Advertisements

Banks Around The World Face Significant Profits Pressure For The Foreseeable Future

Numerous indicators in the U.S. and around the world are signaling a slowing economy at best and a near-term recession at worst.  The slowing global economy, along with low interest rates, ongoing trade tensions, and intensifying Brexit uncertainty will weigh on banks’ profitability for the foreseeable future.  In the US, whatever benefits banks derived from Trump’s tax reform, if any, are long gone.

Global Macroeconomic Outlook for the G-20

Moody’s Global Macroeconomic Outlook, August 2019

Last week’s announcement from Coalition that American and European investment banks’ capital markets and advisory’s revenues hit a thirteen-year low is likely to be the beginning of more challenges to come.  Even before that announcement, Moody’s Investor Services had changed its positive outlook on global investment banks to stable precisely due to slower economic growth and lower interest rates.

Today In: Money

Drivers of Moody’s Stable Outlook for Global Investment Banks

Moody’s Investors Services

As a recession comes closer, bank risk managers, investors, regulators, and rating agencies will be monitoring banks’ loan impairments carefully.  According to the Fitch Ratings’ Large European Banks Quarterly Credit Tracker – 2Q19, released last week, “The economic slow down in Europe has not resulted in material new impaired loans yet, but the substantially weakened economic outlook has increased the likelihood of an at  least modest increase in impaired loans.”

Impaired Loans/Gross Loans

Fitch Ratings, Large European Banks Quarterly Credit Tracker

Banks’ high holdings of leveraged loans and below investment grade bonds and securitizations, especially those that are less liquid and harder to value, will also weigh on their earnings as the global economy slowdown intensifies.  Fitch Ratings’ recent ‘U.S. Leveraged Loan Default Insight’ shows that its “Top Loans and Tier 2 Loans of Concern combined total jumped to $94.1 billion from $74.5 billion in July. The Top Loans of Concern amount ($40.9 billion) is the largest since March 2017, with six names added to the list and nearly all bid below 70 in the secondary market.”  Unfortunately, underwriting continues to deteriorate. The Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer Survey showed a modest loosening of lending standards on corporate loans for the second consecutive quarter.

Leveraged Loans of Concern Amount Outstanding

Fitch U.S. Leveraged Loan Default Index.

A slowing economy and low interest rate environment are outside of bank managers’ control. Yet, cost efficiency, is something that banks can influence; it needs to improve for banks to be more profitable.  European banks’ median/cost income ratio, for example, is 66%. “The sector’s structural cost inefficiency will eventually have to be addressed given the persistently weak rate and revenue outlook. Improving cost efficiency faster and developing fee-generating businesses are crucial to sustain profitability in 2H19 and beyond.”

Cost Efficiency

Fitch Ratings, Large European Banks Quarterly Credit Tracker

Global investment banks will also have to be very attentive to what changes need to be made to their business models. While there will be demand for their advisory and distribution services, the demand will slow down in what is likely an upcoming recession.

Capital Markets Revenue Relative to Total Revenue, 2018

Source: Moody’s Investors

Moreover, as banks continue to lay-off front office professionals, some top latent to effect deals well will be lost.  Volatility from Trump’s multiple front trade wars and Brexit will put a lot of pressure on banks with capital market activities.

Aggregate capital markets revenue first-half 2009-19 (USD billions)

Moody’s Investor Services

Banks in emerging markets are also under profit pressure.  Many of the banks in Latin America already have a negative outlook by ratings agencies, particularly due to a slowdown in Mexico and recessionary pressures in Brazil. Asian banks are particularly sensitive to US-Chinese trade tensions.

Emerging Markets: Median GDP Growth by Region

Fitch Ratings

More than ever, to increase profitability, bank executives will need to find ways to diversify their revenue streams in all parts of their banks, commercial, investment bank, asset management as well as in custody and clearing services.  Banks need to be profitable to be liquid and to be well capitalized to sustain unexpected losses. What worries me is that a slowing global economy, coupled with increasing deregulation in the US, such as the recent gutting of the Volcker Rule, will embolden banks to chase yield even more and take excessive risks that could imperil depositors and taxpayers.  More than ever, investors, bank regulators, and rating agencies should remain vigilant so as to spare ordinary citizens the pain of when banks run into trouble.

 

 

Source: Banks Around The World Face Significant Profits Pressure For The Foreseeable Future

We Ranked the Top 10 Richest Banks in the World Right Now!

• Read the full article here: http://www.alux.com/richest-banks-in-…

When you’re thinking about money and wealth is hard not to include in that equation Banks. Someone said: Money makes the world go round” and banks, well, that’s where money likes to hang out. Every Aluxer we’ve met has close relations to at least one bank which makes it possible for us to enjoy life to the fullest. #2 *** HSBC Holdings is previously known as The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation which was founded in 1865 in Hong Kong. However, in 1991-1992, after acquiring Midland Bank The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation moved it’s headquarters to London because it was much better from a financial and strategic point of view.

This is the moment when the bank kind of re-branded itself and became HSBC Holdings the bank that you know today. With that said, we’d like you to enjoy our latest video on: the top ten richest banks in the world. Here we’re answering questions like; • Which is the richest bank in the world?! • How much money do the top banks have?! • Is Bank of America the richest bank in the world?! • Who owns the richest bank in the world? • How much money does the richest bank have?! Say Hello on: https://www.instagram.com/aluxcom/ https://twitter.com/aluxcom https://www.facebook.com/EALUXE – SUBSCRIBE to ALUX: https://goo.gl/KPRQT8 WATCH MORE VIDEOS ON ALUX.COM! Most Expensive Things: https://goo.gl/09XcYJ Luxury Cars: https://goo.gl/eOUgfS Becoming a Billionaire: https://goo.gl/rRLgJI World’s Richest: https://goo.gl/m6emkX Inspiring People: https://goo.gl/KxqTdL Travel the World: https://goo.gl/g5BGmm Dark Luxury: https://goo.gl/20ZsSt Celebrity Videos: https://goo.gl/0cs6sx Businesses & Brands: https://goo.gl/otHsTB — Alux.com is the largest community of luxury & fine living enthusiasts in the world. We are the #1 online resource for ranking the most expensive things in the world and frequently refferenced in publications such as Forbes, USAToday, Wikipedia and many more, as the GO-TO destination for luxury content! Our website: https://www.alux.com is the largest social network for people who are passionate about LUXURY! Join today!

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...

Deutsche Bank Faces A Smaller, Poorer Future

The London offices of Deutsche Bank. On July 24, 2019, Deutsche Bank reported a headline loss of €3.1bn which it said arose from the radical restructuring plan it commenced this month, in which its operations in the U.K. and U.S. are being drastically cut. (Photo by Alberto Pezzali/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Deutsche Bank has issued its results for the second quarter of 2019. They make grim reading. The bank reported a headline loss of €3.1bn ($3.44bn), which it said was due to “charges relating to strategic transformation” of €3.4bn ($3.78bn). But both net income of £231m ($256.67m) and underlying profits of €441m ($490m) were significantly down on the same quarter in 2018.

The restructuring announced earlier this month has yet to impact fully. The “capital release unit” into which the bank plans to put €74bn ($82.22bn) of poorly-performing and non-strategic assets and business lines, including its entire equities trading division, is not yet up and running, and although headcount is about 4,500 lower than it was a year ago, the latest round of sackings doesn’t yet show up in the redundancy costs. Restructuring costs themselves therefore only contribute €50m ($55.56m) to the headline loss.

A further €350m ($388.89m) comes from junking software and service contracts that will no longer be needed because of the restructuring. But by far the largest part of the headline loss arises from impairment of goodwill to the tune of €1bn ($1.11bn) and a €2bn ($2.22bn) reduction in the value of the bank’s deferred tax asset.

This may sound like accounting gobbledegook, but it sends a very important message. Deutsche Bank’s management has admitted the bank will never return to the profitability of the past. When the restructuring is complete, it will be a much smaller, poorer bank.

First, the writedown of the deferred tax asset (DTA). A DTA arises when a firm pays taxes in advance and then suffers losses that wipe out that tax liability, resulting in an overpayment. Rather than claiming back the money, firms can “carry forward” the overpayment and use it to offset their tax liability in a subsequent reporting period. This “carried forward” amount is shown as an asset on the balance sheet.

However, a firm can only carry forward overpaid tax into subsequent periods if it is reasonably certain that the firm will eventually make enough profits to be liable for that amount of tax; and there is usually a time limit by which the deferred asset must be used. If the firm can’t generate enough profits to use the DTA, it is lost.

This is how Deutsche Bank explains its decision to write down the DTA (my emphasis):

Each quarter, the Group re-evaluates its estimate related to deferred tax assets, including its assumptions about future profitability. In updating the strategic plan in connection with the transformation the Group adjusted the value of deferred tax assets in affected jurisdictions. This resulted in total valuation adjustments of € 2.0 billion in the second quarter of 2019 that primarily relate to the U.S. and the UK.

Deutsche Bank has admitted that the deep cuts to the investment bank will result in profitability being significantly lower for the foreseeable future.

Now to goodwill. Goodwill can be regarded as another type of overpayment. It is the amount by which the purchase price of an asset or business exceeds the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired and any liabilities taken on. Firms overpay for acquisitions when they expect them to deliver higher returns in future. But if they disappoint, then eventually the value of the “goodwill” must be reduced.

In two divisions – corporate finance, and the wealth management unit within its private & commercial banking division – Deutsche Bank has written off its entire goodwill, amounting to €491m  ($545.56m) in corporate finance and €545m ($605.56m) in wealth management. Importantly, the notes to the accounts show that the write-off is not a restructuring cost; these are business lines that have been under-performing for quite some time. The bank blames “adverse industry trends” and “worsening macroeconomic assumptions, including interest rate curves.” This is code for “we thought interest rates would be much higher by now.” Revenues have persistently disappointed because of very low interest rates, and now that the European Central Bank has indicated that rates will stay low for the foreseeable future – and may even be cut further – there is no real prospect of recovery. These business lines are simply never going to make enough money to cover their acquisition cost. Cue transfer to the “capital release unit” as soon as it is up and running.

The good news is that the €3bn ($3.33bn) writedown of DTA and goodwill didn’t affect the bank’s capital. The all-important CET1 capital ratio stayed firm at 13.4%. But looking ahead, there are clearly more restructuring costs to come. The bank says it currently has provisions for about €1bn ($1.11bn). It expects to use all of this, and it may need more. And Deutsche Bank also faces further litigation charges which it admits could be considerable.

But the biggest problem is Deutsche Bank’s desperate lack of income. Troubled though it is, the investment bank is still Deutsche Bank’s biggest source of revenue. The planned cuts will slash that to the bone, and there is no evidence that any of the other divisions can step up to replace it. All Deutsche Bank’s divisions, apart from its asset manager DWS, have flat or declining revenues and poor profitability. Unless it can turn this around, the future looks very bleak.

Despite the management’s upbeat presentation, the share price fell on these results. Shareholders were clearly unimpressed with the promise of “jam tomorrow” in the form of dividends and share buybacks from 2022. Perhaps they, like me, were looking at the bank’s promise to turn ROTE of negative 11.2% today into positive 8% by 2022, and thinking, “I don’t believe a word of it.”

Forbes Special Report: Picking the right investment opportunities is critical. Get insights from top advisors in the free report 9 Stocks To Buy For The Second Half.

 

I used to work for banks. Now I write about them, and about finance and economics generally. Although I originally trained as a musician and singer, I worked in banking for 17 years and did an MBA at Cass Business School in London, where I specialized in financial risk management. I’m the author of the Coppola Comment finance & economics blog, which is a regular feature on the Financial Times’s Alphaville blog and has been quoted in The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Guardian. I am also a frequent commentator on financial matters for the BBC. And I still sing, and teach. After all, there is more to life than finance.

Source: Deutsche Bank Faces A Smaller, Poorer Future

U.S. Bank Regulatory Easing Is Negative For Investors And Taxpayers

Storm clouds behind the exterior of the Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC

Storm clouds behind the exterior of the Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC

In a disappointing decision, the Federal Reserve Board announced yesterday that effective this year, it will limit its use of the “qualitative objection” in Dodd-Frank’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). Under Dodd-Frank’s Title I, banks that are designated as systemically important are required banks to design a model using stress scenarios from the Federal Reserve. In order to pass the stress test, banks need to demonstrate that they would be able to meet Basel III capital and leverage requirements even in a period of stress.  It is in the qualitative portion of CCAR, that the Federal Reserve can identify and communicate to the market if a bank is having problems with its internal controls, model risk management, information technology, risk data aggregation, and whether a bank has the ability to identify, measure, control, and monitor credit, market, liquidity and operational risks even during periods of stress.  Easing this requirement, in combination with all the changes to Dodd-Frank that have been taking place since last year, is dangerous to investors, not to mention taxpayers, especially so late in the credit cycle.

Parts of the test that each firm is subject to this year in addition to the hypothetical scenario.

Parts of the test that each firm is subject to this year in addition to the hypothetical scenario.

*All firms subject to the qualitative objection, except TD Group, will have their fourth year in the 2020 cycle. TD Group’s fourth year will be the 2019 cycle.

According to the Federal Reserve’s press release “The changes eliminate the qualitative objection for most firms due to the improvements in capital planning made by the largest firms.”  Yes, there have been improvements in capital planning precisely, because there were consequences to banks which failed the qualitative portion of CCAR. Banks were prohibited from making capital distributions until they could rectify the problems the Federal Reserve found in the CCAR exercise.  This decision essentially defangs the CCAR qualitative review of banks’ capital planning process.

Nomi Prins

Nomi Prins

Dean Zatkowsky

“It is absolutely reckless of the Fed to relinquish its regulatory authority in such a manner, rather than retain the option of qualitative oversight, which has turned up red flags in the past,” said Nomi Prins former international investment banker. “We are after all, talking about what the banks deem a reporting burden versus necessary oversight that could detect signs of a coming credit or other form of banking related crisis from a capital or internal risk management perspective. Why take that risk on behalf of the rest of our country or the world?”

In writing about the Federal Reserve’s decision, the Wall Street Journal wrote that “Regulators dialed back a practice of publicly shaming the nation’s biggest banks through “stress test” exams, taking one of the biggest steps yet to ease scrutiny put in place after the 2008 crisis.” It is not public shaming. It is called regulators doing their job, that is, providing transparency to markets about what challenges banks may be having. Without transparency, the bank share and bond investors cannot discipline banks.

Just last month, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it would be “providing relief to less-complex firms from stress testing requirements and CCAR by effectively moving the firms to an extended stress test cycle for this year. The relief applies to firms generally with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion.”

Christopher Wolfe

Christopher Wolfe

Fitch Ratings

Investors in bank bonds, especially, should be concerned about recent easing of bank regulations. Immediately after the Federal Reserve decision was announced yesterday, Christopher Wolfe, Head of North American Banks and Managing Director at Fitch Ratings stated that “Taken together, these regulatory announcements raising the bar for systemic risk designation and relaxed standard for qualitative objection on the CCAR stress test reinforce our view that the regulatory environment is easing, which is a negative for bank creditors.”  Fitch Rating analysts have written several reports about the easing bank regulatory environment being credit negative for investors in bank bonds and to  counterparties of banks in a wide array of financial transactions.

Dennis Kelleher

Dennis Kelleher

Better Markets

Also, a month ago, the Federal Reserve announced that it will give more information to banks about how it uses banks’ data in its model to determine whether banks are adequately capitalized in a period of stress.  In commenting on the Federal Recent decisions, Better Markets President and CEO Dennis Kelleher stated that “Stress tests and their fulsome disclosure have been one of the key mechanisms used to restore trust in those banks and regulators.  By providing more transparency to the banks in response to their complaints while reducing the transparency to the public risks snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the Fed’s stress test regime.”

Gregg Gelzinis

Gregg Gelzinis

Center for American Progress

Gregg Gelznis, Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress also expressed his concern about the Federal Reserve’s recent changes to the CCAR stress tests.  “While Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell and Vice Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles have spoken at length about the need for increased stress testing transparency, this transparency only cuts in one direction.” He elaborated that the Federal Reserve’s decision “benefits Wall Street at the expense of the public. The Fed has advanced rules that would provide banks with more information on the stress testing scenarios and models. At the same time, they have now made the stress testing regime less transparent for the public by removing the qualitative objection—instead evaluating capital planning controls and risk management privately in the supervisory process.”

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.

I have been dedicated to providing clients high quality financial consulting, research, and training services on Basel III, risk management, risk-based supervision

Source: U.S. Bank Regulatory Easing Is Negative For Investors And Taxpayers

China’s Kunlun completes full buyout of Grindr

Nearly two years to the day of its majority investment in Grindr, China-based tech firm Kunlun Group has fully acquired the gay dating app. Grindr is among the, if not the, world’s most popular LBQT dating app with a claimed 3.3 million daily users. Kunlun, which is best known for games but is part of…

via China’s Kunlun completes full buyout of Grindr — TechCrunch

%d bloggers like this:
Skip to toolbar