Breaking Views

Bank stress tests: Not open to debate

Regulators shouldn't have to invent justifications for regulating properly. That gives banks too much power.

EMAIL  |   PRINT  |   SHARE  |   RSS
 
google my aol my msn my yahoo! netvibes
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close)
By Dwight Cass, breakingviews.com

(breakingviews.com) -- Informed debate is a crucial part of public policy development. But the behind the scenes tug-of-war between banks and the U.S. government over the results of their recent stress tests strains the exercise's already tenuous credibility. It also shows that banks have become too powerful.

How so? First, banks and their overseers run stress tests all the time, on individual products, divisions and the institutions as a whole. Without them, it would be very difficult to manage risk or allocate capital among business lines.

The current crisis proved these tests were inadequate - or in some cases, ignored. But that's largely because of management incentives to take outsized risks, and the fact that the scenarios used in the tests were not sufficiently grim.

So it's curious that regulators have put so much stock in the tests they unveiled in February. The release of their results has been delayed until next week, while banks ask for clemency. Since the results will determine which institutions will be forced to raise private capital or take further government infusions, the stakes are high.

But like the banks' earlier and insufficient stress tests, the government's worst-case scenarios aren't all that far-fetched. They also use banks' own estimates - meaning unscrupulous managers could tweak them to get a better grade. And bankers say they'll produce very little information that regulators don't already have.

Because of this, bank risk managers (admittedly, not the most credible group these days) tend to view these tests as a public relations stunt that regulators will use to force their institutions to toe Uncle Sam's line.

That, in itself, is worrying. Regulators shouldn't have to invent justifications for regulating properly. The right response by a bank when its overseer says jump is "how high?"

That regulators are wrangling with banks over the results of these tests shows that they are not confident in their ability to understand the institutions. That gives banks too much power.

It would be better for watchdogs to demand that they reduce their complexity to comprehensible levels. Otherwise they'll retain the upper hand - and no amount of testing will be sufficient to diagnose their problems. To top of page

Company Price Change % Change
Bank of America Corp... 15.84 -0.15 -0.94%
Alcoa Inc 14.59 -0.59 -3.89%
Chesapeake Energy Co... 15.49 -0.71 -4.38%
Cisco Systems Inc 29.33 -0.21 -0.71%
Apple Inc 128.54 -0.82 -0.63%
Data as of 4:03pm ET
Index Last Change % Change
Dow 18,096.90 -106.47 -0.58%
Nasdaq 4,967.14 -12.76 -0.26%
S&P 500 2,098.53 -9.25 -0.44%
Treasuries 2.12 0.00 0.05%
Data as of 11:28pm ET
More Galleries
Cool cars from the 2015 Geneva Motor Show These are some of the stand-out cars and trucks on display at the 2015 Geneva Motor Show. More
Yahoo: 20 years of hits and flops The company that once was Google turns 20. We look back at the many, many brands it has cycled through. Remember Geocities? Broadcast.com? More
10 big dot-com flops Remember Pets.com? The Nasdaq is roaring back towards its all-time high. Here are some of the biggest dot-com busts from the last time the Nasdaq topped 5,000. More
Sponsors
Worry about the hackers you don't know 
Crime syndicates and government organizations pose a much greater cyber threat than renegade hacker groups like Anonymous. Play
GE CEO: Bringing jobs back to the U.S. 
Jeff Immelt says the U.S. is a cost competitive market for advanced manufacturing and that GE is bringing jobs back from Mexico. Play
Hamster wheel and wedgie-powered transit 
Red Bull Creation challenges hackers and engineers to invent new modes of transportation. Play