Hidden Traps Make Bank Stocks a Bad Deal
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ContrarianProfits/~3/wBPUkds43rU/20866Posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 | In Investing Lessons, Market Commentary
Billionaire investor George Soros said yesterday (Monday) that the U.S. recovery would be a slow one because of all the “basically bankrupt” financial companies impeding it.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Congress agreed Friday that the financial system – not the American taxpayer – should bear the costs of bank bailouts. Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), wants the banks to ante up $45 billion – three years’ worth of deposit-insurance premiums – to bail out the fund that insures bank deposits.
When it comes to bank stocks, we all know that there were a number of Money Morning readers shrewd enough to buy Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) shares when the foundering giant’s stock price was below $1 a share.
If you’re one of those investors, good for you: With Citi’s shares now trading at nearly $4.70 a share, that shrewdness – or courage – has been amply rewarded.
But the question we have to ask at this point is: Why would anyone buy banks stocks right now?
Bailouts Revisited
When the Bush administration bailed out the banks last autumn, I opposed the bailout. But I understood the rationale for it. The Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ) bankruptcy had clearly done a lot of damage to market confidence. Thus, a series of high-profile failures – however well merited – could push the market into a behavioral funk that might take years to emerge from.
After all, as we were incessantly reminded, the banks were all intimately inter-connected – not in the least by the diabolical credit-default-swap market. So a big failure could trigger a mass-market meltdown.
That justified the immediate bailout back then. But it did not justify the continued existence of those banks and other financial institutions – especially Citi, Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and insurance giant American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG) – a year after the bailout.
Even if there was an argument for preventing the immediate meltdown of those companies – to prevent panic – there was no good argument for allowing them to continue in business as zombies, distorting the market forever after. An orderly liquidation was what was really needed.
But if the plans called for these three bad actors to be liquidated, it should surely be happening by now. Two of the three have even kept their top management for the intervening year. The exception has been BofA, where Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis is now being shoved – kicking and screaming – toward the exit. (However, I have no doubt he’ll end up being well rewarded for the indignity).
Japan’s ‘Lost Decade’
Economically, keeping banks and other companies alive after they should be dead is the mistake Japan made back in the 1990s. After Japan’s massive stock market meltdown, most of the banks were technically insolvent. A decline in the value of the stocks the banks held had gnawed away their capital, while their assets were shredded by the collapse in the value of their real-estate loans.
Despite this, Japan opted to prop up many insolvent companies, which kept the country’s entire banking system on life support until 1998 – hence the “Lost Decade” of financial legend. And a true resolution of the problem did not come until it was forced by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in 2003. The result was more than a decade of economic stagnation and a mountain of public debt that actually exceeded 200% of gross domestic product (GDP).
For the banks themselves, the fallout can be even worse.
An ‘Artificial’ Market
At first blush, the profits of the last few months look pretty good. And the record bonuses being threatened on Wall Street suggest that all is fine. However, there are two problems. First, bank earnings have been propped up by an extraordinarily bank-friendly monetary policy, keeping short-term interest rates at close to zero and buying up more than $1.5 trillion of bad bank loans from the markets.
That simply can’t last. If it does, we’ll end up with a bad case of hyperinflation.
As for the bonuses, does anybody think that if Citi had gone bust, and ex-Citibankers were now selling apples on the street corners of New York, bonuses would be zooming so high?
If the market for overpaid bankers had been allowed to clear properly, they would no longer be overpaid.
If the Japan’s Nomura Securities (NYSE ADR: NMR) wanted to double its U.S. staff, as it announced Monday (an extraordinarily shareholder-hostile decision, given Nomura’s lousy U.S. track record), it could just lean out of its office and whistle, and a parade of ex-Citibankers, ex-AIG executives and ex-BofA execs would rush in, begging for scraps.
It appears that the concerns that Soros expressed are well justified.
A Grim Reaping For Bank Investors
Since there are more competitors in the market than there should be, once the Fed’s over-generous monetary policy is corrected, there will be too much competition, so bank profits will be squeezed. Conversely, there will be too many jobs in the industry, so banker pay scales will be artificially propped up.
If that’s a recipe for good shareholder returns, I’m a Dutchman.
There’s more. The populist fury against the banking system doesn’t look like it’s doing much about banker pay. However, it will almost certainly result in special extra taxes being levied on surviving banks, to pay for the bailouts.
The costs of those taxes will be passed through to shareholders, because competition from all the zombies that are still in business will prevent banker pay from being squeezed much. The extra levies that Bair, the FDIC chief, is employing to keep the deposit-insurance fund solvent also will fall on banks, although in this case it will be the small and medium-sized that will suffer the worst.
Squeezed profits, expensive staff, extra taxes and special FDIC levies – it doesn’t look to me as if there will be much left for bank shareholders.
Expect 2010 to be a grim year for them.
Source: Hidden Traps Make Bank Stocks a Bad Deal
Last 5 posts by Contrarian Profits
- Transportation Sector: powered by recovery - November 23rd, 2009
- The Dollar, the Euro, and being Bullish on Gold - November 20th, 2009
- Audit the Fed – Amendment to a $200 billion bill frightens currency traders! - November 20th, 2009
- What if They Stop Buying our Debt? - November 19th, 2009
- Goldbugs Beware! The tax man cometh! - November 18th, 2009
American International Group Inc., bad bank loans;, Bank, bank shareholders, bank bailouts, bank deposits, bank earnings, bank of america corp, Bank Profits, Bank Stocks, banker, Ben S, Ben S. Bernanke, bush administration, Chairman, chief, Chief Executive Officer, Citi, Citigroup Inc, Congress, contrarian profits, deposit insurance premiums;, deposit-insurance fund solvent, Fdic, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Federal Reserve System, George Soros, Gross Domestic Product, head, Insurance Giant, Investing Lessons, Japan, Junichiro Koizumi, Ken Lewis, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, Market Commentary, New York, Nomura Securities, Prime Minister, Sheila Bair, U .S. Federal Reserve;, United States, USD, wall street



ContrarianProfits.com is a financial news and opinion website with a twist. As investment guru Rick Rule puts it, “You are either a contrarian or a victim.” In the financial world, most people are losers because they just don’t know what game they’re playing. They think they can just get “into the market” along with everyone else, do what everyone else does, and they will make money. Not likely. By the time you’ve paid commissions, spreads, fees, taxes – and suffered the consequences of inflation – you’ll be very lucky just to have as much money as you started with.
ContrarianProfits.com is a contrarian site, in the sense that we provide ideas, opinions and recommendations that often run counter to the mainstream financial press. We do this not just to be contrary, but because we’ve realized that Rick is right. You don’t make money by following the crowd; you make money by leading it.
Why is this so? Well, it’s obvious that if you do the same thing everyone else does you’ll get the same results everyone else gets. On average, and over the long run, real investment returns for the typical investor cannot exceed the rate of growth of the economy itself. Everybody can’t get richer faster than everybody else. Real economic growth in the US today averages about 3% per year; if you don’t make any mistakes, that’s about what you can expect. Few people may be satisfied with 3% per year, but most feel comfortable in the middle of the financial herd and are happy to take whatever that gets them. If you’re one of those people, you will probably not like our site. It will make you uncomfortable.
If, on the other hand, you’re willing to look at things a little differently, you’ll appreciate the views of many of our columnists, contributors and visionaries.