17/6/2013: Deutsche, AIB and Cypriot Banks: 3 links

Back in 2011, I wrote about the extreme leverage ratios in some of Europe's top banks: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2011/09/13092011-german-and-french-banks.html. Deutsche Bank was at the top of the list. Now, 19 moths later it seems others are catching up: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/financial-regulation-deutsche-idUSL2N0EO1D220130614.

And while on topic of banks, let's check this one for the record: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aib-will-not-repay-35bn-cash-it-owes-to-the-state-29337833.html. I wrote about this in Sunday Times last weekend, in passim, but this is more comprehensive article.

Another link of worth on the topic of banks is Cyprus banks fiasco history from ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-17/guest-post-real-story-cyprus-debt-crisis-part-1

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 4

This is the fourth post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report, and probably last.

The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area.html

The second post dealt with the Technical Note coverage of the Non-Performing Loans issues: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_15.html

The third part focused on the real economy side of the banking sector risks within the euro area: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_5878.html

And related Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .


This note is focusing on the actual report itself: European Union: Financial Sector Stability Assessment.


Top-level assessment:

Per IMF: "Much has been achieved to address the recent financial crisis in Europe, but vulnerabilities remain and intensified efforts are needed across a wide front:

• "Bank balance sheet repair. Progress toward strong capital buffers needs to be secured and disclosures enhanced. To reinforce the process, selective asset quality reviews should be conducted by national authorities, coordinated at the EU level." [In Irish context, the real review should be carried out, imo, across the quality of capital claimed to be present on banks balance sheets. Rating agencies have highlighted the Ponzi-like risk scheme whereby contingent capital measures are provided by the Sovereign supports whereby neither the Sovereign, nor the banking system can actually sustain a call on capital of any appreciable volume. Asset quality reviews are also needed, as Irish banks are carrying large exposures to unsustainable and already defaulting mortgages.]
• "Fast and sustained progress toward an effective Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and the banking union (BU). This is needed to anchor financial stability in the euro area (EA) and for ongoing crisis management. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is to take up its role to directly recapitalize banks as soon as the SSM becomes effective." [It is pretty much clear now that ESM is not going to be deployed unless significant pressure rises on Italy and/or Spain. In this context, calling for 'effective' ESM is like calling for a 'real' Santa Claus. Meanwhile, neither the SSM nor BU can be expected to become functional any time soon. The institutions behind both are yet to be defined, let alone fully legislated. And from legislation line, it's a long distance still to functionality.]

"Restoring financial stability in the EU has been a major challenge. The initial policy response to the crisis was handicapped by the absence of robust national, EU-wide and EA-wide crisis management frameworks. In a low-growth environment,
several EU countries are still struggling to regain competitiveness, fiscal sustainability, and sound private sector balance sheets. Their financial systems are facing funding pressures as a result of excessive leverage, risky business models, and an adverse feedback loop with sovereigns and the real economy."
[This is significant across a number of points. Firstly, in contrast to the European leadership claimed wisdom, the IMF clearly links banking crisis not just to sovereign crisis, but to the real economy, and these links follow not just balance sheet line, but the line of private sector debts. Secondly, the IMF clearly believes that private sector debt overhang is a core structural problem and has contagion implications across the entire system. EU leaders, even in countries heavily impacted by debt overhang, like Ireland, are solely obsessed with banks balance sheets (less) and sovereign finances (more).]

"Much has been done to address these challenges… Nevertheless, financial stability has not been assured. Recent Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) assessments of individual EU member states have noted remaining vulnerabilities to:

• stresses and dislocations in wholesale funding markets; 
• a loss of market confidence in sovereign debt; 
• further downward movements in asset prices; and 
• downward shocks to growth." 

"These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by

• the high degree of concentration in the banking sector; 
• regulatory and policy uncertainty; and 
• the major gaps in the policy framework that still need to be filled."

"The SSM—while critically important––represents only one of a number of crucial steps that need to be taken to fill key gaps in the EU’s financial oversight framework.

• "As crisis tensions abate, it is important that the implicit unlimited sovereign guarantees in place for the last several years be effectively removed through affirmation and implementation of the principle that institutions with solvency problems must be resolved." [Note: in Ireland's case once again there is a departure from this principle - we are, simply put, not resolving insolvent institutions presence in the market. Instead, we are continuing to deleverage and consolidate the insolvent banking sector at the expense of its future viability and current borrowers and non-financial companies requiring credit. Resolving insolvency - especially after 4.5 years of supports - requires shutting down insolvent banks. That would de facto mean survival of the Bank of Ireland and significantly slimmed down AIB. And that's all. None else. We are far, far away from the Government even considering such an action, which means that the zombified banking sector will continue extract excessive rents out of stressed borrowers and businesses in this country for years to come all to dress up the banking sector 'stabilisation' whilst achieving no structural resolution of the crisis.]
• "The Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) should become operational at around the same time as the SSM becomes effective. Resolution should aim to minimize costs to taxpayers, as well as to deposit insurance and resolution funds, without disrupting financial stability." [The sheer nonsense of this statement is exposed by the core EU authorities insistence that ESM will not apply retrospectively. In other words, the ESM will be a promise of a miracle cure to the dying patient contingent of the patient surviving for a number of years required to devise the cure. And the same applies to the last two points below.]
• "This should be accompanied by agreement on a time-bound roadmap to set up a single resolution authority, and common deposit guarantee scheme (DGS), with common backstops." 
• "Guidelines for the ESM to directly recapitalize banks need to be clarified as soon as possible, so that it becomes operational as soon as the SSM is effective."

So here you go, folks, per IMF, there's an ambulance to help the injured, but currently it exists only on the paper and even as such it is still pretty much unworkable. Good luck with setting up that triage, mates.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 3

This is the third post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.


The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area.html

The second post dealt with the Technical Note coverage of the Non-Performing Loans issues: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-imf-assessment-of-euro-area_15.html

And related Euromoney Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .

This note is focusing on the Technical Note on Financial Integration and Fragmentation in the European Union.


Let's start with a fascinating chart showing the sources of financing for the real economy in the EU compared to the US:

The scary bit here is the overall significant imbalances built in the system of financing in the EA17, compared to Denmark, and to the US:

• Thin bond markets across ALL euro area states
• Inexistent private credit markets
• Imbalanced over-reliance on bank credit
• In the case of Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Germany, Malta, Finland and Greece - mature markets were characterised with exceptionally thin or thin equity markets

And as chart below shows, euro area is also suffering from extreme over-concentration of the banking credit markets in the hands of the 'globally systemically important banks' (G-SIBs):

Per IMF: "The main EU banking systems are dominated by a set of globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs). These European G-SIBs have grown in size and importance and are highly interconnected with the rest of the global financial system (see Annex 1). Their assets more than tripled since 2000, amounting to US $27 trillion in 2010. As key players in global derivatives and cross-border interbank markets, they are also among the most interconnected GSIBs. European G-SIBs tend to be larger and more leveraged than their peers. In particular, they are very large relative to home country GDP, and in many EU countries, their size may dwarf the capacity of the home government to raise revenues."

Per footnote, this over-concentration is driven by the legacy models of banking in the euro area: "In part this is because European banks tend to follow the universal banking model, which combines a range of retail, corporate, and investment banking activities under one roof. There are some accounting differences that would make the balance sheets of the IFRS-reporting banks appear more “inflated” than the balance sheets of banks reporting under the U.S. GAAP (e.g., netting of derivative and other trading items is only rarely possible under IFRS, but netting is applied whenever counterparty netting agreements are in place under U.S. GAAP)."

Not surprisingly, banking sector stress directly links to the real economy and even more so to the sovereign positions:

And, within the real economy, the crisis is hitting the hardest the SMEs: "The deleveraging process raises concerns about a credit crunch that would particularly affect SMEs. SMEs in peripheral Europe are particularly hard hit by the deleveraging process, as deposit outflows and capital shortages at banks limit the availability and raise the cost of bank loans. Data from the European Commission and European Central Bank Survey on the Access to Finance of SMEs show that the availability of external finance from banks has decreased since 2009 while the demand for external finance has increased.

"However, there is much cross-country variation, with the availability of external finance having deteriorated markedly since 2009 in Greece and Ireland and having remained fairly stable in countries like Finland and Germany. Regression analysis suggests that the deterioration in the supply of credit to SMEs is partly driven by the financial dis-integration process, as measured by the decline in cross-border BIS claims."

Which, of course, is not surprising - Big Banks Dominance = Closer Links to the Governments and Big Business via the Social Partnership / Corporatist models for governance.

So, great stuff, Messr Kenny & Noonan - Irish banks (duopoly-modeled super-concentration with above average links to sovereigns and some of the most aggressive delveraging plans on the books within the EA17) offer as much hope of restarting lending to SMEs as that of sustaining viable rice growing industry in Sahara.


The next post will continue with my analysis of the IMF report and technical notes. Stay tuned for more later tonight.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 2

This is the second post on today's release by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.

The first post - summarising top-line conclusion from the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe is available here:


And related Euromoney Country Risk Survey study for Q1 2013 covering euro area banking sector risks is available here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html .

Some beef on the Non-Performing Loans (NPLs):

"NPLs in EU banks continue to rise, outpacing loan growth (Figure 4). Since 2007, loans to the economy have decreased by 3 percent while NPLs increased by almost 150 percent, i.e., €308 billion in absolute terms. And, this trend shows no sign of reversal, reflecting the continued macro deterioration in parts of the EU and the absence of restructuring."

"When NPLs remain on balance sheets, they absorb management capacity, and continued losses can weaken banks’ profitability. They can also foster forbearance, thereby deterring new investors by impairing transparency. In several countries, independent asset quality reviews and stress tests have facilitated a diagnosis of the quality of banks’ assets, supporting prospects for private recapitalization."

Per IMF note: NPLs have jumped from 2.6 percent in December 2007 to 8.4 percent of total loans in June 2012

Euro area periphery is worst-hit, for obvious reasons: "NPLs across EU banks differ largely, with those in the “peripheral” countries (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) witnessing the largest increases. For instance, from December 2007 to June 2012, the NPL ratio for Italy increased by 2.5 times, while in Spain, the increase was seven times (Figure 5). Ireland stands out with average NPLs of around 30 percent, followed by Hungary and Greece. However, definitions in this area remain non-harmonized and impair comparability across the EU".

Now, note that 'turned-the-corner' Ireland is in the league of its own when it comes to NPLs ratio to total loans. Taken to the average ratio of total loans to GDP, Irish NPLs must be absolutely stratospheric.


And now, onto IMF view of the NPL resolution processes in the euro area (again, italics are mine and all quotes are directly from the IMF note):

"Borrower restructuring needs to be facilitated, with legal hurdles lifted. The legal framework should facilitate the restructuring of NPLs and maximize asset recovery. In several EU countries, including Italy, Greece and Portugal, the IMF is involved in bankruptcy/insolvency law reform, including by introducing fast track restructuring tools and out-of-court restructuring process. For instance, repossession of the collateral backing a retail mortgage may take several years in Italy versus few months in Scandinavia and United Kingdom. The asset recovery process is also very prolonged in many EEE countries."

[Do note absence of IMF input in the case of Ireland and that is a general gist of the Note - it simply passes no assessment of the Irish personal insolvency regime 'reforms', which is strange given the prominence of these reforms and the fact that these are the first comprehensive reforms in the euro area periphery. Personally, I read this lack of analysis as the IMF reluctance to endorse the Irish Government approach to the NPLs resolution when it relates to mortgages.]

"An efficient framework for handling NPLs is key to rehabilitate viable borrowers and provide the exit of non-viable borrowers."

[Note the IMF emphasis on rehabilitating viable borrowers AND providing the exit for non-viable borrowers. These twin objectives strike contrast with the Irish Government approach to resolving the personal insolvencies and mortgages crises. Instead of rehabilitating viable borrowers, the Irish Government is pursuing an approach of giving the banks full power to avoid any writedowns of the loans, even when such writedowns can define the difference between rehabilitation and insolvency. When it comes to providing exit for non-viable borrowers, the Irish Government has adopted the approach of reforming the personal insolvency regime from 12 years bankruptcy duration to 3 years, but then extended the process of availing of the bankruptcy from few months to up to 3 years. The pre-bankruptcy period of up to 3 years under the new regime is a period during which the banks have full power to extract all resources out of the households with little protection for the household, in contrast with the previous bankruptcy regime. Thus, in terms of life-cycle financial health, Irish households going through the new reformed personal insolvency process are unlikely to gain any meaningful relief compared to the previous regime.]

"Active management of NPLs is needed. In principle, NPLs can either be:

1. retained and managed by banks themselves at appropriately written-down values, while the banks receive financial assistance from the government for recapitalization; or
2. relocated or sold to one or more decentralized “bad banks,” loan recovery companies, or Asset Management Companies (AMCs) that specialize in the management of impaired assets; 
3. sold to a centralized AMC set up for public policy purposes (possibly when the size of NPLs reaches systemic proportions)."

IMF also notes that: "The European Banking Coordination “Vienna” Initiative (2012) in a working group focused on NPL issues in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Recommendations, among others, focused on establishing a conducive legal framework for NPL resolution, removing tax impediments and regulatory obstacles, as well as enabling out-of-court settlements."


Stay tuned for the third and subsequent posts covering other technical notes released by the IMF.

15/3/2013: IMF Assessment of the Euro Area Banking Sector Risks - part 1

Today's releases of the horror flicks starring Irish financial sector are up and running, folks.

As noted in the previous note - premiering Q1 2013 article on euro area banking sector analysis from Euromoney Country Risk surveys (link: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/03/1532013-irish-banks-still-second.html) - the IMF has released today 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union report.


This is the first blog post on the report and associated technical papers, and it covers the Technical Note on Progress with Bank Restructuring and Resolution in Europe.


From the top-line conclusions by the IMF (all quotes marked, italics within quotes are mine):

1. "The European Union (EU) banking system restructuring is under way, but is far from complete. Some bank restructuring has started, and the level Tier 1 capital ratios of EU banks have been substantially increased."
2. "But system-wide, capital ratios have been met partly by deleveraging or recalibrations of the risk weights on activities."
3. "Consolidation in the banking sector has been slow, with banks rarely closed."
4. "Nonperforming loans are building up in banks’ balance sheets, and addiction to central bank liquidity remains high especially for banks in peripheral countries."
5. "Despite the EBA recapitalization exercise having led to €200 billion of new capital or reduction of capital needs by European banks, fresh capital is difficult to attract in an environment where prospects for profitability are uncertain."
6. "Several hurdles impair restructuring and resolution in Europe, and urgent progress needs to be made:

• "First, EU bank resolution tools need to be strengthened, aligning them with the Financial Stability Board Key Attributes for Effective Resolution. Fast adoption of the EU resolution directive is welcome, but enhancements are warranted. Swift transposition should follow." [We are still ages away from having any effective resolution tools and any sort of functional regulatory consolidation, let alone functional and effective supervisory consolidation.]
• "Second, restructuring of nonperforming loans (NPLs) should be facilitated [more on this below]. The legal framework should not slow down restructuring and maximize asset recovery. In several EU countries, such as Italy, Greece and in Eastern Europe, bankruptcy reforms lag behind in that, for instance, current practice does not allow the seizure of collateral in a reasonable timeframe. Banks should also manage more actively their NPLs, possibly allowing a market for distress assets to emerge in Europe." [Note the absence of Ireland in the list of laggards above. It is generally strange that the IMF is avoiding passing any judgement on the only case of actual reforms that has impacted only one of the peripheral countries.] 
• "Third, further evolution of the General Directorate for Competition’s (DG COMP) practices will be needed in systemic cases to ensure consistency with a country’s macro-financial framework and support viability of weak banks, recovery of market access, and credit provision. Increased transparency would give added credibility and accountability." [Again, we are ages away from delivering on these.]
• "Fourth, disclosure should be significantly enhanced and harmonized by the EBA, to restore market confidence. In particular, interpretable metrics regarding the quality of banks’ assets, in terms of NPLs, collateral, probability of defaults (PD) and loan recovery rates (LGD) are key for assessing the strength of banks and restoring confidence in the banking system." [see comment above]

Summary: what needs to be done is, largely, nowhere to be seen, yet...

Update:


And when it comes to much of hope of the forthcoming regulatory changes altering the status quo of the dysfunctional regulatory system, don't hold your breath, folks.

The Big Hope is on the forthcoming EU resolution directive aiming to create coordinated system of responses to any future structural financial crises. Here's IMF view on that one:

• First, polite stuff: "A critical new EU resolution directive is in preparation. As a national approach to resolution may well not be appropriate in the EU given the importance of cross-border banking, and the failure of existing cross-country coordination mechanisms, the European Commission (EC) has taken steps to harmonize and strengthen domestic resolution regimes. This should help avoid regulatory arbitrage and make orderly resolution effective and efficient for cross-border banks. In June 2012, the Commission issued a draft directive for harmonized crisis management and resolution framework in all EU countries. The Irish Presidency will make the adoption of the resolution framework a top priority and plans to adopt it during the first part of 2013. The new national resolution regimes endow EU countries with strong early intervention powers and resolution tools. The transposition of the directive into national laws should be accelerated relative to the current deadlines (01/2015, and 01/2018 for bail-ins)."

I wrote about this Directive recently (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/02/2422013-eus-banking-union-plan-can.html) and was not too enthusiastic. Alas, here's IMF's less pleasing assessment, although dressed up in polite language of 'suggestions':

• "Box 1. Proposed Resolution Directive––Risks and Areas for Enhancements

1. Resolution of banks is undermined by the absence of a more effective EU-wide framework to fund resolution. Binding mediation powers for the EBA and mutual borrowing arrangements between national funds face inherent constraints (in particular, the EBA cannot impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of EU member states).
2. Passage of the directive will substantially enhance the range of tools available to resolution agencies in the EU. But the scope of the directive should be widened to include systemic insurance companies and financial market infrastructures. The European Commission launched a consultation at the end of 2012 on this issue. All banks should be subject to the regime, without the possibility of ordinary corporate insolvency proceedings.
3. The breadth and timing of the triggers for resolution should be enhanced by providing the authority with sufficient flexibility to determine the non-viability of the financial institution (including breaches of liquidity requirements and other serious regulatory failings, not just capital/asset shortfalls). There should be provision for mandatory intervention in the event a specified solvency trigger is crossed.
4. The directive affords less flexibility for using certain resolution powers than the key attributes. For instance, it does not permit exercising the mandatory recapitalization power and the asset separation tool on a standalone basis. Also, bail-in safeguards should not prevent departure from pari passu treatment where necessary on grounds of financial stability or to maximize value for creditors as a whole.
5. Depositor preference should be established for insured depositors2, with the right of subrogation for the DGS."

Thus, to sum up the best-hope response of the EU - it is useless, largely toothless and predominantly weak. And to add to this - it will only be fully functions in 2018! You might as well think we live in a Natural History museum, where urgency of response is differentiated by months, rather than minutes.




Next post will cover the issue of Non-Performing Loans.

15/3/2013: Irish banks - still the second sickest of the sick euro area banking sector

In anticipation of the today's release (16:00 GMT) by the IMF of the 2013 Financial System Stability Assessment Report for European Union, Euromoney Country Risk analysts have published an interesting article Country Risk: Five years on, banks still inflict chronic pain on eurozone. Here are some of the very insightful charts - including an update on the previously covered banks stability scores (see here for January 2013 post and here for Q3 2012 data).

Let's start with the aforementioned chart on banks stability scores:

Pretty poor showing here for Ireland. Unlike the rest of the economy, we clearly have not 'decoupled' from the peripherals in terms of banking sector health and that is given:

1. Unprecedented and incomparable by the rest of the EZ standards levels of support for banks in Ireland;
2. Lack of any progress on mortgages crisis; and
3. Longer duration of the banking crisis in Ireland than in any other peripheral state.

We had the second weakest banking sector in the EZ throughout 2011-2012 and we still do. So much for the theory that Irish banks are 'lending into the economy' or 'have been repaired' and so much real support for the body of economic knowledge that says the deeper the debt overhang crisis, the longer and the deeper the required deleveraging crisis...

Now, something that shows that despite the consensus in Ireland and in the bonds markets, we are not quite due an upgrade as risks are still favouring continuation of the banking crisis (note, my view is that we are due an upgrade, but a single notch one, to reflect economic decoupling from the peripherals):

And the sovereign-banks links? Well, they are still there and still nasty for Ireland:

And here are few sobering words from the ECR:

"While some observers might still be convinced the worst of the banking crisis is over, the [Euromoney’s Country Risk] survey provides compelling evidence that bank stability risks are as concerning, if not worse now, for many European countries than at the beginning of last year, according to its contributing experts. More than five years on from the catastrophic events of 2007/08, the resolution of the region’s banking sector problems is still firmly at the top of policymakers’ to-do list, but with plans seemingly stalling, the implications of failing to act could prove critical."

Just in case you are in the 'green jersey' 'we've-turned-the-corner' camp, here's ECR quote putting Irish gains in the above scores into perspective:

"Across the eurozone, bank stability risks were unchanged last year in four countries – Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Slovakia; with Cyprus the lowest of the group – and improved in four more: Malta, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. However, for the latter three, the rebounds were small and their scores remained at low levels of 5.5, 4.3 and 3.3 out of 10 respectively, illustrating heightened levels of risk."

So how bad are things in the euro periphery and in Ireland? Well:  "And the banks are just as problematic across the periphery. Taken as a whole, the seven riskiest eurozone countries (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus and Slovenia) had an average bank stability score below that of most other regions, worse even than Mena or Latin America – see chart (below)." Keep in mind, that is for the average and Ireland is way worse than the average.

So next time you see Irish 'banks' adds claiming they are 'open for business' and 'doing our bit to help the economy' etc, just check these charts once again. They are, by all international comparatives, graveyard zombies, still holding this island at ransom.

16/7/2012: GFSR July 2012 - more alarm bells for European banks

IMF published Global Financial Stability Report update for June 2012, titled “Intense Financial Risks: Time for Action”

Per report: “Risks to financial stability have increased since the April 2012 Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR).

• Sovereign yields in southern Europe have risen sharply amid further erosion of the investor base.
• Elevated funding and market pressures pose risks of further cuts in peripheral euro area credit.
• The measures agreed at the recent European Union (EU) leaders’ summit provide significant steps to address the immediate crisis. Aside from supportive monetary and liquidity policies, the timely implementation of the recently agreed measures, together with further progress on banking and fiscal unions, must be a priority.
• Uncertainties about the asset quality of banks’ balance sheets must be resolved quickly, with capital injections and restructurings where needed.
•  Growth prospects in other advanced countries and emerging markets have also weakened, leaving them less able to deal with spillovers from the euro area crisis or to address their own home-grown fiscal and financial vulnerabilities. 
•  Uncertainties on the fiscal outlook and federal debt ceiling in the United States present a latent risk to financial stability."

Aside from the headlines, some interesting points from the report are:

• Market conditions worsened significantly in May and June, with measures of financial market stress reverting to, and in some cases surpassing, the levels seen during the worst period in November last year.  (see Figure 1)

•   The 3-year LTROs helped support demand for peripheral sovereign debt but that positive effect has waned. Private capital outflows continued to erode the foreign investor base in Italy and Spain (see Figures 3 and 4)

An interesting point on Euro area banking sector [emphasis mine]: “Notwithstanding the ample liquidity provided by the ECB’s refinancing operations, funding conditions for many peripheral banks and firms have deteriorated. Interbank conditions remain strained, with very limited activity in unsecured term markets, and liquidity hoarding by core euro area banks. Bank bond issuance has dropped off precipitously, with little investor demand even at higher interest rates.

“Banks in the euro area periphery have had to turn to the ECB to replace lost funding support, as cross-border wholesale funding dried up, and deposit outflows continue. The April 2012 GFSR noted that EU banks are under pressure to cut back assets, due to funding strains and market pressures, as well as to longer-term structural and regulatory drivers. The sharp reduction in bank balance sheets in the fourth quarter of 2011 continued, albeit at a slower pace, in the first quarter of 2012.

Growth in euro area private sector credit diverged significantly. While credit has contracted in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, it has remained more stable in some core countries.

Survey data on bank lending conditions show that credit supply remains tight, albeit less so than at the end of 2011, but that demand has also weakened more recently.

Deleveraging is also a concern for many peripheral corporations, given their historic dependence on bank funding and the risk that credit downgrades and diminished investor appetite could drive borrowing costs higher, even for high credit quality issuers.”

Now, here’s an interesting point not raised in the GFSR, but linked to the above observations: equities issuance accounts for roughly 55% of total corporate capital in US and EU. However, because the US corporates issue more bonds-backed debt than their EU counterparts, banks lending accounts for 40% of the European corporate funds raised, against 20% in the US. Which means that banks credit is about twice more important in Europe than in the US in terms of funding corporate capex. In fact, recent research from BCA clearly links US corporates ability to raise direct market funding by-passing banks to faster economic recovery in the US than in EU or Japan.

Add to this equation that European banks are worse capitalized than their US counterparts and that they are more leveraged than their US counterparts and you have a bleak prospect for the EU economy. BCA recently estimated that to bring Euro zone banks’ capital ratios to the levels comparable with the US average, the largest EU banks will have to raise some USD900 billion worth of new capital or cut their assets base by a whooping USD 9 trillion.

But wait, there’s more – you’ve heard about the latest report in the WSJ that Mario Draghi proposed to bail-in senior bondhodlers in Spanish banks? Much of the Irish commentary on this was positive, suggesting that Ireland is now in line for a retrospective deal from the ECB to recover some of the funds we paid to senior bondholders in Anglo and INBS. Setting aside the ‘wishful thinking’ nature of such comments – look at Draghi’s idea implications for EU economic activity. If bail-in does make it to the policy tool of European authorities, funding for the EA17 banks will only become more expensive in the medium and long term (risk premium on ‘bail-in probability’), which, in turn will mean even less credit for corporates, which will mean even less capex, and thus even lower prospect of recovery.

You know the story – pull one end of the carriage out of the quicksand pit, the other end sinks deeper… Let me quote BCA: “In Japan, credit contraction lasted well over nine years in the aftermath of the asset bubble bust. During that time, deflation prevailed and economic growth averaged a measly 0.5% annual pace.” Much of hope for Europe then? Not really. Recall that Japan had aggressive fiscal and monetary policies at its disposal plus booming global markets when it was undergoing credit bust. We, however, have psychotic monetary policy, no fiscal policy room and are running debt deflation cycle amidst global economic slowdown.

IMF is also on the note here: “Policymakers must resolve the uncertainty about bank asset quality and support the strengthening of banks’ balance sheets. Bank capital or funding structures in many institutions remain weak and insufficient to restore market confidence. In some cases, bank recapitalizations and restructurings need to be pursued, including through direct equity injections from the ESM into weak but viable banks…”

2/4/2012: Banks bailouts and bonds eligibility

Two important documents relating to banks bonds, Sovereign Guarantees and the bondholders' haircuts.

First, the ECB decision of March 21 that was rumored to have been implemented by the Bundesbank last week - allowing the NCBs not to accept as collateral Government-guaranteed bank bonds from the countries currently in the EU-IMF financial assistance programmes (aka Greece, Ireland and Portugal). Here's the link. Key quote (emphasis mine):
"Acceptance of certain government-guaranteed bank bonds: On 21 March 2012 the Governing Council adopted Decision ECB/2012/4 amending Decision ECB/2011/25 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral. According to that Decision, National Central Banks (NCBs) are not obliged to accept as collateral for Eurosystem credit operations eligible bank bonds guaranteed by a Member State under an EU-IMF financial assistance programme, or by a Member State whose credit assessment does not comply with the Eurosystem’s benchmark for establishing its minimum requirement for high credit standards. The Decision is available on the ECB’s website."

Hat tip for the link to @OwenCallan of Danske Markets.

However, the latest information is that Bundesbank clarified that it will continue accepting all EA17 Government bonds. See link here. Confusion continues as to what Bundesbank will and will not accept.

Second, today's release by the EU Commission of the consultation paper on dealing with future banks crises and bailouts. Titled "Discussion paper on the debt write-down tool – bail-in". The paper clearly states (emphasis is mine, again):

"Rather than relying on taxpayers, a mechanism is needed to stop the contagion to other banks

and cut the possible domino effect. It should allow public authorities to spread unmanageable

losses on banks' shareholders and creditors."

The proposals advanced by the EU are not new: "In most countries, bank and non-bank companies

in financial difficulties are subject to "insolvency" proceedings. These proceedings allow either

for the reorganization of the company (which implies a reduction, agreed with the creditors, of its

debt burden) or its liquidation and allocation of the losses to the creditors, or both. In all the

cases creditors and shareholders do not get paid in full."

Per EU: "An effective resolution regime should:

• Achieve, for banks, similar results to those of normal insolvency proceedings, in terms of allocation of losses to shareholders and creditors
• Shield as much as possible any negative effect on financial stability and limit the recourse to taxpayers' money
• Ensure legal certainty, transparency and predictability as to the treatment that shareholders and creditors will receive, so as to provide clarity to investors to enable them to assess the risk associated with their investments and make informed investment decisions prior to insolvency."

There is no point at this stage to explain that in Ireland's case, NONE of the above points were delivered in the crisis resolution measures supported by the EU and actively imposed onto Ireland by the ECB.

It is, however, worth noting that the Option 1 advanced by the EU includes imposing losses on senior bondholders and that the tool kit for doing this includes debt-equity swaps. Readers of this blog would be well familiar with the fact that I supported exactly these measures.

17/2/2012: Harmful Competition? Not so fast...

In recent years there has been much said about the dangers of competition in the banking sector across the EU and specifically in Ireland. Unfortunately, for the proponents of the argument that less competition will be a good thing, the facts are simply not stacking up in their favor.

Since 1997 ECB has published what is known as Herfindahl Index for European banking systems. The index is a measure of the size of banks in relation to overall sector, thus indicating the actual amount of competition in the national banking system. At 1.0 Index reading, the national banking system is fully monopolized by a single firm. Closer to zero, the system is characterized by the smaller, more directly competing banks.

So here are two charts:

Both show that

1. Higher Herfindahl Index reading (lower degree of competition) does not coincide with more stable or less crisis-impacted banking systems
2. During the period of bubble formation there was a reduction, not an increase in banking sector competition in Euro Area, so greater competition did not cause or contribute to the bubble inflation. In fact, the evidence is rather suggestive of the opposite effect.
3. In Ireland, competition pressures in the banking sector actually declined significantly in the years preceding the crisis (2001-2007) and it had subsequently dropped even more dramatically during the crisis.
4. Ireland's banking sector, at any time in the data period covered, was characterized by the levels of competition comparable to those found in Austria, Spain, and France, well below those of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK and relatively comparable to those in Sweden

So no, 'harmful competition' in Irish banking sector did not cause our crisis, nor did it even contribute to it.

08/12/2011: Let the failed banks fail

John Cochrane on Europe's banking crisis:

"What financial system will we reconstruct from the ashes? The only possible answer seems to me, to go back to the beginning. We'll have to reconstruct a financial system purged of run-prone assets, and the pretense that nobody holds risk. Don't subsidize short-term debt with a tax shield and regulatory preference; tax it; or ban it for anything close to "too big to fail." Fix the contractual flaws that make shadow bank liabilities prone to runs."

and

"For nearly 100 years we have tried to stop runs with government guarantees--deposit insurance, generous lender of last resort, and bailouts. That patch leads to huge moral hazard. Giving a banker a bailout guarantee is like giving a teenager keys to the car and a case of whisky."

and

"European banks have all along been allowed to hold sovereign debt at face value, with zero capital requirement. It's perfectly safe, right?"

Brilliant.

Read the full note here.

12/10/2011: Starting on the right footing

Two longer-term points to start the day (and renewing the EFSF debate) right, folks.

Point 1 - Global macro and long term - excellent posts today from the Guardian (here) and from barry Eichengreen for Project Syndicate (here) both dealing with EFSF as a non-solution to the crisis, regardless of the size. Both post, just as all other analysis I've read so far can benefit from one additional reality check. What happens if/when the EFSF in its enlarged form gets implemented?

The focus of everyone's analysis so far has been the banks and the sovereign yields/ratings. Let's take a peek further ahead, to say 2014. With EFSF in place, some €500bn+ of liquidity has been pumped into the markets. The banks have taken some significant share of recapitalization funds and dumped these into Government bonds, EFSF bonds, and risky assets around the world. The Governments, having received a boost from the sovereign bond markets via their own banks are back on track to 'stimulating' the economy and the households are now fully pricing in not only their still intact gargantuan debt levels, but also future Government-assumed liabilities in EFSF. The ECB balancesheet is loaded with EFSF paper and short-term lending is rampant, implying that unwinding short term liquidity supply becomes impossible for the ECB without risking a massive liquidity crisis in the banking system. Next trace of post-EFSF world is... stagflation in the Euro land:

• Banks rising capital means margins on loans will rise, while private investment capital is now being courted by the banks at the same time as the corporates go for more debt and equity.
• Governments borrowing resumed means rates are pressured up to sustain euro valuations, which means policy rates are supported to the upside.
• ECB coffers full of EFSF paper means policy rates are supported to further upside.
• States-supported banking sector in Europe means lending supply down, compounded by higher capital calls.
• Taxes on ordinary income and wealth up, means no growth, compounding interest rates effects, despite Government 'stimulus'.

With European economy bifurcated into state-dependent sectors kept alive via debt issuance and private sector economy still on the death bed, as rates creep up to (retail levels) double digits for prime borrowers,wat takes place?

1. Heavily indebted households are being squeezed on both ends of their budget constraint;
2. Heavily debt-dependent European corporates are desperately trying to raise funding via equity issuance which runs against banks looking for more equity investors. Resulting capital crunch puts any hope for recovery on ice.
3. ECB, unable to unwind short-term funding to the banks and holding vast supply of EFSF-linked paper keeps the rates higher than Taylor rule would imply.

The problem, is that absent a direct and robust writedown of private debts and some sovereign debts, and restructuring of the banking sector, EFSF or any other similar measure, no matter how large it will be, will not be able to break the dilemma of "either banks go bust or economy goes bust".

Which brings us to Point 2: What needs to be done in restoring the banking sector to health?

Instead of focusing on immediate funding and capital issues, we need to focus on the actual causes of the disease:

Cause 1: too much debt in the system (real economy) highlighted here.

Cause 2: insolvent banking institutions nursing massive losses going forward.

To deal with both we need a systematic approach to restructuring the banking sector and household balancesheets. The latter is a tough call - expensive and hard to structure. But it will be impossible without the former and via netting of balancesheets it can be aided by the former. So here's the broadly outlined roadmap for restructuring Europe's banking sector:

Resolving Euro area banking crisis requires bold and immediate action. An independent panel, under the aegis of ECB and EBA should review the operational, capital and risk positions of top 250 banks across the Euro area and independently stress-test the banks based on mid-range assumed scenarios of sovereign bonds haircuts of 75% loss on Greek bonds, 40% loss on Portuguese bonds, 20% loss on Irish bonds, and 10% loss on Italian and Spanish bonds. In addition, risk weightings must reflect specific bank's dependency on ECB / Central Banks funding. 

The banks should be divided into 3 categories based on this stress test assessment: Solvent and Liquid banks (SL), with post-stress capital ratios of 8% and above and ECB/CB funding covering no more than 15-20% of the assets, Solvent but Illiquid banks (SI) with capital ratios of 6-8% and ECB/CB funding covering no more than 30% of the assets, and Insolvent and Illiquid banks (II) with capital ratios below 6% and ECB/CB funding covering more than 31% of the assets base.

SL banks should be required to raise additional funding in the private markets and de-leverage post capital raising to Loans to Deposits ratio (LDR) of no more than 110% over the next 5 years. 

SI banks are to be restructured, stripping back some of the non-performing assets, reducing LDRs to 100% over the next 2 years and recapitalizing them through public injection of funds from the EFSF-styled vehicle warehoused within the ECB with a mandate to unwind the vehicle through a 50% writedown of liabilities to EFSF (debt write-offs via cancelation of some of the real economic debts held by these banks - debts of households and non-financial corporations) and 50% recoverable from the banks over the period of 15 years. Public funding for recapitalization must follow full writedown of equity and non-senior debt and partial haircuts on senior debt.

II banks are to be wound down via liquidation - their performing assets and deposits sold and non-performing assets written down against capital and lenders' liabilities (bonds). 

If followed, this approach will deliver, within 12-18 months a fully cleansed banking sector for the Euro zone and improve debt overhang in the real economy, while encouraging new banks formation and competition.

21/09/2011: ESRB warns of contagion across euro area financial systems

The General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) held its third regular meeting today on September 21st, and here are the highlights.

In terms of assessing the current situation, the ESRB stated that "since the previous ESRB General Board meeting on 22 June 2011, risks to the stability of the EU financial system have increased considerably. Key risks stem from potential further adverse feedback effects between sovereign risks, funding vulnerabilities within the EU banking sector, and a weakening of growth outlooks both at global and EU levels."

So what ESRB is saying here is that the crisis has completed full circle: if in 2008-2009 transmission of risks worked from insolvent banking sector to insolvent sovereigns and (technically always solvent) monetary authorities via liquidity supports & recapitalization schemes, since 2010 through today the risks have flown the other way - from insolvent sovereigns to insolvent banks via bust bond valuations. The only question that remains now, is where the vicious spiral swing next. In my view - at least in anti-taxpayer, anti-competition Europe it will force taxpayers to directly recapitalize the banks (see IMF's latest calls and the rumor that France is about to go this way) to protect incumbent banking license holders from bankruptcy, receiverships and competition from healthier and new banks.

"Over the last months, sovereign stress has moved from smaller economies to some of the larger EU countries. Signs of stress are evident in many European government bond markets, while the high volatility in equity markets indicates that tensions have spread across capital markets around the world. The situation has been aggravated by the progressive drying-up of bank term funding markets, and availability of US dollar funding to EU banks had also decreased significantly. In that context, central banks have decided on coordinated US dollar liquidity-providing operations with longer maturities."

Nothing new in the above, but it is nice to see an honest admission of the ongoing liquidity crisis. Now, recall that I have said on numerous occasions that bank runs start with a run on the bank by its funders. This is what we term a liquidity crunch - interbank markets freeze, banks bonds funding streams dry out. Only after that can the depositor run develop, usually starting with corporate depositors. Funny enough - the ESRB wouldn't say it out-loud, but in effect it already called in the above statement a bank run in funding markets. Worse, we also know - from the likes of Siemens transaction reported here (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/20092011-eu-banks-losing-corporate.html ) - that to some extent (unknown) corporate deposits run might be taking place as well. Next?

"The high interconnectedness in the EU financial system has led to a rapidly rising risk of significant contagion. This threatens financial stability in the EU as a whole and adversely impacts the real economy in Europe and beyond."
Boom!

So, per ESRB:
"Decisive and swift action is required from all authorities. In the immediate future this includes:
* implementing, fully and rapidly, the measures agreed upon at the 21 July meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area;
* adopting sustainable fiscal policies and growth-enhancing structural measures so as to achieve or maintain credibility of sovereign signatures in global markets; and
* enhancing the coordination and consistency of communication.
Now, I am not a fan of July 21 decisions, primarily because they do not address the core issue of the crisis - too much debt in the system and too little growth. EFSF purchasing sovereign bonds and lending to insolvent states is not going to reduce the debt pile accumulated by European Governments. Nor will extending maturity and lowering interest rates on its loans help improve economic situation in PIIGS and beyond. So I would disagree with ESRB on the first bullet point.

Calling for adoption of sustainable fiscal policies and growth enhancing measures is like telling a person sinking in a bog to pull harder on his hair. Fiscal sustainability is not being delivered in any of the PIIGS so far, and there is absolutely no appetite for any Government in Europe to take properly drastic measures required to get their finances on sustainable path. Even the very definition of sustainability used by EU is a mad one (let alone not a single state actually adhered to it so far with exception of Finland). A deficit of 3% pa means that you get to 100% debt/GDP ratio in longer time than with a deficit of 5% pa. But you will still get there, folks. Debt to GDP ratio of 60% is only sustainable if, in the environment of 3% 10-year yields your economy expands by more than 1.8% pa (assuming no population growth and no amortization and depreciation under balanced budget). That has not happened in the euro zone in any single 10 year period since we have full data for its members.

Growth-enhancing measures adoption is another case of pure 'wishful' thinking. In most of the Euro area and indeed in the EU Commission, this usually means more subsidies and more state spending. In parts of Central and Eastern Europe it usually means promoting real private sector competition and investment. Of course, we know who weathered the storm best in the last two recessions. But, hey, ESRB wouldn't make a call as to what it means by this "adopting... growth-enhancing measures" despite the fact that much of "growth enhancements" unleashed on euro area economies in recent past is precisely what got us into the current sovereign debt mess in the first place.

As per its last bullet point, one starts to wonder if ESRB is going down the slippery line of 'rhetoric ahead of action'. What does "enhancing the coordination and consistency of communication" mean? All of the EU policymakers 'speaking with one voice'? Curtailing or otherwise minimizing dissent? Controlling information flows? What the hell, pardon my French here, does it really mean, folks?

On a beefy ending, ESRB prescribes that: "Supervisors should coordinate efforts to strengthen bank capital, including having recourse to backstop facilities, taking also into account the need for transparent and consistent valuation of sovereign exposures. If necessary, this could benefit from the possibility for the European Financial Stability Facility to lend to governments in order to recapitalise banks, including in non-programme countries."

I am sorry to say this, but if anyone reading this is going to vote in the Dail on the European Financial Stability Facility and Euro Area Loan Facility (Amendment) Bill 2011 you really have to understand this statement. In effect, ESRB here welcomes loading of the risks of insolvent banking systems - including in non-programme countries - into one single facility, the EFSF, which will have preventative powers to intervene in the markets to buy distressed debts of banks and sovereigns. In a sense, EFSF will become a super-dump - a motherload of super toxic financial refuse from both radioactively insolvent sovereigns and biochemically toxic banks. You wouldn't want THIS anywhere near your local constituency.

13/09/2011: German and French Banks - "extreme" leverage & elevated risks

So what's the real trouble with German (and French) banks, folks? Errrm... they are kinda seriously bordering the "insolvency" territory.

The sources for this information, in addition to those cited below, include an excellent research note prepared by Peter Mathews (FG), TD for the Dail Finance Committee, the IMF GFSR and IMF WEO databases.

Deutsche Bank

Leveraged 52:1 (16 August 2011) based on a Tangible Common Equity (TCE) to Total Asset measurement.

Tangible Common Equity is a better gauge of solvency than Tier 1 capital, particularly in the midst of a liquidity crisis. Tier 1 gives no sense of a bank's ability to withstand a liquidity crunch as it includes market-sensitive instruments that are subject to liquidity and price declines risks. Tangible Common Equity is also a much better indicator of a bank's ability to raise further funds in the market as it inversely relates to the rate of assets dilution implied in any rights issuance. (1), (2)

As TCE of €36.2bn is written against €1.85 trillion of assets, DB has just 1.96% cover in form of TCE against assets it holds - a writedown of just 2% on the asset values (cross the book) will wipe out the DB TCE cushion, rendering its current equity-holders de facto bust. Even excluding derivatives, MorningStar estimated DB leverage (TCE ratio 2.1%) at 47.6:1.

DE's current leverage levels compare unfavorably against 44:1 TCE leveraging on Lehman Bros books at the time of collapse (ordinary leverage ratio in Lehman's prior to collapse was 31:1) and makes DB the second most-leveraged bank in the euro area after Credit Agricole.

To bring DB closer to sustainable levels of TCE delveraging - 8-10% reading (note this is different from Tier 1 capital) will require it raising €110-150 billion in equity (depending on specifics of risk weighting ratios) or 3-4 times the current valuation of TCE or 3-4 times the current market value of the DB. Implied dilution for current equity holders under such scenario bears the risk of 75%- 80% loss on equity.

Note that 8-10% ratios are rather conservative, considering that in 2006-2009 TCEs for countries with banking sector crisis averaged (across top100 banks) TCEs of 11.5% to 15.3%. (3) Raising TCEs to the crisis-average levels of ca 13.4% will require equity raising of ca 5.7 times current market valuations or implied dilution of current equity by 85%.

To match TCE/Total Asset leverage ratio of the most leveraged US bank, JP Morgan chase (5.58%), DB would require €67 billion of additional equity or equity raising to the tune of 1.8 times current market cap.

DE's current market capitalisation of €37 billion as of 2 September matches relatively closely tangible common equity of €36.2 billion. In previous weeks, DE market cap fell as low as €26 billion or 70% of TCE. A market capitalisation at or below TCE is a warning sign that the bank is in trouble and questions surround its solvency and stability.

Worse than that, per research from Espirito Santo, DB liquid assets as % of the short term (<1 year) funding in 2010 stood at 47%, well below global leaders Credit Suisse (82%), UBS (77%) and Barclays (59%). At the same time 2010 wholesale funding maturity requirement was 49% - in excess of the iquid assets cover. Again, Credit Suisse had 33% funding call against 82% cover.

DB is structurally important to Germany as its assets stand at around €1.85 trillion, close to 75% of Germany's 2010 GDP (€ 2.498 trillion).

DB exposure to Greek assets is €1.6 billion for the core Group components (sovereign debt only), of which €1.34 billion in Deutsche Postbank AG exposures. Under 70% haircut scenario across the entire DB Group, the total implied loss will be around 5% of TCE.

Commerzbank

Current leverage around 35:1 in TCE terms, which is elevated compared to both historical averages and 2008-2009 crisis levels for comparable institutions. Given current assets valuations at ca €700 billion, the implied TCE is 2.92%, which means that a writedown of 3% of the assets will result in a complete wipe-out of TCE.

The core problem with 35:1 TCE leveraging in the current environment of globally impaired liquidity is that any deleveraging of the balance sheet will require substantial equity rising, similar to that in DE as discussed above. Adjusting for derivatives held, TCE ratio in Commerzbank runs at 30:1 - according to MorningStar who called this leverage ratio as consistent with "extreme" risk rating.

Together with DB, Commerzbank account for ca 102% of German GDP. As German debt to GDP ratio currently stands at 83% and heading for 87% , German taxpayers can see significant adverse impact of the DB and Commerzbank recapitalizations should the calls on PIIGS come in.

Commerzbank is the most exposed of all German banks when it comes to Greek sovereign debt, with nominal exposure at of the end of Q2 2011 of €2.9 billion. Applying the market-expected mid-point writedown in the case of default of 70%, bank losses on the Greek sovereign bonds will wipe out around 19% of the bank equity.

Recent data shows deep concentrations of Greek risks exposures in German banking sector, with German commercial banks holding ca €19.3 billion in public sector debt from Greece, €2.9 billion worth of banks debt from Greek banks and €7.4 billion of corporate and private debt, to the total of €29.5 billion (per BIS data). According to Fitch research, only €13.1 billion of that is on the banks balancesheets, the rest tucked away off the books.


French Banks

Credit Agricole is leveraged 70:1 (assets €1.5 trillion), while BNP Paribas is leveraged 36:1 (assets €1.93 trillion, Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of 9.6% well below minimum standard set for SIFIs of 10%). Bank's assets to market value currently stands at 64:1. BNP's exposure to Greek debt is now at ca €4 billion. SocGen is leveraged 34:1 (assets €1.16 trillion) on TCE basis and 28:1 on ordinary basis (again, recall Lehman's numbers at the point of collapse were 44:1 and 31:1) the bank has huge short term funding requirements presently being exposed by the flight out of Europe by US money market funds and Asian investors. SocGen exposure to PIIGS debt is €4.3 billion, referring to banking book only. SocGen is also in trouble on the liquid assets side with 26% ratio of liquid assets to short-term wholesale funding calls in 2010. Worse, wholesale funding that matured within 1 year of 2010 as percent of total wholesale funding was 69% for SocGen. Three French pillar banks have assets coming in at well over 200% of French GDP.

The banks are aggressively moving out of the PIIGS with SocGen in recent note stated that it cut its exposures to the peripheral states by 23% since early June 2011, taking out $1.5 billion and $2 billion in assets from Greek and Italian books. French banks total exposure to Greece is estimated at around $89 billion.

On top of this, French banks are now becoming effectively shut out of the dollar funding markets (4). And liquidity woes do not stop there. US Prime money funds have cut their holdings in certificates of deposits from French banks by about 40% in the three months through August 11. The proportion of the remaining holdings of French banks short term funding notes maturing in less than a month increased to 56% on August 11 from 17% on June 11. (5) The banks, of course, deny this is happening.

Let's run though some grim figures for one of the French "dogs" - BNP: as of June 30, 2011, the bank had €109bn worth of sovereign bonds on its books, amounting to 190% of the bank TCE (that's JUST Government bonds!), of which €31bn (or 54% of TCE) was in PIIGS bonds split as follows: Portugal - €1.7bn, Ireland - €400mln, Italy - €23bn, Greece - €3.8bn, and Spain €2.5bn. 95% of these exposures were held on banking book. So, now, let's do the same exercise as above - apply 50% haircut to Greek bonds, 25% haircuts to Porto bonds, 15% to Spanish, Irish and Italian bonds - all below market rates of implied haircuts, but let's indulge them with this assumption. This adds up to a writedown of €6.21bn or a wipe out of 11% of TCE. Bank becomes insolvent.


Summary

To summarise the above, two of German core banking institutions are currently operating in the extremely risky environment with leverage levels that can be classified as "extreme". The French banking system is even more sick than the German one with leverage ratios close to those attained by Lehman and PIIGS exposures that are well in excess of "manageable", given already strained capital cushions.

In common parlance, if it barks & wags the tail, it's a dog... regardless of what the official stress tests and powerpoint slides say.


Notes

(1) See BASEL III: Long-term impact on economic performance and fluctuations, by P. Angelini, L. Clerc, V. Cúrdia, L. Gambacorta, A. Gerali, A. Locarno, R. Motto, W. Roeger, S. Van den Heuvel, J. Vlc_ek, BIS Working Paper 338, February 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1858724

(2) Note that Tier 1 capital is classified into different Tiers of capital, based broadly on the maturity profile of the capital invested. The most stable capital is Tier 1 capital and consists of items such as paid-up ordinary shares, non-cumulative and non- redeemable preference shares, non-repayable share premiums, disclosed reserves and retained earnings.

(3) Bank Behavior in Response to Basel III: A Cross-Country Analysis, by Thomas F. Cosimano and Dalia S. Hakura1, May 2011, WP/11/119, IMF Working Paper, Table 3.

(4) http://www.forexcrunch.com/bnp-paribas-executive-admits-access-denied-for-dollars/

(5) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-13/bnp-paribas-socgen-rebound-after-rejecting-funding-concerns.html