By Pete Schroeder and Nupur Anand
Pete Schroeder和Nupur Anand報道
Washington, June 26 (Reuters) - The Biggest U.S. Banks Would Have Enough Capital to Withstand Severe Economic and Market Turmoil, The Federal Reserve's Annual "Stress Test" Exercise Showed on Wednesday, but Firms Faced Steeper Hypothetical Losses This Year Due to Riskier Portfolios.
據路透社6月26日報道，美國最大的銀行在聯邦儲備委員會的年度"壓力測試"中表現良好，即使面臨更高風險的投資組合，這些銀行也具備足夠的資本來承受嚴重的經濟和市場動盪。
The Exercise Found 31 Big Banks Would Weather a Spike in the Jobless Rate, Severe Market Volatility, and Dives in the Residential and Commercial Mortgage Markets and Still Retain Enough Capital to Continue Lending.
分析師團隊剛剛選出他們認爲投資者現在可以買入的10只最佳股票……而超微電腦不在其中。有可能這10只被選出的股票未來幾年會產生巨大回報。行權發現31家大型銀行會承受失業率飆升、市場劇烈波動以及住宅和商業抵押貸款市場暴跌，仍然保留足夠的資本來繼續放貸。
Specifically, the Fed Found Levels of High-Quality Capital at the Banks Would Dip to 9.9% at Their Lowest Levels, Which Is More Than Twice the Regulatory Minimum.
具體來說，聯儲局發現，銀行的高質量資本水平在最低水平時會降至9.9%，這是監管最低水平的兩倍以上。
The Relatively Clean Bill of Health Clears the Way for the Banks to Announce Capital Plans to Shareholders in the Coming Days, Including Stock Buybacks and Dividends. Banks Can Announce Capital Plans After the Market Closes on Friday, a Senior Fed Official Said.
相對而言，這樣的健康狀況爲銀行在未來幾天向股東宣佈資本計劃，包括股票回購和分紅掃清了道路。聯儲局一名高級官員表示，銀行可以在週五收盤後宣佈資本計劃。
However, the Test Did Find Banks Suffered Steeper Losses This Year, and Not Because the Test Got Tougher. the 2024 Version of the Stress Test Was Broadly Similar to Last Year's, and the Fed Said the Higher Losses Were Due to How Bank Portfolios Have Shifted in the Last Year.
然而，測試確實發現銀行今年遭受了更嚴重的損失，並不是因爲測試變得更加嚴峻。聯儲局稱，壓力測試的2024版與去年的版本基本相似，而更高的損失是由於銀行投資組合在過去一年中的變化導致的。
The Fed Singled Out Growing Credit Card Balances and Delinquency Rates, Riskier Corporate Credit Portfolios, and Lower Projected Profits as Weighing on Banks This Year.
聯儲局指出，不斷增長的信用卡餘額和拖欠率、更高風險的公司信貸組合以及預期盈利下降對銀行產生了負面影響。
"It Is Not Changes in the Scenario Driving the Results. Rather, the Three Main Factors Driving This Year's Results Were Associated With Changes in Banks' Balance Sheets," Said Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr in a Statement.
聯儲局監管副主席邁克爾·巴爾在一份聲明中說:"結果的驅動力不是場景的變化，而是與銀行資產負債表的變化相關的三個主要因素。"
The Banks That Were Tested Would Suffer a Combined $685 Billion in Losses Under A Hypothetical Severe Scenario. on Average, Banks Saw Their Capital Ratios Fall by 2.8 Percentage Points, the Steepest Decline Since 2018.
經過假設的嚴峻情況，經受測試的銀行將遭受總計6850億美元的損失。平均而言，銀行的資本比率下降了2.8個百分點，這是自2018年以來最大的下降。
Of the Banks Tested, Charles Schwab Corp Reported the Highest Capital Levels Under the Test, Posting a 25.2% Capital Ratio Under That Severe Scenario. Bank of New York Mellon Corp, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northern Trust and State Street All Reported Double-Digit Capital Ratios After the Test, as Did the US Operations of Deutsche Bank and UBS.
在接受測試的銀行中，嘉信理財公司報告了最高的資本水平，在該嚴峻情況下，嘉信理財公司的資本比率達到了25.2%。紐約銀行、摩根大通、大摩資源lof、北方信託和道富銀行在測試後都報告了雙位數的資本比率，德意志銀行和瑞銀美國業務也是如此。
By Comparison, Some Smaller Regional Lenders Saw Their Capital Levels Skirt Closer to the Minimums, With BMO, Citizens Financial Group, and HSBC All Reporting Stressed Capital Ratios Below 7%.
相比之下，一些較小的區域性銀行的資本水平靠近監管最低水平，包括BMO、Citizens Financial Group和匯豐銀行，它們在應力測試中報告的資本比率均低於7%。
The Largest Global Banks All Posted Capital Ratios Well Above Minimums, With JPMorgan Posting the Highest at 12.5%, and Wells Fargo the Lowest at 8.1%. Bank of America Posted a 9.1% Capital Ratio, and Citigroup Posted a 9.7% Ratio.
最大的全球銀行的資本比率都遠高於監管最低水平，其中摩根大通的資本比率最高，達到12.5%，而富國銀行的資本比率最低，爲8.1%。美國銀行的資本比率爲9.1%，花旗集團的資本比率爲9.7%。
While Banks Were Expected to Perform Well Under This Year's Exam as They Have in Years Prior, the Annual Results Are Significant for Each Firm Because How Well They Perform Dictates How Much Capital They Must Hold Against Potential Losses. Excess Funds Beyond Those Capital Levels Can Then Be Returned to Shareholders.
雖然今年的測試結果預期會很好，像往年一樣，但每家公司的年度成績對於其來說都很重要，因爲它們的表現越好，就必須持有越多的資本來應對可能的損失。除了這些資本水平之外的額外資金可以返還給股東。如預期一樣，銀行的表現不俗。這是每個公司的年度重要結果，因爲它們的表現將決定它們必須持有多少資本來應對潛在的損失。超過這些資本水平的額外資金可以返還給股東。 (彼得·施羅德報道，迪帕·巴賓頓編輯)
(Reporting by Pete Schroeder, Editing by Deepa Babington)
((Pete.schroeder@Thomsonreuters.com; 202-310-5485;))
((pete.schroeder@thomsonreuters.com202-310-5485）