Jump to content

BAC-WT - Bank of America Warrants


ValueBuff

Recommended Posts

It's been almost three years now since the days in 2011 when many of us bought. 

 

Remember August 2011 when AIG filed suit?  It seemed like lawsuits were being filed weekly.  Now, we're through most of them.

 

Back then was $5 ~ 6 .... now it's almost tripled... do you like it as much?  just curious... Thx!

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It's been almost three years now since the days in 2011 when many of us bought. 

 

Remember August 2011 when AIG filed suit?  It seemed like lawsuits were being filed weekly.  Now, we're through most of them.

 

Back then was $5 ~ 6 .... now it's almost tripled... do you like it as much?  just curious... Thx!

Gary

 

$8 on Aug 1, 2011.  Of course, the very next trading day it hit $7.

 

A bit like being $15 yesterday and $13 on Monday.  Certainly, it's less exciting these days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been almost three years now since the days in 2011 when many of us bought. 

 

Remember August 2011 when AIG filed suit?  It seemed like lawsuits were being filed weekly.  Now, we're through most of them.

 

Back then was $5 ~ 6 .... now it's almost tripled... do you like it as much?  just curious... Thx!

Gary

 

$8 on Aug 1, 2011.  Of course, the very next trading day it hit $7.

 

A bit like being $15 yesterday and $13 on Monday.  Certainly, it's less exciting these days.

 

 

I like it better at this price than when it was 5-8.  Definitely less exciting and less volatile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus 1-2%/year in dividends.  It's not a slam dunk return, but, probably better than the market/bonds/cash. 

 

Key unknowns:

-- earnings uplift from interest rates?

-- can they close the margin gap with better-run banks?

-- how much capital can they return? 

 

The last one is a real wild card to me.  In theory (meaning my theory, since no one else talks about it much), BAC should be able to return all the capital they generate.  That's because - I think - BAC is focused on "better" loans and not "more" loans.  So BAC should be able to return all the capital they generate.  If you believe $2/share in earnings, that implies > $2/share in capital - but what would BAC trade at if they could reliably return $2/share each year?  Surely not $20?

 

 

 

Just back of the envelope, if FV is around 20/sh and they will achieve that in 2 years, you're looking at about a 16.66% return per year if you buy @ 15/sh.

 

To make it more interesting the EPS numbers are not the cash flow numbers.  These fines, penalties, and past losses all generate NOLs.  What the government taketh very publicly, they will quietly giveth back in the future.  $2.00 EPS that can be all given back is an interesting number. 

 

Assume long term rates rise to 4.0%, add 1.0 % for risk.  2/.05= $40.00.  With Apple having broken the $500 B barrier and others following there is no reason BAC, JPM, etc. wont exceed that.

 

Assume a give back of 1.50 per share you get an easy $30.00 per share. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fun to think about it on a pre-tax basis (using NOLs).  Quarterly, the pre-tax earnings yield is 4% today... per quarter.

 

I still think it makes more sense to think about it after-tax and then just bump it up by a finite amount for the "one time" value of the NOLs.  (by "one time", I mean for one several-year period of time).

 

They are pulling in $500m per week pre-tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't citibank an even cheaper big bank stock at this level?

 

Plus 1-2%/year in dividends.  It's not a slam dunk return, but, probably better than the market/bonds/cash. 

 

Key unknowns:

-- earnings uplift from interest rates?

-- can they close the margin gap with better-run banks?

-- how much capital can they return? 

 

The last one is a real wild card to me.  In theory (meaning my theory, since no one else talks about it much), BAC should be able to return all the capital they generate.  That's because - I think - BAC is focused on "better" loans and not "more" loans.  So BAC should be able to return all the capital they generate.  If you believe $2/share in earnings, that implies > $2/share in capital - but what would BAC trade at if they could reliably return $2/share each year?  Surely not $20?

 

 

 

Just back of the envelope, if FV is around 20/sh and they will achieve that in 2 years, you're looking at about a 16.66% return per year if you buy @ 15/sh.

 

To make it more interesting the EPS numbers are not the cash flow numbers.  These fines, penalties, and past losses all generate NOLs.  What the government taketh very publicly, they will quietly giveth back in the future.  $2.00 EPS that can be all given back is an interesting number. 

 

Assume long term rates rise to 4.0%, add 1.0 % for risk.  2/.05= $40.00.  With Apple having broken the $500 B barrier and others following there is no reason BAC, JPM, etc. wont exceed that.

 

Assume a give back of 1.50 per share you get an easy $30.00 per share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW Rakoff got slapped down by the appeals court when he tried to interfere with a settlement between the SEC and C.  IMO he's the most vocal anti-bank judge out there (too bad BAC happened to draw him). 

 

Judge Rakoff was borderline trolling BAC lawyers in his penalty reasoning. If his ruling is upheld, then a buyer can hold full value of a performing credit, while also receiving the full cash value of the purchase price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there is no share repurchase program...  :-(  (As a large warrant holder this is great but I wish the focus was on repurchasing stock)

 

Bank of America Increases Quarterly Common Stock Dividend to $0.05 per Share

 

Fed has approved BAC's revised capital plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For American companies (but not European ones), a dividend is something that usually monotonically increases.  So BAC is trying to send a signal that shareholders will receive at least 20c/year in dividends from here on out.  A share repurchase can vary wildly from year to year.  IMO BAC is sending a signal they can consistently make capital returns from now on.

 

Share buyback does not need to be consistent, though does signal something about management's view of share price. 

 

I'd personally prefer buybacks, but, I'm not going to quibble :). 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is no share repurchase program...  :-(  (As a large warrant holder this is great but I wish the focus was on repurchasing stock)

 

Bank of America Increases Quarterly Common Stock Dividend to $0.05 per Share

 

Fed has approved BAC's revised capital plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you Moynihan!

 

I don't give a rat's arse about signalling to stupid Wall Street - create value for shareholders - i.e. buy back your undervalued stock you muppet!

 

C.

 

For American companies (but not European ones), a dividend is something that usually monotonically increases.  So BAC is trying to send a signal that shareholders will receive at least 20c/year in dividends from here on out.  A share repurchase can vary wildly from year to year.  IMO BAC is sending a signal they can consistently make capital returns from now on.

 

Share buyback does not need to be consistent, though does signal something about management's view of share price. 

 

I'd personally prefer buybacks, but, I'm not going to quibble :). 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is no share repurchase program...  :-(  (As a large warrant holder this is great but I wish the focus was on repurchasing stock)

 

Bank of America Increases Quarterly Common Stock Dividend to $0.05 per Share

 

Fed has approved BAC's revised capital plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - 20c/share consistently returned --- of which a large percentage will go not to me but the tax man.

 

What an idiocy!

 

For American companies (but not European ones), a dividend is something that usually monotonically increases.  So BAC is trying to send a signal that shareholders will receive at least 20c/year in dividends from here on out.  A share repurchase can vary wildly from year to year.  IMO BAC is sending a signal they can consistently make capital returns from now on.

 

Share buyback does not need to be consistent, though does signal something about management's view of share price. 

 

I'd personally prefer buybacks, but, I'm not going to quibble :). 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately there is no share repurchase program...  :-(  (As a large warrant holder this is great but I wish the focus was on repurchasing stock)

 

Bank of America Increases Quarterly Common Stock Dividend to $0.05 per Share

 

Fed has approved BAC's revised capital plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you Moynihan!

 

I don't give a rat's arse about signalling to stupid Wall Street - create value for shareholders - i.e. buy back your undervalued stock you muppet!

 

C.

 

+1

 

Ah, the eternal argument......

 

I am happy the dividend is approved.... Finally.  The faster the stock goes up the more I make.  I dont give a rat's ass about buybacks.  And, do you think the average endowment or pension fund cares about buybacks?  They want the dividend and they are the ones that ultimately buy my undervalued stock. 

 

One more puzzle piece to finally free the stock to trade on its earnings. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn you Moynihan!

 

I don't give a rat's arse about signalling to stupid Wall Street - create value for shareholders - i.e. buy back your undervalued stock you muppet!

 

C.

 

+1

 

Ah, the eternal argument......

 

I am happy the dividend is approved.... Finally.  The faster the stock goes up the more I make.  I dont give a rat's ass about buybacks.  And, do you think the average endowment or pension fund cares about buybacks?  They want the dividend and they are the ones that ultimately buy my undervalued stock. 

 

One more puzzle piece to finally free the stock to trade on its earnings.

 

This line of thinking is exactly why I started this thread. It just doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Moynihan/BAC management has much say in the capital return. Most analysts expected a reduced buyback, maybe $2-3 billion, but apparently BAC didn't even ask for one. I bet the Fed told them not to "ask" for one. Just like how their previous buyback could not all be executed immediately when the stock price was substantially below tangible book and could only be executed at the end of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me.  They over-estimated their capital levels by $4Bn, so, they reduced their share buyback from $4Bn to $0. 

 

The good news is, 2013-2014, they've dedicate maybe $2.6Bn to dividends, $5-$6Bn to buying back shares and $5.5Bn to buying preferreds.  And the 5c dividend gives them plenty of room to increase dividends slightly while bumping buybacks substantially ... if they can actually make some real profits. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Moynihan/BAC management has much say in the capital return. Most analysts expected a reduced buyback, maybe $2-3 billion, but apparently BAC didn't even ask for one. I bet the Fed told them not to "ask" for one. Just like how their previous buyback could not all be executed immediately when the stock price was substantially below tangible book and could only be executed at the end of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me.  They over-estimated their capital levels by $4Bn, so, they reduced their share buyback from $4Bn to $0. 

 

The good news is, 2013-2014, they've dedicate maybe $2.6Bn to dividends, $5-$6Bn to buying back shares and $5.5Bn to buying preferreds.  And the 5c dividend gives them plenty of room to increase dividends slightly while bumping buybacks substantially ... if they can actually make some real profits. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Moynihan/BAC management has much say in the capital return. Most analysts expected a reduced buyback, maybe $2-3 billion, but apparently BAC didn't even ask for one. I bet the Fed told them not to "ask" for one. Just like how their previous buyback could not all be executed immediately when the stock price was substantially below tangible book and could only be executed at the end of the year.

 

I imagine that to be the case.  This whole  game playing is designed to give the illusion that the banks are being regulated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...