<p>One smart guy says yes.</p>
<p>[Morgan</a> (MS) and Goldman (GS) Still Toast–Especially Morgan](<a href=“http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/9/morgan-ms-and-goldman-gs-still-toast-especially-morgan]Morgan”>Morgan (MS) and Goldman (GS) Still Toast--Especially Morgan)</p>
<p>You have issues, man.</p>
<p>Sincerely,
WF</p>
<p>GS will always end up on top…</p>
<p>buffet recently invested $5B… sooo you know what’s gonna happen</p>
<p>Not likely. Good for them</p>
<p>Yes, I have issues with companies that virtually crashed our entire country and might cause a severe recession. So do 90% of the American people. And they did it for the most venal reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh yah? 10 char</p>
<p>The GS we all knew is already no more. It is no longer an investment bank, and being turned into a regular bank. It is only a matter of time until you start getting mail saying “you’ve been pre-approved for a Goldman Sachs credit mastercard!”</p>
<p>Yeah…</p>
<p>^^I want one of those credit cards. :D</p>
<p>The day Goldman Sachs falls is the day you can kiss the economy goodbye.</p>
<p>Goldman Sachs has already failed as an investment bank. With the new regulations and requirements for becoming a commercial bank, GS will no longer be the epitome of wealth and success in the financial industry. The whole culture of 100 hour weeks and obscene bonuses will have to change. The company is now merely a smaller version of citibank</p>
<p>“Goldman Sachs has already failed as an investment bank. With the new regulations and requirements for becoming a commercial bank, GS will no longer be the epitome of wealth and success in the financial industry. The whole culture of 100 hour weeks and obscene bonuses will have to change. The company is now merely a smaller version of citibank”</p>
<p>And you base your claims on what? Hear-say? I mean, I can see you’ve read the news, but both your interpretations and predictions are baseless. </p>
<p>And, it is “citigroup”.</p>
<p>wouldn’t it be wachovia</p>
<p>sup,</p>
<p>Citigroup and JPMorgan are both commercial banks that are already subject to higher capital requirements; yet, their Investment Banking Divisions, I can assure you, are quite known for 100 hour work weeks and bonuses comparable to the former independents (Goldman, Morgan, Lehman, Merrill and Bear).</p>
<p>Will bonuses be down in the near-term? Yes, of course. Firms will take less proprietary risk for the foreseeable future and deal flow as of now, particularly Global M&A, is down roughly 70-80% I believe.</p>
<p>However, when the credit markets unfreeze, and deals can be financed yet again, investment bankers can very well expect to work obscene hours</p>
<p>For the nth time,</p>
<p>Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley changing to bank holding companies has nothing to do w/ the 100-hour work weeks or large bonuses.</p>
<p>Citigroup, JPMorgan, and BofA have all been bank holding companies. The investment bankers in those companies worked as long as their counterparts in GS and MS and made as much money.</p>
<p>Bonuses will be down b/c the entire economy stinks, not b/c of the change in status.</p>
<p>MS slides to 12$ a share and faces a credit downgrade … sucks for them.</p>