Morgan Stanley

Major mutual funds prefer Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B) over private equity firms and asset managers like Blackstone (BX) and BlackRock (BLK).

The company’s revenue model is based on charging management and performance fees for managing the portfolios in its investment advisor firms.

Basel III addresses most of Basel II and II.5’s deficiencies. But it still has some shortcomings. Firstly, the increased regulatory capital required under Basel III will increase barriers to enter into the sector.

Basel II.5 was essentially a revision of Basel II norms, as the existing norms often failed to correctly address the market risks that banks took on their trading books. Basel II.5’s main aim was to strengthen the capital base, and so the banks’ ability to withstand risk, by increasing banks’ capital requirements.

Basel II was a comprehensive regulation that covered major sources of risks for banks. But it had a few major drawbacks. Firstly, it provided incentive to a bank’s management to underestimate credit risk.

Although Basel I brought a worldwide standard in regulations, introduced the risk-weighted assets concept, and segregated capital, it had a few deficiencies.

The second most important technical parameter used in banking regulations is risk-weighted assets (or RWA). If you’ve seen bank financial statements, then you might have noticed the “RWA” term there.

Capital is important because it’s that part of an asset which can be used to repay its depositors, customers, and other claimants in case the bank doesn’t have enough liquidity due to losses it suffered in its operations.

The most important types of banking capital are common stock (or shareholders’ equity), preferred stock (or preferred equity), revaluation reserve, general provision, and hybrid instrument.

Banking regulations aim to ensure that the risks are minimized. If any unforeseen event occurs, then the interests of bank customers are protected. On a wider scale, the regulations also seek to absorb and minimize shock in the economy.

We stated earlier that most banks are highly leveraged financial risk-takers. When things go awry, the results can be catastrophic, leading to huge losses or even to a bank closure.

Banking risk can be defined as exposure to the uncertainty of outcome. It’s applicable to full-service banks like JPMorgan (JPM), traditional banks like Wells Fargo (WFC), investment banks like Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), or any other financials included in an ETF like the Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLF).

Whenever we analyze any banking company, we’re looking at two main variables—the return a bank earns and the amount of risk. To understand any bank, you need to understand these two parameters well.

Historical analysis has shown that return on equity has a strong impact on banks’ value creation in the long run. So financials that have high price-book value ratios should also have high returns on equity.