Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Bank of America: A $106 Billion Hole Isn't A Problem Until The Fed Says It Is

Jul. 22, 2023 12:00 PM ETBank of America Corporation (BAC)10 Comments
Juxtaposed Ideas profile picture
Juxtaposed Ideas
7.35K Followers

Summary

  • While BAC may still report $106B of unrealized losses, it is apparent that the Fed is not overly worried for now, thanks to the robust liquidity and depositors' confidence.
  • Due to the rate hikes, the bank reported expanded NII and NIY, attributed to the increase in its interest-bearing deposits to $1.27T.
  • The higher treasury yields may also herald the return of trading and investing activities in H2'23, with FQ2'23 only temporarily impacted by the US debt ceiling uncertainties.
  • While credit card losses may seem elevated, investors need not fret yet, since the ratio remains well below pre-pandemic averages.
  • With a stable ROTCE performance of 15.5% (-1.9 QoQ/ inline YoY) in FQ2'23, compared to FY2019 levels of 15.8%, we remain confident about BAC's prospects during the uncertain macroeconomic outlook.

Fear of crisis with businessman like an ostrich

alphaspirit/iStock via Getty Images

The Big Bank Investment Thesis Remains Robust In BAC

We previously covered Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) in April, discussing its FQ1'23 performance after the banking crisis in March 2023. Interestingly, it had reported declining deposits QoQ and

This article was written by

Juxtaposed Ideas profile picture
7.35K Followers
I am a full-time analyst interested in a wide range of stocks. With my unique insights and knowledge, I hope to provide other investors with a contrasting view of my portfolio, given my particular background.Prior to Seeking Alpha, I worked as a professionally trained architect in a private architecture practice, with a focus on public and healthcare projects. My qualifications include:- Qualified Person with the Board of Architects, Singapore.- Master's in Architecture from the National University of Singapore.- Bachelor in Arts from the National University of Singapore.If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me via a direct message on Seeking Alpha or leave a comment on one of my articles.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The analysis is provided exclusively for informational purposes and should not be considered professional investment advice. Before investing, please conduct personal in-depth research and utmost due diligence, as there are many risks associated with the trade, including capital loss.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

Comments (10)

m
Real analysis would involve looking at the detailed supplementary information which the bank provided concerning their deposit structure. In effect their claim is that the large proportion of their deposit liabilities which are transactional in nature provide them with a funding hedge against the underwater securities on their balance sheet. If you believe that, then the conclusion is that while management obviously made a mistake in not either hedging or liquidating these assets as rates rose to a greater level and more rapidly than anticipated , that it was not a major cause for questioning their judgement .But if you view it as a major cause for concern then it should put the stock in the penalty box. Obviously JPM did a better job of protecting their investment asset than BAC. So in effect, in valuing banks investors have marked BAC’s BV to market and while it appears a lot cheaper than JPM on P/GAAP TBV it is not on MTM TBV.
IMHO BAC an okay buy here but JPM and MS better long term investments and C a screaming buy at these prices on a risk/ reward basis.
b
OP didn't put much work in here. Regardless if you think it's a problem or its not , maybe do some research and figure out the duration of the securities, how/if they are already hedged. Perhaps how long it will take for them to be replaced by higher yielding 2 YR Treasuries as they mature. OR - what will the projected next 2 interest rate bumps do to this number (make it higher , but by how much? ) ....and then for those who look farther out than 6 monrths...how does this reverse direction when interest rates begin to fall again.
m
@bankoncraig excellent observations concerning what analysis rather than mere commentary involves
RubyRivka profile picture
Hey friend. Thank you for the interesting article, but on the face of it, it seems to me that the article's assumptions contradict its conclusion. On the one hand, you assume that BAC: "A $106 Billion Hole Isn't A Problem Until The Fed Says It Is", and on the other hand you say that "we continue to rate the BAC stock as a Buy here, due to the excellent upside potential to our price target of $40". I am debating whether to believe the pessimistic assumption or the optimistic conclusion.
n
@RubyRivka Same thing. The SA 'analysts' want to make it a problem so tthey can write about it and say it isn't a problem and earn a few bucks.
RubyRivka profile picture
@northharrow It is funny, isn't it?
K
BAC had $3.2 trillion in assets as of 3/31/2023. Having $106 billion of underwater securities is insignificant, to put it mildly.
a
@Ktennis_00 That’s not the way to look at it. Rather, it has an unrealized loss of $106 billion against a net worth of $250 billion and its tangible net worth is around $200 billion.

The saving grace is that its loans to deposits ratio is low and therefore there would have to be a massive run on the bank to force a sale of the investments and the loss to be realized.

Still, it is a mistake for BAC to have an unrealized loss on its investments that is more than twice the loss that JPM has when both banks are roughly comparable in size.
K
@atlantic51 Granted, Mea culpa. These mega banks have hundreds of thousands of employees but the number of people who set the asset-liability policy are actually few in number. So far, JPM got it right, BAC not as successful
K
@Ktennis_00 One thing I know, barring a global financial meltdown, any “run” on BAC’s deposits will be recycled back to them in the interbank market in less than 10 seconds. That’s what TBTF means.
Disagree with this article? Submit your own. To report a factual error in this article, . Your feedback matters to us!
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.