Jump to content

WFC - Wells Fargo


Viking

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/press/2017/capital-plan_0628.content

 

7,8 B dividend + 11,5 B Repurchase = 19,3 B =7,1 % of the 271,5 B Marketcap

 

Please note that this is gross repurchases. The net repurchases (after stock compensation) will be significantly lower. Over the last 4 quarters, stock issued was $3.4B.

 

So net yield is, 7.8B + 8B = 15.8B = 5.8% of 271.5B market cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/press/2017/capital-plan_0628.content

 

7,8 B dividend + 11,5 B Repurchase = 19,3 B =7,1 % of the 271,5 B Marketcap

 

Please note that this is gross repurchases. The net repurchases (after stock compensation) will be significantly lower. Over the last 4 quarters, stock issued was $3.4B.

 

So net yield is, 7.8B + 8B = 15.8B = 5.8% of 271.5B market cap.

 

correct.

why WFC give out so many stock???!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From my own experience, the management is very aggressive in addressing such issues.

Last year in Oct, after shopping between BAC, JPM, WFC and my local community bank, i got a 30yr jumbo mortgage from WFC, at 3.25% 30 yr fixed. During the application i was told i need to open a wfc checking account to get another 0.25 discount on the rate of 3.50. (BAC and JPM have the similar promotion/policy). Earlier this year, they sent me a survey about how I felt about my loan process. I added in the comment that in light of the recent news, it may not be appropriate for WFC asking me to open a checking account to get that promotion. To my surprise, i got a call from someone from the CEO office at WFC and she said the executive committee reviewed my case and she explained to me that because it was a promotional and not a requirement it's not illegal for them to do that. But they will stop doing this immediately in the future. I had no problem with their answers. Every banks have such promotions. But I was suprised that someone would actually be reading my survey and certainly not a call from the ceo office.

 

When i applied for mortgage, BAC was the only bank that can match WFC's rate, but that was after multiple negotiations (WFC gave me a rate once and we didnt negotiate). I am also a "platium prefered" customer of BAC and had no accounts at WFC. Eventually BAC offered me 3.15 rate but I must close within 30 days. I have heard from others that BAC in many cases can not close within 30 days and will come back to ask applicant to pay more to lock in the rate. wFC on the other hand, gave me 3.25 for 90 days. So i chose WFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/31/wells-fargo-there-were-nearly-twice-as-many-potentially-fake-accounts-opened-than-originally-thought.html

 

Wells Fargo & Co. said it uncovered nearly 70 percent more potentially unauthorized consumer and small-business accounts than originally thought after an independent investigation into a sales scandal that erupted last year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't have a WSJ subscription so I can't see the article but I can tell you it's a non-story. Every bank in the universe overcharges their clients on FX. Lots of their clients know it too. And yes, it helps with bonuses as well.

 

Also the FX market is completely unregulated. Pretty much the wild west. It's really hard to do anything illegal in FX. The worst you could do is piss off some government (not good) but most traders stay away from that sort of stuff and just overcharge clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks John, the link did gave me access to the article. No surprises there. What is described are standard FX practices in the banking industry and I'm not just talking about North America but Europe as well. Not entirely sure about Asia but I don't see why it would be any different.

 

Furthermore, as I've said previously, most clients know about it (3G knew about it) and there really isn't anything illegal about it.

 

This is definitely not a Wells Fargo issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For the past 6 months I have been listening to the WFC conference calls and industry presentations and hoping that a few rays of sunshine will start to shine through. I have been disappointed and the call today was the same (disappointment). I appears to me that it is likely 2018 will be another lost year for shareholders where WFC will again underperform peers. Expenses will remain elevated. Revenue growth will likely be muted (compared to peers). On the call today the CEO was asked if the sales scandal issues are finally largely behind the company and the CEO said no he could not say that... leading rational people to wonder what issues will hit in 2018. I am starting to wonder if the issues at WFC go deeper and the new WFC is simply never going to match the financial results of the former WFC (low expenses and crazy high ROE). The fact that Buffett owns 10% of the company keeps pulling me back to it (to want to own it). And then I look at the business results and listen to management and get completely turned off. Their competitors like JPM just look to be so much better run and their management team sounds so much more polished on the calls and the business results of JPM will likely be much better in 2018. WFC looks like a company trying to play a great defensive game with one hand tied behind its back (sales scandal and its after effects) whereas JPM is playing Michael Jordan offense. Not hard to pick with will win the game.

 

It is interesting to me how over 5 and 10 years companies can rise and fall. 5 years ago WFC was clearly viewed as the best managed large US bank. I think JPM has now passed them. I think BAC could also pass WFC in the next couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the WFC 2017Q4 documents last night, and I must say, that I'm disappointed, like Viking.

 

I started looking for some explanations. Especially two observations really caught my attention.

 

We knew that there would be some unforseen changes to taxes, because of the US Tax Reform. So I started by looking at the income statement from down and upwards, starting with profit before tax. The WFC 2017 profit before tax has actually declined vs 2016. I was really surprised by that. Searching for explanation line by line upwards, one instantly catch a large change in other non interest expenses. The figure for 2017 is USD 17.558 B vs 2016 USD 13.115 B. The difference is actually a lot compared to a pre tax profit of USD 27.377 B, down from 2016 USD 32.120 B. After reading further on and after studying the presentation material, I observed that there is a USD 3.251 B litigation accrual contained in other non interest expenses [related to the scandals and derived lawsuits] in 2017Q4. It's ugly. Every time folly and/or misconduct in a bank has been going on, the shareholders end up with the bill.

 

Furthermore, the loan book basically hasn't grown in 2017.  JPM reported 6 percent loan book growth for 2017, and 2 percent loan book growth 2017Q4 QoQ, indicating accelerating loan book growth. This is striking. I don't understand it yet, but I will try to seek some explanation of it in the figures. All input from fellow board members is very welcome on this. If this is about WFC loosing business relatively because of the scandals, the scandals are real calamities of enormous dimensions.

 

The loan book size and the size of deposits are the crank in the engine of every money machine called a bank.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

I'm thinking about the WFC business model also. Is WFC going digital fast enough, and is debranching taking place at an appropriate speed?

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

What is it, that we are observers to here? The big four US banks constitutes a material part of the whole US banking system. Is WFC getting smoked here by JPM and BAC actually now pulling away - for good - from WFC going forward, or is this a run between three rabbits and a turtle, WFC beeing the turtle by just continuing doing its thing, and not get in trouble when the three rabbits in the future have started to stumble and lay in one big bunch on the road when the turtle passes them?

 

There is a material element of black box investing in bank investing related to the loan books. Those of us invested long in these creatures have been buying rubber band by the yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looks to me like WFC underinvested in their business pre 2016 (which drove higher short term profits). It appears they also have been slower to transition to the new digital world which suggests poor long term planning. They certainly are paying a steep price today for their mistakes. As we learned with C and BAC, it takes many years for these big super tanker banks to right the ship and it can be a painful voyage for shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WFC online banking (and brokerage) GUI is less capable than that of many credit unions 1/100 their size and certainly BofA's. Their mortgage salespersons are not competitive either with respect to rates and ease of dealing with them (my personal recollection as well as that from colleagues. I think the bank is retreating probably as consequence of the reboot due to the scandals.

 

I would WFC to have a few years of stagnation before they can resume growing as fast as their competitors again. That will be the true cost of this scandal 3-5 years of stunted growth, not the few hundred million in fines, which are really peanuts on their income statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...