# U.S. Stress Tests



## MR. (25 April 2009)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=al8L50CWH_Ds&refer=home



> April 24 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve released the methods it used to conduct stress tests of the biggest U.S. banks, while stopping short of any details that signaled how much new capital regulators will demand.






> Today’s report is part of a federal effort to restore public confidence in banks, some of which have seen their capital “substantially reduced” by the recession and financial crisis. Results from the bank tests are due for a May 4 release.






> The “more adverse” scenario poses a 3.3 percent contraction in 2009 with 8.9 percent unemployment, followed by 0.5 percent growth and a 10.3 percent jobless rate in 2010.






> The document, detailing stress tests assuming a decline in output of as much as 3.3 percent, is partly aimed at answering financial analysts who said the government would whitewash the banks’ weaknesses.




So we got some figures to keep an eye on.
Perhaps more so the figures for next year!


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 April 2009)

Thank heavens they decided to sweep all the *bad* stuff under the carpet. Now everyone can party on, oblivious to the *real* stress....


----------



## sardines (25 April 2009)

looks like some overdue stress testing of Bernanke's printing press


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 May 2009)

As predicted, the poor, ill-treated US Big Bwanks seem stressed about the results of the stress tests and have called for delays and omissions before releasing the report to the public.

Of course, we all know it is THEY who run the US, not the pretty Obama-san puppets!

So, predictably it looks like the real results will never be known.

"Total whitewash coming right up, _SIR_!!"


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 May 2009)

A friend explained to me yesterday that banks calculate bonds at the value they purchase them at. Apparently their value on US Banks balance sheets is not subject to fluctuation, regardless if they have lost value. 
Does anyone know if this is true? :1zhelp:


----------



## alphaman (1 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> A friend explained to me yesterday that banks calculate bonds at the value they purchase them at. Apparently their value on US Banks balance sheets is not subject to fluctuation, regardless if they have lost value.



Sounds about right. Bonds are carried at cost if you intend to hold them until maturity. You mark to market only if you intend to trade or sell them. The same rules apply to Aussie banks.

I don't know how frequently banks are allowed to change their intentions though. That could be a funny loophole.


----------



## solomon (1 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> A friend explained to me yesterday that banks calculate bonds at the value they purchase them at. Apparently their value on US Banks balance sheets is not subject to fluctuation, regardless if they have lost value.
> Does anyone know if this is true? :1zhelp:




There was an article on the silver bear cafe (blog) recently to this effect, so I'd say yep thats the way it is.


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 May 2009)

alphaman said:


> Sounds about right. Bonds are carried at cost if you intend to hold them until maturity. You mark to market only if you intend to trade or sell them. The same rules apply to Aussie banks.
> 
> *I don't know how frequently banks are allowed to change their intentions though. That could be a funny loophole.*




In secret backrooms all over the planet.... 

Gummint officials to Big Bwankers: "What loopholes would you like us to create, sirs?"

Big Bwankers: "Whatever we want, we'll let you know when we want it, ok?"

Gummint officials (at attention, saluting to Big Bwankers) chorus: "Yes, _SIRS_! Whatever you wish, _SIRS_!"


----------



## MR. (7 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> banks calculate bonds at the value they purchase them at. Apparently their value on US Banks balance sheets is not subject to fluctuation, regardless if they have lost value.




Banks bought with intentions to trade and they lost value, O'l well, MATURITY?  Although interest rates have dropped so many/majority of the bonds might just be attractive to now sell!.... 

Unless they're bonds from some corporation which is in trouble, think we'll value them at maturity, yes me think........ 

*CLEANER:* "Dat corp' is GM, nearly don't exist now!"........ 

*Aj's BWANKERS:* "Who are you? Get out of this room.... out.......... OUT...,   anyone else here which shouldn't be here?......... ok ............... What do you think guys should we put this...... um..... these bonds to a side then?"  ???

------------
US Stress Tests   Released on the 4/5/09, no didn't happen. Released now the 6/5/09, no still didn't happen....... Now it's the 7th, tonight. Ok, but all will be fine ofcoarse anyway That is expected isn't it?  So sell on news?


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

(while your attention was distracted by mainstream medias morality play...mr johns...)

heres some stress we dont hear about....

Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion



> Video: Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion
> 
> Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:30 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> (while your attention was distracted by mainstream medias morality play...mr johns...)
> 
> heres some stress we dont hear about....
> 
> Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion






> The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions.
> 
> When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know.
> 
> ...




Strewth Bruce! When are these flamin' galahs gunna pull their noggins outta their bum$ an' sniff tha ce$$pit for real?

LOL


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 May 2009)

I had to chuckle at the recent analogy used by Peter Schiff.

He said the 'stress tests' were akin to getting a bunch of gerbils to run across across a newly built bridge.  Now that's funny!

I notice that Germany is now going to deploy it's new 'Bad Bank' plan.

What is a 'Bad Bank' anyway? Or should I say "Bad" Bank for want of a better adjective?

I suppose a "Bad" Bank maybe worse than a "Naughty" Bank.

I can see the comedy soon. Inspired by the one of the scenes in Life of Brian.

Is he the Saviour of the "Bad" Banks?

The supposed saviour's mother replies, "No, he's just a "Naughty" economist.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

BREAKING NEWS



> Breaking News: Imminent Big Bank Failure on Overnight Bank Loan Failure
> Stock-Markets / Credit Crisis 2009
> May 13, 2009 - 10:19 AM
> 
> ...







> FDIC PLANNING FOR HUGE BANK FAILURE?
> By TPC. |
> Late reports this evening are citing an anonymous source that says the FDIC is preparing some sort of superfund that could handle the failure of a large “systemically important financial institution.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> BREAKING NEWS




Waiting with baited breath....

*phew!*

Hang on a mo'...

I smell an Elephant in the room?

Or is it a smoking gun???


----------

