Compliance

03:30 PM
Greg MacSweeney
Greg MacSweeney
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Still Stressed Over Bank Stress Tests

Although investors greeted the results of the government's banking stress tests with cheers, were the tests strict enough to help prevent another financial meltdown?

The markets greeted the much-discussed banking stress tests with open arms. In fact investors actually cheered the news that banks needed to raise only an additional $75 billion. Gulp.

But a closer look at the stress tests raises a number of questions about their quality. For starters, the government completed these exams awfully quickly -- it took the feds just a few short months to evaluate the balance sheets of these financial institutions. Consider this: A private independent auditor, such as KPMG or Ernst & Young, would take at least a couple of months with an army of accountants to audit just one bank. The government, with far fewer resources, completed the stress tests on 19 of the country's largest banks in the same amount of time. Hardly a thorough audit.

Also, once banks were shown some of the initial results (a common practice among regulators and the banks before results are made public), banks started lobbying the feds to change the results, claiming the government's capital reserve requirements were too extreme. According to The Wall Street Journal, the government initially wanted to require Bank of America to raise an additional billion; Citigroup, .5 billion; Wells Fargo, .3 billion; and Fifth Third Bancorp, .6 billion. The final numbers turned out to be much lower: BofA, .9 billion; Citigroup, .5 billion; Wells Fargo, .7 billion; and Fifth Third, .1 billion.

It's almost akin to arguing with your cardiologist about your EKG results or contesting your high school Chemistry grade because you thought the questions were too hard. Essentially the banks didn't like the way they were graded. As a result, the government graded the banks using the "Tier 1 Common Capital" ratio, which is much less stringent than the "Tangible Common Equity" ratio that many outsiders expected the government to use. If the latter ratio had been used, the 19 banks could have been required to raise an additional billion collectively.

So although investors cheered the stress tests' results, I'm wondering if the standards were strict enough. Granted, the feds needed to walk a fine line: If the results showed that the banks were too weak, the markets would have been spooked; if the tests were too lenient, the results wouldn't have been believable. In the end it seems we received watered-down stress tests that may cause a lot of stress down the road, especially if banks aren't able to weather further economic storms that may yet come during this current economic slump.

Greg MacSweeney is editorial director of InformationWeek Financial Services, whose brands include Wall Street & Technology, Bank Systems & Technology, Advanced Trading, and Insurance & Technology. View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
More Commentary
So Much Data, So Little Time
How fast does data need to be used in order to be beneficial?
Understanding the Value of Big Data
Winning investors are embracing new technologies to make better allocation decisions.
Catch Me if You Can: Risk Hidden in Plain Sight
The digital revolution hasn't yet reached all four corners of the enterprise. Paper-based data and manual workflows are hotspots for risk and are ripe for modernization.
The Ripening Case for Managed Services in Risk Management
Risk management will not escape the trend towards managed service solutions. Managers must prepare to take advantage of the emerging technologies and vendor relationships.
Vigilante Justice on the Digital Frontier
In the face of slow government action, Wild West-style justice has moved to the digital realm, and private organizations risk being caught in the crossfire.
Register for Wall Street & Technology Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
Wall Street & Technology - July 2014
In addition to regular audits, the SEC will start to scrutinize the cyber-security preparedness of market participants.
Video
Stressed Out by Compliance, Reputational Damage & Fines?
Stressed Out by Compliance, Reputational Damage & Fines?
Financial services executives are living in a "regulatory pressure cooker." Here's how executives are preparing for the new compliance requirements.