examinations or bank holding company inspections. There will be ample opportunity for discussions between the financial institutions and supervisory agencies regarding the loss estimates and earnings forecasts during the capital assessment process.


Q10: When will the process be completed?
A: The Federal supervisory agencies will conclude their work as soon as possible, but no later than the end of April.

Appendix ‐‐ Macroeconomic Assumptions

For implementation of the supervisory capital assessment program, the baseline assumptions for real GDP growth and the unemployment rate for 2009 and 2010 are assumed to be equal to the average of the projections published by Consensus Forecasts, the Blue Chip survey, and the Survey of Professional Forecasters in February. This baseline is intended to represent a consensus view about the depth and duration of the recession. Given the current uncertain environment, there is a risk that the economy could turn out to be appreciably weaker than expected than in the baseline outlook. To aid financial institutions in their ongoing risk management practices, the supervisors have also put together an alternative “more adverse” scenario. By design, the path of the US economy in this alternative more adverse scenario reflects a deeper and longer recession than in the baseline. The consensus expectation is that economic activity is likely to be better than shown in the more adverse alternative; nonetheless, an outcome such as the alternative cannot be ruled out.

The assumptions for the baseline economic outlook are consistent with the house price path implied by futures prices for the Case‐Shiller 10‐City Composite index and the average response to a special question on house prices in the latest Blue Chip survey. For the more adverse scenario, house prices are assumed to be about 10 percent lower at the end of 2010 relative to their level in the baseline scenario.



The “more adverse” scenario was constructed from the historical track record of private forecasters as well as their current assessments of uncertainty. In particular, based on the historical accuracy of Blue Chip forecasts made since the late 1970s, the likelihood that the average unemployment rate in 2010 could be at least as high as in the alternative more adverse scenario is roughly 10 percent. In addition, the subjective probability assessments provided by participants in the January Consensus Forecasts survey and the February Survey of Professional Forecasters imply a roughly 15 percent chance that real GDP growth could be as least as low, and unemployment at least as high, as assumed in the more adverse scenario.
2 Based on the year‐to‐year variability in house prices since 1900, and controlling for macroeconomic factors, there is roughly a 10 percent probability that house prices will be 10 percent lower than in the baseline by 2010.

More from All American Investor




Stress Test Good, Could lead to a Bottom in the Stock Market


This is one of the better articles I have read on the stress test--Stress Test for Banks Exposes Rift on Wall St. It has me thinking about the long term direction of the stock market.

I think if you read this article carefully you might conclude that much of what is being written about banks is getting discounted in the stock market. I am not saying everything is beautiful. Quite the contrary, we are teetering on the brink of disaster. But, I find myself asking myself constantly--has the market discounted the news. It is always hard when things look bleak to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the market always discounts the future long before the future gets here. The market always bottoms when things look bleakest to the herd. The herd tends to focus on the recent past, rarely looking forward into the future.

I am reminding myself that back in 1990-91 Ross Perot was shorting Citibank stock. If you had bought the stock back then you could have made more than 30 times your money by 2006.

At the time of the 1991 recession there were many that felt the banks were going to go broke. Remember, we were just coming through the S and L Crisis and the failure of some major banks in the southwest. The stock market had crashed in 1987 and we were entering a recession. The time really looked bleak. Most investors had thrown in the towel and were focusing on the past.

If you are old enough, you might remember that from 1966 to 1982 the market traded in a broad trading range that was capped by Dow 1060. Up and down, up and down, The Dow did crash down to the 550 area in 1973, and the 750 area in 1980.

Most of you are too young to remember that the S an P 500 traded around 102 in 1973 and again in 1982 (you read that right 102). It turned out that August, 1982 was the bottom of a long term consolidation and the beginning of the bull market. The Dow crashed through the ceiling and the market soared.

I am starting to believe we are nearing a major low in the market. So put me down the way I have been for some time--long term bullish, short term bearish. Not quite ready to the jump all the way into the pool. It is a good time to stick your foot in the water and check the temperature.

These hot flash day rallies in this stock market downturn are not making me feel like I am missing out on anything. I do find it amusing that every time we have a nice up day the talking heads on television get all excited and start talking bull market.

The market rarely goes up or down in a straight line. The rallies right now are for suckers who think every tiny piece of news is what is going to make the market go up or down long term. Each piece of news is like a piece of the puzzle. It is not the puzzle.

These hot interpretations of every little blip on the news screen makes the market go up and down like a yo-yo. But, it is the long term trend of the market that is most important; and, the big picture fundamentals set the stage for the big big moves. You make the big bucks by spotting the long term trends and being patient once they get underway.

I'll leave with two things. First, read the article about stress testing banks--to me this is a good thing and might be an event that could put in the bottom for the stock market. I am thinking we could be in for a 20-30 percent rally soon. Second, the major trend of the stock market is still down--so it is very risky to have the boat loaded. Foot in the water--good, water up to your neck--not good. Chicken on hill, maybe.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email


Stress Test for Banks Exposes Rift on Wall St

The New York Times
By ERIC DASH

Big banks keep insisting that they have all the capital they need — a claim that might strike many people as absurd at a time the government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the financial industry.

So here is a surprise: By some common measures, the banks do have enough capital.

The problem is, it is not the kind of capital investors think the banks need.

For years, the question of what constitutes a bank’s capital, and how to measure it, was largely academic. But the issue is coming to the fore as federal regulators start administering a tough new “stress test” to 20 large banks on Wednesday to determine how the banks would withstand a severe economic downturn.

Investors in the stock market and the banks are increasingly at odds over how to assess the health of financial institutions. Where regulators side could determine the fate of many lenders, particularly big banks like Citigroup and Bank of America, whose share prices have plummeted this year on fears the government will increase its ownership of them.

Until the financial system deteriorated last fall, investors focused on what is known as Tier 1 capital, which consists of common stock, preferred stock and hybrid debt-equity instruments.

Now, however, they are focusing on what is called tangible equity capital, which includes only common stock, saying it is a better way to measure the risk in bank shares.

The difference might sound like something only an accountant would worry about, but it lies at the heart of two questions confounding both Washington and Wall Street: Are the nation’s banks sound? And are bank shares a good barometer for the health of the financial system?

Sheila C. Bair, the head of the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, said on Tuesday that the nation’s banking industry was safe. “All these large banks exceed regulatory standards for being well capitalized, so for right now, they’re fine,” Ms. Bair said on CBS television’s “The Early Show.”

“I think the big issue is how much of an additional buffer they have to withstand more adverse economic situations and that’s something we’re going to try to figure out with a stress test.”

But Citigroup, which maintains that it is well capitalized by its regulators’ standards, was nonetheless locked in negotiations with the government on Tuesday over a third rescue. Under the plan, the government is expected to raise its stake in Citigroup to 30 to 40 percent, from about 8 percent now. The deal, which was moving toward completion and could be announced as early as Wednesday, would bolster the level of common stock that investors are focused on.

At Bank of America, Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive, assured the bank’s employees on Monday that Bank of America has enough capital, including common stock. “I have said repeatedly that our company does not need further assistance today and I don’t believe we’ll need any more in the future,” Mr. Lewis wrote in a memorandum.

Like regulators, investors are struggling to determine how much additional capital banks might require if the recession deepens and unemployment rises, developments that would almost certainly lead to new, heavy losses at banks.

Institutions that fail the stress test will be required to raise new capital, probably through more money from the government.

Beaten-down financial shares rallied on Tuesday after Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, seemed to rebuff suggestions that banks might be nationalized outright. Even so, Mr. Bernanke offered a sober assessment of the economy to Congress on Tuesday.

Details of the bank stress test are scant, but federal regulators are expected to examine the ability of banks to cope with a situation in which unemployment rose to 10 to 12 percent and home prices declined by an additional 20 percent, according to Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials. While officials say they don’t expect such a severe downturn, some economists aren’t ruling one out.

In recent weeks, federal regulators were planning to continue to demand that banks maintain Tier 1 capital equivalent of at least 6 percent of total assets adjusted for risk. Regulators also want at least half of it in common stock, but have given banks some leeway.

On Monday, the federal banking regulators issued a statement saying that if the stress test indicated an “additional capital buffer” was necessary for some institutions, it “did not imply a new capital standard and is not expected to be maintained.”

But stock investors are homing in on tangible common equity. Whereas Tier 1 capital gives regulators comfort because it captures a bank’s ability to weather a financial storm, stock investors, who suffer the first losses, are worried about their own exposure. Tangible common equity, or T.C.E., they argue, is the best measure for them.

Until last fall, there was little difference between the two measures. But when the government made big investments of preferred stock to shore up banks, common shareholders became more vulnerable.

John McDonald, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, compared the move to an army reinforcing its troops from the back. “Any reinforcements improve the chances of winning the battle,” he said. But if you are a stockholder, “you are still the guy taking the first hit on the front line.”

Regulators worry that banks’ depositors and trading partners might interpret more bad news for banks — including a continued decline in share prices — as a sign confidence is flagging. As a result, regulators, too, are focusing more on tangible equity.

“If our banking system looks frail and hobbled, we care since there could be a loss of confidence” Mr. McDonald said. “But the stock price may very well not be a reflection of the broader risk.”

Louise Story contributed reporting.



More from All American Investor




Monday, February 23, 2009

Stress Test for Banks the Best Medicine


There are growing doubts about banks and there can be little doubt we are on the edge of a "run on banks". Bank of America and Citigroup are at the top of the lists. I have to admit, I have an account at both banks--yikes.

As doubt and angst grows , the Obama administration is announcing that a review of 20 major banks is forthcoming. This review of banks is often known as a stress test. Stress testing has a lot of people worried. They reason that stress testing will likely scare the heck out of investors. If Nouriel Roubini is right this will leave no choice but to nationalize. Roubini, who coined the term Zombie bank, has been saying for sometime that the banks are broke. I don't think there is much doubt that if all assets were marked to the market this would prove to be true.

One problem with pricing toxic assets and distressed assets in banks is that no one knows the real price. The system is basically frozen with little trading taking place. Sooner or later, something has to to give.

Toxic assets, nationalization, Zombie bank, these are all terms that are hanging over banks like a tornado cloud just waiting to touch down.

What do I think? Let's get it all out in the open. Obama is taking heat from the likes of Bill Clinton for being too pessimistic. I think the American public is very pessimistic. Markets don't go up when investors are uncertain or pessimistic. The only way out of this trap is to bring it all up on to the table and let us take a look at this ugly situation.

My guess is that once the true extent of the problem is known it will be quickly discounted in the stock market. Once that occurs we can go about solving that problems instead of letting the problems hang out their like an impending guillotine over our heads.

The market is going down until it fully discounts the economic problems we are facing. For me, the sooner it happens the better. I am starting to feel very bullish long term on stocks (still very bearish short term). But, I learned a long time ago that you make a lot better returns in the stock market when times are certain, rather than uncertain. Who wants to stand in front of a roaring freight train--not me.

I get the feeling that President Obama is going to let it all hang out. I bet he will receive lots of criticism from people suffering from Rick Santelli syndrome--better know as the "ignorance is bliss syndrome". Many are going to attack President Obama for telling too much. Well I think he said he intends to make things transparent. It is time for us to get our heads out of the sand and get back to doing the kinds of things that made America great. Get out the spoon--we all need a great big dose of Castor oil.
Subscribe to All American Investor via Email

U.S. bank stress tests to show capital needs: source

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Financial regulators will soon launch a series of "stress tests" to determine which of the largest U.S. banks should get bigger capital cushions in case of a deeper recession, a person familiar with Obama administration plans said on Saturday.

The person, speaking on condition of anonymity, said if institutions were found to need additional capital, financial authorities would provide them with an "extra cushion of support."

Banks are expected to receive additional information about the tests in the coming week from regulators.

The largest U.S. banks are "well capitalized" for current conditions, the source said, but the Obama administration wants to ensure they can withstand a more severe economic climate and play an important role in helping restart the flow of credit.

Initial plans for the stress tests were announced on February 10 as part of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank stabilization plan, but the source on Saturday for the first time linked the tests to additional government support for large banks. That person did not specify what form any extra capital cushion may take.

Little is known about the form of the stress tests, but the person described them as "consistent, forward looking and conservative."

The Obama administration tried on Friday to ease market fears the government was poised to nationalize some large banks that are struggling with losses and a lack of confidence, notably Citigroup and Bank of America.

Bank shares fell sharply, with Citigroup plunging 22 percent to below the $2 fee of a typical automated teller machine, or ATM, and Bank of America trading around the $4 level.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday, "This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go."

That was quickly echoed by a statement from the U.S. Treasury.

INVESTORS LOSE CONFIDENCE

Citigroup and Bank of America have each received $45 billion in government capital in recent months and guarantees against losses on portfolios of illiquid mortgage assets -- aid that now exceeds their market value.

With investors losing confidence in the sector as recessionary losses on real estate and commercial loans mount, analysts say the government may have to do more to prop up the largest banks.

But rather than opting for a sweeping takeover, the government may act more incrementally, demanding a little more control every time Bank of America or Citigroup seeks more capital, analysts said.

Major interventions in financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns 11 months ago, American International Group in September and a second-round investment in Citigroup, occurred just after major drops in share prices made it clear they could not raise private capital.

The government "will try to do everything they can before they nationalize banks, but they may ultimately do it," said Lee Delaporte, director of research at Dreman Value Management, which has $10 billion under management.

"The bank stocks are telling you nationalization is going to happen," Delaporte added.

Thus far, the Treasury has put up about $235 billion for banks largely by purchasing only preferred shares to avoid diluting common shareholders. Under Geithner's revamp, those injections could come in the form of shares that could be converted to common equity if necessary.

The lack of detail in Geithner's bank plan, particularly about a $500 billion to $1 trillion public-private fund to soak up toxic assets, has fueled investor concerns that bank takeovers could become an option. Geithner did not specify how much money would be earmarked for bank capital injections under the plan, which mapped out how the second $350 billion of the $700 billion bailout fund would be spent.

Geithner has devoted $50 billion to modify troubled mortgages and $100 billion to support a $1 trillion Federal Reserve asset-backed securities lending facility aimed at unblocking frozen consumer credit markets.

Lawmakers have pressed Geithner on whether and when he will return to seek more funding to shore up the banking system. Geithner told Congress on February 11 that as the "design elements" of his plan were fleshed out, he would have a better handle on the ultimate risks and costs for the program.

(Additional reporting by Dan Wilchins in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)

More from All American Investor