Worst-Case Scenario?

In early 2009, the Federal Reserve "stress tested" major banks, modeling how much each could lose if the economy got worse, to ensure they had enough capital to stay afloat.

The Fed's assumptions assumed a worst-case scenario of unemployment hitting 8.9% in 2009. Within days of the test's completion, the actual unemployment rate was 9.4%, and it hit 10% later that year.

Hence the flaw with forward-looking stress tests: They're only as useful as the assumptions are realistic.

The Fed released another round of stress tests earlier this week. Most major banks passed, although some, including Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , didn't score high enough to gain permission to return money to shareholders. Others aced it. "We expect to generate significant capital and deploy that capital to the benefit of our shareholders," said JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) CEO Jamie Dimon while announcing his firm passed and would raise its dividend.  

That's great. But just like 2009, we have to ask: How realistic was the test?

It looks like the Fed learned a lesson and was more punishing on the downside this time. The worst-case scenario (not a forecast, mind you) assumes the economy slips back into a major recession this year that would be far worse than the one we just went through. It assumes real gross domestic product falls nearly 8%, incomes fall 7%, and unemployment spikes to 13%.

It also assumes the Dow falls to 5,500, or a 60% decrease from current prices, before rebounding sharply:

Source: Federal Reserve.

And it assumes nationwide home prices fall another 20%, without a rebound:

Source: Federal Reserve.

So far, these are tough assumptions that truly test a bank's resilience against losses. That most major banks can withstand this kind of shock underscores a key difference between today and four years ago: Banks are in much better shape.

But another part of the Fed's assumptions are more suspicious. The hypothetical recession assumes interest rates drop to an all-time low, with 10-year Treasury yields falling to 1.6%, and short-term interest rates staying pegged at 0%.

That might happen. It's close to what happened over the past few years, after all.

But such thinking demonstrates one of the most common flaws in forecasting: assuming the next recession will be just like the last one.

It probably won't. Every postwar recession has been unique. In the early 1980s, inflation surged and interest rates spiked, but stocks actually rose. In the early 1990s, real estate and stocks fell, but interest rates didn't do much at all. After 9/11, stocks plunged, real estate surged, and interest rates fell only moderately.

The point of a stress test is not to incorporate every possible scenario, but it's helpful to ask what might happen if the deep recession the Fed assumes is instead accompanied by rising inflation and higher interest rates. With the amount of quantitative easing the Fed has engaged in, that's hardly a bold assumption. And it's particularly important when forecasting bank losses, since interest rates are instrumental in dictating bank profits and loan defaults.

It's hard to know exactly what might happen if interest rates rise, but it would almost certainly be more stressful on banks than the Fed currently assumes. Loan defaults would likely be higher, profit margins might shrink, and loan growth would probably stall, curtailing earnings. For banks that don't have a strong deposit base and rely on short-term funding, things could get really ugly.  

That isn't a forecast. But it shows how meaningless the stress test could be even if we head back into a deep recession like the Fed tested for, but one that looks different than it assumes. The biggest risk -- the worst-case scenario -- is almost never something you can think of, and isn't likely to mimic what just happened, like the last recession. "What looks like tomorrow's problem is rarely the real problem when tomorrow rolls around" James Fallows once wrote. Alas, that's not something any stress test can model.

For more on the recession's impact on the economy, check out my latest ebook, 50 Years in the Making: The Great Recession and Its Aftermath, for your iPad or Kindle, from Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It's short, packed with information, and costs less than a buck.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. The Motley Fool owns shares of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (40)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 16, 2012, at 9:14 PM, CaptainWidget wrote:

    “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

    ― Friedrich von Hayek

    I agree. It's impossible for to "stay ahead" of economics, by the very nature of the system. No one has more information than everyone, and when one person tries to preempt an economic action, everyone will re-empt (if that's a word) to destroy their careful planning and calculation.

    Even in this case, the fed "assumes" things would be bad if interest rates went up. How could they possibly know? It could (almost certainly would) encourage people to save more and increase available capital to entrepreneurs with highly productive, high margin businesses (IE: technology businesses, the kind of businesses the politicians are clambering to incentivize)

    Bernanke doesn't know what the best interest rate is, but you know who does? Everyone, collectively making self interested decisions simultaneously. The best interest rate would emerge, as if by magic, without the help from Commissar Bernanke.

  • Report this Comment On March 17, 2012, at 9:32 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    If history has taught me anything, it is that the future is unknowable.

    Thus, when it comes to the stock market, only two types of investors must exist. The ones that don't know what the market is going to next, and the one's that don't know, that they don't know, what the market is going to next.

    Using this same logic, it only makes sense to me to buy AFTER the market has gone down, and to lighten up AFTER it has gone up.

    During all other times, it is my firm belief that the average investor will be far better off if he forgets about the stock market and simply concentrates on his dividend income.

  • Report this Comment On March 18, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Quantemonics wrote:

    A+ effort Morgan!

    The shock of higher oil prices and skyrocketing interest rates will not only push the banking system to the brink in 2012-13, but also cause Uncle Sam's free-ride deficit situation to become a serious problem.

    Can you imagine 10%+ CPI and 10% interest rates on $18-20 TRILLION in debt starting next year? From about $300 billion in net interest expense in Fiscal 2011, it is not hard to forecast interest expense approaching $1 TRILLION in Fiscal 2014, and even $2 TRILLION by 2016-2017 if oil prices explode from a new Middle East war oil supply shock to the economy.

    I have been explaining this HIGH INFLATION problem to everyone that has an open mind since last year, and wrote a related blog last week on The Motley Fool Blog Network...

    http://beta.fool.com/quantemonics/2012/03/12/crude-oil-going...

    I hope to have Part 2 out this coming week.

  • Report this Comment On March 18, 2012, at 12:51 PM, macroanalyst wrote:

    Even in the current scenario, we have $1.12 trillion of consumer debt delinquent and $834 billion seriously delinquent...http://www.economicsfanatic.com/2012/02/usd-112-trillion-of-...

    Worst case scenario will be much much worse then estimated and talked about in the stress test..But it is not likely to happen...At least in the foreseeable future...

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1822522, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/24/2014 11:45:53 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement