Risk Analysis of German Banks

Risk Analysis of German Banks During this assignment, the German banks data were compared to that of France and Italy banks. A simple regression analysis was performed. The data suggests that there are great variations in the basic principles when are applied in finding out the exact risks. In general, it is noted that that the France and Italy banks are more riskier than the German banks. In the financial institutions, the risks are assessed in a very particular manner. The purpose of discussing risks is to encourage the investors in the banking sectors. Therefore the managements and high level authorities in the banking system apply the various tools in addressing the risks. It is very eminent that the with out the support of the banking systems by and large the businesses can not grow, as these should be. Therefore there must be some ways of addressing the risks in the very first place. Including to satisfy the share holders and stakeholders, and other stakeholders, (Watson and Head, 2005). There are eminent differences in between the emerging market financial systems and the banking systems of developed countries. However the reasons for this significantly. It is noted that the various researchers, scholars, and academicians have shown divided ideas. As we can that some of them had a firm view about the unstable macroeconomic environment, and rest of the scholars have come forward with the point about weaker risk management practices, (Beck et al. 2003). Keeping the importance of risks assessment and its management, the followings are highlighted, so that this issue can understood in an acceptable way. Literature of Review: The banks invest their money in the different projects, such as buying of shares, construction projects, and other financial intuitions. There is also a fact that the management s in the banks monitor, evaluate and judge the performance of their projects during and after the completion of projects. Similarly, Ma, and Eli (2005) indicated that the implementers in the banking sectors must get the lessons for the previous years, failing to this would be failure of the whole project. Basically they (Ma and Eli) did support the theory of application, which suggests that investing directly to the system do not justify the action. There must be a some kind of rational in addressing the risks in the financial and highly competitive environment. In addition, to above, according to Bank for International Settlements, (2002) and Topping (2005) while highlighting the importance of risks evaluation and its management indicated that the some of the factors which contribute the risks are such as, the changing nature of macroeconomic risks, new forms of risks to the banks, and whether or the abilities, skills and other measures have really improved in addressing the issues of risks. In very simple words, it is found that the risks increase when the banks do not imply certain methods. These methods are related to see and judge the results of previous years when there were projects in the pipe lines. Some of the high rated researchers, scholars and professionals such as Chris (2008) and Topping (2005) basically indicated the following levels are addressed and if done, then there are less chances of increasing risks, such as: Risk identification: This is very basic stage where the banks can identify the risks. In simple meaning in the inputs are discussed broadly, and its implications are noted before, during and after the completion. In broader sense, this is done at the sites, where projects will be launched. Particularly, the following points can help in identifying the risks, such as: †¢ Who will take responsibility for risk identification? †¢ Process for risk identification, including existing and new products, and †¢ Regularity in reviews. Risk measurement: The followings nine factors can be measured during risk measurement such as: Capital, Assets, Market risks, Earnings, Liabilities, Business, Internal Controls, Organisation, Management. Whereas while talking about frequency of risk measurement, the followings should be noted very carefully, such as: Sources of data, it includes market prices and position information Risk measurement tools, given the complexity and level of risk assumed, Ability to measure risk at both transactional and portfolio levels. Methodology to ensure all identified risks are monitored, Accuracy, and clarity of monitoring reports, Involvement of management and staff in having the reports, Comparability of output against predetermined limits. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/p10.pdf The benefits of risk assessment: There are multi-layered assessment benefits to the banks and financial institutions. It include such as to make profits and distribute among the shareholders. It helps the clients for the banks others (employees) satisfied. This brings more jobs to the public and indirectly helps in boosting GDP. The risk assessment keeps busy the staff in doing their professional work. It can be seen that the supervisors need to spend time on-site discussing the issues with senior bank management. The time taken to perform this work will vary from bank to bank depending on the size and complexity of the institution. However, following a risk assessment, the supervisor will be better placed to decide on the intensity of the future supervision having obtained a better understanding of a banks risk profile. The intensity of supervision and the amount and focus of supervisory action will increase in line with the perceived risk profile of a bank. One advantage this has for banks is that the cost of supervision, in terms of management time or through direct costs. WE have to agree that the banks pay high costs for initial assessments, and in turn if their projects are completed, the banks then take benefit of having high wages and other facilities. The bank official especially in the third world are highly paid. Table 1 shows the three pillars in the banking sector Pillar 1 Minimum Capital Requirements Pillar 2 Supervisory Review Pillar 3 Market Discipline Market risk _ No changes from Basel I Credit risk _ Significant change from Basel I _ Three different approaches to the calculation of minimum capital requirements _ Capital incentives for banks to move to more sophisticated credit risk management approaches based on internal ratings _ Sophisticated approaches have systems/controls and data collection requirements as well as qualitative requirements for risk management Operational risk _ Not explicitly covered in Basel I _ Three different approaches to the calculation of minimum capital requirements _ Adoption of each approach subject to compliance with defined ‘qualifying criteria Banks should have a process for assessing their overall capital adequacy and strategy for maintaining capital levels _ Supervisors should review and evaluate banks internal capital adequacy assessment and strategies _ Supervisors should expect banks to operate above the minimum capital ratios and should have the ability to require banks to hold capital in excess of the minimum (i.e., trigger/target ratios in the United Kingdom; prompt corrective action in the United States) _ Supervisors should seek to intervene at an early stage to prevent capital from falling below minimum levels Market discipline reinforces efforts to promote safety and soundness in banks _ Core disclosures (basic information) and supplementary disclosures to make market discipline more effective Source: KPMG, 2003. The Table 1 above shows the details of three pillars. These guidelines are apparently seems to be quite added information for the banking managements. But again there is an inverse argument, who accepts the challenges, threats and then commits to carry out the assessments, so that the future risks could be minimised at least. Methodology and Data: The data for the banks regarding Germany, France and Italy was analysed by the Excel programme. During this analysis, a simple linear regression was carried out. There were altogether 8 parameters which were used. However in case Germany banks were compared to that of France and Italy. The parameters were such as, index, loans, equity, LA, NIM, ROAA, ROAE, and CIR. As a matter of fact these parameters are the base lines for the banks to work/operate in the competitive financial markets. Results and Discussions: The results of the analysis are presented below. It has already been indicated that the German data is compared to that of France and Italy. The Figure 1 below shows that the relationship between the German banks and France banks seems to be very poor. It means that the ways the German banks are applying are entirely different to that of France and vice versa. Figure 2 discusses the regression analysis of German banks versus Italy banks on the basis of index. It can be seen that again the relationship still very week. The data regarding loans is presented in the following Figure 3, in this case German banks were compared to that of France banks. The results show that the way the German banks are obtaining or lending loans are not comparable to that of France. It can also be seen from that Figure 3 that R2 value is too weak. Figure 4 shows the data comparison between the German banks and Italian banks. Again the regression analysis indicates that there is not good relationship between the two. Even when we look at the equation, it suggests that Italian banks approach is entirely negative to that of German banks regarding extending loan facilities to the businesses. In reality equity is the very important parameters, banks work against equity either way. It means if banks are getting loans from other financial institutions, it works on the basis of equity. It also argued here that the poor relationship between the German banks and France clearly demonstrates that there are more risks for the France banks when compared to German banks (Figure 5). Figure 6 highlights the comparison between German banks and Italy banks. The relationship between the two still very poor. It can also be seen that this relationship is negative. The data regarding LA is presented in Figure 7 and the relationship between German banks and France is indeed very poor. The results of LA regarding German banks and Italy banks suggest that there is negative relationship between the two. The same can be seen from Figure 8. Figure 9 suggests that the relationship regarding NIM for German and Italy banks negative, it means no relationship at all. The data concerning NIM is presented in the Figure 10. It can be seen that the relationship between the German banks and Italy very poor. As this relationship shows negative relationship. The analysis of ROAA regarding German and France banks is given in Figure 11. The negative relationship shows there is no strength in particularly applying the same approach. Again this ratio is highly important to note the differences in the banks. The results of analysis are given in Figure 12. It can be seen that there exists negative relationship between the German banks and Italy banks. Data regarding ROAE ratios is compared between the German and France banks. The same can be seen in Figure 13. The negative R2 value indicated the weakness of the relationship. Figure 14 suggests that the relationship between the German and Italy banks is negative. It means that the way the German banks are calculating ROAE is not same in case of Italy. The data in reference to CIR is shown in Figure 15. The comparison between the German and France banks shows that there is a negative relationship. The comparison about CIR between Germany and Italy clearly shows that there exists negative relationship. The same data is shown in Figure 16. When we look at the Figures above, in most of the analysis conducted for the various parameters show that there is a negative relationship. It means that the strength of the approach differs. As a matter of fact, it is argued that the methods of calculating risks are nearly similar in the German, France and Italy banks. So a question arises, why it is so? There could be many reasons behind the explanations. But very viable and quite acceptable refers to the non availability of the data during the months and years. The data shows big gaps, and further suggests the approaches in calculating risks in the banks are not same as in regarding Germany. Conclusions and recommendations: When we look above, it can be seen that there are different ways and means are being used by the three countrys banks in calculating the various ratios, including loans and debts. It is also very clear that there is no relationship when the data were tested through regression analysis. There is likely possibility that the German banks are not using those principles, where are used by the France and Italy banks, or vice versa. Concerning recommendations, it is suggested that the German banks if use the similar way of in disbursing loans especially; there is high probability that the risks could be deep down compared among the three countrys banks.