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 : Goldman Sachs & Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff who wrote (2)	6/17/1998 12:46:00 AM
From: Uri Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8

Is Goldman number 1 or is Merril number 1? Merrill had $4.6 billion in revenue in it's first quarter and Goldman had $3 billion in revenue in it's second quarter. Doesn't that mean that Merril is number 1? Also, Salomon Smith Barney had a little over $3 billion in revenue. Doesn't that rank Goldman number 3?

To: Geoff who wrote (2)	6/22/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8

Geoff, probably a bad idea. Not necessarily the buying. But the holding and holding and holding. Goldman is certainly at or near the top of the investment banking class. Has been for years. Actually, probably forever, since its founding. Like Morgan Stanley. However, it is inherantly a very cyclical group. The group takes what is happening in the markets, broadly speaking, and magnifies it several fold. Up. And down. Profit margins are generally not quite so high as you might imagine. Cause they gotta pay their people. Huge. When it's on the ups, the profits are so huge that that doesn't matter. Of course the people costs, overwhelmingly in bonuses for the big hitters, are also quite varible. But not as variable as profits. If any stocks are large cycle trading stocks, the "brokerage" stocks are. Even the class of the group. Doug