Dean,

You are absolutely correct about if the highly-compensated analysts are surprised of increasing loan loss reserve in a declining asset quality environment, people who pay to hear them or rely on their assessment/opinion should really fire those guys.

It tells you analysts could look foolish and still keep their job but not a hotel maid.

Loan loss provision is so basic it's like debit and credit entries in accounting.

If we're going to call them stock analysts, why aren't used car sales persons called "automobile analysts"? It's always a good time to buy a car. See how that works?
If only we called them used stock sales persons, we could all stop pretending we don't know what they do for a living. But then we'd have to find other barrel bound whales to ballistically perforate.

I guess you could call them "The infinitely surprised"

Stock analysts are paid to downgrade at the bottom of a cycle and upgrade at the top, right? :)

The size of the provision might have surprised analysts but if any of them were surprised that adding to the LLR redueces income,then they should be fired.
The OCC (or the Fed/State examiners,for that matter)is,however notorious for making banks over-reserve. I spent 25 years in banking dealing directly with OCC examiners and no longer wonder where the bottom 25% graduates go job hunting.

In the Institutional Investor All-Star Analysts poll published each year, institutional investors are asked about what they value most in terms of analysts' contributions. Last year, earnings estimates and stock recommendations were 10th and 11th, respectively, out of 12.

Oh, yeah - the 12th? "Managing conflicts of interest." Now are you surprised that they were surprised?