Banks Risk Capitol Punishment

Risk Capitol Punishment"/>

Banks Risk Capitol Punishment

银行股投资者今年没有觉察的最大风险是什么？不是不良证券或房贷违约，也不是资金问题，这些在2008年都已经让糊涂蛋们吃到了苦头。今年，投资者们引火烧身的原因是没察觉到已经扰乱了整个银行业的政治风险。虽然美国财长盖特纳(Timothy Geithner)制定了银行复苏计划，也充分表明了坚决执行的意愿，但政治风险丝毫没有减退的迹象。过去这几个月的一大教训是，财政部即使有计划，也不一定能自行其是。国会有另外的议程，有时比财政部的计划更受欢迎，国会应对美国国际集团(American International Group Inc.)奖金问题的表现就显示出这一点。一些银行似乎是认识到了政治对自身业务会产生多大的影响。周二，高盛集团(Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)首席执行长布兰克费恩(Lloyd Blankfein)说，可以理解，薪酬问题还将引发许多争论和愤怒。我们认识到，接受问题资产救助计划(TARP)的资金为发放薪酬创造了一个重大条件。事实是，如果没有政府出手干预，金融系统现在肯定已经七零八落－－政府给出的一些关键数据让人意识到政府参与程度之深。奥巴马的经济复苏顾问委员会负责人沃尔克(Paul Volcker)不久前说，我们身处一个依赖政府的金融体系中；我从没想过会看到这一天。相关数据证明了这一点。SNL Financial的数据显示，自去年秋季政府展开救助以来，金融公司已发行了2,250亿由政府担保的债券。如果没有政府担保，发行的债券可能根本不会有买家，或者要支付更高的利息。现在，投资者不得不担心财政部的银行救助计划中的部分内容遭到失败的可能性。政府向私人投资者发放低息贷款用于购买贷款和证券的计划尤其危险。如果银行已经对资产合理计价，它们就不愿意出售，因为已经承担了损失。但如果银行资产没有按市值计价，出售资产就会导致它们遭受损失。这样一来，可能就不会有太多银行参与财政部的计划。随后国会可能要求财政部拿出更有力的措施清理银行资产负债表。财政部的注资计划也可能带来意外的结果。这项计划可能让政府在完成压力测试后向资本不足的银行投资。例如，外界不知道政府希望银行的普通股权益资本比率达到什么标准。如果政府对看上去过低的比率水平表示满意，投资者可能就会怀疑政府是否切实了解银行的状况。普通股权益资本比率可能需要定得更高。高盛的数据显示，2000年，大型银行的平均比率为5.43%，远远高于去年年底的3%。对于银行股投资者来说，未来几个月有两个地方至关重要：银行的资产负债表和美国政府。Peter Eavis相关阅读美国国会监督小组：救助计划效果喜忧参半 2009-04-08美国财政部决定救助寿险公司 2009-04-08美联储收购房屋抵押贷款存在隐患 2009-04-03格林伯格：AIG救助计划已经失败 2009-04-03 本文涉及股票或公司document.write (truthmeter('2009年04月08日15:48', 'AIG'));美国国际集团英文名称：American International Group Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：AIGdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月08日15:48', 'SNY'));Sanofi-Aventis (ADS)总部地点：法国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：SNYdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月08日15:48', 'GS'));高盛集团英文名称：Goldman Sachs Group Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：GSdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月08日15:48', 'BIIB'));Biogen Idec Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纳斯达克股票代码：BIIBdocument.write (truthmeter('2009年04月08日15:48', 'SAN.FR'));Sanofi-aventis S.a.总部地点：法国上市地点：PARB股票代码：SASY


What's the biggest risk bank-stock investors have missed this year?Not toxic securities, not housing delinquencies and not funding problems, which all bit the dim-witted in 2008. This year, investors got burned by missing the political risk that has come to bedevil the banking sector. And though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has set out bank-revival plans -- and shows every intention of sticking to them -- political risk shows no sign of going away.One big lesson of the past few months is that the Treasury, even if it has a plan, doesn't always get its way. Congress has other -- sometimes more popular -- agendas, as shown by its response to bonuses at American International Group.Some banks appear to be recognizing how much politics can shape their business. On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs Group's Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein said: 'Understandably, compensation continues to generate a lot of controversy and anger. We recognize that having TARP money creates an important context for compensation.'The fact is that not much of the financial system would be standing today if the government hadn't intervened -- and key administration figures recognize the enormity of this commitment. 'We're in a government-dependent financial system; I never thought I'd see the day,' Paul Volcker, who heads the President's Ecomomic Recovery Advisory Board, recently said.The numbers bear this out. Since the fall, when the perk started, financial firms have issued $225 billion of debt with government guarantees, according to SNL Financial. Without that guarantee, issuers wouldn't have found buyers or would have paid a lot more in interest.Now investors have to worry about the possibility that parts of the Treasury's bank-support plans could fail.Particularly risky are programs where the government lends cheap money to private investors to buy loans and securities. If banks have accounted properly for their assets, they will have less incentive to sell, because they have already taken the losses. But if they haven't valued their assets close to market levels, selling would cause them to take a loss.As a result, participation could be low. The Treasury would then face calls from Congress to find more aggressive ways of cleaning up bank balance sheets.Treasury's capital-injection plan -- which potentially involves the government investing equity into undercapitalized banks after stress tests -- also could spring surprises.For instance, outsiders don't know where the government wants banks' tangible-common-equity ratios to end up. If the government appears content with ratios that look too low, investors might wonder whether it has a solid grasp of banks' health.And TCE ratios may need to be a lot higher. In 2000, the average ratio for large banks was 5.43%, far higher than the 3% recorded at the end of last year, according to Goldman Sachs.Two places matter for bank-stock investors over the coming months: the balance sheet -- and Washington.Peter Eavis