Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. The Trump Stock Market Trap May Be Triggered - Barry_M_Ferguson
2.Why are Central Banks Buying Gold and Dumping Dollars? - Richard_Mills
3.US China War - Thucydides Trap and gold - Richard_Mills
4.Gold Price Trend Forcast to End September 2019 - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Money Saving Kids Gardening Growing Giant Sunflowers Summer Fun - Anika_Walayat
6.US Dollar Breakdown Begins, Gold Price to Bolt Higher - Jim_Willie_CB
7.INTEL (INTC) Stock Investing to Profit From AI Machine Learning Boom - Nadeem_Walayat
8.Will Google AI Kill Us? Man vs Machine Intelligence - N_Walayat
9.US Prepares for Currency War with China - Richard_Mills
10.Gold Price Epochal Breakout Will Not Be Negated by a Correction - Clive Maund
Last 7 days
Halifax Stopping Customers Withdrawing Funds Online - UK Brexit Banking Crisis Starting? - 21st July 19
US House Prices Trend Forecast 2019 to 2021 - 20th July 19
MICROSOFT Cortana, Azure AI Platform Machine Intelligence Stock Investing Video - 20th July 19
Africa Rising – Population Explosion, Geopolitical and Economic Consquences - 20th July 19
Gold Mining Stocks Q2’19 Results Analysis - 20th July 19
This Is Your Last Chance to Dump Netflix Stock - 19th July 19
Gold and US Stock Mid Term Election and Decade Cycles - 19th July 19
Precious Metals Big Picture, as Silver Gets on its Horse - 19th July 19
This Technology Everyone Laughed Off Is Quietly Changing the World - 19th July 19
Green Tech Stocks To Watch - 19th July 19
Double Top In Transportation and Metals Breakout Are Key Stock Market Topping Signals - 18th July 19
AI Machine Learning PC Custom Build Specs for £2,500 - Scan Computers 3SX - 18th July 19
The Best “Pick-and-Shovel” Play for the Online Grocery Boom - 18th July 19
Is the Stock Market Rally Floating on Thin Air? - 18th July 19
Biotech Stocks With Near Term Catalysts - 18th July 19
SPX Consolidating, GBP and CAD Could be in Focus - 18th July 19
UK House Building and Population Growth Analysis - 17th July 19
Financial Crisis Stocks Bear Market Is Scary Close - 17th July 19
Want to See What's Next for the US Economy? Try This. - 17th July 19
What to do if You Blow the Trading Account - 17th July 19
Bitcoin Is Far Too Risky for Most Investors - 17th July 19
Core Inflation Rises but Fed Is Going to Cut Rates. Will Gold Gain? - 17th July 19
Boost your Trading Results - FREE eBook - 17th July 19
This Needs To Happen Before Silver Really Takes Off - 17th July 19
NASDAQ Should Reach 8031 Before Topping - 17th July 19
US Housing Market Real Terms BUY / SELL Indicator - 16th July 19
Could Trump Really Win the 2020 US Presidential Election? - 16th July 19
Gold Stocks Forming Bullish Consolidation - 16th July 19
Will Fed Easing Turn Out Like 1995 or 2007? - 16th July 19
Red Rock Entertainment Investments: Around the world in a day with Supreme Jets - 16th July 19
Silver Has Already Gone from Weak to Strong Hands - 15th July 19
Top Equity Mutual Funds That Offer Best Returns - 15th July 19
Gold’s Breakout And The US Dollar - 15th July 19
Financial Markets, Iran, U.S. Global Hegemony - 15th July 19
U.S Bond Yields Point to a 40% Rise in SPX - 15th July 19
Corporate Earnings may Surprise the Stock Market – Watch Out! - 15th July 19
Stock Market Interest Rate Cut Prevails - 15th July 19
Dow Stock Market Trend Forecast Current State July 2019 Video - 15th July 19
Why Summer is the Best Time to be in the Entertainment Industry - 15th July 19
Mid-August Is A Critical Turning Point For US Stocks - 14th July 19
Fed’s Recessionary Indicators and Gold - 14th July 19
The Problem with Keynesian Economics - 14th July 19

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Top AI Stocks Investing to Profit from the Machine Intelligence Mega-trend

Banks Survive 5 MPH Bumper Stress Test

Politics / Credit Crisis Bailouts May 08, 2009 - 11:45 AM GMT

By: Dr_Martenson


Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleWith great fanfare it was leaked (at strategic market moments throughout the week) and then announced that the 19 largest banks all passed the so-called "stress tests." Under a test track of their own choosing, and with the ability to negotiate the interpretation of the damage resulting from an ultra low-speed collision, the banks have now been proclaimed "safe at any speed." If you are not comforted by this news, you are not alone.

As I wrote about in my last report the bank "stress tests" are a sham in part because the trajectory of even the worst case stress test scenario (called "more adverse" by the regulators) has already been exceeded to the downside by real-world economic results.

Worse than that, the "stress test" allowed banks to set their own prices using methods that you and I are not allowed to see. As we know, banks have been especially bad at figuring out the prices of their assets and, without exception, have always erred on the sunny side of the asset projection landfill. At least that's been true to several years running. Now you are supposed to believe that they've got it all suddenly right and to help you really believe in these results, the government and banks will not release the actual methods or prices used.

And worse than THAT, the stress tests are limited to the standard loan portfolios of the banks and do not include the lion's share of the derivatives that they are carrying on their books. You know, the things that have actually caused more bank assets to go up in smoke than any other bank holding.

After we move past these small problems, we then have to contend with cheerleading-style reporting that is so transparently in the "rah-rah" camp as to be embarrassing.

If the Times and other print media are wondering why they are losing customers and money and in danger of going out of business I would strongly encourage them to begin with an autopsy on this article as an exemplar of "what they're doing wrong." I actually winced when I read this account in the New York Times.

U.S. Says Ailing Banks Need $75 Billion

Verdict More Upbeat Than Prior Scenarios

WASHINGTON — After subjecting the nation’s biggest banks to the most public scrutiny in decades, federal regulators ordered 10 of them on Thursday to raise a total of $75 billion in extra capital and gave the rest a clean bill of health.

*sigh* I hardly know where to begin here. There's so much wrong already in the sub headline and opening sentence that analyzing it is like being asked to critique the strategic use of the soccer pitch by your 3-year old son's pee-wee league team. Where does one start?

I guess I'll begin at the top. I have no idea what they mean by "Verdict more upbeat than prior scenarios." What prior scenarios?Were there any? What are they talking about?

The scenarios used by the government, as I've already cataloged, were not nearly as severe as actual real-world results. Unemployment, GDP and housing prices are ALL already on trends that surpass the worst case scenario of the government stress test. So which scenarios are they referring to? It can't be the government stress test scenarios, because those were more upbeat than reality itself, so I really have no idea.

Next I might note the clumsy use of opinionated and upbeat language such as that bolded in the quote above. For example I could easily take exception to the "subjecting…to the most public scrutiny" opinion because banks are regularly subjected to equal scrutiny with every quarterly SECrelease. There is literally no new information coming out of the banks as a result of this stress test. At least none that I know of. I would kind of expect that "the most public scrutiny in decades" would be accompanied by some additional data that could be seen by the public. Otherwise it's not really "public," right?

As to the "clean bill of health", this too is an unsupportable claim due to the exclusions and limitations of the stress test. That sentence should come with an asterisk(*) and the footnote should read:

(*) The Clean Bill of Health only applies under the baseline conditions of the stress test assumptions which have already been vastly exceeded and further assumes that the banks have been forthright and accurate in their self-assessment of losses to date and future risks, and that there are no substantial or material impacts from their existing portfolio of derivatives which we did not even ask about let alone examine.

In this next paragraph the NYT article carries on in the same manner as in the opening sentence:

The stress tests were aimed at estimating how much each bank would lose if the economic downturn proved even deeper than currently expected. But regulators gave the banks a break by letting them bolster their capital with unusually strong first-quarter profits and also by letting the banks predict modest profits even if the economy again turns down.

You know I think it's great when individuals are given a break and can post unusually strong earnings and are allowed to optimistically predict modest profits even during a tough patch.

But I think it's an obvious travesty of regulatory competence when the same courtesies are extended to failed institutions receiving public money that have repeatedly exhibited a complete inability to conduct themselves in a trustworthy or responsible manner.

In the meantime I might note that everybody but the NYT and their desperately sinking journalistic brethren seems to have figured out that the "unusually strong first quarter profits" recorded by the banks were the result of an arbitrary and fictitious gain due to a mid-flight accounting rule change.

I took the liberty of rewriting that final sentence in the above quote box for the NYT. This is an equally biased and equally valid opinion piece as they put forth, only I am being upfront about it. Here it is:

Inexplicably, despite repeated past failures by these same banks to properly assess risks or manage their operations in a responsible manner, regulators failed to deduct one-time profits resulting from a politically motivated accounting change and even went so far as to allow banks to predict profits under worse economic conditions than those which have already caused them to lose money at the fastest rate ever recorded.

That's the same information only I spun it one way while the NYT spun it the other. The difference is I stuck mine in a blog with a caveat while the NYTput theirs above the fold on the front page as a news article. Frankly, the NYT could stand to hire a few Wikipedia editors who would have shredded the opinions and unsupported claims from that article in seconds.

Just for kicks, see if you can spot the not-so-subtle phraseology and framing that is used to offset those for and against the stress tests:

“The results off the stress tests should put to rest the harmful speculation we have seen over the past few months,” declared Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, hours before the results were even made public.

“With the clarity that today’s announcement will bring, we hope banks are going to get back to the business of banking,” Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, said Thursday.


“It’s window-dressing,” said Bert Ely, a longtime bank analyst based in Alexandria, Va. Mr. Ely was particularly skeptical about letting companies bolster their balance sheets by converting preferred shares to common. “That won’t add one extra dollar to a bank’s capital buffer against losses,” Mr. Ely complained. “It’s just moving capital from one place to another.”

Geez - don't you just hate skeptical complainers and prefer those who bring clarity and hope and can put to rest harmful speculation?

OK - I was being sarcastic there. What I wanted to point out is that the NYT used the actual hopeful words of the proponents of the stress tests with a neutral presentation style but then actively inserted the words "skeptical" and "complained" to help shape our opinions of the critic of the stress tests.

These are not terribly subtle attempts at emotional and psychological control of the reader and ever since I have learned to spot them I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the NYT, et al., and find myself unable to read their articles as anything other than opinion pieces. Why would Isubscribe to such a newspaper? As a capitalist I have a strong belief that propaganda should be free.

Finally, here's my prediction from the Martenson Report on the stress tests released on Sunday May 3rd, 2009:

The stress tests will reveal that everything is mostly okay. For appearance's sake, a few banks will be shown to need a modest amount of capital, but this is only because the Treasury doesn’t think it can get away with simply proclaiming that everything is 100% good at every bank.

I advise you to tune out what is certain to be an upbeat assessment of the condition of our banks, when the stress test results are finally released. My opinion is that the stress tests were specifically designed to be neither stressful nor revealing. Instead, they were designed to produce expected results for the purpose of instilling confidence in banks and in the crisis management team.

I would speculate that the stress test results will lead to a stock market rally, stronger bond prices, and falling gold prices. This has been a fairly reliable pattern after economic news is released, especially if the news is big enough and politically charged. The stress tests meet these criteria in spades.

Were I holding any stocks that I wished to unload, I would use any such rally as the perfect vehicle to accomplish that task.

As of this time stock futures are (of course) up on the announcement. Me? I am getting out of the car and will wave to the banks and their passengers as they set off down the road.

Your faithful information scout,

By Dr. Chris Martenson

Copyright © 2009 Dr Chris Martenson
Dr Martenson is the creator of The End of Money economic seminar series, has extensive experience analyzing and communicating financial information.  Dr. Martenson combines a scientist's attention to fact and analysis (PhD, Duke University, Pathology and Toxicology) with a solid understanding of finance and economics (MBA, Cornell, Finance) with strategic thinking (4 years as a management consultant) to produce an insightful and powerful lecture. He is currently devoted to researching, writing and presenting economic and financial analyses delivering his message via his website, lecture series and is currently working on a related book & movie.

Dr. Chris Martenson Archive

© 2005-2019 - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


08 May 09, 12:32
Media Bias

If you are looking for a more informative news story about the bank stress tests I recommend this one from :

Newsy aggregates global news into video clips so you get multiple perspectives on the same story. The bank coverage story uses these sources: The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Washington Post

Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules