5 ms·

First, this is counting Android phones many of which are being used as updated feature phones rather than even a browsing device. Second, this is counting what

First, this is counting Android phones many of which are being used as updated feature phones rather than even a browsing device. Second, this is counting what are being sold the last quarter and ignoring install base and the increasingly longer upgrade cycle of PCs. For a better picture of install base and actual usage, see http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201111-201211 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-2011... The entire mobile devices are at ~15%. Third, this is Goldman Sachs, they might be shorting Microsoft stock now and will buy and upgrade it later just like they bought millions of shares of Nokia when they downgraded it and then the stock more than doubled recently, and GS made tens of millions at the least. Read the very interesting article below showing GS not following their own advice and doing a reverse dump and pump. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-morgan-stanley-are-backing-the-truck-up-for-nokia-shares http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-mo... Then we have the Register writing flamebait articles with linkbait headlines, completing the circle of worthless blogspam flamebait junk.

lutze 14y ago
Yeah, there's always an angle with these guys. Trust what they say publicly as far as you can throw them... And only trust what they say privately if you have a gun to their head.
- legutierr 14y ago
  Is this really what the Goldman brand is worth these days? Not that I disagree with you, but you have to wonder: given that they rely so heavily on their name, this level of distrust must be affecting them. Nobody wants to do business with the mob if you can avoid it.
  - lmm 14y ago
    Who do they rely on their name with? For investors, the image of a company of scheming masterminds who outthink everyone else in the market and make a profit off everything they do is probably actively helpful.
    - lutze 14y ago
      Yes, there are a certain class of people who actually see this shady bullshit in a positive light. Right up until they get stung too, then they have the nerve to be outraged.
    - legutierr 14y ago
      The biggest sucker is the guy who thinks he's in on the con.
  - roc 14y ago
    Generally, the people who deal with Goldman don't care if Goldman rips off the rubes. As long as they believe they're not being played for a sucker, they see Goldman's otherwise-questionable activities as just part of the game. The fact that Goldman has such a reputation for playing the people who aren't paying them, plays directly into the very notion that they do have unique insight and talent on offer to those who do pay them.
    - lutze 14y ago
      Haha, it's cute people STILL think that just because they're paying them, they aren't getting shafted too. Before the mortgage crisis, they were advising clients to buy up subprime debts while in secret shorting them hard, because they knew they were toxic. They bet against their own damned clients... at least actual mobsters have SOME semblance of honour! If a Goldman banker is patting you on the back it just means he's trying to steal your shirt.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Haven't you kept up with the sub prime crisis? GS rated junk mortgage bonds with the highest rating AAA, and then bet heavily that the same bonds would sink. When they sank, they made windfall profits. This came out in investigations and they were given a slap on the wrist later by the government. http://www.examiner.com/article/goldman-sachs-sold-sub-prime-junk-as-no-risk-aaa-then-gambled-for-prices-to-tank http://www.examiner.com/article/goldman-sachs-sold-sub-prime... "As a result, Goldman made an approximate $4bn profit from betting on the sub-prime collapse, more than off-setting its own mortgage losses and ensuring that 2007 was a bumper year for the bank while all around are counting their losses." They basically threw their clients like AIG(which was a massive failure requiring a huge bailout) under the bus for their own profits.
    - legutierr 14y ago
      I think you read me wrong. I'm wondering why if they bet against their clients anyone would do business with them at all anymore.
      - mayneack 14y ago
        Lack of incentives for long term success? Too big to fail?
    - mdda 14y ago
      A few things : (i) Goldman did not rate any bonds, the rating agencies did. (ii) For every buyer of a security there is a seller. Goldman's trading desk (likely) had a conflict of interest with their bankers. However, just selling something that goes down doesn't make someone evil (it's logically similar to buying a stock that later goes up). (iii) AIG failed due to its own inadequacies : They believed that they were the smartest people in the room, when (in retrospect) they were making a huge blunder.
  - Alaskan005 14y ago
    Oh now, it's like with Bernie Maddof. Many knew or suspected he was crook but thought he was cheating from others so they closed one eye and both ears or whatever, until they got screwed.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Yeah, Goldman Sachs is notorious for doing a ton of unethical stuff. I have no idea why anyone would trust their public statements.
mtgx 14y ago
For many people in poor countries, the smartphone is their computer. If nothing else, these people use smartphones to log in to Facebook and use it. That's a computer.
- rscale 14y ago
  Not just poor countries. It's increasingly common for lower-income individuals in the US use a phone as their only computer. Phones aren't phones anymore. They're pocketable computers with a phone app.
- mandeepj 14y ago
  Poor people will not care about facebook status updates. I have in no way have disrespect for poor people, just saw something wrong with your statement. Low income individuals also will not care about smartphones. It is not expensive to get a smart phone, I believe most of them come free now as part of 2 year contract. The thing that is expensive is monthly phone + data plan bill.
  - grecy 14y ago
    I traveled across Central and South America for 2 years. Without exception, every internet cafe I went to (a lot) was overflowing with locals doing one of two things: 1. Chatting on MSN 2. Facebook
    - blablabla123 14y ago
      Not really different from Germany...
  - andrewaylett 14y ago
    How are you defining 'poor' in this context? Because I'd expect smartphone ownership to be more correlated with age than wealth, and at least in the UK it's quite easy to get a cheap Android phone for £99 on PAYG, or free on a £12.50/month contract. If you're willing to shop around, you can probably get a cheap phone on a £7.50/month contract (including data).
gawker 14y ago
It's possible that their analysts division is separate from the investments division. Anyone from investment banking care to comment?
- ahc 14y ago
  Yes, there is always a chinese wall which separates the public and private sides of an investment bank.
  - aleyan 14y ago
    The wall you are talking about is between investment banking (private side) and the rest of the bank (public). The two sides don't see each other on the internal IMs systems, if they try emailing each other, their emails get auto routed to compliance, etc. This ensures that private insider information from M&A advising to the companies doesn't leak and get traded on. In this case Goldman analysts and traders are both sitting on the public side of the wall. Neither analysts or traders know anything private about the companies that can't be found out or calculated without some sleuthing. Additionally under current regulations in the US, the analysts are required to release their research reports to their clients simultaneously( no client advantaged over another ).
- johnrgrace 14y ago
  I worked at an Investment Bank 15 years ago. They might be separate, but they have lunch together, go to the same holiday parties, stand in the same elevators and all get a bonus based in part on overall bank profits... It's frowned upon to take a physical baseball bat and use it to on analysts because that would leave a mark.

lutze 14y ago

Yeah, there's always an angle with these guys. Trust what they say publicly as far as you can throw them... And only trust what they say privately if you have a gun to their head.

legutierr 14y ago
Is this really what the Goldman brand is worth these days? Not that I disagree with you, but you have to wonder: given that they rely so heavily on their name, this level of distrust must be affecting them. Nobody wants to do business with the mob if you can avoid it.
- lmm 14y ago
  Who do they rely on their name with? For investors, the image of a company of scheming masterminds who outthink everyone else in the market and make a profit off everything they do is probably actively helpful.
  - lutze 14y ago
    Yes, there are a certain class of people who actually see this shady bullshit in a positive light. Right up until they get stung too, then they have the nerve to be outraged.
  - legutierr 14y ago
    The biggest sucker is the guy who thinks he's in on the con.
- roc 14y ago
  Generally, the people who deal with Goldman don't care if Goldman rips off the rubes. As long as they believe they're not being played for a sucker, they see Goldman's otherwise-questionable activities as just part of the game. The fact that Goldman has such a reputation for playing the people who aren't paying them, plays directly into the very notion that they do have unique insight and talent on offer to those who do pay them.
  - lutze 14y ago
    Haha, it's cute people STILL think that just because they're paying them, they aren't getting shafted too. Before the mortgage crisis, they were advising clients to buy up subprime debts while in secret shorting them hard, because they knew they were toxic. They bet against their own damned clients... at least actual mobsters have SOME semblance of honour! If a Goldman banker is patting you on the back it just means he's trying to steal your shirt.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  Haven't you kept up with the sub prime crisis? GS rated junk mortgage bonds with the highest rating AAA, and then bet heavily that the same bonds would sink. When they sank, they made windfall profits. This came out in investigations and they were given a slap on the wrist later by the government. http://www.examiner.com/article/goldman-sachs-sold-sub-prime-junk-as-no-risk-aaa-then-gambled-for-prices-to-tank http://www.examiner.com/article/goldman-sachs-sold-sub-prime... "As a result, Goldman made an approximate $4bn profit from betting on the sub-prime collapse, more than off-setting its own mortgage losses and ensuring that 2007 was a bumper year for the bank while all around are counting their losses." They basically threw their clients like AIG(which was a massive failure requiring a huge bailout) under the bus for their own profits.
  - legutierr 14y ago
    I think you read me wrong. I'm wondering why if they bet against their clients anyone would do business with them at all anymore.
    - mayneack 14y ago
      Lack of incentives for long term success? Too big to fail?
  - mdda 14y ago
    A few things : (i) Goldman did not rate any bonds, the rating agencies did. (ii) For every buyer of a security there is a seller. Goldman's trading desk (likely) had a conflict of interest with their bankers. However, just selling something that goes down doesn't make someone evil (it's logically similar to buying a stock that later goes up). (iii) AIG failed due to its own inadequacies : They believed that they were the smartest people in the room, when (in retrospect) they were making a huge blunder.
- Alaskan005 14y ago
  Oh now, it's like with Bernie Maddof. Many knew or suspected he was crook but thought he was cheating from others so they closed one eye and both ears or whatever, until they got screwed.
w1ntermute 14y ago
Yeah, Goldman Sachs is notorious for doing a ton of unethical stuff. I have no idea why anyone would trust their public statements.

mtgx 14y ago

For many people in poor countries, the smartphone is their computer. If nothing else, these people use smartphones to log in to Facebook and use it. That's a computer.

rscale 14y ago
Not just poor countries. It's increasingly common for lower-income individuals in the US use a phone as their only computer. Phones aren't phones anymore. They're pocketable computers with a phone app.
mandeepj 14y ago
Poor people will not care about facebook status updates. I have in no way have disrespect for poor people, just saw something wrong with your statement. Low income individuals also will not care about smartphones. It is not expensive to get a smart phone, I believe most of them come free now as part of 2 year contract. The thing that is expensive is monthly phone + data plan bill.
- grecy 14y ago
  I traveled across Central and South America for 2 years. Without exception, every internet cafe I went to (a lot) was overflowing with locals doing one of two things: 1. Chatting on MSN 2. Facebook
  - blablabla123 14y ago
    Not really different from Germany...
- andrewaylett 14y ago
  How are you defining 'poor' in this context? Because I'd expect smartphone ownership to be more correlated with age than wealth, and at least in the UK it's quite easy to get a cheap Android phone for £99 on PAYG, or free on a £12.50/month contract. If you're willing to shop around, you can probably get a cheap phone on a £7.50/month contract (including data).

gawker 14y ago

It's possible that their analysts division is separate from the investments division. Anyone from investment banking care to comment?

ahc 14y ago
Yes, there is always a chinese wall which separates the public and private sides of an investment bank.
- aleyan 14y ago
  The wall you are talking about is between investment banking (private side) and the rest of the bank (public). The two sides don't see each other on the internal IMs systems, if they try emailing each other, their emails get auto routed to compliance, etc. This ensures that private insider information from M&A advising to the companies doesn't leak and get traded on. In this case Goldman analysts and traders are both sitting on the public side of the wall. Neither analysts or traders know anything private about the companies that can't be found out or calculated without some sleuthing. Additionally under current regulations in the US, the analysts are required to release their research reports to their clients simultaneously( no client advantaged over another ).
johnrgrace 14y ago
I worked at an Investment Bank 15 years ago. They might be separate, but they have lunch together, go to the same holiday parties, stand in the same elevators and all get a bonus based in part on overall bank profits... It's frowned upon to take a physical baseball bat and use it to on analysts because that would leave a mark.