Fiserv
Thoughts & Comments
Roubini's Wacky Wells Loss Estimate: It's Not Just Academic
Nor are reader defenses of his number particularly convincing

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 02/26/2009
bankstocks.com
tbrown@bankstocks.com

Commenting on our piece here yesterday that pointed out that Nouriel Roubini botched his arithmetic in tallying Wells Fargo’s expected cumulative loan losses, reader T e-mails, and provides a succinct summary of conventional wisdom among the bears:

The main points of this discussion are that WFC’s ultimate charge-offs cannot be predicted with a high level of confidence.  Dr R’s estimate is within the realm of possibility, whether his math was correct or not.   

It is also interesting to note that it does not wipe out Wells, but certainly will require some dilutive capital raising.

Dr. R is also correct, as we pointed out, that WFC is no longer a super well capitalized [bank] after doubling assets in this acquisition.   

So whether Roubini screwed up the math or not, his number is nonetheless “within the realm of possibility” since the future is unknowable. Anything could happen! That’s true, I suppose. But only in the most profoundly trivial way: the Roubini’s loss estimate is possible because anything’s possible. Rigorous! 

If Roubini had come up with his bogus number as a purely academic exercise, to be debated among his colleagues down at NYU, I’d have no argument with T’s point, or any problem with what he has to say. I’ve certainly made my share of dumb mistakes putting together loss models. 

But Roubini’s not just chin-pulling with other eggheads. Instead, he’s traipsing from media outlet to media outlet telling anyone who’ll listen that Wells Fargo—a federally guaranteed financial institution that you, dear taxpayer, would be on the hook for if Roubini’s rantings ever became a self-fulfilling prophecy—will shortly be on the verge of collapse. “Zombie” is his preferred term of art.

And now we see he has no basis to make that claim. He screwed up his math! And the best his defenders can come up with to support him is the anything-might-happen argument, above.  

Sorry, not good enough. Roubini needs to a) pipe down about Wells, and b) fix his model pronto. He might also c) go back to the Journal and Time and all those other places and tell them he was wrong in the first place. But I somehow doubt that last is going to happen.

What do you think? Let me know!


  Add your comment

 

 

Dr. Roberts Posted On 2/26/2009 12:57:22 PM

Thank-you Tom for calling Dr. Gloom on the carpet. One would think Roubini would be absolutely sure of his numbers before calling an icon of the American banking system with a history of lending dating back over 150 years a "zombie" bank. Perhaps the only positive is that the academics pounding the table for the Leninist solution to the crisis will be discredited however much one may wish to seperate the reputations of Roubini from Dr. Krugman.

Michael Posted On 2/26/2009 1:01:30 PM

Roubini: the next bubble.

Dan Posted On 2/26/2009 1:11:07 PM

I think the "Zombie" is up 11% today.

Observer Posted On 2/26/2009 1:15:03 PM

I am sure Dr. R believes his loss estimate is more likely than yours. Whether he is correct or not only time will tell for sure. Same is true for your estimate. BTW, I've yet to see you do an ex-post review of one your anayses that ended up wrong--only railing against others for their mistakes. And it's not clear yet that Dr. R has even made one. He totaled their loss reserve and the charge they took on the WB loans to get $58b of recognized losses. Your quibble his with his loss estimate. But that's it! It's an estimate! Your "analysis" in trying to debunk it is no more or less convincing than his throwing it out there to begin with.

rosebud Posted On 2/26/2009 1:27:48 PM

Pipedown indeed! Why do academics w/o business experience feel the need to opine on matters they have no knowledge and actual insight - time to stop the thumb in the wind doomsday projections. A gag order is justified. How irresponsible of this PhD to make blatant and informed comments! So he has been 98'% right on his predictions - big deal any person in America that has average intelligence could have predicted the mortgage meltdown and the ripple effects of the toxic tranches of packaged mortgage backed securities. Tom - thanks for calling this out and not being afraid of admitting mistakes.

rosebud Posted On 2/26/2009 1:32:52 PM

Pipedown indeed! Why do academics w/o business experience feel the need to opine on matters they have no knowledge and actual insight - time to stop the thumb in the wind doomsday projections. A gag order is justified. How irresponsible of this PhD to make blatant and informed comments! So he has been 98'% right on his predictions - big deal any person in America that has average intelligence could have predicted the mortgage meltdown and the ripple effects of the toxic tranches of packaged mortgage backed securities. Tom - thanks for calling this out and not being afraid of admitting mistakes.

O'Kane  Posted On 2/26/2009 1:50:07 PM

Now that Roubini has replaced Citigroup as your favorite hate model of choice, I will find it refreshing to read a copy of your letter to Prof. Roubini where you pointed out the humiliating error of his ways. Surely you will not deny us an opportunity to read your penetrating communication.

John K Posted On 2/26/2009 2:32:32 PM

Will you comment on the safety of bank preferred stocks like the ones held in the ETF PFF?

HM Loud Posted On 2/26/2009 2:54:32 PM

Roubini owns several Black Swans

joe mc gough Posted On 2/26/2009 2:55:56 PM

What does Warren Buffet has to say about the bad math.

rosebud Posted On 2/26/2009 3:52:56 PM

Pipedown indeed! Why do academics w/o business experience feel the need to opine on matters they have no knowledge and actual insight - time to stop the thumb in the wind doomsday projections. A gag order is justified. How irresponsible of this PhD to make blatant and informed comments! So he has been 98'% right on his predictions - big deal any person in America that has average intelligence could have predicted the mortgage meltdown and the ripple effects of the toxic tranches of packaged mortgage backed securities. Tom - thanks for calling this out and not being afraid of admitting mistakes.

Richard Posted On 2/26/2009 4:43:05 PM

What is he going to say (and Chris Walen at Institutional Risk Analytics - who gets a lot of TV time too) when Wells reports earnings in the first quarter? Earnings...not a huge loss? Walen says the 4 big banks in the US are insolvent...they just don't know it yet. Gee thanks Chris...we're glad you know more than the CEOs of these 4 banks. With JPM and BofA both saying they are currently profitable, I am fully confident WFC will be even more so because they are the best bankers out there. What will the Professor say then?

macroguy Posted On 2/26/2009 5:29:01 PM

Has Roubini commented on your analysis in any direct or indirect way?

Mark H Posted On 2/26/2009 6:45:01 PM

How can JPM be profitable if Roubini is correct? Just doesn't add up. Oh wait, Roubini wants banks to take every possible write down to the worst case scenario in one Q to completely wipe out capital. Doesn't matter if customers are still paying on loans. Doesn't matter that they have operating profits that could eat up any worst case loan losses over time. Under his plan, you'd take a Pro Bowl QB and bench him after having a 4 int game. Not using the past 5+ years to forecast the future, but just using the last game (month). He is absurd and annoying!

rasberry Posted On 2/26/2009 6:50:34 PM

rosebud, Well said.

adamsmythe Posted On 2/26/2009 7:05:48 PM

The second most pessimistic economic forecaster doesn't get a lot of TV time.

mopedman Posted On 2/27/2009 1:42:31 AM

Newsflash...Us Government to convert to common one for one up to 25 billion dollars it's preferred shares against preferred shares other investors convert to common. No new money injected. Haven't seen any prices mentioned.

your boss Posted On 2/27/2009 1:00:39 PM

do you have mind or like all americans you are also dumb

your boss Posted On 2/27/2009 1:00:53 PM

do you have mind or like all americans you are also dumb

kevin mcgrath Posted On 2/28/2009 6:30:31 PM

another point, Roubini uses no recovery value on non-performing loans. This is quite absurd. I i lend a person $1mm to buy a home, and they put no money down(an absurd prospect) and i foreclose the property and auction it off, I am quite certain that i will recover more than nothing.

David S Posted On 2/28/2009 8:35:35 PM

Guys like Roubini are harmful to society. He has never been inside Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo is a well run company.While they may have been somewhat optimistic on the Wachovia deal, the management is very careful. They are not like Roubini who thinks he is a TV star.He will be proven wrong in the end, but will never come on TV to admit it.

Groty Posted On 3/2/2009 7:04:03 PM

Lousy math or not, the guy has unfortunately become a rock star with his persistent media appearances proclaiming doom. This crisis has produced tons of losers, but he's capitalizing on it big time. Tons of new traffic to his website, speaking engagements (presumably paid), and probably a book deal or two in the works. The Prophet of Doom is maximizing his profits from doom.

william Posted On 3/3/2009 6:20:02 PM

he is no longer needed if there are no more bank crisises

Tom "bank stock lover" Brown Posted On 3/6/2009 3:11:32 PM

Hey Tom, Its funny that you analyze Roubini when in fact you should be analyzing your own website and your own misguided aims to "pump" banks. Roubini has probably shorted every stock you put a call on, and my guess is you are much worse in "predictions" than he is. Of course, every dog has his day. You were probably just as correct 15 years ago, when you were pumping up bank stocks, but now you have to deal with your blown predictions. I'm not saying Roubini is a saint either. He'll be as big of a bust as you are now whenever the market comes back up. My point is just that you actually are in no position to question his predictions as yours are no better.
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.