Top 100 Rated Banks: S&P Capital Ratios And Rating Implications

Transcription

1 Top 100 Rated Banks: S&P Capital Ratios And Rating Implications Primary Credit Analysts: Stefan Best, Frankfurt (49) ; Hans Wright, London (44) ; Secondary Contacts: Mathieu Plait, London (44) ; Jackson E Griffith, London (44) ; jackson_griffith@standardandpoors.com Table Of Contents RAC Ratios Vary By Region Capital And Earnings, And Risk Position Are Two Factors That Affect Bank Ratings Related Criteria And Research FEBRUARY 18,

2 Top 100 Rated Banks: S&P Capital Ratios And Rating Implications Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has updated its risk-adjusted capital (RAC) ratios for the top 100 banks that we publicly rate globally. Our most recent RAC ratios, based on data from 2011 and 2012, are presented here alongside our previous surveys. The ranking in table 1 below is based on tier 1 capital as published in The Banker in November Our RAC ratio compares Standard & Poor's definition of total adjusted capital (TAC) to risk-weighted assets (Standard & Poor's RWAs). We last published RAC ratios for 2009/2010 in "Despite Significant Progress, Capital Is Still A Rating Weakness For Large Global Banks," on Jan. 18, 2011, and RAC ratios for 2010/2011 in the article, "Bank Ratings Incorporate Expectations For Improving Capital Assessments Globally," published on Feb. 29, The RAC ratios presented below may differ from our forecasts or estimates for these ratios that we have previously published in our bank-specific reports. TAC is calculated using the latest reported financial statements for each bank. This therefore excludes variations in capital since the last reported date. Standard & Poor's RWAs apply the last reported exposure data to current risk factors such as our higher-risk assessments for Spain and Italy during 2012, for example. We are also publishing our assessments of "capital and earnings" and "risk position" for the top 100 banks. Our opinion of balance sheet strength (which combines our assessments of "capital and earnings" and "risk position") can be a more useful benchmark than the RAC ratio for understanding how capital affects our ratings. Overall, we view balance sheets as having slightly improved over the past year. Banks have strengthened their capital positions through increased earnings retention, repurchases of hybrid capital instruments, capital raising, and balance sheet reductions. Nonetheless, balance sheet strength remains a negative ratings factor for almost half of the 100 banks. Here's a description of the terms we use in table 1: ICR, SACP: We base the issuer credit ratings (ICR), stand-alone credit profiles (SACP), and component scores in table 1 and chart 1 on the operating company of the institution. Capital and earnings, risk position: We produce these component scores from bank-specific analysis that assesses factors relating to a particular institution's capital strength and risk profile. We combine these with the anchor and component scores for business position and funding and liquidity to produce the stand-alone credit profile (SACP). RAC ratio as of 2009/2010: We derive the ratios in table 1 from actual reported company financials; they are not our estimates or forecasts. Because countries have different reporting schedules, the ratios in this column are based on actual financial statements reported between Dec. 31, 2009, and June 30, 2010, see "Despite Significant Progress, Capital Is Still A Rating Weakness For Large Global Banks," published on Jan. 18, RAC ratio as of 2010/2011: Similarly, we base these RAC ratios on actual financial statements between Dec. 31, 2010, and June 30, 2011, See "Bank Ratings Incorporate Expectations For Improving Capital Assessments Globally," published on Feb. 29, RAC ratio as of 2011/2012: These RAC ratios are based on the most recent financial statements that the banks have reported. The date of reporting is the "as of" date. The RAC ratios for these three periods are point in time; we do not update them for changes in capital measures after the reporting date. However, these ratios are the starting point for our projected RAC ratios, which factor in our forward-looking view about capital and other factors. FEBRUARY 18,

3 In interpreting RAC trends, we emphasize that ratios have changed for several reasons. Firstly, the numerator, TAC, includes changes through banks' capital measures as of the reporting date. Furthermore, in 2011 we changed our definition of TAC by excluding most bank hybrid capital instruments that have coupon step-ups on an optional call date or features equivalent to step-ups (see "Bank Hybrid Capital Methodology And Assumptions," published on Nov. 1, 2011), which significantly explains the negative change in French and Canadian banks' RAC ratios from 2009/2010 to 2010/2011. Secondly, the denominator, S&P's RWAs, includes changes in the level and composition of banks' reported exposure data. In addition, our RWAs also draw from the most recent parameters (Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments or BICRAs, economic risk scores, and sovereign ratings) at the time of the publications. The RAC ratios as of 2009/2010 are based on the parameters available in January 2011, the RAC ratios as of 2010/2011 are based on those parameters available in November 2011, and current RAC ratios are based on the parameters available in November These parameters affect the risk factors that we apply to a bank's reported exposure data to calculate Standard & Poor's RWAs. According to our capital criteria, greater economic risk leads to higher risk-weighted assets and lower RAC ratios (and vice versa), unless banks take sufficient counterbalancing measures to improve capital or reduce risk. The downgrades on the sovereign ratings and our higher risk assessment of the BICRA for Italy and Spain largely explains the negative trend for Italian and Spanish banks RAC ratios from 2010/2011 to 2011/2012. Table 1 S&P's Risk-Adjusted Capital Ratios For The World s Top 100 Rated Banks Tier 1 Rank Country Institution Operating Company Long-Term ICR SACP Capital and earnings (A) Risk position (B) Impact of A + B on SACP RAC ratio as of 2009/2010 RAC ratio as of 2010/2011 * Current RAC ratio Current RAC ratio as of date 1 U.S. Bank of America Corp. A bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ U.S. JPMorgan Chase & Co. A+ a Adequate Adequate /30/ China Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. A bbb Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ U.S. HSBC Holdings PLC AA- a- Adequate Strong /31/ U.S. Citigroup Inc. A bbb Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ China China Construction Bank Corp. 7 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. A bbb- Moderate Moderate (2) /31/2011 A+ a+ Adequate Adequate /31/ U.S. Wells Fargo & Co. AA- a+ Adequate Strong /30/ China Bank of China Ltd. A bbb- Moderate Moderate (2) /31/ France BNP Paribas A+ a Moderate Strong /31/ U.K. The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC A bbb Adequate Moderate (1) /31/ France Credit Agricole S.A. A a- Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ Spain Banco Santander S.A. BBB a- Moderate Very strong /31/ U.K. Barclays Bank PLC A+ a- Adequate Adequate /31/ Japan Mizuho Financial Group Inc. 16 Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. A+ a Moderate Adequate (1) /31/2012 A+ a Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ FEBRUARY 18,

4 Table 1 S&P's Risk-Adjusted Capital Ratios For The World s Top 100 Rated Banks (cont.) 17 U.K. Lloyds TSB Bank PLC A bbb Moderate Moderate (2) /30/ Germany Deutsche Bank AG A+ a- Adequate Moderate (1) /31/ U.S. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. A bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ Italy UniCredit SpA (2) BBB+ bbb+ Moderate Strong /31/ Japan Norinchukin Bank A+ a Adequate Adequate 0 N.A. N.A /31/ France BPCE A a- Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ U.S. Morgan Stanley A bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ Netherlands ING Bank N.V. A+ a Adequate Adequate /31/ Netherlands Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland) AA- a+ Adequate Strong /31/ France Societe Generale A a- Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ Italy Intesa Sanpaolo SpA BBB+ bbb+ Moderate Strong /31/ Spain Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. 29 China Bank of Communications Co. Ltd. BBB- bbb+ Moderate Very strong /31/2011 A- bbb- Moderate Adequate (1) N.A /31/ Switzerland UBS AG A bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ Switzerland Credit Suisse AG A+ a- Adequate Moderate (1) /30/ Brazil Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. BBB bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /30/ U.K. Standard Chartered Bank AA- a+ Adequate Strong /31/ Canada Royal Bank of Canada AA- a+ Adequate Strong /30/ France Caisse Centrale du Credit Mutuel A+ a Adequate Adequate /31/ Germany Commerzbank AG A bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) /31/ Australia National Australia Bank Ltd. AA- a Adequate Adequate /31/ Brazil Banco do Brasil S.A BBB bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /30/ Brazil Banco Bradesco S.A. BBB bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /30/ Australia Commonwealth Bank of Australia 41 Australia Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. AA- a Adequate Adequate /30/2012 AA- a Adequate Adequate /31/ Sweden Nordea Bank AB AA- a+ Adequate Strong /31/ U.S. U.S. Bancorp (The) AA- a+ Adequate Strong /30/ U.S. PNC Financial Services Group A a Adequate Strong /30/ Canada Toronto-Dominion Bank AA- a+ Adequate Strong /30/ Canada The Bank of Nova Scotia A+ a Adequate Strong /30/ Australia Westpac Banking Corp. AA- a Adequate Adequate /31/ Spain CaixaBank S.A.** BBB- bbb- Weak Strong /31/ Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank Ltd. A+ a Moderate Strong 0 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. FEBRUARY 18,

5 Table 1 S&P's Risk-Adjusted Capital Ratios For The World s Top 100 Rated Banks (cont.) 50 Japan Nomura Holdings Inc. A- bbb Adequate Moderate (1) N.A /31/ Denmark Danske Bank A/S A- bbb Moderate Moderate (2) /31/ Canada Bank of Montreal A+ a- Adequate Adequate /30/ China China Merchants Bank Co. Ltd. BBB+ bbb Moderate Strong 0 N.A. N.A /31/ Singapore DBS Bank Ltd. AA- a Adequate Adequate /31/ India State Bank of India BBB- bbb- Moderate Moderate (2) N.A /31/ Belgium KBC Bank N.V. A- bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ Netherlands ABN AMRO Bank N.V. A bbb+ Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/ Japan Resona Bank Ltd. A a- Moderate Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ Ireland Allied Irish Banks PLC BB b+ Weak Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ U.S. Capital One Financial Corp. BBB+ bbb+ Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /30/ Norway DNB Bank ASA A+ a Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/ Korea Kookmin Bank A a- Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/ Canada Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce A+ a- Adequate Adequate /30/ Korea Woori Bank A- bbb Moderate Moderate (2) N.A /31/ Austria Erste Group Bank AG A bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ U.S. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. 67 Italy Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA 68 Sweden Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ) AA- a Moderate Strong 0 N.A /30/2012 BB b Weak Weak (4) /31/2011 A+ a- Adequate Adequate /31/ Korea Shinhan Bank A bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) N.A /31/ U.S. BB&T Corp. A- a Adequate Strong 1 N.A /30/ U.S. SunTrust Banks Inc. BBB+ bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) N.A /30/ Singapore Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. Ltd. 73 Singapore United Overseas Bank Ltd. AA- a Adequate Adequate /31/2011 AA- a- Adequate Adequate /31/ U.S. State Street Corp. AA- a+ Adequate Strong 1 N.A /30/ Sweden Svenska Handelsbanken AB AA- a+ Adequate Strong /31/ Russia VTB Bank JSC BBB bb Moderate Moderate (1) N.A /31/ Germany Cooperative Banking Sector Germany (5) AA- aa- Strong Adequate /31/ Ireland Bank of Ireland (4) BB+ bb Weak Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ U.S. Fifth Third Bancorp BBB+ bbb+ Adequate Moderate (1) N.A /30/ Sweden Swedbank AB A+ a- Adequate Adequate /31/ Austria Raiffeisen Zentralbank Oesterreich AG (3) A bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) /31/ U.S. Regions Financial Corp. BBB bbb Adequate Moderate (1) N.A /30/ U.K. Nationwide Building Society A+ a- Adequate Strong /04/ FEBRUARY 18,

6 Table 1 S&P's Risk-Adjusted Capital Ratios For The World s Top 100 Rated Banks (cont.) 84 Canada Caisse Centrale Desjardins A+ a Strong Strong 2 N.A. N.A /30/ Korea NongHyup Bank A bbb Moderate Moderate (2) N.A. N.A /30/ Spain Banco Popular Espanol S.A. BB b+ Weak Moderate (2) /31/ Korea Hana Bank A bbb+ Moderate Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ Italy Unione di Banche Italiane Scpa BBB bbb Moderate Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ Japan Shinkin Central Bank A+ a Strong Adequate 1 N.A. N.A /31/ Germany Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (Unsolicited Ratings) BBB+ bbb- Moderate Moderate (2) N.A. N.A /31/ Denmark Nykredit Realkredit A/S A+ a- Adequate Strong /31/ U.S. KeyCorp A- a- Strong Adequate 1 N.A /30/ Spain Bankia S.A. (1) BB ccc+ Very Weak Moderate (3) N.A /31/ India ICICI Bank Ltd. BBB- bbb Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/ South Africa Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd. BBB bbb Moderate Adequate (1) N.A. N.A /31/ Malaysia Malayan Banking Bhd. A- a- Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/ Italy Banco Popolare Societa Cooperativa SCRL 98 Turkey Turkiye Garanti Bankasi A.S. 99 Saudi Arabia The National Commercial Bank 100 Brazil Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social 101 China Agricultural Bank of China Ltd. (6) BBB- bb+ Moderate Moderate (2) N.A. N.A /31/2011 BB bbb- Adequate Adequate 0 N.A /31/2011 A+ a Strong Moderate 1 N.A /31/2011 BBB a Strong Adequate 1 N.A /30/2012 A bbb- Moderate Moderate (2) N.A. N.A /31/2011 Note: The ranking is based on tier 1 capital as published in The Banker in November 2012.*Source: "Bank Ratings Incorporate Expectations For Improving Capital Assessments," published on Feb. 29, Source: "Despite Significant Progress Capital Is Still A Rating Weakness For Large Global Banks," published on Jan. 18, Jun. 30, 2012, RAC ratio about 4.8%. RAC ratio as of Dec. 31, 2011, before consolidation of Banco Pastor and excluding other capital enhancement taken in the year. **RAC ratio as of Dec. 31, 2011, before consolidation of Banca Civica and other acquired assets. Credit Suisse implemented significant capital measures in July 2012, including the issue of a Swiss franc 3.6 billion mandatory deferrable notes (converts to equity March 2013). We estimate that this has improved the RAC ratio by about 200 basis points through Sept. 30, The ratio in the bank s most recently published full analysis report on Nov. 22, 2012, is 8.4% before adjustments and 8.7% after adjustments. The ratio here is different because we made some changes to the equity in banking book. RAC ratio is calculated based on the consolidated figures of Resona HD. (1)RAC ratio is not yet finalized. (2)Ratio as of Dec. 31, 2011, doesn t take into account the 7.5 billion capital increase completed in January 2012 and that we estimated to account for about 90 basis points under our RAC framework. (3)The current RAC ratio and the 2010/2011 ratio refer to Raiffeisen Banking Group. (4)June 30, 2012, RAC ratio about 4.5%. (5)We computed the RAC ratio by combining public and confidential information of the sector's key members: Local cooperative banks, DZ Bank Group, Deutsche Apotheker- und Aerztebank, and WGZ Bank. Cross shareholdings and interbank placements within the group were treated according to our best efforts to compute an estimate for the consolidated entity. (6)We assigned a rating on the bank on Dec. 16, 2012, so it was a late addition to this list. RAC Ratios Vary By Region We note significant regional variations in the RAC ratios of the top 100 banks. Banks in Australia, Japan, the U.S., Canada, and the Nordic countries exhibited stronger regional averages, whereas banks in parts of Western Europe and China had generally weaker RAC ratios (see chart 1). We are mindful, however, that 100 banks do not allow for proper representation of all 27 systems or five regions by regional averages. That's why we present a range of minimum and FEBRUARY 18,

7 maximum ratios across regions. We see for example that 11 of the six banks in Canada and seven banks in the Nordic countries showed RAC ratios at about 7% or above. At the same time, we find a number of banks with RAC ratios at about 5% or below in all other regions. Our criteria consider RAC ratios of 7%-10% adequate and 5-7% moderate. Chart 1 When looking at the ratios historically, we also observe regional variations. Banks within the top 100 from North America and Asia Pacific show a more or less pronounced upward trend in RAC levels, while the picture for banks in Europe is mixed (see chart 2). More distinctive patterns are emerging when looking at these trends in more detail at a country level. We note improvements at some of the banks in Germany and the U.K. as well as at both Switzerland-based banks, which raised their country averages. The ratios for banks in Italy and Spain, however, have been on a consistently downward trend over the past three years. This is largely due to our upward revisions to economic risk, which increased our measure of risk-weighted assets in both systems (see chart 3). FEBRUARY 18,

8 Chart 2 FEBRUARY 18,

9 Chart 3 Capital And Earnings, And Risk Position Are Two Factors That Affect Bank Ratings Capital and earnings and risk position are two of the four bank-specific factors that we analyze when rating banks. We assess both on a six-point scale: very weak, weak, moderate, adequate, strong, and very strong. These assessments provide a more direct and forward-looking relative assessment of capital strength than RAC ratios based on data that is already reported. In general, an "adequate" assessment has no impact on the SACP. All else being equal, a "moderate" assessment would lower the SACP by one notch, a "weak" assessment would lower the SACP two or three notches, and "very weak" by five notches. On the other hand, a "strong" assessment would raise the SACP by one notch, and a "very strong" assessment by two notches. For this sample of 100 large global institutions, the combined impact of our capital and earnings and risk position assessments ranges from minus four to plus two notches (see chart 4). For example, Bank of China Ltd. has "moderate" assessments for both factors, and so our SACP on the bank reflects an adjustment to the anchor of minus two notches. FEBRUARY 18,

10 At the other extreme, Caisse Centrale Desjardins has both "strong" capital and earnings and a "strong" risk position, and so our SACP on the bank incorporates an uplift of two notches. Chart 4 Generally, we expect that most banks will maintain or strengthen capital to comply with tighter regulatory requirements. Because our analysis is forward looking we base our capital and earnings assessment primarily on our projected RAC ratio for a bank for the current calendar year and subsequent year and other factors. We associate ranges of our projected RAC ratio with different capital and earnings assessments. For example, we consider capital and earnings adequate when the projected RAC ratio is 7%-10% and moderate if it is 5%-7%. Therefore, a comparison between a bankś current RAC ratio and the capital and earnings assessment gives an indication of how we expect the RAC ratio to develop. If for example a bankś current RAC ratio as shown in table 1 is tangibly less than 7%, and we view capital and earnings adequate and not moderate as suggested by our defined ranges, one can conclude that we expect the RAC ratio to improve to at least close to or above 7%. For about 80% of the 100 banks our capital and earnings assessment is in line with what the ranges suggest. For 23 of the banks, our projected RAC ratios imply a higher assessment than what the current RAC ratios would normally suggest. All except two of these banks are based in North America and Europe where the need to improve capital is the highest. FEBRUARY 18,

11 Table 2 Capital And Earnings Scores Compared With RAC Ranges For the world's top 100 banks based on RAC ratios before diversification as of 2011/2012 Capital and earnings assessment Share of banks (%) Less than 5% 5%-7% 7%-10% 10%-15% Total Strong Adequate Moderate Weak Very Weak Grand Total Related Criteria And Research "Bank Ratings Incorporate Expectations For Improving Capital Assessments Globally," Feb. 29, "Despite Significant Progress, Capital Is Still A Rating Weakness For Large Global Banks," Jan. 18, Additional Contact: Financial Institutions Ratings Europe; FIG_Europe@standardandpoors.com FEBRUARY 18,

12 Copyright 2013 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and and (subscription) and (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at FEBRUARY 18,