|
The biggest screw-ups are failures of imagination.
The worst mistake is not foreseeing that things could have
come to this. Executives and policymakers or anyone who
wants to excel must always ask: "What's going to happen
next? And how should I respond to it?"
This was on my mind the other day as I looked at a bunch of
bank data.
A couple of quarters ago, I studied several of the major
banks by looking and the "Assets & Liabilities" report from
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. I'd noticed a glaring
anomaly: One bank's loan-loss reserves had fallen
dramatically.
Well, neato. That's an interesting piece of bank data, but
what can I do with it?
I could have asked myself what was going to happen next.
Had I done that, I would have come to the (somewhat obvious)
conclusion that the bank was going to have to add to its
reserves.
What does that matter? Plenty.
Reserves are cash set aside to cover losses from bad loans.
The only place to get more cash is from net earnings. What I
should have anticipated, knowing as I did that reserves were
lower than normal, was that a significant charge against earnings
to bolster reserves was coming.
And that is exactly what happened.
Wall Street, which was not expecting the charge, pummeled
the shares. Though no one saw the charge coming, I should
have.
The trick I missed was using the information I'd found to
predict what was next. I used my brain to crunch the
numbers, but I hadn't engaged my imagination to conceive
what they meant.
With that in mind, I took a fresh look at the FDIC's
"Statistics on Banking" page and looked at the industry as a
whole. It's possible to drill the numbers down to the
individual bank level, but I was satisfied with the FDIC's
breakdown by bank size.
To simplify this complex report, I threw out all but three
numbers:
The first is the total amount of loans the banks have made
to customers.
The second line is the amount of money banks have set aside
to cover and bad loans.
The third line is the dollar amount of "nonperforming"
loans. That's any loan that's no longer generating interest
because customers aren't making their payments.
I calculated each size category's loan-loss coverage. This
is the relationship between potential losses --
nonperforming loans -- and loss reserves. The figure is
expresses as a percentage. If the result was 100%, then
classified loans equaled potential losses.
If the number was higher than 100%, the bank had excess
reserves. If the resulting percentage was less than 100%, on
the other hand, that means the bank doesn't have enough cash
on hand to cover impending loan losses.
|
Current
Bank Lending, Nonperforming Loans and Loss
Reserves |
|
|
All Banks |
Less Than $100 Million in Assets |
$100 Million to $1 Billion in
Assets |
More than $1 Billion in Assets |
|
Second Half 2009 |
|
Total loans |
$6.5 trillion |
$91.3 billion |
$752.8 billion |
$5.6 trillion |
|
Nonperforming |
$251.3 billion |
$2.1 billion |
$24.4 billion |
$224.8 billion |
|
Loss Reserves |
$194.9 billion |
$1.4 billion |
$12.7 billion |
$180.8 billion |
|
Loan Loss Coverage |
77.6% |
68.0% |
52.2% |
80.4% |
|
Second Half 2007 |
|
Total loans |
$6.1 trillion |
$105 billion |
$725.5 billion |
$5.2 trillion |
|
Nonperforming |
$44 billion |
$1.0 billion |
$6.4 billion |
$36.8 billion |
|
Loss Reserves |
$72.1 billion |
$1.5 billion |
$9.1 billion |
$61.6 billion |
|
Loan Loss Coverage |
163.2% |
140.4% |
142.4% |
167.4% |
As you can see in the table, banks have increased their
lending across the board, but their reserves are less than
half their 2007 levels. Only 77.6% of nonperforming
loans are covered by loss reserves. The data tells us that,
as usual, large banks have the best loan loss protection,
80%. Small banks face a dire set of circumstances -- only
about half their future losses are covered.
Does this mean banks are in danger of failing?
In general, no. But this clearly shows that bank
health isn't what it once was, and recovery will be a long,
hard slog. I say that not because of what we see here on
the industry's balance sheet, but because of what we can
observe on its collective income statement.
The bottom line is that banks earned $4.5 billion last
quarter.
But the chart shows us that banks currently have a $56
billion reserve deficit. That means that if banks
charged off all of their $292 billion in non-performing
loans tomorrow, they wouldn't be able to cover $56 billion
in losses.
All of that would have to be charged against future
earnings. At current levels of profitability, that means
banks won't show an aggregate profit for 13 quarters, or
3.25 years.
I'm sorry to paint such a bleak picture. While some factors
-- such as a worldwide recovery and increased profitability
-- could brighten things up a little, the reality is that
it's impossible and imprudent to predict when the banking
industry could return to an era of substantial excess
loan-loss reserves.
No more bailouts are needed: Banks just have to be given
time to earn their way out of trouble.
The good new is some banks, believe it or not, are already on their way.
Some look to be teetering on the edge of insolvency.
Consider the FDIC data on the nation's four largest banks:
|
Large Bank Loss Provisions and Earnings |
|
|
Wells Fargo |
Citibank |
Bank of America |
J.P. Morgan Chase |
|
Loans |
$350.5 billion |
$515.9 billion |
$728.1 billion |
$575.4 billion |
|
Nonperforming |
$9.0 billion |
$15.1 billion |
$36.7 billion |
$30.6 billion |
|
Loss Reserves |
$9.9 billion |
$22.9 billion |
$20.2 billion |
$22.0 billion |
|
Loan Loss Coverage |
110.0% |
151.0% |
55.0% |
71.9% |
|
2Q Cash Earnings |
$3.34 billion |
-$1.5 billion |
$3.6 billion |
$4.0 billion |
Of these four major banks, Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) is
clearly on the soundest footing. It has more in reserves
than it faces in potential losses, and it's making a tidy
profit of $3.34 billion a quarter. Bank of America (NYSE:
BAC) and J.P. Morgan (NYSE: JPM) will see a lot
of their robust earnings going into reserve for at least the
foreseeable future.
Citibank, on the other hand, is weak. It has ample reserves,
but the bank continues to lend, which means it will have
additional bad loans. The worst part is that the bank isn't
turning a profit, so it has no way to replenish its
reserves. This is an unsustainable business model.
Wells is, not surprisingly, richly valued, at about 36 times
earnings and not too far from its 52-week high.
It turns out that finding an undervalued bank these days --
one with a clean balance sheet and strong earnings -- is a
tall order. One bank that investors might consider is
International Bancshares Corp. (Nasdaq: IBOC),
which owns the International Bank of Commerce in Laredo,
Texas.
This mid-sized bank has a modest $4.9 billon loan portfolio.
Its $61.5 million loan-loss allowance covers 98.9% of its
classified loans, and the bank could easily make up the
difference from its tidy $66 million second-quarter
earnings. Even better, the shares are trading at 8.3 times
earnings, a nice -14.4% discount to its two-year average.
International Commerce isn't going to need to rat-hole its
earnings to cover more bad loans. Even if all of its
classified loans go bad -- and not all of them will -- it
has plenty of cash to withstand these losses. At worst, it
is a quarter away from a strong cash reserve -- and no bad
loans on its books.
How, then, to profit?
Easy. Add shares of this discounted community banker to your
portfolio. If the FDIC data is any indication, Wall Street
is bound to begin placing a greater premium on exceptionally
sound banks like IBOC.
Good Investing!
-- Andy Obermueller
Chief Investment Strategist
Government-Driven Investing
P.S. When it comes to investing in stocks, I let Uncle Sam
do the heavy lifting for me. I call it "the lazy man's way
of getting rich" and it's the quickest and easiest way I
know to get rich without robbing a millionaire.
Go here to learn more.
|