Goldman Sachs Exec Quits, Trashes Company

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
...
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Full letter in the link.

The MSM is making a big deal of this, but I wonder if it really matters. We already knew that Goldman was morally bankrupt.

However their long-term survival is all but assured. They are too big to fail, they have the biggest, baddest "get out of jail free" card in America.

I'm sure Blankfein wakes up in the morning, looks at himself in the mirror, and asks "what's the worst that can happen - I get another huge infusion of free money from the government?"
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm sure Blankfein wakes up in the morning, looks at himself in the mirror, and asks "what's the worst that can happen - I get another huge infusion of free money from the government?"[/QUOTE]


This.

On so many levels. This.
 
I'm sorry, but the point of any business is to make money, that comes first and foremost. No for profit institution is going to put their customers first. They may say they do, they may make you think they are, but they don't and aren't. Goldman Sachs doesn't exist to help it's clients, it exists to provide services to it's clients which it charges for and thus makes money off of. If anyone think otherwise they're naive, and this guy seems about that way.
 
I'm surprised that people are actually shocked by this behavior and anyone that thinks such actions are limited to Goldman needs to open their eyes.

The financial services industry, especially when it comes to investment banking, is just overflowing with corruption.

Corruption and double dealing in banking is like peanut butter and jelly......just made for eachother.

Goldman has certainly been feeling the heat lately from several areas. Where they were once untouchable in terms of trader talent or deal flow, they are now seeing tremendous competiton from the likes of Morgan Stanley and they have lost a lot of top tier talent. These past 8-12 months, MS has really been beating Goldman at their own game.
 
again, what would be the alternative? If we just let the FDIC take care of it all, then all that money is lost with no equity.

Hopefully some good can come from this editorial/resignation. If the (R)'s wish to continue to protect the wealthy at all costs, they have to start realizing that there will be some pushback. If the wealthy spring up and start letting everyone know that we've lost our way, all the better to fuel that pushback. It's just too darn bad that this didn't happen during the summer of OWS.
 
[quote name='Spokker']We're getting a good lesson in moral hazard.[/QUOTE]
The irony...it's palpable...

[quote name='nasum']again, what would be the alternative? If we just let the FDIC take care of it all, then all that money is lost with no equity.

Hopefully some good can come from this editorial/resignation. If the (R)'s wish to continue to protect the wealthy at all costs, they have to start realizing that there will be some pushback. If the wealthy spring up and start letting everyone know that we've lost our way, all the better to fuel that pushback. It's just too darn bad that this didn't happen during the summer of OWS.[/QUOTE]
While I'm always glad to see these things, the bold part alone makes me question the author's motivation for sending the op-ed. I'm guessing that he's already made his cheddar and has fuck you money.
 
The fact that he wrote that tells me that he isn't worried about money. If he were then he'd be worried this little piece might black list him. It just amazes me at how naive some people are, even intelligent people. I've just never been able to buy into the message of any place where I've worked. They can make their mission statement whatever they want, ti's all BS to me. I know why they exist, and I know why I'm working there, cut the crap.
 
[quote name='dohdough']While I'm always glad to see these things, the bold part alone makes me question the author's motivation for sending the op-ed. I'm guessing that he's already made his cheddar and has fuck you money.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, this has nothing to do with a liberal philosophy or a comprehensive morality.

The author doesn't care whether Goldman invests in companies that use sweatshops, raid pensions, etc - to him that's irrelevant.
The author conflates corporate morality with long-term corporate viability. It's obvious that he believes a company is morally sound when it has ensured it's long-term survival.

It's a screwy kind of morality, but it does give the two-page FU letter an interesting twist.
 
The lamestream media is acting like this is something new because they don't cover worthwhile news. Rolling Stone has been publishing great articles on Goldmann and all things financial corruption for years thanks to the likes of Matt Taibbi. Pathetic that a music magazine has to push real investigative journalism.

Still glad they printed it. Better late than never. Reminds me that al Jazeera had a 4 part series, "Meltdown." EXCELLENT! They had a guy like this one but who was more real from a top firm in London who said he was basically a hippie who knew NOTHING about the industry and became one of the, if not the, top traders.
Meltdown: the men who crashed the world


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ozw-OKm5yE
 
For Goldman Sachs, the real damage of the past two days didn’t come from disgruntled trader Greg Smith’s resignation op-ed. It came from Goldman’s defenders.
Many of the replies said, either explicitly or in effect, of course Goldman rips off its clients if doing so will help it make money. Only the naive would think otherwise
...the response of many of Goldman’s defenders confirmed the very trend Smith was lamenting: a change from long-term greed, which aligned Goldman’s interests with those of its clients and arguably with those of the broader market, to short-term greed, which is not quite so benign for your clients or for the broader market.
If the best that can be said of Goldman today is that it’s well known that the firm will do absolutely anything to make a quick buck, then the problem with Smith’s op-ed might be that it’s late, but not that it’s wrong.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...g-term-greed/2012/03/15/gIQAG6k9ES_story.html
 
Many of the replies said, either explicitly or in effect, of course Goldman rips off its clients if doing so will help it make money. Only the naive would think otherwise.
Click to expand...

I swear I didn't write that. :lol:
 
I think that article makes a good point. The real story is in the comments

For instance this article: "Goldman Sachs bridge-burner Greg Smith’s tactic ruin his future job prospects"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mon...cts-article-1.1040772?localLinksEnabled=false

The comments point how the MSM jumps right to the coporatist defense tactic of "don't be a whistleblower" without examining why Greg decided to blow the whistle in the first place. A good example - USA Today poopoos Greg as if he's irrelevant, to wit

"Whether you think ex-Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith is some kind of working-class hero or just another disgruntled zero for the way he walked away from his job this week — resigning through a scathing op-ed piece about the bank’s supposed greed-is-good corporate culture — one thing is certain. Smith is about as toxic as a job candidate can get when he decides to go looking for work, career experts said."

Wow. Way to completely miss the point.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think that article makes a good point. The real story is in the comments

For instance this article: "Goldman Sachs bridge-burner Greg Smith’s tactic ruin his future job prospects"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mon...cts-article-1.1040772?localLinksEnabled=false

The comments point how the MSM jumps right to the coporatist defense tactic of "don't be a whistleblower" without examining why Greg decided to blow the whistle in the first place. A good example - USA Today poopoos Greg as if he's irrelevant, to wit

"Whether you think ex-Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith is some kind of working-class hero or just another disgruntled zero for the way he walked away from his job this week — resigning through a scathing op-ed piece about the bank’s supposed greed-is-good corporate culture — one thing is certain. Smith is about as toxic as a job candidate can get when he decides to go looking for work, career experts said."

Wow. Way to completely miss the point.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, its kill the messenger not the message. That would actually require them to do that investigating thing...
 
If the El Paso/Kinder Morgan deal doesn't have clients screaming away from Goldman, nothing will. They've built a business on utterly destroying their clients' interests, even (especially?) those that pay Goldman to protect their interests.

But we're not saying anything anyone doesn't already know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top