If RBS needs capital, taxpayers will suffer

 
Man with umbrella walks past an RBS bank

The news for Europe's banks doesn't get a lot better, with this morning's downgrade of the credit ratings of Portugal's banks by Moody's - on concerns about the quality of their big loans to the Portuguese government (inter alia).

And for the UK, the long expected downgrade (also by Moody's) of the credit ratings of Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB (sic), Santander and a number of smaller banks and building societies has taken place - which, I have to say, I regard as of lesser significance.

The point is that the UK banks' downgrade is an inevitable consequence of government policy to reduce the likelihood that they would be bailed out in a crisis - of which the most conspicuous manifestation has been the Vickers' commission recommendations to put retail banks behind a ring fence and make creditors to banks explicitly liable to losses.

So, in a sense, the downgrades should be viewed as a good thing, if they reflect a genuine transfer of risk from taxpayers to the banks' creditors. The important point, for today however, is that these downgrades have been anticipated and discounted by the market for some time, so their real economic impact on the affected banks should be negligible.

Or to put it another way, these banks are already paying more to fund themselves, to reflect the perceived increase in the risks faced by those who finance them.

But what about the wider problem of the perceived weakness of the eurozone's banks, which is the faultline running through the global economy right now?

Health checks

If the eurozone does turn the current jaw-jaw into a war-war against the weakness of banks' balance sheets, how much capital would European banks be forced to raise - and which big banks would be forced to raise the most?

Well the French financial firm, Natixis, has done a quick, dirty and gripping analysis.

It has made a number of assumptions about the parameters that would be used by the European Banking Authority for determining the amount of capital that would need to be injected into banks, to protect them against potential future losses.

Natixis assumes the following percentage writedowns (or "marks") on Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish debt, respectively: 70%, 40%, 40%, 20% and 20%. And then it assumes the banks would need to preserve a core tier one ratio of either 7% or 8% on these stressed scenarios by the end of 2012.

Now on that basis, the European banking sector would have to raise €90bn to maintain core equity capital at 7% of assets, or €182bn for 8%.

Now what is quite striking is that on Natixis's calculations, the banks that would have to raise the most capital are from Italy and Greece, for the obvious reason that they have greatest exposure to their respective governments, and from Germany. But, interestingly, French banks would be in need of less capital.

Here is Natixis's league table of which banks need what:

  1. Commerbank of Germany would need €4.6bn to preserve a 7% capital ratio and €7.7bn at 8%;
  2. Deutsche of you-know-where would need €3.1bn for 7% and €8.1bn for 8%;
  3. Italy's Unicredit would need a staggering €7.2bn and €12.5bn;
  4. BBVA and Santander of Spain would need nudging €4bn each if the capital threshold were set at 8%, but negligible amounts at 7%;
  5. BNP would need €6.2bn at 8% and nothing at 7%;
  6. Soc Gen would need €2.9bn for 7% and €7.3bn for 8%.

What conclusions flow from this?

That a Europe-wide capital-raising exercise could be painful for the Germans. And if ministers want to do what investors and creditors apparently want them to do, which is to force a serious recapitalisation of big French banks, the minimum capital threshold would have to be set high, at 8%.

Given that these measures to strengthen banks will almost certainly apply to all EU banks, not just eurozone banks, what impact would they have on British banks.

If the minimum stressed capital ratio were set at 8%, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Lloyds would all be forced to raise new capital.

Among the British banks Royal Bank of Scotland is most vulnerable to being forced to raise new capital, because under July's health checks its stressed capital ratio emerged relatively low at 6.3% (compared with 7.3% for Barclays, 7.7% for Lloyds and 8.5% for HSBC).

So if the new minimum capital bar were set at 7% (and we have no idea where it will ultimately be set) RBS would seem to need to raise a few billions of additional capital.

Taxpayer loss

But there are a couple of important riders.

The first is that RBS would claim that the original stress test made it look much weaker than is really the case: in assessing RBS's vulnerability to future losses on financial trading, an average was taken of its losses over the past few years, during which RBS incurred record-breaking, eye-watering losses on financial trading; and since then its trading book has shrunk very considerably and become much less risky.

So the stress tests' methodological approach of averaging recent trading losses would exaggerate RBS's current fragility and vulnerability to loss - and in a sense would discriminate against it.

The interesting question is whether other European governments will take any heed of this, as and when the Treasury argues that RBS is stronger than it looks.

What happens if RBS were forced to raise additional capital?

Well that would be quite bad news for taxpayers. Because under the terms of its government bailout, RBS has the right to sell new shares to the government at 50p per share, or roughly twice the current price (in technical terms, 50p is the conversion price of RBS's 'B' shares).

In other words, taxpayers would incur massive losses on an injection of capital into RBS which may well be a needless injection of capital.

I would therefore expect the chancellor to argue pretty strongly to his eurozone counterparts that RBS has quite enough capital for now.

And if he were to lose this battle, he might well be better off launching a takeover bid to acquire all of RBS - to nationalise it fully - than recapitalising the bank through an exercise of the existing rescue mechanism.

 
Robert Peston, economics editor Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

Half a cheer for depression's end

On Friday we will have either the most symbolically important or the most pointless economic event of recent times, when the depression in Britain caused by the banking crisis is finally declared officially over.

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +45

    Comment number 1.

    Do "they" time these things deliberately? The downgrades are based on pretty longterm factors, yet they coincidentally happen just as financial stocks were starting to rally.... again.

    I can't help but think that some people are making huge somes of money trading these seesaw movements.

  • rate this
    +11

    Comment number 2.

    Why would anyone want to recapitalise most of the Greek and Irish banks? Let them collapse, leading to a reset of these countries financial systems.

    As for RBS, if capital is needed from government it should be fully nationalised at minimal (even zero) compensation to the remaining shareholders. It will effect my pension fund but could it be a positive effect in the end?

  • rate this
    +37

    Comment number 3.

    The taxpayer seems these days to have one sole function to perform and that is to rescue the banks from their own stupidity and greed.

    The time has clealry run out for the banks and nationalisation seems to beckon as the most rational strategy for the country. This will make it much easier to reform the entire banking sector and rebalance the economy.

    My patience has run out.

  • rate this
    +35

    Comment number 4.

    Moody's downgrading UK banks. This is the same guys that rated sub-prime debt as AAA and then later got themselves out of trouble by saying "hey, you shouldn't have trusted us, it's just our opinion!". So why are we still trusting these guys?

    As has been proved, they and the other rating agencies are ultimately unaccountable.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 5.

    Here's a nice little interative "Personal Bank Stress Test" simulator from Reuters which uses the data from the last stress test: http://tinyurl.com/6xyhywg

    Just reduce all the haircuts from the PIIGS to zero and leave the Core Tier 1 Capital Ratio at 7% and you get RBS on top. This is WITHOUT any PIIGS defaulting.

    Funnilly, this sim is optimistic since it doesn't seem to include interbank debt

 

Comments 5 of 310

 

This entry is now closed for comments

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.