It can be a little difficult to draw that line in the sand separating "bank" from "financial institution." And as long as you take the extra step to understand the differences among companies like Citigroup (NYSE: C), Mellon (NYSE: MEL), and so forth, it really doesn't matter what you choose to call them. Still, given how much of its profits still come from what you and I would call banking, I'm going to continue calling Wachovia (NYSE: WB) a bank.
Results for this Southeast-based bank, the fourth-largest in the U.S., suggest to me that even a troublesome yield curve is no match for a skilled and motivated management team. Sure, net interest income was up a paltry 2%, but non-interest income rose 17%, and the two were basically 50/50 contributors this quarter. When all was said and done, net income rose 7% (without acquisition expenses), and returns on assets and equity improved slightly.
In the banking business, overall average loans rose 18%, with commercial loans up 12% and consumer loans up 26%. And while loan balances increased by an amount that I'd call significant, non-performing loans declined, and charge-offs were basically steady.
Balancing out the loan growth, deposits were up 7% and low-cost deposits were up 4%. Now, that's better than fellow Southeast rival SunTrust (NYSE: STI), but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that more deposit growth would be welcome. After all, future double-digit loan growth can only come from either boosting the loan/deposit ratio or finding other (generally more expensive) sources of money.
Wachovia's non-banking businesses also put in a respectable performance. While wealth management saw earnings down 5%, assets under management continued to grow, and the capital management business did manage a strong earnings result (up 24%). As for the investment banking arm, although the company seemed pleased, I don't think the results here were all that special in the context of what Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC), and the other investment banking purebloods were able to manage.
I've liked this bank for a while now, and the stock has obligingly had a pretty nice run from the fall of '05. Given that the company appears committed to goals like expense reduction (almost as important as net interest margin in the big picture) and increased fee income, I think this is still a good bank to hold on to -- even if it's not the cheapest.
Bank on further Foolishness:
Fool contributor Stephen Simpson has no financial interest in any stocks mentioned (that means he's neither long nor short the shares).
Terms & Conditions
RSS Headlines
Fool UK