 |
HowWealthWorks.com The Truth About Building Wealth and Financial Freedom
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Suresh
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 8388 Location: Maryland
|
Subject: Massive uncontrollable increases in illiquid assets on bank balance sheets
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:17 pm |
|
|
FT Aphaville blog: “Involuntary asset growth” and the begginings of the “true” credit crunch in 2008
Involuntary asset growth, we dare say, could become the next big news catchphrase, for it describes the current crisis facing most banks; massive, uncontrollable increases in troubled, illiquid assets on their balance sheets.
Citi have coined the term in a research note published Friday on European banks; titled simply and ominously, “Creaking”.
For European financial institutions, say Citi’s banking research team, an unwanted €450bn is heading onto (or already on) balance sheets.
| Quote: | | …whilst the response to the credit crunch might be to force deleveraging across the sector, banks, ironically, are currently facing substantial releveraging pressures. We estimate that the combined effect of ABCP conduits coming onto balance sheets, SIVs being restructured, “hung” leveraged loans and a hiatus in the securitisation market could result in almost €450bn of involuntary RWA growth for the European bank sector. |
This is, of course, the broad end of the wedge. On the other end is all that news of CDO super-senior conduits, SIVs going into defeasance and securitisation markets closing.
Involuntary asset growth say Citi, will mark the onset of the “true credit crunch”. And the scale of the crisis is only just becoming known to the banks themselves.
Here’s a fascinating table of what Citi see that risk weighted asset expansion breaking down into (final column, in particular):
Perhaps, obviously, the biggest impact for banks will be the collapse of the securitisation market and the collapse of the ABCP market. But both are worth revisiting, not just for the sake of number crunching, but also to assess the impact for specific banks.
In terms of securitisation, again it’s the UK’s banks which stand to suffer most. The graph below from Citi estimates the current “best guess” of banks’ funding reliance on securitisation:
To read it another way, the above graph demonstrates which business models are going to suffer most - or at least, might need to change most. Of course, this isn’t to say the above will all suffer. Different banks will be trusted for different reasons by ABS investors. And demand for securitised products may well pick up again later this year.
Turning to ABCP markets then (which, as FT Alphaville reported earlier, have perked up a little over the last week). European banks, point out Citi, have a peculiar dependence on ABCP, accounting as they do for 70 per cent of the liquidity backstops in the massive ABCP market:
| Quote: | | We attribute European banks’ greater appetite for ABCP funding to the regulatory environment they adhere to: European banks - primarily focused on Basel I rules - took advantage of the fact that ABCP back-up lines were allocated a zero risk-weighting. As a consequence, they used self-sponsored ABCP conduits as a capital arbitrage tool to improve the efficiency of their balance sheets. For US banks - where the regulator typically focuses on total, as opposed to risk-weighted, assets - this never held the same attraction since the back-up line was included in the total asset calculation. |
In all, along with SIVs coming on to balance sheets and the choking in the leveraged loan pipeline, it’s not looking rosy for the European banks. UBS’s recent recapitalisation, though dramatic, was not a “bolt from the blue” says Citi. The sector is fragile, and the implication is that other banks will have to follow UBS’s lead. In particular, the biggest problems will be felt in two areas: The UK, and the Nordic regions.
Citi picks 10 banks to avoid:
 _________________ Suresh
Please feel free to agree with or critique the article excerpts and our comments. Also, please post excerpts from current articles that you've read and which may help all of us get a more complete macroeconomic big picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Suresh
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 8388 Location: Maryland
|
Subject: Finance industry's new concern: VIEs could add $88B to industry's losses
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:37 pm |
|
|
Bloomberg: Goldman, Lehman May Not Have Dodged Credit Crisis
...
The new source of potential losses: so-called variable interest entities that allow financial firms to keep assets such as subprime-mortgage securities off their balance sheets. VIEs may contribute to another $88 billion in losses for banks roiled by the collapse of the housing market, according to bond research firm CreditSights Inc. ...
VIEs, known as special purpose vehicles before Enron Corp.'s collapse in 2001, finance themselves by selling short- term debt backed by securities, some of which are insured against default.
Now that Ambac Financial Group Inc. and other guarantors have started to lose their AAA financial-strength ratings, Wall Street firms may be forced to return those assets to their books, recording the declining value as losses. MBIA Inc., the biggest insurer, said yesterday it plans to separate its municipal and asset-backed businesses, a move Peters said would likely result in a lower credit rating for the types of assets owned by VIEs.
`Significant Consequences'
Wall Street's writedowns stem from a surge in mortgage delinquencies among homeowners with the riskiest subprime-credit histories. The industry's VIEs, also known as conduits, had $784 billion in commercial paper outstanding as of last week, according to Moody's Investors Service and the Federal Reserve.
``There's a big number at work here and it will have significant consequences,'' said J. Paul Forrester, the Chicago- based head of the CDO practice at law firm Mayer Brown. ``The great fear is that a combination of subprime CDOs, SIVs and conduits result in a flood of assets into an already-stressed market and there's a price collapse.''
...
The securities in the VIEs may be worth as little as 27 cents on the dollar once they're put back on balance sheets, according to David Hendler, an analyst at New York-based CreditSights. Hendler based his estimate on the recent sale of $800 million of bonds by E*Trade Financial Corp.
Predictions for losses vary widely because banks aren't required to specify the type of assets being held in the VIEs or how much they are worth, said Tanya Azarchs, managing director for financial institutions at S&P.
``The disclosure on VIEs is hopeless,'' Azarchs said. ``You have no idea of the structure or how that structure works. Until you know that you don't know anything. It's like every day you come into the office and another alphabet soup has run off the rails.'' _________________ Suresh
Please feel free to agree with or critique the article excerpts and our comments. Also, please post excerpts from current articles that you've read and which may help all of us get a more complete macroeconomic big picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Suresh
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 8388 Location: Maryland
|
Subject: Fed may need to buy a trillion dollars of banks' off-balance-sheet assets
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:04 pm |
|
|
Bloomberg: Banks’ Hidden Junk Menaces $1 Trillion Purge
The U.S. government wants to clear as much as $1 trillion in soured loans and securities from bank balance sheets with its latest bailout plan.
That might prove a short-term respite. No sooner might the Treasury Department mop up those assets than $1 trillion or more in new ones spring up to take their place.
That is due to the potential return of assets held in so- called off-balance-sheet vehicles that banks may soon have to put back onto their books. The end result may be that banks are in no better shape to increase lending even after the government bailout.
...
At the end of 2008, for example, off-balance-sheet assets at just the four biggest U.S. banks -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. -- were about $5.2 trillion, according to their 2008 annual filings.
Even if only a portion of those assets return to the banks - - as much as $1 trillion is one dark possibility -- it would take up lending capacity the government is trying to free.
The hidden assets that may return to banks consist of mortgages, credit-card debts and auto loans, among others. Over the years, banks bundled them together and sold them to investors as securities.
Whether these assets are “troubled” or “toxic,” their return to bank balance sheets could slow efforts to get credit flowing again.
...
Investors have all but forgotten these out-of-sight assets. That’s a mistake.
True, banks won’t have to repatriate all of them. Mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, may have to be booked by those two companies, rather than banks.
Yet other assets will come back to banks. The tough part for investors is gauging how much. That is because the accounting- rules changes aren’t final, and their impact will depend on judgments by bank executives and auditors.
Hundreds of Billions
In its annual filing, JPMorgan said the rules change might lead it to bring back about $160 billion in assets. Citigroup estimated it may have to reclaim $179 billion.
That would equal about 9 percent of year-end 2008 assets at Citigroup, and about 7 percent at JPMorgan.
...
All told, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have a combined $600 billion in assets that may be under consideration for possible consolidation. If just half these assets come back to the banks, that would equal almost 6 percent of Bank of America’s assets and about 14 percent at Wells.
... _________________ Suresh
Please feel free to agree with or critique the article excerpts and our comments. Also, please post excerpts from current articles that you've read and which may help all of us get a more complete macroeconomic big picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|