Posts tagged ‘credit crunch’

Banking On It

With equity markets reaching ever dizzier heights this year, oil stable and government bonds serene it is difficult to think back to how the financial world felt about a year ago. Back then, an eye-watering collapse in risk pricing apparently presaged a rerun of the Great Recession. The clear catalyst was to be a systemic financial crisis just like that of 2007-9, though this time originating in a China riddled with insurmountable debt problems. Bank worries persisted into the summer, with the European Banking Authority’s July “stress test” widely expected to demonstrate the insolvency of many weak banks (and especially those in Italy).

These fears – intense as they had been – eventually dissipated. Since its post-referendum nadir the UK’s FTSE All Share Banks Index has risen by 51%, comfortably outpacing the broad market ex banks by more than 30%. Yet the G7 Finance Meeting summit on in Italy right now has continued to generate headlines about bank solvency in that country. So has the problem gone away? And should risk assets head south once more, would it be a financial collapse that Mr Market, once again, was banking on?

The numbers in Italy are indeed problematic – for Italy. But they are too manageable and too well-known to foment a systemic crisis more widely. To answer the question more broadly, however – which in times of panic is invariably how it is phrased – we can take a look at various data on bank solvency and non-performing loans across the world to see where it stands today, where it stood during the crisis years and what happened to it in the supposed nightmare period of 2016.

Let’s start with non-performing loans. This is the most obvious cause for concern in the banking system: when a bank lends money to a sufficiently large number of customers who default on their loans its income falls, its balance sheet weakens and it can in extremis go under.

In the UK, the combined value of reserves for loan losses at Barclays, Lloyds and RBS (including all their current subsidiaries) peaked at £51.4bn in 2011. By the end of 2015 this had fallen to £15.0bn, and it fell further last year to £11.4bn, which is below the pre-crisis levels of 2007. In the US, where the subprime debacle saw the most severe financial bloodletting anywhere, the figures for the Big Four (Bank of America, Citi, JP Morgan and Wells Fargo) have charted a similar trajectory. The peak was reached earlier, in 2010, at $158.8bn, had fallen to $49.9bn by 2015’s close and ended last year at $48.5bn.

Taking a more global view, the IMF collects data by country on actual non-performing loans after the event, and this naturally tells the same story as individual banks’ bad debt provisions. Starting again with the UK, the banking system in aggregate saw the proportion of non-performing loans to total gross lending peak at 4.0% in 2011, falling to 1.0% in 2015 (data for last year is not available yet). The US hit a more severe peak of 5.0% in 2009, which had run down to 1.5% by 2015. It also posted that level last year.

Turning to the market’s bogey men in this department: Euro area banks didn’t see their aggregate loss ratio peak until 2013 on the back of the double-dip recession there (at 7.9%). But this has since fallen, reaching 5.8% in 2015 and continuing to fall to 5.4% over last year. And in China, while the same ratio did actually increase in 2016 this was only by 0.07% (the figure was a stable 1.7% from 2015-16 at only one decimal place). Note, too, that the Chinese peak was all the way up at 29.8% back in 2001, which ought to put this squarely into context.

As well as the incidence of loan defaults, the resilience of balance sheets is another key moving part when it comes to assessing the vulnerability of a banking system. So we can also look at bank capital ratios to see just how much sleep we might expect to lose should those not-very-concerning loan loss numbers begin to tick up again.

Regulators tend to focus on “tier 1 capital”, which can be summarized as balance sheet equity plus whatever debt can be written down without putting a bank into distress. The EBA helpfully compiles data on this for the EU in aggregate. Before the financial crisis, the tier 1 capital ratio for EU banks was 8.0% (2006). With the assistance of vast sums in emergency state support and generous debt swaps this percentage actually rose slightly during the crisis itself before really taking off in subsequent years to hit 14.9% by the end of 2015 and 15.7% last year. In other words, just as loan losses have been falling, capital buffers have been increasing – to almost twice the strength they had a decade ago.

Turning to the IMF once again we can have a look at similar data for (balance sheet equity) capital ratios across the world. This rather more traditional measure of capital is narrower than tier 1 and so the numbers are smaller and not quite so illustrative. They do, however, tell a similar story: the euro area’s “pure” bank capital ratio increased from 8.0% to 8.5% in 2016, ahead both of its 2011 nadir (5.6%) and pre-crisis level of 6.6% (2006). The Chinese ratio has risen from 5% to 8% over the last ten years, in the US it grew slightly from 10.5% to 11.7% over the same period and here in the UK the increase was from 6.1% to 6.8%.

There have been some weaknesses visible in this data – in Russia, for example, and in Brazil, which both suffered so badly at the hands of weak commodity prices in recent years. Again, though, banking issues in these countries have neither the scale nor the surprise factor to cause a genuine, systemic upset elsewhere. And in most other places, including those over which the strongest concern has traditionally been expressed, we can see that banks, as a whole, are in rather better shape now than they were in 2015 – never mind during the subprime crisis and Great Recession.

“In times of crisis”, this blog wrote back in February last year, “it behoves us to seek refuge in facts.”  The view that last year’s funk was nonsense proved correct, and provided an opportunity. But it is not just when the market is in crisis that we need to mind our fundamentals. Greed is every bit as dangerous as fear. We might not have to fear for the banking system at present (especially in places where interest rates go up) – but just because Mr Market looks unlikely to stub his toe on the banking system in the near future that doesn’t make him immune to stumbling elsewhere.

 

Advertisements

12/05/2017 at 3:01 pm

Services To Banking

This week’s Budget was, of course, highly political. The Chancellor’s £250,000 reduction in the lifetime allowance for private pensions deprived his Labour opponents of a funding source nominated for one of their policies; his single announcement on inheritance tax was nothing more than an opportunity to poke fun at the Leader of the Opposition for his tax avoidance twenty years previously; and he devoted much of his speech to refuting high-profile opposition criticism of the government’s record and intentions.

There are, however, areas of economic policy over which the Labour and Conservative parties are in total agreement. They compete to paint themselves as the true pursuers of tax avoidance, especially by maleficent multinationals. And they unite in their commitment to bashing Britain’s banks.

As is well known, a coterie of lavishly-rewarded financiers were single-handedly responsible for the credit crunch and ensuing Great Recession (forcing those Northern Rock borrowers to take out 125% mortgages, for example, and then compelling investors to purchase these assets at hideously mispriced levels from the originating banks). So the special tax on bank assets which has been running since 2010 is a great moral enterprise as well as a revenue generator, and we should all applaud the Chancellor for increasing it to bring in another £900m per year.

On the other hand, some of the Budget’s fiscal arithmetic depends on raising capital from sales of the government’s stake in Lloyds Banking Group plc. Indeed, quite a lot of the UK’s employment and economic output arises from the financial services industry. It may be some time before the next knighthood is bestowed for services to banking, but despite its present position in public esteem banking does perform a service to the country.

Unfortunately the British government’s record in rescuing financial institutions compares poorly to that of the USA, for example, where the subprime mortgage market kicked things off back in 2007. In another piece of news earlier this month we saw Mr Osborne raise £500m from selling the latest slice of the UK’s stake in Lloyds. The total raised from such sales to date now amounts to £8.5bn, which may seem impressive. But the size of the Lloyds bailout was £20bn. The government still owns 23% of the bank, a stake worth about £13.2bn at the time of writing. Over the Atlantic, the US Treasury had got out of its $45bn bailout of Citigroup entirely by mid-2011, making a $13bn profit on the original amount and further gains on charging for a default protection facility which was never used. Similarly, while the US government still owns mortgage securitization behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which received a combined bailout of over $187bn in 2008 and still face problems, it has received back more than this amount in dividends from both companies. The UK government still owns 62% of RBS, has not sold any shares and has not received a penny back from its £46bn bailout.

RBS, of course, was not assisted by its various financial and managerial idiosyncrasies in the years preceding the crisis. But policies such as the bank levy have not helped. The great purchase protection insurance compensation bonanza – which has seen RBS alone pay out billions over the last four years – has not helped either. And the crisis-period support afforded by the Bank of England lacked the breadth and scale of the several emergency lending programmes of the Federal Reserve and slew of measures taken by the US Treasury under its Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Predictably, all this has reflected poorly on the very balance sheets whose tax rate the Chancellor has just raised. While the Big Four US banks have seen their provisions for losses on loans fall steadily since mid-2010 to about a third of their peak level, combined loss reserves at Barclays, Lloyds and RBS only started to fall a year later and are still at almost 60% of their peak.

The share of the UK’s economic activity accounted for by financial services remains relatively high, at 8%. But it has been falling slightly over the past five years. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that public policy has contributed to this effect.

There is of course an election looming. But it looks as though whatever government takes charge the banking sector can expect more of the same. That is bad for the UK economy. And even in the aftermath of the crash bank shares still make up 12.6% of the value of the FTSE 100. The American approach certainly had its flaws but it has indisputably produced a better outcome and outlook for the financial sector and for US taxpayers than our own.

20/03/2015 at 4:41 pm

Credit Crunch: End Of The Beginning?

It is now seven years since the first signs of strain and balance sheet writedowns signalled trouble in the US subprime mortgage market. A few months later – in June 2007 – the first credit rating downgrades of securities backed by pools of these mortgages occurred. The collateralization and ownership restrictions placed on institutional investors in the vast “asset backed” market were superglued to these ratings. On the back of the downgrades, Bear Stearns put up $3.2bn of lending to prop up one of its two subprime hedge funds. Amid collateral calls the entire subprime mortgage market collapsed. In July Bear announced that both its funds were worthless, and for the next few months an explosion in downgrades (and underlying mortgage defaults) began to focus the financial world’s attention.

So it may seem surprising to say that we are only really at the end of the beginning of this crisis. Seven years is a long time. And yet …

Last week saw the release of Q4 mortgage delinquency data for the US. The headline number showed that delinquencies – loans at various stages of falling behind with payments up to and including foreclosure – as a proportion of the whole mortgage market fell again, to 6.4%, as they have done steadily since peaking at 10.1% in March 2010. But dig deeper and we find that the subprime delinquency rate ticked up. In fact it has been stuck in a 20-22% range for the last two calendar years, not far shy of its 27% peak in ’10. The overall improvement in delinquencies has been entirely due to improvements in the prime mortgage market over that period. Subprime foreclosures are running at over 10% of loans, still materially higher than at the peak of the previous default cycle in 2000. For that reason, there are still plenty of ratings downgrades on mortgage-backed securities working their way through the system.

At the same time it is right that the US mortgage market has lost its power to terrify. Overall, as we know, the real estate market has been picking up again (with a recent setback driven by the execrable weather). And bank balance sheets have improved steadily and considerably in line with the mortgage market overall. Reserves for losses on loans across the Big Four US banks – JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo – peaked at $158.8bn in Q1 2010. The current reporting season showed that had fallen by almost 60% to $67.8bn in the quarter just gone. That’s some way north of the $42.2bn reported at the end of 2007, but still pretty impressive.

Perhaps this partly explains why it looks too cautious from a US perspective to say we are only at the end of the beginning of the credit crunch. From a more global perspective, however, the description fits more clearly.

Here in the UK our banks have not recovered so well. At Barclays, loan loss reserves only trickled slightly lower last year and are roughly 41% below their reported peak. For Lloyds the figure is 38% and at RBS of course reserves hit a new high of £25.2bn for Q4 – 39% higher than the amount provisioned for at the end of 2010.

Turning to Europe, where banks are at least as far adrift, we have another aspect of the crunch to contend with. In some cases (most notoriously perhaps in that of Iceland), bank distress led directly to a sovereign debt crisis. In most countries it played a significant role – as did the crunch’s recessionary effects on the wider economy, of course. And we should remember that the Cypriot banking system went down less than a year ago, all part of the same protracted drama of downgrade, writedown, bailout and default.

Symptoms of the sovereign crisis remain. The yield on ten year Greek government debt fell below 7% only today for instance, the first time since the country’s ignominious junking by S&P in April 2010.

Which brings us on to the next stage. Greek government debt to GDP for 2013 is forecast by the IMF to reach 175.7% – more than 5% above the peak reached prior to the debt restructuring of 2012. It is still not certain whether another restructuring of one kind or another will be needed to make this manageable on a 5-10 year view. Much will depend on how the economy performs this year. And it is still less certain when Greece will be able to consider re-entering the bond market, as some less severely crippled bailout economies have already done.

Once we know that the Greek debt position is settled it could be the beginning of the end of the credit crunch, and not before. Then Greece – as others, including the rest of the eurozone, UK and the US – will be set on the path of managing its economic affairs with a huge burden of borrowing round its neck that will mark fiscal planning with servicing costs for many years to come. That is the lasting legacy of the insane credit markets of the mid-2000s. Only when that borrowing, weighing down across most of the developed world, has been firmly established on a reducing path for some time – only then will we be able to say that the credit crunch is over.

In terms of what all this means for markets let me make one observation.

Risk markets became absurdly optimistic in a short period of time during the end of the Great Recession in 2009, not at all seeming to understand the scale or possible longevity of the problem. Then came the sovereign debt crisis and a period of complete panic in 2011, and then, pretty steadily since the most successful example of Open Mouth Operations in history (by the ECB in mid-2012), risk has come back into favour.

The key point is this: by backing fundamentals, and so being sceptical of risk in late 2009 and more constructive thereafter (and especially in the autumn of 2011), investors would have done pretty well.

The gargantuan upheaval of the credit crunch and the hysteria which followed have left their mark in different ways at different times. There are still plenty of anomalies out there both between and within asset classes. As and when (and if) the ripples from that giant explosion seven years ago continue to fade, there is every reason to continue to expect that backing the fundamentals will remain a profitable thing to do.

28/02/2014 at 6:07 pm


Recent Posts