Investment banks have a problem with volatility


By Peter Thal Larsen

(The author is a Breakingviews columnist.)

LONDON, Feb 25 ( Breakingviews) - Be careful what you wish for. That's the phrase haunting the world's largest investment banks as they lick their wounds after a painful fourth quarter. For years, bankers complained that markets were too calm. But when bonds and stocks tumbled in the last few months of 2018, almost all trading divisions suffered. It doesn't bode well for business if markets stay choppy.

In theory, banks should therefore do well when financial markets are active, regardless of whether prices are rising or falling. Indeed, for many years after the crisis, bankers grumbled that markets were not volatile enough. They blamed ultra-low interest rates, and central banks buying government bonds, for dampening price movements and trading volumes.

So you might have expected investment bankers to cheer the return of volatility in the final months of 2018. There's no doubt that markets were choppy. Most asset classes declined, from equities to investment-grade bonds. The premium, or spread, that investors demand to hold riskier high-yield bonds rose sharply. Asian stock markets suffered their biggest fourth-quarter drop since 2008. The Vix Index, a measure of market volatility, trebled between the beginning of October and Christmas.

Yet the impact on investment banks' top lines was far from positive. Combined revenue from corporate finance and trading at the eight largest U.S. and European investment banks - JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, UBS, Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse - dropped 5 percent year-on-year, according to figures compiled by Breakingviews. The Wall Street firms fared better, with a collective 3 percent drop, while revenue at their European counterparts fell 11 percent.

The headline figure hides a wide range of outcomes between business lines and financial institutions. The biggest losers, however, were the divisions that trade fixed income, currencies and commodities: total revenue from this activity at the eight banks dropped by 16 percent in the fourth quarter. Even though credit spreads widened, activity levels remained subdued. Bankers attribute this partly to nervousness among investors about the economic outlook, as well as a reluctance among portfolio managers to take big new positions near the end of the year. "We need buyers to be in a position to rebalance risk," the CEO of one big wholesale bank complains.

Corporate finance activity also suffered, as companies cancelled bond issues and pulled initial public offerings in order to wait for calmer conditions. However, equity trading picked up, particularly for Wall Street banks, where revenue rose 10 percent. This was partly because computer-driven funds responded to volatility by adjusting their positions. Bankers also point to a surge in demand from investors and companies to hedge their equity exposures.

Even then, the spoils were divided unevenly. Banks like UBS reported lower demand for equity derivatives, as wealthy clients in Asia pulled back from buying structured products. Equity trading revenue at the four European banks was flat year-on-year. Meanwhile, the volatility also caught some by surprise. BNP Paribas, for example, suffered losses on index derivatives it was using to hedge a North American trading business: revenue at its equities division dropped 70 percent.

Meanwhile, volatile markets also hurt banks by pushing up capital requirements for their trading businesses. Value at risk, an estimate of how much a bank could lose in a day from falling markets, is a key input in the models used to determine how much capital it needs. So market ructions can put pressure on banks' solvency ratios, discouraging them from boosting activity. Five of the eight banks reported an increased VAR in the fourth quarter, though differing methodologies mean the figures are hard to compare.

If nothing else, the fourth quarter has prompted bankers to change their language. Where they once bemoaned a lack of volatility, they now blame instability for keeping companies and investors on the sidelines. As political turbulence seems unlikely to disappear anytime soon, complaining about a lack of stability may become bankers' new catchphrase.

On Twitter


- The eight largest investment banks in the United States and Europe reported combined revenue from underwriting securities and advising on mergers and acquisitions of $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2018, down 5 percent from the same period of 2017, according to figures compiled by Breakingviews based on the banks' disclosures.

- Combined proceeds from trading fixed income securities, currencies and commodities fell 16 percent to $7.6 billion. Equity trading revenue at the eight banks rose 8 percent to $7.5 billion.

- Overall revenue from the three business lines at the eight banks - JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, UBS, Barclays, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse - was down 5 percent year-on-year. Revenue at the U.S. investment banks fell 3 percent, while the European banks reported an 11 percent decline.

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


Reuters, the news and media division of Thomson Reuters, is the world’s largest international multimedia news provider reaching more than one billion people every day. Reuters provides trusted business, financial, national, and international news to professionals via Thomson Reuters desktops, the world's media organizations, and directly to consumers at and via Reuters TV.

Learn More