Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Trading Cabana -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (5319)	4/15/2009 9:50:47 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6370

I don't think you're fully understanding the facts here. -- As part of being converted to a bank holding company, Goldman was required to change its fiscal year to be in line with the calendar year. The "orphan" month was an unavoidable consequence of this. -- The change to the fiscal calendar was announced nearly four months ago, on December 16th, in a press release and an SEC filing. Goldman may have some pretty smart people there but I think it's a stretch to suggest that they knew at that point how much better March was going to be. Let me rephrase my last question. Which is TRULY BETTER news for Goldman shareholders: March being better than December, or March being worse than December? The only argument I can see making here is that it would have been more in line with some sort of code of honor for Goldman to have refrained from taking any writedowns in the "orphan" month, thus maximizing their impact on the reported quarterly results. Beyond that I think you're just inventing things to be angry about.