If stress tests are on pause, then so too should be insurance company dividends

The Times, today.

Sir John Vickers, the architect of the financial regime put in place after the 2008 crisis, has expressed concern about the Bank of England’s decision to abandon stress tests for insurers and said that Legal & General’s imminent dividend of more than £750 million should be blocked. Sir John, former chairman of the Independent Banking Commission, said: “If stress tests are on pause, then so too should be insurance company dividends, notably L&G’s, until the future is clearer.”  The Bank’s decision on Thursday not to publish its 2019 stress test of insurers was a mistake, he said, and came at a time when companies’ balance sheets and their ability to withstand the shock of the pandemic should be under scrutiny.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abandoning-stress-tests-for-insurers-is-a-mistake-txt2kjx92

More to come.

[Edit] See also, my emphasis:

Sir John criticised an accounting rule that enabled insurers to flatter their capital positions. This is the so-called matching adjustment rule, which allows insurers to use a higher discount rate to value their liabilities when their assets yield more. “The fall in yields and widening of spreads will have eroded insurers’ capital levels but accounting methods partly obscure this,” he said. “The matching adjustment to capital may be more of a mask than a cushion.”
The PRA and L&G declined to comment.

 

Coronavirus exposes illusion of UK bank capital strength

A great piece here by Jonathan Ford of the FT. For those on the wrong side of the paywall, his case is as follows.

The Bank intervened last week to stop banks paying out dividends, the official reason being the coronavirus panic. But why didn’t the Bank prevent capital distributions earlier, given the much-heralded capital rebuilding exercise? Ford argues that the official measure of capital strength, CET1, may be illusory, given that it is based on ‘risk weighted assets’, a subjective and hence gameable measure of asset value.

A less gameable measure involves comparing equity not with a RWAs, but simply the total unadjusted asset number. Moreover, because accounting measures of book equity are backward-looking and may conceal losses, it makes sense to use the bank’s market capitalisation in their stead — especially when events are moving fast.

He quotes our own Professor Dowd saying that Barclays’ leverage ratio (equity divided by unadjusted asset value) is now just 1.2 per cent.

Continue reading “Coronavirus exposes illusion of UK bank capital strength”

Age Co end equity release

Age Co are not currently providing an Equity Release Advice Service to new customers. This change came into effect on 3 February 2020.”

We reported here and elsewhere  about Age Co (a company owned by the trusted brand Age UK) referring potential borrowers to Hub Financial, who routinely recommended equity release deals from its own parent company (i.e. Just), despite the suggestion of a whole of market offering and a ‘panel’ of providers.

Neither the FCA or the Charity Commission have commented.

Considering every angle

I just spotted a comment from ‘JKingdom3’ on our letter to the FT last month (Capital created by matching adjustment is entirely artificial, see Eumaeus “Our Reply to Rothesay“, 5 November 2019).

Kingdom wonders whether we have considered every angle, arguing that “In a world where firms seek to maximise their profit subject to the constraints they face, the “correct” assets required to meet this will be the assets corresponding to the least cost to the shareholder”. He contrasts investing

1. … $74.41 in the risk-free asset, hold no capital over ten years, and pay the policyholder $100 in ten years’ time with certainty; and

2. … $67.56 in the risky asset, and hold the minimum capital needed to meet the 99.5% requirement each year over the ten years.

He suggests that option 2 is a good deal for policyholders, and a better deal for investors. Correct or not?

Continue reading “Considering every angle”

More sitting time bomb

In a follow-up to the article we mentioned here, Sarah Bright has revealed that the Treasury Committee may (at long last) investigate the equity release problem.

Steve Baker, who was last week re-elected as Conservative MP for Wycombe, says: ‘Close scrutiny of equity release is long overdue and I welcome the FCA’s action. In the event I am re-elected to the Treasury Select Committee I will certainly want to see an inquiry carried through.’

Continue reading “More sitting time bomb”

Watchdog confirms it is looking into ERMs

In This is money today.

Homeowners told to take equity release could have been given the wrong advice it has emerged, as the City watchdog confirmed it is looking at mortgage lending practices in the later life market.  This is Money can reveal exclusively that the Financial Conduct Authority has been engaging with firms to help it better understand the market to reduce any potential harms.

Hard to say whether the review is connected with the issues we have raised here and elsewhere, though.

Equity released

The Tonight program can be viewed on catch-up here. It was a useful critique of equity release, although some of the wider issues were skirted, such as why people would need the product in the first place, given that their pension or health insurance should have been adequate.

The story behind the mystery shop (see 14:00 onwards) is more complex.

Continue reading “Equity released”