Wells Fargo Shareholder Meeting (2009): the Age of Uncertainty

I attended Wells Fargo's 2009 annual meeting today in San Francisco, California. Wells Fargo (WFC) did not seem to anticipate such a large crowd attending its meeting. It had to scramble to set up more chairs in an adjacent viewing area where shareholders could view the meeting on a large video screen. In a scene reminiscent of a Friday night club, some shareholders (including myself) had to wait downstairs before security allowed us to take the elevator to enter the meeting. Per its conservative image, Wells Fargo did not offer any coffee or refreshments. I asked an employee whether Wells Fargo had served coffee or refreshments at last year's meeting, and she said she didn't remember Wells Fargo serving food or drinks at any annual shareholder meeting.

Chairman Richard "Dick" Kovacevich spoke first and appeared in a good mood, making several well-received jokes. He earned my respect for being forthright in this earlier speech, where he stated, "We [the financial sector] really caused this crisis."

After the formal portion of the meeting had concluded, he turned the meeting over to President and CEO John Stumpf. First, let me give you some visuals. Mr. Kovacevich is a tall man who exudes confidence in a friendly way. Mr. Stumpf, on the other hand, is shorter, more intense, and much more brusque. I would almost compare them to Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci (Goodfellas or Casino, take your pick)--effective men, each in his own way.

Mr. Stumpf delivered a short presentation. He began by rattling off all the names of failed financial institutions--AIG, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and WaMu. These are "difficult times," he said. He went through some slides showing that Wells Fargo had made money and continues to grow. One slide was confusing--it showed WFC reporting $0.70 of diluted EPS, but had a shadow area that added $1.51 in EPS, which assumed the inclusion of credit reserves. Including the credit reserve build, the additional EPS would have brought the numbers in line with previous earnings. I did not understand what the additional EPS meant, and even after I asked Mr. Stumpf to explain it again during the Q&A, I still didn't fully understand it. (My current understanding is that Wells Fargo had set aside billions of dollars to cover expected future loan losses, especially due to the Wachovia acquisition, and had it not been forced to account for its expected losses, its earnings per share would have increased.)

Mr. Stumpf talked about the dividend and the "difficult decision" to cut it. He indicated WFC would increase the dividend when "practicable" to do so. Wells Fargo's cutting of its dividend signals a tectonic shift. If you go back to a time when banks were staid creatures, people would buy banking shares for the dividend. They expected that a bank would slowly and conservatively increase deposits and make more loans over time, allowing the bank to steadily increase its dividend. As a result of their consistent dividends, banking stocks were called "widows and orphans" stocks--held by husbands to protect their families when they died. That age is over. Banks have lost the public's trust, and with it, we have entered a new world of uncertainty. This change is shocking because even banks that acted conservatively, like Wells Fargo, had to cut their dividends, breaking their implicit promise to maintain steady payouts. If there is one unfortunate lesson to be learned from this crisis, it's that being good didn't pay off. As a result of widespread and creative financial engineering, the good banks got sucked into the morass created by bad banks like Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC). Now, senior citizens looking for income have few places to invest. Even preferred shares are suspect.

Mr. Stumpf returned to his theme of consistent growth. He said that even during this tough time, WFC "grew revenues by 6%" while reducing expenses by 1%. He said the amounts loaned also increased, although most of that increase came from the commercial and wholesale areas, not the consumer. Deposits also increased as a result of the "flight to quality."

Mr. Stumpf then talked about Wells Fargo's two major events: Wachovia and the government's $25 billion investment in Wells Fargo. He said the Wachovia acquisition was going well, and Wells Fargo would pay back the government as soon as practicable. He said companies fail when they confuse their mission with the results. WFC's mission was to help people succeed financially, and the result was that "we make money." Bad companies, he said, mix these up and focus on making money over serving their customers. Mr. Stumpf ended his presentation by pointing out Wells Fargo's charitable contributions, which were impressive.

The Q&A session was longer than usual, and most shareholders had interesting questions. One thing about Mr. Stumpf, though--if he doesn't like your question, he'll give you a quick answer and expect you to move on. Several times, he avoided answering questions by using humor to deflect the question (Those of you who remember my Joe Pesci comparison can start visualizing him saying, "Funny? Funny how?").

One shareholder asked about Citibank's (C) lawsuit against Wells Fargo (which relates to the Wachovia acquisition). Mr. Stumpf said Wells Fargo would defend itself vigorously.

I asked whether the government forced Wells Fargo to take TARP money. After all, if Wells Fargo didn't need it, why didn't they reject it? Mr. Stumpf tried to avoid answering the question, so I asked Mr. Kovacevich directly for an answer. He said government negotiations were confidential, but added, "We did not ask for the money." He said he took the money because it was in the best interests of the company at the time.

Another shareholder talked about a personal issue. Apparently, Wells Fargo had increased his interest rate. The shareholder complained about Wells Fargo's customer service. At first, Mr. Stumpf asked whether the shareholder had a question. (At this point, I started thinking Mr. Stumpf might take a bat to this guy's knees.) After the shareholder meekly said, "I guess I don't have a question," Mr. Stumpf wisely turned on the charm. He said, "I'm sorry," and directed the shareholder to a specific Wells Fargo employee for further assistance.

Another shareholder praised the bank. He was a former employee who had held Wells Fargo shares since at least 1998.

Another shareholder talked about zombie banks and whether nationalization would be a good idea. Mr. Stumpf replied, "We are solvent" and "clearly not a zombie bank." He said his understanding was that the President and Congress had rejected nationalization.

Another shareholder asked whether Wells Fargo anticipated raising its capital base, thereby diluting its common equity shareholders. In a telling sign of how uncertain the current environment is, Mr. Stumpf refused to comment one way or another. When you strip down the optimism, no one really knows. Look at page 78 of Wells Fargo's 10K:

Under SOP 030-3 (Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer), we recorded at fair value all credit-impaired loans acquired in the merger based on the present value of the expected cash flows...using assumptions about matters that are inherently uncertain.

Essentially, Wells Fargo itself admits its numbers are "inherently uncertain." The only thing we know for sure is that Wells Fargo's earnings received a boost from a recent loosening of the mark-to-market accounting rules. Still, regardless of any accounting changes, at the end of the day, no one really knows anything, because there are too many unknown variables. That's why Wells Fargo accepted $25 billion of our money--it doesn't really know, either, and if it did, it would have paid back the government already. [Update: some banks have already paid back TARP funds. See here.] So of course the CEO can't promise to avoid further capital injections. Of course the CEO can't promise to avoid diluting the common equity shareholders. Like everyone else, he doesn't really know what's around the corner. When historians study this current time period, the honest ones will admit no one really knew anything. It's sheer hope and faith that's driving many Americans, and, by extension, the banks to which they owe money.

I went up to the mic one last time. I told Mr. Stumpf some people think that "too big to fail" should be "too big to exist." I implied that we weren't addressing any of the root causes of our current problems and that this crisis could happen again. I said it was frightening to see the stock market go up and down based on the appearance of the banking sector's good or bad health. I indicated that banks, a relatively small group, had tremendous power over the average Joe's 401k. I said that Wells Fargo had spoken against some regulation, such as executive pay restrictions (see also 10K: page 78), but it hadn't talked about what regulation it favored. I asked Mr. Stumpf to talk about what regulations he favored so that we could avoid another crisis.

Mr. Stumpf had a two-part answer. He said that only 22% of financial assets are held in commercial banks. He said most financial assets are held by unregulated entities, such as AIG (and others who thought credit default swaps were a great idea). At this point, his answer became somewhat confusing. From what I understood (and discussed with an Aussie couple after the meeting), Mr. Stumpf implied that we should expand financial regulation, but without adding another government agency. He did not favor the current situation, where multiple regulatory bodies cover select financial entities while excluding other major financial players. (Or, according to the Aussie gentleman, "Don't go swimmin' without your trunks"--demand everyone have some covering if they want to play in the pool.)

Mr. Stumpf also suggested we should try to minimize systemic risk. He seemed to indicate that all of the banks' assets should come under one umbrella so that the overall risk of the banking sector could be easily ascertained. Again, I am not certain this is what he said, because Mr. Stumpf talks quickly. While he clearly understands complex financial terms and ideas, he seems to have a hard time communicating those ideas to the general public. (This is why WFC needs Mr. Kovacevich--his easygoing, amiable style balances Mr. Stumpf's abrupt demeanor.) From what I heard, however, it sounded like even the banking sector's head honchos acknowledged that greater transparency and governmental involvement were necessary to minimize systemic risk. Perhaps thinking he'd said too much, Mr. Stumpf stopped. That's when I realized the point and theme of the meeting was to project confidence, because at the end of the day, that's what America needs, especially from the banking sector. I think Wells Fargo did an admirable job at the meeting, but again, no one knows anything. Only time will tell whether America exits this banking crisis stronger.

The AP's Michael Liedtke's review of the meeting can be found here. As of the record date, I had 9000 WFC shares. I used margin and felt uncomfortable with the volatility, selling all my shares at around $14/share. Investors who bought Wells Fargo stock recently and had the fortitude to hold on have been rewarded. As I wrote here earlier, an investor could have made 46% had s/he timed the market properly.

Random fact: Warren Buffett owns approximately 7.4% of WFC common shares. See page 13 of Wells Fargo's 2009 proxy statement.

Bonus: The Economist has an interesting article (May 14, 2009: "Three trillion dollars later...") on banking:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13648968

My Call on Wells Fargo Stock Was Accurate

On February 25, 2009, Wells Fargo (WFC) stock was selling for $13.44/share. I wrote an article where I praised WFC as undervalued:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/treasury-on-wells-fargo.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/122533-wells-fargo-should-emerge-from-this-crisis-stronger

At the time, President Obama had said that the government would continue to do whatever it took to support banks. Recently, the government allowed banks to use more flexible accounting to value certain assets.

Today, Wells Fargo stock reported better-than-expected earnings. WFC closed at $19.61/share, a 46% increase.

Personally, I bought Wells Fargo on margin all the way down to the single digits and sold at around $14/share. If I had Warren Buffett's money, I would have held on, but I couldn't handle having so much stock on margin. As it stands, I ended up losing some money on the WFC trades because I started buying shares at around $20/share.

It remains to be seen whether my most recent prediction--that the S&P will go to around 950--will come true. At this time, I continue to believe the S&P will rise to somewhere around 920 to 950.

Treasury on Wells Fargo

Banking stocks have been volatile recently, partly because the government failed to aggressively counter notions of nationalization. The government finally issued more clarity about its intentions.

First, the Federal Reserve expressly stated it would not--I repeat, "not"--nationalize banks: “I don’t see any reason to destroy the franchise value or to create the huge legal uncertainties of trying to formally nationalize a bank when it just isn’t necessary,” Bernanke said at the Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Second, President Obama said the government will continue to do whatever it takes to support banks, but with reasonable restrictions: "[The recovery plan] means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy." President Obama also signaled that executive pay and corporate junkets would probably be limited.

Overall, the federal government has explicitly signaled that the top nineteen banks are too big to fail. This policy seems reasonable if Bernanke's prediction--that the economy will stabilize by the end of 2009--comes true. Indeed, some banking stocks seem undervalued now that nationalization is no longer an option. Let's look at Wells Fargo (WFC), for example:

From the Treasury’s Monthly Intermediation Snapshot report, submitted January 30, 2009:

Wells Fargo maintained in Q4 2008 its longstanding policy of not originating interest only, stated income, option ARM or negative amortizing mortgage loans.

Wells Fargo has reached 94% of its customers whose mortgages are two or more payments past due. For every 10 of these customers, we have worked with seven on a solution. Of those who received a loan modification, one year later, approximately 70% were either current or less than 90 days past due.

Wells Fargo added over 400,000 new household customers in the last year.

Sounds like there's at least one big bank that will come out of this crisis stronger.

Disclosure: I own shares of Wells Fargo (WFC).

Helicopter Ben vs. Commander Pessimism

I am shocked by the pessimism I see all around me. GE is around 11 dollars a share. Wells Fargo is around 16 dollars a share. Both are blue chip companies that will definitely survive, especially after the recent bailout; yet, they are being priced as if bankruptcy is imminent.

The problem with Mr. Market is that he tends to swing wildly in both directions. From 2004 to 2007, he swung too high, and now, he is swinging far too low. CNBC and other media channels mimic or just forward information given to them. Their constant repetition of bad news creates a self-fulfilling loop that leads consumers to believe the sky is falling. In reality, every major country in the world is working together to ensure more money is pumped into the economy. To be bearish now is to bet against every major country in the world. Even if you believe you are smarter than every major government, once the stimulus money gets into the hands of consumers, you will also be betting against worldwide consumers. The key issue is getting the stimulus money into the hands of consumers that will spend it, i.e., the middle class and poor. The current stimulus package, while imperfect, accomplishes that task by spreading its largess across multiple and diverse fronts, from high-tech workers to construction laborers. I would have preferred that the government give tax credits of 1,500 dollars to everyone who made less than 75,000 dollars AGI in 2008 and tell banks accepting taxpayer money to lower all monthly mortgage payments by 25%, but I'm not an elected official.

Will inflation eventually occur because America is printing trillions of dollars? Yes, and inflation is terrible for consumers in ordinary times. But these are not ordinary times. in an era where housing prices--the primary source of most Americans' wealth--have deflated, inflation is not an imminent threat. Focusing on inflation now is like a commander refusing to send tanks and planes against invading ground forces because he is reserving them to fight a distant, advancing Navy--yes, fighting the Navy will be important, but allowing ground troops to invade now is unacceptable, because failing to properly combat them will result in immediate defeat.

I own and am long General Electric (GE) and Wells Fargo (WFC). By mid-2009, the market should begin swinging back to normalcy as stimulus money reaches consumers. If you can time the exact moment that Mr. Market will moderate himself, good luck to you. For those of us not blessed with prescience, we can only buy now and hold for the long term. Mr. Market will regain his optimism at some point--trillions of dollars are enough to make even the most depressed person happy, at least over the short term.

Disclaimer: under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.

Banks Did It, in the Dining Room, with the Rope

The Jan 2009 issue of The Commonwealth has a fascinating speech by Dick Kovacevich, Chairman of Wells Fargo (WFC). Most interesting is how quickly the banking sector grew.

Wells Fargo started as a business in 1852, and Norwest, where I worked before merging with Wells Fargo, started in 1873. By 1950, our combined assets were less than $3 billion...By 1985, both companies together were still only about $50 billion. Today, they are $610 billion. When our merger with Wachovia is completed, we will be nearly $1.5 trillion. So what happened...that caused this unprecedented growth? ... deregulation, new technologies, non-bank competition, and industry consolidation.

The banking sector is a rarity--despite multiple mergers, competition continues to be fierce. The internet banks, especially ING Direct, keep threatening the big players. Consumers owe (in the abstract) more to ING and other internet bankers than we realize.

The 1980s was a very difficult time for our economy. We had 16 percent inflation, 20 percent interest rates, double-digit unemployment and a severe recession.

Mr. Kovacevich differentiates between an economic crisis and a financial crisis. He says the 1980s was worse than today's crisis, because it was a full-blown economic crisis. Today, however, we have more of a financial crisis than an economic crisis:

We're probably in a recession; we'll be in one until early next year, but we've still got 6.1 percent unemployment, not 14 percent. We have 2 or 3 percent inflation, not 20 percent. We have interest rates at record lows, not at 20 percent...[So] It is a more serious financial crisis...We [the financial sector] really caused this crisis.

His willingness to accept blame should earns points. It's nice to see a Chairman of a major banking company speaking so frankly. He ends with a positive note:

I wouldn't want to bet against all the regulators and all the governments of the world -- this is a coordinated effort. If you want to bet against them, go right ahead, but I wouldn't. They'll get this thing fixed.

Very reassuring words from Wells Fargo's chairman.

Disclosure: I own shares of Wells Fargo (WFC). Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway also holds WFC shares.

Bonus: In the same issue of The Commonwealth, Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, talks about California's budget:

Revenues have got to be greater than costs. This is one of the real laws of business. Otherwise, we go bankrupt. We need to change the structural way our budget is being done.

Although I live in California and consider myself a fairly comprehensive reader, I have no idea what's really going on with my state's budget. Last I heard, the Democrats were trying to call taxes "costs" to push through a budget over Republican objections. Come state election time, I may just vote against all the incumbents.

An X-Mas Shopping List

For those of you looking to tip-toe back into the market, looking at money flows is one way of seeing what others are buying. On December 18, 2008, it appeared investors were buying the following companies: Cisco (CSCO); Intel (INTC); Coca-Cola (KO); and Wells Fargo (WFC). Investors might also consider adding a Brazilian ETF (EWZ) and an undervalued technology company, Maxim Integrated Products (MXIM), to the above list.

The dollar's recent decline favors American companies that receive a substantial portion of their revenues abroad. Although one of my colleagues thinks Coca-Cola is sugar water and refuses to buy the stock, Coke has a decent dividend; good cash flow; and worldwide appeal. Even if a large percentage of the entire world becomes unemployed, they still have to drink something, and coffee--especially at 4 dollars a cup--is losing its status as the drink-du-jour. I also find it unlikely that people will cut back on soda, because soda is still cheaper than most other drinks.

Cisco is poised to rebound as an infrastructure play, especially if it gains ground in China and other Asian countries. Cisco has taken various actions--which include providing support after the Sichuan Province earthquake--to convince the Chinese government it wants to be a technology leader in China.

Wells Fargo represents a risky contrarian play. When the real estate market recovers--which it will, at some point--Wells Fargo will benefit. If it maintains its dividend, investors will receive around 4% while they wait, a better rate than most CDs. I considered replacing Wells Fargo with an REIT, but I used to own REITs primarily for their dividends. At this time, Wells Fargo's dividend is high enough for me to prefer its diversified business over a REIT. I also like the fact that Warren Buffett owns Wells Fargo shares.

EWZ is a Brazilian ETF. I've included it here primarily for diversification purposes, especially in the energy/commodities sector. Some investors may prefer to buy ConocoPhillips (COP), another Buffett pick, instead.

Intel (INTC) was downgraded by Jefferies and Co. today. (Interestingly, Jefferies (JEF) itself is being sold short by Barry Ritholtz, who accurately predicted the most recent market downturn.) With a 3.6% dividend yield, a dominant market position, and around $10 billion of net cash, it's hard to see Intel stock remaining at current levels. Although the U.S. market is saturated, Asian consumers will be buying more computers, and businesses worldwide will be buying more servers--products which generally require or use Intel CPUs, due to Intel's quasi-monopoly position in the processor market.

Intel's real problem is that lower-end laptops have become so cheap, they retail for about the same price as a Blackberry, iPhone, Google Android phone, and Sony Playstation. As a result, if consumers choose to delay upgrading their laptops and instead buy an iPhone or a video game console, Intel's revenue will suffer.

Maxim Integrated Products (MXIM) has no debt and finally appears to have its financial house in order, having resolved stock option backdating issues. Now that its external issues have been resolved, Maxim should do well as more consumers worldwide buy products using Maxim's analog chips. Maxim sports a 6% dividend yield.

A caveat: I don't work on Wall Street; I'm not in the business of making stock recommendations; and I don't have any financial licenses or formal financial training. Do your own due diligence before buying shares of any company. Although I currently own shares in all the companies mentioned above, I may sell all my shares in the future. Current conditions are volatile and favor short-term traders.

Disclosure: I own shares in all of the companies mentioned above. My relatives also have other financial interests, including shares, in Maxim Integrated Products (MXIM). You can read about Maxim's recent shareholder meeting here.

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

I plan on revisiting these stocks a year and two years from now. Prices at the close of business on 12/18/2008:

CSCO = 16.66
EWZ = 35.95
INTC = 14.26
KO = 45.18
MXIM = 12.00
WFC = 29.65

S&P 500 = 885.28
DJIA = 8,604.99
Nasdaq = 1,552.37

Update on December 23, 2008: a JP Morgan analyst disagrees with my assessment of MXIM. We will see in December 2009 who was right about MXIM. Almost all these these analyst downgrades come after the bad news has already been released. Consequently, when a major firm issues a "sell" or "underweight" rating, that's when contrarians and value investors should take a closer look at a stock.