Regional Banks Keep Crashing: Where Things Now Stand
Summary
- The Fed and FDIC took substantial measures on Sunday to stabilize the banking system.
- These have not quelled the panic; regional bank shares continue to tumble Monday.
- Here's what happened, what to watch now, and a few places where I see opportunity.
- Looking for a helping hand in the market? Members of Ian's Insider Corner get exclusive ideas and guidance to navigate any climate. Learn More »
Enes Evren
On Sunday, it seemed like the banking sector might have made it through the worst of the storm. The government announced a series of new measures to provide stability to the banking system. It did so in conjunction with shutting down another bank, Signature Bank (OTCPK:SBNY), giving the impression that the troubled banks had been dealt with and the government was prepared to provide support for the rest of the sector.
Stock market futures jumped almost two percent on Sunday evening following the news, and traders breathed a sigh of relief. That optimism faded by morning however, as futures tumbled overnight. Soon, it became clear that despite the government's efforts, the run on the banking sector hadn't dissipated.
So where does that leave things in the banking sector this week?
Broadening Deposit Insurance
For many years, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has insured deposits up to $250,000 while figures over that amount did not have a guarantee in most cases. This lack of guarantee for large accounts was integral to the collapse of SVB Financial.
That's because SVB had more than 95% of its deposits in uninsured funds due to its focus on providing banking to companies and high net worth individuals that carried large account balances. Once the rumors started about a potential insolvency at SVB, a large portion of the bank's clients pulled their deposits, knowing that the funds weren't insured. This led to the bank being in an untenable position and the government ultimately seizing the bank.
By extending deposit insurance to all deposits, this should greatly reduce the possibility of future such bank runs. Now, clients know that even if their regional bank fails, the FDIC will still be making deposits available to them the next day. This should disarm the fear of a large bank deposit holder losing everything (save $250k) in the event of a sudden run on their own bank.
There's been a discussion around whether the emergency plan constitutes a "bailout" or not. On the one hand, it does protect depositors who were over the $250k limit from harm. That does create a moral hazard of sorts and may cause folks to pile into whatever bank is offering the highest deposit rate today. There could be unintended consequences.
However, the goal of banking regulation has typically been to make sure that deposits are kept safe regardless of what else happens. I don't see a greater deposit guarantee as being an especially bad thing from a market functioning perspective. This wasn't a bailout in the sense that shareholders of the failed banks got any meaningful compensation for their positions.
Sell-Off Continues
In any case, with broader deposit insurance now in place, that should have put out the bank run fire, right? Not so fast. In fact, a number of regional banks have seen their shares implode in Monday trading. Here are some quotes of biggest losers around midday Monday (prices are changing rapidly, this is just a snapshot in time):
- Western Alliance Bancorporation (WAL): -64%
- First Republic Bank (FRC): -61%
- Metropolitan Bank Holding (MCB): -40%
- Customers Bancorp (CUBI): -37%
KeyCorp (KEY): -28%
I could go on, the list is pretty long, but that gives a sense of the blood on the streets today.
Let's zoom in on one of these in particular. First Republic Bank is now one of the banks at the center of the firestorm, and it is quite the important one. Until recently, First Republic had a market capitalization above $20 billion, and it is one of the largest specialty banks in the country, as it has an excellent niche in its wealthy client business.
First Republic shares had fallen around 50% on Friday morning before bouncing and recovering much of their losses. That recovery didn't hold into Monday, however, as shares lost most of their remaining value:
What makes First Republic a bank that traders are so especially worried about?
For one thing, it is headquartered in San Francisco, CA and its business model is aimed at providing high-touch customer service to wealthy clients in industries such as technology. In other words, it has the same sort of client base that was also prevalent at SVB.
For another thing, thanks to its focus on high net worth clients, First Republic has a deposit base tilted toward large accounts. As of recent regulatory filings, 68% of First Republic's deposits were uninsured, meaning they were over the $250k deposit guarantee threshold.
While these funds are now backstopped by the FDIC, it seems likely that all the uncertainty around the weekend likely led folks to begin pulling their deposits before the new emergency measures were announced. And, even with greater deposit insurance in place, many clients are probably going to move money to bigger banks just to have the peace of mind.
As for First Republic, it had substantial losses on its loan book. These were only a fraction of the losses that SVB had before it ceased operations. However, at this point, the market isn't in the mood to give out the benefit of the doubt.
In addition, the Federal Reserve launched a new asset support mechanism to support the banks. However, it only applies to treasury bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities. First Republic owns very few of these types of securities, which means it potentially will get much less help from this facility than many other regional banks.
The Problems Hitting Regional Banks
These are the sorts of discussions folks are having today in trying to analyze the state of regional banks following all the recent events. The risk of contagion should be materially lower given the Fed and FDIC's strong response with enhanced deposit insurance and a new asset-backstop facility.
That said, there are several problems plaguing the regional banks. You have the ones with duration mismatch where they bought far too many long-term bonds that devalued sharply when interest rates soared. You have banks that got caught in the wrong sectors of lending and activity, such as crypto or venture capital. And now there is deposit flight; banks that specialize in high-net-worth clients take a particularly bad hit there. This combination of factors is causing lingering uncertainty over the whole sector despite the tangible steps taken to reassure investors and depositors.
One thing I'd note is that so far, the major bank failures have all been related to cryptocurrency and venture capital. Silvergate Capital was primarily tied to cryptocurrency. SVB Financial was the venture capital bank. And Signature Bank was another bank tied to cryptocurrency, having been in that business since 2018 and having attracted more than $16 billion in digital asset-related client deposits.
While nothing is certain, I'd suspect that the Fed and FDIC will act more strongly the moment that the bank failures start occurring in banks that weren't speculating in these more adventurous parts of the economy. Losing a crypto bank isn't great, but for the mainstream economy, it's not the biggest concern. We'll have a much bigger problem if banks that primarily lend on houses or commercial real estate start failing.
Finally, I'd note that the unrealized losses problem may be self-fixing to an extent. Treasury bonds are the ultimate safe haven asset as the U.S. government, for all its faults, is exceptionally unlikely to default on its debt. In panics, such as now, we see huge rallies in bonds. To that point:
The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) has rallied 5% recently, jumping from near the lows of the year back toward the highs. This greatly improves the market value of the very securities that have caused many banks so many headaches in the first place. If interest rates stop rising, and indeed start dropping a bit, that would clear up many (though not all) of the problems currently afflicting regional banks.
Regional Banking's Bottom Line
How am I viewing the situation today? I own a number of conservative regional and community bank stocks and will be adding to those this week as situations present themselves.
If you don't have a list of regional banks that you understand and are confident in, I'd strongly consider sticking to the ETFs, namely the SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF (NYSEARCA:KRE) and Nasdaq ABA Community Bank ETF (QABA) which offer a great deal of diversification within them. These ETFs have gotten hammered and offer plenty of upside if things normalize:
In addition to these ETFs, there are some interesting opportunities in preferred shares and LEAP options. Recall that quite a few publicly-traded banks have preferred stocks. The values on many of these have plummeted over the past few days. However, in an event where a bank is acquired for pennies on the dollar, the preferreds should recover their value whereas the common would not. Additionally, in a scenario where a bank diluted its common dramatically to raise capital, the preferred would be spared. Buying preferreds of ailing banks at, say, $8 with upside to $25 could be a better risk/reward than owning the commons directly.
Also, consider looking at LEAP call options for 2024 and even 2025 on some regional banks. I see some interesting situations in this space where options are being priced for 3-4x upside if the underlying regional bank merely trades back to where it was in February, while the downside risk would be capped at the option premium.
The Fed's actions Sunday should materially reduce the risk of a broad contagion in the regional banking sector. And I expect that if the panic continues, the Fed will continue taking more aggressive measures to ensure the banks which serve Main Street America are able to survive. Prices have dropped enough to create some interesting risk/rewards here for investors with a strong stomach.
If you enjoyed this, consider Ian's Insider Corner to enjoy access to all my best ideas. Membership also includes an active chat room, weekly updates, and my responses to your questions.
This article was written by
Ian Bezek is a former hedge fund analyst at Kerrisdale Capital. He has spent the decade living in Latin America, doing the boots-on-the ground research for investors interested in markets such as Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. He also specializes in high-quality compounders and growth stocks at reasonable prices in the US and other developed markets.
Ian leads the investing group Ian's Insider Corner. Features of the group include: the Weekend Digest which covers everything from new ideas to updates on current holdings and macro analysis, trade alerts, an active chat room, and direct access to Ian. Learn More.
Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.
Recommended For You
Comments (123)
1) they are getting a low return on long term treasuries 3% ish and slightly higher on mortgage backed assets. Their cost of capital is going to quickly rise to levels close to that, as they are forced to offer higher interest rates to even sub-250k (insured) depositors. What this whole crisis has done is to make every Tom Dick and Harry aware that they can get 4% ish in short term Treasuires with zero risk of default. Granted, not every one can tie up all their cash for 30 day intervals, but many, many people can put 70 to 80% in such vehicles.
2) when depositors flee to bigger banks or short term treasuries, they are forced to recognize the losses on those hidden HTM assets. This will mean negative earnings reports, lower stock prices, poorer reputation, more uncertainty, fewer depositors etc in a vicious circle.What would fix this situation? The Fed engagng in yield curve control, buying back long term treasuries and selling short term notes. This would reestablish the banks' asset base, improve their financial condition, and eliminate the attraction of short term treasuries as opposed to bank savings and checking instruments. Problem is -> this more likely than not would reflate the economy, the opposite of what the Fed is trying to accomplish. (This is btw a debatable point and too long to get into) But until you see the Fed taking this path, it's too early to go long KRE. If long term bonds were to continue to rise a lot in value to recover what they have lost, this would also do the trick without any Fed intervention. But that would imply that bond vigilantes foresee a stock market crash or deep recession that sends inflation below 3 percent with the expectation that the recession and low inflation will last many years. Possible? Of course. But it's way too early
to claim victory on inflation, in my book.Right now, if I were an insurance fund, I would not be loading the books with long term bonds, betting on low inflation. Not with a continued Ukraine war, a recalibration of global trade, and a continued shortage of young workers as baby boomers retire.i believe the damage is far from over. To the point where I've used options to protect my portfolio if KRE moves lower, using a calendar put spread.
'
....so until the analysts do their estimates of the long term consequences on earnings of all this, some level of the regionals will suffer share price decline and/or dividend reductions, further depressing stock valuesthis could lead to a wave of consolidations....also it should be noted, that this FED lending facility is for only one year, which covers them for just a few periods....so it is effectively kicking this can down the roadthe real risk I see I the near term is capital flight to safety to the large "too big to fail" banks, especially for business accounts that have too much slushing around in regionals that likely will not get the favored treatment that SVB gotSo the unintended consequences of jacking up rates to fast has exposed some banks and their management's to increased scrutiny going forward, IMHO (both by regulators and the market)....some of these, like SVB, had little or no risk management If you agree that the big banks will the the beneficiaries, then maybe the larger regionals that are well diversified and not as dependent on just loans for their margins/earnings will be a safer play here?
"In any case, with broader deposit insurance now in place"
"While these funds are now backstopped by the FDIC"While it is true that deposits over $250k are insured at $SIVB and $SBNY, there is only an *implicit* or perceived guarantee for such deposits at other banks. Therefore, assuming the time/money/hassle costs of moving money over the $250k limit is low, there is the strong incentive to move that money elsewhere, given that the failures of $SIVB and $SBNY reminded everyone of the limits to FDIC insurance.If the government/FDIC were to announce an *explicit* guarantee for all deposits, then this would be incredibly bullish for regional banks, especially the likes of $FRC. However, there is a massive difference between a perceived implicit guarantee and an explicit guarantee.
And that the combination of deposits insurance plus a lender of last resort should suffice to eliminate runs on banks. It is a proven, workable concept for vanilla community banks. The combination needs to work and we could work backwards to adjust the details to make it work. Fine tuning could include a limit on full guarantees and graduated modest haircuts for large depositors, for example. Like full on he first $250,000. 99% on next $100,000 98% on the next $100,000. Or whatever terms would be a sufficient guarantee without adding materially to the moral hazard.
Guaranteeing deposits is an essential tool in avoiding runs. And reflexive concerns about moral hazard need to be realistically evaluated. I would say that the 2008 capital requirement increases will reduce the cost of insuring deposits. SIVB had a huge securities portfolio, and it had a negligently lengthy duration.
So far there has been no announcement that it will be extended to all banks' depositors.
