Stress Tests – Inoculation or Gimmick?
11 May 2009
Are the US government's much-ballyhooed bank stress test results improving transparency, risk management, and therefore building confidence in the ultimate solvency of the system's largest institutions?
Or, are the stress tests a largely political exercise, tantamount to putting a Band-Aid over a gangrenous limb?
Will the burst of confidence that the government's official verdicts on 19 large banks seem to have instilled in markets since the beginning of May, prove all too fleeting?
GF






Stress test is not a gimmick. The only way to regain investor confidence is if they see an independent body policing and safe guarding their retirement fund and savings. In fact in Australia an independent stress test should also be conducted. This is because almost all banks have exposures to toxic assets that may result to banks under reserve. There are also RMBS originated in Australia and most Australian banks and foreign banks have exposure to US and local RMBS. Exposure to toxic assets was a result of poor operation, IT (trading and risk system) and risk management in the past 5 years in the industry. This was also a result of dishonest portfolio managers and traders conspiring with IT and operation in non-disclosure of CDS and other derivatives to head office or management. A good example is Socgen Australia where even the head of credit and head of audit put a blind eye for the past 4 years. This has been happening as well to Deutche Bank, UBS and other foreign banks. The big 4 also have the same practice. The only difference is that they do not have the same level of operational risk because local banks do not have overseas operation.
Gary 25 May 2009
RECOMMEND
Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator