Banks Try to “Cheat” on Stress-Test Scores Before Results Go Public
The federal government recently required 19 of the nation’s largest banks to undergo “stress tests” (administered by the banks themselves) to gauge how well the banks would perform under extreme recessionary conditions. We’ve now learned that bank executives have been lobbying Washington to boost their scores before the results are finalized on Friday and released to the public on Monday, USA Today reports.
The Wall Street Journal says that Bank of America and Citigroup were among those banks that were told they have insufficient capital reserves.
There’s a lot at stake for the banks. If it’s determined that their capital reserves are too low, government regulators intend to make them buck up.
“The government could convert its stake in them to common shares, force them to raise money from investors or eventually release more funds from the Treasury Department’s $700 billion financial bailout,” USA Today said. The idea is to make sure that banks have enough money to absorb ballooning losses from bad loans.
“They don’t want to do any of this,” Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, told the paper, “because banks think they can make smarter business decisions when the government doesn’t intervene.” She added, “It’s disastrous for shareholders.”
Those banks that regulators decide do possess sufficient capital reserves aren’t exactly free and clear to do their own thing. They may or may not be allowed to repay the billions of dollars they received in taxpayer-funded bailouts. Most of the largest banks want to do so, mainly to avoid being hamstrung by executive compensation limits.
The actual usefulness of the stress test is already doubtful, for a variety of reasons. When the stress tests were devised a few months back, the Financial Times reports that an “adverse scenario” was defined as one where unemployment rose gradually to peak at 10.4% in late 2010. Unemployment, as it turns out, has increased more rapidly than was projected, calling into question the relevance of what could already be an obsolete formula.
Even if you ignore the problems with the original adverse-scenario model, if banks succeed in tinkering with their scores, they’ll have succeeded in circumventing the purpose of the stress tests and turned them into a meaningless exercise. They’re kicking and screaming all the way, but since they have only themselves to blame for getting into this mess, I, for one, have little sympathy for them.
What’s your take?















