Banking Crisis: The Next Domino Is Falling

In the last two weeks, the crisis suddenly – and at least for me surprisingly – picked up steam. I have predicted for a long time that I am quite certain we will see a recession in 2023 combined with a bear market and the S&P 500 (SPY) declining in value once again (after it already declined in 2022), but of course I did not know when it would happen and of course I also didn’t know what exactly will happen (nobody does).

In the following article I will mostly focus on the banking system and collapses of banks – knowing well this is only one part of the economy sliding into recession and the stock market sliding into a bear market. But banks play an important role in the economy and banks in distress can be a negative catalyst for a crisis. I will describe what has happened in the last few weeks, will focus on the important role trust and confidence play and why the huge problems a complex system can create are often misunderstood. And finally, I will try to provide an answer to the question if the time to invest in banks is now.

What Is Happening?

There are basically two major news stories. On the one hand we have the situation in Switzerland with the Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) being overtaken by UBS Group AG (UBS) and on the other hand we have several banks in the United States collapsing with competitors like JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and the government as well as the Federal Reserve stepping in.

Let’s start by looking at Credit Suisse. It was not so surprising to see the Swiss bank in trouble as stories about the company being in distress were already reported months ago. However, in the last few days the situation suddenly became more dramatic. Last week it was already reported that the Swiss National Bank and FINMA – the Swiss financial oversight institution – would back up Credit Suisse with an emergency loan of CHF 50 billion (if necessary). And during the weekend – such things always unfold on weekends while the markets are closed – UBS agreed to purchase Credit Suisse for $3.25 billion, which is about half the last stock price it was trading for but much higher than the initial offer of $1 billion, which was declined by Credit Suisse.

But not only Credit Suisse is in trouble – in the previous week the banking crisis in the United States reached its provisional climax (and I really fear it is only provisionally) when the Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB) collapsed – following in the footsteps of Signature Bank (SBNY) and Silvergate Bank (SI). It might not be surprising to see Credit Suisse being in trouble as stories about the company being in distress were already published months ago, but I certainly did not foresee the U.S. banks collapsing (although bank collapses are in the spectrum of possible events in every crisis and bear market).

And like in similar situations in the past, we saw the “classic” responses. The FED reacted by supporting banks with additional liquidity by using the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP). Another classic pattern that is emerging in these situations is politicians going public and announcing how strong and secure the banking system is and that people must not worry. And I believe it is almost too obvious how desperately President Joe Biden is trying to calm the public by using buzz words like “confidence” or “safe” or “rest assured” over and over again.

And on Sunday a week ago, Janet Yellen, Jerome Powell and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg already informed the public that depositors at Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all their funds on Monday – a move that also calmed the markets. We already saw similar moves in past crisis. As a German I especially remember when chancellor Merkel and minister of finance Steinbrück made a similar statement in 2008 and assured the German public that their deposits were safe as hell broke loose after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

And while these reactions are doing what they are supposed to do – restore confidence in the banking system and financial markets – these reactions are sometimes only short-term and are rather a warning signal for what I believe is about to come. In functioning markets with market participants being confident (or even euphoric) about the prospects or the safety of their banks, such statements would not be necessary. And it is also not a good sign when the FED must intervene although sometimes such an intervention is working out – like in 2020 when providing huge amounts of liquidity helped. However, in the mid-term (maybe three years later) the unintended consequences of pumping huge amounts of money into the market might become visible (as the speculation with that money led to bad decisions, risky bets and now defaults as well as bank failures).

Problem: Trust And Confidence

A huge problem with banks (and similar institutions) is the role trust and confidence are playing – and especially many people (including investors) misunderstanding how important trust and confidence are. While trust is crucial for the question if people will deposit money at a bank or withdraw funds, it is hard to measure confidence.

It is especially problematic as the situation can change within a few days: Panic can spread quickly throughout a country (or all over the world) and savers that trusted their bank last week will suddenly panic and try to withdraw funds. And therefore, it is not enough to just look at the balance sheet as many banks can be brought to their knees by a bank run and by people losing trust. A few institutions collapsing and several major headlines and reports on national television could be enough to create a panic.

A recent study is showing the vulnerability of the U.S. banking system and how many banks would become technically insolvent in case of a bank run (shoutout to James A. Kostohryz and his article Banking Crisis: A Primer For Immediate Action for bringing this to my attention). If we assume the worst case of 100% uninsured deposits withdrawn, over 1,600 U.S. banks would collapse (out of 4,237 banks according to FDIC data from 2021). But even when assuming only 30% of uninsured deposits withdrawn, 106 banks would collapse.

And the problem is that even well capitalized banks could suddenly face major troubles when customers lose confidence (for whatever reason) and start withdrawing cash. For major turbulences in the banking system, it is not necessary for banks to collapse entirely. Withdrawing funds will create problems much earlier.

Problem: Bad Assets

Although bank runs occur and can force banks to its knees (and they did occur in the last few decades), it is not the main reason why banks fail. Bank failures due to bank runs were more common in the first half of the 20th century (and especially during the Great Depression thousands of banks failed) and after the Great Depression, systems were put in place to prevent bank runs.

Banks usually collapse nowadays because they have bad or just the wrong assets at the wrong time on their books (and often ignore or violate risk management principles). Right now, with steeply rising interest rates in the last few quarters banks could have the wrong loans in the books. Several banks – especially in Europe – might have government bonds in their portfolio that pay (close to) zero interest and with interest rates increasing banks are forced to pay higher interest rates to depositors creating a problem over time.

A second typical problem is the decline of asset prices and a bank having so-called toxic assets on their books. During the Great Financial Crisis, it was subprime mortgages (or financial products based on subprime mortgages) – assets (or: loans) that turned to non-performing loans as banks lent money to people who were not able to pay back the mortgage. Additionally, assets can be completely mispriced and are declining in value – this usually happens after a bubble as banks might have bought stocks (or other trading assets) at the wrong time and for a price exceeding the intrinsic value of the asset.

Complex And Interconnected Systems

So far, we looked at the different risks in isolation. But these events rather seldom happen in isolation. They usually reinforce each other, and ripple effects (or domino effects) can happen rather quickly within the financial system leading to a banking crisis. The World Bank writes:

A (systemic) banking crisis occurs when many banks in a country are in serious solvency or liquidity problems at the same time-either because there are all hit by the same outside shock or because failure in one bank or a group of banks spreads to other banks in the system. More specifically, a systemic banking crisis is a situation when a country’s corporate and financial sectors experience a large number of defaults and financial institutions and corporations face great difficulties repaying contracts on time.

While it seems obvious that several banks in a country may fail at the same time because they all bought similar assets that turned out to be worth much less than previously estimated, the spreading of a banking failure through the banking system is not so obvious at first. When a non-financial company fails this will have some consequences for suppliers as well as customers and supply chains will be disrupted a little it. But it will not cause the same ripple effect as a collapsing bank. First, the erosion of trust which is replaced by panic will spread quickly throughout the banking world. When one (or several) bank(s) start failing you will start to ask questions if your own bank is safe and might act by pulling funds. Second, as banks are lending each other money and buy assets issued by other banks countless links between banks exist and therefore problems will spread quickly through the banking system.

And I don’t even want to try to pretend I understand the ripple effects that could occur throughout the financial system. My knowledge of the banking system is much too limited to foresee what ripple effects can occur. However, I know that the banking system, the stock market, and the economy are complex, non-linear systems with thousands of nodes and links intertwined in a complex system and that knowledge is enough to make me cautious. I don’t know what will happen, but I can see what could happen in a complex, non-linear system and knowing what could happen is enough to make me very cautious. And with so many unanswered questions, I still don’t think now is the time to buy banks.

Time To Buy Banks?

Right now, especially the small regional banks are hit hard and lost in some cases 50% or more of the previous value in a very short time. In previous articles I often wrote that bank stocks appear to be cheap already – for example when looking at a price-earnings ratio but that I don’t want to purchase banks right now. In my article about the Bank of Montreal (BMO) – published on February 09, 2023 – I wrote:

Aside from that, my feeling towards the Bank of Montreal are similar as my feeling towards most other banks. Most of them are cheap on a fundamental basis, but I don’t want to buy the Bank of Montreal on the potential eve of a global recession, which could have a huge negative impact on the banking system. And even if banks perform well in the coming quarters and years, the risk of further declining stock prices is high. Maybe I miss out on a great opportunity, but in my opinion, we could get banking stocks cheaper in the coming quarters as banks usually get hammered during a recession and bear market.

And in my article about the Royal Bank of Canada (RY) – published on January 6, 2023 – I explained my reasoning even in more detail – which is by the way also true for all other banks – like the other major Canadian banks including the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) or the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS):

“My reservations are based on two different aspects.

First, fundamental problems which are not visible yet. We established above, that the Royal Bank of Canada has a solid balance sheet, great metrics and seems to be stable for several decades, which is certainly reassuring. However, I know what I don’t know – and I simply don’t know enough about banking to detect underlying issues a bank might have. And I know that not just the economy, but our society is an extremely complex system with feedback loops, unintended consequences, chain reactions and interdependences that could lead to outcomes nobody – and I mean nobody – could have foreseen. And banks are a prime candidate for such negative outcomes due to a high level of complexity.

Second, sentiment and typical bear market behavior. While the Royal Bank of Canada is already trading for a low valuation multiple, I have troubles to imagine that banks will withstand a global recession and bear market. It could happen – due to the rather low valuation multiples – but in my opinion we will see at least a 20% to 30% drawdown for most banking stocks (and this is including stable banks like the Royal Bank of Canada).

To answer the question when I will invest: When the crisis is already in an advanced stage – maybe with housing prices significantly down, maybe delinquencies increasing and unemployment already at a high level. When the Royal Bank of Canada is still performing solid at that stage (and revenue as well as earnings per share can decline), I will start investing.

Now one might ask if the crisis is already at an advanced stage and if we should start investing. To be honest: No! The answer is still: Not yet! Although problems are starting to become visible, I don’t think we are anywhere close to the bottom yet – neither for banking stocks nor for the entire stock market. Some banks might already appear cheap – especially the smaller and regional banks. But for the small banks (and regional banks) I did not pay enough attention to them in the past to make a good and informed decision right now.

And while some banks in the United States – including U.S. Bancorp (USB), Wells Fargo (WFC) and Bank of America (BAC) – declined 20% and more, its Canadian peers performed better so far.

Conclusion

Banks getting into troubles and some banks starting to fail is just another domino falling and it is – sadly – fitting the pattern how a financial crisis usually unfolds. Recessions are not always going hand-in-hand with a banking crisis, but failing banks are never a good sign. It is just the next step following such early warning signs like the yield curve inversion or the declining number of new housing permits. And of course, I could be wrong and there is always an opposite opinion we could take (and the number of housing permits jumped in February 2023, which is not fitting the narrative of a crisis).

I don’t know if we will see a similar crisis as in 2008 and I don’t know what role the also overvalued real estate might play in this crisis. However, up until now, many signs are hinting towards a steep recession with huge problems for the financial and economic system and I completely agree with Ray Dalio:

I think that it is a very classic event in the very classic bubble-bursting part of the short-term debt cycle (which lasts about seven years, give or take about three) in which the tight money to curtail credit growth and inflation leads to a self-reinforcing debt-credit contraction that takes place via a domino-falling-like contagion process that continues until central banks create easy money that negates the debt-credit contraction, thus producing more new credit and debt, which creates the seeds for the next big debt problem until these short-term cycles build up the debt assets and liabilities to the point that they are unsustainable and the whole thing collapses in a debt restructuring and debt monetization (which typically happens about once every 75 years, give or take about 25 years).

Editor’s Note: This article covers one or more microcap stocks. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.