저자: BradKaellner · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 은행주 직접 투자에 부정적 입장을 전달하며 특정 은행주에 대한 매수 권유는 없다. 테리 스미스의 논리: 은행은 자기자본이 작아(약 5%) 레버리지가 20배 수준이며, S&P500 평균 기업(약 2배)과 비교해 자산 손실에 취약하다. 수익성: S&P 은행 섹터의 최근 5년 ROE는 약 11%로 필수소비재(약 18%)보다 낮고, 5년 연환산 총수익도 은행 -15%, 필수소비재 +12%로 차이가 크다. 시스템 리스크: 은행은 개별 경영이 건전해도 업계 전반의 패닉(뱅크런 연쇄)에 무너질 수 있으며, 실리콘밸리은행 사태 이후 지역은행이 같은 영향을 받았다. 핀테크 위협: 예금·대출·결제 등 은행의 핵심 기능이 핀테크·P2P 대출 등으로 대체되고 있으며, 레거시 시스템 때문에 은행은 불리하다. 대안 관점: 프랑수아 로샹(Giverny Capital)과 존 맥스필드는 은행 자체보다 은행을 운영하는 경영진(Bankers)을 평가하는 것이 중요하다고 본다. 맥스필드는 탐욕·질투에 면역이 있는 경영자가 필요하다고 언급했다. 언급 은행: Hingham, Triumph Financial, Washington Federal, FFIN(First Financial), M&T Bank, Bank of America, First Republic, Bank OZK 등을 거론하나 진화자 본인은 직접 투자하지 않겠다고 밝힘. 진행자 입장: 은행 섹터에서 관망(사이드라인) 유지, 시장 급락기('피가 흐를 때')에 진입할지에 대한 고민을 제시하며 양측 논거가 모두 있다고 정리. 결론적으로 이 영상은 은행 섹터 전반에 대해 부정적·관망 입장이며, 대상 자산 중 직접 방향 예측은 없다.
다듬은 글
hey what's up stock Compounders Brad here so today I want to cover a recent blog post by Terry Smith of fund Smith now Terry Smith used to be a top rated analyst in the banking sector okay and he just wrote a blog post why I never invest in Bank shares now when I see what's happening in the banking sector right there's blood in the streets I'm like ah I gotta get in this thing right I got to get involved somehow I'm hoping to cure that impulse today with this blog post by Terry Smith for those of you whose impulse is not cured by this blog post there's a few resources recently that I'd like to share on the banking sector that I I thought were particularly noteworthy so let's work our way through this blog post why does Terry Smith Never invest in Banks having spent the first decade of my career working in a bank and then becoming a top rated Bank analyst I find that people often express surprise that I never invest in Banks but I think it is precisely because I understand banks that I never invest in their shares the recent events surrounding the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse reinforce this stance why firstly I never invest in anything that requires leverage to make an adequate return banks have a very small amount of equity to support their balance sheet here are the actual numbers for NatWest group for 2022 to make it easier to understand I have reduced them to percentages so the big thing here Equity five percent okay NatWest has five pounds of shareholders Equity to fund a hundred pounds of assets it has a gearing or leverage of 20 times if 10 percent of the 52 pounds of loans and every 100 pounds of assets proved to be bad then the whole of the shareholders Equity is more than wiped out okay frankly long before that happens depositors are likely to spot the problem and panic and cause a run on the bank as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank nor are these circumstances unimaginable author Nasim taleb in his book The Black Swan points out that in the 1982 Latin American debt crisis the large American Banks lost all of their cumulative past earnings in contrast the average company in the S P 500 index has 26 billion of assets and 8.5 billion of equity they are on average geared two times Falls in asset value are not their main risk but their assets would have to fall by one-third in value to lose the value of their equity so that's contrasted with 10 percent for this NatWest example so 10 versus 33 percent it's a big difference next despite this massive leverage and the risk which accompanies it returns from the banking sector are inadequate Terry Smith in his annual presentation talks a lot about different sectors and and what kind of returns on Capital are for those different sectors uh the average return on equity in the s p Banks sector over the past five years is just just shy of 11 percent this Compares with return on equity on the S P Consumer Staples sector over the same period nearly 18 percent these poor fundamental returns unsurprisingly translate into poor share price performance um the total return on the S P Banks sector over the past five years was minus 15 per year whereas Consumer Staples returned positive 12 percent so much for the theory that you need to take more risk to get higher returns finally surely there must be some good Banks to invest in which are better than the average that brings me on to another problem systemic risk even if the bank you are invested in is well run it can still be damaged or destroyed by a general panic in the sector there is an anecdote which illustrates this in the early 1980s doubts first set in about the future of Hong Kong with the looming Handover of control to China and a crisis soon developed in the property sector which provided the collateral for much Bank Lending in the midst of this there was a local bank which had an awning open over its front window to keep the Sun out it was by a bus stop and as heavy rain shower developed the bus queue moved to take shelter under the awning in front of the bank in the febrile atmosphere passersby thought this was the beginning of a bank run and as a result one soon developed that's banking for you Banks can be brought down by the actions of their peers look at what happened to some U.S Regional banks in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank disaster Lord Mervin King the former bank of England Governor encapsulated this when he observed that it made no sense to start a bank a run on a bank but once one has started you should join in okay which is exactly what we saw with Silicon Valley Bank that encompasses my long-standing reasons for avoiding Bank shares but another has emerged in recent years fintech what are the essential functions of a bank to take deposits make loans and affect payments all of these essential roles are now being supplanted by so-called fintechs bank loans are being replaced by peer-to-peer lending platforms and credit funds you don't need a bank for payments or deposits you can get your salary paid straight into your Mastercard or VISA account and they are far better at Payment Processing for which you can also use your Apple or Android phone technology is supplanting traditional banking have you noticed that your local bank branch has become a Pizza Express in which role by the way it makes more money not only that but the banks are often handicapped by Legacy systems which do not trouble new entrants and at least until recently fintech startups enjoyed a seemingly endless supply of funding with little or no requirement to show a profit as Paul Paul volcker the infamous former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank said the only innovation of any consequence by the banking sector in the 20 years running up to the global financial crisis was the ATM and we don't even need those anymore so this is what Terry Smith has to say about the banking sector now if that hasn't cured you of wanting to invest in Banks uh this conversation with Francois Roshan of governing capital uh he mentions he owns four or five banks which is the most Giverny has ever owned and I think about 25 years of running that fund and Francois did mention in here he doesn't invest in Banks he invests in Bankers okay so there are great bankers um and John Maxfield gets into this as well this is a fantastic hour-long kind of exploration about investing in banks in a post Silicon Valley Bank world uh and he highlights this same fact here's what he says about banking banking is a business of abundance okay it's about managing abundance now managing abundance requires a different set of skills than managing scarcity okay most businesses are managing scarcity not true of banking um the underlying variable that allows someone to succeed in an environment where managing abundance is the primary constraint okay the innate or acquired immunity to Greed and envy okay a banker really needs to have that innate or acquired immunity to Greed or Envy I imagine that's a very small subset of Bank CEOs that have that characteristic that immunity so where John Maxfield is really going with this you must assess who's running the banks okay that's that's the big X Factor when you're trying to figure out what bank might be a good investment um who's running it who who are the managers behind that bank he says the banks I like the most are the banks with the best people that run them he mentions four different banks in this podcast uh he mentions Patrick gaugen at hifs Hingham which is pretty popular in value circles these days Hingham half a billion market cap Bank uh Aaron graft at Triumph Financial t-f-i-n just over a billion market cap 1.3 billion so still small cap Brent beardall at Washington Federal which is wafd just shy of 2 billion market cap and then Scott doozer at ffin which is First Financial Bank shares a little bit bigger nearly 5 billion so right in the the mid cap territory so you know if I were thinking of getting into the banking sector right uh I'd be looking at what Giverny Capital owns in terms of banks so you've got M T Bank Corp uh Bank of America First Republic that's one that's gotten a lot of air time recently uh Bank ozk this is a favorite of Phil towns I think near the near the top of his portfolio and then we're really getting down is some of the smaller Holdings here um yeah so those are a couple that Francois owns and then like I said hifs t-f-i-n-w-a-f-d or f-fin but to be honest guys I'm not going to be looking into any of these I'm very happy to be on the sidelines at least for the banking sector uh but hopefully this gave you guys some food for thought in terms of should I you know get in here when there's blood in the streets should I just avoid this this sector entirely um certainly there's a case to be made on on both sides here uh Terry Smith stays away even though he has very deep knowledge of the sector perhaps because he has very deep knowledge of the sector and then you know here's two guys who are invested in the banking sector and very focused on you know betting on the banker not the bank so hopefully that gives you guys something to uh to chew on it's it's a very interesting time to say the least in Banks I can't when's the last time there was a run on a bank in the U.S right it seems like it's been a very long time so history in the making all right guys that's all I have for today thanks for watching I'll see you in the next one take care
Comments 0