Jump to content

BAC-WT - Bank of America Warrants


ValueBuff

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

I'm guessing he's using 12.4% tier 1 = 161b so 1% excess (6% less 5% required) is about 12.9b.

 

It looks to me that BAC can return a max of approximately $13 billion.  Hopefully will be $10 billion in buybacks.

 

What numbers are you using to get to the 13 billion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Posted by: Rabbitisrich

« on: Today at 01:28:38 PM » Insert Quote

Looks like BAC PTPP is being impacted by adverse litigation and putback expenses in the most adverse scenario.

 

 

Do you mean the 7.1 b in the other column if the severe adverse scenario?

 

I think he's referring to the PTPP # of 31.4 on page 38/162. That number is through Q42015. It includes: "1 Pre-provision net revenue includes losses from operational-risk events, mortgage repurchase expenses, and other real estate owned (OREO) costs."

 

As a comparison WFC is 50.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Posted by: Rabbitisrich

« on: Today at 01:28:38 PM » Insert Quote

Looks like BAC PTPP is being impacted by adverse litigation and putback expenses in the most adverse scenario.

 

 

Do you mean the 7.1 b in the other column if the severe adverse scenario?

 

That other column looks like the change in fair value for available for sale loans. My guess is that the weak projected PPNR, in the most adverse scenario, is mostly due to BAC's litigation and putback developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm guessing he's using 12.4% tier 1 = 161b so 1% excess (6% less 5% required) is about 12.9b.

 

It looks to me that BAC can return a max of approximately $13 billion.  Hopefully will be $10 billion in buybacks.

 

What numbers are you using to get to the 13 billion?

 

I was looking at the Fed's estimate of risk weighted assets after severely adverse scenario of approximately 1,300 billion.  Since the Fed came up with 6% tier 1 common ratio in severely adverse scenario, they have about 1% of excess capital or $13B (1,300*0.01)  I'm sure they'll end up being on the conservative side with the capital ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm guessing he's using 12.4% tier 1 = 161b so 1% excess (6% less 5% required) is about 12.9b.

 

It looks to me that BAC can return a max of approximately $13 billion.  Hopefully will be $10 billion in buybacks.

 

What numbers are you using to get to the 13 billion?

 

I was looking at the Fed's estimate of risk weighted assets after severely adverse scenario of approximately 1,300 billion.  Since the Fed came up with 6% tier 1 common ratio in severely adverse scenario, they have about 1% of excess capital or $13B (1,300*0.01)  I'm sure they'll end up being on the conservative side with the capital ask.

 

I see, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something doesn't make sense to me when I compare 2013 to 2014 results.

2014

Net Income under severe adverse scenario: -49.1

Actual Q3 2013 Tier 1 common ratio: 11.1%

Projected minimum Tier 1 common ratio: 6.0%

 

Change in Tier 1 common ratio: -5.1%

Projected risk weighted assets: 1,319.5

Calculated change in Tier 1 common capital: -5.1%*1,319.5= -67

 

2013

Net Income under severe adverse scenario: -51.8

Actual Q3 2012 Tier 1 common ratio: 11.4%

Projected minimum Tier 1 common ratio: 6.8%

 

Change in Tier 1 common ratio: -4.6%

Projected risk weighted assets: ? (use Q3 2012 RWA of 1,195.7)

Calculated change in Tier 1 common capital: -4.6%*1,195.7= -55


 

Not sure what I'm missing, but the drop in the tier 1 common ratio seems a bit too high given the loss numbers given. The loss is in the same ball park across the two years and the RWA has gone up in 2014 over 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something doesn't make sense to me when I compare 2013 to 2014 results.

2014

Net Income under severe adverse scenario: -49.1

Actual Q3 2013 Tier 1 common ratio: 11.1%

Projected minimum Tier 1 common ratio: 6.0%

 

Change in Tier 1 common ratio: -5.1%

Projected risk weighted assets: 1,319.5

Calculated change in Tier 1 common capital: -5.1%*1,319.5= -67

 

2013

Net Income under severe adverse scenario: -51.8

Actual Q3 2012 Tier 1 common ratio: 11.4%

Projected minimum Tier 1 common ratio: 6.8%

 

Change in Tier 1 common ratio: -4.6%

Projected risk weighted assets: ? (use Q3 2012 RWA of 1,195.7)

Calculated change in Tier 1 common capital: -4.6%*1,195.7= -55


 

Not sure what I'm missing, but the drop in the tier 1 common ratio seems a bit too high given the loss numbers given. The loss is in the same ball park across the two years and the RWA has gone up in 2014 over 2013.

 

I guess if I take the difference of 0.4% in terms of the delta change in the tier 1 common ratio's in the severe adverse scenario times the projected RWA of 1,319.5 it's about 5.3bln. So it's not too off.

 

I'm a bit disappointed the minimum came in so low. The severe adverse scenario must be much worse than 2013's test.

 

EDIT:

I just read the executive summary from the Federal Reserve stress test results and it all makes much more sense as to what's going on with the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are BAC's supervisory results. It's posted on it's IR website:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTM3MjMyfENoaWxkSUQ9MjI1ODcwfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

 


 

Here is a comparison of BAC's supervisory results from 2013 & 2014

 

2014

Q3 2013 Tier 1 common Ratio: 11.1%

 

Supervisory severe adverse Tier 1 common ratio minimum: 8.6%

% change: -2.5%

 

2013

Q3 2012 Tier 1 common Ratio: 11.4%

 

Supervisory severe adverse Tier 1 common ratio minimum: 7.7%

% change: -3.7%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange how big the difference in stress test results there are between the Fed results and BAC's results in their presentation.  I guess the Fed really put the screws on in their tests.  JP Morgan's and the Fed's are much closer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange how big the difference in stress test results there are between the Fed results and BAC's results in their presentation.  I guess the Fed really put the screws on in their tests.  JP Morgan's and the Fed's are much closer...

 

Agreed.  Very disappointing.  It's hard for me to imagine BAC is in worse shape this year than they were a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange how big the difference in stress test results there are between the Fed results and BAC's results in their presentation.  I guess the Fed really put the screws on in their tests.  JP Morgan's and the Fed's are much closer...

 

Agreed.  Very disappointing.  It's hard for me to imagine BAC is in worse shape this year than they were a year ago.

 

BAC is further up the field than they were a year ago, but it appears that the goal post has been moved.  This isn't a problem, long term anyway, as long as the severe adverse scenario never actually happens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange how big the difference in stress test results there are between the Fed results and BAC's results in their presentation. 

 

 

Perhaps BAC expects cost reductions that the Fed isn't accounting for?  Multiplied by two years it gets big.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems strange how big the difference in stress test results there are between the Fed results and BAC's results in their presentation. 

 

 

Perhaps BAC expects cost reductions that the Fed isn't accounting for?  Multiplied by two years it gets big.

 

Big difference is in the projected loan losses.

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...