Banks Still Are Too Weak and Risky, Kashkari Says

Minneapolis Fed head, decrying two bailouts in 12 years, says lenders need more equity capital to buffer against tough times.


So you thought banks were safer, now that they boosted their capital as a buffer against bad times a la the 2008 financial crisis? Guess again, says Neel Kashkari, the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.

”Large, unacceptable risks remain,” Kashkari told a virtual conference hosted by the Council of Institutional Investors (CII) Friday.

He ought to know. In 2008, as a high-ranking official in the US Treasury Department, he oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which purchased toxic mortgages and other bum real estate assets from financial institutions. “How can it possibly be this fragile?” he asked the conference.

The regional Fed chief said it was “absurd” that Washington had to bail out the banks twice in less than 20 years. He noted that the big lenders have “enormous influence on Capitol Hill.” Kashkari called on pension funds and other big institutions to use their influence with banks to make themselves safer.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Following the 2008-09 crisis, banks faced the new Dodd-Frank law and other restrictions on their behavior—chiefly a requirement that they boost their equity capital, so they would have a bigger buffer during the next downturn. And, indeed, large banks almost doubled equity capital, to the current 13% of risk-weighted assets. But Kashkari said his regional Fed bank calculated that they should be at least at 24%.

The big banks complain that such rules make them less competitive and harm their ability to make loans. Lending, of course, benefits economic growth. Kashkari, however, said the lending-constraints argument was ridiculous because the lenders have robust stock buyback programs, designed to buck up share prices. “If capital was constraining lending,” he asked, “why were they buying back their stock? It is nonsense.”

The last crisis saw the Fed pumping billions into the banking system. And the central bank did it again in recent months, he said, by backstopping banks when the repurchase (aka repo) market froze—the arrangement where banks borrow overnight to gain a small but helpful return. “I keep asking myself,” he said, “what kind of absurd financial system do we have that requires the central bank to bail it out every decade?”

Hasn’t Washington policy “masked weakness” in the economic system, asked Ash Williams, who chairs CII’s board and is the CIO of the Florida State Board of Administration, which oversees the state pension fund. Williams, who moderated Kashkari’s talk, pointed out that programs such as the Paycheck Protection Plan (PPP) subsidized businesses but underlying vulnerabilities remained. “Isn’t there are disconnect between the real economy and financial institutions?” he asked.

Kashkari agreed and warned that, if the coronavirus lasted another year or more, ”there will be a lot more pain.”

Related Stories:

Why Lower Interest Rates Aren’t Hurting Bank Stocks

No Vaccine? Then Look for 18 Months of Shutdowns

Why Jerome Powell Wants to Soften the Fed’s Inflation Target

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Texas, MIT Endowments See Strong Gains; Illinois, Missouri Post Weak Returns

Texas, MIT return 9.5% and 8.3%, respectively, while Illinois loses 2.5% and Missouri gains 1.15%.


The endowments for the University of Texas/Texas A&M and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reported strong returns for the fiscal year that ended June 30; however, this was in sharp contrast to the endowment investment portfolios for the universities of Illinois and Missouri, which struggled during the year.

The University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Company (UTIMCO)’s Permanent University Fund returned a robust 9.5% for the fiscal year, and just under 4% for the first half of 2020 to boost its total asset value to $24.38 billion. The endowment reported annualized three-, five-, and 10-year returns of 7.69%, 7.82%, and 8.04%, respectively. UTIMCO did not provide benchmark returns.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Investment Management Company (MITIMCo) reported that MIT’s unitized pool of endowment and other funds returned 8.3% during the fiscal year ending June 30. The returns raised MIT’s endowment funds to a total of $18.38 billion, excluding pledges, from $17.44 billion at the same time last year.

The asset allocation for MIT’s portfolio is 69% in equities, 16% in marketable alternatives, 7% in fixed income, 5% in real estate, 2% in cash and short-term investments, and 1% in real assets.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

“During fiscal 2020, the institute demonstrated strong financial performance despite the profound challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic,” MIT interim Treasurer Glen Shor wrote in the endowment’s report of the treasurer. “Prudent management of institute resources and strong investment performance since the Great Recession of 2008-09 provide us with reserves to absorb a significant measure of COVID-related fiscal pressures.”

Shor also said MIT is investing in the capacity to perform more than 100,000 COVID-19 tests each month for those accessing the campus.

While the Texas and MIT endowment portfolios performed well during the fiscal year, Illinois and Missouri did not weather the year as well. Despite returning 9.92% for the second quarter of the calendar year, the portfolio for the University of Illinois Foundation’s total endowment pool lost 2.49% for the fiscal year ending June 30. This was below its benchmark’s return of 0.06% during the same time period.

The Illinois endowment reported total assets under management of $1.88 billion, and three-, five-, and 10-year annualized returns of 2.79, 4.09%, and 7.20%, respectively, below its benchmark’s annualized returns of 4.52%, 4.80%, and 8.01%, respectively, over the same time periods. The portfolio’s asset allocation is 60% in global equity, 22% in macro risk hedges, and 18% in global diversifying.

“It is hard to know how to interpret current events rationally, but we will do our best to make sense of the moment,” the University of Illinois Foundation said in its investment report. “Our bottom line: This is a liquidity driven moment that seems divorced from economic and market fundamental reality and therefore unpredictable and dangerous.”

And the Office of Investments for the University of Missouri System reported a 1.15% return net of fees for the fiscal year ending June 30 to bring its endowment’s asset value to $1.73 billion. Missouri reported three-, five-, and 10-year annualized returns of 5.36%, 5.87%, and 7.91%, respectively. The portfolio’s target asset allocation is 35% in public equity, 15% in US Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS), 14% in US Treasuries, 10% in private equity, 10% in risk balanced, 8% in real estate, 5% in commodities, and 3% in private debt.

Related Stories:

Columbia Endowment Names Kim Lew CEO

White House Regulatory Office Reviews Endowment Tax

Study: Endowments Have Underperformed Passive Portfolios for 58 Years

Tags: , , , , , ,

«