This underscores the charade that is the Fed and Treasury stress testing. There is a cloak of accounting fraud covering many US financial institutions, even as their value soars on paper and the public continue to be robbed of their savings.
The Fed and Treasury are using their current position as de facto crisis regulators of US financial insitutions and pseudo-banks to cover up the deep problems of regulatory failure and financial fraud, largely their responsibility as the overseers of US credit and monetary policy and the financial system during the credit bubble.
They seem to have taken on the role of the Ratings Agencies in perverting their stewardship to serve the Wall Street bankers.
The Fed should not and cannot be allowed to obtain any more power over the US regulatory process. That they even resist a fair and honest audit of their lendings of public monies is an insult to our Republic.
Until the banks are restrained, and balance restored to the economy, and the financial system reformed, there can be no sustained recovery.
Bloomberg
CIT Group’s ‘Capital’ Was All Talk, No Trousers
by Jonathan Weil
July 15, 2009 21:00 EDT
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even as CIT Group Inc. teetered near collapse this week, neither the company nor its overlords at the Federal Reserve Board ever backed off their official position that the struggling lender was “well capitalized.”
Coming from the world’s most powerful central bank, that designation used to mean something about a company’s financial strength and ability to absorb losses. Not anymore.
Investors watched yesterday as yet another major financial- services company angled for a government bailout -- this time unsuccessfully -- while still sporting U.S. banking regulators’ highest capital rating. It’s a sure thing CIT won’t be the last.
Even the regulators say their capital standards are broken. Just last month, in an 88-page report outlining its regulatory overhaul plans, the U.S. Treasury Department wrote: “Most banks that failed during this crisis were considered well capitalized just prior to their failure.”
It was only last December that the Fed’s board of governors voted unanimously to let CIT become a bank-holding company, making the commercial lender eligible for federal rescue funds and allowing it to borrow from the Fed’s discount window. In doing so, the Fed said CIT would be well capitalized once it received its $2.3 billion of bailout money from the Treasury’s Troubled Assets Relief Program, which CIT got later that month.
CIT’s bosses, led by Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Peek, had been touting the company’s well-capitalized status repeatedly ever since, in financial filings and investor presentations. In reality, whatever capital CIT possessed existed only in its executives’ heads -- literally.
Accounting Standards
The problem here is with the accounting standards as much as the government’s capital rules. Consider this disclosure from the footnotes to CIT’s latest annual report. As of Dec. 31, CIT said the fair market value of its loans was $8.3 billion less than the value it was using on its balance sheet. Loans at the time were about two-thirds of its $80.4 billion of total assets.
By comparison, New York-based CIT had $7.5 billion of so- called Tier 1 regulatory capital as of Dec. 31, and $8.1 billion of shareholder equity. Take away the inflated loan values, and CIT’s capital and equity would have been less than zero. CIT hasn’t said what its loans’ market values were as of March 31.
The craziest part is that the difference in the loan values came down to nothing more than CIT executives’ state of mind. (And the Fed's and the FASB's tacit endorsement of this accounting fraud on investor - Jesse)
Had CIT classified the loans as “held for sale,” the accounting rules would have required the company to carry them on its balance sheet at their cost or market value, whichever was lower. By labeling almost all its loans as investments instead, CIT got to avoid writing them down to market values.
Say the Word
So, for capital purposes, the only difference between an insolvent CIT and a well-capitalized CIT was a mere utterance by management that it planned to keep holding the loans. No wonder so many zombie banks continue to roam the country. All they have to do is wish away their ruin, and the rules let them.
There is one catch. As CIT said in its annual report, it’s allowed to classify loans as investments only if it “has the ability and intent” to hold them “for the foreseeable future or until maturity.” Otherwise, it must book the market losses.
It’s hard to see how CIT’s management could believe the company still has the ability to keep holding onto its loans now. Not with more than $3 billion of reported losses in the past eight quarters, a looming cash crunch, and its debt trading in the bond market as if the company might fail. A CIT spokesman, Curt Ritter, declined to comment.
Not Making Sense
Think how arbitrary these accounting labels are. A declining asset doesn’t stop falling in value just because its owner intends to keep it. Nor, if you were applying for a loan today, would a bank value your collateral based on what you think it might be worth someday after the economy rebounds. Its value would be what you could sell it for now.
Back on Dec. 22, when it approved CIT’s application to become a bank-holding company, the Fed released a nine-page statement explaining its rationale. While the Fed said its board considered “all facts of record,” nowhere in that document did it discuss the possibility that CIT’s loans might not be worth what the company’s balance sheet said, or that CIT might lack the ability to hold them for as long as it claimed.
The current capital rules “simply did not require banking firms to hold enough capital in light of the risks the firms faced,” the Treasury Department said in its report last month. The financial crisis, it said, “has demonstrated the need for a fundamental review of the regulatory capital framework.”
That review, to be led by the Treasury Department, won’t be completed until the end of this year. Whatever form the new rules take, the report said they must be “credible and enforceable.”
What a welcome change that would be.
(Jonathan Weil is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
