1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NYTimes Op-Ed: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by lcjjdnh, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    This will be zinging around the Internet. To channel Bill Simmons, he took a page out of Dylan McCay's book: "May the bridges I burn light the way!"


  2. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Wow! No doubt that Michael Lewis applauds.

    It seems like the Goldman culture changed a lot when they
    went from partnership to corporation. Behind the limited risk of corporation the leadership was will to push the envelope a bit further.
  4. ringer

    ringer Active Member

    What I'd say to the naive writer?

    Boo hoo
    Welcome to the world.
    You could make the same argument about just about any company over time. They change. They get less personal, less customer-oriented, more focused on the bottom line... even (gasp) unethical.

    It sucks, but Valhalla doesn't exist in corporate culture -- and certainly NOT in banking.
    What was he thinking?

    (He must be about 34.)
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member


    This like Congressman and Senators who decry "partisanship" when they decide not to seek re-election.

    You think Goldman has really changed that much? Maybe he's changed. Maybe he's just gotten enough coin in his pocket.

    But, to pretend the business has changed so much is bs.
  6. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Whether the culture has changed or not, it's pretty damning that a higher-up leaves Goldman saying the company exists to screw its clients out of their money, and by extension, screw the U.S. economy. If nothing else, if you have money, why would you trust it to Goldman at this point?
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Goldman Sachs' response so far has been an ad hominem attack. Not surprising.

    According to them he's a nobody with a puffed up title; He's a VP (common title; and junior level on Wall Street) who "heads" up a department of one (himself). Also said the real reason is he was disappointed by his bonus.

    Dunno if any of that is true, but now would be the time for someone to flame out over disappointment in their bonus.

    One of the best things about this is that Goldman hired a new head PR person yesterday -- a former white house press secretary at the end of Clinton's run, who was most recently an aide to Tim Geithner. What a place to walk into as the person in charge of PR.
  8. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    He may just be a disillusioned guy in his mid-30s. Hardly uncommon in any walk of life.

    But Goldman has changed. The Goldman of 20 years ago wasn't trying to pass off bad derivatives to unsuspecting customers and banks, with the side benefit of torpedoing the world economy, because those things didn't exist. And the pre-corporation Goldman probably was an entirely different place, according to many other accounts as well.
  9. JakeandElwood

    JakeandElwood Well-Known Member

    Greedy investment bank is greedy.
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    That guy was grossly overpaid. I know this because he wrote something foe the newspaper.
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You're confusing CEOs. Lloyd Blankfein is the "God's work" guy.

    The newspaper/overpaid guy is Jamie Dimon.
  12. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Back when they had a partnership model, the business strategy was "long-term greed". When you convert to a public ownership, you create principal-agent problems--people no longer have the same incentives to think about the long-term.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page