WSJ : European Bank Returns Aren’t as Bad as You Think

European Bank Returns Aren’t as Bad as You Think

The miserably low returns to shareholders reflect the banking system's lower leverage

Good news stories are few and far between for Europe’s bruised banking system, but there’s a little-noticed bright spot in recent bank earnings.

Banks’ return on assets — one measure of profitability — just reached a postcrisis high-water mark. The average return on assets for banks in the Euro Stoxx banking index was 0.34% in the first quarter. It touched that level in 2011 but has otherwise been below it since 2008. The median return on assets for those banks is even better, at 0.44%.

That’s still around 30% below the average level for the years immediately before the financial crisis. But it’s considerably better than returns on equity, which are still less than 50% of their pre-crash level.

ROA itself is rising because of three factors, according to the latest financial stability review from the European Central Bank: net interest income, writedowns of bad loans and non-interest income. Simply put, banks are making more money–somewhat surprisingly, given low and negative rates– and getting rid of bad assets that don’t generate much income.

They’re also making new loans, which adds to assets, but those loans are producing income that keeps the ratio from getting depressed.

It’s another story with return on equity. Despite higher returns, bank equity has been growing, thanks to a heavy push in Europe to raise capital.

For measuring profitability, it’s easy to see why ROE is the most relevant measure for shareholders, especially in the short term. Understandably, they want to know the profit they’re making on their investment most of all. But ROA is in some ways the more relevant figure for everyone else.

The last time ROA reached its current level was in 2011, around the time that European Central Bank hiked interest rates twice, and the bloc’s economy fell back into recession. ROA had declined to practically nothing by the middle of 2013, when the sluggish economic recovery began.

The gap between the two measures of returns is simple: leverage. Return on equity is net income divided by the amount of equity issued. A company that raises its debt levels can generate more income, lifting ROE with it.

Returns on assets, on the other hand, can’t be boosted by simply raising debt. The fact that ROA seems to have outperformed ROE in recent quarters can be explained by the lower leverage of European banks.

During the quarters before the financial crisis, total debt was regularly over 1,000% of total equity for Euro Stoxx banks. Over the last year, it’s fallen below 500%.

Because it can be increased simply by leveraging up, ROE is not always a good indicator of underlying profitability. During the 2002-2007 period, the ROA for European banks barely rose at all, according to the ECB, but higher leverage meant great returns for the owners of equity. Shareholders were predictably happy enough: the Euro Stoxx banks offered a total return of well over 200% from their 2002 low to their 2007 high.

The current divergence between ROE and ROA that seems to be opening up in Europe might also look familiar to American bankers. In the U.S, returns on assets are now 76% of what they were between 2004 and 2007, while returns on equity are just 56% of their former levels.

A focus on ROE has come under fire before, too. Back in 2011, the Bank of England’s Andy Haldane suggested ROA would be a better target than ROE for banks to pursue.

“Equity-holders often have risk-taking incentives out of line with the interests of other bank stakeholders, much less society” said Mr. Haldane, who is now the central bank’s chief economist.

To be sure, the return-on-asset data is not nearly enough for a bullish take on European banks. In the U.S, the banking recovery benefited from stronger economic growth than Europe is likely to see over the next few years. Earnings growth in Europe is expected to be weak, so there’s no promise that ROA will continue to grow at all.

Nonetheless, ROA presents a slightly less grim picture of the European banking system than ROE. The inability of the eurozone’s banks to return growing profits to their shareholders may be bad news for them, but if it’s because of less debt, it may not be a bad thing for Europe as a whole.

WSJ : Deutsche Börse CEO Braced for Regulatory Scrutiny Over LSE Deal

Deutsche Börse CEO Braced for Regulatory Scrutiny Over LSE Deal
Carsten Kengeter criticizes French government after country’s finance minister and central bank chief raise concerns over the tie-up
FRANKFURT—The chief executive of Deutsche Börse AG said his planned merger with the London Stock Exchange Group PLC wouldn’t close before the first quarter of next year because of intense regulatory scrutiny and that U.S. rivals could potentially still torpedo the deal to create Europe’s biggest stock-market operator.

“We don’t expect the deal to close before next year’s first quarter because regulators have to give their OK following shareholder approval,” Carsten Kengeter told journalists in Frankfurt Monday.

Mr. Kengeter, who is poised to become chief executive of the combined group, also criticized the French government, which he said had a vested interest in undermining the deal. He noted that the French state holds a 6% stake in Euronext NV, a rival to Deutsche Börse and LSE Group.

His comments came in response to statements by French Finance Minister Michel Sapin and the head of the country’s central bank, François Villeroy de Galhau, who earlier Monday raised concerns about the tie-up of Deutsche Börse and LSE.

Mr. Sapin said such a move risked curtailing competition and increasing market risk. He reiterated a call for European authorities and other local supervisors to scrutinize the British-German deal.


“We’ve been in a process of decreasing risk,” Mr. Sapin said. “If there is too much concentration, risks would increase.”

Mr. Villeroy de Galhau said the creation of a large stock clearing house “could create an operator that is too big to fail.”

Mr. Kengeter said Deutsche Börse and LSE would keep their clearing houses separate but that customers and financial stability could still benefit.

He also said that U.S. competitors such as Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and CME Group Inc. could potentially bid for LSE or Deutsche Börse. ICE in March said it was considering a bid for LSE to rival Deutsche Börse, but said earlier this month that it would not place a bid.

Mr. Kengeter said ICE could potentially make a new approach for the LSE in November, when a standstill period ends. He speculated that CME might also be interested in bidding for Deutsche Börse should its LSE merger fall apart.

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

Gapping up: CPXX +71.7%, CLF +15%, CBYL +13.2%, TTM +12.1%, WR +8.9%, SODA +5%, DANG +5%, LC +4.4%, MT+4%, MU +2.5%, JD +2.3%, LPG +2%, DE +1.9%, FRO +1.5%, VRX +1.4%, MRO +1.4%, MON +1.4%, UA +1.3%, BNS+1.3%

Gapping down: MNOV -10.2%, AG -3.2%, CS -2.8%, BP -1.9%, SDRL -1.5%, BBL -1.2%, TEVA -0.9%, BHP -0.8%, BCS-0.6%, RIO -0.5%

>>> FEMA Preparing For Magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, Tsunam

FEMA Preparing For Magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, Tsunami

Starting on June 7th, FEMA will be conducting a large scale drill that has been named “Cascadia Rising” that will simulate the effects of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone and an accompanying west coast tsunami dozens of feet tall. According to the official flyer for the event, more than “50 counties, plus major cities, tribal nations, state and federal agencies, private sector businesses, and non-governmental organizations across three states – Washington, Oregon, and Idaho – will be participating”. In addition to “Cascadia Rising”, U.S. Northern Command will be holding five other exercises simultaneously. According to the final draft of the Cascadia Rising drill plan, those five exercises are entitled “Ardent Sentry 2016″, “Vigilant Guard”, “Special Focus Exercise”, “Turbo Challenge” and “Joint Logistics Over-The-Shore”.
The primary scenario that of all of these participants will be focusing on will be one that involves a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone followed by a giant tsunami that could displace up to a million people from northern California to southern Canada.

We have never seen such a disaster before in all of U.S. history.
Do they know something that the rest of us do not?
It is funny that they are preparing to deal with the effects of a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, because that is precisely the size of earthquake that I warned about in an article back in March.
The San Andreas Fault in southern California gets more headlines, but the Cascadia Subduction Zone is a much larger threat by far. This fault zone is where the Juan de Fuca plate meets the North American plate, and it stretches approximately 700 miles from northern Vancouver Island all the way down to northern California.
If a magnitude 9.0 earthquake were to strike, the immense shaking and subsequent tsunami would cause damage on a scale that is hard to even imagine right now. Perhaps this is why FEMA feels such a need to get prepared for this type of disaster, because the experts assure us that it is most definitely coming someday. The following comes from the official website of the “Cascadia Rising” exercise…


A 9.0 magnitude earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) and the resulting tsunami is the most complex disaster scenario that emergency management and public safety officials in the Pacific Northwest could face. Cascadia Rising is an exercise to address that disaster.

June 7-10, 2016 Emergency Operations and Coordination Centers (EOC/ECCs) at all levels of government and the private sector will activate to conduct a simulated field response operation within their jurisdictions and with neighboring communities, state EOCs, FEMA, and major military commands.

If you don’t think that the scenario that they are studying is realistic, perhaps you should consider the fact that the largest earthquake in the history of the continental United States stuck along the Cascadia Subduction Zone back in 1700. The following comes from CNN


In fact, “the Cascadia” already has made history, causing the largest earthquake in the continental United States on January 26, 1700. That’s when the Cascadia unleashed one of the world’s biggest quakes, causing a tsunami so big that it rampaged across the Pacific and damaged coastal villages in Japan.
Yes, we all remember the big Hollywood blockbuster about the San Andreas fault. But if they wanted to be more realistic, they should have made the movie about the Cascadia Subduction Zone. According to a professor of geophysics at Oregon State University, the Cascadia Subduction Zone has the potential to create an earthquake “almost 30 times more energetic” than anything the San Andreas Fault can produce…


Everyone knows the Cascadia’s cousin in California: the San Andreas Fault. It gets all the scary glamor, with even a movie this year, “San Andreas,” dramatizing an apocalypse in the western U.S.

Truth is, the San Andreas is a lightweight compared with the Cascadia.

The Cascadia can deliver a quake that’s many times stronger — plus a tsunami.

“Cascadia can make an earthquake almost 30 times more energetic than the San Andreas to start with, and then it generates a tsunami at the same time, which the side-by-side motion of the San Andreas can’t do,” said Chris Goldfinger, a professor of geophysics at Oregon State University.
And the kind of tsunami that would be created by such a massive quake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone would absolutely dwarf the massive tsunami that struck Japan back in 2011. In fact, an article in the New Yorker quoted the head of the FEMA division that oversees Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska as saying that “everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast”…


If the entire zone gives way at once, an event that seismologists call a full-margin rupture, the magnitude will be somewhere between 8.7 and 9.2. That’s the very big one.

…By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs
FEMA
’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says,“Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”

In the Pacific Northwest, everything west of Interstate 5 covers some hundred and forty thousand square miles, including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem (the capital city of Oregon), Olympia (the capital of Washington), and some seven million people.
We live at a time when the crust of our planet is becoming increasingly unstable.
All over the world the Ring of Fire is roaring to life, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone lies directly along the Ring of Fire. Just last week, I wrote about the alarming earthquake swarms that we have seen directly under Mt. Rainier, Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens, and now we have learned that FEMA is about to hold a major drill that is going to simulate a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone and an accompanying west coast tsunami dozens of feet in height.
Of course most Americans aren’t concerned about this threat at all.
Most Americans just assume that life will continue to go on normally just as it always has.
But I happen to agree with the experts that are promising us that an absolutely massive earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone will strike someday, and when that happens life in America will be permanently altered.

(GS) China Index Inclusion - full note attached

China Musings: Index (inclusion) strategy: Raising our probability for A-share inclusion, and still liking ADRs post their 2nd tranche inclusion

Two important index (MSCI) events will take place in the next 2 weeks – first, the 2nd tranche of ADR inclusion is scheduled to be implemented on May 31, and on June 15 (HKT), the MSCI will announce the results of its Annual Market Classification Review, with the A-share market being one of the candidates for index inclusion. In this China Musings, we refresh our expectations and strategies for these 2 index inclusion events.

Raising our probability for A-share inclusion from 50% to 70%; but roadmap is still more important than timing
As detailed in our recent report: The great China debate (II): China A inclusion to MSCI – should, will, when?, Apr 25, we assigned a 50% probability to a Yes decision by the MSCI to add A-shares to its benchmark as we thought the arguments on both sides were largely balanced. One month has gone by, and two recent developments have prompted us to raise our Yes probability. They include:
* On May 6, the CSRC clarified its stance on beneficial ownership of securities through nominee holder, officially recognizing that "A QFII may apply to the securities registration and settlement institution for opening a securities
account, in the name of actual holders or nominee holder.”
* On May 27, the CSRC, together with the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges published detailed guidelines to regulate and curb voluntary stock suspension in the A-share market.

(CS) Global Equity Strat. : Equities: The dilemma

* We maintain our neutral stance on equities and stick to our year-end targets of 2,150 for the S&P 500 and 3,350 for the Euro Stoxx 50.
* What has improved, but is unlikely to improve further? (1) China: housing (prices rising in 65 out of 70 cities) and infrastructure (state/SoE investment up 23% Y/Y, a five-year high) but economic lead indicators look like they are rolling over, our policy indicators show tightening and there has been no rebalancing. (2) Oil: almost all risk trades have been correlated to oil. We believe if oil moves above $50pb, Saudi Arabia does not meet its apparent economic/political objectives, including preventing the US becoming selfsufficient in energy. Moreover, speculative positions are at all-time highs. (3) The Fed became more dovish as the market rallied, but this is now reversing (our economists expect two rate hikes this year; the market expects one). (4) Bond yields have never decoupled to this extent from ISM new orders, cyclicals or commodities. (5) Credit: in Europe there has been a c.50% retracement in HY spreads from their trough in Summer 2014. Spreads now look fair value. (6) US earnings revisions have turned positive for the first time since June 2014, but much of this is down to the dollar and commodities and hence this normally very positive signal could be misleading. (7) US lead indicators are now unusually ambiguous, and if anything, trending weaker

* What has not improved: (1) Global PMI or global nominal GDP growth (which is the weakest it has been outside of 2008/9). (2) US labour is getting some modest pricing power (which is bad for profit margins) and hence the gap between nominal GDP and wage growth has fallen to its lowest in this cycle. (3) There is significantly above-average political risk (relating to immigration, the Italian referendum, the US presidential election).

* The other worries for equities: (1) Both our fair value models are close to fair value (US ERP is 5.7% against a warranted of 5.6%). (2) We have never seen so much disruption to business models from new technology, regulation, and China in an environment where governments are helping labour relative to capital (via taxation and minimum-wage legislation). (3) We marginally raise our 2016 US EPS growth forecast to 1% from zero. The problems for corporates are: i) labour is getting pricing power, ii) operating earnings appear abnormally overstated compared to reported, and iii) one-off factors, which accounted for c.60% of margin improvement, are diminished. (4) Buybacks as a style is underperforming. (5) Seasonals are unsupportive: since 1988, May to September has seen flat markets. (6) A fall in the 50-week MA below the 100- week MA sees down markets 56% of the time over the next six months

* We remain benchmark of equities: (1) 'Fair value' for equities could be considered reasonable when bonds/real estate appear so expensive. The cost of equity in the US is 9.1%, still in its normal range (though at the lower end). (2) Risk appetite is pricing in an ISM below 50. (3) Excess liquidity is extremely high, and retail, institutional and prime positioning is also supportive. (4) Market breadth has improved.

* The critical issues to watch are Chinese lead indicators, US wage growth and US lead indicators.