Spot Bank of America's "One-Time, Non-Recurring" Litigation Charges

Tyler Durden's picture

The reason why "one-time, non-recurring" charges are traditionally excluded from a company's adjusted bottom line calculation is because they are, at least in theory, one-time and non-recurring. So, after looking at the chart below which breaks out Bank of America's quarterly litigation charges alongside its net income, can someone please explain to us why anyone is still showing the bank's pro forma EPS excluding litigation charges?

Just to put it in context, in the past 2 years, Bank of America has incurred $20 billion in litigation charges. Its net income during this period: $11.9 billion.

And adding insult to injury, just as we were going to press, this hit:


Which means before the end of 2014, litigation charges for Bank of America since 2012 will rise to over $30 billion! And we thought JPMorgan was bad...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sudden Debt's picture

Its net income during this period: $11.9 billion...


so people depossited 11.9 billion on their saving accounts and the banks just sees it as a income...

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Exclusion of Legal Charge for calculation of EPS is like whore is exclude open lesion of festering venereal disease in prostitution of service. Caveat emptar!

alien-IQ's picture

How the fuck do you get enough evidence to demand a 13 billion dollar fine, but not enough to put anybody in fucking jail?

It's not a fine, it's a fucking bribe!

Sudden Debt's picture

or the staff who have company cars got A SHITLOAD of parking and speeding tickets...


Clint Liquor's picture

It's not a bribe. It is 'protection money'.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Is masterful puppet show theater for consumption of masses.

LawsofPhysics's picture

"It's not a fine, it's the cost of doing business" - FIXED.


And that, in a nutshell is why bankers like Jamie Dimon are "richer than you"

being rich today has nothing to do with creating products of real value...

Bernoulli's picture

For sure it's not a "punishment".

These fines are an excellent way of extracting cash from the banks and wiring it to the government right in front of our eyes.

On what balance sheet will those fines be booked? And what will they be spent for?

And another big question is: What do the banks get in return for all that money?

But the most absurd thing is that at the same time the public thinks:

"Great, the government is "acting" and they are being "tough"! I believe now that our banking system is more safe than before!"


KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Prison is for the little people...

Bearhug Bernanke's picture

Jail time would be better.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

In USSA, jail time is better, because satellite TV, three solid meat each day, and library for obtainment of university degree.

1stepcloser's picture

if you have one time but different litigation charges every quarter, its all good LOL

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

".....can someone please explain to us why anyone is still showing the bank's pro forma EPS excluding litigation charges?"

Ummmm.....for the same reason a dog licks his neither region. Cus it feels good and the bonus is great too.

Reaper's picture

The lawyer and attorney general leeches feed so voraciously, that nothing is left for the BOA's victims.

waterhorse's picture

That's not a bug.  It's an intentional feature of the whole control fraud design.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Do they still have 70+ trillion of CDS derivatives in a "FDIC-insured" account?

roll the motherfucking guillotines...

ekm1's picture

Agree. This is all idiotic nonsense.


All primary dealers are insolvent and exist because the government back up their swap gambling.

El Vaquero's picture

I thought it was only 35 trillion, most of them were interest rate derivatives and they were merely held in an FDIC insured deposit taking subsidiary.  But none of those picked nits negate your conclusion about rolling motherfucking guillotines. 


(Scroll down to page 26:

mayhem_korner's picture



If we call the settlement payouts "dividends", does that help the narrative?

Postal's picture

Of course they're "one-time" and "non-recurring." Just like quarterly estimates.

Ban KKiller's picture

Proud to say I am a small part of their litigation costs. And a hearty "Fuck you very much" to skunk of America for being so greedy thereby short cutting their chain of ownership regarding notes and mortgages. 

What idiot owns their stock? Buffett does not count as he black mailed them!

waterhorse's picture

Me too.  With the same control-fraudster.  I don't know what idiot would own their stock - Dick Bove?  What I want to know is who banks with these predators and why?

slightlyskeptical's picture

The real reason is that the litigation is all about past business actions and not current business actions. As such, to get a sense of their current operations you need to back it out.

Cthonic's picture

Once a party is known to be susceptible to blackmail, blackmailers tend to keep coming back for seconds.

waterhorse's picture

Meh.  If they didn't perform their due diligence, that's THEIR problem and they should take the heat for it.

syntaxterror's picture

Does anyone have a plot of hooker and blow consumption right after these bribes are paid?

Imminent Collapse's picture

I assume that any fine BOA pays will be magically, fully deductible?

waterhorse's picture

but of course!  And the "fines" will somehow make it back to the banksters - full circle.

Recognizer's picture

"Going to press" what?  Press the Enter key?  



hooligan2009's picture

BofA fine goes to Treasury, Treasury deficit reduced but not by enough. BofA profit is reduced, doesn't pay tax for the next ten years. 

Treasury borrows money to fund much bigger deficit (of $500bn to $1 tn) every year, Treasury goes to Fed for cash to fund deficits via QE. Fed lends $50 billion to BofA at 0% to buy treasury securities at 2%, profit to BofA, $1 bn a year against tax credit for losses of $33 billion from litigation. 

Rinse, repeat, continue for 33 years.