BAC-WT - Bank of America Warrants

[hardincap]

His estimates don't seem that out of line compared to Moynihan's $35-40b in normalized pre-tax income? It's interesting to see where we are now, vs. what people thought a year ago, and what people think now about "normal" vs. what Moynihan said last March:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/09/bank-of-america-investor-day-five-takeaways/

 

And the passing of 12 months hasn't led Moynihan to change his estimate at all.  He said $35b-$40b pre-tax income in March 2011, and he reiterated those same numbers in March 2012 -- he is sticking by his $35b-$40b pre-tax income numbers.

 

So Moynihan didn't change his story over the past 12 months.  He has had a lot of time to think about it, learn the company better... yet no change in his conclusion.

 

So $35b-$40b is the number I'm going with too.  I'll take his estimate over the rest of the analysts out there.

 

He made the comment at the Citigroup Financial Conference on 3/8/12:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/bac-longs-already-know-this/msg71351/#msg71351

 

I don't know where to find the video anymore.

 

The trouble is we wont be in a "normal" environment for a long while. People have to get used to "new normal" subpar growth from here, as Charlie Munger and Bill Grows says.  Revenues have collapsed in all of BAC's businesses--not just due to higher mortgage related provisioning, but credit card rules, poor investment banking climate, etc.

 

It's interesting he mentioned 35-40bn number, because during one of the conf calls last year when someone asked him that question he sidestepped it, saying something to the effect of the economy is running poorer than he anticipated.

[txlaw]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/business/bank-of-america-settlement-in-lawsuit-is-challenged.html?_r=1&hpw

 

laywers can't get enough fees

 

So where are we? Comments? Misses?

 

GSEs: Settled. But Fannie asking to putback mortgage with failing insurance.

Private Label: Article 77 to go.

Monolines: AGO settled, MBIA and AMBAC to go

Foreclosure/Robosigning: Most AGs Settled, a couple of AGs to go.

Merrill Acquisition: settled

AIG: in process, but far cry.

FHFA: just starting

 

Wish the lawyers were a publicly trade company.  They are the real winners of this whole mess.

 

I wish some of these big law firms were publicly traded companies.  I might actually start shorting stocks for the first time ever.

[txlaw]

His estimates don't seem that out of line compared to Moynihan's $35-40b in normalized pre-tax income? It's interesting to see where we are now, vs. what people thought a year ago, and what people think now about "normal" vs. what Moynihan said last March:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/09/bank-of-america-investor-day-five-takeaways/

 

And the passing of 12 months hasn't led Moynihan to change his estimate at all.  He said $35b-$40b pre-tax income in March 2011, and he reiterated those same numbers in March 2012 -- he is sticking by his $35b-$40b pre-tax income numbers.

 

So Moynihan didn't change his story over the past 12 months.  He has had a lot of time to think about it, learn the company better... yet no change in his conclusion.

 

So $35b-$40b is the number I'm going with too.  I'll take his estimate over the rest of the analysts out there.

 

He made the comment at the Citigroup Financial Conference on 3/8/12:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/bac-longs-already-know-this/msg71351/#msg71351

 

I don't know where to find the video anymore.

 

The trouble is we wont be in a "normal" environment for a long while. People have to get used to "new normal" subpar growth from here, as Charlie Munger and Bill Grows says.  Revenues have collapsed in all of BAC's businesses--not just due to higher mortgage related provisioning, but credit card rules, poor investment banking climate, etc.

 

It's interesting he mentioned 35-40bn number, because during one of the conf calls last year when someone asked him that question he sidestepped it, saying something to the effect of the economy is running poorer than he anticipated.

 

This is precisely why BAC is such a good long term investment opportunity.  You are getting a great market price for the company based on the non-normal earnings that will show themselves after expenses and provisioning goes down, and the cross selling a la WFC starts to work. 

 

And when a normalized NIM environment does come back, people are going to be crazy-surprised by the hidden earnings power embedded in the BAC deposit franchise.  Also, I have to say that I'm getting less negative on ML the more I read about what's going on there. 

[Kraven]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/business/bank-of-america-settlement-in-lawsuit-is-challenged.html?_r=1&hpw

 

laywers can't get enough fees

 

So where are we? Comments? Misses?

 

GSEs: Settled. But Fannie asking to putback mortgage with failing insurance.

Private Label: Article 77 to go.

Monolines: AGO settled, MBIA and AMBAC to go

Foreclosure/Robosigning: Most AGs Settled, a couple of AGs to go.

Merrill Acquisition: settled

AIG: in process, but far cry.

FHFA: just starting

 

Wish the lawyers were a publicly trade company.  They are the real winners of this whole mess.

 

I wish some of these big law firms were publicly traded companies.  I might actually start shorting stocks for the first time ever.

 

There are 1 or 2 public law firms in Australia.  No idea how they've done.

[hardincap]

txlaw, when Moynihan says he intends to be basel iii compliant before doing any stock repurchases or dividend increases, is he including the SIFI buffer of 2.5%?

[benchmark]

 

This is precisely why BAC is such a good long term investment opportunity.  You are getting a great market price for the company based on the non-normal earnings that will show themselves after expenses and provisioning goes down, and the cross selling a la WFC starts to work. 

 

And when a normalized NIM environment does come back, people are going to be crazy-surprised by the hidden earnings power embedded in the BAC deposit franchise.  Also, I have to say that I'm getting less negative on ML the more I read about what's going on there.

 

The cross-selling that works wonder for WFC isn't something that BAC can master easily, I wouldn't count on that.

[hardincap]

Agree w benchmark.. Wishful thinking!

[txlaw]

txlaw, when Moynihan says he intends to be basel iii compliant before doing any stock repurchases or dividend increases, is he including the SIFI buffer of 2.5%?

 

Not sure.  Actually, didn't Moynihan say he would not up the dividend or do buybacks until he was sure the Fed would approve? 

 

Since Basel III, which includes the SIFI surcharge, is being phased in, I would assume that compliance would mean being safely on track to meet the phase in targets. 

[hardincap]

Txlaw, they are way ahead of phase in reqs. Moynihan said he wants to "blow through" Basel reqs before returning capital, but not sure he is including sifi buffer of 2.5. If so it could take a while...

[txlaw]

 

This is precisely why BAC is such a good long term investment opportunity.  You are getting a great market price for the company based on the non-normal earnings that will show themselves after expenses and provisioning goes down, and the cross selling a la WFC starts to work. 

 

And when a normalized NIM environment does come back, people are going to be crazy-surprised by the hidden earnings power embedded in the BAC deposit franchise.  Also, I have to say that I'm getting less negative on ML the more I read about what's going on there.

 

The cross-selling that works wonder for WFC isn't something that BAC can master easily, I wouldn't count on that.

 

Well, even without cross selling working, it is cheap on a non-normal earnings basis.

 

But I believe BAC will actually do quite well with cross selling, primarily because I believe in Moynihan getting the job done.  Also, the BAC deposit franchise makes BAC more likely to pull off a WFC cross selling model than any other big bank.

[txlaw]

Txlaw, they are way ahead of phase in reqs. Moynihan said he wants to "blow through" Basel reqs before returning capital, but not sure he is including sifi buffer of 2.5. If so it could take a while...

 

I should have said that BAC would probably want to more than adequately meet those milestones, including SIFI buffer -- fortress balance sheet-style. 

 

BAC said they would be at 7.5% Tier 1 ratio by EOY.  I have not been keeping track of what the phase in milestones are, but I assume that's not blowing out Basel III reqs.  But I could be wrong about that. 

 

Do you have a link to the presentation where he said he wanted to "blow through" the Basel III requirements before returning capital?  Was that in the last CC?

[enoch01]

 

Do you have a link to the presentation where he said he wanted to "blow through" the Basel III requirements before returning capital?  Was that in the last CC?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-14/pandit-repeats-moynihan-misstep-as-fed-rebuffs-citigroup.html

 

“We are not asking to change the dividend posture because, frankly, we’re close enough to Basel 3 that we just want to blow through it,” Moynihan said in a Jan. 19 staff meeting. “For 2012, we’re sticking to building back capital.”

[txlaw]

 

Do you have a link to the presentation where he said he wanted to "blow through" the Basel III requirements before returning capital?  Was that in the last CC?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-14/pandit-repeats-moynihan-misstep-as-fed-rebuffs-citigroup.html

 

“We are not asking to change the dividend posture because, frankly, we’re close enough to Basel 3 that we just want to blow through it,” Moynihan said in a Jan. 19 staff meeting. “For 2012, we’re sticking to building back capital.”

 

Thanks!

[hardincap]

txlaw, since you think the co is cheap compared to its non normal earnings, what do you estimate yearly PTPP rate to be currently?

[ERICOPOLY]

 

BAC said they would be at 7.5% Tier 1 ratio by EOY.  I have not been keeping track of what the phase in milestones are, but I assume that's not blowing out Basel III reqs.  But I could be wrong about that. 

 

 

As far as the phase in milestones, it's a complete joke.  They need to hit 3.5% by 2013.  As you read this they are likely already prepared to hit the 2017 numbers.

 

See slide 21 for the rest of the milestones:

 

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDQ3ODAyfENoaWxkSUQ9NDcxNjkzfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

 

They are now saying "above 7.5%" by end of 2012 per latest CC. 

[ERICOPOLY]

His estimates don't seem that out of line compared to Moynihan's $35-40b in normalized pre-tax income? It's interesting to see where we are now, vs. what people thought a year ago, and what people think now about "normal" vs. what Moynihan said last March:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/03/09/bank-of-america-investor-day-five-takeaways/

 

And the passing of 12 months hasn't led Moynihan to change his estimate at all.  He said $35b-$40b pre-tax income in March 2011, and he reiterated those same numbers in March 2012 -- he is sticking by his $35b-$40b pre-tax income numbers.

 

So Moynihan didn't change his story over the past 12 months.  He has had a lot of time to think about it, learn the company better... yet no change in his conclusion.

 

So $35b-$40b is the number I'm going with too.  I'll take his estimate over the rest of the analysts out there.

 

He made the comment at the Citigroup Financial Conference on 3/8/12:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/bac-longs-already-know-this/msg71351/#msg71351

 

I don't know where to find the video anymore.

 

The trouble is we wont be in a "normal" environment for a long while. People have to get used to "new normal" subpar growth from here, as Charlie Munger and Bill Grows says.  Revenues have collapsed in all of BAC's businesses--not just due to higher mortgage related provisioning, but credit card rules, poor investment banking climate, etc.

 

It's interesting he mentioned 35-40bn number, because during one of the conf calls last year when someone asked him that question he sidestepped it, saying something to the effect of the economy is running poorer than he anticipated.

 

I agree environment won't be normal for a while.  However I think he is being conservative in the 35-40bn number in that he (I don't believe) is not adding in any gains from cross selling success.

[sswan11]

VIC write-up.  Probably some have already seen:

 

http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/60745

 

 

The long case for Bank of America is not novel and was last formulated here by sag301 in June when the stock traded $10.60. Since then, BAC is down ~50% without a fundamental change to the thesis.

 

The upside is well understood and was advertised by Paulson, Berkowitz to be $3/share earnings power and a $30 stock price at 10x earnings, when earnings recover. With the implementation of various pernicious pieces of legislation (Durbin, Dodd-Frank, etc) and minor dilution from the Buffett deal and the recent preferred exchanges, the per-share earnings power has certainly decreased and been pushed out. With the fed’s rejection of BAC’s dividend request, returns of capital are no longer a short-term catalyst but, I would argue, do not change the intrinsic value of the franchise. A more realistic upside today would be closer to $1.50-2.00 EPS without increased interest rates, which translates to a $15-$20 stock if/when uncertainty over capital and legacy losses.

 

The downside comes from the prospect of highly dilutive 08-style capital raises forced upon Bank of America by regulators at the most inopportune time. Unlike the salad oil crisis at American Express, the downside is highly unlikely to be worse than $0 in the common. This is an extreme case, as even in extreme 2008 conditions, having a thin common equity cushion, BAC equity was not completely wiped out. To be intellectually honest, however, any ”believer” must admit that there are scenarios under which current BAC common is nearly wiped out a-la AIG.

 

If the upside is a $20 stock and the downside is highly dilutive capital raises at the most inopportune time, reward is 4x and risk is -100%. For purposes of analysis BAC can be thought of as a binary situation that boils down to whether the bank needs to raise expensive equity capital at very bad prices. In reality, of course, between the upside and downside cases lies a probability distribution of outcomes for equity holders. Everyone saw this with the Buffett preferred, which will increase the outstanding share count beyond the 10.1bn shares assumed by Paulson, but which clearly still makes BAC a home run if the final share count is 10.8bn after Warren exercises his warrant.

 

To tilt the odds further in our favor and take advantage of the asymmetry of the bet, we are buying a LEAP call spread between $7 and $12, expiring January 2014. The spread can currently be bought for under $1.00 per share  - the ask on $7 calls is $1.38 and bid on $12 calls is $0.41, so worst case cost of $0.97. If the stock trades $12 or above, the spread will mature at $5 in two years, earning a 5x return.  If the stock is below $7, the loss is 100%, and the break-even is $8.00.

 

This bet is not without historical precedent. In November 1992, Joel Greenblatt read an article in the OID where Bruce Berkowitz (then at Lehman) made a passionate case for his thesis on Wells Fargo (that article is here: http://www.fairholmefunds.com/pdf/oid1992.pdf). The abridged math for Wells at the time was: stock at $61, normalized pretax preprovision earnings of $36 per share, $30 normalized pretax, $18 normalized EPS, $180+ stock after recovery.

 

After seeing the article, Greenblatt had the insight to make the bet even more asymmetric.  He explained his options bet in “You Can Be A Stock Market Genius”, excerpt at http://www.scribd.com/doc/67041669/Excerpt-WFC-leaps. Simply put, he recognized that there *was* a possibility that Berkowitz and Buffett were wrong on Wells and that a confluence of a more severe California recession and company-specific issues could tank Wells, saying “but still—a bank is a funny animal. You never really know exactly what makes up its loan portfolio.”  Although he ascribed a low probability to the downside case, he structured his investment through 2-year LEAPSs struck at $80 per share, paying $14 in premium with the stock at the time trading at $77.

 

I am reluctant to conflate the thesis for 1992 WFC with 2012 BAC.  The problems at BAC today are different than those at Wells in the early 90s.  Unlike 1992 Wells, which gave details of real estate occupancy and cash flow, Bank of America does not provide the loan book transparency to allow investors to get supremely comfortable with the economics of the underlying collateral. Global regulators weren’t trying to overshoot on capital requirements. Wells was not facing the uncertainty of reps & warranties litigation, mortgage putbacks, etc.

 

At the same time, Bank of America has several very positive attributes today that make this bet very positive in expected value.  After all, we need a 20% probability of a 5x return for it to start to make sense and think the odds are significantly better than that.

 

The math at BAC is actually better in some respects than the math of the 1992 Wells thesis. With the stock at $5.60 and current pretax preprovision earnings over $3 per share (Moynihan cited $8.9bn as the quarterly number), investors pay under 2x PTPP.  Normalized earnings are higher, as the company is spending over $2bn a quarter cleaning up the mortgage mess, which translates to an additional $0.80 pretax earnings.  At over $13 in tangible book and a Merrill Lynch business that is less capital intensive, we can easily see BAC trading north of $12 in two years, which is all we need for our bet to be a home run.

 

The bears would argue that the company needs more capital and will be forced to raise it (without putting forth specific math for why they think more capital is needed).  This static argument ignores the fact that Bank of America has options at its disposal, such as a bankruptcy of Countrywide, the issuance of tracking stock for MER, accretive sales of business units, and the further shrinking of its risk weighted assets to meet Basel III on an accelerated schedule, if push came to shove.

 

Importantly, despite repeated assurance that significant equity dilution is not necessary, BAC could issue a lot of equity and *still* do well for common holders.  As a mathematical exercise, it is instructive to run the math on a doubling of the share count at current prices.  If BAC issued 10 billion shares at $5.50, it would raise $55bn of equity and have 20 billion shares outstanding. Its tangible book per share would be diluted to about $9.30 per share, which would grow above $10 over 2 years through retained earnings. This would make BAC the best capitalized large bank in the country and it could still earn over $1 per share in a normalized environment.  There is, of course, the nightmare scenario that a capital raise would be forced with the stock at $1, in which case the math is very unpleasant (and why we prefer the options bet to the common).

 

It is also interesting to look at the sum of the parts of the various businesses BAC acquired over the years.  For example, Merrill through the 90s and before the beginning of the housing boom earned $2-5bn pretax (depending on the year) and is likely worth more under BofA. Our conversations with individual wealth advisors suggest anecdotally that the potential book of business is much bigger today through cross-selling opportunities to existing BofA clients. Within BofA, the Merrill businesses are allocated $40bn of equity and earn mid-teens returns on equity, which is roughly worth today’s entire BAC market cap. Similarly, MBNA earned over $2bn pretax before being acquired for $35bn. For those interested, BAC in its 2011 investor day lay out the normalized metrics on the cards business, and the returns are very high even after including Durbin impacts.

 

For our bet to be a home run, we need a stock price of $12 by January of 2014. 2 years is a long time for a number of catalysts to play out, including less legacy mortgage issue uncertainty, investor confidence that banks will have a phased-in period of meeting Basel III + SIFI, improved economy, etc.  Meanwhile, BAC organically generates a significant amount of capital (estimates of over $2 per share in combined 2012+2013 earnings). Simply put, if investors figure out that the “worst is over” and BAC has over $14 in tangible book, with earnings power of $1.50-$2 per share, we have a hard time seeing the stock below $8 (our break-even) and can easily get to north of $12.

[hardincap]

sswan11,

 

"current pretax preprovision earnings over $3 per share (Moynihan cited $8.9bn as the quarterly number"

 

this is Q2 number, before bac's businesses got whacked bigtime.

 

 

[PlanMaestro]

this is Q2 number, before bac's businesses got whacked bigtime.

 

hardincap, did you read Eric's comment on how the reps and warranties reserve was accounted and my comment about undisclosed reserves? BAC's business has not changed that much with the exception of the fight with Fannie.

[hardincap]

i think you need to read the quarterly numbers better, specifically, card services and global banking & markets

[txlaw]

txlaw, since you think the co is cheap compared to its non normal earnings, what do you estimate yearly PTPP rate to be currently?

 

To be clear, when I say non-normal earnings, I include expense reductions that I think will occur over the next five years, include returns on incrementally invested capital that is generated through core ops and rationalization/freeing up of capital from non-core ops and assets, exclude accounting issues such as debt valuation adjustments, and adjust for segments that currently bleed cash like CRES.  All conservative estimates and I like to look at ranges of outcomes.

 

But I also assume a "not normal" macroeconomic environment.  In other words, the way I have valued BAC for my own purposes, I assume a compressed NIM for a long time and very little bounce back in income from i-banking activities and other non-interest income such as card services.  I also don't factor in cross selling success.

 

But I'm still looking out five years from now, so I don't really feel that current annualized PTPP means much in the analysis.  Suffice it to say I can see BAC easily hitting the $35b number five years from now if we get to a normalized macro environment and even if we don't get to a normalized macro environment.  10% ROE is not a fantasy, IMO.

[PlanMaestro]

i think you need to read the quarterly numbers better, specifically, card services and global banking & markets

 

Thanks for the short view advice.

[hardincap]

i think you need to read the quarterly numbers better, specifically, card services and global banking & markets

 

Thanks for the short view advice.

 

Just making sure u have your "facts" straight

 

Before you delude yourself, remind yourself that all bad ideas are born good. Collapsing revenues need to be critically examined not brushed aside just because it's a "short view"

[hardincap]

txlaw, since you think the co is cheap compared to its non normal earnings, what do you estimate yearly PTPP rate to be currently?

 

To be clear, when I say non-normal earnings, I include expense reductions that I think will occur over the next five years, include returns on incrementally invested capital that is generated through core ops and rationalization/freeing up of capital from non-core ops and assets, exclude accounting issues such as debt valuation adjustments, and adjust for segments that currently bleed cash like CRES.  All conservative estimates and I like to look at ranges of outcomes.

 

But I also assume a "not normal" macroeconomic environment.  In other words, the way I have valued BAC for my own purposes, I assume a compressed NIM for a long time and very little bounce back in income from i-banking activities and other non-interest income such as card services.  I also don't factor in cross selling success.

 

But I'm still looking out five years from now, so I don't really feel that current annualized PTPP means much in the analysis.  Suffice it to say I can see BAC easily hitting the $35b number five years from now if we get to a normalized macro environment and even if we don't get to a normalized macro environment.  10% ROE is not a fantasy, IMO.

 

We all agree bac is cheap on a normalized basis but you haven't answered why it's cheap on today's nonnormal basis.

[hardincap]

Sorry if I'm being a pain. I'd like to challenge some of the long views in this forum bc they seem a bit facile to me. Just bc berkowitz is long doesn't mean it's a good investment. I have my suspicions about berkowitz. And no, Buffett isn't long. At his terms he pretty much got a gift.