Fiserv
 
Posted 07/19/2010 By Matt Stichnoth

GREAT MOMENTS IN INVESTOR PARANOIA

James Quinn, a “senior director of strategic planning for a major university,” says that JPMorgan’s 76% second quarter earnings gain was a gigantic fraud,” since it included a $6.3 billion reserve release that was set “at the complete discretion of Jamie Dimon.”

That’s not right. Actually, let me put that another way: that’s delusional. FASB rules see to it that bank managements have very little discretion setting reserves. There is simply no way that Jamie Dimon can conjure up a $6.3 billion reserve release on his own without running seriously afoul of GAAP. ( For that matter, if Dimon is fraudulently releasing reserves now, why did he bother larding them up at the depths of the crisis in the first place?) 

No one expects senior directors of strategic planning at major universities to understand the nuances of bank accounting, but they might have the basics right--especially if they’re going to publicly accuse bank CEOs of fraudulently cooking the books.

P.S. The tone of Quinn’s responses to skeptical commenters leaves one with the distinct impression that he needs to get his prescription rebalanced ASAP. . . .


12:42 PM  

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/19/2010 3:31:03 PM

Matt old boy You actually believe the crap you are writing? I'm a CPA and worked in the corporate world for 16 years you tool. I understand GAAP. I also understand how corporate management operates. Dumb ass auditors will sign off on anything Dimon shoves in front of their face. He pays the fees and they bend over. You clearly don't understand how the real world operates. If you recall, Enron's books looked spectacular until the company went bankrupt. You sound like a common bank analyst shill to me.

tom brown Posted On 7/19/2010 4:31:12 PM

Jim you naive youngster! I have been a bank analyst for 30 years and am an accountant by training. You are dead wrong and Matt is right. But let me ask you if you think Jamie Dimon massively intentionally understated earnings the last two years when the company built its loan loss reserve? Also, with only 16 years of experience you obviously missed the last major credit cycle; why not take a look back for a little education about how reserves are built and then brought down.

swm Posted On 7/19/2010 5:29:05 PM

Matt must be right. All the big banks have stuck to the letter of the rules - that is why we are in this mess.

Jim Posted On 7/19/2010 7:34:17 PM

Matt, you are spot on. The pro cyclical nature of reserving is a real problem. Jamie knew he wouldn't get any credit for releasing a reserve viz a viz qualty of earning. The underlying losses forecasted within these businesses no longer justified the reserves he had set up in previous quarters. He as much as said so.

C. David Kirby (former CPA) Posted On 7/20/2010 4:24:39 AM

Matt and Tom, you are way too easy on Quinn, who claims to be a CPA and claims to "understand GAAP". Quinn's "fraud" thesis is based on the claim that JPM had a $6.34 billion "reduction in loss reserves", which he deducts from reported income of $4.8 billion to derive the "REAL result $1.54 billion loss". Actually, JPM's provision for loan losses decreased by $6.34 billion. Its reserve for loan losses decreased by $2.35 billion pretax ($1.5 billion after tax). Quinn, the CPA who understands GAAP, doesn't know the difference between the provision for loan losses and the reserve. Please send him a copy of "Bank Accounting for Dummies", along with the meds.

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 8:17:53 AM

It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site. The mega-criminal banks have allowed millions of deadbeats to live in their homes without making a mortgage payment for the last two years. If you don't have to make a mortgage payment, you have spare cash to pay your credit card bills. This is a wonderful development for the criminal banks. They tell the public that their credit card losses are declining so they increase their earnings (JP Morgan) with a journal entry that says they will have less losses in the future. At the same time, by not foreclosing on the properties, the criminal banks don't have to write off the mortgage as a loss. They then report surges in profits. What a beautiful thing. Enron was also using GAAP if I recall. Who was their auditors? Hmm. The now defunct Arthur Anderson. Oh yes, auditors would never bend over and take it up the ass from their client for millions in fees. They are too honorable. You fools can't see that the light at the end of the economic tunnel is a train. Anyone who thinks loan losses will be going downover the next 2 years is either a retard or a moron. You assholes fit both categories.

U Been Spanked Posted On 7/20/2010 9:54:51 AM

"It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site" But enough about you. LOL!

U Been Spanked Posted On 7/20/2010 10:05:06 AM

"It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site" But enough about you. LOL!

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 10:46:35 AM

LOL!! Only a fool wouldn't know how to use a submit button properly. Asshole.

JimBob Posted On 7/20/2010 12:04:31 PM

Well, at least we now know why Jim's working for a University and not a real company. I'm suddenly terrified now to send my kids to college. Jim, try working for a bank for a while before you start yapping about them.

Jim's off his meds Posted On 7/20/2010 12:36:36 PM

Poor Jim, still confused about GAAP.

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 2:59:31 PM

JimBob Your kids have as good a chance of getting into college as a bank analyst understanding a balance sheet. Slim and none. There only chance is if your wife was fucking the mailman.

Bankers are Criminals Posted On 7/20/2010 11:47:44 PM

Matt, Jim is 1000% right, are you a financial ANALyst moron, or a criminal banker?

Mike in AZ Posted On 7/20/2010 11:49:37 PM

As a fellow CPA I independently checked Jim's analysis, and he's spot on. Matt, you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Probably work for the same bank as my 401k "advisor" who says only own 1% gold, it's too volatile. Moron bankers!!!!!!!!

Mike in AZ Posted On 7/20/2010 11:50:27 PM

At least you got a few comments on your blog with this crap!
   Add your comment

 

 

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/19/2010 3:31:03 PM

Matt old boy You actually believe the crap you are writing? I'm a CPA and worked in the corporate world for 16 years you tool. I understand GAAP. I also understand how corporate management operates. Dumb ass auditors will sign off on anything Dimon shoves in front of their face. He pays the fees and they bend over. You clearly don't understand how the real world operates. If you recall, Enron's books looked spectacular until the company went bankrupt. You sound like a common bank analyst shill to me.

tom brown Posted On 7/19/2010 4:31:12 PM

Jim you naive youngster! I have been a bank analyst for 30 years and am an accountant by training. You are dead wrong and Matt is right. But let me ask you if you think Jamie Dimon massively intentionally understated earnings the last two years when the company built its loan loss reserve? Also, with only 16 years of experience you obviously missed the last major credit cycle; why not take a look back for a little education about how reserves are built and then brought down.

swm Posted On 7/19/2010 5:29:05 PM

Matt must be right. All the big banks have stuck to the letter of the rules - that is why we are in this mess.

Jim Posted On 7/19/2010 7:34:17 PM

Matt, you are spot on. The pro cyclical nature of reserving is a real problem. Jamie knew he wouldn't get any credit for releasing a reserve viz a viz qualty of earning. The underlying losses forecasted within these businesses no longer justified the reserves he had set up in previous quarters. He as much as said so.

C. David Kirby (former CPA) Posted On 7/20/2010 4:24:39 AM

Matt and Tom, you are way too easy on Quinn, who claims to be a CPA and claims to "understand GAAP". Quinn's "fraud" thesis is based on the claim that JPM had a $6.34 billion "reduction in loss reserves", which he deducts from reported income of $4.8 billion to derive the "REAL result $1.54 billion loss". Actually, JPM's provision for loan losses decreased by $6.34 billion. Its reserve for loan losses decreased by $2.35 billion pretax ($1.5 billion after tax). Quinn, the CPA who understands GAAP, doesn't know the difference between the provision for loan losses and the reserve. Please send him a copy of "Bank Accounting for Dummies", along with the meds.

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 8:17:53 AM

It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site. The mega-criminal banks have allowed millions of deadbeats to live in their homes without making a mortgage payment for the last two years. If you don't have to make a mortgage payment, you have spare cash to pay your credit card bills. This is a wonderful development for the criminal banks. They tell the public that their credit card losses are declining so they increase their earnings (JP Morgan) with a journal entry that says they will have less losses in the future. At the same time, by not foreclosing on the properties, the criminal banks don't have to write off the mortgage as a loss. They then report surges in profits. What a beautiful thing. Enron was also using GAAP if I recall. Who was their auditors? Hmm. The now defunct Arthur Anderson. Oh yes, auditors would never bend over and take it up the ass from their client for millions in fees. They are too honorable. You fools can't see that the light at the end of the economic tunnel is a train. Anyone who thinks loan losses will be going downover the next 2 years is either a retard or a moron. You assholes fit both categories.

U Been Spanked Posted On 7/20/2010 9:54:51 AM

"It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site" But enough about you. LOL!

U Been Spanked Posted On 7/20/2010 10:05:06 AM

"It appears there is a gathering of fools on this site" But enough about you. LOL!

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 10:46:35 AM

LOL!! Only a fool wouldn't know how to use a submit button properly. Asshole.

JimBob Posted On 7/20/2010 12:04:31 PM

Well, at least we now know why Jim's working for a University and not a real company. I'm suddenly terrified now to send my kids to college. Jim, try working for a bank for a while before you start yapping about them.

Jim's off his meds Posted On 7/20/2010 12:36:36 PM

Poor Jim, still confused about GAAP.

Jim Quinn Posted On 7/20/2010 2:59:31 PM

JimBob Your kids have as good a chance of getting into college as a bank analyst understanding a balance sheet. Slim and none. There only chance is if your wife was fucking the mailman.

Bankers are Criminals Posted On 7/20/2010 11:47:44 PM

Matt, Jim is 1000% right, are you a financial ANALyst moron, or a criminal banker?

Mike in AZ Posted On 7/20/2010 11:49:37 PM

As a fellow CPA I independently checked Jim's analysis, and he's spot on. Matt, you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Probably work for the same bank as my 401k "advisor" who says only own 1% gold, it's too volatile. Moron bankers!!!!!!!!

Mike in AZ Posted On 7/20/2010 11:50:27 PM

At least you got a few comments on your blog with this crap!
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.