????別為摩根大通（JPMorgan）喊冤：上周五宣布的最新和解方案事實(shí)上可能使這家公司的利潤(rùn)提升11億美元。

????當(dāng)然，確切的數(shù)字尚不確定。而且，利潤(rùn)提升效應(yīng)可能將延續(xù)至未來(lái)一年左右。摩根大通為自己在樓市泡沫期間的違規(guī)行為支付罰金，結(jié)果反而受益，這是銀行會(huì)計(jì)的又一大奇跡。

????怎么會(huì)這樣呢？讓我們來(lái)算算帳。

????上周五宣布的51億美元和解交易分為兩部分。第一部分是因?yàn)閮赡甓嗲氨O(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)代表房利美（Fannie Mae）和房地美（Freddie Mac）對(duì)摩根大通和其他銀行提起的一宗案件達(dá)成和解。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)在這起案件中指控，摩根大通和其他銀行承銷的按揭債券中包含的一些貸款實(shí)際風(fēng)險(xiǎn)超出了這些銀行披露的水平。房地美、房利美與其他投資者購(gòu)買了這些債券，蒙受了損失。摩根大通及其于2008年收購(gòu)的貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）和華盛頓互惠銀行（Washington Mutual）被指控應(yīng)該為這些債券造成的一些損失承擔(dān)部分責(zé)任，摩根大通同意為此支付40億美元達(dá)成和解。

????看起來(lái)還不錯(cuò)。因?yàn)檫@個(gè)數(shù)額遠(yuǎn)低于房利美和房地美在這些債券上的損失。但房利美和房地美也負(fù)有一些責(zé)任。而且，這個(gè)數(shù)額也接近其他就類似指控達(dá)成的和解金額。

????這次達(dá)成的交易還包括另外一筆和解金，事關(guān)摩根大通和貝爾斯登在美國(guó)樓市泡沫破裂前轉(zhuǎn)給房利美和房地美擔(dān)保的按揭貸款。那些貸款中有很多也不符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，最終構(gòu)成違約。在這些損失中究竟有多少應(yīng)該由房利美和房地美承擔(dān)，又有多少應(yīng)該由摩根大通和其他銀行承擔(dān)？圍繞這兩個(gè)問(wèn)題，房利美和房地美一直與摩根大通和其他銀行爭(zhēng)執(zhí)不下。摩根大通解決2000年至2008年之間所有這些有爭(zhēng)議的回購(gòu)成本為：11億美元

????這看起來(lái)是一筆非常劃算的交易。遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于其他銀行支付的數(shù)額。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，今年早些時(shí)候，美國(guó)銀行（Bank of America）就上述同時(shí)期房利美所擔(dān)保貸款引發(fā)的爭(zhēng)議達(dá)成和解，支付了104億美元，包括支付近70億美元的貸款。此前，美國(guó)銀行已經(jīng)與房利美達(dá)成了14億美元的和解。10月初，富國(guó)銀行（Wells Fargo）支付了9億美元和解金，但這還只是房地美擔(dān)保的按揭貸款交易。它還需與規(guī)模更大的房利美達(dá)成和解。

????然而，能證明這筆交易非常劃算的可能還莫過(guò)于摩根大通自己。9月末，摩根大通還在估計(jì)，與房利美和房地美就其回購(gòu)責(zé)任達(dá)成和解需要花費(fèi)22億美元。這就是那11億美元收益的出處。

????一旦銀行估算出損失，就必須為此進(jìn)行撥備。這些資金會(huì)進(jìn)入準(zhǔn)備金池，同時(shí)記入支出項(xiàng)目。但如果銀行最終不需要?jiǎng)佑盟械膿p失準(zhǔn)備金，就可以回?fù)軠?zhǔn)備金。剩余的準(zhǔn)備金將全部變成銀行的稅前利潤(rùn)。

????目前，尚不清楚摩根大通是否會(huì)立即將整整11億美元記入利潤(rùn)。摩根大通拒絕置評(píng)。

????這項(xiàng)準(zhǔn)備金只覆蓋房利美和房地美的回購(gòu)指控。另外，40億美元和解金來(lái)自于摩根大通的法律準(zhǔn)備金，該行在上季度將法律準(zhǔn)備金調(diào)高到了230億美元。但房利美和房地美的準(zhǔn)備金也覆蓋金融危機(jī)后的回購(gòu)指控。不過(guò)，事實(shí)表明，這個(gè)時(shí)期的貸款問(wèn)題較金融危機(jī)前少了很多。去年，摩根大通的回購(gòu)指控中僅8%是2008年之后的按揭貸款。

????Don't cry for JPMorgan: The latest settlement announced on Friday could actually boost its profits by $1.1 billion.

????The exact amount isn't certain. And the bottom line boost is likely to stretch over the next year or so. But the fact that JPMorgan (JPM) is able to see any gain from the penalties it's shelling out for its misdeeds during the housing bubble is another milestone in the miracle of bank accounting.

????How so? Sharpen your pencil.

????There were two parts to Friday's $5.1 billion deal. The first part was to settle a lawsuit regulators brought on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more than two years ago, against JPMorgan and other banks. The suits alleged that JPMorgan and others underwrote mortgage bonds that contained loans that were riskier than the banks let on. Fannie and Freddie bought the bonds, along with other investors, and lost money. JPMorgan is paying $4 billion to settle the claim that it, along with Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought in 2008, are in part responsible for some of the losses on the bonds.

????That seems about right. The amount was far less than what Fannie and Freddie lost on the soured deals. But Fannie and Freddie share some responsibility as well. What's more, the amount was in line with what other banks have been paying to settle similar lawsuits.

????But wrapped into the deal was also a payment that had to do with the mortgage loans that JPMorgan and Bear Stearns passed to Fannie and Freddie to insure in the run-up to the housing bust. Many of those loans weren't up to snuff either and ended up in default. Fannie and Freddie have been battling with JPMorgan and other banks over how much of those losses the government guarantors should swallow, and how much should be sent back to the banks. The cost of resolving all those disputed repurchase claims from 2000 to 2008 for JPMorgan: $1.1 billion.

????That appears to be an exceptionally good deal. It's much less than other banks have paid. For instance, earlier this year, Bank of America (BAC) paid $10.4 billion, including a payment for nearly $7 billion in loans, to settle its disputes over loans that Fannie guaranteed in the same time period. That was on top of a $1.4 billion settlement it had already reached with Fannie. In early October, Wells Fargo paid $900 million, but that deal only covered mortgages insured by Freddie. It still needs to settle with the larger Fannie.

????But perhaps the best evidence that the deal was particularly sweet for the bank comes from JPMorgan itself. As recently as the end of September, JPMorgan estimated that a settlement with Fannie and Freddie over its repurchase liability could cost the bank $2.2 billion. And that's where the $1.1 billion gain could come from.

????When banks make an estimate of losses, they have to set aside money for that. It goes into something called a reserve and banks have to take a charge when they set it up. But if a bank doesn't end up needing all the money it has put aside for a loss, it's supposed to dissolve the reserve. Any cash remaining goes straight to the bank's pre-tax profits.

????It's not clear JPMorgan will immediately add the full $1.1 billion to its bottom line. JPMorgan declined to comment.

????The reserve only covers Fannie and Freddie repurchase claims. The $4 billion portion of the settlement comes from JPMorgan's legal reserve, which last quarter the bank upped to $23 billion. But the Fannie and Freddie reserve also covers repurchase claims that came after the financial crisis. Those loans, though, have proven less problematic than loans made before the crisis. In the past year, just 8% of all of JPMorgan's repurchase claims were on mortgages that were made after 2008.