3 Things Banks Are Doing Right

The banking industry makes me ill.

The more you learn about banks, the less you realize you know about them. After covering the industry for several years, I've gotten used to muttering the phrase, Are you serious? I've realized that I fail to comprehend the complexities of banks' balance sheets -- and so do the people running them. For better or worse, I'm turned off by the industry and won't hear otherwise.

But I realize that's an extreme position. And probably an unhealthy one. So to force myself out of the fingers-in-my-ears-lalala objection to anything positive said about banks, I decided to find three areas where things look like they're headed in the right direction.

1. Asset quality is generally improving
With third-quarter earnings reported for the four big commercial banks -- Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) , Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) , and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) -- here's how broad loan quality is holding up:

 

Wells Fargo aside (I'm convinced it's in perpetual misery), the trend in asset quality has been clear for the past year: It's getting better, for several reasons. One, employment has improved, albeit slowly. Two, a lot of the really atrocious loans have already been purged and written off. Three, banks are doing a better job resuscitating loans after they fall into delinquency.

To that last point, here's the Federal Reserve last month: "Transitions from early (30-60 days) into serious (90 days or more) delinquency improved sharply in 2010Q2, falling from 39% to 33%, the lowest rate of deterioration since 2008Q2." That "cure rate" is still high, but it's headed in the right direction -- encouraging, because it had been a major factor in bank losses over the recent past.

2. Capital is thick
Banks need capital to withstand losses. Right now, they have a ton:

 

The black line in this chart denotes the recent Basel III international banking standards minimum Tier 1 capital standard. Every major bank is well above the threshold, often by a factor of two. Banks can stand to lose a ton of money right now. More than they have in years.

3. Valuations look reasonable
As fellow Fool Anand Chokkavelu recently wrote, "I get interested in bank stocks that have price-to-tangible-book values below 1.5. Bank of America sits at 0.9, and JPMorgan sits at 1.3." Additionally, all major banks trade at less than 10 times forward earnings.

Two other factors could make current valuations look cheap. First, banks set aside so much cash for bad loans during the recession that now, with business not as bad as expected, reserves are being released and counted as net income. As The Wall Street Journal wrote last week:

There are 18 commercial banks in the U.S. with at least $50 billion in assets, and together they earned an adjusted $16.8 

billion in the third quarter. Of those profits, nearly half, or 48%, were from drawing down what bankers call loan-loss reserves, according to an analysis by Dow Jones Newswires. A year ago, the same 18 banks earned $6.2 billion in quarterly profits; at that time, they added more than $7.8 billion to the same reserves, a move that reduced their profits.

This is, of course, transitory profit, and I hesitate to even call it that. It's a pro-cyclical accounting maneuver that exacerbates booms and busts. But if we're at the beginning of a new boom -- or just a recovery -- profitability could enjoy this cyclical accounting boost for several more years. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Second, most banks still don't pay significant dividends -- a protective carryover from the 2008 bust. With capital levels high, loan quality improving, and major bank reform codified, that anti-dividend policy could change fairly soon. When it does, investors will bid valuations up accordingly. Rationally or not, there's a premium on yield these days.

Again, I generally believe that most investors should avoid banks' common stocks. They're like cocaine: feels good until it doesn't. Instead, I recently bought some B of A high-yield preferred stock, which is a completely different beast and, as I view it, a much better risk-reward bet. When these banks get into trouble, the U.S. Treasury will respond (as history shows) by injecting cash and diluting common shareholders into oblivion, and then protecting that diluted stake as taxpayers become owners. That leaves a decent buffer around for preferred shareholders and bondholders. Call it a safe wager "on too big to fail." If tempted, I'd suggest this as a more sensible way to invest in banks.

Disagree? Let me know in the comments section below.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Bank of America preferred. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (11)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 02, 2010, at 7:50 PM, DDHv wrote:

    The book, "CD x 3" points out that one certain type of preferred stock is about as safe as a certificate of deposit, and pays several times the return.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2010, at 12:17 PM, slpmn wrote:

    Too often, when investors speak of "banks", they are referring to the top 10 or so largest in the country. The universe of investable banks is far larger, and includes the hundreds that had nothing to do with the mortgage bubble and related finanical crisis of two years ago. Many have suffered in the subsequent recession, but many have not. For the investor willing to do some digging, there are undoubtedly good values to be had, because "small" banks (market caps of less than $1 billion) in general have been absolutely destroyed by the market. It will take some research to find the right ones, but they are out there.

  • Report this Comment On November 04, 2010, at 12:45 PM, SharmilaDiv wrote:

    Surprisingly you haven't spoken about the cash surplus which lot of these banks are carrying because collection of charge off debts is going on well and few of these are not lending. The opportunities for banks esp. holding high cash are multiple. Similarly the upheavel in wealth management businss at these banks is driving cosolidation and some good hedge against downturn

    WNS is making a valid point on this.

    http://www.wns.com/Insights/Blogs/tabid/44163/entryid/62/def...

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1354602, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/21/2014 6:12:08 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement