PREPARE TO BURY THE FATALLY WOUNDED BIG BANKS

作者：圣地亚哥大学法学和金融学教授弗兰克•帕特诺伊(Frank Partnoy)为英国《金融时报》撰稿
Friday's bad news from Citigroup and Bank of America confirmed what many experts have long suspected: the subprime losses of 2007 were a bullet that fatally wounded the banks. Many lost so much money on toxic subprime mortgage-related derivatives that they have been essentially insolvent for more than a year. It has taken so long for these banks to fall only because of government support and some investors' bottomless capacity for denial.
Consider Friday's eye-popping figures. Bank of America recorded a $15.3bn (£10.4bn, €11.5bn) loss at Merrill Lynch, which it owns. Citigroup announced a total 2008 loss of $18.7bn, nearly half of which came from the fourth quarter. Even in the context of this crisis, these losses are epic.
At the same time, the US Treasury said it would inject $20bn into Bank of America and would backstop losses on $118bn of its assets. The government also sweetened its promise to support nearly triple that amount of assets at Citigroup by pledging loans of roughly $250bn from the Federal Reserve. These efforts are the financial equivalent of putting feeding tubes into dying patients.
A perusal of Citigroup's most recent disclosures reveals that it could not survive without government life support. The losses are just the beginning. Revenues overall are down by one-third compared with 2007. Principal transactions, which include head- spinning “variable interest entity” and other off-balance-sheet deals, declined 84 per cent last year. Bank of America's 2008 numbers were not as bad but, even excluding the Merrill losses, earnings were down by nearly $2bn.
Even worse, costs are increasing. Operating expenses were higher at both banks in 2008 than in 2007. Although commentators have focused on the bonuses of senior executives, compensation expenses overall at both banks were nearly as high last year as in 2007. Citigroup paid employees $32bn; Bank of America paid $18bn. When a company pays out more in compensation than its market capitalisation, as Citigroup did, the end is near.
Both banks also are plagued by lawsuits arising from the crisis and Friday's news included a clue about how substantial their litigation expenses might be. In the din of reporting on new losses and rescues, few noticed that Merrill settled one subprime dispute for $475m. More will come.
The bottom line is that, given declining assets and increasing liabilities, many – perhaps most – big banks are essentially insolvent and have been for a long time. It is incredible that they lost so much money on derivatives but even more amazing that they stayed alive for so long afterwards.
The banks' fate was sealed in early 2007, when the value of derivatives linked to subprime mortgages collapsed. A year ago, the crucial triple B rated mortgage instruments that were the surgical focus of the banks' bad bets had already declined by three-quarters. At that time, some hedge fund managers concluded that the banks were insolvent and took short positions. The smart money said the banks already were dead, or at least close.
Although sophisticated investors recognised early on that this crisis was about solvency, not liquidity, and that the liquidity crunch arose from fear that banks could not repay their obligations, others came to this view more slowly. The last, as usual, were the credit rating agencies. On Friday, they finally rose to the pulpit to give Citigroup and Bank of America an overdue eulogy, cutting their ratings. Just as their last-minute downgrades of Enron nailed its coffin, these also might be the end, at least for Citigroup.
It is ironic that credit rating agencies still retain such power. They were a significant cause of the crisis. They helped fire the fatal bullet by giving unreasonably high credit ratings to “super senior” tranches of subprime mortgage-backed collateralised debt obligations. It is astonishing that their views would matter to anyone at this late date. Yet government regulations continue to rely on ratings.
Government intervention, like modern healthcare, can prolong the inevitable, but only for so long. Soon we will bury more banks. Their children will survive but they will not. The massive government intervention of recent months merely provides a financial hospice, to give us time to say goodbye.
The writer is the George E. Barrett professor of law and finance at the University of San Diego and is author of the forthcoming book The Match King: Ivar Kreuger and the Financial Scandal of the Century
未经英国《金融时报》书面许可，对于英国《金融时报》拥有版权和/或其他知识产权的任何内容，任何人不得复制、转载、摘编或在非FT中文网（或：英国《金融时报》中文网）所属的服务器上做镜像或以其他任何方式进行使用。已经英国《金融时报》授权使用作品的，应在授权范围内使用。