Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Meredith Whitney, the analyst known for correctly predicting Citigroup Inc.’s dividend cut last year, reduced earnings estimates for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley through 2011….
If it’s Thursday, it must be time for Meredith Whitney to be downgrading something—at least that’s the way it seemed to us yesterday when news hit the tape that Last Year’s Star was making the tape once again, with another irrelevant bit of analyst-speak.
Here are the details:
The New York-based analyst, who runs Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, now projects Goldman Sachs will earn $19.57 a share in 2009, $19.65 in 2010 and $20.60 in 2011. Those were reduced from $19.95, $21.73 and $24.04, respectively. The 2011 forecast is 4.2 percent less than the average analyst estimateof $21.51 in a Bloomberg survey…
Why are these earnings changes irrelevant?
Well, for one thing, to make a 38 cent-per-share change in a round-numbers $20 per-share 2009 earnings estimate really isn’t worth the cost of preparing the press release.
For another, the implied precision—so Goldman is going to earn “$19.57” per-share? Why not $19.56? Or $19.58?—is the unfortunate by-product of Wall Street analysts not understanding that businesses are living, breathing, human organisms, not spread-sheet by-products.
Witness the dramatic drop in Whitney's 2011 numbers from the amusingly precise $24.04 per share—we’re talking about a financial enterprise with a trillion dollars in assets: not even Warren Buffett has a clue what 2011 will look like, let alone Meredith Whitney—to the equally ridiculously precise $20.60.
Speaking as a former member of Ms. Whitney’s club—i.e. Wall Street’s Finest—we’ve long thought analyst estimates should be limited to “Higher,” “Lower,” “Much Higher,” and “Much Lower,” and leave the faulty precision to the people who actually buy the stocks.
In any event, we write not to disagree with Ms. Whitney’s basic call: that the earnings outlook for Wall Street’s biggest investment houses may not be as perky going forward as it is right now.
But the reason is not that we see Armageddon ahead, as Ms. Whitney seems to do with every CNBC appearance.
It is simply that the earnings of Wall Street’s investment banks have almost nowhere to go but down.
Let’s look at a Bloomberg story on the subject, published the day before Ms. Whitney blasted her new, precise, earnings forecasts to a world on edge:
Wall Street’s $49.7 Billion Profit Tops OutlookBy Pete Young
Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street earnings soared to $49.7 billion in the first three quarters of the year, exceeding the state’s forecast for all of 2009, New York Comptroller ThomasDiNapoli said…
That’s right: Wall Street made big bucks in 2009—bigger than even New York State dreamed a few short months ago.
Profits from the broker-dealer operations of New York Stock Exchange member firms…topped a November projection of $38.4 billion for the year, DiNapoli said in a report today. Wall Street lost $11.3 billion in 2007 and $42.6 billion in 2008, the comptroller reported.
And now for the Trivia Question:
What was the previous annual earnings peak for Wall Street broker-dealers, and in what year did that peak occur?
Winners will receive nothing but the satisfaction that they have not made it up.
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2009 NotMakingThisUp, LLC
The content contained in this blog represents only the opinions of Mr. Matthews, who also acts as an advisor: clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews’ recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes investment advice, and should never be relied on in making an investment decision, ever. Also, this blog is not a solicitation of business: all inquiries will be ignored. The content herein is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.