Review & Outlook

Our take on the investing, financial, & economic themes of the day

Big U.S. Banks & Brexit

25 July, 2016 by Paul Devine in Commentary

Two of the largest U.S. banks reported their second-quarter earnings late last week, and while the earnings were as moderately strong as most analysts had expected, it was surprising how little attention was devoted to the Brexit both by bankers and analysts.  That’s not surprising, since most of Brexit’s implications are about the future, while second-quarter earnings are about the past, before Britons voted at the end of June.

JPMorgan Chase reported on the 14th that net income of $6.2 billion was for the second quarter was 10.9% greater than the first quarter, although “relatively flat compared with the prior-year quarter”; the first quarter had included a number of special charges, and merely matching the same-quarter-prior-year’s profit counts as a good result in the current banking environment.  The next day Wells Fargo reported 2Q16 net income of $5.6 billion, essentially its profit in the same quarter of 2015.  Wells’ strong growth in loans, deposits, and revenues were in part offset, management said, by $924 million in charged-off loans and a $150 million increase in reserves for future loan losses, which together should insulate the bank from any further earnings impact on its portfolio of energy loans.

Two very large but different U.S. banks (Morgan views itself primarily as an investment bank, while Wells concentrates on retail banking) thus reported  results better than what most analysts expected.

JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told analysts that the bank had done well despite the Brexit because it had prepared as thoroughly as possible for a “Leave” vote and because it earned fees helping European commercial banks—particularly in Italy and Spain—deal with the market upheaval that followed the news.  One analyst asked the CFO if there would be operational or legal issues that might emerge, and she responded that it’s too soon to tell, but that the bank would continue to support its clients; CEO Jamie Dimon said “there is a range of outcomes” that will not be determined for years, but that JPM is “not going to pull back on serving” European clients.  Another analyst asked if Brexit changed the outlook for M&A, and the CFO replied that generally uncertainty discourages acquisitions, but “at the end of the day” there “would be a tailwind” for M&A.

Wells Fargo’s CFO told analysts that the bank had benefited from buying early in 2Q16 investment securities with “interest rate levels above those available later in the quarter, after the ‘Brexit’ vote.”  The “biggest impact of Brexit was not on how we do business,” the CFO said, “but the big move down in long-term rates.  It’s a great time to be a borrower.”   One analyst asked about Wells’ prospects for its Commercial & Industrial lending division, whether there were Brexit concerns.  The CFO responded that he was “not sure what would build certainty among businessmen” but that while C&I is “not as vibrant a sector as it has been at other times,” that placidity reflects “seasonal or short-term factors” and that “there’s no big story there.”

After all the fuss in the financial press in advance of the British referendum, the surprise victory of the Leave advocates, the brief spasm in financial markets, and the downfall of a Prime Minister, the event which three months ago everyone expected would shape the quarter’s market results turns out to have been a non-event for large U.S. banks and almost all U.S. individual investors.

Will it continue to be immaterial?  It’s hard to say at this early date.  But there’s one small piece of evidence that Brexit won’t be so bad for the future:   In the days after Brexit the Wall Street Journal reported that Wells Fargo took advantage of the pound’s weakness to buy a new office building for £300 million—in the heart of the City of London.

Puerto Rico to Default Today

Two years ago, almost to the day, I wrote about the Puerto Rican debt crisis and how mutual funds had foolishly loaded up on high-yielding, risky Puerto Rican debt.  Thus investors who thought they owned, say, Virginia municipal bonds, actually had 50% or more of their assets in Puerto Rican debt.

The WSJ reports today that the island will officially default today:

Puerto Rico will default on its constitutionally guaranteed debt for the first time Friday by failing to make most of some $1 billion in payments due, officials said on Friday.

The island’s Government Development Bank said the territory faces an imminent cash crunch and that its cash balances have dropped to “dangerously low” levels. As a result, the government isn’t likely to make any of the $779 million payment on general obligation bonds due Friday.

“Even if the commonwealth were to devote every last penny” in its operating account to Friday’s debt payments, “it would still owe holders of the public debt hundreds of millions of dollars,” the GDB said in a statement.


Buying Opportunities from the Brexit Sell-Off

U.S. markets have been up strongly yesterday and (thus far) today, as have British and European markets.  Are there buying opportunities among the stocks that sold off sharply on Friday and Monday?

Fewer than you might think.  The selling on Friday and Monday wasn’t indiscriminate, and it’s indiscriminate selling that creates opportunities.  Not everyone understands this, including the headline editors at the WSJ.  Consider the curious subtitle from a WSJ piece the other day by Spencer Jakab titled “Are There Bargains Among the ‘Brexit’ Wreckage?”.  The subtitle read, “Not all stocks were equally hit when the U.K. voted to leave the European Union, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a buying opportunity.”  The implication is that an unequal stock sell-off would mean that there were buying opportunities.  This seems exactly backward: if stocks were equally hit when the U.K. voted to leave, then there would be obvious buying opportunities, because stocks’ fortunes aren’t equally implicated in Britain’s EU membership.

Here’s a snapshot of the hardest-hit large-cap London-listed stocks from Friday:

FTSE losers

As I noted yesterday, there was a clear predominance of financial services companies. A fair number of stocks in the FTSE 100 were up on Friday:

FTSE winners

The S&P 500 Index sold off, but as you can see from the dashed line below, it dropped back only to its level in March, which is a point where many companies were still near their 52 week highs.

s&p 500

As in the UK, financial stocks in the US sold off the most during Friday and Monday’s declines.  The sell off might be merited in big global banks, but it’s less clear why small-cap US banks or financial technology companies like S&P Global (SPGI) should be punished.  These are the sort of limited opportunities we’ve been considering.


Brexit may not inhibit LSE/Deutsche Börse Tie-Up

Here’s another piece of evidence for thinking Brexit may not hurt UK companies as much as many think: although there are uncertainties about what final shape the deal will take, the Brexit vote hasn’t even deterred the proposed merger of the London Stock Exchange Group and the Deutsche Börse, according to the WSJ today.

Britain’s fortunes

One fact that complicates my previous argument about Britain’s fortunes, post-Brexit, is the comparative underperformance of the FTSE 250, which tracks mid-cap companies.  Such mid-caps are typically less globally oriented, compared to the larger companies in the FTSE 100.  As the WSJ reports this morningthe FTSE 250 has dropped 12% since the Brexit vote, compared to the 2% drop in the FTSE 100.

Nevertheless, the FTSE 250 is still outperforming European stocks for the year.  Here is the FTSE 100 (in yellow) compared to the Euro Stoxx 600 (light blue) and the FTSE 250 (dark blue):

FTSE 250

Why have stocks in the FTSE 250 done particularly badly, even if they’ve appeared to stabilize today (up 3.78%)?  The chief reason may be the heavy representation of financials–banks and real estate investment trusts.  Nearly 33% of the FTSE 250 is made up of financial companies:

sector breakdown

The FTSE 100, by comparison, is comprised of just 17% financials.  Financials have been hardest hit by Brexit because they are most dependent upon the regulatory regime that has created the EU common market, and that has allowed Britain to serve as a hub for providing financial services to the rest of the EU.