<p>
</p>
<p>Wow… that’s a little unexpected. Signs of good things to come earlier than expected for the economy too then?</p>
<p>I’m assuming this means more hiring?</p>
<p>Goldman also is operating with 5,000 fewer employees than it did in 2007, so while it is certainly a positive, it isn’t quite “back” yet.</p>
<p>(Disclosure: I only read the quote, not the whole article)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Banks aren’t exactly healthy yet. A bunch of those profit numbers come courtesy of accounting gimicks and rule changes (mark to make believe instead of mark to market, for example). Which begs the question, how f’ed up are the ones are still suffering from losses given favorable trading/FASB conditions</p></li>
<li><p>Goldman isn’t paying anywhere close to what it did in 07 in compensation. Maybe 2/3 at most</p></li>
<li><p>It does not mean more hiring. lol</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Paul, as a newly minted college grad I am beyond impressed that you’ve become an intimate of Goldman’s compensation committee so quickly and have the low down on hiring across WS! Well done!!</p>
<p>hmom5, you are kind of a *****.</p>
<p>I just hate statements with no basis such as the one above.</p>
<p>um, you reply to anything you disagree with in a snide, sarcastic, b!tchy way.</p>
<p>Paul is a bit off on his analysis though. First of all, Goldman Sachs had very few write downs from the subprime crisis, so their health has little to do with mark to market. Secondly, their average compensation/employee in 2006 was $622,000; so 2/3 is way off . Finally, with regards to hiring–investment banks are still hiring from my school and barring another economic downturn, the numbers are going to get better. </p>
<p>As a side note, JP Morgan also said they are ready to return Tarp funds after posting better than expected Q1 results.</p>
<p>With regards to paul’s mark to market vs mark to ‘make believe’ comment, I can assure you that the current valuations are more accurate than marking assets to a non-existent market</p>
<p>I feel really bad for you people.
No amount of money is worth your soul. Hmom has lost hers. It’s not too late for the kids on this board to find meaningful lives.</p>
<p>Yup Skateboard, if you don’t like bitc** and sarcasm, this isn’t the business for you. The the law school board.</p>
<p>Wut, career advice from ‘an extremely attractive’ McGill student? Priceless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said the valuation was perfect, I just said it made more sense than marking it to the price of a nonexistent market. </p>
<p>You have a real attitude problem though…it’s rather pathetic</p>
<p>so why did you say my first statement was unjustified then?</p>
<p>Not so fast–one robin does not make a Spring. They are still down about 240,000 people with more cuts still being made.</p>
<p>[UBS</a> Encouraging Incoming Class To Show Up Late For Work - Dealbreaker - A Wall Street Tabloid - Business News Headlines and Financial Gossip](<a href=“http://dealbreaker.com/2009/05/ubs-encouraging-incoming-class.php]UBS”>http://dealbreaker.com/2009/05/ubs-encouraging-incoming-class.php)</p>
<p>I know this just wrecks your day Barrons, you liked to think it was the end of an era. The fact is that WS was downsizing before the recession. It had too much fat and knew it. We won’t go back to 2006/2007 numbers in terms of employment for the forseeable future, but most banks are getting back on their feet without the problem areas and compensation is following.</p>
<p>barrons, I’m curious – how much does CC pay you to discourage people from going into banking and explore other career options? Must be a cool job!</p>
<p>Citi just asked uncle Sam for permission to pay bonuses…</p>
<p>It makes me feel good to know these non-value producing industries are getting back on their feet. They sure do pay well though!</p>