Another day, another couple of European banks reveal themselves. But whereas Credit Suisse exposed further writedowns of SFr5.3bn, Barclays says it has nothing to hide. Why is it that some banks have taken massive losses while others have not been shamed by the credit crisis? The truth of the matter is that by and large, the answer has very little to do with the competency of banks' management.

The main factor that has determined whether a bank has taken writedowns is its business mix. Put simply, if a bank has a large capital markets division, it is likely to have dabbled in structured credit securities and lost money. There are no examples of European banks which were big in these products and which, through superior execution, turned a profit from them (hedging the losses of an entire business line does not count as good management). So those such as the National Bank of Greece, or the Nordic banks, with a focus on retail or commercial banking, look good.

Geography, too, can flatter. Spanish banks for example, including Banco Santander (the second biggest bank in Europe by market capitalisation) have so far escaped relatively unscathed. This is largely due to regulatory restrictions on off-balance sheet investments. But it also helped that Spanish banks were mesmerised by the profits to be made from their country's own property bubble. Meanwhile a conservative lending culture – such as that demonstrated by Italian banks – may be criticised during a boom, but it is rewarded in a crisis.

As one might expect, the exposure of European banks to poor quality credit is reflected in valuations. Banks that are deemed healthy, such as Standard Chartered and Intesa Sanpaolo, have forward price earnings ratios of above 10 times. But low single digit earnings multiples are not solely reserved for banks that have announced the biggest writedowns. Barclays, despite saying it is clean, is being priced like no one believes it.

又一天，又有两家欧洲银行披露业绩。但尽管瑞士信贷(Credit Suisse)公布进一步减记53亿瑞士法郎，巴克莱(Barclays)则表示自己无可隐瞒。为何一些银行损失惨重，其它银行却没有因信贷危机而蒙羞呢？事实的真相是，总体而言，答案与银行的管理能力几乎无关。

决定一家银行是否出现减记的主要因素是其业务结构。简言之，如果一家银行有庞大的资本市场部门，它就可能已涉足结构性信贷证券，并蒙受损失。目前没有范例证明，有哪家欧洲银行持有大量此类产品，并通过卓越的执行从中获取了利润（对冲整个业务的损失算不上是优秀的管理）。因此，专注于零售或商业银行业务的希腊国民银行(National Bank of Greece)或北欧的那些银行看起来状况不错。

地理因素也可以炫耀。例如，西班牙的银行，包括欧洲市值第二大银行桑坦德银行(Banco Santander)，迄今相对没有受到信贷危机的影响。这主要是因为表外投资受到监管限制。不过，西班牙各银行受到本国房地产泡沫利润的吸引，也起到一定作用。与此同时，保守的借贷文化——就像意大利各银行展现的那样——在经济繁荣期间可能受到批评，但在危机时刻却能带来回报。

正如人们可能预期的那样，欧洲银行对低质信贷的投资反映在估值水平上。渣打银行(Standard Chartered)和意大利联合圣保罗银行(Intesa Sanpaolo)等被视为健康的银行，预期市盈率都在10倍以上。不过，一位数的低市盈率并不是宣布最大规模减记的那些银行所独有的。尽管巴克莱表示自己未受影响，但其股价水平反映出，似乎没人相信这点。

Lex专栏是由FT评论家联合撰写的短评，对全球经济与商业进行精辟分析。   （实习编辑：顾萍）