As we expected, Bank of America isn’t taking a huge hit this morning from its earnings disappointment. It’s down about 3.5% right now but still holding above the lows it hit in early August. Lots of people seem happy to concentrate on the positive signs and to write-off the losses as a function of “this summer’s credit crunch.”
Well, we’re not going to spend all day on this but we thought we’d spend a bit more time dwelling on the negative. In particular, we’re fascinated by how B or A’s corporate lending business and credit market related sales and trading illustrate just how bad the credit crunch hit the banks in the third quarter. After quickly flicking through the supplemental financial slides, here are a few points that stuck out.
• Lower lending revenues and growth in risky and non-performing corporate loans. Revenue from corporate lending shrank from $179 million for the third quarter of 2006 to $175 million in this quarter. Risky, so-called “criticized” corporate loans grew from $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion. As a percentage of all corporate loans, however, this actually represents a slight improvement from 2006′s third quarter, from 2.12% to 1.98%. They can’t say the same for non-performing corporate loans, which grew in absolute terms—from $145 million to $269 million—and as a percentage—from 0.44% to 0.62%.
• A Third Quarter Reversal. B of A’s lending balance sheet was steadily improving through the first half of 2007 but made a sharp reversal in the third quarter. To really get a sense of how the credit crunch hit the bank, it helps to look not just at the third-quarter to third-quarter comprables, but to see what happened from the second to the third quarter of this year. Non-performing corporate loans, for instance, grew ten-fold, from $21 million in the third quarter of last year to $269 million.
• Sales and Trading Revenue Falls Off A Cliff. Revenues from sales and trading in structured products and credit products made a sharp reversal in the third quarter, creating huge losses. B of A made $521 million from structured products sales and trading in the second quarter of this year, and lost $569 million in the third quarter. Losses in credit products sales and trading were so severe that they wiped out all the year-to-date gains from this business for B or A. To look at it another way, in the third quarter of this year B of A lost more than 3.5 times what it made in the third quarter of last year from trading and sales in credit products. Even if it recovers to last year’s revenue levels in the fourth quarter, it will barely have made any money from this business in 2007.
• 93% Decline in Profits for Investment Banking. Profits at the corporate and investment-banking division were decimated. In the third quarter, they shrunk to $100 million from $1.43 billion a year earlier. That’s a 93% drop. We’d ask why they are even in this business but it might be too late for that. On a revenue basis, they almost aren’t. Wonder how much they’ll pay out in bonuses to their investment bankers?
• Smaller Than Expected LBO Mark Down. It would be nice to know more about how the investment banking unit calculated the mark down on the value of its LBO financing. They’re reporting a mark down of just $247 million. They are the number 2 lender for leveraged loans, so it’s surprising that they haven’t taken more of a hit in this area. Analysts at Citigroup had predicted a writedown of as much as $700 million. It’s hard not to wonder whether there might be some rosy assumptions in their mark downs. But then again, with TXU loans pricing close to par, maybe this business isn’t in for the hit many predicted.
Comments (11)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
-93%!!?? hmmm maybe this is a one-time drop
93? How the f? What’d everyone just take q3 off?
Anal_yst, they would have made a lot more money if they had taken Q3 off.
Good job there JC thanks for the thoughtful and relevant BAC-bashing!
Sure i was short last week, so what?
Check out nonperforming assets.
$3.37bn at qtr-end from $2.37bn at the end of June and $1.66bn in September 2006.
Ahem, … hmmmm
Haven’t I been telling you neophytes, miniballers, wannabe shotcallers, dude-Cain-was-off-the-chain-last-Fri-night-velvet rope-stragglers to get thee to a low rent district, pray that you get bonused before 12.31.07 or cash in hand before and wait for the coming financial shitstorm (for BAC the hurricane just made landfall) to pass?
Ok kiddies, let me spell it out for you. If you currnetly have a paying job in Fin Sponosrs, Lev Fin, SP, ABS,MBS, anything ending in BS (he he), S&T (exception Goldy) and any other IB coverage group providing Corp Fin ‘services’ (100 pagers showing 25 merger cons all ‘massively accretive’ and pointless pitchbooks to nowhere) I seriously suggest you go look into the Peace Corps or maybe Teach America (CoLAs baby!) that or go massively long MNST as I think they might be seeing a pick up in umm ‘traffic’ in Q4.
Get ‘em Cam.
Good summary. Thanks.
except Goldy? Half of those S&Ters are in Operations, a fate even WORSE than being fired
Just wait ’til that shrewd CFC ‘investment’ pays off….
Goldy S&T is as dire as the rest. Wow, an army of flow traders and PB salespeople. BFD.
Commodities and GSAM are another story, but Goldy S&T can’t run a structured product or anything outside of electronic trading to save its life.
LBO markdowns more of the same flim-flam… you can bet they took advantage of a new SEC rule that allows these paper losses to be transformed into revenues.
And you shareholders of BAC can be sure that these people in the IB are not looking out for your interests… right now they are scamming for the best severance package your shares can pay for. Most of those 3K people being “laid off” will walk out the door with more $ than you’ll work for in years.