After WaMu, Wachovia Is Next On Market Hit-List

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The signs are already here. Investors hammered their stock with a 30 percent drop. They're reassuring investors and clients, just as WaMu did last week, that they have sufficient capital to stay afloat.

But that is clearly not all a bank requires to be in solid footing these days. The run on WaMu after Lehman went under removed about 10% of their deposits, which was enough to get the FDIC to step in.

The run on Wachovia is coming. What can they withstand before they, too, get chopped up and sold off?

Text

By Marshall Eckblad

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- The seizure of Washington Mutual Inc. (WM) is quickly becoming a problem for Wachovia Corp. (WB).

After federal regulators on Thursday night seized the West Coast thrift and its bloated book of failing home loans, investors trained their focus on Wachovia, which itself holds piles of risky mortgages.

Wachovia shares recently traded down 30% to $9.55, while the cost of insuring Wachovia's debt against default quickly rose to distressed levels.

"When I woke up this morning, the thing I was most concerned about...was contagion" from the WaMu seizure, said Nancy Bush, a bank analyst at NAB Research.

Wachovia's shares have also been hurt by the suddenly uncertain outcome of the U.S. Treasury's proposal to rescue banks by purchasing their toxic mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.

A spokeswoman for Wachovia said the bank believes that that "the Treasury plan under consideration by Congress is a constructive and important step toward restoring confidence and stability in our financial system."

Regardless, Wachovia looks to be in substantially better shape than Washington Mutual before WaMu failed. Wachovia has a loyal and largely affluent banking clientele, and a sizable business of offering investment services to clients through financial advisors. WaMu, by contrast, was a saving-and-loan, and had far fewer business lines.

What's more, Wachovia is hardly running out of capital, says Bush.

But a bank's being well capitalized, she said, "is no longer enough" to reassure nervous depositors.

Just ask WaMu.

The Seattle savings-and-loan had seen depositors pulling their cash from WaMu at dangerous rates during September, before regulators seized the bank on Thursday.

And yet Wachovia's bread-and-butter retail banking business, by contrast, may be moving in the opposite direction of WaMu's, even as Wachovia's stock slides amid fear.

Wachovia added 226,000 retail checking accounts in the second quarter, a Wachovia spokeswoman said, and a brow-raising 745,000 since June - or nearly a million new checking customers since the second quarter began. Wachovia held average deposits of $435.5 billion in the second quarter.

"We are focused on managing our company and serving our customers with excellence," a spokeswoman for the company said. "We are aggressively addressing our challenges and are working to strategically strengthen and manage capital and liquidity in this challenging environment."

Wachovia's Pick-A-Problem

But Wachovia also holds more than $122 billion in so-called Pick-A-Pay or Option ARM mortgages, as of July 22. Pick-A-Pays are an unwieldy type of loan that have fast become notorious for producing high levels of losses, as well as high levels of risk for banks that wrote them.

Wachovia's Pick-A-Pay loans give some borrowers the option of deferring portions of their monthly interest payments, thereby increasing their loans' balance. While Wachovia has stopped writing the loans altogether, Pick-A-Pays have proved highly problematic for both WaMu and Wachovia since home prices have fallen around the nation even as many Pick-A-Pay loan balances have risen.

Wachovia famously acquired the Pick-A-Pay business in 2006, when it purchased West Coast lender Golden West, at the height of the housing boom, for $25.5 billion.

That deal quickly has quickly come to haunt Wachovia's franchise. Defenders of Golden West, a pioneer in offering Option ARM mortgages, say that Wachovia changed the product's underwriting standards, and issued the loans to riskier borrowers. But employees at Wachovia who marketed Pick-A-Pays say that the loans do not deserve to be lumped with other risky loans, including now-infamous subprime loans.

Those defenders of the Option ARM loans maintain that when banks underwrite these loans correctly, they are both safe and lucrative. But as the credit crisis has widened, Pick-A-Pays have undeniably produced rising delinquencies and - perhaps more importantly - unnerved investors.

Of Wachovia's $122 billion in Pick-A-Pays, 5.78% are considered " nonperforming," or more than 90 days past due, as of this year's second quarter. Another 5.2% of the portfolio is delinquent by less than 90 days. As of last year's second quarter, only 1.03% of the Pick-A-Pay portfolio was classified as nonperforming.

Wachovia's $44 billion in traditional mortgages, by contrast, show a nonperforming rate of 0.98%, up from 0.35% in last year's second quarter.

Of the entire Pick-A-Pay portfolio, 58% of the outstanding balances are tied to properties in California, and another 10% are tied to homes in Florida - two states hardest hit by declines in home values.

Washington Mutual had similar, though more severe, problems with its Option ARM loans. Six percent of WaMu's $52.9 billion portfolio was nonperforming through the second quarter, up from about 1.5% in last year's second quarter.

With Pick-A-Pay loans producing losses for Wachovia that reach into the billions, and more likely to come, Wachovia's board has shaken up the firm.

Wachovia ousted its long-time CEO Ken Thompson in July and replaced him with Bob Steel, a former undersecretary at the U.S. Treasury and a veteran Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) banker. The firm has also announced a new chief financial officer as well as a new chief risk officer.

While CEO Steel has worked quickly to reassure investors and has promised to make the Charlotte firm more transparent, Wachovia's shares have continued their wild ride as investors appear unsure what to make of Wachovia's long-term prospects. The shares dropped below $10 in July, and did so again Friday.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Was mentioned by Bloomberg ~ 6:15pm EDT that they are in talks with Citi, Wells, and Banco Santander. It's going to be Citi.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Oooh what a gamble that would be... if the FDIC does the same thing with Wachovia that they did with WaMu I'll be pissed.... buy or don't buy, buy or don't buy... Monday might be too late and it could be on the rise... although I could wait until Sunday night but after hours trading might get me.

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG what to do!!??
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
When I used my local Wachovia ATM a few days ago, I got a bunch of OLD 20 dollar bills. Not only were they all "old" style 20's, but not a single one of the ten that I got from the machine was newer than 1994. Weird!

I know that doesn't prove anything, but it almost seemed like they're down to their emergency cash reserves at the bank. I've also seen more traffic going in and out of the bank than usual, and I also overheard one of their employees sarcastically asking if they were eligible for the $25 new customer referral bonus once they were laid off. I guess that morale over there isn't all that good.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: brencat
Was mentioned by Bloomberg ~ 6:15pm EDT that they are in talks with Citi, Wells, and Banco Santander. It's going to be Citi.

citi is too big already, i would go wells
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
When I used my local Wachovia ATM a few days ago, I got a bunch of OLD 20 dollar bills. Not only were they all "old" style 20's, but not a single one of the ten that I got from the machine was newer than 1994. Weird!

I know that doesn't prove anything, but it almost seemed like they're down to their emergency cash reserves at the bank. I've also seen more traffic going in and out of the bank than usual, and I also overheard one of their employees sarcastically asking if they were eligible for the $25 new customer referral bonus once they were laid off. I guess that morale over there isn't all that good.

Crazy.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: brencat
Was mentioned by Bloomberg ~ 6:15pm EDT that they are in talks with Citi, Wells, and Banco Santander. It's going to be Citi.

citi is too big already, i would go wells

Define "too big".

too big to fail

So Citi is "too big to fail" and Wells isn't? :confused:
 
Oct 2, 2007
65
0
0
lol at the people who are going to throw money at Wachovia stock to try to cash in on bailout speculation. just like those folks who lost everything doing the same with Wamu.
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
Originally posted by: cambit69
lol at the people who are going to throw money at Wachovia stock to try to cash in on bailout speculation. just like those folks who lost everything doing the same with Wamu.

Good!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
There are substantial differences between Wachovia and WaMu.

Wachovia does not bundle and sell their loans like WaMu did. This guarantees a certain level of cash flow and would be the perfect target for Hank Paulson's Golden Bucket of Taxpayer Cash as the Golden West crapola loans are written down.

I guess anything is possible but I don't see a run on Wachovia like was seen at WaMu in the last 10 days.

Wachovia customer service has always been highly rated as has their wealth management and brokerage services.

They make a really attractive target for takeover but it will take a load of jack to get it done - $20+ a share? - who knows?.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Topic Title: After WaMu, Wachovia Is Next On Market Hit-List
Topic Summary: Get Ready...It's Coming

The signs are already here. Investors hammered their stock with a 30 percent drop. They're reassuring investors and clients, just as WaMu did last week, that they have sufficient capital to stay afloat.

Wachovia was on my list way back in 2007.

Besides Wachovia it's a long list of banks that will fail.

They are all already stopping all loan activities.

You can't stop this house of cards built by Bush, the GOP, the Corporate criminals and all those that support them from crashing down.
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
i work for wachovia securities. we're a little different compare to wamu.

i'm not worried... if we merge with citi, more project work for me.
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
963
100
106
Isn't it illegal to speculate about the financial institutions failure ? It is illegal in my country because it may result in bank runs
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Topic Title: After WaMu, Wachovia Is Next On Market Hit-List
Topic Summary: Get Ready...It's Coming

The signs are already here. Investors hammered their stock with a 30 percent drop. They're reassuring investors and clients, just as WaMu did last week, that they have sufficient capital to stay afloat.

Wachovia was on my list way back in 2007.

Besides Wachovia it's a long list of banks that will fail.

They are all already stopping all loan activities.

You can't stop this house of cards built by Bush, the GOP, the Corporate criminals and all those that support them from crashing down.

Just admit you know absolutely nothing about why all this happened. If you did you wouldn't be blaming it all on Bush.

EDIT: Interesting read. Although I think it's above the 7th grade reading level, so let me know if you need any help comprehending this.

Community Reinvestment Act

Some key points...

The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.
Interesting huh? That was started and passed under the Carter Administration

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
Good God! Clinton increased the CRA by regulating that the lending institutions hand out MORE subprime mortgages! NO WAI YOU SAY!! :Q

The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [6] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
HOLY SHIT BATMAN! That's a 39% increase under Clinton... and he wanted it to happen!

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [10] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[11]

This right here is VERY important. Be sure to read ALL of it.


Now that is not the entire problem but it is, I think, the biggest contributing factor to the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage. Anyone remember when you could only get a house with 20% down and 30, 20, or 15 year fixed? When did that all change?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Originally posted by: Descartes
Removed Quote

Thanks for the insider information :). This is why I never say a damn thing about my company.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: Descartes
Obviously I'm just another person on the intarweb, but I do have some level of credibility here.

A friend and ex employee of ours joined Wachovia as a VP of Derivatives Trading a few years back. He called me just today to ask if we can get him back on because he said Wachovia is closing up shop. Obviously he doesn't know everything, but even at his level the outlook is bleak.

Thanks for the insider information :). This is why I never say a damn thing about my company.

hmm, interesting
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Let me guess, the news will just happen to break on a Thursday night, and the takeover will happen on a Friday.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: brencat
Was mentioned by Bloomberg ~ 6:15pm EDT that they are in talks with Citi, Wells, and Banco Santander. It's going to be Citi.

citi is too big already, i would go wells

Define "too big".

too big to fail

So Citi is "too big to fail" and Wells isn't? :confused:

C has the most assets of any bank. So if any bank is too big to fail...
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: Descartes
Removed Quote

Thanks for the insider information :). This is why I never say a damn thing about my company.

hmm, interesting

If you tell a friend something that could be insider information and they go and post it online, you can be on the hook for anyone that traded stock based on that insider information. Really stupid for anyone at a high level of a bank to be say anything right now because people are in such a panic mode it could cause a run.