Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

Post by JanezStupar » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 1:20 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…

Post by Estragon » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 1:26 PM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #41

panacea wrote: post #34

"Why I left reddit" 'It changed man. The culture wasn't the same as when I joined five years ago.' These 'I said GOODBYE SIR!'s are interesting, but I'm not sure how much reliable information can be gleaned from them. What ever happened to not 'burning your bridges'? This is a resumé.

I agree with your sentiment, but not with the "burning your bridges" part. Seems like the fear of burning your bridges keeps many people from speaking frankly about what's happening in the corporate world. And that's important nowadays because as they say, politicians don't run the world, Goldman Sachs does. Looking forward to wikileaks bank-leaks.

Post by junhm » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 1:28 PM UTC

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…

Post by jpdoctor » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 1:31 PM UTC

pradocchia wrote: post #66

michaelochurch wrote: post #43

The gentleman era of investment banking is largely mythical. There was a long period where they were notably less scummy and cutthroat than other investment banks (compare: Salomon Brothers in the 1980s) but they were always an investment bank. The most visible (to a young person) sign of a bank's character is how it treats its employees. The 90+ hour weeks and terrible conditions in the "analyst" program (the term h…

> The gentleman era of investment banking is largely mythical. There was a qualitative change after the banks went public. The old partnerships were inherently more prudent. And that's where the old culture came from. The new corporate structure rewards any risk-taking where losses lag gains by a year or more. So the culture changes.

Post by baggachipz » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

pradocchia wrote: post #66

michaelochurch wrote: post #43

The gentleman era of investment banking is largely mythical. There was a long period where they were notably less scummy and cutthroat than other investment banks (compare: Salomon Brothers in the 1980s) but they were always an investment bank. The most visible (to a young person) sign of a bank's character is how it treats its employees. The 90+ hour weeks and terrible conditions in the "analyst" program (the term h…

> The gentleman era of investment banking is largely mythical. There was a qualitative change after the banks went public. The old partnerships were inherently more prudent. And that's where the old culture came from. The new corporate structure rewards any risk-taking where losses lag gains by a year or more. So the culture changes.