NEW ADDITIONS TO THE McGRAW-HILL FINANCIAL BOOKS’ WEB SITES
KEY BANK PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PREPARED QUARTERLY BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC)
(FDIC-Insured Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions)
2012* 2011* 2010 2009 2008 2007
Bank Return Measures:
Return on Assets (ROA ) 1.02% 0.86% 0.65% -0.07% 0.03% 0.81%
Return on Equity (ROE) 9.07 7.68 5.85 -0.72 0.35 7.75
Bank Debt (leverage) Exposure:
Core Capital Ratio(%) 9.20% 9.13% 8.89% 8.60% 7.47% 7.97%
Bank Asset Quality:
Noncurrent to all Assets 2.53% 2.96% 3.11% 3.36% 1.91% 0.95%
Net Charge-offs on Loans 1.17 1.83 2.55 2.52 1.29 0.59
Bank Asset Growth Rate:
Asset Expansion(%) 3.81 0.59 1.77 -5.45 6.19 9.88
Bank Net Interest Income and Expense:
Net Interest Margin 3.52 3.66 3.76 3.49 3.16 3.29
Growth in Bank Operating Income:
Net Operating Income(%)17.31 77.42 1602.38 -155.69 -90.71 -27.58
Number of FDIC- Insured Institutions:
Commercial Banks 6,263 6,453 6,530 6,840 7,087 7,284
Savings Institutions 1,044 1,121 1,128 1,172 1,218 1,250
Failed Institutions 16 26 157 140 25 3
Unprofitable Insti. (%) 10.33 15.69 22.09 36.84 24.89 12.1
______
Notes: Data excludes insured branches of insured foreign banks. *Numbers for 2012
cover through March of that year. Asset growth is measured for 12 months ending in March.
Before 2012 thedata did not encompass insured savings institutions that submit reports
entitled Thrift Financial Reports. When the calendar enters in 2012 all FDIC-insured
depository institutions are expected to submit valid Call Reports.
Source: FDIC, Quarterly Banking Profile, Volume 6. No. 2 in FDIC Quarterly, 2012.
______
The figures in the table above stress the importance of the economy and
the business cycle in influencing the financial condition of banks and other depository
institutions. For example, measures of the rate of return for both assets and equity capital dipped
sharply lower, especially in the depths of the Great Recession (particularly in 2009). Bank income and
revenue fell and the industry’s debt expanded, accompanying a truly serious economic contraction.
Gradually, however, in the Great Recession loan quality improved as fewer loans had to be written off as
worthless. This gain in loan quality could be traced to some degree to the recovery from the world-wide
recession. Not surprisingly, bank asset growth became negative but subsequently recovered as the
global economic downturn seemed to fade. Almost half of all depositories registered lesser loan-
loss provisions, especially in the areas of credit-card and real estate loans during the years beginning
2010 and moving forward.
Bank net interest margins (i.e., interest revenues less interest expenses)rose for a time while operating
income declined as manybank service fees ebbed. Revenues in general moved upward due, in part, to
greater bank loan sales and improving bank investment security positions.
The number of commercial banks in the U.S. banking industry population declined by close to a
thousand. In contrast, savings institutions dropped about 200 during the softening of the U.S. economy
over the 2007-2012 period. Failed depositories rose to roughly 150 during 2010 and 2011 and
unprofitable depositories jumped at least 10 percent amongall reporting FDIC-
insured depository institutions.
From the perspective of sources of bank funds more depository institutions came to depend
predominantly on both domestic and foreign deposits as the economy struggled. In contrast,
nondepositliabilitieslessened as a source of institutional funds in a pressured economy. Finally, the
number of banks falling into the category “problem banks” decreased,at least as viewed by theFDIC.
Not surprisingly in a recovering economy the proportion of troubled banks declined significantly.
Alternative Indicators Used to Measure Financial Stability in the United States and Around the World
Besides the indicators of bank financial health compiled by the FDIC, as summarized above, there
has emerged a growing listof financial and nonfinancial stress indexes. These indicators are used by
central banks, regulatory agencies, and economic studies around the globe to determine if the financial
system maintains its healthwith relative safety from stress. (See, for example, Kevin L. Kliesen,
Michael T. Owyang, and E. KatarinaVermann, “Disentangling Diverse Measures: A Survey of Financial
Stress Indexes,” Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, Volume 94, No. 5 (September/October
2012)).
Examples of U.S. FSI (Financial Stress Indicators) Other Than Those Prepared by the FDIC
Among the most numerous financial stress indicators employed in recent stress studies are:
Banking interest revenues less interest cost s Emergency central bank loans
Bank stock prices Bank bond rates Interbank loan rate spreads
LIBOR (London Interbank Loan Rate) Bank asset returns
Bank capital(funds raised free of bank liabilities to support bank assets)
Real Gross Domestic Product(RGDP) Index Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Industrial Production Index
Broad Stock Market Index (such as the Wilshire 5000) Chicago Board Options Exchange Index
Interest Rate Spreads Measuring Differences in Default, Maturity, Liquidity, Inflation, LIBOR, On and
Off the Run Treasury Securities, etc.
Interest-Rate Gaps In Bond Market data and Consumer Loan and Asset-Backed Spreads
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Financial Stress Index
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Financial Stress Index
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago National Financial Conditions Indicator
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Financial Stress index
Examples of International FSIs
Comparative Interest-Rate Spreads Across Borrowing Rates of Different Nations
Interest-Rate(10-year) and Credit Default Swaps(CDS) Traded in International Markets
United States Less United Kingdom (and other) Covered Exchange Rates
Growth of Industrial Production Across Nations and Regions
Correlations Among FSIs Associated With Multiple Production Levels
Inverted International Yield Curve
Broad Stock Market Indicators (such as those represented by the Wilshire 5,000 Index
and the S&P 500)
Bank Capital Requirements in North America and Europe (Basle III)
Even as leading bank and nonbank financial institutions work to measure and capture
stability in the financial system an equally strong effort is under way to build up
financial firms’ capital relative to the risky assets they hold. In particular, government regulators and
central banks are reducing the use of leverage in the banking and financial system,
periodically adjusting Tier I or Core Capital amounts relative to Total Risk-Weighted Assets to the vicinity
of 9 percent. At the same time “stress tests” are underway to determine what weaknesses
may subsequently emerge in economic and financial conditions. (See especially Chapter 15 of
Banking and Financial Services , 9th edition, Rose and Hudgins, published by McGraw-Hill.)
New proposed capital rules inside the United States call for twice-a-year stress tests. Specifically,
the highly controversial Volcker Rule limits banks’ investments in private equity and hedge funds,
proposing about 3 percent Tier I Capital as a capital base for many banks and further support
from additional capital buttressing relative to risky assets. There is also a heavy target focus
on using added capital to defend bank depositors, especially where banks have continued to chase
after the riskiest assets.
Does this effort to build international capital ratios make financial firms more safe? Not necessarily.
Capital-to-Assets’ratios reflect accounting measures which frequently send out mixed messages as
externaland internal conditions change. Research studies in the United States, for example, have found
that bank failures often are not effectively linked to the amount of capital reserves these institutions
frequently post on their financial statements. There is little guaranteethat adding to a financial firm’s
capital cushion,however defined, will prevent failures, reduce financial turmoil, or accentuate system-
wide financial risk.
EUROPEAN BANKING AUTHORITIES
One of the leading government regulators in this field of financial stress management, particularly in
Europe, is the EBA—specifically the European Banking Authority, based in London. The ECB
bears some features comparable, to some extent, to several U.S. regulators—the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and selected other U.S. financial
agencies.
The EBA may soon find itself in conflict over control and influence within the Euro zone
with the ECB—the European Central Bank. The ECB is currently bolstering the liquidity of European
banks just as the U.S. central bank—the Fed-- is similarly attempting to strengthen American banking
firms.(The ECB is headquartered in Frankfurt Germany.)
As financial trends move forward, especially where the EBA and the ECB coversimilar ground (for
example: stress tests of bank capital positions) these two important European regulators will need to
find greater common ground. One or the other or both agencies will likely seek new and expanded
regulatory power.
CONSOLIDATION IN BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
The population of many industries displaysthe features of the business cycleduring successive time
periods, including:
(1) longer-term time trendsthat may cover years, decades, generations, or even centuries; and/or
(2) shorter –term time trends which may involve weeks, months, quarters, or perhaps years.
The Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the years that preceded and succeeded this
tumultuous periodreflected various phases of the business cycle, including a period of economic
contraction,which bottomed out in 2008-2009, and a period of relatively slow economic expansion
which reached into2010 and beyond.
Banking is an prominent example of an industry frequently experiencing periods of economic
contraction, in which bank failures may accelerate. Many weak banks may be consolidated
with other financial-service providers, each of similar size, or may be purchased by larger financial
firms bent on taking up leading industry positions through acquisitions of
smaller banking institutions.Industries like banking often work to consolidate their resources so that
fewer banks gradually emerge after an economic contraction than before any contraction begins.
Either way, some financial firms come to dominate and absorb their brethren.
For example, the number of FDIC-insured depository institutions totaled 8,534 in 2007, but fell to
7,357 in 2011. This was a net decline of 1,177 U.S. depository institutions in approximately four years
orabout 14 percent over the 2007-2011 time span. Thus,the industry experienced consolidation,
presumably becoming somewhat more efficient under the pressure of a recession. The industry also
conducted further consolidation in asubsequent period of economic expansion, aimed at raising new
capital to finance the acquisition nd launching of new organizational targets.
One of the more popular measures of industry growth is to calculate the change-- say, over a year-- in
the numbers of new firms created, the numbers of firms undergoing transformation into branch offices,
the number of firms completely ceasing operations, and a miscellaneous category of changes (such as
sales of branch facilities and movements between different bank categories). The result is a broad
equation for tracking the structural makeup of an industry. For example:
The Number of Banks Beginning the Year – The Number of Banks Ending the Year = Net Change in
the Industry’s Banks
= (Number of Newly Chartered Banks -Banks Converted into Branches – Banks Ceasing Operations
Plus (+) or Minus(-) Miscellaneous Changes in Branch Sales, Movements between Groups of Banking
Firms, etc. ).
For example, as reported by the Federal Reserve Board, there were 7,158 different banking firms
operating at the close of December 31, 2009, but at the end of 2010 only 6,845 different banks
remained. This was a net change of 313 banking firms surviving the year in question. Of the
total net change in banking firms 17 were newly chartered banks, 174 were conversions of banks to
branch offices, 156 banks ceasedoperations (at least some of which were failures), and the remaining
institutions included a diverse group, some of which no longer met the definition of a banking firm.
For example, some financial firms no longer offered the critical services of demand deposits (i.e.,
paymentservices) andcommercial loans(i.e., business credit)that define a bank in the United States or
that technically have become ineligible for FDIC insurancecoverage.
As the figures above suggest the year 2009 marked the depth of a global recession, followed by 2010
that reflected, in part, a resurgence (recovery) from a recession. Banking suffered significant
losses in 2009 and 2010. For example, 131 banks ceased to operate in 2009 and even more(156)
surrendered in 2010. Fewer banks were chartered in 2009-2010 than were chartered in
2008-2009, going from 34 to 17 institutions. Nevertheless, this compares remotely with the depths of
the Great Depression of the 1930s when close to 5,000 banks failedor were closed in the United States,
stretching over several years.
Generally,many financial firms deal with economic contractions and economic expansions via
the merger process (that is, by acquiring each other) or by the failure process(in which some institutions
collapseand disappear, generally with the assistance of regulators). Insureddepository institutions that
do notmerge, but simply fail and disappear have their assets liquidated by the Federal Deposit
InsuranceCorporation in the United States or through regulators housed in other parts of the globe
by national authorities specifically assigned to that task.
______
Year of U.S. Bank and Thrift Failures Number Estimated Monetary Losses
2011 92 $122,065,121
2010 157 7,945,272
______
2009 140 38,732,250
2008 45 20,174,875 Recession
2007 3 204,775
______
2006 0 0
______
Source: FDIC, 2011Annual Report, pages 145-146.
The relatively new U.S. Dodd-Frank-Financial Reform Law of 2010 requires those leading financial firms
that may endanger the whole financial system to develop plans to liquidate
themselves, should that be necessary. That liquidation plan must be reviewed by the Financial Stability
Oversight Council(FSOC)——the federal financial committee composed of the
chair person of the Comptroller of the Currency(OCC), the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) chair, the
head of the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC), the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC),and a handful of other leading government financial agencies charged with
responsibility to prevent system-wide financial collapse. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury chairs FSOC.
As we saw above, acquirers in periods of economic recession and contraction often look for
opportunistic advantages tobuy out smaller and more troubled banks. An
interesting example occurred in the case of M&T Bank, headquartered in Buffalo, New York, which
proposed to purchase Hudson City Bancorp in Paramus, New Jersey.This was one of the largest U.S.
banking mergers in 2012. Hudson City, targeting a leading regional
mortgage lender, considered a part of the larger, multi-county New York market. The larger M&T
reported controlling about 735 branch offices and Hudson City Bank, about 135 branches at the time of
theproposed merger. M&T held approximately $80 billion in assetsand controlled branches reaching
from Virginia to Connecticut. Hudson posted about half as much (about $44 billion) in assets. It’s
market value was about one-third that of M&T. The economic contraction (recession) affecting these
banks scared off many other possible mergers, making the M&T-Hudson union one of the biggest
proposed mergers in the nation when the year 2012 rolled around.
The economic recession’s paucity of potential mergers reflected reduced bank profitably
and the shortage of capital that regulators were demanding banks lower the danger of system-wide
financial weakness. At the same time banks of all sizes (especially smaller institutions) were in hot
pursuit of reduced production costs, looking for opportunities to level –out or reduce
their operating costs.
In recent years several of the largest U.S. banks have chased after so-called “regional banks”, permitting
them tobite off a good-size chunk of selected geographic areas to enhance their share of the national
market. In contrast, “regional banks” (such as those based in the Mid-West, New England, Texas, and
theSouthwest) often merge with each other, tying different regions together. Finally the smallest banks
often pull each other together across city, town, or rural markets. Among smaller banks
these often seek a share of familiar local markets to gradually bridge or build a modestly larger
marketplace.
IS AMERICA “UNDERBANKED”?
One of the pressing public issues in recent years has been the increasing ratio of households who do not
have bank accounts relative to the total population who do own bank accounts. The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (as well as several private consulting firms)frequently have
conducted large-scale surveys of the banking habits of American individuals and families for several
years running. Consistently, these inquiries have suggested that at least 8% of U.S. households do not
own a checking account;roughly a quarter of households do not possess a major credit card;
about twentypercent do not possess a debit or check (payments) card; and close to 20 percent do not
acknowledge owning a savings account.
Who provides these well-known financial services? Not only banks, but also credit unions,
check-cashing firms, payment card issuers, finance companies, brokerage firms, payday lenders, and
other nonbank service providers.
Should this “underbanked” condition be a major cause for concern?
The frequency of the FDIC’s public announcements on this phenomenon suggests the latter agency
is especially concerned about the declining bank service trend. Yet a more accurate picture suggests
that this is “not necessarily a problem.” Rather, millions of households are
quite willing to seek out nonbank sources of deposit and credit accounts, preferring these to banking
suppliers. This sizeable nonbank group cleans out a substantial proportion of would-be bank
customers. Moreover, once we figure in nonbank financial providers of traditional bank-type services,
a major portion of the financial services market no longer falls under the FDIC or other federal
authorities for that matter. Thus, the power of the FDIC and its insurable bank deposits may be
somewhat diminished as the years go by.
Another likely possibility is that the public may pay more fees for basic financial
services. For example, those households without checking accounts may be using expensive money
orders to cover their obligations. Also the public seems to have a growing predilection for plastic