2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
23 päivää sitten
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
3,18%Tuotto/v
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | - | - | ||
| 28 | - | - | ||
| 22 | - | - | ||
| 3 | - | - | ||
| 23 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·7 t sittenDear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.- ·22.5.Djurslands Bank has today closed the earnings season for banks with a strong quarterly report. What on the surface appears to be a somewhat dull series of financial statements, without major surprises or disappointments from the Danish listed banks, actually conceals several interesting developments (and one super interesting one!), which has led the undersigned to do something I rarely do, namely adjust the portfolio – quite significantly, in fact. Overall, then, no major surprises. The BEC banks had already upgraded their expectations before the publication of the quarterly reports after the sale of BEC to Nykredit. But I will nevertheless point out: • One disappointment • Several disappointments • One surprise • One super report (that has not received the attention it deserves) One disappointment It's hard to give the newest kid on the block a harsh assessment, but as a shareholder in AL Sydbank, I was nevertheless a little disappointed with the result for Q1 2026. For good reasons, there is no backdrop of quarterly reports against which the first three months of the year should be measured, so in reality, the Q1 result can only be compared with the announced expectations. With an expected result for 2026 of between 3,500,000,000 – 4,000,000,000 kr., the Q1 2026 result of a total of 803,000,000 kr. falls below the interval. The interesting question is, of course, to what extent the result is burdened by non-recurring costs. These are stated in the financial statement as 142,000,000 kr. (before tax). So even when these are taken into account, one only just scrapes into the announced interval. I know that banks generally have not had such large positive value adjustments in Q1 as they are used to – and that, of course, counts down in the result before tax. I hope and believe that when the dust has settled, and everyday life has set in, we will later in the year see a quarterly report where the bottom-line result rounds 1 mia. kr. Several disappointments The quarter definitively confirmed the thesis that smaller banks are struggling – and are struggling relatively more than larger banks. Costs are rising at a much faster rate than revenues – also to a level where the core earnings are very unimpressive. See, for example, Møns Bank, which realizes a profit before tax of 12,0 mio. kr. – including a reversal of impairments of 8,5 mio. kr. and value adjustments of 1,8 mio. kr. The profit from core operations thus amounts to 1,7 mio. kr. So, had the bank been in a period with ordinary impairments, the result would probably have been red. It is becoming increasingly clear that smaller banks are finding it difficult to keep up. In this scenario, I cannot help but think of Nordfyns Bank's management's conclusion that they would not “stand last on the platform”. That is, be left in a situation where one would not actively have the opportunity to enter into a merger – but instead, through mediocre operations over a period, have put themselves in a poor negotiating position. To the small banks and their desire for continued independence: It is evident that the train is leaving now. One surprise I have been a (satisfied) Skjern Bank shareholder for many years – and therefore I am naturally not entirely objective in the assessment. Unlike most others, they have had a positive development in net interest income (albeit marginally). Core earnings are rising almost 10% compared to the corresponding result last year. Strong rising lending and even more rising lending. And according to my database, they are hitting the second-best quarterly report in the bank's history. Only surpassed by Q1 2024, which was better favored by value adjustments. So once again, Skjern Bank has been a positive acquaintance. The only complaint I, as a shareholder, still have against Skjern Bank, is their ultra-conservative profit distribution.
·24.5.Thanks for a really good overview. Agree that SJF Bank is cheap. And the multiples have expansion opportunities going forward. Especially if they maintain the high earnings or increase them further due to cost reductions. And yes, in addition to that, I think that Møns Bank and Lollands Bank will not survive as independent entities in the long run. They will be run over by developments, their earnings will not be able to keep up relative to almost all other banks. They should eventually be incorporated into SJF Bank. And finally, SJF Bank will probably be a delicious acquisition target for the larger Bankdata banks you mention. An acquisition will be cheap and probably could be done over the weekend :-) Have personally been a shareholder in SJF Bank since the Covid-19 era in 2020. Currently 3,500 shares at GAK 85.4. - ·11.4.While we wait… While Q1 in the Danish banking market has been quite undramatic in isolation, the same period on the geopolitical scene has been the exact opposite. Therefore, most of us have probably also experienced greater turbulence in our portfolios than what has been pleasant. And uncertainty will probably be a loyal companion for some time yet. The fervent hope is that reason will prevail – if not sooner, then at least in connection with the US midterm election. It is precisely in these tumultuous periods that the advantage of being a long-term investor reveals itself. And I see nothing that – yet – impacts the banks' earnings. Interest rate expectations have shifted a bit – but only in an upward direction due to rising inflation. It is only if we start to see entire industries having supply problems, which further down the road can result in losses for the banks, that I will begin to reconsider my clear overweight in banks. We are – in my layman's assessment – far from that yet. But it will be interesting to see if some of the banks in the Q1 quarterly report feel tempted to further increase the discretionary loss buffer. Or if they merely reallocate the existing buffer for the 117th time – this time to “uncertainty regarding the situation in Iran”. Believe me, I advocate for a degree of caution in business management, but in some places, we are starting to approach a level where directors find it hard not to smile when describing the background for the estimate. In my world, there will always be risks associated with normal operations – and loan loss provisions on actual loans should reflect that. In my work as an auditor, across all sorts of industries, I have had discussions with various CFOs and CEOs about provisions for doubtful accounts, which for banks would correspond to loan losses. It is always entertaining to have these discussions when both parties know well that it is one of the items in the financial statements best suited to manage the annual result. I do not suspect the Danish banks of earnings management – I just hope that the discretionary provision will soon have reached a level where no further action is needed. I boldly begin this post by saying that the quarter has been undramatic. This is, of course, not how it has been experienced by the employees in Danish banks who have been affected by the layoffs announced and implemented during the quarter. Nevertheless, it is precisely this moment that, for me as an investor, is most crucial in the remainder of 2026: Will we already in the 2026 quarterly reports be able to see the efficiency gains via AI materialize in costs? I am not so naive as to expect to see anything noticeable already in the first half of the year – but at the slightest indication that there could be a 5-10-15% efficiency gain to be had down the road, then we are in a scenario where, in my view, banks need to be repriced – significantly so. So, when the first banks later this month publish their Q1 results, the first figure I will look at is operating costs compared to previous periods. The large banks will naturally be the first to move on this agenda – and my expectation/hope is that we, without a magnifying glass, can already trace a little in the Q3 quarterly report. My strength as an investor, however, is patience, so if we have to wait a couple more quarters, that's fine. Then I'll just have to settle for the 10% return on my investment in the meantime… Happy earnings season out there! I would actually have stopped the post here, but from time to time I receive inquiries from you, friends, or colleagues about my current favorite investment, so I might preempt some of these inquiries by being transparent about my Top 5: 1. Jyske Bank 2. SJF Bank (could something interesting be brewing?) 3. Kreditbanken (how long can it fly under the radar?) 4. Dansk Bank 5. AL Sydbank
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
23 päivää sitten
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
3,18%Tuotto/v
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·7 t sittenDear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.
- ·22.5.Djurslands Bank has today closed the earnings season for banks with a strong quarterly report. What on the surface appears to be a somewhat dull series of financial statements, without major surprises or disappointments from the Danish listed banks, actually conceals several interesting developments (and one super interesting one!), which has led the undersigned to do something I rarely do, namely adjust the portfolio – quite significantly, in fact. Overall, then, no major surprises. The BEC banks had already upgraded their expectations before the publication of the quarterly reports after the sale of BEC to Nykredit. But I will nevertheless point out: • One disappointment • Several disappointments • One surprise • One super report (that has not received the attention it deserves) One disappointment It's hard to give the newest kid on the block a harsh assessment, but as a shareholder in AL Sydbank, I was nevertheless a little disappointed with the result for Q1 2026. For good reasons, there is no backdrop of quarterly reports against which the first three months of the year should be measured, so in reality, the Q1 result can only be compared with the announced expectations. With an expected result for 2026 of between 3,500,000,000 – 4,000,000,000 kr., the Q1 2026 result of a total of 803,000,000 kr. falls below the interval. The interesting question is, of course, to what extent the result is burdened by non-recurring costs. These are stated in the financial statement as 142,000,000 kr. (before tax). So even when these are taken into account, one only just scrapes into the announced interval. I know that banks generally have not had such large positive value adjustments in Q1 as they are used to – and that, of course, counts down in the result before tax. I hope and believe that when the dust has settled, and everyday life has set in, we will later in the year see a quarterly report where the bottom-line result rounds 1 mia. kr. Several disappointments The quarter definitively confirmed the thesis that smaller banks are struggling – and are struggling relatively more than larger banks. Costs are rising at a much faster rate than revenues – also to a level where the core earnings are very unimpressive. See, for example, Møns Bank, which realizes a profit before tax of 12,0 mio. kr. – including a reversal of impairments of 8,5 mio. kr. and value adjustments of 1,8 mio. kr. The profit from core operations thus amounts to 1,7 mio. kr. So, had the bank been in a period with ordinary impairments, the result would probably have been red. It is becoming increasingly clear that smaller banks are finding it difficult to keep up. In this scenario, I cannot help but think of Nordfyns Bank's management's conclusion that they would not “stand last on the platform”. That is, be left in a situation where one would not actively have the opportunity to enter into a merger – but instead, through mediocre operations over a period, have put themselves in a poor negotiating position. To the small banks and their desire for continued independence: It is evident that the train is leaving now. One surprise I have been a (satisfied) Skjern Bank shareholder for many years – and therefore I am naturally not entirely objective in the assessment. Unlike most others, they have had a positive development in net interest income (albeit marginally). Core earnings are rising almost 10% compared to the corresponding result last year. Strong rising lending and even more rising lending. And according to my database, they are hitting the second-best quarterly report in the bank's history. Only surpassed by Q1 2024, which was better favored by value adjustments. So once again, Skjern Bank has been a positive acquaintance. The only complaint I, as a shareholder, still have against Skjern Bank, is their ultra-conservative profit distribution.·24.5.Thanks for a really good overview. Agree that SJF Bank is cheap. And the multiples have expansion opportunities going forward. Especially if they maintain the high earnings or increase them further due to cost reductions. And yes, in addition to that, I think that Møns Bank and Lollands Bank will not survive as independent entities in the long run. They will be run over by developments, their earnings will not be able to keep up relative to almost all other banks. They should eventually be incorporated into SJF Bank. And finally, SJF Bank will probably be a delicious acquisition target for the larger Bankdata banks you mention. An acquisition will be cheap and probably could be done over the weekend :-) Have personally been a shareholder in SJF Bank since the Covid-19 era in 2020. Currently 3,500 shares at GAK 85.4.
- ·11.4.While we wait… While Q1 in the Danish banking market has been quite undramatic in isolation, the same period on the geopolitical scene has been the exact opposite. Therefore, most of us have probably also experienced greater turbulence in our portfolios than what has been pleasant. And uncertainty will probably be a loyal companion for some time yet. The fervent hope is that reason will prevail – if not sooner, then at least in connection with the US midterm election. It is precisely in these tumultuous periods that the advantage of being a long-term investor reveals itself. And I see nothing that – yet – impacts the banks' earnings. Interest rate expectations have shifted a bit – but only in an upward direction due to rising inflation. It is only if we start to see entire industries having supply problems, which further down the road can result in losses for the banks, that I will begin to reconsider my clear overweight in banks. We are – in my layman's assessment – far from that yet. But it will be interesting to see if some of the banks in the Q1 quarterly report feel tempted to further increase the discretionary loss buffer. Or if they merely reallocate the existing buffer for the 117th time – this time to “uncertainty regarding the situation in Iran”. Believe me, I advocate for a degree of caution in business management, but in some places, we are starting to approach a level where directors find it hard not to smile when describing the background for the estimate. In my world, there will always be risks associated with normal operations – and loan loss provisions on actual loans should reflect that. In my work as an auditor, across all sorts of industries, I have had discussions with various CFOs and CEOs about provisions for doubtful accounts, which for banks would correspond to loan losses. It is always entertaining to have these discussions when both parties know well that it is one of the items in the financial statements best suited to manage the annual result. I do not suspect the Danish banks of earnings management – I just hope that the discretionary provision will soon have reached a level where no further action is needed. I boldly begin this post by saying that the quarter has been undramatic. This is, of course, not how it has been experienced by the employees in Danish banks who have been affected by the layoffs announced and implemented during the quarter. Nevertheless, it is precisely this moment that, for me as an investor, is most crucial in the remainder of 2026: Will we already in the 2026 quarterly reports be able to see the efficiency gains via AI materialize in costs? I am not so naive as to expect to see anything noticeable already in the first half of the year – but at the slightest indication that there could be a 5-10-15% efficiency gain to be had down the road, then we are in a scenario where, in my view, banks need to be repriced – significantly so. So, when the first banks later this month publish their Q1 results, the first figure I will look at is operating costs compared to previous periods. The large banks will naturally be the first to move on this agenda – and my expectation/hope is that we, without a magnifying glass, can already trace a little in the Q3 quarterly report. My strength as an investor, however, is patience, so if we have to wait a couple more quarters, that's fine. Then I'll just have to settle for the 10% return on my investment in the meantime… Happy earnings season out there! I would actually have stopped the post here, but from time to time I receive inquiries from you, friends, or colleagues about my current favorite investment, so I might preempt some of these inquiries by being transparent about my Top 5: 1. Jyske Bank 2. SJF Bank (could something interesting be brewing?) 3. Kreditbanken (how long can it fly under the radar?) 4. Dansk Bank 5. AL Sydbank
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | - | - | ||
| 28 | - | - | ||
| 22 | - | - | ||
| 3 | - | - | ||
| 23 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
23 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 13.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 7.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 6.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 4.11.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 14.8.2025 | ||
2025 Q1 -tulosraportti 1.5.2025 |
11,00 DKK/osake
Viimeisin osinko
3,18%Tuotto/v
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·7 t sittenDear bank investor – I need your help. Like most other investors, I delude myself into believing that I too have a special ability to identify the next stock winner. In more humble moments, I content myself with believing that the algorithms in my database can give me a small advantage in assessing which banks will perform relatively best. I have back-tested the algorithms to assess whether the ratings they gave at a given time could actually say something about future price development – both 12, 24 and 36 months into the future. The conclusions on this are that I will continue to blindly follow the recommendations. My process is as follows: 1. Are bank stocks generally fairly valued? 2. How are the banks relatively valued based on the variables that I attribute value to? (this is the question that the algorithms answer) Re 1) The general price increase among bank stocks in recent years can, in my assessment, be explained by a completely natural (and very delayed) price adjustment following the financial crisis, where the banks (all of them) have received a significant increase in credit quality, while the capital structure is completely different and solid. Re 2) The valuation of the banks is similarly harmonized, which is a completely natural consequence in a situation where banks aim for the same capital targets and are regularly visited by the financial supervisory authority. I can also see this from my algorithms, which increasingly confirm that price targets now generally only lie around or slightly above current levels. But here arises my "problem": Neither I nor my algorithm understands the valuation of SJF Bank. Without revealing all the variables behind the algorithms, they not surprisingly contain both P/E, K/I, growth in deposits, loans and core earnings, geographical location, transparency about strategy, tradability of shares, restriction of voting rights, etc. The decisive factor is the weighting of the variables – including also the weighting of the latest quarterly results. It is difficult in this forum to discuss all the points without it becoming too long-winded and extensive, but a single illustration: If one very simply looks at the banks' results for Q1 and extrapolates it to be indicative of the next three results, then all banks (with a single exception) have a P/E of over 10. In this, I have corrected for the fact that Grønlandsbanken has a tax advantage in Q1, as the dividend payment is tax-deductible. The price adjustments have generally been negative (or less positive than normal) due to the stock market and the Iran war. SJF has, at the current price of 348, a quarterly profit of 184,507,000 kr., and 16,228,950 outstanding shares, a P/E of 7.65. Price/book value of 1.2 also seems quite reasonable. In relation to the continued consolidation in the industry – which everyone agrees on (incl. bank directors) – SJF Bank must simultaneously be the most obvious candidate. Both in terms of acquiring smaller banks – but also in terms of being acquired itself. Geographically, it is gradually located in a growth area, just like Jyske Bank, Ringkjøbing Landbobank and AL Sydbank, once they have caught their breath after the recently completed merger, will be able to expand without geographically cannibalizing current customers. Did I mention that these three banks are on the same platform. I am aware that, like most others, I suffer from "confirmation bias" when I argue. But the algorithms should, after all, be free from this. Long story short: Would you please help answer the question of why SJF Bank is not a good buy? For the record: Jyske Bank and Kreditbanken also stand out positively – though not as extremely as SJF Bank.
- ·22.5.Djurslands Bank has today closed the earnings season for banks with a strong quarterly report. What on the surface appears to be a somewhat dull series of financial statements, without major surprises or disappointments from the Danish listed banks, actually conceals several interesting developments (and one super interesting one!), which has led the undersigned to do something I rarely do, namely adjust the portfolio – quite significantly, in fact. Overall, then, no major surprises. The BEC banks had already upgraded their expectations before the publication of the quarterly reports after the sale of BEC to Nykredit. But I will nevertheless point out: • One disappointment • Several disappointments • One surprise • One super report (that has not received the attention it deserves) One disappointment It's hard to give the newest kid on the block a harsh assessment, but as a shareholder in AL Sydbank, I was nevertheless a little disappointed with the result for Q1 2026. For good reasons, there is no backdrop of quarterly reports against which the first three months of the year should be measured, so in reality, the Q1 result can only be compared with the announced expectations. With an expected result for 2026 of between 3,500,000,000 – 4,000,000,000 kr., the Q1 2026 result of a total of 803,000,000 kr. falls below the interval. The interesting question is, of course, to what extent the result is burdened by non-recurring costs. These are stated in the financial statement as 142,000,000 kr. (before tax). So even when these are taken into account, one only just scrapes into the announced interval. I know that banks generally have not had such large positive value adjustments in Q1 as they are used to – and that, of course, counts down in the result before tax. I hope and believe that when the dust has settled, and everyday life has set in, we will later in the year see a quarterly report where the bottom-line result rounds 1 mia. kr. Several disappointments The quarter definitively confirmed the thesis that smaller banks are struggling – and are struggling relatively more than larger banks. Costs are rising at a much faster rate than revenues – also to a level where the core earnings are very unimpressive. See, for example, Møns Bank, which realizes a profit before tax of 12,0 mio. kr. – including a reversal of impairments of 8,5 mio. kr. and value adjustments of 1,8 mio. kr. The profit from core operations thus amounts to 1,7 mio. kr. So, had the bank been in a period with ordinary impairments, the result would probably have been red. It is becoming increasingly clear that smaller banks are finding it difficult to keep up. In this scenario, I cannot help but think of Nordfyns Bank's management's conclusion that they would not “stand last on the platform”. That is, be left in a situation where one would not actively have the opportunity to enter into a merger – but instead, through mediocre operations over a period, have put themselves in a poor negotiating position. To the small banks and their desire for continued independence: It is evident that the train is leaving now. One surprise I have been a (satisfied) Skjern Bank shareholder for many years – and therefore I am naturally not entirely objective in the assessment. Unlike most others, they have had a positive development in net interest income (albeit marginally). Core earnings are rising almost 10% compared to the corresponding result last year. Strong rising lending and even more rising lending. And according to my database, they are hitting the second-best quarterly report in the bank's history. Only surpassed by Q1 2024, which was better favored by value adjustments. So once again, Skjern Bank has been a positive acquaintance. The only complaint I, as a shareholder, still have against Skjern Bank, is their ultra-conservative profit distribution.·24.5.Thanks for a really good overview. Agree that SJF Bank is cheap. And the multiples have expansion opportunities going forward. Especially if they maintain the high earnings or increase them further due to cost reductions. And yes, in addition to that, I think that Møns Bank and Lollands Bank will not survive as independent entities in the long run. They will be run over by developments, their earnings will not be able to keep up relative to almost all other banks. They should eventually be incorporated into SJF Bank. And finally, SJF Bank will probably be a delicious acquisition target for the larger Bankdata banks you mention. An acquisition will be cheap and probably could be done over the weekend :-) Have personally been a shareholder in SJF Bank since the Covid-19 era in 2020. Currently 3,500 shares at GAK 85.4.
- ·11.4.While we wait… While Q1 in the Danish banking market has been quite undramatic in isolation, the same period on the geopolitical scene has been the exact opposite. Therefore, most of us have probably also experienced greater turbulence in our portfolios than what has been pleasant. And uncertainty will probably be a loyal companion for some time yet. The fervent hope is that reason will prevail – if not sooner, then at least in connection with the US midterm election. It is precisely in these tumultuous periods that the advantage of being a long-term investor reveals itself. And I see nothing that – yet – impacts the banks' earnings. Interest rate expectations have shifted a bit – but only in an upward direction due to rising inflation. It is only if we start to see entire industries having supply problems, which further down the road can result in losses for the banks, that I will begin to reconsider my clear overweight in banks. We are – in my layman's assessment – far from that yet. But it will be interesting to see if some of the banks in the Q1 quarterly report feel tempted to further increase the discretionary loss buffer. Or if they merely reallocate the existing buffer for the 117th time – this time to “uncertainty regarding the situation in Iran”. Believe me, I advocate for a degree of caution in business management, but in some places, we are starting to approach a level where directors find it hard not to smile when describing the background for the estimate. In my world, there will always be risks associated with normal operations – and loan loss provisions on actual loans should reflect that. In my work as an auditor, across all sorts of industries, I have had discussions with various CFOs and CEOs about provisions for doubtful accounts, which for banks would correspond to loan losses. It is always entertaining to have these discussions when both parties know well that it is one of the items in the financial statements best suited to manage the annual result. I do not suspect the Danish banks of earnings management – I just hope that the discretionary provision will soon have reached a level where no further action is needed. I boldly begin this post by saying that the quarter has been undramatic. This is, of course, not how it has been experienced by the employees in Danish banks who have been affected by the layoffs announced and implemented during the quarter. Nevertheless, it is precisely this moment that, for me as an investor, is most crucial in the remainder of 2026: Will we already in the 2026 quarterly reports be able to see the efficiency gains via AI materialize in costs? I am not so naive as to expect to see anything noticeable already in the first half of the year – but at the slightest indication that there could be a 5-10-15% efficiency gain to be had down the road, then we are in a scenario where, in my view, banks need to be repriced – significantly so. So, when the first banks later this month publish their Q1 results, the first figure I will look at is operating costs compared to previous periods. The large banks will naturally be the first to move on this agenda – and my expectation/hope is that we, without a magnifying glass, can already trace a little in the Q3 quarterly report. My strength as an investor, however, is patience, so if we have to wait a couple more quarters, that's fine. Then I'll just have to settle for the 10% return on my investment in the meantime… Happy earnings season out there! I would actually have stopped the post here, but from time to time I receive inquiries from you, friends, or colleagues about my current favorite investment, so I might preempt some of these inquiries by being transparent about my Top 5: 1. Jyske Bank 2. SJF Bank (could something interesting be brewing?) 3. Kreditbanken (how long can it fly under the radar?) 4. Dansk Bank 5. AL Sydbank
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | - | - | ||
| 28 | - | - | ||
| 22 | - | - | ||
| 3 | - | - | ||
| 23 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt