Monday, November 9, is the deadline for banks to apply for the Treasury’s Capital Assistance Program. Chances are, none will sign up.
The program — CAP for short — is the other shoe of last spring’s stress test. Announced on February 9 as a “core element of the Administration’s financial stability plan,” the program was designed to backstop banks that are unable to raise sufficient private capital. Secretary Geithner presented the plan to the Senate Banking Committee on February 10 and it was featured in Chairman Bernanke’s Senate testimony two weeks later.
Under the CAP, a bank receives government funds by issuing preferred securities to the Treasury. These CAP securities include complex embedded options for both the bank and the Treasury. In current work with Zhenyu Wang of the New York Fed, we have estimated prices at which these “structured products” would sell in a market transaction between private participants rather than as part of a government program. We have applied our method to the 18 publicly traded bank holding companies that participated in the stress test. (The 19th stress test bank, GMAC, is privately held and received funds through a special program for the auto industry.) Our estimates indicate that the CAP securities represent significant value — one might even say a huge potential subsidy — to eligible banks.
So why no takers? In many respects, the lack of participation is good news: the mere availability of CAP funds may have been enough to boost confidence in the financial system. The nine banks that were required to raise additional capital following the stress test all report being on track to meet their targets through the private sector, though some of the new capital, like the $2.1 billion in deferred tax assets claimed by Bank of America, falls short of a ringing endorsement from investors. But even if all the capital raised is solid, the question remains: Why pass up a good deal?
The circumstances suggest several possible explanations. A bank may avoid taking government funds if the strings attached require it to forgo other profitable opportunities. Citi’s sale of Phibro and troubles with Banamex illustrate this possibility, but such costs are unlikely to offset the value of the subsidy. In an odd twist, weak corporate governance may save taxpayers money. This explanation applies if bank executives pass up CAP funds to protect their own positions rather than the interests of shareholders. Senior management at any of the top banks would be unlikely to survive another injection of government capital.
These considerations apply to all the TARP programs, but one other explanation is specific to the CAP preferred securities. In our analysis, much of the value to a bank of the CAP securities lies in the option a bank gets to convert them to common equity. This feature comes at the cost of higher dividend payments than shares issued through earlier programs, which did not include a conversion option. But Citi negotiated conversion of some of its earlier shares, and remarks from Treasury officials and banks indicate that similar conversions have been discussed at other banks. Banks may be reluctant to pay for an option they think they can get for free.
Complex structured products designed in the private sector have drawn criticism for contributing to financial instability through a lack of transparency. The complexity of the Treasury’s design of the CAP shares — intended, no doubt, to avoid direct government purchase of bank stocks — may well have been a final factor in discouraging participation.Photo credit: Adam Fagen