在股市另一濒死体验可以避免 - 至少目前是这样。凯文KAL Kallaugher在上个月的简报卡通,是很少有更好的时机(如果你错过了十月的信可在我们的 网站)。退一步审视风险程度似乎是一个合理的地方开始。

也许有银行监管者比知道太多的系统性风险如何存在,并且其轨迹没有更重要的问题。 ,虽然这是很难相信看在过去几年前,有在美国行之有效的趋势为了增加股本城市支持银行的数量。从下面的图表 ST。圣路易斯联邦储备 这表明银行已经达到了11%的股权,以资产仅温和下降在金融危机期间。这些公司排除数字作为雷曼兄弟(这不是一个商业银行),其股权:报告为资产较低,为3%(大约30即资产负债表的杠杆作用:1),当他们在2008年当高盛申请破产高盛和摩根士丹利迅速转化为银行这是一个直接后果,他们降低杠杆的后果。但看着整个系统作为一个整体,共同测量通过股权分资产有向上提高克利的趋势。 ESTA不包括风险分析资产的任何加权,也不包括任何资产负债表衍生物仪器如可能被改变,也许实质上,这里显示在风险明显的降低。

Systemic banking risk may be lower by one measure, but it’s obviously an imperfect yardstick based on recent history. The chart below shows the standard deviation of GDP (from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis) 和 the S&P 500. Economic swings have been fairly c上sistent for most of the past couple of decades while equity market volatility has been at times breathtaking. So is systemic risk really coming down or not?

The now soggy and cold Occupy Wall Street crowd may not yet articulate a coherent set of views, but one might speculate that the financially literate amongst them would favor still less risk rather than more. Measuring equity as a percentage of bank assets is a crude and obviously out-dated tool, in addition to which some of the biggest losses occurred outside the banking system (such as AIG and the Federal housing agencies FNMA and FHMC). The broader socialization of credit risk and a recognition that some banks are too big to fail have been necessary precisely because the banking system is (or at least was found to be in 2008) undercapitalized.  And even with  11% equity: assets, there can be little doubt that banks are in a class of their own when it comes to making their equity capital work hard. No other industry operates with anything like the leverage that banks employ. Companies with far more stable earnings incur far less balance sheet risk. To select a few by way of illustration: Bristol-Myers Squibb (B我的) has 34% equity: assets and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) 36%. These calculations exclude goodwill from assets and therefore use tangible common equity to be more conservative. As a result no adjustment is made to these and many other companies that own operating assets whose value has increased  substantially since they were acquired but which have not been written up in value on their balance sheets. Financial services companies rarely own assets worth more than their stated value. Loans and bonds are hopefully worth their face amount, but doing much better than getting your m上ey back is hard unless such assets were acquired in distress 和 while banks often hold distressed assets they rarely acquire them as such. Even within the financial services sector 旅行lers (TRV) gets by with almost 21% equity. Not coincidentally, these are all holdings in our 被套期股息捕获策略,旨在通过对冲稳步发展,审慎管理公司的股票组合提供比企业债券更好的回报。普通读者所知道的,跑赢高等级债券根本就不是一个合理的目标是最有可能势在必行,以避免在税后实际财富损失。

银行杠杆绝对是个好银行和必要的是安全在一定程度上为了让信贷创造和经济增长。而杠杆有所回落,金融风险也没有,有可能在增加补偿和风险水平较高,因为两人已经一起成长之间的联系。减少银行家奖金不应该是一个客观的公共政策,而是进一步将导致股本增加的利润股权,而不是工作和更安全的系统的供应商也更大的份额。我一直觉得好多地方都是银行不是资本。这就是为什么我在一家银行很长一段时间,这提供劳动,但从来没有投资于超出一个必要的限制性股票的员工接受。但由于社会结出许多银行灾难的下跌空间,这是合理的要求是否被社会接受相称的利益。金融体系是可测量在过去的二十多年的风险更大。还有谁ESTA的帮助下超越金融家?

这是一个复杂的问题。整体经济已成为多个链接,当然还有永远只能一个版本历史记录来评估的。我们无法知道事情怎么竟然会和更低的银行杠杆,但一个不变的,否则脚本。没有“控制实验”要与之比较,所以它可能永远不会有一个满意的答案的问题。愿你有与巴塞尔资本III准则的许多问题,但对定向更大的资本转移似乎没有争议。如果希腊主权债务没有按照以往的规则赋予零风险权重,法国和德国的银行停止谁也不会批判性思维现在掌握这么多吧。我们不会有一个半年度欧元危机。每次讨论,发奋银行监管的增长,他们对系统性风险的态度应该是他们的应对措施的一部分。


阅读更多内容 在追求价值»的