After financial markets close Thursday, the U.S. government and the nation's 19 largest banks will reveal results of the very stressful stress tests that bank supervisors have been conducting. By calibrating the capital cushion each big bank needs to withstand even-worse-than-anticipated losses over the next two years and then making banks raise that money, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have at least two goals: to dispel the uncertainty that hangs over banks and assure everyone that, even if conditions worsen, the U.S. economy and its banks will survive.
The stress tests won't resolve the crisis. But here's what we'll find out:
How much more blood the government expects big banks to lose.
For nearly three months, more than 150 federal employees have been scrutinizing bank books, questioning bankers' projections and comparing each bank's expectations. The government now knows more about the 19 banks, which represent about two-thirds of all U.S. bank assets, than anyone. It won't share all it learned, and critics still will insist the Treasury and Fed are insufficiently gloomy. But disclosing and applying a common set of economic assumptions and accounting conventions across the big banks to come up with a total will bring much needed clarity.
The latest International Monetary Fund estimates put total losses at a stunning $4.1 trillion for all financial institutions worldwide, counting known losses and those not yet acknowledged. The stress-test tally is narrower: as-yet-unacknowledged losses the 19 U.S. banks face in the next two years under bad but not catastrophic conditions. Private estimates range from about $300 billion to $1 trillion; the comparable IMF figure is about $400 billion. The government tally likely will fall in the middle, probably toward the lower end of the private range.
That's the first headline number: total potential losses beyond those the banks already have taken. Subtract that sum from banks' existing capital, add profits they'll make this year and next, and you get the second headline number: the total capital the government wants banks to raise in the next six months. That sum, Mr. Bernanke assured Congress this week, will be manageable; that's reassuring, as long as the estimate is credible.
Which banks are strong, and which aren't.
In the initial phase of its bank rescue,
burberry soldes, in October,
louboutin, the government deliberately didn't distinguish between weak and strong to avoid stigmatizing the weak.
Now, the government -- while insisting it will do what it takes to keep all 19 banks alive -- wants to distinguish between weak and strong. Market worries about the viability of the weak are hurting the ability of the strong to raise money and resume lending. The stress tests are intended to end that. Stress testers, for instance, didn't apply an across-the-board formula to gauge potential losses of commercial-real-estate loans; instead, they looked at each bank's loans and projected bigger losses at some and smaller at others -- and those differences will be made public.
The Geithner-Bernanke strategy is to reassure markets about the strength of the strong so they aren't dragged down by the weak, and to show a six-month road map for shoring up the weak -- with taxpayer money if needed. That makes sense, as long as it doesn't provoke a run on the weakest of the 19.
How banks will fill the holes.
Many, maybe most,
franklin marshall, will be told to raise more capital. Given the hassle, and congressionally mandated restraints on executive pay, no bank CEO prefers to take more taxpayer money. So they have good reason to offer alternatives.
Messrs. Bernanke and Geithner would be thrilled if even a few banks could sell common stock to investors. Despite the welcome recent upturn in bank stocks, that would be tough.
So bankers, even if unhappy with the government's stress-test verdict, will outline plans to sell assets -- both whole businesses and smelly loans and securities -- and to convert private and existing government preferred stock into common shares. That's not as solid as selling new shares,
air jordan shoes, but it saves money on dividends (thus increasing bank profits and fattening capital cushions), makes selling new common shares easier and is said by investors to improve the quality of bank capital. In the end, some banks will end up taking more taxpayer capital: which ones and how much may not be immediately clear.
The conclusion of the stress test should reduce some of the uncertainty that is undermining confidence in the banks. If the numbers are believable,
abercrombie, the results will infuse debate over the depth of the banks' woes with facts. If the process was as thorough as described, there should be fewer big surprises lurking in bank books.
That's all for the good. But ultimately,
louboutin, particularly if the economy deteriorates, President Barack Obama may tell Congress he needs more money for the banks. If so, he can honestly say he tried everything else first.
周四金融市场收盘后，美国政府以及全国19家主要银行将公布银行监管部门此前一直在进行的银行压力测试的结果。压力测试评估了每家银行为抵御未来两年高于预期的亏损所需的缓冲资本，然后督促银行筹集这笔资金。美国财政部长盖特纳(Timothy Geithner)和美国联邦储备委员会(Fed)主席贝南克(Ben Bernanke)这样做至少有两个目的：消除银行面临的变数；同时向所有人保证即便情况恶化，美国经济和银行业也能够生存。
压力测试本身并不会解决危机。但下面是我们即将看到的重要测试结果：
政府预计大型银行还会失血多少。
近三个月以来，150多名联邦政府人员一直在仔细审查各家银行的帐面，询问银行人士的预测，比较每家银行的预期。现在美国政府比任何人都更了解这19家大型银行，这些银行占到了美国银行资产总额的大约三分之二。美国政府不会公布它所了解到的所有情况，批评人士仍坚持认为财政部和美联储不够悲观。但是,
jordan shoes，对大型银行进行信息披露，并加之一套共同的经济假定和会计惯例，从而得出一个损失总额，这将给美国银行业带来急需的透明度。
据国际货币基金组织(IMF)最新估计，加上已知损失和尚未确认的损失，全球所有金融机构的损失总额将达到令人震惊的4.1万亿美元。压力测试的统计范围较小，只是美国银行19家未来两年在糟糕但非灾难性情况下所面临的未确认损失。私营部门预计的损失规模在大约3,
louboutin pas cher,000亿至1万亿美元，而IMF的相关预期是4,000亿美元左右。美国政府的预计规模可能会位于上述范围的中部，可能倾向于私营部门预期范围的低端。
压力测试获得的第一个重要数据是：除了已经公布的损失之外,
franklin marshall，这些银行的潜在损失总额。从这些银行的现有资本以及未来两年的利润中减去上述潜在损失，得出的结果就是压力测试第二个重要数据：即政府希望银行在未来六个月筹集的资本总额。贝南克本周向国会保证这个金额将是可管理的；只要预计结果可信，这就能令人安心。
哪些银行实力雄厚，哪些不是。
在去年10月银行救助措施的初步阶段，为了避免打击实力羸弱的银行，美国政府有意没有区别银行实力的强弱。
尽管美国政府仍坚称会继续采取措施维持全部19家银行运转，但政府现在希望能在强弱银行之间做出区分。由于市场对羸弱银行生存能力的担忧也影响到了实力强劲的银行筹集资本和恢复放贷的能力。压力测试就旨在解决这个问题。比如，实施压力测试的官员没有使用完全一样的公式来评估商业地产贷款的潜在损失；相反，他们察看了每家银行的贷款，预计一些银行会遭受较多损失，而其他银行会面临较小损失──这些差别也将公布于众。
盖特纳和贝南克的策略就是让市场放心强大的银行的实力，这样强劲银行就不会被疲弱银行拖后腿，同时向市场展示未来六个月提振疲弱银行资本的路线图──必要时会动用纳税人的资金。只要这种做法不会引发19家银行中实力最为弱小的银行受到挤兑，这种做法就是有意义的。
银行将如何补上窟窿。
许多银行（或许是大多数）都会被告知需要筹集更多资本。考虑到此前的风波以及国会对高管薪酬作出的强行限制，没有哪家银行的首席执行长会想再求助于纳税人资金。因此他们有足够的理由提出其他替代方案。
即便少数几家银行能向投资者发售普通股进行筹资，贝南克和盖特纳也会感到惊喜万分。虽然近期银行类股的上涨令人欣慰，但发股融资仍会困难重重。
因此，即便银行业人士对政府的压力测试结论感到不快，他们也会制定计划出售资产──既有整体业务,
nike air jordan，也有问题贷款和证券──同时将私人和政府现在所持的优先股转化为普通股。这种做法不如发售新股那么可靠，但却可以节省股息支出（从而提高银行利润，资金资本金基础），降低增发普通股的难度，并被投资者视为提高银行资本质量的途径。最后，一些银行还是会接受更多的纳税人资金；现在还不清楚哪些银行会接受政府资金以及接受的资金规模。
压力测试的结论应当能够减少目前影响对银行信心的一些不确定因素。如果结论数据是可信的话，测试结果将引发关于银行问题严重程度的争论。如果这个过程如描述的那么彻底的话，那么潜伏在银行帐面背后的重大意外就会更少一些。
这无疑都是有益的方面。但最终，尤其是如果经济状况恶化的话，美国总统奥巴马可能会告诉国会他需要更多资金用于银行。这样一来，奥巴马就可以开诚布公表示，他已经尝试了其他各种手段。相关的主题文章：
http://bbs.0739i.com.cn/showtopic.aspx?forumpage=1&topicid=679577&page=end&jump=pid#7329156 http://dvoryanin.ru/showthread.php?t=316848 http://www.enjoyahimsa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2232&view=unread#unread Make it a Habit - Remove the thinking element. If you can make exercise a habit, then it becomes that much easier to go. Here’s some tips on making habits stick if you aren’t sure where to start.
