data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b7ee/1b7ee75774d893e87323ee70c4896e479b8e24d6" alt="Risk.net"
Lloyds' HBOS losses highlight flaws in FSA capital measures
With UK banking group Lloyds set to announce heavy 2008 losses later this week, industry observers are turning against plans from the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) to loosen bank capital requirements.
In a trading statement earlier this month, Lloyds warned its total 2008 losses could reach £10 billion, of which £7 billion originates from the corporate lending book of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), which it acquired in January.
The news raised concern over Lloyds' capital position, as the group may need to raise extra capital this year to absorb losses. Such a move would be at odds with the FSA, which has called for banks to reduce capital levels in an effort to avert procyclicality.
The regulator announced on January 19 that it expects banks to hold minimum core tier one capital of just 4% of their assets, while advocating they build up a capital cushion when economic conditions ease. But implementing such a policy in the middle of the current crisis may have come too late to help banks in the current crisis. Critics of the move believe shareholders are unlikely to support lower capital levels in a period when bank losses, already substantial, could deteriorate further.
Lloyds estimates its core tier 1 capital ratio at 31 December 2008 to be 6-6.5%, a level it is unlikely to reduce in the immediate future, given the pressure on its portfolios. "It seems counter-productive that at a time when everyone is worried about capital not being enough, the FSA is allowing banks to lower their capital," says Olivia Frieser, a senior credit analyst at BNP Paribas in London. "I think the problem is that investors will not feel comfortable with Lloyds lowering its capital."
The initial loss warning prompted ratings agency Moody's to downgrade Lloyds' long-held Aaa rating to Aa3 on February 16. According to the agency, lowering capital would be the wrong move at this time, despite the FSA's guidance.
"Changing capital requirements in itself doesn't change the financial position of an institution," says Elisabeth Rudman, senior credit officer at Moody's in London. "For us, the weakening of capital is a sign of the weakening of the financial strength of the bank and that would be reflected in the ratings."
"There is a gap between what the regulators are thinking in terms of capital requirements and what the market is thinking," says Simon Adamson, senior analyst at CreditSights in London. "The market thinks tier 1 ratios should be 10% or higher and I don't think regulators really see that."
The FSA declined to comment on Lloyds' capital position or the timing of its new capital requirements. Lloyds is due to announce its full 2008 results on Friday February 27.
See also: Trading book capital must be "several times" higher, FSA says
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Looming US Basel endgame redraft sparks calls to save IRB
Experts say 20 years of data makes credit risk models more appropriate than standardised approach
Cool heads must guide financial regulation of climate risk
Supervisors can’t simply rely on ‘magical thinking’ of market discipline, says Sergio Scandizzo
Markets worry EU’s reporting simplification will add to burden
Rather than reducing firms’ obligations, market participants fear it could end up increasing requirements
EU banks show basic instinct for credit valuation adjustments
Simpler approach to CVA appeals even to some already using more complex models for counterparty risk
Bank of England wants dynamic Emir for UK clearing houses
Review won’t just photocopy EU legislation, as BoE seeks to make rules simpler and adaptable
Big banks could be sidelined from future rescue deals – FSB
Exacerbation of too-big-to-fail means G-Sibs could already be too large to take extra assets
More guidance, less enforcement: the SEC under Paul Atkins
Current and former insiders expect clearer crypto rules and an end to regulatory violation sweeps
During Trump turbulence, value-at-risk may go pop
Trading risk models have been trained in quiet markets, and volatility is now looming