Fiserv
Thoughts & Comments
News Flash: Major Market Turns Not Announced In Advance
If you're waiting for a 'catalyst' for the financials, get ready to miss the bulk of the move higher

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 07/24/2008
bankstocks.com
tbrown@bankstocks.com

Did you read the stories yesterday that reported Tuesday’s rally in the financials? The headline writers seem confounded:

Financial Times: “Banks rally in face of gloom” 

Associated Press: “Investors question financial sector rebound”

Wall Street Journal: “Five Banks Post Losses -- and Their Stocks Soar” 

New York Times: Bank Investors Expect Less as Losses Mount”

For its part, Reuters was completely undone, and tried to ignore the stocks’ moves altogether: Wachovia, other banks post dismal results,” it simply said, with no mention until the sixth paragraph that “dismal results” or no, Wachovia’s stock price was zooming. The stock closed the day up nearly 30%; the S&P Financials overall rose by 8.4%. 

I’m confused why everyone is so confused. Of course stock prices will rise well in advance of any material evidence of fundamental improvement. That’s the way the stock market works. If anyone thinks a bell will go off at the bottom to indicate all’s clear at last, he’s in the wrong business.

Which is why I’ve been amused over the past few weeks as wags have begun to come up with their what’s-got-to-happen-before-I-turn-bullish-on-the-financials lists. They are comical. As I mentioned here earlier this week, OpCo’s Meredith Whitney says she won’t turn positive until the banks can demonstrate they can “grow again,” which no one doubts won’t happen until, oh, 2010 or so. Thanks, Meredith. Helpful! 

Similarly—to pick out a list at random that’s as representative as any—commenter “DSB” at SeekingAlpha, remarking on my article Tuesday, says he doesn’t expect the financials to bottom until the following events occur:

1) Defaulting debt returns to normalized levels

2) We have a ratings agencies overhaul, which will allow IB's to trade paper as freely as before they lost trust.

3) Oil falls & remains below $130

4) We have clear indication that unemployment has stopped increasing, CPI is 'contained'

5) We have 2 consecutive quarters without a large/mid sized bank encountering problems.
 

All very sensible. There’s just one problem. By the time DSB’s laundry list comes to pass—two straight clean quarters from the banks, an overhaul of the rating agencies—the stocks will have long since begun a tear.

In the real world, it’s not unheard-of for cycles to turn when no hopeful evidence is apparent to account for the price reversal. Or if there is any, it’s so subtle that, by definition, it’s overlooked by the vast majority of investors. “Defaulting debt returns to normalized levels” doesn’t fit the bill.

Even so, there’s been no shortage of signs lately that the worst of the credit crunch is past, or soon will be. As we’ve talked about here for awhile, new delinquencies among the loans that make up the ABX subprime mortgage index have been declining for months, while delinquency roll rates have been improving. Lower delinquencies now mean fewer defaults down the road. Bingo! End of problem in sight. 

Similarly, in the article in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times trumpeting “Record home losses in California” came this nugget:

The latest figures contained one surprise: defaults -- the first step toward foreclosure -- rose by just 6.6% in the second quarter, down from a 39% spike the previous period.

DataQuick President John Walsh said the reason was not immediately clear. Foreclosures may be "nearing a plateau," he said, but it could also mean that lenders are "swamped and can't handle processing any paperwork."

Sean O'Toole, founder of the data tracking firm ForeclosureRadar, thinks the leveling off may mean that defaults on subprime mortgages -- loans made to poorly qualified buyers -- are nearing a peak. [Emph. added]


Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that defaults have stopped rising as a result of paperwork snafus. But I doubt it. Regardless, this is just the type of data point that, years down the road (after the stocks have zoomed and while Meredith Whitney is still waiting patiently for banks’ earnings growth to resume) people will look back on and say “Aha! That’s when we should have known.” And the news is certainly delivered the way this type of information arrives: tucked away in article that otherwise describes how awful everything is.

I have been struck these past two days that all the objections to my argument that the financial have bottom a) make no reference to the stocks’ valuation and b) repeat facts that have been widely known for months. (Some readers also basically say that c: it’s different this time.) That’s all interesting, but irrelevant. The fact is, signs have begun to emerge that incremental change on the credit front is happening, and is positive. No, the signs aren’t obvious. But that’s my point. They never are.

What do you think? Let me know!

  Add your comment

 

 

bryan Posted On 7/24/2008 10:48:39 AM

I suppose a small bell was sounded by WFC and JPM's earnings. Anyone who thought that all banks were doomed had to revise their views in the face of both banks impressive income generation. Yes they had write downs but more than enough new income was flowing in from a diverse range of sources even in this challenging environment. In fact , both companies had taken advantage of the adverse conditions by gaining new customers in a variety of areas.

Adrian Posted On 7/24/2008 11:23:39 AM

bryan, your "Anyone who thought that all banks were doomed" reminded me of a brief glimpse I had of Jim Cramer on the telly on July 14, I believe it was, while flipping through the channels attempting to locate an evening news program I've gotten into the habit of watching while eating dinner. He was ranting as usual and then dropped the bomb shell claim that all of the large US banks with serious mortgage exposure were insolvent, including BofA, and he was telling people to SELL, SELL, SELL the financials. Apparently Cramer has reserved the right to change his mind because since then he has. Adrian

rsd57 Posted On 7/24/2008 12:34:27 PM

To summarize - there is a difference between stocks of good companies and good stocks to buy. The downside for value players is often being too early to the party. By having a long enough time horizon, a value player can often reduce this problem.

planetim Posted On 7/24/2008 1:40:39 PM

Tom, One item I noticed in the Data Quick report: The default loans all seem to come from the time period of mid 2005 til Fall 2006. The average of the defaulted mortgages has grown from 16 months to 26 months over the last year. Once that last rush of high priced, under documented mortgages flushes out of the system, default and foreclosure numbers will fall dramatically.

holsti Posted On 7/24/2008 1:56:13 PM

For years you guys plugged First Marblehead, all the way down from the 50s. Don't you owe your readers a follow up? No, I did not fall the the FMD hype.

darrach Posted On 7/24/2008 2:24:34 PM

I agree with Tom. What counts is not the news per se, but what is priced in versus that news. At these levels (assuming no more credit issues etc.) banks et al. do look compelling. The question is, how heroic is that assumption? The issue I have is that financial institutions are different than other companies. This is because of leverage. Yes the trends seem to be getting better, but these trends can turn on you, and turn very quickly. Banks can go bust in a morning (witness Bear Sterns) whereas industrials normally die much more slowly. You only need to be off on your assumptions by a little bit to have a huge effect on valuations. Given the massive negatives of a wrong assumption, extra prudence may be warranted.

bookokane Posted On 7/24/2008 5:17:27 PM

What a call! Advising stock purchases and calling market sectors bottoms is a fool's errand. There are also signs emerging that positive credit market are not across the board. Some banks are just starting to uncover their commercial real estate problems. The direction of consumer credit defaults is unclear. Why the need to be the first guy in the pool. Just look at the directions since your call.This isn't a 100 meter sprint, it's 5 or 6 back to back 1500 meter swimathons. Go ahead, be first off the blocks, I'll be waiting for you at the finish. O'Kane

nishitmehta Posted On 7/25/2008 12:46:10 AM

a good job of selective editing of the LA times story, cause as you read on the person speaks about he resets coming in the ALT-A and pick a pay segments; which would create its own set of issues.

backedbycash Posted On 7/25/2008 8:57:38 AM

Right on Holsti. Unfortunately I was one of the dopes that did fall into the FMD hype.It's also funny that these guys have not mentioned FMD in months and months.Maybe they were selling while jerks like me were buying.

alex Posted On 7/25/2008 6:28:23 PM

i think this reminds me of vncp, bkb, csa, days alex lieblong

jamesa40 Posted On 7/28/2008 1:54:05 PM

If you are a long term investor, it really doesn't matter because you should be buying on the way down AND on the way back up. I've done so with several bank stocks and, while taking a whooping on the way down, have racked up some sizable gains on the way up. Will it turn down again? Maybe, but with a time horizon of years instead of days, who cares?
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.