net interest margin
"I cannot identify a big source of risk... but the market is seeing something. I worry we could be missing something.”
"... if the negative interest rate continues for longer or goes deeper, commercial banks may have to set negative interest rates on deposits, which would expand not only the tax on commercial banks, but also on depositors (households and companies). This could lead to a ‘silent bank run’ via a shift of deposits to cash (banknotes), which in turn damages the sound banking system by enlarging the leakage of funds from the credit creation mechanism in the banking system."
BofA Reports $21.3 Billion In Energy Exposure; Beats On EPS Despite Revenue Miss, Sliding Sales And TradingSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 01/19/2016 07:55 -0500
Here is what everyone wanted to know from BofA results: commercial net charge-offs increased $75MM compared to 3Q15, driven by losses in Energy, while the Allowance increased $144MM from 3Q15, driven by energy-related exposures and higher loan growth across the portfolio. Most importantly, BofA revealed its "Utilized Energy exposure of $21.3B ($1B traded products)", down $2.6 billion from a year ago. BofA also notes that the "higher risk sub-sectors of Oil Field Services and Exploration & Production comprise 39% of utilized energy exposure." NPLs increased $110MM from 3Q15, to $1.2 billion driven mostly by increases in Energy.
There were four things we mostly cared about in today's JPM earnings release, the first Wall Street bank to report Q4 results:i) how did the company's fixed income and equity trading revenue do; ii)what is the bank's credit exposure to energy/oil;iii) did the recent Fed hike do anything to boost the company's Net Interest Margin (this has been the primary catalyst for bank share upside), and iv) did JPM halt its practice of releasing reserves and start building reserves - a major inflection point when it comes to management expectations for future credit quality deterioration.
We will be the first to admit that yield curve inversion is not the only factor causing recessions, but through the credit channel it can be an important contributor. Depending on the importance of the credit channel, the Federal Reserve, by pegging the short term rate at zero, have essentially removed one recessionary market mechanism that used to efficiently clear excesses within the financial system. While stability obsessed Keynesians on a quest to the permanent boom regard this as a positive development, the rest of us obviously understand that false stability breeds instability.
Every day when you flip on the media, there is someone telling you that now is the time to "buy" into the market. Of course, if you are buying, then who is selling? The only "net buyers" of equities this year have been "individuals," while "professional" firms have been "net sellers." This is the epitome of the classic "smart money/dumb money" analysis where individuals are used by institutions to offload positions that are no longer optimal. The question is with corporate profits and earnings declining, weak economic data, and the threat of tighter monetary policy - will individuals once again be left "holding the bag" while institutions derisk portfolios in advance of the next decline?
To the extent the Federal Reserve decides to increase interest rates, it should be apparent that such a move would be inconsistent with their prior actions. In fact, it may likely be a desperate effort to re-load the monetary policy gun as opposed to a signal of domestic economic strength. Not only is this a departure from the past, this would lead many to question the Fed’s motives. It is worth keeping in mind that blind trust and confidence in the Fed has propelled many markets much higher than fundamentals justify. The bottom line is that NIM and the Taylor Rule-adjusted curve are both flashing warning signs of economic recession, while the traditional yield curve signal is waving the all clear flag.
If you thought we'd seen the depths of NIRP, think again because as Deutsche Bank notes, the ECB, Riksbank, SNB, and Nationalbank will likely dive further into the monetary Twilight Zone in the months ahead. Only when rates become negative enough to spark a depositor revolt will we have reached the "real" lower bound, but at that point, it will be far too late...
While yesterday's JPM results missed from the top to the bottom, coupled with a surprising and aggressive deleveraging of the bank's balance sheet which has shrunk by over $150 billion in 2015 mostly on the back of a decline in deposits, Bank of America reported numbers which were largely the opposite when it printed a modest beat on both the top line with $20.9 billion in revenues (adjusted sales of $20.6Bn vs Exp. $20.5Bn), down $500 million from a year ago, and the bottom line: generating $0.35 in adjusted earnings in the quarter, 2 cents better than the $0.33 consensus estimate.
Earlier today, Jefferies which is now a part of Leucadia, provided this much anticipated glimpse into how the rest of Wall Street is doing. The answer, if Jefferies is any indication, is "quote horribly" because just like two of the past four quarters, Q3 was also a disaster and indicative of nothing short of a trading bloodbath on Wall Street in the past three months of trading and especially August. In fact, it was so bad for Jefferies, it reported a massive 31% plunge in total revenues down to $579 million resulting in net income of a tiny $2.5 million as a result of what may be only its first negative fixed income revenue print since the financial crisis.
As the chart below shows, from oil to bunds, to US HG and Convertible debt, to USTs and even to Developed Market stocks, turnovers are virtually non-existant, while the only place where there has been a transitory surge in turnover has something to do with Chinese stocks, where volume however has been quite muted in recent months ever since the bubble died.
Unlike previous quarters when JPM's earnings release was a jumble of legal addbacks, MBS charge offs and loan-loss reserve releases, this time it was positively tame by comparison.
Bank of America Revenue Drops, Misses Due To Declining Trading Revenues, Loan Creation And Net Interest MarginSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/15/2015 07:02 -0500
One look at BofA's earnings report shows why contrary to popular opinion, the bank that bailed out insolvent Merrill Lynch is far better off to be pnealized with tens of billions in legal fees than running its business unbothered by the racketeering government. The reason: a year after BofA reported $6 billion in litigation charges, moments ago Bank of America announced only $0.4 billion in legal fees, which meant it barely had any credible addbacks. So when looking at its numbers on a realistic, GAAP basis, BofA once again missed EPS, with the bottom line printing at $0.27, or below the $0.29 estimate.
Stocks Gyrate Wildly Following Two Consecutive Stop Hunts, Close With A Whimper Despite More Fed DovishnessSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/08/2015 15:08 -0500
If there is one word to describe today's market, as well as the market of the past week, past month, and perhaps all of 2015, it is "stop hunts." Well, technically it's two words.
Following disappointing results from JPM and Wells Fargo yesterday, it was Bank of America's turn to "surprise" investors with its disclosure just how bad its quarter was. And with the bank reporting a 50% collapse in its sales and trading from Q3, down $600 million from a year ago to just $1.7 billion in Q4, it should come as no surprise that the bank just reported Net Income, before the usual spate of amusing addbacks, of $0.25 well below the $0.31 expected. And while one may argue whether ot not BofA's EPS deserve non-GAAP adbacks, it was the Revenue of $18.96 billion, which missed expectations of $21.03 billion by over $2 billion (!) and down $2.7 billion from a year ago, that was truly a showstropper and shows that without the Fed's visible hand manipulating markets every day, banks are a ticking time bomb just waiting to blow.