7
2010
Bank Stocks Moving Back On Up in US 2010
After the collapse of many banks last year including Lehman Brothers, it has been a tough year for bank stocks. However, in the past 3-4 months, things have begun to improve and overall bank stocks are moving back up and becoming good investments once again.
2009 Was Rough Year for Banks
It has been a rough year for banks in the stock market, and many investors have seen banks as risky investments for the last 12-18 months due to the hit many banks took during the height of the economic crisis. One year ago, Citi Bank was trading at less than 2$ a piece (C), while Bank of America was trading at only a few dollars (BAC). This drove the stock market down to the point it was reaching its lowest levels in over ten years. Many dropped their bank stocks because of the low prices, and many lost a lot of money in their investments.
That was the low point for bank stocks, and many were wondering if bank stocks were going to recover again any time soon. Well, they have recovered and they have recovered much faster than most economists and experts thought that they would. These days, bank stocks have increased by 146 percent in value on average, greatly improving the prospects of investing in bank stocks. In addition, the increase in bank stocks has helped bring the entire stock market up by 68 percent, thereby aiding many in their investments and helping people earn back the money they lost when the market nearly collapsed last year.
Banks were Safe Investments
The problem is that banks are often seen as safe investments and there are many investment portfolios in banks. When the bank stocks collapsed, there were many people wondering what they were going to do without this ‘safe’ investment. Many portfolios became worthless and experts wondered if you couldn’t invest in bank stocks, what could you invest in?
Are Banks Still Safe to Invest in?
That does not mean that bank stocks are great investments yet. There are still several problems that are keeping bank stocks down from where they were at their height a few years ago. One of the biggest reasons that bank stocks are not returning to their high levels is there is very low demand in loans right now due to the credit problems many faced in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. Many banks have downsized as well in order to save money. Are bank stocks a good investment? Well, considering how far they have come in a year since their collapse, the answer is a resounding yes. I personally have invested ~5,000USD in Citibank this weekend alone.
While bank stocks are beginning to recover and reaching higher levels, they are still down from their original levels from before the economic crisis. Some bank stocks are doing better than others, but there is still room for improvement. What is important is that bank stocks are going up, and that means they are good investments right now since they are nearly guaranteed to continue to move up as the months go on.
Further reading:
Recent Comments
- Timothy on Crude Oil Prices Fall – End Of March 2010
- Guy Landreville on Crude Oil Prices Fall – End Of March 2010
- manish on Which discussion board is best for Stocks Discussion – ADVFN?
- Sean Vort on The Best Performing Stocks of April 2010 – NYSE:WHR, NASDAQ:ZION, NYSE:AIV,NASDAQ:HBAN, NASDAQ: AKAM
- Herman Joosten on Top Companies from Fortune 500 to Report Good Earnings in 2009

An article by





I think Greenspan is getting senile, today he said that you can stop asset bubbles by increasing capital requirements. That just increases the cost of credit. The next time you have a real estate bubble, you’ll have the same problem, assuming that banks are still in the business of loaning against real estate. If you want to stop this problem, then eliminate the federal subsidies for real estate development and investment, then require people in that industry to put their own money at risk instead of someone elses. If Greenspan really wants to change the banking system, though, then simply ban 95% and 90% LTV loans. Require a bigger equity cushion. BTW, the “too big to fail” argument is a fallacious one. During the Great Depression, Canada had no bank failures. The reason was that their banks were very large. The banks closed branches, etc., but none of them failed. By contrast, the US was dominated by thousands of very small banks, and we had more than 10,000 of them fail. So there is nothing inherently unsafe about a banking system dominated by large banks. The real problem with large banks is that during good times, they don’t provide enough competition for each other.