> Not without violating an Independent Contractor
> Agreement. Last I looked they were still in the
> training for the company you mentioned.
Thank you I was not thinking. I just do not like it when companies stop scheduling and will not answer an email.
> I called sinclair some time ago. The client
> dropped secret shopping to to current economy...;P
Considering some of the preliminary quarterly reports coming out of the financial institutions, I expect to see shops resume in the not too distant future. With the new changes in how they must market the value of their portfolios, a great deal of cash that was 'expensed' over to reserves will be freed up. Already Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs are showing substantial 'profits' for 1st quarter and I suspect this is all or virtually all cash formerly 'expensed' now being returned to the 'revenue' side of the financial statements.
What bothers me about Goldman Sachs is they laid off a good, what, almost 20% of their work force? They are going to find the funds to repay the government, and then in turn lift the freeze on executive salaries. Who is the real winner here? Not the 20% of the employees they let go who are now on unemployment that doesn't pay nearly enough to live on, not in the NYC area, some of which I know.
Having been through much corporate crap myself; buy-outs, artificially inflated stock prices, false profits, lay-offs, restructuring, etc. I am skeptical if this news from Goldman is actually the truth.
What has bothered me most in the layoff with all of the brokerage houses is that they have made the 'correct' business decision of laying off brokers with the lowest production. Having been in the business I know that 'production' includes higher commissions for what the brokerage house is touting this month and sales of high commission products that are truly appropriate for only a very limited number of clients. I have watched "successful" brokers in the corner offices 'churn & burn' clients into such investments that I fail to believe any broker or manager could possibly find to be appropriate. It is the stuff that future lawsuits are made of. Meanwhile I have watched the guys in lowly side offices spending hours working on analyzing a client's current holdings and then carefully going over their recommendations with the client to net a $100 commission sale. Those clients are actually getting the benefit of the broker's experience and knowledge and leave with a portfolio stronger than when they came in. But those brokers are the ones whose production is not the highest, so they are gone.
The dismissal of lowest producers at Goldman, Merrill and other brokerage houses leaves little but sharks behind.
As for 'truth', what exactly is 'truth'? When the markets were going up the regulations that allowed valuation of a portfolio to be based on the last sales of the day was 'truth' and very convenient. When the markets were going down that 'truth' was very expensive and very inconvenient. When 'minimal reserves' of assets of a firm were supported by a portfolio, a sharp declined meant that the company must come up with cash from somewhere to meet their 'minimal reserve' requirements.
When cash must be 'expensed' over to meet reserves, it lowers the profits of the company. The new regulations allow a different valuation of the portfolio, so some of that cash can be recovered and goes back to the 'profit' side of the balance sheet. So yes, it would be possible for the company to have an operational loss yet have a profit for the quarter because of money reclaimed from its use as 'reserves'. At the same time, freeing up that money allows it to make more money, which is why Wall Street likes it.