How Should We Interpret the String of Positive Earnings Reports from U.S. Banks? | The Business Desk with Paul Solman | PBS NewsHour

ABOUT US \| LOCAL TV LISTINGS EMAIL PRINT

REGION: North America

TOPIC: Business & Economy

PBS NewsHour

In the fall of 2007, when the U.S. economy first seemed in peril, I began answering reader queries here on the Business Desk. I still do so, but this page has expanded to include posts from eminent economists, "far-flung correspondents," and a variety of voices that have intriguing and/or useful things to say about economics, broadly defined. Please feel encouraged to respond to any and all of them.

« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry »

How Should We Interpret the String of Positive Earnings Reports from U.S. Banks?

Bank of America; via Flickr

Question: After three major banks - Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs - announced better-than-expected earnings last week, Bank of America announced more than $4 billion in first-quarter profits today. How should we interpret this string of good earnings reports?

Paul Solman: Often on this page I've written about the uncertainty inherent in the social so-called sciences, and in economics in particular. I've also quoted, I think, the punchline of my first accounting class in business school, fall of '76: "Give me the accountant I want, and I'll give you the earnings you want."

That's my reaction to the supposed earnings surge in U.S. banking -- and apparently the reaction of investors. Bank stocks had plunged by this afternoon, when I sat down to write this post. I suggest you read this paragraph from today's Washington Post about Bank of America's "results":

The bank booked a profit of $2.2 billion on the decline in value of its own debt, on the theory that the bank could now repurchase that debt at the lower price. Other banks, including Citigroup, have booked billions of dollars under the same rule. Some financial analysts regard the technique as obfuscating the true picture of a company's health, because the companies have not actually repurchased the debt, so the gains could be reversed if the values rebound.

Now Bank of America reported just over $4 billion in "profits." What the above paragraph means is that more than half the "earnings" came from the fact that investors so distrust BofA's ability to repay its debts that those debts have plummeted in value on the debt market. Thus BofA could THEORETICALLY buy back its debts and make money on the deal.

I do not know how the banks will fare in the future. No one does. No ones does -- ever. But as to the significance of the current earnings reports, I sure wouldn't -- how to put this? -- take them to the bank.

-- Posted April 20, 2009 | Comments ( ) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How Should We Interpret the String of Positive Earnings Reports from U.S. Banks?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1231

Comments

**Question:** After three major banks - Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs - announced better-than-expected earnings last week, Bank of America announced more than $4 billion in first-quarter profits today. How should we interpret this string of good earnings reports? **Paul Solman:** Often on this page I've written about the uncertainty inherent in the social so-called sciences, and in economics in particular. I've also quoted, I think, the punchline of my first accounting class in business school, fall of '76: "Give me the accountant I want, and I'll give you the earnings you want." That's my reaction to the supposed earnings surge in U.S. banking -- and apparently the reaction of investors. Bank stocks had plunged by this afternoon, when I sat down to write this post. I suggest you read "this paragraph from today's Washington Post":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042000790.html?hpid=topnews about Bank of America's "results": _The bank booked a profit of $2.2 billion on the decline in value of its own debt, on the theory that the bank could now repurchase that debt at the lower price. Other banks, including Citigroup, have booked billions of dollars under the same rule. Some financial analysts regard the technique as obfuscating the true picture of a company's health, because the companies have not actually repurchased the debt, so the gains could be reversed if the values rebound._ Now Bank of America "reported just over $4 billion":http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/jan-june09/earnings_0420.html in "profits." What the above paragraph means is that more than half the "earnings" came from the fact that investors so distrust BofA's ability to repay its debts that those debts have plummeted in value on the debt market. Thus BofA could THEORETICALLY buy back its debts and make money on the deal. I do not know how the banks will fare in the future. No one does. No ones does -- ever. But as to the significance of the current earnings reports, I sure wouldn't -- how to put this? -- take them to the bank.