IBJNews

PNC Financial's quarterly earnings tumble

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

PNC Financial Services Group Inc.'s third-quarter earnings fell as the regional bank made less money from loans, deposits, fees and charges. The year-ago results also included a hefty gain tied to a sale.

Pittsburgh-based PNC is the parent company of PNC Bank, which has about 1,200 employees and 88 branches in the Indianapolis area.

PNC said Wednesday that its earnings fell to $826 million, or $1.55 per share, for the three months ended Sept. 30. That's down from $1.09 billion, or $2.07 per share, a year earlier.

The prior-year period benefited from a $328 million, or 62-cents-per-share gain, related to the sale of PNC Global Investment Servicing.

The results surpassed the earnings of $1.50 per share that analysts polled by FactSet predicted.

PNC Financial's provision for loan losses — money set aside to cover souring loans — dropped to $261 million from $486 million. Further signs of improving credit included declines in nonperforming assets and net charge-offs, or loans written off as uncollectable.

Revenue dipped 2 percent, to $3.54 billion from $3.6 billion, missing Wall Street's estimate of $3.56 billion.

Net interest income, or money earned from deposits and loans, fell 2 percent, to $2.18 billion from $2.22 billion.

Noninterest income, or earnings from fees and charges, declined 1 percent, to $1.37 billion from $1.38 billion.

The company's third-quarter tax rate was 27 percent, compared with 18.8 percent a year earlier. PNC Financial said the lower rate in the year-ago period was mostly due to a tax benefit related to a favorable IRS letter ruling that resolved a prior tax position.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT