Insights / Advisor Development
Advisor Development

U.S. Banks & Why We Like Them

Who is this for?

For General Public Use.

Key takeaways

  U.S. banks are a key asset for many investors, carrying unique return drivers and risks. Our analysis suggests that banks offer more relative value than the overall U.S. market.

  On our research, U.S. banks are better capitalized than previously, which supports our relative conviction, despite the potential for pandemic-related losses.

  We acknowledge that there are a wide range of outcomes expected, but the upside still appears to exceed the downside, on our analysis. Banks should benefit from the improving economic backdrop (especially the recent yield curve changes) and a reversal of loan loss provisions.

Following an internal deep-dive presentation on U.S. banks, we spoke to Nabil Salem and Doug McGraw to capture the key takeaways via a Q&A format. Here is what they had to say.


Question: How would you quantify the upside versus downside for U.S. banks as a whole – in a world with rising yields, rising inflation, but offset by high debt and potentially high loan losses?

To start, let's offer perspective. In the U.S. market, the banks (including regional, super-regional and money centers) comprise approximately 4.5% of the S&P 500. This is sizeable, yet these banks are also quite nuanced, with different return drivers and risks from many other assets.

Our focus is to value banks with a margin of safety, and to look through cycles at normalized net income. In this regard, we believe our valuation models indicate banks still look attractive relative to other sectors assuming they are able to grow at 1% in real terms over the long run. We assume loan losses will be much lower than the Federal Reserve initially expected at the beginning of the pandemic, as banks have benefitted massively from government stimulus and from a sooner than expected pickup in demand. But to be conservative in our valuation analysis, we incorporate room for additional provisioning for loan losses (even though banks have been releasing loan loss reserves in recent months).

To the upside, banks could benefit from higher net interest margins, and on the downside, we could face tax hikes, or higher than expected loan losses. There are a wide range of possible outcomes. Taken together, we are interested in banks primarily for valuation, but also for their fundamental outlook over the next couple of years.


So, do you agree that the fundamentals are supportive for U.S. banks right now?

On balance, yes. We would cite three factors which are supportive:

  • First, with the rollout of COVID vaccines in the U.S., banks are not only taking fewer credit provisions, they are actually reversing some of the large provisions taken in 2020.
  • Second, strong anticipated economic growth in the U.S. should create demand for loans, while also keeping loan losses low. 
  • Third, banks could soon be in a position to return capital to their investors in the form of share buybacks, which we assume will be welcomed and rewarded by the market.

The most plausible short-term risk to banks is that a COVID variant, which is not neutralized by vaccines, becomes widespread and returns economies to periodic shutdowns. A longer-term risk is the substitution of banks’ services by non-banks, which could be enhanced via technological means.

What do you say to people who think U.S. banks have passed their prime? Can you offer your perspective on the back story?

To unpack this, we believe it's important to highlight four issues in addressing the opportunity for U.S. banks and their back story. 

  • First, we note that banks should be able to absorb unseen credit crises better than previously. This is partly in reaction to the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), where regulators increased the required capital ratios for banks. The Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio is a key metric to watch here, which measures equity capital in relation to risk-weighted assets. From a safety and soundness perspective, the higher the better, all else equal. In this regard, the CET1 ratio was 8% before the GFC, before bottoming at around 6% during the crisis, but from the bottom this ratio climbed to nearly 12% by 2014 and has generally remained at that level.
  • A second development is the implementation of a new accounting standard, which affects the reserves held to absorb credit losses, from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Many banks began reporting under this new accounting standard at the beginning of 2020. While a minority of banks lowered their reserve, most banks increased their allowance for bad debts. When we take issue one and two together, we see that, at the beginning of 2020, banks were in a better position than they had been for many decades to absorb credit losses, both through higher explicit credit provisions recognized, as well as through higher capital levels. 
  • A third trend to flag is the move to consolidation of the industry. In 2010, there were a combined 7,568 banks and savings institutions, but by 2020, that number was 5,001. We would expect this number to continue to decline. When one bank acquires another, especially where there is geographical overlap, cost efficiencies can typically be realized, which will bolster profitability. 
  • A final metric to consider is the downward trend of Net Interest Margin (NIM), which is a key determinant for bank profitability. As the 10-year US Treasury yield fell abruptly at the beginning of 2020, the fear was that this metric would compress quickly as the interest rates earned on assets would fall with the Treasury yield curve, while banks would not lower their interest paid on deposits below zero. While 10-year Treasury rates have recovered to pre-COVID levels, they remain at decade lows.


Will the banks gradually lose market share to the technology giants? Are you expecting slower trend growth?

This is a risk that we account for in our range of valuation outcomes. The financial services sector has undergone a digital revolution over the past decade. However, in our opinion, U.S. banks appear determined to keep up with this technological revolution through increased investment in technology and expansion of offerings to compete with new firms.

This is especially true among the largest banks within the financial services sector. As an example, J.P. Morgan spent $11.4 billion on technology in 2019, and U.S. banks spent $67 billion on technology in 2019. We haven’t seen banks lose market share yet to technology giants, and don’t think this is inevitable (perhaps even unlikely, given the high investment).

There is, however, a risk that technological advancement leads to lower switching costs for customers, which leads to increased competition and fee erosion in certain areas of banking. In our base case valuations, we assume banks grow at a lower rate than the overall U.S. market, which is conservative relative to how banks have been able to grow their profits historically.

On balance, taking the positives and the negatives, do you think U.S. banks deserve a place in a portfolio today?

Our analysis suggests that U.S. banks’ offer attractive relative valuations versus the broader U.S. equity market. In addition, we believe risks are skewed to the upside for banks in the next year or two, driven by the fundamental factors (solid economic growth, low loan losses, capital return) that we cited previously.

Opinions expressed are as of the current date; such opinions are subject to change without notice. Morningstar Investment Management shall not be responsible for any trading decisions, damages, or other losses resulting from, or related to, the information, data, analyses or opinions or their use. This commentary is for informational purposes only. The information, data, analyses, and opinions presented herein do not constitute investment advice, are provided solely for informational purposes and therefore are not an offer to buy or sell a security. Please note that references to specific securities or other investment options within this piece should not be considered an offer (as defined by the Securities and Exchange Act) to purchase or sell that specific investment. Performance data shown represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All investments involve risk, including the loss of principal. There can be no assurance that any financial strategy will be successful. Morningstar Investment Management does not guarantee that the results of their advice, recommendations or objectives of a strategy will be achieved. This commentary contains certain forward-looking statements. We use words such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results to differ materially and/or substantially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by those projected in the forward-looking statements for any reason. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Morningstar® Managed PortfoliosSM are offered by the entities within Morningstar’s Investment Management group, which includes subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc. that are authorized in the appropriate jurisdiction to provide consulting or advisory services in North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. In the United States, Morningstar Managed Portfolios are offered by Morningstar Investment Services LLC or Morningstar Investment Management LLC, both registered investment advisers, as part of various advisory services offered on a discretionary or non-discretionary basis. Portfolio construction and on-going monitoring and maintenance of the portfolios within the program is provided on Morningstar Investment Services behalf by Morningstar Investment Management LLC. Morningstar Managed Portfolios offered by Morningstar Investment Services LLC or Morningstar Investment Management LLC are intended for citizens or legal residents of the United States or its territories and can only be offered by a registered investment adviser or investment adviser representative. Investing in international securities involve additional risks. These risks include, but are not limited to, currency risk, political risk, and risk associated with varying accounting standards. Investing in emerging markets may increase these risks. Emerging markets are countries with relatively young stock and bond markets. Typically, emerging-markets investments have the potential for losses and gains larger than those of developed-market investments. A debt security refers to money borrowed that must be repaid that has a fixed amount, a maturity date(s), and usually a specific rate of interest. Some debt securities are discounted in the original purchase price. Examples of debt securities are treasury bills, bonds and commercial paper. The borrower pays interest for the use of the money and pays the principal amount on a specified date. The indexes noted are unmanaged and cannot be directly invested in. Individual index performance is provided as a reference only. Since indexes and/or composition levels may change over time, actual return and risk characteristics may be higher or lower than those presented. Although index performance data is gathered from reliable sources, Morningstar Investment Management cannot guarantee its accuracy, completeness or reliability.