Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fannie/Freddie reveals some interesting accounting at WFC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fannie/Freddie reveals some interesting accounting at WFC

    I read the article below about Wells Fargo, and I thought it was interesting that they had their investments in Fannie/Freddie preferred shares listed as available for sale securities, which are carried at cost. I guess WFC had these listed as temporarily impaired, and maybe had their fingers crossed hoping that these assets were going increase in value from 5 to 10 cents on the dollar back to what WFC paid for them.

    It looks like WFC had $43 billion in available for sale securities as of 12/06, $73 billion as of 12/07, but their latest report shows $91 billion as of 6/08.

    I previously thought that a lot of these banks were hiding assets by marking them as Level 3, but now I am wondering how many of the other banks are hiding assets as available for sale securities.

    Here is the article if anyone is interested.

    http://www.housingwire.com/2008/09/0...se-preferreds/


    September 8, 2008


    Advertisements




    Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC: 32.92 -1.91%) said after market close on Monday that it will record other-than-temporary impairment and take a non-cash charge to earnings for its investments in perpetual preferred securities issued by Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.86 +17.81%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.86 -2.27%). HW reported earlier on Monday that the bank was among major preferred equity shareholders at both GSEs.
    In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wells Fargo said that its “perpetual preferred investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are included in securities available for sale at a cost of $336 million and $144 million, respectively.” The bank said its holdings in both GSEs are currently trading at 5 to 10 percent of par value.
    The bank holds no common equity positions in either GSE, it said in the filing. See the entire SEC filing.
    The write-down comes as the Federal Housing Finance Agency and U.S. Treasury moved over the weekend to prop up the ailing GSEs over capital adequacy concerns.
    Wells Fargo’s Q2 earnings beat analyst expectations handily, but the bank avoided a good chunk of credit costs by reclassifying how it handles home equity portfolio charge-offs. Earlier in Q2, the bank extended its charge-off policy from 120 days to 180 days, in an effort to give troubled borrowers more time to reach a loan workout (or to protect earnings, take your pick).
    Wells has a substantial $84 billion portfolio of home equity loans — and half of those are located in hard hit states like California and Florida; of that total, it has carved out the worst $11 billion for liquidation, with rest remaining as part of its “core” home equity portfolio.
    Which means that Wells Fargo could get hit with a double whammy in Q3: its lost Fannie, Freddie interests as well as a delayed hit to its home equity portfolio.
    Disclosure: The author held no relevant positions when this story was published; indirect holdings may exist via mutual fund investments. HW reporters and writers follow a strict disclosure policy, the first in the mortgage trade.

  • #2
    Re: Fannie/Freddie reveals some interesting accounting at WFC

    Originally posted by nathanhulick View Post
    I read the article below about Wells Fargo, and I thought it was interesting that they had their investments in Fannie/Freddie preferred shares listed as available for sale securities, which are carried at cost. I guess WFC had these listed as temporarily impaired, and maybe had their fingers crossed hoping that these assets were going increase in value from 5 to 10 cents on the dollar back to what WFC paid for them.

    It looks like WFC had $43 billion in available for sale securities as of 12/06, $73 billion as of 12/07, but their latest report shows $91 billion as of 6/08.

    I previously thought that a lot of these banks were hiding assets by marking them as Level 3, but now I am wondering how many of the other banks are hiding assets as available for sale securities.

    Here is the article if anyone is interested.

    http://www.housingwire.com/2008/09/0...se-preferreds/

    [/i]
    Why do you think banks are "hiding assets as available for sale securities"???

    They have to account for them this way. Here is an excerpt from a joint release from the Fed, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the OTS from two days ago, "reminding" institutions of this:
    "...All institutions are reminded that investments in preferred stock and common stock with readily determinable fair value should be reported as available-for-sale equity security holdings, and that any net unrealized losses on these securities are deducted from regulatory capital..."
    You can see the full release at the FDIC website here...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Fannie/Freddie reveals some interesting accounting at WFC

      Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
      Why do you think banks are "hiding assets as available for sale securities"???

      They have to account for them this way. Here is an excerpt from a joint release from the Fed, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the OTS from two days ago, "reminding" institutions of this:
      "...All institutions are reminded that investments in preferred stock and common stock with readily determinable fair value should be reported as available-for-sale equity security holdings, and that any net unrealized losses on these securities are deducted from regulatory capital..."
      You can see the full release at the FDIC website here...

      I guess I wasn't clear. WFC had these assets listed with a temporary impairment, which shows up on the balance sheet, but doesn't actually affect earnings. I didn't mean that they were hiding the assets just by listing them there. They are hiding the loss by listing them at historical cost there with a temporary impairment.

      Since these assets lost 90-95% of their value, it seems like they should have been charged against earnings far earlier. That is what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Sorry if I didn't explain things better.

      Comment

      Working...
      X