Dick Bove on $30 billion bank rescue of First Republic Bank: "I think that the near-term banking crisis is definitely over"

I think that the near-term banking crisis is definitely over.  I think that if you go back in history, you know that time before the Federal Reserve was formed, that's what was done to preserve stability in the banking industry.  The banks would come together and basically share funds and bail out the problem company. 

The big event in 1907, which ultimately gave rise to the Federal Reserve, is when JP Morgan supposedly got all the bankers in his house, locked the doors, and said you can't leave until you solve this banking crisis.  And they solved it.  And then in more recent times, the mutual fund that went down [in 2008], the same thing happened.  Everybody got together, put money in, except for Bear Stearns, which refused to do so.  And so we're seeing it happen again.  And it works.  It's exactly the right thing to do.  The federal government should not have to bail out the banking industry.  The banks should have to bail out the banking industry and that's what they're doing.

~ Dick Bove, Odeon Capital Group, "Here's why the banking crisis is over, says long-term sector analyst," Yahoo Finance, March 17, 2023

Dick Bove says banking problems are ancient history, fuhgeddaboutit

Bank of America in 2009 wrote off just under $50 billion in bad loans. How ya gonna do that again? I mean, where are you going to find $50 billion worth of bad loans to write off? You're not.

Essentially, we're talking about ancient history when we talk about all this, housing "stuff," if you will.

~Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC interview

Dick Bove on what's ailing US banks

They're all legal problems, they're not financial problems.

~Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC interview, January 13, 2011

Dick Bove says End the Fed! the banks don't need it

Well I wish the Fed would go away because [the banks] don't need it. In other words, you basically have balance sheets which were built up because over the last three years, since the crisis we'll say began at the end of 2007, banks have raised a hundred billion dollars in the open market from investments in common equity and they've increased by $76 billion the retained earnings of the industry. So the industry has added $176 billion in capital, in addition to which the banks have shifted out of loans and they've increased their holdings of Treasuries and cash-like items. So they've completely restructured their balance sheets.

~Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC interview, January 13, 2011

Dick Bove on the post-crisis Golden Age of Banking in 2011

I really believe that history repeats itself. In 1990 the balance sheets of the banks were shaped up because of the financial crisis that had existed before that time. The same thing is happening now. There's so much cash in some of the banks in the United States that they're actually selling at below their cash value per share. For example, Citigroup, Bank of America, Bank of New York, State Street, Northern Trust, they all sell at below their cash per share. What that means is these banks all have a tremendous amount of liquidity, which ultimately can be put to use to generate further earnings growth.

I think for the next 2-3 years, what you will see is that banks will actually increase their earnings at about a 20% rate per year which will be far faster than what you're going to see from the industrial averages.

~Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC interview, January 13, 2011

Dick Bove on Goldman Sachs' over-capitalized balance sheet

Let's assume that the firm is charged $1 billion, for whatever reason, the decision is made that this firm must pay $1 billion to solve this problem. That will lower their capital somewhat, it will inhibit their ability to grow their balance sheet, but you have to remember the company is over-capitalized at the moment and it's not growing its balance sheet at the moment because it doesn't use its balance sheet any longer as a driver of earnings. So, again, it'd be a significant, one-time charge... it would not inhibit or hurt the company's long-term growth and after the payment was made Goldman Sachs would still be out there doing business the way it traditionally does. And I think it's a superior firm and therefore if this stock goes down meaningfully as a result of this information, I would aggressively buy it.

~ Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC, April 16, 2010

Dick Bove on the long-term soundness of Goldman Sachs

If we're looking at the company over a long period of time, is this something that is going to inhibit their ability to do business in a normal fashion? Is it something that will lower their secular earnings growth? It will not. So, it's a short-term problem, there will be a definite charge to the company related to it, but for long-term holders of the stock it's something that will pass.

~ Dick Bove, Rochdale Securities, CNBC, April 16, 2010