After spending 2+ years trying to replicate these tests with every piece of publicly available banking data I could, I concluded that the greatest macroprudential effect of the tests was the convoluted nature itself. Banks fundamentally have an incentive to be as minimally…
Los bancos aseguran que la entidad no permite una participación adecuada a la hora de diseñar las pruebas de resistencia. 🔗👇 https://t.co/mHzpSOYhpT
When bank stress testing gets testy and leads to legal fights...these are things you don't see at the bottom. I'm bullish on banks going into 2025 as a sector, but not all of them are created equal. https://t.co/HwPX0N7C4o
The Federal Reserve's recent announcement regarding changes to bank stress testing has drawn criticism from various financial observers. The timing of the announcement, made just before the holiday season, has been described as an attempt to reduce public scrutiny. Critics argue that the modifications may favor Wall Street while potentially undermining financial stability and public trust. Some industry voices emphasize the importance of stress tests in ensuring banks do not engage in reckless lending practices. There are concerns that the changes may not adequately involve public input in the design of the stress tests, leading to a lack of transparency. As the banking sector approaches 2025, opinions vary on the overall health and integrity of individual banks amidst these regulatory changes.