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: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (5320)	4/15/2009 9:57:14 AM
From: ggersh	Respond to of 6370

OK, no problem, Not at all angry at GS in particular. The whole system is broken. Whether Gs or any of their kind change the rules for their own benefit doesnt bother me.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (5320)	4/15/2009 11:42:54 AM
From: RockyBalboa	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6370

Several years ago I worked for a bank; and it was more the norm that the last month was used to manage earnings; in a bad year, where a company profit was out of the question it was ordered to go over illiquid assets have them "revalued" and a substantial charge booked. As to code of "honor" - that was in the early 1990s; shenanigans at banks clearly did not decrease since then as we already know through mortgage lenders. It is pretty irrelevant to assume how March is; with a charge to assets applied last year the coming month or quarter will be automatically better on re-revaluation of said assets. As 2008 was such a bad year, banks are clearly tempted to put a lot of charges into the old year to start over "clean", with some advantage. In this context I view all special charges to income with a sceptic eye. For example, Citigroup increased its 2008 loss by an additional $10B after they reported. Citigroup will report friday and the current estimate to beat is on average (36c). As far as I remember, GS changed its charter to banking voluntarily and with no order from the treasury. This allowed GS to receive TARP funds - which they did not want. money.cnn.com dyn.politico.com