INBK Q2 2015 earnings up 127% YoY

Investment Analysis Clubs Saul’s Investing Discussions
1

Hi all,

Below are my notes from INBK’s Q2 2015 earnings.

Anirban

Long INBK

Press release: http://www.firstinternetbancorp.com/file.aspx?IID=4112285&am…

1) Deposit Growth

I am switching to looking at the total deposit value, not the averages as discussed in prior quarterly notes. I ‘m also going to start noting the distribution of deposits across various categories.

  • Q2 2015 deposits totalled $857m versus $744m in Q2 2014 and $821m in Q1 2015. Deposits grew about 15% YoY. For comparison, total deposits at Q1 2015 and Q1 2014 were $821m and $728m respectively, i.e., a 13% growth.

  • CDs (51.5%) and money market accounts account (32.5%) for a bulk of the deposits. It looks like the percentage of CDs has ticked up. CDs accounted for 48.9% in Q1 15 and 46.9% in Q2 14. We need to watch this a bit. Ideally, we want INBK to reduce its reliance on CDs.

2) Loan Portfolio

  • Let’s look at the loans receivable line and see how INBK has been doing. Here we are looking at quarter ending numbers:

Q2 2015 $814.2M
Q1 2015 $767.7M
Q4 2014 $732.4M
Q3 2014 $695.9M
Q2 2014 $631.7M
Q1 2014 $532.2M

  • At Q4 2014, we had seen a pretty solid QoQ loan growth of 46%. That’s kept pace in Q1 15 versus Q1 14 with growth of 44%. The loan growth cooled down a bit this quarter, with QoQ growth of 29%. Overall, loan portfolio is growing nicely.

  • Loan to deposit ratio has been hovering around the 94-95% mark since the beginning of 2015. It was hovering around mid-to-low 90%’s since Q3 2014. This ratio was in the mid 80’s in Q2 2014 and only 72% in Q1 2014. This tighter coupling between loan and deposit partially explains the improved efficiency of the bank. It might also help explain why the bank has not attempted to push on deposit growth. I am hypothesising that the bank has been managing the rate at which deposits grow to improve efficiency and they will probably push the throttle on deposit growth may be in the second half of the year as soon they will need to bring in deposits at a much higher rate to keep up with the torrid growth in loans. This will be something to watch. We will need to keep an eye on this and make sure the bank is able to attract cheap capital at the rate it needs them to sustain its growth.

  • Let’s look at the trajectory of commercial loans:
    Q2 2015 $488.8M
    Q1 2015 $395.0M
    Q4 2014 $351.0M
    Q2 2014 $285.0M
    Q1 2014 $243.0M

Commercial loans grew a phenomenal 71% QoQ. This comes on the back of a 63% QoQ growth in Q1 2015.

  • Commercial lending accounted for 55.5% of the loans, up from 51.5% in Q1 2015, up from 48% of total loans in Q4 2014, and 46% in Q1 2014.

  • A majority of the commercial loans continues to be single tenant lease financing. These now account for about 34% of the total loans.

  • Residential mortgage + home equity loans accounted for $257M versus $270M in Q1 2015 and $280M in Q4 2014. Residential mortgage origination appears to have slowed down somewhat. As a percentage of total loans this segment accounted for 32% of the loan book.

  • Trailers and recreational vehicle loans (which were sort of the bread and butter of the company in its initial days) now account for about 12% of the loan portfolio. The total value is sitting around the $90M to $100M level since Q1 2014. These accounted for 19% of the loan portfolio in Q1 2014.

Overall, INBK has steadily grown its loan portfolio and nicely diversified the portfolio b/w commercial and residential loans in the last year or two.

3) Non-interest income

  • Non-interest income for Q2 2015 was $2.5 million compared to $3.1 million for Q1 2015 and $1.6 million for Q2 2014. The decrease of $0.7 million, or 21.3%, compared to the linked quarter was driven by a decline of $0.7 million, or 23.3%, in mortgage banking revenue resulting primarily from lower origination volumes.

I like recapping what the company has said in prior quarters as it gives us perspective on how the management team is executing:

In Q2 2014, the company said the following with respect to decline in non-interest income:
The Company experienced a $2.23 million year-over-year decline in income from mortgage banking activities. The Company made adjustments to reduce expenses in the second quarter in the mortgage operations to reflect the lower volumes. The Company continued to invest in this revenue channel, launching a construction lending program in Central Indiana in the second quarter.

Then, in Q3 2104, they said the following, which was reassuring:
Over the last 12 months, the Company has increased its sales and marketing efforts related to purchase mortgage business and has added sales personnel since the second quarter following a restructuring of its mortgage operations earlier in the year. Furthermore, it recently launched an Indianapolis-based origination effort to complement its nationwide online origination platform. As a result, origination activity has increased throughout the year with third quarter originations increasing 23.2% compared to the second quarter.

It seems the Q4 2014 story is similar to Q3 2014. This is what the company noted in the earnings release:
The increase of $0.2 million, or 8.0%, compared to the linked quarter was driven by an increase of $0.2 million, or 12.5%, in mortgage banking revenue. The increase in mortgage banking revenue was primarily a result of higher origination volumes as purchase originations were supplemented by increased refinance activity when interest rates dropped early in the fourth quarter.

Then, in Q1 2015 the following was noted.
Non-interest income for the first quarter was $3.1 million compared to $2.1 million for the fourth quarter 2014 and $1.5 million for the first quarter 2014. The increase of $1.0 million, or 50.0%, compared to the linked quarter was driven by an increase of $1.0 million, or 56.7%, in mortgage banking revenue resulting from an improvement in gain on sale margin and higher origination volumes.

The thing to note here is that management IMO has become better equipped to handle the variations in mortgage banking revenue. David Becker noted the following in the press release:
In spite of an elevated level of early paydowns and a competitive market, our commercial lending teams delivered another solid performance in the second quarter. Going into the third quarter, our commercial pipelines remain strong. Consumer loan activity picked up in the second quarter as well.
The diversification of the loan base is really helping them ride the variability.

4) Net Interest Income & Net interest margin (NIM)

  • Net interest income for Q2 2015 $7.6M versus $6.8M in Q1 2015 and $5.4M in Q2 2014. That’s a 41% YoY net interest income increase.

  • With respect to the sequential increase in net interest income, the company noted the following:
    Compared to the linked quarter, total interest income increased $0.9 million, or 10.3%, and total interest expense increased $0.1 million, or 6.0%. The increase in total interest income was driven by a $41.9 million, or 5.6%, increase in average loans receivable and a $36.6 million, or 25.2%, increase in average investment balances. Additionally, compared to the linked quarter the yield earned on the loan portfolio, including mortgage loans held for sale, increased 3 bps and the yield earned on the investment portfolio increased 19 bps.

  • The Company’s net interest margin was 2.87%, up from 2.84% in Q1 2015, 2.78% in Q4 2014, 2.68% in Q3 2014, 2.61% in Q2 2014, and 2.51% in Q1 2014.
    The following explains the whys of the net interest margin expansion:
    The yield on interest-earning assets for the second quarter was 3.85%, which was consistent with the linked quarter. However, excluding the impact of interest income associated with a loan recovery in the first quarter, the yield on interest-earning assets increased 6 bps during the second quarter, driven by higher yields earned on commercial loans and investment securities. The cost of interest-bearing liabilities for the second quarter declined 5 bps compared to the linked quarter due to the lower cost of funds related to Federal Home Loan Bank advances.

5) Credit Quality

Credit quality continues to remain strong.

  • Nonperforming loans to total loans declining 1 bps to 0.02% from 0.03% for Q1 2015.

  • Nonperforming assets to total assets declined to 0.43%. The allowance for loan losses was $7.1M.

6) Efficiency Ratio

Net Interest income (‘000):
06/15: 7,572
03/15: 6,774
12/14: 6,375
09/14: 5,673
06/14: 5,373
03/14: 4,866
12/13: 4,964

Non-interest income (‘000):
06/15: 2,476
03/15: 3,148
12/14: 2,098
09/14: 1,943
06/14: 1,622
03/14: 1,511
12/13: 1,171

Non-interest expenses (‘000):
06/15: 6,327
03/15: 6,257
12/14: 5,879
09/14: 5,785
06/14: 5,560
03/14: 5,438
12/13: 5,255

Cash efficiency ratios
———————————
06/15: 0.63 (Q2 15)
03/15: 0.63 (Q1 15)
12/14: 0.69 (Q4 14)
09/14: 0.76 (Q3 14)
06/14: 0.79 (Q2 14)
03/14: 0.85 (Q1 14)
12/13: 0.86 (Q4 13)

We have been discussing INBK’s efficiency ratios quite a bit. Efficiency ratio is a measure of the bank’s overhead (think of this as fixed costs such as people, IT, building, etc) as a percentage of its total income. Of course, lower is better and we would expect efficiency ratios to be better for online banks versus brick and mortar ones. BOFI, INBK’s big brother, has industry leading efficiency ratios in the low 30%’s. What’s going on here with INBK? INBK has spent a lot to scale up its operations. We are now starting to see the benefits. In the past few quarters, interest income has outpaced the non-interest expense. The non-interest income is the gravy. It’s pleasing to see the costs (non-interest expenses) stabilise, i.e., tick up slowly compared to the net interest income growth. If we hadn’t seen a slowdown in the non-interest income, INBK would have achieved a much better efficiency ratio.

So, the question remains — can INBK get the efficiency ratio below the 60% mark? Low to mid-50%’s would be great.

One important peg in the wheel is the cost of funds. CDs account for about half of the deposits and they cost more than regular savings and money market accounts. Money market accounts are about 35% of the deposits. The distribution of CDs and money market accounts have been more or less steady. I guess INBK could try to attract more money market type funds to lower its cost of funds. However, I see that ‘Other borrowed funds’ has ballooned to $130M at end of Q2 2015 versus $110M at end of Q1 2015 from $91M at end of Q4 2014 and $25M at end of Q1 2014. I think (although I ‘m not 100% sure) this refers to funds borrowed from ‘Federal Home Loan Banks’ which are chartered to provide on-demand, low-cost funding to American financial institutions.

Looking at the “Average Balance and Rates” Table, it appears that this strategy of using ‘Other borrowed fund’ is working out as their cost has declined to 1.23% this quarter versus 1.7% in Q1 2015. In fact, CDs cost more at 1.36% although its down from 1.38% in Q1 2015. At the end of Q1 2015, I was confused as to why they would switch over to a higher cost source, but it now makes sense, as they must have anticipated the lower cost of this funding source. Anyways, I think INBK’s reliance on CDs need to come down for the Net Interest Margin to go up some more.

7) Earnings Growth and Book Value

Earnings per share:

06/15: $0.50 (shares out: 4.5M)
03/15: $0.46 (shares out: 4,523,246) [Some dilution owing to issuance of RSUs]
12/14: $0.32 (shares out: 4,514,505)
09/14: 0.28 (shares out: 4,511,291)

06/14: $0.22 (shares out: 4.45M) —> Significant increase in earnings with respect to 03/14 quarter; driven by strong increases in interest income.

03/14: $0.13 (shares out: 4.45M)
12/13: $0.19 (shares out: 4.45M) → Note the dilution following the bank’s secondary offering.

09/13: $0.25 (shares out: 2.86M)
06/13: $0.59 (shares out: 2.82M)

TTM: $1.56

P/E: 17.8 (using $27.83, closing price as of July 23, 2015)

Book value reported on the earnings release is $22.28. The P/B is 1.2.

Valuation and Concluding Remarks

This was yet another good quarter. It shows that management’s investments in people, processes, and IT is paying off. Expenses have flatlined. If loan book growth continues, the bank is well positioned to keep growing. Management is taking a cautious approach to growth, carefully balancing assets and liabilities. It’s positioning the bank to adapt to interest rate increases. I think management might have to work a bit harder on reducing cost of funding but this would seem reasonably feasible. After all, management has been able to improve net interest margin yet again this quarter.

I ‘m not going to try and do any sort of modelling here. The bank is growing earnings nicely (100% YoY earnings growth). It’s still very early days for the bank, and there’s a lot of room to run in the online Internet banking space. However, I do believe that the P/E and P/B multiples are pretty low for a company executing well, that’s founder led with solid insider stake, and one that has much opportunity to expand not for a year or two but for decades.

40 Likes
2

I think Saul and Anirban mentioned this before… but I don’t think I can remember such a clear cut case to add more funds to an investment stake that has already produced a 100% gain for me in a year and sitting at / near an all time high.

I’m planning on ruthlessly pruning some investments, freeing up cash and adding new funds to this holding - effectively massively averageing up from a rear view mirror perspective but with solid conviction looking forwards.

Ant

1 Like
3

Anirban,

Thank you for the awesome write up. I’ve been tracking INBK in my Google sheet with the last 8 quarters of EPS and Revenue. But, I’m coming up at a loss on what to do with Revenue this time. I’m sure I collected my prior info from a post somewhere. Here is what I had for the past 8 quarters:


2013    		$8	$8
2014    $9	$9	$10	$11
2015    $12	??

On a recent press article they seem to have come up with $10M, but, I would much rather find this information from the report.

Would you have any advise on how to find it?

Best,
–Kevin

4

Hi Kevin,

What do you mean by ‘revenue’? For a bank, its income comes from interest-bearing loans and non-interest bearing activities (fees). So you can add these two to get a sense of revenue.

My suggestion would be to instead track:

(i) net interest income
See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/net-interest-income.asp
(ii) non-interest income
See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/noninterest-income.asp
and
(iii) non-interest expenses
See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/noninterest-expense.asp

Here’s a Fool article that gives a easy-to-follow tutorial on banks:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/29/how-i-analy…

Anirban

3 Likes
5

Very good! I see from the following:

Non-interest income for Q2 2015 was $2.5 million

Net interest income for Q2 2015 $7.6M

Adding the two together would get you to 10.1M.

That’ll do it for me.

Thanks!
–Kevin

1 Like
6

Hi Kevin,

If your ‘revenue’ line equals non-interest income plus net interest income, then your Q1 2015 number doesn’t seem to be correct. Q1 2015 would be
$3.1m + $6.8m = $9.9m

Your table has it at $12m. May be you are recording something else?

Anirban

7

Anirban, thanks for a great writeup!

Do you know much about the Federal Home Loan Banks and how sustainable that is as a source of borrowing as INBK grows?

As far as the efficiency ratio goes, it seems like you’re thinking it’s about cost of funds? But it looks to me like INBK is paying about the same average interest rate on its deposits, if I’m looking at that right. I show that in the last quarter BOFI paid $12,246 on $4,368,772 of deposits (in thousands), which is about 0.0028 (or about 1.1% if multiplied by 4). I show that INBK paid $2,558 on $856,503 of deposits (in thousands), which is about 0.003 (or about 1.2% if multiplied by 4). So pretty similar, it seems. And if you look at BOFI’s checking accounts, they’re willing to pay up to 1.25% if you jump through all their hoops compared to 1.3% for a 24-month CD at INBK – though it goes up to 2.15% at 60 months.

So I wonder if it’s more about operating expenses? Do you think we’ll see general improvement simply as the bank gains scale and operating leverage?

It’s positioning the bank to adapt to interest rate increases.

Can you elaborate a little on this? I would think that substantially decreasing its dependence on CDs, and instead increasing sticky deposits through checking accounts and savings accounts would be the preferred approach (though maybe it’s figuring to load up on CDs now before interest rates begin rising, and then taper them off?). When you say positioning itself, is it just about increasing floating-rate loans? I believe those are all INBK keeps on its books instead of selling on, is that correct?

Thanks again, Anirban, I really appreciate it! I’m just trying to better understand where the business is actually heading and what is going to lead to further improvement.

Neil

8

Nice summary, thanks for posting!

I did want to follow up one thing:

One important peg in the wheel is the cost of funds. CDs account for about half of the deposits and they cost more than regular savings and money market accounts. Money market accounts are about 35% of the deposits. The distribution of CDs and money market accounts have been more or less steady. I guess INBK could try to attract more money market type funds to lower its cost of funds. However, I see that ‘Other borrowed funds’ has ballooned to $130M at end of Q2 2015 versus $110M at end of Q1 2015 from $91M at end of Q4 2014 and $25M at end of Q1 2014. I think (although I ‘m not 100% sure) this refers to funds borrowed from ‘Federal Home Loan Banks’ which are chartered to provide on-demand, low-cost funding to American financial institutions.

Looking at the “Average Balance and Rates” Table, it appears that this strategy of using ‘Other borrowed fund’ is working out as their cost has declined to 1.23% this quarter versus 1.7% in Q1 2015. In fact, CDs cost more at 1.36% although its down from 1.38% in Q1 2015. At the end of Q1 2015, I was confused as to why they would switch over to a higher cost source, but it now makes sense, as they must have anticipated the lower cost of this funding source. Anyways, I think INBK’s reliance on CDs need to come down for the Net Interest Margin to go up some more.

There are three primary issues with a deposit mix so high in CDs and money markets:

  1. As you point out, the cost of funds is higher than transaction accounts (checking accounts, generally). You’ve already covered that, so I don’t have anything to add.

  2. CD and money market deposits are much less sticky than transaction accounts. If you have a checking account with a bank, you probably have some automatic bill pay items set up, perhaps you get a direct deposit into the account, etc. There are legitimate switching costs that you incur in terms of time and effort to move your account to a different bank. There are no such switching costs with CDs and money markets.

Those accounts, almost by definition, are held by people concerned with one thing: yield. As soon as they see another bank offering a materially higher yield than they’re getting at INBK, these depositors will move their accounts at the first opportunity. CDs and money markets are basically commodities, and therefore highly price sensitive. To keep these deposits INBK will constantly have to be among the top in the industry in terms of rates they offer. This of course means that continued pressure will be applied to the cost of funds for these deposits.

See this link: http://www.nerdwallet.com/rates/cds/best-cd-rates INBK offers the fourth highest interest rate. They will always need to be that high, or higher, if they continue to rely on time deposits. There is no competitive advantage to this funding source, and no reason for depositors not to leave when they see a better deal. Notice how BOFI is not even on the list, because it doesn’t have to be.

  1. Probably the most subtle point, but CDs and money markets aren’t profitable in and of themselves. What do I mean by that? They provide the financial institution capital to use for growing its loan book, but not much else. Transaction accounts, on the other hand, not only provide a financing source for loans, but are also profitable themselves via the debit card and other associated fees the bank can generate on the funds. Anyone who’s read my BOFI posts knows that I harp a lot about wanting to see solid non-interest income that is NOT related to mortgage banking. This is a great way to generate it. And it’s also one of the not-so-well understand reasons why BOFI’s efficiency ratio is consistently so low.

I think INBK is making great strides, and scaling up exactly how you predicted it would. For those (like yourself) that added several months ago when it was in the mid-teens, you’ve been richly rewarded. I recently bought a small position myself. But I think management is really going to have to dramatically shift its deposit mix before the market is willing to award the stock price a P/B multiple in the BOFI range. And I’m certainly not saying that management can’t do that, but rather pointing it out as what I feel may be INBK’s biggest near-term challenge. At its most basic, banking/lending comes down to deposits and loans. It looks like INBK is shoring up the loan side nicely. It still has a long ways to go on the deposit side.

Fletch
Long INBK

41 Likes
9

Hi Neil,

I think Fletch has provided an excellent explanation of INBK’s deposit situation.

As Fletch noted, because of INBK’s heavy reliance on CDs and money market accounts, its cost of funds is high. I quite like INBK’s press release in that they unpack this information for us. We need to look at the “Average balances and rates table”. There, we see INBK earning about 3.85% on its interest earning assets (i.e., loans), and its paying about 1.09% on interest bearing liabilities (i.e., deposits). The difference is the interest spread (amount it can hope to keep) which is 2.76%.

BOFI’s interest rate spread is much higher, industry leading 3.85%. BOFI doesn’t rely heavily on CDs so that substantially brings down the cost.

As Fletch pointed out, INBK at some point would have to try to reduce its costs of funds. Right now, their strategy has been to get CDs and money market funds to give out loans, leveraging the branchless model + good service to build a strong diversified loan base. Once the bank is able to get consumers and businesses to take out loans from them, it will most likely focus on converting those customers to depositors. That’s exactly how I moved to banking mostly online. My home loan is with an online only bank (in Australia). I still have accounts to big banks, but most of my money immediately moves to my online bank, and that’s the bank from which I pay all my bills. I do that because it offers better interest than the big banks. Personally, I find this strategy of creating a brand awareness via loans very persuasive.

With respect to FHLB system, I don’t know much, just that it was created in 1932 to increase liquidity to agencies that provide mortgages to individuals. From what I have read, it appears to focus now on affordable housing projects and is generally providing funds to members at rates lower than that available commercially. For reference, see:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fhlb.asp?version=v1
Most of what I know is from Wikipedia and Investopedia … Sorry, I can’t be of much help here.

Anirban

3 Likes
10

Fletch,

Thanks for the excellent commentary.

I 'm guessing INBK’s next point of action will be deposits. INBK generally provides pretty extensive earnings reports, with commentary on most aspects of its business except for the deposit generation portion.

Anirban

11

Anirban, thanks again. Here is what I think should be in the table:


2013	$6.9	$8.0	$6.0	$6.1
2014	$6.4	$7.0	$7.6	$8.5
2015	$9.9	$10.1

TTM Revenue this year = $36.1M
TTM Revenue last year = $25.5M

A YoY increase of 42%

If you spot any errors please let me know.

Cheers!
–Kevin

12

Thanks for that, Anirban, very helpful! I just pulled up BOFI’s latest 10Q, and on page 42 in the “Average Balances, Net Interest Income, Yields Earned and Rates Paid” table they show an annualized average rate paid of 1.07% on total liabilities (again, if I’m looking at that right), so still pretty close to INBK’s 1.09%, though granted that’s from BOFI’s prior quarter. The difference in the net interest margin seems to be on what BOFI earns on the loans: 4.79% versus INBK’s 3.85%.

Is that correct? And if so, does it change anything for you?

Neil

2 Likes
13

I just pulled up BOFI’s latest 10Q, and on page 42 in the “Average Balances, Net Interest Income, Yields Earned and Rates Paid” table they show an annualized average rate paid of 1.07% on total liabilities (again, if I’m looking at that right), so still pretty close to INBK’s 1.09%, though granted that’s from BOFI’s prior quarter. The difference in the net interest margin seems to be on what BOFI earns on the loans: 4.79% versus INBK’s 3.85%.

Thanks Neil for digging into this. I think you are correct about the NIM, i.e., most of the difference is not from the cost of funds but from the higher rates obtained by BOFI on the loans it gives out.

  • BOFI seems to be extracting 5.03% from loans (including those held for sale), while INBK is getting 4.39%. Also, BOFI’s loan base is much larger so a 0.64% difference can make a substantial difference to the bottomline.

  • My guess is that INBK is discounting its loan to get marketshare. Seems fine to me, as its important for INBK to get marketshare and make a name for itself. There’s probably a floor on how much discounting one could do without causing damage.

  • BOFI seems to be also earning more on its investments (which includes mortgage backed securities). BOFI is getting 4.33% versus INBK’s 2.6% (average of taxable plus non-taxable securities). I think INBK is conservative with its investments, while BOFI might be more aggressive.

  • Looking at BOFI’s Q3 2015, I see the following:
    net interest income = $50.7m
    non-interest income = $8.4m
    non-interest expense = $20.3m

So, I think you are right, the main difference is coming from higher net interest income, which I think is coming from a combination of larger loan base and higher rates on those loans. The non-interest income is actually a non-issue and is not relevant in the comparison. BOFI’s non-interest income is 17% of the net interest income, while INBK’s is about 29% of the net interest income. Agreed, the sources of non-interest income might be different, in that BOFI’s might be more stable and fee based, while INBK’s might be more refinancing based.

However, after looking at this, it appears to make me think that INBK’s current strategy of growing and diversifying the loan base is what counts. If they can do that, then the cost will be amortised over the bigger loan base. This in fact makes me think that Becker et al. are actually steering the boar in the right direction, i.e., building market awareness and building/diversifying the loan book will do the job.

As I said earlier, once they get the loan book growing, the deposit base should naturally sort itself out …

Thanks Neil for this discussion. Very helpful for me!

Anirban

9 Likes
14

Hi Anirban, Thanks for a great write-up on INBK as always. It’s wonderful to have you following it and analyzing it.
Saul

3 Likes
15

Hi Fletch, Thanks for your words of caution on INBK. Also reassuring to see that you’ve taken a small position.

Saul

1 Like
16

So, I think you are right, the main difference is coming from higher net interest income, which I think is coming from a combination of larger loan base and higher rates on those loans. The non-interest income is actually a non-issue and is not relevant in the comparison. BOFI’s non-interest income is 17% of the net interest income, while INBK’s is about 29% of the net interest income. Agreed, the sources of non-interest income might be different, in that BOFI’s might be more stable and fee based, while INBK’s might be more refinancing based.

However, after looking at this, it appears to make me think that INBK’s current strategy of growing and diversifying the loan base is what counts. If they can do that, then the cost will be amortised over the bigger loan base. This in fact makes me think that Becker et al. are actually steering the boar in the right direction, i.e., building market awareness and building/diversifying the loan book will do the job.

For those with Rule Breaker access, we had a discussion several months back about BOFI’s status as an “exceptions lender”. This has a lot to do with BOFI’s higher NIM. See the thread started at #1450 for the full discussion.

Fletch

3 Likes
17

For those with Rule Breaker access, we had a discussion several months back about BOFI’s status as an “exceptions lender”. This has a lot to do with BOFI’s higher NIM. See the thread started at #1450 for the full discussion.

I read the above and thought, “Wow, that sounds important! I had better go read that thread!

You will understand, then, that I was surprised to find that I had actually started the thread in question. Oh well . . . .

In other news, I have received a strong “Buy” signal from my proprietary Daisy Indicator (i.e., I received a check in the mail), so I will be buying a bit more BOFI now that I see I liked it back at the time of that post.

Which reminds me – I am satisfied with IBKR, but have nonetheless been thinking about switching online brokers. I saw a TV ad for a broker that actually has a helicopter, and of course was intrigued, but unfortunately I have not been able to find out the broker’s name. Once I do, I will probably switch.

One last thing – I have a spreadsheet that used to automatically update stock prices by going to the Internet and fetching them. At first I used a spreadsheet I coped from someone that went to MSN.com, but that has become a problem. So I switched to marketxls, which worked well for a while but also has become a problem. Does anyone have a recommendation as to a good way of gathering stock price information automatically from the Internet (some form of for-pay spreadsheet other than marketxls would be fine). Thanks!

Rich
Formerly A Drumlin Daisy
Now Chance Elder Dancer
Standing in for his daughter Cody on this screen name while she tries to save the world in far away places . . . .

13 Likes
18

Does anyone have a recommendation as to a good way of gathering stock price information automatically from the Internet (some form of for-pay spreadsheet other than marketxls would be fine).

http://www.qmatix.com/index.htm

Leo is tops. He probably gives helicopter lessons.

Let me know if you have questions.

3 Likes
19

Leo is tops. He probably gives helicopter lessons.

Great suggestion! It took me about one minute to get it up and running.

Thank you ears!

Best,

Rich

20

Does anyone have a recommendation as to a good way of gathering stock price information automatically from the Internet (some form of for-pay spreadsheet other than marketxls would be fine).

I use a spreadsheet to track my portfolio. I used to use MSN Money to automatically import stock prices. Then that stopped working so here’s what I do now…

  1. I linked my master sheet to another small spreadsheet that contains only stock tickers and the current prices like this:

ABMD				$73.10
AMBA				$124.23
ARNA				$4.05
BOFI				$115.40
BWLD				$169.57
CBI				$48.80
CELG				$134.90
CMG				$728.79
CRTO				$54.08
CTRP				$72.84
INBK				$29.48
INFN				$23.06
INVN				$12.86
MELI				$131.39
NHTC				$25.22
PAYC				$33.75
PRAA				$62.11
PSIX				$43.56
SCTY				$54.62
SKX				$123.01
SWIR				$24.33
SWKS				$97.71
SYNA				$80.06
UBNT				$32.23
XPO				$43.88

  1. I created a spreadsheet on Google docs that contains the same list of stocks and automatically updates the prices using the following function: =GOOGLEFINANCE(A4,$E$3)

  2. Every time I want to update my master spreadsheet, I manually copy and past the new prices from the Google docs sheet to my stock quote spreadsheet. Yes, I know it’s manual but it only takes me about 20 seconds. Since the stock quotes xls spreadsheet is linked to my master spreadsheet, everything (stock prices, account values, all the various allocations, etc.) updates automatically.

Chris

2 Likes