China’s Banks Remain World’s Largest

The latest global bank ratings from S&P Global Market Intelligence has once again concluded that China’s big four state-backed banks are the world’s largest, via InvestorDaily.

The big four – Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank Corp, Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of China – posted a combined $13.647 trillion in assets, up $1.727 trillion since last year. 

A weakened dollar hampered the US bank’s rankings with Wells Fargo & Co being pushed out by France’s Credit Agricole Group to take the number 10 spot. 

Strengthening currencies assisted a number of banks in the Asia-Pacific region, with the Chinese yuan appreciating by 6.81 per cent against the US dollar in 2017. 

This let the four Chinese banks post $13.637 trillion, which was up 14.43 per cent from 2016. Had the yuan remained flat against the dollar, the institutions would only have posted US$12.768 trillion in assets. 

JP Morgan Chase & Co took out number 6 but would have taken number 4 if the company reported under IFRS, which requires the gross value of derivative assets to be reported, rather than the net value which it currently reports. 

Eighteen of the top 100 banks are based in China with $23.761 trillion in assets, followed by the US with 11 banks holding $12.196 trillion and then Japan with eight banks at $10.534 trillion. 

The largest bank in Australia was Commonwealth Bank with $751.39 billion in assets taking out number 43, down from last years 42. 

ANZ came in next at spot 45, falling two spots from 2017’s 43 and then Westpac took out spot 47 which was up from last year’s 48 and NAB came in at 50, down from 49. 

In the Asia-Pacific region, three of Australia’s big four took out spots in the top 20, with CBA, ANZ and Westpac taking out rankings 18, 19 and 20 respectively. NAB, meanwhile, was just behind in spot 22. The big four were the only Australian banks to make it into the top 50 for the Asia-Pacific region. 

China again dominated the top 50 with 21 institutions, followed by Japan and South Korea who had eight and six institutions respectively. 

There were two new comers to the list, one from Taiwan, CTBC Financial Holding which placed 46 with US$180.03 billion in assets and Indian-based HDFC which took out number 50 with $169.53 billion. 

U.S. Mobile Payments Survey Shows Banks Still Trying To Catch Paypal

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has work to do if it wants Chase Pay to have the same kind of customer adoption as PayPal Holdings Inc.’s digital wallet, based on the results of a recent survey commissioned by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

About 39% of the individuals that used a mobile payment app to pay for an in-store retail purchase in the 30 days prior to taking the survey had used PayPal, versus 13% for Chase Pay.

This was one of several findings of the survey, which began with 904 respondents. Of those, 405 had not used a mobile payment app in the past 30 days, which gave us insight into why respondents would not want to use such services. The 499 that did use mobile payment services, meanwhile, yielded clues on what people do with their apps, such as the aforementioned in-store retail purchases.

Despite offering alternative services, Chase Pay recently partnered with PayPal, letting clients link their cards to their PayPal accounts through Chase Pay to access the PayPal wallet. This is not uncommon, as PayPal partners with other large banks and credit card issuers, such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., to link customer cards to their app. And as our survey data illustrated, respondents often used more than one wallet service.

PayPal also dominated in the survey question regarding person-to-person payments. Nearly 70% of those that had transferred money to an individual used PayPal, and the third most-used app was Venmo, which PayPal also owns. 

Based on our survey, bank apps were slightly more popular than Venmo for person-to-person payments, with about 25% of respondents saying they had used a mobile bank app and about 23% saying they had used Venmo.

CECL Could Create Large Capital Shortfall For Community Banks

From S&P Global.

The implementation of a new accounting standard that changes the way banks reserve for loan losses could have a far more punitive impact on community banks than their larger counterparts.

The accounting standard, known as the current expected credit loss model, or CECL, becomes effective for many institutions in 2020 and will require banks to set aside reserves for lifetime expected losses on the day of origination.

The new standard will mark a considerable shift in how banks currently reserve for losses. Today, banks record losses when it becomes probable that a loan will be impaired. That means reserves are dispersed over time, but CECL will cause banks to significantly build their allowance for loan losses on the date of adoption, according to Josh Siegel and Ethan Heisler.

The two bank observers said in the latest Street Talk podcast that the increase will be even larger for institutions with higher concentrations of longer-term loans since reserves for those credits are currently spread out over longer periods.

“The same credit, the same view, the same company, if you have a two-year loan or a 20-year loan, the reserve you’re going to have to put it against it is dramatically different,” Siegel, managing partner and CEO of StoneCastle Partners LLC, an investor and adviser to community banks, said in the episode.

 

He said a reserve for a loan with a two-year term under CECL might not be dramatically different than the current methodology since it requires banks to look ahead 12 to 18 months for losses. Loans with far longer terms such as real estate credits, however, could require multiples of currently required reserves. The burden of the new accounting standard could prove far greater for community banks since those institutions are much more heavily concentrated in real estate.

Siegel and Heisler — president of the Bank Treasury Newsletter, which highlights industry trends impacting bank treasurers — co-authored a white paper analyzing CECL’s impact on banks with less than $50 billion in assets. The analysis found that hundreds of banks could be at risk of falling below well-capitalized status after adopting CECL, at least when it comes to meeting total risk-based capital requirements. Any reserve build required through CECL will be deducted from capital and could have the greatest impact on total risk-based capital ratios because the Basel III rules cap the inclusion of reserves at 1.25% of risk-weighted assets.

The required build under CECL could push reserves well above that level, according to Siegel and Heisler’s analysis. They examined the banking industry’s results since 2004 and assumed institutions adopted CECL beginning in 2005. The analysis further assumed that all loan portfolios had five-year terms, loans were originated at year-end and bankers were fully aware of the losses that would come between 2005 and 2016. The analysis assumed provisions equaled cumulative net charge-offs in the five years after adoption and considered a number of scenarios, with CECL implementation beginning in different years.

In the most severe scenario, where banks would have adopted CECL beginning in 2007, the analysis found that banks in aggregate would need as much as $70 billion to repair the capital shortfall. In the least severe scenario, with CECL adoption beginning in 2011, banks would need to raise close to $10 billion.

“It’s not just a small change. You could today be very well-capitalized and wake up and not even be adequately capitalized,” Siegel said. “You could be deemed undercapitalized and immediately be put under a cease and desist order.”

Siegel said banks should begin calculating CECL’s impact, even in a rough approximation, to see if they have a capital shortfall. For an institution falling short, they recommended that banks should consider issuing subordinated debt to bolster their balance sheets.

Siegel has encouraged community banks to utilize sub debt in the past, given that it allows banks with holding companies to raise funds, downstream them to their banking subsidiaries and count them as equity capital in far more cost-effective manner. He and Heisler noted that issuing sub debt today remains relatively cheap while interest rates continue to be low.

“Sub debt is a natural offset, a way to prepare for CECL,” Heisler said in the episode. “Think of Tier 2 sub debt almost as a CECL buffer.”

Mobile-First Digital Banking Strategy Takes Hold In The Midwest

From S&P Global.

Banks across the U.S. are adopting a mobile-first strategy for their digital offerings, and the Midwest is no exception.

U.S. consumers value their mobile bank apps more than ever, and expectations for these products are growing increasingly sophisticated. Once-novel mobile features such as photo check deposit and bill pay are now table stakes, and banks seeking to offer a competitive digital experience have to evaluate an ever-evolving range of services.

S&P Global Market Intelligence’s 2017 U.S. Mobile Banking Landscape includes regional insights from our 2017 mobile banking survey and details on the features available in the apps of dozens of U.S. financial institutions, including more than two dozen large banks and 45 companies with less than $50 billion in assets. The latter group consists of five smaller regional and community banks from each of the nine U.S. census divisions. This article focuses on the Midwest, which includes the East North Central and West North Central census divisions.

Our survey found that Midwestern mobile banking customers are most interested in seeing credit score information added to their apps. Consumers’ preoccupation with their credit files is only likely to intensify in the wake of the Equifax data breach. Few of the regional bank apps from around the country that we recently reviewed provide access to this information, although First National Bank of Omaha makes it available to consumer credit card customers.

Which bank app features are missing? (%)

Another highly valued feature for bank app users is fingerprint login, which many Midwestern banks offer. But with the rollout of Apple’s new iPhone X and other evolutions in mobile technology, banks across the country are increasingly having to pay attention to alternative forms of biometric authentication, including face ID. Banks are responding to their customers’ desire for even more convenient access to account information by allowing them to view their balances without logging in to the app.

Customers also want access to certain card controls via their bank apps, including the ability to temporarily switch cards on or off, and to report them lost or stolen. Jefferson City, Mo.-based Central Banco. Inc. and Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Great Western Bancorp Inc. are among the institutions planning to roll out such features in the near future, while Saint Paul, Minn.-based Bremer Financial Corp. makes certain card controls and account alert management available through a separate, third-party app.

The availability of certain features is just one way to assess the quality of a mobile offering. Customers who provide app store reviews clearly value speed, reliability, and an intuitive layout, and they seem to prefer having all features available on one platform.

Central Bank is redesigning its whole app for release next year, with the goal of providing a more user-friendly experience by streamlining navigation and better surfacing popular features such as person-to-person payments. The bank is taking the mobile-first approach seriously, as mobile logins have overtaken desktop logins, and about 65% of the company’s digital traffic is coming through phones.

Great Western Bank, whose deposits are primarily spread across Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and Colorado, also hears from customers that they want improved core functionality, for example, faster transaction alerts. Great Western uses a niche digital vendor for its mobile channel and believes this is more advantageous than using a standard package from core systems providers.

The Midwest is home to some of the nation’s few mobile-ready ATMs. Chicago-area Wintrust Financial Corp. is a relatively early adopter of Cardless Cash, which lets the customer scan a QR code with their smartphone instead of using a debit card to withdraw money. In a competitive banking environment, and especially in heavily banked areas, financial institutions are keeping an eye on customer attrition and looking for an edge. This sometimes means making investments in new ATM hardware or services like mobile P2P payments that do not necessarily add revenue but that have become part of what customers expect from their banks.

It is difficult to quantify the value of a high-quality mobile banking experience, but our survey results give an idea of how important it is to consumers. Despite being generally fee-averse, more than 40% of survey respondents from the Midwest indicated that they would be willing to pay $1 per month to use their bank apps, while more than 20% said they would pay $3 per month. Respondents from the East North Central census division, which includes Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, were more willing to pay a fee. Although banks are unlikely to start charging for their digital services, satisfied mobile banking users could prove stickier deposit customers even as rates continue to rise and other institutions tempt them with promotional offerings.

When it comes to delivering products and services, banks of all sizes have a high bar to meet. Large, deep-pocketed institutions are constantly innovating with their digital channels, and it is not easy for their smaller peers to keep up. But many regional and community banks boast sophisticated mobile apps with desirable features that are not yet ubiquitous among the nation’s largest banks. In a banking landscape populated by fewer branches and with visits to those locations by tech-savvy customers on the decline, the combination of a strong local brand and robust digital experience could give smaller banks a competitive edge.

Methodology

The 2017 mobile banking survey was fielded online between January 26 and February 1 across a nationwide random sample of 4,000 U.S. mobile bank app users 18 years and older. Results have a margin of error of +/- 1.6% at the 95% confidence level based on the sample size of 4,000.

S&P Global Market Intelligence researched mobile apps in June 2017 for more than two dozen financial institutions, including the biggest retail banking franchises in the U.S. and various large regional and branchless banks. Between September 18 and November 10, S&P Global Market Intelligence researched mobile apps for 45 smaller regional players and large community banks. The latter analysis focused, for the most part, on the top five retail deposit market share leaders with under $50 billion in assets in each of the nine U.S. census divisions.

This research is based on product descriptions available on bank websites and in app stores, as well as company-provided information. Some companies may have subsequently updated their apps or may offer additional features and services. Our analysis does not necessarily reflect functionality or services available through text banking, mobile browsers or secure messaging.

Digital Lending; On The Up

S&P Global just published their 2017 U.S. Digital Lending Landscape report.

They estimate that 15 of the most prominent U.S. digital lenders grew originations at a compound annual growth rate of 129.4% during the five-year period ended Dec. 31, 2016. Going forward, they project slower growth for the industry as lenders focus on building sustainable businesses
with higher quality borrowers.

They predicts that these lenders will originate $62.84 billion in new loans during 2021, up from $29.31 billion in 2016. This represents a CAGR of 16.5% for the five-year period ending Dec. 31, 2021.

Personal-focused lending is projected to grow at a CAGR of 12.4% to $24.31 billion by 2021. The small and medium enterprise and student-focused lending segments are projected to grow faster, with respective CAGRs of 21.5% and 18.4%.

Regulation remains unclear for the industry, but signs of progress have emerged during the past year. Regulators have started to take a closer look at digital lending in an attempt to create a fair and clear regulatory framework.

Venture activity picked back up during the first three quarters of
2017, with $832.5 million raised by the lenders in our analysis.
Student-focused lender Earnest was acquired by student loan
servicer Navient for $155 million in November.

Interest rates and loan sizes have remained relatively unchanged over the past year as lenders focus more on adjusting the rates and loan sizes associated with specific credit grades.

As regulators take a harder look at digital lending, corporate
governance and management teams must ensure that their
companies are beyond reproach. 2017 was the second consecutive year in which a high-profile CEO has been forced to
leave their company.