Markets
BAC

Are Banks Safer Today Than Before the Crisis? By This Measure, the Answer Is Yes

It should come as no surprise, then, that many of the biggest bank failures in history stemmed from an over-reliance on either short-term credit or on large institutional depositors. This was the reason scores of New York's biggest and most prestigious banks had to suspend withdrawals in the Panic of 1873, during which correspondent banks located throughout the country simultaneously rushed to withdraw their deposits from money center banks after panic broke out on Wall Street. This was also the case a century later, when Continental Illinois became the first too-big-to-fail bank in 1984. It was the case at countless savings and loans during the 1980s. And it's what took down Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Washington Mutual in the financial crisis of 2008-09.

A corollary to this rule is that one way to measure a bank's susceptibility to failure -- which, as I discuss here , should always be at the forefront of investors, analysts, and bankers' minds -- is to gauge how heavily it relies on short-term credit and institutional deposits as opposed to retail deposits and long-term loans. If a bank relies too heavily on the former, particularly in relation to its illiquid assets, then that's an obvious sign of weakness. If it doesn't, then that's a sign of strength -- though, it's by no means a guarantee that a bank is otherwise prudently managed .

One way to gauge this is simply to look at what percentage of a bank's funds derive from short-term loans as opposed to more stable sources. As you can see in the chart below, for instance, Bank of America gets roughly 16% of its funds from the short-term money market. That's worse than a smaller, simpler bank like U.S. Bancorp , which looks to the money market for only 9% of its liquidity, but it's nevertheless better than, say, Bank of America's former reliance on short-term funds, which came in at 31% in 2005. Indeed, as William Cohen intimates in House of Cards , one of the "dirty little secret[s]" of Wall Street companies prior to the crisis was how much they relied on overnight repo funding to prop up their operations.

A second way to measure this is to compare a bank's funding sources to the liquidity of its assets, and loans in particular, as loans are one of the least liquid types of assets held on a bank's balance sheet. This is the function of the loan-to-deposit ratio, which estimates whether a bank's deposits can singlehandedly fund its loan book. If deposits exceed loans -- though, remember that not all deposits are created equal -- then a bank could theoretically withstand a liquidity run by pruning its securities portfolio or using parts thereof as collateral in exchange for cash. This would protect it from the need to unload loans at fire-sale prices which, in turn, could render the bank insolvent.

Overall, as the chart above illustrates, the bank industry has aggressively reduced its loan-to-deposit ratio since the crisis. In 2006, it was upwards of 96%. Today, it's closer to 70%. It can't be denied that some of this downward trend has to do with the historically low interest rate environment, which reduces the incentive of depositors to alternate out of deposits and into low-yielding securities. But it's also safe to assume that banks have intentionally brought this number down to shore up their balance sheets, and in response to the heightened liquidity requirements of the post-crisis regulatory regime.

Whatever the motivations are behind these trends, one thing is certain: At least from the standpoint of liquidity, the nation's banks have come a long way over the last few years to build a safer and more stable financial system. This doesn't mean we won't have banking crises and liquidity runs in the future, as history speaks clearly on the point that we will. But it does mean that, for the time being anyhow, this is one less thing for bank investors to worry about.

Bank of America + Apple? This device makes it possible.

Apple recently recruited a secret-development "dream team" to guarantee its newest smart device was kept hidden from the public for as long as possible. But the secret is out , and some early viewers are claiming it's destined to change everything from banking to health care. In fact, ABI Research predicts 485 million of this type of device will be sold per year. But one small company makes Apple's gadget possible. And its stock price has nearly unlimited room to run for early, in-the-know investors. To be one of them, and see Apple's newest smart gizmo, just click here !

The article Are Banks Safer Today Than Before the Crisis? By This Measure, the Answer Is Yes originally appeared on Fool.com.

John Maxfield has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Bank of America. The Motley Fool owns shares of Bank of America. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days . We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

Copyright © 1995 - 2015 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.


The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

In This Story

BAC USB

Other Topics

Stocks