Today we saw a typical Buffet move as he surprised everyone by taking a $5B investment into BAC. Everyone is talking about it and praising how good this is for the company, I guess it kind of is, but there are others, like me, who are more worried now than before Buffet made the investment. I do not own BAC and I am not short BAC or any financial firm right now so I have no self serving purpose for this.
What concerned me is the fact that the figure was $5B just like the Goldman deal. This seems to be a figure Buffet is comfortable risking in times of duress. Buffet has billions on hand, but only $5B that could yield him 6% something isn’t right. Now, I considered the pre-Buffet chatter about BAC to be the typical rumor mill stuff, illiuid, cut off from the markets, huge liabilities that haven’t been realized and the like, but nothing real or substantially true. However, I admit the massive selling of pieces of their business did strike me as if they were concerned about things, but it did not strike me as they were going out of business it was merely troubling. However, now with Buffet adding in his now typical $5B ‘petty risk cash’ into the firm does make me concerned about BAC.
Clearly the firm needed the cash as it was presented to and accepted in, what, 12 hours. You do not take $5B paying out 6% when we are in a zero interest rate environment and can issue paper cheaper without raising any suspicions. Frankly, taking a middle of the night cash infusion from Buffet is strikingly similar to 2008 for my taste. BAC got hosed on this deal, as many others have already said, and they are paying way too much for this cash. A case can be made that BAC paid the premium for the Buffet ‘seal of approval’ but that seal did not work for Goldman in 2008.
If one followed Buffet in 2008 on the Goldman deal they lost out pretty bad. After the cash infusion was made Goldman dropped to $48/share, about $70/share below Buffets investment, and the average investor would have probably sold at a loss given the events of 2008. If they were smart they would have doubled up, but come on, it was 2008! Regardless, Buffet was too early and could have done much better if he waited, but more to the point what kind of due diligence did he do back then? I am thinking more than he did with BAC, but no one knows for sure. What I do know is the government had to follow up on Buffet’s investment to the tune of $700B as they had to save the whole system. The government bailed out Buffet in the Goldman deal, basically.
What is different this time is the fact that countries are going broke now, not just banks, and there is risk everywhere. With BAC not only do you have sovereign risk, but you have derivatives risk and a whole bunch of mortgage issues from put backs to just bad loans altogether. I believe this time is very different because it is sovereign risk and we have had this issue before… in the 1930’s. In the Depression Europe had defaults and many countries devalued their currency which hurt the U.S. as we, at that time, were a net exporter of goods. The European issue deepened our Depression and the same thing will happen this time around, unfortunately. Not only may BAC hold European debt on its books, but they might have CDS exposure as well, not that we would know about that, thanks Frankendodd. In any event BAC is one hot mess and the sad thing is that BAC will not drop from $110 to $48 because it is at $7 already, you do the math to see what a similar drop would look like for BAC.
I do not think BAC is finished, it might be, but I doubt it. I do believe it will be stuck in the single digits for a very long time. For crying out loud, they bought Countrywide, just a reminder.
SNL Financial came out with a report today that said 90 banks have missed at least 1 TARP dividend payment, that is about 11% of all TARP recipients have defaulted for those of you keeping count. Keep in mind that about 829 institutions received TARP funds and about 50+ have repaid TARP funds, mostly the big name institutions that we all know and love. What is critical to note is that the defaults, I would call missing a payment a default since banks call a borrower who misses a payment to be in default, are increasing, not decreasing, as we approach the 2 year anniversary of the historic TARP legislation.
What that tells me is that not everything is fine when we are 2 years into the largest bailout in the history of bailouts and we have banks defaulting, remember only the “strongest banks” were getting bailed out, and bank closures accelerating as well. All of this while the pundits talk about “the greatest V shaped recovery in history” which is laughable. If we were in recovery mode wouldn’t these banks be earning their way out of this mess? They have the greatest accounting gimmick, mark to model, at their disposal and they are defaulting and being taken over by regulators at an increasing rate, how can that be? Perhaps the system is not as strong as we are told, that sounds about right to me.
We have to face the facts and the fact is that the data does not lie, banks are defaulting and failing. Real estate prices, both residential and, especially, commercial are falling which means more problems for banks. The banking industry as a whole is much larger than Citi, Bank of America and JP Morgan, and I am hard pressed to make the statement that those banks are largely benefiting from proprietary trading, government bond underwriting and the ability to mark to model. In other words, the bailout failed with the exception of the too big to fails and, as we already knew, the bailout was really just a selective bailout anyhow. How could Bear, Sterns be allowed to be acquired, but Lehman fail? Just days after Lehman fails AIG gets bailed out, the proof is pretty overwhelming about the selectivity of the bailouts, in my opinion, and TARP was designed to make the big banks flourish and the rest of the banks, well who cares because no one cares about the rest of the banks. I mean, who ever heard of Midwest Banc Holdings anyhow, except for the depositors.
So, as the ECB gets ready to release useless stress test results, which I am sure will show Greek and Spanish banks in trouble, but everything else hunky dory, consider the fact that our stress test and bailouts were completely and utterly useless. In other words, if you cannot trust our results, it has taken almost 2 years for the failures to show up, how can you trust the ECB’s results? Geithner knows this which is why he pushed for the stress test. He knew you can fool the markets for a little while with useless stress test and a seemingly huge bailout fund. However, the results cannot be hidden forever and our results are public, for those willing to look for the statistics, and prove that their strategy just kicks the can down the road and still leads to failure. Unless you consider accelerating defaults and closures a success, I am sure some talking head somewhere will see it as a stunning success, but in the real world most people see escalating failure for what it is, failure.
According to a Bloomberg article the Too Big to Fail Banks are crying over higher capital requirements that would take effect next year. I am sure your hearts, like mine, go out to these institutions as they struggle to scratch out a living, it is tough when the industry can only payout some $140B in bonuses for 2009 when they wanted $150B, but hey, we are all sacrificing aren’t we? The institutions are requesting a 3 year period to phase in the new requirements instead of doing it all at once and, once again, they are putting the gun to America’s head threatening the economy and the, cough, cough, recovery if their wish is not granted.
The threat is that lending, as if there is any to begin with as banks are buying some $1.2T in US government debt, would cease as it would impact securitization of consumer debt. First, let me explain what is happening and why they are fighting these new regulations, then you will see what the real agenda is and why they are fighting for a phase in period. As many of you know, banks have off-balance sheet accounts called all sorts of things from SIV’s, Special Investment Vehicles to Qualifying Special Purpose Entities, these gems are where banks move their products of questionable quality to be sold or securitized. Now, the rule is past and the asses are coming on the boost, period. The question is how fast will the assets come on the books, now or over 3 years.
Lehman made them famous because they did the granddaddy of all accounting sleight of hand tricks and would sell their CDO’s to their SIV’s and then report the sale as a profit, not bad, huh? It works until the value of these things completely blows up, see September of 2008 for the results. Well, the FASB in conjunction with Fed and FDIC want to move these off balance sheet items to the balance sheet, finally! This way, you the investor, can value the bank properly because you can see the “assets” or lack thereof in the day light. Now do you understand why the banks are fighting this move?
The banks want a 3 year window for the assets to come onto their balance sheets, I think you know why, but I will tell you anyhow. If the assets came on all at once it might break their balance sheets and a portion f these banks could fail or require more government assistance, we know this. However, my feeling is so what? Let them fail, do we really need a Citi Group or Bank of America or any other too big to fail bank anyhow? No, we don’t as there are plenty of banks to fill their shoes. Frankly, these institutions should not exist anyhow and they are not really lending, sorry FHA loans do not really count as lending.
These new assets are a significant problem, I am not saying they are not, but this is what the industry did to itself. Wells Fargo claims that every $1B it brings on in new assets will crowd out $15B in new loans. This sounds an awful lot like last year when the industry put a gun to its head and said save us or we will pull the trigger and take you with us. I don’t like it and I don’t buy it, sorry. Let them go and do it now. Cram down the rule on them without a phase in period at all and while you’re at it reinstate mark-to-market so we can truly value the bank’s assets. I know the ramifications and I am willing to accept them as I am tired of this one industry that blew up the whole world still wielding all this power over us when they should be begging for forgiveness. Just to fuel the fire, here is what John Gerspach from Citigroup and JP Morgan wrote:
Citi:
“We do not plan to reduce lending in only those businesses specifically impacted by the incremental regulatory capital requirements,” Gerspach wrote.
JP Morgan:
The capital requirements “will have a significant and negative impact on the amount of consumer-conduit funding that will be made available by U.S. banks,” said the letter from JPMorgan, the New York-based bank that this week reported its biggest quarterly profit since the subprime-mortgage market collapsed in 2007.
“We strongly support a phase-in period for the rule changes,” according to JPMorgan’s letter, which was signed by Managing Director Adam Gilbert.
These statements sound like threats to me, don’t they? To me they sound like they are going to reduce lending to every business line, which is surprising since they are not really lending anyhow. So, record profits are rolling in while they are clearly hiding huge losses offshore, which is what it looks like to me at least, but we will not know until we see what is there. However, if they are made to put these assets on their balance sheets all at once, they will bring down the house of cards all over again, how convenient.
Regardless of what happens the change will have to take effect for annual reports on November 15, 2009. Guess what I will be doing on that date? Hopefully the same thing you will be doing because this is a big deal.
GE and Bank of America released their earnings this morning and what can I say. GE missed revenue estimates which were already reduced dramatically, perhaps due to their off balance sheet items that they do not have to report, some $40 billion in garbage debt. But BoA was just bad across the board and this is a direct representation of where the country stands as it has the most exposure to the consumer through retail banking, retail brokerage, and mortgages.
According to CNBC.com estimates for BoA were for a loss of $.06 a share on revenue of $27.7B. The firm reported a loss of $.26 a share with revenue of $26.04 billion, a double loss. Of course, the site just changed the estimate to say the estimated loss was supposed to be $.20 a share, but that literally just changed. So, either it was a huge miss or just your run of the mill 30% miss, I expect nothing more from CNBC but to put out the most accurate information at all times to spin report news in the best possible light. Look for yourself below. Even Bloomberg had an average expected loss of $.12 per share.
Here is what was on their website last night:
Here is what they changed BAC EPS estimates to at 8:00 AM:
I know, why do I watch them, as I told a reader who I talk to off and on with, I need something to complain about! Anyhow, this is clearly not good news for the markets nor is it good news for the economy as it shows we are struggling. BoA is also reserving another $11B for future loan losses, so the direction of the economy, from all the bank earnings so far, shows further credit deterioration and is a very bearish outlook. This cannot be positive for spending moving forward if banks are reserving for more loan losses since losses usually means people are not or cannot pay their bills. I know, I am crazy.
Why do you have an account with Bank of America? They do not even deserve to have the name of our great country within their title. Watch the video below.
Be the First to Comment 
Subscribe to Annuity IQ's Feed
