17/11/2014: All the years draining into banking cesspool...

So the tale of European banks deleveraging... record provisions, zero supply of credit for years, scores of devastated borrowers (corporate and personal), record subsidies, record drop in competition, rounds and rounds of 'stress testing' - all passed by virtually all, the Banking Union, the ESM break, forced writedowns in some countries, nationalisations, various LTROs, TLTROs, MROs, ABS, promises, threats, regulatory squeezes ... and the end game 6 years into the crisis?..

Per Bloomberg Brief, the sickest banking system on Planet Earth is... drum roll... Wester European one.

It is only made uglier by all the efforts wasted.

H/T for the chart to Jonathan. 

17/5/2014: That costly alphabet soup behind the European Banking Union

Two main building blocks of the Single Resolution Mechanism for future banks bailouts in the EU involve Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGSD) and the Bank
Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The issue at hand is funding the future bailouts.


The EU Member States are required to establish two types of financing arrangements:

• BRRD sets up the Resolution Fund to cover bank failure resolution. This will be used after 8% of losses gets covered by the bail-in of depositors and some funders.
• DGS covers deposits up to EUR100,000 in the case of a bank failure. 

There are several issues with both funds. For example, DSG funds (national level) will have to run parallel with the EU-wide Eurozone Single Resolution Fund (until the DSG pillar is integrated at a much later date into EBU). This implies serious duplication of costs over time and creation of the 'temporary'  but long-term national bureaucracy / administration which will be hard to unwind later.

By 2016, EA18 euro area members will have national DSG running parallel to EU18-wide single resolution runs (SRM) which cannot be merged together absent (potentially) a treaty revision, not EA-18 EU members will have national DSG and national resolution fund, which can be merged together.

What is worse is that national contributions to DSG cannot count toward national contributions to the resolution fund (SRM or in the case of non-EA18, to national resolution funds). This means that total national banking system-funded contributions to both funds will be 0.8% of covered deposits for DSG, plus 1% for SRM = minimum of 1.8% of covered deposits. Ask yourselves the simple question: given that banking in majority of the EU states is oligopolistic with high (and increasing) concentrated market power, who will pay these costs? Why, of course the real sector - depositors and non-financial, non-government borrowers.

It is worth noting that the 1.0% contribution to the resolution fund will cover not just covered deposits, but actually is a function of liabilities. In other words, it will be much larger proportion of covered deposits than 1%.

That is a hefty cost of the EBU and this cost will be carried by the real economy, not by financialised one. The taxpayers might get off the hook (somewhat - see here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/04/1742014-toothless-shark-eus-banking.html) but the taxpayers who are also customers of the banks will be hit upfront. And who wins? Bureaucrats and administrators who will get few thousands new jobs across the EU to manage duplicate funds, collections and accounts. The more things change… as Europeans usually say…

10/10/2013: IMF's GFSR October 2013: More Focus on Banks

Now, back to GFSR and banks. I covered some of the IMF findings on banks here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/10102013-imfs-gfsr-october-2013-focus_10.html

This time, let's take a look at what IMF unearthed on funding side of the banking systems. Fasten your seat belts, euro area folks…

Euro area banks have shallower deposits base than US banks… but, wait… euro area banks are supposedly 'universal' model, so supposed to have MORE deposits, than the originate and distribute model of the US banks… Oops… Euro area banks like holding banks deposits - just so contagion gets a bit more contagious. Euro area banks hold tiny proportion of equity, lower than that of the US banks.

By all means, this is a picture of weaker euro area banks than US banks - something I noted here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/9102013-leveraged-and-sick-euro-area.html

Another chart, more bumpy road for euro area:

Per above, there is a massive problem on funding side for euro area banks in the form of huge reliance on debt (both secured and unsecured). The US banks are much less reliant on secured debt (they can issue real paper and raise securitised funding) and they rely less overall on borrowing.

Chart below shows the structure of secured bank debt. Euro area again stand out with huge reliance on covered bonds. US stands out in terms of its continued reliance on MBS. The crisis focal point of the latter did not go away… and the crisis focal source of contagion - banks debt funding - has not gone from euro area's 'reformed' banks.

Happy times... Mr Draghi today expressed his conviction that euro area banks have been cured from their ills... right... hopium-783 is the toast of Frankfurt.

10/10/2013: IMF's GFSR October 2013: Focus on Banks

As promised in the earlier post, focusing on Corporate Debt Overhang (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/10102013-imfs-gfsr-october-2013-focus.html), I am covering in a series of posts the latest IMF GFSR.

Let's take a look at the banking sector focus within the GFSR:

Note the relatively healthy position of the euro area banks on the basis of Tier 1 capital ratios. However, when it comes to leverage, the chart below shows a ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets (the so-called Tangible Leverage ratio). The higher the number in the first chart above, the lower is the capital ratio ('bad thing'), the higher the number is in the chart below, the higher is the ratio of equity to assets ('good thing'):

So euro area banks are doing fine by Tier 1 capital, but are not fine by leverage... As the rest of the IMF analysis highlights, much of this aberrational result arises from the nature of the euro area banking model (assets-heavy 'universal banking' model), plus, as IMF politely puts:

"The conflicting signals also highlight the  importance of restoring investor confidence in the accuracy and consistency of bank risk weights. This also suggests that risk-weighted capital ratios should be supplemented by leverage ratios, as proposed in the Basel III framework."

No comment on the above...

GFSR is deadly on profitability of banks and equity valuations. Here's the key chart:

Notice the concentration of euro area banks at the bottom of the distribution. Still think Irish banks shares held by the Exchequer are worth EUR11 billion?.. really?.. By the chart above, they should be valued at around 2-3% of their tangible assets... which would be what? Close to EUR6 billion, maybe EUR9 billion. Which refers to all Irish banks. Listed, unlisted, foreign, domestic... And to all their equity... not just the equity held by the Exchequer.

Never mind. Like Irish banks, euro area banks are going to continue dumping assets... err... deleverage...

"European banks have been deleveraging in response to market and regulatory concerns about capital levels, and may continue to do so. ...a combination of market and regulatory
concerns about bank capitalization has already led to an increase in capital levels at EU banks. …Over the period 2011:Q3–2013:Q2, large EU banks reduced their assets by a total of $2.5 trillion on a gross basis — which includes only those banks that cut back assets — and by $2.1 trillion on a net basis."

So you thought it was surprising/unusual/unexpected that the banks are not lending? Every policymaker harping on about banks credit 'growth' should have known this deleveraging is ongoing and with it, no new credit growth will occur… I mean USD2.5 trillion!

"…About 40 percent of the reduction by the banks in the EU as a whole was through a cutback in loans, with the remainder through scaling back noncore exposures and sales of some parts of their businesses… As discussed in the April 2013 GFSR, banks have been concentrating on derisking their balance sheets by reducing capital-intensive businesses, holding greater proportions of assets with lower risk weights (such as government bonds), and optimizing risk-weight models."

Put differently, to beef up capital ratios, the banks shed primarily riskier loans. Now what these might be? Oh, yes, SMEs and non-financial corporate loans in general… So that 'credit growth' to SMEs?..

"The capital ratio projection exercise previously discussed suggests that some banks will need to continue raising equity or cutting back balance sheets as they endeavor to repair and strengthen their balance sheets."

Read my lips: no new credit growth… QED…

You can read the entire GFSR here: http://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/GFSR/2013/02/pdf/text.pdf

Note: my recent article on European banks is here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/10/9102013-leveraged-and-sick-euro-area.html

17/4/2013: Global Banking Sector Roadkill Alley (aka euro area)

Lets play the game of 'Spot the odd one out...' 

Fact 1: Globally, growth is concentrating in Latin America, Asia Pacific and Africa (see earlier post here) and the lowest growth centre is the Euro area.

Fact 2 (via IMF GFSR Chapter 1):

Question: Which banking system has spent almost three years now 'deleveraging' itself out of global growth centres so it can focus its immensely healthy balancesheets on pursuing growth where there is no growth in sight?

Answer on a post-card addressed to:

Mr Mario Draghi 

Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Bonus round: in the Sick Banks Club (aka euro area) which are the sickest and second sickest national banking systems?

For hint, see this post.