mankap Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Thanks Claphands22 for posting the analyst's report. Analyst's estimate for 2013 TBV is 14.65. Q4 2012 TBV is 13.34. This is around 10% jump yoy. This is after BAC will spend $5B on buyback. Is the analyst assuming release from the reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324373204578376531266911080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection Bank's Board Reveals a New Normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/03/25/business/25reuters-bankofamerica-ceopay-stock.html?src=busln BofA's Moynihan to Hold Stock Longer in New Pay Policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/moynihan-says-he-d-like-to-be-bofa-chief-rest-of-his-life.html Moynihan Says He’d Like to Be BofA Chief Rest of His Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescobrk Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 He says be will buy below book value. I thought that was interesting he didn't say tangible. It looks like the dividends people are wanting have a ways to wait, jeez book is 20.24 and growing. Below tbv is a no brainer but I'm not a huge fan of buying shares at 20. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/moynihan-says-he-d-like-to-be-bofa-chief-rest-of-his-life.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 He says be will buy below book value. I thought that was interesting he didn't say tangible. It looks like the dividends people are wanting have a ways to wait, jeez book is 20.24 and growing. Below tbv is a no brainer but I'm not a huge fan of buying shares at 20. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/moynihan-says-he-d-like-to-be-bofa-chief-rest-of-his-life.html I feel like buying back shares at less than 10x normalized earnings isn't a terrible use of capital. Also, if you are using LEAPs, the dividends are no fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 He says be will buy below book value. I thought that was interesting he didn't say tangible. It looks like the dividends people are wanting have a ways to wait, jeez book is 20.24 and growing. Below tbv is a no brainer but I'm not a huge fan of buying shares at 20. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/moynihan-says-he-d-like-to-be-bofa-chief-rest-of-his-life.html Note that a direct quote wasn't available in the article. All I see is this: The CEO will use his firm’s earnings to help repurchase shares as long as they are trading for less than book value, he said. As litigation costs and other expenses subside, the company’s earnings power will be evident, he said. He isn't saying that dividends won't be increased until the stock hits book. In my opinion, he is just saying that the stock is quite attractive below book, and it could be a part of the total capital returns to shareholders until the stock hits book. There is a big difference there. Dividends will clearly be increased. It is a bank stock, not a tech company. Dividends will be a part of the equation. As for the LEAPs, I'm split on whether dividends or buybacks are better. Sure on the one hand, returning capital to the common comes at the expense of underlying capital callable to the LEAPs, but on the other hand, the market is starved for yield and the shares are certain to go up with a big increase in dividends. Still, it seems the fastest money will come to the LEAPs with big dividends due to the signal it sends to the market. It is somewhat counter intuitive as dividends reduce the capital base. Of course the warrants solve the conflict, but the LEAPs might offer faster returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Why isn't it good to buy shares back at $20? Why would you even be a shareholder anymore if the shares at that price aren't an effective use of capital? Don't you need to put your money where your mouth is and sell your shares if your capital is no longer "effectively" deployed at that price? Surely, if the capital gains taxes are stopping you from selling at $20, then for the life of me I can't figure out why you'd prefer a taxable dividend (where you get taxed on 100% of the payment, versus just a portion being taxed as a capital gain). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Of course the warrants solve the conflict, but the LEAPs might offer faster returns. The next round of LEAPS issued will be cheaper once a regular dividend is restored. Stocks with the highest regular dividend payouts usually have extremely cheap LEAPS (loss of dividend is priced in). The way the warrants are priced it seems clear that what you are doing is actually buying that dividend upfront -- an estimate of a future dividend is capitalized into the price of the warrants. This makes sense given that the market isn't going to sell a product with dividend protection without asking for some kind of a premium. So with the LEAPS at least you get that dividend tax-free (you get it by never having to pay for it in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xazp Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not sure what Moynihan is talking about here: "“You can’t dilute your shareholders when your price is down,” Moynihan said, referring to the process of selling additional shares." He did dilute shareholders when the price is down. The Buffett deal was a big dilution. He sold $5Bn of shares at $7. This year, he has authorization to buy back $5Bn shares but he'll buy at a price closer to $14. So he diluted in 2011 and it probably won't be until 2014 when he gets BAC to where we started 2011. If you think for example that BAC will be a $28 stock in 2021, then Buffett is going to have made $15Bn off this one mistake. That's way more expensive than the JPM whale, or even the entire Countrywide settlement. More expensive than MBIA, more expensive than their foreclosure settlement. They could have paid for the entire bail-out of Cyprus with this money. I'm not sure why you guys give him a pass on this. Can never support Moynihan for that reason alone. Of course the warrants solve the conflict, but the LEAPs might offer faster returns. The next round of LEAPS issued will be cheaper once a regular dividend is restored. Stocks with the highest regular dividend payouts usually have extremely cheap LEAPS (loss of dividend is priced in). The way the warrants are priced it seems clear that what you are doing is actually buying that dividend upfront -- an estimate of a future dividend is capitalized into the price of the warrants. This makes sense given that the market isn't going to sell a product with dividend protection without asking for some kind of a premium. So with the LEAPS at least you get that dividend tax-free (you get it by never having to pay for it in the first place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not sure what Moynihan is talking about here: "“You can’t dilute your shareholders when your price is down,” Moynihan said, referring to the process of selling additional shares." He did dilute shareholders when the price is down. The Buffett deal was a big dilution. He sold $5Bn of shares at $7. This year, he has authorization to buy back $5Bn shares but he'll buy at a price closer to $14. So he diluted in 2011 and it probably won't be until 2014 when he gets BAC to where we started 2011. If you think for example that BAC will be a $28 stock in 2021, then Buffett is going to have made $15Bn off this one mistake. That's way more expensive than the JPM whale, or even the entire Countrywide settlement. More expensive than MBIA, more expensive than their foreclosure settlement. They could have paid for the entire bail-out of Cyprus with this money. I'm not sure why you guys give him a pass on this. Can never support Moynihan for that reason alone. Reference points matter. It's difficult to say what would have happened in late 2011 had Moynihan not agreed to the Buffett deal. Banks are one of the few types of companies in the world that exhibit reflexivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claphands22 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Moynihan would have been better off telling Buffett "no thanks" and sending out a press release saying Buffett offered money but we rejected it because we have enough capital. That way you get the Buffett stamp of approval for free. A little dishonest? Maybe, but better than being hosed by Uncle Warren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Moynihan would have been better off telling Buffett "no thanks" ..... Probably should have, but there was the intangible benefit of knowing that once Warren had invested 5 bn, he may have been good for more if the shit hit the fan. Warren is like a one man GE Capital. In fact he became the GE Capital for GE Capital. He has to be one of the toughest business people around. "I'll give you 5 billion, if you want... now here are my terms" - sobbing heard in background from BAC BOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not sure what Moynihan is talking about here: "“You can’t dilute your shareholders when your price is down,” Moynihan said, referring to the process of selling additional shares." He did dilute shareholders when the price is down. The Buffett deal was a big dilution. He sold $5Bn of shares at $7. This year, he has authorization to buy back $5Bn shares but he'll buy at a price closer to $14. So he diluted in 2011 and it probably won't be until 2014 when he gets BAC to where we started 2011. If you think for example that BAC will be a $28 stock in 2021, then Buffett is going to have made $15Bn off this one mistake. That's way more expensive than the JPM whale, or even the entire Countrywide settlement. More expensive than MBIA, more expensive than their foreclosure settlement. They could have paid for the entire bail-out of Cyprus with this money. I'm not sure why you guys give him a pass on this. Can never support Moynihan for that reason alone. Of course the warrants solve the conflict, but the LEAPs might offer faster returns. The next round of LEAPS issued will be cheaper once a regular dividend is restored. Stocks with the highest regular dividend payouts usually have extremely cheap LEAPS (loss of dividend is priced in). The way the warrants are priced it seems clear that what you are doing is actually buying that dividend upfront -- an estimate of a future dividend is capitalized into the price of the warrants. This makes sense given that the market isn't going to sell a product with dividend protection without asking for some kind of a premium. So with the LEAPS at least you get that dividend tax-free (you get it by never having to pay for it in the first place). He was saying that in reference to things they've learned...that capital base and liquidity matter most...so that they don't have to dilute shareholders again when the shit hits the fan. He pointed out that now he has a ton of work to do to reduce that share count because of the error of his predecessors in not maintaining better liquidity, higher capital and avoiding non-core/undesireable business. He's not the most charismatic or well-spoken banking executive out there, but he knows his stuff and he knows what it's going to take to build the reputation back. He's definitely a numbers guy, so you hear him sometimes run off data and mumble answers. What he's done so far is pretty darn amazing, because the bank should not be standing. As long as he continues to focus on the right things I'm 100% behind him! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcollon Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Here's the link to the video if anyone missed the live showing. http://www.charlierose.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Here's the link to the video if anyone missed the live showing. http://www.charlierose.com/ Thanks, I was waiting for it to be published online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luck Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 thx for the link. is it just me or does brian moynihan in this video look and talk like robin williams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Moynihan would have been better off telling Buffett "no thanks" and sending out a press release saying Buffett offered money but we rejected it because we have enough capital. That way you get the Buffett stamp of approval for free. A little dishonest? Maybe, but better than being hosed by Uncle Warren. You would rather the guy running your company be dishonest rather than honestly play the hand he was dealt? We may have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Moynihan would have been better off telling Buffett "no thanks" and sending out a press release saying Buffett offered money but we rejected it because we have enough capital. That way you get the Buffett stamp of approval for free. A little dishonest? Maybe, but better than being hosed by Uncle Warren. You would rather the guy running your company be dishonest rather than honestly play the hand he was dealt? We may have to agree to disagree. Pardon me for interjecting, but what is dishonest about that scenario? Did Warren offer the deal or did BOA to go him? Has that ever been published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhdousa Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Moynihan would have been better off telling Buffett "no thanks" and sending out a press release saying Buffett offered money but we rejected it because we have enough capital. That way you get the Buffett stamp of approval for free. A little dishonest? Maybe, but better than being hosed by Uncle Warren. You would rather the guy running your company be dishonest rather than honestly play the hand he was dealt? We may have to agree to disagree. Pardon me for interjecting, but what is dishonest about that scenario? Did Warren offer the deal or did BOA to go him? Has that ever been published? On the Charlie Rose interview, Rose said WEB told him that the idea of calling Moynihan came to him while he was lying in his bathtub. The story went something like: BM: "But Warren, we don't need the money." WEB: "If you needed the money, I wouldn't be calling you!" I thought the Charlie Rose interview was great. Really made it clear for me why so many of you are so excited about BAC's future with Moynihan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasi Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-latest-bold-bet-from-the-400-man-2013-03-28?dist=beforebell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
value-is-what-you-get Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 thx for the link. is it just me or does brian moynihan in this video look and talk like robin williams? I didn't notice that - besides I could never listen to Robin Williams for 45+ minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 thx for the link. is it just me or does brian moynihan in this video look and talk like robin williams? Do all people or Irish descent look the same to you? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berkshiremystery Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 BAC's board of directors has instituted a new policy that will more closely align the goals of the CEO and the management with its shareholders, so everybody is in the same boat. Under the new rules all members of senior management are now required to hold a certain number of shares until one year after retirement. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1306151-bank-of-america-the-grown-ups-are-back-in-charge?source=yahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 If I heard it correctly , he mentioned that buyback will start in 2Q. 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