2026-10-13

Goldman Sachs Posts a $17.01 EPS Blowout While JPMorgan's Trading Revenue Falls for the First Time in Two Years - Big Bank Earnings Day Splits Wall Street

Written & reviewed by the TradeSmrt editorial team · 2026-10-13

In this article

What Happened
Analysis: Trading Desks Decided Who Won and Who Lost
What to Take Away From This
FAQ
Sources

What Happened

The "big bank earnings day" previewed in an earlier piece on this site actually arrived before Tuesday's opening bell (October 13), and the results split four of America's largest banks into unusually sharp winners and losers. Goldman Sachs stood out the most. Diluted EPS came in at $17.01, blowing past a consensus estimate clustered around $13 (different trackers put it anywhere from $12.86 to $13.65). Net revenues hit $18.68 billion, up 23% year-over-year, net earnings reached $5.29 billion, and annualized return on equity landed at 18.7%. CEO David Solomon called it the firm's second-highest revenue quarter on record, with year-to-date revenues also at an all-time high.

JPMorgan Chase told a very different story. Reported diluted EPS was $5.57, below the roughly $5.90 analysts expected. Even stripping out a $658 million securities loss, adjusted EPS of $5.75 still missed the $5.92 consensus. Net income was $15.305 billion, and revenue - reported anywhere from $50.2 billion to $50.9 billion depending on the source, up 8% year-over-year - also fell short of Wall Street's number. JPMorgan shares slid roughly 3% in premarket trading on the news. Citigroup and Wells Fargo landed somewhere in between. Citi posted EPS of $2.85, clearing a consensus near $2.67-$2.68, on revenue of $23.8 billion, up 8%. Wells Fargo edged past expectations with EPS of $1.87 versus a consensus of $1.85-$1.86, but revenue of $21.87 billion missed the roughly $22.3 billion analysts wanted, and the stock fell about 1.5% premarket despite the EPS beat.

Analysis: Trading Desks Decided Who Won and Who Lost

If there's one variable that explains the gap between these four results, it's the trading floor - specifically, the opposite fortunes of equities trading and fixed-income trading. Goldman's equities trading revenue came in around $6.4 billion, up a striking 72% from a year earlier, and was the single biggest driver of the beat. That surge reflects a jump in prime brokerage activity (financing and lending to hedge funds), portfolio financing, and derivatives trading tied to the market volatility that's persisted since midsummer. Investment banking advisory fees hit a record roughly $1.65 billion, up 18%, and asset and wealth management brought in about $5.05 billion. The one soft spot: Goldman's own fixed-income (FICC) trading revenue fell about 1% to roughly $3.5 billion, missing analyst expectations for growth near 7%.

JPMorgan's story is almost a mirror image. Its fixed-income trading revenue declined for the first time in more than two years. Investment banking revenue rose 14% year-over-year but fell 8% from the prior quarter, a choppy result on its own, and the $658 million securities loss added further drag to the headline numbers. Both banks walked into the quarter under the same general assumption - that elevated market volatility would be good for trading desks - but the actual outcome diverged sharply by asset class (equities versus fixed income) and by bank. That split is arguably the real lesson of this earnings day. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon paired the results with a note of caution, warning that underlying economic forces are continuing to shift beneath the surface - language that echoes his second-quarter remarks this year, when he compared geopolitical tension, inflation, and elevated asset prices to tectonic plates that could collide and cause real disruption if conditions turn. The pattern of posting strong headline profits while sounding a cautious note is one Dimon has repeated across multiple quarters now.

Citigroup's quarter was itself a mixed bag underneath a clean EPS beat: net interest income rose 14% while non-interest revenue fell 4%, net income landed at $5.2 billion, and return on tangible common equity came in at 11.5%, with management guiding to "a bit above" 11% for the full year. Wells Fargo's net income rose 6% to $5.95 billion with ROTCE at a strong 16.3%, but net interest income of $12.5 billion missed the roughly $12.7 billion analysts had modeled, which is why the stock fell even after beating on EPS. Put together, the numbers suggest the thesis from the prior week's coverage - that bank stocks had just posted their worst month versus the S&P 500 since 1990 heading into this earnings day - turned out to be only half wrong. For a trading-heavy bank like Goldman Sachs, the earnings decisively proved the selloff wrong. For JPMorgan and Wells Fargo, where revenue misses and margin pressure showed up instead, the selloff looks more justified in hindsight.

What to Take Away From This

Don't treat "big bank earnings" as one undifferentiated basket. On the same morning, in the same sector, Goldman Sachs delivered a clear beat and JPMorgan delivered a clear miss. Business mix - how much of a bank's revenue comes from trading, wealth management, or consumer banking - matters far more than a single sector-wide bet would suggest.
Separate the EPS headline from the revenue headline. Both Wells Fargo and Citigroup beat on EPS while missing or barely meeting revenue and net interest income targets. Beating estimates through cost discipline or buybacks is a different story from the underlying business actually growing faster.
"Volatility helps trading desks" is true at the asset-class level, not the bank level. Goldman's win came from equities trading; JPMorgan's miss came partly from fixed income. A macro narrative about volatility doesn't tell you which specific bank, or which specific desk within a bank, actually benefits.
Watch what executives say, independent of the numbers. Dimon repeating a warning about shifting macro risk even after a strong quarter is itself a signal worth tracking - strong headline results and a cautious outlook aren't mutually exclusive, and dismissing one because of the other misses information.

FAQ

Why did Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan post such different results in the same quarter?

The gap comes down to which part of the trading business each bank leans on. Goldman's equities trading revenue jumped 72% on surging prime brokerage and derivatives activity, which carried its entire quarter. JPMorgan's fixed-income trading revenue fell for the first time in over two years, and a one-time $658 million securities loss added further drag. Both banks faced the same volatile market backdrop, but their different strengths by asset class produced opposite outcomes.

Does JPMorgan's miss signal trouble for the whole banking sector?

Not necessarily. Goldman Sachs posted a clear beat the same morning, and Citigroup topped EPS estimates as well. JPMorgan's miss looks more tied to a one-time securities loss and a temporary soft patch in fixed-income trading than to a sector-wide structural problem, which is why analysts are treating it as bank-specific rather than an industry-wide warning sign.

Is this the first time Jamie Dimon has issued this kind of warning?

No. Dimon made a similar point during JPMorgan's second-quarter 2026 earnings release, describing geopolitical tension, inflation, and elevated asset prices as forces shifting "like tectonic plates" that could cause real disruption if they collide. Pairing strong headline profits with a cautious macro outlook has been a recurring pattern in his commentary across several recent quarters.

Sources

This article is an original synthesis and analysis based on the reporting below; it does not reproduce any source's text. Please check the source articles directly for the most current figures.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All investments carry risk, including the potential loss of principal. Past performance and historical patterns do not guarantee future results. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.