Author Topic: WFC - Wells Fargo  (Read 244836 times)

shalab

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #710 on: April 15, 2018, 11:18:40 AM »
I did YoY calculations for JPM and WFC. JPM was low 2% in buy backs where as WFC was high 2% (~2.77% I think). In addition - these are the numbers for WFC and JPM.

Last 5 year earning growth: 21% for WFC, 10.5% JPM
Last 5 year book value growth: 10% for WFC, 7% for JPM

When WEB said his best ideas are in berkshire, he wasn't joking - as with the Korean stocks (where he made 500 mm for Berkshire through Samsung).

I too don't like stock issuance by WFC but one of the advantages of low stock price is that many of the RSUs will expire worthless. This increases bang for the buck of share re-purchases.

That said, I think Wells is a good investment. 6% returns are guaranteed - 3% from dividend yield and 3% from share buy-backs. Both these are better than JPM. I think it will be in the 10-15% range for the next few years.

I see the div yield difference of 3% for WFC vs 2% for JPM.  I'm not getting the share buyback difference though?

WFC authorized $11.5 billion for 2017 CCAR, which is a yield of 4.6% off of closing price;
JPM authorized $19.4 billion for 2017 CCAR, which is a yield of 5.2% off of closing price.

I imagine JPM will have a better 2018 CCAR and increase capital return more than WFC given the exceptional performance by JPM and the lower earnings growth/regulatory overhang of WFC.

Both trade at the same earnings multiple.


Or, perhaps consider Citi, who trades at a lower multiple than WFC, has more room to improve, but less overhang. 

Div yield is 1.8% (much lower, but by 1.2%);
Share repurchase of $15.6 billion for a yield of 8.6%, and these repurchases will probably be more effective than WFC or JPM, given the lower price to TBV (assuming they get profitability to a decent level at some point (maybe 2020).



I also think WFC tends to issue more shares, so the net buyback isn't as good.  JPM share count consistently dropped over the last few years; WFC is not as consistent.  I didn't run the check like I did with JPM/C/BAC though, so this is off recall.  Please correct if I'm off here.


racemize

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2685
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #711 on: April 15, 2018, 01:16:49 PM »
I did YoY calculations for JPM and WFC. JPM was low 2% in buy backs where as WFC was high 2% (~2.77% I think). In addition - these are the numbers for WFC and JPM.

Last 5 year earning growth: 21% for WFC, 10.5% JPM
Last 5 year book value growth: 10% for WFC, 7% for JPM

When WEB said his best ideas are in berkshire, he wasn't joking - as with the Korean stocks (where he made 500 mm for Berkshire through Samsung).

I too don't like stock issuance by WFC but one of the advantages of low stock price is that many of the RSUs will expire worthless. This increases bang for the buck of share re-purchases.


I suspect CCAR is a bit better for estimating what will happen rather than what has, but even looking back, I'm not sure how well WFC does vs JPM on net share buybacks.  Primarily using valueline for historical values below:

YoY change 2016-2017:
WFC: 4891.6/5016.1 = -2.5%
JPM: 3425.3/3561.2 = -3.8%

Change since 2010:
WFC: 4891.6/5226.8 = -6.4%
JPM: 3425.3/3910.3 = -8.8%

On earnings, 2017 had a pretty big charge for JPM in Q4, and the tax change is pretty big, so here's earnings growth from 2010 to Annualized 2018Q1:
WFC: 1.12*4/2.21 = 102.7% -> 9.2% CAGR
JPM: 2.37*4/3.96 = 139% -> 11.5% CAGR


EDIT: I'm assuming you are also using valueline for those 5 year earnings growth numbers.  I'm really confused how they have WFC at 5 year annual growth of 21%--earnings 5 years ago were $3.89, in 2017 they were 4.10, which is 5% cumulative growth and nowhere close to 20% annual.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 01:19:57 PM by racemize »

shalab

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #712 on: April 15, 2018, 03:00:24 PM »
Yes, I looked at valueline. The growth from 2018-2020 looks identical for these two.

I did YoY calculations for JPM and WFC. JPM was low 2% in buy backs where as WFC was high 2% (~2.77% I think). In addition - these are the numbers for WFC and JPM.

Last 5 year earning growth: 21% for WFC, 10.5% JPM
Last 5 year book value growth: 10% for WFC, 7% for JPM

When WEB said his best ideas are in berkshire, he wasn't joking - as with the Korean stocks (where he made 500 mm for Berkshire through Samsung).

I too don't like stock issuance by WFC but one of the advantages of low stock price is that many of the RSUs will expire worthless. This increases bang for the buck of share re-purchases.


I suspect CCAR is a bit better for estimating what will happen rather than what has, but even looking back, I'm not sure how well WFC does vs JPM on net share buybacks.  Primarily using valueline for historical values below:

YoY change 2016-2017:
WFC: 4891.6/5016.1 = -2.5%
JPM: 3425.3/3561.2 = -3.8%

Change since 2010:
WFC: 4891.6/5226.8 = -6.4%
JPM: 3425.3/3910.3 = -8.8%

On earnings, 2017 had a pretty big charge for JPM in Q4, and the tax change is pretty big, so here's earnings growth from 2010 to Annualized 2018Q1:
WFC: 1.12*4/2.21 = 102.7% -> 9.2% CAGR
JPM: 2.37*4/3.96 = 139% -> 11.5% CAGR


EDIT: I'm assuming you are also using valueline for those 5 year earnings growth numbers.  I'm really confused how they have WFC at 5 year annual growth of 21%--earnings 5 years ago were $3.89, in 2017 they were 4.10, which is 5% cumulative growth and nowhere close to 20% annual.

AzCactus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #713 on: May 17, 2018, 07:33:22 AM »
Wells Fargo in the news again for acting improper.  This is getting pretty ridiculous---no way a sane person would do business with these guys. 

This is like dating the good looking girl who has temperamental issues but saying the sex is worth it.   

nkp007

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • https://twitter.com/crowdturtle
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #714 on: May 17, 2018, 07:41:47 AM »
Wells Fargo in the news again for acting improper.  This is getting pretty ridiculous---no way a sane person would do business with these guys. 

This is like dating the good looking girl who has temperamental issues but saying the sex is worth it.

It is worth it.

walkie518

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #715 on: May 17, 2018, 07:45:19 AM »
Wells Fargo in the news again for acting improper.  This is getting pretty ridiculous---no way a sane person would do business with these guys. 

This is like dating the good looking girl who has temperamental issues but saying the sex is worth it.

It is worth it.

Management will have to turn every stone and find every flaw before moving forward...

AzCactus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #716 on: May 17, 2018, 08:26:04 AM »
Wells Fargo in the news again for acting improper.  This is getting pretty ridiculous---no way a sane person would do business with these guys. 

This is like dating the good looking girl who has temperamental issues but saying the sex is worth it.

It is worth it.

Not if you get an STD and that's what this specific lady has lol

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1595
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #717 on: May 17, 2018, 11:39:52 AM »
Wells Fargo in the news again for acting improper.  This is getting pretty ridiculous---no way a sane person would do business with these guys. 

This is like dating the good looking girl who has temperamental issues but saying the sex is worth it.

It is worth it.


LOL. Agreed. LT relationships are a different matter.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

John Hjorth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #718 on: June 24, 2018, 03:34:20 AM »
Posted by Spekulatius in the C topic, edited by me on purpose to direct the quoting to the WFC DFAST 2018 results:

... I am not even sure that WFC is thr best deal amongst the banks right now. I do think they did decently in the stress test. ...

The DFAST 2018 for WFC was actually what I was most curious about under my reading of FED DFAST 2018 report yesterday. Personally, I think WFC passed the stress test in fine style.

Somehow a bit odd, considering how hard FED has come down on WFC recently with that order not to expand business volume for WFC. I'm speculating here, that FED has been on a mission to get WFC to get its act together. If that is true, based on the stress test result for WFC, the order now seems like some kind of overreaction.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 03:43:02 AM by John Hjorth »
”In the race of excellence … there is no finish line.”
-HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai

Rasputin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Re: WFC - Wells Fargo
« Reply #719 on: June 24, 2018, 04:59:16 AM »
IMO, the fed view the consent order and ccar separately (2 different buckets).  There are many risks to a bank: capital risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, market risk, operational risk.  The consent order relates to operational risk, while ccar relates to capital risk, credit risk, market risk. 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 05:02:31 AM by Rasputin »