Surprised Tim hasn't started a thread on this:
QuoteNo morality, no integrity, and no future: Why I quit Goldman Sachs after almost twelve years
By Greg Smith
PUBLISHED: 23:30 GMT, 14 March 2012 | UPDATED: 08:38 GMT, 15 March 2012
Former Goldman Sachs executive director GREG SMITH explains why he has fallen out of love with a bank whose culture has all but disappeared, and no which longer puts the interests of its clients first.
Disillusioned: Former Goldman Sachs executive Greg smith has left the bank after nearly twelve years
Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm – first as a summer intern during university, then in New York for ten years, and now in London – I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world's largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way.
The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a sceptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs's success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients.
The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients' trust for 143 years. It wasn't just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organisation.
I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case.
For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our gruelling interview process. I was selected as one of ten people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world.
In 2006 I managed the summer intern programme in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realised I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm's culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm's moral fibre represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Losing control: Goldman Sachs's culture has veered off course under the control of CEO Lloyd Blanfien (left) and President Gary Cohn (right)
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia.
My clients have a total asset base of more than $1trillion. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an axe murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence. What are three quick ways to become a leader in the firm?
a) Persuade your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that Goldman Sachs is trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit.
b) Get your clients – some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren't – to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. (Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them.)
c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Making money: The firm's focus has shifted from how to help clients, to how to exploit them
I attended sales meetings where not one single minute was spent asking questions about how we could help clients. It was purely about how we could make the most possible money out of them.
If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client's success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping off their clients. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets', sometimes over internal e-mail. I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding.
I don't know of any illegal behaviour, but will people pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client's goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how few people in senior management get 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.
The most common question I got from junior analysts about derivatives [an investment 'derived' from share performance] was: 'How much money did we make off the client?' It bothers me every time I hear such a comment, because it was a clear reflection of what they were observing from their leaders about the way they should behave.
More...'It makes me ill how people talk about ripping clients off': Goldman Sachs executive quits over firm's 'toxic' culture in extraordinary resignation letter
RIGHTMINDS: The banks fiddle... and you lose
ALEX BRUMMER: Goldman Sachs's touch of darkness
Now project ten years into the future: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about 'muppets', 'ripping eyeballs out' and 'getting paid' doesn't exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn't know where the loo was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life – getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics – have all come through hard work, with no short-cuts.
Goldman Sachs today has become too much about short-cuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn't feel right to me any more.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist.
Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm – or the trust of its clients – for very much longer.
© (2012) The New York Times
(Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2115156/Greg-Smith-resignation-letter-New-York-Times-Why-I-quit-Goldman-Sachs.html#ixzz1pDiMeY50
(for some reason I couldn't find the original NYT link - but here it the entire story reprinted)
Yeah, it's been all over the news today.
Obviously has an ax to grind (read: bonus wasn't big enough, obvious Defeatocrat, insert your FOXNews excuse here).
I have my serious doubts that GS of 12 years ago was such a place of sunshine and light.
Also, another article on this lead me to a Rolling stone Article, in which the first two lines read "The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." :lol:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
QuoteMy proudest moments in life – getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics – have all come through hard work, with no short-cuts
:rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 15, 2012, 03:52:17 PM
QuoteMy proudest moments in life – getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics – have all come through hard work, with no short-cuts
:rolleyes:
Yeah, that line was cringe-worthy.
But the overall assessment of GS (or indeed IB in general)? Any thoughts? You're a little closer to the action than I am.
Quote from: Barrister on March 15, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
But the overall assessment of GS (or indeed IB in general)? Any thoughts? You're a little closer to the action than I am.
Don't need a ringside seat to know what GS has been up to for a very long time.
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
No it's not. You know damn well there are.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
:rolleyes:
Lookout Marty, you're polackness is showing.
Pogrom Polly wants an answer.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:29:51 PM
Pogrom Polly wants an answer.
Is he going to "round them up" or something?
What kind of clients is this guy talking about? Do investment banks in general or Goldman in particular have signficant wealth management businesses I'm not aware of?
What was annoying is when this got e-mailed out to everyone in the office and then people responded.
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:29:51 PM
Pogrom Polly wants an answer.
Is he going to "round them up" or something?
He can pretend in the tub. He can round up all the goldman sachs ducks for 'relocation'.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
:lol:
You just justified all the shit you get for being an Eastern European rube with delusions of adequacy. Tamas is higher on the ladder of civilization than you are. That made my day.
MART: Plays jew attack!
IT BACKFIRES!
Neil : Calls the kettle black
ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!
MART'S URBAN EUROPEAN SOPHISTICATE DISGUISE IS DESTROYED!
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:45:16 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 15, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 04:29:51 PM
Pogrom Polly wants an answer.
Is he going to "round them up" or something?
He can pretend in the tub. He can round up all the goldman sachs ducks for 'relocation'.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
Nope, both of them were Jews.
Quote from: DGuller on March 15, 2012, 05:52:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
Nope, both of them were Jews.
I suppose if either of them were gay they could have had non-Jews in them at one time or another.
This was the lead on NBC news last night. Crazy that basically an average joe at a big business can write a nonspecific diatribe on his way out and get that kind of publicity.
Well, first of all, it's Goldman Sachs, not just some random business, and second of all, alot of people probably don't realize that being a "Vice President" at a company like that isn't that big of a deal.
Hell, I was a Vice President at *redacted*. There were bunches of us. WE ARE LEGION. WARGARBL.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2012, 07:06:32 PM
people probably don't realize that being a "Vice President" at a company like that isn't that big of a deal.
True; we're up to our asses in VPs downtown, only because they need the DOFA of a VP to do what they do.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2012, 07:06:32 PM
Well, first of all, it's Goldman Sachs, not just some random business, and second of all, alot of people probably don't realize that being a "Vice President" at a company like that isn't that big of a deal.
I realize that, but surely (I hope) the reporters on this story know his place in the org chart. If they want to run this as a major news story to appeal to the hate Goldman Sachs fetish, at least they could put some perspective in it.
There has to be some people in Goldman Sachs (besides this guy) that can do the calculus that they can possibly get a lot of allies by turning on the firm from the inside. Goldman Sachs has at least let Wal Mart off the whipping post the past couple of years, after Wal Mart was kind enough to get Microsoft off the hook.
Exxon unfortunately gets put in the stocks every time gas prices go up. They are getting ready for another round right now.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 15, 2012, 07:16:30 PM
I realize that, but surely (I hope) the reporters on this story know his place in the org chart.
It actually would not surprise me if Brazen is the only non-retarded journalist in the entire world. :bowler:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 15, 2012, 07:16:30 PM
If they want to run this as a major news story to appeal to the hate Goldman Sachs fetish, at least they could put some perspective in it.
Then it wouldn't appeal to the Goldman bashers. Duh.
I bet most of their clients by now know that Goldman doesn't care about them. The problem is that all investment banks are like that, and you still need them to get things done. I have doubts if the "put clients interest first" utopia really works, or has worked in any point in time anywhere in the world. Because there is probably a reason why every investment bank only pays lip service to this model.
PS If I have a child, I will do everything I can to get him/her into Goldman.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2012, 09:20:28 PM
I bet most of their clients by now know that Goldman doesn't care about them.
Oh, I'm sure that's true. The article plays well to people that know nothing about the corporate world, to be sure.
Quote from: Caliga on March 15, 2012, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2012, 09:20:28 PM
I bet most of their clients by now know that Goldman doesn't care about them.
Oh, I'm sure that's true. The article plays well to people that know nothing about the corporate world, to be sure.
I thought corporations cared for people. :(
They do. Just, you know, their shareholders. And sometimes not even them. :P
I wonder how many investment banks this guy worked for. From the article it sounds like not very many.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
I wonder how many investment banks this guy worked for. From the article it sounds like not very many.
Sounds like just one.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 15, 2012, 09:31:11 PM
They do. Just, you know, their shareholders.
Yes. And "care" is probably the wrong word, too.
Quote from: garbon on March 15, 2012, 04:44:32 PM
What was annoying is when this got e-mailed out to everyone in the office and then people responded.
Well, some of them were probably just asking where "Asia" was and if "Israel was a real country." :P
This guy, I like what he says about Goldman Sachs (they're evil) but I've never seen such a braggart in my life. When he was writing his polemic did he accidentally copy and paste the file where he was brainstorming ideas for his CV? And a Bronze Medal is second place loser, old man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
MART: Plays jew attack!
IT BACKFIRES!
Neil : Calls the kettle black
ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!
MART'S URBAN EUROPEAN SOPHISTICATE DISGUISE IS DESTROYED!
potm
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 12:37:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 15, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
MART: Plays jew attack!
IT BACKFIRES!
Neil : Calls the kettle black
ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!
MART'S URBAN EUROPEAN SOPHISTICATE DISGUISE IS DESTROYED!
potm
We totally should have POTMs again.
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2012, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
I wonder how many investment banks this guy worked for. From the article it sounds like not very many.
Sounds like just one.
That's what I thought, but I wanted to hedge my bets. If he only worked at one, what can he compare it to?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
That's what I thought, but I wanted to hedge my bets.
Perfect for the derivatives market! HEYYYY-YOHHHH
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2012, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
I wonder how many investment banks this guy worked for. From the article it sounds like not very many.
Sounds like just one.
That's what I thought, but I wanted to hedge my bets. If he only worked at one, what can he compare it to?
The ideal world that doesn't exist.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 15, 2012, 09:31:11 PM
They do. Just, you know, their shareholders. And sometimes not even them. :P
It's important for our shareholders to increase their value by eliminating my salary. :cry:
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 12:36:16 AM
This guy, I like what he says about Goldman Sachs (they're evil) but I've never seen such a braggart in my life. When he was writing his polemic did he accidentally copy and paste the file where he was brainstorming ideas for his CV? And a Bronze Medal is second place loser, old man.
Yeah, well now he can look forward to bragging about being a chronically-unemployed loser whom nobody would ever trust in a similar position. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2012, 05:08:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 16, 2012, 12:36:16 AM
This guy, I like what he says about Goldman Sachs (they're evil) but I've never seen such a braggart in my life. When he was writing his polemic did he accidentally copy and paste the file where he was brainstorming ideas for his CV? And a Bronze Medal is second place loser, old man.
Yeah, well now he can look forward to bragging about being a chronically-unemployed loser whom nobody would ever trust in a similar position. :)
The guy worked there for 12 years. Depending on how he has been investing his money, that should be enough to retire/change into a completely different line of work, especially if he is prepared to move from New York to, say, rural Ohio. He will probably write a book, too.
Yeah, good point re: book.
I figured he was opening his own investment shop and that this is a ton of free advertising.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 07:23:12 AM
I figured he was opening his own investment shop and that this is a ton of free advertising.
:yes: That was my thought too. What sales pitch could be better than "I left Goldman Sachs because I hate stealing your money. Please gimme your money. :)"
Poland. Poland never changes.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 07:23:12 AM
I figured he was opening his own investment shop and that this is a ton of free advertising.
Assuming he wants to serve the same type of clients he has experience serving, the advertising he is getting is probably not the good variety.
I figure his career stalled and he wanted to do something new, or he thought he was going to get canned. This was his version of a workplace shooting.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2012, 09:27:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 07:23:12 AM
I figured he was opening his own investment shop and that this is a ton of free advertising.
Assuming he wants to serve the same type of clients he has experience serving, the advertising he is getting is probably not the good variety.
I figure his career stalled and he wanted to do something new, or he thought he was going to get canned. This was his version of a workplace shooting.
I dunno - going out in a blaze of "they don't care about your clients, they only care about themselves!" sounds like pretty good advertising to me.
You can step down a couple levels from GS-type clients and still be dealing with some exceedingly wealthy companies and invididuals.
Quote from: Martinus on March 15, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
Are there non-Jews in Goldman Sachs? Honest question.
Thanks for the confirmation.
There was a recent Delaware case that makes this guy's complaining timely, though. Goldman got chided in the very current decision of Chancellor Strine in Re El Paso Corp. Shareholder Litigation, released on February 29, 2012.
In that case, Chancellor Strine "reluctantly" denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to block a takeover offer by a rival corporation in a case where Goldman, who owned part of that rival, served as an advisor to the board of the target, and where potential conflicts of interest by the CEO were not disclosed. Chancellor Strine noted that the denial of the preliminary injunction is not the end of the matter; since if the majority of shareholders vote to approve the transaction in spite of the now-revealed conflicts, the disgruntled minority could still proceed with damages claims.
Thus, Goldman is being dinged by the court for the same sort of behaviour as this guy is complaining about (self-dealing at the expense of clients).
Lawsuits over disclosure in M&A transactions in the US are about the biggest scam going. If the majority of shareholders approve the deal after the conflict has been publicized, I have a hard time caring.
That isn't to say that Goldman Sachs isn't pushing conflict of interest rules to (or past) the limit.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Lawsuits over disclosure in M&A transactions in the US are about the biggest scam going.
Yeah, the few I have been involved in were basically expensive exercises in the CEO of the Plaintiff corporation trying to find a scapegoat for what was really just a bad business decision. Thankfully I was on the winning disclosing side each time. :goodboy:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Lawsuits over disclosure in M&A transactions in the US are about the biggest scam going. If the majority of shareholders approve the deal after the conflict has been publicized, I have a hard time caring.
That isn't to say that Goldman Sachs isn't pushing conflict of interest rules to (or past) the limit.
The issue isn't whether the board would be liable under the wacky Delaware M&A laws, the issue is the fact that on a fair reading of the case Goldman's actions somewhat support the whinging in this guy's letter.
Even I know that it is hardly cool for the bank to advise the target on a takeover bid when it owns part of the company doing the acquiring, and where some on the board of the target know this and don't take adequate steps. That would be true even under the more easygoing Canuck version of the business judgment rule, or in those US states that have "other constituents" legislation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 16, 2012, 09:52:16 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Lawsuits over disclosure in M&A transactions in the US are about the biggest scam going.
Yeah, the few I have been involved in were basically expensive exercises in the CEO of the Plaintiff corporation trying to find a scapegoat for what was really just a bad business decision. Thankfully I was on the winning disclosing side each time. :goodboy:
The Canadian business judgment rule is far more forgiving than the law in Delaware re M & A transactions though.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Lawsuits over disclosure in M&A transactions in the US are about the biggest scam going. If the majority of shareholders approve the deal after the conflict has been publicized, I have a hard time caring.
It wasn't a disclosure issue with respect to Goldman (the Goldman conflict was in fact disclosed and known to the Board) - it was an issue about Board disloyalty.
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2012, 09:54:48 AM
The Canadian business judgment rule is far more forgiving than the law in Delaware re M & A transactions though.
That's hard to believe. The Delaware BJ rule is very forgiving. The problem is that it doesn't always apply (e.g. if there is a finding of lack of board independence or disloyalty).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 10:04:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2012, 09:54:48 AM
The Canadian business judgment rule is far more forgiving than the law in Delaware re M & A transactions though.
That's hard to believe. The Delaware BJ rule is very forgiving. The problem is that it doesn't always apply (e.g. if there is a finding of lack of board independence or disloyalty).
That's what I said. The Canadian BJ rule applies in all cases and is far more forgiving than the Delaware law on M & A transactions - where the Board generally risks having to face the harsh gauntlet of the
Unocal or
Revlon tests.
Though I'm certain you know that stuff better than I, who only read of it third-hand as it were.
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2012, 10:13:21 AM
That's what I said. The Canadian BJ rule applies in all cases and is far more forgiving than the Delaware law on M & A transactions - where the Board generally risks having to face the harsh gauntlet of the Unocal or Revlon tests.
Got it. That makes life for the BOD much easier.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2012, 10:13:21 AM
That's what I said. The Canadian BJ rule applies in all cases and is far more forgiving than the Delaware law on M & A transactions - where the Board generally risks having to face the harsh gauntlet of the Unocal or Revlon tests.
Got it. That makes life for the BOD much easier.
Yup.
Even better from the Board's position, the Canadian courts have in effect adopted the position of the "other constituents" states (without Canadian provinces having to pass legislation) - that is, they no longer have to point only to increasing share value as justification for their decision, but also to such concerns as the local environment, workers, etc.
This makes it difficult for a court to challege board decisions except in clear cases.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
I dunno - going out in a blaze of "they don't care about your clients, they only care about themselves!" sounds like pretty good advertising to me.
You can step down a couple levels from GS-type clients and still be dealing with some exceedingly wealthy companies and invididuals.
He was on an equity derivatives desk. So the clients presumably are big institutional investors like asset management funds, hedge funds, and SWFs. Ask yourself want kind of broker a client like that looks for when they want to trade equity derivatives. Presumably one that is well capitalized and has the capability to execute large transactions quickly and efficiently. Even if you go to mid=cap or smaller hedge funds, the need for those qualities doesn't change. It's not a boutique business, nor is it probably one where the client is looking for or expecting a fiduciary relationship. It is a business dominated by other big players, and no big player is going to hire this guy.
I know squat about the culture in Goldman Sachs but I do think that the culture in professional firms has become more and mroe commercial in the last decade. For example, being a good lawyer is incidental to the job - its all about the PEP now.
Retarded douche whines publically about his employer. :zzz
Quote from: Gups on March 16, 2012, 12:33:16 PMFor example, being a good lawyer is incidental to the job - its all about the PEP now.
What's PEP?
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2012, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 16, 2012, 12:33:16 PMFor example, being a good lawyer is incidental to the job - its all about the PEP now.
What's PEP?
profit per partner.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 16, 2012, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2012, 09:33:16 AM
I dunno - going out in a blaze of "they don't care about your clients, they only care about themselves!" sounds like pretty good advertising to me.
You can step down a couple levels from GS-type clients and still be dealing with some exceedingly wealthy companies and invididuals.
He was on an equity derivatives desk. So the clients presumably are big institutional investors like asset management funds, hedge funds, and SWFs. Ask yourself want kind of broker a client like that looks for when they want to trade equity derivatives. Presumably one that is well capitalized and has the capability to execute large transactions quickly and efficiently. Even if you go to mid=cap or smaller hedge funds, the need for those qualities doesn't change. It's not a boutique business, nor is it probably one where the client is looking for or expecting a fiduciary relationship. It is a business dominated by other big players, and no big player is going to hire this guy.
So nice, guy? Will you miss seeing him around the office? You guys compete in the Jewish Olympics together?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 03:07:48 PM
So nice, guy? Will you miss seeing him around the office? You guys compete in the Jewish Olympics together?
Okay, Marti.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2012, 03:14:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 03:07:48 PM
So nice, guy? Will you miss seeing him around the office? You guys compete in the Jewish Olympics together?
Okay, Marti.
I don't actually understand what JR does. And he hasn't revealed where he works except that it's somewhere in Manhattan. So I just assume he works at every major firm in New York that comes up for discussion. He's a lawyer and he does something with economics. I dunno, it's like magic to me.
Plus, all those Jews are in cahoots anyway.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2012, 03:24:29 PM
Plus, all those Jews are in cahoots anyway.
Yeah, I liked to kid him, Malthus and Siegy about that. Personally I think they are doing a fairly good job. I'm glad they brought back Futurama. The new Game of the Thrones season look exciting and I wanna see the new Hobbit Movie, so whole "controlling the media" thing is working out for me.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2012, 03:24:29 PM
Plus, all those Jews are in cahoots anyway.
Yeah, I liked to kid him, Malthus and Siegy about that. Personally I think they are doing a fairly good job. I'm glad they brought back Futurama. The new Game of the Thrones season look exciting and I wanna see the new Hobbit Movie, so whole "controlling the media" thing is working out for me.
Sorry, I'm in charge of reality shows and popular music these days. :Embarrass:
You must have pissed someone off at the last meeting in the Cemetery of Prague.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 16, 2012, 03:14:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2012, 03:07:48 PM
So nice, guy? Will you miss seeing him around the office? You guys compete in the Jewish Olympics together?
Okay, Marti.
I don't actually understand what JR does. And he hasn't revealed where he works except that it's somewhere in Manhattan. So I just assume he works at every major firm in New York that comes up for discussion. He's a lawyer and he does something with economics. I dunno, it's like magic to me.
"Who is Hyman Minsky?"
WTF is with this guy? Wasn't satisfied with his multi-million dollar bonuses or something? Lol...