EU Reform Will Batter Your Bank Shares

Published in Investing on 5 October 2012

If adopted, these banking reforms will surely slash long-term returns for shareholders.

Since the UK's twin bubbles in credit and housing burst in 2008, British banks have gone from being value creators to value destroyers on a vast scale. Even worse, proposed new restrictions on future bank behaviour warn shareholders to brace themselves for lower long-term returns.

Blown-up banks

As it 'circled the drain' in late 2008, the balance sheet of Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS) was grossly swollen to £2.4 trillion, or over 1.5 times UK GDP (gross domestic product, or national output). At the same time, the bank's free capital was diving perilously close to zero, while its leverage stood at 42 times its equity base at the end of 2007.

However, as a bank deemed 'too big to fail', RBS was brought back from the brink by massive, taxpayer-backed cash injections totalling £45.2 billion. To date, RBS's plunging share price has created a paper loss for taxpayers approaching half (48%).

Add this £21.6 billion lost on RBS to an additional loss of £7 billion for bailing out Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY) and, on paper, these two bailouts have cost British taxpayers a total of £28.6 billion. This comes to almost exactly £1,100 for each of the UK's 26 million households!

Clearly, we cannot afford and must not allow banks to behave so recklessly ever again, hence the ongoing attempts by regulators in the UK, US and European Union (EU) to bring these giants to heel.

Five big changes for banks

In the aftermath of the bailouts, the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) was set up to review UK banking regulation, chaired by Sir John Vickers. This Vickers report recommended ring-fencing retail banks from banks' investment-banking operations. In similar fashion, the Volcker reforms aim to improve the stability of US banks.

However, the most radical voices for bank reform are coming from Europe and, in particular, from the European Commission-backed Liikanen Group, chaired by Erkki Liikanen, governor of Finland’s central bank.

Released on Tuesday 2 October, the Liikanen report makes these five key recommendations to prevent future banking crises within Europe (and on the wider global stage):

1. Ring-fenced trading

Banks engaged in significant proprietary trading (trading on their own account) and market-making should separate and assign these activities to a separate legal entity. Hedging services for clients would not need to be ring-fenced.

If a bank's trading positions exceed €100 billion (over £80 billion) or 15% to 25% of its total assets, then this arm must be detached so that government-insured customer deposits would no longer support 'casino trading'. This would force trading divisions to raise their own capital, pushing up their funding costs and lowering their profits.

2. Bail-in assets

To spread the pain of losses more widely among stakeholders, Liikanen recommends that banks build up a substantial layer of 'bail-inable debt'.

These instruments would also be used to pay bonuses to top management, so that if a bank makes life-threatening losses, then these unsecured bondholders would be wiped out before taxpayers step in. Again, this would push up banks' long-term funding costs, thus reducing future profits and dividends.

3. Prudent risk management

Liikanen also proposes that banks are more consistent in their treatment of risk in internal models, to produce balances risk weightings across the board. With particular emphasis on the treatment of property lending, this is aimed at improving the calculation of minimum capital standards.

Under Liikanen, banks would no longer be able to gorge on highly-rated instruments that later turn into toxic debt, as did bonds and derivatives linked to US subprime mortgages. Again, by forcing banks to set aside more capital against riskier loans, this would make banks safer, but at the expense of future shareholder returns.

4. Better boardrooms

Liikanen also wants better corporate governance from banks, so as to stamp out excessive 'rewards for failure'. This would involve beefing up boardrooms and top management with experienced bankers, an elevated role for risk management and disclosure, reduced compensation for leaders, plus greater monitoring of (and sanctions against) reckless banks.

In effect, this would reduce risk-taking by bank bosses, while favouring long-term returns over short-term trading.

5. Preserving critical functions

In addition, Liikanen is hot on disaster management, requiring banks to create 'living wills' to enable insolvent banks to be wound up in an orderly fashion. Again, this extra level of security to shield savers would come at a cost to shareholder returns.

Could do better?

While bankers have reacted with predictable dismay at the structural reforms set out in the Liikanen report, reforms could go further still. While this set of safeguards would do much to protect savers from future market storms, they are by no means a guarantee of future good behaviour by banks.

For example, when US investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed into bankruptcy in mid-September 2008, it had a core capital buffer above 11%. Hence, even a relatively high level of liquid, quality assets is no absolute guarantee of survival during market mayhem.

Personally, I strongly believe that bank leverage must be capped, so as to reduce the risk of their free capital being wiped out during slumps. Never again should banks be able to gear up their balance sheets to 40 or 50 times their equity. Indeed, a sensible leverage limit of, say, 15 to 20 times would help return banks to their reliable roots.

Banks: bargains or value traps?

For at least two years, I've closely watched bank stocks in a hunt for emerging value. Even though banks have bolstered their balance sheets and liquidity, I have yet to plunge back into their shares.

This is just as well, as bank shares have been pitiful performers since October 2010. Over the past 24 months, RBS shares have plunged 45% and Lloyds has crashed more than 48%. Barclays (LSE: BARC) has dived 24% and HSBC (LSE: HSBA) has fared much better, down less than 9%. Over this period, the FTSE 100 index of blue-chip shares is up almost 5%, so banks have performed terribly.

Nevertheless, let's check the current valuations of Britain's 'Big Four' (ranked by market capitalisation):

BankShare price (p)Market cap (£bn)Price-earnings ratioDividend yield (%)

Source: forward forecasts from Digital Look

After adjusting for risk, the bank showing the most obvious value is HSBC, thanks to its generous dividend of 4.7%, covered a healthy 2.1 times.

Then again, UK domestic property is still very over-priced, thus leaving plenty of room for the risky loans of the Noughties to go bad later this decade. With potential for another 'write-down cliff' of legacy property assets in the face of rising interest rates, it's hard to be bullish on British banks right now!

Lastly, star fund manager Neil Woodford sold out of UK banks long before the crash. Thanks to a market-beating performance that is second to none, Woodford now manages £20 billion for UK investors. To find out which great businesses he owns, read "Eight Shares Britain's Super-Investor Loves".

For more about these eight money-making machines -- and Woodford's magnificent mind and methods -- download your free copy of our report today.

Are you a sophisticated investor hoping to profit from this uncertain economy? We urge you to read "10 Steps To Making A Million In The Market" today -- your wealth could be transformed. Click here now to request your free, no-obligation copy. The Motley Fool is helping Britain invest. Better.

More from Cliff D'Arcy:

> Cliff does not own any of the shares mentioned in this article.

Share & subscribe


The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

hanmat2000 06 Oct 2012 , 8:43am

I bought shares in HSBC and Barclays more for trading than long-term holds, and I have been lucky enough to get in and out a couple of times with a decent profit. Normally I'm a long-term investor, but I think when the prices are at levels where the yields are around 5% for HSBC and 4% for Barclays, they are not bad shares to get "stuck" with if the prices fall. Like them or not, it's hard to imagine a world without banks and in the long term they"ll make profits and meet the capital requirements. But I wouldn't buy them at today's prices and am now gradually divesting. I think they are now close to the top of their near-term price ranges and are more likely to fall 10% than rise 10%.

BigJC1 06 Oct 2012 , 10:05am

All ways look on the bright side of life, da, doo, da, ..........
Pick another random time period, say 12 months. Then you see Barclays up 35.3%, Lloyds 5.5%, HSBC 17.5%; there's some major gains the god Woodford had missed in fact if he had bought Lloyds a few months ago at 23p and sold out the other week at 41p he could have made nearly an 80% gain, or he could hold on a couple of years and see them hit £1 and make a 300% gain..

Oh, then there's Europe, Greece, China, the US Fiscal cliff, chicken licken the skys falling in. The UK Property Market is still over priced and will crash - I've been reading that in 2007,08,09,10,11 and now 2012. Here's another prediction - the sun will go out one day so buy candles.

How will banks ever make money ? One way might be to undertake a clever trick I've seen other businesses use - charge more. Another would be to slash billions off their costs - they have done and are doing.

The time to buy banks is when they are unloved and unwanted and still give you a decent divi return. Run with the sheep or be a wolf, your choice.

pbal31 07 Oct 2012 , 4:28pm

Is there are flip-side to this debate I’m missing? Won’t the impact of these changes also mean that actual profits achieved in future will be more ‘honest’ than in previous years? Are we not entering a phase in the banking industry in which we (investors) have greater transparency than ever? Yes profits maybe smaller (but were they ever really there anyway?) I would go for certainty and consistency on a small profit than the opaque activities of profits for larger ones?

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as as opposed to

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.