rogermunibond Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 SJ - I think that's always been the tax treatment for strike price adjustments. Most people probably didn't do it though, I didn't. I think adding it, makes it harder to forget. Did any other Canucks notice that the IRS has now put in place a withholding tax on the strike price adjustment for convertible securities such as BAC-WT? For the longest time, it was a nice gig to essentially convert BAC's dividend into a lower-taxed capital gain to be realized when the warrants are disposed. Since there is no cash dividend paid to me, it looks like I'll actually have to pony up some cash every time a divvy is issued. I guess all good things must end! SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 SJ - I think that's always been the tax treatment for strike price adjustments. Most people probably didn't do it though, I didn't. I think adding it, makes it harder to forget. Did any other Canucks notice that the IRS has now put in place a withholding tax on the strike price adjustment for convertible securities such as BAC-WT? For the longest time, it was a nice gig to essentially convert BAC's dividend into a lower-taxed capital gain to be realized when the warrants are disposed. Since there is no cash dividend paid to me, it looks like I'll actually have to pony up some cash every time a divvy is issued. I guess all good things must end! SJ Really? I don't think I've ever seen anything from the Canada Revenue Agency which would argue for any other tax treatment than an ultimate capital gain. The treatment for US tax filers has always been clear, and now there's a withholding tax. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I'm a US payer, but in the past the IRS didn't have a withholding tax on the strike price adj. I think that's new for 2017. SJ - I think that's always been the tax treatment for strike price adjustments. Most people probably didn't do it though, I didn't. I think adding it, makes it harder to forget. Did any other Canucks notice that the IRS has now put in place a withholding tax on the strike price adjustment for convertible securities such as BAC-WT? For the longest time, it was a nice gig to essentially convert BAC's dividend into a lower-taxed capital gain to be realized when the warrants are disposed. Since there is no cash dividend paid to me, it looks like I'll actually have to pony up some cash every time a divvy is issued. I guess all good things must end! SJ Really? I don't think I've ever seen anything from the Canada Revenue Agency which would argue for any other tax treatment than an ultimate capital gain. The treatment for US tax filers has always been clear, and now there's a withholding tax. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drzola Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 StubbleJumper can you post or lead me and possible other Canuck's who may want verify and view the actual IRS tax act amendment please? :'( Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StubbleJumper Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 StubbleJumper can you post or lead me and possible other Canuck's who may want verify and view the actual IRS tax act amendment please? :'( Thanks! This is what is posted to RBC Direct Investing's website: Information Centre 30 Mar 2017 Printable Version Click here for a printer friendly version of this page. (opens new window) Read Message Subject:IRS Rule Section 305© Regarding U.S. Convertible Securities Date:23 Mar 2017 at 11:09 AM ET The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has recently clarified U.S. withholding tax requirements for deemed dividends associated with convertible securities (bonds, preferred shares, warrants). Under Section 305©, a change in the version ratio of a convertible security is treated as a deemed dividend to the holder of the security. Where a deemed dividend is associated with securities held by a non-U.S. person, it is subject to withholding tax at the statutory rate of 30% (or 15% for accounts that are documented for U.S. purposes). Please note that these transactions are deemed dividends, not actual dividend payments. As a result, the withholding tax may be recovered by debiting the applicable account. To learn more about IRS Rule Section 305©, please visit the IRS website or speak to a qualified tax professional. Canucks are non-US persons, so that leads me to believe that we'll have a 15% withholding tax if we've filled out our W8-Ben form, or perhaps 30% for those who have not filled out that form. I stuffed my TFSA full of warrants, so there's no avoiding the withholding tax...but at least I've made out like a bandit! SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The A Warrants are trading at $11.15 now. With the current exercise on the warrants at $12.90, these seem to be trading ridiculously cheap relative to the time premium remaining, no? Essentially I'm only paying a 45 cent premium for almost two years of optionality. Note that a Jan 2019 $13 Call is now trading for $10.85, so in my mind these warrants at a minimum are trading for a discount of about 20 cents, but the options don't provide the benefit of a potential declining exercise price. Is there something i'm missing here? Holy crap man, don't start that discussion again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBTC Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Just curious if anyone has a good answer on the issue of losses caused by rising rates to banks' fixed-income portfolios. I presume the consensus view is the impact of such losses is more than offset by higher net interest income. The bank analyst Dick Bove says otherwise. See below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dick Bove: Rising interest rates are not bullish for bank stocks Contrary to popular opinion that rising interest rates will be bullish for banks, analyst Dick Bove told CNBC on Friday the opposite is true. "What if you have $3.5 trillion worth of bonds and you increase interest rates — what happens to the value of that $3.5 trillion? It goes down. It takes the common equity of the banking industry down. It reduces the secular growth rate of the industry," the vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets said in an interview with "Closing Bell." "It is not good for banks to see interest rates go up even though you get an improvement in net interest margins and net interest income," he added. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/dick-bove-rising-interest-rates-are-not-bullish-for-bank-stocks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 he has to mean in the short-term. In the long term, it is the future profitability of the company, which is where the true value lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Bank of America Pays Peanuts for Deposits, but the Money Keeps Flowing In Ability to hold the line on rates illustrates built-in advantages of big banks https://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-america-pays-peanuts-for-deposits-but-the-money-keeps-flowing-in-1494235801 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 he has to mean in the short-term. In the long term, it is the future profitability of the company, which is where the true value lies. Yes, he is confusing short-term with long-term. In the short-term, the net interest margin should shrink as deposit rates rise and mortgage rates on existing mortgages/loans stay the same...with 9-1, 10-1 leverage that will hurt equity short-term. But what happens as those loans, mortgages renew and new ones are added. The net interest margin widens dramatically at 9-1, 10-1 leverage. So as long as rates aren't constantly rising, but rise and plateau for a few years, it proves to be quite beneficial to banks with large deposit bases and decent, but manageable leverage. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylerdurden Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 he has to mean in the short-term. In the long term, it is the future profitability of the company, which is where the true value lies. Yes, he is confusing short-term with long-term. In the short-term, the net interest margin should shrink as deposit rates rise and mortgage rates on existing mortgages/loans stay the same...with 9-1, 10-1 leverage that will hurt equity short-term. But what happens as those loans, mortgages renew and new ones are added. The net interest margin widens dramatically at 9-1, 10-1 leverage. So as long as rates aren't constantly rising, but rise and plateau for a few years, it proves to be quite beneficial to banks with large deposit bases and decent, but manageable leverage. Cheers! Isn't this an equity impact anyways? No impact on income. This means higher ROE figures actually so as long as banks aren't forced to add any substantial capital back to the business this might actually improve their return profiles as well so I don't understand why Dick Bove is making this a big deal. He has not been very consistent anyways recently so I don't give too much weight to whatever his comments are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valuehalla Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Stresstest will be out 28th June https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20170601a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valuehalla Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 How are your expectations concerning the dividend of BAC, when the stresstest will be out? Will we come back to pre-Lehman levels of app. 3,5 % dividendrate, = app. 0,80 US$ per share ? Will we see a dividend beyond the magical 0.44 US$ edge or below ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 There seems to be a lot of talk about payouts at 100% of earnings or greater. I hope it happens. Still believe share repurchases are more attractive than dividends for BAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valuehalla Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 It seems that BAC is on top of the big banks concerning price increase during the last days.. I m curious on the test ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 For BAC, watch the 10 year US treasury. They are up 7 basis points the past two days. BAC is more levered to the 10 year than the other US banks. If 10 year treasury yields start going higher in 2H (as Gundlach expects) then BAC shares will move higher (all other things being equal) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I hope you are right. That it is a discounting of the expected yield curve all encompassed within that. If it is that Mr. Market just heard about the results of the CCAR coming out and that BAC might get a ~50% bump in the approved distribution.....wow. Edit: On second thought, I hope you are wrong/over thinking it. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valuehalla Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Its out: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-ccar-assessment-framework-results-20170628.pdf All banks passed, so lets wait for the capital plans now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I calculated $30 Billion in capital payout, but they haven't announced the composition. Part of it could also be used to redeem preferred shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-releases/corporate-and-financial-news/bank-america-announces-increases-quarterly-common-stock- Bank of America today announced that the company’s Board of Directors plans to increase its quarterly common stock dividend by 60 percent to $0.12 per share, beginning in the third quarter of 2017. Also, the Board authorized the repurchase of $12 billion in common stock from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, plus repurchases to offset shares awarded under equity-based compensation plans during the same period, estimated to be approximately $0.9 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onyx1 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Looks like $12.9bln buybacks + $5.6bln dividends = $18.5bln return of capital in 2017. For all of 2016, net income was $17.9bln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 BAC will be redeem about $10 B plus of preferred from Q317 to Q218. 2016 Net income after pref divs was $16.2 B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 The pref redemption should increase earnings as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benchmark Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Looks like $12.9bln buybacks + $5.6bln dividends = $18.5bln return of capital in 2017. For all of 2016, net income was $17.9bln. Citi seems to be more aggressive in their capital returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Benchmark, strictly from a capital return perspective C has two benefits versus the other big US banks: 1.) deferred tax asset: C utilizes $2-3 billion per year. This year C is forecast to earn about $14 billion. C management estimates they will utilize about $2 billion of DTA. Together C will increase its regulatory capital by about $16 billion. 2.) C has more excess capital on its balance sheet than the other big US banks (about $15 billion) and it looks like regulators agree and are now letting them reduce this number (my guess is about $3 billion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now