<p>Doesn’t he know that there are no second chances in this life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with k&s–that brokers act this way is nothing new…I can remember thinking these same thoughts in the late 80s about brokerages. There are lots of opportunities for conflict of interest in these situations. Maybe this is new for GS, I can’t say.</p>
<p>Xiggi…i love it. Kill the messenger.</p>
<p>Who else is exposing this crap? </p>
<p>People love to divert issues somewhere else. Wall Street is supposed to be the poster child for capitalism. Wall street is about capital. </p>
<p>We are also finding out Wall Street is a very corrupt place. Capitalism… at the very top of the pyramid is corrupt. That really bothers people inside. The economic system people believe in is rotten in the core.</p>
<p>I…for one…hope we hear more about what is really happening in companies like GS and GS itself.</p>
<p>See: The Daily Mash - Why I am Leaving the Empire, by Darth Vader</p>
<p>(I have got to learn how to post links.)</p>
<p>Hilarious.</p>
<p>Who kows what lurks deeper behind this story. But FWIW, even though he is now a pariah in the field, kudos for his willingness to share his thoughts.</p>
<p>I thought it was interesting that he noted a change in culture over the last decade. That, to me, was his main point. And the poster who noted it has happened since GS went public is right on the money.</p>
<p>“Back in the day”: clients paid good money for good advice and were generally loyal to their circle of bankers. Today, it is all about price, how cheap can the deal get done, etc. etc. Clients are not big babies. They treat investment bankers and brokers like brown stuff and actively enjoy doing so – that’s the other side of the GS rant. Everyone loves to preen on and on in some sanctimonious fashion about how bankers are exploiting their clients and call them “muppets” and fools – but, listen up, Padwan, the clients are more than happy to exploit the bankers and love throwing them in the ring together and see which one ends up staggering to the ropes with the lowest fee. If that’s the way clients treat their “trusted” bankers, my view is that the bankers have every right to nail 'em right between the eyes whenever they have the opportunity. I remind you: clients are every bit as vicious and as self-aggrandizing as any Goldman banker, they’re just not as good at it or they would themselves be Goldman bankers.</p>
<p>i wonder what ever became of the silver medalist?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It happens in government too.</p>
<p>There’s a big fight between the OWS folks + MBTA riders in MA over the MBTA planning to raise fairs (in some cases 200%) and cut service. The MBTA has been a dumping ground for political friends for decades and the costs of salaries and pensions couldn’t be hidden once the economic downturn hit. And yes, three of the last four Speakers of the House are convicted felons.</p>
<p>Corruption exists in many places - but I think that it’s a lot more tempting when there’s a lot of money swimming around.</p>
<p>Raising fares 200% is ridiculous.</p>
<p>“Corruption exists in many places - but I think that it’s a lot more tempting when there’s a lot of money swimming around.”</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>I’m glad Greg Smith has spoken out but I can’t help but see similarities between he and Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes made a fortune many times over from a corrupt and explotive system…and of course had his reputation somewhat “redeemed” by promoting gentility and nobler causes, though I doubt think he ever gave the money back. LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh pullease. As if. With THIS MANY violated assumptions necessary for a free market?</p>
<p>Senior citizens can use The Ride which is door to door transport for $2 and my mother said that they’re thinking of raising the price to $6. From what I can tell, The Ride seems to be a kind of shared cab service and it’s clearly subsidized - I suspect that they are looking at cutting the subsidy.</p>
<p>MA provides a lot of subsidies that make independent living for seniors fairly doable. If she loses that subsidy, then she will have to pay more. I am pretty sure that she can afford it. If she can’t, then we could just give her some cash.</p>
<p>We used to care about our clients but now it’s all about the money.</p>
<p>Greg Smith is the new Jerry Maguire.</p>
<p>Once met a guy who won made the Sweet 16 in the Slavic Badmiton Finals. Needless to say, I treasure that autograph.</p>
<p>Wall St. took investors for a ride w/ the dot.com bubble/crash and then when that was over, found a new thing to shill, “securitized” mortgages - leading to another bubble/crash.</p>
<p>Now, while they aren’t quite yet done w/ derivatives and futures trading - they are looking at another area to exploit - healthcare.</p>
<p>What he wrote doesn’t surprise me, Goldman’s reputation in recent years is earned. With the CDO market Goldman on the one hand pushed via hedge funds these instruments at the same time their internal analysis showed that the real estate underlying these was suspect (and while creating these instruments, were taking out over 10 billion in Credit Default swaps against them with companies like AIG, in effect putting out gargbage and setting it up so a)they could see the CDO’s to someone else and b)collect when they tanked). Goldman had the B**ls to deride the tarp bailout, yet a lot of the money they were owed from companies like AIG came from that bailout, and without it they would have a crack in their belly.</p>
<p>What I will say is that the guy’s recollections of Goldman’s culture and such doesn’t mesh with what I know of it. Humbleness was not something I would call the culture there, and rather then collegial, from what I have heard of their tech areas and such, it was cutthroat, the culture, rather then collegial, pitted employees against one another to be ‘top dog’,even in the support areas. Put it this way, this didn’t all happen in the past 12 years or so,that image of ‘genteel’ investment banking leaves out the very real world Goldman was in. </p>
<p>That said, the most shocking thing was the attitude towards their well of clients, that is literally defecating where you eat. The tactics they are using are like boiler rooms like the brokerage firm in “Wall St”, where brokers aren’t their to help their clients, they are there to try and get everything out of them can, dump stocks the brokers don’t want on them and so forth, that part is shocking. Goldman right now has a major issue, if the high wealth clients believe this to be the truth, Goldman is in for a rough ride. </p>
<p>I think others are right when they blame this on Goldman going public from being a partnership. This means that like most firms, compensation is based to a large extent on stock, and that leads to the ‘boost earnings at any cost’ model that has wrecked a lot of companies, where what a bunch of still pimply 20 something ‘masters of the universe’ from ivy league schools are determining the fate of stock prices and the economy; ironically, Goldman, who has many such analysts, fell victim to something they helped perpetuate. The whole culture of trading and Wall Street has become in effect a gigantic form of electronic gambling, where trading is based on getting in and out of instruments in less then a millisecond and where gigantic portfolios of stocks, bonds, options, derivatives and so forth are traded at a pace even computers have trouble tracking, and it isn’t healthy for anyone, but that is the game. Perfectly good companies find themselves in the dumps because an analyst was anticipating 16c a share in the current quarter and they made ‘only’ 14c, and so forth. Wall Street reflects the broader economy as a whole, it was never known for long term thinking, but today it isn’t what did you do for me lately, it is 'what did you do for me in the last .25 second?"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A smoothly running “free market” entails transparency which comes w/ proper oversight and regulation.</p>
<p>That has been severely lacking due to (former legislators) like Phil Gramm who made it easier for Wall St. to do things “in the dark” and to manipulate various markets.</p>
<p>It’s no coincidence that Gramm had been richly rewarded for his endeavors, being a Vice Chairman of UBS.</p>
<p>You think it’s a mere coincidence that Gramm was responsible for something commonly referred to as the “Enron Loophole”?</p>
<p>His wife, Wendy, was the head of the CFTC when Enron successfully lobbied for it to be exempt from regulation in trading of energy derivatives.</p>
<p>And oh, it’s also no coindence that Wendy Gramm ended up serving on the Board of Enron after her time at the CFTC.</p>
<p>As they say, “behind every great family fortune is a crook.”</p>
<p>“Fiasco: The Inside Story of a Wall Street Trader” tells similar tales and was written in 1999. It didn’t get much press until we were looking over the cliff in 2008.</p>
<p>“Fiasco” was written about Morgan Stanley</p>
<p>I have to wonder if he shorted his gs stocks before the letter was published. I’m guessing someone made money on that stock nosedive.</p>
<p>Is he in any danger of being sued?</p>