News

Don’t Rely On Rating Agencies To Tell You Who Will Get A Bailout

A thing I sometimes enjoy is reading research papers examining questions like:

  • if you are a bank, and you are likely to be bailed out, do you take more risks than a bank all on its lonesome, and
  • once you’ve been bailed out, what then?

We’ve looked at a BIS paper on international banks, which on certain assumptions found that (1) banks that were in fact bailed out took more risks pre-bailout than banks that weren’t (unsurprising) and (2) after the bailouts they pretty much stayed riskier (maybe surprising). And then there was a Fed paper about TARP banks, which on certain different assumptions found sort of the same results.

Anyway in the spirit of completism and also charts here is a Bank of Canada paper:

“Supported” banks seem to have been a wee bit less risky than regular banks before the crisis, and quite a bit less risky afterwards, somewhat contradicting those other findings. Here is a stab at an explanation:

[D]uring normal times, non-supported banks compete more fiercely with supported banks since the latter benefit from lower refinancing costs, which pushes non-supported banks towards higher risk-taking. … In line with the charter value argument, we conjecture that supported banks may enjoy a funding advantage during the crisis and therefore exhibit lower risk compared to banks that are not supported. At the same time we cannot rule out other explanations, as our findings would also be consistent with the idea that supported banks during crisis times are subject to greater scrutiny by supervisors that is effective in reducing risk taking ….

All fair enough: if you don’t have implicit government backing on your funding, you need to gamble more with that funding to get the same returns, and nobody is looking at you all that closely to see that you don’t.

Except! This paper is interesting because it separates “supported” and “non-supported” banks not based on ex post measures like “did you get a bailout or not” but rather on an interesting ex ante measure: the fact that Canadian rating agency DBRS changed its rating scheme in October 2006 to indicate which banks were more likely to get government support. So the researchers were able to pick banks that were likely to be bailed out in 2006, rather than banks that were actually bailed out in 2007-2008, to measure what effect bailout expectations had on banks. Which is interesting.

The problem is that rating agencies are dumb. Here is a true (partial) list of banks that were likely to get government support according to DBRS:

  • Commonwealth Bank of Australia
  • Bank of Nova Scotia
  • Royal Bank of Canada
  • HBOS plc
  • Lloyds
  • RBS
  • Fortis

Not, you might say, hugely objectionable. Now here is a true (partial) list of banks that were not likely to get government support according to DBRS:

  • Laurentian Bank
  • Bank of Hawaii
  • Bank of America
  • Bank of New York
  • JPMorgan Chase
  • Citigroup

This list is more problematic, though I’ll spot them Laurentian Bank.* The authors recognize this, though they defend it by saying “DBRS’s [government support] ratings were in full agreement with Fitch’s Support Ratings, indicating that as of 2006, none of the US banks was likely to be bailed out.” That is even more problematic: apparently nobody at a rating agency could figure out that JPMorgan might be systemically important.**

I don’t really know what this tells you other than: why would you trust a rating agency to tell you who will get a bailout? DBRS decided that, for instance, the two banks in charge of the triparty repo system were not systemically important and “there is no expectation of any form of timely external support” for them. That was pretty wrong, though I guess if you asked Jamie Dimon (if you could find him) he’d tell you that JPMorgan never really got any external support. Still: Citi!

In theory, rating agencies are in the business of (1) looking at public information about an issuer, (2) also looking at private information provided to them by management (or, sometimes, not doing that), and (3) analyzing that information to draw some conclusions about the issuer’s creditworthiness. Sometimes the combination of specialization, credit analysis expertise and access to private information gives the agencies an advantage in drawing those conclusions. Sometimes it does not.

But as a theory that seems like an okay theory. It’s harder to see the agencies’ advantage in predicting political decisions in developed economies, whether that’s S&P’s guess at the US’s creditworthiness or DBRS’s guess at who will be bailed out when and by whom. And the more an industry or an economy is tied to political decisions, the less likely it is that ratings will tell you anything you can’t figure out for yourself.

The Ex-Ante Versus Ex-Post Effect of Public Guarantees [Bank of Canada, pdf]

* Is that wrong? Are they a powerhouse north of the border?

** TBF they also run their analysis excluding the US banks and got similar results. But the sample is sort of uninteresting then, it’s all Canadian banks who all pretty much didn’t need bailouts, plus a tiny grab bag of idiosyncratic Belgian and Irish banks, so it’s hard to know how to feel.

86 comments
(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

86 Responses to “Don’t Rely On Rating Agencies To Tell You Who Will Get A Bailout”

  1. TGar says:

    "A thing I sometimes enjoy is reading research papers"….

    enough said

  2. guest says:

    the fuck?

  3. juniormistmaker says:

    Oh we bring the pain!

    – Laurentian Bank GIC salesman

  4. guest says:

    I think a fair assessment as to why DBRS failed to attribute potential bailouts to the major US banks was an opinion on the political and regulatory system and how they would behave in times of crisis.

    In contrast to the US, Canada is generally viewed as politically more centrist and therefore more likely to support bailouts when required. I think many Americans would have been bewildered and/or vehemently against the thought of having to bailout banks in 2006.

    • America says:

      Wait wait wait, CANADA thinks bailouts are a good call!??! Wtf man, nobody mentioned that!!!

    • Guest says:

      You know I'm not so sure about that. Recent research has shown the empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited. And as a corollary, the market for technologies is shrinking.

      As a world leader, it is important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

  5. Warm Glass of Charts says:

    Looks like nap time's a bit early today!

  6. Ghost rider says:

    But that's like my opinion, bro.

  7. Guest says:

    Laurentian is like the 7th largest bank in Canada, which may as well be the 40-50th largest bank in America.

  8. copywriting says:

    Hard to read research papers, better science-fiction pr even personal development in my opinion.

  9. I hope to kick the smoking, which causes death

  10. crork says:

    ZfTduu I really liked your blog.Really looking forward to read more.

  11. JzVxSj Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic blog post.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  12. Im grateful for the post.Really thank you! Great.

  13. I really enjoy the post.Really thank you! Really Great.

  14. nightclub says:

    Im grateful for the blog article.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

  15. Appreciate you sharing, great article.Really thank you! Cool.

  16. Lida says:

    Im grateful for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  17. Really informative blog post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  18. I am so grateful for your blog.Really thank you! Will read on…

  19. This is one awesome blog article.Really looking forward to read more.

  20. paskolos says:

    Great, thanks for sharing this blog article.Much thanks again. Great.

  21. web scribble says:

    Thanks so much for the blog post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  22. A round of applause for your blog.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  23. gadgets says:

    Im grateful for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

  24. wristwatches says:

    Im thankful for the article post.Really thank you! Cool.

  25. erotismo says:

    I think this is a real great post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  26. fashion says:

    Hey, thanks for the article. Keep writing.

  27. This is one awesome post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  28. Awesome article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.

  29. Awesome blog.Thanks Again. Cool.

  30. Thanks again for the article. Keep writing.

  31. zija says:

    Major thanks for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

  32. Hey, thanks for the blog.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  33. I really liked your blog article.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  34. Im thankful for the article post. Really Cool.

  35. I really liked your article post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  36. Im obliged for the blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  37. check it out says:

    Thank you ever so for you blog. Keep writing.

  38. Very good article post. Really Cool.

  39. Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic article. Want more.

  40. wow, awesome article.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  41. I cannot thank you enough for the article.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  42. 2jR4zC Fantastic post.Much thanks again. Great.

  43. A big thank you for your blog article. Fantastic.

  44. Say, you got a nice article.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  45. I think this is a real great article.Much thanks again. Cool.

  46. sex cams says:

    Thanks a lot for the blog article.

  47. sex cams says:

    Enjoyed every bit of your blog article.Really thank you! Great.

  48. Very good blog.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  49. blocked says:

    Hey, thanks for the post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  50. I cannot thank you enough for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

  51. beauty says:

    I appreciate you sharing this article post.Really thank you! Will read on…

  52. Thank you ever so for you article post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  53. Im obliged for the post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

  54. Really enjoyed this blog.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  55. Thank you ever so for you post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

  56. Awesome blog.Much thanks again. Awesome.

  57. Say, you got a nice article post.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.

  58. I really liked your blog post.Really thank you!

  59. Thanks so much for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  60. Major thanks for the article post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  61. Great, thanks for sharing this blog article. Want more.

  62. Really appreciate you sharing this article post.Really thank you! Awesome.

  63. Im obliged for the blog article.Much thanks again. Awesome.

  64. Port says:

    Enjoyed every bit of your post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  65. Thanks so much for the blog post. Great.

  66. Thanks a lot for the blog.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  67. I really like and appreciate your blog post.Really thank you! Really Cool.

  68. Really informative article post.Thanks Again. Great.

  69. Wow, great blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  70. I really like and appreciate your blog article. Will read on…

  71. Really enjoyed this blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

  72. LiDa says:

    A big thank you for your article.Really thank you! Really Great.

  73. Im obliged for the blog post.Much thanks again. Want more.

  74. payday loans says:

    Very good blog. Really Great.

  75. Very informative blog post. Want more.

  76. Very informative blog article.Much thanks again. Great.

  77. Awesome post.Much thanks again. Great.

  78. I truly appreciate this blog post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

Our Sites

  • Above the Law
  • How Appealing
  • ATL Redline
  • Breaking Defense
  • Breaking Energy
  • Breaking Gov
  • Dealbreaker
  • Fashonista
  •