1. How to use GuruFocus - Tutorials
  2. What Is in the GuruFocus Premium Membership?
  3. A DIY Guide on How to Invest Using Guru Strategies
The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting
Articles (447) 

Some Thoughts on Wells Fargo

A discussion following the company's first-quarter results

April 18, 2017 | About:

Wells Fargo (WFC) reported first-quarter results last Thursday. I’m far from an expert on banks, but the valuation seems reasonable at current levels. The purpose of this article is to share some thoughts on Wells Fargo – and to hopefully push readers with more experience than myself to share some of their thoughts. If all goes well, I’ll do the same for JPMorgan (JPM) in a few weeks.

The first number that catches my attention is $1.3 trillion: that’s how much Wells Fargo had in deposits at the end of the first quarter (up 7% from the prior-year period). The company has nearly 24 million consumer checking customers and does business with one in three U.S. households. Wells Fargo is the industry leader in retail deposit market share in the United States; based on the data I’ve seen, Wells Fargo’s retail deposit share is roughly 10%.

The cost for that $1.3 trillion in the first quarter was only 17 basis points (0.17%). Those deposits are the primary source of low-cost funding that the bank uses to support $964 billion in (average) loans. The average yield on those loans in the first quarter was 4.26% (annualized).

The yield on the company’s loans (and other investment securities held by Wells) less the cost of deposits (and other funding sources like long-term debt) is known as the net interest margin (NIM). Wells Fargo’s NIM in the first quarter was 2.87%. The low interest rate environment has put significant pressure on Wells Fargo’s – and other banks' – NIM. In addition, there’s been a shift in the balance between loans and investment securities (as an example, “Federal Funds Sold, Securities Under Resale Agreements and Other Short-Term Investment” increased from ~6% of earning assets in 2010 to ~17% of earning assets in 2016; this shift accounted for nearly 50 basis points of NIM compression). While that second change will continue putting pressure on NIM, it also lowers the overall risk profile of the assets held on Wells Fargo’s balance sheet.

Here's why that matters. In 2010, the NIM was 4.26%. By 2016, the NIM had fallen to 2.86%. The difference – 140 basis points – may seem small. Against $1.7 trillion in earning assets in the first quarter, we can see that those basis points start to add up: the difference between 4.26% and 2.86% is nearly $24 billion a year in net interest income for Wells Fargo (that’s not a typo).

As interest rates rise, the NIM should start to tick higher (my understanding is that we’ll see a lag as deposit costs reset more quickly than the longer-term loans on the books). Regardless of the timing, we can see that a higher NIM has significant potential to boost earnings at Wells Fargo.

The other noteworthy item is operating expenses. In the first quarter, Wells Fargo’s efficiency ratio – a measure of noninterest expenses divided by revenues – was north of 62%. This is a full five percentage points higher than the company’s target of 55% to 59% (the efficiency ratio was at the high end of this range from 2012 through 2015). As management noted on the first-quarter conference call, this outcome is unacceptable. At the same time, they were clear that this probably will not change in the coming quarters (“currently expect the efficiency ratio to remain elevated”). Just as with the NIM, the numbers add up: against $52 billion in 2016 noninterest expense, each percentage point improvement in the efficiency ratio is worth half a billion dollars (pretax).

Outside of the opportunities discussed above, Wells Fargo will earn somewhere around $4 per share in 2017, valuing the business at less than 13x earnings (that includes the expense for amortization of core deposits, an accounting charge that does not reflect economic reality). The company has had a net payout ratio of 60% to 70% over the past few years (current dividend yield is 3.0%) with the remainder retained to support mid- to high single-digit deposit and loan growth. These have been the drivers of long-term book value per share and earnings per share growth of 7% to 8% per year. If you attribute value to the items discussed above, you can make a pretty compelling case for Wells Fargo at $52 per share (at least relative to the market).

While the sham accounts scandal is still a lingering issue for the bank, I don’t think it’s a long-term problem. I agree with what Charlie Munger (Trades, Portfolio) said recently:

I don’t think it impacts the future of Wells Fargo. As a matter of fact, they’ll be better for it. The nice thing about doing something dumb is you probably won’t do it again.”

It looks like some key insiders agree with that conclusion. CEO Tim Sloan recently bought 39,000 shares on the open market, valued at roughly $2 million. Chairman Stephen Sanger did the same, buying $3 million worth of stock.


Personally, there’s one major issue that concerns me. When I pull up the quarterly release or annual report for Wells Fargo or J.P. Morgan (especially JPM), something is immediately clear: these banks have many moving parts. Becoming intimately familiar with the disparate components of the business (and the accounting) is very difficult. I’m of the opinion that these banks could easily report just about any headline EPS number (within reason) without detection by outsiders if they truly wanted to. Said differently, if you’re going to invest in one of these banks, you better be damn sure that they have the right people in charge and the right culture. There needs to be a focus on the long term with accounting that clearly errs on the side of conservatism. For me, this is the biggest hurdle when considering an investment in a bank like Wells Fargo or J.P. Morgan.

That’s probably a good stopping point for now. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Disclosure: None.

Start a free seven-day trial of Premium Membership to GuruFocus.

About the author:

The Science of Hitting
I'm a value investor with a long-term focus. As it relates to portfolio construction, my goal is to make a small number of meaningful decisions a year. In the words of Charlie Munger, my preferred approach to investing is "patience followed by pretty aggressive conduct". I run a concentrated portfolio, with a handful of equities accounting for the majority of its value. In the eyes of a businessman, I believe this is sufficient diversification.

Rating: 4.7/5 (6 votes)



Thomas Macpherson
Thomas Macpherson premium member - 5 months ago

As a stock/industry that I don't follow, this was an excellent overview of what creates a bank's value. All I remember was a family member who was a bank president saying he had to hit a 1% return on assets. To an 8 year old that didn't mean very much. That's my way of saying this article was much, much better at enlightening me. Thanks again. - Tom

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting - 5 months ago    Report SPAM


Thank you for the kind words! I'm glad you found the article worthwhile.

Sjackburrow premium member - 5 months ago

Thank you for the nice article. Evaluating banks it's tough. Any insight whatsoever helps. Please write more on how you evaluate these companies. Thanks again Samuel By the way what are the two companies you own?

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting - 5 months ago    Report SPAM


Thanks for the kind words. I'll keep writing articles like this.

Have a great day!

Softdude2000 - 5 months ago    Report SPAM

SOH, This is nice informative article. Can you explain “Federal Funds Sold, Securities Under Resale Agreements and Other Short-Term Investment”.

I was thinking short-term investment means WFC bought some T-Bills. And similar investment is 17% of earning assets which are not earning much. Is that partially correct?

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting - 5 months ago    Report SPAM


Let me take a shot at that. The majority of “Federal Funds Sold, Securities Under Resale Agreements and Other Short-Term Investment” held by Wells Fargo is "Interest-Earning Deposits". As noted in the annual report, substantially all of these interest-earning deposits are held at the Federal Reserve.

This has a big impact of NIM: In 2016, the average balance for these assets was $288 billion for Wells Fargo, with an average yield of just 0.51%. At the same time, this move lowers the overall risk profile of the assets on Wells' balance sheet.

I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions / comments.

P.S. This article from the San Fransisco Fed is a good discussion of this topic:


Softdude2000 - 5 months ago    Report SPAM

Thanks, your reply and reference are helpful.

The Science of Hitting
The Science of Hitting - 5 months ago    Report SPAM

No problem!

Please leave your comment:

GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Signs with Wells Fargo & Co $WFC.
More than 500,000 people have already joined GuruFocus to track the stocks they follow and exchange investment ideas.

Performances of the stocks mentioned by The Science of Hitting

User Generated Screeners

pbarker46Dividend Growth
doug.quailLong Term Candidates
bjackscreener nou 3
bjackscreener nou 2
bjackscreener nou
pbarker46Begin here 3
DBrizan2017sep22 1045p
Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)

GF Chat