4 ms·

Is this what happens when someone reads a sell side report for the first time? The author is having a fit merely over choice of words in the GS report. The GS a

Is this what happens when someone reads a sell side report for the first time? The author is having a fit merely over choice of words in the GS report. The GS analysts aren't passing a moral judgement as to whether rising wages are a good thing or a bad thing. They are merely pointing out that current stock market valuations are baking in a corporate profit margin that may not hold in the face of rising wages. That's it.

cmonfeat 9y ago
This was my take away too. Objectively, a decreasing gap between wages and productivity probably is a threat to corporate profits. Reasonable people can disagree about the importance of that threat vs the well being of American workers, but the writer seemed to miss that that was not the point of the Goldman report.
- washadjeffmad 9y ago
  The question is of the GS report's intent. Was it merely so they could make plans to adapt to this new inevitability or a subtle call to address the issue by prevention, perhaps by shortchanging US workers in other ways? It's not wrong that this is raising eyebrows when the interpretation has yet to be proved. I'd say the point of the reporter's report was what the GS report pointedly did not report.
  - traek 9y ago
    > or a subtle call to address the issue by prevention, perhaps by shortchanging US workers in other ways This is ridiculous. It's an equity research report, the intent is clearly to report on the equities market. Who would this even be a subtle call to? There is no cabal of capitalist overlords who are out to shortchange workers. This is like saying a research report about a threat to e.g. Coke's EMEA sales because of political instability might be a "subtle call" for Western governments to recolonize the African continent.
mcphage 9y ago
> The GS analysts aren't passing a moral judgement as to whether rising wages are a good thing or a bad thing. Yes, they absolutely are. By calling rising wages a "threat", and a "sobering thought", they are passing clear moral judgement on it. Those are not value-neutral terms. If you can't see that, spend some time on improving your reading comprehension skills and come back to it.
- throwaway_srb 9y ago
  They are calling them a "threat" to equity valuations. The job of a sell-side analyst is assess upside and downside risks to equity market returns, and in this case, the analyst is contending that a potential decline corporate profit margin driven by an increase in wages is a "threat" to _equity valuations_, and not so to society at large (one can make arguments about the interaction between society and equity markets, but that is not the point they are making here). I would recommend that you spend some time learning a little more about the sell-side world before throwing barbs at internet strangers. I'm not currently associated with that world in any way, shape or form, but I know enough to question the "Finance is evil/Goldman is the devil" meme.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    > They are calling them a "threat" to equity valuations. What they're saying is that, as wages rise, corporate profit margins will decrease. That's a non-pejorative, value neutral way to describe the phenomenon. However, when they chose to discuss it, they littered the discussion with pejorative, non-value-neutral language. Those word choices were their intentional choice, to frame rising wages as bad, and corporate profits as good. > I'm not currently associated with that world in any way, shape or form Nor did I say you were. What I said was that your reading comprehension skills were poor. Reading comprehension doesn't just mean being able to parse the syntax and know what the words mean. You need to be able to read a text, and see how the words chosen indicate what the writer is trying to imply in their writing.
    - throwaway_srb 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

cmonfeat 9y ago

This was my take away too. Objectively, a decreasing gap between wages and productivity probably is a threat to corporate profits. Reasonable people can disagree about the importance of that threat vs the well being of American workers, but the writer seemed to miss that that was not the point of the Goldman report.

washadjeffmad 9y ago
The question is of the GS report's intent. Was it merely so they could make plans to adapt to this new inevitability or a subtle call to address the issue by prevention, perhaps by shortchanging US workers in other ways? It's not wrong that this is raising eyebrows when the interpretation has yet to be proved. I'd say the point of the reporter's report was what the GS report pointedly did not report.
- traek 9y ago
  > or a subtle call to address the issue by prevention, perhaps by shortchanging US workers in other ways This is ridiculous. It's an equity research report, the intent is clearly to report on the equities market. Who would this even be a subtle call to? There is no cabal of capitalist overlords who are out to shortchange workers. This is like saying a research report about a threat to e.g. Coke's EMEA sales because of political instability might be a "subtle call" for Western governments to recolonize the African continent.

mcphage 9y ago

> The GS analysts aren't passing a moral judgement as to whether rising wages are a good thing or a bad thing. Yes, they absolutely are. By calling rising wages a "threat", and a "sobering thought", they are passing clear moral judgement on it. Those are not value-neutral terms. If you can't see that, spend some time on improving your reading comprehension skills and come back to it.

throwaway_srb 9y ago
They are calling them a "threat" to equity valuations. The job of a sell-side analyst is assess upside and downside risks to equity market returns, and in this case, the analyst is contending that a potential decline corporate profit margin driven by an increase in wages is a "threat" to _equity valuations_, and not so to society at large (one can make arguments about the interaction between society and equity markets, but that is not the point they are making here). I would recommend that you spend some time learning a little more about the sell-side world before throwing barbs at internet strangers. I'm not currently associated with that world in any way, shape or form, but I know enough to question the "Finance is evil/Goldman is the devil" meme.
- mcphage 9y ago
  > They are calling them a "threat" to equity valuations. What they're saying is that, as wages rise, corporate profit margins will decrease. That's a non-pejorative, value neutral way to describe the phenomenon. However, when they chose to discuss it, they littered the discussion with pejorative, non-value-neutral language. Those word choices were their intentional choice, to frame rising wages as bad, and corporate profits as good. > I'm not currently associated with that world in any way, shape or form Nor did I say you were. What I said was that your reading comprehension skills were poor. Reading comprehension doesn't just mean being able to parse the syntax and know what the words mean. You need to be able to read a text, and see how the words chosen indicate what the writer is trying to imply in their writing.
  - throwaway_srb 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]