Wells Fargo and the Wachovia Bid: Crafty or Crazy?
Back in mid-July, I presented the idea that Wells Fargo (WFC) and US Bancorp (USB) are the two best-positioned banks, and are therefore the only bank stocks worth owning. Both are up about 25% since, against a single-digit rise in the KBW Bank Index (KBE), though that hardly captures the entire picture as a non-diversified set of bank holdings could have easily gotten your portfolio killed.
The particular irony here is that while I praised the prudence and conservatism of Wells and US Bancorp in that post, I also ripped on Wachovia (WB) and its low loss reserves, which I speculated would have shown the company to be effectively bankrupt if it was "trued up" to something reasonable. Fast forwarding, and Wachovia's independence is all but gone and it is caught in a takeover fight between Citigroup (C) and the same Wells Fargo that I liked for staying clear (so far) of this credit mess.
Now that Wells Fargo is wading into the acquisition arena with a $15 billion (give or take, not including assumed debt) all-stock bid for Wachovia, is it a sign it has grown impatient from sitting on its hands as undercapitalized and less-rigorous institutions failed, or was this a shrewd time to strike? The bid values Wachovia at 1.3x 2007 pre-tax, pre-provision earnings; by comparison, Wells Fargo trades at 6.9x the same metric. Throw in the recently clarified rule about tax offsets for losses from an acquisition and the fact that Wells can still raise equity capital, and this could actually work out for the company.
Of course, there is another nuance worth noting – Wells isn't offering cash for Wachovia, it's offering its stock, which has performed fantastically relative to your typical financial. A high priced stock is a great currency for acquisitions, and a smart management team will take advantage of that. Given that Wells Fargo stock is still (incredibly) within spitting distance of its peak price-to-book multiple in the post-2000 bubble era, I imagine that this confluence of factors provided a powerful incentive for Wells' management team to make the offer they did.
The chart below shows the trailing 10-year average price-to-book multiples of Wells, US Bancorp, Citi and Bank of America (BAC) – with US Bancorp's valuation holding up even better than that of Wells, will it be long before it too looks to take advantage of that and make acquisitions of weaker rivals?
Update: It seems likely that Wells Fargo will lose its AAA/Aaa rating from at least one agency - good for Wells' management team for being willing to focus on strategic, value-enhancing deals as opposed to myopically pandering to Moody's and S&P. Additionally, while I've seen the argument that the first bidding war to develop over an otherwise-insolvent bank is a good thing for the financial sector, I think Wachovia's size makes it the exception more than the rule, and am still adhering to the minefield mentality in terms of stock selection - by taking no liquidity risk, for example.
Stock position: None.
Related Articles
|
Top Rated Comment Streams:
-
1.Hedged In661
- 2.
-
3.Smarty_Pants400
-
4.cos1000307
-
5.axelrod608296



This article has 6 comments:
-
James Wilson
-
134 Comments
Oct 07 05:54 AM-
Ishortyou
-
465 Comments
Oct 07 06:02 AM-
AChuckatkins
-
2 Comments
Oct 07 07:13 AMI understand the new socalled bailout bill allow assistance in providing additional capital for some of the banks. If the bailout funds are used quickly to take some of the toxic loans off the books of some of the banks it would crate some confidence in the banking system and we could avoid some of these consolidations.
FDIC's action in this matter is tantamount to amputating a person's broken leg instead of providing medical treatment.
-
sumosama
-
237 Comments
Oct 07 12:51 PM-
James Cullen
-
142 Comments
My Website
Oct 07 03:18 PMSeems lately when I show any optimism and do that, it doesn't work out too well...
-
http://www.directcommunications...
-
78 Comments
My Website
Oct 09 07:55 PM