Category: Banks & Interest Rates

Posted on

Morgan Stanley earnings fall 53 pc

Morgan Stanley (MS) is the latest bank heavyweight to release their first-quarter (Q1) 2016 earnings, reporting a 53 percent fall in diluted earnings per share ($0.55) compared to the first quarter of last year ($1.18).

Net revenues dropped 21%, primarily to a sharp 43% fall in the Institutional Securities (Trading) business and an 18% fall in Investment Banking. Non-interest expense cuts of 14% were insufficient to compensate. Declines were widespread, with Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) (-36%) the worst affected.

Tier 1 Capital (CET1) improved to 14.5% (Q1 2015: 11.6%) of risk-weighted assets, while Leverage (SLR) improved to 6.0% (Q1 2015: 5.1%).

The dividend was held at 15 cents (Q1 2015: 15 cents), increasing the payout ratio to a still modest 27%, from 13% in Q1 2015.

Bob Doll’s newsletter this week says:

The uneven market uptrend in place since mid-February resumed last week, with the S&P 500 Index climbing 1.7%. The primary catalyst appeared to be better-than-expected corporate earnings results in the still-early reporting season, particularly from the banking sector. As a result, bank stocks performed particularly well, rising 7% last week, marking the best weekly gain in over four years. Investors also focused on better economic data coming from China and ongoing evidence that the U.S. economy is growing slowly.

We have had five heavyweights, JPM, BAC, WFC, C and MS all report declining earnings per share. Most had cut non-interest expenses but insufficient to compensate for falling revenues and rising provisions for credit losses. I’m afraid there isn’t much evidence of growth in the US economy and banking results reflect a tough environment. Beating earnings estimates doesn’t mean much if your earnings are falling.

MS is in a primary down-trend, having broken primary support at $30. Long-term Momentum below zero confirms. Expect a rally to test resistance and the descending trendline at $30 but respect is likely and would warn of another test of the band of primary support at $20 to $22. Breach would offer a target of the 2011 low at $12*.

Morgan Stanley (MS)

* Target calculation: 30 – ( 40 – 30 ) = 20

Goldman Sachs (GS) is due to report Tuesday.

Posted on

The Fed Sends A Frightening Letter To JPM | Zero Hedge

From Pam Martens and Russ Martens via WallStreetOnParade.com:

Yesterday the Federal Reserve released a 19-page letter that it and the FDIC had issued to Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, on April 12 as a result of its failure to present a credible plan for winding itself down if the bank failed……

At the top of page 11, the Federal regulators reveal that they have “identified a deficiency” in JPMorgan’s wind-down plan which if not properly addressed could “pose serious adverse effects to the financial stability of the United States.”

How could one bank, even one as big and global as JPMorgan Chase, bring down the whole financial stability of the United States? Because, as the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) has explained in detail and plotted in pictures (see below), five big banks in the U.S. have high contagion risk to each other….

….Equally disturbing, the most dangerous area of derivatives, the credit derivatives that blew up AIG and necessitated a $185 billion taxpayer bailout, remain predominately over the counter. According to the latest OCC report, only 16.8 percent of credit derivatives are being centrally cleared. At JPMorgan Chase, more than 80 percent of its credit derivatives are still over-the-counter.

Contagion and derivatives exposure….. two facets of the same problem. To me the question is: why are too-big-to-fail banks allowed to carry such high derivative exposure? Wells fargo (WFC) seems to be the only big bank who is not swimming naked.

Source: The Fed Sends A Frightening Letter To JPMorgan, Corporate Media Yawns | Zero Hedge

Posted on

Citigroup (C) adds to banking woes

Citigroup (C) was the last of the bank heavyweights to release their first-quarter (Q1) 2016 earnings this week, reporting a sharp 27 percent fall in diluted earnings per share ($1.10) compared to the first quarter of last year ($1.51).

Revenues (net of interest) dropped 11% while non-interest expenses reduced by 3%. There was a modest 7% increase in the provision for credit losses (including benefits and claims). The fall in net revenues was largely attributable to a 27% decline in institutional business from Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) and an 8% decline in North America. Consumer business also dropped in Latin America (13%) and Asia (9%).

Tier 1 Capital (CET1) improved to 12.3% (Q1 2015: 11.1%) of risk-weighted assets, while Leverage (SLR) improved to 7.4% (Q1 2015: 6.4%).

The dividend was held at 5 cents (Q1 2015: 5 cents), increasing the payout ratio to a parsimonious 5%, from 3% in Q1 2015.

C is in a primary down-trend, having broken primary support at $48. Long-term Momentum below zero confirms. Expect a rally to test resistance at $48 but respect is likely and would warn of another test of the band of primary support at $34 to $36. Breach would offer a target of the 2011 low at $24*.

Citigroup (C)

* Target calculation: 36 – ( 48 – 36 ) = 24

We have had four heavyweights, JPM, BAC, WFC and C, all report declining earnings per share. Most had cut non-interest expenses but insufficient to compensate for falling revenues and rising provisions for credit losses.

It looks like we are on track for a tough earnings season.

Posted on

Bank heavyweight earnings slip

Thursday was a big day for earnings releases, with two bank heavyweights reporting first-quarter (Q1) 2016 earnings.

Bank of America (BAC)

Bank of America reported a 19 percent fall in earnings per share ($0.21) compared to the first quarter of last year ($0.26). The fall was largely attributable to a drop in investment banking and trading profits. Provision for credit losses increased 30% for the quarter, to $997 million.

Tier 1 Capital (CET1) improved to 11.6% (Q1 2015: 11.1%) of risk-weighted assets, while Leverage (SLR) improved to 6.8% (Q1 2015: 6.4%).

The dividend was held at 5 cents (Q1 2015: 5 cents), increasing the payout ratio to a modest 24%, from 19% in Q1 2015.

BAC is in a primary down-trend, having broken primary support at $15. Long-term Momentum below zero confirms. Expect a rally to test resistance at $15 but this is likely to hold and respect would warn of another decline, with a target of $9*.

Bank of America (BAC)

* Target calculation: 12 – ( 15 – 12 ) = 9

Wells Fargo (WFC)

Wells Fargo reported a 5 percent fall in (diluted) earnings per share ($0.99) compared to the first quarter of last year ($1.04). Provision for credit losses increased 78% for the quarter, to $1.09 billion, primarily due to exposure to the Oil & Gas sector.

Tier 1 Capital (CET1) improved to 10.6% (Q1 2015: 10.5%) of risk-weighted assets. No leverage ratio was provided..

The dividend of 37.5 cents is up on Q1 2015 dividend of 35 cents, increasing the payout ratio to 38% from 34% in Q1 2015.

WFC is in a primary down-trend, having broken primary support at $48. Long-term Momentum below zero confirms. Expect a rally to the descending trendline but respect is likely and reversal below $48 would warn of another decline, with a target of $40*.

Wells Fargo (WFC)

* Target calculation: 48 – ( 56 – 48 ) = 40

So far we have had three heavyweights, JPM, BAC and WFC all report similar performance: declining earnings per share despite deep cuts in non-interest expenses, partly attributable to rising provisions for credit losses.

Citigroup (C) is due to report Friday 11:00 am EST.

Posted on

JP Morgan earnings dip but stock rallies

First of the financial heavyweights to report first-quarter (Q1) earnings this week, JP Morgan (JPM) reported a 7 percent fall in earnings per share ($1.36) compared to the first quarter of last year ($1.46). The fall was largely attributable to a 90 percent increase in provision for credit losses for the quarter, to $1.8 billion, primarily from a sharp increase in net charge-offs in the Consumer division but also exposure to Oil & Gas and Metals & Mining in Investment Banking.

Tier 1 Capital (CET1) improved to 11.8% (Q1 2015: 10.7%) of risk-weighted assets, while Leverage (SLR) improved to 6.6% (Q1 2015: 5.7%).

The dividend was held at 44 cents (Q1 2015: 40 cents), increasing the payout ratio to a modest 32% from 27% in Q1 2015.

The monthly chart shows long-term Momentum is slowing, with JPM forming a broad top above $54. Declining peaks since August 2015 warn of a primary down-trend and breach of $54 would confirm, offering a target of $40*.

JP Morgan Chase

* Target calculation: 55 – ( 70 – 55 ) = 40

The market responded well to ‘positive’ news that JPM beat its earnings estimate, boosting the stock by 4.6%. This is a game we will see a lot more of this year: give really low guidance if you expect a bad quarter. When the result comes out, the gullible will focus on the fact that you beat your estimate rather than that your earnings are falling. This chart from Zero Hedge shows the rising percentage of companies guiding next quarter earnings below consensus:
Earnings Guidance

Don’t be mis-led by the latest ‘froth’. The reality for the banking sector is net interest margins are near record lows and credit losses are rising.

Major US Banks Net Interest Margins

Posted on

Low interest rates and secular stagnation

Interesting observation by Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, a research associate at the NBER:

In recent theoretical work, Caballero, Farhi, and I show that the safe-asset scarcity mutates at the ZLB [Zero Lower Bound], from a benign phenomenon that depresses risk-free rates to a malign one where interest rates cannot equilibrate asset markets any longer, leading to a global recession. The reason is that the decline in output reduces net-asset demand more than asset supply. Hence our analysis predicts the emergence of potentially persistent global-liquidity traps, a situation that actually exists in most of the advanced economies today.

…..our results point to a modern — and more sinister — version of the Triffin dilemma. As the world economy grows faster than that of the U.S., so does the global demand for safe assets relative to their supply. This depresses global interest rates and could push the global economy into a persistent ZLB environment, a form of secular stagnation.

Source: The Structure of the International Monetary System | NBER

Posted on

APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding | MacroBusiness

From Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness:

…..the banks’ reliance on offshore funding hit an unprecedented 54% of GDP in the December quarter:

As always, the key risk is that the banks’ ability to continue borrowing from offshore rests with foreigners’ willingness to continue extending them credit. This willingness will be tested in the event that Australia’s sovereign credit rating is downgraded (automatically downgrading the banks’ credit ratings), there is another global shock, or a sharp deterioration in the Australian economy (raising Australia’s risk premia).

The Federal Budget, too, is now hostage to the banks’ offshore borrowing binge as it cannot borrow to spend on infrastructure or other initiatives for fear that Australia will lose its AAA credit rating, potentially leading to an unraveling of the private debt bubble created by Australia’s banks.

That APRA could stand by and allow the banks’ to borrow externally like drunken sailors is a hallmark of regulatory failure.

One in four dollars of bank assets is funded by offshore borrowing. A precarious position even for a stable economy (like Ireland?), let alone one hitched to the boom and bust commodity cycle. Smacks of moral hazard by the banks.

Source: APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding – MacroBusiness

Posted on

Headmaster Turnbull takes cane to banks

Elizabeth Knight quotes prime minister Malcolm Turnbull speaking at Westpac’s 199th birthday lunch:

Meanwhile Turnbull – himself a former head of the Australian chapter of Goldman Sachs – told those attending the Westpac lunch that bank culture must shift from one that traditionally had been all about profit to one that took into account broader social responsibility.

Remuneration and promotion cannot any longer be based solely on direct financial contribution to the bottom line.

While bank bosses have been talking the same kind of talk for a while now, the growing number of instances where the behaviour of the banks had fallen short as a result of the drive to increase profit (and personal bonuses derived from making returns) are becoming harder to explain away using the excuse of a few bad apples.

“We expect our bankers to have higher standards, we expect them always, rigorously, to put their customers’ interests first – to deal with their depositors and their borrowers, with those they advise and those with whom they transact in precisely the same way they would have them deal with them,” he said.

Turnbull has hit on a key risk area for banks: remuneration structures that reward short-term profit objectives promote a risk-taking culture. Bank deals often look impressive at the start only to sour later. Incentives that encourage employee share purchases align staff interests with those of shareholders — a prudent, long-term outlook — while share options and bonus schemes encourage a short-term focus, aggressive risk-taking and divisional rivalry that can damage long-term value.

APRA may consider remuneration structures as outside their risk management ambit but it is time for a re-think. Toxic management culture is the biggest risk of all.

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” ~ Warren Buffett

Source: Headmaster Malcolm Turnbull takes cane to banks leaving Westpac management ginger

Posted on

RBA leaves official cash rate at 2pc

Jens Meyer quotes RBA governor Glenn Stevens:

While the decision to keep rates unchanged was widely expected, analysts were speculating that the governor would show some concern about the recent steep rise in the Australian dollar’s exchange rate, which gained nearly 12 per cent from its January lows to a peak of US77.23¢ last week.

Mr Stevens duly added a paragraph to this month’s statement, noting that the currency had appreciated “somewhat”.

“In part, this [the recent rise] reflects some increase in commodity prices, but monetary developments elsewhere in the world have also played a role,” he said, referring to recent monetary easing by other central banks including the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank, as well as the decision by the US Federal Reserve to reduce the pace of interest rate hikes.

“Under present circumstances, an appreciating exchange rate could complicate the adjustment under way in the economy,” he added.

But anyone hoping for a stronger “jawbone” was disappointed and the Australian dollar shot up by about half a cent to the day’s high of US76.32¢, before falling back in late trade to around US76¢.

Central banks around the globe are destabilizing financial markets and the RBA responds with a polite acknowledgement at the end of its statement. Someone please tell the governor: If you want to run with the big dogs, you’ve got to learn to pee high.

Source: RBA leaves official cash rate at 2pc

Posted on

APRA gives the RBA some wiggle room | Business Spectator

Robert Gottliebsen predicts further rate cuts from the RBA:

Given that Australian interest rates are higher than other countries of similar standing, money is now flowing Down Under which works to boost the currency and some are forecasting that the exchange rate could rise as high as US80c.

Thanks to APRA, the Reserve Bank can now attack the currency with lower rates without the risk of putting a rocket under house prices.

Source: APRA gives the RBA some wiggle room | Business Spectator

Hat tip to David Llewellyn-Smith at Macrobusiness

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper