Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

sign up

Ten Reasons Why the Stress Tests Are “Schmess” Tests and Why the Current Muddle-Through Approach to the Banking Crisis May Not Succeed

Nouriel Roubini | May 8, 2009

What shall we make of the recently announced results of the stress test? Are they credible? Will they restore confidence in our battered financial system? Will the current approach to resolving the financial crisis work, be effective and minimize the fiscal costs of the financial bailout?

For a number of reasons these results are a significant underestimate of the capital/equity needs of these 19 large US banks. Also this underestimate of the losses and the current “muddle-through” approach to the banking and financial crisis may accelerate the creeping partial nationalization of the US financial system, exacerbate moral hazard distortions, not resolve the too-big-to-fail problem, increase the fiscal costs of this financial crisis, make the credit crunch last longer and lead some near insolvent financial institutions to become zombie banks. Let me explain in ten points why I hold such views (see also my two recent op-eds with Matt Richardson in the WSJ and the FT):


Register for RGE EconoMonitors

Access to some RGE EconoMonitors, including Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor, is reserved for registered users, so sign up now to read and comment on current postings. These writings are only a small part of the insights and commentary available through RGE Monitor. Contact us today at info@rgemonitor.com or 212.645.0010 to learn more about becoming a full subscriber.

Register for RGE EconoMonitors

Learn more about subscribing to RGE Monitor