March 15th, 2012
09:48 AM ET

Poll: Would you work at Goldman Sachs?

(This is not a scientific poll)

Yesterday, former Goldman Sachs employee Greg Smith published a New York Times op-ed entitled Why I'm Leaving Goldman Sachs.  He argued that, essentially, the company prided itself in ripping off its own clients. Here's a quote from Smith:

The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

On, former Goldman Sachs employee Matt Levine argues that Smith's broadside misfired:

One question on everyone's mind is: Why now? March is a customary time to quit, since Smith's 2011 bonus check will have cleared, but why did it take him 12 years to figure out that Goldman's culture was rotten? After all, Matt Taibbi and the SEChave been saying similar things for years.

One possible answer is that Smith is part of a broader exodus. The past year has seen many departures by Goldman Sachs partners, including Smith's boss' boss' boss' bosses, David Heller and Ed Eisler. Those career traders are unlikely to have left because they felt sad for clients.

Instead, the widespread speculation is that they left because the money isn't good enough. Average pay at Goldman was down 15%in 2011, albeit to a still-healthy $367,000 per employee. Stricter regulations on proprietary trading and higher capital requirements will probably reduce profitability - and pay - for years to come.

Investment banking and trading are difficult businesses; bankers work long hours, travel frequently and are under intense pressure. Smith is hardly the first banker to worry about whether his work makes the world a better place. Working at an investment bank involves trading off those negatives - stress, hours and a nagging sense of unfulfilled purpose - against the positive aspects of the job, which can be loosely summarized as "huge paychecks." When that balance changes, a good trader re-evaluates his position.

Expect to see more departures from Goldman and its peer firms in the coming months. But don't take too seriously the idea that they're leaving because they're sick of making money off of clients. More likely, they're leaving because they're sick of not making as much money off of clients as they used to.

Also on, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that the real problem with Goldman began when it went public:

For most of its history, Goldman Sachs was a partnership. That meant the principals were jointly and individually liable for the losses of the firm. And for most of its history, Goldman Sachs operated in a relatively boring financial environment. Low risk and low reward. No doubt there was money to be made. But regulations designed to keep the system safe meant that the real money in that economy got earned by people who made real stuff.

In the 1990s, however, both conditions changed. Goldman Sachs went public in 1999, though the partners kept 48% of the stock themselves. And the regulations that had kept finance boring had all but disappeared by the time Goldman's IPO was issued.These changes increased the market opportunity — radically. They also increased the market pressure on financial firms — radically, as well. Bold (and sometimes reckless) experiments ("financial innovations") created incredible opportunities for firms like Goldman to profit.

Persistent and relentless pressure from a publicly traded stock pushed employees to experiment more boldly still. Ticking across every employee's computer was the firm's stock price, a constant market signal of how they were doing — up, good; down, bad. Those signals in turn were driven by the behavior of competing firms.

Post by:
Topics: Poll

soundoff (9 Responses)

    Some internal conflicts might caused this...and he already pocketed enough Money to enjoy the rest of his time.
    He also broke the Company's internal secrecy, where he was been thought to be loyal.
    And also, under the Company's internal Policy, he would be responsible for sharing and defamating the Company's internal strategy.

    Remember, when it comes to obeying the full extent of the Law, none of US are immune or clean.
    Imagine, walk to any Company with the American Law books and observe the ...activities of the Employees and how the Company is run. Guaranteed, you will find something negative that contradicts and brock the Law. Then, ask yourself, 'wait a Minute', am I here to see perfection?!

    So who is following or obeying the American Law perfectly? Are you?

    March 15, 2012 at 10:32 am | Reply
  2. j. von hettlingen

    Banks have the monopoly of Ponzi schemes and they can get away with huge losses without being held to account.

    March 16, 2012 at 5:54 am | Reply
  3. Betty Lee

    Asking Fareed Zakaria to investigate connections between Goldman Sachs and the Greece government debts? Didn't Goldman Sachs do the trading of those bonds? What is the truth behind the Greek debt?

    March 16, 2012 at 6:05 am | Reply
  4. Gashole

    Man is imperfect so there for any system he designs is imperfect. It’s just one of those things you have to live with.

    March 17, 2012 at 10:38 am | Reply
  5. 15 usa soldiers ra pe 2 afgani women before killing them

    the afgani investigation and the international lab proved now that 15 usa soldiers was involved of killing more than 16 children and women, and that 15 soldiers ra pe 2 afgani ladies young ladies ra pe them repeatdley and then shot them dead and burned there bodies , exactley as it happened in iraq when usa soldiers ra ped 14 years old girl then shot her and shot her parents and brothers and burned there bodies ...usa did that in vitnam ,korea and many other places they are murderous thugs ra piest killers and OBAMA say soyy all the time!!?/while leaving evil iranians and evil syrian bashar al asad killing more civilians obama is a cowered president if obama want to fix this problem he must attack syria now and remove bashar al asad to show to the muslim world that he mean it, remove the evil in syria now and prove your point OBAMA.......why you are silent...SILENCE IS A CRIME.

    March 17, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.