Fiber-optic entity Qwest Communications (NYSE: Q), whose colleagues include Verizon (NYSE: VZ), AT&T (NYSE: T), and Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S), reported Q4 numbers on Tuesday. Revenues declined by 3%, and adjusted income came in at 12 cents per share, which, according to this article, beat estimates by two pennies.

Well, I have to say, I've been wrong about Qwest. When I last wrote about the tech company, I had a very bearish view. I think Qwest's stock gained a buck since that piece, which is like a huge percentage gain when you consider that the shares closed yesterday at $3.45. The market seems to be liking Qwest's prospects. Going back to that article I cited concerning the earnings beat, I see some positive opinion on Qwest's quarter. I'll agree, it wasn't bad, especially when the economy is considered. The company did well in terms of cash flow: cash from operations for the year was roughly flat while adjusted free cash flow came in at $1.4 billion.

What separates the winner -- Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) from the losers -- such as Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) -- in this year's Wall Street money-making game is the way information flows among decision-makers. The winning firm encourages vigorous information flow and intense debate about decisions across different levels of the organization. The losing firms shoved decisions from the top down the throats of traders who executed them.

This came to mind in reading a story about Morgan Stanley's recently departed co-president in today's Wall Street Journal [subscription required]. Cruz reportedly "set a tone in which she didn't welcome dissent once higher-ups made decisions about trades. Communication broke down among some of the key decision makers involved in vetting the mortgage trades." The lack of communication contributed to Morgan Stanley's decision to make a largely unhedged bet on Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDOs) -- one that cost it $9.4 billion in write-downs.

By contrast, as I discussed on CNBC on Tuesday, Goldman encouraged debate between its CFO and COO and a then-lowly proprietary trading desk. This debate led to the successful decision to bet heavily on a decline in the ABX which helped Goldman generate $4 billion in profits -- more than offsetting the $1.5 billion to $2 billion worth of losses from its CDO holdings.