That Bank is My Bank
Lew Rockwell compiles a comprehensive list of US Banks' Texas Ratio
In rank order.
Anyone over 100 is near collapse. Any over 50 are in trouble.
I count just over 100 banks with TR > 100.
More between 50 and 100.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Reading the news lately, I've come across an amazing example of how ubiquitous bad math can be used. Most of you have probably heard about what's been called "the sub-prime crisis". Despite a lot of media hand-wringing about how complicated it all is, the sub-prime crisis is really a very simple…
Interesting things happen when corrupt idiots wielding obsolete laws from colonial times meet modern technology and communication infrastructure...
As you know, Bob, Iceland has been having a bit of a "Banana Republic" moment.
In particular, we were shocked, shocked, to discover that when the…
By way of Yves Smith, we come across Eddie Braverman's (a blogging pseudonym) advice on how to take out a major bank (Warning: the link is to an article in Playboy (really); half-naked women in the sidebar are probably not work safe):
Step one: Give the plan a recognizable name. Like many ex-…
Ok, so it's not real. But this is an awesome proposal and post by a teacher:
I have used a bank many times. I have a checking account and a savings account (although I do admit I haven't added anything to my savings account for the past fifteen years since my pay has been frozen.) Nevertheless,…
6 of the worst 15 banks, and 14 of the worst 30 banks, are Georgia banks. Georgia has 30 members in the 100-or-worse club.
That's nearly a third of the bad banks, and nearly half of the _stupendously_ bad banks.
So, why do Georgia banks suck so bad?
Banks don't want these numbers public because withdrawing funds from a bank with a high Texas score raises its Texas score -- which is penalizing it for what may be statistical variance and not a true measure of poor planning and policy.
While the Texas score may be suggestive of a banks problems, it's not the same thing as a scientific assessment thereof. (Snide comment: That's why it's called the Texas score -- it's not scientific -- just shooting from the hip.)
I think about the only thing a bank can do in the short term to lower its Texas score is to stop making any loans which aren't 100% guaranteed and to stop paying any dividends. Ironically, this last action is suggestive to the public that the bank is about to fail and may trigger a bank run which does the opposite.
"So, why do Georgia banks suck so bad?"
Anecdotally (I.e., speaking very unscientifically and without a lot of hard evidence) GA was an epicenter, perhaps the epicenter, of fraudulent mortgage origination during the bubble. Georgia's house prices didn't get superinflated the way CA and Vegas did, but there was HUGE growth in suburban sprawl throughout the state. Money flowed like Evian and banks were, shall we say, lax. 5 of the 27 banks closed this year by the FDIC were in Georgia.
Interesting that on this list, Citibank gets a very low score, and yet many think it is already virtually bankrupt.
I count 93 with TR > 100, and 95 with TR >= 100. What gives?
I count 331 with 50 <= TR <= 100 .
315 with 50 < TR < 100 .
Citibank got a huge cash injection from the government TARP.
That brings the Texas Ratio down by a lot.
The info for the Texas Ratio is all public information in the banks' quarterly statements, aggregating it into a table, with caveats is no big deal.
And, yes, it is indicative, not definitive.
But, a high and secularly growing TR is bad news, and for such a bank to survive it usually requires a capital injection.
Calculated Risk had a fair amount of discussion about why a lot of the small Georgia banks were in trouble.
There are problems with that table. Some banks appear twice (even Wachovia), IndyMac is on there with a ratio of 0, and so on.
What impresses me is how many small banks there still are, period. I wouldn't have guessed there were so many just from the bank names I see on the street. Do they have fewer retail branches per assets in $ ?