Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 268 posts

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#151

Post by rdl »

rdl wrote: post #12
bru wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may ask >specifically for tech jobs Which kind of tech jobs? For banks, or something unrelated?

Startups (widely varied) or grad school. These were tech people who worked in various tech/quant roles. I think sample size is 4 at GS, maybe 10 elsewhere.

Also several have said they'd apply to YC (they have money, but not startup industry connections, or at least not current ones). Remember, the deadline is March 28th...

I'm pretty sure that after working for Goldman, you don't go work for another large bank, you go work for the Goldman of another field. Otherwise it would be like going from MLB to a farm team -- not an upward move.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#152

Post by jflatow »

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…

It might be that things never change and all attempts to bring back the good ol' culture are just reactionary, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't speak up when they feel disgusted by what's going on around them.

Fear(s) motivate(s) people pretty well to do just about anything, including to keep silent (as you recommend), but I'm glad that people are brave enough, or stupid enough, to say what they think is right, even in the face of such fears. It might also turn out that the people who agree with the dissenters outnumber the powerful incumbents who they oppose.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#154

Post by jrwoodruff »

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…

Goldman survived for 140 years without promotion problems. My personal theory is these problems - corporate profit before clients, short-term gains, lack of long-term vision - is a symptom of our current culture and, more broadly, the shifting information landscape. 100 years ago, few people even knew what the DOW index was, let alone followed it daily.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#155

Post by Drbble »

einhverfr wrote: post #119
lrobb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I served as a VP & President for a small non-profit club. Two takeaways: 1) You don't really have any power. You need to lead by example and empower other people rather than command. 2) The personality required to establish a project is often different than the personalities required to keep it going.

But on top of that, I wonder how much management could be eliminated. Management is, in most businesses, fundamentally a communication infrastructure. How much of it can be replaced through implementing IT through was that work for FOSS projects? My thinking is to have a relatively small group of high level managers, a group of project managers, and an HR department, and eliminate all middle management. I think teams…

Rotating/randomize leadership is called "sortition" and it has been known since Roman Empire times as a solution to the corruption and inefficiency problems of hierarchy and representative democracy. It also solves the problem of bizarre distortion when you need to choose a winner among 100 qualified candidates -- better to pick one well rounded winner at random than to choose purely based on metrics that promote "teaching to the test".

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#156

Post by gadders »

Is there a subtext?

The guy in the article has been at GS 10 years, heads up a desk, and is only an MD. Bank promotions are normally announced early in the year, and bonuses vest about now.

I'm guessing he is pissed off he didn't get MD, and has waited for his bonus to hit his account before self-destructing.

Stage 2 in his plan will be to push his ex-colleagues under the bus by writing an article about how evil bankers are, as per City Boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraint_Anderson)

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#157

Post by gadders »

necubi wrote: post #123
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…

According to the NYTimes byline, he is a "Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa." That doesn't sound like a lowly VP. It's rubbish that he has nothing to lose: coming out so publicly against your former employer never looks good on a resume. And Goldman can respond in the tradition of politicians facing similar stories:…

Executive Director isn't that senior, though. Normally you need to be MD to be considered properly senior.

Also, banks all vary in what they call equivalent titles.

EG UBS: Associate Director, Director, Executive Director, MD Deutsche: Assistant Vice President, Vice President, Director, MD

Bank of America and other places confuse things further with SVPs, FVPs, etc.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#158

Post by velshin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84
brosephius wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do now, if you don't mind me asking?

HackerNews got me - moving to a tech firm

Sign of the tech bubble? Financiers jumping to tech companies?

The chemists and high school teachers turned ninja hax0r can't be far off. Someone please warn me so I can short XLK.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#159

Post by create_account »

twoodfin wrote: post #148
create_account wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe, since he was willing to name his employers, who happen to be despised in liberal circles.

OTOH, there is a lot of PR spending on social media (e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/politics/obama-campaign...), so it wouldn't surprise me if Goldman has hired people to smear Smith on forums like this one.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#160

Post by bpyne »

mattwrench wrote: post #133
silverlake wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something happens to companies as they get larger They went public. My gf is a senior manager at GS (200+ drones in her department). When the company went public the partners could easily cash out. Without as much skin in the game, they could squeeze as much profit (aka bonus) from GS without worrying about the long-term viability. Also, hedge funds are now a more lucrative place to work for many people. So if GS d…

I agree that going public hurts companies but not because the partners/founders can cash out. At least in the tech world once a company reaches a certain size, it seems as though founders can liquidate a large portion of their stock pre-IPO; Mark Zuckerberg doesn't need to worry about Facebook's IPO in order to get rich. Rather, I feel that having a somewhat-arbitrary, short-term indicator in the form of stock price…

What you say is IMO correct. But, I think there is something more fundamental. A company cannot function to full potential when beholden to 2 masters - customer and investor - with opposing needs. The customer wants the best product/service possible; the investor wants the maximum ROI.
Post reply on HN