Citigroup: A Bet Against the End of the World
Sep/112
This is the first of a three part posting on Citigroup. The second part compared the opportunity in Citigroup to Bank of America. The final part will review a list of reasons why investors avoid Citigroup and how I overcome these objections.
Betting on the End of the World by shorting the major U.S. banks is not a winning strategy. This is not to say investors should blindly depend on policy makers to bailout the financial system every time there is an issue. We have clear, recent evidence from September 2008 that bailouts do not always come for investors. Also, I fear we will have a repeat of September 2008 in the future as anti-bailout proponents continue to gain power in Washington. However, the current financial policy makers (Geithner and Bernanke) will not repeat the mistakes of September 2008, so shorting the major U.S. banks now is a losing strategy.
The sellers of bank stocks at these levels fear the financial system will collapse if there is a hard default by Greece. Their thesis is if Greece defaults, major European banks will take losses directly and suffer additional counterparty losses from the failure of smaller banks. As the European banks take losses, risk aversion will rise and liquidity will drain from the system. Lower levels of liquidity will drive asset prices lower causing losses in both U.S. and European banks. These additional losses may cause a major a European bank to fail, and U.S. banks will suffer additional losses as a result. If the losses for the U.S. banks rise to a high enough level, we may see a major U.S. bank have to fire-sale assets and/or raise capital at dilutive stock prices.
I disagree with several parts of this thesis. Most important, I believe the current policy makers learned an important lesson from September 2008 and will not compound a crisis by letting their financial institutions fail due to a lack of liquidity. Plus, the major U.S. banks have liquidity and capital levels that will allow them to survive a severe downturn in the financial markets. I have been expressing my view by adding to my position in Citigroup.
My preferred way to implement my view that the financial system will not collapse is to own shares of Citigroup. I believe all of the large banks are attractive, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. I own most of them, but my largest position is in Citigroup. My preference for Citigroup is due to its low valuation and its ongoing corporate restructuring which is generating excess capital.
I do not think the financial system is going to collapse due to the current European crisis. Political leaders have learned important lessons from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy that orderly wind-down of major financial institutions is needed. I believe the distress in the financial system in September 2008 is etched on the minds of Geithner and Bernanke. They will not allow a major financial institution to fail due to a shock from Europe.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner consistently shows in his speeches and interviews that the lessons learned from September 2008 are well in grained. On September 19th, Geithner said in a Bloomberg interview, “I think you’re going to see them draw on the lessons of our crisis, draw on the lessons of things that worked here in the United States. I think you’ll see that reflected in some of the choices they make.”
In the end, I believe the European leaders have learned these same lessons. They will protect their own country’s banks from losses. It may be bumpy trip, but we see evidence that European political leaders are starting to get it. Merkel and Sarkozy released a joint statement saying that they “are convinced that Greece’s future is in the eurozone.” At the recent G7 meeting, the finance ministers stated their support for the banks, “We will take all necessary actions to ensure the resilience of banking systems and financial markets,”
In addition to the support from political leaders, I believe Citigroup is approaching a potential Greek default with much more solid liquidity and capital positions than. Here’s a look at the high level numbers:
| Dec 2007 | June 2011 | |
| Cash as % of Assets | 10.2% | 16.7% |
| Reserves/Loans | 1.9% | 5.3% |
| Deposits/(Loans+Securities) | 79% | 89% |
| Tangible Common Equity/Tangible Assets | 1.6% | 7.3% |
These are clearly stronger numbers and position Citigroup to handle a stressful environment better than 2008. In addition, Citigroup has spent the past 3 years reducing risk within its loan book. With the credit quality metrics declining, I get the sense that management has a much better sense of its balance sheet and the risks than it did 3 years ago.
I believe Citigroup is well positioned here to survive a stressful period in the markets due to a Greek default. With the stock at 60% of tangible book value, I believe it is an attractive stock. The reason it is at these low valuation level is the potential for potential problems in the financial system due to a Greek default. I do not believe
Disclosure: Long C, BAC, WFC & MS
Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. This intended to be a window into my thinking when analyzing Citigroup. Please do you own work before making an investment. My positions listed in the disclosure may change without further update.
Realtors Request Reduction in GSE Senior Preferred Dividend
Aug/102
Vicki Cox Golder, the President of the National Association of Realtors, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner requesting a retroactive reduction in the preferred dividend rate that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must pay the Treasury. The NAR argues that the high dividend rate is delaying the housing recovery, isn’t fair compared to the terms of the bailouts of the commercial banks and AIG, makes no sense to have negative compounding work against the GSEs.
What do you think of the NAR’s letter. How do you think Treasury will respond? Please post a comment.
The complete text of the letter follows:
August 13, 2010
The Honorable Timothy F. Geithner
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Secretary Geithner:
On behalf of the 1.1 million members of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), I am writing to urge you to reduce, on a retroactive basis, the dividend rate on senior preferred stock issued to the U.S. Treasury Department in exchange for contributing capital to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to assure that they maintain a positive net worth.
The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is America’s largest trade association, including NAR’s five commercial real estate institutes and its societies and councils. REALTORS® are involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries and belong to one or more of some 1,400 local associations or boards, and 54 state and territory associations of REALTORS®.
When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the housing government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs) were placed into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in September 2008, the Treasury Department and each GSE entered into a contract providing for an initial $1 billion issuance of senior preferred stock with a 10 percent quarterly dividend, including warrants representing ownership of 79.9 percent of each GSE. Pursuant to the contracts, additional preferred stock has been issued in recent quarters as Treasury provided additional capital to each GSE to maintain their positive net worth. The agreements also provide for an additional quarterly fee starting in 2010.
Recent news reports have highlighted the 10 percent dividend that the GSEs are required to pay to the Treasury Department on the preferred stock. This dividend is twice the amount charged to banks that received assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and more than other firms have been required to pay in exchange for federal support. The Treasury-GSE contract imposes what we think is a punitive dividend that works as an unnecessary drag on the housing and economic recovery. The required dividend should be significantly reduced for a number of reasons.
First, the GSEs are working assiduously to reduce their losses, as they should. But the unintended consequence of their imposing high fees and very tight underwriting standards is to delay the housing recovery. NAR supports strong underwriting standards. In fact, NAR went on record, starting in 2005, at the beginning of the current crisis, warning about predatory lending, including the payment option adjustable rate mortgages and the “teaser” rate 2/28 and 3/27 mortgages that doomed so many homeowners to failure. We now just as firmly believe that the pendulum has swung too far and potential homeowners who are reasonable credit risks are too often unable to find a fair and affordable mortgage. As noted in one recent article, the GSEs’ current book of mortgage business is “pristine.” We think that achieving a pristine book of business means that the GSEs are falling short of their mission to maintain a liquid residential mortgage market, throughout the nation, that serves a wide range of borrowers, including qualified low- and moderate-income families. Reducing the current punitive dividend will enhance their ability to eliminate their losses, which will be further enhanced as the housing markets continue to stabilize and recover. This will give the GSEs the flexibility to adjust their underwriting standards to take into account reasonable lending risks, which will benefit the consumer and the entire economy, without undue risk of additional cost to the taxpayer.
Second, minimizing the amount of preferred stock held by the Treasury Department will make the challenge of restructuring the GSEs easier. One of the thorniest problems will be how to handle the amount of outstanding preferred stock held by the Treasury Department. From today’s perspective, it is hard to imagine how the capital infused into each GSE can ever be repaid. But whatever the solution, it will be easier if the obligation of the GSEs is not artificially increased by imposing the current punitive dividend rate at a level not imposed on banks or other firms, such as A.I.G., receiving government financial support.
Finally, it makes no apparent sense for the Treasury Department to transfer amounts to the GSEs so they will have enough money to pay the dividend back to Treasury. If the GSEs were not required to pay the 10 percent dividend, which significantly increases each of their quarterly losses, it would reduce the amount of additional capital Treasury is called upon to provide to them. The problem is exacerbated because a growing amount is necessary to pay the dividend on amounts received in order to pay earlier dividends. The “miracle” of compounding in this case has become a nightmare that is creating a permanent drag on the ability of the GSEs to fully achieve their mission. It would make more sense to charge the GSEs an amount equal to the Treasury borrowing cost, or the borrowing cost to the GSEs based on the current federal assurance that they will maintain a positive net worth. Both of these amounts are far less than 10 percent.
The interest of the National Association of REALTORS® in the relative financial health of the GSEs, in receivership, is based on the desire of our members for robust real estate and mortgage markets that recover as quickly as possible to assist the nation as it regains its footing after the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Regulators have many enforcement tools and the duty to ensure that finance corporations comply with laws, regulations, and sound underwriting. However, with respect to the GSEs, it appears that government policy has imposed a dividend rate and capital structure that singles them out for particularly onerous treatment. This strikes us as misguided at best and destructive to the housing market and economy at worst.
As you know, NAR does not defend past GSE practices that resulted in the conservatorship and recommends their total restructuring at the appropriate time. Eliminating a punitive dividend is a step that should be taken now, regardless of how the GSEs may be restructured in the coming years. NAR’s proposal for their restructuring is founded on eliminating the prior private profit and public loss structure, which was inherently flawed. We believe that it is the mission of the GSEs that must be protected, not their structure. For the benefit of homeowners, home buyers, renters, and the entire economy, the nation must have a way to assure the flow of capital to the mortgage market, regardless of the state of the housing or mortgage markets or the overall economy. The path out of receivership that achieves this result will be easier if the contract with the GSEs is amended to minimize the amount of preferred stock held by the Treasury Department.
Accordingly, NAR urges you to reduce, retroactively, the current punitive dividend rate now imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together with the Federal Housing Administration, currently make possible the vast majority of mortgage lending. Doing so will speed our nation’s recovery and facilitate the movement towards a permanent GSE reform solution. If you would like additional information or an opportunity to discuss our concerns, please contact Jeff Lischer, NAR’s Managing Director for Regulatory Policy, at jlischer@realtors.org or 202.383.1117.
Sincerely yours,
Vicki Cox Golder, CRB
2010 President
National Association of REALTORS®
cc: Edward J. DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Make Fannie’s Deal No Worse Than TARP
Aug/090
Given Freddie Mac’s recently report profitable 2nd quarter earnings report, it is time for Treasury Secretary Geithner to amend the terms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Plan with the Treasury to be comparable to the preferred stock purchases the Treasury made in commercial banks last October under TARP.
Reasons to Change Fannie and Freddie’s Deal with the Treasury
1. Fannie and Freddie should not have a materially worse deal than the banks just because their deal was cut 4 weeks before TARP.
2. Fannie and Freddie are critical to the domestic economy as they have been the only source of mortgage capital for the past 12 months.
3. The mortgage market will need private capital in the future and cannot rely on government support forever, so Fannie and Freddie will have to raise more capital in the future. If the GSEs are going to raise capital in the future, the Treasury is going to have to treat existing capital better than its current deal with the GSEs.
4. Fannie and Freddie incurred higher expenses because they were team players and supported the Obama Administration’s economic recovery plan. Changing their deal would be a small payback for the support they have given the country and the Administration.
5. Recognition that placing the GSEs in conservatorship was a political attack by led by former Treasury Secretary Paulson.
6. Recognition that former Treasury Secretary Paulson caused a decline in the GSEs stock prices by not outlining the terms under which he would provide capital to the GSEs in the July 2008 legislation. Sec. Paulson then used circular reasoning in claiming that the GSEs had to be taken over because they had low stock prices and couldn’t raise capital. In fact, they couldn’t raise capital because he would not state the terms of a potential future Treasury investment.
7. Paulson’s reasoning for the harsh treatment of GSE shareholders was that shareholders had to pay for the poor risks taken by the companies’ management teams. I disagree since many shareholders were giving advice to the respective managements to raise capital and reduce risk. Rich Pzena was the most outspoken shareholder on this point. Plus, Paulson reversed his position on this issue once he was proven wrong with his handling of the Lehman situation and treated the bank shareholders on much more friendly terms.
8. Eliminating the dividend on Fannie and Freddie’s preferred stockholders was a failed experiment on the part of Sec. Paulson and destroyed the new issuance market for preferred stock. It also hurt many small banks that held Fannie and Freddie preferred stock in their portfolios.
9. GSE preferred stock is still primarily owned by small banks. When dividends are restored, the value of the preferred stock will increase by 10x. This will add approximately $30 billion in restored capital to the commercial banking industry. If banks levered this capital 12x, this raises industry lending capacity by $360 billion.
10. The losses by the GSEs since entering conservatorship have been inflated because a) they are mostly write-downs of deferred tax-assets which the companies still retain and b) the credit reserve build was bigger than expected because Sec. Paulson sent the economy into a tailspin by not providing an orderly wind down to Lehman Brothers.
Terms to Change
1. Lower Preferred Stock Coupon to 5% from 10%. There is no justification for the GSEs to pay a higher coupon than the banks.
2. Change the Treasury’s warrant from 79.99% of the GSEs’ equity to terms identical to the warrant deal received by the banks under TARP. Similar to the preceding point, there is no justification for the GSEs to give the U.S. a higher equity stake for than the banks did.
3. Make the Treasury’s preferred stock pari passu with existing preferred stock. This is another move to equal the banks’ deal under TARP
4. Eliminate asset size restrictions on Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage portfolios. This provision proves my Republican conspiracy theory for placing the GSEs into conservatorship. There is no reason to shrink the GSEs at this point. We need the GSEs to expand their balance sheets. The Fed has temporarily stepped into the breached left by the GSEs not growing. But, what is going to happen when the Fed steps back from the mortgage market? We need the GSEs to support the market as the Fed reduces its balance sheet.
The GSEs deal with the Treasury Secretary should be updated to be similar to the deal the banks received under TARP. Based on the nobler GSE housing mission, there is an argument that they should be treated better than the banks. The banks have no legs to stand on because the FDIC insurance they receive from the federal government is a larger subsidy than the implicit guarantee Fannie and Freddie enjoy.
Subscribe
