David Reilly warns that though the U.S. Federal Reserve's stress tests of U.S. banks showed they passed- including approval for dividends and share buyback- except for Ally Financial and Citigroup, this can be deceptive. True, the Fed used 13% unemployment and sharp drop in stock market prices as conditions. The problem is with capital ratios. The Fed used a leverage ratio of 3%. It should not be forgotten that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by excessive leverage and risk. Tested on this measure the banks fail to achieve safe levels of leverage and risk. Under the Fed's highest stress scenario Citigroup ratio was at 2.9%, Morgan Stanley's at 3.4%, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan at 3.8%- what ths means is that the leverage for these banks was at 26-29 times capital. Reilly raises the question- how is this so different than the leverage used by these banks before the crisis. The stress tests in the U.S. by the U.S. Federal Reserve are lauded for being better than the European Banking Authority's stress tests, but is this a standard by which to judge them? Before the collapse of Lehman in 2008, experts including Anil Kashyap at the University of Chicago, pointed out that for every $1 of bank losses in a deleveraging cycle bank lending goes down at banks by $10, and for investment banks at $20-$30 depending on leveraging- in David Henry and Matthew Goldstein, Business Week, July 16, 2008, How Bad Will It Get on Wall Street? Lehman's leverage ratio was between 24-31 times capital before the crisis. Worse, by saying banks are now safe compared to the situation before the crisis, is the Fed giving the green light to banks for some of the same leveraging behaviour that ocurred before the crisis?...