“We have a very strong view that in the near future, you’re going to start seeing a lot of consolidation of these banks, and I think if you look at it on a macro scale, there’s a big necessity right now for this consolidation.” Should regulators embrace a shift towards commercial private solutions? A “stalemate” … [Read more…]
Shares of Countrywide Financial plummeted today on rumors that the company was in serious trouble, with some saying the company would declare bankruptcy this week.
Shares of the embattled mortgage lender were trading down $1.71, or 22.38%, to $5.93 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange, the largest single drop since 1987, and the lowest price since March 2000.
Credit default swaps tied to Countrywide’s debt also rose to record levels today, indicating that investors fear the possibility of a bond default.
Interestingly, just months ago Countrywide said it expected to be profitable in the fourth quarter despite a huge decline in lending activity and a $1.2 billion third-quarter loss, its first third-quarter loss in 25 years.
And the big fear now is that depositors will likely pull their money out in droves, and any potential depositors will look elsewhere, creating huge liquidity problems for the struggling lender.
The U.S.’s top mortgage lender is expected to disclose December mortgage lending results as soon as Friday, and will report fourth-quarter results later this month.
***Countrywide halted trading on the NYSE to allow officials to formerly address market speculation that it was planning to seek bankruptcy protection.
“There is no substance to the rumor that Countrywide is planning to file for bankruptcy, and we are not aware of any basis for the rumor that any of the major rating agencies are contemplating negative action relative to the company,” Countrywide said in a statement.
When trading resumed, shares of Countrywide (NYSE:CFC) began to improve, but later in the day fell even lower.
Shares of Countrywide dipped as low as $5.05 in trading Tuesday, eventually ending the day at $5.47 despite a flat out denial of a looming bankruptcy.
Bond issuers and mortgage insurers fell sharply on the news, with MBIA Inc. plummeting more than 16% and hitting a record low of $14.77, while Ambac Financial Group Inc. fell more than 21% to a record low of $18.37.
Private mortgage insurance provider MGIC Investment Corp. (NYSE:MTG) dropped more than 13% and PMI Group (NYSE:PMI) shed more than 11%.
The world’s central banks have unleashed the steepest series of
interest-rate increases in decades during their two-year drive to tame
inflation—and they may not be done yet. Policymakers have raised rates by
about 400 basis points on average in advanced economies since late 2021,
and around 650 basis points in emerging market economies.
Most economies are absorbing this aggressive policy tightening, showing resilience over the past year, but core inflation remains elevated in several
of them, especially the United States and parts of Europe. Major central
banks therefore may need to keep interest rates higher for longer.
In this environment, risks to the world economy remain skewed to the
downside, as we detail in in our Global Financial Stability Report. Though this latest assessment of vulnerabilities is similar to what we
noted in April, the acute stress we saw in some banking systems has since
subsided. However, we now see indications of trouble elsewhere.
One such warning sign is the diminished ability of individual and business
borrowers to service their debt, also known as credit risk. Making debt more
expensive is an intended consequence of tightening monetary policy to
contain inflation. The risk, however, is that borrowers might already be in
precarious positions financially, and the higher interest rates could
amplify these fragilities, leading to a surge of defaults.
Eroding buffers
In the corporate world, many businesses suffered closures during the
pandemic, and others emerged with healthy cash buffers thanks in part to
fiscal support in many countries. Firms were also able to protect their
profit margins even though inflation had picked up. In a higher-for-longer
world, however, many firms are drawing down cash buffers as earnings
moderate and as debt servicing costs rise.
Indeed, the GFSR shows increasing shares of small and mid-sized firms in
both advanced and emerging market economies with barely enough cash to pay
their interest expenses. And defaults are on the rise in the leveraged loan
market, where financially weaker firms borrow. These troubles are likely
going to worsen in the coming year as more than $5.5 trillion of corporate
debt comes due.
Households too have been drawing down their buffers. Excess savings in
advanced economies have steadily declined from peak levels early last year
that were equal to 4 percent to 8 percent of gross domestic product. There
are also signs of rising delinquencies in credit cards and auto loans.
Headwinds also confront real estate. Home mortgages, typically the largest
category of household borrowing, now carry much higher interest rates than
just a year ago, eroding savings and weighing on housing markets. Countries
with predominantly floating rate mortgages have generally experienced
larger home price declines as higher interest rates translate more quickly
into mortgage payment difficulties. Commercial real estate faces similar
strains as higher interest rates have resulted in funding sources drying
up, transactions slowing, and defaults rising.
Higher interest rates also are challenging governments. Frontier and
low-income countries are having a harder time borrowing in hard currencies
like the euro, yen, US dollar and UK pound as foreign investors demand
greater returns. This year, hard currency bond issuances have occurred at much
higher coupon—or interest—rates. But sovereign debt concerns do not only apply to low-income countries, as the recent surge in longer-term interest rates in advanced economies has demonstrated.
By contrast, major emerging economies largely do not face this predicament
given better economic fundamentals and financial health, although the flow
of foreign portfolio investment into these countries has also slowed.
Material amounts of foreign investment have left China in recent months as
mounting troubles in its property sector have dented investor confidence.
Spillover effects
Most investors appear to have shrugged off mounting evidence that borrowers
are having repayment troubles. Along with generally healthy stock and bond
markets, financial conditions have eased as investors appear to expect a
global soft landing, in which higher central bank interest rates contain
inflation without causing a recession.
This optimism creates two problems: relatively easy financial conditions
could continue to
fuel inflation, and rates can tighten sharply if adverse shocks occur—such as an
escalation of the war in Ukraine or an intensification of stress in the
Chinese property market.
A sharp tightening of financial conditions would strain weaker banks
already facing higher credit risks. Surveys from several countries already
point to a slowdown in bank lending, with rising borrower risk cited as a
key reason. Many banks will lose significant amounts of equity capital in a
scenario where high inflation and high interest rates prevail and the
global economy tips into recession, as we explore in a
forthcoming GFSR chapter. Investors and depositors will scrutinize the
prospects of banks if their stock-market capitalization falls below the
value of balance sheet, causing funding problems for the weak bank. Outside
of banking system, fragilities are also present for nonbank financial
intermediaries, such as hedge funds and pension funds, that lend in private
markets.
Reassuringly, policymakers can prevent bad outcomes. Central banks must
remain determined in bringing inflation back to target—sustained economic
growth and financial stability is not possible without price stability. If
financial stability is threatened, policymakers should promptly use
liquidity support facilities and other tools to mitigate acute stress and
restore market confidence. Finally, given the importance of healthy banks
to the global economy, there is a need to further enhance financial sector
regulation and supervision.
First Republic, like several distressed regional lenders, found itself in turbulent waters when the Federal Reserve escalated interest rates to combat inflation. This move adversely affected the value of bonds and loans that First Republic had acquired during a period of lower rates. The subsequent fallout saw depositors withdrawing in search of better returns and, … [Read more…]
Banks serve two main purposes. They provide loans to consumers who need a helping hand, and they provide a place to store cash, also known as a deposit.
The two actions aren’t independent of each other, and are actually very much interconnected.
For example, banks lend money out a certain rate and pay customers a certain return if they keep their money at the bank.
The two rates rely on one another to ensure the bank makes money. The short version of the story is that the bank must pay depositors less than what it charges to lend.
That’s why we see mortgage rates on the 30-year fixed around 4%, and savings accounts paying closer to 1% APY. This spread allows banks to make money and continue lending to consumers.
Low Mortgage Rates Are Bad News for Those Who Don’t Have a Mortgage
While everyone has been banging on about low mortgage rates for years now, many fail to mention that savers (and really anyone without a mortgage) are getting the short end of the stick.
As noted, when interest rates on loans move lower, as they have over the past several years, savings rates must drop as well, seeing that the two tend to move in tandem.
Before the financial crisis, it was actually quite common to see savings rates in the 3-4% APY range, which certainly wasn’t bad from a saver’s point of view.
Banks were offering great savings rates because they needed more money in the coffers to lend out to consumers, who were especially hungry for loans.
Remember, banks were going haywire making new loans during the housing boom, so they also had to attract depositors to ensure they had collateral.
Interestingly, the gap between savings and mortgage rates wasn’t all that wide back then, with the 30-year fixed ranging between 5-6%, compared to around 4% today.
Meanwhile, savings accounts were commonly in the 3% or higher range if you went with a bank that offered a more aggressive return.
Today, the gap between one-month CD rates (0.06%) and the 30-year fixed (4.5%ish) is the highest it has been since mid-2011, according to MoneyRates.com, which releases the so-called “Consumer’s Lost Interest Percentage (CLIP) Index.”
The company noted that the gap widened to 4.43% in September, up three basis points from August. It has increased by a staggering 1.15% so far this year thanks to rising mortgage rates and savings rates that “haven’t budged.”
The average gap between CD rates and 30-year fixed mortgage rates since 1971 has been 2.83%, meaning today’s gap is 1.6% above the norm.
So What Do You Do with Your Money?
With the gap so wide, it’s clear that those with the bulk of their assets in low-paying savings accounts are losing out.
At the same time, mortgage rates are at near-record lows, so one has to scratch their head a little.
Do you pay down the mortgage early, which has an ultra-low rate that will probably never be lower? Or do you throw your money into a savings account that is paying next to nothing?
Or, do you say to heck with savings accounts and try your luck in the stock market, which also happens to be sky-high currently?
It’s certainly not an easy decision, and it’s clearly not good news for renters and those who have already paid off their mortgages.
But perhaps the best option is to tackle other high-APR debt, such as credit cards, which tend to have interest rates in the teens and higher.
If the only debt you have is mortgage debt, there are plenty of ways to pay down your mortgage a little quicker, including going with a shorter-term mortgage, such as the 15-year fixed. That will reduce the gap as well, seeing that rates on 15-year loans are lower than those on 30-year mortgages.
But you might regret locking that money up a few years down the line if both savings and mortgage rates go up, especially if inflation rears its ugly head.
When you deposit money into a bank account, you expect that money to stay there until you withdraw it. But how can you be certain your money will be safe if the bank runs into trouble? That’s where FDIC insurance comes in.
“FDIC insurance ensures the safety of depositor funds up to a certain amount and promotes stability in the United States banking system,” explains Jason Koontz, an independent consultant with decades of experience in the banking sector.
FDIC-insured accounts, like those offered by FDIC member Discover Bank®, are protected up to $250,000 per depositor, per account ownership category, in the unlikely event of a bank failure. You probably have a lot more questions about FDIC insurance, so let’s dive into some answers.
What is FDIC insurance?
First, let’s start with what FDIC stands for: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Managed by this independent government agency, FDIC insurance is a program designed to protect deposits against the possibility of bank failures.
Banks can apply for FDIC deposit insurance and, assuming they meet the standard for approval, pay premiums to the FDIC for coverage. FDIC protection is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and assures that even if a bank fails, depositors won’t lose their protected funds.
Why was FDIC insurance created?
The first deposit insurance programs in the United States were initiated and deployed at the state level. Starting with New York in 1829 until 1917, 14 states implemented plans to protect bank deposits and similar accounts. These programs were intended to protect depositors from bank failures and guarantee communities’ financial stability.
These efforts fell short, however, and by 1933, thousands of banks had closed and the entire U.S. financial system was faltering. Because past efforts to establish some sort of federal deposit insurance program had been unsuccessful, bank customers were left unprotected. Depositors lost $1.3 billion as a result of the thousands of bank failures stemming from the financial crash that led to the Great Depression. Considering inflation, that amount would currently equate to about $27.4 billion, according to the Pew Research Center.1
In response, Congress passed the Banking Act of 1933, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law. The act officially established the FDIC to restore confidence in the banking system and prevent further financial collapse. Since then, “no depositor has lost a penny of insured funds as a result of a failure,” according to the agency.
How does FDIC insurance help consumers?
While the FDIC insures banks, individual consumers benefit too.
“FDIC insurance benefits U.S. banking customers (citizens and foreigners) by providing peace of mind and confidence that their deposits are protected up to $250,000 per depositor, [per account category], per insured bank,” Koontz says. “In the event of a bank failure, the FDIC steps in to ensure depositors’ funds are reimbursed promptly, maintaining stability and helping to prevent panic in the banking system.”
Koontz explains that this protection applies to the accounts of individuals, families, and businesses and that it promotes trust and participation in the U.S. banking system. Bank customers don’t need to apply for FDIC insurance; they only need to make sure their bank is FDIC-insured.
You can usually find out if a bank is FDIC-insured by checking its website. Or you can search the FDIC database to find certified institutions in your area.
How does FDIC insurance work?
So, what does the FDIC do when an insured bank fails? Koontz explains that after a bank failure, the FDIC will take over as the custodian and manage the bank to minimize disruption.
“While this can happen on any day of the week, the FDIC often takes over a troubled bank on a Friday near the close of business,” Koontz says. He notes that the FDIC will have been doing plenty of work behind the scenes leading up to this day. “A Friday takeover allows the FDIC the weekend to work on the failed bank,” he continues. “The FDIC has several options for resolving a failed bank, including selling its assets and deposits to another institution, arranging a merger with a healthier bank, or creating a bridge bank to maintain banking operations until a suitable buyer is found.”
Of course, as mentioned above, the FDIC also protects the failed bank’s customers—up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category—if needed.
It’s also important to note that bank failures are very rare. Most of the time, banks are able to stay solvent. And if they’re FDIC-insured, the agency will examine and monitor them to ensure they comply with consumer protection laws.
How are consumers affected by bank failures?
If a bank fails, customers are at risk of losing unprotected funds. Funds may be unprotected if they’re held in a non-FDIC-insured institution, if they’re held in accounts that do not qualify for protection, or if the funds exceed the $250,000 limit.
In the rare occurrence that an insured bank fails, the impact on customers will depend on the steps the FDIC takes in response.
“If a bank is acquired by another institution, customers’ accounts and services generally continue without interruption, and they become customers of the acquiring bank,” explains Koontz.
In the case of a bridge bank, Koontz adds, customers can typically access their accounts and continue banking operations without significant disruption. “However, in some cases there may be temporary limitations on certain transactions or services until the resolution process is complete.”
How much does the FDIC insure?
The standard FDIC deposit insurance amount is up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each account ownership category. That maximum applies to all the banks you have an account with, as long as the bank is an FDIC member. (Discover Bank is an FDIC member.)
You can use the FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator, or EDIE, to determine your total coverage across all of your accounts and banks.
Koontz says it’s possible the FDIC may organize an arrangement to reimburse funds beyond the $250,000 guarantee, but you should not expect funds above that number to be protected. There are steps you can take, however, to maximize your FDIC protection.
How can you maximize your FDIC protection?
If you’re looking to deposit more than $250,000—whether as an individual, a family, or a business—then the FDIC insurance limits may be a concern. Fortunately, there are some strategies you can use to increase the protection you receive.
One option is to open multiple accounts with different ownership categories at the same bank. “The FDIC provides separate coverage for different ownership categories, such as individual accounts, joint accounts, retirement accounts, and certain trust accounts,” Koontz explains. “By utilizing these categories effectively, you can increase your overall coverage.”
Another tactic is to open accounts at different banks, Koontz says. While it could be a little more inconvenient to manage accounts at different institutions, he notes that it’s wise to avoid keeping all your eggs in one basket.
“By distributing your deposits among different [insured] banks, you can ensure that each account remains within the coverage limit,” advises Koontz.
It’s also possible to increase your coverage by opening a revocable trust account and designating multiple beneficiaries. A revocable trust is an account that pays out to beneficiaries upon the death of the account holder. Consider consulting a tax advisor to discuss your specific situation.
As of April 1, 2024, the FDIC will insure covered trusts up to $250,000 for each of up to five beneficiaries. That means a trust could be insured up to $1,250,000 for a single account holder. The covered amount for a joint trust, meanwhile, could be up to $2,500,000 for five beneficiaries.
Are you staying informed?
FDIC rules have changed multiple times since the program’s creation nearly a century ago. Koontz advises that you remain aware of any developments to be certain your deposits remain protected.
“It’s important to stay updated on any changes to FDIC coverage limits or regulations,” Koontz says. “Periodically review your deposit accounts and assess whether any adjustments are needed.” Again, that could include opening several different account types within one FDIC-insured institution or spreading out your accounts across several different FDIC-secured banks.
Call it a sunny day fund—online savings with no monthly fees
Discover Bank, Member FDIC
Feeling confident about FDIC insurance?
Koontz’s insights into what the FDIC does and how it can assist you as a bank customer should help you gain confidence about opening an FDIC-insured bank account. That could include an online savings account, a cashback debit account, a certificate of deposit (CD), a money market account, an IRA savings account, or an IRA CD.
While FDIC rules apply to every insured account, everyone’s financial situation will differ. “It is always important to talk to your banker, financial advisor, or even the FDIC directly for more personal guidance,” explains Koontz.
The FDIC is there for your benefit. When you appreciate how it works, you can build up your financial foundation with peace of mind. Ready to get started? Open an FDIC-insured online savings account today.
1 “Most U.S. bank failures have come in a few big waves.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (April 11, 2023) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/11/most-u-s-bank-failures-have-come-in-a-few-big-waves/
Articles may contain information from third parties. The inclusion of such information does not imply an affiliation with the bank or bank sponsorship, endorsement, or verification regarding the third-party or information.
During the initial wave of the banking crisis in March, I published “Truist: Immense Unrealized Bond Losses Threaten Core Equity Stability.” At the time, Trust Financial Corp. (NYSE:TFC) had suffered the most significant drawdown among the top-ten US banks. Roughly five months ago, I was among the few analysts with a definitively bearish outlook on the bank, while many had viewed it as a dip-buying opportunity. My perspective was that although TFC’s “bank run” risk was low, the vast extent of its off-balance sheet losses left it with little safety for a potential rise in loan losses. Further, I expected that growing net interest margin pressures would substantially lower the bank’s income over the coming year, potentially compounding its risks.
Since then, TFC has declined by an additional ~11% in value and recently retraced back near its May bottom, associated with the failure of the Federal Republic. I believe the most recent wave of downside in at-risk banks is a notable signal that the market continues to underestimate systemic US financial system risks. Of course, following TFC’s most recent bearish pattern, I expect many investors to increase their position, viewing the company as significantly discounted. Accordingly, I believe it is an excellent time to take a closer look at the firm to estimate better its discount potential or the probability of Truist facing much more significant strains.
Estimating Truist’s Price-to-NAV
On the surface, TFC appears to have considerable discount potential. The stock’s TTM “P/E” is 6.3X compared to a sector median of 8.7X. Its forward “P/E” of 7.7X is also below the banking sector’s median of 9.3X. TFC’s dividend yield is currently at 7.2%, nearly twice as much as the sector median of 3.7%. Finally, its price-to-book is 0.66X, considerably lower than the sector median of 1.05X. Based on these more surface-level valuation metrics, TFC appears to be around trading around a 25% to 35% discount to the banking sector as a whole. Of course, we must consider whether or not this apparent discount is pricing for the bank’s elevated risk compared to others.
Importantly, Truist is one of the most impacted banks by the increase in long-term securities interest rates, giving the bank huge unrealized securities losses. Based on its most recent balance sheet (pg. 12), we can see that Truist has about $56B in held-to-maturity “HTM” agency mortgage-backed-securities “MBS” at amortized cost, worth ~$46B at fair value, giving Truist a $10B loss that is not accounted for in its book value. That figure has remained virtually unchanged since its Q4 2022 earnings report through Q2 2023; however, it will rise with mortgage rates since higher rates lower the fair value of MBS assets. Truist’s Q2 report also notes that all of its HTM MBS securities are at due over ten years, meaning they’re likely ~20-30 year mortgage assets that carry the most significant duration risk (or negative valuation impact from higher mortgage rates).
Significantly, the long-term Treasury and mortgage rates have risen in recent weeks as the yield curve begins to steepen without the short-term rate outlook declining. See below:
From the late 2021 lows through the end of June, the long-term mortgage rate rose by around 4%, lowering Truist’s MBS HTM assets fair value by ~$10B, while its available-for-sale securities lost ~$11.9B in value (predominantly due to MBS assets as well). Accordingly, we can estimate that the duration of its securities portfolio (almost entirely agency MBS) is roughly $5.5B in estimated losses per 1% increase in mortgage rates. Since the end of June, mortgage rates have risen by approximately 35 bps, giving TFC an estimated Q3 securities loss of ~$1.9B. Around $1B should show up on TFC’s balance sheet and income, while ~$900M will remain unrealized based on its current AFS vs. HTM portioning.
For me, we must value TFC accounting for both. Total unrealized losses and estimated losses based on the most recent changes in long-term interest rates. That said, should mortgage rates reverse lower, Truist should not have that $1.9B estimated securities loss in Q3; however, should mortgage rates continue to rise, the bank should post an even more considerable securities loss. At the end of Q2, Truist had a tangible book value of $22.9B. After accounting for unrealized losses, that figure would be around $12.9B. After considering the losses associated with the recent mortgage rate spike, its “liquidation value” is likely closer to $11B. Of course, Truist has a massive ~$34B total intangibles position due to goodwill created in its acquisition spree over the past decade. Although relevant, I believe investors should be careful in accounting for goodwill due to the general decline of the financial sector in recent years.
While much focus has been placed on unrealized securities losses, the risk associated with those losses is vague. Truist can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at par against those assets, partially lowering the associated liquidity risk. However, the Fed’s financing program is at a much higher discount rate (compared to deposit rates) and only lasts one year, so it is not a permanent solution. Further, the unrealized securities losses are on held-to-maturity assets, meaning it will recoup the losses should the assets be held to maturity. Of course, that means it may take 20-30 years, and Truist may need that money before then.
Further, Truist has a substantial residential mortgage portfolio at a $56B cost value at the end of Q2 (data on pg. 48). Those loans had an annualized yield of 3.58% in 2022 and 3.77% in 2023; since the yield did not rise proportionally to mortgage rates, we know the vast majority of those loans are likely fixed-rate long-term. Since they’re not securities positions, Truist need not publish their changes in fair value; however, should Truist look to sell its residential mortgages, they would almost certainly sell at a similar total discount to its MBS assets, considering its yield level is akin to that of long-term fixed-rate mortgages before 2022. I believe the unrealized loss on those loans is likely around $10B.
The rest of Truist’s loan portfolio, worth $326B at cost, is predominantly commercial and industrial ($166B), “other” consumer ($28B), indirect auto ($26.5B), and CRE loans ($22.7B). Excluding residential mortgages, all of its loan portfolio segments have yields ranging from 6-8% (excluding credit cards at 11.5%), with those segments’ total yields rising by around 3-4% from June 2022 to 2023. Accordingly, it is virtually certain that most of its non-mortgage loans are either short-term or fixed-rate since their yields rose with Treasuries, meaning they do not likely face unrealized losses based on the increase in rates.
Overall, I believe that if Truist were to liquidate its assets, its net equity value for common stockholders would be roughly zero, technically $1B. That figure is based on its current tangible book value, subtracting known unrealized losses on securities (~$10B), estimated recent Q3 realized and unrealized losses (~$1.9B), and estimated unrealized mortgage residential loan losses (~$10B). While the bank does have some MSR assets, worth ~$3B, that are positively correlated to rates, I do not believe that segment will offset unrealized losses in any significant manner. Together, those figures equal its tangible book value and would lower the total book value to about $34B. However, in my view, intangibles are not appropriate to account for today because virtually all banks have lost value since its 2019 merger, making its goodwill an essentially meaningless figure.
From a NAV standpoint, TFC is not trading at a discount and is most likely trading at a significant premium. Further, based on these data, Truist is, in my view, seriously undercapitalized. Although TFC posts a CET1 ratio of 9.6%, which is also relatively low, its common tangible equity would be essentially zero if its loans and securities were all accounted for at fair value. To me, that is important because most of its losses are on ultra-long-term assets so it may need that lost solvency sometime before those assets’ maturity. Further, even its 9.6% CET1 ratio is close to its new regulatory minimum of 7.4%, so a slight increase in loan losses or a realization of its estimated ~$22B in unrealized losses would quickly push it below the regulatory minimum.
Truist Earnings Outlook Poor As Costs Rise
To me, Truist is not a value opportunity because it is not discounted to its tangible NAV value. Even its market capitalization is around 65% above its tangible book value, which does not account for its substantial unrealized losses. However, many investors are likely not particularly concerned with its solvency, as that could not be a significant issue if there are no increases in loan losses, declines in deposits, or sharp NIM compression. If Truist can maintain solid operating cash flows, that could compensate for its poor solvency profile.
Of course, TFC cannot continue to try to expand its EPS by increasing its leverage since it is objectively overleveraged, nearly failing its recent stress test. On that note, poor stress test results are essential, but “passing” is somewhat inconsequential, considering most of the recently failed banks would have passed with flying colors, as the test does not account for the substantial negative impacts of unrealized losses on fixed-income assets. That is likely because, when “stress testing” was designed, it was uncommon for long-term rates to spike with inflation as it had, and banks had much lower securities positions compared to loans. Thus, it is quite notable that TFC nearly failed a test that does not account for its substantial unrealized losses.
Looking forward, I believe it is very likely that Truist will face a notable decline in its net interest income over the coming year or more. Fundamentally, this is due to the decrease in Truist’s deposits, total bank deposits, and the money supply. As the Federal Reserve allows its assets to mature, money is effectively removed from the economy; thus, total commercial bank deposits are trending lower. Truist’s deposits are trending lower in line with total commercial banks. I expect Truist’s deposits to continue to slide as long as the Federal Reserve does not return to QE. As Truist competes for a smaller pool of deposits, its deposit costs should rise faster than its loan yields. Today, we’re starting to see the spread between prime loans and the 3-month CD contract, indicating that bank NIMs are declining. See below:
Truist’s core net interest margin has slid from 3.17% in Q4 2022 to 3.1% in Q1 2023 to 2.85% in Q2. Truist’s deposits (10-Q pg. 48) have generally fallen faster than its larger peers, so it needs to increase deposit costs more quickly. Over the past year, its total interest-bearing deposit rate rose from 14 bps to 2.19%, with the most significant rise in CDs to 3.73%.
Notably, Truist has increased its CD rate to the 4.5% to 5% range to try to attract depositors. However, the bank continues not to pay any yield on the bulk of its savings account products, causing a sharp increase in customers switching toward the many banks which pay closer to 5% today. Over the past year, the bank saw around $10B in outflows for interest-bearing deposits and about $25B from non-interest-bearing deposits, making up for those losses with new long-term debt and CDs. Problematically, that means Truist is rapidly losing more-secure liabilities to more fickle ones like CDs and the money market. While this effort may slow the inevitable decline of its NIMs, it will also increase Truist’s solvency risk because it’s becoming more dependent on less secure liquidity sources as people move money between CDs more frequently than opening and closing savings accounts at different banks.
Truist also faces increased expected loan losses due to a rise in late payments last quarter. That trend is correlated to the increase in consumer defaults and the sharp decline in manufacturing economic strength. See below:
Consumer defaults remain normal, but I believe they will rise as consumer savings levels continue to fall and should accelerate lower with student loan repayments. The low PMI figure shows many companies face negative business activity trends, increasing future loan loss risks on Truist’s vast commercial and industrial loan book. Of course, Truist also has a notable CRE loan portfolio, which faces critical risks associated with that sector’s colossal decline this year.
The Bottom Line
Overall, I believe Truist has become even more undercapitalized since I covered it last. I also think Truist faces an increased risk of recession-related loan losses and has a more sharp NIM outlook. Even more significant increases in mortgage rates recently exacerbated strains on its capitalization, while its low savings rates should cause continued deposit outflows. Further, its increased CD rates should create growing negative net interest income pressure.
If there was no recessionary potential, as indicated by the manufacturing PMI, then TFC may manage to get through this period without severe strains; however, its EPS should still decline significantly due to rising deposit costs. That said, if Truist’s loan losses continue to grow due to increasing consumer and business headwinds, its low tangible capitalization leaves it at high risk of significant downsides. If its loan losses grow or its deposits decline, it will need to realize more losses on its assets, quickly pushing its CET1 ratio below its new regulatory minimum. Personally, I strongly expect TFC’s CET1 ratio will fall below the 7.5% level over the next year and could fall even lower if a more severe recession occurs.
I am very bearish on TFC and do not believe there is any realistic discount potential in the stock besides that generated by speculators. Since there is a significant retail speculative activity in TFC and some potential for positive government intervention due to its larger size, I would not short TFC. Although TFC downside risk appears significant, many factors could create sufficient temporary upside that it is not worth short–selling. That said, I believe Truist may be the most important financial risk in the US banking system due to its solvency concerns combined with its size and scope. Accordingly, regardless of their position in TFC, investors may want to keep a particularly close eye on the company because it may create more extensive financial market turbulence than seen from First Republic Bank should it continue to face strains.
When it comes to your money, safety first. Understand what bank accounts are FDIC-insured to ensure your deposits are protected.*
August 16, 2023
Bank failures aren’t common—but they can happen, typically when a bank is no longer able to cover its liabilities. If depositors get nervous about the viability of their bank, they might withdraw money en masse, known as a bank run. Bank runs can accelerate a bank’s failure, and ultimately the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will take control of the bank.
But depositors can rest easy if their bank is FDIC-insured. FDIC insurance is a program managed by an independent agency of the United States government designed to protect customers in the event of bank failure. The standard FDIC insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, per account ownership category. That maximum amount of $250,000 applies for each bank you have a qualified account with, as long as the bank is an FDIC member. (Discover Bank is an FDIC member.)
So, what bank accounts are FDIC-insured? If you’re opening a bank account, it’s important to understand what FDIC insurance is and what it covers.
What is the history of FDIC insurance?
The Banking Act of 1933 was passed in response to the bank failures of the Great Depression. In addition to other reforms, the act created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In 1935, the government made the FDIC permanent and tightened its standards.
Banks must be able to prove that they meet certain eligibility requirements to qualify for FDIC insurance, which is funded by payments from covered banks. In the rare event of a bank failure, those funds are used to reimburse the insured accounts of customers at that bank, with certain limits and restrictions.
What are FDIC insurance limits?
Today, FDIC deposit insurance covers up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category. Coverage wasn’t always that high, however.
When the FDIC was established, accounts were only insured up to $2,500. Over the course of the century, the covered amount was gradually raised in an attempt to keep pace with inflation. According to the FDIC, the most recent coverage increase occurred in response to the 2008 financial crisis, when the covered amount went from $100,000 to the current $250,000.
How do account ownership categories affect FDIC insurance limits?
You can increase your FDIC coverage by opening multiple account ownership categories at the same bank. For example, if you open a business account and a personal checking account at the same bank, each would be covered up to the maximum per law.
A joint bank account, meanwhile, will also be insured separately from a single-ownership account and for each owner of the account. That means if you open an individual checking account and a joint checking with your partner, those two accounts would qualify for $750,000 of total insurance.
Note, however, that this applies to different ownership categories but not to all different types of accounts. That means an individual savings account and an individual checking account belonging to the same owner at the same bank will qualify for a total of $250,000 in FDIC insurance.
Are checking accounts FDIC-insured?
Checking accounts at FDIC-insured institutions are among the deposit products covered by FDIC deposit insurance, according to the FDIC. For your checking account to be eligible, there’s nothing you need to do. The funds you deposit into a checking account at an FDIC-insured bank are automatically protected up to the maximum per law.
Is an online savings account FDIC-insured?
All savings accounts offered by FDIC-insured institutions, including online savings accounts, are covered up to the maximum per law. For all FDIC-covered accounts, both the original deposit amount and the accrued interest within the limit will be protected.
When opening an online account, it’s especially important to double-check that the type of account you’re opening is FDIC-insured. For example, according to the FDIC, crypto savings accounts are not protected by FDIC insurance, even if offered by an institution that is otherwise FDIC-eligible.
Legitimate financial institutions should make clear which accounts are FDIC-insured on their websites. To be certain, always contact the financial institution directly.
Are high-yield savings accounts FDIC-insured?
High-yield savings accounts at FDIC-insured institutions are protected up to the maximum per law, according to the FDIC. If the interest on a savings account causes it to grow beyond $250,000, only the funds up to the limit will be guaranteed protection.
As with checking accounts, if you want to protect more than $250,000 in savings, you’ll need to open accounts under different ownership categories or have accounts at multiple banks.
Is a money market account FDIC-insured?
According to the FDIC, funds deposited into money market accounts offered by FDIC-insured institutions are protected up to the maximum per law, just like FDIC-insured savings accounts.
Money market mutual funds, however, are not protected by the FDIC. Why not? Money market accounts are a type of savings account, while money market mutual funds are a type of investment account. Investments are generally not eligible for FDIC protection.
Is a certificate of deposit (CD) FDIC-insured?
Certificates of deposit at insured institutions are covered by the FDIC up to the maximum per law.
A CD can offer better rates than a high-yield savings account, but CDs work a little differently than savings accounts. With a CD, your money is earning interest at a fixed, guaranteed rate, but if you withdraw the money before the end of its term, you may pay a penalty.
Are Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) FDIC-insured?
IRAs, or Individual Retirement Accounts, are also covered up to the maximum per law at FDIC-insured institutions.
For an account to be covered, it generally needs to be “self-directed,” meaning the account holder chooses how their contributions are applied. This could include 401(k)s offered through a job or IRA saving accounts that you choose to open on your own.
IRAs can also include CDs and money market accounts. Retirement CDs, money market accounts, and similar financial products are eligible for coverage.
While stock and bond investments are a common feature of many retirement plans, they are not eligible for FDIC coverage. That means it’s possible that only a portion of your 401(k) or IRA will be covered.
If you’re uncertain if a retirement account or asset is covered, check with the institution providing it.
Can you increase your coverage by adding beneficiaries?
It’s possible to increase your coverage by creating a revocable trust account with multiple beneficiaries.
Trusts are accounts that pay out to a designated beneficiary or beneficiaries after the account holder passes. FDIC coverage applies to each beneficiary for up to five beneficiaries. In other words, a trust account with one owner and five beneficiaries could be covered up to $1,250,000.
If the trust is jointly held between two owners, the FDIC will provide up to $250,000 in coverage per beneficiary per account holder. That means if you want to maximize your coverage to the absolute limit, it would be possible to create a jointly held trust with five beneficiaries insured up to $2,500,000 in total.
It’s important to note that this information is all according to FDIC rules taking effect on April 1, 2024. Under current rules, irrevocable trusts, which cannot be altered after they’re created, can only be insured up to $250,000 regardless of the number of beneficiaries. The new rules treat both types of trusts identically and add the five beneficiary cap for calculating coverage.
Because we’re talking about potentially millions of dollars, it’s all the more essential to consult a financial planning professional about your personal situation.
Will the FDIC insurance limits ever change?
While FDIC insurance limits have been set at $250,000 since 2008, it’s always possible that the insurance limit could be increased in 2023 or down the road, according to Bankrate.
Whether or not that happens in the near future will likely depend on how the current economic and political situation unfolds. If the past decades are any indication, Congress will probably need to raise the limit eventually to account for inflation and other factors. But it’s unclear when that might happen, and savers shouldn’t assume it will be any time soon.
You can contact the FDIC if you have any questions or use their coverage calculator to determine how much of your funds are insured.
What else can you do to protect your money?
Opening an account with an FDIC-insured institution is a wise decision. But bank failures are just one risk to manage. You might also worry about scammers and fraudsters who want access to your hard-earned cash. Learn how to protect your bank account from fraud in 6 steps.
Articles may contain information from third-parties. The inclusion of such information does not imply an affiliation with the bank or bank sponsorship, endorsement, or verification regarding the third-party or information.
* The article and information provided herein are for informational purposes only and are not intended as a substitute for professional advice. Please consult your financial advisor with respect to information contained in this article and how it relates to you.
Fraud attempts on mortgage payoffs increased by five times in the second quarter versus the prior three months, and based on July’s data, that elevated pace is still ongoing, CertifID found.
Among the causes is the disruption in the banking industry caused by three high profile failures earlier this year, which resulted in shifts in deposit relationships.
The change opened the door for the fraudsters, explained Thomas Cronkright, the co-founder and executive chairman at CertifID.
The fraud prevention company unveiled its PayoffProtect verification product last September. In the second quarter, PayoffProtect caught $12 million of fraudulent payoffs, up from just $1.9 million in the first quarter.
The crisis at Silicon Valley Bank, the first high profile failure, happened on March 10. That started a chain of events where depositors pulled money from similarly situated depositories, which later also resulted in the closures of Signature Bank and First Republic Bank.
And within that transfer of liquid assets is where the fraudsters are able to find an opening. They pretend to be the entity receiving the payoff and contact the party responsible for moving the funds, saying they had previously been using a community bank.
The perpetrators claimed that they instead had established a new relationship with another bank and the funds needed to be sent to accounts there that they controlled. “There was a ton of that going on during this period that we reported against,” Cronkright said.
And because this was tied to an ongoing news story, victims had their guard down.
Higher home values are playing into the opportunity. “The title settlement industry handles a lot of payments where the buyer is receiving a substantial net proceeds amount, but it pales in comparison to the mortgage obligations that are satisfied at closing,” Cronkright said. And at the end of the first quarter, total mortgage debt outstanding was over $12 trillion.
It is not just the old line attributed to Willie Sutton about robbing banks because it’s where the money is, but another adage as well, which is that these fraudsters never retire a successful scam, Cronkright said.
It’s easy for the criminal to impersonate the borrower and obtain loan payoff information. And on the other end, institutions need to be more diligent in verifying where the funds are being transferred to. In one case, CertifID had the fraudulent information and used it to test a financial institution and four times a bank employee said the data was correct, Cronkright said.
Once they find success, the crooks are able to “layer in” and set up multiple transactions where they attempt to divert funds, he continued.
And this is just another flavor of the same business email compromise scams, which have plagued all sorts of commerce in recent years. Later, when they have indications that the transaction is progressing, a fraudster is able to imitate the borrower or another legitimate party.
Real estate related complaints reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about business email compromise schemes resulted in a record amount of dollar losses, $446.1 million, and the second-most ever number of incidents, 2,284, during 2022. And mortgage fraud experts agree that those totals are likely understatements of the size of the problem.
Mortgage payoffs represented 24% of cases and 47% of losses reported to CertifID’s fraud recovery services last year. Its State of Wire Fraud report found $1.4 billion or over 340,000 suspect wire transactions during 2022.
Another reason for the uptick is that fraud prevention firms have developed better detection tools, so more incidents are being reported, Cronkright said.
He has a second point of view on this, as Cronkright is also an owner of Sun Title Agency, where he has to manage against this very risk.
“You’re managing it on a transaction-by-transaction basis, and we have seen the movement across the financial markets and deposit accounts,” Cronkright said.
The upheaval in banking has people in that business asking, “Are we done yet? And we’re good for now or are we going to continue to see a lot of that depository movement?” he asked rhetorically.
Amid the fallout of the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapses in March, depositors looked for safer places for their savings, and big banks benefited from some customer flows during the flight to safety. Earnings for JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo also beat expectations, easing concerns about the health of the country’s banking system.
Deposits at Bank of America were above $1 trillion for the seventh straight quarter, posting $1.91 trillion in the first quarter of 2023, down 1% from $1.93 trillion during the same quarter in 2022.
Consumer banking division posted a net income of $3.1 billion, a 13.1% decline from the previous quarter’s $3.58 billion, but still up 4.4% from the previous year’s $3 billion, according to its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
“We had a great quarter for our micro products (…) We have positive returns there. So mortgages, credit, munis, financing, futures, FX, all of them had a pretty good quarter,” Alastair Borthwick, Bank of America’s chief financial officer, told analysts.
Mortgage, home equity business
Its mortgage business, however, reported disappointing numbers, an issue led by elevated 30-year fixed mortgage rates.
Mortgage originations totaled $3.9 billion during the first quarter, a 25% drop from $5.2 billion posted in the second quarter, and 76.2% below the $16.4 billion in the first quarter of 2022.
BofA’s production decline follows the track of JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which also posted double-digit mortgage loan production decreases during the first quarter.
The bank’s home equity originations remained flat in the first quarter, posting $2.6 billion from the previous quarter. That’s up from the first quarter of 2022, when BofA originated $2.0 billion in home equity loans.
Bank of America had $229.3 billion in outstanding residential mortgages on its books through March 31, down from $229.4 billion from Q4 2022 and $224 billion in the first quarter of 2022.
The home equity portfolio was $26.5 billion at the end of the first quarter, down from $27 billion from the previous quarter — and a decline from $$27.8 billion a year prior.
Bank of America’s total mortgage-backed securities reached a $32.1 billion fair value as of March 31, compared to $32.5 billion as of December 31, 2022.
Looking forward, Borthwick expected the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates one more time, followed by a couple of cuts this year.
“That obviously assumes our current client positioning and the forward rate expectations. We continue to expect modest loan growth (…) driven by credit card, and to a lesser degree, commercial,” Borthwick said.
The bank expects further Fed balance sheet reductions to continue to reduce deposits for the industry, leading to lower deposits and rotational shifts.