Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#141

Post by GiraffeNecktie » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:08 PM UTC

byrneseyeview wrote: post #124

byrneseyeview wrote: post #92

Goldman has a kind of hilarious understated response, in which they note that this guy was a VP (there are thousands of VPs at Goldman) and that the group he managed consisted of him and him alone. Plus, this was a bad year for bonuses. Nothing like a slow career and a dwindling bank account to make you aware of how morally imperative it is that you switch careers! The people I know at Goldman are generally bright an…

Mirabile Dictu! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230469280457728... When Goldman doled out annual bonuses earlier this year, Mr. Smith's small payment became a point of friction, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Smith hadn't previously voiced his concerns about Goldman to his managers, according to people familiar with the matter. Occam's Razor says that the NYT was masterfully trolled.

Or does Occam's Razor say that Goldman used their surrogates at the WSJ to propagate a phony story aimed at undermining his credibility. Actually, I don't see old Occam making any sort of obvious call here.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#142

Post by aheilbut » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:11 PM UTC

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #128

lix2333 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this guy was an "executive director"? I think a lowly VP writing something like this wouldn't make nearly the splash he is making right now. A story like this is a nightmare to GS though. They've always prided themselves on valuing their reputation above all else and this is yet another shot to what they want to be seen as. However, it is important to realize that the public's perception of GS is different…

even if he was executive director, still not senior, more midlevel. hierarchy is - management committee > partner managing director > managing director > executive director > vice president > associate > analyst managing director is where you would be running a business, sort of like making general in the army, there are about 1700 of them. And the partners are the true senior managers and where real authority in the…

I don't think Michael Lewis changed his name to Peter.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#143

Post by AznHisoka » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

What I don't get is.. if Goldman Sachs is 'ripping' people off, why do their clients continuously pay them money?

I see a pattern among consumers. Lots of businesses give consumers what they want and tap into their emotional sensitivities, rather then what they need. Who's to blame? the business? or the consumer? the business is just seeing an opportunity for some profit. There's a misalignment in some industries between really serving the client, and making profits.

Example: - Junk food companies and fast food: they give us what we want: great tasting good that makes us addicted, but is it what we need?

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#144

Post by cromwellian » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:18 PM UTC

steve8918 wrote: post #49

It's interesting how the tone of this article is almost exactly the same as the one about the Microsoft employee that recently quit Google. Something happens to companies as they get larger, where the culture of a company starts dying from a death-by-a-thousand-cuts, and then they start promoting the wrong people into upper management that seem to really poison a very good company culture. It sounds like Goldman Sach…

It's a little hyperbolic to compare Goldman Sachs culture to Google culture. Little has changed as far as I can tell about Google culture internally. People still care about the same things, management for the most part, still cares about the same things, and all of these public assertions that G+ is an all consuming diversion to the detriment of everything else is a gross hyperbole.

Googlers are not sitting around making fun of their users, joking about them, giving them funny nicknames.

With these types of rants, it is hard to derive truth from fiction. Once a narrative is set up, everyone starts to keep feeding into it. It's easy to believe the worst about Goldman, so everything said "fits" and makes it believable. My own biases make it more likely to believe in stories of greedy people selling snake oil.

Still, one should be skeptical and avoid piling on.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#145

Post by RockyMcNuts » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:29 PM UTC

aheilbut wrote: post #142

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if he was executive director, still not senior, more midlevel. hierarchy is - management committee > partner managing director > managing director > executive director > vice president > associate > analyst managing director is where you would be running a business, sort of like making general in the army, there are about 1700 of them. And the partners are the true senior managers and where real authority in the…

I don't think Michael Lewis changed his name to Peter.

d'oh! thanks - will fix. Lewis screwed up a few people's names in Liar's Poker and I always thought it reflected that he was more interested in a good story than facts, so it was kind of ironic I did same.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#146

Post by tripa » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #107

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

I was an esoteric derivatives trader at an investment bank making money off clueless clients. We actualy prided ourselves, as a prop desk, on not being client facing. I went in expecting to parse global markets for inefficiency while pioneering the frontiers of 21st century finance. As time went on I found that the firm was content with mediocrity (as it could survive by simply existing in its role) and had no time f…

Some pointless pedantry: There is no singular title "Messr", because "Messrs" as the plural of "Mr" comes from the French "Messieurs". The French singular is "Monsieur", which is abbreviated as simply "M".

Note that the French language officially shortens "messieurs" as "MM."

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#147

Post by larrys » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:34 PM UTC

steve8918 wrote: post #49

It's interesting how the tone of this article is almost exactly the same as the one about the Microsoft employee that recently quit Google. Something happens to companies as they get larger, where the culture of a company starts dying from a death-by-a-thousand-cuts, and then they start promoting the wrong people into upper management that seem to really poison a very good company culture. It sounds like Goldman Sach…

"financially positive but culturally negative (some would say sociopathic) decisions, such as closing plants that were profitable, but weren't profitable enough."

This is something that is inherent in a certain type of investor and Wall Street and you see it in YC as well as VC firms and (startup) angel investors.

While you might be able to get a local businessman on Main st. to believe in your idea which is profitable (but not sexy and not "billion dollar") that will probably make both of you money, you won't get anyone in the de facto startup community to take you seriously. They won't give you money unless you are shooting for the stars.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#148

Post by twoodfin » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:36 PM UTC

create_account wrote: post #137

byrneseyeview wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really know what he's thinking. But it is interesting that he was fine with the culture during most of his career, then not-fine with the culture after he found out how much money he'd be making in the future. There are many boutique banks whose management shares his sentiments, in the sense that they believe big banks are too self-serving and too indifferent to their clients. Some of those banks do very well…

Some of those banks do very well, and it wouldn't be terrible for their PR to hire him. Possible, but unlikely. Smith must have known he'd be attacked personally (as in that ad hominem piece you posted), and it's unlikely another bank would want to touch him, regardless of their true feelings towards Goldman. Do you know anyone who pays people for saying stuff like this on random message boards? Sure: http://www.redd…

Yeah, that reddit IAmA post is not very convincing. Considering it attempts to confirm every single /r/politics stereotype about the evil Koch Industries, I'm inclined to believe guilty_of_innocence's theory that it's a fake and a troll.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#149

Post by Drbble » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:37 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #117

danssig wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Forbes article is a great one. Personally I think now that the cat is out of the bag, we should start to see things changing at the executive level (though it's going to take years). For a long time, many of us have speculated that CEOs were overpaid but suggesting this was met with claims of being "anti-capitalist" and other such nonsense. Now thanks to the Forbes article and the book it's talking about, we can…

Could you define what you mean by "overpaid"? Is it merely a complaint that CEOs are paid more than you wish they were, or something else? Meanwhile the rest of us produce vastly more than, say, 20 years ago, yet wages remain mostly flat. This claim betrays a misunderstanding of how productivity is measured, and how workers are compensated for their productivity (i.e., comp is wages + benefits, not wages). Wages + be…

You find productivity goes up due to robots, who should get the higher pay? The CEO? If so, why? Or should prices be lowered? It is completely disingenuous to argue over on "deserves" economic surplus, the whole point is that surplus is in excess of everyone's contribution, so social and power factors come into the forefront in determining the distribution.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#150

Post by larrys » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 4:38 PM UTC

chime wrote: post #69

steve8918 wrote: post #49

It's interesting how the tone of this article is almost exactly the same as the one about the Microsoft employee that recently quit Google. Something happens to companies as they get larger, where the culture of a company starts dying from a death-by-a-thousand-cuts, and then they start promoting the wrong people into upper management that seem to really poison a very good company culture. It sounds like Goldman Sach…

> Something happens to companies as they get larger... I think promotion happens. When you're a fresh grad right out-of-college and the Managing Director says "client is our #1 priority", you take it to heart. That's your new mantra now. Nine years later, when the same Director, now promoted to the Board says the same line, you groan inside because you know exactly how often he calls his clients muppets. Slowly you b…

"When you're a fresh grad right out-of-college"

It's called being wet behind the ears. Most people in that situation simply don't realize how much they don't know. And guess what you aren't going to be able to read about it and know either. You will find it out through life experience.

The upside is you aren't jaded and you will try things that older people will avoid because of their wisdom and experience.