Bank of America TARP Repayment Premature, Analyst Says

First Posted: 12- 4-09 07:13 PM   |   Updated: 12- 4-09 07:23 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Bofa

A leading bank analyst says the regulators who allowed Bank of America to repay its $45 billion in government bailout funds made a big mistake because the bank may well need that money soon to withstand the next wave of bad loans, the withdrawal of federal subsidies, and the possible reevaluation of assets.

Wall Street celebrated the bank's liberation from onerous conditions that accompanied the bailout funds; government officials crowed that taxpayers made a profit on the deal; the media marveled at the banking sector's swift recovery.

But Christopher Whalen, a bank analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics, says Bank of America's loans continue to sour. Defaults more than tripled from the first quarter to the third; loans more than 90 days delinquent and those so late they're no longer accruing interest have shot up 15 percent, according to an analysis of banking data.

That's because, despite signs of recovery at the macro level, it takes time for homeowners to become delinquent on their mortgages and credit cards after a job loss.

To pay taxpayers back, the firm says it will use about $26 billion in excess cash "at precisely the time when the [Federal Reserve] is withdrawing many forms of subsidies for the largest banks", notes Whalen's IRA Advisory Service report. That cash could be used to guard against future losses.

"If you want a very tangible example of why the Fed should be taken out of the business of bank supervision, it is precisely the TARP repayment by [Bank of America]," Whalen writes. The Fed supervises Bank of America because it is a bank-holding company. While other regulators supervise units of the firm, the Fed is responsible for the entire corporation. The bank can't repay taxpayers without the Fed's permission.

Whalen argues that bank regulators should force the firm to raise capital now and keep it until the middle of next year when Bank of America's losses are more clear.

"Apparently allowing outgoing CEO Ken Lewis to take a victory lap via TARP repayment is more important to the Fed than ensuring the safety and soundness of [Bank of America]," Whalen writes.

Story continues below
Advertisement

Reached late Friday, a company spokesman said the firm typically doesn't comment on analyst reports.

Whalen notes that large banks may experience higher losses next year from sour loans. In a research note this week, analysts at Goldman Sachs said they expect the unemployment rate to hit 10.75 percent by early 2011, a 0.75 percent increase from the current rate.

It's not just worsening loans, though, that has Whalen concerned. He also points to optimistic real estate valuations on Wall Street, noting that prices have been "greatly helped" by the Federal Reserve. The Fed has purchased some $850 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities since last year.

"Simply put, the Fed has forcibly revalued toxic waste" through its purchases, Whalen said. The true value of the loans on the bank's books are in question.

The Fed is "betting on concluding the bank rescue...in the next year or so," he writes. But the assumption "may not be fully supported by reality on the ground."

A leading bank analyst says the regulators who allowed Bank of America to repay its $45 billion in government bailout funds made a big mistake because the bank may well need that money soon to withsta...
A leading bank analyst says the regulators who allowed Bank of America to repay its $45 billion in government bailout funds made a big mistake because the bank may well need that money soon to withsta...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
35
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »   (2 total)
lvdragonlady   12:36 PM on 12/07/2009
Too soon or not let them repay what they own and then we can sit back and wait for them to fail for real this time around.
desertman   07:18 PM on 12/07/2009
The bailout generated the derision it deserved. One blog posting described it succinctly: “Taking money from people who made good investments and giving it to people who made bad investments will make good investments in the future and the people who made good investments will keep making them even though they will have less money to do so.”
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
3neuticals   02:29 PM on 12/08/2009
The concept of them paying it back doing any good only applies if that money is subsequently returned to whomever it was borrowed from. If it was inflated, it would need to be destroyed. This is why the nefarious concept of using it to allegedly create jobs is so maddening. It is also why banks are not working with homeowners.
invest in jobs   10:32 AM on 12/07/2009
I understand that in a deep recession such as the one we we (and still are) in it is appropriate to increase govt spending to get the economy going again, but the problem is so little of that money has actually helped average people who are struggling - who who have been fired or or working for reduced pay or reduced hours. \

good articles: http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com
We're still in recession as far as I;m concerned. Screw GDP. Until there's jobs and health care it;s a recession.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
3neuticals   04:05 PM on 12/06/2009
OK. So what has BofA purchased or otherwise secured in the interim of having the TARP funds on their ledgers? Also, who is holding the liens on many of those 'toxic assets' and with what money?

Ask me why this matters or put two and two together yourself.

What is going on here is patently criminal. It needs to stop.

And 10.75% unemployment by 2011 is a joke. Why do they insist on insulting our intelligence? I'll bet we'll have at least 10.75% (in reality over 20%) by the end of February and closer to 13-15% by 2011.
desertman   04:30 PM on 12/07/2009
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 created the $700 billion bailout (plus $100 billion in add-ons) Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a wealth transfer scheme so brazen as to leave one breathless. Another Fed bubble had popped; losses in the real estate mortgage meltdown were real; they had already taken place. The only real question was who would be made to eat those losses: the investment banking community that earned millions in fees each year in the debacle and their offspring, young and yet-to-be-born, who would go through their entire adulthood burdened by heavy debts.
invest in jobs   11:36 AM on 12/06/2009
The government has put the same punch bowl out that got us into the mess in the first place. More debt and consumption and don't worry about paying it back. (Berbnanke= Greenspan II)

good articles; http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebtNavigation   08:04 AM on 12/06/2009
BofA's TARP repayment is just another example of plutocrony­istikakist­ocracy in action. For the deeply underwater CRE loans we have "extend, pretend and amend" while the struggling consumer is sued and foreclosed upon. I've seen a new verb in use here and there: "Minching" the bank. That means joining up with YouTube debt revolt phenom Ann Minch's debtors revolt army, an American version of Mexico's "El Barzon" in the making. So all the ratejacking and fee harvesting is coming back to bite the banks. Incidentally, within a short span of years El Barzon toppled the party that had run Mexico for 60+ years. Americans have a choice: euthanize these moribund behemoths or enjoy a Japanese-style "lost decade" or three...
GeoLee   12:38 AM on 12/06/2009
They must be going to announce some huge EOY bonuses.
photo
Darryl Milam   10:04 PM on 12/05/2009
Sounded good on it's face, but as usual wrong move.
grateful4thedead   09:42 PM on 12/05/2009
Chris Whalen is one of the best in the business.

And, he is not a sell side analyst like the pinheads from Goldman, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Citi, you get the point.

For those of you interested, keep an eye on FASB 157 which currently allows banks to mark assets however they damn well please....this is a disaster. Additionally, watch for the implications of FASB 166 and 167 which requires banks to bring off balance sheet items back on their books, effective Nov. 15, 2009 for Q1 2010....nobody, particularly the banks, is talking about this.

our banking system is still in horrific shape and the Fed is a clear and present danger to the citizens of the U.S.A.
PaHairO   01:09 AM on 12/06/2009
Good on ya, mate. You are right to point out the FASB sham.

Funny how they don't let individuals "value" their "assets" at some self-nominated price level, isn't it ?

( Look, Daddy, I passed the stress test ! And my portfolio is going gangbusters ! )
blogisti   08:34 PM on 12/05/2009
The Tarp banks are not worried about future loses. They have been assured by the Government that if they get in to trouble they will be bailed out. They were too big to fail a year ago and now they are even larger so they are not worried about going back and getting more.
They want out from under the Tarp so they can write new bonus contracts to their precious and 'talented' employees. Once the bonus contracts are all signed and sealed then, well, if there is another collapse their folks will get theirs yet again. They are just writing another happy ending for themselves and their own. As for the rest of us? Well, that's not their problem is it?
olderdem   07:16 PM on 12/05/2009
Lewis wants to make sure that his retirement bonuses will be sufficiently large and not curtailed by the governement.

Watch and see how big his payout will be after the TARP funds are repaid. People will be shocked -- but it won't be taxpayer money anymore.
Mildmannered   07:15 PM on 12/05/2009
Thank you, Mr. Whalen, for the warning.
photo
G FORCE   03:34 PM on 12/05/2009
Bank of America Sucks, they should just close this bank already.
photo
dfranz   11:59 AM on 12/05/2009
The Bank of America is so caught up in the greed mentality that infested the banking industry that it is willing to put itself in peril of failing again just to be able to pay big salaries. This way of thinking will be difficult to wrest away from these entitlement egotists. They watch Goldman Sachs and drool.

I recently moved all of my banking out of Bank of America to a credit union, including credit cards and 2nd mortgage. My business was welcomed, my refinanced 2nd cost me nothing in fees and my monthly cost was reduced by $400.00. Best move I ever made.
photo
Dredd   08:44 AM on 12/05/2009
Pardon me for being suspicious, but the effect of this payback of the TARP bailout funds is to take federal and public eyes off the bank's activities.

It was probably because investigations were getting too close to finding out facts about some great mysteries happening in public cash flow.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/12/six-more-banks-bite-dust.html
photo
sailor422   10:14 AM on 12/05/2009
I think it's so they can find a new CEO that wants the job.
bereasonable0   07:36 AM on 12/05/2009
It seems to me that they would pay up in order to get the Fed out of their business (salary plans). I'm fine with that as long as they are no longer too big to fail. When they come back for more in 2010 they need to be broken up.
photo
SiberianRat   07:53 AM on 12/05/2009
Yep...another collapse is pretty much inevitable, so....
photo
redhead61   11:00 AM on 12/05/2009
So let them fail. We need to Stop handing out money to corporate welfare.

Twitter Edition