Alex Sebastian

Goldman Starts Getting Smaller

For the record, the expense was a negative number because Goldman had put away money for bonuses in preceding quarters which will no longer be paid out. The regular salary payments to these employees are less than the bonuses which are no longer being paid out (and were accrued in earlier quarters), hence the negative figure. Go do some homework of your own sir, before you make an ass of yourself again.

On Dec 16 11:48 AM bodysurf wrote:

> We can put aside the idea that "compensation and benefits fell to
> a negative $490 million". Unless Goldman managed to force people
> to work, not only for free, but to pay GS for the privilege of showing
> up there every day, it's not possible for an expense to be a negative
> number. Perhaps they meant to say the expense GROWTH was negative,
> but I suppose that's what passes for research at Moody's these days.
> Quelle surprise.
>
> And there is absolutely zero chance that Goldman made a profit this
> year. We can fully expect that future quarters will wipe away whatever
> phantom profits GS claimed to have earned in 2008. One of the great
> short sell candidates of 2009, considering it's one of the few with
> some meat still on the bone.