IBJNews

PNC Financial's quarterly earnings tumble

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT