Major U.S. banks could lose $194 billion in an adverse economic scenario. But this time, it appears, they'd be ready to handle that walloping.
For the first time, the Federal Reserve ran through the Dodd-Frank-mandated banking stress tests. That made what was a one-step stress-test process last year -- the Fed's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review -- a two-step process this year.
Both tests examine how bank balance sheets would hold up under the pressure of an extremely adverse economic scenario -- a scenario that this year included a severe recession in the U.S. combined with a housing market drop, rising unemployment, a global financial shock, and marked slowdowns in the eurozone, Japan, and the developing Asian countries. But while the CCAR looks at banks' capital plans -- which may include, for instance, raising dividends -- the Dodd-Frank tests assume consistent capital plans.
Ally Financial -- the former GMAC -- managed to fail the Dodd-Frank test pretty seriously. But it was alone in that feat. All of the other 17 banks tested had minimum stressed capital ratios that were comfortably above required minimums.
Of particular focus in these tests is the Tier 1 common ratio. The mandated minimum level by regulators -- which we could reasonably call the pass/fail line in these tests -- is 5%.
Some of the banks like Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE:BK) and State Street, which are primarily banks for banks and maintain solid, low-risk balance sheets, breezed through the tests. Others, like Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) and Morgan Stanley cut it a bit closer thanks to their trading portfolios and the hits they were expected to take in the hypothetical global financial shock.
Big banks Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) and Citigroup (NYSE:C) were probably the most watched -- and certainly the most talked about -- coming into the tests. Both banks passed the tests easily, though if one stood out as a particular surprise, it was Citi and its strong showing. Bank of America, meanwhile, though improving on its CCAR showing from last year, was perhaps more of a disappointment (particularly if you ask this Fool).
But investors in the individual banks will certainly want to get beyond the aggregates and take a closer look at the bank-by-bank results. To help with that, we've put together a cheat sheet for each bank that will help you get up to speed quickly on how each bank fared through the first round of stress testing.
Click on the name of the company to see the full breakdown:
In the end, if there's one key takeaway from the first round of stress tests, it's that the results suggest that the country's major banks could rack up close to $200 billion in losses and still maintain a median 7.7% tier 1 common ratio. That's a huge change from just a few years ago -- and a big relief.
Some readers may scoff at the tests and how much comfort they can give us. After all, what if the next shock-and-awe financial meltdown doesn't look like the one that the Fed has created here? While that's a reasonable view, it misses the bigger picture. Banks were able to come out the other side of these tests looking good largely because they simply have a lot more capital than they did in 2007.
A wooden house may fold under hurricane conditions, but if you bolster those walls with a brick backing, it can withstand a lot more. There's little doubt in my mind that bank balance sheets are in a very good place right now. If there's something to be worried about, it's not in the here and now. Instead, it's whether the banks will keep up that level of safety, or shuck it down the road for a shot at a fatter bottom line.