Search
 
 
Sunday, November 8, 2009
 
 
ARTICLES  &  COMMENTARY
A Nice Melodrama
 

The New York Times Room for Debate posed several questions to experts about stress tests for big banks: "On Thursday, the government is set to announce the results of the financial stress tests for 19 large banks. Sources have already disclosed what most experts already knew: some of the biggest banks are still short of money, though they may not be receiving more federal funds. The stress test was put in place to determine whether the banks can get through the recession and shore up confidence in the federal oversight of the nation's banks. Has this process achieved these goals? Or, as critics claim, has the process failed to measure the depth of the banks' problems?" Alex J. Pollock offered the following comments.

 

The stress tests have definitely achieved their principal purpose, which was, as I see it, to show that the Administration had a plan and was doing something: "Our plan is to have stress tests, and we are carrying them out." A nice drama, or melodrama, ensued, with a problem, the build up of suspense, and a happy ending, as shown by the big rally in relevant bank stock prices as the results were leaked.

Stress tests in general are a perfectly sensible, traditional financial idea: see how some entity fares in a given set of scenarios. Of course, much depends on all the estimates that go into such a test. It is ironic that the tranched subprime mortgage-backed securities that have caused so much trouble for everybody were all given credit ratings by stress tests.

Booms are full of overoptimism, busts of overpessimism. It may be that the stress tests are part of a transition to a helpful, less pessimistic stage.

Alex J. Pollock is a resident fellow at AEI.