GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Goldman Sachs "Flagellates" Itself With a Wet Noodle!

Yves Smith on her Naked Capitalism website has splendidly analyzed the effects (on media and Goldman itself) of Greg Smith's book about his leaving Goldman Sachs.  After 12 years working with Goldman, Greg Smith has some important but attenuated things to say about the ethical culture at work there and Yves Smith nicely rounds out the true nature of his revelations and why it was not surprising to see such virulent reactions from Goldman and from supportive media.

On the surface, Lloyd Blankfein appears certain that he and his firm have done nothing wrong in their everyday affairs and he states this belief without ever having read the book.  But when have the Lords in their beautiful castles ever seen themselves as others, who have suffered because of them, see them?  Goldman even goes so far as to release personal employee records of Greg Smith which in itself is as underhanded as many of their other actions.

When an ex-Goldmanite claims that Goldman's clients always come first, we have to remember the Levin/Coburn Report (page 318). which right smartly puts the lie to that statement.

Below is an excerpt from the article by Yves:

What Ex-Goldmanite Greg Smith Didn't Say, and Some Guesses as to Why
By Yves Smith - Naked Capitalism
. . . .
Smith doesn’t get, and therefore couldn’t articulate, the implications of Goldman’s cultishness. Just the way fish don’t recognize that they are swimming in water, Smith likely does not appreciate how insular and inward looking Goldman is. The aggressiveness of Goldman’s response isn’t just to protect its external reputation; it’s also because, on some level, people at Goldman really believe their PR. Look at how remarkably thin-skinned Wall Street employees have been in the wake of the crisis, how utterly unwilling the overwhelming majority are to take any responsibility for blowing up the global economy. Goldman, with its exaggerated sense of righteousness, is even less willing to hear even a very watered down version of reality.

It’s been nearly 30 years since I worked at Goldman, but even back then, Goldman was quite explicit about the lengths it went to to build and reinforce its “culture,” and from everything I can tell, it has if anything gotten more extreme since then. For instance, it still puts recruits through far more interviews than other firms do, which helps screen not just for “fit” but also for how badly they want the job (most sane people would lose patience with the process). Goldman then, and I believe still, prefers younger MBAs (as in those with less rather than more work experience) because it likes to “shape” people.

Read the entire article here
See the photos of Occupiers at Lord Blankfein's residence here


Post a Comment