Stress test results: most banks fine, Goldman struggles

It's not a problem though, says the bank.

Bank stress tests have come round again - and almost all banks are fine. 

Is this a surprise? What actually goes on in a stress test? Well basically, the FED pitches banks against hypothetical economic scenarios, seeing whether they'd stand up to them - which is really testing whether they have a sufficient cushion of capital in the case of "deep global recession". So stress tests are an attempt to safeguard against another 2008 scenario. But now, a few years on from the crisis, the tests are more being used as a gateway for bank payouts. Of the 18 tested, only one failed - (Ally), and for the 17 that passed the tests will pave the way for increased dividends and share buybacks.

Interesting weaknesses showed up in the case of Goldman Sachs - which finished third from last.

Here's the FT:

Goldman, normally renowned for its resilience, would suffer a $20bn loss in the depths of the hypothetical crisis and its ratio of core “tier one common equity” capital against risk-weighted assets would fall to 5.8 per cent, compared with a minimum requirement of 5 per cent, the Fed said.

..but the bank doesn't think this will be much of a problem:

Howard Chen, bank analyst at Credit Suisse told the FT: “Importantly, we do not believe this negatively impacts our capital return assumptions."

Aside from the test results themselves banks had another concern: whether other banks would jump the gun and announce plans for payouts to shareholders early, like JP Morgan did last year. Some called it a prisoner's dilemma scenario - if one bank goes, they all do. But the Fed asked banks not to make public their plans before next week's announcement.

Here's the chart - also available here, amongst other details.

 

Goldman Sachs building. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Stoke-on-Trent?

Labour are the favourites, but they could fall victim to a shock in the Midlands constituency.  

The resignation of Tristram Hunt as MP for Stoke-on-Central has triggered a by-election in the safe Labour seat of Stoke on Trent Central. That had Westminster speculating about the possibility of a victory for Ukip, which only intensified once Paul Nuttall, the party’s leader, was installed as the candidate.

If Nuttall’s message that the Labour Party has lost touch with its small-town and post-industrial heartlands is going to pay dividends at the ballot box, there can hardly be a better set of circumstances than this: the sitting MP has quit to take up a well-paid job in London, and although  the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs voted to block Brexit, the well-advertised divisions in that party over the vote should help Ukip.

But Labour started with a solid lead – it is always more useful to talk about percentages, not raw vote totals – of 16 points in 2015, with the two parties of the right effectively tied in second and third place. Just 33 votes separated Ukip in second from the third-placed Conservatives.

There was a possible – but narrow – path to victory for Ukip that involved swallowing up the Conservative vote, while Labour shed votes in three directions: to the Liberal Democrats, to Ukip, and to abstention.

But as I wrote at the start of the contest, Ukip were, in my view, overwritten in their chances of winning the seat. We talk a lot about Labour’s problem appealing to “aspirational” voters in Westminster, but less covered, and equally important, is Ukip’s aspiration problem.

For some people, a vote for Ukip is effectively a declaration that you live in a dump. You can have an interesting debate about whether it was particularly sympathetic of Ken Clarke to brand that party’s voters as “elderly male people who have had disappointing lives”, but that view is not just confined to pro-European Conservatives. A great number of people, in Stoke and elsewhere, who are sympathetic to Ukip’s positions on immigration, international development and the European Union also think that voting Ukip is for losers.

That always made making inroads into the Conservative vote harder than it looks. At the risk of looking very, very foolish in six days time, I found it difficult to imagine why Tory voters in Hanley would take the risk of voting Ukip. As I wrote when Nuttall announced his candidacy, the Conservatives were, in my view, a bigger threat to Labour than Ukip.

Under Theresa May, almost every move the party has made has been designed around making inroads into the Ukip vote and that part of the Labour vote that is sympathetic to Ukip. If the polls are to be believed, she’s succeeding nationally, though even on current polling, the Conservatives wouldn’t have enough to take Stoke on Trent Central.

Now Theresa May has made a visit to the constituency. Well, seeing as the government has a comfortable majority in the House of Commons, it’s not as if the Prime Minister needs to find time to visit the seat, particularly when there is another, easier battle down the road in the shape of the West Midlands mayoral election.

But one thing is certain: the Conservatives wouldn’t be sending May down if they thought that they were going to do worse than they did in 2015.

Parties can be wrong of course. The Conservatives knew that they had found a vulnerable spot in the last election as far as a Labour deal with the SNP was concerned. They thought that vulnerable spot was worth 15 to 20 seats. They gained 27 from the Liberal Democrats and a further eight from Labour.  Labour knew they would underperform public expectations and thought they’d end up with around 260 to 280 seats. They ended up with 232.

Nevertheless, Theresa May wouldn’t be coming down to Stoke if CCHQ thought that four days later, her party was going to finish fourth. And if the Conservatives don’t collapse, anyone betting on Ukip is liable to lose their shirt. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.