Recent Blog Posts
-
The $4.5 Billion Dollar Bank Run
Nov 07 201111:20 am EDT -
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

How Negative Earnings Don't Seem to Matter
When it comes to earnings, Wall Street wants guidance. Here's the cri de coeur from Societe Generale's Bill Kavaler Cavalier, during the notorious conference call with Sallie Mae's Al Lord yesterday:
We're trying to put together projections here, Al. We're trying to figure out what your stock is going to be worth, and you have got to give us some guidance, you've got to give us some numbers... Can you give us some handle on what your stock is worth?
Lord, of course, told Cavalier to go elsewhere for his guidance; investors voted with their feet, and bid the stock down more than 20%. Most companies deal with such questions with a bit more panache, and their earnings generally arrive more or less in line with the expectations they themselves are largely responsible for creating. Investment banks have a harder time of it - their earnings are necessarily more volatile than those of the average widget manufacturer. And when they take losses, it seems that guidance and expectations are utterly useless.
Yesterday, Morgan Stanley's quarterly loss was 926% of the expected size; today, Bear Stearns's quarterly loss of $854 million is 380% of the amount that Wall Street analysts expected.
Remember, Wall Street knew there would be losses. It's not like no one told them there was a massive cock-up on the Morgan Stanley trading desk. As long ago as early November, Morgan Stanley was making noises about "negative convexity" and saying that its trade-gone-wrong had cost $3.7 billion. It's just that $3.7 billion looks positively elfin compared to the losses which were finally realized yesterday.
And yet the stock went up, of course. It's a bit weird, but when a firm's profits miss expectations by a fairly narrow margin, the effect on the stock price can be large. When a firm's losses miss expectations by an enormous margin, by contrast, Wall Street is more likely to shrug than panic. For some reason, it seems, the minute that earnings fall below $0, they no longer seem to be treated as a highly-calibrated indicator of a company's value.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.




