And I’m going to give you a chance to join them.

If you think Canada escaped the downward trend in U.S. banking, think again. While the country may not have plunged headfirst into subprime mortgages, it did dip heavily into risky derivatives. The leverage it took on generated impressive returns on equity in good times, but that same leverage is set to wipe out equity today.

Shareholders in one “safe” Canadian bank will have to rethink their loyalty. Its looming solvency crisis practically guarantees a dividend cut. And that’s our catalyst for this month’s short play action – offering us a chance for 200% profit potential.

Accounting secrets have not yet obliterated Canadian bank earnings – like those of U.S. banks – because the Canadians have not yet accounted for the coming tsunami of mortgage, consumer loan, and corporate loan losses.

Here’s how they loaded those loan books with hidden risk.

The Basics of Bank Accounting

Bank shareholders leverage their capital by borrowing short-term money, primarily from depositors. Your bank account is an asset for you, but it’s a liability for your bank. For every dollar of capital, bank shareholders borrow 15, 20, or even 30 dollars from senior creditors – otherwise, they could not afford to own their huge portfolios of loans and securities. Here’s the core problem: Bank shareholders and their agents (bank executives) are lending other people’s money. So bankers are looser with lending than if they were lending their own savings.

The accounting process to determine commercial bank profits is inherently speculative, as well. Banks book an upfront profit on every new loan they make, minus a small “provision” for loan losses – just in case some loans wind up going bad. These upfront profits have the habit of disappearing when loans “season,” and banks discover how many deadbeats owe them money. In case you’ve been wondering what has wiped out the majority of the S&P 500’s trailing earnings, here’s your answer: Banks and brokerages reversing most of the profits they booked on loans made and securities bought at the peak of the bubble.

Banks claimed to make good money loans to every borrower. But somebody sure was lying, since they’re taking charges against these older vintage loans and securities left and right. And the industrywide provision for loan losses, which is the single most important – and unpredictable – cost in a bank’s income statement, has been soaring. Once these provision expenses soared on the backs of delinquent loans, the banking sector’s earnings plunged deep into negative territory.

Throw in a few more explosive ingredients like deposit insurance, central bank lending facilities, loan syndication, and securitization and we’re left with a system for which sales volume – not risk management – is priority No. 1.

Those who claim the banking system is well capitalized – including those who designed the unstressful “stress test” – hold rosy assumptions about how many loans will go bad and how much banks will earn from existing loans to have a shot at outrunning their credit losses.

Lots of bank stocks remain in a fragile state. This month, we’re going to buy puts on the Canadian bank most ready to fall. And now’s your chance to join us. If you want the name of my latest play, just click here to learn more about Strategic Short Report.

Regards,
Dan Amoss

Source: Don’t Bet on Canada’s Banks

Don’t look now, but history tends to repeat itself.

Also, consider the fundamental picture. We have rallied 48% from the March lows on the back of what? Good earnings? Good employment figures? Good spending figures? Expanding GDP? No.

We have rallied based on one of the largest and most concerted propaganda campaigns ever waged, supported by government stimulus. But no government can stimulate forever. The bottom line is this, if Americans do not return to work, THERE IS NO RECOVERY. Memorize this line. Post it on your refrigerator, your mirror, your dashboard – wherever!

So maybe now you’re asking yourself, “Aren’t the unemployment numbers getting better?”

Well, let’s see…

Verizon (NYSE:VZ) – 8,000 jobs cut
Motorola (NYSE:MOT) – 7,000
Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) – 5,000
Untied Technologies (NYSE:UTX) – 8,000
HSBC (NYSE:HBC) – 6,100
Anglo American (LON:AAL) – 19,000
Avon (LON:AVON) – 2,500
Goodyear Tire (NYSE:GT) – 5,000
GM (NYSE:GRM) – 10,000
Nissan Motors – 20,000
Panasonic (NYSE:PC) – 15,000
PNC Bank (NYSE:PNC) – 5,800

Many of these will be released in the third and fourth quarters. No doubt there are plenty more we haven’t heard from yet. Frankly, I couldn’t list the thousands of companies and millions of jobs lost in this write-up. That’s just a sampling. But let’s get to some hard and fast figures.

According to Seeking Alpha, 13 million Americans will lose their benefits by years’ end. So if unemployment claims are falling, people must be getting back to work. Right?

WRONG!

They are exhausting their benefits. There are 30 million people in the United States on food stamps. There are only 200 million working-age Americans (age 15-64). Is there any wonder why the Administration is NOW saying they will have to raise taxes on the middle class to fund their programs?

Unemployment has been estimated by many good economists as being around 20%. Unfortunately for these people, their nanny-government lifeboats are slowly running out of air.

Those 3 million people who lost their jobs in the second half of last year? Once you factor in their dependants, that equals 10 million people who have no income and no savings.

And how about the other 4 million others who lost their jobs in the first half of this year? They will be next. The numbers get so depressing, I hate to even count them up.

As I have said before, unemployed people don’t spend money. They don’t buy technologies, or durables, or even pay their mortgage. Bankruptcies are up 600% in this recent downturn. And that includes the time after Congress affected new rules to make bankruptcy harder.

So who is going to pay for anything when they are struggling to buy groceries?

If the equity averages are already rallying on the back of these horrible stats, there is nowhere to go but down when the real truth sets in.

And we have seen this corollary frequently in recent months. When stocks and risk assets fall, so do the currencies, and the dollar rises. We are a long way from being out of the woods on this retracement.

So why do I cite all this doom and gloom about the United States? Believe me, there’s plenty more to go around. Because the fact of the matter is this: When these chickens do come home to roost, we will see another gut-wrenching breathtaking sell-off in equities, which will be followed by currencies. We have not seen the end of this yet.

While some are talking of a recovery, others are talking about a possible double-dip recession – and I’m reasonably sure we are in for a “multi-dip.” It is hard to be bullish on the dollar for any reason, but if the market drops again, which I believe it will, funds will rush right back to the dollar (and the yen).

So far, we have seen range-bound trading in the recent months as currencies search for direction. This week the big news was the US GDP. Risk currencies rallied on the back of it, but for 24 hours they have remained flat as there were no buyers to move it higher.

Also, the market got awfully jittery on the release of the consumer spending news yesterday. The manufacturing euphoria expended itself, and now we find out that personal income has dropped 1.4%, the biggest fall in four years. Inflation-adjusted spending fell 0.1%. The real dark spots in the economy have started showing back up. The stimulus has worked its way and done its best, but its effects are now negligible. Even though there are signs of a “recovery,” it isn’t going to be one without the consumer. If he’s exhausted his means of spending, or is just afraid to put out any money, the recovery trade will be doomed. And that means dollar strength once again.

But for now, we will have to trade with what we have. It is hard to argue with the markets, even with the most compelling of reasons. A person may as well try to stop an ocean wave from breaking onshore.

And as we look ahead, we must always be mindful of what may be. As numerous talking heads were saying on Tuesday of this week, “We have turned the corner… things are going to get better – if they don’t get worse!”

Regards,

Bill Jenkins

Source: Illogical Optimisim

Managed futures programs – alternative-investment vehicles that enabled professional money managers to take positions in a wide variety of securities and derivatives – posted strong returns in a year that was marked mostly by investment losses. The average managed futures program returned about 14%, according to the Barclay CTA Index, and 11.4% as measured by the Stark 300 Traders Index.  By comparison, theStandard & Poor’s 500 Index and the tech-laden Nasdaq Composite Index each plummeted nearly 40% in 2008, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average nosedived 33.8%.

“Managed futures funds like drama and volatility, so 2008 was a banner year,” said Curtis Lyman, managing director of HighTower Advisors LLCand principal of its West Palm Beach, Fla.-based Alpha Wealth Division.  “While I don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow, some of the major dislocations in the marketplace still exist, which could offer the potential for a good environment for this strategy moving forward.”

While investors who participated in managed futures programs reaped significant performance benefits both on an absolute and relative basis last year, many retail investors and even some institutional players are still unaware of this product and the characteristics that contributed to the lofty returns.  And while the entire asset class still only holds about $225 billion, according to Barclay Trading Group (NYSE ADR: BCS), it has grown significantly over the past two decades as investors learn about its performance history and strong diversification features.

“Managed futures, as an asset class, is still relatively unknown,” said Paul Wigdor, president of Superfund USA Inc., a public managed futures fund that oversees $1.7 billion in assets apportioned across 18 countries.  “We are trying to build this asset class  by educating advisors, investors, and the media about this product.  We are not trying to replace the more traditional asset classes, but merely to educate people about the need to diversify beyond just stocks and bonds.”

The Lowdown on Managed Futures

Before making an investment in a managed futures account, an investor must first develop some insights on the overallfutures market. Afutures contract is considered a derivativeinstrument, whose value is determined by the movement of the underlying asset or market. The contract represents an agreement to buy or sell an underlying asset at a predetermined price and date in the future.

Managed futures funds are managed by commodity-trading advisors, or CTAs, who monitor and trade in up to 150 to 200 different futures markets that range from equities to fixed income to currencies to agricultural products to energy to metals.  The positions can either be “long” (buy the underlying asset) or “short” (sell the underlying asset) based on expectations of future price movements.  These managers often employ “leverage” – using borrowed funds to buy on margin – which allows them to maintain larger positions in the underlying assets than they otherwise would be able to if they paid upfront in full. Buying on margin is a tactic that can dramatically increase returns when the manager has made the correct market call, but which likewise magnifies the losses when the investment manager is wrong.

CTAs typically charge investors management fees in the range of 1.5% to 2%, and may also earn incentive fees of 20% to 25% on any new profits generated by the managed-futures fund.  While some investors may claim that such fees seem excessive, performance is always quoted on a “net of fees” (after fees have been paid) basis, so the returns these funds generate can be accurately compared to the gains or losses generated by more-traditional investment vehicles.

Other factors that are important to note:

• The managed-futures industry is highly regulated by the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
• The future exchanges offer tremendous liquidity,
• And the existence of clearinghouses to guarantee transactions reduces the counterparty risk.

“Our fund is publicly registered and regulated by the SEC and CFTC,” said Superfund’s Wigdor.  “In light of Madoff and other scandals, our clients take great comfort in its transparency.  We file 10-Ks and 10-Qs; our auditor is Deloitte & Touche and our [net asset value] is computed by PNC Bank (NYSE: PNC).”

A Look Back at the Beginning

While managed futures remain an untapped market in many investment circles, the earliest futures market was actally formed in the mid-1800s when the Chicago Board of Trade was established to provide an outlet for Midwest farmers to sell their products to East Coast merchants.  The farmers were able to lock in prices and often hedge their operations against poor weather conditions or other situations that could adversely impact future sales.

In the early days, agricultural-based contracts dominated the futures markets and the first financial futures were not introduced until 1975. Today, more than 70% of all futures transactions are based on financials as their underlying securities, with contracts related to stocks and interest rates among the most frequently traded, according to Man Investments.

The Joys of Non-Correlation

For most investors, the main appeal of a managed futures account is its ability to provide significant diversification to a well-balanced portfolio.  Because the managed-futures asset classes are largely non-correlatedwith stocks and fixed-income products, an allocation can reduce the overall portfolio risk, while offering the potential for yield enhancement, particularly during challenging times for traditional assets like those experienced in 2008.

Hightower’s Lyman agrees that non-correlated assets can be a welcome addition, which is why he incorporates managed futures into portfolios of his more-sophisticated clients.  He believes managed futures play an important role in his clients’ overall risk-adjusted returns.

“The addition of managed futures offers the potential to smooth out portfolio performance because of their low correlation with equities,” Lyman said, noting that he builds client portfolios that are designed to provide consistent returns over time and that are broadly diversified across various asset classes.

Managed-futures assets can be particularly beneficial during some of the stock markets roughest stretches, he said.

“Since we are always looking to reduce volatility through the inclusion of low-correlated asset classes, managed futures represent an investment we need to consider,” said Lyman.  “From a performance standpoint, if you look at the 10 worst months for stocks since 1987, managed futures on average have dramatically outperformed.”

However, it’s important to note that investors use managed futures as only one piece of a well-diversified portfolio. In fact, due to the highly regulated nature of the futures markets, most investors will limit this part of their portfolio to no more than 10% of their total assets. And as the various asset classes rise or fall in value over time, investors will need to periodically rebalance their holdings to make sure that they do not exceed that 10% allocation limit.

Lyman has not experienced any problems working within the regulatory framework and says the portfolios of his most-aggressive clients tend to allocate an average of 5% to 7% of their holdings into managed futures.

Source: Managed Futures Can Put Investors in the Black – Even When Stocks Are Deep in the Red

Do we believe the government’s clean bill of health on the 10 TARP escapees, and do we mark down the shares of the banks that remain in the government’s debt?

The question is a simple one. But the answer is anything but clear-cut.

At the extremes, the question isn’t difficult. Citigroup (NYSE: C) is being forced to raise $55 billion of capital through preferred stock conversion, and even then is not sure of survival. In addition to the federal TARP injections, Citi has benefited from a $300 billion guarantee of its assets. It has been forced to sell some of its major subsidiaries, including Japanese broker Nikko Cordial Securities, which it bought only two years ago. Its chief executive officer, Vikram S. Pandit, cost Citi $600 millionwhen the bank lured him into the organization by buying out his hedge fund two years ago.

That hedge fund was subsequently closed. And it’s by no means clear that Pandit has the skills needed to run a low-risk financial behemoth whose future should be oriented towards doing stuff that is very simple.

With Citi’s stock trading at about $3.50 a share, investors may feel the chance is worth taking. But given the company’s long history of serial financial disasters, it must be much more likely that the government will eventually be badgered by taxpayers into losing patience with the mess, resulting in its final dismemberment with little or no payoff for shareholders.

At the opposite end of the banking-bailout spectrum, at least two of the banks that have paid off TARP – U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB) and BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) – seem to be in good shape, and indeed have expressed indignation at being forced to go through the demeaning TARP process at all.

Their shareholders should be equally indignant: Both banks have been forced to raise capital while their share prices were still depressed, and to slash their dividends from levels that had literally taken years to build up. It will be interesting to see whether either bank has the moxie to restore its previous dividend in full in the coming quarter. Doing so would be a sign of management that was both confident and shareholder-friendly – and of an outlook for each bank that was decidedly favorable.

Certainly, however tempting it may be for these banks to assert their strength by taking over weaker neighbors, their dividends should be fully restored as a matter of principle before they go out on any acquisition binges. The last few years have seen far too many self-aggrandizing management schemes that are engineered at the expense of shareholders, and a policy of acquisitions-before-dividend restoration would signal that management has still not received the message of how a responsible financial institution should be run.

If all the banks still in TARP were like Citigroup, and all those that had escaped were like USB and BBT, the government would have done a great job, and investors would have useful information. However, they’re not. Among the escapees is Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF). Capital One has raised $1.5 billion in new equity, but it made losses in the first quarter and is a leader in the subprime credit card segment, surely close to the next epicenter of the ongoing financial crisis. It doesn’t help that Congress has also passed a credit card reform actoutlawing many of Capital One’s favorite practices. In short, nothing will convince me that Capital One is a safe place for your investment dollars, and my best guess is that before the end of this year we will know that the government blew this one big-time.

In the final quadrant, those that have not repaid TARP but appear to be in good shape, we have Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) and PNC Financial Services Group (NYSE: PNC). Both appear to have been in relatively good shape from their own operations, but during the crisis bought banks of equivalent size to themselves that had made a mess of things: Wells bought Wachovia Corp. and PNC bought the Cleveland-based National City Corp. Their failure to repay TARP may mean that further problems are lurking under the hood in the banks they acquired; Wachovia, in particular, made an exceptionally foolish acquisition by spending an estimated $25 billion to buy the huge California mortgage bank, Golden West Financial, in August 2006.

But only time will tell. Both Wachovia and PNC are worth watching closely. If, during the next couple of quarters, only medium-sized problems surface, then it’s likely that these institutions will emerge stronger from their deals and will be well worth an investment.

The bottom line: Keep an eye on Wells Fargo and PNC, but don’t buy them yet. If either U.S. Bancorp (which is due to declare a dividend in the next few days) or BBT restores their previous quarterly dividends of 43 cents and 47 cents, respectively, back the truck up and buy!

Source: What TARP Banks Are Investment Grade?

• General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) Chief Executive Fritz Henderson yesterday (Thursday) told Bloomberg News that bankruptcy is “probable.” The top U.S. automaker has until June 1 to cut costs and debt or face a government-imposed bankruptcy and asset sale.

• Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) posted a flat quarterly profit – a result of shoppers taking advantage of low prices while the store took hits from a strengthened U.S. dollar, Reuters reported. The retail giant earned 77 cents a share in the first quarter ended April 30, compared to 76 cents a share, the year prior.

• The United Kingdom’s largest phone company, BT Group PLC (NYSE: BT), announced plans to cut 15,000 more jobs and lowered its dividend 58.9% to 6.5 pence a share. The company made those announces as it posted a fourth-quarter loss of 977 million pounds ($1.48 billion) on costs to overhaul its global services division, Bloomberg reported.

• Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (NYSE: PNC) said it plans to sell as much as 15 million shares to raise up to $653 million in capital, Reuters reported. After last week’s bank stress tests, regulators told PNC it needed to raise $600 million to stay afloat should the global economy deteriorate further.

• Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) will tell up to 3,000 U.S. dealerships this week they are closing, which could result in another 150,000 job losses, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. The losses would come on top of the 50,000 people already out of work because of the dealer shutdowns that have taken place so far this year. Chrysler, according to a bankruptcy filing, is exercising its right to reject contracts at 789 dealers — about a quarter of its U.S. retail network. The targeted dealers represent only 14% of Chrysler’s total sales volume, MarketWatch reported.

• Irving Picard, the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff’s investment company, said he expects to approve at least $100 million of investor claims by May 25 and achieve “significant” clawback-suit settlements in the next few weeks, Bloomberg reported. Picard said he has recovered as much as $1 billion of Madoff- related assets and that he has filed lawsuits to recover another $10.1 billion.  Bernard Madoff on March 12 pleaded guilty to running the biggest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history and faces as much as 150 years in prison when he is sentenced June 29 in Manhattan federal court.

• The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) now predicts global oil consumption will fall this year at the fastest rate since 1981. The adviser to 28 industrialized nations on energy policy, said the rise in oil prices to a six-month high above $60 this week was due to sentiment rather than supply and demand fundamentals, with consumption set to fall by 2.56 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2009.

Source: Investment News Briefs Friday, May 15, 2009

At least seven of the 10 banks considered by the government to be inadequately capitalized, as well as two others that were found to have sufficient capital cushioning, announced fund raising plans following the release of the stress test results.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (NYSE: PNC), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB), KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC), and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) all announced stock offerings or asset sales in the past week.

BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) and Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF), which were deemed by the government to be sufficiently capitalized, have also announced stock offerings.

Still, S&P says the banks, which have will continue to struggle without a bigger capital cushion than regulators require.

“There’s nothing to say that this banking crisis can’t go on for another three or four years,” S&P Managing Director Tanya Azarchs said.

S&P on May 4 said it might lower its ratings for 23 U.S. banks and thrifts, including 10 that underwent stress tests, citing concern about the industry’s capitalization, Reuters reported. It said the 23 companies had at least a 50% chance of being downgraded within 90 days.

Source: Standard & Poor’s Says Banking Crisis Has Entered New Phase

Banks that require funding will have 30 days to present a capital-raising strategy to regulators and then six months to implement it.

It is unlikely that any of the banks will require any additional taxpayer money.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET), American Express Co. (NYSE: AXP), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE: BK), BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT), Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB), and State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT) are in the clear in terms of having adequate capital cushioning.

The following banks will be required to raise these assigned amounts of capital:

• Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC): $34 billion.
• Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC): $13.7 billion.
• GMAC LLC (NYSE: GMA): $11.5 billion.
• Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C): $5.5 billion.
• Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS): $1.8 billion.
• Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ: FITB): $1.1 billion.
• KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY): $1.8 billion.
• PNC Financial Services (NYSE: PNC): $600 million.
• Regions Financial Corp. (NYSE: RF): $2.5 billion.
• SunTrust Banks Inc.( NYSE: STI): $2.2 billion.

The banks will have until June 8 to develop a plan to raise the required capital and until Nov. 9 to implement it. They may choose to raise the money in a variety of ways. They may sell assets, court private investment or convert the government’s existing preferred shares into common stock.

Citigroup has already announced plans to convert a portion of the government’s $45 billion stake into common stock, a move that will give the federal government a 36% stake in the company. Other regional banks – such as Fifth Third Bank or Regions Financial – could be forced to take similar actions, but are loath to do so, as most of the moves would be dilutive to existing shareholders.

Citigroup has agreed to sell Nikko Cordial Securities to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (OTC: SMFJY) for about $5.5 billion. The deal, which is to be completed by Oct. 1, is expected to boost the bank’s Tier-1 capital ratio by approximately 27 basis points.

Morgan Stanley plans to close its capital gap by selling assets or stock to private investors, a person briefed on the plan told The New York Times. And Wells Fargo said late yesterday that it plans to sell $6 billion in new common stock in an effort to raise required capital.

While Bank of America has said it doesn’t agree with the Fed’s conclusions, the bank yesterday outlined its strategy to accommodate the government’s demands. BofA is exploring the sale of such business units as its First Republic private-banking unit and asset manager Columbia Management, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The sale of those businesses could raise a combined $4 billion, David Hendler of CreditSights Inc. told The Journal. BofA could also get about $8 billion for its partial stake in China Construction Bank Corp.

Beyond that BofA would have the options of converting the government’s existing $45 billion investment, or $33 billion in private preferred shares, into common stock.

The Fed wants bank-holding companies to achieve a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of at least 6%, and a Tier 1 Common risk-based ratio of at least 4% by the end of 2010. The goal is to get banks to the point where they are stable enough that they can borrow from private investors without a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) guarantee, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg News.

“Going forward, we just need banks to be able to issue debt without the FDIC backing – that’s the next stage for these bank names in terms of evaluating their health,” Mark Bronzo, a money manager at Security Global Investors LLC, which oversees $21 billion in Irvington, N.Y., told Bloomberg.

If the banks fail to meet capital requirements, the government will step in to provide the necessary funds. However, it’s unlikely that any more taxpayer money will be needed, as about $110 billion of the original $700 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding remains.

Wall Street’s Reaction

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 102.43 points, or 1.2%, yesterday, with the Dow Jones U.S. Financial Services Index down 3.78%. However, Wall Street’s reaction to the tests won’t be fully realized until the market opens later today (Friday).

“I think this will be a confidence-instilling announcement,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair told a Senate panel Wednesday. “There will be additional needs for capital buffers for some institutions, but I think there will be mechanisms to do that within the next six months.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in an interview with PBS television’s “The Charlie Rose Show” that all of the institutions tested already have “significant cushions” of capital and that Americans have every reason to be confident going forward.

“The results will be, on balance, reassuring,” Geithner said.

But some analysts are skeptical about what the bank stress tests actually achieved, or if their standards of evaluation were even valid in the first place. After all, the tests have occupied resources from both the federal government and the private sector for months, and have increased stock market volatility.

“The banks are healing themselves, and it could have been done a lot faster if government had gotten out of the way instead of parking the emergency equipment in the middle of the road,” Gary B. Townsend, a former banking regulator who now runs his own investment firm, told The New York Times.

Also, many bank employees, and even Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, have expressed concern that the tests weren’t stringent enough.

Last month, Warren gave rise to speculation that another stress test might be needed by the end of the year, after she called the adverse economic scenario employed by the Fed “disturbingly close” to current economic conditions.

In the Fed’s most pessimistic economic forecast, for example, the government projects the unemployment rate will climb to 10.3% in 2010. But unemployment already hit 8.5% in March and many economists are predicting that it rose to 8.9% in April. If that’s the case, it’s not hard to imagine the national jobless rate reaching double digits by the end of the year.

“The stress tests will make a terrific contribution if they are tough and transparent,” Warren said. “If they are not, they will be useless.”

Still, despite the test’s alleged failings, there is a hope that with more transparency and a greater buffer of equity, investor confidence will be restored.

“This is sending a message that the banks need more capital, but their losses are manageable and the system itself is solvent,” Kevin Fitzsimmons, an analyst at Sandler O’Neill told The Times. “Whether it sticks is something else.”

Source: Bank Stress Tests: The Results Are in; Now What?

He may well be right; more interesting is what this tells us about the U.S. banking system going forward.

“The institutions are insolvent,” Roubini said in a Bloomberg Radio interview. “You have to take them over and you have to split them up into three or four national banks, rather than having a humongous monster that is too big to fail.”

But that may be impractical. Citigroup Inc. (C), for example, can sell and is selling peripheral parts of its empire such as Japanese broker Nikko Securities. However, so much of its business involves an international nexus of connections – including its large U.S. operations – that splitting them may be both impractical and excessively value destroying.

However, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) showed Thursday what could be achieved by simplicity. It gave investors a preview of its first quarter results, in which it will make record earnings of about $3 billion, or 55 cents a share, after paying preferred stock dividends of $372 million on its $25 billion of preference shares from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

Both the old Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank, which it acquired last year, are showing good results, with $3.3 billion in loan-loss charge-offs for the combined group – down from $6.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008. As a result, bank stocks were up sharply Thursday, continuing their healthy rally over the last six weeks.

Wells Fargo is one of six U.S. banks – Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), and Morgan Stanley (MS), Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) – with assets of more than $1 trillion. They are so large they form a separate “top tier” of banks, since the next largest bank, PNC Financial Services (PNC), has assets of only $295 billion.

However, Wells Fargo’s first-quarter success does not mean that all the top-tier banks will do well. Both Wells Fargo and Wachovia were heavily oriented to conventional retail and commercial banking, with massive branch networks all over the United States. The combined Wells Fargo was thus much less reliant on the slumbering investment banking business than other top-tier banks. It was also far less involved in high-risk capital-markets game playing, which got so many other banks in trouble. For example, while Wachovia got $500 million of dubious payouts from American International Group Inc.’s (AIG) dodgy credit default swaps, Wells got nothing, and therefore presumably had no net exposure.

Wells Fargo, in short, is becoming a model of what a nation should require of its behemoths under the “too big to fail” doctrine. It does mostly conventional retail and corporate banking, and provides economically useful services to its nationwide network of clients. It takes few huge risks, and is emerging from 2008’s disaster in pretty good shape. Without the Wachovia acquisition, Wells Fargo could probably have avoided the need for TARP capital.

In my February report on the top 12 U.S. banks, I showed how many of the top banks were in pretty good shape and offered investors good value, which would be demonstrated by higher first quarter earnings going forward. The Financial Select Sector SPDR fund (XLF) is up about 39% since then, so that was a pretty pleasing call.

Of course, what I didn’t get right was that the dogs are up even more in percentage terms than the solid citizens. Citigroup, the biggest bow-wow of them all, has more than doubled. Going forward, I would expect quality to assert itself. While some of the weaker banks should survive, they will be able to take much less advantage of currently juicy lending opportunities than their stronger brethren.

Sorting Out the Winners and Losers

Over the long term, the road forward is clear. Roubini’s suggestion to break up the largest banks – say those with assets of more than $500 billion – may be impracticable. It is also unnecessary. They should simply be tightly restricted, allowed to undertake only “vanilla” banking businesses, without a presence in investment banking, or in high-risk trading.

The market would then sort matters out. Some banks, like Wells Fargo, would probably prefer to remain gigantic, but simple and low-risk – earning a reasonable return, paying their top executives moderately, and having their stock serve as a fine investment for risk-average investors seeking dividend income. Bank of America and JPMorgan might wish to divest their investment banking businesses and move toward this model. The cultural clash between Merrill Lynch and the old Bank of America has been huge, suggesting that their merger has huge negative synergy and that the two institutions would be worth more separated.

The top six’s two investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, would have no interest in commercial banking, in which they have little history, so would have to downsize dramatically. One possibility is splitting them three ways – an advisory business, a medium-sized institution with a magnificent client base, and a more or less unregulated hedge fund that could be allowed to bankrupt itself in the shadows. They would not be permitted to retain their current huge positions in “principal trading,” an activity of little economic purpose beyond exploiting the firm’s insider information.

As for Citigroup, it seems likely that its troubles are too great and its culture too aggressive for any Wells Fargo-type solution to be possible. Over time, it should almost certainly be liquidated.

Below the top tier, the U.S. regional banks should mostly be in good shape, with a few exceptions that were based in particularly troubled regions or who had been excessively aggressive. In any case, they would not be “too big to fail” and would be allowed to engage modestly in investment banking if they thought it profitable.

Since they would be allowed higher leverage than the behemoths, they would be more profitable. And over time, the banking business might fragment further, which could only be good for competition.

As the world has seen over the past year, the arguments for creating financial services behemoths were spurious. They were too large to manage, and they survived only because their host country taxpayers gave them an implicit guarantee.

Source:  U.S. Banks: Why Only the Simplest Will Succeed

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s actions in cutting short-term interest rates to almost zero – together with a gentle rise in U.S. Treasury bond yields since the start of the year – have given us a steeply sloping yield curve, where long-term rates are about 3% above short-term rates.

What’s more, lending rates to corporate and personal borrowers are way up, far more than Treasury bond rates. That means one thing: In their new lending – particularly to small businesses – banks are making money like gangbusters.

At least, some of the banks are…

Let me explain.

The “steeply sloping yield curve” is bond-market jargon for a situation where long-term bond rates are far above short-term money market rates. In this case, the Fed has forced money market rates down to nearly zero, but has had much less effect on long-term bond rates, which have shown a tendency to rise, both because of the escalating budget deficit and because of the possibility of recurrent inflation arising from the Fed’s rapid expansion of the money supply.

Since banks generally borrow short-term money – in the form of demand deposits and short-term time deposits – and generally lend medium-term and long-term money, in the form of industrial loans and leases, automobile loans and home mortgages, a steeply sloping yield curve makes the banking business exceptionally profitable. Borrowing short-term at 1% and lending on a prime home mortgage at 5.5% or 6%, often with a “government” guarantee from Fannie Mae (FNM) or Freddie Mac (FRE), is good business however you look at it, for as long as the steep yield curve lasts.

In addition, the premium that industrial borrowers pay above U.S. Treasury bond rates has sharply widened, so banks can make much more money on their commercial loan and lease business.

That doesn’t mean we should all rush out and buy shares in Citigroup Inc. (C). For one thing, Citigroup is involved in all sorts of investment banking, and in a variety of trading businesses, most of which are either down sharply due to the recession or that have disappeared altogether. For another, we still don’t know how large and how toxic are the assets on Citigroup’s balance sheet.

Whereas regional banks have been coping quite well with their impaired-value assets, Citigroup has been forced to get a $300 billion guarantee on its assets from the Fed, and nobody knows if even that will be enough. The bank is now controlled by the government, and may be nationalized entirely.

Even at their nadir of 97 cents last week, Citi’s shares are nothing less than a lottery ticket. That ticket would have paid off if you’d bought last week, with a gain of 130% in a week, but neither I nor anyone else can give you accurate odds on whether it will pay off in the weeks to come.

Of the big banks with assets of more than $1 trillion, only one is attractive. Apart from Citigroup, Bank of America Corp. (BAC) made two foolish acquisitions in 2008, and is now struggling with the dodgy housing assets of Countrywide Financial Corp. and the huge investment banking problems of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (which is likely to make much less money in a deep recession than it could in a boom).

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), similarly, has huge investment banking businesses and large trading businesses; its businesses in consumer and small business lending are relatively modest. And the other two behemoths that now have conventional banking licenses, Morgan Stanley (MS) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), still are primarily investment banks, with almost no consumer and small business banking operations.

Of the trillion-dollar guys, that leaves Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC). Wells Fargo needed money in 2008 – it got a $25 billion capital infusion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) – because it bought the retail bank Wachovia Corp., which was struggling with its own problems.

Wachovia was in difficulty because of its foolish top-of-the-market purchase of housing lender Golden West Financial in 2006. However, the combined Wells Fargo/Wachovia unit remains primarily a consumer- and small-business-banking operation, with a huge nationwide branch network and a relatively small investment-banking business. What’s more, there are clearly costs that can come out of the merged group because of their overlap.

Wells Fargo Chairman Richard M. Kovacevich has made snotty comments about the “asinine” federal bank stress test, wants to repay the TARP money, and recently cut WFC’s dividend by 85% to conserve capital. However, if the combined bank is as profitable as it should be, Kovacevich may well be able to repay TARP and restore the bank’s dividend payout surprisingly quickly.

The current dividend yield at 1.5% is nothing to write home about, but at around 85% of tangible net asset value, Wells Fargo is a “Buy” – and don’t forget, if and when Kovacevich restores the dividend, that yield will jump to 9.8%.

Once you leave the trillion-dollar guys, there’s a big gap – the next-largest banks are The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) and U.S. Bancorp (USB) at around $290 billion. These regional banks are generally more attractive currently – provided that their bad assets are under control and that they operate in an economically attractive part of the country.

These banks have little or no involvement in investment banking, and those banks that concentrate on mid-market corporate customers and high-quality consumers should have huge current earning capacity – a multiple of that before the meltdown. That will enable them to take care of further nasty surprises in their asset book and leave a lot over for investors.

Of the Top 12 U.S. banks I surveyed in a special Money Morning story a few weeks ago [actually 13, if you include a separate report I did on Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB)], PNC was among the riskier institutions because of its acquisition of National City Bank – an operation as large as itself and based primarily in troubled Ohio and Michigan.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) and State Street Corp. (STT) are both oriented toward investment institutions and larger corporate and commercial clients, with perhaps less upside potential from the current steep yield curve. Other banks appear to be having more difficulty with their loan portfolios, or – as is the case with Capital One Financial Corp. (COF) – are have oriented themselves toward high-risk credit card lending, which may still show further problems.

Thus, my favorite profit play to emanate from this banking-ranking exercise is the Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp, which operates in the upper Midwest and Northwest from its home market of Minneapolis all the way through to Seattle, an area with neither huge industrial problems, nor the remnants of a huge housing bubble. USB has also cut its dividend and wants to repay its $6.6 billion TARP funding: U.S. Bancorp Chief Executive Officer Richard K. Davis has been as rude as Wells Fargo’s Kovacevich on that topic, calling it a “giant bait and switch.”

U.S. Bancorp is currently selling at 130% of tangible net asset value, with a current dividend yield of only 1.5%, but a potential yield of 14% if and when Davis manages to repay TARP and restore the dividend.

Remember, too: Banks traditionally sold at 250% to 300% of net asset value. Once their dividends are restored, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp should have every chance of reaching that level again – they will deserve to on the basis of the dividend yield and earnings power alone.

It may take two years – or even three – but a capital gain of 100% or so, on top of a juicy dividend yield, will make it well worth the wait.

Source: As Resurgent U.S. Banks Shift Into Profit Mode, Hitch a Ride With These Two for Gangbuster Returns

Martin Hutchinson reveals what “Hidden Gems” have conquered the 2008 banking crisis and the possible investment bargains they will bring this year.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week proposed a series of programs, totaling $1.5 trillion, to bail out the U.S. banking system. Of course, Geithner hasn’t told us precisely how he plans to spend the money, or identified which banks require such an enormous outlay.

So I thought it was worth looking at the United States’ 12 largest banks to see where the problems might be and identify which banks might need big infusions of government cash. I perused the financial statements of all 12 banks, and also looked at their market valuations.

Unlike when the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was proposed in September – when the projections for potential losses were largely financial conjecture – we now have important concrete data on the banking system’s troubles; namely, each of the bank’s annual financial reports for 2008.

Those figures were calculated with the most current knowledge of the economy’s housing crisis and other related financial disasters, and with the potential for losses on “bad assets” fully taken into account and examined in detail by auditors.  Further economic bad news might weaken new batches of assets, but at least the biggest problems should by now be fully apparent.

There is a lot of information – both about potential bailout needs and possible investment bargains – which we can gain from the banks’ annual earnings figures. For instance:

• Banks that made profits in the very difficult fourth quarter of 2008 are probably in good shape, especially if their loan-loss provisions exceeded their charge-offs (the amount actually lost).
• Even banks that lost money in the fourth quarter – an exceptionally harsh three months – have no immediate need for funding, provided they made money the rest of 2008 and seem likely to resume making money going forward.
• In this context, management’s dividend policy is a good indicator: If the dividend is maintained, rather than being sharply cut or suspended, management is probably genuinely confident about the bank’s position and outlook.
• Another good indicator of a bank’s health – at least of the market’s perception – is the ratio of share price to book value. If that’s below 25% or so the market lacks confidence in the bank’s ability to solve its problems.

Using these indicators, we can assess the viability of the leading U.S. banks. Each bank can then be classified with one of our four “official” Money Morning designations. These designations, or labels, consist of:

• Zombies: Institutions kept alive only by TARP funding. These subtract value from the economy and should be put out of their misery through controlled liquidation, with the healthy parts being salvaged.

• Walking Wounded: These banks may need a little bit more help, but are currently operating adequately on their own. One caveat: An intensification of economic downturn could push some of them into “zombie” status – or even bankruptcy.

• Risky but Proud: These banks have relatively high risks, because of acquisitions or their business models, but are operating at full blast and can hold their heads high for their success in dealing with 2008’s enormous difficulties.

• Hidden gems: These banks have conquered 2008’s difficulties, taken care of their bad debt problems, and still managed to make a substantial profit. Short of a repeat of what U.S. banks had to deal with from 1929-1933, as part of the Great Depression, these financial institutions should continue to operate in the black.

The Envelopes Please …

We listed the 12 largest U.S. banks by assets, as of Dec. 31, ignoring foreign-owned banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) (those last two are onetime investment banks that are technically now commercial banks, but still possess a very different business mix. We give you a rundown on the financial stability of each one, and give each institution with the single-most-appropriate of our four official Money Morning designations. The Top 12 banks, biggest first, are as follows:

1. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) – Zombie: BofA has about $2.8 trillion in assets including Merrill Lynch, which was acquired after the end of last year, and Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the nation’s No. 1 housing finance bank. It received $45 billion from TARP, plus $118 billion in guarantees against Merrill Lynch’s assets. At Friday’s closing share price of $5.17, the stock was trading at 21% of book value (it closed at $4.90 yesterday). BofA posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.55 billion, plus a Merrill Lynch net loss of $15.3 billion, which forced BofA to cut its quarterly dividend to a nominal one cent per share. Judging by other banks’ results, if Bank of America had made no acquisitions in 2008, it would be in solid shape. With the acquisitions, however, it’s a basket case – and may well need even more federal funding.

2. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) – Risky but Proud: JPMorgan has $2.175 trillion in assets, and received a $25 billion TARP investment. It’s a major international bank with a large investment banking operation. It bought The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., investment bank in March and the Washington Mutual Inc. thrift in September, both with Federal government help.

JPMorgan booked $702 million in net income in the fourth quarter and $5.6 billion in net income for all of 2008. The company also had a fourth quarter loan-loss provision of $8.5 billion and charge-offs of $4.5 billion. But there were also $2.9 billion worth of securities markdowns in the investment banking operation. Again, this bank is high-risk from an investment standpoint because of its acquisitions, but it appears to be in excellent shape with no immediate need for extra funding. Its Friday closing share price of $24.69 equates to 72% of net asset value, though it closed yesterday at $21.65, down 12.3%. It pays a quarterly dividend of 38 cents per share.

3. Inc. (C) – Zombie: Citi remains the nations’ third-largest bank, with $1.9 trillion in assets. It received a $45 billion TARP investment, plus guarantees on $301 billion of assets. At Friday’s close of $3.49, it was trading at 25% of book value. Citi lost $8.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 and $18.7 billion for the whole year. It was finally forced to sell control over its Smith Barney brokerage operation to Morgan Stanley in January, and has reduced its dividend to a nominal penny a share. Citi has been a serial flirter with bankruptcy over the past 30 years and remains a basket case. There are a few good assets buried within the rubble – chiefly because the company is so large and diverse.

4. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) – Risky but Proud: Wells Fargo has $1.3 trillion in assets, and garnered a $25 billion TARP investment. Originally a small bank based in San Francisco, Wells Fargo officially entered the heavyweight class with its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., late last year. Its Friday closing price of $15.76 equated to 104% of its book value, though it closed yesterday at $13.69. Wells Fargo’s stock pays a quarterly dividend of 34 cents. The company posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $2.55 billion, not including an $11 billion net loss at Wachovia. Wells Fargo’s full-year earnings totaled $2.84 billion. It had a fourth-quarter loan-loss provision of $8.4 billion, compared with actual charge-offs of $2.8 billion. Wachovia’s 2006 acquisition of the California mortgage bank Golden West Financial puts Wells Fargo at risk, but the company’s operations appear solid and it has no immediate need for extra funding.

5. PNC Financial Services (PNC) – Risky but Proud: The Pittsburgh-based PNC has $291 billion in assets, after buying the slightly larger National City Corp in October. It also received a $7.6 billion TARP investment. At Friday’s closing price of  $28.20, PNC’s shares were trading at 79% of book value. The company pays a quarterly dividend of 66 cents per common share, and posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $248 million (excluding costs associated with its acquisition of National City, the company had a fourth-quarter profit of $132 million}. PNC had provision for credit losses of $990 million, compared with net charge-offs of $207 million. This is one of the riskier banks because of the difficulties in integrating National City and possible problems in National City’s loan portfolio. But it appears to have no immediate need for funding and is currently profitable, and its stock is selling close to book value and paying a solid dividend. One final point: PNC’s shares fell only 6.1% yesterday, a day when the shares of most major banks fell by more than twice than amount, perhaps hinting that investors perceive less risk in PNC’s shares.

6. U.S. Bancorp (USB) – Hidden Gem: U.S. Bancorp has $266 billion in assets, and received $6.6 billion in TARP funding. This regional banking firm is based in Minneapolis, and the company operates primarily in the upper Midwest and Northwest. With a closing price of $12.40 on Friday, USB shares were trading at 131% of book value (the shares closed yesterday at $10.73, down 13.47%). The company also pays a quarterly dividend of 42.5 cents per common share. U.S. Bancorp posted a fourth-quarter profit of $260 million, and a profit of $2.94 billion for all of 2008. It also had a credit-loss provision $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with actual charge-offs of $627 million. U.S. Bancorp is in good shape, with no apparent need for extra money.

7. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) – Hidden Gem: New York Mellon has $237 billion in assets, mostly through its operations in New York and Pennsylvania. It received $3 billion in TARP funding. With closing price Friday at $25.26, Bank of New York Mellon was trading at 125% of its book value (the shares closed yesterday at $23.13, down 8.4%). The bank posted a fourth-quarter profit of $28 million, and net income of $1.39 billion for all of 2008. The fourth quarter was tough as for everybody, but Bank of New York Mellon appears to have no near-term need for funding.

8. SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) – Walking Wounded: Sun Trust has $189 billion in assets, and received $4.9 billion in TARP financing. Based in Atlanta, the bank has operations in the Mid-Atlantic and the Southeast. Its Friday closing price of $8.72 meant that SunTrust shares were trading at only 19% of their book value. The company posted a fourth-quarter loss of $379 million, but a profit of $747 million for all of 2008. It also had loan-loss provisions $962 million in the fourth quarter, compared with $552 million in charge-offs. SunTrust has reduced its quarterly dividend sharply to 10 cents per share, but it appears to be in no immediate trouble. However, if the economy deteriorates, the bank’s exposure to the Florida housing market could be an Achilles heel. Investors are clearly concerned: SunTrust shares took an 18% beating yesterday, and are down 88% in the past year, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday.

9. State Street Corp. (STT) – Hidden Gem: State Street had $174 billion in assets, and received $2 billion in TARP funding. It’s a Boston-based bank, but serves institutional investors throughout the world. At Friday’s closing price of $27, the shares were trading at 111% of their book value. State Street posted fourth-quarter earnings of $65 million, and 2008 earnings per share of $3.89, up 13% from the year before. With a global business, conservative leverage and Boston management, State Street could gather strength when the financial crisis finally ends.

10. Capital One Financial Corp. (COF) – Walking Wounded: Capital One has $161 billion in assets, and received a $3.6 billion TARP investment. It’s primarily a credit card company, headquartered in McLean VA. At Friday’s close of  $12.11, it is trading at just 20% of book value.  Capital One lost $1.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, and was just below break-even for the full year, but made $895 million from continuing operations. Its stock pays a quarterly dividend of 37.5 cents per share. Capital One is in dangerous waters and could soon succumb to zombification if credit-card problems really escalate.

11. BB&T Corp. (BBT) – Hidden Gem: BB&T has $152 billion in assets, and accepted a $3.1 billion TARP investment. It’s a regional bank, headquartered in Winston-Salem NC, with its primary operations in the Mid-Atlantic region. At Friday’s closing price of $15.33 a share, the stock was trading at about 58% of its book value. The company posted net earnings of $284 million in the fourth quarter, after loan write-offs of $528 million. It posted a profit of $1.5 billion for all of 2008, and pays a quarterly dividend of 47 cents a share. I’m sure it would gladly take more taxpayer money, but it certainly doesn’t appear to need it.

12. Regions Financial Corp. (RF) – Walking Wounded: Regions has $146 billion in assets, and received $3.5 billion in TARP financing. It’s a regional bank, headquartered in Birmingham, AL, with operations primarily in the Southeast. At Friday’s closing price of $3.38 a share, Regions’ stock was trading at about 18% of book value, and the bank has suspended its dividend. The company lost $5.6 billion in 2008, and its tangible net worth is only $10.5 billion. However, on an operating basis, it made a profit of about $300 million. Regions had a fourth-quarter loan-loss provision of $1.15 billion, and charge-offs of $796 million. I’m classifying it as “walking wounded,” but think it’s more likely to revive itself than to accept a toe-tag. In fact, it’s likely to need only a modest amount of additional funding to see its health improve.

And the Winners Are …

After examining the finances of these 12 major banks, I discovered that some additional analysis was needed – some in the investment arena, and the rest in the area of public policy. Once that was completed, I was able to reach some concrete conclusions about the new banking bill.

On the public policy side, it’s very difficult to justify $1.5 trillion of public money being used to buy assets from these guys. Of 12 banks I examined:

• Seven appear to be in solid shape, and are actually paying substantial dividends.
• Three appear weak, with possible needs for some additional help.
• And only two are actual basket cases.

Apart from the two dogs, all these banks have shown themselves perfectly capable of handling the difficult parts of their asset portfolios. That means that setting up a separate state bureaucracy to manage them, instead. is just asking for a high-cost taxpayer rip-off.

Unless it’s proposed to devote $1.5 trillion of taxpayer money to the apparently hopeless task of sorting out Bank of America and Citigroup, the true need is much smaller, with the remaining $315 billion from the original TARP program probably being more than ample for the other U.S. banks.

The most likely near-term need would appear to be capital injections into one or two of the weaker members of this Group of 12. As for the true bow-wows, the best solution from a public-policy and taxpayer-protection viewpoint would be to allow Bank of America and Citigroup to slide into Chapter 11 re-organization, with the ultimate objective being a breakup and sell-off of the worthwhile pieces, while holding back the relatively modest amounts of government financing or Federal Reserve money that might be needed to staunch any blood-letting that their bankruptcy caused.

As investments, the “Hidden Gems” for the most part represent very interesting potential bargains.

USB looks solid and profitable, with a dividend yield of an extraordinary 15.84% as of yesterday’s close.

BNY Mellon does not appear particularly risky, but yields only 4%; I actually prefer the “Risky-but-Proud” PNC, which has considerable upside if it can manage to digest its National City acquisition, avoid big credit losses and achieve cost savings.

State Street has a dividend yield of only 4.14%, but looks rock solid and its shares are trading at only about 5.9 times earnings.

BBT also looks solid, and has a massive dividend yield of 13.18%.

Source: The Top 12 U.S. Banks: From Zombies to Hidden Gems