Decision Analytics | Enterprise Risk Management

-- by Tom Hannagan

While waiting on the compilation of fourth quarter banking industry results, I thought it might be interesting to relate the commercial real estate (CRE) risk management position facing commercial banks from the third quarter. CRE risk is an important consideration in enterprise risk management and for loan pricing and profitability.

The slowdown in the global economy has affected CRE credit risk because of increased vacancy rates, halted development projects, and the loss of value affecting commercial properties. As CRE loans come up for renewal, many will find that there have equity deficits and that they are facing tightened credit standards.

If a commercial property loan started life at 80 percent loan to value, and the property value has dropped 25 percent, the renewed loan balance will be down at least 25 percent, requiring a substantial net payoff from the borrower. This net cash payoff requirement would be tough to accomplish in good times and all-but-impossible for many borrowers in this economy. After all, the main reason for the decline in property value to begin with is its reduced cash flow performance.

 Following the third quarter numbers, total U.S. commercial real estate is generally estimated at $3.4 to $3.5 trillion. Commercial banks owned just over half of that debt, or about $1.8 trillion according to Federal Reserve and FDIC sources. The (possibly only) good news with that total is that commercial banks owned a relatively small share of the commercial-mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) slice of CRE exposure. CMBS assets were 21 percent of total CRE credit or $714 billion, but banks owned a total of $54 billion, which represented only 3 percent of total bank CRE assets. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for construction lending. U.S. banks, in total, had $486 to $534 billion (depending on the source) in construction and land loans, representing 27 percent to 30 percent of banks’ total CRE holdings. 

The true credit risk management picture is much more revealing if we cut the numbers by bank size. According to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks (those with over $10 billion in total assets) had $14.8 trillion in total assets and $1.0 trillion of the banking industry’s CRE credits.  This amounts to about 7 percent of the total assets for this group of larger banks. The 7,500 community banks, with aggregate assets of $2 trillion, had about $786 billion in CRE lending. This amounts to about 28 percent of total assets. That is roughly four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 7 percent level of credit risk average exposure at the large bank group is less than their average level of equity or risk-based capital. For the banks under the $10 billion level, the 28 percent level of CRE exposure is almost three times their average equity position.

The riskiest portion of CRE lending is clearly the construction and land development loans. The subtotals in this area confirm where the cumulative risk lies. Again, according to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks had $299 billion of the banking industry’s $534 billion in construction loans. Although this is 56 percent of total bank construction lending, it amounts to only 2 percent of this group’s total assets.  The 7,500 community banks had aggregate construction loans of $235 billion. This amounts to about 8.5 percent of total assets. That is a bit over four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 2 percent level of construction credit risk exposure at the large bank group is one-fourth of their average level of common equity. At banks under the $10 billion level, the 8.5 percent level of CRE exposure, compared to total assets, is about the same as their average equity position.

According to Moody’s, bank have already taken about $90 billion in net loan losses in CRE assets through the third quarter of 2009. That means the industry has perhaps another $150 billion in write-offs coming. This would total $240 billion in CRE credit losses for the banking industry due to this economic downturn. That would equate to 13.3 percent of the banking industry’s share of total CRE credit. With the decline in commercial property values ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent, a 13 percent loss is certainly not a worst case scenario.

Banks have ramped up their loss reserves, and although the numbers aren’t out yet, we know many banks have used the fourth quarter 2009 to further bolster their allowances for loan and lease losses (ALLL). The larger the ALLL, the safer the risk-based equity account. Risk managers are aware of all of this and banks are very actively developing their strategies to handle the refunding requirements and, at the same time, be in a position to explain to regulators and external auditor how they are protecting shareholders. But the numbers are very daunting and not every bank will have enough net cash flow and risk equity to cover the inevitable losses.

--by Tom Hannagan

Apparently my last post on the role of risk management in the pricing of deposit services hit some nerve ends. That’s good. The industry needs its “nerve ends” tweaked after the dearth of effective risk management that contributed to the financial malaise of the last couple of years. Banks, or any business, can prosper by simply following their competitors’ marketing strategies and meeting or slightly undercutting their prices. The actions of competitors are an important piece of intelligence to consider, but not necessarily optimal for your bank to copy.

One question is regarding the “how-to” behind risk-based pricing (RBP) of deposits. The answer has four parts. Let’s see. First, because of the importance and size of the deposit business (yes, it’s a line of business) as a funding source, one needs to isolate the interest rate risk. This is done by transfer pricing, or in a sense, crediting the deposit balances for their marginal value as an offset to borrowing funds. This transfer price has nothing to do with the earnings credit rate used in account analysis – that is a merchandising issue used to generate fee income. Fees, resulting from account analysis, when not waived, affect the profitability of deposit services, but are not a risk element.

Two things are critical to the transfer of funding credit: 1) the assumptions regarding the duration, or reliability of the deposit balances and 2) the rate curve used to match the duration. Different types of deposit behave differently based on changes in rates paid. Checking account deposit funds tend to be very loyal or “sticky” - they don’t move around a lot (or easily) because of rate paid, if any. At the other extreme, time deposits tend to be very rate-sensitive and can move (in or out) for small incremental gains. Savings, money market and NOW accounts are in-between.

Since deposits are an offset (ultimately) to marginal borrowing, just as loans might (ultimately) require marginal borrowing, we recommend using the same rate curve for both asset and liability transfer pricing. The money is the same thing on both sides of the balance sheet and the rate curve used to fund a loan or credit a deposit should be the same. We believe this will help, greatly, to isolate IRR. It is also seems more fair when explaining the concept to line management.

Secondly, although there is essentially no credit risk associated with deposits, there is operational risk. Deposit make up most of the liability side of the balance sheet and therefore the lion’s share of institutional funding. Deposits are also a major source of operational expense. The mitigated operational risks such as physical security, backup processing arrangements, various kinds of insurance and catastrophe plans, are normal expenses of doing business and included in a bank’s financial statements. The costs need to be broken down by deposit category to get a picture of the risk-adjusted operating expenses.

The third major consideration for analyzing risk-adjusted deposit profitability is its revenue contribution. Deposit-related fee income can be a very significant number and needs to be allocated to particular deposit category that generates this income. This is an important aspect of the return, along with the risk-adjusted funding value of the balances. It will vary substantially for various deposit types. Time deposits have essentially zero fee income, whereas checking accounts can produce significant revenues.

The fourth major consideration is capital. There are unexpected losses associated with deposits that must be covered by risk-based capital – or equity. The unexpected losses include: unmitigated operational risks, any error in transfer pricing the market risk, and business or strategic risk. Although the unexpected losses associated with deposit products are substantially less than found in the lending products, they needs to be taken into account to have a fully risk-adjusted view. It is also necessary to be able to compare the risk-adjusted profit and profitability of such diverse services as found within banking. 

Enterprise risk management needs to consider all of the lines of business, and all of the products of the organization, on a risk-adjusted performance basis. Otherwise it is impossible to decide on the allocation of resources, including precious capital. Without this risk management view of deposits (just as with loans) it is impossible to price the services in a completely knowledgeable fashion. Good entity governance, asset and liability posturing, and competent line of business management, all require more and better risk-based profit considerations to be an important part of the intelligence used to optimally price deposits.

--by Roger Ahern

To calculate the expected business benefits of making an improvement to your decisioning strategies, you must first identify and prioritize the key metrics you are trying to positively impact.  For example, if one of your key business objectives is improved enterprise risk management, then some of the key metrics you seek to impact, in order to effectively address changes in credit score trends, could include reducing net credit losses through improved credit risk modeling and scorecard monitoring. Assessing credit risk is a key element of enterprise risk management and can addressed as part of your application risk management processes as well as other decisioning strategies that are applied at different points in the customer lifecycle. 

In working with our clients, Experian has identified 15 key metrics that can be positively impacted through optimizing decisions.  As you review the list of metrics below, you should identify those metrics that are most important to your organization.

• Approval rates
• Booking or activation rates
• Revenue
• Customer net present value
• 30/60/90-day delinquencies
• Average charge-off amount
• Average recovery amount
• Manual review rates
• Annual application volume
• Charge-offs (bad debt & fraud)
• Avg. cost per dollar collected
• Average amount collected
• Annual recoveries
• Regulatory compliance
• Churn or attrition

Based on Experian’s extensive experience working with clients around the world to achieve positive business results through optimizing decisions, you can expect between a 10 percent and 15 percent improvement in any of these metrics through the improved use of data, analytics and decision management software.

The initial high-level business benefit calculation, therefore, is quite important and straightforward.  As an example, assume your current approval rate for vehicle loans is 65 percent, the average value of an approved application is $200 and your volume is 75,000 applications per year.  Keeping all else equal, a 10 percent improvement in your approval rates (from 65 percent to 72 percent) would generate $10.7 million in incremental business value each year ($200 x 75,000 x .65 x 1.1).  To prioritize your business improvement efforts, you’ll want to calculate expected business benefits across a number of key metrics and then focus on those that will deliver the greatest value to your organization.

--by Tom Hannagan

This blog has often discussed many aspects of risk-adjusted pricing for loans. Loans, with their inherent credit risk, certainly deserve a lot of attention when it comes to risk management in banking. But, that doesn’t mean you should ignore the risk management implications found in the other product lines. Enterprise risk management needs to consider all of the lines of business, and all of the products of the organization. This would include the deposit services arena.

Deposits make up roughly 65 percent to 75 percent of the liability side of the balance sheet for most financial institutions, representing the lion’s share of their funding source. This is a major source of operational expense and also represents most of the bank’s interest expense. The deposit activity has operational risk, and this large funding source plays a huge role in market risk – including both interest rate risk and liquidity risk. It stands to reason that such risks are considered when pricing deposit services. Unfortunately it is not always the case. Okay, to be honest, it’s too rarely the case.

This raises serious entity governance questions. How can such a large operational undertaking, not withstanding the criticality of the funding implications, not be subjected to risk-based pricing considerations? We have seen warnings already that the current low interest rate environment will not last forever. When the economy improves and rates head upwards, banks need to understand the bottom line profit implications. Deposit rate sensitivity across the various deposit types is a huge portion of the impact on net interest income. Risk-based pricing of these services should be considered before committing to provide them.

Even without the credit risk implications found on the loan side of the balance sheet, there is still plenty of operational and market risk impact that needs to be taken into account from the liability side. When risk management is not considered and mitigated as part of the day-to-day management of the deposit line of business, the bank is leaving these risks completely to chance. This unmitigated risk increases the portion of overall risk that is then considered to be “unexpected” in nature and thereby increases the equity capital required to support the bank.

--by Heather Grover

In past client and industry talks, I’ve discussed the increasing importance of retail branches to the growth strategy of the bank. Branches are the most utilized channel of the bank and they tend to be the primary tool for relationship expansion. Given the face-to-face nature, the branch historically has been viewed to be a relatively low-risk channel needing little (if any) identity verification – there are less uses of robust risk-based authentication or out of wallet questions.

However, a now well-established fraud best practice is the process of doing proper identity verification and fraud prevention at the point of DDA account opening. In the current environment of declining credit application volumes and approval across the enterprise, there is an increased focus on organic growth through deposits.  Doing proper vetting during DDA account openings helps bring your retail process closer in line with the rest of your organization’s identity theft prevention program. It also provides assurance and confidence that the customer can now be cross-sold and up-sold to other products.

A key industry challenge is that many of the current tools used in DDA are less mature than in other areas of the organization. We see few clients in retail that are using advanced fraud analytics or fraud models to minimize fraud – and even fewer clients are using them to automate manual processes - even though more than 90 percent of DDA accounts are opened manually.

A relatively simple way to improve your branch operations is to streamline your existing ID verification and fraud prevention tool set:

1. Are you using separate tools to verify identity and minimize fraud?

Many providers offer solutions that can do both, which can help minimize the number of steps required to process a new account;

2. Is the solution realtime?

To the extent that you can provide your new account holders with an immediate and final decision, the less time and effort you’ll spend after they leave the branch finalizing the decision;

3. Does the solution provide detail data for manual review?

This can help save valuable analyst time and provider costs by limiting the need to do additional searches.

In my next post, we’ll discuss how fraud prevention in DDA impacts the customer experience.

-- by Keir Breitenfeld

In my previous three postings, I’ve covered basic principles that can define a risk-based authentication process, associated value propositions, and some best-practices to consider.

Finally, I’d like to briefly discuss some emerging informational elements and processes that enhance (or have already enhanced) the notion of risk-based authentication in the coming year.  For simplicity, I’m boiling these down to three categories:

1. Enterprise Risk Management – As you’d imagine, this concept involves the creation of a real-time, cross channel, enterprise-wide (cross business unit) view of a consumer and/or transaction.  That sounds pretty good, right?  Well, the challenge has been, and still remains, the cost of developing and implementing a data sharing and aggregation process that can accomplish this task.  There is little doubt that operating in a more silo’d environment limits the amount of available high-risk and/or positive authentication data associated with a consumer…and therefore limits the predictive value of tools that utilize such data.  It is only a matter of time before we see more widespread implementation of systems designed to look at a single transaction, an initial application profile, previous authentication results, or other relationships a consumer may have within the same organization -- and across all of this information in tandem.  It’s simply a matter of the business case to do so, and the resources to carry it out.

2. Additional Intelligence – Beyond some of the data mentioned above, some additional informational elements emerging as useful in isolation (or, even better, as a factor among others in a holistic assessment of a consumer’s identity and risk profile) include these areas:  IP address vs. physical address comparisons; device ID or fingerprinting; and biometrics (such as voice verification).  While these tools are being used and tested in many organizations and markets, there is still work to be done to strike the right balance as they are incorporated into an overall risk-based authentication process.  False positives, cost and implementation challenges still hinder widespread use of these tools from being a reality.  That should change over time, and quickly to help with the cost of credit risk.

3. Emerging Verification Techniques – Out-of-band authentication is defined as the use of two separate channels, used simultaneously, to authenticate a customer.  For example: using a phone to verify the identity of that person while performing a Web transaction.  Similarly, many institutions are finding success in initiating SMS texts as a means of customer notification and/or verification of monetary or non-monetary transactions.  The ability to reach out to a consumer in a channel alternate to their transaction channel is a customer friendly and cost effective way to perform additional due diligence.

Here’s a further review of results from the Uniform Bank Performance Reports, courtesy of the FDIC, through the third quarter of this year. (See my Dec. 18 post.) The UBPR is based on quarterly call reports that insured banks are required to submit. I wanted to see how the various profit performance components compare to the costs of credit risks discussed in my previous post. The short of it is that banks have a ways to go to be fully pricing for both expected and unexpected risk. (See my Dec. 5 blog dealing with risk definitions.) The FDIC compiles peer averages for various bank size groupings. Here are some findings for the two largest groups, covering 490 reporting banks. Here are the results:

Peer Group 1 consists of 186 institutions with over $3 billion in average total assets for the first nine months.

• Net interest income was 5.34 percent of average total assets for the period. This is down, as we might expect based on this year’s decline in the general level of interest rates, from 6.16 percent in 2007.
• Net interest expense was also down from 2.98 percent in 2007 to 2.16 percent for the nine months to September 30th. 
• Net interest margin, the difference between the two metrics, was down slightly from 3.16 percent in 2007 to 3.14 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 2 basis points.

It should be noted that net interest margins have been in steady decline for at least ten years, with a torturous regular drop of 2 to 5 basis points per annum in recent years. This year’s drop is not that bad, although it does add to the difficulty in generating bottom-line profits.

To find out a bit more about the drop in margins, especially in light of the steady increase in lending over the same past decade, I looked at loans yields.

• Loan yields averaged 6.22 percent for 2008, down (again, expectedly) from 7.32 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 110 basis points or a decline of 15 percent.
• Meanwhile, rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.41 percent in 2007 to 2.48 percent so far in 2008. This 93 basis point decline represents a 27 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits.

It seems as though margins should have improved somewhat -- not declined for these banks.

Digging a bit deeper, I see two possible reasons. 

• First, total deposit balances declined from 72 percent of average assets to 70 percent, meaning a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets.
• Second, non-interest bearing demand deposits declined from 4.85 percent of average assets to 4.49 percent.
So, fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size, along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits, appear to have made the difference. Unfortunately, the ”big news” is that margins were only down a bit.

Let’s move on to fee income. Non-interest income, again, as a percent of average total assets, was down to 1.14 percent from 1.23 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.49 percent of assets in 2005. A lot of fee income is deposit based, and largely based on non-interest bearing deposits – and, thus, a source of pressure on fee income.

Operating expenses constituted some good news as they declined from 2.63 percent to 2.61 percent of average assets. That’s 2 basis points to the good. Hey, an improvement is an improvement. Historically this metric has generally moved down, but irregularly from year to year. The number stood at 2.54 percent in 2006, for instance.

As a result of the slight decline in margins and the larger percentage decline in fee income, the Peer Group 1 efficiency ratio lost ground from 57.71 percent in 2007 to only 58.78 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue [net interest income plus fee income] cost them almost 58 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 55 cents in 2005/2006.

The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses, if you’ve been tallying along, is a net decline of 0.09 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 57 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.66 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 44 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007 for banks over $3 billion in assets.

It would appear that banks are not pricing enough risk into their loan rates yet – for their own bottom line performance. This would be further confirmed if you compared bank loan rates to the historic risk spreads and absolute rates that the market currently has priced into investment grade and other corporate bonds. They are probably at extremes but still they say more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate.

For Peer Group 2, consisting of 304 reporting banks between $1 billion and $3 billion in assets:

• Net interest income was 5.87 percent of average total assets for the period. This is also down, as expected, from 6.73 percent in 2007.
• Net interest expense was also down from 3.07 percent in 2007 to 2.39 percent for the nine months to September 30th. 
• Net interest margin, was down from 3.66 percent in 2007 to 3.48 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 18 basis points. These margins are at somewhat higher levels than found in Peer Group 1, but the drop of .18 percent was much larger than the decline in Peer Group 1.

As with all banks, net interest margins have been in steady chronic decline, but the drops for Peer Group 2 have been coming in larger chunks the last two years, down 18 points this year so far, after dropping 16 points from 2006 to 2007.

Behind the drop in margins, loans yields are 6.69 percent for 2008, down from 7.82 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 113 basis points or a decline of 14 percent. Meanwhile rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.70 percent in 2007 to 2.85 percent so far in 2008. This 85 basis point decline represents a 23 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits. Again, with a steeper decline in interest costs, you’d think margins should have improved somewhat. That didn’t happen. 

I notice the same two culprits.

• Total deposit balances declined from 78 percent of average assets to 76 percent, meaning, again, a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets.
• Also, non-interest bearing demand deposits continued an already steady decline from 5.58 percent of average assets in 2007 to 5.08 percent.

Fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size…along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits…and we know the result.

Now, about fee income for these banks… Non-interest income, again as a percent of average total assets, was down to 0.92 percent from 0.95 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.04 percent of assets in 2005. A smaller non-interest bearing deposit base, without other new and offsetting sources of fee income, will mean pressure on this metric.

Operating expenses constituted some good news here as well. They declined from 2.79 percent to 2.75 percent of average assets. That’s 4 basis points to the good. Historically this metric has been flatter for this size bank, moving up or down a bit from year to year.

As a result of the not-so-slight decline in margins and the continued decline in fee income, the Peer Group 2 efficiency ratio lost ground from 59.52 percent in 2007 to only 61.86 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue cost these banks almost 62 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 56 cents in 2005/2006.

The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses is a net decline of 0.17 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 36 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.53 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 34 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007. 

As I concluded above, more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate.

Although all 490 banks are declining in efficiency, the larger banks have a scale edge in this regard. The somewhat smaller banks seem to have an edge in pricing loans, but not regarding deposits. Although up dramatically in 2007 and even more this year for both groups, the Peer Group 2 banks seem to be suffering fewer credit losses relative to their asset size than their larger brethren.

Both groups have resulting huge profit declines, but the largest banks are under the most pressure through this period. It’s interesting to note that, with higher loan yields and fewer apparent losses, Peer Group 2 banks are somewhat better at risk-adjusted loan pricing than the largest bank group.

Results are results. The fourth quarter numbers aren’t expected to show a lot of improvement as the general economy continues to slow and credit issues continue. I’ll comment on entire year’s results in posts early next year.

Next year, too, look for my comments on risk management solutions especially relevant to enterprise risk management.

For the last 16 months or so, the financial services industry has been indicted, tried, found guilty, sentenced and duly executed for ignoring accepted enterprise risk management practices.  Banks, albeit along with goofy risk ratings agencies, lax regulators, and greedy leveraged investors, have been blamed for abandoning normal and proper credit risk behavior and lending to many who did not meet basic debt servicing capability. After things went terribly wrong in capital and liquidity markets, followed by a now-official recession in the “real” economy, banks have tightened lending standards.  (See my blog posted November 13th for more about tightened lending.)

Now, following the TARP capital infusion, the press and Congress seem very upset that banks aren’t rapidly expanding their lending, or even moderating their credit risk regimen.  This dismay, with the lack of an immediate expansion of credit granting, occurs in the face of what the same press and most politicians refer to as the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

Granted, banks are historically easy whipping boys, but they now seem damned for what they did and damned if they don’t do some more of it. Although suffering in many ways, most banks are still for-profit organizations. Contrary to popular belief, they also actually have credit policies and processes that are aimed at responsible credit risk management – at least for the loans they intend to keep on their own books. Average management intelligence would dictate being cautious in the middle of an economic downturn.

The TARP capital infusion is a sudden large windfall of new equity, like a 20 percent increase for the receiving banks. It begs the question of what to do with it. To grow assets proportionately to the TARP infusion would mean a very rapid (circa plus 30 percent) growth in lending in a very short timeframe. Given the prevalence of banks, it would be very difficult for all of them to grow their loan portfolios this fast even in a good economy.

Most banks do not need TARP funds to survive in the short term. And the weakest banks are not supposed to be granted TARP funds. This is like a steroid shot into the natural process of bank consolidation. It’s obvious that the stronger banks, now infused with hot capital, are using TARP funds to acquire other banks. In many cases the acquired banks have weaknesses that they could not likely overcome on their own. So, the TARP funds are addressing the over-banked state of the financial industry and probably offsetting what would otherwise have been a drain on the Deposit Insurance Fund. I maintain that this is a good, if unintended, outcome for both the industry and the taxpayers.

I’ve heard and read comments (by people who should know better) that the hoarding of TARP funds is aiding bank earnings. Some say that those earnings are protected by TARP because it offsets credit losses. This is an accounting absurdity. The TARP will only help bank earnings if and when it is deployed successfully. This, in turn, requires two things to take place: 1) leveraging up the new capital with other sources of funds; and 2) successfully investing the proceeds in assets that provide a decent risk-adjusted return. In any event, whenever a new amount of risk-based capital comes into the equity account, the ROE will suffer for a while.

Another kind of issue with TARP, even if it isn’t needed or desired by a healthy bank, is the stigma associated with not getting it. The few banks in this category have had to go out of their way to explain why they didn’t go for it. There is a concern that, even if it really isn’t needed, a bank will be at a cash and balance sheet disadvantage in the big fish eating the little fish game.

Finally, who asked for TARP to be created? Bear and Lehman went down. Merrill was rescued. Countrywide went down early and WAMU went later. Citi is now on both a heart-lung machine and dialysis. A bunch of the big boys got killed or were in serious trouble. But not all of them. And, several of them reportedly had to be coerced into taking their share of the first $125 billion. Everyone else pretty much observed the circus on Wall Street and Capital Hill.

So, policy makers, make up your mind.  Do you want banks exercising sound credit risk management practices or not?  Do you want industry consolidation or don’t you?  Do you want sounder banks to acquire relatively weaker ones or would you rather see the FDIC pick up the pieces later?  Do you want to dictate how and when private organizations allocate risk-based capital or not?  A little clarity would be appreciated.  After all, TARP was your idea.  It wasn’t requested by the industry at large. And the flow through to businesses and consumers will take a while. Sorry. It’s in everybody’s best interest that good risk management processes prevail at this time (and always) -- in granting and pricing credit, and in managing available capital. The lack of same helped get us all to this point.