Does risk taking make banks less risky?

Standard & Poor's analysts see heightened default probability from the Volcker Rule.

By TheStreet Staff Oct 24, 2012 8:49AM

TheStreet LOGOJohn Foxx Stockbyte Getty ImagesBy Dan Freed

 

One of the key rules aimed at reducing banks' ability to take risks actually increases their likelihood of defaulting on their debts, according to credit ratings firm Standard & Poor's.

 

At issue is the Volcker Rule -- one of the parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation most hated by U.S. banking giants Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C).


The rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (possibly President Obama's most hawkish financial markets policy adviser) intends to limit banks' ability to make directional market bets. Its goal is to reduce the risk that banks will require another government bailout.

 

However, Standard & Poor's warned that a more strict interpretation of the Volcker Rule might have the opposite of its intended effect. A strict rule "could significantly hurt some banks' revenues and profits because of a substantial reduction in trading," the credit ratings agency stated in a report published Monday.

 

Most vulnerable, according to the report, are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, "because they derive a larger percentage of their revenues from trading than the other banks."

A stricter Volcker Rule wouldn't make banks riskier, three S&P analysts stressed during a phone interview with TheStreet.

 

"We're trying to assess the impact on ratings, which depend on businesses' market positioning, their level of capital and earnings and a number of other factors. Risk is certainly a part of that," said Standard & Poor's analyst Matthew Albrecht.

 

In other words, ratings don't just measure risk: they measure the ability of a company to pay its debts.

 

You might be excused for wondering what the difference is. It seems that risk, as Albrecht is defining it in the above statement, means market risk -- the risk of a sudden massive trading loss, like the $6 billion blow inflicted on JPMorgan by its own traders. Several such losses might begin to impact JPMorgan's ability to pay its debts.

 

Bernanke feeding the market a junk diet

 

But if JPMorgan suddenly lost half its clients, that would also affect its ability to pay its debts. JPMorgan losing clients (and, consequently profits) is certainly a risk bondholders need to think about, but it isn't what S&P analysts such as Albrecht mean by risk. They would put that in the category of "earnings" or "market positioning."

 

So, because they fear a strict Volcker Rule could severely hamper Goldman and Morgan Stanley's profitability, it might lead S&P's analysts to reduce their ratings.

 

Here it seems the credit analysts are injecting themselves into a political debate -- essentially agreeing with the banks that too-strict rule-making threatens their ability to make a decent profit.

 

Equity analysts do this all the time. They typically take the side of the banks against tougher regulations. But S&P's debt analysts appear less comfortable taking on such a role.

 

They stress that what may be good for the banking system as a whole isn't necessarily good for Goldman Sachs, and that, over time, if Goldman proves it can be profitable and less volatile after the Volcker Rule is in place, they can reassess the ratings.

 

Still, Albrecht acknowledged some skepticism about the history of bank regulation in the U.S.

 

"The U.S. doesn't have a great regulatory history, and that's one of the things that influences our ratings. I think if we see concrete evidence of an improved regulatory track record then that certainly could help the ratings," he said.

 

More from TheStreet.com

7Comments
Oct 24, 2012 10:56AM
avatar
Until we ban banks from making mortgage loans without  25% margin, there will always be massive risk in housing.  When you buy something with 2% down and it loses value who is losing the guy that put up 2% of the bet or the bank that puts up 98% of the bet?

We had a depression in the 30's caused by stock buying with little to no money down.  We now have had a similar melt down in housing.  This melt down was FUELED by government's bad decisions, that encouraged GAMBLING.

We can fix the problem the same way they did for the stock market.  Increase MARGIN.

Simple rule...   No FDIC insured bank may make a mortgage loan without 25 down payment.    This rule would have prevented the problem in the first place.  Anyone that dislikes this rule is ASKING for another meltdown.  Plain and simple.
Oct 24, 2012 11:31AM
avatar

Talk about RISKY.....

 

Which Romney will we see today on tv, the real one or the flip flopper ?????

For War against War, for women against women, for middleclass against middleclass, for coal against coal, for medical reform against medical reform.

A real shape shifter, a chameleon. America wake up to this guy he been an opportunist all his life !

Oct 24, 2012 12:09PM
avatar
Banks should not be allowed to trade or leverage depositors funds. Banks are supposed to keep depositors funds safe and only use ot for collateralized, secured loans. Once that objective was eliminated, repeal of Glass-Stegal, banks became no more safe than any other risk taking endeavor.  Lobbying against the Volcker Rule by publishing articles such as this is just propaganda to eliminate what little regulation has been put back on banking which is little if any.
Oct 24, 2012 11:59AM
avatar
Obama is Arrogant, Lazy, Corrupt and an imbecile...  Only those that vote for a living would vote for '57 States' and his continued war on those that work for a living.  We need to get rid of another 2500+ democrats like we did in 2010, before we can get America back on the right track.

Free market capitalism is still the best path to prosperity!


Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

STOCK SCOUTER

StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.

114
114 rated 1
278
278 rated 2
474
474 rated 3
641
641 rated 4
639
639 rated 5
663
663 rated 6
640
640 rated 7
499
499 rated 8
284
284 rated 9
122
122 rated 10
12345678910

Top Picks

SYMBOLNAMERATING
COPCONOCOPHILLIPS9
TAT&T Inc9
VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS9
KOGKODIAK OIL & GAS Corp9
CVXCHEVRON CORPORATION8
More

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

ABOUT

Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.