Banks Keep $35 Billion Markdown Off Income Statements (Update1)
May 19 (Bloomberg) -- Banks and securities firms, reeling
from record losses resulting from the collapse of the mortgage
securities market, are failing to acknowledge in their income
statements at least $35 billion of additional writedowns included
in their balance sheets, regulatory filings show.
Citigroup Inc. subtracted $2 billion from equity for the
declining value of home-loan bonds in its quarterly report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2 without mentioning the
deduction in the earnings statement or conference call with
investors that followed. ING Groep NV placed 3.6 billion euros
($5.6 billion) of negative valuations in its capital account,
while disclosing only an 80 million-euro depletion to income.
The balance-sheet adjustments are in addition to $344 billion
of writedowns and credit losses already reported on the income
statements of more than 100 banks. These companies have raised
$263 billion from sovereign wealth funds, their own governments
and public investors to shore up capital. The balance-sheet
writedowns also reduce equity, which needs to be replenished.
Adding the $35 billion leaves the banks with a $116 billion
mountain of losses to climb.
``The smart people are the ones who've identified the
problems, put them out there in full transparency, and addressed
them by raising more capital,'' said Michael Holland, who oversees
more than $4 billion as chairman of Holland & Co. in New York.
``There is still billions of dollars of crap out there that hasn't
worked itself through the system. Banks need more capital to work
that all out.''
Accounting Rules
Taking losses on a balance sheet instead of an income
statement is acceptable under accounting rules, which make a
distinction between so-called trading books and long-term
investments. Changes in value on the trading side go straight to
revenue. Changes in the value of bonds held for the long haul can
be marked down on the equity line of a balance sheet, as long as
the declines aren't considered permanent.
Banks that are more willing to acknowledge their balance-
sheet writedowns, such as Amsterdam-based ING, say the valuations
of assets will be reversed when markets recover. ING, the biggest
Dutch financial-services company, said in its first-quarter
earnings report last week that the drop in the value of bonds tied
to home loans that are held to maturity is irrelevant as long as
the underlying mortgages don't default.
Under international accounting standards, ING doesn't have a
choice between including the negative valuations in its income
statement and keeping them on the balance sheet, said spokeswoman
Carolien van der Giessen.
High Subordination
``ING has carefully selected securities with high level of
subordination which can absorb substantial further losses on the
underlying portfolios before impairments would be triggered,'' Van
der Giessen said in an e-mailed statement.
Under the same logic, most of the writedowns on the income
statements could be reversed if asset prices recover. While some
declines in valuations may reverse, most of the losses are
permanent impairments caused by surging defaults on U.S.
mortgages, said Janet Tavakoli, author of ``Collateralized Debt
Obligations & Structured Finance,'' published in 2004 by John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
``Of course we can't tell how much of a bank's portfolio may
actually be good stuff that will pay back at maturity,'' Tavakoli
said. ``But there's tremendous value loss that's fundamental, not
just due to credit market gyrations.''
Keeping those markdowns off income statements just delays the
realization of the losses, according to Brad Hintz, a New York-
based analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
Paying Later
``The banks that have taken advantage of this accounting
approach are going to have a price to pay later,'' said Hintz, the
third-highest ranked securities analyst in an Institutional
Investor magazine survey. ``You don't avoid the price. Those that
have taken it all in their income statements will come out with
clean balance sheets and move on.''
Ignoring bad debt and postponing inevitable losses was one of
the main reasons behind Japan's decade-long economic slump that
began in the 1990s, said Boston University law professor Charles
Whitehead.
Faced with new capital requirements and a weakened ability to
meet them, Japanese banks deferred the recognition of their
losses, aided by regulators who refrained from implementing the
rules, Whitehead wrote in a 2006 paper published in the Michigan
Journal of International Law.
``U.S. regulators may be tempted to go soft on banks too,''
said Whitehead, who teaches securities regulation, in an
interview. ``The new capital rules already rely significantly on
self-modeling by the banks. So if anything, the risks may be
greater in the U.S. today than they were in Japan in the 1990s.''
Basel II
The new bank-capital regime, known as Basel II, has gone into
effect in some European countries and is being implemented in the
U.S. and others starting this year. It allows financial
institutions to use in-house risk models instead of just relying
on external credit-worthiness ratings in calculating their risk-
weighted capital requirements.
The largest U.S. securities firms have been under capital
requirements shaped by Basel II since 2004.
Even if regulators are soft on banks and brokers when it
comes to capital requirements, investors won't be, according to
Samuel Hayes, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School in
Boston.
The collapse in March of New York-based Bear Stearns Cos.,
once the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm, shows that fulfilling
regulatory capital requirements isn't sufficient to survive, Hayes
said. The SEC has said Bear Stearns was ``well-capitalized'' until
the moment it faced bankruptcy as clients and creditors lost
confidence and withdrew their money.
More Capital Needed
``They have to keep raising capital levels, there's no
getting around that fact,'' Hayes said. ``Perception is so
important here. If investors or creditors feel a bank doesn't have
a strong capital cushion to face further writedowns, that could
prove problematic.''
A review of the balance sheets and regulatory filings of more
than 50 banks showed that 20 of them chose to keep some subprime-
related losses off their income statements. The marks were
recorded instead on balance-sheet items labeled ``other
comprehensive income'' or ``revaluation reserves.''
Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc., which has taken $217
million of subprime-related writedowns against profits, kept a
bigger amount on the other-comprehensive-income line of its
balance sheet, which swung to a $782 million loss in the first
quarter. Fortis, the Amsterdam and Brussels-based bank, put 990
million euros of losses in revaluation reserves, in addition to
the 3.3 billion euros it reported on its income statement.
Merrill, Lloyds
Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York, which has booked $31.7
billion from market markdowns in its income statements, is keeping
another $5.3 billion of losses on its balance sheet as other
comprehensive income. The revaluation reserve reduction of 740
million pounds ($1.4 billion) at London-based Lloyds TSB Group Plc
is bigger than the 667 million pounds charged against profit.
Officials at Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual and
Fortis declined to comment. Lloyds TSB spokeswoman Kirsty Clay
said none of the assets included in the available-for-sale
reserves are considered to be ``permanently impaired.''
The writedowns aren't finished yet. London-based Fitch
Ratings Ltd. expects as much as $110 billion in additional losses
on subprime securities.
Declines in asset prices have spread beyond subprime though,
affecting other mortgage bonds, securitized car and student loans,
leveraged lending that backs private equity buyouts and credit
derivatives. When all that is included, the IMF estimates that
total losses from the U.S. subprime debacle will reach $1
trillion, of which $510 billion will be borne by banks. That means
some $130 billion in losses remains to be taken.
$100 Billion Gap
``The $100 billion hole between writedowns and capital raised
so far needs to be filled,'' said Michael Mayo, a New York-based
analyst who tracks the financial-services industry at Deutsche
Bank AG. ``If you don't fill that hole, with the 20-to-1 leverage
existing on average out there, you need to de-lever $2 trillion of
assets. You can do that or raise more capital.''
One way to increase capital has been to halt or slow down the
pace of share buybacks. Companies often repurchase stock to offset
dilution that occurs when shares are distributed to employees as
part of their compensation.
Citigroup, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, JPMorgan Chase &
Co., the third-largest bank, and Morgan Stanley, the No. 2 U.S.
securities firm by market value, have suspended stock-buyback
programs. All the companies are based in New York.
Sovereign Funding
Outstanding stock increased 7 percent at Citigroup, 4.3
percent at Morgan Stanley, and 2 percent at JPMorgan during the
past two quarters, according to regulatory filings. New York-based
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-biggest securities firm,
has done the same without announcing a suspension of its
repurchase program. Lehman shares in circulation rose 4.3 percent.
The first place banks and brokers went looking for capital
was in the deep pockets of the Asian and Middle Eastern sovereign
wealth funds, flush with cash from rising commodity prices. Then
they reached out to public investors, who were offered hybrid
securities with characteristics of both equity and debt, limiting
their dilutive impact on common shares.
The sovereign funds, which bought shares at 20 percent above
today's market prices, are probably not coming back soon, said
Jeffrey Rosenberg, a New York-based managing director at Bank of
America Corp., who was among the first analysts to warn clients
about the mortgage crisis.
`It's Like Shampooing'
Banks can't keep selling hybrid bonds because ratings firms
place limits on how much of their capital can be tied up in such
securities. Rosenberg said the next round of equity-strengthening
probably will be in the form of common stock.
``It's like shampooing: lather, rinse, repeat -- write down,
raise capital, repeat,'' Rosenberg said. ``How long can they keep
doing it? Shareholders are in for a long ride.''
The following table lists 20 banks that have kept some of
their writedowns on their balance sheets, along with the losses
the banks have incurred in their income statements. All figures
are in U.S. dollars, converted at the May 17 exchange rate if
originally disclosed in another currency.
Firm Writedown & Hidden
Credit Loss Writedowns Total
Citigroup 40.9 2 42.9
Merrill Lynch 31.7 5.3 37
HSBC 18.3 1.3 19.5
IKB Deutsche 9 7 16
Washington Mutual 8.3 0.8 9.1
HBOS 5.9 1 6.9
Bayerische Landesbank 3.6 3.1 6.7
Fortis 5.1 1.5 6.6
ING 0.4 5.6 6
WestLB 3.2 1.6 4.8
LB Baden-Wuerttemberg 2 2 4
Natixis 3.2 0.2 3.4
Lloyds TSB 1.3 1.5 2.8
HSH Nordbank 2.3 0.2 2.5
Commerzbank 1.3 0.6 1.9
Alliance & Leicester 0.7 0.7 1.4
Sovereign Bancorp 0.3 0.7 0.9
Norddeutsche LB 0.6 0.3 0.9
HVB Group 0.6 0.1 0.7
Aozora Bank 0.5 0.1 0.6
____ _____ _____
TOTALS* 139 35.4 174.4
* Totals reflect figures before rounding. Some company names have
been abbreviated for space.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Yalman Onaran in New York at
yonaran@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: May 19, 2008 09:11 EDT