Recs

9

How Did You Manage That, Hudson City Bancorp?

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

In 2000, General Electric posted its 100th consecutive quarter of growth in continuing operations. That's 25 years. Raise your hand if that sounds just a bit suspicious. Whatever business you're in, that feat just isn't possible unless your company's managing its reported earnings.

According to a 1998 survey, 78% of CFOs attending a given conference said they'd been asked to "cast financial results in a better light" without running afoul of GAAP. Half said they'd done it. Nearly half said they'd been asked to misrepresent their company's numbers, and 38% admitted they'd done so. Another survey at a different conference found that more than half of the CFOs attending had been asked to juice their numbers, and 17% had agreed to do so.

It's easy to understand why companies succumb to the incredible pressure to make it look like they've met or beaten targets or Wall Street expectations. Consistent growth is a feather in any CEO's cap, and a rising stock price often increases many executives' compensation, especially from stock options. But when companies stray from merely managing their numbers within GAAP into outright fudging them -- Enron, Sunbeam, we're looking at you here -- they can ruin themselves and their shareholders.

How can we spot suspicious earnings patterns soon enough to save ourselves? We can track how closely a company meets earnings expectations, monitor its frequency of year-over-year growth, and compare those stats to numbers from a few competitors, which should be affected similarly by changes in the business cycle. Any company that lands eerily close to earnings-per-share (EPS) expectations, and grows earnings year-over-year with unusual reliability, should raise a yellow flag and invite us to look closer.

Here's a look at what Hudson City Bancorp (Nasdaq: HCBK  ) , the regional bank, has done over the past few years. I've also included a couple of other businesses playing in the same space for comparison.

Company

Reported EPS Within $0.02 of Estimates?

How Close to Estimates, on Average

How Often It Reported Growth

Hudson City Bancorp

26 times in last 26 quarters.

$0.00

18 times in last 22 quarters.

People's United Financial (Nasdaq: PBCT  )

25 times in last 26 quarters.

($0.00)

12 times in last 22 quarters.

New York Community Bancorp (NYSE: NYB  )

23 times in last 26 quarters.

($0.00)

8 times in last 22 quarters.

Source: www.earnings.com and author calculation. Difference in number of quarters counted due to data source.

All three of these banks hit close to earnings all too often to make me comfortable. But Hudson City was the worst of the lot, hitting within $0.02 for at least the past 6.5 years. What raises an even bigger question in my mind is their string of five quarters in a row of reporting $0.11 in earnings per share a few years ago, followed immediately by a string of seven quarters reporting $0.13 in EPS. Really? Plus, the company's reported growth 18 times out of the last 22 quarters, including every quarter of the last 13. Right through the credit crisis-generated recession. If I were a shareholder, I'd probably be digging quite a bit deeper to see what could be going on. It's the fact that People's United and NY Community didn't report such consistent yearly growth that makes Hudson City's feat more suspicious.

Note that I'm not concentrating on managing estimates here -- though management does that, too. However, if a management team always seems to deliver on estimates time and time again, you should probably dig a bit deeper, to see whether its interpretation of GAAP is getting a bit too fast and loose.

Investors crave consistency. That's one reason why its string of reliable results spurred GE's stock price to rise so much in the 1980s and 1990s. But the real world isn't consistent, and Foolish investors should account for that. If a company's results seem too steady to be true, Fools should proceed with caution.

Best Odds in the Universe!
If you're interested in a 98.79% chance at beating the market... and a 70.84% chance at DOUBLING the market's return – Motley Fool Supernova could be just what you're looking for. And get this: We arrived at these odds from 10,000 random back-tested portfolios composed of Motley Fool Co-founder David Gardner's personal stock picks.

It's why David recently handpicked a small team of world-class portfolio managers. You see, he thinks these odds can get even better! And he'd like to prove it to you...

Simply enter your email address. And the answer to the question everybody is asking will be delivered to your inbox!

Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Fool analyst Jim Mueller is a beneficial owner of General Electric, but doesn't have a position in any other company mentioned. He works with the Stock Advisor newsletter service. The Fool is all about investors writing for investors.

True to its name, The Motley Fool is made up of a motley assortment of writers and analysts, each with a unique perspective; sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but we all believe in the power of learning from each other through our Foolish community.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 1:43 PM, copdoc32 wrote:

    This article, like several oghers in recent months, raises questions (spuriously I suspect) but provides not a scintilla of evidence to support the underlying premise: that HCBK is either hiding something negative or in some manner manipulating the numbers. It was not touted by Forbes as one of the best managed banks in American for nothing. It has been a genuinely and consistently positive performer for several years. It is very conservative and seems to be a good choice for continued accumulation, especially at currently depressed levels.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 4:29 PM, BioBat wrote:

    HCBK doesn't get within it's estimates through any sort of manipulation. It does so because it's a conservatively run bank without much dead weight to drag it down. It's a steady as she goes kind of bank and forecasts on things that grow at a steady pace are pretty easy - extrapolate from a curve. With a current dividend of 5% and a PE of just around 10, you could do a lot worse than a long term investment in HCBK.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 4:30 PM, bookslogger wrote:

    What is it that Motley Fool has against HCBK? A recent 8/28 article stated that "Hudson City Bancorp Dividend May Not Last Forever" then goes on to lay pretty good grounds about how SECURE their dividend is. Now, they post an article, the first few paragraphs have to do with how certain CFO's fudge (or have been asked to fudge) numbers, then goes on to prove that HCBK numbers aren't THAT far off of their competitors postings. Whether you like HCBK or not, the numbers given by these recent articles certainly don't merit the sensationalistic headlines given them. Again, what is it that Motley Fool has against HCBK? THERE'S where you need to do your research fellow investors!

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 5:15 PM, TheGreatFoolish1 wrote:

    I think somebody at motley fool is shorting HCBK. These last few articles have been absolutely ridiculous.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 5:17 PM, bunngolf wrote:

    Another bunch of poppycock from fooldom. Do a little forensic accounting, report it, then you'll have some meat to put on those bones.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Motleymoorem wrote:

    " If I were a shareholder, I'd probably be digging quite a bit deeper to see what could be going on. "

    Lol you right an article and admit you didn't dig whats going on.

    HCBK has a very weird business model which makes it very easy to estimate there earnings. Half of there assets are in stocks from the FHLB which is very consistent and they make there NIM on and pay little expenses. The other half of their assets are in loans with high LTV and interest payments making there earnings very stable.

    Its pretty simple if you right about things you understand instead of spreading lies.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Motleymoorem wrote:

    That is write about things you understand. It pisses me off you call yourself a journalist yet you do no research.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Motleymoorem wrote:

    Let me explain the business model once more.

    HCBK provides loans and invests in mortgage backed securities and investment securities.

    Since they have very high lending standards, they supplement their growth by borrowing funds from the FHLB. From these funds they invest in Mortgage Backed Securities which have a stable rate of return. In 2006 25% of their net income was from this sort of borrowing.

    Now they also use that money to fund their growth to build their deposit base.

    On the loan side they have very high LTV loans which means since the author probably doesn't understand what LTV means it just means that the loan is paid for by a higher %. IE less is borrowed more is paid for in a one time payment. This allows HCBK to give out lower interest rates and have more stable earnings.

    This also means they have low provisions since half their bank is not even in loans and they don't need to provide for this and their loans are of great quality.

    It is really a great business model.

    Please don't spread these lies.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2010, at 12:59 AM, forexnutca wrote:

    Reading their 10K, I found a great business at a great price. The only concern that I found was this....

    2009 10K

    "We have two collateralized borrowings in the form of repurchase agreements totaling $100.0 million with Lehman Brothers, Inc. Lehman Brothers, Inc. is currently in liquidation under the Securities Industry Protection Act. Mortgage-backed securities with an amortized cost of approximately $114.5 million are pledged as collateral for these borrowings. We intend to pursue full recovery of the pledged collateral in accordance with the contractual terms of the repurchase agreements. There can be no assurances that the final settlement of this transaction will result in the full recovery of the collateral or the full amount of the claim. We have not recognized a loss in our financial statements related to these repurchase agreements."

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2010, at 9:37 AM, TMFGebinr wrote:

    Motleymoorem and others,

    The article does not say that Hudson City is manipulating earnings or that shenanigans are going on. All it does is look at the company's last several reported earnings compared to estimates, see if there is a trend, and raises a question. In other companies, such trends have tended to be tied to shenanigans, as demonstrated by the short discussion of GE at the beginning of the article. If the answer to the question is in the negative as has been claimed in these comments (that is, no shenanigans), then more power to shareholders and congrats on finding such a steady producer.

    Thanks for reading,

    Jim

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Motleymoorem wrote:

    Jim,

    I think it is insulting though that you do no research and you even write a statement, if I was going to invest I would dig into it. Well, its weird you write an article stating that HCBK could be manipulating earnings on no research.

    This is aggravating as a shareholder of any company to have to read that.

    And your example GE, well GE I have heard did that but how did GE turn out again?

    Lastly, HCBK doesn't provide guidance on their reports. So the analysts get the estimates obviously since HCBK earnings are very stable as I mentioned so they just pick the last quarters numbers and project it.

    S&P took Q1 and *4 to get 1.2 projection for the year.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2010, at 10:53 AM, bookslogger wrote:

    You're right Jim, you don't say that HCBK is manipulating earnings, but the intention clearly seems to hint at that. As I've said, the last couple of articles MF has written on HCBK don't SAY that the company is doing anything wrong, or that the dividend is in any trouble, but the INTENTION of the writers for Motley Fool cannot be ignored. Y'all obviously don't like HCBK, plain and simple.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Motleymoorem wrote:

    I personally find it insulting to see an article like this. There I am having done all my research reading the annual reports btw I am an accountant.

    And then for someone who has a pulput to even mention something so strong on little to no research is absurd.

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2010, at 2:04 PM, ercp1 wrote:

    Jim,

    You insinuated that HCBK couldn't honestly grow earnings while displaying zero intellectual rigor in doing even basic financial analysis. Are you allergic to arithmetic?

    Seriously, though. I'm a big fan. My hope is that you will continue to trash this stock. That way, I can keep buying it cheaply at book value, while it yields 5% (which it can do indefinitely since its payout ratio is only 50%).

    Cheers,

    Danny

  • Report this Comment On September 18, 2010, at 12:20 AM, mm5525 wrote:

    Just a minor correction here, but HCBK has LOWER loan to value (LTV) ratios than its competitors. Some of the comments above are incorrectly describing HCBK as having "higher LTV" loans, which is getting the term backward on the surface even though the comments do reflect knowledge of HCBK making the borrower have skin in the game, which has been partly the recipe for why it is such a good bank and could avoid TARP. Their loans are low LTVs, not high LTVs.

    The lower the LTV, the more conservative the loan is. If you put down 20% as a down payment on a mortgage, your LTV is only 80%. If you put nothing down on a mortgage, your LTV is 100%. FHA loans require the borrower to put down 3.5%. That LTV would be 96.5%. So, the more you put down, the lower the LTV is and the more conservative the loan is, less risky for the bank, less likely for the borrower to default, etc.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1289278, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/9/2012 4:27:02 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,890.46 6.51 0.05%
S&P 500 1,351.95 1.99 0.15%
NASD 2,927.23 11.37 0.39%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/9/2012 4:00 PM
PBCT $12.52 Down -0.02 -0.16%
People's United Fi… CAPS Rating: ***
NYB $12.62 Down -0.02 -0.16%
New York Community… CAPS Rating: ****
HCBK $6.96 Down -0.05 -0.71%
Hudson City Bancor… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement