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

91–100 of 268 posts

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#91

Post by crag »

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, where the culture of a company starts dying from a death-by-a-thousand-cuts, ..."

Goldman (or Google) is no where near death. But Goldman is still in crisis mode. The primary focus now is profit margin. making money for you and your clients isn't the point any longer. It's your position that matters. But Goldman, used to award your bonus not just based on your position. They used to survey your clients. And their opinion mattered. Not sure if they still do this. I haven't worked in Wall Street since 1996.

And Goldman isn't the only firm in this position, by the way.

And Google is sort of in the same place. FB scares the hell out of them. And instead of innovating (and taking risks) they copy.

Google and Goldman are blinded now. They can't see beyond their own models.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#92

Post by byrneseyeview »

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 and hard-working. The ones who perform agency work seem to serve the interests of their clients; the ones who are closer to proprietary traders tend to advance the interests of Goldman. There are some products for which it's very hard to have a pure agency relationship, though; the best way to keep them liquid is to trade with someone who is taking the other side of your trade.

I'd keep that kind of thing in mind when reading a story like this. It's asymmetric warfare: he has nothing to lose by talking about how bad Goldman is, but if Goldman talks back, they're a) dignifying a silly story, and b) creating an opportunity for irresponsible folk like Taibbi to willfully misinterpret them.

This article is the table tennis bronze medal of moral outrage.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#93

Post by jpdoctor »

gavanwoolery wrote: post #20

I have ranted for a long time about the corruption at Goldman Sachs, mostly to deaf ears. :) This is the tip of the iceberg, as far as I am concerned. My bigger concern is how involved GS is with our government. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagew... As it turns out, the human race is extremely intelligent and wherever there is an opportunity to make money (corrupt or not), people are probabl…

> My bigger concern is how involved GS is with our government.

I agree: This deserves a great deal more attention.

Hell, just the Henry Paulson tax giveaway should have caused civil unrest.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#95

Post by rtperson »

I worked at Goldman briefly in the 90s, and I remember being pleasantly surprised at how little cynicism, and how much genuine enthusiasm for helping others I found there. It was a bank, sure, in the business of making money, but there was always this sense -- emanating from the top -- that money was not its sole purpose. I can see where this writer was coming from, and I agree with him that if this bank has lost its unique culture, then it has lost touch with what made it successful in the first place.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#96

Post by bhousel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57
bhousel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think that you're completely missing the point in defending Google and maybe Goldman Sachs by saying that their decisions are ok because they are made rationally. Rationality is emotionless and mechanical. It's about making a reasonable decision based on whatever information is available to you. However, rational decisions do not involve morals, culture, or feelings. This is exactly what companies like Googl…

Rationality doesn't necessarily exclude "morals, culture, or feelings". That would imply that having a rational discussion about culture, e.g. anthropology, is impossible. Gus Levy, a former senior Goldman partner, coined the firm's then philosophy of being "long-term greedy". Taking image, "headline risk" in finance parlance, impact on recruiting, etc. into account is part of rational decision making. What makes a s…

>Rationality doesn't necessarily exclude "morals, culture, or feelings". That would imply that having a rational discussion about culture, e.g. anthropology, is impossible.

No I am not implying that the process of making rational decisions has anything to do with the process for holding rational discussions about stuff (the stuff may be rational or not).

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#97

Post by jpdoctor »

va_coder wrote: post #72

I hear a lot of talk about how things have changed. Have you guys read Liars Poker? This stuff has been going on since the dawn of time.

> Have you guys read Liars Poker

Funny side note: Michael Lewis said that he wrote that as more of a warning. He was astounded (and a little horrified) to find out it was being used as a how-to.

Re: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

#98

Post by ValG »

This article reminds me of the girlfriend that puts up with all sorts of issues in a relationship but never addresses them. Then one day she snaps and leaves without warning, when all along the relationship may have been saved with some effort. I'm not saying he didn't try (his mentoring certainly suggests he did), but it's a shame such a (previously?) reputable firm has fallen so low. I'm not familiar with Goldman's hierarchy, but my impression would be that Greg is in a very senior position within the company. Greg sounds like he was in a direct position to influence the culture of the company and maybe turn it back into what he remembered from his past. As an executive director, I think that he almost has a duty to do just that. I'd be interested in Warren Buffet's take on Goldman's Culture, or was he one of the ones that got bilked (although it seems like his investment is doing well)?
Post reply on HN