Skip navigation


Current DateTime: 05:46:51 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 33482595

Current DateTime: 05:46:51 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 23279666
Expiration DateTime: 2/10/2012 5:48:26 AM

Current DateTime: 05:46:51 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 31255208
Expiration DateTime: 2/10/2012 5:48:08 AM

Current DateTime: 05:46:51 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 23452764
Expiration DateTime: 2/10/2012 5:48:24 AM

Current DateTime: 05:46:53 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 24355697

MOST SHARED


Current DateTime: 05:46:53 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 31330905
Expiration DateTime: 2/10/2012 5:48:45 AM

MOST POPULAR


Current DateTime: 05:46:53 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 35819650
    • Road Warriors

        All the gadgets and gear a savvy frequent traveler needs to navigate the global economy.

HOT ON FACEBOOK

Four Reasons the Stress Tests On Banks Could Hurt Stocks

By: Jeff Cox, CNBC.com Senior Writer | 15 Apr 2009 | 04:23 PM ET
Text Size

Wall Street's belief that bank stress-testing would be a non-event for the stock market has changed, and investors may not like the results.

The government's efforts to analyze whether the nation's 19 largest banks have enough operating capital to avoid federal cash infusions had been receiving scant attention—until serious questions began to arise over whether the process was flawed.

Concerns about transparency and whether the government has set the bar high enough to declare that a bank has adequate operating cash have some worried that a market that is perhaps overbought might suffer once test results trickle out.

"Most investors have basically written off the stress test, but it also has the potential to do damage," says Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist at The Hartford. "They have to be very careful. This is going to require a tremendous amount of tact and diplomacy on the part of the administration."

Investor concerns over the stress tests, the results of which will be released in May, break into four categories:

1. Lack of Transparency

As the results of the test get closer to release, the Wall Street rumor mill has churned into overdrive.

The Obama administration has fed water cooler chatter by vacillating on how much will be disclosed. Initial indications were that the administration wanted the results kept private, for fear that banks that did not grade as well would generate panic among investors and depositors alike.

That's a position that hasn't set well with Wall Street, where uncertainty is often met with selling.

"It does depend on how transparent they are," says Dave Lutz, managing director of trading at Stifel Nicolaus. "The market hates the unknown more than it hates bad news."

Had the administration been clearer on how the tests were going to be conducted and how the news would be released, that would have soothed some fears that a large and unexpected shoe could be dropped.

The alternative, then, "would have been to lay out the plan and announce it fully so investors knew what they were going to do from the beginning, rather than have the rumor mill generate the plan," Krosby says. "What happens now is it looks as if the administration is reactive rather than proactive."

CNBC.com

2. No One Gets an "F"

At the core of the tests is the notion that none of the banks involved is actually going to "fail" the test per se.

Stronger banks will emerge as winners and will not need federal bailout money, while weaker ones will not be allowed to go under but instead be given more time to raise capital as well as government assistance to do so.

That creates a sort of economic bell curve that has some analysts worried about the future of an industry in which bad businesses are artificially propped up--perhaps at the expense of good ones.

"The administration's approach seems to be we're going to have a no-bank-left-behind attitude," says Mike Larson, an analyst with Weiss Research. "The reason there's so much uncertainty and mistrust in the financial sector is we're not being forthcoming about who's strong and who's weak."

Slideshows on CNBC.com

That atmosphere doesn't translate well into the investment sphere, where clear information is key.

"The bottom line is by keeping things too secret and agreeing to prop up everyone and not dealing with euthanizing these other institutions, you risk dragging down the strong with the weak," Larson says. "As far as short-term impact with bank stocks, the guessing game of who's weak and who's strong are the kinds of things that lead to short-term gyrations."

A perception that the standards are low for banks in terms of economic projections and capital needs also could cause problems.

"The main reason the stress tests could cause another leg down would be a very weak stress test in the sense that they really didn't push the scenarios on the banks," Lutz says. "That's one issue that could knock us down."

Tools:
Add This share icon


Current DateTime: 05:18:53 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 29778428

Current DateTime: 04:15:11 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 29779196

Current DateTime: 04:14:52 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 29779197

Current DateTime: 04:14:52 10 Feb 2012
LinksList Documentid: 29779199
CNBCCNBC
About CNBC  |  Site Map  |  Video Reprints   |  Advertise  |  Help  |  Contact
Privacy Policy  |     |  Terms of Service  |  Independent Programming Report
  Data is a real-time snapshot  *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis

© 2012 CNBC LLC.  All Rights Reserved.
A Division of NBCUniversal
Thomson ReutersThomson Reuters