Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  

Buying Wachovia Was Strategically Astute But Financially Messy

Recommended Posts


“TOGETHER we’ll go far.†Wells Fargo’s corporate slogan is a pledge to its customers, but it might just as well reflect the San Francisco banking giant’s optimism about its takeover of Wachovia, a teetering rival it snatched from under Citigroup’s nose last October. Losses from the acquisition are “still in the same zip code†as the sum envisaged at the time, says John Stumpf, Wells’s chief executive. In another sign of self-confidence, Dick Kovacevich will step down as chairman at the end of the year, a move that would be hard to imagine if the bank’s hands-on former boss were worried about the future.

Others are less convinced, suspecting Wells of understating Wachovia’s loan losses and questioning its accounting. Fuelling these worries, says Dick Bove of Rochdale Securities, is “extraordinarily poor†communications and disclosure. Alone among big banks, Wells does not hold a quarterly call for analysts.

Had it not bought Wachovia, Wells would be one of finance’s clear winners. Long one of America’s more conservative lenders, it avoided the most noxious property loans and securities. As Warren Buffett, a fan and shareholder, put it in April: “What Wells didn’t do is what defines their greatness.†Wachovia changed that. It brings opportunities, but also risks.

On the positive side, the merger has doubled the number of Wells branches to more than 6,600, giving it a footprint that only Bank of America comes close to matching. Wells and Wachovia were “mirror images†of each other, says Mr Stumpf, with Wells strong west of the Mississippi and Wachovia powerful to the east.

This gives Wells huge deposit-gathering power, as well as an opportunity to pump more products to Wachovia customers, who typically have four to five products with the bank, compared with almost six for Wells clients. Mr Buffett sees echoes of Wal-Mart in Wells’s retailing ethic. The merger gives Wells a formidable position in areas such as mortgages. In the first half of the year it handled a staggering 23.5% of all new home loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a newsletter.

But Wachovia also brings credit problems that could take years to resolve. A big worry is its range of “Pick-A-Pay†retail loans, which allowed borrowers to defer principal as well as interest payments: of those that were still current at the time of the merger, 3.2% were seriously delinquent as of June 30th, up from 1.1% in March. The default rate on the bank’s $38 billion of property-development loans is several times the national average (though Wells argues that the official numbers do not reflect merger-related adjustments). A big chunk of its $127 billion commercial-property portfolio consists of interest-only loans with a balloon payment at the end, the wholesale equivalent of Pick-A-Pays. These will be hard to refinance.

Another worry is the large amount of credit protection that Wachovia is thought to have sold on risky tranches of mortgage-backed securities. Wells points to its latest filing, which shows $105 billion of protection sold and a similar amount bought. But the extent to which the latter really offsets the former is unclear.

Then there is capital. Among big banks, Wells scores poorly on Tier-1 common equity, the core-capital measure favoured by regulators (see chart). It is well below the 6% level that is likely to be the minimum required in future. And at some point it will have to repay the $25 billion of government capital it got last year.

Wells puts its relative capital paucity down to “purchase†accounting at the time of the Wachovia deal. It immediately wrote down $40 billion of the $60 billion in total losses it envisaged. This upfront hit took a big chunk out of its equity, but put it ahead of peers in dealing with losses. Andrew Marquardt of Fox-Pitt Kelton estimates that Wells has swallowed 60-70% of its expected losses, twice the proportion recognised by a typical large bank.

Wells also argues that analysts and regulators underestimate its earning power. It generates pre-provision profits of around 3% of assets, compared with 2% for its peers. Wells has already plugged the gap identified in this year’s stress tests, generating almost half the necessary capital internally (and the rest from a share offering). But, thanks to the uncertain economy and concerns about Wachovia, doubts linger. Mr Bove likens the bank to a rumbling volcano. If it blows, Wells will need lots more capital than it produces internally.

Did Wells ego get in the way of making a sensible decision, the bank was save and then decided to risk it all buying a toxic turd. I bet Citi are glad they didn't end up with Wachovia.

What sort of an idiot develops a pick-a-pay loan?

I don't think handing out 25% of all new mortgage loans is a particular strength unless of course the jobless recovery takes hold, then this could be a master-stroke of true financial genius.

Edited by interestrateripoff

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?

      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.